provide spectrum to different users, for instance the introduction of auction authority back in the 1980's. it really changed the landscape and how we provide spectrum as a some of them are -- have parents and grandparents and children. every day using different types of radio devices. things have changed. host: coupons the spectrum? guest: the american people own it. it is a resource area in, that is npa on the government side.

there is also state and level governments, it is a breakdown basically along constitutional lines between the executive branch and outside of that. is there a spectrum crunch? we stopped making it a long time ago area. we haven't come up with all the ways to accommodate the uses. the growth of cellular has been extra now michael -- astronomical. unlicensed use has grown tremendously. the federal agencies have lots

of different kinds of operations, so while on a cell phone band everything in the band is basically cell phones, some different technology standpoint, they packed them together. very uniform. we have a mixture of lots of different kinds of systems, many are airborne, which we don't deal with too much in the private sector. all kinds of fixed and mobile satellites are in the same bands , they are openings the government has, so they pack as much as possible in the bands as possible. host: an spectrum is natural correct? guest: yes. host: depending on what criteria has different characteristics that

support different types of communication, the higher you go, the shorter the distance that you can source that signal to go the lower the spectrum the signal travels. >> there were two systems when you started. when you retire, there are 330 million, more than the population of the u.s.. there is always tension between commercial and spectrum for the federal government. >> there is a lot of pressure there because every administration that i worked for during my time was seeking ways to try to accommodate the

commercial users who were coming along, starting with cellular operations, as i recall those licenses were provided by what we used to call beauty contests. based on somebody saying, we need this deck down, we are the best people for it, we got into lotteries, which opened the door to more cellular growth, and of -- turning it into an auction-type process. certainly, the pressure has been there the last two administrations on -- had memorandum on's spectrum. when i started spectrum in 1979, i didn't know anything about spectrum. most people that i met and some i worked with didn't understand much about spectrum. now everybody realize it a part

of our daily lives, our devices relying on it. it always created a certain level of pressure. the first thing i worked on was a report covering all the way to 40 gigahertz to find out if we could come up with spectrum for the commercial world. our answer was no, there is not available. obviously, that has changed over the years. we found spectrum and found out it has been very valuable to the commercial world. that effort continues today. they are continuing to pursue that, working with the federal agencies.

the federal agencies and and tia have gotten on board with trying to make this effort happen, the policymakers are trying to make it workable. there has been a new effort to operation collaboration in the last couple of years, getting the federal agencies particularly defense department with the same -- in the same room to work third differences and come up with analysis was meaningful. those were big steps, i would like to see that continue. that is my goal and my retirement to continue to play a part to getting government and industry talking together. >> how can that be improved upon?

it was not always a pretty process. >> anytime you are breaking into a new process, there will be hurdles that you need to learn. in that particular case, when we set up the discussion under nti's spectrum management advisory committee, i would keep it as open as possible. we think that is important to the discussion. the complication that had is a wide open discussion, there might be a hundred people on the telephone and the defensed hartman people didn't know who they were talking to, now they are much more cautious.

the ability to continued the discussion, to get those falls who are the people they were going to need to continue that dialogue with. some direction was provided, additional meetings went on between dod how could be improved the analysis second be done. they have artie put proposals on the table and increase collaboration, and terms of more limited discussion, more face to face between the agency and the specific, we are moving in the right direction.

mr. nebbia: dod does not control the spectrum. dod remains the regulator on the government side. their use would make it difficult given current technology and process would make it difficult for nonfederal users to access spectrum, yes. there are bands, there are radar bands that have nonfederal radars you didn't hear much about. the defense department works with those people regularly. if you put a mask commercial wireless system in the same bandwidth federal radar, you will have to come up with some new capabilities. whether it is new technologies are spectrum management, to make it work. certainly, the defense department is open to that.

if you look at their spectrum strategy that they put out, i think it was the end of 2013 but it is still there, their document right now, part of what they are arguing is there battlefield -- is such that they need to be more flexible. if you for expanded

wi-fi to get more bandwidth each of those has become we are working to those issues. and we will see how that goes. >> mr. nebbia: i am not familiar with how they do other calculation, certainly it was way beyond what anybody was estimating. often times people ask me what

will you do once you leave the government, and i said i will advise the private sector. we brought up the aw3- we did for about $18 billion, everybody said that is too much, sorry, we want a smaller piece of spectrum , and they paid $45 billion for a much smaller piece of spectrum . sooner or later we will get back to the other piece. >> there is legislation pending that would allow federal agencies to get 1% of the proceeds at auction do you think the proceeds from the sale , based on that type of the system would furlough -- further encourage agencies?

my experience is that the people that work there are all about getting the mission done. they see into the future as to how their responsibilities, the kind of things i have to deal with particularly dod looking at changes with how they deal with the enemy that they have to deal with from day to day those people are always looking at how to meet their mission. ultimately, they have seen in this particular case and in the aws1 auction, there are opportunities to fund new technology and new bands. it was somewhat limited but that increase, everybody sees that this could be a win-win for everybody. they have to come away with the

sense that yes, the technology is there, and ultimately, because the types of mobile operations that the government needs to operate in the same portions of the spectrum of their commercial mobile need to operate in, we will see them say yes, they should find new capabilities. it will be more reentry -- reoriented into have they make that happen. they will still be able to perform the function they have. none of the federal employees would get rich -- i would not still be there. i needed to move on. the agencies should see it as an opportunity. it has to be a real opportunity. the concern i have risk -- expressed about the 1%. >> has the ntia been reluctant

to give up some of their spectrum, and what is the downside to the federal government? mr. nebbia: everybody in this business is reluctant. from the private sector side could to, to the government side. they came into it always on the basis that they were sharing spectrum. now you start to sell that to some of the people whose garage doors receive interference. suddenly they thought, we didn't know that might happen. everybody is reluctant to share. it is a little bit like you are growing up. you have to share with your siblings. there is some pain there. everybody knows that. sharing is something that everybody is moving towards more out of a sense is this is what

we have to do we have got to learn how to get along, how to cooperate and make our technologies work together, so that it comes out together. if you look at the cell phone system there a system of sharing and cooperation that everybody and their brother doesn't get their own frequency and system. everybody is joining into that. there are benefits from it. i think we will see more sharing. but everybody is reluctant. we go to international meetings, you will see -- have 50 year mobile radios and somebody provided for them. they are defending bands over the fact that -- they will tell their government they just lost that fit -- 50 megahertz. >> just move on and have

cellular phones adopted in their country and everybody get it. >> does the u.s. spectrum stop at the border? how does canada or mexico manage letters spectrum? mr. nebbia: each country has her own process. the u.s. usually breaks out whether it is auctions and so on . we often find those countries have adopted many of the same things, at least the ones they see work. it is a fact that we have our own autonomy within the united states to manage spectrum the way we want. the mexican government has the same autonomy. certain bands have been worked on for years through the international talk commission and adopted in ways that make them more appealing for international -- satellite services.

there are some satellite systems that have been -- have beamed down to the u.s. for broadcasting. much of the sellout they provide service to bury -- various countries. on the commercial side they are supporting the u.s. defense department in ways you never dreamed from 30 years ago. they are back on for communication. it is an international world that we live in, and we are getting ready for the next radio conference in late october early november of this year. those agreements will be reach. we have relationships with canada and mexico, agreements with them on how to share certain bands. there are other bands, where we

have cell phones on both side of the borders. the bands themselves -- somebody passing through the border, their cell phone service is seamless. and there are sometimes differences on the two sides of the border. there is a great amount of working together, too. >> some of the broader spectrum management proposals, one problem with the u.s. is that we have a life or catered system. fcc is responsible for nonfederal. others people say you should have a -- closure commission. use that framework that identifies brett them -- spectrum. i wanted to see if you had henne

comments and on the broader spectrum issues. mr. nebbia: i believe that the people that are engaged in these processes are, i think working hard to move the u.s. forward. a lot of times people talk about the u.s. is falling behind this or that group, but the u.s. has the widest distribution of four g cellular in the world. we have done so very well with that, when a number of years ago, we were dealing with three g and the europeans are advocating this one technology this one band for three g and the other bands. the u.s. sat back and said we believe in flexible technology let the service providers decide . use any band that the cellular -- cellular band -- europe went

ahead and did an auction and everybody had to spend a lot more money to participate. i think we have a good system, i think it works. it is not always easy, because we make difficult choices. when people talk about let's have a base closure or let's have one agency deal with this, it starts with the presumption that they -- that type of process will move the federal government out of the bands. i don't think it will be that easy. you are not going to pack up the air traffic control system. when people talk about that, they often don't have a good sense of order and the government does. if you want to pack up the error traffic control radars? no they don't want to do that. talk about replacing all the

satellites the government are using? no, they don't want to do that. a smaller group of possibilities, i think those possibilities are being worked by ntia and the sec. it doesn't mean someone will come up with a great idea that will make 20 or 30 gigahertz more useful in the future. there is goodwill on both sides and a working relationship between the federal agencies and the ntia. i think we need to continue that process is -- of getting them in the same room and talk about a plan for the future. the demand is there and it is still growing. it will be great to have industry and government talking. >> what is the growth potential

and is her chance of running a spectrum? mr. nebbia: you are never going to run out. even though we are not making any more of it, you can keep slicing it up more and more, we figure out ways of doing that over the years. there are a lot of things that the cell industry can do using smaller cells in terms of using adaptable antenna, so there is still a lot that can go on there. ultimately, we will get to a place where we can't just keep moving people out of bands. just moving the government out of a ban and coming back to years later and saying, now we want that bad, not only is that an inefficient and wasteful process, but it is disruptive for the government operations.

if you have ever been through the experience of moving your family, it is disruptive. if you thought, we will move for two years, that's what people military may have grown up in that environment. how do -- how disruptive that is, you pack up and you move again. the government needs to know where the future is also. i think that is critical. >> we have 90 seconds left. my question is you spend more than 30 years in government. now you are private consultant. other things that you had when you were there that you couldn't do or say, do you see with the outside was telling you and these are things you have to live by? mr. nebbia: i am seeing both

situation -- i am seeing both sides, talking to do andd talk to commercial operators as part of the work that i do. i see those things, you see some of those, the disconnects in the discussion and for that reason my hope is to be able to bring them together, hopefully over the 30 years i did spectrum management. there is a level of trust i can add to that discussion. for me, that is the critical thing. it is one of the great differences i was mentioning earlier. at the end of the eight hour day i was just starting. all my mobile capabilities are great and a less you to take your work home. i know folks on the federal side work really hard and work long hours.

there are great people over there. most are now working a lot with commercial folks. i have gotten to know them over the years during a lot of new faces, this is a business where we have grown to love each other. >> thank you both for being here. announcer: c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you by a public service. author and critic spoke of the national press club tuesday. her new book is heretic, why islam needs a reformation now. she outlines changes she feels are needed.

the iran nuclear deal, and u.s. foreign policy in the middle east. this is an hour. >> knee name is a john hughes. i'm an editor for bloomberg first word our breaking news desk here in washington and i'm the president of the national press club. the club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists. we are committed to our profession future through programs just like this and fight for a free press worldwide. for more information visit the web site press.org to donate to programs offered through the journalism institute visit the

web site press.org/institute. on behalf of members worldwide i want to welcome you to the luncheon and also like to welcome the c-span and public radio audiences. follow the action on twitter #npclunch and the public attends the lunches. applause you hear is not evidence of a lack of journalistic objectivity. ofafter the guest speech we will have a question and answer period and i will ask as many questions as time permits. the head table guests include guests of the speaker as well as working journalists who are club members. let me introduce them to you right now. i would ask each person to stand briefly as names are announced. from the audience's