Transcripts For CSPAN3 FCC Chair Ajit Pai On 5G Technology

Good afternoon everybody. And everybody who is looking at us virtually and everybody in line in the security line trying to get in. And everybody who will be watching sometime soon on a cable network. So i am jane harman, president and ceo of the Wilson Center and today we are probing a very complicated issue that is in my view policymakers in washington and all over the world. At least three parts of the problem are the u. S. China, and the 5g supply chain. The Wilson Center has just produced this is a prop, a spectacular policy brief by Melissa Griffith who is in the front row, and we will see in a little bit which is entitled there is more to worry about the huawei. I think you get the just of this. And she will explain in detail but run, do not walk to read this. Meanwhile, what captures the attention around 5g is that Chinabased Huawei has led the way in developing the superfast networks which will power self driving cars, virtualreality and other cuttingedge technology. Since Chinese Companies are required by law to comply with information requests from Chinese Intelligence Services, u. S. Officials are properly concerned that companies who want to incorporate this Chinese Technology will end up compromising their data in the data of their users, otherwise it could be compromised to and we will talk about that. A few more thoughts, one of the mantra that defined the last decade of Technological Developments was moved fast and break things. Just a suggestion from here, maybe we should think about slow down and assess things. I think that is what you will hear today, what is the problem and what are some policy solutions that will help solve the problem. Fortunately, in the Wilson Center offers policymakers and their staffers the tools to assess new Technology Like 5g and the implications for National Security. I doubt it, our audience is always smart, we have given around 400 staffers from capitol hill, from nearly 300 offices on capitol hill a foundation in Technical Skills through our bipartisan, cyber nai boot camps or labs that take place each friday. Those boot camps are a part of our Science Technology and Innovation Program which is brilliantly led by king who is probably hiding in the hall. Is he here . Shes hiding in the corner. She directs our socalled step program, science, technology and Innovation Program where these labs are house. Overall 800 staffers have come here on friday and the others have gone to a Foreign Policy Fellowship Program so they can learn Foreign Policy as well as we can teach it. Today, we are talking about one problem that we have talked about much but we are delighted to welcome the man with the plan plan, fcc chairman ajit pai. The last time i saw him was in the hamptons in a warmer period of this year end possibly less hectic than the one were in now. But we participated in a panel and i learned a lot and we discussed this coming here. Guess what happened, he is the first fcc chairman to go viral. Often appearing in videos where he embraces internet while announcing new policies. That is really cool pray he joined the federal Communications Commission in 2012 afford by president obama in a fiveyear term in 2017 and was designated as chairman by President Trump. Good, bipartisan. He also works at the d. O. J. U. S. Senate and the fcc office of general counsel and in the private sector at verizon. Today he joins me too discuss a proposal which the commission will vote on tuesday. I will not summarize what they are because he will tell us. That is my first question. Following our conversation and audience questions, there will be a panel of really smart people who will introduce themselves joining us and one i have told you is the author of this amazing Science Technology Innovation Program, what do we call this policy brief. So i am going to sit down now that ive introduced ajit pai and were going to have a short conversation to get your brilliant questions ready. Thank you very much. applause okay, the first question is a surprise question. The fcc is proposing to rules, what are they . laughs thank you congresswoman for the question, before i answer i do want to express my gratitude to the Wilson Center for hosting this inperson conversation and obviously the center has been some of the most impulsive discussions here in washington and in my view of course, i dont think there is much more important than this. I want to thank you personally for your leadership in congress over the years having viewed you from afar i found consistently on how House Intelligence Committee and the other legislative assignments you had you always share your responsible these with the bipartisanship in the national interest. Back at you. I appreciate that. I want to say on a personal note i feel like ive been chasing you, we share the extinction of having a chief counsel of the subcommittee on the constitution and the Senate Judiciary committee, obviously youve gotten to much Higher Ground but i feel like i have a little bit of chasing to do. Who was your chairman when you do that . Sam brown the former house member who you may have served with in 1990. I did. This is an important conversation, i guess the question is often what is 5g and why does it matter. At the United States we have made National Priority to lead in the development and deployment of 5g technology because these technologies increasingly are going to transform American Industries who transportation through healthcare throughout a culture, education, manufacturing to shipping. So we have done that at the fcc by implementing the 5g fast plan, for facilitating american superiority in 5g Technology Preview can find out more details about the plan fcc. Gov 5g. In a nutshell it involves getting more to the marketplace and the small cells and other infrastructure of the future. Id be happy to go into more detail in these components and what the metrics of success have been so far but in a nutshell we want to advance American Leadership in 5g. With this feature however, comes a major challenge which the attack surface so to speak in terms of security is much greater. Check 5g will be like unlike 4g and 3g in these networks will be increasingly Software Defined as opposed by hardware. That software can be located anywhere in the world and in addition to that because were talking about billions more conducted devices online, not just bones but refrigerators to cars, we need to ensure the security protocol are bought upfront as opposed after the fact. The United States that software can be located anywhere in the world and in addition to that because were talking about billions more conducted devices online, not just bones but refrigerators to cars, we need to ensure the security protocol are bought upfront as opposed after the fact. The United States government position overall in the fcc in particular we need to think about 5g security now at the early stages of deployment as opposed afterward when retrofitting might be expensive if not impossible. So what is fcc doing to accommodate this interest. Two things will be voting this coming week on a proposal that is forwardlooking and backward looking. The forwardlooking component involves the universal service fund, this is about a 9 billiondollar Expenditure Fund that the overseas and the money from that is just rooted to cut under Telecom Countries primarily infrastructure in rural areas and underserved areas. One of the things we propose Going Forward is to prohibit the use of the funding from being used by recipients on equipment or services that have been determined to be a National Security threat to the United States. Based in part on legislation passed by congress on a bipartisan basis last year, the authorization act, we include as an initial designation both huawei and cge on the socalled prohibited list in terms the way the company could use the money. The backward looking component, we understand there may be problematic equipment already internet works in particular. Were starting a conversation of understanding where the equipment might be, who is using it, what its being used for et cetera. And also to kickstart the conversation of how to finance the removal and the replacement of the equipment. Especially to the extent rural carriers with the problematic equipment and might not have had the resources on their own to be able to do that so in consultation with them, members of congress and others we want to make sure we have an accurate sense of where we are right now. The forwardlooking and backward looking set of proposals we will be voting on next week. What is the prognosis for that, will it pass . I hope it will on a bipartisan basis, i know this is a time in which the environment is becoming trouble ice but it went and it comes to our National Security we do speak with a unified voice, my expectation based on the conversations ive had with my colleagues, we will see a strong bipartisan vote next week. Certainly what we seen with letters in congress, letters from both sides saying we support your effort in this regard. Basically this is using a u. S. Fund as a leverage to get companies to do something on a forwardlooking basis and on a backward looking basis to trade and technology that they already purchased because there is Huawei Technology in the United States already. That is correct. For nonhuawei and nonChinese Technology. The rest of the world is out there. How do you see this in the context of a world where Huawei Technology is available just about everywhere, certainly not just here. Thats a great question. Part of the reason over the next several months ive been very involved with my counterparts across the United States government and going to other countries in the views of the United States government on these issues. Not just with respect to the company, we recognize the risk profile applies to any company. We want to understand what the risk is for putting services internetwork. So when i traveled to the middle east, europe elsewhere, we want to make sure we all have a common understanding of what the risk is, the best strategy for the risk and how we can Work Together to share information about how the risk may be materializing. Thats been a conversation ongoing but weve had very positive feedback so far. I would guess everybody agrees about the problem and everybody wants to manage risk. I would doubt based on what i read, i know much less then you do that there are different strategies in some countries will go ahead and keep or by Huawei Technology is that fair. I think there are some countries that are exploring different strategies from the United States and our messages pretty consistent, to the extent that you agree with security assessment, we respect your right to make whatever decision you want speaking to the United States, we do not believe this is an area where we can take a risk and hope for the best given how transformative 5g technology is likely to become of the United States wants to make sure that 5g security is aforethought opposed to an afterthought. We think very carefully about the risk profile of any court becoming tour networks. I certainly think that is a worthy objective but i can imagine another government saying to you okay, yes were worried about the risk profile but her answer to that, we will make sure our systems and you mentioned that these are softwarebased systems 5g unlike prior systems in melissas paper help me understand what the differences, no point of intersection where you can block bad guys from coming in, did i get this right. Im learning. Even so, what about the answer, were worried about this and we will fight intrusion but we think even if we dont buy chinese based made technology there can be intrusion from others, our theory of the case will fight intrusion whether using Huawei Technology or not. I offer several responses to that, first of course we embrace the framework to any supplier of equipment for 5g network or services. The question is 1 degree of risk, you pointed out in your remarks quite accurately that the extent china has a National Intelligence law, came compel any company to jurisdiction to comply with requests from the Chinese Intelligence Services and prohibits the company from disclosing the fact that the request of a third party which is customers a huawei in china or abroad, that presents a serious risk. Additionally, the question is the ability of the government to take these risks in real time. As they point out very well, were talking not just about a wireless tower that needs to be upgraded, were talking about software over time needs millions of lines of codes updated and anyone that is malicious could be a vector for including malware and viruses. Does any government have the ability to police in real time all the lines of code. I assume the answer is no. We certainly believe that the risk is too great and beyond the scope of most governments ability to please. And something we often hear, that equipment is significantly cheaper. In the argument i make on that point, sometimes the only problem with cheap, ends up costing too much and thats in terms of Security Risk which is difficult to put the value want. But even on the own terms if something is 50 cheaper or 80 cheaper, over time when youre locked into a vendor and the vendor has software that is buggy or back doors he after police or other kinds of problems over time, you will end up paying the price for making a decision at the beginning. We dont want any country certainly our own to be foolish when it comes to this particular question. I get that. And i think other countries will have to think about that. As i understand again from reading this policy paper, the Huawei Software is buggy, what a great word. [laughter] is that a realworld ente word. The difference in kind if you look at sources not based on the u. S. Government, the uk cybersecurity report, the independent researchers who have examined the software and equipment, we think there is a difference in kind and again, even if there were parity, the question is what is the risk, given the framework that is in place and china in particular, we do have concerns that both the laws, it judiciary and the general willingness of the Chinese Government is leverage that we see in this country over the past month there were things like basketball and flag emojis and the like. For hong kong and macau. We do have concerns that the Chinese Government would behave strategically in this particular area. What if you succeed, if this is adopted and you succeed and one of the Wilson Center geniuses goes over to china and forgets to take his burner phone and takes his regular phone. , no chinese based technology in the phone and is compromised in china, then what . These are concerns that we have when we travel abroad and given the briefing by her great team about cyber hygiene and the like and we would encourage any United States in the color of the u. S. Government or not to take the precautions for we work with the state department, department of Homeland Security, National Security of Intelligence Committee and others to make sure whenever we go abroad were taking the steps necessary to protect ourselves and fellow citizens. If mistakes are made, they always are made, even with the purest of intentions in the pearson technology, it can still be compromised by the chinese or pick another country and we still could end up with defects, workarounds, what ever that we did not intend right . Absolutely. Issues like cyber hygiene are not just looted to the fcc, its acrosacross governmental effortd anybody traveling abroad to be aware what devices you are using and basic things like dont accept a zip drive employed it into your premier. Youd be surprised. Of heard and seen at all. Its basically, technology as it evolved the last 20 years as you know better than anybody coming from the state, it involves california. I think we got used to this being an open positive platform and we need to think about the potential risk factors when were all interconnected. I making the point in this is true in the whole security landscape, theres no such thing as 100 security. I