U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–051 2014

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE 5 

GHZ SPECTRUM BAND 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 13, 2013 

Serial No. 113–93 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

Ranking Member 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex officio 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 1 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Leonard Lance, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Jersey, prepared statement ................................................................................. 64 

WITNESSES

Julius Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission .......................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 66 

John Kenney, Principal Research Manager, Toyota Info Technology Center ..... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 68 

Tom Nagel, Senior Vice President, Business Development, Comcast ................. 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 70 

Bob Friday, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Cisco ........................ 42 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 74 

(1) 

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE 5 

GHZ SPECTRUM BAND 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:27 p.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Shimkus, 

Terry, Blackburn, Scalise, Lance, Guthrie, Long, Ellmers, Eshoo, 

Braley, Lujan, Dingell, Butterfield, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Ray Baum, Senior 

Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Matt Bravo, Professional Staff 

Member; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Kelsey 

Guyselman, Counsel, Telecom; Grace Koh, Counsel, Telecom; Gib 

Mullan, Chief Counsel, CMT; David Redl, Counsel, Telecom; Charlotte Savercool, Legislative Coordinator; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media 

Advisor; Roger Sherman, Democratic Chief Counsel; Shawn Chang, 

Democratic Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Margaret McCarthy, Democratic Professional Staff Member; Kara van 

Stralen, Democratic Policy Analyst; and Patrick Donovan, Democratic FCC Detailee. 

Mr. WALDEN. I am going to call to order the Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology for our hearing on ‘‘Challenges 

and Opportunities of the 5 Gigahertz Spectrum Band.’’ With unanimous consent, Mr. Waxman has to be down at the White House. 

Without objection, I would like to start and allow him to give his 

opening statement as a courtesy to the former chairman, unless 

anybody wants to object or—I didn’t think so. So we will start. I 

know it is out of protocol and all, but we actually try and get along 

here from time to time. So I would yield to Mr. Waxman and allow 

him to give his statement since he has to depart. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and Ms. 

Eshoo for your courtesy in allowing me to go forward. And I thank 

my other colleagues that are here for not objecting. I appreciate we 

are holding this hearing on the promises and challenges of freeing 

up additional spectrum in the 5 gigahertz band for next generation 

Wi-fi services. 

2 

Public Safety and Spectrum Act of 2012 contained a small but 

important revision requiring NTIA and the FCC to study and open 

up additional spectrum for unlicensed services in the 5 gigahertz 

band. Many members of this committee, including Ranking Member Eshoo and Congresswoman Matsui, worked hard to ensure this 

provision was included in the final legislation. And because of these 

efforts, superfast unlicensed services known as gigabit Wi-fi are 

closer than ever to becoming a reality. We know that unlicensed 

spectrum has been an incredible economic success story. The development of Wi-fi could not have happened without it. But as existing unlicensed bands become increasingly congested, we must open 

up additional frequencies for Wi-fi services to meet skyrocketing 

consumer demand. And the potential for delivering unprecedented 

data speed over gigabit Wi-fi networks promises to transform the 

5 gigahertz band into a test bed for breakthroughs in innovation. 

Unlicensed spectrum is essential to our Nation’s wireless 

broadband ecosystem in unlocking the potential of the 5 gigahertz 

band is critical to maintaining our global leadership in mobile 

broadband. Making more Wi-fi spectrum available does not come 

without challenges. 

As a threshold matter, we must ensure incumbent systems in the 

band, whether they are operated by federal or commercial users, 

are fully protected from harmful interference. In particular, the 

lifesaving potential of state of the art driver warning systems must 

not be undermined. We are in the early stage in opening up the 

5 gigahertz band, and I believe any process going forward must be 

fair, transparent and driven by engineering. As I stated last year, 

the Administration should continue to pursue an all of the above 

approach to make more spectrum available for commercial mobile 

broadband services. This approach includes opening up underutilized spectrum for sharing. In an increasingly crowded spectrum 

world, spectrum sharing shall be the new normal, not the exception. All stakeholders should work together to develop sound technical solutions to make this possible. 

I would like to welcome our impressive panel of experts. Mr. 

Knapp, welcome back to our committee. We have always appreciated your efforts to explain highly technical issues in language 

policymakers can understand most of the time. And I know you 

will help us again today. I look forward to hearing from all of our 

panel of experts. 

Finally, I would like to take a moment, a personal privilege to 

acknowledge Roger Sherman, as today’s hearing will be the last he 

will participate in as a member of our committee staff. Members 

of the committee know Roger not only for his deep expertise on 

telecommunications matters before this subcommittee, but also his 

wise guidance as Democratic Chief Counsel. Roger’s dedication and 

knowledge and pragmatism truly exemplify the best of public service. Fortunately, Roger will still work closely with us in his new 

role as a Wireless Bureau Chief of the Federal Communications 

Commission. In that capacity, he will play an instrumental role in 

ensuring the success of the upcoming spectrum auctions, including 

the broadcast incentive auction. This is perhaps the FCC’s most 

critical responsibility in the coming years at FCC. Chairman 

Wheeler couldn’t have picked a better person for the job. I know 

3 

others may want to comment on his leaving us as well. I hope everyone will join me in congratulating Roger on this new opportunity, and we wish him all the success. I have 39 seconds. I am 

going to yield to Ms. Eshoo. 

Ms. ESHOO. Or I will use my time when you acknowledge me. 

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. Good. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, both. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back his time. I want to join 

the gentleman in honoring Roger and thanking him for his many 

years of service here on the committee and for the people of America, and your continued service. Let the record show, I already have 

a draft letter to you in your new role. And, you know, it has a couple of minor things I am sure you can fix. But we are delighted 

that you are going to stay part of the public process. And we welcome you in your new role. We regret you leaving here, but we 

wish you God speed and great fortune and safety. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And we want your responses by 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Waxman, that would be 8:00. Yes, that is probably on time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. We will get back into regular order here, 

and I will give my opening remarks. 

The subcommittee meets today to continue our oversight of the 

FCC’s progress in implementing the spectrum provisions Congress 

passed last year as part of that Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012. While much has been made of the incentive 

auctions, and those first of their kind auctions are incredibly important, we also took concrete steps to improve access to spectrum 

for unlicensed technologies like Wi-fi in the 5 gigahertz band. 

Today, we will hear from witnesses that could give us an update 

on their progress in implementing those sections and what challenges exist to increased unlicensed use. 

Unlicensed wireless technologies have become an indispensible 

part of our information infrastructure in the United States. As a 

complement to both our residential and business wired internet 

connections, as well as a component of our mobile wireless devices, 

Wi-fi, perhaps the most prolific use of unlicensed spectrum, has 

spread from its humble origins in a technical community to near 

ubiquity. It now helps farmers in rural America allocate water and 

fertilizer to meet the exact specific needs of crops, thus increasing 

productivity and reducing costs. It has allowed business of all kinds 

to more efficiently manage inventories, distribution and manufacturing processing, thus increasing productivity. It allows consumers 

to communicate on the go and to watch the video services they 

want, where and when they want to. 

Unlicensed spectrum technologies have allowed all of us to use 

devices that have made our lives safer and more convenient, connected, informative and entertaining. It has and will continue to 

4 

help created billions of dollars of economic growth and hundreds of 

thousands of jobs across all of America. 

Spectrum provisions that were signed into law last year had 

their beginnings in this subcommittee. We instructed the NTIA and 

the FCC to begin the process of bringing additional spectrum into 

the unlicensed marketplace by first asking them to assess the feasibility of doing so without causing harmful interference to licensed 

operators already occupying the band. Just as we had a central 

focus on ensuring that broadcaster remained a viable service after 

the incentive auction, so too did we have a focus on ensuring that 

new unlicensed uses were in addition to and not interfering with 

existing licensed services. The 5 gigahertz ecosystem is teeming 

with existing uses from critical government radar systems to commercial satellites. There are a host of licensed services that are already deployed in this band. 

Today, we will also hear from one of the promising but unrealized license uses of this band, intelligent transportation systems for 

smarter, safer vehicles. However, it is important to also note that 

5 gigahertz is also currently being used for Wi-fi and other unlicensed uses. Thanks to technical rules that limit power and require 

certain mitigation technologies, these systems are currently meeting our licensed and unlicensed needs without interfering with one 

another. 

So we are looking forward to hearing from our very qualified 

panel of witnesses this afternoon on both the potential that this 

spectrum holds to fuel the next generation of unlicensed wireless 

technologies and benefits they would bring, but also the technical 

and economic challenges to making the most of this band. I think 

I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that we are excited 

to see the fruits of this subcommittee’s labor come to fruition in the 

form of faster and more abundant Wi-fi, but not at the expense of 

existing licensed services. These services can coexist. And thanks 

to the hard work of the industries and agencies represented by our 

witnesses today, we don’t have to choose between better internet 

access and safer cars. So I thank you for being here. And I look 

forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

The subcommittee meets today to continue our oversight of the FCC’s progress in 

implementing the spectrum provisions Congress passed last year as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. While much has been made of 

the incentive auctions—and those first-of-their-kind auctions are incredibly important—we also took concrete steps to improve access to spectrum for unlicensed technologies, like Wi-fi, in the 5 GHz band. Today, we will hear from witnesses that can 

give us an update on their progress in implementing those sections and what challenges exist to increased unlicensed use. 

Unlicensed wireless technologies have become an indispensable part of our information infrastructure in America. As a compliment to both our residential and business wired Internet connections as well as a component of our mobile wireless devices, Wi-fi, perhaps the most prolific use of unlicensed spectrum, has spread from 

its humble origins in the technical community to near ubiquity. 

It now helps farmers in rural America allocate water and fertilizer to meet the 

exact needs of a specific crop thus increasing productivity and reducing cost. It has 

allowed businesses of all kinds to more efficiently manage inventories, distribution 

and manufacturing processes thus increasing productivity. It allows consumers to 

communicate on the go and to watch the video services they want where and when 

5 

they want to. Unlicensed spectrum technologies have allowed all of us to use devices 

that have made our lives safer, and more convenient, connected, informative and entertaining. It has and will continue to help create billions of dollars of economic 

growth and hundreds of thousands of jobs all across America. 

The spectrum provisions that were signed into law last year had their beginnings 

in this subcommittee. We instructed the NTIA and the FCC to begin the process 

of bringing additional spectrum into the unlicensed marketplace by first asking 

them to assess the feasibility of doing so without causing harmful interference to 

licensed operators already occupying the band. Just as we had a central focus on 

ensuring that broadcasting remained a viable service after the incentive auction, so 

too did we have a focus on ensuring that new unlicensed uses were in addition to 

and not interfering with existing licensed services. 

The 5 GHz ecosystem is teeming with existing uses. From critical government 

radar systems to commercial satellites, there are a host of licensed services that are 

already deployed in this band. Today we will also hear from one of the promising, 

but unrealized, licensed uses of this band: intelligent transportation systems for 

smarter, safer vehicles. However, it is important to also note that 5 GHz is also currently being used for Wi-fi and other unlicensed uses. Thanks to technical rules that 

limit power and require certain mitigation technologies, these systems are currently 

meeting our licensed and unlicensed needs without interfering with one another. 

I am looking forward to hearing from our very qualified witnesses today on both 

the potential that this spectrum holds to fuel the next generation of unlicensed wireless technologies and the benefits they will bring, but also the technical and economic challenges to making the most of the band. I think I speak for many of my 

colleagues when I say that we are excited to see the fruits of this subcommittee’s 

labor come to fruition in the form of faster and more abundant Wi-fi, but not at the 

expense of existing licensed services. These services can coexist and thanks to the 

hard work of the industries and agencies represented by our witnesses, we don’t 

have to choose between better Internet access and safer cars. 

# # # 

Mr. WALDEN. With that, I would recognize the gentleman, the 

vice chair of the subcommittee from Ohio, Mr. Latta. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. LATTA. I thank the Chairman for yielding, and I appreciate 

our panel of witnesses for being with us today. And I look forward 

to hearing from your testimony today. I am going to begin by 

thanking my colleague, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, 

for working with me during our consideration of the Jump-starting 

Opportunity with Broadband Spectrum Act, which is ultimately included in the larger Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, 

to include the language directing the FCC, NTIA and other agencies to study spectrum sharing possibilities in the 5 gigahertz band. 

In the past, we have discussed the Federal Government’s use of 

spectrum and the opportunities that exist for improving its use of 

this valuable asset, as well as our continued oversight of the upcoming incentive auction. Today’s hearing offers us yet another opportunity to examine a portion of our Nation’s overall spectrum policy. The 5 gigahertz band presents a unique opportunity to spur innovation and improve the performance of our licensed spectrum 

network by offloading much of the mobile data traffic to Wi-fi 

hotspots. 

While I understand and respect the concerns that will be raised 

here today, I am confident the industry experts can find a way to 

optimize this valuable real estate and avoid harmful interference. 

The fact remains that we are in the midst of a spectrum crunch. 

And to remain the world’s leading innovator and ensure consumer 

6 

demand is met, we must find ways to utilize spectrum more efficiently, making decisions on technical merits rather than the politics of the past. 

Again, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. 

I look forward to your testimony. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes 

the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, Ranking Member, for 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our wonderful panel, amongst them my constituents. So welcome. And I am 

sorry someone turned down the thermostat. But just think, you are 

going to get back to California before I do. So thank you for being 

here. 

Given the tremendous growth in Wi-fi usage and the need to 

maintain our Nation’s lead in developing gigabit Wi-fi technology, 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on the 5 

gigahertz spectrum band. 

The United States has been a world leader in unlicensed spectrum, and I think that this is something that we can’t ever underappreciate its importance and the importance that we not just rest 

on our laurels, but that we continue to build on that. I have what 

I would term as a love affair with unlicensed. And I am very proud 

that in the spectrum bill to have really used those two terms— 

those two words, unlicensed spectrum, just over and over and over 

and over again to make sure that we honored what that represents 

for our country and the innovation platform that it is. Now, dating 

back to the FCC’s decision nearly 30 years ago to open up spectrum 

for unlicensed use, we have been on a very important glide path 

since then. And since that time, billions of devices have been sold, 

and technologies such as Wi-fi and Bluetooth. I can’t live without 

Bluetooth. I don’t know about the rest of you. I mean, you get in 

the car and, you know, you would be hauled off to jail in California 

if you are seen holding any kind of device in your hand. So it is 

a reminder to me of how practical the uses are, how many they are 

and that they are really integrated into our lives. They are household names. They are enjoyed by millions of consumers around the 

country. 

Now, by one estimate, in-home Wi-fi alone may be generating between $4.3 and $12.6 billion a year in U.S. economic value. That 

is pretty serious money, even around here. That is a lot. And I 

want to see it grow. When adding the larger unlicensed ecosystem, 

the figure rises to anywhere between $50 and $100 billion annually. But as Wi-fi demand has increased, so has congestion. And 

more than one Member has already spoken of this, particularly in 

the high trafficked areas such as airports, convention centers and 

university campuses. 

With congestion increasing and consumers demanding faster 

data speeds, the FCC announced a proposal earlier this year to unleash up to 195 megahertz of spectrum in the 5 gigahertz band for 

unlicensed use. In July, to ensure the agency’s timely implementaVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Oct 21, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-93 CHRIS
7 

tion of the proposal, I wrote to Acting Chairwoman Clyburn, along 

with Representatives Latta, Matsui and Issa. In our letter, we emphasized the importance of spectrum sharing and urged the FCC 

to proceed expeditiously with collaboratively testing that includes 

both incumbents and the Wi-fi industry. I look forward to hearing 

an update on these issues during today’s hearing. And I know that 

you are fully prepared for that, right? And good answers for us. 

Happy answers. 

While the 5 gigahertz band is an important component of the 

21st century unlicensed spectrum policy, it is complementary and 

not a substitute for low-band spectrum below 1 gigahertz. In fact, 

one such company who is innovating in this space is Adaptrum, a 

Silicon Valley startup. And last week, they shared this story with 

a bipartisan group of congressional staffers and explained how the 

superior propagation factors found in the television band will 

unlock new unlicensed innovations such as rural broadband access 

which so many members of this committee on both sides of the 

aisle have such a keen interest and responsibility for, and expanded urban applications that wouldn’t be possible in higher 

bands of spectrum. 

So I think the time to act is now. The FCC should move expeditiously to harmonize existing rules and make more spectrum available for gigabit Wi-fi. And again, I want to thank each one of our 

witnesses for being here today and testifying. And at some point, 

maybe at the end of the hearing, I’d like to get some great words 

of praise and commendation to Roger Sherman. But I have certainly gone past my time. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlelady yields back. 

Ms. ESHOO. And thank you for allowing Mr. Waxman and all 

members for that unanimous consent request. It was a gentlemanly 

thing to do. 

Mr. WALDEN. Happy to do it. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. So anyone on the Republican side seek the last 5 

minutes, or should we move on to the witnesses? 

All right. So we will expedite our hearing and go to the experts. 

And we are delighted to have each of you here. Thank you for your 

submitted testimony, your willingness to give the abbreviated 

versions this morning, or this afternoon, and take our questions. 

We will lead off with the Chief of the Office of Engineering and 

Technology of the Federal Communications Commission, Mr. Julius 

Knapp. Julius, it is good to have you back before the committee. 

I concur with Mr. Waxman. It is always helpful as you translate 

technical engineering issues into understandable policies. So the 

microphone is yours sir, and go ahead. 

8 

STATEMENTS OF JULIUS KNAPP, CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION; JOHN KENNEY, PRINCIPAL RESEARCH MANAGER, TOYOTA INFO TECHNOLOGY CENTER; TOM NAGEL, 

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, 

COMCAST; AND BOB FRIDAY, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, CISCO 

STATEMENT OF JULIUS KNAPP 

Mr. KNAPP. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Walden, 

Ranking Member Eshoo and members of the subcommittee. Thank 

you for this opportunity to provide you with the status report of the 

FCC’s efforts to provide more access to unlicensed spectrum in the 

5 gigahertz frequency band. As the very title of this hearing reads, 

this process presents numerous engineering challenges. But increased access to unlicensed spectrum in this band could greatly 

accelerate growth in expansion of new Wi-fi technology, offering 

faster speeds, increasing overall capacity and reducing congestion 

at hotspots. Unlicensed spectrum has been a phenomenal success 

story. Innovations that utilize these airwaves affect virtually every 

aspect of our daily lives, including Wi-fi networks that we use in 

our homes and at public hotspots, Bluetooth technology for connecting mobile devices with wireless headsets and speakers, and 

for connecting computer tablets and keyboards, electronic keys for 

opening car doors, identification badges for secure access to buildings, and many other products that are too numerous to mention. 

Unlicensed technologies have spurred creation of entire new industries in jobs to the benefit of businesses, consumers and our overall 

economy. 

Congress recognized the importance of providing additional spectrum for both licensed and unlicensed use in the Middle Class Tax 

Relief and Jobs Creation Act. This law specifically directs the NTIA 

and the FCC to examine the potential for expanded unlicensed use 

in the 5 gigahertz spectrum. In February of this year, the Commission adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking, or NPRM, that satisfies the requirements of Section 6406(a) of the Act. The Commission’s NPRM was focused on 3 separate portions of the 5 gigahertz 

band. The first portion involves 100 megahertz of existing unlicensed spectrum at the low end of the band. The Commission proposed to remove the restriction on indoor use and to allow higher 

power consistent with the other parts of the 5 gigahertz unlicensed 

spectrum. These actions would make the spectrum much more usable for Wi-fi and other technologies. 

The second portion of the NPRM would make 120 megahertz of 

spectrum available in the middle of the 5 gigahertz band, essentially filling in the gap that exists in the existing 5 gigahertz spectrum. It would create a large contiguous block. This would allow 

more flexibility to accommodate the greater bandwidths of the latest technologies. This band is used by the Department of Defense 

and a number of other federal agencies. 

The third portion would make 75 megahertz of spectrum available to extend the upper end of the 5 gigahertz unlicensed band. 

This spectrum is allocated for intelligent transportation services 

such as the dedicated short range communication systems, or 

9 

DSRC, for vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure technology. These actions would make up to 195 megahertz of additional spectrum available for unlicensed use in the 5 gigahertz 

band, a 35 percent increase of the 555 that is available there now. 

They would also enable greater use of the latest industry Wi-fi 

standard 802.11ac that uses wider channel bandwidths of up to 160 

megahertz to provide data rates of 1 gigabit per second or more. 

Because of the existing incumbent users in the three 5 gigahertz 

band, making more spectrum usable, or usable at all for unlicensed 

use will be challenging. But the importance of the 5 gigahertz band 

and the benefits of unlicensed spectrum generally are clear, and 

the Commission has indicated its strong desire to move forward in 

seeking to resolve these challenges. 

Finally, I want to emphasize that the Commission has not proposed to take away any incumbent user’s right to operate as a licensed service in the 5 gigahertz band. As with all unlicensed services, these devices may not cause harmful interference to licensed 

services and must accept whatever interference that they receive. 

It is my hope that all parties will work together in good faith to 

overcome these technical and policy challenges, and that we will be 

able to find a way to effectively share the spectrum that I describe 

today. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knapp follows:] 

10 


88051.001
11 


88051.002
12 


88051.003
13 


88051.004
14 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Knapp, thank you for your presentation and 

your testimony, and we look forward to speaking with you more 

about that. We are going to go now—make sure I get the right 

title—to Mr. Kenney, who is the Principle Research Manager for 

Toyota Info Technology Center. Mr. Kenney, we are delighted to 

have you here today. We look forward to your testimony as well, 

sir. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN KENNEY 

Mr. KENNEY. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

before you today. My name is John Kenney. I am a principal researcher at the Toyota Info Technology Center in Mountain View, 

California, where I lead our vehicular networking research team. 

Despite remarkable advances in the crashworthiness of vehicles, 

tens of thousands of Americans are still dying in traffic accidents 

each year. We firmly believe that the next great opportunity to reduce fatalities rests with technologies that will prevent crashes in 

the first place. Dedicated short range communication, or DSRC, is 

such a technology. DSRC enables vehicles to communicate with 

each other. DSRC vehicles broadcast precise information such as 

location, speed and acceleration several times per second over a 

range of a few hundred meters. Other DSRC vehicles receive these 

messages, use them to determine if any neighboring vehicles pose 

a collision threat, and then warn drivers of those threats. DSRC vehicles can also receive safety-related information from roadside infrastructure such as the state of an upcoming traffic light or the 

presence of ice, a disabled vehicle or a pedestrian in the road. 

NHTSA concluded that connected vehicle technology has the potential to address approximately 80 percent of crashes involved 

non-impaired drivers. They further determined that DSRC at 5.9 

gigahertz is ‘‘the only communication option at this time capable of 

effectively and reliably providing the safety of life capability.’’ 

DSRC can and almost certainly will be used for other non-safety 

applications. 

Just as the Internet has moved far beyond its original email and 

file transfer applications, DSRC is also likely to unleash innovative 

connected car applications that go far beyond collision avoidance. 

I recognize that there is some skepticism about DSRC and concerns 

that the benefits are being overstated, or that the automakers will 

never bring the technology to market. I can assure you that Toyota 

is committed to DSRC as a critical safety technology. We have already commercialized DSRC in other markets and would like to 

bring it to drivers in the United States in the near future. 

And we are not alone in this. The auto industry has been working hard here in the United States to pave the way for DSRC deployment, leading to the publication of core technical standards in 

2009 and 2010. U.S. DOT is also conducting research and field testing with Toyota and other automobile companies to prepare for 

widespread deployment of crash avoidance systems that use DSRC. 

At this point, pre-production prototypes have been developed and 

are currently supporting large scale evaluations of applications 

that address the most critical crash scenarios. 

15 

In August, Toyota and seven other automakers completed a yearlong connected vehicle pilot program with U.S. DOT in Michigan. 

The model deployment, which included nearly 3,000 DSRC vehicles, demonstrated vehicle to vehicle applications in real world 

driving scenarios and verified the maturity and stability of the 

standards. The results from the pilot are expected to inform a regulatory decision by the agency of DSRC technology by the end of this 

year. 

As you are well aware, the FCC issued an NPRM earlier this 

year that solicited comments on opening the 5.9 gigahertz spectrum 

to unlicensed devices. Toyota is not conceptually opposed to sharing 

the spectrum and believes that it may be possible for DSRC and 

unlicensed devices to coexist in the band. However, we also believe 

that the creation of a sharing framework, or the implementation of 

sharing rules, should not be considered unless and until, one, a viable sharing spectrum sharing technology is identified and, two, rigorous testing verifies that there is no harmful interference from unlicensed devices. 

Interference that results in delayed or missed driver warnings 

will undermine the system’s entire foundation, rendering it essentially useless and putting the future of DSRC technology in the 

United States at risk. Although we are strongly committed to it, 

the automobile industry cannot responsibly deploy safety of life, 

DSRC technology, unless the possibility of harmful interference 

from unlicensed devices is ruled out. 

Toyota is committed to helping validate a technical sharing solution once one has been identified. We have been actively engaged 

with the Wi-fi community and other stakeholders who are exploring possible sharing solutions that alleviate any risk of harmful interference from unlicensed devices. But we are not there yet, and 

it is going to take more time to see if we can get there. Until then, 

the FCC should refrain from taking any further action in the 5.9 

gigahertz band. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kenney follows:] 

16 


88051.005
17 


88051.006
18 


88051.007
19 


88051.008
20 


88051.009
21 


88051.010
22 


88051.011
23 


88051.012
24 


88051.013
25 


88051.014
26 


88051.015
27 


88051.016
28 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Kenney, thank you for testifying. We will now 

turn to Mr. Nagel. Tom Nagel is the Senior Vice President of Business Development at Comcast. Mr. Nagel, thank you for being with 

us. And please, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF TOM NAGEL 

Mr. NAGEL. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am pleased to discuss the many benefits of Wi-fi and how 

the 5 gigahertz band is critical to ensuring Wi-fi continues to serve 

as a platform for innovation, investment and economic growth, all 

without harming incumbent users. 

At Comcast, one of my primary responsibilities has been the strategic development of our wireless efforts, and in particular our Wifi efforts. Comcast operates a Wi-fi network that has expanded exponentially in less than 2 years, from 5,000 access points last year 

to nearly 350,000 access points today. We have also partnered with 

other cable operators to give our customers access to more than 

100,000 hotspots, with many more to come. 

My experience in building and operating Comcast networks 

shows me firsthand the important role that Wi-fi plays in the 

broadband marketplace. Consumers use Wi-fi for cost effective and 

robust wireless access to the Internet. And various studies confirm 

that unlicensed services like Wi-fi contribute tens of billions of dollars in economic value each year. 

Wi-fi networks have also proven to be valuable during emergencies. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy last year and the attack of the Boston Marathon this year, licensed wireless networks 

were temporarily overloaded or down completely. In both cases, 

Comcast opened its Wi-fi network to provide free access to anybody 

with a Wi-fi enabled device so that people could receive urgent information and communicate with loved ones. All consumers with a 

Wi-fi enabled device can use Wi-fi, regardless of their wireless carrier. So it is a powerful and flexible tool in emergencies. 

However, two challenges stand in the way of its continued 

growth. First, the spectrum used in Wi-fi today is severely congested, especially in densely populated areas. And without quick 

action, consumers will begin to experience reduced Wi-fi performance. To address this problem, we must ensure there is sufficient 

unlicensed spectrum to meet growing consumer demand. The 5 

gigahertz band is critical to this effort. Second, the next generation 

of Wi-fi, often called gigabit Wi-fi, requires larger channels than 

are currently available and technical rules that facilitate reasonable deployments. Gigabit Wi-fi can only be done in the 5 gigahertz 

band. If we fail to make the necessary changes, we risk falling behind other nations that will deploy the next generation of Wi-fi. 

Fortunately, Congress, the Administration and the FCC have already taken steps towards addressing these challenges. Comcast 

commends Congress and this committee for passing the Spectrum 

Act of 2012 which specifically identified the 5 gigahertz band as a 

powerful and unique resource for Wi-fi. And we strongly support 

the FCC’s implementation efforts. The FCC has proposed two unlicensed bands in the 5 gigahertz and sensible changes to existing 

bands. These improvements are essential to relieving the existing 

29 

Wi-fi congestion and providing enough spectrum to support gigabit 

Wi-fi. 

Importantly, under the FCC’s proposals, Wi-fi will be able to 

share the 5 gigahertz band without causing harmful interference to 

existing users. This approach maximizes the value of spectrum for 

all Americans. Although portions of the 5 gigahertz band may 

present complicated technical issues, in some sub-bands, the FCC 

has a clear path to move forward now. Specifically, the FCC should 

adopt its proposed rule changes in the UNII–1 band, which would 

make 100 megahertz available for Wi-fi almost immediately. Importantly, the Department of Defense recently announced it does 

not need access to UN81. That means that just one company uses 

all 100 megahertz for a small group of customers. And technical 

studies have shown that proposed rule changes would not cause 

harmful interference to the incumbent in the band. And this should 

be our top near-term priority. 

Comcast is also enthusiastic about expanding Wi-fi operations to 

the UNII–4 band. We have reached out to the ITS companies to 

find a sharing solution that protects ITS and allows for Wi-fi investment. Now is the perfect moment to do so because there are 

no commercially deployed ITS vehicles using the 5 gigahertz band. 

We are willing to be flexible to ensure that ITS is protected. We 

ask that the ITS interests also agree to be flexible. 

There is a solution to be had. The days where incumbents can 

hold exclusive rights to unutilized or underutilized spectrum have 

long since passed. Wi-fi services in the 5 gigahertz band will offer 

enormous economic benefits and social benefits. Comcast is committed to working with Congress, the Administration, the FCC and 

incumbents to reach solutions that will maximize the value of the 

5 gigahertz band to this Nation. Thank you, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nagel follows:] 

30 


88051.017
31 


88051.018
32 


88051.019
33 


88051.020
34 


88051.021
35 


88051.022
36 


88051.023
37 


88051.024
38 


88051.025
39 


88051.026
40 


88051.027
41 


88051.028
42 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Nagel, thank you for your testimony. We appreciate it. And now we go to Bob Friday,who is the Vice-President 

and Chief Technology Officer of Cisco. Mr. Friday, thank you for 

joining us. We look forward to your testimony, sir. 

STATEMENT OF BOB FRIDAY 

Mr. FRIDAY. Chairman Walden—— 

Mr. WALDEN. And if you could just touch that little microphone 

button there? 

Mr. FRIDAY. So Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is an honor. Mr. Chairman, we are in the 

midst of a technology revolution to mobilize the Internet. And it is 

transforming the way Americans and billions of people around the 

world collaborate, communicate and connect to the Internet. The 

education customers I work with are incorporating video, mobile 

applications into their curriculum with up to 100 students in auditoriums, accessing the network simultaneously. Health customers 

are relying on Wi-fi to educate patients—devices and provide 

nurses instant access to medical records, and manufacturing customers are increasingly Wi-fi to enable workers on the factory floor 

to have real-time video conversations with experts anywhere in the 

world. 

What do these things all have in common? They all depend on 

Wi-fi for connectivity. In these areas and so many more, Wi-fi has 

become a central way for people to access the Internet. But a new 

challenge has emerged due to Wi-fi’s spectacular success. There is 

a looming spectrum crunch in front of us, which if not addressed 

will slow activity, economic growth, and economic technology leadership and mobility. The Wi-fi—the widespread adoption of Wi-fi, 

it began in the early 2000s when most of us here got us first taste 

of mobile Internet at our homes, coffee shops, hotels and airports. 

Today, Wi-fi’s reach has expanded into the workplace, air travel 

and many other locations. And Wi-fi will become a critical complement, a safety valve if you will, to our cellular networks in helping offload mobile Internet traffic from our licensed spectrum. 

By 2017, 66 percent of all mobile Internet traffic, fully twothirds, will either start or end on a Wi-fi network. Without offloading licensed spectrum networks, we will simply be overwhelmed. In just over a decade, Wi-fi has become a dynamic economic driver leading to over 37 billion dollars of economic value for 

the U.S. economy every year. And it is the foundation for a whole 

new mobile app economy that it has created more than 500,000 

new jobs since 2007. 

The development of Wi-fi is one of the great American innovation 

stories. Thirty years ago, unlicensed spectrum was considered junk 

or garbage spectrum, a place for tinkerers and/or vendors to build 

low-powered devices of limited use. Then the FCC came up with a 

simple ideal, change the rules to allow spectrum technologies to 

share unlicensed bands with the one caveat, no harmful interference to incumbent users. Innovators and entrepreneurs rushed 

in. Wi-fi was born, and the results have been breathtaking. Six billion Wi-fi enabled devices have been shipped since 2000, and this 

number is expected to grow to 15 billion by 2017. Wi-fi has become 

43 

the industry standard alongside cellular for connecting to the Internet now. 

Wi-fi will be a driver in the development of the Internet as well. 

We are moving to an Internet of everything that will connect people, process, data and things that is leading to profound changes 

in manufacturing, agriculture, energy and dozens of other sectors. 

But this potential is limited by the looming spectrum crunch. 

So what can be done here? The industry has a major role to play, 

particularly in the development and deployment of next generation 

of Wi-fi known as 802.11ac. This technology is more efficient and 

can handle vastly more traffic than previous generations. It will deliver throughputs of 1 gigabit per second or faster, hence the name 

gigabit Wi-fi. Here in front of me, I have the first Cisco gigabit Wifi access point. In June of 2013, it became the first enterprise access point to have a gigabit Wi-fi certification, 1 of over 190 devices 

that have been certified to date. So gigabit Wi-fi is real. It is here. 

It is needed to meet the exploding demand for video. But to realize 

that full potential of gigabit Wi-fi, wider bands of contiguous spectrum are needed. So policymakers have a major role to play as well 

providing more spectrum. 

The Energy and Commerce Committee led the way in 2012 when 

you directed the FCC and NTIA to study the feasibility of sharing 

additional spectrum for Wi-fi in the 5 gigahertz span. And I want 

to thank you for your leadership on this, as well as the effort to 

establish voluntary incentive auctions. To be sure there are some 

significant technical challenges in the 5 gigahertz band, it is not 

clear spectrum. It contains incumbent uses important for national 

security and public safety. And it is imperative that Wi-fi not create harmful interference to these incumbent systems. And Cisco 

will not settle for less. Yet with the leadership from the FCC and 

the NTIA, and the cooperation of our industry partners, we are 

confident that technology solutions to these challenges can and will 

be found. 

The bottom line, adding more spectrum for broadband and Wifi will lead to new ecosystems, new industries, new jobs, as well as 

help ensure economic technological leadership around the globe. 

Cisco stands ready to work with this committee and other policymakers to find solutions to the important challenges before us, and 

I want to thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Friday follows:] 

44 


88051.029
45 


88051.030
46 


88051.031
47 

*The information has been retained in committee files and is also available at http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20131113/101359/HHRG-113-IF16-20131113-SD010.PDF. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Friday, thank you. And I think we all agree, 

this is a huge opportunity for the country for innovation and technology for new jobs, new devices, replacement of all our existing devices so we can communicate faster. 

I have a question for the group. Qualcomm, which manufactures 

equipment for both intelligent transportation applications and Wifi, has suggested that moving ITS operations to the top of the ITS 

band and then excluding them from sharing with Wi-fi would solve 

many of the challenges in the UNII–4 band. I’d like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the comments of Qualcomm 

in the FCC’s proceedings on this matter without objection. *

Mr. WALDEN. So, Mr. Friday, let’s start with you. Do you agree 

with Qualcomm’s approach? 

Mr. FRIDAY. So if we look at Qualcomm, we think the proposal 

has merit in terms of spectrum efficiency. We think it may be a little late in the game, given that ITS is as far down the path as they 

are. So yes, we think it has merit, but we think it may be a little 

late to the discussion. 

Mr. WALDEN. Does that mean it is too late for the discussion? 

Mr. FRIDAY. No, I don’t think it is too late. I think it is something that is worthy to take a look at. But I think we acknowledge 

that the ITS has done a lot of work on the DSRP. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. FRIDAY. And we are sensitive to that. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. Mr. Knapp, is there anything about the top of 

the ITS band, as opposed to the bottom, that would moot the work 

that has been done over the last decade on ITS? 

Mr. KNAPP. Sir, I think ITS has envisioned that it would have 

the entire 75 merits, and has been planning for that. So we did not 

tee up the question of whether we should change the allocation. 

And generally, with unlicensed, it shares on an un-interference 

basis, so it would be a completely different direction than was teed 

up in the Commission’s notice. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Kenney, if this arrangement did indeed prevent harmful interference to ITS, would Toyota support such an 

outcome? 

Mr. KENNEY. Sir, first of all, we appreciate our friends from 

Qualcomm stepping up with this idea. We invite everyone to put 

ideas on the table. We think that there are a couple of fundamental 

problems with it, which we have documented in our FCC filings. 

One of them is that it has a premise that all of the safety critical 

communication could be compressed into one or two channels. And 

the fact is that is just not true. With the plans that we have for 

using the spectrum for collisions avoidance, for public safety, for 

automated driving, for security, for a number of other things, we 

need all of the spectrum, and we plan to have safety critical communication in all of it. So that premise that underlies their proposal just doesn’t quite bear out. 

The second motivation that they offered for putting this forward 

was that it was a way to streamline this whole process, perhaps 

to—it may be something we can all agree to in this space of a couVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Oct 21, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-93 CHRIS
48 

ple of months and skip all of this. But that misses the point that 

we have been—for our v-to-v collision avoidance work, we have 

been concentrating on testing rigorously, and with our current 

band plan. And if we were to change and reshuffle the deck, so to 

speak, we would need to repeat a lot of that testing. We would 

incur a lot of delay. We would have to worry about cross channel 

interference issues, for an example that we haven’t had to worry 

about yet. 

Mr. WALDEN. Sure. So let me ask you two questions. I think you 

began this effort ’93 or thereabouts. What is your timeline—and I 

realize you are innovating as you go, trying to get this right. And 

the second point, are there non-sort of safety security communications in the 75 megahertz of band—in other words, is it all critical 

safety, or are there other offerings that could be moved somewhere 

else? 

Mr. KENNEY. Yes. So with the regard to the timeline question, 

as you probably know, we are at a fairly critical point waiting for 

the NHTSA regulatory direction. There are a number of different 

deployment paths we can take once we get that direction. It will 

become much clearer. But we are at a pre-deployment phase. Our 

technology is mature. The fact that our European colleagues are 

committed to deploy this in only 2 years from now is evidence of 

that. 

Mr. WALDEN. Are they using the same band? 

Mr. KENNEY. Yes, they are—well, they are using a subset of it. 

They have 30 megahertz that is the subset of our 75. 

Mr. WALDEN. And are they able to do everything there that you 

are proposing to do here? 

Mr. KENNEY. Well, they are planning to augment that with two 

additional allocations as time goes on. So they are starting with 30, 

then they are going to go to 50 and then they are going to go to 

70. So it would be 70 that matches us. 

Mr. WALDEN. Is the 30 mission critical? Is it safety security first? 

Mr. KENNEY. Yes, that is what they are starting with. 

Mr. WALDEN. And is the other, will it be safety? Or is it additional—— 

Mr. KENNEY. I think that it remains to be seen. What they are 

saying is that the middle 30—their 30 is in the middle of our 70, 

if you will. And that is safety critical. They are planning to put 

some non-safety applications in the next 20. 

Mr. WALDEN. What would that be? Give me an example. 

Mr. KENNEY. Examples of that might be infrastructure to vehicle 

communication to provide navigation assistance or traffic updates. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. 

Mr. KENNEY. Or even commercial services to tell you what you 

can access in the road up ahead. 

Mr. WALDEN. I see. All right. 

Mr. KENNEY. But to come to your second question then. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. 

Mr. KENNEY. Yes, there are non-safety critical communications 

that will be in our band. But they won’t be—they won’t have a 

dedicated channel. They will be mixed in at a lower priority below, 

if you will, the safety critical communication that we planned to 

put in these channels. 

49 

Mr. WALDEN. I see. Yes. All right. Thank you, Mr. Kenney. My 

time has expired. I will turn to my friend from California, Ms. 

Eshoo, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to each 

one of you, important and very interesting testimony. 

I want to start out, Mr. Nagel, by thanking you and Comcast for 

what you did during the tragedy in Boston by—for the use of your 

network. And you know, it is stories like that that always remind 

me in the hearing room or whatever I am doing here that we have 

a wonderful sense of unity about us, even though we have got lots 

of problems, challenges, some we create, others are there and we 

have to address them. But it is wonderful to hear you talk about 

that. And so I salute you. I think the entire committee does. Thank 

you. 

Mr. Knapp, I leaned over and I said to my colleagues, Henry said 

that Mr. Knapp is terrific at breaking down everything so we can 

understand it, and I am having a hard time understanding you. So 

I want to dig into your testimony and see where we are making 

some progress here. The DoD recently indicated that it doesn’t intend to add additional systems to the 5150 and the 5250 megahertz 

band, also known as UNII–1 band. Do you think that the FCC can 

proceed to make the band available for higher power outdoor Wifi services on an expedited basis? 

Mr. KNAPP. So—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Because that would be an important step, I think. 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes, we are certainly considering that. The issue—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Seriously? Are you considering it seriously? 

Mr. KNAPP. Whether we can address that lower piece first, it was 

not a subject to the additional studies. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. KNAPP. But just to be clear, there were oppositions that were 

filed by the satellite industry. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. KNAPP. And we are busy analyzing that work. 

Ms. ESHOO. I see. OK. Well, that is hopeful. To Mr. Friday at 

Cisco, thank you again. You brought a very important and hopeful 

message to us in terms of what all of this represents. It is my understanding that Cisco is advocating a listen, detect, avoid approach to successfully manage interference at the 5.9 gigahertz. 

Does this mean that Wi-fi and DSRC could coexist peacefully? Put 

your microphone on. I am dying to hear your answer. 

Mr. FRIDAY. Yes. No. Thank you. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. FRIDAY. No. Thank you for the question. And, yes, Cisco has 

proposed a solution to co-share the band with DSRC. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. FRIDAY. We have looked at DSRC. The roots of DSRC comes 

from .11. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. FRIDAY. So compared to radar, it has the same DNA as .11. 

We think there is a relatively easy way to share the band and be 

able to detect DSRC signals and basically vacate the band within 

the blink of an eye once we detect those signals. 

50 

Ms. ESHOO. Excellent. So to Mr. Kenney, what Mr. Friday just 

described sounds exciting to me and reasonable. Do you agree? 

Mr. KENNEY. Yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Good. 

Mr. KENNEY. So as to echo my earlier statement, we are very 

happy that Cisco has stepped up with this idea, and we think that 

it has real potential. The fact that there is this common DNA, if 

you will, between the DSRC underlying technology and Wi-fi is a 

positive that makes it so that they should be able to detect us and 

vacate the channel when they detect us. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. Yes. And to Mr. Friday and Mr. Nagel, can you 

describe the difference in consumer experience between existing 

Wi-fi and gigabit Wi-fi? 

Mr. NAGEL. Sure. You know, today what we have is we have a 

Wi-fi environment. We have all spoken about how we all use it. It 

is highly digestible. It is in everywhere we are. And I think one of 

the things we are experiencing today is that we use it a lot. And 

so one of the components of that experience is is that in certain 

places we get congestion, and the things we want to do aren’t we 

can’t do the as much as we used to. What gigabit Wi-fi does is that 

it really begins to expand our ability to drive very, very high rates 

of information to not just one device but multiple devices, maybe 

even hundreds of devices. And so the platform that is getting built 

for an individual user will feel faster. It will feel better. It will feel 

like I am more connected. Just like I always had an Ethernet, you 

know, cord right into the back of my device that none of our devices 

have, it will feel very similar to that. 

Equally importantly though, as you think about gigabit Wi-fi, 

there is a consumer experience side. But once you build it, then you 

have this platform that you mentioned, rightly, which is it is an innovation platform. Once you build it, you’re going to have lots of 

companies that come out and begin to go deeper and build great 

things we don’t even know about today. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. Wonderful. Do I still have some time? 

Mr. FRIDAY. And to add on what Tom was saying is—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. FRIDAY. The customers that we are working with right now, 

like in the universities and higher ed, the use cases that we are 

seeing are in these auditorium and classroom cases where they are 

actually getting into a congestion problem where students cannot 

get access to the curriculum on time. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. FRIDAY. So that is where Wi gig brings the capacity we need 

to be able to solve these types of use cases. The other consumer use 

case we are seeing right now is in our healthcare industry. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. FRIDAY. The healthcare industry has been probably at the 

leading edge of adopting a Wi-fi. When you go into these hospitals 

now, besides the nurses, we have connected probably more devices 

in the healthcare space—and this is becoming a critical issue now 

of how to make sure that all these healthcare—— 

Ms. ESHOO. No, I have seen it at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital in the operating room. 

Mr. FRIDAY. Yes. And it has become—— 

51 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. FRIDAY. The healthcare industry is a good example where 

they have become highly reliant on Wi-fi to connect the sensors to 

all the people. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I am sure I 

have gone past my time. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. You are welcome. I will turn now to the vice chair 

of the full committee, Ms. Blackburn, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all 

of you for being here. And, Mr. Friday, I want to thank you for 

mentioning the healthcare. We see so much of this in Nashville, 

and there is a tremendous amount of cross-usage and innovation. 

And one of the things we hear regularly from people is, what are 

we going to do about the spectrum crisis that is coming and as they 

do connect more healthcare devices. We are seeing firsthand how 

important that is going to be. 

I want to ask you a question. Going into your testimony, you said 

that a successful outcome to the FCC’s current examination of 5 

gigahertz means that Wi-fi cannot create harmful interference to 

those incumbent systems. So let us touch on that for just a minute. 

And see here, tell me what you think needs to happen to find a solution that protects against harmful interference to the incumbents, and also accommodates some of these new unlicensed devices and technologies that can continue to help grow the economy 

but also expand the usage, the healthcare—we have a lot of entertainment product in Nashville that is trying to share the space. I 

see your heads all nodding. Last week was CMA week in Nashville. 

And, of course, with all the performances and tours, this is something that we discussed a good bit. So if you will just speak to that 

for a couple of minutes? I think I have got constituents that would 

be interested to hear your answer. 

Mr. FRIDAY. Yes, so when you look where unlicensed started 

with, the whole premise was sharing without harmful interference 

to the incumbents. The journey started back in the ’80s with 

spread spectrum, and that was kind of the initial technology that 

we brought to share the spectrum. DFS was the next technology we 

brought to share with the radar bands, and USIS. The work we are 

working with the ITS community right now is really another detection technology. In this case, we think it is a relatively simple technology since we have the same DNA. When we look forward in how 

we can share the other bands, we are looking to new technologies 

like databases. And we believe that as we move into this mobile 

Internet world, given spectrum as a fixed resource, we are going to 

have to start developing more sharing technologies to keep up with 

the mobile demand that we see happening in that space. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Mr. Nagel, did you want to comment on 

that? 

Mr. NAGEL. I think the Wi-fi area in general is a great way to 

take fantastic broadband speeds we are all used to that are sitting 

at our desk in our home, in our office and make it available outside 

of that, that footprint. It is mobile broadband, and it is probably 

the best implementation of it to where you can do really, really, 

really fast speeds. Gigabit Wi-fi is one of those things that allows 

us to do that. And it is one of the reasons why we are here is beVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Oct 21, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-93 CHRIS
52 

cause we won’t be able to do those things if we don’t solve some 

of these spectrum issues, especially in the unlicensed band in the 

5 gigahertz, both at the lower end but also at the upper end. 

I think when you think about—if you look at what is happening 

in the UNII–1, that especially with the DoD saying they don’t need 

access to it, it is a great place for us to begin to bring rural spectrum and be able to bring it to bear quickly. So if we decided to 

do that, the FCC ruled that way. Your devices you have in your 

hand today, the access points that we are deploying can utilize that 

spectrum very, very quickly. So we would be able to alleviate rural 

spectrum crunches in those locations in places that are education, 

healthcare, those types of things. Where people are gathered, Wifi is a fantastic solution. And it is why we need those spectrum to 

do more of that, but also broader channels so we can do more of 

it at the same time in the same location. So it is solving both problems, more unlicensed spectrum and then also aggregating the 

channels so we can get the gigabit Wi-fi working at the same time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Mr. Knapp, let me ask you this. We talked 

a little bit—Mr. Nagel mentioned in his testimony UNII–1. And I 

want to ask you if you think with one company operating in that 

100 megahertz if the FCC has the information to act now on sharing in that space? 

Mr. KNAPP. So the issue in that space is simpler than the sharing we are talking about in the other bands. We have a full record. 

I expect there will be ongoing dialog on the one issue that is outstanding, and that is the sharing with the satellite service. Bear 

in mind that the services that are allocated spectrum, and in this 

case satellite, are protected against interference from unlicensed. 

So whatever we do here needs to assure that there won’t be interference to the satellite service. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Right. I appreciate that. I just think that as 

we—regardless of which space it is, I think it is incumbent upon 

us to make certain that we are using it wisely. Yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlelady yields back. At this time, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan. Thank you. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. I 

commend you for the hearing. I have a number of questions which 

will require simple yes or no answers. 

From the onstart, I do recognize economic and technological benefits associated with wireless growth. However, with regard to unlicensed use in the 5850–5925 megahertz band, I believe that we can 

all agree that protecting vehicle occupant safety is a goal of paramount importance. To that end, I reference the Federal Communications Commission Acting Chairman Clyburn’s November—rather September 26 letter to me stating users of part 15 devices must 

not cause harmful interference to the licensed services in the 5 Ghz 

band. 

To Mr. Knapp, is it correct that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, released a report 

on unlicensed use of the 5350–5470 megahertz and the 5850–5925 

megahertz bands in January 2013, yes or no? 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Knapp, I believe it is also correct that 

NTIA’s report identified a number of interference risks in the 5925 

53 

megahertz band associated with unlicensed use, and concluded that 

further study and analysis is necessary in order to mitigate such 

risks, is that correct? 

Mr. KNAPP. That is correct. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Knapp, is it true that the Federal Communications Commission’s February 20, 2013, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking seeks comments on harmful interference protection requirements to permit gigabit Wi-fi devices to operate in the 5 

gigahertz bands, yes or no? 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Knapp, is it true that Associate Administrator Karl B. Nebbia of the Office Inspector Management at NTIA 

sent you a letter dated June 10, 2013, in response to the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which Nebbia raised concerns about potential harmful interference between unlicensed devices and DSRC systems, yes or no? 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Knapp, is the Commission actively engaged in—with the wireless industry, automakers, the Department 

of Transportation and other incumbent users to resolve any possible harmful interference issues associated with the unlicensed 

use in the 5850–5925 megahertz band, yes or no? 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. And will the Commission continue to be interested 

in that matter in the future? 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. And they have got to simply because you have potential for very destructive interference, is that right? 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Knapp, given that the Commission licensed the intelligent transportation system service almost 15 

years ago, is it reasonable to say that it would be premature for 

the Commission to authorize unlicensed use of the 5850–5925 

megahertz band before studies are completed that confirmed that 

such use would not cause harmful interference with ITS services 

and other incumbent users, yes or no? 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes, we would need a complete record. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Knapp, in your experience, is it conceivable that the Commission would approve unlicensed use of the 

5850–5925 megahertz band, which is the one used by autos, before 

definitively establishing no risk of harmful interference with ITS 

systems or establishing practical strategies to mitigate such risk, 

yes or no? 

Mr. KNAPP. No, we would not act until the engineering work is 

complete. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. Now, Mr. Knapp, alternatively, is the 

Commission considering moving forward with rulemaking openings 

up only the 5350–5470 megahertz band to unlicensed use, yes or 

no? 

Mr. KNAPP. Only the 5—could you repeat the question? I am 

sorry. 

Mr. DINGELL. Go ahead and say it the way you think it is best 

should be said. 

54 

Mr. KNAPP. I don’t expect we would move on these bands that 

are being studied. The one that we are considering where we have 

a complete record is the lower piece, the existing band. 

Mr. DINGELL. I certainly thank you. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I have two additional minutes. I have got a lot 

of questions. I think they are useful to the committee. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection, we would be delighted to have 

you continue this line of inquiry. 

Mr. DINGELL. You are most gracious, and I thank my colleagues. 

Now, Mr. Friday and Mr. Nagel, are Cisco and Comcast in agreement with the unlicensed—rather than for unlicensed use of the 

5925 megahertz band to be permitted, the risk of harmful interference with ITS systems must be mitigated? 

Mr. FRIDAY. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Yes or no? 

Mr. FRIDAY. Yes. 

Mr. NAGEL. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, gentlemen. To again, Mr. Friday and 

Mr. Nagel, are Cisco and Comcast in agreement with both Wi-fi 

and ITS systems that they can share the upper 5 gigahertz band 

without causing harmful interference to one another, yes or no? 

Mr. FRIDAY. Yes. 

Mr. NAGEL. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, gentlemen. Now, will you please submit for the record any harmful interference mitigation proposals 

that your companies have developed? And would our other panel 

members please also submit that? Now, again, Mr. Friday and Mr. 

Nagel, will Cisco and Comcast actively engage with automakers to 

identify harmful interference mitigation solutions in the 5925 

megahertz band, yes or no? 

Mr. FRIDAY. Yes. 

Mr. NAGEL. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, gentlemen. Now, a word here from Mr. 

Kenney. Mr. Kenney, does Toyota appreciate the potential economic and technological benefits freeing up more spectrum for unlicensed use, yes or no? 

Mr. KENNEY. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Kenney, will Toyota actively engage with 

the tech community to identify harmful interference, mitigation, solutions in the 5925 megahertz band, yes or no? 

Mr. KENNEY. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Kenney, all the same, does Toyota agree 

with—that the Federal Communications Commission should proceed only on the basis of a solid record concerning harmful interference mitigation before approving unlicensed use of the band 

5925, yes or no? 

Mr. KENNEY. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, you have been abundantly gracious. 

And to my colleagues, I express my thanks. 

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes? 

Mr. TERRY. Can I state for the record that the reason why I did 

not object was Michigan’s kindness in allowing the Huskers to 

score that last touchdown in the last 2 minutes for a victory? 

55 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman from Nebraska, I was hoping to go 

the entire hearing without discussing football. We didn’t do so well 

as Ducks on Thursday night. So we will have that discussion later. 

Now, we will turn to the gentleman from Ohio, I think is up next, 

Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. And again, thanks for 

our panel. One of the things we have talked about in this subcommittee is that industry usually is much further ahead than 

Congress or the regulators would be, really might be two, three, 

four steps behind. And that is why it is so important to have you 

before us today to hear your testimony. And if you just go down 

the line, we have been having questions as to what we are looking 

at today. But I would really like to ask everyone, and also from Mr. 

Knapp with the Commission as to where do you—we are talking 

about where we are today, where we are going to be in 5 years or 

10 years. Just if you were looking at a crystal ball, just briefly tell 

me where you think—because I know that, Mr. Friday, in your testimony, you stated that between the Wi-fi side over the last decade 

generated about 37 billion dollars. But where are we going to be 

in the next 5 years, because this is changing so quickly. Where do 

you think we are going to be? 

Mr. KNAPP. So, I think if you look at what is happening right 

now, as I mentioned, we are kind of moving from what I call a mobile voice paradigm, right? We are moving from this paradigm to 

a very mobile video paradigm on this here. So 5 years from now, 

I suspect we are going to see many more sharing technologies. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. KNAPP. When you look at the problem of this and this, this 

requires 100 times more capacity, which is going to require 100 

times more from the fixed resource we have. So I think we are 

going to have to see more licensed spectrum policy, and I think we 

are going to have to really leverage the sharing spectrum policy 

going forward. 

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Nagel? 

Mr. NAGEL. Well, I think there are other things we will find as 

well. And that is that it is not just individual devices that we are 

going to want to have more capacity for, because they require it. 

It is going to be that all of us have lots of devices as well. And this 

will occur both inside the home with the Internet of things as we 

have almost everything in our home beginning to connect, and we 

are controlling our house. And it is one of the reasons why as we 

look to the future, we are sitting here today, right? I mean, as we 

see the growth—just looking at our network and the network that 

we built in Wi-fi, we have triple digit growth in sessions and users 

and tonnage literally every year. And it is not a baby. It is accelerating. And without some of the things we are talking about here 

today, I think it really becomes critical. And I think it really requires both sort of true, deep consideration, both in the UNII–1 

band, which we have been talking about, but also in the UNII–4 

band. I think one of the struggles that we have is when we look 

at sort of what has been going on in the ITS is that this is something that was thought of 15 years ago, and the world has changed 

so radically. You are asking what is going to happen in the next 

5 years. If you looked 15 years ago what has happened that having 

56 

75 megahertz sort of dedicated seems something that was really 

developed, thought of and conceptualized 15 years ago, if we don’t 

sort of fix this today and really work through how Wi-fi is going 

to be a part of that band, it is only going to get more expensive 

down the road, because there is not a lot of other spectrum to do 

gigabit Wi-fi in. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. Mr. Kenney, you were talking about what 

could be going on with cars talking back and forth between each 

other. But when is it going to be that for instance, have that car 

drive us home or drive us to work? 

Mr. KENNEY. Well, we hope to all live to experience that, don’t 

we? That would be great. Yes, I think in 5 or 10 years, we are 

going to see a very different driving experience than we have today. 

And with respect to this period of time we have been doing research on DSRC, we are now on the threshold of being able to cash 

in on that research. And I think in 5 and 10 years, our drivers are 

going to be able to experience the benefits of having a car that can 

intelligently help them avoid the most dangerous driving situations. So I think that the connected car is going to be a very exciting place to be in 5 and 10 years. 

Mr. LATTA. And, Mr. Knapp, hearing all of that, and with the 

FCC, how do you work at the FCC to make sure all these things 

can happen that we work with the industry out here to make sure 

that the regulations that are promulgated make these things come 

to pass? 

Mr. KNAPP. Absolutely. And I wished I knew what was going to 

happen in 5 years. What I can tell you is this. We try to ensure 

that the opportunities are there with at least regulation as absolutely needed so that the innovators can flourish. Personally, I 

think the sky is the limit. And there are things that have happened 

already that nobody would have predicted. There is synergy between licensed and unlicensed in ways where 5 or 6 years ago we 

were arguing about which is better, when in fact the two of them 

complement each other. 

From the standpoint of the things we are discussing today, we 

are going to have to continue to drive spectrum efficiency and these 

kinds of advanced sharing techniques that we are working on. They 

are hard. They take a lot of thought and a lot of work and testing 

to make happen. And we are going to have to keep driving down 

that path. Sharing isn’t the only solution. I think we will still be 

looking at bands where reallocation makes sense. But these are 

going to be tough issues. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I see my time 

has expired and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back. We now turn to Mr. 

Butterfield for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, to the 

ranking member for convening this very important hearing today. 

As most of you certainly know, I served on this subcommittee some 

years ago and went off the committee to be the ranking on another 

committee. And with the election of Senator Markey now, I find 

myself back on this committee and glad that I am here. There has 

been so much—there might be a round of applause, not for me, but 

for Mr. Markey, I suppose. But just listening to the testimony and 

57 

just reviewing the material for today, we have made great advances over the last 4 or 5 years that no one could even imagine. 

And, Mr. Knapp, I think you just hit the nail right on the head a 

few minutes ago. It is just limitless of what innovation can mean, 

not only for the bottom line of your companies but for the prosperity of our country. And so I want to thank you for all that you 

do, and thank you for your investment in the future. 

I am going to start with Mr. Nagel. Mr. Nagel, I heard Mr. Friday a moment ago say that devices that support gigabit Wi-fi already exist. I am not sure I fully understand and appreciate that. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. NAGEL. Well, it is correct in the sense that devices have 

within them the brains and their antennas and all that to make 

gigabit Wi-fi work. What it doesn’t have is access to the spectrum. 

So you can build the electronics to make it work and be future 

proof, which is what they have begun to do. And a lot of the equipment we are deploying is also capable of doing similar types of 

things. 

What is necessary though is for us to make and move forward 

on some of the 5 gigahertz decisions that are in front of us today. 

So the first would be UNII–1. We have already mentioned that all 

the information is in on the record, and the FCC is in the process 

of making some of its decision. Our view is that we can do a lot 

within UNII–1 and begin to bring big channels, which is really 

what you need. So most—like most devices today, Wi-fi use 20 

megahertz channels. When you get to enough, you will put 160 

megahertz together. And it is that concatenated spectrum band 

that allows you to do that amount of speed at one time. But it requires that spectrum and the unlicensed spectrum. And so that is 

where the 5 gigahertz becomes very, very important, not just in 

UNII–1, which is by far the easiest decision to make, we think, but 

also in UNII–4. And it does require harder decisions, but ones we 

ought to make now before we get too far down the road. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. But typically, certification and approval usually take a long time after spectrum, would that be correct? After 

the spectrum is made available, typically it takes awhile to get it 

perfected? 

Mr. NAGEL. Honestly, it is an area that I am not familiar with. 

I think generally that it gets—actually, I am not sure how to answer that, to be honest with you. I think that as devices get built, 

as long as they are within the Wi-fi standard, I think you can work 

within that band. Generally, when you get new bands is when you 

have to go through another approval, but it is not my area of expertise. So—— 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right. In your testimony, you describe, Mr. 

Nagel, the growing importance of Wi-fi in times of crisis. Can you 

elaborate on some of the examples of when this technology has 

proven valuable in times of crisis, and explain the role that Wi-fi 

can play in going forward in emergencies? 

Mr. NAGEL. Sure. I would love to. We have some examples that 

Comcast has been involved with. The first is Hurricane Sandy. We 

experienced it up in the Northeast. And when the hurricane came 

through, a lot of the licensed cellular networks were down. So what 

would end up happening is that we had some of our Wi-fi access 

58 

points that were up and running, and people would actually go to 

those access points. They would connect with any of their devices. 

They didn’t have to be cellular specific. And they could actually 

reach the Internet. They might have to walk a few hundred yards, 

because that is the closest one that they had, or maybe even further. But just having that connectivity was essential to those people who were essentially without knowledge of what was going on 

and when people were coming to help them. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, since I 

don’t have 50 years on this committee, I won’t ask unanimous consent to extend my time. And so this will be my last question. Mr. 

Kenney, what is your response—but I want you to promise me that 

when I do get the years on this subcommittee, I will have that deference. 

Mr. WALDEN. Let me suggest, Mr. Butterfield—— 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Yes? 

Mr. WALDEN. I won’t be here, unless there are incredible medical 

advances. 

Ms. ESHOO. I am going to leave a note in the drawer—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. And you can go ahead and ask today, but you 

probably wouldn’t get anything. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. Very quickly, Mr. Kenney, what is 

your response to the proposal by Cisco that would require Wi-fi devices to detect and avoid the presence of DSRC systems on the 

channels that they wish to use? 

Mr. KENNEY. We think that the Cisco detection proposal is a 

sound foundation to build on. We think there are a lot of unanswered questions about some of the technical details. But we look 

forward to exploring that as part of our outreach with the Wi-fi 

community. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. With the note in the drawer, I will yield back. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back. We welcome you to the 

committee. We turn now to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a good hearing. I 

am really kind of learning a lot. It is a great committee. It is just 

highly technologically focused for a lot of us. So this is what I am 

getting out of the hearing so far, the gigabit Wi-fi is the best, right? 

That the 5 gigahertz is the best band for unlicensed use of Wi-fi, 

is that—Mr. Kenney and Mr. Friday, you seem to think that the 

sharing aspect might work. 

And Mr. Friday thinks it is almost too late to propose movement 

for this 10 year use of the automobile industry on this ITS system 

at the upper band. You have the impression that it is probably too 

late to go down that route, am I correct? 

Mr. FRIDAY. I would say I don’t know. I would say that the ITS 

has been working on it for a long time. But no, I don’t know if it 

is too late or not. I just think it has been a long—they have been 

down that path for quite a while. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And, Mr. Kenney, I am sure you agree that you 

like your spot and you want to keep it? 

Mr. KENNEY. Yes. That is right. We think that the allocation decisions that the FCC has made in the past make a lot of sense. 

59 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Nagel, do you want to chime in on this? Because that seems what today is—— 

Mr. NAGEL. I do. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You know—— 

Mr. NAGEL. I do want to chime in on it. I think it is an important 

point. So, you know, we all see what is happening in the broadband 

space is that we are struggling to keep up with the spectrum demands of just people connecting, and the economic value and innovation that that is bringing to the country. That the spectrum allocation has been made in the UNII–4 band was made long before 

any of this rapid growth happened. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It was when it was termed kind of a junk space 

is what was mentioned earlier. 

Mr. NAGEL. It was a junk space. No one quite knew what to do 

with it. And so I think it is really important for us not to think 

about is it too late, but what is the right thing for us to do for both 

aspects of the American economy. One is clearly we agree with the 

concept of vehicle to vehicle safety. I think we would never want 

to do anything that would harm that. We also know that the 75 

megahertz is not going to be used wholly for vehicle to vehicle safety. There are components of it that are going to have other business aspects. 

The second thing we know through the recently released GAO report is that it is decades before the capability of vehicle to vehicle, 

sort of the full benefits, are going to be realized, primarily because 

the life of the fleet requires it to have this built in, you have to go 

in and have all the cars off the road. There will be some benefits 

early on, but it will be awhile. The other thing the GAO report 

states is that there is significant components of this whole infrastructure that are—they are sort of unknown. They are still in development. The back office component, all the pieces. So when I 

look at it, I see 75 megahertz of spectrum that we know Wi-fi can 

share with them. We would want to protect the vehicle to vehicle. 

But that the idea of having 75 underutilized spectrum probably 

doesn’t make great policy says long term. And yet there is—I think 

what we would like to see is not a decision about whether Cisco 

makes sense or not, that is one of the proposals, but there are at 

least two proposals, maybe more. But we would like to see really 

rolling our sleeves up, engineer to engineer, with real compromise, 

trying to solve the problem of not how do I just protect all the 75 

megahertz of band, but how do I make Wi-fi work within it and 

make it a viable business. And I think—but also protect the safety 

issue within the band. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And isn’t in the—actually, I am visual too. So I 

have been watching this the whole time we have been having the 

hearing. So in the UNII–4, in the upper area, if there was movement there, and they are not using all the 75, you do have a big 

band there for the applications—the Wi-fi applications—but isn’t 

there also a better debate where then you don’t have the interference issue? Couldn’t you engineer it so—we went through a 

lot—— 

Mr. NAGEL. Yes, I think we went through the live square debate. 

It is—— 

60 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. Unfortunately, I don’t want to go through 

that again. 

Mr. NAGEL. It is important to realize that what we are not saying—Wi-fi is not intended to replace the incumbent. So the idea 

has never been within any of these bands to say that incumbent 

shouldn’t use that space, let us move them. Wi-fi by its nature is 

a sharing technology. It is meant to work within the context of the 

fact that you have incumbents. And its purpose is to not cause 

harmful interference. And where it does, we have to work through 

some of the technical details. It is the technical details that are required for us to sit down, both between the Wi-fi and the ITS 

groups, and sit down and design what is the right thing from the 

beginning, from sitting here where we are before it gets so far 

down the road that we have really underutilized spectrum which 

probably doesn’t make sense long term. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, gentleman. I will now turn to the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. I appreciate this. Yes, that is a very pretty chart. All the questions probably have already been asked, but 

not everyone has asked them. So I am going to continue. But, Mr. 

Kenney, why don’t we go through on—it does seem that they are 

saying, Mr. Nagel, Mr. Friday and Knapp that there is room for 

both. I think reading between the lines, they didn’t say it, but 

maybe Mr. Nagel and Mr. Friday would say they would love to 

have 100 percent of that band. But the reality is it has been set 

aside for the auto industry. I really like the idea of the vehicle to 

vehicle communications. I do think that is going to save lives. I like 

that we are getting into the 21st century in the automobile industry. That is exciting. 

So you have concerns that if it is shared and there is possibility 

of interference that that then creates safety issues. And your vehicle to vehicle is not—communications is not reliable, then it can actually make it more dangerous on the road, not just safer. But with 

your thinking, it is going to communicate and tell you to stop, and 

it is not communicating, you are more likely to get into a wreck 

then. So from the automobile perspective, is there room to share? 

Is there danger posed in sharing? 

Mr. KENNEY. Yes and yes. So with regard to is there room to 

share, I think the—one way to think about that question is how 

would sharing work. And without being too technical, I would like 

to suggest that it be on a spatial basis. And that means that in the 

roadways where the vehicles are, that is not where the Wi-fi should 

be using 5.9 gigahertz. If there—there are places where Wi-fi can 

use 5.9 gigahertz, in the living room for entertainment purposes, 

or in a rural area where there aren’t cars driving by. And we think 

that that can probably be quite fine. But we don’t want to have a 

mom driving a car down the road with kids in the backseat, and 

because she happens to be driving by a coffee shop that is using 

Wi-fi, her collision avoidance systems turns off and she isn’t able 

to avoid a collision that she otherwise could have, or because her 

kids are playing some games in the backseat, whether their devices 

61 

are talking to each other using Wi-fi technology. That shouldn’t be 

using 5.9 gigahertz Wi-fi. That should use one of the other bands. 

So there is room to share, more on a special basis. There are 

places where it can work. There are places where it shouldn’t work. 

Mr. TERRY. Well, is there concerns—again, getting to what the 

chairman brought up at the beginning. If you are just using the top 

of the band, and you are allowing the rest of the band barely below 

that, is there going to be concerns about interference? 

Mr. KENNEY. Well, yes. Let me state very clearly that we are not 

only going to be using the top of the band, and we are not only 

going to be using—we are not only going to be able to put our safety critical communication in the top of the band. We have 75 megahertz, and we expect in the deployments—— 

Mr. TERRY. To use all of that? 

Mr. KENNEY. To be using all of it, and all of those channels will 

be carrying critical information. Not all the information will be critical, but all the channels will have critical information. So it is not 

possible to compress it into 1 or 2 channels. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. Well, anybody—Mr. Nagel, Mr. Friday would 

like to comment further or—— 

Mr. FRIDAY. No, I mean, we have been working very closely with 

the ITS on the sharing. I mean, I think maybe Tom’s point was if 

we had started from scratch, and we had built sharing into the 

original ITS design, would we have done something slightly different? And I think working with the ITS though, they have been 

very cooperative on trying to find, given where we are, the right 

solution for sharing in the band. 

Mr. TERRY. OK. Now, there was some comment made, not here 

but before the meeting, that it is taking 10 years to get here, and 

maybe the auto industry should have been built out by now. I 

guess the conclusion to that, if you take it, is therefore you should 

have to give it up. What do you think about that thought, Mr. 

Kenney? 

Mr. KENNEY. Yes, I think that the automotive industry isn’t consumer electronics. And when we are talking about safety of life, 

one thing I have found since I have been working for Toyota is that 

we take it very seriously and we are very careful about deploying 

these technologies. So we now have the benefit of that period of 

time of intensive research. We have reached the threshold. We are 

ready to start deploying. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. Thank you. My time is up. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman’s time has expired. We go now to 

the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kenney, when you see 

these ads on TV with cars that, you know, they have you stop so 

you don’t get into an accident, or maybe 2 cars ahead of you it tells 

you about an accident up there, now that is not the 5 gigahertz, 

is it that those rely on? 

Mr. KENNEY. You are correct. Most of those types of technologies 

that you see advertised today are based on sensor systems that the 

car has, maybe it is a radar or a camera system that can detect 

these dangerous situations. 

Mr. LONG. So wouldn’t that portend that you could share these 

or not need those? 

62 

*The information has been retained in committee files and is also available at http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20131113/101359/HHRG-113-IF16-20131113-SD009.PDF 

and http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20131113/101359/HHRG-113-IF16-20131113- 

SD008.pdf. 

Mr. KENNEY. Well, we think that those technologies are critical 

as well. We view the vehicle to vehicle communication as complementary to that. There are limitations of those sensor based systems. Their ranges are limited. Communication can go further. If 

there is a vehicle in between you and the danger, the sensor may 

not be able to see it, whereas communication can let you know 

about it. If there is a vehicle coming—— 

Mr. LONG. So it could be used in that instance on the 5—— 

Mr. KENNEY. I am sorry? 

Mr. LONG. The 5 gigahertz could be used in that instance? 

Mr. KENNEY. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. LONG. To prevent an accident? 

Mr. KENNEY. So we think that the 5.9 gigahertz communication 

and the sensor based systems on vehicles will work together to give 

us a very safe driving experience. 

Mr. LONG. But that is futuristic? That is not happening now? 

They are not using that now? 

Mr. KENNEY. The communication part is not yet deployed, but 

that is coming very soon. 

Mr. LONG. OK. And, Mr. Knapp, I have got a question regarding 

the dedicated short range communications. My constituents’ privacy is real important to them. So for people back in my district, 

do you think the FCC will propose protections of an individual’s 

privacy so car companies won’t be sending personalized advertisements to individuals based on where their car is located? 

Mr. KNAPP. So the Commission has provided the spectrum. The 

standards are developed by the industry, including privacy protections. And I think the GAO report had addressed the importance— 

the need for the standards to address this. And I know that the industry has been taking those things into account. The FCC generally has not set standards specifically for that. 

Mr. LONG. That doesn’t work unless they mandate that all cars 

have this, is that correct, or—— 

Mr. KNAPP. So the technology contemplates communication between vehicles. And so some of speculated that a percentage of the 

vehicles would provide an added benefit. But the idea is that eventually all of the vehicles would have this technology. As compared 

to what we just heard described, the radars that are built in, the 

car basically works autonomously. I don’t need to communicate or 

worry about whether something is installed in somebody else’s car. 

Mr. LONG. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

And I think that takes care of all our members and their questions. 

I do have a unanimous consent request, a report from SES and 

Intelsat, detailing interference concerns of satellite providers in the 

5.9 gigahertz band, and a GAO report by Mr. Nagel that he referenced on the benefits and challenges of ITS. So we would like to 

put it in the record without objection. So ordered. *

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlelady from—— 

63 

Ms. ESHOO. I would just close out the hearing today by saying 

thank you to Roger Sherman for his superb service here. I really 

don’t know what we are going to do without Roger. That is how 

fabulous he really is. He is, I think in many ways, in a class by 

himself, and I think that it is an eloquent statement about him 

that the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission 

has chosen him, named him as the acting chief of the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. I don’t know how many members 

know his background. In the 111th Congress, Roger—he began 

here. And he has really been the backbone of this subcommittee. 

And he has led the staff in a way that really brought out the best 

leadership qualities of everyone that was part of the team. And I 

think that that is the mark of a leader, and a confident leader. He 

has supported members and staff on every issue we have tackled. 

He really has been the indispensible person here. His strategic 

guidance, his expertise, his professionalism are all going to be 

missed, I think, by every member of the committee, and to our colleagues here on the subcommittee on the other side of the aisle. I 

think when we go to negotiate, you are going to miss Roger as well. 

You may even be relieved that he is not there. But he is not 

going to be far away. He is not going to be far away. 

Mr. WALDEN. That is right. We are going to subpoena him and 

have him under oath now. And I have got several questions. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. So I have no doubt that Roger Sherman is going 

to make extraordinary contributions at the FCC. We all look forward to working with you in the new role, Roger. And from a very 

deep respectful place, we salute you. You have devoted yourself. 

You could make so much money outside of this institution. But he 

has—he remains with it because he has such a great commitment 

to it. And I think that that is a very important story for the American people, because he is here to help to create wins for our country. And I don’t think there could be any more beautiful commitment. And we need people like you to continue on in public service. 

You have certainly enhanced my and all of ours here. So we are 

going to miss you. We thank you enormously. We thank you enormously for everything that you have done. And I will never ever 

forget it. I am a better legislator because of you. But more importantly, you have made great contributions to the entire subcommittee and the full committee. So God bless you. Go forward 

and do great things at the FCC. And when things aren’t working 

out, you are going to be our point man. We are not letting you go. 

So, Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. WALDEN. And remember—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN [continuing]. Remember that the FCC is an offshoot 

of the Congress. And so never forget that either as you go downtown. 

Ms. ESHOO. That is right. Yes. Yes. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. How about a round of applause for Roger Sherman? 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. WALDEN. And on that happy and appropriate note, that concludes our hearing. We thank our witnesses again for sharing your 

64 

comments with us, your testimony, your counsel and guidance. And 

we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD LANCE

Thank you Mr. Chairman, 

I’m glad we are having this hearing to examine how the 5 GHz spectrum band 

can be used in the most effective way possible. It is my goal to ensure that we are 

using our entire spectrum in the most efficient way possible and to promote advancement of both incumbent services and the myriad unlicensed products and services that are becoming ubiquitous in our daily lives. 

I think this Committee took the correct approach in directing the FCC and NTIA 

to examine the possibility of expanding the use of unlicensed devices in the 5 GHz 

bands as long as they do not cause harmful interference to the incumbent licensed 

operators already operating here. Much of this work has been done and I look forward to its work formally being finalized. There is a strong likelihood that we can 

make more efficient use of this spectrum and allow continued innovation of unlicensed devices using spectrum in this range without unduly hamstringing the commercial and public safety incumbents currently holding licenses. 

In recent years the innovation in devices making use of unlicensed spectrum has 

been breathtaking. Wi-fi internet access is no longer something restricted to our 

residences. The wireless phone carriers are ‘‘offloading’’ data traffic to Wi-fi hot 

spots at ever growing rates due to their own spectrum crunch. There are fewer and 

fewer public places without publically available Wi-fi. It has even been used to protect public safety. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy Cable companies opened 

their Wi-fi networks to first responders aiding in communication during the recovery. Bluetooth technology continues to advance, connecting us to our devices and 

residences in more and more effective and innovative ways. Remote controlled toys, 

wireless microphones, garage door openers, cordless phones and other devices also 

use unlicensed spectrum to operate. 

The band we are discussing today seems to be the logical place to increase these 

products and services but we also must take care not to foreclose completely the incumbent license holders already making use of this band. There is innovative and 

important research and development taking place by auto companies and important 

services being provided by satellite providers and radar operations already licensed 

here. It is important that we find the right balance to ensure that these services 

continue to operate as well. 

Qualcomm Research—located in my district in Bridgewater, New Jersey—has a 

long history of innovation in wireless systems, silicon design and infrastructure 

products. The Bridgewater facility focuses on the development and design of small 

cell networks, mobile ad hoc and device-to-device communications, telematics and 

related wireless technologies. 

Engineers from Qualcomm Research in Bridgewater and other Qualcomm facilities are working with NHTSA and the automobile manufacturers at the renowned 

University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute to ensure the rapid rollout and proliferation of innovative and potentially life-saving Dedicated Short Range 

Communications (DSRC) services in the 5.9 GHz band, specifically the 75 MHz from 

5.850 to 5.925 GHz allocated to DSRC. 

As we are progressing on DSRC, demand for Wi-fi continues to grow exponentially. We all recognize that as a nation we must be efficient in the way we allocate 

and utilize spectrum and what made sense ten or twenty years ago no longer works. 

At today’s hearing we will hear from both Cisco and Comcast about the need for 

additional spectrum to support Wi-fi. Cisco points out that global mobile data increased 70 percent in just one year from 2011 to 2012. I appreciate all that Cisco, 

Comcast, Qualcomm and others are doing every day to advance Wi-fi services for 

American consumers. 

The challenge we face as policymakers is to find a way to advance both DSRC 

and Wi-fi. The FCC allocated the 75 MHz between 5.850 and 5.925 GHz in 1999- 

long before Wi-fi was on the horizon and when DSRC was in its infancy. Given rapid 

technological advances since 1999, it is logical to ask whether Wi-fi can share with 

DSRC on a secondary basis in a way that accommodates both activities. 

In a May 28 filing with the FCC, Qualcomm stated that sharing would place 

DSRC safety services at risk of harmful interference. Qualcomm suggested a middleground alternative under which the upper portion of the 75 MHz-20–30 MHz-would 

be exclusively dedicated to DSRC so as to avoid any interference problem, while alVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:01 Oct 21, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-93 CHRIS
65 

lowing Wi-fi to share with DSRC in the remaining spectrum on a secondary basis, 

but only if this sharing works on a non-interfering basis. 

The Qualcomm proposal may not be the final answer to how to reconcile DSRC 

and Wi-fi. However, the proposal does provide a framework for discussion among all 

interested parties so that their talented and dedicated engineers can develop a solution. After all, virtually every American has a compelling interest in better wireless 

communications. 

Thank you again for holding this important hearing. 

66 


88051.042
67 


88051.056
68 


88051.047
69 


88051.048
70 


88051.049
71 


88051.050
72 


88051.051
73 


88051.052
74 


88051.053
75 


88051.054
76 

Æ 


88051.055