Along our constitutional lines between the executive branch and outside of that. Host is there a spectrum crunch . Guest theres certainly a lot of demand for spectrum and we stopped making spectrum a long time ago. There isnt any more so were having to come up with ways of accommodating all the various uses. Certainly, the growth of cellular has been astronomical. Were continuing to look for ways to provide that portion of our community more spectrum. Unlicensed use has grown tremendously. The advent, for instance of wifi was a huge expansion in the amount of consumer use and so on of unlicensed operations. But the federal government use is i growing also is growing also. The federal agencies have are lots of different kinds of operations so while in a cell phone band everything in that band is basically cell phones, maybe at some different point of their evolution and technology standpoint, but theyre basically all cell phonesment they pack them together, its very uniform. On the federal government side weve got a mixture of lots of different kinds of systems. Many of them are airborne which you dont deal with too often in the private sector. But all kinds of fixed and mobile airborne communications, Satellite Communications often mixed in the same bands because theyre the openings that the government has. So they pack as much as possible in those bands as they can. Host and just to be clear, we dont manufacture spectrum. Spectrum is natural correct . Guest thats right. Host okay. You cant start and stop guest no. We cant be making anymore. The spectrum depending on what part youre in, has different characteristics that support different types of communications. The higher you go in the spectrum, the shorter the distance that you can force that signal to go without generating a lot more power behind it, the lower in the spectrum the signal travels better and thats why people want certain portions of the spectrum to accommodate what theyre trying to do. Host lets bring paul kirby into our discussion of telecommunications report. You mentioned how the federal government needs spectrum for a lot of different things. When you started at ntia in 1983, there were two systems that started that year. When you retired, there were over 330 million wireless devices, more than the population of the u. S. What kind of pressure does that put on your agency . Because theres always a tension between spectrum for commercial and spectrum for the federal government. Guest well certainly a lot of pressure there because every administration that i worked for during my time was seeking ways to try to accommodate the commercial users that were coming along, once again starting initially with those couple of cellular operations. As i recall, they were those licenses were provided by what we used to call beauty contests probably not a great word today. Anyway, based on somebody saying we need this spectrum, were the best people for it. We got into lotteries which, i think, opened the door to a more cellular growth but, ultimately turning it into an auctiontype process thats been very significant. But certainly the pressure has been there the last two administrations have both written president ial memorandum on spectrum. When i first started in Spectrum Management back in 1979, i came out of the marine corps after being an artillery officer, i didnt know anything about spectrum. Most people that i met and even those often times i worked with didnt understand much about spectrum. But nowadays everybody realizes its a part of our daily lives our devices completely rely on it, our ability to communicate and often do our jobs or stay in touch with our family depend on it. So the fact that the white house for all those administrations had an eye on spectrum always created a certain level of pressure. However, when i started, the first task that i work worked on at ntia was a report covering 947 megahertz all the way to 40 gigahertz to see if we could come up with any spectrum for the commercial world, and our answer at that point was, no, there was none available. Well obviously, thats changed over the years. We have found spectrum. Weve found spectrum thats been very useful to the commercial world. So that effort continues today even as im gone from ntia. I know theyre continuing to pursue that working together with the federal agencies. But certainly one of the things ive seen change during that time is i think, certainly, ntia and the federal agencies as a whole have gotten on board with trying to make this effort happen. The policymakers and those groups are trying to make it workable. And theres been certainly a new effort toward Cooperation Collaboration just in the last couple years leading up to the aws iii rulemaking, the auction getting the federal agencies, particularly the Defense Department, in the same room with industry to work through differences and to come up with analysis thats going to be meaningful. Those things were big steps, and certainly like to see that continue. Thats certainly my goal in my retirement, is to continue to play a part in getting government and industry talking together. How can that be improved upon . The last couple years that led to the auction the aws3 auction, Government Agencies particularly dod Work Together, but the sausage being made was not always a pretty process. Or what are the ways you think that can be improved Going Forward . Guest well, i think certainly anytime youre breaking into a new process, there are going to be hurdles that you have to get over, things that you need to learn. In that particular case when we set up the discussion under n the ti ntias commerce Spectrum Management add viewly committee, our goal is to keep it as open as possible. That, we think, was important to the discussion, it was certainly important to those first steps. The complication that had is a completely wide open discussion meant that on some cases on teleconferences there might be 100 people on the telephone, and the Defense Department people didnt particularly know who they were talking to. And, therefore theyre much more cautious and concerned. But still, the ability to continue the discussion, to get to know one another, to get to know in those calls and in those facetoface meetings who were the people that they were actually going to need to continue that dialogue with actually after the csmac work was done and some direction was provided, additional meetings went on between do the and the commercial dod and the commercial operators to talk about, well how can we improve the analysis that was done on that group . How can we get past some of these things . What can we do to coordinate the use . So a lot of progress was made. So i think in the next round were going to see and ntias already put proposals on the table for increased collaboration in terms of public events, in terms of more limited discussions, more facetoface between the agencies and the specific Service Providers, Technology Providers and so on. So i think were really moving in the right direction. Host mr. Nebbia, does dod control much of the federal spectrum . Guest yeah. Actual dod doesnt control any of the spectrum. Dod has access to a lot of spectrum, but ntia remains the regulator on the government side. They have access to a lot of spectrum where their use would make it difficult given Current Technology and given current processes would make it difficult for nonfederal users to access that spectrum . Yes. There are bands, radar bands that actually have nonfederal radars in them you dont hear much about, but the Defense Department works with those people regularly. If you were to put a mass commercial wireless system in the same bandwidth with federal radars youre going to have to come up with some new capabilities whether its new technologies or new Spectrum Management methods to make that work. So certainly the Defense Department is open to that and in fact, if you look at their spectrum strategying that they put strategy that they put out i think it was the end of 2013 but its still there, they are driving document right now. Part of what theyre arguing is that their battlefield names are such that they need to be more flexible. That if you, in fact, continue to narrow their spectrum and say this is the box that we need to keep forcing dod into a more, you know, efficient type environment, that, in fact that only makes it easier for the adversaries to know exactly where they are and how they operate. So dod from a technology and spectrum standpoint themselves know that they need to spread out, they need to blend in, they cant just hold onto pieces of spectrum and say well, this is where were going to be were going to stay. So that requires some new discussion about other ways that they can shower in the commercial they can share in the commercial bands as theyre giving up space in the bands that theyre currently sitting in. So theres still a lot ahead of us to talk about, you know down that path. One of the key issues in the negotiations leading up to the auction was how much information dod and other agencies would share with industry. And thats always been an issue because its very sensitive and often very classified. So one of the issues that one of the solutions was having people in industry basically sign nondisclosure agreement sort of a trusted agent type of thing. Give us a sense how you think that worked and how that can be expanded in the future. Guest i think it worked very well. Once again i think it was set up by the fact that they had had fairly long discussions already and come to a point of really knowing each other became known entities. Yeah. Guest i should say, on the other hand, that as we were looking to work out the five gigahertz wifi sharing arrangement back five, between five and ten years ago that, in fact, we pulled in Wifi CommunityTechnology People into the same types of agreements so that they were, well, the aws3 discussions never really got into classified discussions, and the wifi work, they were actually witnesses to the operation, specific dod Radar Systems in order to, you know, prepare those outcomes. So i think weve done it before. I think it works. I think it works well, and were going to continue to, i think host has wifi alleviated a little bit of pressure on the spectrum shortage . Guest well wifi certainly is being heavily used by the wireless industry. A lot of us use it just in our normal home activities. But, in fact, many, many devices are looking for wifi first. Some of the carriers are certainly move anything that direction, and ive heard statistics that its over 50 of the traffic is heading on wifi. And that means its connecting into the wired network off that wifi and, therefore relieving the burden on the wireless networks. So that, i think plays a huge role. Its also one of the reasons why the federal agencies, ntia and the fcc, are looking at two additional bands in the five gigahertz range for expanded wifi, to get more bandwidth, there are throughput more throughput. Each of those has its own warts so were working through those issues, and well see how that comes out. Were you surprised at the revenues of the aw, s3 auction . Almost 45 billion. Guest yeah. Well i hadnt done any im not familiar how they do all their calculations. Certainly, it was way beyond what anybody was estimating, and often times as people ask me, well, what are you going to do once you leave the government, i say is well, obviously one of the things im going to do is advise the private sector. Because when we brought up the aws3 band we actually brought up 17551850. We offered it for about 18 billion. Everybody said thats too much, sorry, we want that smaller piece of spectrum. And in the end they paid 45 billion for a much smaller piece of spectrum, and sooner or later well get back to the other piece. Anyway it seemed like they could have used my advice at that point. Now theres legislation pending in congress again and it would create basically an incentive auction that would allow federal agencies to get about 1 of the proceeds of auction as their spectrum as an incentive to give up spectrum. Do you think the proceeds from this sale which was not based on that type of a system would further encourage agencies to guest well, i mean i certainly think i mean, thats my experience with the federal agencies is that the people that work there are all about getting the mission done. And they see into the future as to how their responsibilities, the types of things they have to deal with particularly dod looking at changes in their, you know how they deal with, you know, the enemy that they have to have to deal with from day to day. So those people are always looking for how to meet their mission and ultimately, they have seen in this particular case and in the aws1 auction there were, in fact, opportunities to Fund Movement into new Technology New bands and so on. It was somewhat limited, but as that increased, i think everybody sees that this actually could be a win win for everybody. But they have to come away with the sense that yes, the technology is there. And, ultimately, because the types of mobile operations that the government needs operate in the same portions of the spectrum that the commercial mobile need to operate in were going to see them saying yeah, this should Fund Technology changes, new capabilities but its probably going to be more oriented towards sharing that spectrum. How do we make that happen . And once again, their whole goal is to come out of this still being able to perform the function they have. Theyre not going to ever make a lot of money off it. None of the federal employees are going to get rich by great decision. Will you still be there . [laughter] guest no, i wouldnt still be there. It was time for me to move on. But i think the agencies, you know, see it as an opportunity. But its got to be a real opportunity, and at least from what ive heard the concern that theyve expressed about the 1 number just even in the ballpark host well, karl nebbua has the ntia and other federal agencies been reluctant to share or give up some of their spectrum . And what is the downside to the federal government . Guest well everybody in this business is reluctant. On the private sector side, the government side there were people that werent reluctant to share the folks advocating for unlicensed use pause they came into because they came into it always on the basis they were sharing the spectrum. You still had to tell that to some people whose garage doors had interference and suddenly, well, we didnt read the small print. Everybody is reluctant to share. Its a little bit like, you know, youre growing up, youve got to share with your siblings. You know theres some pain there, and Everybody Knows that. So sharing is something that everybodys moved toward more out of a seasons of this is what weve out of a sense of this is what weve got to do and weve got to learn how to get along, how to cooperate together, how to make our technologies Work Together so that it comes out even if you look at the cellular phone system, theres a system of sharing and cooperation. Its everybody and its brother doesnt get their own frequency and their own system. Everybodys joining in to that. And theres a cost to it and theres benefits from it. So i think were going to see more sharing. But everybody is reluctant. When you go into international meetings, for instance youll see countries that have 50yearold mobile radios that somebody provided to them a long, long time ago absolutely defending bands over the fact they dont want to go home and tell their government that they just lost that 50 megahertz, you know . Because you never get it back. Guest you never get it back. Even though it would benefit them more to just move on and have cellular phone, you know, adopted in their country and everybody getting the capability. Host well, does the u. S. Spectrum stop at the boarder . How does canada, how does mexico how do those countries manage their spectrum . Guest yeah. Well, each country has their own processes. Weve found over quite a number of years that the u. S. Usually breaks out in some new ideas, and we often find those countries have adopted many of the same things, at least the ones that they see work, you know . They work on those things. But it is a fact that we have our own autonomy within the United States to manage the spectrum the way we want. The Mexican Government has that same autonomy. Certain bands have been worked on for years through the International Telecommunications union and have been adopted in ways that make them more appealing for International Types of Services Satellite services, for instance. There are some satellite systems that beam down solely into the United States for maybe broadcasting and so on. But much of the Satellite Community lives in an International World every day. They provide services to various countries. In fact, the International Satellite systems on the commercial side are supporting countries all over the world. Theyre supporting the u. S. Defense department in ways we probably never dreamed 20 or 30 years ago. They are the backbone for communications of dod into the field through commercial satellite are systems. So it is an International World that we live in, and were getting ready for our next radio conference in late october, early november of this year so those types of agreements are reached. We do have relationships Close Relationships with mexico and canada. Weve got agreements with them on how to share certain bands. But there are other bands, for instance where weve got cell phones on both sides of for borders. The companies themselves, you know, Work Together to make that interconnection so someb