They seem to have found the right landing spot on a couple of decisions. There are a couple of pieces i would take issue with that will articulate that in coming days. Iser one issue reported that it doesnt preempt states from doing their own thing. Commissioner orielly as i read the piece, it is not a proactive preemption structure. It still allows challenges to states where the item would be in conflict with our rules. It will lead to more statebystate challenges, casebycase challenges, than the overall, overarching one i was hoping for. Because what you are going to see is, a number of states have already acted in doing certain things i disagree with, you will see others jump in, and having 50 different states pull us in different directions, some with Net Neutrality one way, some with Net Neutrality another way, is not what the structure should be. Not interstate commerce. Its why we have an interstate commerce clause, and it is not something they have expertise in. Structure,nition, my my analysis of the architecture, there is no intrastate traffic on the internet. Peter joining us to drill down into this case and other issues from cq roll call who covers technology and telecom. About the Net Neutrality case, what are your concerns . You talk about statebystate than they would be potentially litigated on a statebystate basis. What do you mean by casebycase and what do you see is the top issues you would confront . Commissioner orielly some states have gone after the procurement side, some have an entire regime based on rules we struck down down replaced with our recent action, so i dont know what the particular state activity would be, but if it runs counter to our policy we would likely challenge that activity under our authority. So it would be under a statebystate basis rather than, here is the governance for traffic on the internet and Internet Access and broadband access, and we are going to have to deal with it at the federal side. Now we will get more litigants, more lawyers, probably more legal challenges. You already mentioned states are looking at differently. Can you lay out how they have already been shaping up . Commissioner orielly it depends on the state. They all have a different nuance to them. That is exactly why our founders had the establishment of the state commerce clause. It is for that situation where traffic is interstate in nature and now you have 50 states pulling us in different ways based on their peculiarities in the state. Some are going after procurement, some go after the full enchilada, so we try to answer this question proactively, which is the right activity and defensible. The morty the minority opinion was articulated well but didnt win at this juncture, but there is many more rounds, i am sure. Gopal how does it play out . We are now on the verge of the 5g era. How do you think this decision in the way the court framed it play into how the 5g architecture comes about . Commissioner orielly i only had an hour with the decision and havent digested it yet. It does get to the issue of preemption, the matter i have talked about. We need preemptive activity to have a fulsome 5g rollout. Govern the wireless side of the equation and i envisioned that will be challenged. It has been challenged once. We take further action, that will be challenged in the courts. So it is a long litigation i had a lot of activity for lawyers. Peter in these early hours after the decision, the California California can move forward at this point, correct . Commissioner orielly you could say their reading of the decision has been proactively preempted, but we are still going to have a challenge to that decision as well as others that those affected. Peter you think the majority on the fcc will challenge that . Commissioner orielly it absolutely has to. Otherwise you get the lowest common denominator. Whatever state wants to be the most active, aggressive, backwards looking from a Net Neutrality perspective will become whatever he has to follow. Its not something you just offer in one particular area, it is a network of networks. Providers are trying to offer service nationwide, not every instance, but most instances you are Offering Service nationwide or in many states. A boundary of a state which may have been decided hundreds of years ago, based on geography or some military conflict, i think that is where one decision goes this way and one goes that way and it is just artificial. Gopal i want to talk more about the 5g aspect of your work and the commission. There has been a lot of criticism in the last several months of how the commission has gone about optioning the spectrum, and some of your colleagues on the commission have also said it has been focused too much on the socalled high end of the spectrum, and not enough of the midband spectrum. Is that a valid criticism . Commissioner orielly i disagree with the criticism. What i have tried to do is address the issue. I spent the last three years working to make midband a priority of the commission. I spent a ton of time in the Previous Commission in my early years working on highbandwidth tom wheeler and getting the right portfolio is out there. Conversationr of about mid bands. I was one of the early people to recognize we have to spend time on midband. I was screaming mid bands earlier and helped change the process from within, working with colleagues, working with the chairman to get midband. We Just Announced the auction for pb rs last week. In terms of working with other agencies, talk a little more about that process. Is that process working as it should and it has in the past . Or is it breaking down and there is an coordination between different agencies . Commissioner orielly each administration is different. This has been more contentious than in the past. All spectrum issues are more complex. They arent easy decisions anymore. Every band we look at today for new Wireless Service is something that is going to potentially alter somebody else, whether they are nearby or in the band today. We have to deal with that reality. That makes some agencies jittery about things they use the service for. We are an independent Regulatory Agency that has a statute that governs our activity and we are also governed by the record. We respect agencies and their views but their licenses are governed in some instances buy an ka artwork through an ka work through some instances nka. A, and work through speaking of how differences get worked out, there has been a lot of reporting i and others have done a, both saying a decision by the commission to allocate one of the bands of 5g could interfere with weather forecasting. People from the fcc have said that is not necessarily the case. Help us understand where the differences could have emerged, or where a different set of models used by the commission that the agencies didnt understand. Commissioner orielly we are looking at a protection standard and what is the right landing spot on a protection standard. We had agreement among federal agencies for a number of years and just before our federal auction this year on the 24 gigahertz, they said we have differences and we are going to take them internationally, wrc 19 in egypt. We disagree with that analysis. We are talking about passive bands that are adjacent and this is something our technical post our technical folks went through, what the needs are. Their studies were troubled. In one instance they were counting on a sensor on a satellite that didnt even exist. I have difficulty with what they raised and certainly they used the political process to further their cause and it is more difficult to get possible resolution in the matter. Agenda for is the the next set of auctions . Commissioner orielly we are moving forward to auction off midband spectrum. We are working hard to complete the broad deck to complete the process on cbrs, the auction starts june 2020. We are working hard to include a bsolution on see band on c and. We hope to have a revolution have a resolution. The chairman is optimistic for this fall. I think at least 300 megahertz are going to be available for new 5g Wireless Services in the United States to complete globally with other countries countriese other trying to outrace us to be first in wireless technologies. We will have a two. Five gigahertz auction at some point. That will keep us going for a while. We will operate in auction as it relates to universal service to mixer subsidies we put out to make sure broadband gets to the hardest to reach areas of america are done in an efficient way and we are waiting to schedule that auction. Peter is that to address the urbanrural divide . Commissioner orielly it is. It is not just urbanrural. Different pockets in the u. S. Dont have service today. Most of those are in Rural America. Anyone who doesnt have service should and we are trying to make that available. About 3. 5, Just Announced. Some colleagues on your commission have said that needs to be advanced, and we shouldnt wait until next year. And in fact, some of the midband should be auctioned ahead of the more highend spectrum in the pipeline. Do you agree . Do you agree the midband auction should be advanced ahead of the other ones . Commissioner orielly i dont think at this point we would change the timing. We have announced a date, therefore people raise capital, make Business Model decisions, work with partners, figure out offerings, things of that nature. But have i articulated internally that we should have sped up a midband auction . Absolutely. I have made that point publicly and privately. But once a decision is made, and we have an option scheduled for december of this year for bands 39, and 47, once that is in place, we have to move forward. Gopal you talked about midband and the need, but is the criticism valid that if most of the United States 5g network is going to build on these high band waves, it ends up being more expensive and could exacerbate the ruralurban divide because Telecom Providers are not going to go into sparsely half and populated rural areas with the millimeter wave. Is that a valid criticism . Commissioner orielly i dont think the heart of the 5g network is going to be high band. The heart is going to be midband. We are trying to move forward as fast as possible with midband. A number of providers already have midband spectrum available and have low band that they are dragging into midband capabilities as best they can. Some limitations on distance and the technology is improving on a daytoday basis. Im not sure that serves urban settings. Highdensity i bands will be wonderful what they offer. They might not be the best thing in Rural America and the short term. That is the reason for my push to make the situation better, work with what we have, work to progress the situation and not just throw bombs. Peter there has been some experimentation and 5g by different companies. When will it be readily available nationwide . Commissioner orielly it is more than just testing. We have had some deployments. It is a small scale at the current time, but it is exciting what it is going to be. We are aware of where it may take us in wireless, but it is going to be a slow progression. Because in the past, a new g. Ill replace the old g in this case, 4g will remain in 5g will be built on top of it and 4g will continue to advance in terms of speed and capabilities. They will work simultaneously and in partnership. You will see it develop and does things mature, all of a sudden you will realize, im getting 5g speed. But it is not going to be Something Like a eureka moment that of her buddy gets turned on at the same time. Peter what is the fcc approach when it comes to new antennas for 5g . Commissioner orielly we are working hard with localities and states that want to be helpful in deploying the networks of the future on the wireless side. And there are many. I would say most localities and states recognize the benefits and that their Consumers Want these technologies, but there are definitely some that are not of the mind and are trying to use the opportunity to either control power or money. They want to extract money out of the situation and charge thousands of dollars. That is not acceptable. I have testified in front of congress that we need to preempt those situations under the authority given. A number of likely challenges, it has already been challenged, and we will see where we land. But at some point i imagine congress will answer the question, what is our authority in the space, and if they want us to have a preeminent position in the world in terms of wireless technology, we may have to continue to push localities that are not doing the right thing out of the way. Talked about the decision on equity pulse the fcc made, that has been challenged, one of the challenges is new york. There were also members of congress who have said the the commissions decision was taking away states rights. How do you expect those differences to be resolved . Commissioner orielly i worked in regional provisions in my past life on capitol hill and have regard for the statute and what it intended at the time. I have difficulty when people fight on the issue of aesthetics. Decided wengress will have it on the federal level and is not something every localities going to say, is that pole pretty enough . Thats not acceptable. Same with our frequency in mission that is dedicated by in additionhe fcc, to our medical entities. It is not a state by state or locality by locality deciding what is the rf emission acceptable level. In terms of placement towers, we are trying to build Networking Services to americans who really want them. That causes some strife with some ocalan hes either trying to control the power or want the money. We have to deal with that. That is why i am here at my job. Peter commissioner, it sounds like it has been a frustrating part of the employment for it of the deployment for you. Commissioner orielly very much so, something ive worked on for almost when he five years and forth. Up earlierbrought this big conference coming up in egypt at the end of october. Im told it is like the United Nations of the world radio spectrum, all of countries of the world all of the countries of the world getting together every four years. Commissioner orielly kind of like the spectrum olympics. Gopal spectrum olympics, even better. What do you expect to come out of this . Im hearing this will be a pivotal gathering where all the countries will decide how they whatdeploy 5g, and spectrum goes to respective countries. Commissioner orielly i was at and have a good basis of what i expect out of this round in egypt. Im hopeful the World Community will recognize the need for additional bands for mobile services globally. There are benefits in terms of harmonization, cost to manufacture, consumer ease, all the things that come with having a harmonized band globally. But if the International Community doesnt come to a resolution in egypt, and we arent able to make more bands, the u. S. Will look at other countries and has in other instances, two countries that are of a like mind, to move forward separate. We have an opportunity to cat very proactive and aggressive and have new bands available for wireless growth in the world. If the process does not work, the u. S. Will likely look elsewhere in a different structure. Differenceider the between the u. N. And other structures we use today. Gopal so you say there is a possibility that in this conference, there may not be unanimous he, and the United States might have to seek other countries . Commissioner orielly the United States is in a good position to work with colleagues and come up with resolution on a number of bands that are important, you mentioned 24 gigahertz, we will make resolution on that in our region. Think we can defend those Solutions Globally and i think we can defend those decisions globally. It absent of that route, the u. S. Will look forward because we are not going to stop wireless progress in the united for countries that, in my estimation it was based on competitive reasons, they werent ready come they didnt have the capital to move forward in the United States did because they werent ready at the time. Working withbout our geographical neighbors, canada, mexico, the caribbean . Is there a unanimous position on u. S. Policy . Commissioner orielly we work hard with regional partners. I was in ottawa for this purpose. We talked to regional partners, canadian friends, and found landing spots on all the different issues. I have worked aggressively with our friends in mexico. The caribbean has been active in spectrum issues. We try to find commonality in our region and take deposition and november. Ber peter i want to ask you about a Court Decision that came down on media ownership, and i want to quote from the decision. This was against the fcc. Did not adequately consider the effect of its sweeping media ownership changes and the effect that will have on broadcast media, women and racial minorities. Commissioner orielly i disagree with it. This is something the Third Circuit sent back to the fcc four times. There is no amount of evidence or data we can give them. Multiple administrations, republican and democrat, all administrations have not and able to get past the threshold the Third Circuit has set. We should challenge it in another forum, or gourd of the Supreme Court which i ultimately think we will have to do or go to the Supreme Court, which i ultimately think we will have to do. I disagree with their premise because it is locking in the status quote, which is not reflective of the media marketplace today. The marketplace today is not the same one when we wrote the original provision in 19 95th in 1995. The marketplace is much more dynamic and we need to reflect that. That is what we are trying to do. They have put up roadblocks for this purpose, the status qu