Welcome to the virtual edition of our wireless feature event next generation Wi-Fi, heading off a 5G digital divide with affordable connectivity for all. I am Michael Calabrese, director of the wireless feature project at New America's Open Technology Institute. So of course, unfortunately, we can't be in person with you all here today, but we wanted to make sure that you had the opportunity to learn more about this important FCC spectrum policy issue that we expect will be voted on this spring by the Commission. It's of course, well, the race for 5G over the past few years has focused on auctions for thousands of megahertz of high frequency and mid-band license spectrum. However, making 5G wireless connectivity and applications available and affordable for all Americans everywhere will also depend on opening large new bands of unlicensed spectrum capable of supporting the next generation of gigabit fast Wi-Fi, a new standard called Wi-Fi 6. Building out mobile carrier 5G will be costly, will take many years, and will focus initially on urban and high traffic areas. In contrast, the next generation of Wi-Fi, Wi-Fi 6, can make 5G capable connectivity available in any home, business, school, library, or public space that has a cable, fiber, or other fast fixed broadband connection nearby. The problem is that spectrum bands available today for Wi-Fi and unlicensed public use are limited and increasingly congested. They are definitely insufficient to power 5G capable apps and services. The FCC is expected to vote next month on a proposal to allow Wi-Fi 6 to share 1200 megahertz of underutilized spectrum across the entire 6GHz band. The 6GHz band is currently occupied by high-power fixed links, fixed microwave links that are used for telecoms, utilities, and other purposes. The Commission has also proposed reallocating 45 megahertz of unused spectrum in the adjacent auto safety band at 5.9GHz to create an unencumbered gigabit fast Wi-Fi channel there as well. This new unlicensed spectrum from 5.9 across 6GHz is necessary to make Wi-Fi 6 a pillar of a world-leading 5G ecosystem able to provide the gigabit fast and affordable capacity needed to connect billions of devices in smart homes, classrooms, public venues, and for enterprise IoT networks. So we will go on first in terms of a run of show to start with an introductory presentation by Priscilla Delgado-Argeris followed by my conversation with FCC Commissioners Michael Riley and Jessica Rosenwurzel. And then we'll conclude with a panel. John Horgan from the Technology Policy Institute will kick that off with an overview of digital divide issues. And then he'll be joined as well by Paula Boyd of Microsoft, Rosa Mendoza of Alvanza, and AJ Phillips from the Prince William County Public Schools. So to get us started, I would like to introduce Priscilla Delgado-Argeris. Priscilla is the Public Policy Manager for Connectivity and Access at Facebook and a former Senior Legal Advisor to Commissioner Rosenwurzel for Wireless Public Safety and International Issues. Priscilla is the CEO of Wifi Speed Broadband Access and using Wifi, also a Wifi to build other technologies, organizations can develop new innovative digital services and business models. And if you look at these graphics, you can see the value of Wifi is estimated in 2018 to be 499 billion in the U.S. loan and almost double that is projected and it's tracks the same type of Wifi is an important compliment to home broadband, which we all know, but it's also critical, it's going to be a critical compliment to 5G. Right now, Wifi supports the offload of 54% of mobile data traffic and this is set to grow to about 70% 5G, as you can see next slide. So Michael mentioned Wifi 6, which is the next generation Wifi standard, ultra-fast, low latency and Wifi 6 and 5G, we expect will work hand in hand because without the ability to offload traffic to Wifi, 5G networks will have to be more expensive and less efficient. Mobile operators will need to invest more in network densification, deploying more small cells in dense urban area in order to get that gigabit throughput. Wifi 6 can support 5G use cases such as HD video streaming, Wifi calling, smart home devices, hotspot access, the automation of city-wide services, ARVR application, health monitoring devices, wearables and seamless roaming. And as we've been talking about, robust Wifi is really critical to bridging the digital divide. I think we're all living this with kids that are switching to distance learning. And, you know, as Commissioner Rosenworst, my old boss has said many times, 70% of teachers are assigning homework that requires internet access even in normal circumstances. So Wifi is a really important tool for anchor institutions like students' schools and libraries to close that homework gap for students that don't have reliable home broadband. Next slide. So we've talked a lot about why Wifi is important, and we all understand that. But what not everyone is thinking about is that we need more spectrum for Wifi because the current Wifi bands we use are getting congested. As US operators are rolling out this gigabit broadband networks, you have to have really robust Wifi in your home to be able to actually appreciate that, to get it to all your devices, to get it to multiple devices in a household that are streaming at the same time. And we don't want Wifi to become a bottleneck to that user experience. It's also been more than 20 years since new mid-band spectrum has been made available for Wifi despite this exponential growth in traffic. And unless action is taken, there's estimates that the US is going to have a shortfall of 1.6 gigahertz by 2025 that will impact businesses and consumers. Next slide. So this chart shows the 6 gigahertz band and the spectrum that's available and how that spectrum would be divided into channels. And what's so important about the 6 gigahertz band is that it can, if the whole band becomes available for unlicensed use, that would mean 760 megahertz channels. And if you see below, it can show you under different Wifi standards what data rates could be achieved and how fast that could be. Just by comparison, Michael mentioned the 5.9 gigahertz proceeding, which is also super important. But the Wifi, in that band, they're looking to make 160 megahertz new megahertz channel available. So to really add a lot of those super fast channels, we really need the 6 gigahertz band. Next slide. So in the 6 gigahertz band, industry has been talking about three different device classes. And so the first would be a very low power portable device class with a max sort of peak 14 dBM ERP limit. And this would operate both indoors and outdoors. A low power indoor device class and a standard power device class that would have automated frequency control. Next slide. So starting out with VLP, these are some of the possible use cases. Mobile AR, VR, UHD video streaming, high speed tethering and in vehicle entertainment. And these are two gigabits high throughput with very low latency in close distances. Next slide. So in terms of VLP, this is the space where you'd have next generation mobile peripherals, critical 5G use cases like immersive AR, VR connectivity and other advanced peripherals would rely on 6 gigahertz VLP because of the constraints on battery life, form factor and cost. And one example would be the connection between augmented reality glasses and a smart phone. That would be a VLP device. And something that, you know, we've been talking about at Facebook is that AR, VR really isn't just, I think people think, oh, that's gaming or something like that. But if you think of now that we're all working from home, you can imagine, you know, you do feel at distance, even with a video call, imagine if you had devices and AR, VR that could really make you feel present at work. And what that would mean if you could really work from everywhere for any company. And so that is something that we're talking a lot about. Next slide. Okay, six gigahertz also enables robust low power indoor use cases. And those are high speeds, 1.4 gigahertz as seven meter distance, even if there are obstructions. Next slide. And then standard power use cases. That's like enterprise use cases, 20 gigahertz per second, outdoor coverage, parks and stadiums. And also there are opportunities for rural connectivity with multi giga bit point, multi point services. Next slide. Next slide. Yeah, perfect. So obviously, let's say skirt gigahertz band, it's not Greenfield spectrum, they're existing users and they're important users. But we believe that this unlicensed use can be compatible with those existing incumbents. Low power indoor and very low power devices protect income and operations by design. Low power and indoor only low power in is indoor only it's there would be rules that would require it to be plugged in. They were movable antennas and couldn't be weatherproofed. And that would all ensure that these devices would be used indoors. Very low power has an extremely low radiated power and dynamic power control. And what that means is if you have on you know, air glasses, for example, if you're in a situation where there was less body loss, the power would automatically reduce because you need to save battery life. And so you would never have a situation where you're going over the peak power, but this added benefit of dynamic power control that you would have in better operated devices would also ensure that you're always operating at the lowest power possible. There are other elements in VLP, including body loss antenna mix mismatch that would help to prevent any harmful interference to six gigahertz incumbents. And then lastly, the standard power six gigahertz devices would protect incumbent operations with automated frequency control. The devices obtain a list of permissible operating frequencies from the AFC system operator. Next slide. So in summary, the US really needs to act on unlicensed spectrum. Wi-Fi is the key to economic growth and societal development, key to achieving the US connectivity goals. It's key to 5G, and it's a key part of bridging the digital divide. Wi-Fi's full potential can only be realized with access to more unlicensed spectrum, and the six gigahertz band is really a perfect fit. The US must act now to ensure six gigahertz spectrum is available on a technology neutral unlicensed basis as soon as possible. That's it for me. Thanks, Priscilla. In case that was heard. That was terrific, and if you're able to stay around at the end, in fact, I meant to mention this, that we will have a chance for audience questions at the end of the event, although I believe the commissioners will be willing to take a couple time permitting. So let's move on to our discussion with commissioners Michael Riley and Jessica Rosenwurzel, because we're all anxious to hear from you both. You don't need any extended introduction, except that I would like to both make sure that everyone knows how much we appreciate the leadership that both of you have shown for many years in championing a vision of a wireless ecosystem that is balanced between licensed and unlicensed that has the full powers of both, and you've both really led the way in opening more spectrum at 5.9 gigahertz and across 6 gigahertz for the next generation of Wi-Fi that we're here to discuss. So this is really a very much part of a culmination of all your efforts for years. So I just wanted to recognize that. So I guess to get us rolling, what can you tell us about when the commission is likely to adopt the 6 gigahertz order, and also how much additional spectrum capacity can we reasonably expect? Okay, I guess that's thrown into my direction first. I appreciate my being on the call as well or on the video. I was very confident that we were going to see an item very shortly, next month seemed of an appropriate time. I'm not sure that events haven't changed that timeline. I haven't had a chance to talk to the chairman, so I'm trying to be respectful. It had been something that was teed up and working through the last couple pieces, and I'd like to believe that we can still make that happen, but I have to also be mindful of everything else that's happening and mindful of what type of commission meeting we may have. So I'd like to believe we can still make that momentarily and still be available next month. In terms of your second part of your question, how much that's to be worked out. That's something we're working hard on. I have commented in the past about how much I'd like to make the whole band available for the three purposes that Priscilla mentioned, trying to work through all three scenarios that they all be operational, not one over the other. I'm certainly mindful, low power indoor is certainly really important to me, but all of them are important, and they all have their benefits and will really help the community that so needs additional spectrum. So very happy where things are, had a chance to see Wi-Fi 6E a couple of weeks ago, and I'm really excited where things are. There have been proposals, and I'm sure we'll get into them to do some license in that portion, and I haven't find those proposals viable as of yet, but I'll keep an open mind. Can you hear me? Yes. All right. I co-sign and agree with everything my colleague, Commissioner O'Miley just said. For starters, we do need to move fast. The 5G economy is underway, and so much of the focus of our discussion has been on licensed spectrum. It's really important that we think about unlicensed at the same time, and the six gigahertz band is a terrific place to do it. And just like my colleague, I hope we can make as much spectrum available as possible in that band so that we see truly fast speeds, and we see as much innovation as we can make possible. So I am hopeful we will get to this in April, but I, again, like my colleague, recognize that these are complex times and the agency might need to make some hard decisions. But I do want to thank Commissioner O'Miley because I know that he has been vigorous in championing that we move on this issue as fast as possible, and that's a large part of why we were planning to work on this in April. Okay. Well, as a follow-up to what you just said, I mentioned at the very opening that what many call the race to 5G has focused almost entirely on mobile carrier networks. And it's not even clear that many, you know, I think in this policy community, we understand the nuances, but, you know, the broader context may not be as clear to many on the hill and in other places. Do you view the next generation of Wi-Fi technology as part of the future 5G wireless ecosystem? And is it complementary? And I guess Commissioner Rosenwurzel can start sincere up. Sure. Sure, absolutely. Listen, I think Priscilla said it really well when she pointed out that 70% of 5G traffic is expected at some point to be offloaded onto Wi-Fi networks. So if we don't create more spectrum for Wi-Fi right now, what we're going to have is these super fast licensed networks that are like being on a highway, and then we're going to get off on a gravel road. And it will radically reduce our ability to do new and innovative things at high speeds with low latency. So it's key for all of us to keep in mind that statistic that Priscilla offered, which is 70% of 5G traffic is expected to be offloaded onto Wi-Fi. It's why we've got to think about how we can have more on licensed spectrum and we need to do it now. Well, I would say I completely view these as complementary and join my colleagues' comments and thank her for all of her hard work on these tough issues. We've worked together on a bunch of matters, but these are two particular items, both 5.9 and 6 gigahertz that I've appreciated her input, her thoughts and her hard work on the matter. Now, to your question, I certainly agree the point in terms of offloading traffic. That is a big point, but I just see a change in the communities that the folks that I've been working with for decades on the matter, a change of attitude. I certainly believe we're still going to need licensed spectrum, and I work really hard on 5G bands to make those available. But I also believe that we have to have a complimentary full portfolio of unlicensed spectrum. And that's where you're seeing the licensed community change. In the past, it was a vicious fight between that, and now you're seeing an acceptance. That doesn't mean that every particular band is not going to be contested, but you're seeing an understanding of the value from both the licensed community and certainly the unlicensed community. So I think we're going to see more appreciation from the licensed community. We're still going to need licensed bands. There is no panacea going forward, and we're still going to have to work really hard, but they all complement each other. Okay. So when that's a perfect segue to my next question, which is that, you know, in real time, we're all grappling with school closures in a majority of states, including the nation's largest school districts, that could dramatically worsen what Commissioner Rosenwurzel has for many years called the Homework Gap. Would you support the use of emergency funds to pay for Wi-Fi hotspots, waivers of e-rate restrictions, or any other measures that could help families get through the shutdown? Just an opportunity to kind of address what's going on right now in front of us in terms of the connectivity crunch at home. Commissioner Rosenwurzel, do you have? But I think if you start talking, yeah, sure. Listen, as a nation, we're heading online like never before. We've got nearly 40 million school children who've been told that their schools are shuttering, and millions of them have been told to go online for class. This is a huge experiment in remote learning that this crisis has made necessary, but it's also exposing really hard truths about the scope of the digital divide. What I call the Homework Gap. So many students need internet access for nightly schoolwork, but data from the Senate, from Pew, from lots of folks proves time and again that so many students don't have that access. And now, with everyone expected to work and learn at home, we have a crisis on our hands. And I think the FCC should use every emergency power it has to step up and make sure its e-rate program can cover the cost of Wi-Fi hotspots for loan in our school library so no child is left offline. I think we should mirror our efforts on what was done following Hurricane Katrina during the Bush administration when we made a lot of really big decisions really fast about how we could use our universal service programs to keep folks connected. Now is the time to do exactly the same thing because we could fix this Homework Gap, but we've got to move fast. Well, I would say it's I'm incredibly mindful of the circumstances just before me in my own personal life, but also talking to countless people over the years that need to expand broadband accessibility is a paramount priority for me. I've worked really hard to try and address the unserved population and make sure that the commission stays focused on that to really get broadband to everyone who doesn't have it today. And we can disagree over the numbers of how many people are not connected, but we know that that population is significant. And whether it's one person or 50 million, it doesn't matter to me. I want to make sure everyone has an opportunity to access the broadband. In terms of the immediate crisis that we face, I'm willing to look at anything that's available. I know that we don't have the authority to waive the statute. That's something that Congress can do. And I know that they're looking at some of these things and will have the opportunity to consider those those policy changes. So in working with my my former employers, hopefully we'll be able to find a policy that works for everyone. Very short order. Okay. Any thoughts about, you know, sort of the add on to that telework, which is becoming at least, you know, sort of immediately a new normal. And, you know, could this could change the degree to which it's done, even after this, even after we get through this crisis, there's a very interesting article just today in the New York Times, about how there could be, you know, millions of homes with, you know, even with good cable internet, where you have two adults trying to do video conferencing for work in addition to children, hopefully doing schoolwork, but maybe watching their own video. Now, I know you can't waive a magic wand. And, you know, and say that all this additional unlicensed spectrum is available immediately. But, but, you know, I think it's a good thought experiment that if Wi Fi six and access to the 5.9 and six gigahertz bands were available now, you know, would this connectivity crunch be less of a problem? That's such a good that's such a good point. But we are in the middle of a crisis right now. And I, like everyone else wants to get to the other side. And when we do, I hope we take measurements of where our network succeeded and where they failed. Because it's not simple getting connectivity to everyone's household. You could have challenges with backhaul with interconnection points with the last mile. And of course, with our home Wi Fi systems. In addition, you could have platforms we all use to communicate that might be overloaded. You could also have virtual private networks that enterprise use for telework that really were not made for the load that they're going to have in the coming weeks. So I hope when this is all done, we can look back and identify those points of failure. And I think when we do, we're going to learn that we need more Wi Fi and the six gigahertz band is a really good place to start. No, Robbie, any thoughts? Yeah, I would I would certainly agree with the points my committee, my my fellow colleague made. I might say I would compliment and say, if we're going to learn a lot of lessons learned, we'll be both positive. And there'll be some negative and at any point in the communication network, there may be a breakdown because of of load and demand. And that's something we'll have to explore going forward. And what are those within our authority, and others that are that are outside our authority. So there will be lessons learned, good ones and a lot of uplifting will be done from the magical things that the people were able to do during this time. And there'll be some sad stories that we'll have to deal with. There will change policies going forward. So we're going to learn a lot. And we have a lot to do Wi Fi will play has already playing an incredible important role in connecting consumers and enterprises today. And in this moment that we live. And so I'm really appreciative of what's come before me, the work that's come before me, the things that I may have done in a different life. And now I know all the work that we have to do on five that nine and six gigahertz. Those are heavy lifting things. I've been there from the beginning and I'm very pleased they were getting close to completion. Okay, well, on a more uplifting note, we've talked about education. What other use cases are, you know, when we look ahead, what other use cases are you most excited about, as you've been supporting this big increased increase in unlicensed spectrum capacity, you know, which could accommodate wide channel gigabit fast Wi Fi six technology. One of the things that I think is most exciting is we're going to see the growth of the intelligent edge. The processing and storing all of the data with centralized cloud or data centers is no longer going to be necessary as we move to this new network infrastructure with Wi Fi six. And we're going to push decisions closer to the senses, sensors that are in the world around us, to the video cameras, to cars, to all the devices that are going to be connected. And that's going to create a new way of thinking about machine learning. And we're just in early days of understanding the impact of moving network intelligence to the edge. But I think it's going to be huge. I would agree and I appreciate all the points that Priscilla made in her presentation. The one of my old bosses said it well, the beauty of Wi Fi is you don't know exactly how it's going to be implemented by the innovators, the entrepreneurs, where they're going to exactly take the technology. We have ideas on what may happen in very low power situations or the low power indoor or even at the standard power within AFC. We have ideas on what may happen, but we're going to be surprised by something that we weren't anticipating. And that's that's a wonderful outcome for consumers. There's going to be some some magical cases coming forward and things that we never thought about in the past. And really the synergies that can come from this technology and all three different tracks are really going to be exciting. So I'm really interested in seeing this move forward as soon as possible. Okay, great. So to a new topic, our panel in a bit will focus on the digital divide and Wi Fi's role in narrowing the gap. I'm wondering if if you are concerned that mobile carrier 5G may be limited initially and for some years to the to the more dense urban and high traffic areas that justify the high buildout costs, you know, creating potentially a new type of 5G digital divide rather than closing the divide we have today. I mean, is that a concern? Absolutely. Listen, I mean, it's a fact of nature that our private sector actors are going to choose to deploy first in the areas that are most profitable. And when you build out a network, that's where you start. That's math. That's accounting. That's a law of nature and we're not going to change it. And then hopefully we build networks that we can then deploy further and further. But I think policymakers can do things to help ensure that the 5G error reaches us all. We need to be smart about spectrum for one. And I think we have got to make sure that we release to markets for both licensed and unlicensed use midband airwaves that have a nice mix of capacity and propagation because they don't require as many terrestrial of the popular period of time. And then we're going to have to make sure that more unlicensed is available like we're talking about here because that is the lowest cost way to extend service. It democratizes access and it is a terrific thing to do, not just for innovation, but for the economy as a whole. I would join my colleagues comments. I might have lost a little bit in there, but I'm sure she said some wonderful things and would agree with her on them. But I'm like I said, I'm really excited on what we're in the places where Wi-Fi can can fill and its role that it will play. I agree that 5G wired wireless services are probably going to deploy on even we've already seen that with the companies announcing different deployment schedules, many of them in the urban markets. That makes complete sense. Absolutely. There are things that the commission has to do. And we know Chairman Pi has been very aggressive on the infrastructure side and Commissioner Carr has been working on some of those things. And there's more things that I've called for and more aggression that we need to be towards some of the barriers in that situation, whether it be state, local or tribal. There's really hard work to do. It's not beloved by mid. It doesn't make as many friends as people like to say it does require preemption. That's hard lifting, I acknowledge, but it has to be done. And then on the spectrum side, I agree with my colleague, mid-band spectrum has been key. I've been working incredibly hard on C-band, working hard on a number of different bands, and then 3-1 to 3.55. A lot of things that are in the pipeline and we also have to build the next pipeline because there's going to be an incredible need for new wireless spectrum going forward or spectrum bands that are already allocated for many purposes on the government side. They're going to need to be converted to the commercial side. And that's a heavy lift as well. And that's what we signed up for. It's what I envisioned the next couple of years will be at the commission. It's going to be hard decision-making and hard to work with our colleagues, but I think we can make some success in there. OK, thank you. Let's turn to a debate that's flared up a bit in recent weeks. The Mobile Industry Association, CTIA, has suggested that the top half of this gigahertz band could instead be cleared and auctioned for exclusive use. That would involve moving tens of thousands of fixed links, the point-to-point microwave links, who are the incumbents and other incumbent users up into the 7 gigahertz band. Is that feasible or desirable at this point? Commissioner O'Ragli? Well, I alluded to this earlier. I know we're going to get to the question. But I have kept an open mind on this issue and I'm very mindful that the wireless industry needs more licensed spectrum. So I've tried to analyze this thoughtfully and look at the different proposals that have been put forward. Here, I've said, I don't believe the current time that what the wireless industry has sought, the licensed community has sought, is viable. And you mentioned 7 gigahertz, moving folks from 6 gigahertz to 7 gigahertz. And I say, OK, explain to me, is DoD ready for that? Are they willing to accept new licensees, new neighbors? And I haven't seen anything that suggests that as yet. I've also talked to a number of the current incumbents and I've asked them, you know, a number of the utility companies. And I said, are you interested in moving to 7 gigahertz? Are you? Is this something that would be of interest to you? And quite frankly, I think they're, you know, the initial story, you know, the initial take is that they're more interested in working with the unlicensed community to make Wi-Fi 6 acceptable, Wi-Fi 6E operational. So that that's my initial take on the situation. I will continue to hear the dialogue on this. And if something changes, I want to reconsider. But that, you know, the viability of that plan is not exactly full-submit the current time. OK. Mission to Rosenwurzel, anything on this? Well, I agree with my colleague. I think he stated it very well. If speed is your primary goal here, that we get more unlicensed spectrum to the market. And we've got to recognize that relocating the incumbents in the 6 gigahertz span is a project that could take as much as 10 years, according to our history. Whereas with unlicensed, we can figure out ways to frequency coordination and having low power where we can accommodate existing uses and get this into Wi-Fi 6 fast. So my concern is that setting aside a chunk of these airways for licensed spectrum would be a slow process. And in the marketplace, we wouldn't be able to use them for could be many years. In addition, I think it would put us at odds with some of the efforts going around nation around the world, where at least the lower portion of the span being looked at in Europe and I think the UK or unlicensed spectrum. And we would, of course, benefit from harmonizing and building an ecosystem for devices where our use cases or our use that spectrum are licensed to similar. Right. Yeah, I believe it was at the WRC primarily, Huawei and China that was pushing for us even to look at potentially licensing in the right six gigahertz. Yeah, no, I think it was China or I think it's region two, which involves Europe and Africa to study the use of this ban for licensed airwaves at next ITU gathering, which could be 2023. In other words, that's a long way out. I like the idea of us using these airwaves for unlicensed and finding a way to do it fast. And that's why I think moving ahead in the six gigahertz band in the next few months is so important. OK, I agree with my colleague and say, you know, I had a chance to be in Egypt for the WRC and I will tell you, you know, my experience where those countries were seeking to disrupt US Wi-Fi experiences and to slow our success globally and disrupt that process. And so those companies you mentioned, the countries you mentioned are more disruptive than it was about strategic actually licensing and being thoughtful going forward. So I found the process very distasteful and actually colored I whole WRC and it's made it problematic forward. Yeah, that's interesting. So Priscilla described three general categories of Wi-Fi six outdoor use at standard power that would be controlled by the database or any standard power use would have to be database controlled to protect incumbents, but also low power, lower power, indoor only and very low power for, you know, peripherals like headsets or glasses with AR, VR, etc. Do you think the commission will be able to accommodate all of, you know, all three categories of use case? I'll take that to start. I don't see my colleague right at the moment. So I think that all three tracks are necessary. And I think that I appreciate the licensed community working together and not fighting amongst each other to try and make one track over another track. So I think all three are necessary and inevitable and will be part of our item whenever it's considered. I think it has to be there. There are different services that can come from them and the benefits that from each one we're yet to see, but there's no one right mode. I would say the only thing on the AFC side is I'm hopeful that an AFC will be a little scaled down, not as extensive as the SAS structure that we have at three dot five. I'd like to be something we can do a little less comprehensive. I'd like to believe that to be the case. Mm hmm. Yeah, I think that's a general belief. I'm sure. I agree. I think my colleague said it well. I'd also like to see low power indoor use throughout the bands. Our initial proposal was that only two bands would be eligible for that. And I think we could move faster and build a bigger ecosystem for the six gigahertz band if we allow low power indoor use across the entire six gigahertz band. Well, you're absolutely right. And we're, you know, that's why you get the seven channels and so I think that's something that is incredibly high priority for the chairman and myself. And I think that's hopefully where we're going to end. Yeah, well, we're of course pleased to hear that since our very broad based, you know, consumer civil rights, education, et cetera, coalitions have made that our top priority, really, for the general public. So, you know, building on this last commissioner, well, both of you, but commissioner, I guess to start. So on the AFC, right, at standard Wi-Fi power levels, there seems to be a consensus that the commission should require an automated frequency coordination system to control access and ensure no harmful interference to the thousands of fixed links. So database sharing, I mean, in some ways this has been a bit of a surprise because database sharing was so controversial just a few years ago. Why isn't this dynamic sharing more controversial in this proceeding? Well, my take would be that we have we have greater experience, right? We've done, you know, Yeoman's work to address a number of problems that we had on TV white spaces. We've done extensive work on three dot five to make the SAS and ESC's operational and bring them up to speed. And so I think the experience has really calmed a lot of the waters from incumbent users from DoD and other others. And so I think an AFC makes it makes incredible sense for the certain power level that we're talking about, the track that we're talking about, the one track of the three in six gigahertz. But I think it's also mindful that we not overload that, that we not expect that it did not be a doesn't necessarily have to be a full some SAS type structure that we can build a less requirement and not burdensome and not be as expensive as we've had in the past. So experience has helped us a lot of experience on both sides, right? Making sure that it's not too cumbersome in the process. Yeah, I I agree with my colleague again. Like pause and remember, it wasn't that long ago that it was perceived as totally radical to have a spectrum access system. And these things would never work. But here we are. And we've got proof of concept. We're demonstrating the possibilities in white spaces and in the three dot five gigahertz band. And the best news yet is I think we can do it with a simpler system in the six gigahertz band. And I think what we're going to do over the long haul is use more of these systems in more spectrum bands going forward because what we can do is we can take existing use cases and expand them and we can move what we thought of as scarcity into abundance. And that's really exciting. And the fact that we have now gotten used to the idea that we might be using systems like these in more of our airways, it's really important. Like you said, it's a almost revolutionary switch in our thinking and it's passing us by. But we should pause and know it's really important that it's happened. And I'd like to add, you know, I think to your credit that the FCC is again leading the world on this. You know, Commissioner O'Reilly mentioned that the European Union and the United Kingdom, they are both about equally far along in opening, you know, the the 500 megahertz at the bottom of 6 gigahertz, 59, 25 to 64, 25 for unlicensed sharing with fixed links. But they are doing it initially indoor only because they have no experience with using automated frequency coordination. And similarly, they're starting to open C band spectrum for sharing for small enterprise use and so on. But again, they're doing it through manual coordination, which is very clunky and limiting because they have no experience with the sort of leading edge use of dynamic database coordination that we have in the US. So again, I think you should take some credit for leading the world on this. It's going to be really important, I think, in the in the whole broader 5G ecosystem. It should be that it's not just this commission, it's folks that were working on this for a long while before I got to the commission. I give credit to my colleague, Commissioner Rosalorosa, working on this before I was there and Tom really worked on it hard when he was chair. So it's been a long, long, a lot of work done. I will say that I visited UK last summer and talked about some of these things. And they do have somewhat different path and their mind. I didn't exactly figure out some of the things. I didn't exactly agree with where they were going on some of the CBAN things, for instance. But, you know, they were not exactly taking my my ideas either. So we'll just have to see who's who's right going forward. OK, well, we're we're almost out of time, but I do want to ask a last question on my end about the 5.9 gigahertz band, you know, comments. We're just filed on that last week. One argument we are seeing from the auto industry is that reallocating 45 megahertz to unlicensed and Wi-Fi is just a small increment. It's not needed considering the far larger amounts that could soon be available at 6 gigahertz. So I'm wondering how do you think about that? I mean, you've both made 5.9 priorities. It really just a marginal 40 or 45 megahertz, or is it something more important? Commissioner O'Ragland. Well, look at 5.9 incredibly important. I disagree with some of the auto industry and I wouldn't say it's the car manufacturers who have switched their tone over the last many years. And so I think the infrastructure side is still, you know, committed to a DSRC model and all 75 megahertz must be preserved. And I don't think it's sustainable going forward. And I think that, you know, their approach is problematic. They've been, you know, so much hyperbole on the subject is incredibly not helpful to the entire dialogue. But I think that what you get from 5.9 is not something that's identical to 6 gigahertz. Though they're really close. We can put 5.9 to work immediately. There will be more work needed to make the AFC operational in 6 gigahertz to deal with some of the things. So notwithstanding adopting an item, there'll be more work to have to make 6 gigahertz operational where we can plug in 5.9 almost immediately. And so I think that's really telling and something that I think the auto industry is a whole or the transportation industry is a whole is missing on the situation. Right. OK. Yeah. Listen, I think my colleague just said that very well. But I think there's a bigger macro issue here. Two years ago, in appropriations legislation, Congress asked the FCC to find 255 megahertz of spectrum. And as much of that would be 155 megahertz below 8 gigahertz for unlicensed use. So on the one hand, we have Congress tasking us with identifying airwaves that can be cleared for unlicensed use. And a lot of them. And that's a great thing. They understand, just as Priscilla mentioned, that this is big for the economy. Let's have more of it. But at the same time, we have a lot of federal entities that are incumbent users in 8 giga below 8 gigahertz. And they are pushing back on the agency. Whenever we try to reclaim those airwaves or even try to come up with ways where we can use them together. And this is not a problem that's unique to this administration. Frankly, it's as old as time. And on a going forward basis for us to have a robust wireless economy with both licensed and unlicensed, we're going to have to get better at this. Because the back and forth slows down what we can do with these airwaves and slows down innovation. And I think we're going to reach the point where it slows the economy too. So this is a bigger picture problem than just what we see in the 5.9 gigahertz span. It is something that we're going to have to address at a higher level. Because this back and forth isn't getting us always the airwaves we need. OK. Thank you. Well, I had promised to wrap up with you all by one. So I think we'll have to end it here. But I want to thank you again for joining us under these unusual circumstances. And we're still learning how to do this in virtual terms. But I think it went very well. So thank you to all. And here's a lot of virtual applause for you. Thank you, Michael. And thank you, New America. And thank you to everyone who's working hard at home right now using their home Wi-Fi or trying to manage keeping their kids quiet while we do these kind of things. I know personally, it's not easy. And just want to thank you for keeping this going and having this discussion today. OK. Thank you. My thanks to everyone. Have a happy St. Patty's Day, as best you can. Stay safe. Thanks so much. That's right. Thank you, commissioners. That's something I forgot to do at the outset is wish everyone a happy St. Patrick's Day. It's so hard to remember when you're not seeing anyone dressed in green, although I should since I'm half Irish, believe it or not, despite my last name. So we can move on to, well, soon to our panel. But as a sort of kind of an introduction or setup for our panel, I'd like to introduce John Horrigan. John is a senior fellow at the at the Technology Policy Institute where he focuses on technology adoption and digital inclusion. Dr. Horrigan is also a senior adviser to the Urban Libraries Council. So, John, take it away. Great. Thank you very much to everyone. I have a few slides that I think are going to get loaded and displayed in a minute. That's slide number one. We can go to the next slide. And what I want to do is just offer a fairly high level portrait of where we stand when it comes to the digital divide. What my focus is going to be is on internet adoption at home. So my presentation will not get into the deployment issue, meaning I won't get into whether people's home broadband speed meet the 25 megabit per second threshold or not. I'm just going to focus on what we know about how people or whether people are subscribing to broadband at home. So in addition to this being St. Patrick's Day, it also marks the 10th anniversary of the delivery of the national broadband plan to Congress. And one of the things that is an outgrowth of a lot of the policy activity of that era is that the American Community Survey started in 2013 asking questions in its surveys about people's technology used at home. So that has become an incredibly rich data source on what's going on with respect to the digital divide insofar as we can now understand who's subscribing to broadband at home, who's not, and even get down to the regional and city level to look at broadband adoption in those contexts. I'm going to keep it at the 30,000 foot level and just focus in this first slide on figures from the American Community Survey that focus on broadband of any type and the percentage of people with broadband of any type at home. And you can see over the 2013 to 2018 timeframe, we've had a steady increase in the share of people with broadband of any type at home. We've gone from about 73% in 2013 to 85.1% in 2018. Let's go to the next slide, please. On this next slide, we focus on American Community Survey data of that takes a different slice at who has broadband at home. In 2016, the ACS started asking a question about whether people have broadband at home, such as cable modem, digital subscriber line service, or fiber optic service. That's a question that essentially captures the percent of people with a wireline broadband subscription at home. And you can see that the numbers are very different than when you focus on overall broadband adoption rates. If you look at the 2018 number on the right, we see that 69.6% of households have a wireline broadband subscription at home. If you can remember back one slide prior, you'll recall that in 2018, 85.1% of Americans had broadband at any type. So you have that roughly 15 percentage point gap between people having broadband of any type versus a wireline broadband subscription at home. For the most part, that 15 percentage point gap is the smartphone. People who have a cellular data plan but do not have a broadband internet subscription at home. Now that gap is important because it is a measure of digital inequality. There's been a number of research undertakings. One of the most important, most recently, is from the Michigan State University who show that having smartphone only internet access is insufficient for completing a number of different tasks online. The Michigan State research in particular shows that households who are smartphone only have students in them who are struggling to complete homework. Lower levels of digital skills are less likely to take the SAT relative to those households with a wireline internet subscription at home. So the focus on the wireline subscription I think is an important metric for policymakers to focus on. And we turn, translate that 69.6% figure into households. That means that as of 2018, in the United States, we had nearly 37 million households without a wireline broadband internet subscription at home. And as I think many of us can appreciate, that wireline subscription is the big pipe off of which so much of our internet experience depends. And it's where wireline ends and for most households, Wi-Fi begins. Next slide, please.  She pointed out how some households have a super-fast highway running to their homes. And then with Wi-Fi that may not perform so well, you get off onto a gravel road. Well, this first data point from a recent Deloitte survey shows that the average household has 11 wireless connected devices. So there's a lot of cars on that gravel road relying on Wi-Fi for their internet access experience and as the tool by which they use the various applications on these wireless devices. The Deloitte report didn't break out how many low-income households have connected devices relative to well-off ones. But when you have an average of 11 wireless connected devices, it means that even low-income households have a number of wireless connected devices sharing the Wi-Fi internet connection at home. And in fact, according to a survey I did in 2018 of low-income households, and this is a sample of CONCAST's Internet Essentials customers who had within the prior three months gotten a home broadband subscription, we asked them what kinds of devices they had, what kinds of things they do with their home broadband subscription. We found that 82 percent had smartphones, 59 percent streamed TV or video to their devices, 57 percent had a desktop or laptop, 53 percent have a tablet. So low-income households have lots of wireless devices. I should point out also that the 59 percent number for streaming TV and video, obviously that does include entertainment. But we also found in that survey, which did have an over sample of low-income households with children, that survey did find that there was a lot of streaming going on for educational purposes in those households. Let's turn for a second to Wi-Fi and community anchor institutions and in particular libraries. Work I did at the Pew Research Center a couple of years back focused on how consumers or how patrons experience various technology experiences at the local public library. And we found that 29 percent of public library patrons use the library or Wi-Fi resources at their local public library. That was most prevalent among young people and low-income people. And there was a high rate of people using Wi-Fi or other competing devices at libraries for schoolwork, research, and for healthcare applications. I want to also mention some work I've done looking at public libraries in California. In the state of California, several years ago, public libraries were able to access the scenic research network in the state, which is a very high speed internet connection that runs to public libraries. This increased the access speeds available at public libraries from something like 76 megabits per second to 2 gigabits per second or more. So libraries were going from bandwidth, scarcity to bandwidth abundance overnight in some cases, and libraries had to consider what to do with this new wealth of bandwidth. Lots of libraries started interesting programs on gaming to bring people to libraries in their community to do gaming. They used their bandwidth for programs to import cultural content from some of the state's excellent cultural institutions like the Exploratorium or the Getty Museum in Los Angeles. So libraries started to close what we identified as sort of this bandwidth imagination gap by using bandwidth for some of the services I just described, but also relying on Wi-Fi within their libraries to really deliver those services. So libraries in California at least, and I'm sure this is going on in other places around the country are seeing sometimes very significant upgrades in connection speeds. They also need the next step, which is to have the Wi-Fi within their institutions to really get the most bang for the bandwidth buck that they're getting. Next slide, please. And this will just be by way of wrapping up to talk about some of the implications of this for a lot of people. The last few feet is as important as the last mile to their households. This is true in particular for all income categories. Wi-Fi 6 is part of another tech transition, but we have to make sure that the capacity exists to serve all segments of society. So there's an imperative and we're seeing it obviously very vividly in these recent days with people having to stay at home due to the pandemic to work on the problem of home wireline broadband connectivity to lots of low-income Americans in particular, but then also plan for the future with a Wi-Fi experience that will enable people to get the most out of the bandwidth that they have at home. So with that, I will wrap up, Michael, and turn it over to you. Thanks, John. Yeah, that was terrific background. And I think, you know, for me, he's particularly reinforced. I wasn't aware of that Scenic, the California libraries and Scenic example, but it really dramatizes that, you know, you can have, you can bring multi-gigabit, you know, fiber to a community anchor institutional library school. But if you can't distribute it to all the devices, to all other people, you know, you're really not making the most of it. And with 5G applications we'll only get more bandwidth and tense. Obviously, AR, VR, the things that Priscilla outlined for us earlier.  Why is it important? So first we have Paula Boyd, who is the senior director for government and regulatory affairs at Microsoft. And Paula, I want to, you know, I think ask you about, about Microsoft's interest in this because Microsoft spends such a leading advocate for unlicensed for more than a decade and has been advocating for more unlicensed in low, mid and high band spectrum, all of it. Why is this such a priority for the company and how does Wi-Fi 6 fit into your vision? Sure, Michael, thank you so much for the opportunity to participate on the panel. You know, as you mentioned, we have been, Microsoft has been involved in broadband discussions for a really long time. You know, when I think about sort of the journey that Microsoft and other companies have had from a technology perspective, unlike some of the other big tech companies, we were kind of born offline. You know, we, you know, I remember the days when, you know, I got my software on a floppy disk and you had to download it to the computer, but over the years, you know, everything has shifted to being online. You know, so your email is in the cloud, your productivity tools today are in the cloud.  And with that, you know, in addition to our services that actually leverage the cloud, like Office 365, you know, Outlook.com and other services, we're also a cloud service provider, which means that we host services from other third parties in our cloud and allow their users, customers, employees to access their content and services online. And so for us, broadband is critical to that. Without broadband, there's no access to the cloud. There's no access to all of these services. And so from our perspective, you know, we have always, we have been very involved in the broadband discussion for some time. As we, you know, in addition to sort of the policy efforts around broadband, we've also taken the opportunity a couple of years back to stand up our airband initiative in which we pledged to connect, I believe it's two million users on-served, sorry, we pledged to partner with broadband providers to connect consumer, to provide coverage, broadband coverage for consumers who don't have it today, at least consumers in rural areas. And, you know, we've been working, our projects, our team, airband team has been working really hard on those issues and those project deployments.  And so they're well on their way to delivering on that pledge. So we care about it from a policy perspective, we care about it from just getting, you know, our hands, you know, into kind of the project side and working with partners to deliver on it. I think the six gig, the 5G opportunity is really interesting. And I think it intersects really nicely with, you know, highlighting the importance of ensuring that unlicensed spectrum is allocated across the six gigahertz band.  It will mean low latency. And today, you know, it's been amazing, at least from my perspective, what we've seen Wi-Fi do in other bands, be it 2.4B in 5 gigahertz. But we know those channel sizes are a little small, at least in 2.4 gigahertz. And we just know that those bands are becoming increasingly crowded. So if we want to keep up with being able to leverage Wi-Fi just in our daily life, I mean, you know, sitting here, I'm connecting via Wi-Fi today, in order to keep up with that and to have new experiences as those experiences unfold with 5G and other technologies, it's gonna be critical to ensure that unlicensed spectrum is allocated across the six gigahertz band. Right. Thanks, Paula. We're also joined by A.J. Phillips, who is the Director of Information Technology Services for the Prince William County Public Schools. And so I'd like to ask A.J. just to, you know, talk a bit about why is Wi-Fi important to teaching and learning in your school district? And, you know, is that a changing thing? Hi, Michael. Thank you very much. I appreciate you having me here today. So, you know, Prince William County Schools is a large school district or the second largest in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And we have 91,000 students. So every day I'm thinking about structurally how we support those students with Wi-Fi with, you know, our network ensuring that it's functioning. And I think our greatest struggle is that while 5G and Wi-Fi 6 are all awesome things that are coming, school districts struggle with getting their equipment up to date to pay for these types of things, right? And so what I'm always focusing on is, you know, students coming with more than one device to school. I mean, right now I'm sitting here with my iPad up, my phone going and my laptop, right? Kids are coming with those same types of things. And so being able to support that kind of instruction on a daily basis for 100 different locations and 91,000 students is a challenge. And so not only that, we have voice over IP, you know, we have security cameras running on the network, robotics, online learning, you know, obviously the school closure is a huge part of it too. We have students trying to get onto, you know, VPN into the network and staff working. So, you know, this change to go to Wi-Fi 6 and the 5G would be immensely important for the school divisions across the United States. I mean, you got to think about other things just outside of the instructional piece. Our schools are trying to show, have Wi-Fi at the stadium so parents who are maybe deployed or overseas can see their kids playing sports. And so we need that Wi-Fi access at the stadiums. Also when parents come to pay, they go to the concession stand, they want to be able to swipe a card. Well, we need Wi-Fi for that. So this is huge, a huge game changer for Prince William County Schools, for schools across the division. I think one of our greatest challenges though will be once, if and when we get to Wi-Fi 6 and 5G, the challenge will be us as a division being able to fund those, upgrade our equipment to be able to max that speed, match that speed. Okay, thanks, AJ. And our final panelist is Rosa Mendoza, who is the founder, president, and CEO of Alvanza. So Rosa, can you tell us about Alvanza's mission and how Wi-Fi and affordable internet access impacts the communities that you advocate for? Good afternoon, everyone. And first of all, thank you, Michael, and the Open Tech Institute for inviting me to take part on this important dialogue and the future of Wi-Fi. Look, Alvanza's mission is to advocate to ensure everyone, especially those from underserved communities, has a chance to succeed in our innovation and technology-based society. I created Alvanza for many reasons, but one of the reasons is because Latinos continue to be on the wrong side of the digital divide. And although research has shown that Latinos use smartphones more than other groups of Americans, as John Horan mentioned during his presentation, we need to remember that there's only so much you can do on a smartphone. So we need broadband access on effectual devices. We need them where one lives, where one works, in order to fully benefit from the many crucial resources available online. And one of the many reasons why we at Alvanza care about Wi-Fi is because it represents a major mechanism to help close the digital divide. And because for too many people in the Latino community, Wi-Fi represents their only way to access the internet. And research has also shown that minorities use Wi-Fi more often than their white counterparts. And they do it for many reasons. I mean, education purposes, job searches, entertainment, and so on. And another important fact that research has also shown is that the number of devices that connect to Wi-Fi continues to increase. And that's not going to slow down any time soon. In fact, I just wrote a blog on this issue. And one of the statistics that I referenced in that blog is that some estimates suggest that by 2022, there will be more than 13 internet-enabled devices per person in the US. And of course, many of which will be able to connect or will connect through Wi-Fi, excuse me. And speaking of devices that connect to Wi-Fi, my son, who by the way is only 2 and 1 half years old, already has an iPad. And of course that iPad connects via Wi-Fi, right? I guess we just have 12 more to go, 12 more devices to go, given the statistics, right? So look, we all very much rely on this very valuable resource. And that's why it's very, very important that additional mid-band spectrum is allocated for our license use in order to facilitate increased Wi-Fi availability. Without access to reliable, affordable internet broadband on effectual devices, like I said, where one lives, where one works, Latinos and other underserved communities are going to continue to find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide. So affordable, reliable broadband access is truly the cornerstone for underserved communities achievement and success. And our modern society that we all know has become very much dependent on innovation and technology. And as I mentioned, Alvanza advocates for this essential in what we believe should be a fundamental right for all people living in the US. Right. Thanks, Rosa. I wanted to pick up on this question of a potential 5G digital divide. As mobile carriers build out 5G, the promised gigabit speeds and low latency are expected to generate valuable new apps and services, much as 4G made Uber, Lyft, and live video streaming possible. Should we be concerned that for many years, 5G may be limited to the more profitable urban and high traffic areas, as Commissioner Rosenwurzel was saying, creating potentially a new 5G digital divide rather than closing the divide we have today? So this is really for any of you. Is that something we should be concerned about? This is Rosa. I think that in order to ensure that 5G does not make the digital divide worse, it is obviously really important that 5G is deployed in every community in the US to ensure that everyone can benefit from a margin technology that obviously enriches our lives in countless ways. But another thing that we need to think about is that this is something that we don't discuss often. 5G infrastructure will create a lot of job opportunities. But unfortunately, a lot of people in underserved communities do not know about these opportunities. And they have no clue what to do, what certifications to get in order for them to be able to get these jobs. So it's very important that the companies that are deploying and will be deploying 5G create some sort of roadmap that can educate people about how to get jobs and deploy in 5G infrastructure. Because people in our community need to know what type of skills they need, what if they need some sort of specialized training, certifications, et cetera. Not only do they need to hear about these opportunities, but they need to know how to take advantage of these opportunities. And like I said, in order to ensure that everyone benefits from these emerging technologies, 5G doesn't need to be deployed in every community. And as many communities as possible, of course. I have to say, I think it will be a challenge. And it could create a little bit of divide because we currently still do have areas, you know, even where I live next to Prince William County, I live in Falkirk County, where my daughter, you know, goes to school. And they're in my, I don't even live in a neighborhood.  We don't have internet. I don't have cable coming out here. I'm using literally a hotspot right now from home. And so what I am afraid is that that 5G is not going to work out here because we can't even get regular 4G or anything else to work out here. So that's always a concern for me and for my students who live, I border right on Prince William County. I have students in my school district that live out here and they don't have internet access. So that is a concern from a tech director's point of view and an educator that that could cause more of a divide. So this is Paula. I'll also go ahead and jump in as well. I thought Commissioner Rosenwurzel said it really well. You know, if the past is instructive, these networks are challenging to build out and build out often happens in areas that are non-rural first. We're the sort of high density areas. But, you know, we know that. And so my hope is that we can be intentional about anticipating the challenges for building out elsewhere and putting in place, you know, private public sector opportunities to ensure that connectivity is extended to everyone. It's important, you know, that 5G is built out. I think it's just a matter of making sure that we're intentional about the gaps that might arise as that build out occurs. And if I might add quickly, Michael, I think a data point I mentioned about the 37 million household gap in wireline broadband adoption at home, I think is worth keeping in mind in the context of 5G, which is to say there are two interrelated problems to solve deploying 5G, but also tackling that home wireline broadband adoption gap that is particularly concentrated, not just in rural areas, although there are problems obviously there, but it's located in low income urban areas and in communities of color in particular. So there are multiple problems we have to address as we move along this path toward 5G. Yeah, thanks, John. Yeah, and that's certainly right because when you mentioned, I think a very sobering statistic too was not only that overall gap in, you know, in fixed connections, but the idea that even, you know, that 15% that is mobile only, you know, they're not getting the full functionality of, you know, a fast broadband and if they try to rely on mobile and their smartphones, no matter how fast those get, it's not going to really give them of the full opportunity of internet access. So kind of turning to education in particular, so even before the current school closures, an estimated one third of K-12 students had inadequate home broadband, you know, so what, you know, Commissioner Rosenberg so caused a homework gap could now be, you know, a much bigger learning gap for as long as this goes on. What role can Wi-Fi play, perhaps coupled with other policies to help students without good internet connectivity at home? So maybe start with AJ and others can chime in. Sure, yeah, I mean, the homework gap was definitely concerned before we're in the current situation we're in with COVID-19. You know, definitely in Prince William County, we have mountains on one side and, you know, we're next to DC on the other side and we have those urban areas and those rural areas where kids do not have Wi-Fi access and it's a challenge. And so right now we're really struggling with trying to ensure that instruction continues in these unprecedented times and we're struggling with it. We really do not have the capacity to provide the internet that they need, you know, and some families just can't afford it, right? They can't Comcast, you know, even in a variety of other different providers, you know, lower the cost, but they, you know, parents will say all the time, well, we have a cell phone. And like you said, Michael, we can't continue to rely on the cell phone for our instruction and education. They need more to their education. And so that is a great challenge and a lot of our school district, they just don't have access. And so we are concerned. We've been contacting numerous vendors saying, hey, can we get some hotspots and see if they'll work in the various areas? And at this point with the coronavirus going on, hotspots from the carriers are hard to find. You know, they're saying, well, we might have some next week. We're okay, well, that's good, but, you know, and then it's trying to get them out there and make sure they work and show the families how to use them. So at this time, it's becoming wider for us in Prince William County School as a homework gap. Yeah. And I'll go ahead and jump in as well, Michael.  I mean, we talked about, AJ talked about hotspots. You know, one of the things that we kind of learned when we did an Air Band pilot in Southern Virginia is in the pilot, we leveraged the Wi-Fi. We leveraged the connectivity at the school to push out connectivity to homes, to students in their homes. And, you know, when we partner with our partners, they use a lot of different kinds of spectrum to enable connectivity. And a lot of that is on licensed spectrum like 2.4 or 5 bigger Hertz. And we think there are opportunities there. You know, there's stuff that's done around the E-Rate to make connectivity in the schools available. And our hope is that, you know, one of the things that we have asked the FCC to do in the past is to enable schools to make it clear the schools can use their E-Rate-funded broadband connectivity to connect students in the home. Some of that can be done with on licensed spectrum and including Wi-Fi. So we think there's, it's a tremendous tool simply because there are no barriers to being able to leverage it. And so we hope, and we've heard other, we've heard about other creative solutions around on licensed spectrum and Wi-Fi. So our hope is, you know, it's a really difficult time for a lot of schools right now. Our hope is that, you know, a lot of these ideas will bear fruit and folks will see value in enabling these solutions at time, you know, when we're not in the crisis mode, that it will last beyond this crisis and we'll be prepared if this ever happens again. Yeah, well, hopefully they will loosen some of the restrictions for an E-Rate funding, for example, you know, because I think about, you know, not only your pilot, but also in the library space, the Gigabit Libraries Network has a pilot that has different federal funding, which uses on licensed spectrum in the TV bands, the TV white space to extend connectivity from the library out, you know, further into the community because, you know, you may have a fast pipe to the library, but at best, you know, given the hours of the library, sitting in the parking lot may be the only way to use it otherwise and it can be extended further and schools could be doing some of that as well. Yep. Let me ask, I think AJ in particular, you mentioned that, you know, so let's assume, okay, we're talking about the home, now we're back at school, you mentioned that schools will need more and more bandwidth for Wi-Fi. Does this reflect changes in how internet access is used in teaching and learning? So for example, are you expecting more use of very high bandwidth applications such as virtual reality? Yeah, so being a former educator, no tech director, you know, I look at things and go, okay, we need to prepare our students for their future and not ours. And so there's gonna be two jobs in the future. One is gonna be working with computers and the other one's gonna be fixing computers. And so we have to enable our students to be able to have those devices and those learning opportunities to be prepared for those jobs. And the only way we can do that is by increasing the bandwidth and ensuring that we have enough bandwidth and Wi-Fi to be able to support them. I do see, we already, our teachers, our principals are already asking me, hey, we need more bandwidth. We wanna do virtual reality. We're going on these virtual field trips. We wanna chat with an author and things like that. And so with the bandwidth, with the division as large as ours, our bandwidth gets eaten up quickly with everybody streaming and different variety of things and creating their YouTube videos and doing morning announcements. And so I always equate it to the field of dreams. If I build it, they will come. And so over the past couple of years, we've gone, we've increased our network and the more I'm adding, the more I see that they're utilizing it. And no, we're not at our max, but we're getting there to the point where next year, I'm thinking, okay, I already need to start adding on more bandwidth to enable our students and our teachers to be able to get the instruction across that they need to prepare them for their future jobs. Yeah, that's right. And if 5G networks make augmented reality and virtual reality, something more commonplace and more affordable, I mean, that will, I'm sure that will become a tool in the schools. It will be a game changer. Yeah, absolutely. Any other thoughts on that? And schools, libraries, education? Because I'd like to go on and circle back to Rosa. Rosa, you mentioned that Wi-Fi impacts everyone and so many important aspects of life in your community. Can you give us some other examples, some specific examples of where Wi-Fi is going to be very important? Absolutely, I have several samples that I'm going to share with you. But I want to start with the question and this question is, I guess, for whoever can unmute themselves and say, I do. So the question is, does your current laptop has an ethernet port? I'm sure nobody's going to respond, because mine doesn't. I can't remember the last time my device had an ethernet port. And look, the point is that access to Wi-Fi is really the only way many people access the internet. And that's why having increased Wi-Fi options through opening up on license spectrum is very important to those who already have limited access and those who struggle with adopting anti-resources. And I'm obviously referring to people from underserved communities, right? And look, to answer your question, Michael, here are some specific samples of why Wi-Fi is very important to the Latino community. First of all, Wi-Fi is critical to the Latina student in the small town of Sunnyside, Washington, who doesn't have access to the internet at home and has to go to the local coffee shop, which is the story of many, many students from underserved communities to use Wi-Fi to be able to complete her homework. Schools and libraries also offer students access to broadband so they can complete their homework assignments online via Wi-Fi. And now community's Wi-Fi is helping to bridge the homework gap and connect more people than ever to the internet. Wi-Fi is critical to OSCAR, who's physically impaired and uses smart home devices that help them execute critical personal and professional tasks. Wi-Fi helps the small business owners, the family in Wenatchee, Washington, who operate a taco truck, and Wi-Fi helps their business run more efficiently when they can easily and conveniently order their authentic Mexican food ingredients online from the Mexican bodega in California. And it also helps them attract more clients to their taco truck who need access to Wi-Fi on their laptop. You know, we all know that many businesses advertise that they provide free Wi-Fi as a way to attract customers. And I've been one of those customers. I've been to many places when they offer Wi-Fi because I needed to use my laptop. Wi-Fi is also crucial to the Latino farm worker in Salinas, California, who needs to communicate with his family members via social media about the financial support he's sent via Western Union Online to help his family in Mexico who needs financial support. Wi-Fi is important to most hospitals in the U.S. where many life-saving devices in hospitals across the country operate on Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi is also critical to telehealth and for the 65-year-old Latino man who lives in Brownsville, Texas, who needs to communicate with his doctor regarding his diabetes. And by the way, Brownsville, Texas is one of the least connected areas in the U.S. and there's a lot of Latinos in that area or obviously not connected. And finally, Wi-Fi was also helpful to me. You know, when I traveled to Europe, I was able to connect to Wi-Fi to let my family know that I had a right safely. Look, I think these examples make it very clear that we all benefit from Wi-Fi and that's why I keep saying that it's very important that the FTC allocate enough mid-band on licensed spectrum for Wi-Fi operations, especially in the six and the five dot nine, five dot nine, excuse me, gay or heart spans, which will help close a digital divide by connecting people who otherwise would not have access to the valuable online resources. And as a number of internet-enabled devices continues to increase, and like I said, that's not going to slow down at any point and is having across all communities, the importance of Wi-Fi and obviously in turn, the importance of unlicensed spectrum will also increase. And today we simply do not have enough unlicensed spectrum available to me. Not only existing demands, but also the future demands of Wi-Fi networks with next generation capabilities. Yeah, thanks. John, you mentioned your research with library connectivity. Are there other community anchor institutions or civic applications that could leverage higher bandwidth from the next generation Wi-Fi? Any kind of general thoughts on public services and public access? Yeah, libraries are obviously hubs of access for people who do not have access to wire line at home or any access at all, but there are a number of other kinds of community anchor institutions, neighborhood non-profits, often funded by local foundations that provide access services. And they're doing things that AJ mentioned kind of matter of factly, but I think often goes unnoticed by some policymakers. AJ mentioned about the need to get hot spots to households right now. And she said, first you have to get them, but then you have to go out there to make sure they work and show people how they use them. That's part of AJ's job on a daily basis, but that is the function that a lot of these community technology initiatives serve, not for students, but for older Americans or people who just can't afford broadband at home. So those institutions need a fast pipe coming into the facilities that they operate with Wi-Fi in order for them to deliver those digital skills, services that they deliver to people that not just give them access for the sake of going online to check email, but gives them a pathway to apply for a job, build a resume, get that certification that they need to get that's often only available online to show that, for instance, they are certified to handle food safely so they can have food service jobs, for instance. So it's not just schools and libraries, but other kinds of community anchor institutions that are part of this equation as well. Okay, thanks. Any other thoughts on that or? Okay, so another topic, and I should mention, by the way, if those of you watching, if you have questions for the panelists, please put them on the chat box and we'll go to those in a few minutes. But I wanna go back first to Priscilla described how there's different flavors of unlicensed use potentially across the six gigahertz band. And as the two commissioners said that their highest priority, although it's the most contentious issue right now, is whether there can be lower power indoor only access or usage without the burden of database control. In other words, without having to worry about whether you have the GPS to know exactly where you are or without subscribing to a database control service to protect incumbents. Because the way Wi-Fi works today, it truly is plug and play. You go to Best Buy for a router or you are dropship the router from your cable company, you plug it in, it works. If we wanna add these bands to routers like that in the typical home or small business, you know, it can't be a burden. So I think I asked Paula first and anyone else, when you consider that apps and use cases, when you consider the apps and use cases are going to demand increasing amounts of bandwidth and low latency, how important is it for the FCC to authorize, you know, LPI, this lower power indoor only in a way that the average, you know, household or small business can install as cheaply and easily as upgrading a router? So I think it's really, really critical. You know, we've talked about 5G offload, but you can imagine sort of a lot of the other examples that the various panelists have given over time could be enhanced and leveraged in terms of the kinds of applications, the evolution in terms of applications, the high bandwidth that will be necessary. You can imagine that once, you know, higher bandwidth applications start moving over the 5G network, they're not only gonna stay on the 5G network, they're gonna be on the wireline network, they're gonna need to traverse over on license spectrum. And today, there's no real spectrum block there to handle that kind of traffic. So from our perspective, it's just really critical to enable, you know, enable a licensed allocation in the 6GHz band. When we think about, as a company, when we think about connectivity as well, we often think about our devices and our services being on devices that are mobile, I would say nomadic or portable. And so you're walking around the house with a tablet or a PC, you know, or you're doing that in the office as well. And primarily those devices connect via on license spectrum. And so if you're talking about moving really significant applications with interesting experiences that require a low latency and high bandwidth, the 6GHz band is just simply critical. You know, I think of a licensed spectrum as kind of an innovation band. You know, it's a permissionless innovation, anyone can leverage it and build services and devices that they can make available to consumers. I worry about sort of that innovation not happening if that band isn't there. I also worry about just the connectivity that consumers have come to enjoy not occurring if that band isn't allocated for our licensed use. Yeah, that's right, thanks. And as much as I think many people know that I've been a big supporter of being able to share underutilized bands using databases, that's what, you know, how it was mentioned earlier, that's how TV white space. We're able to use the vacant TV channels by coordinating through a database and knowing where you are located in relation to TV stations. And the same in the new citizens band, radio broadband service at 3.5 gigahertz that is shared with the Navy. But if we can possibly avoid the need to have, you know, constant communication with a database and that database coordination, which has a cost associated with it as well, as well as complexity, you know, that, you know, would make the band so much more useful in sort of every environment, even though it would be lower power. Is there any other thoughts on, yeah, on this question of, you know, kind of indoor outdoor or, you know, you know, the any constraints on use? Yeah, I know AJ said earlier, you know, obviously the schools have to move around all this data and the big schools can probably install and manage an enterprise grade network. But, you know, for the smaller schools, it will, you know, it'll also be important. Paula, while I have you up here, I also wanted to touch on, you know, rural, tribal, remote areas. I think we've all been talking so much about offload that it suggests, you know, heavily urban suburban use. Microsoft's Air Band Initiative has focused on leveraging unlicensed low band spectrum, the TV wide spaces, to help connect rural and remote areas, including for agriculture. And what, you know, this, something like 1500 wisps wireless internet service providers use predominantly unlicensed spectrum as well to connect homes and businesses in less populated areas. Do you see a role for wide channel Wi-Fi 6 in helping to connect rural and underserved areas? I do. You know, when you look at the, when you look at our partners in the projects that they deploy, they tend to leverage a variety of spectrum bands to enable connectivity. Earlier, you mentioned that when you look at the six gigahertz band, there'll be, I think it was Priscilla who mentioned this, there'll be a number of different uses. So there's the very low power, there's the indoor low power, and then there's the standard power outdoor. And so when you look at, if you think of broadband connectivity, particularly in the hard to serve areas, as a challenge that will probably require a number of different solutions, we see six gigahertz, the standard outdoor power option as something that could be an opportunity for our partners as they deploy in rural areas. With that said as well, you know, what's also important as well is that, you know, as new applications come on, you want those applications to be available to everyone.  And frankly, it has an, you know, an adverse impact on your ability to participate as a citizen, if you do not have access to those kinds of opportunities and applications. So, you know, so our hope is that, you know, it will come online and our partners will be able to deploy it where they see that it works best as they deploy their networks. Okay, thanks. Any other, anyone else want to jump in on whether we need, whether we can use unlicensed spectrum out in, you know, out in these other areas. I think it is important to realize it's kind of the flip side of the low power indoor because outdoors in these less densely populated areas you need higher power. And so the commission has proposed that you can use, you know, full pop, the full wifi power, which is still fairly low in those areas as long as you're controlled by the database to make sure you don't interfere with fixed links. And the wisps have proposed even higher power where there's more distance away from the incumbent. Which is typically the case and, you know, once you get outside, you know, the very populated areas. Okay, we're getting close to time. One question that came in, I don't know if anyone wants to do it, this may have been intended for the commissioners initially, but if anyone happens to be game, the question is saying that the 5.9 gigahertz band is not well suited for automobile safety to begin with. It doesn't go well around corners or over hills. And now that it's sandwiched between the spectrum that is the future for wifi, why not give them a slice of lower band spectrum instead? Maybe something, you know, with much better propagation and perhaps even more spectrum. So if anyone wants to venture an opinion on that. Yeah, I'll go ahead and jump in, Michael. You know, we do support a portion of the 5.9 gigahertz band being allocated for unlicensed use. You know, I think we're anticipating that it would support, you know, multiple 20 megahertz channels or 40 megahertz channel. And when you aggregate that with the spectrum that is, you know, in the other uni four, in the uni four band and then in some that span the uni three band with the right rules, it will allow you to kind of leverage that additional spectrum and provide for additional broadband connectivity. So we definitely see that as a good opportunity and given sort of the scarcity of spectrum today and given the reality that increasingly we've got to find ways to share spectrum just because spectrum is increasingly limited. We think that it's a good opportunity for unlicensed, particularly as you're gonna be able to leverage sort of the technologies that are being deployed in nearby bands and build off of that technology. So you can get to market quickly and at a, you know, a more decent price point than completely Greenfield spectrum. Yeah, I can add that, you know, our consumer coalition has taken the position and we filed, you know, comments on this last week saying that it could be a bigger win-win for consumers if the, you know, auto safety, if auto safety communication could be moved. For example, there's a almost empty public safety band at 4.9 gigahertz, which is 50 megahertz. The commission in the 5.9 gigahertz NPRM that we commented on, they're proposing to retain just 30 megahertz for vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure safety signaling. They could potentially have even more there with better propagation because essentially both things are important, both safety and connectivity and to the extent that commission can, you know, have it both ways for all of us, so much the better. So one last question on my end, which is, and then we'll still monitor if we can get a quick question in from, another quick question in from the audience is, and this is probably for, I guess I'll probably look to Paula and anyone else who wants to jump in is, today most Wi-Fi is operating just fine on 20 megahertz channels. So, you know, coming back again, because I'm not sure how explicit this was, is what is the practical importance of much wider 80 and 160 megahertz channels that could be available, you know, a single 160 at 5.9 or multiple contiguous 160 megahertz channels across the six gigahertz band? I mean, what is kind of the practical importance of having that kind of capacity? Yeah, so I'll go ahead and jump in. You know, I think folks have, across sort of all the three different sort of use cases, you know, very low power, indoor low power and the sort of full power, standard power outdoor, you know, you'll have scenarios like being able to leverage the spectrum to do things like virtual reality, you know, being able to leverage really high bandwidth applications that you really can't do that today, at least over any real distances. So it essentially, without it, there's just simply a gap in being able to do that, at least being able to do it in a seamless way in terms of leveraging broadband today. You might be able to do it on your mobile network, but once you leave that network, over time, you know, as 5G is deployed, you'll be able to do it in your mobile network, but once you leave that network, it becomes more challenging to do. And we live today in a very portable and mobile manner. So we're no longer sort of tied to that wire that you would need if you were going to use kind of the high bandwidth. You know, I know that folks have talked about sort of wearable type scenarios as well. And so, which require some of those experiences require a higher bandwidth. And you know, at least in rural areas, you hear folks talk about things like precision agriculture, some of which can be done, and frankly, IoT generally, some of which can be done with very, you know, with small bandwidth, but sometimes some scenarios will need a higher bandwidth. And so those are the kinds of opportunities that I think 6 GHz will probably be able to afford if it's adopted. Yeah, not to mention, as I think one of the commissioners said earlier, the innovation that we can't imagine today, because when Wi-Fi started 20 years ago, it was in a junk band and nobody appreciated what it could turn into. Any final thoughts from anyone else on the panel? AJ, John or Rosa? Anything you haven't said? Okay, well, yeah, we're right at time. So, and there's no burning questions. So we can wrap it up. I wanna thank, again, thank John, Paul, Rosa and AJ for staying with us this whole time and participating and being flexible as we move to a virtual event.  And we'll hopefully get through this quickly. So the best to all of you and we'll see you again probably online and then in person soon. Thank you, Michael. Thank you for the technology to have this important conversation. Yes, thank you so much.