 of what can be done in the future. This panel is going to look more to that future piece of things. And I thought about this panel and divided it up into kind of two broad categories. And the first one is things have certainly changed around here. Looking at what the differences are today compared to 20 years ago, and sometimes what those similarities are, but do we need new policies to address those changes. And then the second piece of it gets to that, which is where we're going, we don't need roads. So leaning heavily into that back to the future theme. I want to thank our panelists today for joining us. We have Anna Gomez, who's a partner at Wiley Rhyme. We have Derek Colipin, who is at NPIA. And we have Matthew Pearl, who's at the FCC. And if you all would mind taking a couple minutes to introduce yourselves and talk a bit about what brought you here today and what it is about spectrum policy that you're looking forward to in the future. So I'm Anna Gomez. I'm at the law firm on Wiley Rhyme. I think it's so good to see so many faces. I've been doing spectrum work technology with Wiley now for a long time. Prior to that, I was at NTIA. I'm the deputy administrator. I also had a past life for 12 years at the FCC, which culminated at the International Bureau, where I did a lot of work with a lot of people that are here. So my interest in spectrum, I'm very, very interested in the interagency processes and dynamics, having both done the NTIA side and the FCC side. So I've always done that a chance to be able to talk about those things. Hi, I'm Derek Colipin. And I am with NTIA, as mentioned, since about 2015, primarily in NTIA's front office, just about six weeks ago, I joined the Office of Spectrum Management as a deputy associate administrator with the deputies there. Thank you, Anna. Continue a lot with the same portfolio. This is a great event. And I really, you know, thank you, thank you, Kay, for putting this on. And it's, I think as we go through this, it'll be really fascinating. And my background, by the way, 2015 with NTIA before that, a lot of time in the private sector with Nokia, TIA, and I actually started the commission, but I had that last before this report came out. But this is, I think it's going to be a great discussion. I do want to pull up disclaimer up front. I think this is pretty wonky and wide ranging that I think everything we talked about, I say may not necessarily reflect all the views of NTIA or the administration. So I just want to put that out there, sort of thinking of this as a fun conversation, not a lot of topics. Thanks. Hi, I'm Apple Pearl. I'd echo the disclaimer from Derek, but I'm an associate bureau chief in the wireless bureau at the FCC. I've been at the commission for almost 10 years. I never expected to do this that long. But, you know, what brings me to spectrum policy goes back to something that Ruth was saying about value creation. And each band that we're looking at being this unique problem where we need to align technical rules, licensing rules, auction design, legal authority, economic, all these different issues we need to align to achieve that value creation. And so it just never ceases to fascinate me. Thank you. And the last panel talked a bit about what the policy landscape looked like back in 2002 when the original spectrum task force report was written. I'm curious to know what you all see as the spectrum policy landscape today. Who are the stakeholders? What are the major issues? Basically, let's set the scene for where we are today in 2022. So I think on the public side, not much has changed in the sense that, you know, in the government, it's the White House, Congress, commerce and NTIA, FCC, as well as the agencies that manage spectrum. Although the federal side has become much more important. I think one of the things that I realized as I look back at the report is the CSEA hadn't been passed yet. In other words, you know, there wasn't really a good statutory mechanism at that point for reallocating federal spectrum. I do think on the outside of government side, the stakeholders have changed things. Like first and foremost, of course, this is a broad and diverse country. And everyone in it now completely relies on wireless networks, not only for voice service, but for everything. And then you have all kinds of other stakeholders, some of which are new and some of which have changed. So you have public interest organizations like PK, you have carriers, including nationwide or smaller world carriers. You have fixed wireless operators that include both sort of the traditional entities that use sort of public safety links and that sort of thing, as well as newer entrants that are providing broadband services to consumers. You have satellite operators, including the GSOs that you had back in 2002, but a lot more and GSOs. And then you have, I will also note, spectrum coordinators, which is both the same and has changed in the sense that you have the traditional spectrum coordinators you have for registration systems. But you also have more dynamic coordinators in CVRS. So I think Matt really covered a lot of the landscape there. I kind of viewed this question as, who are the stakeholders? Frank is everybody. And I mean that in terms of U.S. consumers, the economy. We talked today about how much wireless touches everybody. And to sit a little more light on, I think, some of the civic uses in the federal missions that are, I think, sometimes often misunderstood or maybe not given the consideration. Because we've talked a lot about federal spectrum use and spectrum repurposing and whatnot. But I think what's also come to light for folks is the importance of federal use. And obviously people think of the Department of Defense and national security. But there's a whole heck of a lot more. And we see the disputes that come up. But again, part of this is because you look around the world. I think some of our government uses, just like on the commercial side, lead the world. Right. I mean we want the strongest defense. We want the safest national airspace. And if we think about things like climate change and weather monitoring and NOAA satellites, I mean I put that up against anybody in the world too. So these are all really important considerations that I think I know we'll get into more on national strategies. But sort of bringing all these things together on how we look at spectrum use. To me, that's why you have this, you know, the stakeholders. The stakeholders is a really big tent. And that's why it's really hard to get a lot done. It's really hard to come up with that national vision strategy because there are a lot of folks who need to be at the table. Yeah, I agree with everything that Derek and Matt said. I would also add users. So it's not just the licensees, but the users. This is something that we've seen recently in the C-Van for challenges. And incumbents, adjacent incumbents, and not adjacent incumbents who may be affected by decisions. So I think that hits everybody. And of course Congress in its own way because they get involved, according to whatever interest their committees may have. But yeah, I agree with you. The stakeholders are very broad and broadening. And in terms of the policy landscape, a big difference between now and when the spectrum policy task force issued its report is the proliferation of technologies and connected everything. I feel like it's accelerated the changes, the need for spectrum, looking at higher bands. All this evolution of technology has added to our spectrum challenges. The other major thing that has happened in the last couple years is the pandemic. And so I'm curious to ask you about how the pandemic has influenced our understanding of wireless policy. It definitely put to the test our reliance on wireless and Wi-Fi and broadband in order to survive and continue throughout the pandemic and also raised more awareness about the inequities within that. But how has the pandemic taught us about some of the challenges that need to be addressed as we look to the next 20 years? I absolutely agree. The pandemic brought to light. It existed before. It just was exacerbated the inequity in access to broadband, particularly for certain communities or for the poor. And it made it very difficult when we all had to work from home and have children also be at school. You can't have multiple devices connecting to a single mobile device. You just can't have school and work. So I think I completely agree with Kathleen that mobile devices are really important and revolutionize our ability to access communications. But when it comes to the ability to utilize broadband, it do need more than a mobile device. It really did bring the light, the need for faster, higher capacity broadband speeds that are provided in a variety of technologies. But the focus on or the over reliance on mobile by certain of the communities made it clear that they need more. They need access to devices. They need funding to be able to access higher speed broadband. And I was very happy to see that in fact, Congress is now funding a lot of that. I hope that becomes permanent. So I would echo everything that Anna said. I think from the FCC wireless perspective, one of the things that we saw is that we facilitated in cooperation with licensees, an expansion of our experimental on SDA program, where you had a because of the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic, you had a lot more willingness among incumbents to work with others that were providing access to allow them to operate in spectrum and evidence license to incumbent. And, you know, I think that was great during the pandemic, but I think that that's sort of bringing greater coordination and creativity to spectrum sharing is something that we need to facilitate in a longer term way. Now that hopefully the pandemic is you know, transitioning away. Yeah, I'm not much to add just because of Matt's point on those examples, some of those SDAs were coordinated with NTIA. And I think we were really proud to be able to act quickly there. And I'm hopeful too, it's something we can build on because we're certainly going to face other emergency situations, but also just as a better way of doing business and being flexible and then rolling, I think we're going to see more and more of the need to act that way, which is not always easy for government. Do you see that change with the SDAs and the incumbents working together with other providers to share spectrum as an opening to kind of change that stakeholder dynamic of the zero sum game of, oh wait, let's hold on to our spectrum and not share it to this kind of all all tides or rising tides when it comes to having that greater access to spectrum and sharing ways that make sense? Or is it just a one-time, pandemic only situation that we can expect to kind of go back to the zero sum game of that stakeholder dynamic? Well, I certainly hope that it's permanent and I do think for some incumbents that it was a bit of a change in their mindset. But I also think that it's something that we need to do outreach and explain some of the benefits. If you look at sort of existing shared bands like CVRS, one of the benefits that isn't talked about enough is that you have traditional licensees that are benefiting from the economies of scale of the unlicensed community because you have the GAA that's operating without having to purchase the option spectrum and it's vice versa where the traditional unlicensed operators are benefiting from the economies of scale of the priority access licensees and so there are incredible benefits to it and I think it's something that we need to articulate and explain and make sure that folks understand. Thank you. I know I went a little off script on my questions there but it raised an interesting thought for me. I also want to talk a little bit about the landscape between the inter-agency issues that we have today. I know Meredith Baker touched on it, the first panel touched on it, I think Jessica Rosenrussel did as well and you know is there and we have this unique opportunity to have somebody from NTIA and see even though you're talking for some capacity to kind of discuss this particular issue and so are there things that can be done to smooth out the inter-agency process beyond simply updating the memorandum of understanding? Are there avenues here that haven't been explored yet? So thank you for the question and you pointed at the NYU I think and I'm sure we'll agree with this one of the things that the assistant secretary, I know Davidson and the chairwoman right away talked about was improving coordination for starters between the NCC and NTIA and talked about you know there's been a lot of you know certainly coverage around some things over the last few years and you know they announced the spectrum coordination initiative and I think we've gotten that ball rolling really well and then you know that includes a number of things including most importantly them meeting regularly and having conversations and you know I think over the years it's sometimes that's been the case between those two departments but not always and I think that's that's an important big step and then that flows down to the staff and the staff that meets regularly so I think those are those are key points and then as you mentioned sort of reaffirming and reviewing the MOU and how we can you know make some target improvements there to help facilitate that process. Then I think a key piece is it's sort of a recommitment to you know evidence-based decision making and scientific analysis and that's you know that's easier said than done right because lots of times you end up with you know a study from one party a study from another and they're technically all you know science or database then you have to make some determination so it's not easy so I think we need to build on that and we're looking looking to do that I think we're trying to produce some some tangible work work products in the coming year and then I think we'll help along those lines and then you know again we're also looking to increase our engagement with with external stakeholders to right both through you know obviously individual meetings and groups and and and and working better together collectively we have an observer you know at the FCC tax now from NTIA and NTIA is going to have the observer at the at the CSMAC when we get that launched in a few weeks so I think those are all important but it makes me the bigger point too is that you are going to get these disputes these are very hard challenging issues and I think to me it's part of this trying to avoid these but I think the bigger issue is how do you work through them quickly when they do emerge right so that's and I think we'll talk a little bit more about planning but a big part of this too is is that roadmap and planning up front so you have time to do the work because again if you're talking about spectrum issues and particularly if you're going to involve federal spectrum or federal users you need time to do the analysis and do the studies and you can't just react quickly when something is proposed so you know a lot a lot there I know the impact but yes I think Derek gave a great answer and I agree with everything on the evidence base you know our engineers are and and will continue to work with each other on compatibility analysis and I think that that's really critical I mean I don't know if people would be surprised or not but we we agree with each other much more often than we disagree and when we disagree it's actually those are the really critical issues where you can achieve the best outcome by by talking it through and finding a middle ground yeah I absolutely agree honestly there is a lot of coordination that goes on every day between the FCC and NTIA at the engineer level or at the staff level and that goes very well but as you said it's when it's a really big policy decision that's going to impact certain operations that's when it gets complicated so to speak so I would echo whatever saying you really need to engage stakeholders as early as possible we learned that lesson from the C-band you know the current MOU gets 15 days for coordination between upon these matters and it's been how long that the carriers have been working with the FAA with the airlines and with the industry you know it really takes engagement early on and an understanding of who's going to be affected and the big issue is it's all well and good if your engineering and science is pointing you to what should be what happens is when the receivers actually don't meet that and so that's that's that's been the big complication with Legato with the C-band I'm sure there are others so I really really like Sherwin Rosenwurzel's idea to create some type of a spectrum relocation fund for those types of issues I think that would help a lot you know I think Ruth it was the earlier panel was talking about how you you need to be able to look into the future and have policies that allow evolution but there are times when it is going to affect certain parties because they build receivers assuming a certain environment and then environment changed so I really like her idea there as well I think it's really important to have strong White House leadership backing NTIA because you know it's it's not easy having to negotiate with the behemoth of DOD who then gets backed by Congress through the Homeland Security Committee when it's NTIA that is the final regulator and so I really think that NTIA has terrific people FCC has terrific people great engineers industry keep stealing them for that reason but it's really important to bolster and back NTIA's authority as the spectrum regulator for the federal agencies and one thing I would point out by the way that Ruth was talking about this morning almost every other country is actually a ministry not an independent regulator so that's that's part of the difference between the FCC and the NTIA split not every country does that but it's it's a lot of the countries um finally and I mentioned this in my testimony whenever that was two three weeks ago um I really uh I feel it's important to talk about the the NTIA lab ITS it is such an important component of these discussions and industry if you are not utilizing ITS you really need to think about it because they are the ones that are going to be able to to show um and to test and to provide the reports that help Derrick make decisions and ultimately Alan Davidson working with the FCC on on the spectrum environment and how parties are going to be affected by particular decisions and with that in mind I would once again make a plug for um there to be an exception to the compensation rules for engineers I think it's too important to have these engineers on staff and it is true that it's very difficult to recruit a good art engineer and to keep them because they are in such high demand elsewhere um if I could just jump in on the point I think I think it's a good question in terms of the the division of responsibilities and I'm not here to advocate one thing or another I think you know that's up to Congress I think some of the advantages of the current um way of doing things stagutorily um the benefits of it aren't discussed enough I mean I think having an independent agency on the commercial side that is less susceptible to political pressure I think is really critical but then um on the government side you can't that that doesn't work because they need to be in the chain of command um with the White House um and I also you know if you were to compare us to other countries I think Tom Tom Peters did a pretty comprehensive comparison way back and we should probably update it but um I would I you know I think we favorably compared at any other country in terms of reallocating the government spectrum this is actually raised an interesting um question that I want to pose to you about the relationship between the public development around technical studies and standards and those produced by private entities and how that how how they are kind of used in tandem or not in tandem when it comes to making these policymaking decisions is there is there balance in that process today or does there need to be more balance in that process I wonder if you all could talk a little bit about um the relationship between the public and private when it comes to the development of these new technological studies around spectrum management I mean I think that you know point that Derek I mean that's really critical is um having both the government process but also a lot of outreach um including some you know we we work with the commercial side all the time but it's those in TIA and the administration um and so I think that can be really helpful in terms of having those conversations um that avoid avoid having a crisis um so that that's probably an element that's really critical and I think some folks on the non-federal side know that and others will be more helpful for them to be aware of it I think it's an interesting question I would imagine the commission faces this a lot more with different studies being put in the in their records of their proceedings um and the federal side as well but I I do think we're trying to certainly look at both um I think you may see some of that feat too into the international processes too where there's a lot of study work done um by both sides but I think it's a good point I think Chameed the the more the more studies and uh analysis it's out there the better and it puts it puts it on us on the on the on the government to to look at these and analyze them um and I think it's also the interesting question too on how much is organically started by the government in terms of the agencies and the how much comes from the outside so it's kind of a mix I don't know there's a there's a great answer but I think it's important to keep them all in in the consideration um this is great I get to kind of ask my the questions that I've been wanting to ask for a while from some really phenomenal uh felt leaders in this space so thank you um but the I want to bring it back to the spectrum task force report for a second so the spectrum task force report and it divided its recommendations into kind of three big categories uh interference avoidance spectrum rights models and promoting access to spectrum are these three categories still relevant today uh and are there any additional buckets that we should be considering as we're thinking about spectrum policy into the next 20 years so I think those categories are really useful for conceptualizing things one of them that there's it's mentioned in the task force report I noticed but I don't think that it's talked about in an office we need to talk about how spectrum access has both rights and responsibilities um and I think that we focus on in that bucket we focus on the right side of things um and perhaps less frequently on responsibilities to you know transmit and receive only within the frequencies that the FTC or NTIA has authorized in terms of using the spectrum efficiently um and in terms of um in some of these relocations that incumbents have the right to be health harmless um you know if they need to relocate or use less spectrum that you know those should be funded by new entrants um but that um ultimately it's it's the federal government um under the communications act that that owns the spectrum and it needs to manage it efficiently in the public interest and make sure that all the parties honor those responsibilities yeah I agree with everything there um I think they are the probably the right categories partly because they're so broad right I mean so if we talk about I mean if we talk about for example promoting access to spectrum I mean a lot falls under that right um I you know I think I think in the last 20 years even more emphasis on spectrum sharing has been a big part of it and so I think I think they're right I think I think from a priority perspective these are the things we continue to look at it's fascinating we often joke around these spectrum policy issues they're nothing really seems new they just sort of evolved um we have those conversations a lot I should have mentioned this up front but trying to channel Peter Tenhu a little bit so a lot of folks know Peter who was the co-director of the uh of the task force report and then you know spent over a decade at NTIA and actually we have him back then part-time but I think Peter brought a lot of those concepts into his work at NTIA and we've tried to filter that through and I think a lot of our our policy thinking as well on a lot of these ideas and sometimes you feel like you're banging your head against the wall a little bit on some of these um but you know we've been talking more lately about these issues not necessarily the noise or proposal here but just again measuring the environment you know thinking about we're going to work with NTIA's how do we measure the environment out there and what's really happening and happening in the in the field to then bring that back to this coexistence questions because we just keep packing more and more users into not just the same bands but adjacent bands and and in mixing services too I think what was interesting in the report they talked about this idea of spectrum neighborhoods and you know the kind of impact that we've kind of drifted apart from that a little bit partly because we have this sort of piecemeal of whack-a-mole approach of we need to find a band let's put it there let's put it there so the spectrum neighbors issue I think is is something to think about too when we talk about long-term planning you know certainly would be a lot simpler if you could group like services near each other but we're we're finding actually I think it's becoming more more of a Swiss cheese out there which is creating this issue for this kind of these coexistence and neighbors and then the like I think the one thing I would add is equity I know you were going to raise that later but I would want that to also be a bucket that's considered why don't we actually just jump down to that and then we'll jump back up to the other questions and so so Harold very poignantly brought up the issue of equity and you know in the spectrum task force report there was this kind of assumption that equity you know wasn't an issue that related or needed to be addressed in spectrum policy but I think the thoughts around that shifted and I'm wondering if they're what role can spectrum policymakers play in addressing these issues of equity and social justice when it comes to looking at spectrum policy of the next 20 years I'm glad you raised that um I one thing that the fight administration has done very well they did that starting with the campaign is there they have been very intentional about considering the equity impact of their policies but it has to continue and I would say also I've noticed the FCC has started to add questions about impact on equity of some of their decisions and you know the questions need to be both you know how would this decision impact equity and social justice but also how can it promote equity and social justice not just how does it impact it um and if we keep that filter in mind and I think that then we can continue to make progress I don't have the major answer right now but one other thing that Harold raised earlier that I thought was interesting was he asked you know um what other experts should we have in a future task force that looks at spectrum policy and it made me think you know we should have somebody who's an expert on equity and social justice um I think in particular about someone who wasn't going to be on this panel Dr. Elizabeth who couldn't make it because she's traveling um who's at the National Urban League she has been talking about this now for a while and she has very good thoughts on it um so I would hope that any future task force actually includes somebody like her um there are things obviously you know the National Urban League has talked about ways to promote equity um through use of spectrum funds and things like that but I think we can continue to think about these issues by being very intentional about it um so I agree with everything Annis that Chairwoman Rosemursal has been been very clear and um has been vaining that drum that that spectrum policy is critical to equity um you know one thing I would mention is I think that we and when I say we I'm talking about like all the spectrum policy walks in the room need to be better about explaining it to the public and having I think there's some understanding that things like USF and broadband subsidies are important to equity and there's less of an understanding of spectrum policy which is this you know more you know more sort of conceptually difficult area that folks don't necessarily think about so you know I think if you if you look back at like the 1970s and the laterites you used to have like all kinds of you know members of the public that were you know sort of very active at the FCC and we still have that to some extent but I think we need to do a better job of communicating on spectrum policy in order to encourage that participation I just want to echo those comments um you know I will refer and I know it's been mentioned again today with me for the national spectrum strategy and I think you're going to see more more development on that way and Assistant Secretary and the chairwoman have have publicly you know committed to to working together on that um and I would just invite folks to to bring these issues to the table in that process because there will be there will be public outreach. Another important aspect of the equity issue is specifically thinking about tribal access to spectrum there was a recent study that came out I think this past week in telecommunications policy about the broadband access and access you know to services on tribal lands and it was kind of shocking the 66 percent I think of folks on tribal lands have access to the internet compared to 87 percent of the surrounding non-tribal areas uh they have 75 slower speeds and they also pay 11 percent more so there's some serious concerns around that and I know like with the 2.5 auction there was the tribal windows that was open early was that an effective tool to trying to begin addressing some of these issues and are there um any other tools or ways to try to expand on that you know model or other ways of trying to ensure that tribal um you know leaders can secure access to the spectrum on their native lands. So I think that this is a multifaceted problem and so it requires a multifaceted solution. I think on the rural um tribal priority window I think we're very proud of the work we did in collaboration with the with the tribes we granted 335 licenses to that will um to tribal entities that affect 350 tribes in 30 states um and we're already seeing build out on that providing service um but um but that that's only one solution and so I think that we need to look at things like CVRS that provides opportunities um both in terms of PALS and GAA and um when you look at tribal sovereignty and sort of controlling the land then you could leverage some of that there's own license spectrum um but I think we're open to ideas and proposals so um it's an issue that Chairman Roes and Wurzel cares deeply about and I would encourage folks if they have ideas definitely um come talk to us. I agree with Matt of course um a couple other things I do think that it's a good idea to have tribal windows for um options that have work spectrum over tribal lands um you know the commission can also consider other incentives like bidding credits uh for participants who commit to providing service and tribal lands or some kind of market incentives or option winners to enter into secondary market transactions for service and tribal lands um one thing NTA does very well and I'm not saying the MCC doesn't because I actually don't know um is it does but technical assistance really well and you see this a lot in the in the tribal grants process um and so I think that having a lot more technical assistance or technical assistance for tribal participants can be very helpful uh because we did see some hiccups particularly due to COVID during the 2.5 auction um and and I think that providing resources to the to the tribes will also help. I'm going to jump back up to what was question five um so the prayer panel talked about a lot of issues that are still relevant today uh receivers being a big one I mean uh uh comments are due next week if you're ready let's get on it um uh worlds of planning technical issues and what does the persistence of these issues over the course of 20 years and you know honestly even before 20 years ago uh say about the you know the the recommendations of the spectrum task force report and also the ability to to address these issues through policy. I'm going to go ahead and start here I think um and yeah great discussion on the last panel I think um I think what it says about the recommendations was that that they were they were pretty spot on but they also identified a lot of persistent challenges that remain relevant today. I don't think it means we haven't made progress in a lot of them though I think we've talked a lot of how how much has changed um you know I think in terms of more recent develops developments in this earlier I think I think sort of you know I kind of viewer at a time with spectrum sharing where I think we need like this fundamental change to the more dynamic model and I think cbrs was it was a fantastic uh leap into that but I think I think there's more we can do and on the uh on the anti-a side we spent a lot of time thinking and preparing for something where Jordan formally calling you know an informant incumbent capability or I see you know to the point where there's actually legislation has been introduced in congress now in support to look on how we build on that um and part of the thing that I see by the way was looking at cbrs with the sharing model and the sensors in the field and how that worked and we thought you know there's that's worked pretty well but there's some there's some problems with the system there including like for example having to protect those those actual sensors now which can interfere with the actual spectrum that you're trying to deploy right so some things like that how how do we how do we first you know make that a better model so you can you can protect incumbents but you can get that information into the system whether it's how to to sas or other type of you know directly the licensees whatever right how do you how do you you know improve that process and how do you start and how do you ultimately automate it so we're I think really looking for how we make a paradigm shift there I think it means too there's there's a lot of sort of sacred cows out there that need to be looked at and I think as much as we talk about the Department of Defense and their spectrum use they're actually being pretty forward-leaning in a lot of the work they're doing now a lot of the studying they're doing a lot of the tests they're running in partnership with industry on how they could you know increase dynamic spectrum sharing and part of this is because they know the pressure to decrease their spectrum footprint but also they need to operate in these bands as increasingly you know the the conflict environment for them is based on spectrum based technology so they're sort of looking at that but looking at 5g use cases so I think if you really think long-term figuring out how to dynamic the share spectrum you know and again I know it's it's probably going to be more pilots it's not going to be across the board but I think if we're honest I think we need to have some people open to some new ideas on exploring some of these areas and I will say by the way that FCC needs to be in the driver's seat on this so I'm not I'm not you know I'm not not disputing any of that but I think these are new areas we need to really think about and look at so I think the report remains relevant and it's it's fun to think about changes. So I guess I would group the issues you mentioned in the two buckets I think there are the issues that we've made progress in part because of the recommendations of the task force but you know on you know on broadband the chairwoman has been very clear that like that's an issue that we must solve that we need to have a 100% policy meaning that everyone has access to broadband. I think receiver standards are another one where we need to make sustainable sort of long-term progress you know soon and hopefully we will we're getting our record in response to the receiver's NOI and then there are the issues that are just always going to be perennial particularly technical issues technology use cases standards they're all going to always evolve and so we need to constantly assess them and be very nimble while at the same time honoring the sort of the time-honored principles you know things like flexibility to all users you know making sure that folks are actually using the spectrum through built out and technology neutrality as well but those are always going to change and we're never gonna solve them permanently. The only thing I would add to what Derek and Matt said is part of the reason DOD is able to be so active and so forward thinking and to work on all these test visits because they have a lot of money to do it. NTIA does not and I you know if you're talking about the incumbent informant capability for a while but unless Congress funds it it's not going to happen. NTIA systems really badly need to be upgraded. I hope I'm not saying something I shouldn't be saying but it makes it very difficult to continue to try to be quick and rapid in decision-making if NTIA does not have the tools that it needs so I can say this because I'm a private sector person but that would be my work. I want to go back to something that Derek talked about a little bit about the the need for looking at new sharing and access technology and you know the previous panel there were some mentions of some legacy technologies that didn't take off and curious if this might be a time for back to the future where some technologies that were discussed 20 years ago even though they didn't take off they might actually have just been ahead of their time. So are there due to the advancements in technology and the changes in kind of the technical landscape around spectrum policy? Are there any you know technologies or thoughts that are worth kind of re-exploring and I'm sorry I know this wasn't that on the question. It is just one that kind of pops into my head while we were having this discussion so don't have an answer and you don't have an answer. Yeah no I think I think there probably are I think again sometimes it's evolution the technologies I mean we talked about sensing good things that are better getting better I think one that's we're seeing more of is ultra white bands so that's you know kind of making a bit of a comeback and I think you know I think a challenge of getting arms around that a little bit so I think I think there are and then as I mentioned a lot of this spectrum sharing technologies are getting better I think we just have to you know have to use them and then overall technology gets better right so spectrum is being used more efficiently obviously the commercial side deploys those quicker there are and believe it or not there are innovations that do happen in federal spectrum use the problem is sometimes those roadmaps and those technologies are they take a lot longer you know to get out there and feel the life cycle for a lot of government technology systems is really long. So what I mentioned is artificial intelligence which is one of those technologies that always seems like it's five or ten years away but that's one that I think is being incorporated into the standards in 3GEP and elsewhere and it's going to really we're going to have to think sort of radically about how that affects regulation and to be nimble so that we can accommodate you know I mean we're going to need a lot more experts to go back to what I'm going to be saying on things like that. And when it comes to you know this access to spectrum there there's always the talk about the spectrum pipeline it's always the hot topic it was the hot topic 20 years ago it's a hot topic today and is this always going to be a hot topic and if the answer is yes which I suspect it is and are there sustainable long term solutions so that it's not something that we need to like emergency look at every ten years or every like is there a way to come up with some kind of sustainable long-term solution for providing that continued spectrum pipeline. I suspect that this is what's going to be in the national spectrum strategy that Derek and me and them talk about the answer right. So I think one of the things we talked about spectrum pipeline can mean a lot of different things to different people right so when we talk about pipeline certainly part of this is you know what's what's coming for say FCC auctions or what's coming for maybe unlicensed environment I think what we're trying to think on the federal side too is what's what's the federal roadmap and some of that will be involving spectrum usage. I think this long-term planning it would it would be really nice to get out of the lackamal approach I think we do take with spectrum vein some of that's inevitable things change right and if you think about the millimeter wave stuff that was couldn't have planned that ten years before because technology changed and it became easier to utilize and then you know the industry shifted to mid-day so a lot of those things are out there but to Anna's point on resources I think it's important because you know we can focus our priorities right we talked a lot like right now we've been very focused on harvesting the mid-day for spectrum and we talk about lower three gigahertz and we're really optimistic but that's going to take a lot of work for the next you know a year or two and gosh in the perfect scenario if we for if we can get act commercial access to that band you know then we go from 3.1 all the way to 3.9 gigahertz and that's a lot of mid-band spectrum that a decade ago if you told people that was coming they would have said yeah we're right so I mean I think you know I think the long-term planning is really important and I think try and identify where that where that next focus maybe is important and I know that chervlin's talked about seven to 16 gigahertz I think I think that's part of our thinking now is to figure out where we put those resources and not just now but for 10 years 15 years and again it doesn't the problem with us sometimes is we have again a limited number of engineers and if we're working on lower three and then we're told and then somebody throws four gigahertz at you it's not always helpful because again that sets back lots of times the process and so I understand you know the industry is going to sort of throw everything against the wall and see what sticks but the problem is that process has a lot of implications on the government side right in terms of again only so many resources we can we can put out looking at from so again I know we people get us right it's sort of the industrial policy you know label that other countries do but I think I would like to see a shift more to thinking and again as I mentioned before federal systems had very long life cycles if we knew in 2035 you know where you know like again we could get point agencies to work planning for spectrum use for this area or how they might you know longer term playing like that is really hard but I think if we're really serious about changing some things that's what we have to do or we'll just continue to be in the sort of you know again whack-a-mole approach so I think the answer to the question is yes I think this is the perennial thing we'll have to work on partly because there's always new demand also I think in a point the point the economist would make is that spectrum is different from natural resources and that you can never exhaust it you can always use it more intensively and efficiently and I think completely agree with Derek on long-range planning I think understanding where spectrum is being used the density of use and then trying to find long term solutions is really helpful I think technology creates the problem in the sense that it creates fresh demand but it also sometimes creates the solutions as well as incentives and I think it's a it's a balance because you need the long-range planning and that's really important but you need to bring those creative solutions whether it's technology and coordination and sharing or incentives to each individual sort of area of the spectrum because you oftentimes do have different situations so we need that long-term vision but then we need to bring a lot of creativity to each situation and if I could just add it it's that much more difficult than the international arena we talked about the old radio communication conference and the needs of forward plan for that is so much even longer than you're been dealing with the day-to-day lack more approach you know kind of along with those those lines of the need for this you know ongoing spectrum pipeline part of the decision making around where do you get spectrum like what bands to try to look at what bands to open up requires access to you you know accurate complete timely data um are there data points that policymakers don't have access to or struggle to get access to and that they need in order to be making these decisions and the answer to that is yes what are some of those what what is that data that's missing and then what are some of those barriers that are preventing policymakers from getting access to the data they need so one of the areas we've been focused on is broadband maps because I think those are critical to informing a lot of different policies and it includes spectrum policy so that's why we're doing the broadband data collection to fill that gap and to get really accurate accurate comprehensive nationwide data that's very granular and so on the mobile side it's going to be the first time that we're collecting in a standardized format the mobile data and there's going to be in terms of verifying it it's going to be an iterative process and there's both an internal and an external component to that the internal is that we get the data by annually the public organizations company or anyone can file a challenge and we'll look at it and then internally where we also have some mechanisms that we're going to use to verify it but I think that'll be that'll be very helpful and more data is certainly helpful it's always a challenge because sometimes though when you're doing a transition it's hard to know ahead of time um on my steering then it's still there exactly what you need so I you know I lived c-band during the role making for several years and that's an area where um we had some data but it's just this whole complex ecosystem involving satellites, earth stations, you know fix legacy you know we we had all kinds of incumbents and so it's a very complex area where some of the data we need um you know long term and to figure that out now and and sometimes we need to be nimble and figure out exactly what we need for a for a particular proceeding. Agree access to data is always um good and certainly an ideal an ideal world we have access to to more of and it would be accurate um you know I think um you know what are what are barriers I think on the on the there's there's spectrum usage data I think is important to policymakers and we've talked about a little bit I think some spectrum monitoring going back to act yes I think we're we're thinking through some of that including maybe like some cvrs type stuff monitoring how it's being used out there and what what those implications might be and then I just think back you know a lot of this is in the FCC and coordination on sharing data both you know sort of obviously from the federal side and one information we can provide some of that you know publicly some of it not and then I think vice versa on getting characteristics from from industry usage right and we've seen that play out in some different areas and that stuff can help help inform the the spectrum studies that that we do and that the federal agencies do both you know domestically and then in the international processes work too where there's a lot of technical studies that don't the issue of access to good usage data to me is interesting because it's a bit of a of a conflict with market based mechanisms for spectrum management right because you shouldn't need to have that usage data but then all of a sudden you start thinking about repurposing spectrum and it's very difficult to make a decision about repurposing spectrum you don't know exactly how that spectrum is being utilized even though it's subject to market incentives and you go back to sort of more community controlling so it's back to our discussion of the original spectrum public task force report in the last panel I think that access to good usage data can be difficult it comes up more when decisions are being made like in the c-band where you know the FCC had to go through a lot of iterations of who's using this where are they you know how much is it going to cost to move them it's also a challenge with classified systems this is particularly challenging to industry when they are looking at asking for licenses and spectrum bands but not understanding exactly how it's going to impact federal users and I don't have an answer to how to fix that because it's a need to know basis and and it's a difficult thing when you see well it's it's being used by DOD but you don't understand what it's being exactly what it's being used for and how they'll be impacted without actually having that conversation with them so I'm not giving an answer I'm just saying it's an interesting challenge and we're going to see it come up more and more and more as we start trying to fit more and more users within spectrum bands I wonder then if there's an opportunity instead of focusing on specific types of data that need to be you know collected on a regular basis to instead work on crafting a procedure that you know the FCC can request data as they need it in a way that you know will be secure enough for carriers to feel comfortable or users of spectrum spectrum licenses and unlicensed society whoever the stakeholders are that you need to get data from and you know I know that there are some processes already but are there any barriers within that process that are opportunities to kind of improve that process to to focus on that as opposed to thinking about oh this is the type of data that we need since since it is so specific to the proceeding yeah I think that that's a very interesting and tough question I mean I think there are requirements and I'm not not commenting on the merits of them sometimes but as a legal matter we can always ask licensees for information about how they're using spectrum as a statutory matter there are requirements and we're doing an information collection that require notice and some time for them to respond and things like that procedurally but but I think you know it's an interesting and tough challenge and we're certainly open to any ideas that folks have before I ask um what is my last question I'd like to open it up to the audience does anybody have any questions for our panels today Harold yeah um of course I've got a question this is to the panel to pass up on I'd like to actually get one point you were just talking about with regard to the information as somebody is a consumer of the commission's information um I have encountered the following problems first the commission when it wants to when it wants to collect information although as Matt said it has authority runs into a large number of procedural blocks that have been put in there by Congress that are legal for all agencies so you know the various things that need to be approved by OMB and OIRA which make collecting data more difficult when the other is the commission's databases that it maintains now are I will try to think a lot about this somewhat confusing and do not coordinate well with each other asking you guys what do you think you know should if the FCC were to try to do something about this where do you think in order to put in these resources and this is a kind of past Congress question or NTIA alternatively for the information that it's need me should there be exceptions to the existing um paperwork reduction act another uh uh statute for information that the FCC needs should Congress allocate money explicitly to um simplify and uh for the FCC for writing its licensing database management in a way similar to the that it had that it allocated money for mapping um what or is it just a yeah FCC or even NTIA we got to be better about just you know standing up to licensees and telling them we want this information what do you think you know would be the the biggest help uh to what the agencies have gathered that sort of information um so so I'm gonna refrain from you know specifically advocating what Congress should do I do think that on all those issues it's really important to um clearly articulate the pros and cons so when you're talking about things like um the procedural requirements that that might require six months or a year before you can actually get the information um just having an understanding of like what are the economic um disadvantages of that when it delays making spectrum available so I just think for all those issues that we need to um articulate and and and give the decision makers the information they need to weigh the costs and and benefits I don't really have much much more on that narrow to be honest I think um I think those those those are constraints but I think trying to find ways around you know getting as much information as possible of course as could not to be a broken record but giving the funding necessary to be able to have the staffing um would be a good start. Any other questions? Sure. One question uh spectrum policy has historically been apolitical but we live in a political time and there's a lot of controversy on a lot of different issues how do you see the current political environment and any changes that might happen in November changing spectrum policy or affecting it and we have seen say for example Michael Riley advocate with drawing from the ITU and creating a G7 organization um is that a is that a republican policies uh you know what are some policies that might be associated with one party or another and how do they play out? I'm assuming there and Matt don't want to touch that. Probably not. I think they have a barn going off it's a killing issue. You know that's a really good question and and you're right spectrum policy has largely been apolitical I think what you see more is tension between committees than and what their missions are right because everybody wants to wants to push their mission um and and but but you see a change in Congress on the spectrum side um I have I have a hard time really saying what I see is a significant difference uh on spectrum policy we might see it in other policies um but but on spectrum policies I'm not sure if you would see a significant shift I do think you will see very aggressive oversight but that doesn't necessarily mean it'll be for different outcomes. I'm gonna take the last question then um what is the number one issue in your opinion that is facing spectrum policy makers today and how do you hope that issue is going to be addressed over the next 20 years okay I'll go first I think I've already mentioned that to me the number one issue is this is this need for long longer term planning you know and I don't know if you want to use it with word roadmap but I really think you know figuring that out I think is number one and I think the second one I'm gonna cheat here a little bit because I think the second one is truly embracing this dynamic spectrum sharing I think we need to do that more but I was also going to take the opportunity to comment a little bit I wrote I got it down from from chairwoman Rose and Russell's comments and that was fascinating as you went through her list of five things that have been listed down Dave's and that there's a lot of commonality you know she mentioned the near term you know lower three gigahertz it's significant updating the CSEA which I didn't talk about much but the SRF yeah I mean that's it's hugely important and I think I think we're all aligned behind trying to get some more flexibility there um you know exploring receivers you know commissions doing and I think on on the NTI side we've looked at the federal side and you know put some information on the record that there actually is a lot of receiver standards in our in the NTI red book as you call it and some work done there but so further advancing on on receivers you know consider the broader use of of of incentives that's something that's been out there forever I really talked about on the federal side but I also think um on the non-federal side there's there's work that could be done there and then uh you know using she mentioned the opportunity with spectrum auction authority funding national priorities and that's something again this is personal I've always thought we've had this lost opportunity on spectrum on spectrum revenues of putting more back into the spectrum management ecosystem and we've talked about IIIC we've got NTIs going through an IT modernization people would not believe how old the systems are that NTI relies on to authorize federal frequency assignments you know and it's it's hard to get the appropriations for that so I think you know putting money into into maybe R and D on spectrum sharing out of these auctions I know there's Congress you know what loves you know deficit reduction but I think there's a lot of spectrum priorities there too um so I'm going to refrain from answering particularly because uh the chairman sort of already already laid it out when you have CC perspective um just to focus in on one in terms of the SRF um you know there are a number of changes that she's mentioned um one that I I hope you know that folks understand is the requirement that each auction needs to fund 110 percent of the relocation expenses for that specific transition um and that that you know can in some ways be a barrier to making spectrum available for unlicensed for hybrid use as well as just finding sort of creative solutions that over the course of the number of auctions might fund those relocations but for that particular individual auction might not meet the 110 percent requirement and and one of the issues that that hasn't been mentioned and wasn't really a focus of the task force in 2002 but is network and cyber security which also has a spectrum component we're implementing the secure and trusted communications act known as open replace program that's really important so that we can have trusted networks and we're also the commission's also looking at other ways to make networks more secure things like the equipment authorization process but we're open to other ideas and and we need a whole of government approach on that which is the reason that the chairman relaunched the cyber security forum for independent and executive branch regulators but it's also as the chairman has said it's a problem for everyone so we need the private sector as well as the public to to also participate in that I think the number one issue facing spectrum policymakers today is the need to respect and bolster the NTIA and FCC's roles of spectrum regulators. The other thing I would add Cheryl Monroe's and Rosalind's raises before I don't recall if she raised it today is the need to value non-auctioned spectrum for purposes of scoring I think it's it's you discount the benefits to the economy from non-auctioned from unlicensed uses and other downstream uses that don't get the benefit of the CBO score and therefore not necessarily become a part of the any spectrum authorization which we had not talked about oh my god I think the number one issue today is we need to get the spectrum options reauthorized and let's worry about everything else. Well that's that's all I had for today but beyond so thank you all I've already given her a round of applause