 So the goal for this panel is we've heard a lot from both some engineers and some lawyers about where we've been in the past and what we can do to reform the advocacy going forward. But what we're trying to do with this group of luminaries is actually to provide some insights into what the technology is doing, what are the technology constraints we've heard about, the institutional constraints and the commercial constraints. So where is the technology going to take us? So the way we're going to run this panel is that each of the panelists will ask a couple of questions, they'll make a few opening comments, then we'll move into discussion on the panel and hopefully we'll have time for a conversation from the audience as well. So I'll just introduce them briefly as we've done, you can read the bios in the booklet. So first we've got Doug Sicker who's the BBC Endowment Professor of the Computer Science and Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program at the University of Colorado. And it's something of a pattern here at this table. Among other many things we've said, in fact, CTO is both the entity and the NTIA. Next we have Dale, it must be the Colorado era I think. Dale is a senior fellow at Silicon Flatiron Center and an adjunct professor at the University of Colorado. Dale I think, I may get the sequence wrong, but he started with Chief of the Office of Planning and Policy Planning, Policy of the FCC, with the NTIA, ended up with Chief of the OT and Chief Technologist at the FCC. Then we have Ed Thiederman, who's a senior vice president of engineering at Qualcomm. He's also a Qualcomm fellow and he leads the organization's worldwide standards efforts, among other things, design engineer by background. Then we have Preston Marshall, who's a research professor at the WSU of Engineering at the University of Southern California. He's also the division director of the information science and the ISI at USC. And what I try to do in getting us into conversation quickly, I discourage people from having slides, but one of the things that Preston has done is he's been a program manager at DARPA, and program managers at DARPA get their way. And you will see that there's one person who will actually have slides, but program managers at DARPA do slides very quickly, and it's worth waiting for it, if a good set of slides I saw. And at the end of the panel we've got David and Buddy Cubs, who's a distinguished member of technical staff at Alcatel Gustav. He's one of the leading researchers in this field. He's currently working on Dynamic Spectrum Access. He's working on Green Wireless and also working on network virtualization. So what I'd like to do is to just get going, get the panelists to sort of seed their ideas. And I'll start with Doug, who's recently come back from being at the SEC and NTA and actually now answer the question of what can you now talk about that you couldn't talk about at all? Almost not. Actually, what I wanted to talk about was kind of give a three-year snapshot of some of my experiences. And about 2009, right before I joined the National Broadband Plan, I was talking to Paul Flotsy, and he asked very cynically, do you think anything will ever change? And then I went on to work on many parts of the plan, including the spectrum chapter. And I've had fairly comprehensive reforms. There were things about transparency with the dashboard. There were things about incentive options, unlicensed, opportunistic use. A lot of things were in there. Some of them have been developed more than others, but a lot of change. And certainly it was a set of recommendations on roadmap. And then just two years ago, a year and a half ago, Preston actually asked me. He said, I think policy and the spectrum space is stagnating. Do you think anything will change? And that was right before we started working on the PCAST report. And I think that report, as you all are probably aware, has brought a lot of new ideas and really has brought back this idea of sharing. And I think sharing in many different ways. And two other things, of course, that came along. One was LightSquared, which brought back to the forefront the idea of receiver chapters, which we just hear a bunch of us just tell what the meeting was going on. And the other was the 1755 to 1780. 1755 to 1850. The report. It's how you tell it. I'm going to teach you. And the funny thing is, is on 1755, everyone keeps that as a spectrum sharing effort. And it really was. It was about tolerance. And it was about this idea of coexistence of different services. And I'm really pleased to see how that's developing. And I think it's much better than the report I was given when I first walked into NTIA over a year ago where it's, you know, 10 years, 18 billion dollars. So, and you have to move us into broadcast spectrum. Yeah, that's going to happen. So, you know, I think this idea of 1755 to 1850 banned as a perfect opportunity for looking at coexistence modeling. It's right there. And I know that Preston's going to pick up on that. So I'll leave that to him. But all of these things I talked about are really just spectrum pools, whether it's reallocation, whether it's sharing, whatever it might be. And they're all, they all have their plates, but they are not in and of themselves something that we should be pushing or driving as an agenda. They only make sense as to when they're rationing the market or when they're rational from a policy perspective. And, you know, I keep thinking in the near term, we need to keep it simple. We should clear spectrum when we can clear it. We should use tolerance modeling, coexistence modeling when we can. And we should be looking at more unlicensed. And whether that's unlicensed in a contiguous band or whether that's through TV White Space is something that could be debated. But we know contiguous unlicensed spectrum is really great. You can get more of that. I think we need to be in a better position. In the long term, though, we have to be patient and recognize that all of these tools will have some impact as time goes on. We think about, you know, the Part 15 rules that's happening overnight, but they didn't. They took a long, long time to actually pan out. So Wi-Fi didn't happen overnight. It took literally years and years. And I think that willingness to stick to it over the long term is another very important thing. I'm going to skip some of my other notes because I think, here's going to kick me. Here's one thing I will stick my neck out and say. I think that we need a better sense of leadership because we have these two agencies that are often at odds, NTIA and SEC. And I think this is where the White House really needs to step up. I don't believe that these two agencies necessarily have to merge, but I think a stronger, clearer message from the White House as to what we're doing and how we're going to move forward so that it's agreed upon at the Commission, it's agreed upon at NTIA and DOD would go along the way. I'm not from this town. So can you just help me understand what would the White House actually have to say? Actually, that's the one thing that's interesting to the appointees. Yeah, where's Tom? Tom and I've had this conversation many years. It has to do with this. There's many levels of government. And again, with the President at the top and all his appointees, and then you have the mass of the civil service. And those appointees have to get a direct message from above saying, we are going to do this. We are going to make this happen. And that has to trickle down. And sometimes it doesn't trickle down. And I've seen that on the search for 500 negros. So with Tom Dahl, who actually, perhaps in the best position to be asked the impossible question, which is they've seen a lot of this happen over the years. Where do you think we're going? At the same time, probably this placed here on the panel that I probably would have invited place to be in historical planning. Because, you know, I'm not at the stage of my career, but I'm doing much and many, many more so I can really foresee the future. I think we can all sort of extrapolate from where we are today. We saw the crunch. We need to get more bits per second per hertz, more efficiency. We need things more compression. We need to continue to try to move higher in frequency to take the pressure off some of the lower spectrum. Picking up on Doug, we need to do more sharing, dynamic sharing, getting people tied together in smaller cells, which I think are critical. And all these other things with regarding the actual management in terms of centralized versus decentralized approaches and so forth. So, you know, I can sort of see that, just extrapolating today and trying to invent, you know, trying to foresee something. I remember just having a discussion with someone when somebody first proposed DSL, talked about DSL, and it just, you know, that was not my model. A twisted pair of wire wasn't going to be able to carry anything in terms of bandwidth. And, you know, some very smart people figured out a way that they could actually do it. And that's the sort of thing that we're talking about. I wish I had a crystal ball when I could forecast that sort of thing. I can't. But so what I thought I would do, well, I'll take just a moment and sort of go back in my career. And one of my major concerns here, and some of you have heard me say this before, is I'm worried about this sort of interference, aggregation, what I've called here in my notes of death by a thousand cuts. Let me just briefly say the situation when I began my career five decades ago. Peter, I was actually, I think, around that 66 report that he talked about, the silent crisis. Let me just, very quickly, we had limited modulation formats. You didn't have to deal with lots of different types of signals. Everybody was on, you know, a single or very limited number in narrowband, typically narrowband channels. There were static assignment techniques that transmitters generally were high power, high antenna sites, especially in the mobile area. The systems were noise limited. We licensed stations, we licensed the trainers, transmitters, remember back, we also licensed operators and technicians. And it started finishing to me because some of these things that we worry about in a more dynamic future is somebody misconfiguring something and causing interference, perhaps even deliberately. So maybe licensing operators, something we consider today. We have unique identifiers called call-waders now, even down today. Of course, we don't equip the certification. And of course, the signals were often clear and easily decipherable. So if I was, my hand radio was getting into the TV set next door, you could generally figure out that you could, well, they did, neighbors figured out the culprit was me. But the situation is so different going forward. Virtually unlimited modulation formats, waveforms, multiple broadband channels, gathered over a wide range, dynamic, red and static access, low power, low antenna heights, interference, limited systems, increase of unlicensed and licensed by ruled transmitters. We didn't have near as much then. Minimal licensing of operators and technicians, limited use of unique identifiers, in other words, no call-waders. Signals are often encrypted or not easily decipherable. We have underlay networks now. And some of the stuff I've been reading, kind of information recently, I don't know how to worry about it, the GPS spectrum, but now jammers, you know, the deposit of jammers and all kinds of that. There wasn't jammers back in the old days, but it's a different level of impact. And of course, we have continued unintentional radiators and so forth. And what the implication of this is, what I'm trying to do is say, okay, what do we need to invent, sort of in a technology space to overcome these sort of problems? And quite frankly, I'm not sure. You take, there's some technical people who do a much better job. You can take two broadband signals to worry about intermod. What do you get? You get a broadband. Intermod signals are very noise-like. And now one goes out trying to figure out what the source of the interference is in a situation like that. It tends to increase the background noise. I guess that's what I'm saying. And those things sort of worry me. And of course, if you have an awful lot of that going on, then we worry about, I think Chuck Jackson, the text on it, is an increase in the background noise and how we go about abatement and so forth. And that is pretty tough. So to summarize then, I'm concerned about a very dynamic spectrum-sharing environment coupled with receiver inadequacies. Here's my heart. Vastly increased numbers of transmitters in close proximity, interference from unintended radiators, all the switching power supplies out there and so forth. And then intentionally interfered. We've got some real challenges, real challenges facing. And that's where I come in agreement really with Peter Panulla, who has made the important point, I think, of how important enforcement is. Enforcement at the commission, I think, generally speaking, is not receiving the policy attention that is deserved in the past. And I think it's probably even more important going forward as we adopt some of these advanced techniques. Let me just add one thing here. And this is my stump speech, you know, sort of thing about incentives. When I look at all this, it all comes down to incentives. I sat here and listened to this, all this wonderful technology, all these sort of things and sharing that we can do. And, you know, it's all great, but the incentives have to be there. And we talked about, you know, DOD really have the incentives to want to share. And probably not. Probably not. Do receiver manufacturers want to tighten up their receiver selectivity that may benefit other people to allow other people to jam more people in? Well, in their own band, there's an incentive. But does that exist outside? No. So a lot of this comes down to incentives. And then what my final thing is, we're going to innovate, we've got to talk about number of innovation, of course, in the technology sense, but we need the innovation in the policy, in the policy space to be able to be able to accommodate some of these technologies that I'm sure my fellow panelists will talk more about. Thank you, Dale. We'll turn to Ed, who helps operate this. Think about, you know, all sorts of problems. And traffic is one of them. So, you know, we've heard about exploding traffic along. What's making that happen? Okay, well, first, I'd like to thank Dale for this great little thing that you taught me about, getting hand radio systems out of Wi-Fi systems. One of my first things that I did about 40-something years ago was to get a hand radio system out of a public radio station. So it wasn't being re-broadcast. Okay, but let me get back to this. You know, it's about 20 years ago when we were sort of doing the development of CDMA and actually getting it started as we started to think about data. I remember my first data card was this what we called data on the go, sunk in, got about 8 kilobits per second. Okay. Well, actually, it was a major improvement over data over analog cellular, which was pretty much hopeless. But it took a long time for things to happen. And today, let's look at where we are. Today, we're going, we're doubling roughly year to year on the amount of data load on mobile cellular networks. The latest CTI figures are showing 633 billion megabytes over a six-month period. To make this a little more understandable, that's about 11 megabytes per day for every person in the field. 2016 is 200 megabytes per day for every person in this country. It's phenomenal. Okay. And that's what's driving us. And of course, where's it coming from? Well, we've already, somebody else earlier mentioned it, yeah, video. That's where the real growth is going to be a number of bits. But we really also need to get, talk using another, the analogy, death by a thousand cuts. There's another death by a thousand cuts. And that's all the little apps that sit on this phone. Okay. They're all on a dialogue with the cloud or some server out there checking, gee, is there another message for me? You know, another tweet. All of these things just take it. And that's what kills the battery. A lot of our battery life on these phones is just death by a thousand. I'll call it microtransactions. Okay. To put it in that perspective. Okay. But we're talking about the huge expand. So what do we do about it? Okay. And this is one of the real things. Well, we talked about video. Well, we're in the process of just completing H.265. That's high efficiency video code next thing. That's going to be a bit easier to answer. But, ladies and gentlemen, it's only going to do a better impact with two more efficiencies. That's what we've been able to do in video coding over about 20 years. And that's for roughly the same call. On the other hand, if you have to remember, that we went from small screens here to lousy video, now with a really high quality video I mean, we're talking about 4K video on tablets, believe it or not, and things like that. Hey guys, you know, the bit of explosion is going the other way. H.265 is only going to be a very, very, very small debt in Apple. Thank you. So, what do we do other things? You know, we basically say, gee, people's talking about MIMO and all of that. Well, how many antennas can I actually put on a little phone like this? Not many. Maybe two, and now as we're going up in numbers of bands and I'll get into that in a minute, I can't get that much, okay, on, you know, in terms of antennas. So maybe two, so I get 2x2 MIMO or 4x2 MIMO or something like that. So, what else can I do? Well, somebody says, oh, great new technologies and all of that. Well, if I look at chance limits, I'm not very far from it. Okay, we've been, for the last 20 years, now we've been really pushing that really down, okay, and whether it's WCDMA, HSPA, or LTV, all these systems are really using now the same techniques and tricks, the best tricks that we have. And you look at the fundamental limits, not that far apart, in bits per second per hertz. So now we've got to look at the next dimension of states, bits per second per hertz or a square kilometer or a square mile in this country. So this means more cell sites. Well, more cell sites are a problem. Towers are a problem. Zoning problems all over the place. So there's another way to go, which are little cells, like this. This is a cell, okay? There's an Ethernet connector. You could put this as any kind, put a fiber connector. So you can do all the work, okay? It's HSPA or CDMA 2000, this one you can put LTE either for the same size. So this is how we think of these are basically similar type technology approaches as what does a cell file. The neat thing about these is they can be put pretty much anywhere, okay? And so our view and view is that we just need to get these out, okay? As part of the solution. They're not the total solution with any respect. There's no argument on that. But the point is these go a long way. However, there's a crux to this. We have that back home. Okay, and that's where the real issue is going to be is getting the back home. So why do we want small cells? There's a capacity issue you can talk to me about. There's also coverage issue. You want to go up in data, all of our networks for the most part today are laid out for lower data rates. Not the data rates that we want on the uplink. That is from your handset or your tablet to the cell cell. So we want to get up in data rates. We need more small cells. Let me talk a little about one other challenge that we're being faced from a technology perspective. Which is the death by the 1,000 bands, a problem. Right now we've defined in 3GPP 37 bands for LTE. Okay, 37 of them worldwide. There's a big difference from those 5 bands we used to work for except for parts of 3G for basically 3G. Not only that, we're working on 28 what we call carrier aggregation. These are inter-band combinations. We want the carriers, to meet the data rates in one band. They want to work in multiple bands side of things. Terrible problem for the device. In terms of intermod problems and all of that. There's 5, 8 of them where they want to work inside the same band because the allocation of band is screwed. So huge amounts of things going on there. Huge amount of innovation happening in the cellular industry since we did the first release of WCMA released what's called release 29 back in 1999. We've now had essentially 8, actually 9 releases of 3GPP specs basically in the last roughly 13 and a half years. So there's huge amount because of volume of market. Everything's really going on so good. I've probably said enough here to talk about that spectrum. That's sort of like ASA when we're talking about ASA but we'll go back to that. So you didn't embarrass me at a slide. I was a government employee so three drivers I think for future technology. One, we're going to do spectrum sharing. Whether you like the gas report or some other framework it's a gigahertz spectrum available to share. We're fighting over 15 megahertz 1755. This is inevitable. What we call it, it only gets branded and it's going to happen. Second, we're going to have to Second, I'm looking at it. Right now we have domain managers that manage mostly homogeneous systems the carrier NTIA is only a domain manager we have to move to where they become heterogeneous where they don't have a single value system to oppose them. That's going to be our second challenge. And three, because someone has to go or say we don't have a spectrum crunch we have an infrastructure. Cellular capacity comes from infrastructure. We want a thousand times more capacity doubling spectrum gets you twice as much if you just replicate the infrastructure to get to a thousand times more capacity we essentially need a thousand times more. Whether they get Wi-Fi with the backhaul or the LTE seconders we are talking about spectrum policies that promote deploying extensive infrastructure. The LTE side has about a hundred megahertz sector. A Wi-Fi has about a hundred megahertz you need to put that meaning more of those out if you want a hundred times more capacity. You need a hundred times more of those. You don't necessarily need more spectrum. More spectrum certainly helps and I'm sorry sympathetic because the carrier is mourning it because it gives a lot of flexibility but the solution to capacity does not lie in spectrum it lies in the flexibility to reuse it because we have this change we are moving from building out cellular where we all wanted that little map to see if our house was covered to in building cellular to get capacity where we want to put a thousand access points where we want to have one or two so that's the challenge. What spectrum policies allow me to deploy extensive infrastructure not necessarily just LTE we've seen Wi-Fi ten years ago who would say Wi-Fi was carrying more capacity than the cellular networks but clearly new infrastructures new games have to come to this. So our spectrum policy shouldn't be just to shovel more spectrum into the same model that we use when we put amps out there or 3G it is to create a model that allows us to extensively deploy infrastructures wherever we have backbone to pass it I just love following this. So technology needs and implications I think there's five I came up with first let's I thought this was I see you like my solution first one I like BigBug, I like you I like BigBug, I like Obama one Let's think about not having a model with clearly partitions this is absolutely unlicensed this is absolutely licensed when we move into sharing we have an opportunity to create an ecosystem. If you're an engineer you would find it very hard to believe that the optimal system solution is perpetual licensing forever and absolute control and no control and no licensing and nothing at all. The solution lies in an ecosystem between the two don't know what the right answer is shouldn't try to predict that but we should look to policies that create an ecosystem of licensing models that is itself enabling more and more investment in this hundred times more infrastructure that we have to build right now we've developed a technology that is suited for unlicensed or at least is applied to unlicensed and we have LTE in the licensed world let's think that each of them has great virtues in that five or ten years from now they will have fused LTE adopted TD which works well in the Wi-Fi if I had a choice at home I would much rather have my access point operating in LTE mode with QoS authentication ability to work with a PSTM so we really we developed them because they were artifacts of policy they weren't technologically different and so as we remove the technology artifacts I think we should assume that we see a convergence of the air interface between what works well in the cellular world and what works well in the unlicensed world free automated coexistence if you are in the earlier meeting if you are an adventure capitalist here is the process that they'll put up to resolve conflicts let's factor you go down here you go down here did you invest in something that took this policy this many politicians if Google can do ad words in 20 milliseconds we should be thinking about coexistence not as a regulatory process going to the commission but how do we embed it in our devices and really allocate that down there's no way human beings can deal with coexistence as an n squared problem so I think next cell was one of our first big issues and we went almost a decade we dug out of the issues but we didn't resolve entity almost right away we got lights weird I would predict to you that we will see them on ever closer centers as we make more and more dense use of spectrum so the answer is not to try to create more paths into the FCC commission we have got a devolved this down into our systems for intuitable filters I love that, that's by a thousand dance so for 10 years I tried to get people to invest in intuitable filters bottom line is really difficult there's no market for military spots they only want to use them they buy 10, 20,000 a year cellular companies will laugh at you but LTE is the opportunity because what manufacturer wants to support all those permutations like Man on the Street interview we have to move so now there's an economic imperative to put intuitable filters into the cellular and the cellular is how we get cheap parts how we got the cheap soft filters when we move to intuitable filters not only is it enabling to solve a lot of the manufacturing problems in cellular it really opens up the opportunity now not to think about systems that are very very band limited and my last one is the Holy Grail which is we spend most of our time in spec from predicting worst case 10 to the minus third 10 to the minus fourth I looked at one of the filings on body area network it was standing on two mountain tops separated by Death Valley which I do not believe there are any hospitals but that's how we get done spec for management so if we really want to get best use of respect for resource there's 10 to a thousand times more capacity if we go from predicting interference the same you keep operating until you hurt me it's in LTE today because LTE has one domain manager but we need to take that out and think about it heterogeneously particularly not just comms to comms we always focus on that because comms guys think about comms guys but when we think about federal spectrum we're primarily driven by radars we want radars to say I'm being interfered with keep going up and up to me and up to me and then when I'm interfered with I'll tell you when you back off there's a massive amount of capacity there there's no way an engineer can predict propagation we can guesstimate it we can give you bounds but we can't predict it to make a real screen ouch and maybe 20 years ago that was impossible because people built standalone networks but just about no wireless network any of the things that we do today isn't connected to the internet and so this internet backbone that's available among all these wireless products provides us an opportunity to really change our vision of interferers as something we predict to get interference as something that we dynamically manage the panelists is ahead, so while we're going down the line again to just invite you to comment on what you've heard, so now's the time to start thinking while Millet is going to give us maybe a sense of what the core means for the architecture. Yeah, I think the goal of my next five minutes is to try to articulate what are the changes in cellular network architecture, and it doesn't necessarily have to be about cellular networking, it's any kind of wireless networking it may evolve in future that we may need to introduce. So let me sort of go down to the basics and come back from there. So if you look at our existing cellular systems, they are based on long-term license spectrum ownership model, where you get a spectrum license that's valid for very large duration, for very long time interval, and you pay lots of money for it. And by any stretch of imagination, that model has been highly successful. We've been able to deploy nationwide networks that have been providing services to millions of customers. And they are largely reliable, even though Commissioner mentioned in the morning that one out of every four base stations in New Jersey was down, but at least the 75% of the base stations were still on, when the rest of the other utilities, for example, were completely down, and I live in New Jersey, surprisingly and fortunately Verizon Wireless Service was impeccably up and running for me when everything else was not working. And that sliver of connectivity ensured that I could get the information that I needed, as and when I needed it. So going forward in some sense, this cellular model needs to be sustained, preserved, it doesn't need to, it will definitely evolve over time and the evolution will be slow. So if I had to step back a little bit and look at it from the operator standpoint, if I'm Verizon, if I'm E-Mobile, if I'm Sprint, what we are experiencing is tremendous growth in traffic growth, anywhere from 25 to 30% traffic growth in the next five years. And the only way you can cope with that traffic increase is to add more capacity to the mix in your network. And unfortunately, that comes with a certain cost that the operator has to incur. And unfortunately, the average revenue per user is not increasing as dramatically. So you have a tension between your investments required to increase capacity versus expected revenue stream that you can use. So in some sense, whatever assets you have, you have to squeeze more and more capacity out of it. So you are given an orange and your job is to squeeze more and more juice out of it. Yesterday you're maybe pressing it with an ad. Tomorrow you're going to use a handheld squeezer. And the next day you're going to get an electrical squeeze. But that squeezing unfortunately reaches a limit. And let me give you a spectrum-specific explanation. So if you are given a next mega spectrum, you can increase your bridge-to-sequence per efficiency. And also you can increase your area spectral efficiency, bridge-to-sequence per meter squared. So that's already happening. You're going to LTE and LTE advance in the long run. That's going to increase your bridge-to-sequence per curse. They're also resorting to small cells that my colleague from Polycom pointed out. So in some sense, those are the tools that you have in your food chest. But at the end of the day, when you don't have any spectrum, new spectrum available, you're going to use the same spectrum that is in your mattress or senior small cells. And that leads to significant interference interactions. And the challenge that poses is that in the long run, the denser and denser deployments lead to loss of efficiency. You could lead to higher cost, lesser gains. So at the end of the day, if you want more shoes, you need to buy more oranges. Similarly, you need to buy more spectrum. And the first order of business is to continue to find ways of reallocating new spectrum but in the absence of huge amounts of spectrum available in the old licensing model, we need to ask that question. Is there a way to modify the cellular architecture to successfully exploit what we call as statistically available spectrum? Essentially, spectrum that needs to be shared in space, time, and other dimensions. And given looking at that question and the answer may be tantalizingly yes. So if you have to use statistically available spectrum to improve cellular networks, what are the modifications you need to do to your cellular architecture? And we believe that first of all, the model that we need to look at is control sharing or lightweight control sharing as we call it, coordinated sharing. And implement that sharing option first of all in small cells. And I think control sharing can bring you a lot of advantages even from the primary standpoint. If you have a primary band that is federally owned and it's a sensitive use, effective sharing requires certain trust to be established between a primary and a secondary. So such trust establishment could be possible if you are resorting to a coordinated sharing model. Instead of a purely unlicensed model or a purely licensed model, we are looking at an intermediate model which is more for lightly controlled shared model. The natural question to ask is who should be implementing that sharing? In a technology sense, we don't need to answer that question. From a business sense, we need to answer that question as in the entity that coordinates the sharing, does it need to be divided by an operator? Does it need to be divided by, for lack of an easier example, grouping? Or should it be run by a government? But my contention is that over time, once the business incentives are in place, the technologies prove when those questions will probably be self-answered. Last but not the least, increasingly, what you need at the policy level is an innovation that I call formation of a policy operating system. Much like in a computer system, the operating system is giving you control to underline hardware for all the applications that run in the computer. Much the same way, various networks or various applications that are trying to access by the spectrum need to have a policy OS. That is, just the right amount rather than inordinate amount of control. So finding the right amount of control and automating it as a person or those who are pointing at machine driven policy enforcement is kind of the next technology innovation that needs to happen. So let me pause at this point. Great, thank you very much. Let's stop this and we can go. So one of the things that, the unfortunate thing is I think we're all going to be in complete agreement here. There's not going to be any argument. It's just not fun. Come on, press it. So, you know, earlier say something wrong. It's inevitable. So earlier today and for years now, I've been hearing people say, oh, cognitive radio is not going to happen. It's, you know, software defined with the radio, you know, that's overhiked. That's simply not true. And here's why. We've already are seeing and we continue to see the 3GPP community integrate all of these technologies, whether it's self-organized network, whether it's carrier aggregation, whatever it might be, smaller cell, all these things that the research community has been looking at the last two decades into the standards. And that just keeps continuing. And we're seeing more and more of this and we're really going to see more. Now, the pressing part of a very important point, which is it's one thing to do it within a contained environment, within a network, a carrier's network, is something very different to do it between networks. And that's going to be where we'll start seeing that kind of filling the void between pure licensed and pure unlicensed. And I think that's where we're going to start seeing some innovations in terms of potential policy. And I would love to see us as a technical policy community think more about that. What can we do to encourage better utilization of the spectrum through whether it's something like interference limits that PIRA is working on, whether it has to do with next-generation IEEE standards, which again adopt a lot of new and innovative ways of exploiting the spectrum space, or if it's kind of taking LTD 10, version 10, and putting it into a, inverting it into a heterogeneous model. I think all of these things start really breeding a much better spectral efficiency as you really start thinking about it across the panel. I just had two reactions and those relating, I think, to Preston, that this notion of doing things, increasing power to encourage, maybe implies, I think, that the device is a fairly sophisticated device. I don't see how that model works in what I would call the traditional unlicensed space where it's permissionless, where it's, you know, we call it permissionless innovation. In other words, if I have to go through figuring out how I'm going to talk back to somebody else to find out. I mean, that really constrains the type of products that I can have. How do we handle baby monitors, for example, in that environment? Does a baby monitor have to wake up and say, don't, don't respond anymore? Well, it will, because it requires building into that device connectivity that some devices may, may raise the cost of that device significantly. No, no, no, no, I'm trying to figure it out, but it's really good. But the fact is that the baby monitor I want now isn't the old-fashioned analog between two models. I don't want to grab my Wi-Fi network and put it stuff over there and disconnect it on the other end anyway. Like my VCR, my replacement for the VCR, my DVD, which goes on the Internet. So I used to think unlicensed meant simple. But then you take a look at 802.11 and AC, and very clearly with a sufficient number of parts, complexity is irrelevant. You just have to accept that if I'm going to make enough parts, I can make it as complex as I want in terms of protocols and such. And the benefit here is you're getting spectrum at much less cost. We now create, and trades basically have never created before, which is if you accept some dependence on a network, you get the opportunity to make use of spectrums and things like TV white space databases, the kind of extended TV white space that was a Vcast. So we allow an ecosystem to exist as I ask no permissions. I spent $30 billion or whatever the number was, $50 billion. And I bought the spectrum free and clear. I do whatever I want. And I have it the other end where I accept certain responsibilities to the community, but I'm getting my spectrum at much lower cost. It may be even exclusive use of it at that cost. There's a whole range in there. Experience says complexity becomes less of a burden with time and inexpensive involved media. And again, I keep thinking of Google AdWords, because Eric came to lecture this during Vcast. But, you know, I mean, it's incredible complexity. They run a mini auction with thousands of advertisers, with words, with history, with demographics, and get an answer within 20 milliseconds before you know it. So I think we should open the space and say, what we really want to do is give people the right to innovate on this whole line. And then be truly market-driven. Now, let's see which ones work. So let's go back to that. You had in the course, one of the things you did get to talk about was ASA, which is something that I think we've had a lot of problems with as well. Yeah. Peace, convergence, sharing. But before I do that, I'd like to make a couple of conflicts. Before I get to that, I'd like to make a couple of comments, though, on the LT versus Wi-Fi and then converging. I think there is, these are two very different examples. I think we need to think about that. Clearly, the cellular operators are using it all. We're clearly using both of them along. And there's going to be more and more integration at certain levels of Wi-Fi with the cellular network. There's major projects starting with 3GPP, there's been stuff going on, and even more so happening. But the point is, the cellular network is very much a managed operator-centric network. And as a result of that, it can get very, very high efficiencies, if it's per second, for a split kilometer to use that term. Because of that, and we spend a lot of effort in terms of technology and all that, and doing that very, trying to manage it. Wi-Fi network is totally different. It's sort of throwed up as is. The second network is going to get there, but there's still much more of the control traditionally of the user, the homeowner, the enterprise, and all of that. And that's, I think, one of the big differences there. And so there's a certain class in my view of traffic that really works well over Wi-Fi, i.e. stuff running around my home, or my office, and then there's stuff that really works well on cellular. And I think we need to think about that. And maybe at some point it emerged, but I don't see that right now in the same sense. Other than the use of Wi-Fi in a hot spot type environment for cellular technology. I think this is one of the reasons why the carriers should want to bring the management, so for example, you were correct with management, but look how many carriers are rolling out Wi-Fi networks. Why would you want to accept that they roll out a Wi-Fi network and it's total energy, and they roll out an LTE femtosome network and it's totally controlled? Because you have only zero or one either license or a license, you have nothing in between that can allow you to have a better access than Wi-Fi and a sub-job to potentially create that reality. So in the absence of any other reality, I had to go to Wi-Fi at my last reading option, right? But not as what you would desire ten years out. Needs the mother of invention, so I think if I need to use Wi-Fi, I will use Wi-Fi. If there's a better option, and if I create that better option. I'm sure there are willing users for that multi-net universe is how I would put it. Now one of the things you talked about when you start with a network where it's very loosely controlled, so we have this conversation that Ajay had just mentioned, so there's very loose control and over time as the traffic goes up, as the experience goes up, you want to put more control on it. Can you just explain how that works and for whom? Is that in a piece of exclusive life perspective or can you actually transition from something that is normally unlicensed? So it's a model where you're kind of relaxing the existing license part but at the same time, you're constraining the unlicensed model and trying to think of it. So in existing a license model, you own the spectrum, you're the only player. It's like my backyard in the house. I'm the only one who can go and use it. The unlicensed model is the public part. My kid and 100 other kids can come and play. At the same time, there's no real control I can enforce. But is there an overseeing entity that I can put in, essentially a control entity that sits at the entrance of the park and says, I'm going to allow only 100 people on Sunday because that's what my part is supposed to be. And I'm basically spatially temporary and in other dimensions, monitor the system and start exercising more control if need be. So that control entity is the one, essentially dynamically moving the pendulum if you want to call it so. Now, essentially what you're doing is you're moving the complexity from within networking to somewhat a centralized entity where the reporting of network dynamics is being shared and that decisions are being made. So that's an architectural change that you're putting into your network. Unlike the existing cellular system which has fully centralized control and fully centralized data is unlicensed, it's fully distributed. Can you reduce the control on the cellular side and add a little bit more less chaos and analysis to bring in more sedentiality? So my question is, what do you do with the people who don't live in a park? Unfortunately, we have a penalty club and we have a public park. So I think it's sort of, there's a sure fairness access issue but all things exist in life. I think you have your own backyard, you have a public park and you have a penalty club. So I think based on the quality of experience you're willing to pay, you exercise a different type of control which is what I was just saying. So does it have to be a control architecture that transcends all bands? It could be a band specific architecture. Well, this reminds me of a proposal that many people have made and Tom Lester comes to mind where he says, you know, if you guys over on the west coast and so don't know about unlicensed, why don't you just buy some spectrum of auction? Buy yourself some land, build yourself a park and significant control if you need to, the number of people that goes in there. But that data place begins to sound like exactly what's arising in those guys to do. So is there a, is there a problem, what is the middle point between these two models? So we have to pick a middle point. But we should create the ecosystem and the market beside the middle point. We should commit though to creating alternatives between the two extremes. So what is the point that this system needs to be created? So, you know, like Pete asked before about how it's that people could buy spectrum for short periods of time. Basically, you could buy spectrum for equivalent times the amortization of the equipment. So this is a three-year piece of equipment. I'm going to throw it out. I may only want to be in that business in three years. So I could get spectrum for three years and I might have been subject to constraints and I could create the kind of comments that today I run for pretty uneconomical to go and say I'm going to buy a percentual perpetuity. So I think that's the kind of experimentation. We experiment with technology, but we haven't really figured out what we can experiment with licensing models. So one more comment. We've got a couple of comments. What I'd like to do, let me just keep something up while you're thinking. I want to move to Q&A. We've got 15 minutes. I'd like to get some input from the audience. But since there are so many smart people with lots of good ideas, what I'm going to ask you to do, if you have a question or a comment, please come to the mic. And we'll queue up a couple of comments in a row and then have the panel respond. So one quick comment is in the compendium of white papers that there's a fascinating paper that talks about traffic in Calcutta. I never lived in Calcutta, but I know about the traffic in Calcutta. And it makes a case that how the traffic kind of self-organizes itself and things still move, right? But at the same time, we don't aspire to have that as the role model for organizing traffic. So we prefer having some structure. We prefer having some control, right? So my contention is that the unlicense is a little bit like, or it has a potential of becoming like a traffic in Calcutta, where it's essentially a traffic that things move. But when you need it, when it's really densely populated, when it's really densely integrated together, you may not get the best quality affection. So you need to institute some moment of structure and control. And it doesn't have to be the fully licensed model of structure, where it could be something better than this kind of where I'm coming from. Yeah, my first comment about after spending some time in India, I think traffic moves quite bomb the place at the most part. So I don't think we would ever want to hold that up as... it's the worst Wi-Fi network imagine. All the way straight forward. But one of the things that I do want to bring up is I think, something that I did bring up in my white paper was really talking about what we call authorized shared access. Or where I think there's a possibility, and I think where we can take some of the spectrum that the federal government does have and really try to reuse it in a much more automated way. And this may work better for the licensed space, but it could also work for unlicensed also. Why I say licensed there is that you're dealing with maybe entities. So it's an easier negotiation or something like that with, say, a cellular operator, someone like that with fur government agents or something like that. But I think we can do that, and particularly when you start looking at a small cell paradigm, I think that really becomes quite good. And we've been working, and there's also activities now, of course happening in Europe on the same thing. One of the other things relative to this debt by a thousand cuts spectrum is that you can also somehow find spectrum which is being used in other parts of the world. But we may have a constraint because the federal use each year, but maybe it's not a full country constraint because there's value there. And along that line, you do need to do something that's long enough that there's certainty in being able to deploy. So my three-year throwaway equipment really does not work very well. How many people have over a three-year-old Wi-Fi hotspot in their house? How many have replaced it every couple of years? No, I'm saying a lot. Three years works for me. It's probably because you went from a B to a B. No, I've got everyone in this room. That's my wife. So we're going to move to Q&A. Do you have one question or any other questions? Please go ahead. This question is for Doug. A very wise person once told me a spectrum is sexy, but wire line is not. I think part of the problem that we alluded to is the fact that we do a backbone problem. We have a special access to the problem. And the question I have for you and for some of the other panelists is how do you start to break down the well-known silos both at the FCC Department of Commerce that is perpetuating this is wireless, this is wire line, and this is something else. Because we're not going to solve all of the problems that we alluded to unless there's a slightly more holistic approach to fixing these things. I couldn't agree more. And this is one of those things that the national broadband plan tried to wrestle with. Trying to think about this hybrid networks. The idea that wireless is going to terminate quickly on the fiber and how to encourage both of those resources and all the other issues of the backhaul that might be around it. I don't know how much the silos of the commission impact that and perpetuate it. There is a sense of competition sometimes between the different bureaus and offices I've seen. But I think there is a sense that broadband is the goal and that broadband is over wire line and wireless. I don't know beyond thinking at the chairman's level or maybe at the White House. I don't know how that breaks down either into an NTIA issue. Because when I look at the broadband VTOP program that was looking clearly at wire line and wireless it was really trying to push fiber because they saw the holes. And I guess that would be the thing that I would argue which is not allowing one to help ease the other and you'd hope that the business drivers would keep up with that. Dale, do you have a... Good. So we have two more questions. So what I suggest is if I introduce myself we'll have the second question as well. And we'll come to the top. I guess one of my things the discussion today in a lot of spectrum it seems like mobile broadband is kind of like the toy that I used to distract my dog when I wanted to think about something else. And kind of what I'm hearing in this discussion is that we're getting more and more focus on small cells and that kind of carries away from the carrier centric focus a little bit more towards heterogeneous networks that maybe are not necessarily carrier centric that are operated by smaller operators almost like viral broadband deployed by many operators that have been opened up beyond carriers to like Apple or Google or Amazon if they want to sell their own service of devices that can go to the heterogeneous network like that. That's something I really seem to discuss. Can you guys provide any comment on that as that's something to see as being a possible one? Right, but a question about viral network it's a DM I appreciate it I'd like to hear a little more from Ed and Millan in response to the rest of the vision of LTE leading the way to internal wars. Right, so two questions there coming back to my next question I mean I go first I think you're actually right I think the cost of the wastage goes down and if the backfill is right you have a little it kind of empowers environment models that here before were not possible so here before you needed to have a large spectrum of space you needed to have a wider side and you deployed a large space station so will that lead to a market disruption where in addition to the existing players whether it will lead to emergence of more utility players that are very regional very focused, very local it not you will definitely enable that whether the market reality leads to answer that question but I think as to the technologies they said that deployment model and therefore that kind of market reality can definitely emerge So Matt I think if you take my view that wireless capacity is a function of infrastructure not spectrum then the more people who are contributing infrastructure and the more flexible business models the better we are going to meet with a hundred or more times capacity so I think there is an opportunity in there whether it makes business sense or not other people's lead will they take the question and to Bruce they should agree Any other thoughts? Well let me just make one comment that came up the first was sort of talking about carrier centered networks and things like that I think when you go to small cells it still can be quite carrier centered interesting models for entrepreneurs in the sense that somebody could basically put in small cells an ability for money building and then basically sell that capacity off to basically run grocery networks and so I think these are tremendous opportunities out there for more innovation of business nature 30 seconds I think in addition to it's almost like a cost to the base station it's important as the backhook because the backhook becomes a dominant driving factor if you have an asset that allows you to either a wire line or even a wireless backhook all of a sudden you have a different advantage that you can claim in such a unique way Good so Yeah It's interesting I think this model of because there's a lot of wireless companies not trying to figure out how to get an in building and they're starting some companies that are spading up as that's what they needed One of my concerns is I have a friend who did the same sort of thing in the wire line space years ago and of course the outcome was he got bought by a very large company and it went from competition to one or two players so is that what's going to happen if it's what if it's what if it's something that's more user-based I don't know what that might have been meaning but as opposed to a company that provides is there an opportunity for this to be a bottom up model of users actually users coming together is a federated model of access to their base stations Good so we're getting to the point of wrapping up now sharing final thoughts the kind of thing that I'm quite interested in knowing but that's what would make me rich if they told me this on the wire what is cooking right now one of the things that's interesting thinking back ten years is that the Ice Band conference and a number of people here being involved is just getting going and it took ten years but there were people in the community who knew dynamic spectrum access but that's out of confidence so is there anything cooking right now that policy makers in DC shouldn't start thinking about my sense is that we've heard a little bit about that today and I've been very interested by this notion of fusion the sense that there is some sort of convergence it looks as if it's going to be technical before it's regulatory that way you take more of the thoughts but I'll start looking this time I mean here in my direction here I'll start on that and then you follow up on this for the future I think I think I had to admit that I'm wearing the hat of a researcher not a businessman or a person from a product division so demonstrating technologies in the lab and doing the technology innovation I would almost say is the easy part it becomes naturally to me but I think transitioning this technology of sharing integrating that in a cellular way for a new type of wireless network where the notion of license is diminishing where the notion of capacity creation is what is more dominant how that evolution will happen I think squarely depends on business incentives that need to be in place and investment incentives need to be in place and I think one thing that's lacking is compared to where there's no real policy hurdle that you need to come up with because there's no primary there's no primary owner of a fiber bundle you can go and deploy a fiber bundle but before you can do wireless you need spectrum access and spectrum access is controlled by a regulatory authority so that policy hurdle until that is removed is unsightly that keeps swirling around what I can create in lab whether it will appear in a real wireless network or not and how soon it will appear I think that's not going away I think it was Dharku mentioned so that leadership at the policy level is very very critical where rather than just focusing on a consensus based approach of listening to people and coming up with a decision somebody at the agency needs to have maybe it's harder to do than I'm articulating it but a bit more on leadership at the policy authority level that we need to have I would say good thank you so you know Chris got from McCabe and his people have been 20 minutes at 20 words at the beginning so one minute each hold on policy makers shouldn't mistake what are their induced distortion from what are intrinsic in a technology like the unlicensed versus licensed is an argument that only came about because policy makers partitioned it and they should be very willing to go back and not think about developing two ecosystems but to think about how we can take those ecosystems apart and let the market make them much more fungible the technology can move things around now and the regulation really has boxed them into little little segments and they're far from optimal yeah I'm going to sort of stick to this licensed unlicensed because I think it's out of my habit well it's just and I'm not doing this but one of the things that I heard earlier is we need to make steps forward and if we spend all of our time arguing about possible new models things like that maybe we're going to get nowhere but the point is on some of these totally different models what I was starting to say is that I think there's a need for licensed and unlicensed operation as well as some of these things that I was talking about is I guess the operation thanks well I'm a broken record here I think all of this depends upon steadily increasing performance of receivers and even with precedent sort of model you know you can move around and you know if the person has got a 10 megahertz channel and they're claiming 200 megahertz on either side you know it's still good even if you've been avoiding them you're still really encumbering an awful lot of spectrum so I know I'm a broken record but we really do need to get our hands on the receiver problem I think to make get that kind of spectrum utilization we need to accommodate the problem you got the world for it so if I put on my professor gown back in Colorado I build radios and I measure how those radios perform and I also play a lot of protocols and when I turn this off I want to come back to what I said before which is I'm seeing so much of these technical innovations being incorporated at multiple levels into what we think of as licensed services as well as own license services and I see a convergence here and when I say that what I see is that everyone's trying to get more and more efficient use out of the spectrum because they need it for the demand and they're going to need the fiber obviously and Richard pointed out on the back end so the point that I want to make is I don't think we can even predict what radios networks are going to look like ten years from now I'm sure there's going to be a contender of genius I'm sure there's going to be a lot of these things but I think it's going to be much more coordinated even in the unlicensed bands than it is that's great wonderful so thank you very much for the partners