Group, Motor Vehicle crashes is the largest, leading cause of death within the age ranges. Basically until you get to the age where you start having health problems. Motor vehicles is one of the leading areas where you have a chance of dying. So that is essentially why we come at this. Why were so excited about this. Vehicle to vehicle, i mentioned at the beginning, i think theres been a lot of talk about both automation and vehicletovehicle technologies. For us, we dont look at it as an either or. Its an and both. Theyre not mutually exclusive technologies. They compliment each other. The dsrc complements a lot of technologies being developed on the automated selfdriving front. They shouldnt be looked at as competing technologies. They shouldnt be looked at as both doing the same thing. They both complement each other and will work to further the safety benefits. Another area i wanted to talk about was, i started by laying out why at nhtsa and d. O. T were so excited and spend so much attention talking about this. Kind of another theme throughout the day is the history of the last 15 years. And also where are we going from now. Theres been talk about it being 20, 30 years out. We would contend its happening faster than most people think. That its not a when, that its actually happening now. If you look at the secretary yesterday, there is some there is some we didnt do official announcement, but there is some press that the vehicletovehicle rulemaking has been accelerated, the administration and secretary fox had been vocal over the last year. As of yesterday, the draft mprm has been moved over to omb. We accelerated that. Were moving it through the review process because this administrations very keen to accelerate the innovation that could take place in that arena. Also, ces. I think everybody has mentioned ces here. It is clearly a playground of innovation. Theres all kinds of exciting, fun things to see. Its not hard. If you walk the floor, you clearly see that there are dozens, many people working on automation. Theyre working on mobility connection. Theyre also working on dsrc. Ill throw out there delphi as one example. They released a an aftermarket dsrc at ces this year. I think that will have tremendous potential for increasing the timeline of which we see the deployment of technology. I also wanted to mention g. M. I think weve said 2017 a couple times. Thats the first time well see it in cars, 2017. Its 2016 already. Thats this year. If you think about when the model cars come out, g. M. Is planning to have dsrc in cars, in showrooms by the end of the year. Were moving forward on that. Overall, were bullish. If you look at vehicletovehicle technology from all the research thats taken place, there are a lot of opportunities. If you take a couple applications and the number of applications and innovation that could take place are implemented. If you take two simple applications, one where you take a left turn through an intersection and the other where you just go through an intersection and use dsrc to understand that there are cars coming through who arent stopping at the light, arent stopping at the stop sign, those two applications alone are enough to pay for the cost benefit of putting the technology in cars. So its not going to be a high hurdle to make these things Cost Effective and get benefit from them. Weve seen from a lot of what was it, ces, with announcements from g. M. With us moving forward. The rule that the timeline for this is here. Its here now. This is not something to wait 28 years for. The spectrum is not going to be underutilized for the next 30 years. Its going to be tapped here shortly. The last thing id mention in terms of what were doing to accelerate that, we talked about the rule. But i want to mention the department and administrations putting a lot of effort and time and money into trying to accelerate deployment. In september, we announced connected vehicle grants where we have grants to tampa bay, new york city, and wyoming, to essentially deploy commercial versions of applications and demonstrate them in their cities. Then more recently, we announced the smart cities initiative. This is actually if you havent seen it, a unique grant from a government standpoint. We as a department are providing 40 million to a single midsize city to essentially do widescale connectivity. Were not telling them how it has to be. Were not telling them how we do. It and were working with outside partners to try and leverage the 40 million that the departments put forth. So far, paul allens Vulcan Foundation has added 10 million to assist it. Mobilei, a Technology Company that provides Mapping Technology and work with transit companies, has already pledged to take part in it. We continue to go out and lock for additional partners and have conversations. I think as you see the amount of money and effort thats put forth in the next year in a midsize city, you could well see a future in the next year where you have a midsized city that is fully deployed and connected, but is demonstrating how the technology works. Essentially proving it out. And its proving where the quirks are, but also what the benefits are. The last thing i wanted to say, i kind of talked about why why were bullish, where we support it. What we see as the timeline. This question about what the path forward is. Michael mentioned the letter that was sent to the hill. And we do we as a department feel strongly about this technology, but were open to the efficient use of it. We stand behind and are committed to working with the fcc, with ntia to do testing, to demonstrate and see if the technologies are capable of allowing the safety protocols, the safety messages to function in a safe reliable manner without interference. Look forward to questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, everyone. Whoever said spectrum was boring has never had a panel about connected cars and the 5. 9gigahertz band. I want to build on this point. Ill make sure we have a couple minutes for questions from the audience, as well. This point that blair of sort of this point that blair was sort of getting at that maybe not unlike the unlicensed space 20 years ago, the dsrc space needs a bit more time to come of age, and we should give it the space to do so from a spectrum allocation standpoint. Do others agree with that point . And if so, how do you balance the interest of innovation for the Auto Industry in dsrc with the need for space to innovate on wireless unlicensed spectrum as well as the interest of protecting safety in this space . Harold . Spectrum squatting kills. Thats a real problem here. That limits my patience where in the name of life and safety were going to hold up an entire band from other life and safety uses or refuse to use technology that other apparently smarter engineers in other countries have developed and come to the whole swap of spectrum. The qualcomm guys are pretty smart. Usually were fighting, but i agree theyre pretty smart. In this case, theyve said, yeah, you know we can split this up and do this just like they do in europe. In fact, we can because americans apparently have an obesity problem, we can even give you another ten megahertz. I dont see why we cant give time for this technology develop, for all of this to happen, by putting the life and safety things at the upper end of the band, letting that technology go forward, and still improve life and Safety Systems that are being developed by other people by expanding the availability of unlicensed use. Winwin. So, my question really is what the hell kind of capacity do you need that the 30 megahertz proposed is not going to be sufficient . I mean, you can send a dvt signal on what, two megahertz capacity, its not like your downloading medical files for life and safety after the accident. I mean, youre talking about, look, theres a deer, boom do others have thoughts . Otherwise i have a followup. Thats hard to follow. Well, then, maybe for mary and blair specifically, is there you know, getting down to the next steps or the proposals that weve talked about here, is there a reason even if we might debate the size of the bands themselves theres a reason why the commission shouldnt separate a band for these realtime safety applications and create another band for other nonsafety applications and unlicensed . The issue in terms of how cisco looks at it is really one around the development of the dsrc ecosystem, which we see as essentially formed and ready to go into the market, and we see the announcements by gm. We ourselves have announced a vehicletoinfrastructure solution product about a year ago. There are dozens of dsrc manufacturers who are out there, and they have their own trade shows where they show up in great numbers as well. So, we see this as sort of an almost fully formed, starting to commercialize ecosystem. We are skeptical that someones going to pull the rug out from under that and require a rechannelization of the band. It may be that someone at the fcc does that or the congress does that or somehow that decision gets made. But were seeing no real evidence of it. In fact, were seeing the opposite, right . So, in the highway bill that passed last month, we see numerous references by the United States congress to vehicletoinfrastructure technology, and specifically calling this out as something that the federal Highway Administration will be funding in the course of the next iteration of the highway bill. So, if anything, were seeing the acceleration of the existing dsrc into the market. Now, as i said, i dont have a technology religion and we could be completely wrong about this. But where is the evidence that this is going to take place, that this transformation in the band is going to take place . I think mary put it very well. The one thing i would add to that is clearly theres been a lot of time and effort thats been put into this by d. O. T. , by a number of research arms, to get this to a place where we are starting kind of the leading edges of commercialization of the project or the product. Theres been a lot of effort and money invested on the private sector side to create these products to move forward. If it was to be rechannelled essentially a lot of that work would have to be restarted. I dont i wouldnt say that it will take ten years at least i hope not, but it will still be a significant delay in the safety benefits of it will be delayed during that time, some of the commercial benefits that a lot of these companies are banking on will be delayed. The other thing i want to add because im sure harold knows this and hes just forgotten it. In europe the use cases there for transportation are somewhat different than how weve decided to use i. T. S. So, they do not have a vehicletovehicle technology deployed in the in the slimmeddown band that they use. They use it for other things such as road tolling and other stuff, but they dont have the vtov use. The vtov safety to life use is red, white and blue usa. The only thing i want to just inject there is in terms of significant delay or not is, you know, the party that would bear the greatest inconvenience over putting the dsrc safety channel at the top of the band instead of the bottom of the band is qualcomm. Were the ones that make the chips. Weve got to design the radios to work on the right frequency. We dont think its a significant delay, and as i said when i spoke, the last thing that we want for many reasons including many of those that harold has said, the last thing we would want is anything that would, you know, significantly delay dsrc. We have our own private Sector Investment in dsrc. So, honestly, you know, the way we work in designing chips, you know, yes, there would have to be some testing to make sure that there isnt any significant difference between the bottom of the band to the top of the band. But we really dont think that this is an issue of significant delay. If it was, we wouldnt be advocating this. And ive been saying that since 2013. So, you know, february of 2013 is when the nprm was issued and since then ive been consistently saying there isnt a significant delay and if there was, we wouldnt have this proposal. All right. I promised questions from the audience. Were running low, if not overtime. Well start in the back, right next to you. Hi, chris mccabe. I think all of us have been through this before. Mary is looking at me and laughing. How do we get past the rhetoric of people are going to die . Harold, you dont want to kill any moose or any deer and no one wants anyone else to die as a result of this in a car accident. So, lets assume that everyone agrees in this debate and discussion that no one wants people to die as a result of any policy discussions. And if we could put that to bed, which historically we did it with aws3 as an industry. General wheeler and others said war fighters capabilities would be harmed. We would lose people on the battlefields if we did, you know, if we evolved some of those bands into commercial use. After several years of debate and discussion, ultimately i think everyone agreed that there was a way to evolve some of those bands without really harming anyone. And i think the countrys better off as a result. Huge auction. Lot of money to the federal government. And a lot of movement in spectrum from light use to robust commercial use. I think we have that here. And if we could have everyone agree im sure the six of you all agree that however this plays out, we dont want people to die as a result of a policy discussion, right . Is that fair for everyone up there . Yeah, bill. Bill says yes. Ill take everyone else as a yes. So, blair, my question to you is, can you help this process and make sure that Going Forward nhtsa and some of the federal Government Entities that we stop the rhetoric about deaths and dying and we focus on the assumption that everyone agrees that we dont want people to die as a result. The question then is, with that as a baseline, can we move forward with investigating how to share these bands whether its the qualcomm approach, the cisco approach . But you know the rhetoric just keeps driving us back so that we do nothing, and i think nobody wants anyone to die. So can we enlist your help in driving the federal government forward and stop the rhetoric about deaths and the focus being on were going to protect everyone we can protect, but can we do it with using less spectrum . I think we at nhtsa, we at d. O. T. , weve said before and i said toward the end of my remarks, we are happy to work at how do you do the testing. Obviously were always going to talk about safety. Thats our mission. Thats what we care about. Lives on the highway, thats essentially what our entire game is about and trying to reduce that. So, getting away from mentioning that is always in the back of our mind. But we are, i think to your point, committed to working with the fcc. Were committed to working with ntia to look at and see if sharing can happen in this band. We are were open to that. I think there is a test pan that weve been working on internally to figure out how you test these devices. Our hesitation is on kind of backing away at this time when theres a lot of innovation taking place. And its really just starting to blossom and explode. Constraining the amount of spectrum that there is for folks to innovate in. I think were over time. And so i hope that as many panelists as possible can stay afterwards and answer questions individually, but i think we will end it on that. [ applause ] weve got more from the road to the white house with hillary clinton. Former first lady and senator is in iowa this evening. She will speak at the vr middle school. Watch that tonight on our companion network, c spa spans. Cspans campaign 2016 is taking you on the road to the white house for the iowa caucuses. Monday, february 1st, our live coverage begins. At 7 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan and cspan 2. Well bring you live precaucus coverage taking your phone calls, tweets, and texts. See the event live in its entirety. Be sure to stay with cspan and join in on the conversation on cspan radio and at cspan. Org. Now a look back at four decades of reporting on china. Several new yorker magazine correspondents discuss covering china for two generation answers talk about u. S. And chinese perceptions of each other. From the Asian Society and new york city, this runs 90 minutes. Good evening, everyone. Good evening. Tonight is a sellout and its so great to have you all here on this rainy and cold but very festive time in new york. And for a really fabulous evening. This evening the new yorker on china, a look back at four decades of reporting on china is indeed a special night and also a convergence of two anniversaries. The new yorker is celebrating its 90th this year. It was one of the First Western media to have access to china after the revolution . 194 . 194i . 194n . 1941949 1949. And of our five distinguished guest panelists tonight, one who is not a guest, our own Orville Schell, they have collectively over 100 years of observation and writing on china. And i think you will all find this very enlightening and no doubt entertaining. This includes of course our own Orville Schell whose asia societies center on u. S. China relations, arthur ross director and the founder districter. Were pleased to have janet ross here with us tonight. Hello, janet. Ive learned that orvilles first contribution to if new yorker was in the 70s. Almost whole issues on china solely devoted, quite a thing in the 70s. Ive also learned that orville was so delighted with his first paycheck that he went and bought a tractor for his ranch in california and this was following the directive in the cultural revolution to head to the countryside. Orville, good. For asia society its our 60th anniversary since our founding by john d. Rockefeller, iii. Ive been up to the archives and i became interested in one question. When did the Rockefeller Family get interested in asia and china . The route took me back to 1863 or 64 when the original john d. Rockefeller, a very poor man at the time, 25 years old, sent half his monthly salary as a store clerk, which was all of about 24 a month, half of that to china to help malnourished children. From that you see a familys interest in the development of china, including the founding of the china medical board in 1914, and then of course john d. Rockefeller, iii, following world war ii really felt that the world needed a center to focus on u. S. Asia relations and in his mind if there were great troubles in the future and great opportunity, it would come from the west and the east. So created the asia society at the time. Two important landmarks. This event in particular is part of our china file presents program. China file is an online magazine that we started about three years ago. Editors and sta