[Senate Hearing 107-1107]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1107
SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT: IMPROVING THE
MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND
COMMERCIAL SPECTRUM DOMESTICALLY AND
INTERNATIONALLY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 11, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-638 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska
Virginia CONRAD BURNS, Montana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
RON WYDEN, Oregon SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MAX CLELAND, Georgia GORDON SMITH, Oregon
BARBARA BOXER, California PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 11, 2002.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Allen....................................... 56
Statement of Senator Brownback................................... 6
Statement of Senator Burns....................................... 4
Statement of Senator Ensign...................................... 8
Statement of Senator Hollings.................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 1
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 4
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 8
Statement of Senator Wyden....................................... 7
Witnesses
Dodd, Christopher S., U.S. Senator from Connecticut.............. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Guerrero, Peter F., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
U.S. General Accounting Office, Accompanied by Terri Russell,
Senior Analyst, GAO............................................ 13
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Jeffords, James M., U.S. Senator from Vermont.................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Price, Steven, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Spectrum, Space,
Sensors, and C3, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Sugrue, Thomas J., Chief of Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission.............................. 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Victory, Nancy J., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Communications and Information and Administration, National
Technical Information Administration, Department of Commerce... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Max Cleland to:
Peter Guerrero............................................... 65
Steven Price................................................. 71
Nancy J. Victory............................................. 80
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Byron L. Dorgan
to:
Steven Price................................................. 73
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Ernest F.
Hollings to:
Peter Guerrero............................................... 66
Steven Price................................................. 73
Nancy J. Victory............................................. 81
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye
to:
Peter Guerrero............................................... 67
Steven Price................................................. 79
Nancy J. Victory............................................. 85
SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT: IMPROVING THE MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND
COMMERCIAL SPECTRUM DOMESTICALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Inouye. This hearing will continue to explore the
complex issues concerning spectrum management in an effort to
help us move forward and develop a national spectrum management
policy. Piecemeal proposals to allocate and reallocate spectrum
are not in our Nation's best interests. In addition, the
ongoing war against terrorism has shed new light on Government
spectrum needs.
The testimony before the Committee today should provide
useful information as we work to develop a legislative
framework for managing spectrum. The particular issues before
us today include: one, improving the process for assigning and
allocating spectrum; two, reimbursing Government users for
their reallocation costs if they are required to relinquish
their spectrum for commercial uses; three, increasing U.S.
participation in the World Radio Conference process; and four,
the status of third generation wireless service.
Since 1993 the Government users have been required to turn
over portions of their spectrum for use by commercial users. In
order to facilitate this process, many have suggested that
Government users should be reimbursed through auction proceeds
for reallocation costs they incur in order to move to new
spectrum blocks or consolidate their existing operations.
As we will hear today, there are also proposals to use
auction proceeds for other beneficial purposes. In July of last
year the Communications Subcommittee studied the need to make
available spectrum for third generation wireless service.
However, it seems that almost a year later we are not much
closer to a resolution of this matter.
Recent postponement of spectrum auctions reinforces the
need to develop a national spectrum policy, one that supports
the development for emerging technologies while meeting the
needs of Government users.
Spectrum allocation is not only a domestic issue. It has
become an important international issue. The U.S. must work to
improve its participation in the World Radio Conference to
successfully negotiate spectrum use internationally.
As we consider these issues and work to improve the
Nation's management of spectrum, regulators must recognize the
need to exercise leadership on and more effectively address
these increasingly complex spectrum use and management issues.
Spectrum management is important to both Government and
commercial users. Incumbents and new entrants continue to seek
additional spectrum to upgrade existing wireless technologies
as well as introduce new ones.
Given the growing importance of wireless technologies to
consumers and Government users, we must rise to the challenge
and resolve these issues to best serve our Nation's interests.
We must face these challenges head-on. In developing a new
spectrum management approach, it is my hope that regulators
will strive to stand in each other's shoes by viewing the
issues not only from the perspective of their constituencies,
but also from the perspective of those competing interests.
We must approach this issue creatively and bring forward
new ideas to comprehensively address our Nation's spectrum
allocation.
With that said, I welcome the witnesses and look forward to
their testimony. We are most honored to have with us as our
first witness----
Senator McCain. Are we going to have opening statements?
Senator Inouye. Oh, I am sorry, yes. May I call upon the
Chairman of the Committee, Senator Hollings.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will file my
statement for the record and simply say that our Committee is
indebted to you for your leadership and for your calling the
hearing here on this spectrum issue. The fact is that this
Committee is charged primarily with the responsibility of
communications in this country of ours and yet we do not have a
spectrum policy.
I serve on the Budget committee and every time we get a
shortfall they say, well, let us sell some spectrum. It is used
for any and everything except the advancement of
communications. Yet at the same time we have got the demands,
we have got the educational demands. There is an interesting
initiative by our friends Mr. Larry Grossman and Newt Minow.
There is the need, of course, for broadband. There is the need
for the wireless.
Of course, foremost is the need of our Department of
Defense. As the chairman of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, I know that you have got that foremost in mind.
So what I would like in this hearing is to begin to determine
just exactly the needs of the Defense Department. They will
fight at those needs.
I was on the Budget committee when Rumsfeld was Secretary
under President Ford and as chairman of a task force on defense
for the budget, I found they had put 2 percent cut insurance.
They had all the budgets come through. They had gotten their
submission ready to send to the Congress and then they just
added 2 percent on the premise that, wait a minute, the
Congress is going to cut us, so we want to get what we want and
the best way to do it is to put cut insurance on there of
billions of dollars.
So I know how that crowd works. We in turn have got to
study it carefully and make sure they have got all they need,
but begin as an industrialized nation to develop an expansion
of the spectrum usage here in the United States. As an
industrialized country, we probably have less spectrum
allocated than any in the world.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hollings follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senator from South Carolina
I commend Senator Inouye for holding this hearing. I believe that
we are at a cross roads in spectrum management. We are essentially
faced with two choices--continue managing spectrum as we have in the
past or develop an improved framework for addressing the increasingly
complex spectrum issues that we face. I think it is incumbent on
everyone, policy makers, regulators, commercial users, government
users, new service providers, as well as manufacturers to candidly
engage the difficult issues facing the nation regarding spectrum use
and management, and work together to resolve those issues in a fair and
creative manner.
One of the important issues that must be addressed is finding and
making spectrum available for third generation wireless service.
Clearly, to successfully meet this challenge, re-allocations of
spectrum, in addition to upgrades in technology to make better use of
the spectrum, will be required. Although this presents crucial
challenges for policy makers, such steps must be taken if we are going
to meet the growing market and technological needs of both government
and commercial users of spectrum.
Freeing up more spectrum is not only critical for the offering of
3G service by wireless carriers, but also necessary for U.S.
international competitiveness, and making new and innovative wireless
services available to U.S. consumers. In fact, recent consumer data on
wireless use demonstrates the need for additional wireless services. It
noted that in the last 6 months of 2001 alone, U.S. consumers used more
minutes than in all of 2000, and that by 2005, wireless usage is
expected to equal more than 40 percent of all U.S. telecom minutes. As
it stands, carriers are beginning to implement new wireless mobile data
applications which will become increasingly important to consumers and
how we conduct commerce.
Because of these important needs and developments, I must say that
I am disappointed with the lagging pace of finding spectrum for 3G
service. After spectrum bands were identified for 3G service at the
last world radio conference, president Clinton, in October of 2000,
directed all federal agencies to work with the FCC and the private
sector to identify spectrum that could be used for 3G service
domestically. Even though it's been almost two years since that charge,
we have still not made much progress on the issue.
Now there is a new proposal on the table. NTIA, along with DoD, is
examining whether the 1710-1770 MHz portion can be used for 3G service.
At the same time, the FCC is examining whether the 2110-2170 MHz band
can be reallocated for 3G service. Although this current proposal
represents a start, given its potential to provide 120 MHz of spectrum,
it, nevertheless, is 80 mhz short of the 200 MHz that the international
telecommunications union concluded is required for 3G service.
I expect that, in addition to the other issues that this hearing
will address, it will provide us with a clearer understanding of what
it will take to meet the challenge of making spectrum available for 3G
service. I understand that if DoD has to relinquish spectrum that it is
currently using as well as to relocate or modify its operations, it
will need to be reimbursed for its costs and may need additional
spectrum in which to relocate its operations. I also understand that
there are some existing wireless commercial users that may be affected
by efforts to find spectrum for 3G services. While both of these issues
are not easy ones, we are willing to work with everyone to find a
solution, and clearly our national security cannot be jeopardized by
this process.
Spectrum undoubtedly is an increasingly scare resource. In this
environment, there are only a few ways to find more spectrum. Our
choices are reallocating spectrum from existing users, or developing
technologies that can use spectrum more efficiently or use spectrum in
frequency bands that are unusable today. As we move forward, all
stakeholders must be willing to explore and pursue all options. With
that said, I welcome the witnesses and look forward to hearing their
testimony.
Senator Inouye. I thank you, sir.
Senator McCain.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you and Senator Hollings for holding this hearing. I am
particularly grateful that this is a full Committee hearing,
reflecting the importance of this issue for both national
defense and our economy.
I would like to associate myself with the comments of
Senator Hollings. Today there are even greater spectrum demands
for both commercial and Government uses that make the task of
managing this resource increasingly challenging and the
importance of doing so effectively increasingly vital to our
national interests.
There are over 130 million wireless customers in the United
States today, triple the number of wireless users in 1996. We
all know the promise of 3G technology and it is important that
we continue to foster the growth and development of these new
and innovative technologies. However, we are still in a war.
Threats to the security of the United States are there. It
makes more urgent the task of reorganizing our military and the
people, weapons, technology, and planning necessary to ensure
the success of our world leadership. Clearly spectrum plays a
very vital role in that effort.
I believe it is critical, as the Chairman said, for our
military forces to be properly equipped with the latest
technology to keep America's edge on the twenty-first century
battlefield. More importantly, our military forces must have
the resources necessary to complete their mission during time
of war.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we
get a definitive statement and assessment of needs by the
military as well as public safety and transportation interests,
so we can ensure that their views are heard as we strike a fine
balance for finding and allocating spectrum for 3G and other
future wireless services, while ensuring our military forces
and other public users have enough spectrum for current and
future needs.
I think there is some time sensitivity associated with this
issue, Mr. Chairman, as more and more clamor for the spectrum,
increased by commercial and other interests. I hope we can set
the parameters and policies, which so far we have been unable
to do, nor has the administration presented to my knowledge.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Burns.
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
today's hearings. I think this is the first shot really or the
first step that we have, after looking at this situation, that
we find ourselves in spectrum policy and especially in offering
any kind of reform. Clearly there are many dimensions in this
information age, but none more important than the use and the
availability of spectrum. This issue at hand is not simply the
allocation of spectrum for 3G or third generation, but also how
to create a process for managing this valuable commodity in
such a way to ensure national security, ensure commerce, but
most of all to propel our transition into the next phase of the
digital era, where information is truly available to all
Americans regardless of geography.
I became convinced more than ever of the need of
comprehensive spectrum reform after recently traveling to Asia
over this last Memorial Day recess. During my trip in Korea and
Japan, I met with top legislators, telecommunications CEOs, and
was quite impressed with the products and the services
available to their consumers.
Unfortunately, while consumers in Korea and Japan choose
from a wide variety of third generation services, the rollout
in the United States has been slow and it has been very choppy.
Clearly, this is no accident as the amount of commercially
available spectrum in Asia is twice that available to the
industry in the United States. Making innovative wireless
services available to consumers should be a national priority
of every country.
Unfortunately, the situation regarding spectrum allocation
is far different in the United States. Put simply, we do not
manage our spectrum well. At the heart of my concerns about our
allocation of spectrum is the very auction process itself. The
current process has resulted in creating a win-at-all-costs
mentality among bidders that often results in widely inflated
bids that cripple the companies that gain access to the
spectrum. I can say something about auctions.
I also remain troubled by views of spectrum as a sort of a
national resource, to be exploited for maximum budgetary
impact. We have seen the results of this kind of thinking both
in Europe and here at home, which instead of maximizing revenue
has often resulted in bankruptcies and endless hours, days,
months, and years in the courtrooms.
Rather, spectrum should be viewed as a technology which is
the key to the future of the new generation of services for
American companies and consumers.
I have a variety of other concerns, including whether
current division of spectrum authority should be between two
agencies. Currently the two heads of the FCC and the NTIA are
coordinating well, but from an institutional standpoint and
perspective I fear the division leads to bureaucratic turf
battles and inevitable delay.
I am also interested in placing greater emphasis on our
preparations for our participation in the World Radio
Communications Conference.
With these concerns in mind, last year I requested a
comprehensive GAO report on spectrum allocation last year,
along with my colleagues Senator Kerry and Senator Hollings.
This report, which is unprecedented in its scope, will be
completed this summer. I will use those findings as a basis to
guide some of my thinking in preparing a comprehensive spectrum
reform bill later on this year. This is a huge issue.
Comprehensive spectrum reform has the potential to create
numerous high tech jobs, to jump start the current ailing
technology sector of our United States economy. We need to
create a spectrum plan that will focus on managing spectrum in
a rational way, balancing the needs of industry and Federal
agencies. The emphasis of this plan must focus on developing
innovative new wireless technologies.
I would also state at this point, working with my Chairman,
Mr. Inouye, and the full Committee Chairman Mr. Hollings, I
look forward to the challenges that we will have to face in
developing a fair, balanced resolution to this issue.
I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing, both Mr. Chairmen. I
feel like it is probably one of the more vital things that we
will do in this summer session.
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much.
Senator Brownback.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
add a couple comments to what has already been said.
One is that--and I think this has been made by the Chairman
and others--Congress has permitted spectrum auctions, intended
as an efficient and objective means of licensing spectrum, to
become a mere tool for raising revenue. On that I want to raise
my voice as a part of the chorus saying that is just a wrong-
headed way to go. I do not think we ought to look at this as a
way to raise money. We should be looking at it as an overall
policy issue.
We should consider deposits of auction revenues in the
Treasury as an added bonus, not the primary goal of spectrum
auctions. However, since the passage of the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997 we have clearly lost sight of these principles.
The transition to digital television was intended to be a
cooperative, market-driven process. Yet 2006 was set in the
statute for the transition to come to a close. We made this
decision in 1997, not because it was realistic, but because
such a decision was required for budgetary purposes. Now, think
about that. We decided in 1997 that this transition would end
in 2006. Did we know that that was going to take place? Did we
think that was a fully appropriate period of time? It was
primarily driven by budgetary needs.
The end result is Congressional impatience with the DTV
transition, even though it has probably proceeded without undue
delay considering the level of investment that is required, the
technological hurdles, and the policy resolutions required,
too.
Also, we have been forced to address issues that, quite
frankly, should never have been raised, such as the 700
megahertz debacle. Today's reliance on spectrum auctions for
revenue generation and not solely for spectrum assignment
cannot continue. With that, I want to again add my voice to
what the Chairman and others have already said.
I want to make one other note on a nascent issue that is
developing here. The notion of, at this point in time, setting
aside spectrum auction revenues for non-spectrum management-
related purposes is not a good concept for us to engage at this
point in time. Again as I have stated, the first goal of
spectrum auction revenue should be the management of the
spectrum itself, and not raising revenue for non-spectrum
management-related purposes.
Issues such as reimbursement for relocation must be
addressed and assisted through the use of auction revenues that
have been received. We have major transition issues that are
going to be involved in comprehensive spectrum management
reform and I think that is the more valuable place for us to be
looking to focus these resources, rather than create another
driver, causing us to push constantly for the sale of spectrum
for a purpose other than the management of the spectrum itself.
I think if we engage nonspectrum-management-related
purposes, you are just going to get another pusher in the
system to sell more spectrum, and I do not think that is wise
in us looking for an overall spectrum management policy.
I appreciate the hearing. I think it is a good topic. I
hope it is one that we can get aggressively engaged upon. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Senator Wyden.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too join in
praising you and Senator Hollings for this hearing. I think
that spectrum policy is the single most important issue in the
telecommunications field. I think that when we look back 5 or
10 years from now at all the telecommunications issues that we
are debating, I think we are going to say that spectrum policy
issues had the most significant impact.
I am of the view that probably the best way to promote real
competition is through wireless, probably the best way to get
significant additional service to rural areas is through
wireless. But the only way you are going to do that is to
reform the system of spectrum policy in this country. It is
unquestionably a Jurassic system. Virtually nothing has changed
since the 1920s, when spectrum was used for radio and radio
only.
I would sum it up by way of saying that inefficiency is now
built into the system. So what I would like us to do as we
examine this issue--and we will certainly be spurred by the GAO
study this summer--is to say that the heart of a new spectrum
policy should be to create new incentives to use spectrum in an
innovative way, in a creative way, to share it, rather than in
effect pull it close to you and hoard it.
Essentially, today's system encourages people just to hold
everybody hostage and get the best ransom you can for it. I
think we can do much better. As of now those incentives are
lacking in the commercial area, they are lacking in the
Government area, they are lacking with respect to the military.
I think that is what we need to zero in on. I look forward to
working with you and our colleagues to do it.
Senator Inouye. Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
be short.
I am sorry, I do not know if anyone else has mentioned
this, but I do think we should congratulate Chairman Powell of
the FCC for his spectrum policy task force. He is taking steps
to expedite the broadcast digital conversion. I think we should
take knowledge of the fact that the administration is working
on a spectrum proposal to create a trust fund for spectrum
proceeds to facilitate the movement of Defense and other
agencies from the spectrum they currently use.
But I also would like to remind the Committee that the
World Radio Conference identified the global harmonized
spectrum for the third generation uses, including global
roaming, and the spectrum of 1755 to 1850 is occupied by DoD.
It would be my hope that you would remember to have a
classified hearing for Members of this Committee so they can
obtain information on that spectrum and understand the pace at
which it could possibly be moved.
Senator Brownback mentioned the pace of change here.
Clearly, even with the money that is contemplated by the
administration's spectrum trust fund, the cost of moving that
spectrum is much greater than anyone, unless they have had the
classified briefings, realize. So I think, while I entirely
support the concept of finding some way to move the agencies
off this spectrum and meeting particularly the international
needs for the third generation, I do believe we should be clear
what we are doing and not rush into this.
Thank you very much.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Ensign.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
compliment you and Senator Hollings for this hearing today. I
also am pleased that the administration has recognized the need
for a comprehensive spectrum policy.
A lot has been said and I just want to make two points from
my observations. Third generation wireless is absolutely
critical to America's future. How it is handled in expediting
the spectrum clearing process is very important, especially
spectrum held by the Defense Department.
Unfortunately, when we have looked at spectrum auctions, we
focus on our budgetary means, not how many jobs will be created
and how much revenue will come into the Federal treasury from
deploying new technologies into the marketplace. It is
unfortunate that current spectrum policy does not take future
economic impact into account.
With regard to the 700 megahertz issue that was previously
mentioned. It is a textbook example of what can go wrong when
we do not have a forward-looking, comprehensive spectrum
management policy. We should continue working to establish such
a policy, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on
the Committee to accomplish this goal. It is a mistake to go
ahead with the June 19th auction. We can do much better in
managing our previous spectrum, and I am continuing to work
with some of my colleagues to come up with a compromise so that
the June 19, 700 megahertz auction does not go forward. I
believe it would be a mistake to do so at this time, and I hope
the Senate will soon act to dispose of this issue.
So I look forward to working with my colleagues on the
issue of spectrum management. I think wireless issues are
exciting issues. They are difficult issues for us to
understand, but I also agree that we should hold a classified
briefing to better understand the military aspects.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, Senator.
Now may I call upon the Honorable James M. Jeffords,
Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and
the Honorable Chris Dodd, member of the United States Senate
and senior member of the committee on Foreign Relations.
Senator
Jeffords.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly
appreciate the hearing. I already learned a good deal about the
complexities that we are dealing with.
I commend Senator Hollings for holding the hearing to
address the important issues relating to spectrum management,
such as public safety and auctions. I appreciate your courtesy
in allowing me to make a brief statement before attendance to
another committee.
First, let me briefly say I appreciate Senator Hollings'
attention to emergency personnel and first responders and their
communications needs. In the Environment and Public Works
Committee, we have heard about how our interoperability issues
prevented first responders from communicating with each other
on September 11th. I know when I arrived at the Pentagon the
day after, I talked with the responders who came from all over
the country and they said--I asked them: What is the one
problem that you noted most? They said: We could not talk to
each other. This obviously is a critical problem when people
are trying to operate in those circumstances.
The EPW Committee has reported out a bill that would direct
FEMA to study the steps necessary to establish a nationwide
emergency communications system. I thank Senator Hollings for
his interest and look forward to working with him and Senator
McCain and other Members of this Committee to ensure that the
responders have a first-rate system in place that really
augments our Nation's preparedness.
Let me now talk about the education component and other
aspects that I believe is relevant to the hearing. The American
people are the owners of the spectrum and it is a national
resource that has enormous value. Our citizens should see a
direct and specific benefit from the use of their commonly
owned property. The electromagnetic spectrum can serve a
compelling national priority supporting education. There are
several options. An education trust fund established with a
percentage of the proceeds from the public asset of the
spectrum could and should be designed to meet these needs.
Distance learning options have tremendous potential and are
already utilized around the world and in this country.
Also, health care the potential for bettering our health
care options are tremendous with respect to the utilization of
the spectrum. The Digital Opportunity Investment Trust Fund Act
authored by Senator Dodd is one approach that would help
support education efforts with revenue from spectrum auctions.
I am proud to join my friend from Connecticut as a co-sponsor
of this provision.
While the spectrum is literally as intangible as air, it is
a national public resource every bit as real as our Federal
park lands. We in the Government are the only managers of this
resource and must not take that responsibility lightly. The
Federal Government must be responsible for maximizing
utilization of the spectrum for the best public purposes.
The Congressional Research Service estimates that at least
$40 billion will come into the Federal coffers from spectrum
auctions, have come since the auctioning began in the early
1990's. That money has already been spent. The Congressional
Broadcast Office estimates that the Federal Government will
take in an additional $27 billion in proceeds from the spectrum
auctions between now and the year 2007.
I ask respectfully that you keep our Nation's educational
needs in mind as you consider the overall Federal management of
the spectrum. Historically, Congress has stepped in to make
substantial Federal investments in education innovation at
critical times. A fellow Vermonter, Senator Justin Morrill,
headed the concept of using a public asset for education in the
mid-1800's. The Morrill Act established through a gift of
public land to each State our Nation's land grant colleges. The
Morrill Act resulted in unprecedented access to higher
education for all, including historic black colleges.
The GI Bill put higher education within the reach of
millions of veterans from World War Two and later military
conflicts. The launching of Sputnik prompted passage of the
National Defense Education Act. The act brought increased
funding to help Americans compete with the Soviet Union in
scientific and technical fields and the improvements of
education, mathematics, and foreign language training.
I believe Congress has an opportunity to step in and again
bolster the quality of our educational system. We have an
educational emergency in our Nation. We are lagging far behind
our critical competitors in math and science. The President's
new testing initiative will make this very, very clear this
fall.
So I look forward to working with Senators Hollings,
McCain, and all of my colleagues on this Committee to link
education to the spectrum for the highest public good.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from Vermont
Thank you Senator Inouye, Senator Hollings, Senator McCain, and
other Members of the Commerce Committee, for giving me the opportunity
to testify today. I commend Senator Hollings for holding this hearing
to address important issues relating to spectrum management such as
public safety and auctions. I appreciate your courtesy in allowing me
to make a brief statement before my attendance is required at another
hearing.
First, let me briefly say I appreciate Senator Hollings' attention
to emergency personnel and first responders and their communications
needs. In the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee we have
heard about how interoperability issues prevented first responders from
communicating with each other on September 11th. The EPW Committee has
reported out a bill that would direct FEMA to study the steps necessary
to establish a nationwide emergency communication system.
I thank Senator Hollings for his interest and look forward to
working with him and Senator McCain and the other Members of this
Committee to ensure first responders have a first rate system in place
that augments our nation's preparedness.
Let me now talk about an education component that I believe is
relevant to this hearing. The American people are the owners of the
spectrum, and it is a national resource that has enormous value.
Our citizens should see a direct and specific benefit from the use
of their commonly owned property. The electromagnetic spectrum can
serve a compelling national priority of supporting education. An
education trust fund, established with a percentage of the proceeds
from the public asset of the spectrum, could and should be designed to
meet these needs.
The Digital Opportunity Investment Trust Act authored by Senator
Dodd is one approach that would help support educational efforts with
revenue from spectrum auctions. I am proud to join my friend from
Connecticut in this effort as a cosponsor.
While the spectrum is literally as intangible as air, it is a
national public resource every bit as real as our federal park lands.
We in the government are the only managers of this resource and must
not take that responsibility lightly.
The Federal Government must be responsible for maximizing the
utilization of the spectrum for the best public purpose.
The Congressional Research Service estimates that at least $40
billion dollars have come into federal coffers from spectrum auctions
since auctioning began in the early 1990's. That money has already been
spent.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the Federal Government
will take in an additional $27 billion in proceeds from spectrum
auctions between now and the year 2007.
I ask respectfully, that you keep our nation's educational needs in
mind as you consider the overall federal management of the spectrum.
Historically, Congress has stepped in to make substantial federal
investments in education innovation at critical times.
A fellow Vermonter, Senator Justin Morrill, had the concept of
using a public asset for education in the mid 1800's. The Morrill Act
established, through a gift of public land to each state, our nation's
land grant colleges. The Morrill Act resulted in unprecedented access
to higher education for all.
The GI Bill put higher education within the reach of millions of
veterans from World War 2 and later military conflicts.
The launching of Sputnik prompted passage of the National Defense
Education Act. This Act brought increased funding to help America
compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technical fields and
the improvement of science, mathematics, and foreign language training.
I believe Congress has the opportunity to step in and again and
bolster the quality of our educational system.
I look forward to working with Senator Hollings, Senator McCain,
and all of my colleagues on this Committee to link education and the
spectrum for the highest public good.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, sir.
Now may I call upon Senator Dodd.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. DODD,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Dodd. Mr. Chairman, I will just ask unanimous
consent to have this very, very brief statement.
Senator Inouye. Without objection.
Senator Dodd. First of all, we appreciate immensely you
giving us an opportunity to appear before you this morning.
Just by the mere presence of the many Members of this
Committee, it demonstrates the interest in the subject matter,
and obviously the interest goes even beyond the Committee here.
This is a critically important issue. Senator Inouye, we know
of your longstanding interest in it. Senator Hollings,
obviously Senator McCain and others.
I have spoken with John I think a couple of years ago about
the idea of some sort of a trust fund, using the Morrill Act as
an example. I found that a fascinating historical reference.
Here in the middle of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln along with
Justin Morrill of Vermont decided that they would sell public
lands in the West and use the revenues from that to establish
land grant colleges. A rather innovative and far-sighted idea,
if you would, considering what the demands of the era and the
time were.
The GI Bill that has been mentioned by my colleague Senator
Jeffords is another example. There was an earlier example in
1787, the Northwest Ordinance Act, which I am sure Senator
Wyden is familiar with, which demanded in fact that States
establish some sort of public school education policy as a
result of efforts there.
All we are suggesting here with this bill I think has been
incorporated by a lot of what you have said already, and that
is the idea of utilizing these public resources. This is sort
of the land of the twenty-first century, if you will, the
spectrum. Not to rush it, not to do it, auction it for the sake
of auctioning it for revenues, but to see to it that we use
this land, if you will, in a way that is going to contribute to
the wealth and health of a Nation.
One of the ideas is obviously education. There are others.
Obviously, the first responders' needs, interconnectability, is
critically important; defense needs. Possibly a trust, which we
are talking about here, would give us the greatest options in
making determinations how best to use those resources, rather
than having it just dumped into the general revenues where they
can get lost in terms of some of the vital needs we are talking
about.
So Larry Grossman and Newton Minow you have mentioned,
Senator Hollings, already as being people I know have talked to
many people here in the Senate and others over many years about
the idea that Senator Jeffords and I have offered here briefly
in the last couple of days as one idea. I know the Committee
will consider not only our ideas but others as you talk about
this legislation.
We are just grateful for the opportunity to testify here
before you this morning. It is a little bit off the exact theme
you have raised, but we appreciate the chance to express our
views on this issue.
[The prepared statement of Senator Dodd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher S. Dodd, U.S. Senator from
Connecticut
Chairman Hollings, Ranking Member McCain, and Members of the
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to make some brief remarks
today in support of innovative approaches to education and information
technology in the 21st century. I am pleased to be joined today by my
good friend and colleague, Senator Jeffords.
Today, the Committee is beginning a formal inquiry into spectrum
auctions and relocation and how best to manage this critical resource
for maximum benefit. This issue is complex and I do not purport to be a
technical expert. However, it is my belief that the spectrum is one of
our last great natural resources and should be used for the greater
public good. Innovative technologies could revolutionize lifelong
learning and provide educational content to those individuals that
might otherwise be denied access. Simply put, the goal is to link our
cultural, historical and educational heritage, without commercial
regard. Technological advances and infrastructure improvements are only
as good as the depth and breadth of content available to enhance our
lives.
It is estimated by CBO that more than $20 billion could be
available from the sale and licensing of the spectrum. Some of these
revenues could be used to build a Digital Opportunity Investment Trust
to achieve this educational goal.
Yesterday, Senator Jeffords and I introduced S. 2603, the Digital
Opportunity Investment Trust Act, a bill designed to lay a framework
for this vision.
Throughout history, Congress has taken bold steps and invested
resources to ensure that Americans were ready to overcome obstacles and
face challenges head-on. Whether it be the 1787 Northwest Ordinance
which set aside public lands for schools in every state, the 1862
Morrill Act which established land-grant colleges, or the 1944 GI-Bill,
all of these bold initiatives expanded educational opportunities for
the masses. It is again time to take a giant step forward. Now, we have
the chance to build on those past initiatives and adapt and enhance
educational opportunities for the 21st century.
The legislation we set forth is designed to spur debate and
interest in a visionary educational proposal for the 21st century. It
is a framework for discussion and by no means set in stone. I know the
Committee has an ambitious agenda, but I hope that members take a look
at this proposal over the coming weeks. I do not expect that you would
have any comments today, but I do look forward to working with you in
the future.
Senator Inouye. Any questions?
Senator Burns. Senator Dodd, the land grant colleges was a
great idea, but they did not sell the public lands.
Senator Dodd. They gave it away.
Senator Burns. No, they did not give them away. Each
section is assigned--out of each range there is a certain
amount of sections that those revenues continue today to
support land grant colleges. They were never sold, but the
revenues derived from those resources found on those lands
support land grant colleges.
Senator Dodd. I stand corrected, but the concept is--you
endorse the concept, though, Senator?
Senator Burns. I fully endorse it.
Senator Inouye. Any further questions?
[No response.]
Senator Inouye. If not, thank you very much, Senator
Jeffords and Senator Dodd.
May I now call upon a panel made up of the Director of the
Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office,
Mr. Peter Guerrero; the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Spectrum, Space, Sensors, and C3, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, Mr. Steven Price; the Assistant Secretary of Commerce
for Communications and Information and Administration, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Ms. Nancy J. Victory; and Chief of
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of the Federal
Communications Commission, Mr. Thomas J. Sugrue.
May I first call upon Mr. Guerrero.
STATEMENT OF PETER F. GUERRERO, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING
OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY: TERRI RUSSELL, SENIOR
ANALYST, GAO
Mr. Guerrero. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me today is
Terri Russell, Senior Analyst working for the GAO on these
important issues.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on our ongoing work
on spectrum management. As you know, managing the radio
frequency spectrum has become more challenging as new
technologies have developed and are used more widely. My full
statement, which I will submit for the record, contains GAO's
preliminary observations in this regard.
I would now like to talk about the current U.S. approach to
spectrum management and some of the challenges we face. The
current legal framework for domestic spectrum management
emerged over a period of decades. As you know, spectrum
management authority resides in two agencies, requiring close
coordination and cooperation to ensure that the national
interest is served. The National Telecommunications and
Information Administration within the Department of Commerce is
responsible for managing Federal spectrum use. The Federal
Communications Commission has responsibility for managing all
non-Federal spectrum use.
While this shared approach has generally served us well,
some allocation decisions are becoming more difficult,
resulting in lengthy negotiations. This situation exists
because nearly the entire usable spectrum is currently
occupied.
Short of improvements in technology that allow for more
efficient use of existing spectrum, one of two things must
generally happen to accommodate new demands: one, more of the
available spectrum will need to be shared; or two, existing
spectrum users will need to be reallocated to other frequencies
to make room for others. Moving users is usually contentious
and requires that comparable spectrum be found for incumbents
and that resources are available for system and equipment
changes. An example of this difficulty in making allocation
decisions is the ongoing effort to identify spectrum to
accommodate third generation wireless services.
During the course of our review, some officials we
interviewed suggested establishing a third party, such as an
outside panel or a commission, an office within the executive
branch, or an interagency group, to arbitrate or resolve these
types of differences. In some other countries such decisions
are made within one agency or within interagency mechanisms
that exist for resolving such matters.
Recognizing also that better planning could help address
these issues, Congress itself has directed both the FCC and
NTIA to conduct joint spectrum planning sessions and assess the
progress towards implementing a national spectrum plan.
However, top officials from both FCC and NTIA said that neither
requirement has been fully implemented, but recently confirmed
at a national summit on spectrum their intention to implement
these directives.
Now I would like to turn to the challenges we face in
preparing for international negotiations. We looked at these
challenges as the U.S. prepares for the World
Radiocommunication Conference coming up next year, where
decisions are made on how to allocate spectrum internationally.
In recent years, U.S. preparations for these conferences have
become more complex as the number of conferences, participating
nations, and agenda items have all increased.
For example, while only 9 nations participated in the first
World Radio Communication Conference in 1903, some 148 nations
participated in the 2000 conference. With more at stake and
more nations participating, the U.S. needs the votes of other
nations in order to get the U.S. positions adopted by the
conference. We found strong agreement among those we
interviewed on the importance of developing an early U.S.
negotiating position to allow sufficient lead time to meet with
other nations to gain their support for our positions.
However, we heard differences of opinion about the
effectiveness of the current U.S. preparatory process.
Currently, both FCC and NTIA develop separate positions on
conference agenda items through separate processes. With State
Department coordination, the agencies then get together to
develop a unified U.S. position. While ensuring stakeholder
input and producing well-scrutinized proposals, this separate
but parallel process can also take time, especially when agenda
items are contentious.
In response to concerns about timeliness, the former U.S.
ambassador to the 2000 conference recommended merging the
separate processes to get an earlier start and to harmonize
industry and Government positions for these negotiations.
Differing views have also been expressed on the appointment
process used to choose an individual to head the U.S.
delegation. Since the early 1980s, the President has appointed
a temporary U.S. ambassador with a term of 6 months to head our
delegation. Again, the former U.S. ambassador to the 2000
conference observed that the brief tenure of the appointment
leaves little time to get up to speed on the issues, to
solidify U.S. positions, to form a delegation, and to undertake
the preconference meetings with heads of other delegations.
In addition, the ambassador said there is concern about the
lack of continuity and leadership from one conference to the
next, in contrast to other nations that are led by high level
Government officials who serve longer terms and may represent
their nations through multiple conferences.
Now I would like to turn to the Department of Commerce's
efforts to promote efficient spectrum use by Federal agencies.
We reviewed how NTIA, within the Department of Commerce, works
to promote efficient spectrum use by Federal agencies. While
NTIA has established several processes and undertaken a number
of actions, it lacks assurance that these activities are indeed
effective. There are a number of reasons for this.
First, staffing and resource limitations often prevent
agencies from completing required periodic reviews intended to
assure that assignments are still needed. Staffing and funding
limitations have also forced NTIA to eliminate monitoring
programs intended to verify that agencies are using spectrum as
specified in their assignments.
Second, the adoption of more efficient technologies has
proven to be challenging. Along these lines, NTIA has required
Federal agencies to adopt what is called narrowband technology.
This technology would considerably increase the number of
channels available for land-based mobile communications.
However, some agencies are currently struggling to meet this
requirement due to the lack of sufficient staff and funding.
Specifically 4 of the 7 agencies we reviewed said they would
not complete their upgrades before the deadline.
Finally, NTIA officials told us that existing spectrum
management fees designed to recover part of the costs of NTIA's
spectrum management functions provide agencies with a financial
incentive to remove inactive assignments. However, it is not
clear that these fees, about $50 per assignment, actually
promote efficient use of spectrum. For instance, agencies can
reduce the number of assignments without returning unneeded
spectrum.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that we
will be reporting to you in detail on all of these matters
later this summer. In addition, we are conducting further work
on how current rules and regulations governing spectrum
allocation and use affect the rollout of new technologies and
services and the level of business competition.
As a part of this work to be completed next year, we are
interviewing an array of business, Government, and public
safety users of spectrum. Tomorrow at GAO we will be hosting a
panel of national spectrum experts. We are also collecting
information from spectrum managers in a dozen countries in an
effort to learn more about other spectrum management
approaches.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guerrero follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter F. Guerrero, Director, Physical
Infrastructure Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, Accompanied by
Terri Russell, Senior Analyst, GAO
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here to report on the preliminary observations
from our work on radio spectrum management issues. The radio spectrum
is the medium that makes possible wireless communications of all sorts,
such as cellular and paging services, radio and television
broadcasting, radar, and satellite-based services. As new technologies
that depend on the radio spectrum continue to be developed and used
more widely, managing the spectrum has grown increasingly challenging.
The radio spectrum can become congested if too many users operate on it
in an uncoordinated manner. Moreover, because spectrum has no
geographical boundaries, the domestic management of spectrum is closely
tied to international agreements on spectrum use. Therefore, the radio
spectrum must be carefully managed, both on a national and
international level, to meet the needs of a constantly increasing
variety of services and users. One important task of spectrum
management is the allocation of spectrum, or the apportionment of
spectrum between the different types of uses and users of wireless
services. As demand for spectrum has grown, this task has become more
difficult, raising complex questions that cannot be easily answered.
At the request of this Committee, we have interviewed agency and
industry officials and reviewed relevant documents to address the
following issues: (1) the evolution of the current legal framework for
domestic spectrum management; (2) how well the current U.S. spectrum
management structure facilitates the allocation of spectrum; (3) what
challenges the United States faces in preparing for World
Radiocommunication Conferences (WRC), at which decisions are made on
how to allocate spectrum internationally; and (4) how the federal
government encourages efficient use of spectrum by federal agencies
Our work is ongoing and will result in a report to be issued this
summer. We reviewed the legislative history and relevant agency
manuals, policies, and regulations, and interviewed officials
responsible for spectrum management from the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA), and Department of State, and key wireless
industry representatives. In addition, to determine how the federal
government uses and manages spectrum, we interviewed officials from the
following seven agencies: the Department of Energy, the Department of
the Interior, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard, the
Department of Justice, the Federal Emergency Management Administration,
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
In summary, our preliminary observations are as follows:
The current legal framework for domestic spectrum management
evolved as a compromise over the questions of who should
determine the distribution of spectrum among competing users
and what standard should be applied in making this
determination. Although initially all responsibility for
spectrum management was placed in the executive branch, since
1927 this responsibility has been divided between the executive
branch for managing federal use (currently, the President has
delegated this responsibility to the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration), and an
independent commission for managing non-federal spectrum use
(at first the Federal Radio Commission and since 1934, its
successor, the Federal Communications Commission). The standard
to be applied in managing non-federal government spectrum is
``the public interest.'' Under this divided management
framework, no one entity has ultimate decision-making power
over all spectrum users; the two agencies must coordinate and
cooperate in order to determine how to accommodate different
users competing for spectrum.
The current shared U.S. spectrum management structure has
processes for allocating spectrum for new uses and users of
wireless services, but these processes have occasionally
resulted in lengthy negotiations between FCC and NTIA over how
to resolve some allocation issues. Since nearly all of the
usable radio spectrum has been allocated already, accommodating
more services and users often involves redefining spectrum
allocations. One method of doing this used by FCC and NTIA is
to increase the amount of shared spectrum. In shared spectrum,
more than one type of service or user may utilize the
frequencies in the allocation. For example, according to NTIA,
56 percent of the spectrum in the 0-3.1 GHz range is now shared
between federal and non-federal users. Another method of
redefining allocations, called band clearing, involves moving a
service or user from one area of spectrum to another in order
to make room for a new service or user. Occasionally, these
methods are contentious and protracted, such as the continuing
efforts to reallocate spectrum for third-generation advanced
wireless services. Some government officials and
nongovernmental representatives we interviewed discussed the
possibility of designating a third party to arbitrate between
FCC and NTIA in such circumstances and the need for better
planning to help increase coordination between the two agencies
in their shared management of this resource.
The United States faces challenges in effectively preparing
for World Radiocommunication Conferences, at which decisions
are made regarding the allocation of spectrum internationally,
to ensure that the United States can best serve the interests
of domestic spectrum users. Timely preparation has become more
important and challenging due to increases in the frequency of
conferences, the number of participating nations (each of which
has one vote), and the number of items on conference agendas
that countries vote on to change the international rules for
spectrum use. In addition, regional blocks have emerged, with
countries pooling their votes to promote their position on
agenda items. Under the current structure, FCC and NTIA develop
positions on agenda items through separate processes that
involve the users of the spectrum they manage. The positions
reached during these two processes must be merged into a
unified U.S. position. An ambassador is appointed by the
President for a period not exceeding six months to facilitate
the development of this unified position and lead the U.S.
delegation in negotiating for the adoption of U.S. positions at
the World Radiocommunication Conference. In our meetings with
government officials and wireless industry representatives, we
heard differing opinions about (1) the ability of the United
States to develop a unified position early enough to promote
that position effectively and (2) the manner in which we
appoint an ambassador to head the U.S. delegation.
NTIA has several activities to encourage efficient spectrum
use by federal agencies, but it lacks assurance that these
activities are effective. NTIA is required to promote
efficiency in the federal spectrum it manages, which included
more than 270,000 federal frequency assignments at the end of
2000. To do this, NTIA directs federal agencies to use only as
much spectrum as they need. Because agencies have different
mission-based needs and because there are a large number of
frequency assignments that require attention, NTIA's frequency
assignment and review processes place the primary
responsibility for promoting efficiency in the hands of the
agencies. NTIA requires that agencies justify their need for
spectrum and review most spectrum assignments every 5 years.
Officials from the seven federal agencies in our review told us
that they attempt to use spectrum as efficiently as possible,
but five of them are not completing the required five-year
reviews in a timely or meaningful way because of staff
shortages and other agency priorities. Moreover, although NTIA
has established monitoring programs to verify how agencies are
using spectrum, it said that some of these programs are
inactive because of staff and funding shortages. NTIA also
conducts research and technical initiatives that are designed
to promote efficiency by conserving spectrum, but NTIA said
some of these efforts have been difficult to implement. In
addition, NTIA states that its spectrum management fees, which
were designed to recover part of the costs of NTIA's spectrum
management functions, provide agencies with a financial
incentive to remove inactive assignments. However, it is not
clear that these fees promote efficient use of spectrum because
agencies can reduce the number of assignments without returning
spectrum.
In addition to these issues, the Committee requested that we
review how the current rules and regulations governing spectrum
holders affect the rollout of new technologies and services and
the level of competition in markets that utilize spectrum. As
part of this work, we will look at how other countries manage
spectrum. Although our review of these issues will not be
completed until early 2003, I will briefly discuss our ongoing
work at the end of this statement.
Background
To a large degree, spectrum management policies flow from the
technical characteristics of radio spectrum. Although the radio
spectrum spans nearly 300 billion frequencies, 90 percent of its use is
concentrated in the 1 percent of frequencies that are below 3.1
gigahertz. \1\ The crowding in this region has occurred because these
frequencies have properties that are well suited for many important
wireless technologies, such as mobile phones, radio and television
broadcasting, and numerous satellite communication systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Radio waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation that
propagates in space as the result of particle oscillations. The number
of oscillations per second is called frequency, which is measured in
units of hertz. The terms ``kilohertz'' refers to thousands of hertz
and ``gigahertz'' to billions of hertz. The radio spectrum comprises a
range of frequencies from 3 kilohertz to around 300 gigahertz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The process known as spectrum allocation has been adopted, both
domestically and internationally, as a means of apportioning
frequencies among the various types of uses and users of wireless
services and preventing radio congestion, which can lead to
interference. Interference occurs when radio signals of two or more
users interact in a manner that disrupts the transmission and reception
of messages. Spectrum allocation involves segmenting the radio spectrum
into bands of frequencies that are designated for use by particular
types of radio services or classes of users, such as broadcast
television and satellites. Over the years, the United States has
designated hundreds of frequency bands for numerous types of wireless
services. Within these bands, government, commercial, scientific, and
amateur users receive specific frequency assignments or licenses for
their wireless operations. \2\ The equipment they use is designed to
operate on these frequencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Part 15 of FCC rules permits the operation of authorized low-
power wireless devices without a license from FCC or the need for
frequency coordination. The technical standards contained in Part 15
are designed to ensure that there is a low probability that these
unlicensed devices will cause harmful interference to other users of
the radio spectrum. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 15 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the last 50 years, developments in wireless technology have
opened up additional usable frequencies, reduced the potential for
interference, and improved the efficiency of transmission through
various techniques, such as reducing the amount of spectrum needed to
send information. While this has helped limit congestion within the
radio spectrum, competition for additional spectrum remains high.
Wireless services have become critically important to federal, state,
and local governments for national security, public safety, and other
functions. At the same time, the consumer market for wireless services
has seen extraordinary growth. For example, mobile phone service in the
United States greatly exceeded the industry's original growth
predications, as it jumped from 16 million subscribers in 1994 to an
estimated 110 million in 2001.
Framework for Spectrum Management
The legal framework for allocating radio spectrum among federal and
nonfederal users emerged from a compromise over two fundamental policy
questions: (1) whether spectrum decisions should be made by a single
government official, or a body of decision-makers; and (2) whether all
nonfederal users should be able to operate radio services without
qualification, or if a standard should be used to license these
operators. The resulting regulatory framework--dividing spectrum
management between the President and an independent regulatory body--is
rooted both in the President's responsibility for national defense and
in the fulfillment of federal agencies' missions, and the encouragement
and recognition by the federal government of the investment made by
private enterprise in radio and other communications services.
The first federal statute to establish a structure for spectrum
management--the Radio Act of 1912 \3\--consolidated licensing authority
with the Secretary of Commerce. However, the act proved to be deficient
in addressing the burgeoning growth of radio communications and ensuing
interference that occurred in the late 1910s and 1920s. Specifically,
the Secretary of Commerce lacked the authority to use licensing as a
means of controlling radio station operations, \4\ or to take actions
to control interference, such as designating frequencies for uses or
issuing licenses of limited duration. In recognition of such
limitations, deliberations began in the 1920s to devise a new framework
for radio spectrum management. Although there was general agreement
that licensing should entail more than a registration process, there
was debate about designation of the licensing authority and the
standard that should govern the issuance of licenses. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 37 Stat. 302 (1912). The Radio Act of 1912 was enacted, in
part, to fulfill U.S. obligations incurred by the first international
radio treaty. Congress had passed an earlier federal statute, the
Wireless Ship Act, 36 Stat. 629 (1910), as amended, 37 Stat. 199
(1912), to address a first use of radio--safety of ships at sea. In
1904, President Roosevelt adopted a recommendation of the first known
inter-agency board to address radio use by the federal government
placing all government coastal radio facilities under the U.S. Navy's
control.
\4\ The Secretary of Commerce could not refuse to grant a license
upon proper application under the Act as held by a court and two
attorneys general opinions. See 29 Op. 579 (1912); 35 Op. 126 (1926);
Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., Inc; 286 Fed. 1003 (D.C. Cir., 1923).
The Secretary had no power to make regulations additional to those in
the act. See United States v. Zenith Radio Corporation et al., 12 F.
(2d) 614 (N.D. Ill., 1926); Carmichael v. Anderson, 14 F. 2d 166 (W.D.
Mo. 1926). The 1912 act did not regulate broadcasting. See Tribune Co.
v. Oak Leaves Broad. Station, Inc., et al., reported in the
Congressional Record on December 10, 1926 (Cong. Rec. Vol. 68, Part I,
pp. 216-219).
\5\ This debate went on over several years as the Department of
Commerce convened four radio conferences (1922-25) attended by
manufacturers, broadcasters, civilian and military government users,
and other stakeholders to make recommendations addressing overcrowding
of the airwaves. Designation of the Secretary of Commerce as the sole
licensing authority, one of the recommendations from the conferences,
was a matter of contention in congressional debate on new legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Radio Act of 1927, \6\ reflecting a compromise on a new
spectrum management framework, reserved the authority to assign
frequencies for all federal government radio operators to the President
and created the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) to license non-federal
government operators. Composed of five members from five different
regions of the country, FRC could assign frequencies, establish
coverage areas, and establish the power and location of transmitters
under its licensing authority. Further, the act delineated that a radio
operation proposed by a non-federal license applicant must meet a
standard of ``the public interest, convenience and necessity,'' and
that a license conveyed no ownership in radio channels nor created any
right beyond the terms of the license. \7\ FRC's authorities were
subsequently transferred to the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), and the FRC was abolished upon enactment of the Communications
Act of 1934, which brought together the regulation of telephone,
telegraph, and radio services under one independent regulatory agency.
The 1934 act also retained the authority of the President to assign
spectrum to and manage federal government radio operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 44 Stat. 1162 (1927). Under the act, the FRC was granted
licensing authority for one year to resolve interference problems and
then was to become an appellate body to address disputes with the
Secretary of Commerce who was to assume licensing duties. However, the
FRC's one-year tenure was extended three times by Congress, the last
for an indefinite term pending new legislation.
\7\ Prior to the 1927 Radio Act, an Illinois state court issued a
decision to enforce a property right to a radio frequency under the
principle of ``right of user.'' Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broad.
Station, Inc., et al., (Cir. Ct., Cook County, Ill. 1926), reprinted in
68 Cong. Rec. 216 (1926).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The need for cooperative action in solving problems arising from
the federal government's interest in radio use was recognized in 1922
with the formation of the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee
(IRAC), comprised of representatives from the federal agencies that use
the most spectrum. \8\ IRAC, whose existence and actions were affirmed
by the President in 1927, has continued to advise whoever has been
responsible for exercising the authority of the President to assign
frequencies to the federal government. \9\ In 1978, the President's
authority for spectrum management of federal government users was
delegated to NTIA, an agency of the Department of Commerce. \10\ IRAC
assists NTIA in assigning frequencies to federal agencies and
developing policies, programs, procedures, and technical criteria for
the allocation, management, and use of the spectrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ When originally formed in 1922, the inter-agency committee was
known as the ``Interdepartment Advisory Committee on Governmental Radio
Broadcasting.''
\9\ Under the Radio Act of 1927, the President's spectrum
management authority was delegated--and IRAC reported through--first,
the Secretary of Commerce, and then, beginning in 1932, the FRC
(replaced by the FCC in 1934). In 1940, an inter-agency Defense
Communications Board was formed to coordinate the relationship of all
branches of communication to the national defense; IRAC reported
directly to the Board as of 1941 until the Board was abolished in 1947.
Since 1951, the President's spectrum management authority, coupled with
telecommunications policy advice, has been delegated, and IRAC has
reported through: the Telecommunications Advisor to the President
(1951); the director of the Office of Defense Mobilization (1953); the
director of the Office of Civil Defense Mobilization (1958); the
director of Telecommunications Management (1962); the director of the
Office of Telecommunications Policy (1970); and NTIA (1978).
\10\ President Carter's Executive Order 12,046, issued in 1978,
abolished the Office of Telecommunications Policy, transferred its
functions to the Department of Commerce, and established an Assistant
Secretary for Communications and Information. Subsequently, the
Department formally established NTIA and Congress codified NTIA and its
mission into law. See The Telecommunications Authorization Act of 1992,
106 Stat. 3533 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 75 years, since the 1927 act formed our divided
structure of spectrum management, there is historical evidence of
cooperation and coordination in managing federal and non-federal users
to ensure the effective use of spectrum. For example, FCC and IRAC
agreed in 1940 to give each other notice of proposed actions that might
cause interference or other problems for their respective
constituencies. Further, FCC has always participated in IRAC meetings
\11\ and NTIA frequently provides comments in FCC proceedings that
impact federal radio operations. And, as I will discuss later, FCC and
NTIA also work together with the Department of State to formulate a
unified U.S. position on issues at international meetings that
coordinate spectrum use regionally and globally. However, as demand for
this limited resource increases, particularly with the continuing
emergence of new commercial wireless technologies, NTIA and FCC face
serious challenges in trying to meet the growth in the needs of their
respective incumbent users, while accommodating the needs of new users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Although FCC once served as a representative to IRAC, its role
in IRAC was transformed in 1952 to that of liaison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilitating Spectrum Allocations
The current shared U.S. spectrum management structure has methods
for allocating spectrum for new uses and users of wireless services,
but these methods have occasionally resulted in lengthy negotiations
between FCC and NTIA over how to resolve some allocation issues. Since
nearly all of the usable radio spectrum has been allocated already,
accommodating more services and users often involves redefining
spectrum allocations.
One method, spectrum ``sharing,'' enables more than one user to
transmit radio signals on the same frequency band. In a shared
allocation, a distinction is made as to which user has ``primary'' or
priority use of a frequency and which user has ``secondary'' status,
meaning it must defer to the primary user. Users may also be designated
as ``co-primary'' in which the first operator to obtain authority to
use the spectrum has priority to use the frequency over another primary
operator. In instances where spectrum is shared between federal and
non-federal users--currently constituting 56 percent of the spectrum in
the 0-3.1 GHz range \12\--FCC and NTIA must ensure that the status
assigned to users (primary/secondary or co-primary) meet users' radio
needs, and that users abide by rules applicable to their designated
status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ NTIA also reported that 42 percent of the shared allocations
between federal and nonfederal users in the 0 to 3.1 GHz range are
shared on a ``co-primary'' basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another method to accommodate new users and technologies is
``bandclearing,'' or re-classifying a band of spectrum from one set of
radio services and users to another, which requires moving previously
authorized users to a different band. Band-clearing decisions affecting
either only non-federal or only federal users are managed within FCC or
NTIA respectively, albeit sometimes with difficulty. However,
bandclearing decisions that involve radio services of both types of
users pose a greater challenge. Specifically, they require coordination
between FCC and NTIA to ensure that moving existing users to a new
frequency band is feasible and not otherwise disruptive to their radio
operation needs. \13\ While many such band-clearing decisions have been
made throughout radio history, these negotiations can become
protracted. For example, a hotly debated issue is how to accommodate
third-generation wireless services. \14\ FCC also told us that the
relationship between FCC and NTIA on spectrum management became more
structured following the enactment of legislative provisions mandating
the reallocation of spectrum from federal to non-federal government
use. \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for the
Fiscal Year 1999, P.L. 105-251, Oct. 17, 1998, authorized federal
entities to accept compensation payments when they relocate or modify
their frequency use to accommodate non-federal users of the spectrum.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, P.L. 106-
65, Oct. 5, 1999, specified a number of conditions that have to be met
if spectrum in which DoD is the primary user is surrendered. The act
requires NTIA, in consultation with FCC, identify and make available to
DoD for its primary use, if necessary, an alternate band(s) of
frequency as replacement for the band surrendered. Further, if such
band(s) of frequency are to be surrendered, the Secretaries of Defense
and Commerce, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must
jointly certify to relevant congressional committees that such
alternative band(s) provide comparable technical characteristics to
restore essential military capability.
\14\ For more information on spectrum use decisions for third-
generation wireless services, see Defense Spectrum Management: More
Analysis Needed to Support Use Decisions for the 1755-1850 MHz Band
(GAO-01-795, August 20, 2001).
\15\ Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, P.L. 103-66, Aug. 10, 1993,
mandated that bands of frequencies not less than 200 MHz be transferred
from use of the federal government to non-federal users. NTIA was
directed to make a report on the identification and recommendation for
reallocation of frequency bands; utilize specific criteria in making
recommendations; issue a preliminary report upon which public comment
on proposed reallocations would be solicited; obtain analyses and
comment from FCC on reallocations; and transfer frequency bands within
specified time frames. It required FCC to gradually allocate and assign
frequencies over the course of ten years. The Balanced Budget Act, P.L.
105-33, Aug. 5, 1997, imposed a stricter deadline for NTIA to identify
for reallocation and FCC to reallocate, auction, and assign licenses by
September 2002 for an additional 20 MHz of spectrum. (Eight MHz of
spectrum was subsequently reclaimed per congressional direction. See
section 1062 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000, P.L. 106-65, Oct. 5, 1999.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address the protracted nature of some spectrum band-clearing
efforts, some officials we interviewed have suggested establishing a
third party--such as an outside panel or commission, an office within
the Executive branch, or an inter-agency group--to arbitrate or resolve
differences between FCC and NTIA. In some other countries, decisions
are made within one agency or within interagency mechanisms that exist
for resolving contentious band-clearing issues. For example, the United
Kingdom differs from the U.S. spectrum management structure in that a
formal standing committee, co-chaired by officials from the
Radiocommunications Agency and the Ministry of Defense, has the
authority to resolve contentious spectrum issues.
Another proposed mechanism is the preparation of a national
spectrum plan to better manage the allocation process. The Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 required NTIA and FCC to conduct
joint spectrum planning sessions. \16\ The National Defense
Authorization Act of 2000 included a requirement for FCC and NTIA to
review and assess the progress toward implementing a national spectrum
plan. \17\ Top officials from FCC and NTIA said that neither
requirement has been fully implemented. However, they indicated their
intention to implement these directives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 922.
\17\ P.L. 106-65, 113 Stat. 767 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Challenges in Preparing for World Radiocommunication Conferences
A central challenge for the United States in preparing for WRCs, at
which international spectrum allocation decisions are made, is
completing the preparatory actions to ensure that the U.S. is able to
effectively negotiate for international allocations that best serve the
interests of domestic federal and non-federal spectrum users. The
management of our domestic spectrum is closely tied to international
agreements on spectrum use at regional and global levels. Domestic
spectrum allocations are generally consistent with international
allocations negotiated and agreed to by members of the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU). \18\ The spectrum allocation decisions
reached at these international conferences can affect the direction and
growth of various wireless communications services and have far-
reaching implications for the multi-billion dollar wireless
communications industry in this country and abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ITU is a United Nations specialized agency. The federal
government considers the ITU the principal competent and appropriate
international organization for the purpose of formulating international
treaties and understandings regarding certain telecommunications
matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the first international radio conferences were aimed at
interference avoidance for early radio uses, such as maritime safety,
meeting this same objective has become increasingly challenging
throughout the last century with the proliferation of services and the
number of nations adopting communications that utilize the radio
frequency spectrum. For example, the emergence of new radio
applications with international ramifications, such as broadcasting,
radio navigation, and satellite-based services, has increased the need
to reach agreements to prevent cross border signal interference and
maximize the benefits of spectrum in meeting global needs, such as air
traffic control. At the same time, the number of participating nations
in these negotiations has risen dramatically--from 9 nations in the
first conference held in 1903, to 65 nations in 1932, to 148 at the
conference held in 2000--along with the frequency of conferences (now
held every 2 to 3 years), and the number of agenda items negotiated at
a conference (e.g., 11 in 1979; 34 in 2000). There has also been a
movement toward regional cooperation at WRCs. Because decisions on WRC
agenda items are made by vote of the participating countries--with one
vote per country--uniform or block voting of nations in regional
alignment has emerged to more effectively advance regional positions.
\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ One of the U.S. delegation's objectives stemming from its
experience at the 2000 WRC is to work more closely with participating
countries in our own region in preparing for the 2003 conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State Department coordinates and mediates the U.S. position for
the WRC and leads the U.S. delegation to the conference through an
ambassador appointed by the President. We found strong agreement among
those we interviewed that it is important for the United States to
develop its position in advance of the conference in order to have time
to meet with other nations to gain international support for our
positions. However, we heard differences of opinion about the United
States' preparatory process for the conferences. U.S. positions on WRC
agenda items are developed largely through separate processes by FCC
and NTIA with the involvement of their respective constituencies. To
obtain input from non-federal users, FCC convenes a federal advisory
committee comprised of representatives of various radio interests
(e.g., commercial, broadcast, private, and public safety users), and
solicits comment through a public notice in the Federal Register. NTIA
and federal government users can and do participate in the FCC process.
To obtain the views of federal spectrum users, IRAC meets to provide
NTIA with input on WRC agenda items. Although IRAC's WRC preparatory
meetings are closed to the private sector due to national security
concerns, non-federal government users may make presentations to IRAC
to convey their views on WRC agenda items. Any differences of opinion
between FCC and NTIA on the U.S. position must ultimately be reconciled
into a unified U.S. position on each WRC agenda item. In cases where
differences persist, the ambassador acts as a mediator to achieve
consensus to form a position.
State Department and FCC officials told us that the work of FCC and
NTIA with their respective constituencies and with each other in
preparation for a conference leads to U.S. positions on WRC agenda
items that are thoroughly scrutinized, well reasoned, and generally
supported among federal and non-federal parties. In contrast, some non-
federal officials told us that the NTIA process does not allow the
private sector adequate involvement in the development of U.S.
positions for the WRC. Also, some federal and non-federal officials
said that since each agency develops its positions through separate
processes, it takes too long to meld the two toward the end of the
preparatory period. For example, to speed up our preparatory process,
the former U.S. Ambassador to the 2000 WRC recommended merging the
separate FCC and NTIA preparatory groups to get an earlier start at
working with industry and government users to reach a consensus on U.S.
positions regarding WRC agenda items. \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Recommendations to Improve United States Participation in
World Radiocommunication Conferences, Ambassador Gail S. Schoettler,
U.S. Head of Delegation, World Radiocommunications Conference 2000,
June 27, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Differing views also have been expressed on how we appoint an
individual to head the U.S. delegation. Since the early 1980s, the
President has appointed an ambassador to head the U.S. delegation to
WRCs for a time period not exceeding six months. \21\ The former U.S.
Ambassador to the 2000 WRC said that ambassador status is generally
believed to confer a high level of support from the administration, and
it is viewed as helping to achieve consensus in finalizing U.S.
positions and enhancing our negotiating posture. However, the former
ambassador also said that the brief tenure of the appointment leaves
little time for the ambassador to get up to speed on the issues,
solidify U.S. positions, form a delegation, and undertake pre-
conference meetings with heads of other delegations to promote U.S.
positions. In addition, the ambassador said there is concern about the
lack of continuity in leadership from one conference to the next, in
contrast to other nations that are led by high-level government
officials who serve longer terms and may represent their nations
through multiple conferences. Leaders of national delegations with
longer terms are perceived as being more able to develop relationships
with their counterparts from other nations, helping them to negotiate
and build regional and international support for their positions. On
the other hand, NTIA officials expressed the view that the ambassador's
negotiating skill was of equal importance to the duration of the
appointment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 22 U.S.C. Sec. 3942. This provision of law enables the
President to confer the personal rank of ambassador on an individual in
connection with a special mission for the President not exceeding six
months in duration. The President need only transmit to the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations a written report on the appointment;
confirmation by the Senate is not needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encouraging Efficient Federal Spectrum Use
NTIA has several activities to encourage efficient spectrum use by
the federal government, but does not have assurance that these
activities are effective. NTIA is required \22\ to promote the
efficient and cost-effective use of the federal spectrum that it
manages--over 270,000 federal frequency assignments at the end of
2000--``to the maximum extent feasible.'' NTIA has directed agencies to
use only as much spectrum as they need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 903(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTIA's process for assigning and reviewing spectrum places primary
responsibility for promoting efficiency in the hands of the individual
agencies because the determination of agencies' spectrum needs depends
on an understanding of their varied missions. Moreover, the large
number of frequency assignments that require attention (NTIA processes
between 7,000 and 10,000 assignment action requests--applications,
modifications, or deletions--from agencies every month on average)
makes it necessary to depend heavily on the agencies to justify and
review their assignment needs.
NTIA authorizes federal agency use of the spectrum through its
frequency assignment process. As part of this process, NTIA requires an
agency to justify on its application that it will use the frequency
assignment to fulfill an established mission and that other means of
communication, such as commercial services, are not appropriate or
available. In turn, agencies generally rely on mission staff to
identify and justify the need for a frequency assignment and complete
the engineering and technical specifications for the application. NTIA
and IRAC review the application to ensure, among other things, that the
assignment will not interfere with other users. Once NTIA has
authorized spectrum use by agencies, it requires that the agencies
review their frequency assignments every 5 years to determine that the
assignments are still needed and meet technical specifications. \23\
NTIA said that it may delete assignments that have not been reviewed
for more than 10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Certain aeronautical and military frequency assignments are
required to be reviewed every 10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officials from the seven federal agencies in our review told us
that they attempt to use spectrum as efficiently as possible, but five
of them are not completing the required five-year reviews in a timely
or meaningful way. According to agency officials, this is due to
shortages of staff available to complete the review or because
completing the reviews are a low agency priority. For example, a
spectrum manager for a major agency division has over 1,000 frequency
assignments that have not been reviewed in 10 years or more. A spectrum
manager in another agency said that the agency has eliminated all field
staff responsible for assisting with the five-year reviews, which has
impaired the timeliness and quality of the reviews. The spectrum
manager for a third federal agency said that he was sure that the
agency was not using all of its frequency assignments, but he added
that conducting a comprehensive review would be cost prohibitive and
generate limited benefits to the agency. However, we note that although
the agencies may not reap benefits from conducting these reviews, if
these reviews result in the release of unused or underutilized
spectrum, other federal and non-federal users could benefit.
Although NTIA's rules and procedures also include NTIA monitoring
programs designed to verify how spectrum is used by federal agencies,
NTIA no longer conducts these programs as described. For example, at
one time, the Spectrum Management Survey Program included NTIA site
visits to verify if agency transmitters were being used as authorized.
NTIA said that although this program helped correct frequency
assignment information and educate field staff on NTIA requirements, it
is not currently active due to NTIA staff shortages. In addition, the
Spectrum Measurement Program made use of van-mounted monitoring
equipment to verify that federal agencies were utilizing assigned
frequencies in accordance with the assignment's requirements. NTIA said
that although this program provided useful information, the van-mounted
verification has been discontinued due to lack of resources. As a
result of the limited nature of the assignment and review programs and
decreased monitoring, NTIA lacks assurance that agencies are only using
as much spectrum as they need. \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The issue of unused spectrum is not exclusive to federal
agencies. A recent self-reported survey of some private radio bands by
FCC resulted in the return of over 30,000 unused spectrum licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTIA also seeks to promote efficiency by advocating spectrum
conservation through research and technical initiatives, but some of
these activities face implementation problems. Two examples illustrate
the potential and the limitations of these types of efforts. First,
NTIA, with the approval of IRAC, has required all federal agencies to
upgrade land-based mobile radios by setting deadlines for halving the
spectrum bandwidth used per channel (in essence, freeing up half of
each band currently in use) for radios in certain highly congested
bands--a process called narrowbanding. \25\ This requirement has the
potential to greatly expand the spectrum available for land mobile
telecommunications, but some agencies said that they are struggling to
meet the deadline due to a lack of sufficient staff and funding.
Several agencies in our review said they will not complete the upgrades
before the deadline. For example, the Chief Information Officer for one
agency that is a member of IRAC compared the requirement to an unfunded
mandate, and indicated that his office did not have the financial
resources needed to upgrade the tens of thousands of radios that fall
under the requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ In 1992, Congress directed NTIA to adopt and implement a plan
for federal agencies with existing mobile radio systems to use more
spectrum-efficient technologies. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 903(d)(3). In 1993,
NTIA provided Congress with a report--Land Mobile Spectrum Efficiency:
A Plan for Federal Government Agencies to Use More Spectrum-Efficient
Technologies--that included the narrowbanding plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second example of a technological initiative is a NTIA-sponsored
pilot program for federal agencies in six cities in the early 1990s to
establish a spectrum sharing method for voice radio communications,
called trunking, which conserves spectrum by putting more users on each
radio channel. According to NTIA, some agencies resisted the program
because it was more costly for agencies to participate in trunking than
it was for them to use their own channels. In addition, some agencies
said the trunking systems did not meet their mission needs. \26\ NTIA
added that the program was only completely successful in Washington,
DC, where agency demand for frequency assignments, and therefore
spectrum congestion, is extremely high. We found efforts to encourage
this technology in other countries as well. In the United Kingdom,
providers of emergency services are being encouraged to join a trunking
system. Once the new system has proved to be capable of meeting their
needs, certain public safety users will incur financial penalties if
they do not use this system. Additionally, in one province in Canada, a
variety of public safety users have voluntarily begun developing a
trunking system in order to use their assigned spectrum more
efficiently in light of the fees they must pay for this resource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ In addition to cost constraints, federal agencies can choose
not to use an existing land mobile system if the agency can justify
that it needs its own system to meet its mission requirements. For
example, GAO agreed with NTIA that the Navy was in the best position to
assess whether it needed its own land mobile system to meet its
mission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTIA also told us that the congressionally-mandated spectrum
management fees agencies must pay also help to promote the efficient
use of spectrum. These fees are designed to recover part of the costs
of NTIA's spectrum management function. The fees began in 1996 and
amounted to about $50 per frequency assignment in 2001. NTIA decided to
base the fee on the number of assignments authorized per agency instead
of the amount of spectrum used per agency because the number of
assignments better reflects the amount of work NTIA must do for each
agency. Moreover, NTIA stated that this fee structure provides a wider
distribution of cost to the agencies. \27\ Although NTIA officials said
that spectrum fees provide an incentive for agencies to relinquish
assignments, it is not clear that this promotes efficient use of
spectrum, in part because agencies may be able to reduce assignments
without returning spectrum. For example, a spectrum manager for a
federal agency said that the spectrum fee has caused the agency to
reduce redundant assignments, but that it has not impacted the
efficiency of the agency's spectrum use because the agency did not
return any spectrum to NTIA as a result of reducing its assignments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ A bandwidth-based approach would have forced the Air Force to
pay the majority of the fees because of the large amount of spectrum
the radars they operate use. However, each radar transmitter requires
only one assignment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have learned that other countries are moving toward using
payment mechanisms for government spectrum users that are specifically
designed to encourage government users to conserve their use of
spectrum, rather than to recover the cost of managing the spectrum.
Both Canada and the United Kingdom are reviewing their administrative
fee structures at this time with the intent of encouraging spectrum
efficiency.
Additional GAO Work on Spectrum Management
We are conducting additional work on the management of the radio
spectrum to determine how the current rules and regulations governing
spectrum holders affect the rollout of new technologies and services
and the level of competition in markets that utilize spectrum. To
address these and other related issues, we are building on the
information presented here today concerning U.S. rules and regulations
governing spectrum management. We are interviewing an array of
providers of mobile telephone, satellite, paging services,
broadcasters, NTIA, other federal agencies, and public safety
representatives. Tomorrow we are hosting a panel with experts from
several of these sources to elicit additional input on these and other
issues.
We are also collecting information from spectrum managers in
approximately 12 other countries. We are interested in learning about
their regulatory structure, including their assignment processes, the
amount of flexibility allowed spectrum users, the existence of
secondary markets, and their rules regarding interference. In addition,
we are interested in determining what incentives--market-based or
administrative--are employed to encourage government and non-government
users to conserve spectrum. We will also seek to determine what impact
these regulators think their actions are having on consumer prices, the
deployment of new technology, the rollout of new services, and the
level of competition. From this work, we hope to summarize alternative
approaches to spectrum management used around the world and to identify
similarities and differences between these approaches and those used in
the United States.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other Members of the Committee
may have.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Guerrero.
Now may I call upon Mr. Price.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN PRICE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR SPECTRUM, SPACE, SENSORS, AND C3,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Price. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee: I would like to thank you for inviting me today and
also thank you for your remarks earlier, most of which the
Department fully agrees with. The Department of Defense
appreciates that your Committee is looking at spectrum
management issues.
Spectrum is the lifeblood of our military. Every ship at
sea, every airplane conducting missions, every forward-deployed
young man or woman, especially in hard-to-reach locations,
depends on radios and spectrum to conduct their missions and to
return home safely. A Special Forces team leader operating
during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan recently told
me: ``We could go in there naked with flipflops and as long as
we have good radios we could do our job.''
Information clearly is one of our most important weapons. A
Department of Defense spectrum requirements analysis completed
prior to the September 11th and therefore likely to be an
underestimate predicted Department of Defense spectrum usage
growth of more than 90 percent by 2005. This did not take into
account new demands in the arena of homeland defense, such as
potential spectrum-related missions like military support for
major events, as was the case during the Olympics in Salt Lake
City, protection of critical infrastructure and emergency
response.
In short, the Department of Defense spectrum needs are
growing rapidly and the Department does not believe that the
future needs of our transformed, network-centric military can
be met without access to additional spectrum allocations.
DoD spectrum policy is guided by certain core principles.
First, spectrum is critical to DoD. As I have mentioned, it is
a core enabler of what we do. Therefore, we should not allow
lack of sufficient spectrum to be a constraint on our war-
fighters.
Second, spectrum is, as has been mentioned, a vital
national resource. We understand that our needs must be
balanced with other national needs. Our view is that such a
balance must recognize that essential defense needs must have
top priority.
The third spectrum policy is that we recognize that we must
be a good and responsible spectrum user. We must, as was
mentioned earlier, justify how we use our spectrum and how much
spectrum we need. In fact, we do strive to be as efficient a
user as we can be.
But it is important to understand that when talking about
needs and efficiency our use is very different from that of
commercial enterprises. The commercial sector seeks low-cost,
high-revenue solutions. Therefore, busy signals are acceptable.
I understand and accept that fact. In fact, when I ran a
publicly traded wireless company years ago I did exactly that.
But such cannot be the case for our military, because our calls
must get through, whether they are guiding precision guided
munitions or alerting a soldier of harm. Where lives are the
stake, there is no margin for error.
Despite how critical spectrum is to DoD's mission, our
access to it is under attack. This is evidenced by the current
viability study for 3G services. Losing needed spectrum is like
losing any other vital resource. It costs the Department both
in current capability and future opportunity, both directly and
through reallocation of dollars to mitigate the damage. Each
time we are forced to adjust training in the United States away
from operational norms to accommodate domestic frequency
restraints, our training realism and effectiveness suffers.
The uncertainty caused by relocation attacks pose serious
risks for our long-term planning. Will we be required to move?
Will we get the money to move? Will we need to retrain? Will we
retrain in time to be prepared to deploy in an emergency? Will
we need to change our concepts of operations to account for
degraded capabilities? Will we be able to get host nation
approval to use the systems in the new frequency bands in all
parts of the world we might need to do so? Will our allies who
bought interoperable systems to work with us and who are now
required to modify their systems because of our domestic
constraints do so, and who will pay their bill? And on and on.
DoD bears the risk of cost overruns for moving. We bear the
risk of overcoming technical challenges and, most importantly,
we bear the risk of failure of our equipment due to hasty
relocation decisions.
In the Department of Defense we have a duty to the young
men and women who defend our country. We have a duty to ensure
that they have the tools they need to do their job. We believe
we owe them policies to ensure that lack of access to spectrum
is not a constraint on their capabilities.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to working with you
and the other witnesses on these important issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Price follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven Price, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Spectrum, Space, Sensors, and C3, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Defense
1. Introduction
I would like to thank the Members of this Committee, and
particularly Chairman Inouye, for holding this hearing on spectrum
management and use. I think that our experiences in Afghanistan
indicate just how important this issue is to our armed forces.
DoD's spectrum needs are increasing due to new operational
concepts, including more extensive use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as
well as evolving strategies that require joint, dispersed forces to
have greater connectivity in the ``last tactical mile.'' One of the
platforms used in Operation Enduring Freedom is the Predator. This new
type of military system is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). Because
the plane is unmanned, it must be controlled and operated remotely.
That means it is entirely dependent on spectrum, both for flight
control and to pass along information. Without spectrum the Predator
would, in aviator parlance, ``go stupid''--it could neither fly nor be
able to pass on information or images, which is its core function. In
Afghanistan, we used Predators to laser-designate targets for bombers,
and the Air Force is even testing how well Predators can fire laser-
guided missiles. Many experts see Predators and other UAVs as being in
a similar developmental phase as manned aircraft were in the 1920s and
30s. This is, of course, great news because we can do so much, without
risking lives, in reconnaissance, targeting and now even firing of
weapons. There is, however, a cost to all of this, and that cost is in
spectrum. These UAVs absolutely depend on spectrum; if they don't have
it, they fall out of the sky.
The Predator example is just one indication of how spectrum is
crucial for DoD's entire mission, including homeland security. Fully
sufficient spectrum is essential in accomplishing national defense
missions, and ensuring that the Department of Defense retains such
spectrum it needs is a top national priority.
Mr. Chairman, as I will discuss in more detail in my testimony,
spectrum is integral to our nation's defenses. It is critical to the
success of national security policy at home and abroad. We must be able
to inform you, the commercial sector and the general public of that
importance as we try to balance the relative values of competing
interests.
Spectrum is the lifeblood of the Department of Defense. Every ship
at sea, every airplane conducting missions, every forward-deployed
young man or woman--especially in hard to reach locations--depends on
radios and spectrum to conduct missions and to return home safely.
Captain Jason Armerine, a Special Forces Team Leader during Operation
Enduring Freedom, spoke about his experience in the early days of the
Afghanistan campaign: ``We could go in there naked with flip-flops and
as long as we have good radios, we could do our job.''
This will be even truer in the future, as DoD's ongoing
transformation to a network-centric military will add new demands. A
DoD spectrum requirements analysis, completed prior to September 11,
2001 (and therefore likely to be an underestimate) predicted DoD
spectrum usage growth of more than 90 percent by 2005. In addition,
there will be new demands in the arena of homeland defense. These will
likely include new spectrum related missions, such as military support
for major events (such as was the case in the 2002 Winter Olympics in
Salt Lake City), protection of critical infrastructure and emergency
response.
Spectrum is one of our nation's most valuable natural resources. It
is not uncommon for us to use land or real estate analogies to describe
spectrum. We use terms like ``beachfront property''--that's how
valuable it is. The reason it is so valuable is that it enables so much
of the technology that many people look to in order to solve many
problems. The communications and information revolution has now
resulted in commercially successful technologies unimagined several
years ago: such as, tiny wireless phones, wireless local area networks
(LANs), Internet access from virtually anywhere in the world.
But these technologies are even more important to the military
because of the lack of any wired alternative in many military
operations. Wireless technologies are particularly important for our
military forces' operations because of their increasingly mobile and
flexible nature. The ongoing revolution in military affairs/operations
has made information the key component of warfare. Mass of force no
longer has the power it once did because our tactics are more
sophisticated, as are our warfighters and the equipment they carry. The
revolution in personal communications that civilians have experienced
is mirrored by a similar revolution in military communications. We can
make a phone call or access the Internet on a landline, but the ship
captain, bomber pilot or tank commander has no other option but
wireless communications. And because of the way we fight, that
information is more important than ever, both to the troops in the
field and to the commanders--whether they are in theater or 12,000
miles away.
The pressure on government spectrum will not end. Wireless
technologies will continue to proliferate. While 3G services have yet
to be widely deployed, there is already industry discussion of 4G and
5G technologies, as well as widespread wireless LANs. We should resist
the convenient arguments that these burgeoning technologies should be
supported by reallocation of more government spectrum--we must arrive
at a sound spectrum policy that allows our commercial interests to
coexist with public interests.
2. DoD Use of Spectrum
Spectrum enables almost every function that DoD performs. Whenever
mobile platforms--whether satellites, ships or trucks--exchange
information, spectrum is involved. I would like to go through some
examples of this just to give you a flavor of what we are really
talking about here. Military strategists around the world--and, in
fact, the American public--have seen first-hand in Afghanistan how the
United States has been able to defeat an extraordinarily determined
enemy in some of the world's most inaccessible terrain. We have
demonstrated the advantage to our nation of asymmetric warfare, relying
upon networked satellites, UAVs, air support, precision-guided weapons
and Special Forces on the ground. The accuracy of precision-guided
weaponry is dependent on our GPS satellite system and on UAVs that can
spot the enemy very effectively. The weapons guidance systems are
entirely dependant on radio spectrum. Where sky-based surveillance
alone does not provide our forces and their allies with sufficient
knowledge of circumstances on the ground, we have relied on radio-based
communications between our ground-based forces and air-based forces,
and indeed, the Central Command in Tampa, Florida. What we have is an
extraordinarily complex electromagnetic ecosystem. Indeed, I would
posit that it is one of the most complex electromagnetic ecosystems in
the world, all functioning exceptionally well under battlefield
conditions. The preparations for this Afghanistan scenario, and its
enactment itself, are based in large measure on spectrum in the bands
from 1755 MHz to 1770 MHz--precisely the bands that industry has
targeted over the past year. Let me describe some of the critical DoD
systems that operate in these bands.
The uplinks that control all DoD and intelligence satellites--more
than 120 satellites representing a cumulative investment of about $100
billion--use spectrum in the 1755-1850 MHz band. These satellites
perform communications, positioning and timing, surveillance and
reconnaissance, weather observation, and other functions crucial to
warfighting and to decision-making. The telemetry, tracking and command
systems for all of these satellites resides in the critical 1755-1770
band which is still under consideration. In addition to the satellite
control function, the 1755-1850 MHz band also serves as an uplink to
provide processed weather data and navigation timing information to DoD
satellites for down linking to DoD users on a worldwide basis.
DoD's GPS satellites have become crucial parts of the national
civilian/military infrastructure, supporting global navigation and
positioning requirements for air, land and sea vessels. Today in
Afghanistan, GPS supports everything from precision-guided munitions to
Special Forces operations. Precision targeting done by special
operations forces is virtually impossible without GPS.
Battlefield radio relay systems also use the 1755-1850 MHz spectrum
and form the long-haul backbone of the Army and Marine tactical
Internets. They let our ground forces share situational awareness and
coordinate their operations in real time across the extended
battlefield, as well as with ships offshore.
In terms of training our forces, the Air Force and Navy aircrew
combat training system are also heavily dependent on the 1755-1850 MHz
spectrum. This system provides realistic training to our aircrews that
cannot be gained in flight air combat simulators, while allowing
supervisors to make critical assessments of their performance and give
feedback to improve that performance. This is one of the main reasons
that American pilots are the best-trained combat pilots in the world.
We can ill-afford to send marginally trained aircrews into combat; on
the first night of an air war there can be no learning curve. A major
impact of reduction of spectrum allocated to federal uses is the effect
on training and, consequently, combat readiness. The comprehensive
training required to achieve and maintain combat readiness is essential
for the effective deployment of our forces for both homeland defense
and wartime conditions. This training includes the development of
operational tactics and doctrine to ensure that our forces operate at
maximum capabilities.
The following is an excerpt of a March 11, 2002 Aviation Week
article on this topic, which shows how important a role bandwidth and
spectrum played in our current operations:
For example, a Rivet Joint (airplane) orbiting over Pakistan
or a signals intelligence satellite in space picks up a
communication indicating Al Qaeda activity in some corner of
Afghanistan. That sigint ``tipper'' is sent to the (combined
air operations center). Operators there look for the fastest
intelligence platform--Joint Stars, AWACS or P-3, for example--
and send it to the hot spot to begin controlling the local
engagement using its wide area sensors. Meanwhile, a slower
Predator (unmanned plane) is turned and starts taking its acute
but narrow field-of-view sensors to the scene. . . The Predator
shows up and relieves the manned aircraft, which moves off to
the next problem. The UAV then provides precise target
coordinates to an AC-130 gunship or a strike aircraft.
Virtually all of these systems played a key role in the Allied
victory in Kosovo and are now being used in Afghanistan in the war on
terror. The success of these operations would be unlikely without
satellite-based communications, navigation, and reconnaissance, without
well-trained combat aircrews, without precision-guided weapons, and
without tactical radio relay systems.
In an era of reduced force structure and increased mission
responsibilities these systems serve to enhance significantly our
operational capabilities. Enhanced knowledge of the battlefield (or,
situational awareness) and precise engagement capabilities obtained
from these spectrum-dependent force-multiplier systems protect our
forces throughout the full range of U.S. involvement, from combat to
peacekeeping and humanitarian operations.
I want to say in the most unequivocal way possible that the loss or
degradation of our ability to perform these crucial functions would
have severe consequences for national security. It would result in
mission failures and increased casualties in future operations, as well
as the loss of vital intelligence information to the President and
senior leaders. As Secretary Rumsfeld and then Chairman of the Joint
Staff Shelton wrote to Senator Daschle on August 27, 2001, ``Access to
the radio frequency spectrum is essential to our success in all future
real-world operations. Lack of adequate spectrum will jeopardize our
national security.''
Access to sufficient spectrum will be even more important to our
military in the future. All of our transformational priorities depend
on it. Spectrum supports the six goals from the Quadrennial Defense
Review. Access to bandwidth and spectrum help the military:
Protect our bases of operation and our homeland
Deny enemies sanctuary
Project power in denied areas
Leverage information technology
Enhance information operations, and
Maintain our unhindered access to space
Just as in the civilian world, the military is seeing a quantum
leap in the demand for spectrum. Transformation is driving this and
will continue to drive it. Without sufficient spectrum, there is no
transformation. And without transformation, our military forces may not
be able to maintain the crucial edge needed to confront and defeat the
nation's 21st Century enemies.
Much of DoD's spectrum use is unique. Unlike the commercial
sector's drive for low cost, high revenue solutions, the DoD's core
belief is that where lives are at stake, there is no margin for error--
the ``call'' must get through. When an aircraft is guiding a precision
weapon, or a commander is relaying life-saving information to troops on
the ground, there cannot be ``busy'' signals. Some spectrum use that
industry might label as ``inefficient'' is actually designed for anti-
jam systems, low probability of intercept, and other ``counter counter-
measures.'' For the military, ``efficient spectrum use'' often
translates into ``guaranteed information delivery'' and because of
that, commercial standards that allow a certain percentage of built-in
busy signals or dropped calls cannot be tolerated. Nor, in many cases,
are commercial measures of efficiency useful.
Another example of DoD's unique use is that we often operate many
different emitters in close proximity to each other. Our AWACS command
and control aircraft uses 50 antennas to track other platforms,
communicate and direct the battlefield. If one system on the airplane
were changed it would affect all of the others. How this kind of
equipment interacts with each other is really a science. The issue is
complicated when talking about warships, such as aircraft carriers,
that have a large number of emitters and also handle live ordnance on
the decks--electromagnetic energy can in some cases cause ordnance to
detonate. The Joint Spectrum Center does a great deal of analysis in
this area, mitigating interference between different pieces of
equipment and ensuring that there are no harmful effects of radiating
the equipment. Without their efforts radiating emitters near each other
would be hazardous with the risk of interference substantial.
3. DoD Spectrum Principles
DoD spectrum policy is guided by certain core principles. First,
spectrum is a vital national resource. DoD understands that its needs
must be balanced with other national needs. Therefore, it supports a US
spectrum policy that balances military and economic security. DoD
believes that the balance of authority between the President's spectrum
manager, the NTIA, and the Federal Communications Commission, as
implemented at a practical level, helps to achieve the appropriate
balance. That balance must recognize that the Department of Defense
must have sufficient spectrum to meet the nation's defense needs. This
is a longstanding principal of national spectrum management and it
should continue.
Second, spectrum is critical to DoD. It is a core enabler of what
we do, and it is indispensable to national security. Therefore, we
should not allow lack of sufficient spectrum to be a constraint on the
US warfighter or on military capabilities. DoD spectrum needs should be
driven by military requirements and capabilities, not spectrum
allocations.
Third, DoD recognizes that it must be a good spectrum user. DoD
must strive to be as efficient a spectrum user as it can be. For
example, DoD is in the process of implementing an internal
reorganization to create the Defense Spectrum Office. This is a new
entity, co-located with the service frequency management offices, that
will among other things focus on spectrum efficient technologies and
promote inter-service sharing of spectrum assets.
Fourth, DoD intends to continue investing in new, spectrum-
efficient technologies. It will continue to seek to use technology to
alleviate DoD's and the commercial sector's long-term needs for
additional spectrum. DoD has been a major contributor to the birth of
proven spectrum efficient technologies, including CDMA and software
defined radio, and those that show potential, such as ultra wideband.
Significant research is ongoing within DoD in search of efficient
technologies. This research includes extensive work on such topics as
adaptive spectrum usage, frequency and bandwidth agility, phased-array
antenna configurations, interference mitigation techniques, congestion
control technologies and numerous networking projects. In addition, DoD
continually seeks to better manage its spectrum allocations. For
example, it will seek to move fixed use assignments out of lower
frequency bands and into bands less suitable for mobile applications.
Fifth, DoD commits to actively supporting US policies and interests
in international organizations and multinational and bilateral
negotiations for spectrum allocation and use. The Department of Defense
works with the State Department and other federal agencies on
international negotiations regarding spectrum allocations and related
matters, under the auspices of the International Telecommunication
Union and regional telecommunication and related international
organizations and with other countries on bilateral matters. The cycle
of preparations is a permanent, ongoing process leading up to World
Radiocommunication Conferences, which are held about every three years.
4. Spectrum Management Process
DoD is a user--a large user--of frequency spectrum. We understand
that our role is not that of a regulatory body, and we believe that the
FCC and NTIA are the proper bodies to address national spectrum policy.
Nonetheless, we welcome participating in the discussion and in
formulating a national spectrum strategy. We believe that the current
spectrum management process creates imbalances and asymmetric risks for
the incumbent uses. These must be set straight through effective use of
a rational, long-term spectrum management policy that mirrors national
priorities. In developing those priorities, DoD believes it is
important to have a spectrum management system that recognizes national
defense as a top priority in spectrum allocation, that DoD needs long-
term certainty and reliability of access to spectrum, and that, in
those cases in which spectrum is reallocated from defense use to
commercial use, DoD should not bear all the costs and risks associated
with the reallocation.
There's another element involved in these allocation decisions as
well. The risks to the incumbents are entirely asymmetric: this is true
whether DoD is being asked to move, as with 3G, or to accommodate a
new, potentially disruptive technology, as with UWB. When the
incumbents are asked to move, they bear the risks that the new
allocation will not be free of interference, that the costs will be
greater than predicted, and that the technical characteristics will not
be as beneficial to the use. The party asking for the incumbent to
relocate bears none of these risks and costs.
The uncertainties caused by the constant threat of relocation poses
serious issues for our long-term planning. Will we be required to move?
When will we get the money to move? Will we need to retrain? Will we
retrain in time to be prepared to deploy in an emergency? Will we need
to change concepts of operations to account for degraded capability?
Will we be able to get host nation approval, when needed, to use
systems in the new frequency band in all parts of the world where we
might need to do so? Will our allies who bought inter-operable systems
now also be required to modify their equipment? And if so, who pays
their bills? Will the new spectrum be free of interference? And on and
on.
The issue is not simply one of increased money to pay costs of
moving; the Department of Defense bears the risk of overcoming these
and any technical and regulatory challenges. And most importantly, we
bear the risk of potential failure of our equipment caused by hasty
relocation decisions. Due to the nature of our responsibilities in
keeping this country free and safe and protecting the lives of the
young men and women who serve in our military, a relocation that
compromises our essential capability is unacceptable.
5. Third Generation Wireless
In October 2001, NTIA, FCC, DoD and other Executive Branch agencies
developed a plan to assess spectrum for advanced wireless services. DoD
has been supporting this viability effort and it is still ongoing. A
few points must be understood in this context. First, the process is a
viability assessment that is examining current uses of the bands and
feasibility of sharing or relocating certain users. The goal is to
reach solutions that best serve the national interest--balancing
commercial goals with national security and public safety interests.
Second, the Viability Assessment's Terms of Reference require that the
parties take into account changing DoD needs following the September 11
attacks. Since that tragic date, DoD has accelerated its move to a
transformed, mobile, networked and flexible military. In addition, it
has a new mission for homeland defense, as evidenced by the creation of
Northern Command, a new combatant commander for the continental United
States. Spectrum needs associated with NorthCom currently are being
examined. These new homeland missions may include protection of
critical infrastructure and support for major events. I note that last
week the President asked the Congress to work with him to create a
Cabinet-level agency for homeland defense. In short, DoD's potential
need for access to additional spectrum--not to mention its need to
maintain existing allocations--must be considered in the viability
assessment. Third, I'd like to commend the staffs of the FCC and NTIA
for their tireless and skilled work throughout this viability
assessment.
The 1755-1770 band has superior features that make it a vital
resource for military applications. The band's characteristics uniquely
enable small antennas, sufficient antenna beam widths for simple
reliable link establishment and sustainment, low power transmissions
that support extended communications ranges and high data-rate
channels. No other spectrum band presently available to the Government
and not overcrowded possesses all of these attributes.
In addition, the US employs the same military systems as many of
our allies and coalition partners around the world--in fact many of
them procured systems specifically to interoperate with ours. Any
decision to modify equipment or change the band-operating capabilities
would be detrimental to our allies. Requiring them to pay for new
equipment merely because of a US domestic spectrum allocation decision
would be problematic.
All major DoD systems in the band have received, or are in the
process of receiving, host nation coordination, where needed. These are
negotiated on a bilateral basis and allow DoD to operate our systems in
the national territories of our allies and coalition partners. In one
case, it took the US Central Command six years to get host nation
approval to operate our tactical radios in a specific, important
country. Were we required to move out of 1755-1770, that clock would
start anew and--who knows for how long--those radios would be unusable
in that theater and in other key countries.
Some of the systems that use spectrum in the 1755-1770 MHz band
are: space operations; Tactical Radio Network Systems; Air Combat
Training Systems; and Precision Guided Munitions. Space operations are
particularly difficult, expensive and time-consuming to relocate
because some of the satellites using the band are not due to be
replaced until 2017 and once launched, satellites cannot simply be
``retuned.'' So they either must have access to the band until then, or
the new licensee must pay for new satellites well ahead of the end of
their scheduled service life, at great additional and unnecessary cost.
Air Combat Training Systems are used to train pilots and are critical
for use in training aircrews before deployments to combat zones--all
deploying aircrew use these systems for realistic training. Precision
Guided Munitions (PGMs) make modern air warfare possible. As the name
implies, they allow for precision targeting that enables pilots to
accurately deliver their weapons from farther outside the range of the
enemy threat. They also increase the effectiveness and lethality of
airpower, making operations like Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and
Allied Force in Kosovo possible. And they greatly reduce the risk of
collateral damage caused by a weapon veering off-course. In short, PGMs
have revolutionized air power.
Our aircrews must ``train like they fight.'' They must be allowed
to drop live ordnance on training ranges in the United States, and they
must have unimpeded access to the spectrum required to do so. I would
also note that DoD retains access to the 1710-1755 MHz band at 16
protected sites. One important function that takes place at these 16
sites is Aeronautical Telemetry which takes place at 10 of the 16 sites
and is most commonly associated with testing of airborne equipment. The
telemetry downlinks can be from manned or unmanned aircraft, missiles
or other ordnance devices. Aircraft operations are expensive and often
not easily replicated, therefore the signals are robust to prevent loss
of data resulting in a wide area of potential interference. Access to
the spectrum at all of these sites is essential and shows how some of
the impacts from previous reallocations have been mitigated.
DoD believes that the burden must be on the proponent of any new
spectrum allocation to prove that they really need that spectrum. In
the 3G debate, it is not clear how much new spectrum is really
necessary. Some companies have begun to deploy 3G services without
additional spectrum allocation. Many argue that the FCC's lifting of
spectrum caps, and steps allowing wireless carriers to share spectrum,
have mitigated the requirement for new spectrum allocations.
DoD understands the importance of a vibrant industrial base,
including the wireless sector. However, especially in uncertain times,
policy makers must protect our national security and ensure that
spectrum limitations are not a constraint on our warfighters.
DoD is open to finding solutions, provided DoD's interests and
requirements are met. Such solutions must include identification of
comparable spectrum for displaced DoD functions, full compensation for
costs incurred and the requisite time to transition. These are not new
requirements, and we believe they are reasonable.
Third-Generation wireless is by no means the only spectrum-
dependent technology for which spectrum needs must be balanced with
those of national security. One of the newest spectrum-dependent
technologies competing for spectrum access is Ultra Wideband. Unlike
traditional wireless technologies, UWB consists of radio pulses that
emanate, at low-power levels, across a wide range of spectrum bands.
Thus, as a result of the FCC's April 2002 Report and Order, UWB will
operate, on a non-licensed basis, across many different spectrum bands,
in which hundreds of government and commercial users are licensed to
provide hundreds of vital and needed wireless services--including vital
military and public safety systems. Never before have the FCC and the
NTIA authorized unlicensed use of a horizontal slice of spectrum,
including certain so-called restricted bands. The effect on DoD and
other incumbent users will be evaluated as UWB services are deployed.
6. Comparable Spectrum and Cost Reimbursement
Section 1062(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 (47 U.S.C. 921 note), provides that ``[if], in order
to make available for other use a band of frequencies of which it is a
primary user, the Department of Defense is required to surrender use of
such band of frequencies, the Department shall not surrender use of
such band'' until several conditions are met. First, the FCC and the
NTIA must make available to DoD ``for its primary use, if necessary, an
alternative band or bands of frequencies as a replacement for the band
to be so surrendered.'' Second, the Secretaries of Defense and
Commerce, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, must jointly
certify to the congressional armed services and commerce committees
that ``such alternative band or bands provides comparable technical
characteristics to restore essential military capability that will be
lost as a result of the band of frequencies to be so surrendered.''
DoD's certification takes into account whether the replacement
spectrum for different DoD systems has suitable technical
characteristics and similar regulatory status so that the displaced
function can be performed with no degradation in capability. In
considering spectrum replacement issues, it is important to emphasize
that spectrum is not fungible. Different parts of the spectrum have
different physical characteristics. For example, some bands allow for
propagation through foliage, and others through buildings. DoD has
often chosen the particular bands of spectrum that DoD currently
occupies for the particular physical characteristics of that band. The
reallocation process should provide the DoD systems with the same
regulatory status as the systems had in the spectrum replaced. And
unless DoD keeps the same priority as well as the comparable technical
characteristics, a move from a band where DoD is primary user to a band
where DoD is not the primary user would not preserve DoD's essential
operational capabilities with respect to that spectrum.
With respect to the costs to DoD--that is, the cost to American
taxpayers--when DoD yields spectrum to commercial users and moves to
replacement spectrum, the law (47 U.S.C. 923) provides that the
commercial users will pay DoD in advance for the costs of relocating
operations to the replacement spectrum, including the costs of any
modification, replacement or reissuance of equipment, facilities,
operating manuals, or regulations. NTIA's Final Rules to implement
these statutory requirements will be published in the Federal Register.
I commend the NTIA and other IRAC agencies' personnel for their hard
work over two and one-half years in developing a workable set of Rules.
In addition, the Administration is considering submitting a
proposal to Congress s to revise the current cost reimbursement
statutory provisions in order to streamline the cost reimbursement
process and ensure full cost reimbursement to effected government
agencies. It is currently developing legislation to implement this
proposal. We are working with OMB, NTIA and other Executive Branch
agencies in such efforts.
Cost reimbursement is a critical issue--but DoD's concern over
relocation is not merely a cost issue. To some extent, that risk is
quantifiable and therefore not as troubling as the potential risk to
our operations, which I outlined earlier, including the risk that our
systems won't operate, or will operate improperly. These are tough
issues and issues that take a tremendous amount of time and effort--
effort that could be channeled into serving our warfighters.
7. Conclusion
In closing, we must keep in mind that spectrum is vital to our
national security. It is also the critical resource required for
transformation of our military forces to meet the challenges of the
21st century and beyond. Spectrum is the very medium through which our
military defends our security. I am sure that you will agree that this
is its highest purpose.
In the Department of Defense, we have a duty to the young men and
women who defend our country. We have a duty to ensure that they have
the tools, including spectrum, that they need to do their job. We owe
them policies to ensure that lack of access to spectrum is not a
constraint on their war fighting capability.
I look forward to working with you, our colleagues in other parts
of the government, and members of the private sector to develop a
national spectrum policy that preserves spectrum access for national
security while balancing commercial interests. We must continue to
ensure that our military has ample spectrum to defend our nation and
our ideals.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Price.
May I call on Ms. Victory, please.
STATEMENT OF NANCY J. VICTORY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL
TECHNICAL
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
Ms. Victory. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, for inviting me here to testify on the important
topic of spectrum management.
Spectrum is an invisible but indispensable building block
for America's future. It is a natural resource that can fuel
economic growth. It is a key to our Nation's digital defense
and our citizenry's safety. It is a wireless link that can
enable anyone anywhere to access the marvels of the World Wide
Web.
But spectrum management is under stress and strain from
concurrent challenges. There is the challenge of constantly
evolving technological capabilities. There is the challenge of
threats to security and safety. There is the challenge of
static processes and legacy regulations in a dynamic field.
Finally, there is the challenge of the finite nature of the
radio spectrum.
As reflected by the interest of this Committee, spectrum
management is one area where we have to get it right and keep
getting it right. Too much of our country's future is riding on
it to do anything less.
In early April, I convened a 2-day spectrum summit at the
Department of Commerce with experts from Government, industry,
academia. The purpose of the summit was to explore new and
innovative ideas for spectrum policy and management approaches.
I was particularly pleased with the extensive participation of
the Federal Communications Commission, including Chairman
Michael Powell and Commissioners Kathleen Abernathy and Kevin
Martin. David Gross, the lead State Department official for
international telecommunications policy, also participated.
The results of the summit were very revealing. Among the
major problems with spectrum management identified were gaps in
governmental coordination, the length and complexity of the
allocation process, inefficient uses of spectrum in the absence
of efficiency-stimulating incentives, challenges in making room
for new services and technologies, and lack of clarity about
spectrum rights and the Federal spectrum management process.
From the spectrum summit I believe several basic spectrum
management goals emerged. First, the U.S. Government agencies
involved in spectrum management--NTIA, the FCC, and the State
Department--must work collaboratively as one spectrum team to
serve our Nation's collective interests. Chairman Powell and I
have taken first steps to improve our inter-agency
communications and to take a more forward-looking approach to
accommodate advances in technology within our domestic
spectrum.
Chairman Powell, Deputy Assistant Secretary Gross and I
have also been discussing how we can better coordinate to
improve our international outreach as we prepare for
international fora like the World Radio Communications
Conferences held every 3 years.
Second, we should be developing policies that encourage
spectrum efficiency. NTIA has long advocated and required the
use of spectrum-efficient technologies by Federal agencies. For
example, NTIA has developed and the Federal agencies are now
implementing a transition to narrowband technology to relieve
the congestion in the land-mobile radio bands used by the
Government. NTIA and the Federal public safety agencies have
also developed technical standards for receivers to minimize
interference and increase overall spectrum efficiency. We are
also exploring innovative new technologies, including those
that will permit radios to select their operating frequencies,
decrease power, and adjust coverage based on sensing the
operating environment and dynamically selecting unused
channels.
Third, we must establish forward-looking policies that
enable technological advances and eliminate legacy regulations
that stand in the way of innovation. One such promising reform
in this area is the FCC's proceeding to create secondary
markets that would permit parties to lease their spectrum to
others, to put otherwise unused spectrum to its most efficient
use. Another is the accommodation of frequency-flexible
wireless systems, such as those under the 802.11 standard, on
an unlicensed basis.
Taking steps to make room for new technologies is key,
including through migration or relocation to higher frequency
bands. NTIA is currently finalizing rules for Federal agencies
to be reimbursed by the private sector for relocation costs, as
well as working on a legislative proposal referenced in the
President's 2003 budget to create a reimbursement fund from
spectrum auction proceeds.
Fourth, we must have policies that ensure the deployment of
robust wireless networks that are prepared for the worst crises
and able to deliver the very best of services to the American
people. The events of September 11th demonstrated how
critically important communications capabilities are for our
Nation's first responders. Interoperability among these
agencies is essential to their ultimate success.
NTIA is attempting to assist in achieving this goal through
research at our Boulder, Colorado, lab and through education
and outreach. At this very moment, NTIA and the Public Safety
Wireless Network Program are co-hosting a summit here in
Washington to focus on current and emerging solutions for
achieving interoperability.
While we wrestle with building a sound spectrum management
framework for the future, the demands of the present increase
unabated. NTIA is currently working with the FCC, the
Department of Defense, and other Federal agencies to
accommodate the demand for spectrum for third generation or 3G
wireless services. A viability assessment on making the 1710
through 1770 and 2110 to 2170 megahertz bands available for 3G
is scheduled for release later this month.
At the same time, DoD has predicted that its spectrum usage
will grow by more than 90 percent by 2005. Wireless systems are
critical to our national defense, not only as DoD deploys our
troops abroad, but also as it conducts critical training
operations here in the United States. These requirements need
to be recognized and addressed as we move forward in
encouraging innovation and efficiencies in the public sector.
We also need to resolve issues in the 700 megahertz band in
a manner that makes clear when and how these frequencies will
become available for new wireless services. An equitable and
efficient solution for relocating incumbents in these bands is
possible, and the administration looks forward to working with
the FCC and Congress to ensure such policies are developed in a
timely fashion.
Finally, we need to address our spectrum allocation and
licensing policies to address the special needs and challenges
of the Nation's rural areas.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the radio
spectrum is vital to our national security and to our economic
security. I look forward to working with Congress in developing
the best possible spectrum management policies for the future.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify and I would be happy
to answer any questions you may have for me.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Victory follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nancy J. Victory, Assistant Secretary of Commerce
for Communications and Information and Administration, National
Technical Information Administration, Department of Commerce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you and the Members
of the Committee for inviting me here to testify on the important topic
of spectrum management. I am Nancy J. Victory, Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Spectrum is an invisible, but indispensable building block for
America's future. It is a natural resource that can fuel economic
growth. It is key to our nation's digital defense and our citizenry's
safety. It is a wireless link that can enable anyone, anywhere to
access the marvels of the worldwide web.
Spectrum management is under stress and strain from concurrent
challenges. There is the challenge of constantly evolving technological
capabilities. There is the challenge of threats to security and safety.
There is the challenge of static processes and legacy regulations in a
dynamic field. And finally, there is the challenge of the finite nature
of the radio spectrum.
As reflected by the interest of this Committee and its Members,
spectrum management is one area where we have ``to get it right'' and
``keep getting it right.'' Too much of our country's future is riding
on it to do anything less.
The Spectrum Summit
In early April, I convened a high-level 2-day Spectrum Summit
meeting at the Department of Commerce. The purpose of the Summit was to
explore new and innovative ideas to develop and implement spectrum
policy and management approaches. The focus was upon ways to encourage
spectrum efficiency; provide spectrum for new technologies; and improve
the effectiveness of the domestic and international spectrum management
processes.
Recognizing that improving the national spectrum management process
is a multifaceted undertaking that neither government nor the private
sector can do alone, I invited a variety of experts in spectrum
management from government, industry, and academia to share their
thoughts in this area. I was also particularly pleased with the
extensive participation of the Federal Communications Commission in our
two-day Summit. Chairman Michael Powell and Commissioners Kathleen
Abernathy and Kevin Martin helped moderate panels with me.
The first day of the Summit consisted of panel discussions by
government and private sector spectrum users, economists and academic
analysts who follow spectrum issues, and technologists and futurists.
The second day of the Summit entailed three simultaneous breakout
sessions focusing on spectrum management, spectrum efficiency, and
international issues. The results of the Spectrum Summit were very
revealing. Among the major problems identified were:
Gaps in governmental coordination--NTIA, FCC & State;
Length and complexity of the allocation process;
Inefficient uses of spectrum and the absence of efficiency
stimulating incentives;
Challenges in making ``room'' or ``homes'' for new services
and technologies; and
Lack of clarity about spectrum rights and the federal
spectrum management process.
A common criticism was that the process is usually too reactive--
waiting until the technology is ready to be deployed before beginning
the allocation process, rather than anticipating future spectrum needs.
There was also significant discussion on the hurdles the current system
erects that limit the ability to promote sharing and encourage
relocations to accommodate new needs or capabilities. Panelists
indicated that the allocation process too often pits advocates of new
technology against incumbents, instead of focusing on win-win outcomes
that preserve existing rights while facilitating new uses.
The Future of Spectrum Management
From the Spectrum Summit, I believe several basic goals emerged.
First, the U.S. Government agencies involved in spectrum management--
NTIA, the FCC, and the State Department--must work collaboratively as
``One Spectrum Team'' to serve our Nation's collective interest.
Secondly, we should develop policies that encourage spectrum
efficiency. Third, we must establish forward-looking policies that
enable technological advances and eliminate legacy regulations that
stand in the way of innovation. And fourth, we should ensure that we
have policies that ensure the deployment of robust wireless networks
that are prepared for the worst of crises and able to deliver the very
best of services to the American people. Let me describe what I mean by
each of these in a bit more detail.
1. ``One Spectrum Team''
The Summit was the first effort to bring NTIA, the FCC and the
State Department together in a collective look at common challenges. As
head of NTIA, I have responsibility for managing the federal government
spectrum. As head of the FCC, Chairman Powell has responsibility for
managing non-federal spectrum. As the lead State Department official
for international telecommunications policies, David Gross, the U.S.
Coordinator and Deputy Assistant Secretary, has responsibility for
representing U.S. spectrum interests abroad. Our roles are different,
but ultimately interdependent.
To promote an improved spectrum management process for the country,
Chairman Powell, David Gross and I have established a ``One Team''
spectrum management approach. Specifically, to enhance NTIA and FCC
cooperation, Chairman Powell and I have taken the first steps to
improve our interagency communications and to take a more forward-
looking approach to accommodate advances in technology. These
improvements will enable our agencies to be more ``proactive'' and
``predictive'' in spectrum management.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Gross, Chairman Powell and I have also
been discussing how we can better coordinate to improve our
international outreach as we prepare for international fora. This is
increasingly important to U.S. interests as many aspects of spectrum
management are addressed in such international bodies. In particular,
our ability to reach consensus with other countries in the Americas
prior to such meetings helps ensure that U.S. policy views have a
greater likelihood of success, given the oftentimes unified positions
of the European or Asian-Pacific nations. This is most significant in
such fora as the World Radio Communication Conferences (WRC) held by
the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) every three years. The
ITU develops international radio regulations that have treaty status.
We are also discussing ways in which we can begin the development of
U.S. positions earlier in the process, including whether the
appointment of the U.S. head of delegation for each WRC should be made
sooner in the process to allow for the most effective representation of
U.S. interests at these meetings.
Last, but not least, NTIA is examining ways to improve its own
processes. We have recognized that the frequency authorization and
coordination process through which government frequency assignments are
made depend upon an inefficient paper-based system. In NTIA's Fiscal
Year 2003 budget, we are requesting the funds to streamline this
process into an electronic frequency selection, coordination and
authorization system.
2. Spectrum Efficiency, Not Spectrum Waste
Effective spectrum management must include policies that create
incentives for spectrum efficiency. NTIA has long advocated the use of
more spectrum efficient technologies. For example, NTIA has developed
and the Federal agencies are now implementing a transition to
narrowband technology to relieve the congestion in the land mobile
radio bands used by the Government. Under NTIA regulation, Federal
agencies will convert to narrowband technology in certain land mobile
frequencies by 2005 and in all others by 2008. This should effectively
double the number of frequencies available to Federal agencies.
Narrowbanding, where technically possible, holds great promise for
increasing the number of channels available to all users of the
spectrum.
NTIA and the Federal public safety agencies have also advocated the
adoption of technical standards for receivers to minimize interference
and increase overall spectrum efficiency. State and local public safety
entities are also recognizing the importance of establishing receiver
standards to minimize interference. The adoption of receiver standards
allows transmitters and receivers to operate closer to each other in
the spectrum, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the use of
the band. NTIA has worked with several private sector organizations to
establish receiver standards, including standards for Global
Positioning Satellite (GPS) System receivers and VHF maritime mobile
radios.
Federal agencies have also found that trunked systems can improve
spectrum efficiency. In particular, trunked systems can be used for
limited areas with a high concentration of use and for campus
environments. Examples of sites particularly appropriate for trunked
systems are Federal prisons, hospitals, laboratories, and training
facilities.
Innovative new technologies, including those using adaptive
frequency, power, and antenna capabilities, for example, also hold
great promise in improving spectrum efficiency. Frequency adaptive
technology will permit radios to adaptively select their operating
frequencies based on sensing the operating environment and dynamically
selecting unused channels. This permits an enhanced opportunity to
share channels, a more efficient use of the spectrum. NTIA will be
looking for additional opportunities for promoting and maximizing
spectrum efficiency.
3. Forward-Looking Policies Enabling New Uses and Efficiencies
Current spectrum management practices often require users to seek
permission from either the FCC or NTIA before changing the services
offered over their licensed frequencies. This process can impose time-
consuming approval processes that engender lengthy delays. The
unintended consequence can be to discourage, rather than enable, new
spectrum uses.
As a policy matter, agencies with spectrum management
responsibility--NTIA and the FCC--must continually reexamine their
policies and rules to eliminate those that have become obstacles to
innovation and to more efficient uses of the spectrum. To the greatest
extent possible, we should be forward-looking in our policies and
practices to remove procedural roadblocks to important federal and
public advances.
One promising spectrum management reform is the FCC's proceeding on
creating secondary markets for spectrum use. The proposed secondary
markets rules would permit parties to ``lease'' their spectrum to
others--encouraging the development of secondary markets in order to
put spectrum to its most efficient use. This concept is not entirely
new. As the FCC's rulemaking notes, de facto leasing already takes
place in some circumstances, such as for Instructional Television Fixed
Services, where parties are allowed to sell excess capacity. Leasing is
also permitted with satellite time and through the relatively new band
manager licensing regime. The secondary markets concept would broaden
these limited leasing venues and extend the benefits of leasing
arrangements across more of the spectrum. If fully developed, it could
even lead to dynamic trading of spectrum rights among parties in real
time, on an ``as needed'' basis.
I also supported the FCC's repeal of the spectrum cap on commercial
mobile radio services. The FCC adopted an order last December to repeal
the cap as of January 1, 2003 and to raise the cap to 55 MHz in all
markets in the interim. This will permit carriers to assemble spectrum
where appropriate to meet capacity needs and to deploy broader
bandwidth services. The spectrum limits were simply too rigid to allow
for changing needs and capabilities.
New frequency flexible and low power technologies offer tremendous
opportunities for innovative, new services. We need to ensure that
wireless systems, such as those under the 802.11 standard, can flourish
on an unlicensed basis. Frequency flexible systems will challenge our
current block allocation structure and we must ensure that they can be
accommodated without needless government micromanagement.
One of our top priorities at NTIA is to work with the FCC to
examine policies to alleviate the current congestion below 3 gigahertz
(GHz). Over 93 percent of all FCC licenses and Federal Government
frequency assignments are in the 0 to 3 GHz range. Among other things,
spectrum managers should be examining ways to encourage migration to
higher frequency bands as the technology permits. Such policies should
include clear incentives for relocation to higher bands, where
possible.
In 1998, Congress enacted such a tool to permit Federal agencies to
be reimbursed by the private sector for the costs associated with
relocating from certain frequencies bands below 3 GHz, as well as any
future reallocation of spectrum from the Federal government to private
sector uses. Working with the FCC and the Federal agencies, NTIA has
finalized these rules and they will be published in the Federal
Register shortly. The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2003 contained
a legislative proposal to streamline this reimbursement process by
creating a fund from spectrum auction proceeds to reimburse the
affected Federal agencies. The Department of Commerce expects to
transmit this proposal to Congress this summer.
4. Preparing for the Worst and Delivering the Best
The events of September 11, 2001, demonstrated how critically
important communications capabilities are for our nation's first-
responders--the public safety and emergency response men and women who
protect and serve our country and our communities. Now, more than ever,
we must ensure that our wireless facilities are robust and constructed
to withstand physical and cyber-attacks. It has been made exceedingly
clear that spectrum-based communications can be an indispensable link
and lifeline in time of crisis.
NTIA has had a long and active role in providing spectrum for our
nation's law enforcement and emergency response activities. Special
attention was focused on public safety and multi-agency communications
interoperability following the bombing of the Federal office building
in Oklahoma City when state, local and federal police agencies had
difficulty communicating with each other. In 1996, NTIA and the FCC co-
sponsored the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report,
which provided recommendations on public safety issues through the year
2010. As a result of the report, NTIA established the Public Safety
Program to address the long-range spectrum requirements of federal
public safety agencies, develop a strategy to provide sufficient
spectrum for growth of the current services, and to provide for
advanced technology and interoperability.
Interoperability is shorthand for ensuring that different
organizations with different radio systems operating on different
frequencies are able to communicate immediately and effectively with
each other. This is a complex problem that requires procedures and
spectrum management tools to convert a potential Tower of Babel into a
common communications language and an agreed upon process for linking
different branches of government and different agencies together in a
chaotic environment. NTIA is attempting to assist in tackling this
problem in several ways.
First, within NTIA, we have one of the world's leading
telecommunications research laboratories located in Boulder, Colorado--
the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (or ITS). ITS is NTIA's
chief research and engineering arm, but it also serves as a principal
federal resource for solving the telecommunications concerns of other
federal agencies, state and local governments, and private associations
and organizations. Among other things, ITS has been particularly
involved in identifying solutions to the public safety interoperability
issue, including developing standards for public safety digital land
mobile radio systems
Moreover, at this very moment, NTIA and the Public Safety Wireless
Network Program (PSWN), jointly managed by the Departments of Justice
and Treasury, are co-hosting the Public Safety Interoperability
Technology Summit here in Washington. The Summit focuses on current and
emerging solutions for achieving interoperability to better inform
public safety officials on their technology choices. NTIA will also be
looking for additional ways to assist the public safety community to
reach a fully interoperable future.
Current Challenges--Accommodation of New Wireless Technologies
While we wrestle with building a sound spectrum management
framework for the future, the demands of the present increase unabated.
The search for new homes for new services--whether through new
allocations, relocation of incumbents, or advanced sharing techniques--
involve inherently nettlesome issues. Let me identify several of the
key challenges that are facing all of us involved in spectrum decision-
making.
1. Third Generation Wireless (``3G'')
Over the past decade, there has been a tremendous growth worldwide
in the use of cellular-based wireless telecommunications systems. The
Department of Commerce and NTIA believe that this global growth will
continue and that it is incumbent upon U.S. policymakers to find the
spectrum to accommodate the demand for these new services.
NTIA is currently working with the FCC, the Department of Defense
(DoD) and other Federal agencies to accommodate the demand for spectrum
for third generation or 3G wireless services. The 3G systems advanced
by industry propose to provide mobile and satellite-based broadband
capabilities. While current cellular and PCS wireless systems are
expected to evolve to 3G technology over time, there is a strong desire
from the wireless industry for additional spectrum now to establish 3G
networks.
In recognition of this growth and the trend toward global markets
for wireless services, the ITU has considered the spectrum requirements
for evolving 3G systems, which is internationally termed International
Mobile Telecommunications-2000, or IMT-2000. The ITU forecast that 160
MHz of additional spectrum would be required for 3G systems over and
above that spectrum already used for 1- and 2G systems. At WRC-2000,
the ITU identified several frequency bands that could be used for IMT-
2000 systems, leaving individual administrations the right to implement
any of the bands in any time frame, for any service or technology, and
using any portion of the identified bands that they deemed appropriate
to satisfy national requirements.
Since 2000, NTIA, the FCC, and the Federal agencies have been
working cooperatively to take certain actions to identify spectrum for
3G services. After extensive public outreach and work with industry and
affected agencies on technical analyses of the various band options,
NTIA and the Federal agencies are now focusing specifically on the
1710-1770 MHz band, while the FCC is focusing on the 2110-2170 MHz
band. A viability assessment on making both of these bands available
for 3G is scheduled for release later this month.
2. Digital Defense of National Security
The events at home and abroad have underscored the importance of
wireless communications capabilities to our national defense and
critical infrastructure. The digital era of electronic links is a
mission critical component of our military and security systems. Every
branch of our armed services depend on radios and spectrum-dependent
systems to conduct its missions. Information gained from these wireless
systems is one of our nation's most effective weapons in today's war.
DoD has predicted that its spectrum usage will grow by more than 90
percent by 2005. DoD must have access to these frequencies, not only
when it deploys our troops abroad, but also to conduct critical
training operations here in the United States. These requirements need
to be recognized and addressed as we move forward in encouraging
innovation and efficiencies in the public sector.
3. The 700 MHz Band
The Administration has also supported the FCC's postponement of the
auction of the spectrum in the upper 700 MHz band to permit Congress
and the FCC to develop the policies necessary to ensure certainty as to
when and how this spectrum will become available for new wireless
services. The Administration recognizes the important role that
broadcasting continues to play in the lives of all Americans and the
challenges associated with the digital conversion. At the same time,
spectrum is needed for new wireless services that provide new
communications opportunities to American families, businesses, and
public safety providers. An equitable and efficient solution for
relocating incumbents in these bands is possible and the Administration
looks forward to working with the FCC and Congress to ensure such
policies are developed in a timely fashion.
4. Rural Wireless Needs
Spectrum policies designed for the nation as a whole sometimes fail
to recognize and address the special problems and challenges of the
country's rural areas. Spectrum allocation and licensing policies need
to be regularly reevaluated to assess whether they are fully and
adequately meeting the needs of all Americans, including those in rural
areas.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the radio spectrum is
vital to our national security and to our economic security. I look
forward to working with Congress in developing the best possible
spectrum management policies for the future. Thank you again for
inviting me to testify. I welcome any questions you may have for me.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Ms. Victory.
Now may I call on Mr. Sugrue.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. SUGRUE, CHIEF OF
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. Sugrue. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. I am Tom Sugrue, Chief of the Wireless Bureau at the
FCC, and I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the important issue of spectrum policy.
As everyone's comments this morning have recognized, the
radio spectrum is a critically important resource. Our Nation
has become extremely dependent on a wide variety of spectrum-
based services. In terms of spectrum needs, however, this
wireless revolution is becoming a victim of its own success.
The simple truth is that as our Nation grows increasingly
dependent on wireless technology, spectrum demand is stressing
the supply, and that has made spectrum management a difficult
task for Government.
The overarching challenge of spectrum policy is to ensure
the public interest is best served by balancing competing
demands for this scarce resource. Spectrum policy is not
static. It requires the difficult task of predicting spectrum
needs not just for today, but for the next generation. Twenty-
five years ago when the Commission first allocated spectrum for
cellular telephone services, no one, neither the FCC nor the
industry, realized how rapidly this sector would grow. In a now
often-told story, a prominent consulting firm projected for
AT&T that even under the most optimistic assumptions, there
would be at most 1 million cell phone subscribers in the United
States by the end of the twentieth century. It is reported that
ATT took that prediction into account when it agreed to have
the cell phone licenses stay with the Bell operating companies
at the time of divestiture.
Senator Wyden, you mentioned the potential for competition
from wireless technologies. I think if the Department of
Justice had appreciated the competitive potential of this
technology, they would have made a different choice in deciding
which side of that divestiture border those licenses should go.
Well, by the year 2000, there were actually 110 million
cell phone subscribers, so that projection was off by 109 out
of 110. But to be fair, the FCC did not do much better in its
own crystal balling. When we allocated additional spectrum for
this market in 1994--that is the PCS allocation of 120
megahertz--that was based on a projection of 54 million
wireless subscribers by the year 2000. So even though we were
only projecting 6 years in advance, the Commission's estimates,
which were well within the mainstream of expert opinion at the
time, were still off by 100 percent.
The problem is not that we had stupid people making these
predictions. They were the best and brightest in the field at
the time. The problem is that the dynamic nature of
telecommunications markets, and especially the wireless markets
today, render even expert predictions inherently unreliable. In
turn, this makes a traditional command and control approach to
spectrum management increasingly problematic.
The FCC's recent experience has been to move to flexible
policies that allow the market to adjust without constant
Government intervention, to promote innovation, competition,
and efficiency in commercial wireless markets.
The commission also recognizes that it must ensure that the
needs of non-commercial users, such as public safety agencies,
are met. In this regard, over the last several years, the FCC
has been working actively to ensure public safety entities have
access to sufficient spectrum and can operate on a non-
interference basis.
After spectrum has been allocated and assigned, the
Commission is committed to ensuring that it is used
efficiently. Periodically, the Commission revisits existing
allocations and reallocates spectrum that can be put to a more
economic use. Through this often complex, controversial
process, the Commission has reallocated more than 300 megahertz
of spectrum in recent years.
In addition, because some users of spectrum, such as public
safety and private wireless, do not face the same market-driven
opportunity costs to use spectrum efficiently as commercial
users face, the Commission has taken additional steps to ensure
efficient spectrum use by these users. For example, the
Commission adopted explicit efficiency standards for public
safety in the 700 megahertz band and is right now in the
process of conducting its first-ever audit of public safety and
private radio services licensed on frequencies below 512
megahertz.
Well, even as I enumerate some of the actions the
Commission has taken already to improve the use of the radio
spectrum, I know we can do better. As Chairman Powell has
observed, the Commission's traditional top-down approach to
spectrum allocations may be too reactive for the current
Internet-speed market. Traditional FCC rules often limit the
use of specific bands to particular types of services or even
specific technologies, making it difficult to shift spectrum
from one use to another. In the current environment, spectrum
allocation decisions often do not effectively push spectrum to
its highest-valued and most efficient use.
To address these issues, Chairman Powell recently created a
spectrum policy task force which will provide a report to the
Commission in October of this year. Moreover, the challenge of
spectrum management is one of process as well as substance. As
the current FCC Wireless Bureau Chief and a former Deputy
Administrator of NTIA, I am particularly cognizant of the need
for efficient coordination between the two agencies. Indeed,
while there is a lot of coordination on a day to day basis, one
major current project is the interagency staff level effort to
examine and develop possible spectrum options for advanced
wireless systems, including so-called 3G systems. These systems
would support much higher data rates than the current
generation of services.
This effort under NTIA's leadership is being vigorously
pursued at this time. There is no doubt it is a complex
problem, but the staff is working hard to bring its
recommendations forward to the decision makers at our
respective agencies in the near future.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you again for this
opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to
working with you and Members of the Committee and answering any
questions you might have for me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sugrue follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief of Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee:
Good morning. I am Tom Sugrue, Chief of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). I welcome this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
the important issue of spectrum policy.
I am sure that all of us on this panel and everyone on this
Committee recognizes radio spectrum is a critically important resource
that is in very high demand. State and local public safety officials
rely on wireless technologies to help them respond in emergencies;
consumers rely on wireless technologies to keep in touch with family
and friends and to improve their overall quality of life; broadcasters
provide news and entertainment over the air and are moving to
spectrally efficient digital transmission; businesses rely on wireless
technologies to communicate with an increasingly mobile workforce; and
our national defense agencies rely on wireless technologies to provide
security to the country. In short, our nation has become dependent on
spectrum-based services, which have brought great benefits in the form
of enhanced efficiency, greater security, and an overall improvement in
the quality of life of our citizens.
In terms of spectrum needs, though, the wireless revolution is
becoming a victim of its own success. The simple truth is that, as our
society grows increasingly dependent on wireless technology and
services, spectrum demand is stressing the supply, and that has made
spectrum management a difficult task for government. This is true even
though technology advances are enabling more efficient use of the radio
spectrum. This is true even though the Commission has taken significant
steps to provide its licensees with additional flexibility, allowing
them to better respond to market demands and changes. This is true even
though the Commission has reclaimed underutilized spectrum on numerous
occasions. Thus, the overarching challenge of spectrum policy is to
ensure the public interest is best served by balancing competing
demands for scarce spectrum while striving to promote competition
through the deployment of new technologies.
Moreover, the challenge of spectrum management is one of process as
well as substance. As the current FCC Wireless Bureau Chief and a
former Deputy Administrator of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), I am particularly cognizant of the
need for efficient coordination between the two agencies. In addition,
U.S. domestic spectrum policies exist within the broader context of
international spectrum agreements with other countries around the world
and specific operational coordinations, especially with Canada and
Mexico.
Spectrum policy is not static. It is difficult to accurately
predict spectrum needs not just for today, but for the next generation.
Indeed, most users and service providers believe they will continue to
need more spectrum in the coming years. Twenty-five years ago, when the
Commission first allocated spectrum for cellular telephone services, no
one--neither the FCC nor the industry--realized how rapidly this sector
would grow. Cell phones were perceived principally as a car phone
service and not personalized communications devices that people would
carry with them throughout the day. In a now often told story, a
prominent carrier estimated that at most there would be one million
cell phone subscribers in the United States by the end of the 20th
century. This reportedly was why the carrier agreed to have its
cellular licenses go with the Bell Operating companies at the time of
divestiture. Well, by the year 2000, there were actually 110 million
cell phone subscribers. And to be fair, the FCC did not do much better
with its ``crystal ball.'' The FCC's allocation of additional spectrum
for this market in 1994--the Personalized Communications Service (PCS)
allocation of 120 MHz--was based on a projection of 54 million wireless
subscribers by the year 2000. So, even though it only was projecting
six years in advance, the Commission's estimates were still off by 100
percent in anticipating the actual demand for these services. Although
technological advances can improve spectrum efficiencies, they are not
a panacea and may not offset the increased need for spectrum. The FCC's
recent experience has shown that flexible policies that allow the
market to adjust without constant government intervention are essential
in the dynamic world of wireless communications.
Though spectrum management can be a demanding undertaking, we have
seen the benefits of successful spectrum policies to the American
people. For example, when the Commission auctioned that 120 MHz of
spectrum for PCS, that action and the build-out of new networks
transformed mobile telephony from a tight duopoly to an actively
competitive market with multiple providers, and from a luxury for
business and high-income users to a mass market service. Prior to the
PCS auction in 1995, there were approximately 24 million commercial
mobile subscribers. Today, there are over 130 million subscribers and
over 80 percent of the American public lives in counties that have five
or more competitors. Moreover, since 1995, the average price per minute
for consumers has been cut by about three quarters. Sound spectrum
policies that promote flexibility, competition, and innovation clearly
contributed to the marketplace success of PCS.
Spectrum policy has been and continues to be one of the core
functions of the FCC, and I am now pleased to discuss the FCC's role in
this regard and its efforts to manage the spectrum more efficiently.
An important principle underlying the FCC's recent approach to
spectrum allocation and assignment on the commercial side is that the
market should be the primary determinant in the success or failure of a
new technology or service. In that vein, the FCC has made substantial
use of the auction authority granted by Congress in 1993 and made
mandatory for most services, including commercial broadcasting, in
1997. All FCC licenses are potentially subject to auction except public
safety, public broadcasting, and international satellites. As Congress
anticipated, our experience has shown that auctions award spectrum to
applicants that value it most, are fast and objective, and compensate
the public for use of a valuable and scarce resource.
In addition, the Commission has favored flexibility in its
licensing rules in order to permit licensees to respond to market
demands and changes. In most recent allocations, the Commission
generally has limited its technical and operational rules to those
necessary to ensure that harmful interference is avoided. In addition,
the Commission permits disaggregation and partitioning so that if a
licensee finds that it wishes to transfer some of its spectrum or part
of its licensing area, it can do so without relinquishing its entire
license. The Commission is currently examining ways to improve
opportunities to access spectrum through other mechanisms, including
secondary markets.
Though the Commission's initial allocation and assignment process
creates the primary market for wireless services, the Commission has
recognized the importance of secondary markets as well as the
importance of allowing spectrum resources to be used most efficiently.
The Commission permits licensees to transfer their licenses to other
entities, subject to Commission approval. We process the great bulk of
these transactions rapidly, consistent with the needs of a dynamic,
competitive market. We also are looking at whether there is a need to
stimulate greater use of secondary market transactions to promote the
efficient use of spectrum. Also, in several bands, the Commission has
authorized the use of ``band managers,'' which are licensees that act
as spectrum lessors with market incentives to ensure efficient use of
spectrum, especially among private spectrum users.
The Commission also recognizes that it must ensure that the needs
of non-commercial users, such as public safety agencies, are met. In
this regard, over the last several years, the FCC has taken a number of
significant steps to ensure public safety entities have access to
sufficient spectrum. For example, the Commission has implemented the
Congressional directive to ensure that a portion of the 700 MHz band is
used for public safety. The Commission set aside ten percent of the
band for public safety interoperability services and, based on input
from the public safety community, adopted rules to promote nationwide
interoperability in that band. In addition, the Commission has a
proceeding underway to address concerns about interference to public
safety in the 800 MHz band. Also, earlier this year, the FCC allocated
50 MHz of spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band for fixed and mobile wireless
services and designated the band for use in support of public safety.
The Commission recognized that this allocation and designation has the
potential to provide public safety users with additional spectrum to
support new broadband applications such as high-speed digital
technologies and wireless local area networks for incident scene
management. The spectrum also can support dispatch operations and
vehicular or personal communications.
After spectrum has been allocated and assigned for use, the
Commission is committed to ensuring that the spectrum is used
efficiently. Periodically, the Commission revisits existing spectrum
allocations and reallocates underutilized spectrum, either through
relocation of existing operations to different--usually higher--
frequency bands, by removing existing services altogether, or by
providing incentives for communications facility substitutions--for
example, switching from radio operations to fiber optic cable. Through
this often complex and controversial process, the Commission has
reallocated more than 300 MHz of spectrum. This spectrum is located
below 3 GHz--an especially prime area of the radio spectrum that is
suitable for a multitude of applications but especially valuable for
mobile uses. One good example of the Commission's spectrum reclamations
is when, in our Emerging Technologies proceeding, we reclaimed more
than 200 MHz of spectrum from private fixed microwave services and made
that spectrum available for new services, including the 120 MHz for
licensed PCS that I mentioned earlier. In addition, we have required
some of our licensees to make do with less in order to make room for
new and beneficial uses. One such example is when the Commission
reduced the allocation of the broadcast auxiliary service (the
Commission's term for the service used by those ubiquitous broadcast TV
trucks) from 120 MHz to 85 MHz.
In addition, because some users of spectrum, such as public safety
and private wireless, do not face the same market-driven opportunity
costs to use spectrum efficiently as commercial users face, the
Commission has taken additional steps to ensure efficient spectrum use
by these users. For example, the Commission has undertaking
``refarming,'' which involves the migration of certain private and
public safety users to more spectrally efficient technologies. In some
bands, such as 700 MHz public safety bands, the Commission has adopted
specific efficiency standards. In addition, the Commission is in the
process of conducting its first-ever audit of public safety and
business/industrial radio services licensed on frequencies below 512
MHz. This has been an enormous undertaking to verify the construction
and operational status of over 400,000 call signs. As a result, over
31,000 licenses have been recovered to date. Licensees who do not
respond to FCC letter of inquiry during this audit ultimately risk
losing their license.
Even as I enumerate some of the actions that the Commission has
already taken to improve utilization of the radio spectrum, we can do
better. As Chairman Powell has observed, the Commission's current
``command and control'' approach to spectrum allocations may be too
reactive for the current, Internet-speed market, and often spectrum
allocation decisions do not effectively push spectrum to its highest
and most efficient use. To address these issues, Chairman Powell
recently created a Spectrum Policy Task Force. Some of the objectives
of the task force include studying options for a more market-oriented
spectrum allocation policy, examining ways to clearly define spectrum
interference and usage rights, reviewing methods of aggressively
promoting spectral efficiency, and reserving and protecting access to
sufficient spectrum for public safety. The task force has sought public
comment on these and other spectrum policy issues, will conduct
multiple workshops this summer to facilitate discussion regarding
spectrum policies, and will provide a report to Commission by October
of this year. Chairman Powell supports systemic reevaluation of
spectrum policy as we know it today. Without a doubt, the Commission is
struggling to keep pace with market innovations.
The FCC is not the sole manager of the radio spectrum. A
significant amount of the spectrum is in bands that are shared with
both federal and non-federal users. In these bands we need to
coordinate with the Office of the Secretary of the Department of
Commerce or, more specifically, NTIA's Interdepartment Radio Advisory
Committee (IRAC).
Generally, the IRAC coordination process operates smoothly.
Approximately 85,000 items are coordinated annually--these include
approximately 5,000 non-government license applications and
approximately 80,000 federal government authorizations. In addition,
last year, Commission staff coordinated with IRAC on approximately 50
items that were acted on by the full Commission--these include, among
other things, rulemakings and waivers. Almost all of the items
addressed in the IRAC process involve issues that are successfully
resolved through established coordination procedures among the relevant
agencies.
Moreover, there are many instances in which we work cooperatively
with NTIA and other executive branch agencies that fall outside of the
formal coordination context. Usually these efforts arise in the context
of implementing spectrum transfers from federal government to non-
federal government users. These efforts are not inconsequential.
Despite the fact that particular spectrum may be earmarked for
transfer, a lot of issues remain in the details associated with the
transfer--issues like timing of the availability of the spectrum, the
geographic extent of grandfathered federal operations, interference
protection criteria, and reimbursement procedures for federal
government operations that may need to be relocated to different
frequencies. Indeed, often through these cooperative, interagency
efforts we have achieved positive results. For example, originally 50
MHz of spectrum at 4.6 GHz was earmarked for transfer from federal
government to non-federal government use. In part, the 4.9 GHz band was
substituted for this spectrum as the result of concerns raised by the
U.S. Navy about possible interference in frequencies adjacent to the
transfer frequencies.
The FCC and NTIA currently are working vigorously through an
interagency staff-level effort to examine and develop possible spectrum
options for advanced wireless systems, including so-called third
generation (3G) wireless services. These systems would support much
higher data rates than the current generation of services and hold the
promise for enabling services such as connection to the Internet while
away from your normal work station or computer. This effort, under
NTIA's leadership, is also evaluating the potential for sharing between
advanced wireless systems and current spectrum users, including
government users, as well as reviewing possible options for relocation
spectrum. There have been numerous stafflevel meetings with
representatives from executive branch agencies in an effort to have a
full and productive dialog about the multitude of technical issues
associated with the spectrum identified as potential bands for new
uses. There is no doubt that this is a complex problem, but the staff
is working hard to bring its recommendations forward to the decision-
makers at our respective agencies in the near future.
In addition, we recognize that U.S. domestic spectrum policies
exist within the broader context of international spectrum agreements
with other countries around the world. For example, the Commission is
participating in the State Department-led June 2003 World
Radiocommunication Conference (WRC)--a treaty-level forum held by the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to decide on allocation of
spectrum. The Commission began its preparations for the 2003 WRC in
December 2000, just six months after the 2000 WRC held in Istanbul, by
organizing its industry WRC 2003 Advisory Committee. The Commission has
recently completed the ninth meeting of the WRC Advisory Committee and
approved proposals for all but a few of the 39 WRC Agenda items. The
Commission is working with NTIA and the State Department to reconcile a
few outstanding proposals to finalize the U.S. Government positions.
The Commission also is participating in the State Department-led
process of building international support for the U.S. positions in the
year remaining before the WRC-03.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
appear before you today. I look forward to working with you and other
Members of this Committee on these important U.S. spectrum management
policies. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Sugrue.
Because of my primary assignment on the Defense
Appropriations Committee, I will focus much of my questioning
to matters relating to the Department of Defense. Mr. Price,
what frequency bands are most heavily utilized and for what
requirements?
Mr. Price. Well, we use all of our frequency bands and we
have to justify those periodically, every 5 years, to NTIA,
each of the different assignments and allocations we get. It is
fair to say that, as I mentioned in my verbal testimony, we do
not use all of our spectrum all of the time, nor do the
commercial folks. At 2:00 in the morning not a lot of people
are using them.
The key attribute for frequency in the U.S. for the
Department of Defense, prior to the undefined-as-yet homeland
mission, has been for training and testing. The Department's
principle is that we train like we fight. So having 100 percent
reliability and 100 percent certainty when it is needed is the
critical aspect.
So the overall question is we feel, and we have done a
number of studies, that we use our spectrum, all of our
spectrum. Almost all of our spectrum is shared, if not with the
commercial--more than half of it is with commercial users. A
large chunk of it is with other Federal Government users. Even
in the military-only bands, it is shared within the services.
Senator Inouye. Now, you brought up training. Do you
currently have limited access to spectrum required to carry out
training exercises and system testing, and if so how do you
derive enough spectrum to carry out exercises?
Mr. Price. Through the incredible hard work of the young
men and women in our military, sir. We have been increasingly
spectrum-constrained. It is not unlike the commercial sector,
if you asked if you took away their T1 lines and gave them
dial-up lines could they operate their business as effectively.
Wireless, because our last tactical mile is often not
connected, whether it is on a ship or on a plane, wireless is a
critical component of our last mile.
I will give you one other specific example. In the flight
test telemetry arena where, as you know, we get a lot of data
on new platforms, the Department of Defense had 80 megahertz
devoted to flight test telemetry. Because of spectrum
reallocations, that amount of bandwidth, frequency, is now down
to 25 megahertz. That severely impacts our ability to test the
performance of air platforms.
If there is one F-22 in training today in southern
California, we must cease all other operations of air
platforms, including the B-1, including the Global Hawk UAV, at
Vandenberg, China Lake, and other ranges. So one small example
of how our training and testing--I can give you a whole series
of examples, but one example of how we are constrained in the
U.S.
Senator Inouye. Why is the 1710-1850 megahertz bandwidth of
critical importance to your military communications,
intelligence, and platforms?
Mr. Price. Thank you for asking that, sir. As anyone at
this table clearly knows and I think all you and your staff,
the frequency below 3 gigahertz is really what's considered
beachfront property--very valuable, particularly for mobile
applications. We use a lot of frequency for radars and the like
in the upper portions of the band. But this beachfront
property, and particularly the 1710 to 1850 area, has a number
of unique propagation characteristics that make it very
valuable for the Department of Defense.
The band enables small antennas and it has sufficient beam
widths for simple, reliable link establishments and
preservation, which helps us do low probability of intercepts
and some of the things that the Department of Defense requires.
It supports low-power transmissions for extended ranges of
communications. Since we have joint dispersed forces, we need
extra, more ranges than you might expect, and for high data
rates. So that is a band that is beachfront property, very
valuable for our satellite communications, precision guided
munitions, air training, tactical data links--a whole series of
uses within the Department.
Senator Inouye. Finally for this segment, what spectrum
have you lost over the last few years and what effect has this
had on your operations? And what impact have prior spectrum
sales had on your ability to carry out your war-fighting
effort?
Mr. Price. In 1993, over 1993, the Government lost 247
megahertz. That has not actually been allocated yet, so DoD in
a number of cases, and other Federal agencies, are still there,
but, so to speak, the clock is ticking. So to some extent we do
not fully know the implications. But it is important to
understand that there are direct and indirect effects.
The direct effects are clearly there is this system here--
the Marines have a number of radios that they have had to
figure out where to relocate. There are things like that. But
then, as I mentioned, there are other kinds of effects--the
host nation approval that I mentioned. When I was down at
Special Forces Command at SOCOM and CENTCOM in Tampa a few
weeks ago, there is a radio in the 1755 to 1770 band that took
in a particular country in CENTCOM's area of operations, AOR, 6
years to get host nation approval. So now, after 6 years, we
are able to use that radio in that band. To the extent that we
are required to move, that clock starts again. So how long will
it take before we can use that radio in that band?
So the impact is things like that; on our allies who bought
interoperable systems that now are told: Well, you bought these
interoperable systems to operate with us; now, because of
commercial pressures, we are moving; you should move too. Their
defense budgets are challenged. Things like that.
But there are also the indirect effects. I actually have
some people looking at it, but the amount of time that we
spend--and I am not complaining; people are happy and working
hard--on spectrum reallocation issues, it is an inordinate
amount of time. It is really not to a large extent moving the
ball forward. If we are at the, to use a football expression,
at the 40 yard line and want to get to the goal line, this
brings us back to the 50 and then we have to get back to the
40. We are not moving the ball forward. We are not helping the
war fighter and helping further our military requirements. At
best we are fighting and spending resources to stay where we
were.
So predictability and certainty are the two principal
things that DoD would like out of any spectrum management plan.
A number of the reallocations have impacted our operations.
Senator Inouye. Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Mr. Price, I wish you had answered the first
question. What spectrum is the most heavily used and which
spectrum is the least used?
Mr. Price. Well, it is a hard question to answer, sir.
Senator Burns. It should not be, because you said you have
got acres of studies.
Mr. Price. We do, but heavily used when? We have studies of
during training, during exercises. We use tactical radios in a
lot of different places. We always use the TT and C, the
telemetry tracking and command, for the satellites. But if I
had to answer the question, I would say the spectrum that we
have below 3 gigahertz, of which exclusive Federal use is about
15 percent and about half of ours is shared, is really the
sweet spot where we are looking, not only today, but as we move
to a network-centric force, where we would like every war
fighter to be able to have voice, data, video, power to the
edge.
Senator Burns. When we start into this, when we start into
this thing, because this is going to be a monumental issue, and
I am very supportive of a classified hearing with DoD and their
uses, we do not want to drift into areas where we should not
drift into, but I think that information is going to be
warranted before we make any final decisions on how we want to
manage this.
Thank you for that. I am concerned that our preparations
for the World Radio Communications Conference are inadequate
right now. I am really worried about that. For instance, the
President appoints an ambassador to head the U.S. delegation to
a term of only 6 months. Given the monumental complexity and
the contentiousness of international spectrum coordination,
this seems to be a job suited for OJT more than anything else.
This is really--you have to be a quick study on an issue this
big, and then the retention of it. Then just about the time you
understand what spectrum really is, then you have to move on.
I am the only person--keep in mind, I am the only person in
this United States Congress that believes that spectrum is not
a national resource. It is a technology. We commandeered it
just through the business of, we are going to regulate it and
make sure everybody stays in their lanes whenever they are
assigned to it. We commandeered it. So I am the only one, and I
am the only man in this whole town who believes that, probably
the whole Nation, and I will believe it until they stick me in
the ground, because we commandeered it and we commandeered it
mostly for budgetary reasons. That is a terrible reason to do
that.
But anyway, that is another thing. Should we change the
process of appointing the ambassador--Ms. Victory, you can
probably answer or respond to this--to ensure some continuity
in the leadership? If not, what other reform would you
recommend to improve the preparations for these international
conferences? They become very important. I know you just
returned from one and I look forward to your report on that.
But I think this is a very important area.
Ms. Victory. Well, clearly the short term of the WRC
ambassador is something that has been identified repeatedly
over the last couple of years as an issue for further study. I
do not think anyone has really done that further study yet. I
think it should be done, because it is a challenging job.
But there are really two points of view with respect to the
WRC ambassador. You do have some who believe that it is
important for that individual to have full knowledge of the
issues and have relationships with the ministers abroad in
order to be able to effectively cut those deals. On the other
side of the coin, you also have folks saying very emphatically
that this has to be a very politically connected person within
the White House who can make the hard decisions, when you have
differing viewpoints among agencies or among constituencies, as
to which is going to be the U.S. view.
So I agree that that is an issue for further study. At this
point the administration has not made a recommendation for
changing the nature of that position. But I think that that is
one area to be looked into further.
In terms of other things that can be done to improve the
preparation, clearly one is, as we have mentioned, starting the
process earlier in developing the U.S. position. That is
something that NTIA and FCC have attempted to do in preparation
for this upcoming WRC next year. In fact, one month after the
last meeting was over NTIA and FCC began their process of
starting to meet with the constituencies to talk about what
issues are coming up for the next round.
Indeed, that has been very helpful because at the last CTEL
meeting among the various countries in the Western Hemisphere
the United States was really the only one that had their
tentative list of issues. The good news about that is we are
then able to be the one that the other countries follow. When
we lay out our positions first, we have a better chance of
having the other countries sign onto our positions or sign onto
them with tweaks, as opposed to playing catch-up and not having
our issues on the table first.
So I think for this next WRC we are going to be very well
prepared. But you are right, the ambassador status remains an
issue that should be looked into further.
Senator Burns. Mr. Guerrero, you seem like I ticked part of
your curiosity there. Do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Guerrero. Yes, Senator, thank you. As you heard in our
statement and in our work, we will be reporting on this issue
specifically, and we have some of the same concerns that you
articulated.
I would just want to lay out, although we do not make
specific recommendations on what to do about this at this time,
I would say there are several principles that we need to keep
in mind as we move forward in making this process more
effective. One is we have to make sure that whatever process we
choose produces a position that is timely. These conferences
involve nations voting. Each nation has one vote in these
conferences. For the U.S. vote to count, it is really important
for us to do our homework. It is important for us to have our
positions laid out in advance and to have worked with other
nations to form the kinds of alliances and support that we need
for our position. So timing is of the essence.
The second is the continuity of the focus and the
sustainability of that focus. The 6-month term is an issue
there.
The third is the expertise that we bring to bear in terms
of focusing on that process.
So however we organize this, we have to make sure that we
have those three principles in mind: that there is enough
continuity, sustainability of focus, and expertise, and that
the preparation process that is used, whatever it is, is
completed in a timely manner so that we can be ahead of the
curve in terms of developing our positions and working with
other countries.
Senator Burns. The NTIA is required by law to promote
efficient use of spectrum use by the Federal Government. I
understand that NTIA has directed Federal agencies to use only
as much spectrum as they need. It also requires each agency to
conduct a 5-year review of its spectrum use, to justify the
allocation.
In testimony offered by the GAO today, however, it was
noted, and I noted in your testimony, that very few of these
reviews have been done. The major agency division has over
1,000 frequency assignments that have not been reviewed in 10
years or more. Another spectrum manager in another agency said
that all field staff responsible for conducting the 5-year
reviews have simply been eliminated. Are these isolated
examples? What sorts of enforcement mechanisms are in place to
ensure that the agencies are indeed being held accountable for
their efficient spectrum?
I noticed in your testimony, Mr. Guerrero, that we just--is
it a lack of resources or what is the problem here? Because we
are going to have to have those studies. I know it has been one
of your toughest challenges in finalizing this report.
Mr. Guerrero. Senator Burns, I would say there are probably
three important issues here. One is a lack of resources and it
is really a lack of staffing at the Federal agencies level. The
Federal agencies have experienced difficulty attracting the
expertise necessary to manage spectrum. It requires unique
engineering expertise and background.
Also, as with many Federal agencies, they are faced with
the retirement of those people who are on their staff now who
are expert. For example, at Commerce roughly 40 percent of
those spectrum management individuals who are on board now are
eligible or will be eligible over the next 5 years to retire.
So it is a staffing issue. Holding agencies accountable for
doing these periodic reviews and ensuring that spectrum is
being used appropriately requires that you have the expertise
and resources, and some Federal agencies have told us they do
not.
Secondly, for Federal agencies to use their spectrum
allocations more efficiently, they need resources for the
technologies that would allow them to do that. Nancy Victory
talked about narrowbanding and I mentioned it in my statement.
That is a technology that has the ability to significantly
improve the efficiency of the equipment that is currently being
used in certain applications in land-mobile radio.
Unfortunately, several of the 7 agencies we reviewed have
not gotten the support they need in the budget process to
purchase this equipment and they are behind the curve in terms
of meeting the requirement to narrowband. So that is a resource
issue.
Finally, and I agree with the FCC on this point, spectrum
management is fundamentally a very, very difficult thing to
manage from the top down in a command-control type of
structure. It is critically important that there be incentives
in place for behaviors that encourage efficient and effective
use of spectrum. Generally, those incentives on the Federal
side are lacking.
I mentioned in my statement that the fees that are now
charged Federal agencies for their spectrum assignments are
really meant to only cover part of NTIA's spectrum management
administrative costs. They are not meant to provide an
incentive for federal agencies to use spectrum more
efficiently. So we need to also look at what kinds of
incentives can we put into the system so we can better manage
the 270,000 federal assignments. It is almost impossible to do
that in a command-control environment.
Senator Burns. Would you like to respond to that, Ms.
Victory?
Ms. Victory. Yes. I think you have put your finger on a
couple of important points here. You know, it does take a lot
of resources to be constantly monitoring what all the Federal
agencies are doing. Within NTIA we do try to do periodic
reviews, but one of the things we are trying to explore are
incentives for good behavior.
We actually had a very interesting discussion when we had
our spectrum summit back in April. We had one of the officials
from the U.K. who came over, and they are experimenting with an
interesting approach for spectrum efficiency for non-auctioned
services and Government services. Specifically they are
charging an annual fee of a substantial nature that the
Government agencies need to pay and that licensees of non-
auction services need to pay. The idea is that if the figure is
significant enough it is going to cause people to review and
decide whether or not they really need to retain the spectrum.
Obviously, the devil is in the details as to how you create
that mechanism and how you ensure that it continues to provide
incentives. It was a very interesting discussion. The U.K.
official was relating their experience so far and it is very
limited because the fee is something that they have just
implemented. That is just one of a number of ideas, and I think
the direction we really need to move in is to look at what
sorts of spectrum-efficient incentives can we place not only on
Government licensees, but on those in the private sector as
well, to manage their own spectrum efficiently.
Senator Burns. This is the initial hearing on this issue
and we are just trying to lay the groundwork on where do we go
from here and how do we establish a relationship that we can
formulate policy. I think it is very important to the Chairman.
I know it is important to this Senator on how we proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have some more questions
later.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by asking you about some of the new
technologies that may alter some of the assumptions about
spectrum allocation. Software-defined radio may permit devices
that do not use, for example, a fixed slice of spectrum, but
instead adapt to whatever spectrum is available at the time.
Ultra-wideband uses quick pulses of energy across a wide
frequency range, sharing spectrum with more traditional
spectrum users.
I think I would like to begin by saying what is your sense
of how these new technologies may change the way the country
thinks about spectrum management and how should that affect
today's debate? Do you want to begin with that, Mr. Sugrue?
Mr. Sugrue. Those technologies are very exciting and
potentially very profound for how we approach spectrum
management. If they fulfil all their potential, as some of
their most enthusiastic advocates describe them, they could be
the silver bullet to some extent. In other words, they could be
so flexible, so adaptive to the spectrum environment in which
they find themselves, as you describe, they could search out--I
am talking about software-defined radio right now--search out
what frequency is available at a particular time and use that,
so that some of the traditional approaches we use of
allocation, block allocations and assignments, may prove to be
obsolete or even counterproductive.
The Commission has proceedings on software-defined radio
and adopted some rules to permit the development to go there.
By the way, as an operational matter it is still a ways from
being as flexible and adaptive in real time as I describe. But
there is a lot of work and the Defense Department is actually
doing a lot of work in this area.
One benefit from all the work our friends on the military
side do on spectrum matters is that over time some of that,
indeed a lot of that, will filter into the commercial sector in
constructive ways.
There are regulatory issues that do crop up. The recent
disputes about ultra-wideband, for example, were an example of
that. The ultra-wideband proponents said: We can spread our
signal across multiple bands, and no one would even know we are
there, because the only interference would be below the noise
level. People in those bands who were concerned about them
said: We do not believe that or we do not have confidence of
that, and if it does not work that way and we have
interference, some very bad things could happen.
So it is not quite a slam-dunk yet, and technological
debates will have to take place. But I think they are very
exciting and, as I said, potentially very profound.
Some of the issues we would have to deal with, for example,
on a software-defined radio, if you were outside this building
and you had a software-defined radio, found a frequency that
was licensed to, say, a particular carrier and you were not a
customer of that carrier, could you just grab it and use it on
the ground that, well, it is available, it is not being used
now? Is there a payment mechanism that would have to be in
place?
So there are a number of nontechnological issues that would
have to be addressed going forward. But we are very excited
about the potential.
Senator Wyden. Ms. Victory, Mr. Price, and then I want to
ask about one other area. Ms. Victory.
Ms. Victory. Well, I think you have raised what some of the
challenges are with new ways of thinking about dealing with new
technologies. Those are certainly challenges that we need to
tackle because it is very important.
But I wanted to highlight that, with respect to dealing
with our spectrum management challenges, there are really three
approaches. One is to make more spectrum, which sounds silly
but is actually possible because with new technology you are
constantly expanding the bounds of what is useable. Indeed, I
have met with one company that is using lasers to try to bridge
that last mile, and they are outside the bounds of what is
currently the regulated spectrum. They are being very efficient
by doing that.
Another way is to share, and I think some of these new
technologies are prime examples for providing us with new, more
efficient and more effective ways to share. Yes, there are
regulatory challenges in dealing with that, but that is clearly
a very promising approach.
Then finally, there is more efficient technology--using
less of what you have to provide the service. I think we need
to pursue all three approaches. I know the FCC is looking along
those lines and so is NTIA.
Mr. Price. Sir, I agree wholeheartedly that ultimately this
spectrum--there is only so much beachfront property and we want
more and the commercial industry wants more, public safety
wants more. So we fully support a national plan, but ultimately
a national plan is going to have to set priorities.
My personal view is that you are right, technology will
solve the allocation issues. The Department of Defense is
spending hundreds of millions of dollars on spectrum-efficient
kinds of technology, technology that I cite in my written
statement some of the ways: frequency and bandwidth agility,
phased array antenna configuration, interference mitigation
techniques, congestion control.
We have a number of programs at DARPA, one called XG which
looks for the holes that are not being used. We have a
program--well, the Department, as you know, is one of the
founders of ultra-wideband, which you mentioned, CDMA,
software-defined radio. We are looking at that. We have
started--DARPA has started a program called NETX looking at
ultra-wideband, to see how it can be used and how it can
coexist with defense systems.
The Defense Science Board last month kicked off its study
on wideband RF and wideband communications. Our office along
with the Air Force and others are looking at laser
communications for satellites.
So there are a number of different areas where technology I
believe will significantly help the Department and the
commercial sector.
Senator Wyden. The reason I asked about technology is I
think there is the potential here for some real breakthroughs.
But I will tell you that, no matter how far we get with these
new technologies, we are still not going to be able to address
this issue as the American people deserve without some
fundamental changes in the way we make this policy. For
example--I want to address this to you, Mr. Sugrue, and Ms.
Victory--I think what is going on at the FCC and what the
administration is doing in this area is very useful and very
constructive.
But my concern is that at the pace that we are going here,
this will be the longest-running battle since the Trojan War,
because as I look at it the FCC is essentially going band by
band. So this is going to mean proceedings on proceedings and
more proceedings, I think just for years and years.
I think what the administration is doing, Ms. Victory, with
respect to looking at other countries, the U.K. and the various
studies under way, is also very useful. But my sense is that
this is just going to take eons to get it done at this rate. In
particular, I think we all know what needs to be done. The
commercial side lacks adequate incentives with respect to
sharing spectrum and flexibility and the same is true on the
Government side. We all recognize that commercial uses and
governmental uses are different and the incentives that will be
needed on both sides are different as well.
I think my question here is, Ms. Victory, would it not make
sense for the administration now to set down with the Congress
on a bipartisan basis, with Chairman Inouye and Chairman
Hollings, Senator Stevens, the leaders in this area, roll up
our sleeves and say: We are now going to move together over the
next 6 months, say, to come up with a comprehensive reform
plan?
My guess is that you can do a big chunk of this
administratively. There may be some areas where legislation is
needed, but I think you could do a big chunk of this
administratively. The Congress is anxious to do this. There is
not anything partisan about that. That way we get beyond this
sort of process like we are seeing at the FCC on the commercial
side, where we just go band by band by band, and it is going to
take forever.
You and I have talked about this. I have talked about it
with Chairman Powell. I just think we ought to recognize that
is what it is going to take here, and I would be interested in
getting your reaction on the record with respect to this point.
Ms. Victory. I would agree with you that the piecemeal
approach is not the end game. I think we are stuck with the
piecemeal approach to deal with some of the current challenges
that are now in front of us. But I do agree that we need to
have an overall approach. That is one of the reasons we kicked
off our spectrum summit in April, and we are trying to work
with Chairman Powell. We would be pleased to sit down with the
Members of this Committee to do some brainstorming, because if
we are going to have a creative approach to this it may be that
some legislative changes are necessary in addition to
administrative changes. So we would be pleased to sit down with
this Committee.
Senator Wyden. When do you think we can say, all right, we
have looked at a number of these issues, the FCC is going at it
band by band; now we are going to have a bipartisan effort, the
Congress and the administration, to address this in a
comprehensive way?
Maybe, Mr. Sugrue, you would like to get into this as well.
But I would like both of your opinions, because I think until
we make that fundamental judgment, we are going to find it very
hard to make the kind of progress the country wants.
I think this is the communications ball game. I know a lot
of people in the telecom sector would not agree with this
comment I am going to make, but I think those fights are
yesterday. I think this is where it is at, folks, and I think
we ought to recognize it. I think we ought to get on with it.
If I had my first choice, I would not leave until Mr. Sugrue
and Ms. Victory said, we want to work with Chairman Inouye and
Senator Stevens to come up with a bipartisan plan. I am not
going to maul you or anything like that this morning, but that
is what I think really needs to be done.
Mr. Sugrue, your reaction?
Mr. Sugrue. Well, I think you can leave now, Senator,
because I think we are happy to work with you and the Committee
on developing such a plan. I do not mean to be flip about it.
But we do have this--Chairman Powell just announced the
spectrum policy task force, which is working on a very
accelerated schedule. In fact, our first feedback from people
when we put out our public notice was: How do you expect us to
answer these questions, considering how broad they are and how
deep they are in terms of spectrum management policy, in 30
days? That was the comment cycle.
What we are telling people is: You do not have to answer
every question in that PN. Pick out the five that are the most
important to you and address them, and we will work it over the
summer.
We have been proceeding with a number of reforms band by
band. Secretary Victory mentioned spectrum leasing as a reform,
which would increase the flexibility, allow spectrum to move
more easily, and use a marketplace mechanism. People use land
as an analogy. Leasing is used, obviously, all the time in
land. We have been permitting leasing on a band by band basis.
I think we are at the point where that has some virtue, in
that it gives us an experience base, both as to how it works in
the real world, also a regulatory and legal base to go forward.
I think the Commission is working on generalizing that approach
for the entire bands that the Commission oversees.
Senator Wyden. How different would the allocation system
look 3 years from today if we just said, okay, FCC, continue to
do your own thing the way you are doing it?
Mr. Sugrue. Well, if you left us to our own devices, I
think we would be moving towards significant reforms in the
direction I think that you indicated. At least that would be my
anticipation. I do not want to prejudge what the Commission or
any particular Commission would do.
The trend is certainly toward greater flexibility. That is,
rather than say you have to put this service in these megahertz
and then if it turns out the marketplace does not reward that
service, then you have got to come back, do ``Mother may I,
FCC, may I change this from a mobile service to a fixed
service, may I change this from a one-way service to a two-way
service?'' That takes 2 years because people, potential
competitors, come in and say: No, that would be terrible, you
cannot let that happen, or whatever.
Just say ``No, you can do one-way, two-way, mobile,
fixed.'' We try to write general interference rules.
Practically all the allocations we have done, at least in the
3\1/2\ years I have been here, have been in that direction. We
could probably pick out one or two exceptions for various
special reasons, but that clearly is the trend.
But you are quite right, there is a legacy. The entire band
has been pretty much allocated, at least the most valuable
parts of the band, and a lot of those legacy rules are very
specific, very technology-specific, and very inflexible.
Senator Wyden. I am going to wrap up with this, Mr.
Chairman.
Ms. Victory, I think Mr. Sugrue just made my point in his
last answer. This is an individual who I know is dedicated and
committed to these changes, and it is in your testimony. When I
asked him what it would be like in 3 years under the FCC's
current system, he essentially--in fact, his exact words: We
will be moving towards significant reforms. Not this will be
completed, that will be completed. We will be moving towards
significant reforms.
I will close by saying I think we can do better. Would it
not make sense to take a kind of more comprehensive approach
and begin that now? Maybe what you do is you go at it on a two-
track system. You continue these various piecemeal kind of
efforts, but we also say we are going to go at it with the
Congress to try to put in place the kind of comprehensive
reform effort that can allow Mr. Sugrue to answer that question
differently than he just did.
I want him to be able to say, for example, that in 3 years
we completed this and this, in year 4 and 5 we want to do this
and this. I think his last answer, from a good man who believes
in this, sort of highlights what needs to be done here.
Mr. Sugrue. May I amend my answer to the past tense: Moved.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Victory. I agree with Tom's comments. And I agree with
yours as well. I think you should be moving on a two-track
system. We should be thinking the big thoughts as to what the
end game is and be moving quickly to get that in place. We
stand ready to work with you on that.
But we also will need to deal with these current challenges
that come up while we are working on our overall solution. So
we are happy to work with this Committee.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Allen.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
calling this hearing today and thank all the witnesses. I am
sorry I could not be here. We had a Foreign Relations Committee
meeting at the same time with the Prime Minister of Israel
Ariel Sharon.
I do want to associate myself--and I have been looking at
notes, but listening to Senator Wyden's remarks, and do
associate myself with the sentiments that he expressed and the
importance of moving and acting. Obviously, we are going to
have to study and be considerate of all the different aspects
of the spectrum allocation management issue.
I understand that Senator McCain had mentioned how
important this is and it needs to be reemphasized how much
growth, substantial growth, there has been in the wireless
industry, both internationally and in the United States. Better
quality of service, greater functionality in product offerings,
and faster transmission speeds largely account for the large
increase in public electromagnetic spectrum demand.
According to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet
Association, there are over 130 million wireless subscribers in
the United States, triple the number of subscribers in 1996.
Additionally, traffic volume--and this is why we have to move--
the traffic volume in terms of minutes of use has grown by more
than 75 percent a year for the past 2 years, and there is no
reason to believe that that trend will not continue.
In the international marketplace, Third generation wireless
services are providing high-speed Internet access. Analysts
predict approximately 1 billion subscribers will make use of 3G
networks in a decade's time, and full services based on 3G
technologies are expected to be available in most countries by
the year 2006, offering downloads speeds--and this is what I
think is great--download speeds of up to 2 megabits per second.
Now, clearly spectrum is becoming one of the most valuable,
scarce resources now and obviously in the near future. I would
like to underscore two points that I think are most important
in considering any overarching spectrum management policy.
First, it is important to emphasize that the world community is
moving forward with third generation wireless services with or
without the United States. I am one who is very competitive and
wants the United States to stay in the competitive lead. The
reason we are strong in some regards is because creativity
flourishes in this country, much of it from the private sector.
Now, it is up to the Congress as well as the FCC, NTIA, and
the Department of Defense together to make sure there are not
any impediments to the growth and the progress of this
country's wireless capability for consumers and enterprise. We
need to make sure that the United States stays competitive
internationally.
Additionally and importantly, third generation wireless
services have the potential to significantly impact the
broadband deployment and access problems throughout rural areas
of the United States. We have talked about incentives and I
support the Rockefeller broadband tax credit because it is
technology-neutral, and it is not just going to address DSL and
the local co-op. There is a lot of dirt you have to dig up and
to the extent you mix the wire or the fiber with wireless is
the way that I think rural areas we will be able to bring
broadband access to people in rural markets. That is a method
that I think is a cost-effective method of delivering those
broadband services.
Secondly, with regard to any spectrum reallocation it is
important that we act responsibly towards essential security
incumbents. We can argue what is essential. In my view one of
the main reasons the States and the people created the Federal
Government was for national defense. So essential security
incumbents, especially national security interests, need to be
taken into account.
With that said, there are reallocation plans being
considered which offer incumbents responsible approaches to
relocation. Now, I think it is a bit of a legal fiction in the
way that the Federal Government looks at things to look as if
the incumbents have a property right to their spectrum
allocation. I have and will continue to support the
administration's proposal for a relocation trust fund where the
incumbents receive a portion of the auction revenues to pay for
both the relocation costs and any necessary system upgrades.
Based on our country's current demand for wireless services
and the additional benefits for third generation service, I
think it is increasingly important and the time is really now
to move. It is not going to get done this year, but it needs to
start. We need to know what we are doing. By this time next
year, we need to know what the game plan is, the strategic
plan, and it needs to be formally executed.
It is important, I think, while we do this to harmonize the
United States in this effort with the rest of the world. We
need to increase the public spectrum consistent with
international providers and also to make sure that we are
competitive with international providers.
With that said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few
questions here, first of Mr. Price. This is a follow-up
question on your questions previously asked of Deputy Secretary
Price. It has to do with the frequency band that is used most
by the Department of Defense.
Most of the rest of the world operates in the 1700 to 1800
megahertz bands for wireless commercial use. The major
difference between the United States and the rest of the world
is the use of the portion from 1755 to 1850 megahertz. In the
rest of the world that band is used primarily for commercial
use, where in the U.S. that band is allocated to the Department
of Defense.
Now, let me ask you this just as a technical matter. When
the Department of Defense operates or is operating overseas,
has the Department of Defense experienced any interference with
international users in this band?
Mr. Price. We experience interference with many of our
systems in many different theaters all the time. One of the
tasks of the frequency management and communications folks, the
J-6's at the combatant commanders, is to work those problems
out with the host nations. As I mentioned earlier, we had one
tactical radio that is actually in the band that you are
referring to, that took us in Central Command, CENTCOM's area
of operations, 6 years to get host nation approval. But we have
gotten it.
So in direct answer to your question, we are very
comfortable that the systems we have in the band from 1755 up
to 1850. we have very workable, very real negotiated bilateral
solutions, so that the systems that are there can work in those
bands internationally for the long term. So we are comfortable
with that. We have developed those.
One of the concerns about moving is if we move to another
band, how long--will it take 6 years? Again, will we restart
the clock? Where will we go and how long will it take to get
the same operational competition?
So the Department of Defense has never said that is it, we
will not move, we are stopping, head in the sand, that is it.
We are very active with these folks in the 3G viability study.
But one of the things we have said--two of the things we have
said is: one, over time we believe that as we transform and
move to a network-centric force we will need more spectrum, not
less. We are feeling spectrum-constrained. So we need to think
through how much additional spectrum we will need over the long
term to meet our constitutional obligations.
It is an important point. So I think that probably sums up
where we come out.
Senator Allen. Well, the question on this then becomes, on
the relocation, I understand you may need more spectrum and so
forth. A lot of times, as you well know, and I guarantee you
the presiding Chairman today understands this as well, that
sometimes for national security interests the military does not
have time to be renegotiating and trying to get the spectrum or
the band area to operate efficiently. They need to move quickly
and cannot dawdle for proper efficiency in communications.
The question really becomes if we relocate to another band,
will that other bandwidth eventually be utilized for commercial
purposes in some other part of the world. That is why this
whole effort needs to be coordinated, and it will be actually
beneficial to work with our NATO allies and other countries.
But the reality is at this point, I doubt if the rest of
the world is going to change their commercial use of the
spectrum area between 1755 and 1850. So it is really a question
of whether we relocate or they relocate. Some of this really
gets back to what Senator Wyden was saying and whether or not
there are advances in technology. It is an engineering, a
technology or a technologist engineering matter to get more
information or greater utilization of existing spectrum.
Do you all--and I guess I would ask Ms. Victory or Mr.
Sugrue or any of the witnesses--What incentives, what could we
do as a Government to incent advances in technology? This is
kind of a follow-up on Senator Wyden's lack of patience. And I
do not think there is anything wrong with having a lack of
patience. I am impatient with this as well. I think we need to
be moving quickly.
Are there any things that we can do to incent a greater
utilization of existing bandwidth, which would actually help
the Department of Defense? I am not going to want to take it
from the Department of Defense, they are a necessity which is
important for our freedoms and our protection.
So do you have any suggested incentives or policies that we
could put forward so that we can better utilize existing
spectrum bands?
Mr. Sugrue. Well, yes, Senator, two sets of ideas. One has
to do with greater reliance on market forces. That is, along
the line I was discussing with Senator Wyden, providing
licensees with greater flexibility in both the use they put to
the spectrum, that the spectrum can be used, and also
flexibility in terms of being able to transfer some or all of
their rights under a license, on which we have some
flexibility, but it is constrained in certain ways.
The reason that would encourage flexibility is--pardon me,
innovation--is if you come up with a new idea right now you
have got to find a band to put it in and then you have got to
find a licensee. Well, first of all, some bands, you are not
allowed to put that in, if it is for a particular use or, as I
said, even a particular technology. Then we have to go through
a regulatory proceeding to do that, even though introducing a
new technology, you think that should be apple pie and
motherhood. It often is not, for various strategic or tactical
reasons of various licensees. So we get involved in a big
brouhaha, legal challenges, and so forth.
If we just said you can put any technology in there and
allowed the market to reallocate those resources, not without
being subject to Government oversight, but hands off a little
bit more than we have had in the past, I think that would go a
long way.
Another approach would be, frankly, a little bit more
interventionist, by actually writing rules. This dichotomy is
set out in the public notice that the spectrum policy task
force released last week: Should we have rules on spectrum
efficiency, for example, that say you have to use, you have to
hit some measure of spectrum efficiency? For example, in the
public safety bands at 700 megahertz we did specify; 25
kilohertz is the standard voice channel on a public safety
system. We said you had to start at 12.5, in other words twice
that, and you have to migrate to 6.25 over time, and there is a
schedule to do that.
We could do comparable things in the commercial side. Our
approach has generally been on the commercial side we try to
provide the right market incentives for that and on the public
safety and private side we often feel we have to intervene
somewhat.
By the way, the public safety agencies typically are in
favor of at least reasonable spectrum efficiency standards, in
part because a lot of their spectrum is shared, so if one
agency is using spectrum inefficiently that detracts from the
pool that is available for all of them. So I think it is a win-
win there.
Senator Allen. Well, thank you.
Is there any legislation, Mr. Chairman--or I would ask Mr.
Sugrue--so far as the first point, I think that it makes sense
that if you have Government agencies the Government can have
greater oversight or intervention to make sure that they are
not utilizing--it is a question of Government efficiency,
really, in a technological sense.
Is there any legislation proposed and has it been subject
to any comment on your first point, as far as the greater
flexibility and utilization of existing granted bandwidth?
Mr. Sugrue. On market mechanisms? I think for the most part
we have some discretion. I will look over my shoulder. I am
looking at our Deputy Chief who is in charge of the auction
program and she would chastise me if I did not mention our
auctions authority expires in 2007 and we would lose that very
effective market-based mechanism in assigning licenses, which
is a little different than what you talk about, but it is part
of the toolkit we have. So an extension of that at an
appropriate time would be useful.
But I can give that some thought and we can get back to you
on that.
Senator Allen. Well, again, I do not think that we are
going to solve it this year, but this Committee hearing is very
important. We have had a previous one in this Committee earlier
in the session, but I think that we need to build momentum for
solutions and getting this solved.
As far as 2007, whether we make it an Oklahoma land rush
approach or continue with the way it is, that remains to be
seen. The most pressing issue is this. I look forward the
working with you. I know Senator Burns has great concerns on
this as well, and I look forward to working with him, you, Mr.
Chairman, Senator Wyden, and others.
Yes, Mr. Price. I see you want to say something to me or to
share with the rest.
Mr. Price. Thank you, sir. I just want to make a couple of
quick points. Going back to the last question, I heard the
point. I would just caution you a little bit, if I may, on the
harmonization issue worldwide, some would say an argument, some
would say rhetoric. I think it is a little bit more myth than
reality that the world is harmonized around any bands.
I think it is fair to say that if you actually look at
specifics, the world is waiting for the United States to see
where, to some extent, where we go. In fact, where other
countries have put 3G, in many cases it is where the U.S. has
2G. So our view is that harmonization should occur, but it
should occur through technology. You already have tri-band
radios. The Department of Defense is working on software-
defined radios. Our JTRS core platform will have 33 different
wave forms, so you can go in almost any band with a single
radio. In our view it obviates the need to harmonize just
through spectrum bands.
The second point is you mentioned property rights. It is
not our place to get into an argument about whether or not
spectrum is property rights. That is the folks to my left to
get into that argument. But the important thing for the
Department and I think as people think through a national
spectrum plan is the need for incumbents to have predictability
and certainty. The risks of should we move, will we have to
relocate, where will we relocate, it affects us; as you
mentioned, it affects the host nation; it affects NATO; it
affects our allies, our coalition partners.
I was in a meeting yesterday for 3 hours with the Joint
Strike Fighter program office, a large new program, a large
program at the Department of Defense. These planes will be
flying, I do not know the exact year, some 10 years out. They
have already identified the spectrum bands they are going to be
in for over 20 different uses: radars, command and control,
communications. Those have not even been close to being
procured yet and yet we have already picked the spectrum bands.
So to have predictability and long-term certainty as to
where we are going to operate is a fundamental issue that DoD
fears going forward.
Senator Allen. Well, I am glad you shared those views with
us, not just me, with all of us, because I do not think any of
this will ever arise or occur in the event that the Department
of Defense feels, justifiably, that it is harming their
essential mission, which is the primary mission of the Federal
Government. I think that a lot of the technological advances
actually will be coming from the military. The fact that our
military is so technologically advanced, especially with our
air superiority and superiority on the seas, is what is
allowing us to fight this war on terrorism with minimal
casualties to ourselves as well as minimal casualties for
indirect hits on nontargets.
I do think it is important that there is a predictability
for the military as you deploy and procure the systems in the
future. It is also important, predictability and credibility,
for the private sector if people are going to be investing
millions, if not billions, of dollars on various platforms or
enterprises, to know that when they do deploy it it is not just
going to be flippantly changed by the Government.
The flexibility ideas that Mr. Sugrue is talking about has
no harm whatsoever to the Department of Defense. It is a
creative way of maybe allowing the private sector to do what
you are envisioning, as far as the way to switch from maybe a
dozen different spectrum bands. I realize the DoD concerns are
important and it can never be emphasized too much. However, I
do think that we are getting behind in 3G, and 3G is very
important internationally. I think it is also important for our
economic competitiveness as a country and has the potential to
be very helpful in rural areas as far as getting high-speed or
broadband to rural areas.
I know that is not necessarily a primary concern of the
Department of Defense, but it is important for homeland
opportunities.
Yes, Ms. Victory.
Ms. Victory. Senator, since you had emphasized
predictability and certainty as something that you also hear
from the private sector, I just wanted to mention that I hear
it from both sides as well. Government agencies want
predictability and certainty and so does the private sector. I
think one of the challenges in spectrum management is trying to
provide that predictability and certainty, when technology and
consumer demand and Government demand is anything but.
So I think that we are constantly trying to do a little bit
of a balancing here. But I think the predictability and
certainty would be a lot easier if technology was static and
consumer demand was static and Government ideas were static.
But I think the challenge that we all face is that this is a
very dynamic environment and trying to come up with that
predictability and certainty in this environment is going to be
extremely hard.
Senator Allen. Well, we certainly do not want any static
thought in Government. We do not want static approaches in the
private sector. The status quo is not good enough in this area
or anywhere else. The advances in technology are wonderful for
our quality of life, for communications, for security and all
the rest. So when you have a situation that is so dynamic as
this, where there are things that are in constant motion and
every new day there is a new improvement and a better way of
doing thing, that is exciting.
In a situation such as that, what you have to have are
guiding principles which people can operate in. Now, obviously
for the military, their guiding principles are national
security. For the private sector, you have guiding principles
or rules that will allow them to adapt to change, to innovate,
and to improve within a credible, stable situation.
That is where we have to look at this as a philosophical
approach of how are we going to address this. That is why I
think the idea of the creativity or the flexibility, making
sure, though, that they are not squatting. In other words, it
is being utilized when it is a Government service, so they are
not squatting or slow or static and utilizing more than they
are wasting. In the private sector, maybe if you could give
them greater opportunity, greater flexibility. If they do not
want to use it, maybe they can sublease it, so to speak.
So I look forward to working with all of you. I think it
can be achieved. It will not be easy, but if there is a will
there is a way, and we have to adapt, we have to innovate, and
we must improve.
Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Senator.
Because of the complexity of the issue before us and
because of the uncertainty and the ambiguity of the policy, if
we are to have an impact on this issue, this will be the first
of a whole series of hearings. We have yet to hear from other
interested parties.
Accordingly, the record will be kept open for this hearing
for 3 weeks, and during that time if you have any corrections,
addendums, or suggestions or statements that you would like to
place in the record. It will be open to the Members of this
Committee to submit more questions if they so wish.
I have just one question I would like to ask Mr. Price
before we adjourn. I am certain that after September the 11th
home security missions resulted in more extensive use of the
spectrum by your Department. In conducting combat air patrol
missions over the cities as part of Operation Noble Eagle, did
you experience any difficulties in coordinating spectrum
operations with civil authorities, like the FAA?
Mr. Price. Almost shockingly, we did not. That was because
within hours the FCC, FAA, NTIA, Department of Defense worked
together around the clock to coordinate extensive use of
military aircraft over the United States. There were also NATO
AWACS planes as well as U.S. planes. It was a very complex
ecosytem of military aircraft that were protecting the skies,
not only for the first few days, but for a number of months.
It took a significant coordination within the interagency--
there were no rules, no regulations. This was just hard-working
people--to help coordinate that, and subsequently helped
coordinate when there was military support to the 2002 Winter
Olympics in Salt Lake, helped coordinate when there were
National Guard and other troops at airports around critical
infrastructure.
These were uses that had not heretofore been anticipated.
We did not necessarily have spectrum where we had used it in
the past, assignments or allocations. But the hard work of a
number of people within the Government allowed that to work
very smoothly.
Senator Inouye. I wish to commend you for that. Do you
think that this coordination should be made part of rules and
regulations?
Mr. Price. Well, we're talking through how to work similar
kinds of issues as they arise and should they arise. Not only
airplanes but first responder kinds of events. I do not know if
it is rules, regulations, but we are thinking through all those
processes within the Government.
Senator Inouye. It would appear that in this crisis
everyone saw the need for coordination and collaboration. Do
you think this can happen again in the crisis we face today?
Mr. Price. I believe so.
Senator Inouye. With that high note, I thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Max Cleland
to Peter Guerrero
Question 1. Do you believe there currently exists a non-partisan
person or group who can objectively review spectrum recommendations and
uses? If not, do you believe such a person or group would be helpful?
Answer. Our work to date has not directly looked at whether a
person or group outside of the current spectrum management process is
needed. However, we are currently gathering information from spectrum
management organizations in several countries and have found that the
organization of spectrum management functions varies considerably. In
the U.K., for example, the United Kingdom Spectrum Strategy Committee
(UKSSC) addresses issues that affect all spectrum managers within the
UK Similarly, we found that in Canada, an entity known as the Radio
Advisory Board, which includes trade groups and government
representatives, is very important in gaining consensus and developing
recommendations on spectrum policy issues that are provided to Canada's
spectrum managers. We are continuing to gather information for several
other countries as well, and will report in January on these issues.
Question 2. Do you believe this country has in place an efficient
spectrum use plan? Why or why not?
Answer. Virtually none of the federal or commercial officials we
interviewed said that the U.S. has a national spectrum plan or
strategy. FCC officials told us that while FCC does planning on
specific spectrum issues, it does not plan comprehensively by itself
and there has been no comprehensive, coordinated interagency planning
by FCC and NTIA. They noted that the closest thing to a national
spectrum strategy is the process used by FCC, NTIA, and the State
Department to reach consensus on a U.S. position for agenda items for
World Radiocommunication Conferences.
There is debate, however, as to the usefulness of long-term
planning. A key problem is the difficulty of predicting future trends
in wireless services. For example, FCC officials noted that the growth
in cell phone and PCS deployment was much greater than either FCC or
the industry anticipated in the early 1990s. Emerging technologies may
not develop as planned and could result in wasted spectrum if plans are
not flexible. For this reason, FCC prefers to rely on market forces as
much as possible. For its part, NTIA has done studies of long-term
federal spectrum needs. Overall, there is a consensus around the
importance of defining core values and goals for spectrum management,
while retaining flexibility to allow for technical innovation.
Question 3. Cost of moving from one band of spectrum to another is
an issue. However, do you believe that if a move could result in
greater efficiency, then it could result in actual cost savings?
Answer. It is certainly possible for the savings from greater
spectrum efficiency to outweigh the cost of moving. However, it can be
a difficult issue to estimate these relative costs and benefits. In a
well-developed market environment, market forces provide information
about the relative costs and benefits of alternative arrangements. With
spectrum resources, however, these markets are not fully developed.
Moreover, for some users, including the Department of Defense and
certain other government agencies, the financial evaluation of
alternative means of achieving a particular mission capability would be
extremely complex even if additional market information were available.
Our January 2003 report will be looking at whether there are feasible
ways of valuing spectrum when market information is not available.
Question 4. How long do you think it would take to do a
comprehensive examination of our domestic spectrum plan?
Answer. GAO believes that a comprehensive spectrum evaluation could
be important, and we are examining this issue for our January 2003
report. We believe that an appropriate analysis should address the
multitude of spectrum-related issues the Congress faces today, because
these issues are highly interrelated. Moreover, an effective analysis
requires the involvement of all interested parties. The United Kingdom
completed a comparable review in one year. A study in the US could take
more or less time depending on the resources devoted to the review.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings
to Peter Guerrero
Question 1. What can be done to improve U.S. participation in the
World Radiocommunication conferences?
Answer. A central challenge for United States spectrum management
is preparing for the WRC. This has become more difficult in recent
years because of increases in the frequency of conferences, the number
of attendees, and the size of conference agendas. Federal and non-
federal spectrum experts have suggested a number of improvements to our
WRC preparatory process.
Appointing the head of the U.S. delegation earlier. Many
experts believe that the appointment of an ambassador to head
the U.S. delegation to the WRC just six months before the
conference does not leave enough time for them to adequately
prepare for the conference and resolve any disagreements in the
U.S. position. Appointing an ambassador for a longer term, or
having a career civil servant head the delegation could address
this problem. However, each of these choices also has
drawbacks. Appointing an ambassador for a longer term would
involve a potentially time-consuming Senate confirmation
process. A career official, on the other hand, would lack White
House connections and ambassadorial status. State Department
officials also said that the ambassador title provides a good
tool for recruiting top non-government candidates. The
government may have found an informal way around the short term
of the appointment. For the last several international
conferences, the government has tried to identify the person
that is to become the ambassador and involve her/him in
conference planning prior to the 6-month appointment. For
example, this approach was effectively used for the 2000 WRC
ambassador, State Department officials said that she was told
that she would be appointed to the position and given a
temporary telecommunications policy position in the White House
four months prior to her appointment. That allowed her to learn
the issues and observe WRC preparatory meetings, but she could
not lead the meetings until her formal appointment about 5
months before the conference.
Setting deadlines for achieving important WRC preparatory
objectives. Federal officials said that some of the difficult
issues regarding the U.S. position for WRC agenda items are not
resolved until the eve of a WRC, when the need to reach a
decision has become urgent. Setting firm deadlines for
formulating and finalizing the U.S. position for an upcoming
conference could help to force earlier action. However, setting
deadlines could have drawbacks. It is unclear how such
deadlines would be enforced. In addition, some of the U.S.
positions rely on reaching consensus with the other countries
in our regional telecommunications body, which will not be
governed by U.S. deadlines.
Merging the separate NTIA and FCC preparation processes.
NTIA and FCC currently develop the U.S. position for WRCs
through separate processes. At the end of the WRC preparatory
process, the two positions must be merged into a unified U.S.
position. In order to accomplish this, FCC and NTIA must work
out any disagreements they have with the assistance of the
Department of State. WRC 2000 Ambassador believes that merging
the separate processes into one WRC planning process could help
resolve disagreements in the U.S. position earlier in the
preparatory process. However, NTIA said that the separate
processes are needed because much of government side of
spectrum policy and use is classified.
Question 2. Congress has, in the past, called for the FCC and NTIA
to engage in national spectrum planning. What did GAO learn about the
status of implementing these plans and based on GAO's review what
concerns have been raised with respect to establishing a national
spectrum plan?
Answer. Although FCC and NTIA conducted individual planning efforts
of various sorts, they said that they have not fully complied with
requirements to engage in joint national spectrum planning. However,
the agencies have both recently indicated that they plan to comply
through increased joint coordination and planning. For example, FCC and
NTIA could use the momentum from recent NTIA Spectrum Summit and the
new FCC Spectrum Task Force to fulfill their requirements for joint
national spectrum planning.
Please refer to the prior answer to Senator Cleland for further
views on a national spectrum plan.
Question 3. Do federal agencies have spectrum that is under or un-
utilized? If so, how can this spectrum be identified and better
utilized?
Answer. Our review did not focus on identifying unused or underused
federal government spectrum, and we did not find any specific examples
of such. However, NTIA does not have assurance that its activities to
encourage efficient spectrum use among federal government agencies are
effective. It has eliminated all of its monitoring programs due to
staff and resource shortages, and it depends on agencies that are also
struggling with staff and resource shortages to review their spectrum
assignments as required. As a result of staff shortages, many of the
agencies we reviewed are behind in conducting their reviews and/or do
not conduct robust reviews of their spectrum use.
Improving the quality and timeliness of frequency assignment
monitoring and reviews would increase accountability for efficient use
among federal agencies, but it may not be possible to centrally manage
hundreds of thousands of frequency assignments in an effective way.
NTIA may want to consider creating incentives at the user level to
encourage spectrum conservation. Our continuing work on spectrum
management is looking into the question of how other countries pursue
efficiency in government use. For example, we have learned that other
countries are moving toward using payment mechanisms for government
spectrum users that are specifically designed to encourage government
users to conserve their use of spectrum. NTIA currently requires
agencies to pay spectrum fees (about $50 per frequency assignment), but
the purpose of the fees is to recover part of the costs of NTIA's
spectrum management function, rather than provide an economic incentive
for effective spectrum use.
Once unused or underused spectrum assignments are identified
through monitoring, reviews, or some sort of incentive, they can be
deleted from the Government Master File--NTIA `s spectrum database--
making them immediately available for other uses.
Question 4. In your statement, you noted that some federal agencies
were unable to complete the required spectrum management reviews
because of staffing and resource shortages. How serious is this
staffing problem?
Answer. We found that the staffing and resource shortages were
significant for some agencies. Several agencies told us that their
staff had been reduced during a time when requirements of their offices
were increasing. This problem may be getting worse. Several of the
agencies we reviewed are facing recruitment and retention problems and/
or are facing the retirement of key spectrum management staff Several
agencies said that the staffing problems caused them to reduce the
timeliness and depth of their frequency assignment reviews. Some
frequency managers said that this could lead to mistakes or inefficient
spectrum use. Specifically, two agencies we reviewed have conducted
spectrum management workforce needs assessments that showed their
staffing levels to be inadequate.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye
to Peter Guerrero
Question 1. What can be done to improve the current coordination
process between the FCC and NTIA and more effectively allocate spectrum
and better balance the needs of commercial and government users?
Answer. FCC and NTIA could improve their coordination by fully
implementing the congressional mandate to conduct joint spectrum
planning and meeting on a more regular basis to coordinate spectrum
issues. Although they are making progress through the NTIA Spectrum
Summit and the FCC Spectrum Task Force, FCC and NTIA have not yet fully
implemented these requirements.
The current allocation process depends on FCC and NTIA being able
to reach consensus, but this is often difficult because the entire
usable spectrum has already been allocated. As a resul4 reallocation
negotiations between FCC and NTIA can become lengthy and difficult. To
help force a decision, some officials we interviewed have suggested
establishing a third-party to arbitrate or resolve differences between
FCC and NTIA. However, FCC officials said that there could be
complicated legal issues of establishing an arbitrator over an
independent commission like the FCC. In some other countries, decisions
are made within one agency or within interagency mechanisms that exist
for resolving contentious allocation issues. Our continuing spectrum
work focuses, in part, on the regulatory structure for spectrum
management in 12 other countries. It will be published in early 2003.
Question 2. The President's FY 2003 Budget calls for a new process,
a ``Spectrum Relocation Fund,'' for reimbursing government users for
costs incurred when they are required to relocate to different spectrum
blocks.
``The Administration will propose legislation to streamline the
current process for reimbursing Federal agencies that must relocate
from Federal spectrum which has been reallocated for auction to
commercial users. Under current law, winning bidders must negotiate
with Federal entities upon the close of an auction and reimburse the
agencies directly for their relocation costs. The Administration
proposes to streamline this process by creating a central spectrum
relocation fund. Auction receipts sufficient to cover agencies'
relocation costs would be paid into the fund, and Federal agencies
would be reimbursed for their relocation costs out of the fund.''
Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, Page 241.
The Administration has not yet submitted language to Congress.
Do you have any specific concerns about how such a Fund to
reimburse government users for relocation costs might work?
Answer. Generally, providing some certainty that government users
would be reimbursed for having to relocate from existing spectrum
assignments could facilitate their willingness to move. There are a
number of ways to provide such compensation; this proposed fund is just
one approach that appears to mitigate the burden industry would face in
individually negotiating reimbursement amounts with each affected
agency. Generally, whatever approach is used to compensate federal
agencies, it is important to establish up front what control the
Congress wants to maintain over these funds. For example, if this type
of fund were to be used, Congress might want to maintain control over
it by requiring agencies to obtain annual appropriations.
Also, it seems from the description in the budget that the
reimbursement under current law is negotiated in addition to the
auction receipts. If the proposal is to have the reimbursement paid out
of the auction receipts, the government may be receiving less overall
as a result. It might be desirable to specify that the auction bids are
to include amounts to finance the relocation.
Question 3. Do you believe that the proposal to use auction
proceeds to reimburse government users as outlined in President Bush's
budget would make the spectrum management process more effective and
efficient?
Answer. Using auction proceeds to reimburse government users for
moving to other parts of the spectrum would help to facilitate such
moves to the extent that cost is a determining factor. However, other
factors can be just as determinative as cost and even more difficult to
resolve. For instance, government users may need to be given spectrum
that has comparable technical qualities to the spectrum they are
vacating in order to meet mission requirements. Also, because much of
the spectrum is shared, interference issues may make it difficult to
move users to other parts of the spectrum where incumbents are already
operating. In addition, considerable time may be needed to effect a
move, even if adequate reimbursement funds were available, as in the
case of satellite-based systems where new satellites might need to be
built and launched in order to obtain new frequency assignments.
Question 4. There is some discussion that the Relocation Fund could
be established as a trust fund. However, monies in Trust Funds are
sometimes used for other budgetary purposes. How can legislators ensure
that monies will be available for government users to address their
relocation costs since in some instances it could take years for a
government user to complete its relocation?
Answer. Trust funds are one of several accounting mechanisms used
to link earmarked receipts with the expenditure of those receipts.
Concerns have been raised that, because the actual earmarked cash in
such funds is commingled in the Treasury with other receipts and used
to pay whatever bills the government currently has on hand, the federal
government has inappropriately diverted funds for purposes other than
what was intended. Treasury accounts for earmarked monies by crediting
these collections to the appropriate funds, in this case, the
Relocation Fund. Although monies are commingled in the Treasury,
amounts equal to the earmarked funds are available when needed for the
purposes for which they are earmarked. In most cases the trust funds
are given special, nonmarketable Treasury securities in return for the
cash. These are claims on the Treasury (i.e., IOUs) that can be
redeemed in the future to obtain the cash needed to be spent on the
intended purposes. History provides no evidence to suggest that the
U.S. would not honor these obligations as it does its other
obligations.
However, trust funds are not the only mechanism for earmarking
funds. Special funds are also used for the same purpose of tracking
receipts and spending for programs that have specific revenues
earmarked for their use. The only difference between a ``special'' fund
and a ``trust fund'' is the word ``trust'' in the legislation
establishing the account. GAO has said that the use of the term ``trust
``fund is confusing to the public, primarily because in the federal
budget the meaning of the term ``trust'' differs significantly from its
private sector usage. The federal government does not have a fiduciary
responsibility to the trust beneficiaries and can raise or lower future
trust fund collections and payments or change the purposes for which
the collections are used by changing existing laws. Use of a term that
is not identical to a private sector term with a different meaning
could clear up some of the public's confusion. For example, using the
term ``special fund'' instead of trust fund could eliminate the
confusion.
Finally, a permanent earmarking of auction receipts limits
Congress's ability to change priorities, especially if the trust or
special fund has a permanent appropriation. If Congress did not wish to
restrict its budget flexibility to such an extent, it could retain some
control over the earmarked funds. For example, when the various
transportation trust funds were created, Congress dedicated receipts to
particular purposes but retained annual control, through the
appropriations process, over the timing of the expenditures.
Question 5. The United States seems to be at a disadvantage in the
World Radio Conference (WRC) process with respect to other countries
such as those in Europe. How can Congress ensure that the U.S. develops
a U.S. position as well as names its delegation in a timely manner and
prior to a WRC, thereby allowing for sufficient time to lobby other
parts of the world?
Answer. Federal and non-federal spectrum experts have suggested a
number of improvements to our WRC preparatory process.
Appointing the head of the U.S. delegation earlier. Many
experts believe that the appointment of an ambassador to head
the U.S. delegation to the WRC just six months before the
conference does not leave enough time for them to adequately
prepare for the conference and resolve any disagreements in the
U.S. position. Appointing an ambassador for a longer term, or
having a career civil servant head the delegation could address
this problem. However, each of these choices also has
drawbacks. Appointing an ambassador for a longer term would
involve a potentially time-consuming Senate confirmation
process. A career official, on the other hand, would lack White
House connections and ambassadorial status. State Department
officials also said that the ambassador title provides a good
too/for recruiting top non-government candidates. The
government may have found an informal way around the short term
of the appointment. For the last several international
conferences, the government has tried to identify the person
that is to become the ambassador and involve her/him in
conference planning prior to the 6-month appointment. For
example, this approach was effectively used for the 2000 WRC
ambassador, State Department officials said that she was told
that she would be appointed to the position and given a
temporary telecommunications policy position in the White House
four months prior to her appointment. That allowed her to learn
the issues and observe WRC preparatory meetings, but she could
not lead the meetings until her formal appointment about 5
months before the conference.
Setting deadlines for achieving important WRC preparatory
objectives. Federal officials said that some of the difficult
issues regarding the U.S. position for WRC agenda items are not
resolved until the eve of a WRC, when the need to reach a
decision has become urgent. Setting firm deadlines for
formulating and finalizing the U.S. position for an upcoming
conference could help to force earlier action. However, setting
deadlines could have drawbacks. It is unclear how such
deadlines would be enforced. In addition, some of the U.S.
positions rely on reaching consensus with the other countries
in our regional telecommunications body, which will not be
governed by U.S. deadlines.
Merging the separate NTIA and FCC preparation processes.
NTIA and FCC currently develop the U.S. position for WRCs
through separate processes. At the end of the WRC preparatory
process, the two positions must be merged into a unified U.S.
position. In order to accomplish this, FCC and NTIA must work
out any disagreements they have with the assistance of the
Department of State. WRC 2000 Ambassador believes that merging
the separate processes into one WRC planning process could help
resolve disagreements in the U.S. position earlier in the
preparatory process. However, NTIA said that the separate
processes are needed because much of government side of
spectrum policy and use is classified.
Question 6. Should the ambassador to a WRC be appointed at least a
year instead of 6 months prior to the conference? Should there be a
State Department employee designated to drive consensus with respect to
the U.S. position prior to and until the ambassador is appointed?
Answer. As noted above, many experts believe that the appointment
of an ambassador to head the U.S. delegation to the WRC just six months
before the conference does not leave enough time for them to adequately
prepare and resolve any disagreements in the U.S. position.
The U.S. ambassador to the 2000 WRC suggested establishing a high-
level civil servant as the permanent deputy head of delegation within
the Department of State. While that has not happened, the current
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Communications
and Information Technology has taken the lead in chairing WRC
organizational meetings and is mediating disagreements between FCC and
NTIA until an ambassador is named.
Question 7. Should the State Department be required to establish a
timetable for resolving issues, establishing consensus and lobbying
other countries prior to WRC? If a timetable is established, what
incentives can be used to ensure that NTIA, the FCC, and industry work
to meet the timetables?
Answer. As noted above, federal officials said that some elements
of the U.S. position on WRC agenda items are not resolved until the eve
of the conference. Part of the ambassador's role is to facilitate the
process of consensus-building and compromise. Setting firm deadlines
for formulating and finalizing the U.S. position may help to force
earlier resolution of these issues, since the presumption would be that
the ambassador would make the final call on any positions unresolved
when the deadline passed. However, setting deadlines could have
drawbacks. It is unclear how such deadlines would be enforced. In
addition, some of the U.S. positions rely on reaching consensus with
the other countries in our regional telecommunications body, which will
not be governed by U.S. deadlines.
Question 8. Do you have any other concerns about coordinating a
U.S. position for the World Radio Conference? What can be done to
address these concerns?
Answer. Besides the challenges to the preparatory process we
identified, we were also told that the United States does not implement
WRC agreements in a timely manner. Although the U.S. can informally
implement WRC agreements, none of the agreements reached at the 1992,
1995, 1997, or 2000 WRCs have been formally ratified by the Senate. The
Department of State said that the delays were necessary because of the
policy overlap in recent WRCs. In addition, NTIA officials said that
FCC has occasionally changed parts of WRC agreements causing adverse
impacts to government and the scientific community's use of the radio
spectrum. FCC officials, however, stated that they occasionally
interpret WRC agreements differently than NTIA. We continue to look
into this issue and will report on it in our final report in August.
Question 9. GAO has indicated that while NTIA has attempted to
promote spectrum efficiency, there is no accountability to ensure
government users are using spectrum efficiently. Also GAO found that
many federal agencies are understaffed with respect to employees who
could assist agencies to manage spectrum. The FCC has recently
indicated its need to increase its number of engineers.
Does NTIA believe that increasing engineers in federal agencies
could assist agencies in better managing spectrum as well as improving
spectrum efficiency?
Answer. NTIA officials said that some IRAC member agencies seem to
have a shortage of engineering expertise in their spectrum management
departments. For example, NTIA officials noted that the Coast Guard has
been unable to provide the needed engineering support for maritime
issues at the World Radiocommunication Conferences. We spoke with
officials from the U.S. Coast Guard and they confirmed this shortage of
engineering support for international conferences and said that they
are working to improve the situation. We asked NTIA whether increasing
the number of engineers could help agencies manage their spectrum more
efficiently. NTIA is currently looking at this matter and told us they
will respond to you directly.
Question 10. Is there anything else that can be done to increase
the level of accountability with respect to government users and
spectrum efficiency?
Answer. NTIA places primary responsibility for promoting efficiency
in the hands of the individual agencies because they are in the best
pos ition to know their spectrum needs. Yet, because agencies are
resource constrained they do not often conduct spectrum reviews in a
timely or meaningful way. For example, one agency has over 1,000
frequency assignments that have not been reviewed in 10 years or more.
NTIA, itself has eliminated its oversight of agency spectrum due, in
part, to resource shortages. Reactivating these oversight programs,
which NTIA said provided important and useful information about
agencies ` spectrum use, would increase accountability among the
federal agency users. NTIA could also make a greater effort to enforce
its five-year review requirement for federal agency frequency
assignments.
However, these efforts alone may not be sufficient given the
hundreds of thousands offrequency assignments to be managed. NTIA may
want to consider creating incentives at the user level to encourage
spectrum conservation. Our continuing work on spectrum management is
looking into the question of how other countries pursue efficiency in
government use. For example, we have learned that other countries are
moving toward using payment mechanisms for government spectrum users
that are specifically designed to encourage government users to
conserve their use of spectrum. NTIA currently requires agencies to pay
spectrum fees (about $50 perfrequency assignment), but the purpose of
the fees is to recover part of the costs of NTIA's spectrum management
function, rather than provide an economic incentive for effective
spectrum use.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Max Cleland
to Steven Price
Question 1. Do you believe there currently exists a non-partisan
person or group who can objectively review spectrum recommendations and
uses? If not, do you believe such a person or group would be helpful?
Answer. Under current law, the Assistant Secretary for of Commerce
for Communications and Information (Administrator, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA) is
responsible for cooperating with the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), to develop long-range plans for improved management of all
electromagnetic spectrum resources and to jointly determine the
National Table of Frequency Allocations. One of the primary functions
of the NTIA is to manage the spectrum use by the Federal Government,
while one of the primary functions of the FCC is manage spectrum use by
non-Federal Government entities. Therefore, the NTIA and FCC, by nature
of their defined roles, share the responsibility for managing the
nation's spectrum. The coordination between NTIA and the FCC, which
each represent different constituencies, allows the balancing of
different priorities and the compromises inherent in managing a scarce
resource. There is currently no single ``person or group'' that has
sole responsibility for determining spectrum allocation, but all of the
agencies of the Federal Government have a role in shaping allocation
decisions and spectrum policy.
DoD supports a spectrum management process that allows for planning
and setting of national priorities. Development and enforcement of a
national, long-term spectrum plan that would set national priorities
would afford the incumbent user a higher degree of predictability and
certainty that currently exists. DoD's view is that in such a plan,
essential national security needs would have highest priority.
Question 2. The cost of relocating due to switching spectrum bands
can be significant. Reimbursement proposals are being developed in
order to reimburse government users when they move. What affect do you
think reimbursement has on the success of auctions and the amount that
commercial users are willing to pay for spectrum?
Answer. Under current law (the FCC's auction authorities and 47 USC
923(g)), successful spectrum auction bidders are required to pay into
the General Treasury the amount of their winning bid and, separately,
negotiate with and pay to federal agencies the costs of relocating
federal incumbent systems prior to the actual relocation. In general,
we believe that auction winners view reimbursement of relocating
incumbents as a cost of doing business and an expected ``capital''
expense. This approach, however, has the benefit of ensuring that new
spectrum users, rather than the general public, will pay the costs of
relocating existing federal government spectrum users. To the extent
that the objective of spectrum auctions is to raise money for the U.S.
Treasury, the current law also has the benefit of avoiding hidden costs
to the U.S. Treasury of spectrum auctions and enhancing the validity of
Congressional Budget Office scoring.
The goal of cost reimbursement should be to fully reimburse the
incumbent for all actual costs--direct and indirect--associated with
moving to new spectrum. The reimbursement should include all costs,
including for example training and testing of new systems and the cost
of calculating all the expenses required in such a move.
It must be emphasized, however, that the issue of finding and
securing comparable spectrum is inextricably linked to the issue of
relocation. Current federal law, section 1062(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (47 U.S.C. 921 note),
provides that ``[if, in order to make available for other use a band of
frequencies of which it is a primary user, the Department of Defense is
required to surrender use of such band of frequencies, the Department
shall not surrender use of such band'' until several conditions are
met. First, the NTIA must make available to DoD ``for its primary use,
if necessary, an alternative band or bands of frequencies as a
replacement for the band to be so surrendered.'' Second, the
Secretaries of Defense and Commerce, and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, must jointly certify to the congressional armed
services and commerce committees that ``such alternative band or bands
provides comparable technical characteristics to restore essential
military capability that will be lost as a result of the band of
frequencies to be so surrendered.'' We note that the statute does not
apply to the 1710-1755 MHz band. The statute would apply to the 16
protected sites within the 1710-1755 MHz band if they were required to
move.
Thus, any relocation compensation regime must dovetail with DoD's
requirements for comparable spectrum. Indeed, the identification of
comparable spectrum must be completed before any practical assessment
of relocation costs can be attempted. This provision of the law is a
vital protection for national defense and helps ensure the continuing
operational quality of military communications systems.
The availability and suitability of comparable spectrum that will
meet ongoing and growing DoD needs will always be a critical factor in
determining relocation costs. And the level of such costs is likely to
be a key influence in attracting potential bidders, setting potential
bidding floor prices, and otherwise conducting a successful auction.
A final point is that the issue of switching or relocating from
spectrum bands is far more than a cost issue. Clearly, cost is
important but DoD focuses on operational impacts: will we be able to
operate as efficiently, will we be relocated in time should that
national call on our warfighter to act, will we remain interoperable
with allies and other Coalition partners who use the same frequencies
we currently do, will we be able to garner the crucial host nation
approvals to operate our systems within the new frequencies to which we
are relocated. These are important issues--and ones that are distinct
from cost reimbursement--that must be taken into account during
relocation discussions.
Question 3. As you know the International Telecommunications Union
(ITU) designated two bands of spectrum for international harmonization
of Third Generation or 3G use. European and Asian countries are able to
secure this spectrum for this use. However, the U.S. has government and
commercial entities operating in these bands. Specifically, with regard
to the DoD users, if our troops are using one band of spectrum to
communicate domestically, will they be able to communicate with
American troops abroad who will not be using the same spectrum bands?
Answer. Member States and Sector Members of the International
Telecommunication Union have actually identified multiple bands that
countries are able to consider for the implementation of Third
Generation (3G) systems. At the World Administrative Radio Conference
of 1992 (WARC-92), the bands 1885-2025 MHz and 2110-2200 MHz were
identified (230 MHz total). Almost every European country and all major
Asian countries have allocated these two bands for the initial
implementation of 3G capabilities and have conducted auctions to
implement the allocation to our knowledge. No country is planning at
this time to establish initial 3G systems in the 1755-1850 MHz band
that is designated in the U.S. for Federal Government systems and on
which the Department of Defense is critically dependent.
The World Radiocommunication Conference of 2000 (WRC-2000) did
identify additional bands to those identified at WARC-92. These bands
were 806-960 MHz, 1710-1885 MHz, and 2500-2690 MHz (total for WRC-2000
of519 MHz). The total of bands identified by the ITU at both WARC-92
and WRC-2000 is 749 MHz. The U.S. Federal band that falls within these
ITU identified bands is the 1755-1850 MHz band (95 MHz total). Within
the ITU and regional working bodies, most countries are indicating a
preference to follow the initial 3G implementations in the WARC-92
bands with expansion in the WRC-2000 band of 2500-2690 MHz and not the
U.S. Federal band of 1755-1850 MHz. Many of these same countries have
existing second-generation cellular systems operating in the 1710-1885
MHz band.
U.S. forces do currently use the 1755-1850 MHz band both
domestically and abroad. The use of the band abroad is possible due to
several factors. DoD carefully works with foreign governments and their
military to coordinate frequency usage for our systems, ensuring
foreign spectrum users do not cause or suffer from interference from
DoD systems. In addition, DoD negotiates host nation agreements with
many countries across the globe to use this spectrum abroad. Finally,
for certain systems in some locations we use spectrum other than 1755-
1850 MHz--spectrum not available to DoD in the U.S..
Often, reaching understandings with host nations takes considerable
time and requiring DoD to move out of its current spectrum assignments
in this band would necessitate DoD to seek and negotiate new host
nation agreements in a different band, some of which might not be
achievable. Retaining these bands for DoD use is the most effective and
efficient manner to protect access to spectrum for our nation's
warfighters.
Question 4. Do you believe this country has in place an efficient
spectrum use plan? Why or why not?
Answer. Efficiency in spectrum use is a continuing challenge.
Spectrum management continually needs to be adapted to meet changing
needs and new technologies. Greater spectrum efficiency should be a
goal common to all users of the radio spectrum and this is an area of
continuing examination for both the FCC and NTIA. Moreover, there are
justifiable variations in views regarding spectrum efficiency and
system reliability. From a DoD perspective, efficient spectrum use
takes on a very different meaning than it might to a commercial
operator. A dropped call or message from an American soldier in the
field, or a misguided instruction to a smart bomb, takes on
implications well beyond those of the average dropped wireless call.
While the DoD does and must operate its spectrum-based systems as
efficiently as it can, it does so in circumstances where there is no
margin for error. This requires us to plan for our spectrum use in a
very different fashion than others might. To DoD, efficiency means 100%
certainty and reliability of access; this is not the same standard used
by commercial entities.
As manager of the Federal Government's use of the radio spectrum,
NTIA continues to encourage Federal agencies to deploy the most
spectrum-efficient technology to meet their missions. At the same time,
efficiency is but one factor NTIA considers when making decisions
involving the specialized and critical missions that many Federal
agencies perform, including national security, law enforcement and
public safety. Others include the economic costs and the degree to
which the mission requirements can be met. New technologies, including
software defined radios and dynamic frequency selection, hold great
promise for significant future advances in spectrum utilization by the
Federal Government, and ultimately through technology transfer, by the
private sector. NTIA also advocates adoption by the FCC of policies
that promote spectrum-efficient use by the private sector, including
secondary markets and careful accommodation of ultra wide band systems.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Byron L. Dorgan
to Steven Price
Question 1. Does the Department of Defense believe that commercial
satellites have an important role to play in meeting its communications
needs? If so, what can be done to ensure that this important industry
remains competitive and viable?
Answer. The Department historically looks at a variety of methods
to satisfy long haul communication requirements and the commercial
sector has been an integral part of such capabilities. We expect this
trend to continue, if not accelerate, for the foreseeable future.
Commercial satellite services should be valuable and useful complements
to government-owned assets.
The military's current satellite assets are making a very real
contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom. The scope and speed of
joint operations would be impossible without MILSATCOM systems. But it
is equally clear that the U.S. military cannot, and will not, rely
solely on DoD space assets for its satellite communications. This means
there will have to be an ongoing partnership with the U.S. commercial
satellite industry in order to satisfy the demand for military
bandwidth.
We all must be concerned about creating the proper conditions for a
vibrant U.S. satellite industry.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings
to Steven Price
Question 1. Last year, NTIA concluded that it would be difficult
for DoD to share the entire 1710-1850 MHz band and NTIA is now focusing
its efforts to address sharing in the 1710-1770 portion of the band.
Would you both agree that the scaled-back plan means that there is less
impact on specific DoD systems--compared to the original plan? (For
example, three of the systems that operate in the 1710-1850 MHz band do
not operate in the 1710-1770 MHz portion of the band.) So, in general
terms, the specific DoD systems would be better accommodated by the
October 2001 NTIA plan?
Answer. The DoD would agree that the most recent NTIA plan would
have less of an impact on DoD systems compared to the original plan
which considered the impacts that would result from loss of the entire
1710-1850 MHz band. The DoD would also agree that, in general terms,
specific DoD systems would be better accommodated by the October 2001
NTIA plan. Currently DoD is participating in the NTIA-FCC 3G viability
assessment process within the 17 10-1770 MHz band. DoD has a vast
number of permanent and temporary assignments in the 1755-1770 band
alone. These include important systems used for satellite control,
precisions guided munitions, tactical communications, tactical data
links, air combat training and other uses. Further, it is one of the
few places that DoD can look to when considering new mobile
applications and weapons platforms. The unique propagation
characteristics of the band is ideally suited for military use in that
it enables small (therefore light-weight) antennas, supports low power
transmissions for extended range and allows sufficient beam widths for
simple, reliable link establishment and preservation.
Moreover, times and circumstances have changed since the original
NTIA plan. Given the events of September 11 plus DoD's aggressive moves
to a transformed, network centric military, DoD believes that over time
it will need access to more, not less, spectrum in order to continue to
meets its mission.
Question 2. It appears from DoD's testimony that DoD remains
concerned about the potential reallocation of the 15 megahertz (between
1755-1770 MHz) from the DoD to commercial use. In broad terms, is this
concern with a ``net-loss'' of DoD spectrum based on your expectation
that the DoD will be seeking to implement additional wireless systems?
Answer. Current law provides that comparable spectrum must be
identified in order to insure that there is no ``net loss'' of
capability to DoD. DoD has always stated that it would analyze any
comparable spectrum that could be used if required to move. DoD's
concern in the 1755-1770 study is that no comparable spectrum has yet
been identified and therefore the capability will be lost.
As I mentioned in my testimony, DoD is concerned about the specific
systems that would be affected by the reallocation of 1755-1770. The
major class of systems that would be affected is satellite telemetry,
tracking and command systems which reside in this band. These systems
allow operators to communicate with airborne satellites. As you know,
airborne satellites are not re-tunable and very expensive to replace in
advance of the end of their service life. Other systems that would be
affected include Precision Guided Munitions and Tactical Radio Relay,
which is a battlefield communications system.
Question 3. I also understand that DoD's concern is not just with
the number of megahertz, but obtaining spectrum below 3 GHz. Are you
concerned about this spectrum because the spectrum below 3 GHz has
certain propagation characteristics such as penetrating foliage and
buildings?
Answer. Yes, spectrum below 3GHz is highly valued for military
operations given its unique technical characteristics that dovetail
with DoD's need for reliable, all weather, ad hoc wireless
communications that can afford our warfighters communications with the
lowest probability of detection.
Current law provides that comparable spectrum must be identified in
order to insure that there is no ``net loss'' of capability to DoD.
This is necessary to meet the Department's operational requirements.
DoD has always stated that it would analyze any proposed comparable
spectrum that could be used if our systems are required to move. DoD's
concern in the 1755-1770 study is that no comparable spectrum has yet
been identified. Technical analysis would need to be done to determine
if spectrum above 3 GHz could be ``comparable spectrum'' for spectrum
below 3 GHz. It is true, however, that spectrum below 3 GHz does have
unique propagation characteristics of the band is ideally suited for
military use in that it enables small (therefore light-weight)
antennas, supports low power transmissions for extended range and
allows sufficient beam widths for simple, reliable link establishment
and preservation.
The spectrum DoD uses for a particular system is carefully chosen
based on the physical properties such as, propagation characteristics,
power required, antenna sizes, etc. Different regions of the spectrum
have different properties and DoD optimizes system design by choosing
particular frequencies. None of DoD choices for frequencies are
accidental; they are purposeful and carefully thought out. Moving
particular functions from one frequency band to another may or may not
be feasible based on the physical properties of the new spectrum and
the engineering decisions and compromises that these properties compel.
Question 4. If DoD is able to share the 1710-1770 MHz band with 3G
service, what would be the estimated cost of modifying or relocating
DoD's operations in order to accommodate 3G service? How long would it
take for DoD to modify or relocate its operations?
Answer. The key element in determining the cost to relocate DoD
operations is the identification of replacement spectrum that meets
operational requirements and that, as provided for in the National
Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2000 (Pub. L. 106-65), has
``comparable technical characteristics to restore essential military
capability'' (``comparable spectrum''). To date, replacement spectrum
that could be considered comparable for all of the systems that would
be relocate/modified has not been identified. Accordingly, any cost
estimates provided prior to such identification are a guess. We note
also that relocation may often mean the development of new systems. The
normal development and acquisition cycle for DoD systems is 8 to 12
years depending upon the complexity of the system and what other DoD
systems the replacement systems must interoperate with.
The costs associated with modifying or relocating operations from
the 1755-1770 MHz band are likely to be on the order of the cost
estimates provided for segmentation options of the 1755-1850 MHz band,
which could reach several billion dollars. The timelines for relocating
systems out of this band are also significantly longer than for the
1710-1755 MHz relocations with some systems requiring more than ten
years to complete relocation.
Question 5. Does DoD share the 1710-1770 MHz band with wireless
providers in other countries? If so could you identify the kind of
wireless services and/or technologies and in which countries are these
wireless services and/or technologies operating? If DoD does share the
band internationally with other wireless providers, what techniques
does the DoD employ in order to protect each of DoD's wireless
operations (i.e. Satellite; Conventional Fixed Microwave; Tactical
Radio Relay; and Precision Guided Munitions) and accommodate each of
the non-DoD wireless services?
Answer. DoD does share the use of the 1710-1770 MHz band in some
other countries with commercial wireless services. The primary
commercial systems that operate in this band on a widespread basis are
second-generation cellular telephone systems. Some countries, such as
Japan have also employed this band for national purposes similar to the
U.S.. The DoD is able to coexist in this band in other countries with
second-generation cellular systems due to several factors. These
include the fact that second generation cellular systems do not create
sufficient energy levels to cause significant interference to DoD
systems, DoD systems typically operate at training facilities that are
remote from extensive cellular networks, and frequency coordination
procedures are employed to avoid harmful interference between DoD
systems and host country commercial systems. These coordination
procedures have been painstakingly established over the years, and any
alteration of spectrum use by DoD would necessitate a time-consuming
and costly duplication of negotiations around the world to re-establish
coordination agreements involving the new DoD bands.
In addition, DoD has been able to negotiate host nation
arrangements to use this spectrum abroad and is confident that
retaining these bands for DoD use is the most effective and efficient
manner to protect access to spectrum for our nation's warfighters.
Question 6. There were seven basic categories of military systems
that were being studied by NTIA, FCC and DoD in the entire 1710-1850
MHz band. Those systems are: Air Combat Training; Land Warrior; Combat
Identification for the Dismounted Soldier; Satellite; Conventional
Fixed Microwave; Tactical Radio Relay; and Precision Guided Munitions.
However, NTIA and DoD are currently exploring the option of using the
1710-1770 MHz band for 3G service. I understand that three of these
systems Air Combat Training; Land Warrior; and Combat Identification
for the Dismounted Soldier do not use spectrum in the 1710-1770 bands.
Is it correct to assume that since there is no overlap for these three
systems, there is no potential for harmful interference from the 3G
service operating in the 1710-1770 MHz band?
Answer. Unfortunately, these assumptions are not correct. The Air
Combat Training systems air-to-ground air frequencies are above 1770
MHz, but the ground-to-ground links that transfer the aircraft data to
and from the Master Station use frequencies below 1770 MHz. However,
these ground links could be relocated to other federal frequency bands
if necessary.
The Land Warrior system uses frequencies between 1772 MHz and 1822
MHz with a bandwidth of 20 MHz. This means that the lowest channel of
Land Warrior uses spectrum from 1762 MHz to 1882 MHz, with a center
frequency of 1772 MHz. The second channel also overlaps the 1755-1770
MHz band, so reallocation of the 1755-1770 MHz band would mean the loss
of two of the 11 channels possible, or about 18 per cent of the
system's capability.
The Combat Identification for the Dismounted Soldier system has
been superceded by the Individual Combat Identification System (ICIDS).
ICIDS operates in the 1755-1850 MHz band. The reallocation of the 1755-
1770 MHz band would mean the loss of 150 channels out of a possible 950
channels, or about 16 per cent of the system's capability.
The Land Warrior and the Combat Identification for the Dismounted
Soldier systems do depend to some extent on operations within the 1755-
1770 MHz band. The loss of access to this spectrum would constrain the
operations of either system, possibly requiring a redesign to restore
full system capabilities. No acceptable alternate bands were identified
for the relocation of the Land Warrior or Combat Identification
systems.
Question 7. Satellite systems are one of the seven major DoD
systems in the 1710-1770 MHz band. To be specific, I understand that
the satellite systems at issue is the Satellite Control Stations--the
satellite up-link for Tracking Telemetry & Control (TT& C). These
satellite stations operate between 1761-1842 MHz. So, under the current
NTIA proposal, commercial carriers and DoD would use the 1761-1770 MHz
band at the same time. I understand that under NTIA current proposal,
the only commercial use permitted in the 1710-1770 MHz would be
relatively low-powered cell phones and not the higher-powered cellular
towers. Is that the case?
Answer. NTIA has not made a specific proposal regarding 3G
accommodation. NTIA has examined several options for the accommodation
of 3G services in the 17 10-1850 MHz band. All these options have been
analyzed under the assumption that the mobile component of the 3G
system (e.g., the low-powered, hand-held phone) would transmit in the
lower part of the band, including 1710-1770 MHz, and the 3G base
stations would transmit in the higher part of the band (above 2110
MHz).
Question 8. With respect to the operation of DoD satellite systems
in the 1755-1770 MHz portion of the band, NTIA in its Final Report at
October of 200l recognized the ``the potential interference is within
the range of prudent risk management.'' As a result, the commercial
mobile systems operating at 1710-1770 MHz will have no adverse impact
on the military satellite systems. However, there could be interference
from the satellite systems into the commercial mobile systems. Is this
correct? Given that NTIA has concluded that potential interference into
DoD's satellite operations in the 1755-1770 MHz portion of the band is
within range of prudent risk management, is it correct that commercial
cell phones would not interfere with DoD satellite systems--but, that
DoD satellite systems could interfere with commercial cell phones that
might be near a satellite base station?
Answer. Assuming the cell phones are in 1755-1770 MHz as discussed
above, that is what the analysis shows.
The major source of potential interference between the two systems
would be from Federal ground-based satellite control stations into 3G
base stations. These 3G base stations receive on the frequency on which
the hand-held phones transmit. The high-power satellite control
stations could cause interference up to 300 kilometers, in a worst-case
situation. Terrain shielding between the base station and the satellite
control station, and the fact that the satellite control station
antennas move when tracking the satellites, serve to mitigate the
interference.
Question 9. In this situation would commercial systems have the
burden of not interfering with DoD satellite systems and are there
mitigation techniques that can be used to protect DoD satellite
operations?
Answer. New entrants into a frequency band generally have the
burden of protecting the incumbent users. In this case, 3G operators
would have to protect Department of Defense operations. Among other
problems, the Department of Defense satellites have a wide view of the
Earth and will receive signals from a large number of hand-held phones
in the United States. Shielding is not an option since the phones must
be in sight of a cell base station tower. Moreover, Department of
Defense requirements will likely increase over time requiring greater
protection and accommodation by 3G operators. The concern is how to
address this issue if harmful interference is caused to Department of
Defense satellites. Possible mitigation techniques would be to limit
the number of mobile phones transmitting simultaneously on satellite
channels, and by using smaller cell sizes so the power transmitted from
the mobile phones would be lower.
Question 10. DoD's Fixed Microwave Systems operate throughout the
1710-1770 MHz band and would need to be moved to other spectrum before
commercial systems could use the spectrum. I understand that the DoD in
its February 2001 Report on the original NTIA spectrum plan indicated
that alternative, comparable spectrum is available for the Fixed
Microwave Systems:
``A significant amount of frequency spectrum is already allocated
to the Government on an exclusive basis for Fixed Service operations in
higher frequency ranges. The 4400 to 4990 MHz and 7125 to 85 MHz bands
are already employed by the DoD for fixed point-to-point microwave
communications.'' DoD IMT 2000 Assessment, Appendix E, Page 9
Do you agree with the finding that there is comparable spectrum
available for these systems?
Answer. The report cited in the question indicates that the 4400-
4940 MHz band is NOT comparable spectrum to the 1710-1770 MHz band.
Among other factors, the fact that fixed, point-to-point microwave
systems operate in both bands does not imply that the bands are
comparable. The 4400-4940 MHz band is characterized by a much more
severe propagation environment in which to operate radio communication
systems than the 1710-1770 MHz band. Some of these engineering
challenges include, multi-path, ducting, fading, and atmospheric
absorption. Substantial non-recurring engineering funds will be
required to assess systems on a case-by-case basis as part of a
frequency band transition. This factor was implicitly recognized during
NTIA and FCC deliberations when commercial licensees in the 2500-2690
MHz band unanimously rejected both the 3600 MHz and 4940 MHz bands as
spectrum into which they could move, because of technical
characteristics and for other reasons.
In addition, it should be pointed out that almost all of these
alternative bands are already used extensively and relocating systems
to these bands may be impossible. A recent survey, conducted by the
Range Commanders Council found there are no available assignments in
the 4400-4940 MHz band for the Southwest United States--an area where
many of the major DoD test centers such as White Sands Missile Range,
Ft. Huachuca, and the Yuma Proving Grounds are located.
Question 11. If there is comparable spectrum available, what would
DoD need in order to relocate these operations, what would be the cost
to relocate these operations, and how much time would it take for such
relocations?
Answer. Relocation cost and schedule are critically dependent on
the band selected for relocation. Since the 4400-4940 MHz band has not
been identified as comparable spectrum to the 1710-1770 MHz band and
since no other spectrum has been so identified, no accurate cost
estimates exist.
However, if comparable spectrum were identified each existing fixed
point-to-point microwave link would have to be addressed individually.
Assuming no additional constraints, such as environmental impacts,
which is a very aggressive assumption, it is anticipated that it will
require at least 2-4 years to change the operating frequency of each of
the fixed microwave point-to-point systems operating in the 1710-1770
MHz band. Additional non-recurring engineering funds will be required
if these systems are operated in other than nearby frequency bands.
Question 12. Is it true that many of these systems are in very
remote areas of our nation, which might facilitate a phased approach to
re-location?
Answer. The draft report cited in the question indicates that a
high-powered weapons control system now operates in the 4400-4940 MHz
band, and successful relocation of fixed microwave systems from the
1710-1770 MHz band into the 4400-4940 MHz band is problematic. The
1710-1770 MHz band systems and the high-powered weapons control systems
operate in the SAME areas of the country, so remoteness of operations
is not a consideration. Some of the ranges such as White Sands Missile
Range, Utah Test and Training Range, and the DOE Nevada Test Site are
located in what were once considered very remote areas. The increasing
population of the Southwestern United States has caused population
centers to be established in locations ever closer to the borders of
decades old DoD test ranges. Unfortunately, their location does not
make them immune from interference that may result from the lack of
available frequency guard bands or adequate transmitter power control.
As a prime example, in the mid 1980's the DoD built a system to be
used at Ft. Erwin, CA, an extremely remote location at the time, that
operates in the 800 MHz band. The proliferation of cellular telephone
service in that frequency band and increased vehicular traffic in this
area has resulted in severe limitations and restrictions on the use of
this system that continues to affect testing and training at this
range.
The important consideration is that all systems now operate in
close physical proximity and would operate over the same frequencies if
the reallocation were accomplished. An analysis tool named ``Spectrum
XXI'' was utilized to identify the potential for relocating the 1710-
1770 MHz band systems into the 4400-4940 MHz band. Parameters contained
in a frequency assignment database are utilized by this tool to produce
preliminary estimates of the spectrum potentially available to a
system. The tool does not consider system operational characteristics
or detailed performance characteristics, and databases do not always
contain classified systems. Additional analysis must be accomplished to
include these effects. After further consideration, the final version
of the draft report (to be published late June or early July) cited in
the question removes all references to relocating systems into the
4400-4940 MHz band.
Question 13. Another of the seven DoD systems in the 1710-1770 MHz
band is referred to as ``Tactical Radio Relay'' wireless communications
system that can be set up for a battlefield to provide vital
communications. I understand that these radios can be ``tuned'' to
different spectrum frequencies--allowing them to be used throughout the
1710-1850 MHz band. In other words, the DoD could use these radios in
spectrum between 1770 and 1850 MHz, without interfering with commercial
use in 1710-1770 MHz (as contemplated by the October 2001 NTIA plan).
Is this correct? If it is correct, what would be the cost of retuning
these radios and how long would it take to retune the radios?
Answer. The reduction of available spectrum from 1710-1850 MHz to
1770-1850 MHz will be particularly detrimental to the operations of the
Marine Corps and Navy Digital Wideband Transmission System (DWTS) which
are Tactical Radio Communication systems. Due to interference from
other systems, the operations of the Navy and Marine Corps DWTS are
generally restricted to 1710-1850 MHz. Reducing the available spectrum
to 1770-1850 MHz would severely impact training exercises using these
mission critical radios since the same radio transmit/receiver
frequency separation (minimum 63 MHz frequency separation between its
transmit and receive frequencies) for co-site situations can be as
great as 25 MHz. The Marine Corps routinely co-locates multiple radios
in all large-scale exercises and training scenarios which are conducted
frequently. A single node terminating just two links may require
slightly more than 88 MHz of spectrum, so therefore, limiting our use
to the 1770-1850 MHz (aggregate of 80 MHz) band cannot accommodate our
communication requirements.
Question 14. DoD uses spectrum in the 1710-1770 MHz band, at least
in part, for Precision Guided Munitions. Here in the U.S., training
with Precision Guided Munitions relies on spectrum in this band. I
understand that the DoD has deployed these systems not only here in the
U.S., but in many locations around the world--including areas of
Europe. In Europe, I understand that there is already extensive use of
the 1710-1770 MHz band for commercial wireless operations.
What can you tell us about how the DoD handles the potential for
interference into precision guided munitions operations overseas? If
DoD's precision guided munitions system affected by wireless systems in
other countries can work around European commercial traffic--can DoD do
the same here in the U.S.?
Answer. To the best of our knowledge Air Force and Navy units in
Europe have not reported any interference problems from wireless
systems. In addition, Air Force units in Europe report that they do not
employ any specific or general interference work-arounds.
The U.S. European Command has negotiated frequency usage agreements
through NATO and bilateral agreements for frequency use in each
European nation. DoD PGM use in peacetime in Europe is limited to
training scenarios but that training is significantly limited to
prevent interference to the wireless systems. The overwhelming majority
of proficiency training and exercise missions--for both U.S. and Allied
forces--occur here in the U.S. because of the access to the air ranges
and the frequency band, so the potential for interference from wireless
systems here in the U.S. to affect our armed forces is much greater
here than overseas. Also, live firing of PGMs, essential to U.S. and
Allied combat crew performance, is only done in the U.S.
Question 15. If DoD's Precision Guided Munitions could be
interfered with by commercial cell phones--is this a potential
vulnerability overseas?
Answer. PGM data link system vulnerabilities are classified and can
be made available where appropriate. However, one should note that the
same potential vulnerabilities would apply, regardless of where the PGM
data links are employed. Additionally, the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) study released to the public
described generalized training impacts to PGMs.
Question 16. I also want to understand the specific nature of
potential interference issues. Is it the case that commercial cell
phones would interfere with Precision Guided Munitions? Or is it that
Precision Guided Munitions might interfere with commercial cellphones?
Does DoD `s systems or the commercial wireless systems bear the burden
of not interfering?
Answer. The PGMs currently in question (AGM-130 and E/GBU-15) use
two simultaneous frequencies for command and video transmission
respectively. Without delving into system specifics, we can say that
one channel is susceptible to interference and the other is likely to
cause interference. In most cases PGM data link systems would overpower
commercial systems. The burden in the United States for not interfering
depends upon the details of how the spectrum is allocated. For example,
if the 1755--1850 MHz band remains allocated on an exclusive basis to
the Federal Government, then the question is moot. If the U.S.
reallocates the spectrum to the nonfederal sector on an exclusive
basis, then any Federal use would be on--at best--a noninterference
basis to any civil systems.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye
to Steven Price
Question 1. If DoD is required to share or vacate some portion of
the 1710-1770 MHz band so that it can be used for third generation
wireless service, to what spectrum would DoD be able to relocate? How
much would such a move cost DoD?
Answer. Current law provides that comparable spectrum must be
identified in order to insure that there is no ``net loss'' of
capability to DoD. DoD has always stated that it would analyze any
comparable spectrum that could be used if required to move. To this
date no comparable spectrum has been identified by NTIA to which DoD
could move. Without knowledge of to what band DoD might be asked to
move it is not possible to provide a cost estimate for moving.
Question 2. The President's FY2003 Budget calls for a new process,
a ``Spectrum Relocation Fund, ``for reimbursing government users for
costs incurred when they are required to relocate to different spectrum
blocks.
``The Administration will propose legislation to streamline the
current process for reimbursing Federal agencies that must relocate
from Federal spectrum which has been reallocated for auction to
commercial users. Under current law, winning bidders must negotiate
with Federal entities upon the close of an auction and reimburse the
agencies directly for their relocation costs. The Administration,
proposes to streamline this process by creating a central spectrum
relocation fund. Auction receipts sufficient to cover agencies'
relocation costs would be paid into the fund, and Federal agencies
would be reimbursed for their relocation costs out of the fund.''
Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, Page 241.
The Administration has not yet submitted language to Congress.
Do you have any specific concerns about how such a Fund to
reimburse government users for relocation costs might work?
Answer. We are working closely with the Office of Management and
Budget, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
and other interested federal agencies put forward an Administration
proposal that streamlines the reimbursement process in a manner that
both benefits successful auction bidders and incumbent spectrum users
that are required to relocate and ensures the continued, seamless
operational transition of federal systems to new spectrum. The
principal of cost reimbursement should be to fully reimburse the
incumbent for all actual costs--direct and indirect--associated with
moving to new spectrum. The reimbursement should include all costs,
including for example training and testing of new systems and the cost
of calculating all the expenses required in such a move. We believe
that any proposal must provide both additional certainty as to
reimbursement costs to successful bidders and assurance that relocating
federal government incumbents are made whole (in terms of costs of
relocation and maintaining operational capacities). We also believe it
is vital to ensure that federal system operators have first priority in
reimbursement from the fund, before additional monies are diverted for
other public policy needs.
Question 3. Do you believe that the proposal to use auction
proceeds to reimburse government users as outlined in President Bush's
budget would make the spectrum management process more effective and
more efficient?
Answer. Use of auction proceeds to reimburse federal government
users in itself does not make the spectrum management process more
effective or more efficient. Rather, spectrum is a national asset that
must be used to, among other purposes, carry out national security,
public safety, law enforcement and other critical public services. Cost
reimbursement can help to ensure that changes in federal spectrum
allocations do not adversely impact these critical public services and
that the broad based costs of changing spectrum uses are appropriately
taken into account when such decisions are made. However, we should
resist the temptation to view a reimbursement trust fund as a panacea
for dealing with complex spectrum policy issues, which include
maintaining sufficient spectrum access for critical public services and
national security. Indeed, any mechanism which appears to make
relocation easier, but which does not address key issues of comparable
spectrum and preventing the loss of critical government capabilities
may, in fact, harm the national interest.
Question 4. There is some discussion that the Relocation Fund could
be established as a trust fund. However, monies in Trust Funds are
sometimes used for other budgetary purposes. How can legislators ensure
that monies will be available for government users to address their
relocation costs since in some instances it could take years for
government a user to complete its relocation?
Answer. We look forward to working with the Congress and with the
Office of Management and Budget and other parts of the Executive branch
to craft legislation and appropriate Executive branch implementation
procedures that ensure that federal government entities are provided
with all funds necessary to successfully relocate when spectrum is to
be made available through auction to commercial users. As the question
implies, it is DoD's view that a trust fund should be trustworthy (i.e.
a fund that the incumbent spectrum user can rely on for full
reimbursement of all costs associated with relocation). Government
users should have top priority to receive sufficient funding to ensure
their successful relocation without the loss of crucial national
security and public safety capabilities.
Question 5. Do you have any concerns about coordinating a U.S.
position for the World Radio Conference? What can be done to address
these concerns?
Answer. As with U.S. preparation for past WRC and WARC conferences,
there is a role for all stakeholders in the spectrum allocation
process, including government agencies that rely on spectrum resources,
as well as the U.S. telecommunications industry, which also relies on
the WRC process, in part, for its growth and profitability. In an era
in which the demand for spectrum is extremely high, all stakeholders
must realize that the U.S. position going into a WRC will be based upon
the needs and views of government and commercial users alike. As in the
past, the current WRC preparation process is proceeding upon this basic
understanding, which is the foundation for any consistent approach to
developing a national position. We are confident that the country will
be well represented by its delegation to the next WRC, and look forward
to continuing to work with the State Department, the NTIA, the FCC and
our colleagues in the U.S. telecommunications industry to make sure
that diverse and important U.S. interests are wellserved.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Max Cleland
to Nancy J. Victory
Question 1. Do you believe there currently exists a non-partisan
person or group who can objectively review spectrum recommendations and
uses? If not, do you believe such a person or group would be helpful?
Answer. Both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) are
charged with managing the nation's radio spectrum resources in the
public interest and perform their respective responsibilities in a
cooperative manner to ensure that the spectrum is used for its highest
and best purpose whether by the Federal agencies or private sector
users. The NTIA Organization Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 901(c)(4))
specifically charges NTIA with fostering full and efficient use of
telecommunications resources, including effective use of the radio
spectrum by the Federal Government, in a manner that encourages the
most beneficial use of such resources in the public interest. In
performing its spectrum management responsibilities on the President's
behalf, NTIA is always mindful that the spectrum policy decisions it
makes must be consistent with both the national security and economic
security of the nation and understands the importance of balancing both
commercial and Government perspectives for better policy outcomes.
Since most use of the radio spectrum is shared between Government
and non-government users, NTIA and the FCC work together to ensure that
the needs of all constituents are met. I do not believe that an outside
entity capable of reviewing these decisions currently exists or that
the addition of one to the spectrum management process would result in
better or more timely decisions.
Question 2. Do you believe this country has in place an efficient
spectrum use plan? Why or why not?
Answer. Efficiency in spectrum use is a continuing challenge.
Spectrum management continually needs to be adapted to meet changing
needs and new technologies. Greater spectrum efficiency should be a
goal common to all users of the radio spectrum and this is an area of
continuing examination for both the FCC and NTIA. As manager of the
Federal Government's use of the radio spectrum, NTIA continues to
encourage Federal agencies to deploy the most spectrum-efficient
technology to meet their missions. At the same time, efficiency is but
one factor NTIA considers when making decisions involving the
specialized and critical missions that many Federal agencies perform,
including national security, law enforcement and public safety. Others
include the economic costs and the degree to which the mission
requirements can be met. New technologies, including software defined
radios and dynamic frequency selection, hold great promise for
significant future advances in spectrum utilization by the Federal
Government, and ultimately through technology transfer, by the private
sector. NTIA also advocates adoption by the FCC of policies that
promote spectrum-efficient use by the private sector, including
secondary markets and accommodation of ultrawideband systems.
Question 3. How long do you think it would take to do a
comprehensive examination of our domestic spectrum plan?
Answer. The National Table of Allocations, which represents the
United States's spectrum plan, is comprised of over 40 radio services
spread out over 900 frequency bands. A comprehensive re-examination of
all of these services and bands would be a time-consuming and resource-
intensive undertaking. This task would be complicated by the fact that
a number of our domestic spectrum allocations are the subject of
international agreement and harmonization (e.g., frequencies used
internationally for commercial aviation and space communication).
Moreover, the rapid advances of technology often completely change the
relative requirements of the services studied during the course of
their study.
The FCC and NTIA, therefore, currently conduct examinations of
those services and bands as circumstances dictate, usually in areas of
congestion or where growth is expected, or to accommodate a new
technology or service. NTIA has examined various aspects of the Federal
Government's ability to meet its spectrum requirements, including the
use of radars, land mobile radio, and fixed microwave systems. These
studies generally focus on the identification of current or foreseeable
problems (such as congestion), future spectrum demands for these
services, and spectrum efficiency policy initiatives.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings
to Nancy J. Victory
Question 1. Last year, NTIA concluded that it would be difficult
for DoD to share the entire 1710-1850 MHz band and is now focusing its
efforts to address sharing in the 1710-1770 portion of the band. Would
you both agree that the scaled-back plan means that there is less of an
impact on specific DoD systems--compared to the original plan? (For
example, three of the systems that operate in the 1710-1850 MHz band do
not operate in the 1710-1770 MHz portion of the band.) So, in general
terms, the specific DoD systems would be better accommodated by the
October 2001 NTIA plan?
Answer. I would agree that the current focus on the 1710-1770 MHz
portion of the 1710-1850 MHz band for accommodation of third generation
(3G) mobile systems is, in part, due to a recognition of the greater
impact on certain Department of Defense systems if the entire band had
remained under consideration. An interagency working group led by NTIA
and the FCC is currently completing a viability assessment of the 1710-
1770 MHz portion of the band for 3G use in the United States, which,
upon completion, will provide a clearer picture of the impact on the
Department of Defense.
Question 2. What if any spectrum below 3 GHz that can be made
available for DoD systems if it is determined that DoD must share the
1710-1770 MHz band with commercial users, and as a result, DoD will
need additional spectrum?
Answer. NTIA has not yet identified any band of spectrum below 3
GHz to accommodate Department of Defense systems if they must be
relocated from 1710-1770 MHz band. Current efforts are focused on ways
in which the band can be shared without such relocation to other
spectrum bands. This viability assessment will be completed shortly.
Question 3. What can be done to improve the U.S. preparatory
process for reaching consensus and naming a U.S. delegation with
respect to the World Radio Conference? What can the NTIA do to improve
its participation in this process?
Answer. The keys to the United States' success at any World Radio
Conference (WRC) are coordinated efforts by U.S. Government and
industry stakeholders in the early formulation of U.S. positions and
unified and consistent advocacy of those positions in the months
preceding the conference in both governmental and industry fora. WRCs
occur on a three-year cycle. In recognition of the increasing
complexity and importance of the issues addressed in these conferences,
the U.S. Government has initiated the preparatory process much earlier
in the cycle to give the United States the ability to formulate its
positions and to obtain domestic consensus. For example, preparations
started for WRC 2003 almost immediately after the close of the last
conference, and most of the U.S. proposals have been completed--nearly
a year early. The United States can now actively begin to promote U.S.
positions in bilateral meetings and regional fora. These regional fora
have become important venues in which the United States has been able
to persuade neighboring countries of our common interests, garner
support for U.S. proposals, and build strong coalitions.
NTIA is an active participant in all areas of WRC preparation,
focusing principally on those issues on which NTIA has particular
expertise. To promote the improved spectrum management process for this
country, including WRC preparations, NTIA, the FCC and the Department
of State, have established a ``One Team'' spectrum management approach.
Specifically, we have taken the steps to improve our interagency
communications and to coordinate our international outreach efforts.
Question 4. What do you consider the critical items for the US
Government to support on behalf of US commercial industry at WRC-03 and
why?
Answer. NTIA will support all U.S. proposals to WRC-2003 as key
members of the U.S. delegation. There are a number of issues that
appear to be particularly important to certain segments of the U.S.
industry, including, but not limited to, identification of frequency
bands within the fixed satellite service to permit the ubiquitous
deployment of future high density satellite earth stations;
authorization of satellite communications within the 14 GHz band to
permit Internet connectivity aboard commercial aircraft; the resolution
of certain issues affecting the Global Positioning System (GPS); and
accommodation of radio local area networks in the 5 GHz band.
Question 5. What are you and your colleagues in Government doing to
ensure U.S. commercial interests are advanced at WRC-03?
Answer. Government members of the U.S. delegation, including NTIA
representatives, actively advocate U.S. positions at the WRC, including
those of particular interest to U.S. commercial stakeholders. This
advocacy includes garnering support for these positions in all
bilateral meetings and regional fora in the months leading up to the
WRC. It also includes advancing these positions through the Committee
meetings and plenary sessions of the conferences themselves.
Question 6. GAO noted that some federal agencies were unable to
complete the required spectrum management reviews because of staffing
and resource shortages. How serious is this staffing problem at NTIA
and other federal agencies? What can Congress do to address this issue?
Answer. NTIA can verify that several Federal agencies have not
completed five-year reviews of their frequency assignments; however, we
cannot independently verify whether Federal agencies with whom GAO
spoke have experienced staffing or resource shortages that have
prevented them from conducting these reviews. With respect to
additional spectrum management resources for NTIA, the President's
Budget for Fiscal Year 2003 contains an initiative that would provide
funding to permit NTIA to review and improve its overall performance of
spectrum management duties.
Question 7. I understand that spectrum below 3 GHz is congested in
part because it has certain characteristics that are useful in a mobile
environment. Are there any incentives that Congress should be
contemplating that would encourage the development of technology that
makes better use of spectrum above 3 GHz and more efficient use of
spectrum below 3 GHz?
Answer. The spectrum below 3 GHz does have favorable propagation
characteristics for a variety of commercial, private sector and
governmental uses. One of our top priorities at NTIA is to work with
the FCC to examine policies to alleviate the current congestion below 3
GHz. Over 93 percent of all FCC licenses and Federal Government
frequency assignments are in the 0 to 3 GHz range. Among other things,
spectrum managers should be examining ways to encourage migration to
higher frequency bands as the technology permits. Such policies should
include clear incentives for relocation to higher bands, where
possible.
In 1998, Congress enacted such a tool to permit Federal agencies to
be reimbursed by the private sector for the costs associated with
relocating from certain frequencies bands below 3 GHz, as well as any
future reallocation of spectrum from the Federal Government to private
sector users. Working with the FCC and the Federal agencies, NTIA has
finalized these rules, which were published in the Federal Register on
June 17, 2002. Moreover, the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2003
contained a legislative proposal to streamline this reimbursement
process by creating a fund from spectrum auction proceeds to reimburse
the affected Federal agencies. The Department of Commerce expects to
transmit this proposal to Congress this summer.
The President has also proposed broadening and making permanent the
research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit. The R&E tax credit could
encourage private sector investment in research on advanced
technologies that would provide greater spectrum efficiency or allow
all spectrum users to utilize frequencies in the higher, less congested
spectrum bands.
Question 8. If DoD is able to share the 1710-1770 MHz band with 3G
service, what would be the estimated cost of modifying or relocating
DoD's operations in order to accommodate 3G service? How long would it
take for DoD to modify or relocate its operations?
Answer. There is no current estimate of the modification or
relocation costs for Department of Defense systems if they shared the
1710-1770 MHz band with 3G mobile systems. NTIA, in coordination with
the Department of Defense and industry, is analyzing the sharing
potential with Department of Defense systems that operate in the band.
The costs for such sharing could vary depending on which systems would
have to be modified or relocated and the spectrum to which such systems
would be relocated.
The time required for modifying or relocating Department of Defense
systems depends on the specific systems that must be moved or modified.
Earlier 3G studies estimated that any satellite system relocations
would take the longest time, since satellites would operate until their
end-of-life or as late as 2017. The estimates indicated that
conventional fixed systems can be moved within two to four years and
other systems within two to five years.
Question 9. There were seven basic categories of military systems
that were being studied by NTIA, FCC and DoD in the entire 1710-1850
MHz band. Those systems are: Air Combat Training; Land Warrior; Combat
Identification for the Dismounted Soldier; Satellite; Conventional
Fixed Microwave; Tactical Radio Relay; and Precision Guided Munitions.
However, NTIA and DoD are currently exploring the option of using the
1710-1770 MHz band for 3G service.
I understand that three of these systems Air Combat Training; Land
Warrior; and Combat Identification for the Dismounted Soldier do not
use spectrum in the 171 0-1770 bands. Is it correct to assume that
since there is no overlap for these three systems, there is no
potential for harmful interference into these systems from the 3G
service operating in the 1710-1770 MHz band?
Answer. Unfortunately, these assumptions are not correct. The Air
Combat Training systems air-to-ground air frequencies are above 1770
MHz, but the ground-to-ground links that transfer the aircraft data to
and from the Master Station use frequencies below 1770 MHz. However,
these ground links could be relocated to other federal frequency bands
if necessary.
The Land Warrior system uses frequencies between 1772 MHz and 1822
MHz with a bandwidth of 20 MHz. This means that the lowest channel of
Land Warrior uses spectrum from 1762 MHz to 1782 MHz, with a center
frequency of 1772 MHz. The second channel also overlaps the 1755-1770
MHz band, so reallocation of the 1755-1770 MHz band would mean the loss
of two of the 11 channels possible, or about 18 per cent of the
system's capability.
The Combat Identification for the Dismounted Soldier system has
been superceded by the Individual Combat Identification System (ICIDS).
ICIDS operates in the 1755-1850 MHz band. The reallocation of the 1755-
1770 MHz band would mean the loss of 150 channels out of a possible 950
channels, or about 16 per cent of the system's capability.
Question 10. Satellite systems are one of the seven major DoD
systems in the 1710-1770 MHz band. To be specific, I understand that
the satellite systems at issue is the Satellite Control Stations--the
satellite up-link for Tracking Telemetry & Control (TT&C). These
satellite stations operate between 1761-1842 MHz. So, under the current
NTIA proposal, commercial carriers and DoD would use the 1761-1770 MHz
band at the same time.
I understand that under NTIA's current proposal, the only
commercial use permitted in the 171 0-1770 MHz would be relatively low-
powered cell phones and not the higher-powered cellular towers. Is that
the case?
Answer. NTIA has not made a specific proposal regarding 3G
accommodation. NTIA has examined several options for the accommodation
of 3 G services in the 1710-1850 MHz band. All these options have been
analyzed under the assumption that the mobile component of the 3G
system (e.g., the low-powered, hand-held phone) would transmit in the
lower part of the band, including 1710-1770 MHz, and the 3G base
stations would transmit in the higher part of the band (above 2110MHz).
Question 11. With respect to the operation of DoD satellite systems
in the 1755-1770 MHz portion of the band, NTIA in its Final Report at
October of 2001 recognized the ``. . . the potential interference is
within the range of prudent risk management.'' As a result, the
commercial mobile systems operating at 1710-1 770 MHz will have no
adverse impact on the military satellite systems. However, there could
be interference from the satellite systems into the commercial mobile
systems.
Is this correct? Given that NTIA has concluded that potential
interference into DoD's satellite operations in the 1755-1770 MHz
portion of the band is within range of prudent risk management, is it
correct that commercial cell phones would not interfere with DoD
satellite systems--but, that DoD satellite systems could interfere with
commercial cell phones that might be near a satellite base station?
Answer. The conclusion that interference would be ``within the
range of prudent risk management'' does not mean that NTIA has
concluded that there would be no interference to Department of Defense
satellites. It means that NTIA believes that the interference could be
managed to an acceptable level, though NTIA is not an expert source on
Department of Defense mission analysis. Since the release of NTIA's
March 2001 report, industry has increased its estimate of the number of
hand-held phones that may be operating. In this regard, potential
interference to Department of Defense satellites may need to be re-
analyzed using new data.
The major source of potential interference between the two systems
would be from Federal ground-based satellite control stations into 3G
base stations. These 3G base stations receive on the frequency on which
the hand-held phones transmit. The high-power satellite control
stations could cause interference up to 300 kilometers, in a worst-case
situation. Terrain shielding between the base station and the satellite
control station, and the fact that the satellite control station
antennas move when tracking the satellites, serve to mitigate the
interference.
Question 12. In this situation would commercial systems have the
burden of not interfering with DoD satellite systems and are there
mitigation techniques that can be used to protect DoD satellite
operations?
Answer. New entrants into a frequency band generally have the
burden of protecting the incumbent users. In this case, 3G operators
would have to protect Department of Defense operations. Among other
problems, the Department of Defense satellites have a wide view of the
Earth and will receive signals from a large number of hand-held phones
in the United States. Shielding is not an option since the phones must
be in sight of a cell base station tower. Moreover, Department of
Defense requirements will likely increase over time requiring greater
protection and accommodation by 3G operators. The concern is how to
address this issue if harmful interference is caused to Department of
Defense satellites. Possible mitigation techniques would be to limit
the number of mobile phones transmitting simultaneously on satellite
channels, and by using smaller cell sizes so the power transmitted from
the mobile phones would be lower.
Question 13. DoD's Fixed Microwave Systems operate throughout the
1710-1770 MHz band and would need to be moved to other spectrum before
commercial systems could use the spectrum. I understand that the DoD in
its February 2001 Report on the original NTIA spectrum plan indicated
that alternative, comparable spectrum is available for the Fixed
Microwave Systems:
``A significant amount of frequency spectrum is already allocated
to the Government on an exclusive basis for Fixed Service operations in
higher frequency ranges. The 4400 to 4990 MHz and 7125 to 85 MHz bands
are already employed by the DoD for fixed point-to-point microwave
communications.'' DoD IMT 2000 Assessment, Appendix E, Page 9
Do you agree with the finding that there is comparable spectrum
available for these systems?
Answer. NTIA agrees that there is alternative spectrum available to
relocate the Government's conventional fixed microwave systems now
located in the 1710-1770 MHz band, including Department of Defense
links. As the Department of Defense notes in its IMT 2000 Assessment,
it already operates fixed point-to-point microwave systems in other
Government exclusive bands.
Question 14. If there is comparable spectrum available, what would
DoD need in order to relocate these operations, what would be the cost
to relocate these operations, and how much time would it take for such
relocations?
Answer. Like all Federal agencies that would be required to
relocate fixed microwave operations from the band, the Department of
Defense would need adequate resources to cover the costs of such
relocation. Implementing current law, NTIA recently issued rules that
would require new licensees to compensate federal agencies that
relocate their operations to make frequency spectrum available for
commercial use. See 67 Fed. Reg. 41182 (June 17, 2002). The President's
Budget for Fiscal Year 2003 contained a legislative proposal to
streamline this reimbursement process by creating a fund from spectrum
auction proceeds to reimburse the affected Federal agencies.
NTIA has estimated that the average cost of relocating a
conventional fixed microwave system would be approximately $350,000 per
frequency assignment. The Department of Defense currently has 289 such
for a total of approximately $101 million in relocation costs. The time
for relocation, from reimbursement, is estimated to be from two to four
years.
Question 15. Is it true that many of these systems are in very
remote areas of our nation, which might facilitate a phased approach to
re-location?
Answer. For Department of Defense systems, many of the fixed links
are in rural or remote areas. There may be merit to a priority list of
links to be relocated, but the interdependence of links within a system
must be established before any phased approach is planned. The
integrity of systems must be maintained at all times.
Question 16. Another of the seven DoD systems is referred to as
``Tactical Radio Relay'' wireless communications system that can be set
up for a battlefield to provide vital communications. I understand that
these radios can be ``tuned'' to different spectrum frequencies--
allowing them to be used throughout the 1710-1850 MHz band. In other
words, the DoD could use these radios in spectrum between 1770 and 1850
MHz, without interfering with commercial use in 1710-1770 MHz (as
contemplated by the October 2001 NTIA plan). Is this correct? If it is
correct, what would be the cost of retuning these radios and how long
would it take to retune the radios?
Answer. The Tactical Radio Relay system (TRR) tunes from 1350 MHz
to 1850 MHz in 125 kHz steps. TRRs could technically be retuned to
avoid channels between 1710 MHz and 1770 MHz. However, this would
reduce the number of available channels by approximately 500 channels
and could affect the usefulness of the TRR system for military training
operations.
Question 17. DoD uses spectrum in the 171 0-1770 MHz band, at least
in part, for Precision Guided Munitions. Here in the U.S., training
with Precision Guided Munitions relies on spectrum in this band. I
understand that the DoD has deployed these systems not only here in the
U.S., but in many locations around the world--including areas of
Europe. In Europe, I understand that there is already extensive use of
the 1710-1770 MHz band for commercial wireless operations.
What can you tell us about how the DoD handles the potential for
interference into precision guided munitions operations overseas? If
DoD's precision guided munitions system affected by wireless systems in
other countries can work around European commercial traffic--can DoD do
the same here in the U.S.?
Answer. NTIA is not qualified to completely answer questions on
this subject, and much of the technical and operational information
regarding Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) is classified. It is our
understanding that PGM training is conducted primarily in the United
States. Air units deployed overseas using PGMs use them operationally.
PGMs have been used in the Persian Gulf war, in the Balkans, and in
Afghanistan. In an operational situation, some interference can be
expected, and could reduce the efficiency of the munition.
Question 18. If DoD's Precision Guided Munitions could be
interfered with by commercial cell phones--is this a potential
vulnerability overseas?
Answer. NTIA is not qualified to answer questions related to
Department of Defense weapons vulnerability.
Question 19. I also want to understand the specific nature of
potential interference issues. Is it the case that commercial cell
phones would interfere with Precision Guided Munitions? Or is it that
Precision Guided Munitions might interfere with commercial cell phones?
Is it DoD systems or the commercial wireless systems that bear the
burden or not interfering?
Answer. As I understand it, there is a slight potential for 3G
mobile hand-held phones to interfere with PGMs, but the main
interference problems would arise from PGMs into receiving 3G base
stations. Commercial operators would have to accept any harmful
interference to their operation of 3G systems caused by Department of
Defense operations of PGMs in the authorized protected sites and would
also be required to protect such Department of Defense operations from
interference.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye
to Nancy J. Victory
Question 1. What can be done to improve the current coordination
process between the FCC and NTIA and more effectively allocate spectrum
and better balance the needs of commercial and government users?
Answer. In early April, NTIA and the FCC co-hosted a Spectrum
Summit to focus on these issues. At the Summit, we elicited the views
of expert panelists from industry, government, and academia on the
spectrum management process and how it can be improved to serve all
stakeholders and users. Among the major problems identified were: gaps
in governmental coordination between NTIA, the FCC, and the State
Department; the length and complexity of the allocation process;
inefficient uses of spectrum and the absence of efficiency-stimulating
incentives; challenges making ``room'' or ``homes'' for new services
and technologies; and lack of clarity about spectrum rights and the
federal spectrum management process.
The U.S. Government agencies involved in spectrum management must
work together collaboratively as ``One Spectrum Team'' to serve our
Nation's collective interests. FCC Chairman Michael Powell and I have
established a ``One Team'' spectrum management approach where we will
be meeting on a regular basis to discuss various spectrum issues
including spectrum planning. This approach is an effort to improve our
interagency communications and to take a more forward-looking approach
to accommodate advances in technology. These improvements will enable
our agencies to be more ``proactive'' and ``predictive'' in spectrum
management.
The FCC has created a special Task Force on spectrum management and
one of the major themes of the effort is spectrum efficiency. NTIA
plans to support the FCC's Task Force and work closely with the FCC to
address the issues of efficiency. NTIA also plans to meet with the FCC
to see what improvements can be made in the coordination of various
rule-makings, the assignment/licensing process, the preparation to
radio conferences, and long range planning. Finally, the President's
Budget for Fiscal Year 2003 contained an initiative to review the
entire spectrum management process and implement such reforms that
would make the spectrum management processes more effective and the use
of spectrum more efficient.
Question 2. The FCC is examining whether the 2110-2170 MHz band can
be used for third generation wireless service. Do you know of any
difficulties that may exist in allowing 3G providers to use in this
band?
Answer. There are over 6,900 licenses in the 2110-2170 MHz band,
including common carrier, radiotelephone, local television
transmission, and paging services. The FCC has indicated that these
stations will need to be relocated into other spectrum. The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) also operates a deep-space
facility at Goldstone, California that transmits high power signals to
space probes in the 2110-2120 MHz portion of the band. Interference to
hand-held mobile 3G phones is possible within approximately 200 km of
the NASA facility.
Question 3. If DoD is required to share or vacate some portion of
the 1710-1770 MHz band so that it can be used for third generation
wireless service, to what spectrum would DoD be able to relocate? How
much would such a move cost DoD?
Answer. If Department of Defense systems are able to share the band
with 3G systems, the cost to the Department of Defense should be
minimal and relocation would be unnecessary. However, if the Department
of Defense systems cannot share with 3G systems and must be relocated
to other spectrum, NTIA has not yet identified such spectrum. For the
most part, conventional fixed systems could be relocated to alternate
federal spectrum, but spectrum has not yet been identified for systems
such as tactical radio relay, air combat training systems, precision
guided munitions, satellite control stations, Land Warrior, and the
Individual Combat Identification System. Pending the identification of
such spectrum, NTIA cannot provide cost estimates. The costs of
designing and implementing new systems have many factors, one of which
is the operating frequency that affects the costs of components, the
power required to achieve the required range, and the antenna size.
Question 4. The President's FY 2003 Budget calls for a new process,
a ``Spectrum Relocation Fund,'' for reimbursing government users for
costs incurred when they are required to relocate to different spectrum
blocks.
``The Administration will propose legislation to streamline the
current process for reimbursing Federal agencies that must relocate
from Federal spectrum which has been reallocated for auction to
commercial users. Under current law, winning bidders must negotiate
with Federal entities upon the close of an auction and reimburse the
agencies directly for their relocation costs. The Administration
proposes to streamline this process by creating a central spectrum
relocation fund. Auction receipts sufficient to cover agencies'
relocation costs would be paid into the fund, and Federal agencies
would be reimbursed for their relocation costs out of the fund.''
Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, Page 241.
The Administration has not yet submitted language to Congress.
How would such a Fund be structured? Do you have any concerns about
how such a Fund to reimburse government users for relocation costs
might be structured?
Answer. Under current law, Federal agencies that must relocate
their radio communications operations from certain bands of Government
spectrum that have been reallocated to private sector uses are entitled
to reimbursement from the private sector entities that obtain licenses
to use the spectrum through an FCC auction. Each FCC licensee is
required to negotiate with each affected Federal agency in their new
license area upon the close of an auction and pay the agencies directly
for their relocation costs. Current law, however, provides that such
payments are subject to further authorization or appropriations, and
thus, Federal agencies would be unable to expend these payments without
additional Congressional action.
The proposed Spectrum Relocation Fund would replace this
potentially complex series of negotiations and payments between Federal
agencies and licensees with a centrally managed account from which the
Federal agencies' relocation costs will be paid. The fund will be
managed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and funded by
receipts from the auction of the reallocated Government spectrum. The
Administration anticipates that the internal Executive Branch processes
for this Fund would be similar to the processes used to administer the
Y2K and Emergency Response Funds, also centrally managed by 0MB. The
President's proposal also would provide Federal agencies with mandatory
spending authority (often also called ``direct spending authority'') to
expend these funds without requiring further Congressional action. The
proposal would also make the funds available until expended.
Question 5. Do you believe that the proposal to use auction
proceeds to reimburse government users as outlined in President Bush's
budget would make the spectrum management process more effective and
more efficient?
Answer. By replacing the time-consuming and potentially complex and
costly negotiations between Federal agencies and FCC licensees with a
centrally managed relocation fund, the proposal will benefit Federal
agencies by providing greater certainty in recovering the costs of
relocations; the private sector by ensuring more timely access to the
reallocated spectrum and greater certainty about the ultimate price of
spectrum licenses obtained at auction; and consumers by providing
opportunities for new communications services to the public. By
significantly streamlining the reimbursement process, the President's
proposal will make the spectrum management process more effective and
efficient.
Question 6. There is some discussion that the Relocation Fund could
be established as a trust fund. However, monies in Trust Funds are
sometimes used for other budgetary purposes. How can legislators ensure
that monies will be available for government users to address their
relocation costs since in some instances it could take years for
government a user to complete its relocation?
Answer. The Administration does not propose to set up the Spectrum
Relocation Fund as a trust fund. Rather, the Spectrum Relocation Fund
will be a special fund set up for the specific purpose of ensuring that
Federal agencies receive payment for their relocation costs. As noted
above, the Administration intends to seek mandatory spending authority
for the payments so that once the auction receipts are deposited in the
Fund, funds would be immediately available to the Federal agencies to
relocate their operations. In addition, the Administration's proposal
would make the funds available until expended in recognition that some
relocations could take a period of time to complete.
Question 7. The United States seems to be at a disadvantage in the
World Radio Conference (WRC) process with respect to other countries
such as those in Europe. How can Congress ensure that the U.S. develops
a U.S. position as well as names its delegation in a timely manner and
prior to a WRC, thereby allowing for sufficient time to lobby other
parts of the world?
Answer. The keys to the United States' success at any World Radio
Conference (WRC) are coordinated efforts by U.S. Government and
industry stakeholders in the early formulation of U.S. positions and
unified and consistent advocacy of those positions in the months
preceding the conference in both governmental and industry fora. WRCs
occur on a three-year cycle. In recognition of the increasing
complexity and importance of the issues addressed in these conferences,
the U.S. Government has initiated the preparatory process much earlier
in the cycle to give the United States the ability to formulate its
positions and to obtain domestic consensus. For example, preparations
started for WRC 2003 almost immediately after the close of the last
conference, and most of the U.S. proposals have been completed--nearly
a year early. The United States can now actively begin to promote U.S.
positions in bilateral meetings and regional fora. These regional fora
have become important venues in which the United States has been able
to persuade neighboring countries of our common interests, garner
support for U.S. proposals, and build strong coalitions.
The United States has been very successful in past WRCs and we are
optimistic that we can meet our objectives for WRC-2003. Europe does
have an advantage because European countries generally vote as a block
(45 votes for Europe versus 1 vote for the United States). On the other
hand, the United States has been successful in pursuing its objectives
by developing technically sound proposals and strongly advocating their
importance to other countries. NTIA is currently examining a wide range
of spectrum management issues under our spectrum reform effort.
Question 8. Should the ambassador to a WRC be appointed at least a
year instead of 6 months prior to the conference? Should there be a
State Department employee designated to drive consensus with respect to
the U.S. position prior to and until the ambassador is appointed?
Answer. Most countries in the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU) rely completely on career ITU technical and regulatory experts.
These people know each other and are well versed on the issues. The
United States, on the other hand, selects an ambassador specifically
for each WRC. The ambassador brings knowledge of the Administration's
policy goals, but may not know the key WRC players, details of the
issues, or have sufficient time to develop the necessary expertise. The
ambassador's six month appointment presents a tremendous challenge for
learning the issues, becoming part of the team in a preparation process
that has been underway for two and a half years, and conducting
outreach. The possibility of moving the appointment date forward should
be considered.
Given that the WRC ambassador cannot serve more than approximately
6 months without Senate confirmation, the State Department could
designate an employee to serve as interim WRC delegation head starting
about 15 months prior to the WRC being held. The purpose of such an
appointment would be to begin to facilitate formal outreach efforts and
promulgate U.S. views and proposals. This would also allow
administrative planning for the conference to begin in a timely manner.
The interim head of delegation would also be in a good position to
bring the appointed Ambassador rapidly ``up to speed'' on the issues.
Nonetheless, the U.S. preparatory processes within the FCC and NTIA and
reconciliation of their views and proposals proceeds separately from
the appointment of the ambassador.
Question 9. Should the State Department be required to establish a
timetable for resolving issues, establishing consensus and lobbying
other countries prior to WRC? If a timetable is established, what
incentives can be used to ensure that NTIA, the FCC, and industry work
to meet the timetables? Do you have any other concerns about
coordinating a U.S. position for the World Radio Conference? What can
be done to address these concerns?
Answer. While WRCs have gotten a lot more attention over the last
few years at the senior level, there is still room to improve
coordination among the State Department, NTIA, FCC and other key
agencies in promoting U.S. positions, particularly in our dealing with
other countries. Having a more clearly defined State Department focal
point earlier would be helpful. The general timetable for WRC
preparatory activities is well established based on the motivation of
federal and non-federal participants to meet regional deadlines and to
begin promoting positions. The State Department's formulation and
promotion of an agreed timetable would be helpful in bringing issues to
closure and helping all parties involved to understand the process
objectives. At the same time, some flexibility may be required to solve
particularly difficult issues. The State Department's development of a
WRC outreach plan would be a big step in gaining support. However,
outreach on WRC issues, though having political components, tends to be
highly technical and require experience in radio regulation, and cannot
be realistically covered in broad high-level bilateral discussions on
telecommunications in general. To be successful, outreach must be
focused on WRC issues specifically and include experts knowledgeable on
those issues.
Question 10. GAO has indicated that while NTIA has attempted to
promote spectrum efficiency that there is no accountability to ensure
government users are using spectrum efficiently. Also GAO found that
many federal agencies are understaffed with respect to employees who
could assist agencies to manage spectrum. The FCC has recently
indicated its need to increase its number of engineers.
Does NTIA believe that increasing engineers in federal agencies
could assist agencies in better managing spectrum as well as improving
spectrum efficiency?
Answer. At the most basic levels, Federal agencies need adequate
personnel resources with the requisite expertise (telecommunication
specialists, engineers, and computer specialists) to perform the tasks
necessary to ensure spectrum efficiency. Various members of the
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee have indicated to NTIA
spectrum management staff that the lack of resources has affected their
ability to address spectrum efficiency initiatives as well as to
perform their basic tasks of processing agency requests for frequencies
and review of spectrum management policy decisions.
Question 11. Is there anything else that can be done to increase
the level of accountability with respect to government users and
spectrum efficiency?
Answer. One mechanism NTIA uses to ensure some level of
accountability is the review process in which each Federal agency is
required to certify that the frequency they are authorized to use by
NTIA is still required and the characteristics of the system using the
spectrum are still up-to-date. Most frequency authorizations require
this review every five years. Some agencies have indicated that they
have been unable to perform this five-year review for lack of personnel
resources.
In the past, NTIA performed spectrum management surveys (as many as
four per year) in which various locations were visited where spectrum
was authorized. NTIA would audit these various Federal agencies to
determine whether the agencies were using the spectrum under the
conditions for which it was authorized. The audit was an incentive for
agencies to ensure they were using the spectrum authorized as approved
by NTIA. NTIA discontinued this practice a number of years ago because
of the lack of fiscal and staff resources to perform such audits.
To increase the level of accountability for spectrum usage within
the Federal agencies, NTIA also imposes fees to recover a portion of
the costs of its spectrum management responsibilities. These fees are
assessed on the basis of the percentage of spectrum utilized by the
Federal agencies. Along with adoption of various spectrum efficiency
initiatives (e.g., narrowbanding for land mobile radio services), this
fee system has reduced the number of Federal assignments over the last
5 years by approximately seven percent. NTIA has also developed a new
computer software program that the Federal agencies can use to prepare
frequency assignment requests that comply with spectrum management
rules and regulations and ensure interference-free operations with
others in the environment. This capability is continually being revised
based on feedback from the Federal agencies.
Question 12. Most government and commercial users estimate that
they will need more spectrum over the coming years as they introduce
advanced mobile services such as consumer broadband and richer
information for emergency responders. Given that the amount of spectrum
for such uses is finite, will it be possible to accommodate these
demands if spectrum efficient technologies are implemented?
Answer. NTIA anticipates increased spectrum demand for all Federal
agencies, particularly those with national security, public safety, and
law enforcement missions, in the future. NTIA believes that these
demands can only be met if new technologies are available that permit
greater spectrum efficiencies or allow Federal agencies to migrate
their operations to bands above 3 GHz to relieve some of the current
congestion. New technologies, including software defined radios and
dynamic frequency selection, hold great promise for significant future
advances in spectrum utilization by the Federal Government, and
ultimately through technology transfer, by the private sector. NTIA
also advocates adoption by the FCC of policies that promote spectrum-
efficient use by the private sector, including secondary markets and
accommodation of ultrawideband systems.
Question 13. It is possible that the government and industry are
not using spectrum--a valuable public resource--as well as we might.
For instance, in some cases, they are using technologies that are more
than 50 years old and were not designed to make efficient use of
spectrum. In other cases, spectrum has been allocated to services that
are not making extensive use of it. And, in still other cases, the
spectrum has been allocated to services that could instead operate in
other, less crowded frequency bands.
Should we consider a regulatory or legislative approach that
reviews spectrum allocations say every 25 years, reallocating spectrum
that has not been efficiently used?
Answer. Given the accelerating pace of advances in
telecommunications technologies and the increasing demand by all users
of the spectrum, a review of spectrum allocations should be conducted
more frequently than every 25 years. Conversely, too short a time frame
might tend to undermine the stability of well established
telecommunications industries. Currently, at the international level,
the International Telecommunication Union has adopted a policy of major
spectrum planning conferences every two to three years to address
specific agreed-upon topics. Domestically, reviewing spectrum
allocations is essentially a continuous, on-going process through the
FCC's rulemaking proceedings and parallel activities within NTIA. In
these proceedings, current and projected spectrum needs are addressed
as they are defined with appropriate spectrum review and allocation
being effected as required. NTIA has for many years undertaken detailed
reviews (called Spectrum Resource Assessments) of selected frequency
bands to characterize the current and projected use of the identified
bands, identified spectrum sharing and interference issues, and
identified alternative spectrum management approaches. These studies
provide support for NTIA's spectrum policy actions. Since each of the
myriad telecommunications industries in the United States evolve along
unique time scales, establishing a predetermined fixed time for
reviewing and reallocating spectrum use may be counter-productive in
promoting new technologies, meeting national defense and homeland
security spectrum needs, and promoting spectrum efficiency.
Question 14. If so, is 25 years an appropriate timeframe to
determine whether to reallocate spectrum or is the element of risk that
this introduces too great for the spectrum users, whether in the
government or private industry, to bear?
Answer. As noted above, a 25-year time frame is not appropriate
given the accelerated pace of advances in telecommunications
technologies.
Question 15. Would such a requirement stifle innovation and the
deployment of services, etc.? If not, what mechanisms would you suggest
we employ to update spectrum allocations over time? Would we need to
employ a different approach to promote spectrum efficient use among
government users?
Answer. Undertaking a major spectrum review and reallocation at
predetermined fixed intervals might well stifle innovation and
deployment of services. Telecommunications advances do not follow
predetermined schedules. As discussed above, the process to update
spectrum allocations over time is an on-going process through the FCC
rulemaking proceedings and the spectrum management activities at NTIA.
Conducting more focused periodic reviews by both NTIA and FCC on
selected bands or services of interest in a manner similar to NTIA's
Spectrum Resource Assessments would be a positive step forward.
Question 16. Is there a quantitative mechanism to measure the
efficiency with which spectrum is used such as the number of
subscribers served per MHz of spectrum used? Should there be a
different definition of efficiency for each general type of service,
for example paging versus PCS voice services?
Answer. NTIA uses the definition of spectrum efficiency described
by the ITU, namely the ratio of the communications achieved to the
spectrum space used. In practice, this definition has value when
applied to many types of commercial communications systems such as
cellular/wireless systems, pagers, fixed microwave, and some
communications satellite systems. For each of these systems, the
specific technical equations may take a different form. For example,
for wireless systems, spectrum efficiency might be measured in terms of
subscribers served per MHz of spectrum used per square kilometer of
service area. However, many or most of the systems used by the Federal
government do not fall within the scope of this type of measure of
spectrum efficiency. These systems include, for example, radars,
navigation, military tactical, and scientific systems. To date, no
effective measure for spectrum efficiency has been identified for the
latter types of systems.
Question 17. What incentives or disincentives should be put in
place to encourage the efficient use of spectrum? Should there be
spectrum efficiency measurements and standards that progressively
increase over time?
Answer. A number of incentives have been established by both NTIA
and the FCC, and are currently in place to encourage the efficient use
of spectrum. The incentives adopted and/or planned by NTIA take a wide
variety of forms including, (1) requirements to use only as much
transmitter power as necessary to ensure a satisfactory service; (2)
assigning new users to the most heavily used channel first before
resorting to those less heavily used, in order to minimize the total
spectrum space used; (3) charging an annual fee to recover costs of
NTIA spectrum management services based on Federal frequency
assignments, which has encouraged the release of underused or unused
frequencies; (4) requiring that use of the radio spectrum by Federal
agencies be justified for reasons such as specific Presidential,
legislative, or international commitments; (5) mandating that federal
agencies adopt narrowband technology for land mobile communications,
releasing channels for future Federal growth; (6) adopting effective
receiver performance standards for Federal radiocommunications
equipment, and advocating greater use of receiver standards, in
general, to reduce interference and allow tighter ``packing'' of
frequency assignments; (7) promoting and conducting research into new
spectrum efficient technologies such as software defined radios; (8)
promoting the continued transition to more spectrum-efficient digital
techniques; (9) adopting stringent emission standards for high power
systems such as radars to facilitate spectrum sharing; and (10)
promoting greater sharing among incumbent spectrum users.
While the concept of establishing spectrum efficiency standards
should be included in any assessment of most radio communications
systems, this would be but one element in a more comprehensive strategy
to improving the efficient use of the spectrum. Establishing spectrum
efficiency standards that progressively improve with time may on the
surface appear desirable, yet it may at the same time be viewed as
excessive micromanaging spectrum management. Also, technical
definitions of spectrum efficiency based on current technology may be
less valid for new emerging technologies, thus tending to stifle new
developments.