Probably would take issues with them and articulate that in the coming days. Host one of those issues is that it doesnt preempt states from doing their own thing. Guest as i read the piece, its not a proactive preemption structure. Still allows the commission to go forward and challenge states where the item would be in conflict with our rules. So i think its going to lead to more state by state challenges, a case by case challenge, if you will, than the overall arching one that i was hoping for. I think what youre going to see is a number of states is have done things that i disagree with, and having 50 different states pull us in Different Directions is not what, you know, the structure should be. Its not interstate commerce. Its why we have an interstate Commerce Clause are, in by opinion, and its not something they have expertise in, because theyre supposed to be governing intrastate traffic. And there is no intrastate traffic on the internet. Host joining us to drill down into this case and other issues is gopal ratnam of cq roll call who covers technology and telecom. Thank you. Interesting, telecom on the top about the Net Neutrality case, what are your concerns . I mean, you talk about how some, you know, state by state, and itll be potentially late gated on the lit gated on a case by case basis. Can you talk about what do you mean by case by case, and what do you see as the top issues youre going to be hooking at. Guest some states have gone after the procurement side, some have enacted their entire regime based on the rules we struck down and replaced with our recent action, so i dont know what particular state activity would be. But if it runs counter to what were trying to do with our policy, well likely have to challenge that activity under our authority. Itll be more of a state by state basis rather than here is the governance for traffic on the internet, Internet Access and broadband access, is and were going to have to teal with that on the federal side. Were going to get many more litigants, more lawyers, more legal challenges. You already mentioned theres some states looking at it one way and some others looking at it differently. Can you lay that out in terms of how theyve been shaping up . Guest well, it depends on the state. They all have a little bit of nuance to them, and thats exactly why we havent, you know, our founders havent established an interstate Commerce Clause. Traffic is interstate in nature, and now youre having 50 different states pull us in different ways based on their particular peculiarities in the state. Some are going after procurement, some going after the full enchi lad a that, if were trying to we try to write certainty, try to answer this activity proactively, in my opinion. I think the minority opinion actually articulated this pretty pretty well. It didnt win at this particular junction, but theres many more rounds, im sure, in the overall debate. Obviously, were now on the verge of the 5g era. How do you think this particular decision and the way the court has framed it play into how the whole 5g architecture comes about . Guest in fairness, ive only had an hour with it. I think it does get to matter ive talked about, were going to need proactive activities. There are statutes that govern those, the wireless side of the equation, so i envision that will be something that will be challenged, and its a long litigation ahead, a lot of activity for lawyers. Host so, commissioner, in these early hours after the decision, the california, california can move forward at this point, correct if. Guest what i think you can say is their reading of the decision, theyre not proactively preempted. But were still going to have an opportunity to challenge that decision as well as, you know, others, those affected. Host do you think that the fcc, the majority on the fcc will challenge that this. Guest i think it has to. Otherwise, you get the lowest common denominator. Whatever state wants to be the most active, aggressive, backwardshooking Net Neutrality perspective, most every provider will have to follow. Its not something you offer in just one particular area. Its a network of networks x providers are trying to offer service neigh nationwide or at least in many different states. A particular boundary of a state which may have been sited hundreds of years ago based on geography or military conflict and, its just artificial, in my opinion. I want to talk a little bit more into the 5g aspect of your work expect commission. Theres been a lot of criticism in the last several months of how the commission has gone about, you know, a augustses the spectrum. Auctioning the spectrum. Some of your colleagues are also said its been focused on the high end of the spectrum and not enough of the midband spectrum. Is that a valid criticism . How would you respond to that . Guest i disagree, but a identify spent the last three years trying to make midband a priority of the commission. Ive spent a ton of time in the Previous Commission in my early years there working on ooh high bands with tom wheeler and getting the right portfolios out there. I was one of the early, you know, people to recognize we have to spend time on midband. I was out there screaming midbands early and helped change the process within working with my colleagues, the chairman, to get midbands able for auction. We Just Announced the auction for cbrs last week. In terms of working with oh agencies, talk about how the process is that process working as it should and it has in the past, or is it kind of breaking down, if there isnt enough coordination between the different agencies . Decision by the commission to allocate one of the bands for 5g could potentially interfere with weather forecasting. I think people from the fcc have said thats not necessarily the case, so can you help us understand where that distinction, where the differences could emerge . Was it the different set of models used by the commission that the other agencies didnt quite understand . Well, look, were looking at a protection standard, what is the light landing right landing spot. And weve been working on that for a long while. We had agreement amongst the federal agencies for a number of years, and just before our auction this year on the 24 gigahertz, they raised their hand and said, oh, we have differences here, and were going to the take them nationally, egypt. We disagreed with that analysis. We conduct our work, and were not talking about something that theyre in 24, were talking about pass weve bands that are adjacent. Okay. Guest this is something our technical folks have gone through. I found that their studies were lacking and troubled. In one instance, they were counting on a sensor of a satellite that didnt actually exist. So i have difficulties, and certainly theyve used the political process in d. C. To further their cause, and thats more difficult to get possible resolution in the matter. Host so whats the agenda for the next set of auctions . Guest well, look, we are moving forward to auction off midband spectrum. Were working hard to complete the process on cbrs, 3. 553. 7 to make those licenses available. Auction starts june 25th of 2020. Were working really hard to conclude whats known as the c band. Ive worked extensively to make that happen. We hope to have a resolution, the chairman says hes optimistic this fall. Depending on the outcome, 500 megahertz or a good portion, at least 300 are going to be available for new 5g Wireless Services in the United States to complete globally with other countries that are trying to erase us to be the first. So we have a number of things that were working forward. Therell be a 2. 5 gigahertz auction at some point, and thatll keep us going for a while. On top of that, were going to try to operate auction as it relates to our universal service dollars to make sure the subsidies we put out the make sure broadband gets to the hardest reach parts of america are done in an efficient way, and were just waiting to schedule that. Host is that going to help address the urbanrural . Guest it is, you know, it is not just urbanrural, there are different pockets of the United States that dont have serviced today. Most of those are in rural america, and were working very hard to end anyone that doesnt have service should have service, and were trying to make aha available. You talked about the 3. 5 announced just recently, but some of your colleagues on the commission have said that 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 thats in the pipeline. Do you agree with that, that we need to speed up, although the chairman has said all of the above auctions, but do you agree it should be sped up in advance of the other ones . Guest i dont think at this point we would change the timing. Weve announced a date and, therefore, time for people to raise capital, make Business Model decisions, figure out the right offerings, things of that nature. But have i articulated internally that we should have sped up the midband auction . Absolutely. Ive made that point publicly and privately that we should but once a decision is made and we have an auction scheduled for december of this year, once those are in place, we need to move forward. I mean, youve, you talked about the need for midband, but is the create schism valid that criticism valid that most to have United States 5g network is built on millimeter waves, it ends up being more expensive and it could potentially exacerbate the ruralurban divide because the Telecom Providers are not going to go into sparsely populated areas, is that a valid criticism . Guest i dont think the heart of the 5g network is going to be all high band. I think the heart is going to be mid band. The number of providers already have some midband spectrum available, or theyre using lowband and dragging that in the best they can. High bands have been productive in terms of the capacity they can hold, they have some limitations on distance, and the technologys improving on a day by day basis. Im not sure highband settings are going to be wonderful in urban settings. They may not be the best fitting in rural, in the short term. I think the role of commissioners, in my opinion, is to make the situation better and try to work with what we have if work to progress and work to progress the situation and not just host commissioner orielly, theres been some experimentation with 5g by different companies. What have you seen and when do you think it will be readily available nationwide . Guest weve had some deployments too. Its more than just testing. It is on small scale at the current time, but its exciting what its going to be and where it may take us wire helessly wi. Its going to be a a slow progression, because normally in the past the new g replaced the old g. 5gs going to be built on top of it, 4gs going to continue to advance in terms of speed and capability, so the two are going to work simultaneously and in partnership, and so i think youre going to see it develop, you know, as things mature, and all of a sudden you realize, oh, im getting 5g speed. Its not going to be something thats a eureka moment that everyone gets turned on at the same time. Thats not likely to happen. Host whats the fccs approach when it comes to pole attachments if new an ten in and antennas . Guest most, i would say most localities, states recognize the benefits that their Consumers Want these technologies, but there are definitely some that are not of the mind and are trying to use the opportunity either to control power or money. They want to extract as much money as the situation and charging thousands of dollars for different connections. Thats not acceptable, in my opinion. I have testified in front of congress that we will need to preempt those situations under authorities given. In a number of instances, that will likely be challenged, and well have to see where the a hay of the land is. But at some point i imagine the congress is going to have to answer the question what is our authority in this space, and if they want us to have a preeminent position in a world in terms of wire he is technologies wireless technologies, were going to have to continue to push localities that are not doing the right thing out of the way. You talk about the poles and thats being challenged, and i think you mentioned that. I think one of this them is new york. And there are also some members of congress who have felt the commissions decision was sort of taking away the states rights. How do you expect the sort of differences to be resolved . Guest well, look, i work in some of the original positions in my past life, so i have a regard for the statute and whats expected, what was intended at the time. I have difficulty when people fight on the issue of aesthetics. That was left to the congress that we were going to decide it on a federal level. Is that pole pretty enough for my locality, thats not going to be acceptable behavior. Same thing with radio frequency emission. That was something that was going to be dedicated and is dedicated by statute to the fcc, not based in addition to our medical entities. Its not something that were having a state by state or locality by locality what deciding whats the proper rf level. Were trying to build a network and get services deployed to americans who really want them, that causes, you know, some strife with certain localities that are trying to control the power or want the money, and we have to deal with that. I think thats why im here in my job. Host commissioner, that sounds like a frustrating part of the deemployment for you. Guest very much so. Its been something ive worked on almost 25 years, and the debate keeps coming back and forth. You brought up earlier this big can conference thats coming up in egypt end of october. Im told its like the United Nations of the world radio spectrum, all the countries of the world get together once every four years guest kind of like the spectrum to olympics. Thats even better. And so what do you expect to come out of this, and im hearing that this will be the pivotal gatherings where all the countries will decide how they will deploy 5g and what kind of spectrum to use, respective countries. What do you expect to come out of this . Guest well, look, im pushing forward. I was at wrc15, and so ive got a pretty good basis of what to expect this round in egypt. Im hopeful that the World Community will recognize the need for additional bands for mobile services globally. Theres benefits in terms of harmonization, costs to manufacture and consumer benefits, all things that come with having a harmonized band globally. But ive said quite publicly if the International Community doesnt come to resolution, the United States will look for other countries and has in other instances to countries that are of liken mind to move forward like mind. So we have a real opportunity to get very proactive and very agrandsonnive and have aggressive and have new bands available for wireless growth in a world. If the process doesnt work, the United States will likely have to look elsewhere, different structure. The difference between the u. N. And some of the different other structures that we use today, you know . So youre saying theres a possibility that in this conference there may not be unanimity, and that the United States might have to seek other countries to build consensus guest the United States is in a good position to work with its colleagues. Were having to work in our region and come up with resolution on a number of bands that are important. You mentioned the 24 gigahertz, were going to make resolution on that in our region, and i think we can defend those globally and have a really successful outcome at the end of november. But absent that, if it doesnt go that route, the United States will have to look forward, because were not going to stop wireless progress in the United States on countries who have been, quite honestly, in my stitches it was based on competitive reasons. They werent ready, they didnt have the capital to move forward, and the United States did. And weve done that in a couple bands because they were not ready at the time. Host commissioner orielly, what about working with our see graphical neighbors, canada, mexico, the caribbean, is there pretty much a unanimous position guest we work really hard with our beachfront partners. I was in ottawa for this exact purpose, and our region was there, we talked to our regional partners, our canadian friends, and found landing spots on all the different issues. Ive also worked aggressively with our friends in mexico. The caribbean has been very active, and so we do try to find commonality amongst our region and take that position to wrc in october, no. Host before we get to, before we run out of time here, i want to ask you about another court decision, this one on media ownership, and i want to quote from the decision. And this was about against the fcc, that the fcc did not add a adequately consider the effect of its sweeping media ownership rule changes, that that will have on ownership of broadcast media by women and racial minorities. Guest i disagreed with that analysis from the 3rd circuit. This is something the 3rd circuit has sent back four times. There is no amount of data that we can give them, all administrations have not been able to get past the threshold that the 3rd circuit has established here, and ive said we should challenge this in another forum whether it be an en banc situation or go to Supreme Court which i think, ultimately, well have to do, go to Supreme Court. Theres no path we can get to what theyre asking for. I disagree with their fundamental premise, their activity because it is locking in the status quo which is not reflective of the Current Media marketplace today. The marketplace that we have today is not the same one as when you wrote the original position in 1995 which became the 96 act. The world has changed considerably in video and audio services. And we need to reflect that. Thats exactly a what were trying to do. They have been putting up roadlocks, and the status quo is winning. Our rules look exactly a