FCC's engagement with industry tends to be at major trade associations like NAB and CTIA. It has been more than a decade since a commissioner spoke at a major IEEE meeting, yet it is the techies that formulate the innovative new technologies. Some of the speaking of commissioners and bureau chiefs should be a major technical meetings.

Similarly there should be outreach to the techies in areas that are major R&D hotspots like Silicon Valley, San Diego, Austin, and Boston Route 128 area. This was done under the Hundt chairmanship and included a presentation by senior officials on FCC basic technical policies and trends and a real dialogue with both large and small entities. Remember, small entities can become quite large.

Consider the NRC Regulatory Information Conference (http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/conference-symposia/ric/index.html) format as a possible way to engage the technical community on policy issues.

With regards to wireless informational and preemption issues, such as RF concerns, towers, roles of amateurs, towns are more likely to learn the hard way fighting with cell phone companies, tower operators, amateurs, because they don't understand why such issues are FCC rather than local. Nobody wins but the lawyers defending towns and infrastructure owners. Info sharing among the same parties could produce more effective and locally tailored communications regarding things that affect local consumers, such as TV changes, broadband coverage data verification and broadband opportunities, cellular coverage improvement, and other local issues that are federally monitored or managed. Working with (providing the money and delegating to) state government on broadband improvement might make broadband stimulus more accountable and have more focused results than is possible with the current ARRA FCC/NTIA system. "Might" is the key word, depending on how it's done.