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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–638 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 107–1107

SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT: IMPROVING THE

MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND

COMMERCIAL SPECTRUM DOMESTICALLY AND

INTERNATIONALLY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 11, 2002

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director 

MOSES BOYD, Democratic Chief Counsel 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 11, 2002 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Allen ..................................................................................... 56

Statement of Senator Brownback ........................................................................... 6

Statement of Senator Burns ................................................................................... 4

Statement of Senator Ensign .................................................................................. 8

Statement of Senator Hollings ............................................................................... 2

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3

Statement of Senator Inouye .................................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator McCain ................................................................................. 4

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 8

Statement of Senator Wyden .................................................................................. 7

WITNESSES

Dodd, Christopher S., U.S. Senator from Connecticut ......................................... 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12

Guerrero, Peter F., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. General 

Accounting Office, Accompanied by Terri Russell, Senior Analyst, GAO ....... 13

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

Jeffords, James M., U.S. Senator from Vermont .................................................. 9

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

Price, Steven, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Spectrum, Space, Sensors, and 

C3, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense ......................................... 25

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27

Sugrue, Thomas J., Chief of Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission ............................................................................. 40

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42

Victory, Nancy J., Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and 

Information and Administration, National Technical Information Administration, Department of Commerce ...................................................................... 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Max Cleland to: 

Peter Guerrero .................................................................................................. 65

Steven Price ...................................................................................................... 71

Nancy J. Victory ............................................................................................... 80

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Byron L. Dorgan to: 

Steven Price ...................................................................................................... 73

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings to: 

Peter Guerrero .................................................................................................. 66

Steven Price ...................................................................................................... 73

Nancy J. Victory ............................................................................................... 81

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to: 

Peter Guerrero .................................................................................................. 67

Steven Price ...................................................................................................... 79

Nancy J. Victory ............................................................................................... 85

(1)

SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT: IMPROVING THE 

MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND

COMMERCIAL SPECTRUM DOMESTICALLY 

AND INTERNATIONALLY 

TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2002

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m. in room

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator INOUYE. This hearing will continue to explore the complex issues concerning spectrum management in an effort to help 

us move forward and develop a national spectrum management 

policy. Piecemeal proposals to allocate and reallocate spectrum are 

not in our Nation’s best interests. In addition, the ongoing war 

against terrorism has shed new light on Government spectrum 

needs. 

The testimony before the Committee today should provide useful 

information as we work to develop a legislative framework for managing spectrum. The particular issues before us today include: one, 

improving the process for assigning and allocating spectrum; two, 

reimbursing Government users for their reallocation costs if they 

are required to relinquish their spectrum for commercial uses; 

three, increasing U.S. participation in the World Radio Conference 

process; and four, the status of third generation wireless service. 

Since 1993 the Government users have been required to turn 

over portions of their spectrum for use by commercial users. In 

order to facilitate this process, many have suggested that Government users should be reimbursed through auction proceeds for reallocation costs they incur in order to move to new spectrum blocks 

or consolidate their existing operations. 

As we will hear today, there are also proposals to use auction 

proceeds for other beneficial purposes. In July of last year the Communications Subcommittee studied the need to make available 

spectrum for third generation wireless service. However, it seems 

that almost a year later we are not much closer to a resolution of 

this matter. 

Recent postponement of spectrum auctions reinforces the need to 

develop a national spectrum policy, one that supports the developVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
2

ment for emerging technologies while meeting the needs of Government users. 

Spectrum allocation is not only a domestic issue. It has become 

an important international issue. The U.S. must work to improve 

its participation in the World Radio Conference to successfully negotiate spectrum use internationally. 

As we consider these issues and work to improve the Nation’s 

management of spectrum, regulators must recognize the need to 

exercise leadership on and more effectively address these increasingly complex spectrum use and management issues. Spectrum 

management is important to both Government and commercial 

users. Incumbents and new entrants continue to seek additional 

spectrum to upgrade existing wireless technologies as well as introduce new ones. 

Given the growing importance of wireless technologies to consumers and Government users, we must rise to the challenge and 

resolve these issues to best serve our Nation’s interests. We must 

face these challenges head-on. In developing a new spectrum management approach, it is my hope that regulators will strive to stand 

in each other’s shoes by viewing the issues not only from the perspective of their constituencies, but also from the perspective of 

those competing interests. 

We must approach this issue creatively and bring forward new 

ideas to comprehensively address our Nation’s spectrum allocation. 

With that said, I welcome the witnesses and look forward to their 

testimony. We are most honored to have with us as our first witness——

Senator MCCAIN. Are we going to have opening statements? 

Senator INOUYE. Oh, I am sorry, yes. May I call upon the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Hollings. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will file my statement for the record and simply say that our Committee is indebted 

to you for your leadership and for your calling the hearing here on 

this spectrum issue. The fact is that this Committee is charged primarily with the responsibility of communications in this country of 

ours and yet we do not have a spectrum policy. 

I serve on the Budget committee and every time we get a shortfall they say, well, let us sell some spectrum. It is used for any and 

everything except the advancement of communications. Yet at the 

same time we have got the demands, we have got the educational 

demands. There is an interesting initiative by our friends Mr. 

Larry Grossman and Newt Minow. There is the need, of course, for 

broadband. There is the need for the wireless. 

Of course, foremost is the need of our Department of Defense. As 

the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I know 

that you have got that foremost in mind. So what I would like in 

this hearing is to begin to determine just exactly the needs of the 

Defense Department. They will fight at those needs. 

I was on the Budget committee when Rumsfeld was Secretary 

under President Ford and as chairman of a task force on defense 

for the budget, I found they had put 2 percent cut insurance. They 

3

had all the budgets come through. They had gotten their submission ready to send to the Congress and then they just added 2 percent on the premise that, wait a minute, the Congress is going to 

cut us, so we want to get what we want and the best way to do 

it is to put cut insurance on there of billions of dollars. 

So I know how that crowd works. We in turn have got to study 

it carefully and make sure they have got all they need, but begin 

as an industrialized nation to develop an expansion of the spectrum 

usage here in the United States. As an industrialized country, we 

probably have less spectrum allocated than any in the world. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hollings follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA

I commend Senator Inouye for holding this hearing. I believe that we are at a 

cross roads in spectrum management. We are essentially faced with two choices—

continue managing spectrum as we have in the past or develop an improved framework for addressing the increasingly complex spectrum issues that we face. I think 

it is incumbent on everyone, policy makers, regulators, commercial users, government users, new service providers, as well as manufacturers to candidly engage the 

difficult issues facing the nation regarding spectrum use and management, and 

work together to resolve those issues in a fair and creative manner. 

One of the important issues that must be addressed is finding and making spectrum available for third generation wireless service. Clearly, to successfully meet 

this challenge, re-allocations of spectrum, in addition to upgrades in technology to 

make better use of the spectrum, will be required. Although this presents crucial 

challenges for policy makers, such steps must be taken if we are going to meet the 

growing market and technological needs of both government and commercial users 

of spectrum. 

Freeing up more spectrum is not only critical for the offering of 3G service by 

wireless carriers, but also necessary for U.S. international competitiveness, and 

making new and innovative wireless services available to U.S. consumers. In fact, 

recent consumer data on wireless use demonstrates the need for additional wireless 

services. It noted that in the last 6 months of 2001 alone, U.S. consumers used more 

minutes than in all of 2000, and that by 2005, wireless usage is expected to equal 

more than 40 percent of all U.S. telecom minutes. As it stands, carriers are beginning to implement new wireless mobile data applications which will become increasingly important to consumers and how we conduct commerce. 

Because of these important needs and developments, I must say that I am disappointed with the lagging pace of finding spectrum for 3G service. After spectrum 

bands were identified for 3G service at the last world radio conference, president 

Clinton, in October of 2000, directed all federal agencies to work with the FCC and 

the private sector to identify spectrum that could be used for 3G service domestically. Even though it’s been almost two years since that charge, we have still not 

made much progress on the issue. 

Now there is a new proposal on the table. NTIA, along with DoD, is examining 

whether the 1710–1770 MHz portion can be used for 3G service. At the same time, 

the FCC is examining whether the 2110–2170 MHz band can be reallocated for 3G 

service. Although this current proposal represents a start, given its potential to provide 120 MHz of spectrum, it, nevertheless, is 80 mhz short of the 200 MHz that 

the international telecommunications union concluded is required for 3G service. 

I expect that, in addition to the other issues that this hearing will address, it will 

provide us with a clearer understanding of what it will take to meet the challenge 

of making spectrum available for 3G service. I understand that if DoD has to relinquish spectrum that it is currently using as well as to relocate or modify its operations, it will need to be reimbursed for its costs and may need additional spectrum 

in which to relocate its operations. I also understand that there are some existing 

wireless commercial users that may be affected by efforts to find spectrum for 3G 

services. While both of these issues are not easy ones, we are willing to work with 

everyone to find a solution, and clearly our national security cannot be jeopardized 

by this process. 

Spectrum undoubtedly is an increasingly scare resource. In this environment, 

there are only a few ways to find more spectrum. Our choices are reallocating specVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
4

trum from existing users, or developing technologies that can use spectrum more efficiently or use spectrum in frequency bands that are unusable today. As we move 

forward, all stakeholders must be willing to explore and pursue all options. With 

that said, I welcome the witnesses and look forward to hearing their testimony.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you, sir. 

Senator McCain. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and Senator Hollings for holding this hearing. I am particularly 

grateful that this is a full Committee hearing, reflecting the importance of this issue for both national defense and our economy. 

I would like to associate myself with the comments of Senator 

Hollings. Today there are even greater spectrum demands for both 

commercial and Government uses that make the task of managing 

this resource increasingly challenging and the importance of doing 

so effectively increasingly vital to our national interests. 

There are over 130 million wireless customers in the United 

States today, triple the number of wireless users in 1996. We all 

know the promise of 3G technology and it is important that we continue to foster the growth and development of these new and innovative technologies. However, we are still in a war. Threats to the 

security of the United States are there. It makes more urgent the 

task of reorganizing our military and the people, weapons, technology, and planning necessary to ensure the success of our world 

leadership. Clearly spectrum plays a very vital role in that effort. 

I believe it is critical, as the Chairman said, for our military 

forces to be properly equipped with the latest technology to keep 

America’s edge on the twenty-first century battlefield. More importantly, our military forces must have the resources necessary to 

complete their mission during time of war. 

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we get 

a definitive statement and assessment of needs by the military as 

well as public safety and transportation interests, so we can ensure 

that their views are heard as we strike a fine balance for finding 

and allocating spectrum for 3G and other future wireless services, 

while ensuring our military forces and other public users have 

enough spectrum for current and future needs. 

I think there is some time sensitivity associated with this issue, 

Mr. Chairman, as more and more clamor for the spectrum, increased by commercial and other interests. I hope we can set the 

parameters and policies, which so far we have been unable to do, 

nor has the administration presented to my knowledge. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. 

Senator Burns. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator BURNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for today’s 

hearings. I think this is the first shot really or the first step that 

we have, after looking at this situation, that we find ourselves in 

spectrum policy and especially in offering any kind of reform. 

5

Clearly there are many dimensions in this information age, but 

none more important than the use and the availability of spectrum. 

This issue at hand is not simply the allocation of spectrum for 3G 

or third generation, but also how to create a process for managing 

this valuable commodity in such a way to ensure national security, 

ensure commerce, but most of all to propel our transition into the 

next phase of the digital era, where information is truly available 

to all Americans regardless of geography. 

I became convinced more than ever of the need of comprehensive 

spectrum reform after recently traveling to Asia over this last Memorial Day recess. During my trip in Korea and Japan, I met with 

top legislators, telecommunications CEOs, and was quite impressed 

with the products and the services available to their consumers. 

Unfortunately, while consumers in Korea and Japan choose from 

a wide variety of third generation services, the rollout in the 

United States has been slow and it has been very choppy. Clearly, 

this is no accident as the amount of commercially available spectrum in Asia is twice that available to the industry in the United 

States. Making innovative wireless services available to consumers 

should be a national priority of every country. 

Unfortunately, the situation regarding spectrum allocation is far 

different in the United States. Put simply, we do not manage our 

spectrum well. At the heart of my concerns about our allocation of 

spectrum is the very auction process itself. The current process has 

resulted in creating a win-at-all-costs mentality among bidders that 

often results in widely inflated bids that cripple the companies that 

gain access to the spectrum. I can say something about auctions. 

I also remain troubled by views of spectrum as a sort of a national resource, to be exploited for maximum budgetary impact. We 

have seen the results of this kind of thinking both in Europe and 

here at home, which instead of maximizing revenue has often resulted in bankruptcies and endless hours, days, months, and years 

in the courtrooms. 

Rather, spectrum should be viewed as a technology which is the 

key to the future of the new generation of services for American 

companies and consumers. 

I have a variety of other concerns, including whether current division of spectrum authority should be between two agencies. Currently the two heads of the FCC and the NTIA are coordinating 

well, but from an institutional standpoint and perspective I fear 

the division leads to bureaucratic turf battles and inevitable delay. 

I am also interested in placing greater emphasis on our preparations for our participation in the World Radio Communications 

Conference. 

With these concerns in mind, last year I requested a comprehensive GAO report on spectrum allocation last year, along with my 

colleagues Senator Kerry and Senator Hollings. This report, which 

is unprecedented in its scope, will be completed this summer. I will 

use those findings as a basis to guide some of my thinking in preparing a comprehensive spectrum reform bill later on this year. 

This is a huge issue. 

Comprehensive spectrum reform has the potential to create numerous high tech jobs, to jump start the current ailing technology 

sector of our United States economy. We need to create a spectrum 

6

plan that will focus on managing spectrum in a rational way, balancing the needs of industry and Federal agencies. The emphasis 

of this plan must focus on developing innovative new wireless technologies. 

I would also state at this point, working with my Chairman, Mr. 

Inouye, and the full Committee Chairman Mr. Hollings, I look forward to the challenges that we will have to face in developing a 

fair, balanced resolution to this issue. 

I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing, both Mr. Chairmen. I feel like 

it is probably one of the more vital things that we will do in this 

summer session. 

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much. 

Senator Brownback. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK,

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 

add a couple comments to what has already been said. 

One is that—and I think this has been made by the Chairman 

and others—Congress has permitted spectrum auctions, intended 

as an efficient and objective means of licensing spectrum, to become a mere tool for raising revenue. On that I want to raise my 

voice as a part of the chorus saying that is just a wrong-headed 

way to go. I do not think we ought to look at this as a way to raise 

money. We should be looking at it as an overall policy issue. 

We should consider deposits of auction revenues in the Treasury 

as an added bonus, not the primary goal of spectrum auctions. 

However, since the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 we 

have clearly lost sight of these principles. 

The transition to digital television was intended to be a cooperative, market-driven process. Yet 2006 was set in the statute for the 

transition to come to a close. We made this decision in 1997, not 

because it was realistic, but because such a decision was required 

for budgetary purposes. Now, think about that. We decided in 1997 

that this transition would end in 2006. Did we know that that was 

going to take place? Did we think that was a fully appropriate period of time? It was primarily driven by budgetary needs. 

The end result is Congressional impatience with the DTV transition, even though it has probably proceeded without undue delay 

considering the level of investment that is required, the technological hurdles, and the policy resolutions required, too. 

Also, we have been forced to address issues that, quite frankly, 

should never have been raised, such as the 700 megahertz debacle. 

Today’s reliance on spectrum auctions for revenue generation and 

not solely for spectrum assignment cannot continue. With that, I 

want to again add my voice to what the Chairman and others have 

already said. 

I want to make one other note on a nascent issue that is developing here. The notion of, at this point in time, setting aside spectrum auction revenues for non-spectrum management-related purposes is not a good concept for us to engage at this point in time. 

Again as I have stated, the first goal of spectrum auction revenue 

7

should be the management of the spectrum itself, and not raising 

revenue for non-spectrum management-related purposes. 

Issues such as reimbursement for relocation must be addressed 

and assisted through the use of auction revenues that have been 

received. We have major transition issues that are going to be involved in comprehensive spectrum management reform and I think 

that is the more valuable place for us to be looking to focus these 

resources, rather than create another driver, causing us to push 

constantly for the sale of spectrum for a purpose other than the 

management of the spectrum itself. 

I think if we engage nonspectrum-management-related purposes, 

you are just going to get another pusher in the system to sell more 

spectrum, and I do not think that is wise in us looking for an overall spectrum management policy. 

I appreciate the hearing. I think it is a good topic. I hope it is 

one that we can get aggressively engaged upon. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. 

Senator Wyden. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too join in praising 

you and Senator Hollings for this hearing. I think that spectrum 

policy is the single most important issue in the telecommunications 

field. I think that when we look back 5 or 10 years from now at 

all the telecommunications issues that we are debating, I think we 

are going to say that spectrum policy issues had the most significant impact. 

I am of the view that probably the best way to promote real competition is through wireless, probably the best way to get significant additional service to rural areas is through wireless. But the 

only way you are going to do that is to reform the system of spectrum policy in this country. It is unquestionably a Jurassic system. 

Virtually nothing has changed since the 1920s, when spectrum was 

used for radio and radio only. 

I would sum it up by way of saying that inefficiency is now built 

into the system. So what I would like us to do as we examine this 

issue—and we will certainly be spurred by the GAO study this 

summer—is to say that the heart of a new spectrum policy should 

be to create new incentives to use spectrum in an innovative way, 

in a creative way, to share it, rather than in effect pull it close to 

you and hoard it. 

Essentially, today’s system encourages people just to hold everybody hostage and get the best ransom you can for it. I think we 

can do much better. As of now those incentives are lacking in the 

commercial area, they are lacking in the Government area, they 

are lacking with respect to the military. I think that is what we 

need to zero in on. I look forward to working with you and our colleagues to do it. 

Senator INOUYE. Senator Stevens. 

8

STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be 

short. 

I am sorry, I do not know if anyone else has mentioned this, but 

I do think we should congratulate Chairman Powell of the FCC for 

his spectrum policy task force. He is taking steps to expedite the 

broadcast digital conversion. I think we should take knowledge of 

the fact that the administration is working on a spectrum proposal 

to create a trust fund for spectrum proceeds to facilitate the movement of Defense and other agencies from the spectrum they currently use. 

But I also would like to remind the Committee that the World 

Radio Conference identified the global harmonized spectrum for the 

third generation uses, including global roaming, and the spectrum 

of 1755 to 1850 is occupied by DoD. It would be my hope that you 

would remember to have a classified hearing for Members of this 

Committee so they can obtain information on that spectrum and 

understand the pace at which it could possibly be moved. 

Senator Brownback mentioned the pace of change here. Clearly, 

even with the money that is contemplated by the administration’s 

spectrum trust fund, the cost of moving that spectrum is much 

greater than anyone, unless they have had the classified briefings, 

realize. So I think, while I entirely support the concept of finding 

some way to move the agencies off this spectrum and meeting particularly the international needs for the third generation, I do believe we should be clear what we are doing and not rush into this. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. 

Senator Ensign. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment you and Senator Hollings for this hearing today. I also am 

pleased that the administration has recognized the need for a comprehensive spectrum policy. 

A lot has been said and I just want to make two points from my 

observations. Third generation wireless is absolutely critical to 

America’s future. How it is handled in expediting the spectrum 

clearing process is very important, especially spectrum held by the 

Defense Department. 

Unfortunately, when we have looked at spectrum auctions, we 

focus on our budgetary means, not how many jobs will be created 

and how much revenue will come into the Federal treasury from 

deploying new technologies into the marketplace. It is unfortunate 

that current spectrum policy does not take future economic impact 

into account. 

With regard to the 700 megahertz issue that was previously 

mentioned. It is a textbook example of what can go wrong when we 

do not have a forward-looking, comprehensive spectrum management policy. We should continue working to establish such a policy, 

and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee to accomplish this goal. It is a mistake to go ahead with the 

9

June 19th auction. We can do much better in managing our previous spectrum, and I am continuing to work with some of my colleagues to come up with a compromise so that the June 19, 700 

megahertz auction does not go forward. I believe it would be a mistake to do so at this time, and I hope the Senate will soon act to 

dispose of this issue. 

So I look forward to working with my colleagues on the issue of 

spectrum management. I think wireless issues are exciting issues. 

They are difficult issues for us to understand, but I also agree that 

we should hold a classified briefing to better understand the military aspects. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Senator. 

Now may I call upon the Honorable James M. Jeffords, Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the 

Honorable Chris Dodd, member of the United States Senate and 

senior member of the committee on Foreign Relations. Senator

Jeffords. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT 

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate the hearing. I already learned a good deal about the complexities that we are dealing with. 

I commend Senator Hollings for holding the hearing to address 

the important issues relating to spectrum management, such as 

public safety and auctions. I appreciate your courtesy in allowing 

me to make a brief statement before attendance to another committee. 

First, let me briefly say I appreciate Senator Hollings’ attention 

to emergency personnel and first responders and their communications needs. In the Environment and Public Works Committee, we 

have heard about how our interoperability issues prevented first 

responders from communicating with each other on September 

11th. I know when I arrived at the Pentagon the day after, I talked 

with the responders who came from all over the country and they 

said—I asked them: What is the one problem that you noted most? 

They said: We could not talk to each other. This obviously is a critical problem when people are trying to operate in those circumstances. 

The EPW Committee has reported out a bill that would direct 

FEMA to study the steps necessary to establish a nationwide emergency communications system. I thank Senator Hollings for his interest and look forward to working with him and Senator McCain 

and other Members of this Committee to ensure that the responders have a first-rate system in place that really augments our Nation’s preparedness. 

Let me now talk about the education component and other aspects that I believe is relevant to the hearing. The American people 

are the owners of the spectrum and it is a national resource that 

has enormous value. Our citizens should see a direct and specific 

benefit from the use of their commonly owned property. The electromagnetic spectrum can serve a compelling national priority supporting education. There are several options. An education trust 

10

fund established with a percentage of the proceeds from the public 

asset of the spectrum could and should be designed to meet these 

needs. Distance learning options have tremendous potential and 

are already utilized around the world and in this country. 

Also, health care the potential for bettering our health care options are tremendous with respect to the utilization of the spectrum. The Digital Opportunity Investment Trust Fund Act authored by Senator Dodd is one approach that would help support 

education efforts with revenue from spectrum auctions. I am proud 

to join my friend from Connecticut as a co-sponsor of this provision. 

While the spectrum is literally as intangible as air, it is a national public resource every bit as real as our Federal park lands. 

We in the Government are the only managers of this resource and 

must not take that responsibility lightly. The Federal Government 

must be responsible for maximizing utilization of the spectrum for 

the best public purposes. 

The Congressional Research Service estimates that at least $40 

billion will come into the Federal coffers from spectrum auctions, 

have come since the auctioning began in the early 1990’s. That 

money has already been spent. The Congressional Broadcast Office 

estimates that the Federal Government will take in an additional 

$27 billion in proceeds from the spectrum auctions between now 

and the year 2007. 

I ask respectfully that you keep our Nation’s educational needs 

in mind as you consider the overall Federal management of the 

spectrum. Historically, Congress has stepped in to make substantial Federal investments in education innovation at critical times. 

A fellow Vermonter, Senator Justin Morrill, headed the concept of 

using a public asset for education in the mid–1800’s. The Morrill 

Act established through a gift of public land to each State our Nation’s land grant colleges. The Morrill Act resulted in unprecedented access to higher education for all, including historic black 

colleges. 

The GI Bill put higher education within the reach of millions of 

veterans from World War Two and later military conflicts. The 

launching of Sputnik prompted passage of the National Defense 

Education Act. The act brought increased funding to help Americans compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technical 

fields and the improvements of education, mathematics, and foreign language training. 

I believe Congress has an opportunity to step in and again bolster the quality of our educational system. We have an educational 

emergency in our Nation. We are lagging far behind our critical 

competitors in math and science. The President’s new testing initiative will make this very, very clear this fall. 

So I look forward to working with Senators Hollings, McCain, 

and all of my colleagues on this Committee to link education to the 

spectrum for the highest public good. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT

Thank you Senator Inouye, Senator Hollings, Senator McCain, and other Members of the Commerce Committee, for giving me the opportunity to testify today. I 

commend Senator Hollings for holding this hearing to address important issues reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
11

lating to spectrum management such as public safety and auctions. I appreciate 

your courtesy in allowing me to make a brief statement before my attendance is required at another hearing. 

First, let me briefly say I appreciate Senator Hollings’ attention to emergency personnel and first responders and their communications needs. In the Environment 

and Public Works (EPW) Committee we have heard about how interoperability 

issues prevented first responders from communicating with each other on September 11th. The EPW Committee has reported out a bill that would direct FEMA 

to study the steps necessary to establish a nationwide emergency communication 

system. 

I thank Senator Hollings for his interest and look forward to working with him 

and Senator McCain and the other Members of this Committee to ensure first responders have a first rate system in place that augments our nation’s preparedness. 

Let me now talk about an education component that I believe is relevant to this 

hearing. The American people are the owners of the spectrum, and it is a national 

resource that has enormous value. 

Our citizens should see a direct and specific benefit from the use of their commonly owned property. The electromagnetic spectrum can serve a compelling national priority of supporting education. An education trust fund, established with a 

percentage of the proceeds from the public asset of the spectrum, could and should 

be designed to meet these needs. 

The Digital Opportunity Investment Trust Act authored by Senator Dodd is one 

approach that would help support educational efforts with revenue from spectrum 

auctions. I am proud to join my friend from Connecticut in this effort as a cosponsor. 

While the spectrum is literally as intangible as air, it is a national public resource 

every bit as real as our federal park lands. We in the government are the only managers of this resource and must not take that responsibility lightly. 

The Federal Government must be responsible for maximizing the utilization of the 

spectrum for the best public purpose. 

The Congressional Research Service estimates that at least $40 billion dollars 

have come into federal coffers from spectrum auctions since auctioning began in the 

early 1990’s. That money has already been spent. 

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the Federal Government will take in 

an additional $27 billion in proceeds from spectrum auctions between now and the 

year 2007. 

I ask respectfully, that you keep our nation’s educational needs in mind as you 

consider the overall federal management of the spectrum. Historically, Congress has 

stepped in to make substantial federal investments in education innovation at critical times. 

A fellow Vermonter, Senator Justin Morrill, had the concept of using a public 

asset for education in the mid 1800’s. The Morrill Act established, through a gift 

of public land to each state, our nation’s land grant colleges. The Morrill Act resulted in unprecedented access to higher education for all. 

The GI Bill put higher education within the reach of millions of veterans from 

World War 2 and later military conflicts. 

The launching of Sputnik prompted passage of the National Defense Education 

Act. This Act brought increased funding to help America compete with the Soviet 

Union in scientific and technical fields and the improvement of science, mathematics, and foreign language training. 

I believe Congress has the opportunity to step in and again and bolster the quality of our educational system. 

I look forward to working with Senator Hollings, Senator McCain, and all of my 

colleagues on this Committee to link education and the spectrum for the highest 

public good.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, sir. 

Now may I call upon Senator Dodd. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. DODD,

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator DODD. Mr. Chairman, I will just ask unanimous consent 

to have this very, very brief statement. 

Senator INOUYE. Without objection. 

Senator DODD. First of all, we appreciate immensely you giving 

us an opportunity to appear before you this morning. Just by the 

12

mere presence of the many Members of this Committee, it demonstrates the interest in the subject matter, and obviously the interest goes even beyond the Committee here. This is a critically important issue. Senator Inouye, we know of your longstanding interest in it. Senator Hollings, obviously Senator McCain and others. 

I have spoken with John I think a couple of years ago about the 

idea of some sort of a trust fund, using the Morrill Act as an example. I found that a fascinating historical reference. Here in the middle of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln along with Justin Morrill of 

Vermont decided that they would sell public lands in the West and 

use the revenues from that to establish land grant colleges. A rather innovative and far-sighted idea, if you would, considering what 

the demands of the era and the time were. 

The GI Bill that has been mentioned by my colleague Senator 

Jeffords is another example. There was an earlier example in 1787, 

the Northwest Ordinance Act, which I am sure Senator Wyden is 

familiar with, which demanded in fact that States establish some 

sort of public school education policy as a result of efforts there. 

All we are suggesting here with this bill I think has been incorporated by a lot of what you have said already, and that is the idea 

of utilizing these public resources. This is sort of the land of the 

twenty-first century, if you will, the spectrum. Not to rush it, not 

to do it, auction it for the sake of auctioning it for revenues, but 

to see to it that we use this land, if you will, in a way that is going 

to contribute to the wealth and health of a Nation. 

One of the ideas is obviously education. There are others. Obviously, the first responders’ needs, interconnectability, is critically 

important; defense needs. Possibly a trust, which we are talking 

about here, would give us the greatest options in making determinations how best to use those resources, rather than having it 

just dumped into the general revenues where they can get lost in 

terms of some of the vital needs we are talking about. 

So Larry Grossman and Newton Minow you have mentioned, 

Senator Hollings, already as being people I know have talked to 

many people here in the Senate and others over many years about 

the idea that Senator Jeffords and I have offered here briefly in the 

last couple of days as one idea. I know the Committee will consider 

not only our ideas but others as you talk about this legislation. 

We are just grateful for the opportunity to testify here before you 

this morning. It is a little bit off the exact theme you have raised, 

but we appreciate the chance to express our views on this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Dodd follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER S. DODD, U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

Chairman Hollings, Ranking Member McCain, and Members of the Committee, I 

appreciate the opportunity to make some brief remarks today in support of innovative approaches to education and information technology in the 21st century. I am 

pleased to be joined today by my good friend and colleague, Senator Jeffords. 

Today, the Committee is beginning a formal inquiry into spectrum auctions and 

relocation and how best to manage this critical resource for maximum benefit. This 

issue is complex and I do not purport to be a technical expert. However, it is my 

belief that the spectrum is one of our last great natural resources and should be 

used for the greater public good. Innovative technologies could revolutionize lifelong 

learning and provide educational content to those individuals that might otherwise 

be denied access. Simply put, the goal is to link our cultural, historical and educational heritage, without commercial regard. Technological advances and infraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
13

structure improvements are only as good as the depth and breadth of content available to enhance our lives. 

It is estimated by CBO that more than $20 billion could be available from the 

sale and licensing of the spectrum. Some of these revenues could be used to build 

a Digital Opportunity Investment Trust to achieve this educational goal. 

Yesterday, Senator Jeffords and I introduced S. 2603, the Digital Opportunity Investment Trust Act, a bill designed to lay a framework for this vision. 

Throughout history, Congress has taken bold steps and invested resources to ensure that Americans were ready to overcome obstacles and face challenges head-on. 

Whether it be the 1787 Northwest Ordinance which set aside public lands for 

schools in every state, the 1862 Morrill Act which established land-grant colleges, 

or the 1944 GI-Bill, all of these bold initiatives expanded educational opportunities 

for the masses. It is again time to take a giant step forward. Now, we have the 

chance to build on those past initiatives and adapt and enhance educational opportunities for the 21st century. 

The legislation we set forth is designed to spur debate and interest in a visionary 

educational proposal for the 21st century. It is a framework for discussion and by 

no means set in stone. I know the Committee has an ambitious agenda, but I hope 

that members take a look at this proposal over the coming weeks. I do not expect 

that you would have any comments today, but I do look forward to working with 

you in the future.

Senator INOUYE. Any questions? 

Senator BURNS. Senator Dodd, the land grant colleges was a 

great idea, but they did not sell the public lands. 

Senator DODD. They gave it away. 

Senator BURNS. No, they did not give them away. Each section 

is assigned—out of each range there is a certain amount of sections 

that those revenues continue today to support land grant colleges. 

They were never sold, but the revenues derived from those resources found on those lands support land grant colleges. 

Senator DODD. I stand corrected, but the concept is—you endorse 

the concept, though, Senator? 

Senator BURNS. I fully endorse it. 

Senator INOUYE. Any further questions? 

[No response.] 

Senator INOUYE. If not, thank you very much, Senator Jeffords 

and Senator Dodd. 

May I now call upon a panel made up of the Director of the Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office, Mr. 

Peter Guerrero; the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Spectrum, 

Space, Sensors, and C3, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Steven Price; the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and Administration, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Ms. Nancy J. Victory; and Chief of Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission, Mr. 

Thomas J. Sugrue. 

May I first call upon Mr. Guerrero. 

STATEMENT OF PETER F. GUERRERO, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING

OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY: TERRI RUSSELL, SENIOR

ANALYST, GAO 

Mr. GUERRERO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me today is 

Terri Russell, Senior Analyst working for the GAO on these important issues. 

14

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on our ongoing work on 

spectrum management. As you know, managing the radio frequency spectrum has become more challenging as new technologies 

have developed and are used more widely. My full statement, 

which I will submit for the record, contains GAO’s preliminary observations in this regard. 

I would now like to talk about the current U.S. approach to spectrum management and some of the challenges we face. The current 

legal framework for domestic spectrum management emerged over 

a period of decades. As you know, spectrum management authority 

resides in two agencies, requiring close coordination and cooperation to ensure that the national interest is served. The National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration within the 

Department of Commerce is responsible for managing Federal spectrum use. The Federal Communications Commission has responsibility for managing all non–Federal spectrum use. 

While this shared approach has generally served us well, some 

allocation decisions are becoming more difficult, resulting in 

lengthy negotiations. This situation exists because nearly the entire usable spectrum is currently occupied. 

Short of improvements in technology that allow for more efficient 

use of existing spectrum, one of two things must generally happen 

to accommodate new demands: one, more of the available spectrum 

will need to be shared; or two, existing spectrum users will need 

to be reallocated to other frequencies to make room for others. 

Moving users is usually contentious and requires that comparable 

spectrum be found for incumbents and that resources are available 

for system and equipment changes. An example of this difficulty in 

making allocation decisions is the ongoing effort to identify spectrum to accommodate third generation wireless services. 

During the course of our review, some officials we interviewed 

suggested establishing a third party, such as an outside panel or 

a commission, an office within the executive branch, or an interagency group, to arbitrate or resolve these types of differences. In 

some other countries such decisions are made within one agency or 

within interagency mechanisms that exist for resolving such matters. 

Recognizing also that better planning could help address these 

issues, Congress itself has directed both the FCC and NTIA to conduct joint spectrum planning sessions and assess the progress towards implementing a national spectrum plan. However, top officials from both FCC and NTIA said that neither requirement has 

been fully implemented, but recently confirmed at a national summit on spectrum their intention to implement these directives. 

Now I would like to turn to the challenges we face in preparing 

for international negotiations. We looked at these challenges as the 

U.S. prepares for the World Radiocommunication Conference coming up next year, where decisions are made on how to allocate spectrum internationally. In recent years, U.S. preparations for these 

conferences have become more complex as the number of conferences, participating nations, and agenda items have all increased. 

For example, while only 9 nations participated in the first World 

Radio Communication Conference in 1903, some 148 nations parVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
15

ticipated in the 2000 conference. With more at stake and more nations participating, the U.S. needs the votes of other nations in 

order to get the U.S. positions adopted by the conference. We found 

strong agreement among those we interviewed on the importance 

of developing an early U.S. negotiating position to allow sufficient 

lead time to meet with other nations to gain their support for our 

positions. 

However, we heard differences of opinion about the effectiveness 

of the current U.S. preparatory process. Currently, both FCC and 

NTIA develop separate positions on conference agenda items 

through separate processes. With State Department coordination, 

the agencies then get together to develop a unified U.S. position. 

While ensuring stakeholder input and producing well-scrutinized 

proposals, this separate but parallel process can also take time, especially when agenda items are contentious. 

In response to concerns about timeliness, the former U.S. ambassador to the 2000 conference recommended merging the separate 

processes to get an earlier start and to harmonize industry and 

Government positions for these negotiations. 

Differing views have also been expressed on the appointment 

process used to choose an individual to head the U.S. delegation. 

Since the early 1980s, the President has appointed a temporary 

U.S. ambassador with a term of 6 months to head our delegation. 

Again, the former U.S. ambassador to the 2000 conference observed 

that the brief tenure of the appointment leaves little time to get 

up to speed on the issues, to solidify U.S. positions, to form a delegation, and to undertake the preconference meetings with heads of 

other delegations. 

In addition, the ambassador said there is concern about the lack 

of continuity and leadership from one conference to the next, in 

contrast to other nations that are led by high level Government officials who serve longer terms and may represent their nations 

through multiple conferences. 

Now I would like to turn to the Department of Commerce’s efforts to promote efficient spectrum use by Federal agencies. We reviewed how NTIA, within the Department of Commerce, works to 

promote efficient spectrum use by Federal agencies. While NTIA 

has established several processes and undertaken a number of actions, it lacks assurance that these activities are indeed effective. 

There are a number of reasons for this. 

First, staffing and resource limitations often prevent agencies 

from completing required periodic reviews intended to assure that 

assignments are still needed. Staffing and funding limitations have 

also forced NTIA to eliminate monitoring programs intended to 

verify that agencies are using spectrum as specified in their assignments. 

Second, the adoption of more efficient technologies has proven to 

be challenging. Along these lines, NTIA has required Federal agencies to adopt what is called narrowband technology. This technology would considerably increase the number of channels available for land-based mobile communications. However, some agencies are currently struggling to meet this requirement due to the 

lack of sufficient staff and funding. Specifically 4 of the 7 agencies 

16

we reviewed said they would not complete their upgrades before 

the deadline. 

Finally, NTIA officials told us that existing spectrum management fees designed to recover part of the costs of NTIA’s spectrum 

management functions provide agencies with a financial incentive 

to remove inactive assignments. However, it is not clear that these 

fees, about $50 per assignment, actually promote efficient use of 

spectrum. For instance, agencies can reduce the number of assignments without returning unneeded spectrum. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that we will be 

reporting to you in detail on all of these matters later this summer. 

In addition, we are conducting further work on how current rules 

and regulations governing spectrum allocation and use affect the 

rollout of new technologies and services and the level of business 

competition. 

As a part of this work to be completed next year, we are interviewing an array of business, Government, and public safety users 

of spectrum. Tomorrow at GAO we will be hosting a panel of national spectrum experts. We are also collecting information from 

spectrum managers in a dozen countries in an effort to learn more 

about other spectrum management approaches. 

This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guerrero follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER F. GUERRERO, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL

INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY

TERRI RUSSELL, SENIOR ANALYST, GAO 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here to report on the preliminary observations from our work 

on radio spectrum management issues. The radio spectrum is the medium that 

makes possible wireless communications of all sorts, such as cellular and paging 

services, radio and television broadcasting, radar, and satellite-based services. As 

new technologies that depend on the radio spectrum continue to be developed and 

used more widely, managing the spectrum has grown increasingly challenging. The 

radio spectrum can become congested if too many users operate on it in an uncoordinated manner. Moreover, because spectrum has no geographical boundaries, the domestic management of spectrum is closely tied to international agreements on spectrum use. Therefore, the radio spectrum must be carefully managed, both on a national and international level, to meet the needs of a constantly increasing variety 

of services and users. One important task of spectrum management is the allocation 

of spectrum, or the apportionment of spectrum between the different types of uses 

and users of wireless services. As demand for spectrum has grown, this task has 

become more difficult, raising complex questions that cannot be easily answered. 

At the request of this Committee, we have interviewed agency and industry officials and reviewed relevant documents to address the following issues: (1) the evolution of the current legal framework for domestic spectrum management; (2) how 

well the current U.S. spectrum management structure facilitates the allocation of 

spectrum; (3) what challenges the United States faces in preparing for World 

Radiocommunication Conferences (WRC), at which decisions are made on how to allocate spectrum internationally; and (4) how the federal government encourages efficient use of spectrum by federal agencies 

Our work is ongoing and will result in a report to be issued this summer. We reviewed the legislative history and relevant agency manuals, policies, and regulations, and interviewed officials responsible for spectrum management from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and Department of State, and key wireless industry 

representatives. In addition, to determine how the federal government uses and 

manages spectrum, we interviewed officials from the following seven agencies: the 

Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Federal Aviation AdminVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
17

istration, the Coast Guard, the Department of Justice, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

In summary, our preliminary observations are as follows:

• The current legal framework for domestic spectrum management evolved as a 

compromise over the questions of who should determine the distribution of spectrum among competing users and what standard should be applied in making 

this determination. Although initially all responsibility for spectrum management was placed in the executive branch, since 1927 this responsibility has 

been divided between the executive branch for managing federal use (currently, 

the President has delegated this responsibility to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration), and an independent commission for 

managing non-federal spectrum use (at first the Federal Radio Commission and 

since 1934, its successor, the Federal Communications Commission). The standard to be applied in managing non-federal government spectrum is ‘‘the public 

interest.’’ Under this divided management framework, no one entity has ultimate decision-making power over all spectrum users; the two agencies must coordinate and cooperate in order to determine how to accommodate different 

users competing for spectrum.

• The current shared U.S. spectrum management structure has processes for allocating spectrum for new uses and users of wireless services, but these processes 

have occasionally resulted in lengthy negotiations between FCC and NTIA over 

how to resolve some allocation issues. Since nearly all of the usable radio spectrum has been allocated already, accommodating more services and users often 

involves redefining spectrum allocations. One method of doing this used by FCC 

and NTIA is to increase the amount of shared spectrum. In shared spectrum, 

more than one type of service or user may utilize the frequencies in the allocation. For example, according to NTIA, 56 percent of the spectrum in the 0–3.1 

GHz range is now shared between federal and non-federal users. Another method of redefining allocations, called band clearing, involves moving a service or 

user from one area of spectrum to another in order to make room for a new 

service or user. Occasionally, these methods are contentious and protracted, 

such as the continuing efforts to reallocate spectrum for third-generation advanced wireless services. Some government officials and nongovernmental representatives we interviewed discussed the possibility of designating a third 

party to arbitrate between FCC and NTIA in such circumstances and the need 

for better planning to help increase coordination between the two agencies in 

their shared management of this resource.

• The United States faces challenges in effectively preparing for World 

Radiocommunication Conferences, at which decisions are made regarding the allocation of spectrum internationally, to ensure that the United States can best 

serve the interests of domestic spectrum users. Timely preparation has become 

more important and challenging due to increases in the frequency of conferences, the number of participating nations (each of which has one vote), and 

the number of items on conference agendas that countries vote on to change the 

international rules for spectrum use. In addition, regional blocks have emerged, 

with countries pooling their votes to promote their position on agenda items. 

Under the current structure, FCC and NTIA develop positions on agenda items 

through separate processes that involve the users of the spectrum they manage. 

The positions reached during these two processes must be merged into a unified 

U.S. position. An ambassador is appointed by the President for a period not exceeding six months to facilitate the development of this unified position and 

lead the U.S. delegation in negotiating for the adoption of U.S. positions at the 

World Radiocommunication Conference. In our meetings with government officials and wireless industry representatives, we heard differing opinions about 

(1) the ability of the United States to develop a unified position early enough 

to promote that position effectively and (2) the manner in which we appoint an 

ambassador to head the U.S. delegation.

• NTIA has several activities to encourage efficient spectrum use by federal agencies, but it lacks assurance that these activities are effective. NTIA is required 

to promote efficiency in the federal spectrum it manages, which included more 

than 270,000 federal frequency assignments at the end of 2000. To do this, 

NTIA directs federal agencies to use only as much spectrum as they need. Because agencies have different mission-based needs and because there are a large 

number of frequency assignments that require attention, NTIA’s frequency assignment and review processes place the primary responsibility for promoting 

efficiency in the hands of the agencies. NTIA requires that agencies justify their 

need for spectrum and review most spectrum assignments every 5 years. OffiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
18

1 Radio waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation that propagates in space as the result 

of particle oscillations. The number of oscillations per second is called frequency, which is measured in units of hertz. The terms ‘‘kilohertz’’ refers to thousands of hertz and ‘‘gigahertz’’ to billions of hertz. The radio spectrum comprises a range of frequencies from 3 kilohertz to around 

300 gigahertz. 2Part 15 of FCC rules permits the operation of authorized low-power wireless devices without 

a license from FCC or the need for frequency coordination. The technical standards contained 

in Part 15 are designed to ensure that there is a low probability that these unlicensed devices 

will cause harmful interference to other users of the radio spectrum. 47 C.F.R. § 15 (2001). 

cials from the seven federal agencies in our review told us that they attempt 

to use spectrum as efficiently as possible, but five of them are not completing 

the required five-year reviews in a timely or meaningful way because of staff 

shortages and other agency priorities. Moreover, although NTIA has established 

monitoring programs to verify how agencies are using spectrum, it said that 

some of these programs are inactive because of staff and funding shortages. 

NTIA also conducts research and technical initiatives that are designed to promote efficiency by conserving spectrum, but NTIA said some of these efforts 

have been difficult to implement. In addition, NTIA states that its spectrum 

management fees, which were designed to recover part of the costs of NTIA’s 

spectrum management functions, provide agencies with a financial incentive to 

remove inactive assignments. However, it is not clear that these fees promote 

efficient use of spectrum because agencies can reduce the number of assignments without returning spectrum.

• In addition to these issues, the Committee requested that we review how the 

current rules and regulations governing spectrum holders affect the rollout of 

new technologies and services and the level of competition in markets that utilize spectrum. As part of this work, we will look at how other countries manage 

spectrum. Although our review of these issues will not be completed until early 

2003, I will briefly discuss our ongoing work at the end of this statement. 

Background 

To a large degree, spectrum management policies flow from the technical characteristics of radio spectrum. Although the radio spectrum spans nearly 300 billion 

frequencies, 90 percent of its use is concentrated in the 1 percent of frequencies that 

are below 3.1 gigahertz. 1 The crowding in this region has occurred because these 

frequencies have properties that are well suited for many important wireless technologies, such as mobile phones, radio and television broadcasting, and numerous 

satellite communication systems. 

The process known as spectrum allocation has been adopted, both domestically 

and internationally, as a means of apportioning frequencies among the various types 

of uses and users of wireless services and preventing radio congestion, which can 

lead to interference. Interference occurs when radio signals of two or more users 

interact in a manner that disrupts the transmission and reception of messages. 

Spectrum allocation involves segmenting the radio spectrum into bands of frequencies that are designated for use by particular types of radio services or classes 

of users, such as broadcast television and satellites. Over the years, the United 

States has designated hundreds of frequency bands for numerous types of wireless 

services. Within these bands, government, commercial, scientific, and amateur users 

receive specific frequency assignments or licenses for their wireless operations. 2 The 

equipment they use is designed to operate on these frequencies. 

During the last 50 years, developments in wireless technology have opened up additional usable frequencies, reduced the potential for interference, and improved the 

efficiency of transmission through various techniques, such as reducing the amount 

of spectrum needed to send information. While this has helped limit congestion 

within the radio spectrum, competition for additional spectrum remains high. Wireless services have become critically important to federal, state, and local governments for national security, public safety, and other functions. At the same time, 

the consumer market for wireless services has seen extraordinary growth. For example, mobile phone service in the United States greatly exceeded the industry’s original growth predications, as it jumped from 16 million subscribers in 1994 to an estimated 110 million in 2001. 

Framework for Spectrum Management 

The legal framework for allocating radio spectrum among federal and nonfederal 

users emerged from a compromise over two fundamental policy questions: (1) whether spectrum decisions should be made by a single government official, or a body of 

decision-makers; and (2) whether all nonfederal users should be able to operate 

radio services without qualification, or if a standard should be used to license these 

19

3 37 Stat. 302 (1912). The Radio Act of 1912 was enacted, in part, to fulfill U.S. obligations 

incurred by the first international radio treaty. Congress had passed an earlier federal statute, 

the Wireless Ship Act, 36 Stat. 629 (1910), as amended, 37 Stat. 199 (1912), to address a first 

use of radio—safety of ships at sea. In 1904, President Roosevelt adopted a recommendation of 

the first known inter-agency board to address radio use by the federal government placing all 

government coastal radio facilities under the U.S. Navy’s control. 4The Secretary of Commerce could not refuse to grant a license upon proper application under 

the Act as held by a court and two attorneys general opinions. See 29 Op. 579 (1912); 35 Op. 

126 (1926); Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., Inc; 286 Fed. 1003 (D.C. Cir., 1923). The Secretary 

had no power to make regulations additional to those in the act. See United States v. Zenith 

Radio Corporation et al., 12 F. (2d) 614 (N.D. Ill., 1926); Carmichael v. Anderson, 14 F. 2d 166 

(W.D. Mo. 1926). The 1912 act did not regulate broadcasting. See Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves 

Broad. Station, Inc., et al., reported in the Congressional Record on December 10, 1926 (Cong. 

Rec. Vol. 68, Part I, pp. 216–219). 5This debate went on over several years as the Department of Commerce convened four radio 

conferences (1922–25) attended by manufacturers, broadcasters, civilian and military government users, and other stakeholders to make recommendations addressing overcrowding of the 

airwaves. Designation of the Secretary of Commerce as the sole licensing authority, one of the 

recommendations from the conferences, was a matter of contention in congressional debate on 

new legislation. 6 44 Stat. 1162 (1927). Under the act, the FRC was granted licensing authority for one year 

to resolve interference problems and then was to become an appellate body to address disputes 

with the Secretary of Commerce who was to assume licensing duties. However, the FRC’s oneyear tenure was extended three times by Congress, the last for an indefinite term pending new 

legislation. 7Prior to the 1927 Radio Act, an Illinois state court issued a decision to enforce a property 

right to a radio frequency under the principle of ‘‘right of user.’’ Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves 

Broad. Station, Inc., et al., (Cir. Ct., Cook County, Ill. 1926), reprinted in 68 Cong. Rec. 216 

(1926). 8When originally formed in 1922, the inter-agency committee was known as the ‘‘Interdepartment Advisory Committee on Governmental Radio Broadcasting.’’

operators. The resulting regulatory framework—dividing spectrum management between the President and an independent regulatory body—is rooted both in the 

President’s responsibility for national defense and in the fulfillment of federal agencies’ missions, and the encouragement and recognition by the federal government of 

the investment made by private enterprise in radio and other communications services. 

The first federal statute to establish a structure for spectrum management—the 

Radio Act of 1912 3—consolidated licensing authority with the Secretary of Commerce. However, the act proved to be deficient in addressing the burgeoning growth 

of radio communications and ensuing interference that occurred in the late 1910s 

and 1920s. Specifically, the Secretary of Commerce lacked the authority to use licensing as a means of controlling radio station operations, 4 or to take actions to 

control interference, such as designating frequencies for uses or issuing licenses of 

limited duration. In recognition of such limitations, deliberations began in the 1920s 

to devise a new framework for radio spectrum management. Although there was 

general agreement that licensing should entail more than a registration process, 

there was debate about designation of the licensing authority and the standard that 

should govern the issuance of licenses. 5

The Radio Act of 1927, 6 reflecting a compromise on a new spectrum management 

framework, reserved the authority to assign frequencies for all federal government 

radio operators to the President and created the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) 

to license non-federal government operators. Composed of five members from five 

different regions of the country, FRC could assign frequencies, establish coverage 

areas, and establish the power and location of transmitters under its licensing authority. Further, the act delineated that a radio operation proposed by a non-federal 

license applicant must meet a standard of ‘‘the public interest, convenience and necessity,’’ and that a license conveyed no ownership in radio channels nor created any 

right beyond the terms of the license. 7 FRC’s authorities were subsequently transferred to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the FRC was abolished upon enactment of the Communications Act of 1934, which brought together 

the regulation of telephone, telegraph, and radio services under one independent 

regulatory agency. The 1934 act also retained the authority of the President to assign spectrum to and manage federal government radio operations. 

The need for cooperative action in solving problems arising from the federal government’s interest in radio use was recognized in 1922 with the formation of the 

Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), comprised of representatives 

from the federal agencies that use the most spectrum. 8 IRAC, whose existence and 

actions were affirmed by the President in 1927, has continued to advise whoever has 

been responsible for exercising the authority of the President to assign frequencies 

20

9 Under the Radio Act of 1927, the President’s spectrum management authority was delegated—and IRAC reported through—first, the Secretary of Commerce, and then, beginning in 

1932, the FRC (replaced by the FCC in 1934). In 1940, an inter-agency Defense Communications 

Board was formed to coordinate the relationship of all branches of communication to the national defense; IRAC reported directly to the Board as of 1941 until the Board was abolished 

in 1947. Since 1951, the President’s spectrum management authority, coupled with telecommunications policy advice, has been delegated, and IRAC has reported through: the Telecommunications Advisor to the President (1951); the director of the Office of Defense Mobilization (1953); the director of the Office of Civil Defense Mobilization (1958); the director of Telecommunications Management (1962); the director of the Office of Telecommunications Policy 

(1970); and NTIA (1978). 10President Carter’s Executive Order 12,046, issued in 1978, abolished the Office of Telecommunications Policy, transferred its functions to the Department of Commerce, and established an Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information. Subsequently, the Department formally established NTIA and Congress codified NTIA and its mission into law. See The 

Telecommunications Authorization Act of 1992, 106 Stat. 3533 (1992). 11 Although FCC once served as a representative to IRAC, its role in IRAC was transformed 

in 1952 to that of liaison. 12 NTIA also reported that 42 percent of the shared allocations between federal and nonfederal 

users in the 0 to 3.1 GHz range are shared on a ‘‘co-primary’’ basis. 13The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 1999, P.L. 

105–251, Oct. 17, 1998, authorized federal entities to accept compensation payments when they 

to the federal government. 9 In 1978, the President’s authority for spectrum management of federal government users was delegated to NTIA, an agency of the Department of Commerce. 10 IRAC assists NTIA in assigning frequencies to federal agencies and developing policies, programs, procedures, and technical criteria for the allocation, management, and use of the spectrum. 

Over the past 75 years, since the 1927 act formed our divided structure of spectrum management, there is historical evidence of cooperation and coordination in 

managing federal and non-federal users to ensure the effective use of spectrum. For 

example, FCC and IRAC agreed in 1940 to give each other notice of proposed actions that might cause interference or other problems for their respective constituencies. Further, FCC has always participated in IRAC meetings 11 and NTIA frequently provides comments in FCC proceedings that impact federal radio operations. 

And, as I will discuss later, FCC and NTIA also work together with the Department 

of State to formulate a unified U.S. position on issues at international meetings that 

coordinate spectrum use regionally and globally. However, as demand for this limited resource increases, particularly with the continuing emergence of new commercial wireless technologies, NTIA and FCC face serious challenges in trying to meet 

the growth in the needs of their respective incumbent users, while accommodating 

the needs of new users. 

Facilitating Spectrum Allocations 

The current shared U.S. spectrum management structure has methods for allocating spectrum for new uses and users of wireless services, but these methods have 

occasionally resulted in lengthy negotiations between FCC and NTIA over how to 

resolve some allocation issues. Since nearly all of the usable radio spectrum has 

been allocated already, accommodating more services and users often involves redefining spectrum allocations. 

One method, spectrum ‘‘sharing,’’ enables more than one user to transmit radio 

signals on the same frequency band. In a shared allocation, a distinction is made 

as to which user has ‘‘primary’’ or priority use of a frequency and which user has 

‘‘secondary’’ status, meaning it must defer to the primary user. Users may also be 

designated as ‘‘co-primary’’ in which the first operator to obtain authority to use the 

spectrum has priority to use the frequency over another primary operator. In instances where spectrum is shared between federal and non-federal users—currently 

constituting 56 percent of the spectrum in the 0–3.1 GHz range 12—FCC and NTIA 

must ensure that the status assigned to users (primary/secondary or co-primary) 

meet users’ radio needs, and that users abide by rules applicable to their designated 

status. 

Another method to accommodate new users and technologies is ‘‘bandclearing,’’ or 

re-classifying a band of spectrum from one set of radio services and users to another, which requires moving previously authorized users to a different band. Bandclearing decisions affecting either only non-federal or only federal users are managed within FCC or NTIA respectively, albeit sometimes with difficulty. However, 

bandclearing decisions that involve radio services of both types of users pose a 

greater challenge. Specifically, they require coordination between FCC and NTIA to 

ensure that moving existing users to a new frequency band is feasible and not otherwise disruptive to their radio operation needs. 13 While many such band-clearing deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
21

relocate or modify their frequency use to accommodate non-federal users of the spectrum. The 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, P.L. 106–65, Oct. 5, 1999, specified 

a number of conditions that have to be met if spectrum in which DoD is the primary user is 

surrendered. The act requires NTIA, in consultation with FCC, identify and make available to 

DoD for its primary use, if necessary, an alternate band(s) of frequency as replacement for the 

band surrendered. Further, if such band(s) of frequency are to be surrendered, the Secretaries 

of Defense and Commerce, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must jointly certify 

to relevant congressional committees that such alternative band(s) provide comparable technical 

characteristics to restore essential military capability. 14For more information on spectrum use decisions for third-generation wireless services, see 

Defense Spectrum Management: More Analysis Needed to Support Use Decisions for the 1755–

1850 MHz Band (GAO–01–795, August 20, 2001). 15Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, P.L. 103–66, Aug. 10, 1993, mandated that bands of 

frequencies not less than 200 MHz be transferred from use of the federal government to nonfederal users. NTIA was directed to make a report on the identification and recommendation 

for reallocation of frequency bands; utilize specific criteria in making recommendations; issue 

a preliminary report upon which public comment on proposed reallocations would be solicited; 

obtain analyses and comment from FCC on reallocations; and transfer frequency bands within 

specified time frames. It required FCC to gradually allocate and assign frequencies over the 

course of ten years. The Balanced Budget Act, P.L. 105–33, Aug. 5, 1997, imposed a stricter 

deadline for NTIA to identify for reallocation and FCC to reallocate, auction, and assign licenses 

by September 2002 for an additional 20 MHz of spectrum. (Eight MHz of spectrum was subsequently reclaimed per congressional direction. See section 1062 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, P.L. 106–65, Oct. 5, 1999.) 16 47 U.S.C. § 922. 17P.L. 106–65, 113 Stat. 767 (1999). 18 ITU is a United Nations specialized agency. The federal government considers the ITU the 

principal competent and appropriate international organization for the purpose of formulating 

international treaties and understandings regarding certain telecommunications matters. 

cisions have been made throughout radio history, these negotiations can become protracted. For example, a hotly debated issue is how to accommodate third-generation 

wireless services. 14 FCC also told us that the relationship between FCC and NTIA 

on spectrum management became more structured following the enactment of legislative provisions mandating the reallocation of spectrum from federal to non-federal 

government use. 15

To address the protracted nature of some spectrum band-clearing efforts, some officials we interviewed have suggested establishing a third party—such as an outside 

panel or commission, an office within the Executive branch, or an inter-agency 

group—to arbitrate or resolve differences between FCC and NTIA. In some other 

countries, decisions are made within one agency or within interagency mechanisms 

that exist for resolving contentious band-clearing issues. For example, the United 

Kingdom differs from the U.S. spectrum management structure in that a formal 

standing committee, co-chaired by officials from the Radiocommunications Agency 

and the Ministry of Defense, has the authority to resolve contentious spectrum 

issues. 

Another proposed mechanism is the preparation of a national spectrum plan to 

better manage the allocation process. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 

1993 required NTIA and FCC to conduct joint spectrum planning sessions. 16 The 

National Defense Authorization Act of 2000 included a requirement for FCC and 

NTIA to review and assess the progress toward implementing a national spectrum 

plan. 17 Top officials from FCC and NTIA said that neither requirement has been 

fully implemented. However, they indicated their intention to implement these directives. 

Challenges in Preparing for World Radiocommunication Conferences 

A central challenge for the United States in preparing for WRCs, at which international spectrum allocation decisions are made, is completing the preparatory actions to ensure that the U.S. is able to effectively negotiate for international allocations that best serve the interests of domestic federal and non-federal spectrum 

users. The management of our domestic spectrum is closely tied to international 

agreements on spectrum use at regional and global levels. Domestic spectrum allocations are generally consistent with international allocations negotiated and agreed 

to by members of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 18 The spectrum allocation decisions reached at these international conferences can affect the 

direction and growth of various wireless communications services and have farreaching implications for the multi-billion dollar wireless communications industry 

in this country and abroad. 

While the first international radio conferences were aimed at interference avoidance for early radio uses, such as maritime safety, meeting this same objective has 

become increasingly challenging throughout the last century with the proliferation 

22

19One of the U.S. delegation’s objectives stemming from its experience at the 2000 WRC is 

to work more closely with participating countries in our own region in preparing for the 2003 

conference. 20 Recommendations to Improve United States Participation in World Radiocommunication 

Conferences, Ambassador Gail S. Schoettler, U.S. Head of Delegation, World 

Radiocommunications Conference 2000, June 27, 2000. 21 22 U.S.C. § 3942. This provision of law enables the President to confer the personal rank 

of ambassador on an individual in connection with a special mission for the President not exceeding six months in duration. The President need only transmit to the Senate Committee on 

Foreign Relations a written report on the appointment; confirmation by the Senate is not needed. 

of services and the number of nations adopting communications that utilize the 

radio frequency spectrum. For example, the emergence of new radio applications 

with international ramifications, such as broadcasting, radio navigation, and satellite-based services, has increased the need to reach agreements to prevent cross 

border signal interference and maximize the benefits of spectrum in meeting global 

needs, such as air traffic control. At the same time, the number of participating nations in these negotiations has risen dramatically—from 9 nations in the first conference held in 1903, to 65 nations in 1932, to 148 at the conference held in 2000—

along with the frequency of conferences (now held every 2 to 3 years), and the number of agenda items negotiated at a conference (e.g., 11 in 1979; 34 in 2000). There 

has also been a movement toward regional cooperation at WRCs. Because decisions 

on WRC agenda items are made by vote of the participating countries—with one 

vote per country—uniform or block voting of nations in regional alignment has 

emerged to more effectively advance regional positions. 19

The State Department coordinates and mediates the U.S. position for the WRC 

and leads the U.S. delegation to the conference through an ambassador appointed 

by the President. We found strong agreement among those we interviewed that it 

is important for the United States to develop its position in advance of the conference in order to have time to meet with other nations to gain international support for our positions. However, we heard differences of opinion about the United 

States’ preparatory process for the conferences. U.S. positions on WRC agenda items 

are developed largely through separate processes by FCC and NTIA with the involvement of their respective constituencies. To obtain input from non-federal users, 

FCC convenes a federal advisory committee comprised of representatives of various 

radio interests (e.g., commercial, broadcast, private, and public safety users), and solicits comment through a public notice in the Federal Register. NTIA and federal 

government users can and do participate in the FCC process. To obtain the views 

of federal spectrum users, IRAC meets to provide NTIA with input on WRC agenda 

items. Although IRAC’s WRC preparatory meetings are closed to the private sector 

due to national security concerns, non-federal government users may make presentations to IRAC to convey their views on WRC agenda items. Any differences of 

opinion between FCC and NTIA on the U.S. position must ultimately be reconciled 

into a unified U.S. position on each WRC agenda item. In cases where differences 

persist, the ambassador acts as a mediator to achieve consensus to form a position. 

State Department and FCC officials told us that the work of FCC and NTIA with 

their respective constituencies and with each other in preparation for a conference 

leads to U.S. positions on WRC agenda items that are thoroughly scrutinized, well 

reasoned, and generally supported among federal and non-federal parties. In contrast, some non-federal officials told us that the NTIA process does not allow the 

private sector adequate involvement in the development of U.S. positions for the 

WRC. Also, some federal and non-federal officials said that since each agency develops its positions through separate processes, it takes too long to meld the two toward the end of the preparatory period. For example, to speed up our preparatory 

process, the former U.S. Ambassador to the 2000 WRC recommended merging the 

separate FCC and NTIA preparatory groups to get an earlier start at working with 

industry and government users to reach a consensus on U.S. positions regarding 

WRC agenda items. 20

Differing views also have been expressed on how we appoint an individual to head 

the U.S. delegation. Since the early 1980s, the President has appointed an ambassador to head the U.S. delegation to WRCs for a time period not exceeding six 

months. 21 The former U.S. Ambassador to the 2000 WRC said that ambassador status is generally believed to confer a high level of support from the administration, 

and it is viewed as helping to achieve consensus in finalizing U.S. positions and enhancing our negotiating posture. However, the former ambassador also said that the 

brief tenure of the appointment leaves little time for the ambassador to get up to 

speed on the issues, solidify U.S. positions, form a delegation, and undertake preconference meetings with heads of other delegations to promote U.S. positions. In 

23

22 47 U.S.C. § 903(d)(1). 23 Certain aeronautical and military frequency assignments are required to be reviewed every 

10 years. 

addition, the ambassador said there is concern about the lack of continuity in leadership from one conference to the next, in contrast to other nations that are led by 

high-level government officials who serve longer terms and may represent their nations through multiple conferences. Leaders of national delegations with longer 

terms are perceived as being more able to develop relationships with their counterparts from other nations, helping them to negotiate and build regional and international support for their positions. On the other hand, NTIA officials expressed the 

view that the ambassador’s negotiating skill was of equal importance to the duration of the appointment. 

Encouraging Efficient Federal Spectrum Use 

NTIA has several activities to encourage efficient spectrum use by the federal government, but does not have assurance that these activities are effective. NTIA is required 22 to promote the efficient and cost-effective use of the federal spectrum that 

it manages—over 270,000 federal frequency assignments at the end of 2000—‘‘to the 

maximum extent feasible.’’ NTIA has directed agencies to use only as much spectrum as they need. 

NTIA’s process for assigning and reviewing spectrum places primary responsibility for promoting efficiency in the hands of the individual agencies because the 

determination of agencies’ spectrum needs depends on an understanding of their 

varied missions. Moreover, the large number of frequency assignments that require 

attention (NTIA processes between 7,000 and 10,000 assignment action requests—

applications, modifications, or deletions—from agencies every month on average) 

makes it necessary to depend heavily on the agencies to justify and review their assignment needs. 

NTIA authorizes federal agency use of the spectrum through its frequency assignment process. As part of this process, NTIA requires an agency to justify on its application that it will use the frequency assignment to fulfill an established mission 

and that other means of communication, such as commercial services, are not appropriate or available. In turn, agencies generally rely on mission staff to identify and 

justify the need for a frequency assignment and complete the engineering and technical specifications for the application. NTIA and IRAC review the application to ensure, among other things, that the assignment will not interfere with other users. 

Once NTIA has authorized spectrum use by agencies, it requires that the agencies 

review their frequency assignments every 5 years to determine that the assignments 

are still needed and meet technical specifications. 23 NTIA said that it may delete 

assignments that have not been reviewed for more than 10 years. 

Officials from the seven federal agencies in our review told us that they attempt 

to use spectrum as efficiently as possible, but five of them are not completing the 

required five-year reviews in a timely or meaningful way. According to agency officials, this is due to shortages of staff available to complete the review or because 

completing the reviews are a low agency priority. For example, a spectrum manager 

for a major agency division has over 1,000 frequency assignments that have not 

been reviewed in 10 years or more. A spectrum manager in another agency said that 

the agency has eliminated all field staff responsible for assisting with the five-year 

reviews, which has impaired the timeliness and quality of the reviews. The spectrum manager for a third federal agency said that he was sure that the agency was 

not using all of its frequency assignments, but he added that conducting a comprehensive review would be cost prohibitive and generate limited benefits to the 

agency. However, we note that although the agencies may not reap benefits from 

conducting these reviews, if these reviews result in the release of unused or underutilized spectrum, other federal and non-federal users could benefit. 

Although NTIA’s rules and procedures also include NTIA monitoring programs designed to verify how spectrum is used by federal agencies, NTIA no longer conducts 

these programs as described. For example, at one time, the Spectrum Management 

Survey Program included NTIA site visits to verify if agency transmitters were 

being used as authorized. NTIA said that although this program helped correct frequency assignment information and educate field staff on NTIA requirements, it is 

not currently active due to NTIA staff shortages. In addition, the Spectrum Measurement Program made use of van-mounted monitoring equipment to verify that 

federal agencies were utilizing assigned frequencies in accordance with the assignment’s requirements. NTIA said that although this program provided useful information, the van-mounted verification has been discontinued due to lack of resources. 

As a result of the limited nature of the assignment and review programs and deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
24

24The issue of unused spectrum is not exclusive to federal agencies. A recent self-reported survey of some private radio bands by FCC resulted in the return of over 30,000 unused spectrum 

licenses. 25 In 1992, Congress directed NTIA to adopt and implement a plan for federal agencies with 

existing mobile radio systems to use more spectrum-efficient technologies. 47 U.S.C. § 903(d)(3). 

In 1993, NTIA provided Congress with a report—Land Mobile Spectrum Efficiency: A Plan for 

Federal Government Agencies to Use More Spectrum-Efficient Technologies—that included the 

narrowbanding plan. 26 In addition to cost constraints, federal agencies can choose not to use an existing land mobile system if the agency can justify that it needs its own system to meet its mission requirements. For example, GAO agreed with NTIA that the Navy was in the best position to assess 

whether it needed its own land mobile system to meet its mission. 27 A bandwidth-based approach would have forced the Air Force to pay the majority of the 

fees because of the large amount of spectrum the radars they operate use. However, each radar 

transmitter requires only one assignment. 

creased monitoring, NTIA lacks assurance that agencies are only using as much 

spectrum as they need. 24

NTIA also seeks to promote efficiency by advocating spectrum conservation 

through research and technical initiatives, but some of these activities face implementation problems. Two examples illustrate the potential and the limitations of 

these types of efforts. First, NTIA, with the approval of IRAC, has required all federal agencies to upgrade land-based mobile radios by setting deadlines for halving 

the spectrum bandwidth used per channel (in essence, freeing up half of each band 

currently in use) for radios in certain highly congested bands—a process called 

narrowbanding. 25 This requirement has the potential to greatly expand the spectrum available for land mobile telecommunications, but some agencies said that 

they are struggling to meet the deadline due to a lack of sufficient staff and funding. 

Several agencies in our review said they will not complete the upgrades before the 

deadline. For example, the Chief Information Officer for one agency that is a member of IRAC compared the requirement to an unfunded mandate, and indicated that 

his office did not have the financial resources needed to upgrade the tens of thousands of radios that fall under the requirement. 

A second example of a technological initiative is a NTIA-sponsored pilot program 

for federal agencies in six cities in the early 1990s to establish a spectrum sharing 

method for voice radio communications, called trunking, which conserves spectrum 

by putting more users on each radio channel. According to NTIA, some agencies resisted the program because it was more costly for agencies to participate in trunking 

than it was for them to use their own channels. In addition, some agencies said the 

trunking systems did not meet their mission needs. 26 NTIA added that the program 

was only completely successful in Washington, DC, where agency demand for frequency assignments, and therefore spectrum congestion, is extremely high. We 

found efforts to encourage this technology in other countries as well. In the United 

Kingdom, providers of emergency services are being encouraged to join a trunking 

system. Once the new system has proved to be capable of meeting their needs, certain public safety users will incur financial penalties if they do not use this system. 

Additionally, in one province in Canada, a variety of public safety users have voluntarily begun developing a trunking system in order to use their assigned spectrum 

more efficiently in light of the fees they must pay for this resource. 

NTIA also told us that the congressionally-mandated spectrum management fees 

agencies must pay also help to promote the efficient use of spectrum. These fees are 

designed to recover part of the costs of NTIA’s spectrum management function. The 

fees began in 1996 and amounted to about $50 per frequency assignment in 2001. 

NTIA decided to base the fee on the number of assignments authorized per agency 

instead of the amount of spectrum used per agency because the number of assignments better reflects the amount of work NTIA must do for each agency. Moreover, 

NTIA stated that this fee structure provides a wider distribution of cost to the agencies. 27 Although NTIA officials said that spectrum fees provide an incentive for 

agencies to relinquish assignments, it is not clear that this promotes efficient use 

of spectrum, in part because agencies may be able to reduce assignments without 

returning spectrum. For example, a spectrum manager for a federal agency said 

that the spectrum fee has caused the agency to reduce redundant assignments, but 

that it has not impacted the efficiency of the agency’s spectrum use because the 

agency did not return any spectrum to NTIA as a result of reducing its assignments. 

We have learned that other countries are moving toward using payment mechanisms for government spectrum users that are specifically designed to encourage 

government users to conserve their use of spectrum, rather than to recover the cost 

of managing the spectrum. Both Canada and the United Kingdom are reviewing 

25

their administrative fee structures at this time with the intent of encouraging spectrum efficiency. 

Additional GAO Work on Spectrum Management 

We are conducting additional work on the management of the radio spectrum to 

determine how the current rules and regulations governing spectrum holders affect 

the rollout of new technologies and services and the level of competition in markets 

that utilize spectrum. To address these and other related issues, we are building 

on the information presented here today concerning U.S. rules and regulations governing spectrum management. We are interviewing an array of providers of mobile 

telephone, satellite, paging services, broadcasters, NTIA, other federal agencies, and 

public safety representatives. Tomorrow we are hosting a panel with experts from 

several of these sources to elicit additional input on these and other issues. 

We are also collecting information from spectrum managers in approximately 12 

other countries. We are interested in learning about their regulatory structure, including their assignment processes, the amount of flexibility allowed spectrum 

users, the existence of secondary markets, and their rules regarding interference. 

In addition, we are interested in determining what incentives—market-based or administrative—are employed to encourage government and non-government users to 

conserve spectrum. We will also seek to determine what impact these regulators 

think their actions are having on consumer prices, the deployment of new technology, the rollout of new services, and the level of competition. From this work, 

we hope to summarize alternative approaches to spectrum management used 

around the world and to identify similarities and differences between these approaches and those used in the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Guerrero. 

Now may I call upon Mr. Price. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN PRICE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR SPECTRUM, SPACE, SENSORS, AND C3,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I would like to thank you for inviting me today and also 

thank you for your remarks earlier, most of which the Department 

fully agrees with. The Department of Defense appreciates that your 

Committee is looking at spectrum management issues. 

Spectrum is the lifeblood of our military. Every ship at sea, every 

airplane conducting missions, every forward-deployed young man 

or woman, especially in hard-to-reach locations, depends on radios 

and spectrum to conduct their missions and to return home safely. 

A Special Forces team leader operating during Operation Enduring 

Freedom in Afghanistan recently told me: ‘‘We could go in there 

naked with flipflops and as long as we have good radios we could 

do our job.’’

Information clearly is one of our most important weapons. A Department of Defense spectrum requirements analysis completed 

prior to the September 11th and therefore likely to be an underestimate predicted Department of Defense spectrum usage growth of 

more than 90 percent by 2005. This did not take into account new 

demands in the arena of homeland defense, such as potential spectrum-related missions like military support for major events, as 

was the case during the Olympics in Salt Lake City, protection of 

critical infrastructure and emergency response. 

In short, the Department of Defense spectrum needs are growing 

rapidly and the Department does not believe that the future needs 

of our transformed, network-centric military can be met without access to additional spectrum allocations. 

26

DoD spectrum policy is guided by certain core principles. First, 

spectrum is critical to DoD. As I have mentioned, it is a core enabler of what we do. Therefore, we should not allow lack of sufficient spectrum to be a constraint on our war-fighters. 

Second, spectrum is, as has been mentioned, a vital national resource. We understand that our needs must be balanced with other 

national needs. Our view is that such a balance must recognize 

that essential defense needs must have top priority. 

The third spectrum policy is that we recognize that we must be 

a good and responsible spectrum user. We must, as was mentioned 

earlier, justify how we use our spectrum and how much spectrum 

we need. In fact, we do strive to be as efficient a user as we can 

be. 

But it is important to understand that when talking about needs 

and efficiency our use is very different from that of commercial enterprises. The commercial sector seeks low-cost, high-revenue solutions. Therefore, busy signals are acceptable. I understand and accept that fact. In fact, when I ran a publicly traded wireless company years ago I did exactly that. But such cannot be the case for 

our military, because our calls must get through, whether they are 

guiding precision guided munitions or alerting a soldier of harm. 

Where lives are the stake, there is no margin for error. 

Despite how critical spectrum is to DoD’s mission, our access to 

it is under attack. This is evidenced by the current viability study 

for 3G services. Losing needed spectrum is like losing any other 

vital resource. It costs the Department both in current capability 

and future opportunity, both directly and through reallocation of 

dollars to mitigate the damage. Each time we are forced to adjust 

training in the United States away from operational norms to accommodate domestic frequency restraints, our training realism and 

effectiveness suffers. 

The uncertainty caused by relocation attacks pose serious risks 

for our long-term planning. Will we be required to move? Will we 

get the money to move? Will we need to retrain? Will we retrain 

in time to be prepared to deploy in an emergency? Will we need 

to change our concepts of operations to account for degraded capabilities? Will we be able to get host nation approval to use the systems in the new frequency bands in all parts of the world we might 

need to do so? Will our allies who bought interoperable systems to 

work with us and who are now required to modify their systems 

because of our domestic constraints do so, and who will pay their 

bill? And on and on. 

DoD bears the risk of cost overruns for moving. We bear the risk 

of overcoming technical challenges and, most importantly, we bear 

the risk of failure of our equipment due to hasty relocation decisions. 

In the Department of Defense we have a duty to the young men 

and women who defend our country. We have a duty to ensure that 

they have the tools they need to do their job. We believe we owe 

them policies to ensure that lack of access to spectrum is not a constraint on their capabilities. 

Thank you for your time. I look forward to working with you and 

the other witnesses on these important issues. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Price follows:]

27

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN PRICE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

SPECTRUM, SPACE, SENSORS, AND C3, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

1. Introduction 

I would like to thank the Members of this Committee, and particularly Chairman 

Inouye, for holding this hearing on spectrum management and use. I think that our 

experiences in Afghanistan indicate just how important this issue is to our armed 

forces. 

DoD’s spectrum needs are increasing due to new operational concepts, including 

more extensive use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as well as evolving strategies that 

require joint, dispersed forces to have greater connectivity in the ‘‘last tactical mile.’’ 

One of the platforms used in Operation Enduring Freedom is the Predator. This 

new type of military system is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). Because the 

plane is unmanned, it must be controlled and operated remotely. That means it is 

entirely dependent on spectrum, both for flight control and to pass along information. Without spectrum the Predator would, in aviator parlance, ‘‘go stupid’’—it 

could neither fly nor be able to pass on information or images, which is its core function. In Afghanistan, we used Predators to laser-designate targets for bombers, and 

the Air Force is even testing how well Predators can fire laser-guided missiles. 

Many experts see Predators and other UAVs as being in a similar developmental 

phase as manned aircraft were in the 1920s and 30s. This is, of course, great news 

because we can do so much, without risking lives, in reconnaissance, targeting and 

now even firing of weapons. There is, however, a cost to all of this, and that cost 

is in spectrum. These UAVs absolutely depend on spectrum; if they don’t have it, 

they fall out of the sky. 

The Predator example is just one indication of how spectrum is crucial for DoD’s 

entire mission, including homeland security. Fully sufficient spectrum is essential 

in accomplishing national defense missions, and ensuring that the Department of 

Defense retains such spectrum it needs is a top national priority. 

Mr. Chairman, as I will discuss in more detail in my testimony, spectrum is integral to our nation’s defenses. It is critical to the success of national security policy 

at home and abroad. We must be able to inform you, the commercial sector and the 

general public of that importance as we try to balance the relative values of competing interests. 

Spectrum is the lifeblood of the Department of Defense. Every ship at sea, every 

airplane conducting missions, every forward-deployed young man or woman—especially in hard to reach locations—depends on radios and spectrum to conduct missions and to return home safely. Captain Jason Armerine, a Special Forces Team 

Leader during Operation Enduring Freedom, spoke about his experience in the early 

days of the Afghanistan campaign: ‘‘We could go in there naked with flip-flops and 

as long as we have good radios, we could do our job.’’

This will be even truer in the future, as DoD’s ongoing transformation to a network-centric military will add new demands. A DoD spectrum requirements analysis, completed prior to September 11, 2001 (and therefore likely to be an underestimate) predicted DoD spectrum usage growth of more than 90 percent by 2005. In 

addition, there will be new demands in the arena of homeland defense. These will 

likely include new spectrum related missions, such as military support for major 

events (such as was the case in the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City), protection of critical infrastructure and emergency response. 

Spectrum is one of our nation’s most valuable natural resources. It is not uncommon for us to use land or real estate analogies to describe spectrum. We use terms 

like ‘‘beachfront property’’—that’s how valuable it is. The reason it is so valuable 

is that it enables so much of the technology that many people look to in order to 

solve many problems. The communications and information revolution has now resulted in commercially successful technologies unimagined several years ago: such 

as, tiny wireless phones, wireless local area networks (LANs), Internet access from 

virtually anywhere in the world. 

But these technologies are even more important to the military because of the 

lack of any wired alternative in many military operations. Wireless technologies are 

particularly important for our military forces’ operations because of their increasingly mobile and flexible nature. The ongoing revolution in military affairs/operations has made information the key component of warfare. Mass of force no longer 

has the power it once did because our tactics are more sophisticated, as are our 

warfighters and the equipment they carry. The revolution in personal communications that civilians have experienced is mirrored by a similar revolution in military 

communications. We can make a phone call or access the Internet on a landline, 

but the ship captain, bomber pilot or tank commander has no other option but wireVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
28

less communications. And because of the way we fight, that information is more important than ever, both to the troops in the field and to the commanders—whether 

they are in theater or 12,000 miles away. 

The pressure on government spectrum will not end. Wireless technologies will 

continue to proliferate. While 3G services have yet to be widely deployed, there is 

already industry discussion of 4G and 5G technologies, as well as widespread wireless LANs. We should resist the convenient arguments that these burgeoning technologies should be supported by reallocation of more government spectrum—we 

must arrive at a sound spectrum policy that allows our commercial interests to coexist with public interests. 

2. DoD Use of Spectrum 

Spectrum enables almost every function that DoD performs. Whenever mobile 

platforms—whether satellites, ships or trucks—exchange information, spectrum is 

involved. I would like to go through some examples of this just to give you a flavor 

of what we are really talking about here. Military strategists around the world—

and, in fact, the American public—have seen first-hand in Afghanistan how the 

United States has been able to defeat an extraordinarily determined enemy in some 

of the world’s most inaccessible terrain. We have demonstrated the advantage to our 

nation of asymmetric warfare, relying upon networked satellites, UAVs, air support, 

precision-guided weapons and Special Forces on the ground. The accuracy of precision-guided weaponry is dependent on our GPS satellite system and on UAVs that 

can spot the enemy very effectively. The weapons guidance systems are entirely dependant on radio spectrum. Where sky-based surveillance alone does not provide 

our forces and their allies with sufficient knowledge of circumstances on the ground, 

we have relied on radio-based communications between our ground-based forces and 

air-based forces, and indeed, the Central Command in Tampa, Florida. What we 

have is an extraordinarily complex electromagnetic ecosystem. Indeed, I would posit 

that it is one of the most complex electromagnetic ecosystems in the world, all functioning exceptionally well under battlefield conditions. The preparations for this Afghanistan scenario, and its enactment itself, are based in large measure on spectrum in the bands from 1755 MHz to 1770 MHz—precisely the bands that industry 

has targeted over the past year. Let me describe some of the critical DoD systems 

that operate in these bands. 

The uplinks that control all DoD and intelligence satellites—more than 120 satellites representing a cumulative investment of about $100 billion—use spectrum in 

the 1755–1850 MHz band. These satellites perform communications, positioning and 

timing, surveillance and reconnaissance, weather observation, and other functions 

crucial to warfighting and to decision-making. The telemetry, tracking and command systems for all of these satellites resides in the critical 1755–1770 band which 

is still under consideration. In addition to the satellite control function, the 1755–

1850 MHz band also serves as an uplink to provide processed weather data and 

navigation timing information to DoD satellites for down linking to DoD users on 

a worldwide basis. 

DoD’s GPS satellites have become crucial parts of the national civilian/military infrastructure, supporting global navigation and positioning requirements for air, land 

and sea vessels. Today in Afghanistan, GPS supports everything from precisionguided munitions to Special Forces operations. Precision targeting done by special 

operations forces is virtually impossible without GPS. 

Battlefield radio relay systems also use the 1755–1850 MHz spectrum and form 

the long-haul backbone of the Army and Marine tactical Internets. They let our 

ground forces share situational awareness and coordinate their operations in real 

time across the extended battlefield, as well as with ships offshore. 

In terms of training our forces, the Air Force and Navy aircrew combat training 

system are also heavily dependent on the 1755–1850 MHz spectrum. This system 

provides realistic training to our aircrews that cannot be gained in flight air combat 

simulators, while allowing supervisors to make critical assessments of their performance and give feedback to improve that performance. This is one of the main 

reasons that American pilots are the best-trained combat pilots in the world. We 

can ill-afford to send marginally trained aircrews into combat; on the first night of 

an air war there can be no learning curve. A major impact of reduction of spectrum 

allocated to federal uses is the effect on training and, consequently, combat readiness. The comprehensive training required to achieve and maintain combat readiness is essential for the effective deployment of our forces for both homeland defense 

and wartime conditions. This training includes the development of operational tactics and doctrine to ensure that our forces operate at maximum capabilities. 

29

The following is an excerpt of a March 11, 2002 Aviation Week article on this 

topic, which shows how important a role bandwidth and spectrum played in our current operations:

For example, a Rivet Joint (airplane) orbiting over Pakistan or a signals intelligence satellite in space picks up a communication indicating Al Qaeda activity 

in some corner of Afghanistan. That sigint ‘‘tipper’’ is sent to the (combined air 

operations center). Operators there look for the fastest intelligence platform—

Joint Stars, AWACS or P–3, for example—and send it to the hot spot to begin 

controlling the local engagement using its wide area sensors. Meanwhile, a 

slower Predator (unmanned plane) is turned and starts taking its acute but narrow field-of-view sensors to the scene. . . The Predator shows up and relieves 

the manned aircraft, which moves off to the next problem. The UAV then provides precise target coordinates to an AC–130 gunship or a strike aircraft.

Virtually all of these systems played a key role in the Allied victory in Kosovo 

and are now being used in Afghanistan in the war on terror. The success of these 

operations would be unlikely without satellite-based communications, navigation, 

and reconnaissance, without well-trained combat aircrews, without precision-guided 

weapons, and without tactical radio relay systems. 

In an era of reduced force structure and increased mission responsibilities these 

systems serve to enhance significantly our operational capabilities. Enhanced knowledge of the battlefield (or, situational awareness) and precise engagement capabilities obtained from these spectrum-dependent force-multiplier systems protect our 

forces throughout the full range of U.S. involvement, from combat to peacekeeping 

and humanitarian operations. 

I want to say in the most unequivocal way possible that the loss or degradation 

of our ability to perform these crucial functions would have severe consequences for 

national security. It would result in mission failures and increased casualties in future operations, as well as the loss of vital intelligence information to the President 

and senior leaders. As Secretary Rumsfeld and then Chairman of the Joint Staff 

Shelton wrote to Senator Daschle on August 27, 2001, ‘‘Access to the radio frequency 

spectrum is essential to our success in all future real-world operations. Lack of adequate spectrum will jeopardize our national security.’’

Access to sufficient spectrum will be even more important to our military in the 

future. All of our transformational priorities depend on it. Spectrum supports the 

six goals from the Quadrennial Defense Review. Access to bandwidth and spectrum 

help the military:

• Protect our bases of operation and our homeland • Deny enemies sanctuary • Project power in denied areas • Leverage information technology • Enhance information operations, and 

• Maintain our unhindered access to space

Just as in the civilian world, the military is seeing a quantum leap in the demand 

for spectrum. Transformation is driving this and will continue to drive it. Without 

sufficient spectrum, there is no transformation. And without transformation, our 

military forces may not be able to maintain the crucial edge needed to confront and 

defeat the nation’s 21st Century enemies. 

Much of DoD’s spectrum use is unique. Unlike the commercial sector’s drive for 

low cost, high revenue solutions, the DoD’s core belief is that where lives are at 

stake, there is no margin for error—the ‘‘call’’ must get through. When an aircraft 

is guiding a precision weapon, or a commander is relaying life-saving information 

to troops on the ground, there cannot be ‘‘busy’’ signals. Some spectrum use that 

industry might label as ‘‘inefficient’’ is actually designed for anti-jam systems, low 

probability of intercept, and other ‘‘counter counter-measures.’’ For the military, ‘‘efficient spectrum use’’ often translates into ‘‘guaranteed information delivery’’ and because of that, commercial standards that allow a certain percentage of built-in busy 

signals or dropped calls cannot be tolerated. Nor, in many cases, are commercial 

measures of efficiency useful. 

Another example of DoD’s unique use is that we often operate many different 

emitters in close proximity to each other. Our AWACS command and control aircraft 

uses 50 antennas to track other platforms, communicate and direct the battlefield. 

If one system on the airplane were changed it would affect all of the others. How 

this kind of equipment interacts with each other is really a science. The issue is 

complicated when talking about warships, such as aircraft carriers, that have a 

large number of emitters and also handle live ordnance on the decks—electromagnetic energy can in some cases cause ordnance to detonate. The Joint Spectrum 

30

Center does a great deal of analysis in this area, mitigating interference between 

different pieces of equipment and ensuring that there are no harmful effects of radiating the equipment. Without their efforts radiating emitters near each other would 

be hazardous with the risk of interference substantial. 

3. DoD Spectrum Principles 

DoD spectrum policy is guided by certain core principles. First, spectrum is a vital 

national resource. DoD understands that its needs must be balanced with other national needs. Therefore, it supports a US spectrum policy that balances military and 

economic security. DoD believes that the balance of authority between the President’s spectrum manager, the NTIA, and the Federal Communications Commission, 

as implemented at a practical level, helps to achieve the appropriate balance. That 

balance must recognize that the Department of Defense must have sufficient spectrum to meet the nation’s defense needs. This is a longstanding principal of national 

spectrum management and it should continue. 

Second, spectrum is critical to DoD. It is a core enabler of what we do, and it is 

indispensable to national security. Therefore, we should not allow lack of sufficient 

spectrum to be a constraint on the US warfighter or on military capabilities. DoD 

spectrum needs should be driven by military requirements and capabilities, not 

spectrum allocations. 

Third, DoD recognizes that it must be a good spectrum user. DoD must strive to 

be as efficient a spectrum user as it can be. For example, DoD is in the process of 

implementing an internal reorganization to create the Defense Spectrum Office. 

This is a new entity, co-located with the service frequency management offices, that 

will among other things focus on spectrum efficient technologies and promote interservice sharing of spectrum assets. 

Fourth, DoD intends to continue investing in new, spectrum-efficient technologies. 

It will continue to seek to use technology to alleviate DoD’s and the commercial sector’s long-term needs for additional spectrum. DoD has been a major contributor to 

the birth of proven spectrum efficient technologies, including CDMA and software 

defined radio, and those that show potential, such as ultra wideband. Significant research is ongoing within DoD in search of efficient technologies. This research includes extensive work on such topics as adaptive spectrum usage, frequency and 

bandwidth agility, phased-array antenna configurations, interference mitigation 

techniques, congestion control technologies and numerous networking projects. In 

addition, DoD continually seeks to better manage its spectrum allocations. For example, it will seek to move fixed use assignments out of lower frequency bands and 

into bands less suitable for mobile applications. 

Fifth, DoD commits to actively supporting US policies and interests in international organizations and multinational and bilateral negotiations for spectrum allocation and use. The Department of Defense works with the State Department and 

other federal agencies on international negotiations regarding spectrum allocations 

and related matters, under the auspices of the International Telecommunication 

Union and regional telecommunication and related international organizations and 

with other countries on bilateral matters. The cycle of preparations is a permanent, 

ongoing process leading up to World Radiocommunication Conferences, which are 

held about every three years. 

4. Spectrum Management Process 

DoD is a user—a large user—of frequency spectrum. We understand that our role 

is not that of a regulatory body, and we believe that the FCC and NTIA are the 

proper bodies to address national spectrum policy. Nonetheless, we welcome participating in the discussion and in formulating a national spectrum strategy. We believe that the current spectrum management process creates imbalances and asymmetric risks for the incumbent uses. These must be set straight through effective 

use of a rational, long-term spectrum management policy that mirrors national priorities. In developing those priorities, DoD believes it is important to have a spectrum management system that recognizes national defense as a top priority in spectrum allocation, that DoD needs long-term certainty and reliability of access to spectrum, and that, in those cases in which spectrum is reallocated from defense use 

to commercial use, DoD should not bear all the costs and risks associated with the 

reallocation. 

There’s another element involved in these allocation decisions as well. The risks 

to the incumbents are entirely asymmetric: this is true whether DoD is being asked 

to move, as with 3G, or to accommodate a new, potentially disruptive technology, 

as with UWB. When the incumbents are asked to move, they bear the risks that 

the new allocation will not be free of interference, that the costs will be greater than 

31

predicted, and that the technical characteristics will not be as beneficial to the use. 

The party asking for the incumbent to relocate bears none of these risks and costs. 

The uncertainties caused by the constant threat of relocation poses serious issues 

for our long-term planning. Will we be required to move? When will we get the 

money to move? Will we need to retrain? Will we retrain in time to be prepared 

to deploy in an emergency? Will we need to change concepts of operations to account 

for degraded capability? Will we be able to get host nation approval, when needed, 

to use systems in the new frequency band in all parts of the world where we might 

need to do so? Will our allies who bought inter-operable systems now also be required to modify their equipment? And if so, who pays their bills? Will the new spectrum be free of interference? And on and on. 

The issue is not simply one of increased money to pay costs of moving; the Department of Defense bears the risk of overcoming these and any technical and regulatory challenges. And most importantly, we bear the risk of potential failure of our 

equipment caused by hasty relocation decisions. Due to the nature of our responsibilities in keeping this country free and safe and protecting the lives of the young 

men and women who serve in our military, a relocation that compromises our essential capability is unacceptable. 

5. Third Generation Wireless 

In October 2001, NTIA, FCC, DoD and other Executive Branch agencies developed 

a plan to assess spectrum for advanced wireless services. DoD has been supporting 

this viability effort and it is still ongoing. A few points must be understood in this 

context. First, the process is a viability assessment that is examining current uses 

of the bands and feasibility of sharing or relocating certain users. The goal is to 

reach solutions that best serve the national interest—balancing commercial goals 

with national security and public safety interests. Second, the Viability Assessment’s Terms of Reference require that the parties take into account changing DoD 

needs following the September 11 attacks. Since that tragic date, DoD has accelerated its move to a transformed, mobile, networked and flexible military. In addition, 

it has a new mission for homeland defense, as evidenced by the creation of Northern 

Command, a new combatant commander for the continental United States. Spectrum needs associated with NorthCom currently are being examined. These new 

homeland missions may include protection of critical infrastructure and support for 

major events. I note that last week the President asked the Congress to work with 

him to create a Cabinet-level agency for homeland defense. In short, DoD’s potential 

need for access to additional spectrum—not to mention its need to maintain existing 

allocations—must be considered in the viability assessment. Third, I’d like to commend the staffs of the FCC and NTIA for their tireless and skilled work throughout 

this viability assessment. 

The 1755–1770 band has superior features that make it a vital resource for military applications. The band’s characteristics uniquely enable small antennas, sufficient antenna beam widths for simple reliable link establishment and sustainment, 

low power transmissions that support extended communications ranges and high 

data-rate channels. No other spectrum band presently available to the Government 

and not overcrowded possesses all of these attributes. 

In addition, the US employs the same military systems as many of our allies and 

coalition partners around the world—in fact many of them procured systems specifically to interoperate with ours. Any decision to modify equipment or change the 

band-operating capabilities would be detrimental to our allies. Requiring them to 

pay for new equipment merely because of a US domestic spectrum allocation decision would be problematic. 

All major DoD systems in the band have received, or are in the process of receiving, host nation coordination, where needed. These are negotiated on a bilateral 

basis and allow DoD to operate our systems in the national territories of our allies 

and coalition partners. In one case, it took the US Central Command six years to 

get host nation approval to operate our tactical radios in a specific, important country. Were we required to move out of 1755–1770, that clock would start anew and—

who knows for how long—those radios would be unusable in that theater and in 

other key countries. 

Some of the systems that use spectrum in the 1755–1770 MHz band are: space 

operations; Tactical Radio Network Systems; Air Combat Training Systems; and 

Precision Guided Munitions. Space operations are particularly difficult, expensive 

and time-consuming to relocate because some of the satellites using the band are 

not due to be replaced until 2017 and once launched, satellites cannot simply be 

‘‘retuned.’’ So they either must have access to the band until then, or the new licensee must pay for new satellites well ahead of the end of their scheduled service 

life, at great additional and unnecessary cost. Air Combat Training Systems are 

32

used to train pilots and are critical for use in training aircrews before deployments 

to combat zones—all deploying aircrew use these systems for realistic training. Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) make modern air warfare possible. As the name 

implies, they allow for precision targeting that enables pilots to accurately deliver 

their weapons from farther outside the range of the enemy threat. They also increase the effectiveness and lethality of airpower, making operations like Enduring 

Freedom in Afghanistan and Allied Force in Kosovo possible. And they greatly reduce the risk of collateral damage caused by a weapon veering off-course. In short, 

PGMs have revolutionized air power. 

Our aircrews must ‘‘train like they fight.’’ They must be allowed to drop live ordnance on training ranges in the United States, and they must have unimpeded access to the spectrum required to do so. I would also note that DoD retains access 

to the 1710–1755 MHz band at 16 protected sites. One important function that 

takes place at these 16 sites is Aeronautical Telemetry which takes place at 10 of 

the 16 sites and is most commonly associated with testing of airborne equipment. 

The telemetry downlinks can be from manned or unmanned aircraft, missiles or 

other ordnance devices. Aircraft operations are expensive and often not easily replicated, therefore the signals are robust to prevent loss of data resulting in a wide 

area of potential interference. Access to the spectrum at all of these sites is essential 

and shows how some of the impacts from previous reallocations have been mitigated. 

DoD believes that the burden must be on the proponent of any new spectrum allocation to prove that they really need that spectrum. In the 3G debate, it is not clear 

how much new spectrum is really necessary. Some companies have begun to deploy 

3G services without additional spectrum allocation. Many argue that the FCC’s lifting of spectrum caps, and steps allowing wireless carriers to share spectrum, have 

mitigated the requirement for new spectrum allocations. 

DoD understands the importance of a vibrant industrial base, including the wireless sector. However, especially in uncertain times, policy makers must protect our 

national security and ensure that spectrum limitations are not a constraint on our 

warfighters. 

DoD is open to finding solutions, provided DoD’s interests and requirements are 

met. Such solutions must include identification of comparable spectrum for displaced DoD functions, full compensation for costs incurred and the requisite time 

to transition. These are not new requirements, and we believe they are reasonable. 

Third-Generation wireless is by no means the only spectrum-dependent technology for which spectrum needs must be balanced with those of national security. 

One of the newest spectrum-dependent technologies competing for spectrum access 

is Ultra Wideband. Unlike traditional wireless technologies, UWB consists of radio 

pulses that emanate, at low-power levels, across a wide range of spectrum bands. 

Thus, as a result of the FCC’s April 2002 Report and Order, UWB will operate, on 

a non-licensed basis, across many different spectrum bands, in which hundreds of 

government and commercial users are licensed to provide hundreds of vital and 

needed wireless services—including vital military and public safety systems. Never 

before have the FCC and the NTIA authorized unlicensed use of a horizontal slice 

of spectrum, including certain so-called restricted bands. The effect on DoD and 

other incumbent users will be evaluated as UWB services are deployed. 

6. Comparable Spectrum and Cost Reimbursement 

Section 1062(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 

(47 U.S.C. 921 note), provides that ‘‘[if], in order to make available for other use 

a band of frequencies of which it is a primary user, the Department of Defense is 

required to surrender use of such band of frequencies, the Department shall not surrender use of such band’’ until several conditions are met. First, the FCC and the 

NTIA must make available to DoD ‘‘for its primary use, if necessary, an alternative 

band or bands of frequencies as a replacement for the band to be so surrendered.’’ 

Second, the Secretaries of Defense and Commerce, and the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, must jointly certify to the congressional armed services and commerce committees that ‘‘such alternative band or bands provides comparable technical characteristics to restore essential military capability that will be lost as a result of the band of frequencies to be so surrendered.’’

DoD’s certification takes into account whether the replacement spectrum for different DoD systems has suitable technical characteristics and similar regulatory status so that the displaced function can be performed with no degradation in capability. In considering spectrum replacement issues, it is important to emphasize that 

spectrum is not fungible. Different parts of the spectrum have different physical 

characteristics. For example, some bands allow for propagation through foliage, and 

others through buildings. DoD has often chosen the particular bands of spectrum 

33

that DoD currently occupies for the particular physical characteristics of that band. 

The reallocation process should provide the DoD systems with the same regulatory 

status as the systems had in the spectrum replaced. And unless DoD keeps the 

same priority as well as the comparable technical characteristics, a move from a 

band where DoD is primary user to a band where DoD is not the primary user 

would not preserve DoD’s essential operational capabilities with respect to that 

spectrum. 

With respect to the costs to DoD—that is, the cost to American taxpayers—when 

DoD yields spectrum to commercial users and moves to replacement spectrum, the 

law (47 U.S.C. 923) provides that the commercial users will pay DoD in advance 

for the costs of relocating operations to the replacement spectrum, including the 

costs of any modification, replacement or reissuance of equipment, facilities, operating manuals, or regulations. NTIA’s Final Rules to implement these statutory requirements will be published in the Federal Register. I commend the NTIA and 

other IRAC agencies’ personnel for their hard work over two and one-half years in 

developing a workable set of Rules. 

In addition, the Administration is considering submitting a proposal to Congress 

s to revise the current cost reimbursement statutory provisions in order to streamline the cost reimbursement process and ensure full cost reimbursement to effected 

government agencies. It is currently developing legislation to implement this proposal. We are working with OMB, NTIA and other Executive Branch agencies in 

such efforts. 

Cost reimbursement is a critical issue—but DoD’s concern over relocation is not 

merely a cost issue. To some extent, that risk is quantifiable and therefore not as 

troubling as the potential risk to our operations, which I outlined earlier, including 

the risk that our systems won’t operate, or will operate improperly. These are tough 

issues and issues that take a tremendous amount of time and effort—effort that 

could be channeled into serving our warfighters. 

7. Conclusion 

In closing, we must keep in mind that spectrum is vital to our national security. 

It is also the critical resource required for transformation of our military forces to 

meet the challenges of the 21st century and beyond. Spectrum is the very medium 

through which our military defends our security. I am sure that you will agree that 

this is its highest purpose. 

In the Department of Defense, we have a duty to the young men and women who 

defend our country. We have a duty to ensure that they have the tools, including 

spectrum, that they need to do their job. We owe them policies to ensure that lack 

of access to spectrum is not a constraint on their war fighting capability. 

I look forward to working with you, our colleagues in other parts of the government, and members of the private sector to develop a national spectrum policy that 

preserves spectrum access for national security while balancing commercial interests. We must continue to ensure that our military has ample spectrum to defend 

our nation and our ideals.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Mr. Price. 

May I call on Ms. Victory, please. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY J. VICTORY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

OF COMMERCE FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION 

AND ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL TECHNICAL

INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE 

Ms. VICTORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee, for inviting me here to testify on the important topic 

of spectrum management. 

Spectrum is an invisible but indispensable building block for 

America’s future. It is a natural resource that can fuel economic 

growth. It is a key to our Nation’s digital defense and our citizenry’s safety. It is a wireless link that can enable anyone anywhere to access the marvels of the World Wide Web. 

But spectrum management is under stress and strain from concurrent challenges. There is the challenge of constantly evolving 

34

technological capabilities. There is the challenge of threats to security and safety. There is the challenge of static processes and legacy regulations in a dynamic field. Finally, there is the challenge 

of the finite nature of the radio spectrum. 

As reflected by the interest of this Committee, spectrum management is one area where we have to get it right and keep getting 

it right. Too much of our country’s future is riding on it to do anything less. 

In early April, I convened a 2-day spectrum summit at the Department of Commerce with experts from Government, industry, 

academia. The purpose of the summit was to explore new and innovative ideas for spectrum policy and management approaches. I 

was particularly pleased with the extensive participation of the 

Federal Communications Commission, including Chairman Michael 

Powell and Commissioners Kathleen Abernathy and Kevin Martin. 

David Gross, the lead State Department official for international 

telecommunications policy, also participated. 

The results of the summit were very revealing. Among the major 

problems with spectrum management identified were gaps in governmental coordination, the length and complexity of the allocation 

process, inefficient uses of spectrum in the absence of efficiencystimulating incentives, challenges in making room for new services 

and technologies, and lack of clarity about spectrum rights and the 

Federal spectrum management process. 

From the spectrum summit I believe several basic spectrum 

management goals emerged. First, the U.S. Government agencies 

involved in spectrum management—NTIA, the FCC, and the State 

Department—must work collaboratively as one spectrum team to 

serve our Nation’s collective interests. Chairman Powell and I have 

taken first steps to improve our inter-agency communications and 

to take a more forward-looking approach to accommodate advances 

in technology within our domestic spectrum. 

Chairman Powell, Deputy Assistant Secretary Gross and I have 

also been discussing how we can better coordinate to improve our 

international outreach as we prepare for international fora like the 

World Radio Communications Conferences held every 3 years. 

Second, we should be developing policies that encourage spectrum efficiency. NTIA has long advocated and required the use of 

spectrum-efficient technologies by Federal agencies. For example, 

NTIA has developed and the Federal agencies are now implementing a transition to narrowband technology to relieve the congestion in the land-mobile radio bands used by the Government. 

NTIA and the Federal public safety agencies have also developed 

technical standards for receivers to minimize interference and increase overall spectrum efficiency. We are also exploring innovative 

new technologies, including those that will permit radios to select 

their operating frequencies, decrease power, and adjust coverage 

based on sensing the operating environment and dynamically selecting unused channels. 

Third, we must establish forward-looking policies that enable 

technological advances and eliminate legacy regulations that stand 

in the way of innovation. One such promising reform in this area 

is the FCC’s proceeding to create secondary markets that would 

permit parties to lease their spectrum to others, to put otherwise 

35

unused spectrum to its most efficient use. Another is the accommodation of frequency-flexible wireless systems, such as those under 

the 802.11 standard, on an unlicensed basis. 

Taking steps to make room for new technologies is key, including 

through migration or relocation to higher frequency bands. NTIA 

is currently finalizing rules for Federal agencies to be reimbursed 

by the private sector for relocation costs, as well as working on a 

legislative proposal referenced in the President’s 2003 budget to 

create a reimbursement fund from spectrum auction proceeds. 

Fourth, we must have policies that ensure the deployment of robust wireless networks that are prepared for the worst crises and 

able to deliver the very best of services to the American people. The 

events of September 11th demonstrated how critically important 

communications capabilities are for our Nation’s first responders. 

Interoperability among these agencies is essential to their ultimate 

success. 

NTIA is attempting to assist in achieving this goal through research at our Boulder, Colorado, lab and through education and 

outreach. At this very moment, NTIA and the Public Safety Wireless Network Program are co-hosting a summit here in Washington 

to focus on current and emerging solutions for achieving interoperability. 

While we wrestle with building a sound spectrum management 

framework for the future, the demands of the present increase 

unabated. NTIA is currently working with the FCC, the Department of Defense, and other Federal agencies to accommodate the 

demand for spectrum for third generation or 3G wireless services. 

A viability assessment on making the 1710 through 1770 and 2110 

to 2170 megahertz bands available for 3G is scheduled for release 

later this month. 

At the same time, DoD has predicted that its spectrum usage 

will grow by more than 90 percent by 2005. Wireless systems are 

critical to our national defense, not only as DoD deploys our troops 

abroad, but also as it conducts critical training operations here in 

the United States. These requirements need to be recognized and 

addressed as we move forward in encouraging innovation and efficiencies in the public sector. 

We also need to resolve issues in the 700 megahertz band in a 

manner that makes clear when and how these frequencies will become available for new wireless services. An equitable and efficient 

solution for relocating incumbents in these bands is possible, and 

the administration looks forward to working with the FCC and 

Congress to ensure such policies are developed in a timely fashion. 

Finally, we need to address our spectrum allocation and licensing 

policies to address the special needs and challenges of the Nation’s 

rural areas. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the radio spectrum is vital to our national security and to our economic security. 

I look forward to working with Congress in developing the best possible spectrum management policies for the future. Thank you 

again for inviting me to testify and I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have for me. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Victory follows:]

36

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCY J. VICTORY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE

FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL

TECHNICAL INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you and the Members of the 

Committee for inviting me here to testify on the important topic of spectrum management. I am Nancy J. Victory, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Spectrum is an invisible, but indispensable building block for America’s future. It 

is a natural resource that can fuel economic growth. It is key to our nation’s digital 

defense and our citizenry’s safety. It is a wireless link that can enable anyone, anywhere to access the marvels of the worldwide web. 

Spectrum management is under stress and strain from concurrent challenges. 

There is the challenge of constantly evolving technological capabilities. There is the 

challenge of threats to security and safety. There is the challenge of static processes 

and legacy regulations in a dynamic field. And finally, there is the challenge of the 

finite nature of the radio spectrum. 

As reflected by the interest of this Committee and its Members, spectrum management is one area where we have ‘‘to get it right’’ and ‘‘keep getting it right.’’ Too 

much of our country’s future is riding on it to do anything less. 

The Spectrum Summit 

In early April, I convened a high-level 2-day Spectrum Summit meeting at the Department of Commerce. The purpose of the Summit was to explore new and innovative ideas to develop and implement spectrum policy and management approaches. 

The focus was upon ways to encourage spectrum efficiency; provide spectrum for 

new technologies; and improve the effectiveness of the domestic and international 

spectrum management processes. 

Recognizing that improving the national spectrum management process is a 

multifaceted undertaking that neither government nor the private sector can do 

alone, I invited a variety of experts in spectrum management from government, industry, and academia to share their thoughts in this area. I was also particularly 

pleased with the extensive participation of the Federal Communications Commission 

in our two-day Summit. Chairman Michael Powell and Commissioners Kathleen 

Abernathy and Kevin Martin helped moderate panels with me. 

The first day of the Summit consisted of panel discussions by government and private sector spectrum users, economists and academic analysts who follow spectrum 

issues, and technologists and futurists. The second day of the Summit entailed three 

simultaneous breakout sessions focusing on spectrum management, spectrum efficiency, and international issues. The results of the Spectrum Summit were very revealing. Among the major problems identified were:

• Gaps in governmental coordination—NTIA, FCC & State;

• Length and complexity of the allocation process;

• Inefficient uses of spectrum and the absence of efficiency stimulating incentives;

• Challenges in making ‘‘room’’ or ‘‘homes’’ for new services and technologies; and

• Lack of clarity about spectrum rights and the federal spectrum management 

process.

A common criticism was that the process is usually too reactive—waiting until the 

technology is ready to be deployed before beginning the allocation process, rather 

than anticipating future spectrum needs. There was also significant discussion on 

the hurdles the current system erects that limit the ability to promote sharing and 

encourage relocations to accommodate new needs or capabilities. Panelists indicated 

that the allocation process too often pits advocates of new technology against incumbents, instead of focusing on win-win outcomes that preserve existing rights while 

facilitating new uses. 

The Future of Spectrum Management 

From the Spectrum Summit, I believe several basic goals emerged. First, the U.S. 

Government agencies involved in spectrum management—NTIA, the FCC, and the 

State Department—must work collaboratively as ‘‘One Spectrum Team’’ to serve our 

Nation’s collective interest. Secondly, we should develop policies that encourage 

spectrum efficiency. Third, we must establish forward-looking policies that enable 

technological advances and eliminate legacy regulations that stand in the way of innovation. And fourth, we should ensure that we have policies that ensure the deployment of robust wireless networks that are prepared for the worst of crises and 

able to deliver the very best of services to the American people. Let me describe 

what I mean by each of these in a bit more detail.

37

1. ‘‘One Spectrum Team’’

The Summit was the first effort to bring NTIA, the FCC and the State Department together in a collective look at common challenges. As head of NTIA, I have 

responsibility for managing the federal government spectrum. As head of the FCC, 

Chairman Powell has responsibility for managing non-federal spectrum. As the lead 

State Department official for international telecommunications policies, David 

Gross, the U.S. Coordinator and Deputy Assistant Secretary, has responsibility for 

representing U.S. spectrum interests abroad. Our roles are different, but ultimately 

interdependent. 

To promote an improved spectrum management process for the country, Chairman Powell, David Gross and I have established a ‘‘One Team’’ spectrum management approach. Specifically, to enhance NTIA and FCC cooperation, Chairman Powell and I have taken the first steps to improve our interagency communications and 

to take a more forward-looking approach to accommodate advances in technology. 

These improvements will enable our agencies to be more ‘‘proactive’’ and ‘‘predictive’’ 

in spectrum management. 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Gross, Chairman Powell and I have also been discussing how we can better coordinate to improve our international outreach as we 

prepare for international fora. This is increasingly important to U.S. interests as 

many aspects of spectrum management are addressed in such international bodies. 

In particular, our ability to reach consensus with other countries in the Americas 

prior to such meetings helps ensure that U.S. policy views have a greater likelihood 

of success, given the oftentimes unified positions of the European or Asian-Pacific 

nations. This is most significant in such fora as the World Radio Communication 

Conferences (WRC) held by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) every 

three years. The ITU develops international radio regulations that have treaty status. We are also discussing ways in which we can begin the development of U.S. 

positions earlier in the process, including whether the appointment of the U.S. head 

of delegation for each WRC should be made sooner in the process to allow for the 

most effective representation of U.S. interests at these meetings. 

Last, but not least, NTIA is examining ways to improve its own processes. We 

have recognized that the frequency authorization and coordination process through 

which government frequency assignments are made depend upon an inefficient 

paper-based system. In NTIA’s Fiscal Year 2003 budget, we are requesting the 

funds to streamline this process into an electronic frequency selection, coordination 

and authorization system.

2. Spectrum Efficiency, Not Spectrum Waste

Effective spectrum management must include policies that create incentives for 

spectrum efficiency. NTIA has long advocated the use of more spectrum efficient 

technologies. For example, NTIA has developed and the Federal agencies are now 

implementing a transition to narrowband technology to relieve the congestion in the 

land mobile radio bands used by the Government. Under NTIA regulation, Federal 

agencies will convert to narrowband technology in certain land mobile frequencies 

by 2005 and in all others by 2008. This should effectively double the number of frequencies available to Federal agencies. Narrowbanding, where technically possible, 

holds great promise for increasing the number of channels available to all users of 

the spectrum. 

NTIA and the Federal public safety agencies have also advocated the adoption of 

technical standards for receivers to minimize interference and increase overall spectrum efficiency. State and local public safety entities are also recognizing the importance of establishing receiver standards to minimize interference. The adoption of 

receiver standards allows transmitters and receivers to operate closer to each other 

in the spectrum, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the use of the band. 

NTIA has worked with several private sector organizations to establish receiver 

standards, including standards for Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) System receivers and VHF maritime mobile radios. 

Federal agencies have also found that trunked systems can improve spectrum efficiency. In particular, trunked systems can be used for limited areas with a high concentration of use and for campus environments. Examples of sites particularly appropriate for trunked systems are Federal prisons, hospitals, laboratories, and training facilities. 

Innovative new technologies, including those using adaptive frequency, power, and 

antenna capabilities, for example, also hold great promise in improving spectrum efficiency. Frequency adaptive technology will permit radios to adaptively select their 

operating frequencies based on sensing the operating environment and dynamically 

selecting unused channels. This permits an enhanced opportunity to share channels, 

38

a more efficient use of the spectrum. NTIA will be looking for additional opportunities for promoting and maximizing spectrum efficiency.

3. Forward-Looking Policies Enabling New Uses and Efficiencies

Current spectrum management practices often require users to seek permission 

from either the FCC or NTIA before changing the services offered over their licensed 

frequencies. This process can impose time-consuming approval processes that engender lengthy delays. The unintended consequence can be to discourage, rather than 

enable, new spectrum uses. 

As a policy matter, agencies with spectrum management responsibility—NTIA 

and the FCC—must continually reexamine their policies and rules to eliminate 

those that have become obstacles to innovation and to more efficient uses of the 

spectrum. To the greatest extent possible, we should be forward-looking in our policies and practices to remove procedural roadblocks to important federal and public 

advances. 

One promising spectrum management reform is the FCC’s proceeding on creating 

secondary markets for spectrum use. The proposed secondary markets rules would 

permit parties to ‘‘lease’’ their spectrum to others—encouraging the development of 

secondary markets in order to put spectrum to its most efficient use. This concept 

is not entirely new. As the FCC’s rulemaking notes, de facto leasing already takes 

place in some circumstances, such as for Instructional Television Fixed Services, 

where parties are allowed to sell excess capacity. Leasing is also permitted with satellite time and through the relatively new band manager licensing regime. The secondary markets concept would broaden these limited leasing venues and extend the 

benefits of leasing arrangements across more of the spectrum. If fully developed, it 

could even lead to dynamic trading of spectrum rights among parties in real time, 

on an ‘‘as needed’’ basis. 

I also supported the FCC’s repeal of the spectrum cap on commercial mobile radio 

services. The FCC adopted an order last December to repeal the cap as of January 

1, 2003 and to raise the cap to 55 MHz in all markets in the interim. This will permit carriers to assemble spectrum where appropriate to meet capacity needs and to 

deploy broader bandwidth services. The spectrum limits were simply too rigid to 

allow for changing needs and capabilities. 

New frequency flexible and low power technologies offer tremendous opportunities 

for innovative, new services. We need to ensure that wireless systems, such as those 

under the 802.11 standard, can flourish on an unlicensed basis. Frequency flexible 

systems will challenge our current block allocation structure and we must ensure 

that they can be accommodated without needless government micromanagement. 

One of our top priorities at NTIA is to work with the FCC to examine policies 

to alleviate the current congestion below 3 gigahertz (GHz). Over 93 percent of all 

FCC licenses and Federal Government frequency assignments are in the 0 to 3 GHz 

range. Among other things, spectrum managers should be examining ways to encourage migration to higher frequency bands as the technology permits. Such policies should include clear incentives for relocation to higher bands, where possible. 

In 1998, Congress enacted such a tool to permit Federal agencies to be reimbursed 

by the private sector for the costs associated with relocating from certain frequencies bands below 3 GHz, as well as any future reallocation of spectrum from 

the Federal government to private sector uses. Working with the FCC and the Federal agencies, NTIA has finalized these rules and they will be published in the Federal Register shortly. The President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2003 contained a legislative proposal to streamline this reimbursement process by creating a fund from 

spectrum auction proceeds to reimburse the affected Federal agencies. The Department of Commerce expects to transmit this proposal to Congress this summer.

4. Preparing for the Worst and Delivering the Best

The events of September 11, 2001, demonstrated how critically important communications capabilities are for our nation’s first-responders—the public safety and 

emergency response men and women who protect and serve our country and our 

communities. Now, more than ever, we must ensure that our wireless facilities are 

robust and constructed to withstand physical and cyber-attacks. It has been made 

exceedingly clear that spectrum-based communications can be an indispensable link 

and lifeline in time of crisis. 

NTIA has had a long and active role in providing spectrum for our nation’s law 

enforcement and emergency response activities. Special attention was focused on 

public safety and multi-agency communications interoperability following the bombing of the Federal office building in Oklahoma City when state, local and federal 

police agencies had difficulty communicating with each other. In 1996, NTIA and 

the FCC co-sponsored the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) report, which provided recommendations on public safety issues through the year 

39

2010. As a result of the report, NTIA established the Public Safety Program to address the long-range spectrum requirements of federal public safety agencies, develop a strategy to provide sufficient spectrum for growth of the current services, 

and to provide for advanced technology and interoperability. 

Interoperability is shorthand for ensuring that different organizations with different radio systems operating on different frequencies are able to communicate immediately and effectively with each other. This is a complex problem that requires 

procedures and spectrum management tools to convert a potential Tower of Babel 

into a common communications language and an agreed upon process for linking different branches of government and different agencies together in a chaotic environment. NTIA is attempting to assist in tackling this problem in several ways. 

First, within NTIA, we have one of the world’s leading telecommunications research laboratories located in Boulder, Colorado—the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (or ITS). ITS is NTIA’s chief research and engineering arm, but it 

also serves as a principal federal resource for solving the telecommunications concerns of other federal agencies, state and local governments, and private associations and organizations. Among other things, ITS has been particularly involved in 

identifying solutions to the public safety interoperability issue, including developing 

standards for public safety digital land mobile radio systems 

Moreover, at this very moment, NTIA and the Public Safety Wireless Network 

Program (PSWN), jointly managed by the Departments of Justice and Treasury, are 

co-hosting the Public Safety Interoperability Technology Summit here in Washington. The Summit focuses on current and emerging solutions for achieving interoperability to better inform public safety officials on their technology choices. NTIA 

will also be looking for additional ways to assist the public safety community to 

reach a fully interoperable future. 

Current Challenges—Accommodation of New Wireless Technologies 

While we wrestle with building a sound spectrum management framework for the 

future, the demands of the present increase unabated. The search for new homes 

for new services—whether through new allocations, relocation of incumbents, or advanced sharing techniques—involve inherently nettlesome issues. Let me identify 

several of the key challenges that are facing all of us involved in spectrum decisionmaking.

1. Third Generation Wireless (‘‘3G’’)

Over the past decade, there has been a tremendous growth worldwide in the use 

of cellular-based wireless telecommunications systems. The Department of Commerce and NTIA believe that this global growth will continue and that it is incumbent upon U.S. policymakers to find the spectrum to accommodate the demand for 

these new services. 

NTIA is currently working with the FCC, the Department of Defense (DoD) and 

other Federal agencies to accommodate the demand for spectrum for third generation or 3G wireless services. The 3G systems advanced by industry propose to provide mobile and satellite-based broadband capabilities. While current cellular and 

PCS wireless systems are expected to evolve to 3G technology over time, there is 

a strong desire from the wireless industry for additional spectrum now to establish 

3G networks. 

In recognition of this growth and the trend toward global markets for wireless 

services, the ITU has considered the spectrum requirements for evolving 3G systems, which is internationally termed International Mobile Telecommunications–

2000, or IMT–2000. The ITU forecast that 160 MHz of additional spectrum would 

be required for 3G systems over and above that spectrum already used for 1- and 

2G systems. At WRC–2000, the ITU identified several frequency bands that could 

be used for IMT–2000 systems, leaving individual administrations the right to implement any of the bands in any time frame, for any service or technology, and 

using any portion of the identified bands that they deemed appropriate to satisfy 

national requirements. 

Since 2000, NTIA, the FCC, and the Federal agencies have been working cooperatively to take certain actions to identify spectrum for 3G services. After extensive 

public outreach and work with industry and affected agencies on technical analyses 

of the various band options, NTIA and the Federal agencies are now focusing specifically on the 1710–1770 MHz band, while the FCC is focusing on the 2110–2170 

MHz band. A viability assessment on making both of these bands available for 3G 

is scheduled for release later this month.

2. Digital Defense of National Security

The events at home and abroad have underscored the importance of wireless communications capabilities to our national defense and critical infrastructure. The digVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
40

ital era of electronic links is a mission critical component of our military and security systems. Every branch of our armed services depend on radios and spectrumdependent systems to conduct its missions. Information gained from these wireless 

systems is one of our nation’s most effective weapons in today’s war. DoD has predicted that its spectrum usage will grow by more than 90 percent by 2005. DoD 

must have access to these frequencies, not only when it deploys our troops abroad, 

but also to conduct critical training operations here in the United States. These requirements need to be recognized and addressed as we move forward in encouraging 

innovation and efficiencies in the public sector.

3. The 700 MHz Band

The Administration has also supported the FCC’s postponement of the auction of 

the spectrum in the upper 700 MHz band to permit Congress and the FCC to develop the policies necessary to ensure certainty as to when and how this spectrum 

will become available for new wireless services. The Administration recognizes the 

important role that broadcasting continues to play in the lives of all Americans and 

the challenges associated with the digital conversion. At the same time, spectrum 

is needed for new wireless services that provide new communications opportunities 

to American families, businesses, and public safety providers. An equitable and efficient solution for relocating incumbents in these bands is possible and the Administration looks forward to working with the FCC and Congress to ensure such policies 

are developed in a timely fashion.

4. Rural Wireless Needs

Spectrum policies designed for the nation as a whole sometimes fail to recognize 

and address the special problems and challenges of the country’s rural areas. Spectrum allocation and licensing policies need to be regularly reevaluated to assess 

whether they are fully and adequately meeting the needs of all Americans, including 

those in rural areas. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the radio spectrum is vital to our 

national security and to our economic security. I look forward to working with Congress in developing the best possible spectrum management policies for the future. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify. I welcome any questions you may have 

for me.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Ms. Victory. 

Now may I call on Mr. Sugrue. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. SUGRUE, CHIEF OF

WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU, FEDERAL

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Mr. SUGRUE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 

Committee. I am Tom Sugrue, Chief of the Wireless Bureau at the 

FCC, and I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today to 

discuss the important issue of spectrum policy. 

As everyone’s comments this morning have recognized, the radio 

spectrum is a critically important resource. Our Nation has become 

extremely dependent on a wide variety of spectrum-based services. 

In terms of spectrum needs, however, this wireless revolution is becoming a victim of its own success. The simple truth is that as our 

Nation grows increasingly dependent on wireless technology, spectrum demand is stressing the supply, and that has made spectrum 

management a difficult task for Government. 

The overarching challenge of spectrum policy is to ensure the 

public interest is best served by balancing competing demands for 

this scarce resource. Spectrum policy is not static. It requires the 

difficult task of predicting spectrum needs not just for today, but 

for the next generation. Twenty-five years ago when the Commission first allocated spectrum for cellular telephone services, no one, 

neither the FCC nor the industry, realized how rapidly this sector 

41

would grow. In a now often-told story, a prominent consulting firm 

projected for AT&T that even under the most optimistic assumptions, there would be at most 1 million cell phone subscribers in 

the United States by the end of the twentieth century. It is reported that ATT took that prediction into account when it agreed 

to have the cell phone licenses stay with the Bell operating companies at the time of divestiture. 

Senator Wyden, you mentioned the potential for competition 

from wireless technologies. I think if the Department of Justice had 

appreciated the competitive potential of this technology, they would 

have made a different choice in deciding which side of that divestiture border those licenses should go. 

Well, by the year 2000, there were actually 110 million cell 

phone subscribers, so that projection was off by 109 out of 110. But 

to be fair, the FCC did not do much better in its own crystal balling. When we allocated additional spectrum for this market in 

1994—that is the PCS allocation of 120 megahertz—that was based 

on a projection of 54 million wireless subscribers by the year 2000. 

So even though we were only projecting 6 years in advance, the 

Commission’s estimates, which were well within the mainstream of 

expert opinion at the time, were still off by 100 percent. 

The problem is not that we had stupid people making these predictions. They were the best and brightest in the field at the time. 

The problem is that the dynamic nature of telecommunications 

markets, and especially the wireless markets today, render even 

expert predictions inherently unreliable. In turn, this makes a traditional command and control approach to spectrum management 

increasingly problematic. 

The FCC’s recent experience has been to move to flexible policies 

that allow the market to adjust without constant Government 

intervention, to promote innovation, competition, and efficiency in 

commercial wireless markets. 

The commission also recognizes that it must ensure that the 

needs of non-commercial users, such as public safety agencies, are 

met. In this regard, over the last several years, the FCC has been 

working actively to ensure public safety entities have access to sufficient spectrum and can operate on a non-interference basis. 

After spectrum has been allocated and assigned, the Commission 

is committed to ensuring that it is used efficiently. Periodically, the 

Commission revisits existing allocations and reallocates spectrum 

that can be put to a more economic use. Through this often complex, controversial process, the Commission has reallocated more 

than 300 megahertz of spectrum in recent years. 

In addition, because some users of spectrum, such as public safety and private wireless, do not face the same market-driven opportunity costs to use spectrum efficiently as commercial users face, 

the Commission has taken additional steps to ensure efficient spectrum use by these users. For example, the Commission adopted explicit efficiency standards for public safety in the 700 megahertz 

band and is right now in the process of conducting its first-ever 

audit of public safety and private radio services licensed on frequencies below 512 megahertz. 

Well, even as I enumerate some of the actions the Commission 

has taken already to improve the use of the radio spectrum, I know 

42

we can do better. As Chairman Powell has observed, the Commission’s traditional top-down approach to spectrum allocations may 

be too reactive for the current Internet-speed market. Traditional 

FCC rules often limit the use of specific bands to particular types 

of services or even specific technologies, making it difficult to shift 

spectrum from one use to another. In the current environment, 

spectrum allocation decisions often do not effectively push spectrum to its highest-valued and most efficient use. 

To address these issues, Chairman Powell recently created a 

spectrum policy task force which will provide a report to the Commission in October of this year. Moreover, the challenge of spectrum management is one of process as well as substance. As the 

current FCC Wireless Bureau Chief and a former Deputy Administrator of NTIA, I am particularly cognizant of the need for efficient 

coordination between the two agencies. Indeed, while there is a lot 

of coordination on a day to day basis, one major current project is 

the interagency staff level effort to examine and develop possible 

spectrum options for advanced wireless systems, including so-called 

3G systems. These systems would support much higher data rates 

than the current generation of services. 

This effort under NTIA’s leadership is being vigorously pursued 

at this time. There is no doubt it is a complex problem, but the 

staff is working hard to bring its recommendations forward to the 

decision makers at our respective agencies in the near future. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to working with 

you and Members of the Committee and answering any questions 

you might have for me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sugrue follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. SUGRUE, CHIEF OF WIRELESS

TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee: 

Good morning. I am Tom Sugrue, Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I welcome this opportunity 

to appear before you today to discuss the important issue of spectrum policy. 

I am sure that all of us on this panel and everyone on this Committee recognizes 

radio spectrum is a critically important resource that is in very high demand. State 

and local public safety officials rely on wireless technologies to help them respond 

in emergencies; consumers rely on wireless technologies to keep in touch with family 

and friends and to improve their overall quality of life; broadcasters provide news 

and entertainment over the air and are moving to spectrally efficient digital transmission; businesses rely on wireless technologies to communicate with an increasingly mobile workforce; and our national defense agencies rely on wireless technologies to provide security to the country. In short, our nation has become dependent on spectrum-based services, which have brought great benefits in the form of 

enhanced efficiency, greater security, and an overall improvement in the quality of 

life of our citizens. 

In terms of spectrum needs, though, the wireless revolution is becoming a victim 

of its own success. The simple truth is that, as our society grows increasingly dependent on wireless technology and services, spectrum demand is stressing the supply, and that has made spectrum management a difficult task for government. This 

is true even though technology advances are enabling more efficient use of the radio 

spectrum. This is true even though the Commission has taken significant steps to 

provide its licensees with additional flexibility, allowing them to better respond to 

market demands and changes. This is true even though the Commission has reclaimed underutilized spectrum on numerous occasions. Thus, the overarching challenge of spectrum policy is to ensure the public interest is best served by balancing 

43

competing demands for scarce spectrum while striving to promote competition 

through the deployment of new technologies. 

Moreover, the challenge of spectrum management is one of process as well as substance. As the current FCC Wireless Bureau Chief and a former Deputy Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), 

I am particularly cognizant of the need for efficient coordination between the two 

agencies. In addition, U.S. domestic spectrum policies exist within the broader context of international spectrum agreements with other countries around the world 

and specific operational coordinations, especially with Canada and Mexico. 

Spectrum policy is not static. It is difficult to accurately predict spectrum needs 

not just for today, but for the next generation. Indeed, most users and service providers believe they will continue to need more spectrum in the coming years. Twenty-five years ago, when the Commission first allocated spectrum for cellular telephone services, no one—neither the FCC nor the industry—realized how rapidly this 

sector would grow. Cell phones were perceived principally as a car phone service 

and not personalized communications devices that people would carry with them 

throughout the day. In a now often told story, a prominent carrier estimated that 

at most there would be one million cell phone subscribers in the United States by 

the end of the 20th century. This reportedly was why the carrier agreed to have 

its cellular licenses go with the Bell Operating companies at the time of divestiture. 

Well, by the year 2000, there were actually 110 million cell phone subscribers. And 

to be fair, the FCC did not do much better with its ‘‘crystal ball.’’ The FCC’s allocation of additional spectrum for this market in 1994—the Personalized Communications Service (PCS) allocation of 120 MHz—was based on a projection of 54 million 

wireless subscribers by the year 2000. So, even though it only was projecting six 

years in advance, the Commission’s estimates were still off by 100 percent in anticipating the actual demand for these services. Although technological advances can 

improve spectrum efficiencies, they are not a panacea and may not offset the increased need for spectrum. The FCC’s recent experience has shown that flexible 

policies that allow the market to adjust without constant government intervention 

are essential in the dynamic world of wireless communications. 

Though spectrum management can be a demanding undertaking, we have seen 

the benefits of successful spectrum policies to the American people. For example, 

when the Commission auctioned that 120 MHz of spectrum for PCS, that action and 

the build-out of new networks transformed mobile telephony from a tight duopoly 

to an actively competitive market with multiple providers, and from a luxury for 

business and high-income users to a mass market service. Prior to the PCS auction 

in 1995, there were approximately 24 million commercial mobile subscribers. Today, 

there are over 130 million subscribers and over 80 percent of the American public 

lives in counties that have five or more competitors. Moreover, since 1995, the average price per minute for consumers has been cut by about three quarters. Sound 

spectrum policies that promote flexibility, competition, and innovation clearly contributed to the marketplace success of PCS. 

Spectrum policy has been and continues to be one of the core functions of the 

FCC, and I am now pleased to discuss the FCC’s role in this regard and its efforts 

to manage the spectrum more efficiently. 

An important principle underlying the FCC’s recent approach to spectrum allocation and assignment on the commercial side is that the market should be the primary determinant in the success or failure of a new technology or service. In that 

vein, the FCC has made substantial use of the auction authority granted by Congress in 1993 and made mandatory for most services, including commercial broadcasting, in 1997. All FCC licenses are potentially subject to auction except public 

safety, public broadcasting, and international satellites. As Congress anticipated, 

our experience has shown that auctions award spectrum to applicants that value it 

most, are fast and objective, and compensate the public for use of a valuable and 

scarce resource. 

In addition, the Commission has favored flexibility in its licensing rules in order 

to permit licensees to respond to market demands and changes. In most recent allocations, the Commission generally has limited its technical and operational rules to 

those necessary to ensure that harmful interference is avoided. In addition, the 

Commission permits disaggregation and partitioning so that if a licensee finds that 

it wishes to transfer some of its spectrum or part of its licensing area, it can do 

so without relinquishing its entire license. The Commission is currently examining 

ways to improve opportunities to access spectrum through other mechanisms, including secondary markets. 

Though the Commission’s initial allocation and assignment process creates the 

primary market for wireless services, the Commission has recognized the importance of secondary markets as well as the importance of allowing spectrum reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
44

sources to be used most efficiently. The Commission permits licensees to transfer 

their licenses to other entities, subject to Commission approval. We process the 

great bulk of these transactions rapidly, consistent with the needs of a dynamic, 

competitive market. We also are looking at whether there is a need to stimulate 

greater use of secondary market transactions to promote the efficient use of spectrum. Also, in several bands, the Commission has authorized the use of ‘‘band managers,’’ which are licensees that act as spectrum lessors with market incentives to 

ensure efficient use of spectrum, especially among private spectrum users. 

The Commission also recognizes that it must ensure that the needs of non-commercial users, such as public safety agencies, are met. In this regard, over the last 

several years, the FCC has taken a number of significant steps to ensure public 

safety entities have access to sufficient spectrum. For example, the Commission has 

implemented the Congressional directive to ensure that a portion of the 700 MHz 

band is used for public safety. The Commission set aside ten percent of the band 

for public safety interoperability services and, based on input from the public safety 

community, adopted rules to promote nationwide interoperability in that band. In 

addition, the Commission has a proceeding underway to address concerns about interference to public safety in the 800 MHz band. Also, earlier this year, the FCC 

allocated 50 MHz of spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band for fixed and mobile wireless 

services and designated the band for use in support of public safety. The Commission recognized that this allocation and designation has the potential to provide 

public safety users with additional spectrum to support new broadband applications 

such as high-speed digital technologies and wireless local area networks for incident 

scene management. The spectrum also can support dispatch operations and vehicular or personal communications. 

After spectrum has been allocated and assigned for use, the Commission is committed to ensuring that the spectrum is used efficiently. Periodically, the Commission revisits existing spectrum allocations and reallocates underutilized spectrum, 

either through relocation of existing operations to different—usually higher—frequency bands, by removing existing services altogether, or by providing incentives 

for communications facility substitutions—for example, switching from radio operations to fiber optic cable. Through this often complex and controversial process, the 

Commission has reallocated more than 300 MHz of spectrum. This spectrum is located below 3 GHz—an especially prime area of the radio spectrum that is suitable 

for a multitude of applications but especially valuable for mobile uses. One good example of the Commission’s spectrum reclamations is when, in our Emerging Technologies proceeding, we reclaimed more than 200 MHz of spectrum from private 

fixed microwave services and made that spectrum available for new services, including the 120 MHz for licensed PCS that I mentioned earlier. In addition, we have 

required some of our licensees to make do with less in order to make room for new 

and beneficial uses. One such example is when the Commission reduced the allocation of the broadcast auxiliary service (the Commission’s term for the service used 

by those ubiquitous broadcast TV trucks) from 120 MHz to 85 MHz. 

In addition, because some users of spectrum, such as public safety and private 

wireless, do not face the same market-driven opportunity costs to use spectrum efficiently as commercial users face, the Commission has taken additional steps to ensure efficient spectrum use by these users. For example, the Commission has undertaking ‘‘refarming,’’ which involves the migration of certain private and public safety 

users to more spectrally efficient technologies. In some bands, such as 700 MHz 

public safety bands, the Commission has adopted specific efficiency standards. In 

addition, the Commission is in the process of conducting its first-ever audit of public 

safety and business/industrial radio services licensed on frequencies below 512 MHz. 

This has been an enormous undertaking to verify the construction and operational 

status of over 400,000 call signs. As a result, over 31,000 licenses have been recovered to date. Licensees who do not respond to FCC letter of inquiry during this 

audit ultimately risk losing their license. 

Even as I enumerate some of the actions that the Commission has already taken 

to improve utilization of the radio spectrum, we can do better. As Chairman Powell 

has observed, the Commission’s current ‘‘command and control’’ approach to spectrum allocations may be too reactive for the current, Internet-speed market, and 

often spectrum allocation decisions do not effectively push spectrum to its highest 

and most efficient use. To address these issues, Chairman Powell recently created 

a Spectrum Policy Task Force. Some of the objectives of the task force include studying options for a more market-oriented spectrum allocation policy, examining ways 

to clearly define spectrum interference and usage rights, reviewing methods of aggressively promoting spectral efficiency, and reserving and protecting access to sufficient spectrum for public safety. The task force has sought public comment on these 

and other spectrum policy issues, will conduct multiple workshops this summer to 

45

facilitate discussion regarding spectrum policies, and will provide a report to Commission by October of this year. Chairman Powell supports systemic reevaluation 

of spectrum policy as we know it today. Without a doubt, the Commission is struggling to keep pace with market innovations. 

The FCC is not the sole manager of the radio spectrum. A significant amount of 

the spectrum is in bands that are shared with both federal and non-federal users. 

In these bands we need to coordinate with the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Commerce or, more specifically, NTIA’s Interdepartment Radio Advisory 

Committee (IRAC). 

Generally, the IRAC coordination process operates smoothly. Approximately 

85,000 items are coordinated annually—these include approximately 5,000 non-government license applications and approximately 80,000 federal government authorizations. In addition, last year, Commission staff coordinated with IRAC on approximately 50 items that were acted on by the full Commission—these include, among 

other things, rulemakings and waivers. Almost all of the items addressed in the 

IRAC process involve issues that are successfully resolved through established coordination procedures among the relevant agencies. 

Moreover, there are many instances in which we work cooperatively with NTIA 

and other executive branch agencies that fall outside of the formal coordination context. Usually these efforts arise in the context of implementing spectrum transfers 

from federal government to non-federal government users. These efforts are not inconsequential. Despite the fact that particular spectrum may be earmarked for 

transfer, a lot of issues remain in the details associated with the transfer—issues 

like timing of the availability of the spectrum, the geographic extent of grandfathered federal operations, interference protection criteria, and reimbursement procedures for federal government operations that may need to be relocated to different 

frequencies. Indeed, often through these cooperative, interagency efforts we have 

achieved positive results. For example, originally 50 MHz of spectrum at 4.6 GHz 

was earmarked for transfer from federal government to non-federal government use. 

In part, the 4.9 GHz band was substituted for this spectrum as the result of concerns raised by the U.S. Navy about possible interference in frequencies adjacent 

to the transfer frequencies. 

The FCC and NTIA currently are working vigorously through an interagency 

staff-level effort to examine and develop possible spectrum options for advanced 

wireless systems, including so-called third generation (3G) wireless services. These 

systems would support much higher data rates than the current generation of services and hold the promise for enabling services such as connection to the Internet 

while away from your normal work station or computer. This effort, under NTIA’s 

leadership, is also evaluating the potential for sharing between advanced wireless 

systems and current spectrum users, including government users, as well as reviewing possible options for relocation spectrum. There have been numerous stafflevel 

meetings with representatives from executive branch agencies in an effort to have 

a full and productive dialog about the multitude of technical issues associated with 

the spectrum identified as potential bands for new uses. There is no doubt that this 

is a complex problem, but the staff is working hard to bring its recommendations 

forward to the decision-makers at our respective agencies in the near future. 

In addition, we recognize that U.S. domestic spectrum policies exist within the 

broader context of international spectrum agreements with other countries around 

the world. For example, the Commission is participating in the State Departmentled June 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC)—a treaty-level forum 

held by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to decide on allocation of 

spectrum. The Commission began its preparations for the 2003 WRC in December 

2000, just six months after the 2000 WRC held in Istanbul, by organizing its industry WRC 2003 Advisory Committee. The Commission has recently completed the 

ninth meeting of the WRC Advisory Committee and approved proposals for all but 

a few of the 39 WRC Agenda items. The Commission is working with NTIA and the 

State Department to reconcile a few outstanding proposals to finalize the U.S. Government positions. The Commission also is participating in the State Departmentled process of building international support for the U.S. positions in the year remaining before the WRC–03. 

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. I look forward to working with you and other Members of this Committee 

on these important U.S. spectrum management policies. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Mr. Sugrue. 

46

Because of my primary assignment on the Defense Appropriations Committee, I will focus much of my questioning to matters 

relating to the Department of Defense. Mr. Price, what frequency 

bands are most heavily utilized and for what requirements? 

Mr. PRICE. Well, we use all of our frequency bands and we have 

to justify those periodically, every 5 years, to NTIA, each of the different assignments and allocations we get. It is fair to say that, as 

I mentioned in my verbal testimony, we do not use all of our spectrum all of the time, nor do the commercial folks. At 2:00 in the 

morning not a lot of people are using them. 

The key attribute for frequency in the U.S. for the Department 

of Defense, prior to the undefined-as-yet homeland mission, has 

been for training and testing. The Department’s principle is that 

we train like we fight. So having 100 percent reliability and 100 

percent certainty when it is needed is the critical aspect. 

So the overall question is we feel, and we have done a number 

of studies, that we use our spectrum, all of our spectrum. Almost 

all of our spectrum is shared, if not with the commercial—more 

than half of it is with commercial users. A large chunk of it is with 

other Federal Government users. Even in the military-only bands, 

it is shared within the services. 

Senator INOUYE. Now, you brought up training. Do you currently 

have limited access to spectrum required to carry out training exercises and system testing, and if so how do you derive enough spectrum to carry out exercises? 

Mr. PRICE. Through the incredible hard work of the young men 

and women in our military, sir. We have been increasingly spectrum-constrained. It is not unlike the commercial sector, if you 

asked if you took away their T1 lines and gave them dial-up lines 

could they operate their business as effectively. Wireless, because 

our last tactical mile is often not connected, whether it is on a ship 

or on a plane, wireless is a critical component of our last mile. 

I will give you one other specific example. In the flight test telemetry arena where, as you know, we get a lot of data on new 

platforms, the Department of Defense had 80 megahertz devoted to 

flight test telemetry. Because of spectrum reallocations, that 

amount of bandwidth, frequency, is now down to 25 megahertz. 

That severely impacts our ability to test the performance of air 

platforms. 

If there is one F–22 in training today in southern California, we 

must cease all other operations of air platforms, including the B–

1, including the Global Hawk UAV, at Vandenberg, China Lake, 

and other ranges. So one small example of how our training and 

testing—I can give you a whole series of examples, but one example of how we are constrained in the U.S. 

Senator INOUYE. Why is the 1710–1850 megahertz bandwidth of 

critical importance to your military communications, intelligence, 

and platforms? 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you for asking that, sir. As anyone at this 

table clearly knows and I think all you and your staff, the frequency below 3 gigahertz is really what’s considered beachfront 

property—very valuable, particularly for mobile applications. We 

use a lot of frequency for radars and the like in the upper portions 

of the band. But this beachfront property, and particularly the 

47

1710 to 1850 area, has a number of unique propagation characteristics that make it very valuable for the Department of Defense. 

The band enables small antennas and it has sufficient beam 

widths for simple, reliable link establishments and preservation, 

which helps us do low probability of intercepts and some of the 

things that the Department of Defense requires. It supports lowpower transmissions for extended ranges of communications. Since 

we have joint dispersed forces, we need extra, more ranges than 

you might expect, and for high data rates. So that is a band that 

is beachfront property, very valuable for our satellite communications, precision guided munitions, air training, tactical data links—

a whole series of uses within the Department. 

Senator INOUYE. Finally for this segment, what spectrum have 

you lost over the last few years and what effect has this had on 

your operations? And what impact have prior spectrum sales had 

on your ability to carry out your war-fighting effort? 

Mr. PRICE. In 1993, over 1993, the Government lost 247 megahertz. That has not actually been allocated yet, so DoD in a number of cases, and other Federal agencies, are still there, but, so to 

speak, the clock is ticking. So to some extent we do not fully know 

the implications. But it is important to understand that there are 

direct and indirect effects. 

The direct effects are clearly there is this system here—the Marines have a number of radios that they have had to figure out 

where to relocate. There are things like that. But then, as I mentioned, there are other kinds of effects—the host nation approval 

that I mentioned. When I was down at Special Forces Command 

at SOCOM and CENTCOM in Tampa a few weeks ago, there is a 

radio in the 1755 to 1770 band that took in a particular country 

in CENTCOM’s area of operations, AOR, 6 years to get host nation 

approval. So now, after 6 years, we are able to use that radio in 

that band. To the extent that we are required to move, that clock 

starts again. So how long will it take before we can use that radio 

in that band? 

So the impact is things like that; on our allies who bought interoperable systems that now are told: Well, you bought these interoperable systems to operate with us; now, because of commercial 

pressures, we are moving; you should move too. Their defense 

budgets are challenged. Things like that. 

But there are also the indirect effects. I actually have some people looking at it, but the amount of time that we spend—and I am 

not complaining; people are happy and working hard—on spectrum 

reallocation issues, it is an inordinate amount of time. It is really 

not to a large extent moving the ball forward. If we are at the, to 

use a football expression, at the 40 yard line and want to get to 

the goal line, this brings us back to the 50 and then we have to 

get back to the 40. We are not moving the ball forward. We are not 

helping the war fighter and helping further our military requirements. At best we are fighting and spending resources to stay 

where we were. 

So predictability and certainty are the two principal things that 

DoD would like out of any spectrum management plan. A number 

of the reallocations have impacted our operations. 

Senator INOUYE. Senator Burns. 

48

Senator BURNS. Mr. Price, I wish you had answered the first 

question. What spectrum is the most heavily used and which spectrum is the least used? 

Mr. PRICE. Well, it is a hard question to answer, sir. 

Senator BURNS. It should not be, because you said you have got 

acres of studies. 

Mr. PRICE. We do, but heavily used when? We have studies of 

during training, during exercises. We use tactical radios in a lot of 

different places. We always use the TT and C, the telemetry tracking and command, for the satellites. But if I had to answer the 

question, I would say the spectrum that we have below 3 gigahertz, 

of which exclusive Federal use is about 15 percent and about half 

of ours is shared, is really the sweet spot where we are looking, not 

only today, but as we move to a network-centric force, where we 

would like every war fighter to be able to have voice, data, video, 

power to the edge. 

Senator BURNS. When we start into this, when we start into this 

thing, because this is going to be a monumental issue, and I am 

very supportive of a classified hearing with DoD and their uses, we 

do not want to drift into areas where we should not drift into, but 

I think that information is going to be warranted before we make 

any final decisions on how we want to manage this. 

Thank you for that. I am concerned that our preparations for the 

World Radio Communications Conference are inadequate right 

now. I am really worried about that. For instance, the President 

appoints an ambassador to head the U.S. delegation to a term of 

only 6 months. Given the monumental complexity and the 

contentiousness of international spectrum coordination, this seems 

to be a job suited for OJT more than anything else. This is really—

you have to be a quick study on an issue this big, and then the 

retention of it. Then just about the time you understand what spectrum really is, then you have to move on. 

I am the only person—keep in mind, I am the only person in this 

United States Congress that believes that spectrum is not a national resource. It is a technology. We commandeered it just 

through the business of, we are going to regulate it and make sure 

everybody stays in their lanes whenever they are assigned to it. We 

commandeered it. So I am the only one, and I am the only man 

in this whole town who believes that, probably the whole Nation, 

and I will believe it until they stick me in the ground, because we 

commandeered it and we commandeered it mostly for budgetary 

reasons. That is a terrible reason to do that. 

But anyway, that is another thing. Should we change the process 

of appointing the ambassador—Ms. Victory, you can probably answer or respond to this—to ensure some continuity in the leadership? If not, what other reform would you recommend to improve 

the preparations for these international conferences? They become 

very important. I know you just returned from one and I look forward to your report on that. 

But I think this is a very important area. 

Ms. VICTORY. Well, clearly the short term of the WRC ambassador is something that has been identified repeatedly over the last 

couple of years as an issue for further study. I do not think anyone 

49

has really done that further study yet. I think it should be done, 

because it is a challenging job. 

But there are really two points of view with respect to the WRC 

ambassador. You do have some who believe that it is important for 

that individual to have full knowledge of the issues and have relationships with the ministers abroad in order to be able to effectively cut those deals. On the other side of the coin, you also have 

folks saying very emphatically that this has to be a very politically 

connected person within the White House who can make the hard 

decisions, when you have differing viewpoints among agencies or 

among constituencies, as to which is going to be the U.S. view. 

So I agree that that is an issue for further study. At this point 

the administration has not made a recommendation for changing 

the nature of that position. But I think that that is one area to be 

looked into further. 

In terms of other things that can be done to improve the preparation, clearly one is, as we have mentioned, starting the process earlier in developing the U.S. position. That is something that NTIA 

and FCC have attempted to do in preparation for this upcoming 

WRC next year. In fact, one month after the last meeting was over 

NTIA and FCC began their process of starting to meet with the 

constituencies to talk about what issues are coming up for the next 

round. 

Indeed, that has been very helpful because at the last CTEL 

meeting among the various countries in the Western Hemisphere 

the United States was really the only one that had their tentative 

list of issues. The good news about that is we are then able to be 

the one that the other countries follow. When we lay out our positions first, we have a better chance of having the other countries 

sign onto our positions or sign onto them with tweaks, as opposed 

to playing catch-up and not having our issues on the table first. 

So I think for this next WRC we are going to be very well prepared. But you are right, the ambassador status remains an issue 

that should be looked into further. 

Senator BURNS. Mr. Guerrero, you seem like I ticked part of your 

curiosity there. Do you want to respond to that? 

Mr. GUERRERO. Yes, Senator, thank you. As you heard in our 

statement and in our work, we will be reporting on this issue specifically, and we have some of the same concerns that you articulated. 

I would just want to lay out, although we do not make specific 

recommendations on what to do about this at this time, I would say 

there are several principles that we need to keep in mind as we 

move forward in making this process more effective. One is we 

have to make sure that whatever process we choose produces a position that is timely. These conferences involve nations voting. 

Each nation has one vote in these conferences. For the U.S. vote 

to count, it is really important for us to do our homework. It is important for us to have our positions laid out in advance and to have 

worked with other nations to form the kinds of alliances and support that we need for our position. So timing is of the essence. 

The second is the continuity of the focus and the sustainability 

of that focus. The 6-month term is an issue there. 

50

The third is the expertise that we bring to bear in terms of focusing on that process. 

So however we organize this, we have to make sure that we have 

those three principles in mind: that there is enough continuity, sustainability of focus, and expertise, and that the preparation process 

that is used, whatever it is, is completed in a timely manner so 

that we can be ahead of the curve in terms of developing our positions and working with other countries. 

Senator BURNS. The NTIA is required by law to promote efficient 

use of spectrum use by the Federal Government. I understand that 

NTIA has directed Federal agencies to use only as much spectrum 

as they need. It also requires each agency to conduct a 5-year review of its spectrum use, to justify the allocation. 

In testimony offered by the GAO today, however, it was noted, 

and I noted in your testimony, that very few of these reviews have 

been done. The major agency division has over 1,000 frequency assignments that have not been reviewed in 10 years or more. Another spectrum manager in another agency said that all field staff 

responsible for conducting the 5-year reviews have simply been 

eliminated. Are these isolated examples? What sorts of enforcement 

mechanisms are in place to ensure that the agencies are indeed 

being held accountable for their efficient spectrum? 

I noticed in your testimony, Mr. Guerrero, that we just—is it a 

lack of resources or what is the problem here? Because we are 

going to have to have those studies. I know it has been one of your 

toughest challenges in finalizing this report. 

Mr. GUERRERO. Senator Burns, I would say there are probably 

three important issues here. One is a lack of resources and it is 

really a lack of staffing at the Federal agencies level. The Federal 

agencies have experienced difficulty attracting the expertise necessary to manage spectrum. It requires unique engineering expertise and background. 

Also, as with many Federal agencies, they are faced with the retirement of those people who are on their staff now who are expert. 

For example, at Commerce roughly 40 percent of those spectrum 

management individuals who are on board now are eligible or will 

be eligible over the next 5 years to retire. So it is a staffing issue. 

Holding agencies accountable for doing these periodic reviews and 

ensuring that spectrum is being used appropriately requires that 

you have the expertise and resources, and some Federal agencies 

have told us they do not. 

Secondly, for Federal agencies to use their spectrum allocations 

more efficiently, they need resources for the technologies that 

would allow them to do that. Nancy Victory talked about 

narrowbanding and I mentioned it in my statement. That is a technology that has the ability to significantly improve the efficiency of 

the equipment that is currently being used in certain applications 

in land-mobile radio. 

Unfortunately, several of the 7 agencies we reviewed have not 

gotten the support they need in the budget process to purchase this 

equipment and they are behind the curve in terms of meeting the 

requirement to narrowband. So that is a resource issue. 

Finally, and I agree with the FCC on this point, spectrum management is fundamentally a very, very difficult thing to manage 

51

from the top down in a command-control type of structure. It is 

critically important that there be incentives in place for behaviors 

that encourage efficient and effective use of spectrum. Generally, 

those incentives on the Federal side are lacking. 

I mentioned in my statement that the fees that are now charged 

Federal agencies for their spectrum assignments are really meant 

to only cover part of NTIA’s spectrum management administrative 

costs. They are not meant to provide an incentive for federal agencies to use spectrum more efficiently. So we need to also look at 

what kinds of incentives can we put into the system so we can better manage the 270,000 federal assignments. It is almost impossible to do that in a command-control environment. 

Senator BURNS. Would you like to respond to that, Ms. Victory? 

Ms. VICTORY. Yes. I think you have put your finger on a couple 

of important points here. You know, it does take a lot of resources 

to be constantly monitoring what all the Federal agencies are 

doing. Within NTIA we do try to do periodic reviews, but one of the 

things we are trying to explore are incentives for good behavior. 

We actually had a very interesting discussion when we had our 

spectrum summit back in April. We had one of the officials from 

the U.K. who came over, and they are experimenting with an interesting approach for spectrum efficiency for non-auctioned services 

and Government services. Specifically they are charging an annual 

fee of a substantial nature that the Government agencies need to 

pay and that licensees of non-auction services need to pay. The 

idea is that if the figure is significant enough it is going to cause 

people to review and decide whether or not they really need to retain the spectrum. 

Obviously, the devil is in the details as to how you create that 

mechanism and how you ensure that it continues to provide incentives. It was a very interesting discussion. The U.K. official was relating their experience so far and it is very limited because the fee 

is something that they have just implemented. That is just one of 

a number of ideas, and I think the direction we really need to move 

in is to look at what sorts of spectrum-efficient incentives can we 

place not only on Government licensees, but on those in the private 

sector as well, to manage their own spectrum efficiently. 

Senator BURNS. This is the initial hearing on this issue and we 

are just trying to lay the groundwork on where do we go from here 

and how do we establish a relationship that we can formulate policy. I think it is very important to the Chairman. I know it is important to this Senator on how we proceed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have some more questions 

later. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. 

Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin by asking you about some of the new technologies 

that may alter some of the assumptions about spectrum allocation. 

Software-defined radio may permit devices that do not use, for example, a fixed slice of spectrum, but instead adapt to whatever 

spectrum is available at the time. Ultra-wideband uses quick 

pulses of energy across a wide frequency range, sharing spectrum 

with more traditional spectrum users. 

52

I think I would like to begin by saying what is your sense of how 

these new technologies may change the way the country thinks 

about spectrum management and how should that affect today’s debate? Do you want to begin with that, Mr. Sugrue? 

Mr. SUGRUE. Those technologies are very exciting and potentially 

very profound for how we approach spectrum management. If they 

fulfil all their potential, as some of their most enthusiastic advocates describe them, they could be the silver bullet to some extent. 

In other words, they could be so flexible, so adaptive to the spectrum environment in which they find themselves, as you describe, 

they could search out—I am talking about software-defined radio 

right now—search out what frequency is available at a particular 

time and use that, so that some of the traditional approaches we 

use of allocation, block allocations and assignments, may prove to 

be obsolete or even counterproductive. 

The Commission has proceedings on software-defined radio and 

adopted some rules to permit the development to go there. By the 

way, as an operational matter it is still a ways from being as flexible and adaptive in real time as I describe. But there is a lot of 

work and the Defense Department is actually doing a lot of work 

in this area. 

One benefit from all the work our friends on the military side do 

on spectrum matters is that over time some of that, indeed a lot 

of that, will filter into the commercial sector in constructive ways. 

There are regulatory issues that do crop up. The recent disputes 

about ultra-wideband, for example, were an example of that. The 

ultra-wideband proponents said: We can spread our signal across 

multiple bands, and no one would even know we are there, because 

the only interference would be below the noise level. People in 

those bands who were concerned about them said: We do not believe that or we do not have confidence of that, and if it does not 

work that way and we have interference, some very bad things 

could happen. 

So it is not quite a slam-dunk yet, and technological debates will 

have to take place. But I think they are very exciting and, as I 

said, potentially very profound. 

Some of the issues we would have to deal with, for example, on 

a software-defined radio, if you were outside this building and you 

had a software-defined radio, found a frequency that was licensed 

to, say, a particular carrier and you were not a customer of that 

carrier, could you just grab it and use it on the ground that, well, 

it is available, it is not being used now? Is there a payment mechanism that would have to be in place? 

So there are a number of nontechnological issues that would 

have to be addressed going forward. But we are very excited about 

the potential. 

Senator WYDEN. Ms. Victory, Mr. Price, and then I want to ask 

about one other area. Ms. Victory. 

Ms. VICTORY. Well, I think you have raised what some of the 

challenges are with new ways of thinking about dealing with new 

technologies. Those are certainly challenges that we need to tackle 

because it is very important. 

But I wanted to highlight that, with respect to dealing with our 

spectrum management challenges, there are really three apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
53

proaches. One is to make more spectrum, which sounds silly but 

is actually possible because with new technology you are constantly 

expanding the bounds of what is useable. Indeed, I have met with 

one company that is using lasers to try to bridge that last mile, and 

they are outside the bounds of what is currently the regulated 

spectrum. They are being very efficient by doing that. 

Another way is to share, and I think some of these new technologies are prime examples for providing us with new, more efficient and more effective ways to share. Yes, there are regulatory 

challenges in dealing with that, but that is clearly a very promising 

approach. 

Then finally, there is more efficient technology—using less of 

what you have to provide the service. I think we need to pursue 

all three approaches. I know the FCC is looking along those lines 

and so is NTIA. 

Mr. PRICE. Sir, I agree wholeheartedly that ultimately this spectrum—there is only so much beachfront property and we want 

more and the commercial industry wants more, public safety wants 

more. So we fully support a national plan, but ultimately a national plan is going to have to set priorities. 

My personal view is that you are right, technology will solve the 

allocation issues. The Department of Defense is spending hundreds 

of millions of dollars on spectrum-efficient kinds of technology, 

technology that I cite in my written statement some of the ways: 

frequency and bandwidth agility, phased array antenna configuration, interference mitigation techniques, congestion control. 

We have a number of programs at DARPA, one called XG which 

looks for the holes that are not being used. We have a program—

well, the Department, as you know, is one of the founders of ultrawideband, which you mentioned, CDMA, software-defined radio. 

We are looking at that. We have started—DARPA has started a 

program called NETX looking at ultra-wideband, to see how it can 

be used and how it can coexist with defense systems. 

The Defense Science Board last month kicked off its study on 

wideband RF and wideband communications. Our office along with 

the Air Force and others are looking at laser communications for 

satellites. 

So there are a number of different areas where technology I believe will significantly help the Department and the commercial 

sector. 

Senator WYDEN. The reason I asked about technology is I think 

there is the potential here for some real breakthroughs. But I will 

tell you that, no matter how far we get with these new technologies, we are still not going to be able to address this issue as 

the American people deserve without some fundamental changes in 

the way we make this policy. For example—I want to address this 

to you, Mr. Sugrue, and Ms. Victory—I think what is going on at 

the FCC and what the administration is doing in this area is very 

useful and very constructive. 

But my concern is that at the pace that we are going here, this 

will be the longest-running battle since the Trojan War, because as 

I look at it the FCC is essentially going band by band. So this is 

going to mean proceedings on proceedings and more proceedings, I 

think just for years and years. 

54

I think what the administration is doing, Ms. Victory, with respect to looking at other countries, the U.K. and the various studies under way, is also very useful. But my sense is that this is just 

going to take eons to get it done at this rate. In particular, I think 

we all know what needs to be done. The commercial side lacks adequate incentives with respect to sharing spectrum and flexibility 

and the same is true on the Government side. We all recognize that 

commercial uses and governmental uses are different and the incentives that will be needed on both sides are different as well. 

I think my question here is, Ms. Victory, would it not make sense 

for the administration now to set down with the Congress on a bipartisan basis, with Chairman Inouye and Chairman Hollings, 

Senator Stevens, the leaders in this area, roll up our sleeves and 

say: We are now going to move together over the next 6 months, 

say, to come up with a comprehensive reform plan? 

My guess is that you can do a big chunk of this administratively. 

There may be some areas where legislation is needed, but I think 

you could do a big chunk of this administratively. The Congress is 

anxious to do this. There is not anything partisan about that. That 

way we get beyond this sort of process like we are seeing at the 

FCC on the commercial side, where we just go band by band by 

band, and it is going to take forever. 

You and I have talked about this. I have talked about it with 

Chairman Powell. I just think we ought to recognize that is what 

it is going to take here, and I would be interested in getting your 

reaction on the record with respect to this point. 

Ms. VICTORY. I would agree with you that the piecemeal approach is not the end game. I think we are stuck with the piecemeal approach to deal with some of the current challenges that are 

now in front of us. But I do agree that we need to have an overall 

approach. That is one of the reasons we kicked off our spectrum 

summit in April, and we are trying to work with Chairman Powell. 

We would be pleased to sit down with the Members of this Committee to do some brainstorming, because if we are going to have 

a creative approach to this it may be that some legislative changes 

are necessary in addition to administrative changes. So we would 

be pleased to sit down with this Committee. 

Senator WYDEN. When do you think we can say, all right, we 

have looked at a number of these issues, the FCC is going at it 

band by band; now we are going to have a bipartisan effort, the 

Congress and the administration, to address this in a comprehensive way? 

Maybe, Mr. Sugrue, you would like to get into this as well. But 

I would like both of your opinions, because I think until we make 

that fundamental judgment, we are going to find it very hard to 

make the kind of progress the country wants. 

I think this is the communications ball game. I know a lot of people in the telecom sector would not agree with this comment I am 

going to make, but I think those fights are yesterday. I think this 

is where it is at, folks, and I think we ought to recognize it. I think 

we ought to get on with it. If I had my first choice, I would not 

leave until Mr. Sugrue and Ms. Victory said, we want to work with 

Chairman Inouye and Senator Stevens to come up with a biparVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
55

tisan plan. I am not going to maul you or anything like that this 

morning, but that is what I think really needs to be done. 

Mr. Sugrue, your reaction? 

Mr. SUGRUE. Well, I think you can leave now, Senator, because 

I think we are happy to work with you and the Committee on developing such a plan. I do not mean to be flip about it. But we do 

have this—Chairman Powell just announced the spectrum policy 

task force, which is working on a very accelerated schedule. In fact, 

our first feedback from people when we put out our public notice 

was: How do you expect us to answer these questions, considering 

how broad they are and how deep they are in terms of spectrum 

management policy, in 30 days? That was the comment cycle. 

What we are telling people is: You do not have to answer every 

question in that PN. Pick out the five that are the most important 

to you and address them, and we will work it over the summer. 

We have been proceeding with a number of reforms band by 

band. Secretary Victory mentioned spectrum leasing as a reform, 

which would increase the flexibility, allow spectrum to move more 

easily, and use a marketplace mechanism. People use land as an 

analogy. Leasing is used, obviously, all the time in land. We have 

been permitting leasing on a band by band basis. 

I think we are at the point where that has some virtue, in that 

it gives us an experience base, both as to how it works in the real 

world, also a regulatory and legal base to go forward. I think the 

Commission is working on generalizing that approach for the entire 

bands that the Commission oversees. 

Senator WYDEN. How different would the allocation system look 

3 years from today if we just said, okay, FCC, continue to do your 

own thing the way you are doing it? 

Mr. SUGRUE. Well, if you left us to our own devices, I think we 

would be moving towards significant reforms in the direction I 

think that you indicated. At least that would be my anticipation. 

I do not want to prejudge what the Commission or any particular 

Commission would do. 

The trend is certainly toward greater flexibility. That is, rather 

than say you have to put this service in these megahertz and then 

if it turns out the marketplace does not reward that service, then 

you have got to come back, do ‘‘Mother may I, FCC, may I change 

this from a mobile service to a fixed service, may I change this 

from a one-way service to a two-way service?’’ That takes 2 years 

because people, potential competitors, come in and say: No, that 

would be terrible, you cannot let that happen, or whatever. 

Just say ‘‘No, you can do one-way, two-way, mobile, fixed.’’ We 

try to write general interference rules. Practically all the allocations we have done, at least in the 31⁄2 years I have been here, 

have been in that direction. We could probably pick out one or two 

exceptions for various special reasons, but that clearly is the trend. 

But you are quite right, there is a legacy. The entire band has 

been pretty much allocated, at least the most valuable parts of the 

band, and a lot of those legacy rules are very specific, very technology-specific, and very inflexible. 

Senator WYDEN. I am going to wrap up with this, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Victory, I think Mr. Sugrue just made my point in his last 

answer. This is an individual who I know is dedicated and comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
56

mitted to these changes, and it is in your testimony. When I asked 

him what it would be like in 3 years under the FCC’s current system, he essentially—in fact, his exact words: We will be moving towards significant reforms. Not this will be completed, that will be 

completed. We will be moving towards significant reforms. 

I will close by saying I think we can do better. Would it not make 

sense to take a kind of more comprehensive approach and begin 

that now? Maybe what you do is you go at it on a two-track system. 

You continue these various piecemeal kind of efforts, but we also 

say we are going to go at it with the Congress to try to put in place 

the kind of comprehensive reform effort that can allow Mr. Sugrue 

to answer that question differently than he just did. 

I want him to be able to say, for example, that in 3 years we 

completed this and this, in year 4 and 5 we want to do this and 

this. I think his last answer, from a good man who believes in this, 

sort of highlights what needs to be done here. 

Mr. SUGRUE. May I amend my answer to the past tense: Moved. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. VICTORY. I agree with Tom’s comments. And I agree with 

yours as well. I think you should be moving on a two-track system. 

We should be thinking the big thoughts as to what the end game 

is and be moving quickly to get that in place. We stand ready to 

work with you on that. 

But we also will need to deal with these current challenges that 

come up while we are working on our overall solution. So we are 

happy to work with this Committee. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you. 

Senator Allen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for calling this hearing today and thank all the witnesses. I am sorry I 

could not be here. We had a Foreign Relations Committee meeting 

at the same time with the Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon. 

I do want to associate myself—and I have been looking at notes, 

but listening to Senator Wyden’s remarks, and do associate myself 

with the sentiments that he expressed and the importance of moving and acting. Obviously, we are going to have to study and be 

considerate of all the different aspects of the spectrum allocation 

management issue. 

I understand that Senator McCain had mentioned how important 

this is and it needs to be reemphasized how much growth, substantial growth, there has been in the wireless industry, both internationally and in the United States. Better quality of service, 

greater functionality in product offerings, and faster transmission 

speeds largely account for the large increase in public electromagnetic spectrum demand. 

According to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, there are over 130 million wireless subscribers in the 

United States, triple the number of subscribers in 1996. Additionally, traffic volume—and this is why we have to move—the traffic 

volume in terms of minutes of use has grown by more than 75 perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
57

cent a year for the past 2 years, and there is no reason to believe 

that that trend will not continue. 

In the international marketplace, Third generation wireless services are providing high-speed Internet access. Analysts predict approximately 1 billion subscribers will make use of 3G networks in 

a decade’s time, and full services based on 3G technologies are expected to be available in most countries by the year 2006, offering 

downloads speeds—and this is what I think is great—download 

speeds of up to 2 megabits per second. 

Now, clearly spectrum is becoming one of the most valuable, 

scarce resources now and obviously in the near future. I would like 

to underscore two points that I think are most important in considering any overarching spectrum management policy. First, it is important to emphasize that the world community is moving forward 

with third generation wireless services with or without the United 

States. I am one who is very competitive and wants the United 

States to stay in the competitive lead. The reason we are strong in 

some regards is because creativity flourishes in this country, much 

of it from the private sector. 

Now, it is up to the Congress as well as the FCC, NTIA, and the 

Department of Defense together to make sure there are not any impediments to the growth and the progress of this country’s wireless 

capability for consumers and enterprise. We need to make sure 

that the United States stays competitive internationally. 

Additionally and importantly, third generation wireless services 

have the potential to significantly impact the broadband deployment and access problems throughout rural areas of the United 

States. We have talked about incentives and I support the Rockefeller broadband tax credit because it is technology-neutral, and it 

is not just going to address DSL and the local co-op. There is a lot 

of dirt you have to dig up and to the extent you mix the wire or 

the fiber with wireless is the way that I think rural areas we will 

be able to bring broadband access to people in rural markets. That 

is a method that I think is a cost-effective method of delivering 

those broadband services. 

Secondly, with regard to any spectrum reallocation it is important that we act responsibly towards essential security incumbents. 

We can argue what is essential. In my view one of the main reasons the States and the people created the Federal Government 

was for national defense. So essential security incumbents, especially national security interests, need to be taken into account. 

With that said, there are reallocation plans being considered 

which offer incumbents responsible approaches to relocation. Now, 

I think it is a bit of a legal fiction in the way that the Federal Government looks at things to look as if the incumbents have a property right to their spectrum allocation. I have and will continue to 

support the administration’s proposal for a relocation trust fund 

where the incumbents receive a portion of the auction revenues to 

pay for both the relocation costs and any necessary system upgrades. 

Based on our country’s current demand for wireless services and 

the additional benefits for third generation service, I think it is increasingly important and the time is really now to move. It is not 

going to get done this year, but it needs to start. We need to know 

58

what we are doing. By this time next year, we need to know what 

the game plan is, the strategic plan, and it needs to be formally 

executed. 

It is important, I think, while we do this to harmonize the 

United States in this effort with the rest of the world. We need to 

increase the public spectrum consistent with international providers and also to make sure that we are competitive with international providers. 

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few questions here, first of Mr. Price. This is a follow-up question on your 

questions previously asked of Deputy Secretary Price. It has to do 

with the frequency band that is used most by the Department of 

Defense. 

Most of the rest of the world operates in the 1700 to 1800 megahertz bands for wireless commercial use. The major difference between the United States and the rest of the world is the use of the 

portion from 1755 to 1850 megahertz. In the rest of the world that 

band is used primarily for commercial use, where in the U.S. that 

band is allocated to the Department of Defense. 

Now, let me ask you this just as a technical matter. When the 

Department of Defense operates or is operating overseas, has the 

Department of Defense experienced any interference with international users in this band? 

Mr. PRICE. We experience interference with many of our systems 

in many different theaters all the time. One of the tasks of the frequency management and communications folks, the J–6’s at the 

combatant commanders, is to work those problems out with the 

host nations. As I mentioned earlier, we had one tactical radio that 

is actually in the band that you are referring to, that took us in 

Central Command, CENTCOM’s area of operations, 6 years to get 

host nation approval. But we have gotten it. 

So in direct answer to your question, we are very comfortable 

that the systems we have in the band from 1755 up to 1850. we 

have very workable, very real negotiated bilateral solutions, so that 

the systems that are there can work in those bands internationally 

for the long term. So we are comfortable with that. We have developed those. 

One of the concerns about moving is if we move to another band, 

how long—will it take 6 years? Again, will we restart the clock? 

Where will we go and how long will it take to get the same operational competition? 

So the Department of Defense has never said that is it, we will 

not move, we are stopping, head in the sand, that is it. We are very 

active with these folks in the 3G viability study. But one of the 

things we have said—two of the things we have said is: one, over 

time we believe that as we transform and move to a network-centric force we will need more spectrum, not less. We are feeling 

spectrum-constrained. So we need to think through how much additional spectrum we will need over the long term to meet our constitutional obligations. 

It is an important point. So I think that probably sums up where 

we come out. 

Senator ALLEN. Well, the question on this then becomes, on the 

relocation, I understand you may need more spectrum and so forth. 

59

A lot of times, as you well know, and I guarantee you the presiding 

Chairman today understands this as well, that sometimes for national security interests the military does not have time to be renegotiating and trying to get the spectrum or the band area to operate efficiently. They need to move quickly and cannot dawdle for 

proper efficiency in communications. 

The question really becomes if we relocate to another band, will 

that other bandwidth eventually be utilized for commercial purposes in some other part of the world. That is why this whole effort 

needs to be coordinated, and it will be actually beneficial to work 

with our NATO allies and other countries. 

But the reality is at this point, I doubt if the rest of the world 

is going to change their commercial use of the spectrum area between 1755 and 1850. So it is really a question of whether we relocate or they relocate. Some of this really gets back to what Senator 

Wyden was saying and whether or not there are advances in technology. It is an engineering, a technology or a technologist engineering matter to get more information or greater utilization of existing spectrum. 

Do you all—and I guess I would ask Ms. Victory or Mr. Sugrue 

or any of the witnesses—What incentives, what could we do as a 

Government to incent advances in technology? This is kind of a follow-up on Senator Wyden’s lack of patience. And I do not think 

there is anything wrong with having a lack of patience. I am impatient with this as well. I think we need to be moving quickly. 

Are there any things that we can do to incent a greater utilization of existing bandwidth, which would actually help the Department of Defense? I am not going to want to take it from the Department of Defense, they are a necessity which is important for 

our freedoms and our protection. 

So do you have any suggested incentives or policies that we could 

put forward so that we can better utilize existing spectrum bands? 

Mr. SUGRUE. Well, yes, Senator, two sets of ideas. One has to do 

with greater reliance on market forces. That is, along the line I was 

discussing with Senator Wyden, providing licensees with greater 

flexibility in both the use they put to the spectrum, that the spectrum can be used, and also flexibility in terms of being able to 

transfer some or all of their rights under a license, on which we 

have some flexibility, but it is constrained in certain ways. 

The reason that would encourage flexibility is—pardon me, innovation—is if you come up with a new idea right now you have got 

to find a band to put it in and then you have got to find a licensee. 

Well, first of all, some bands, you are not allowed to put that in, 

if it is for a particular use or, as I said, even a particular technology. Then we have to go through a regulatory proceeding to do 

that, even though introducing a new technology, you think that 

should be apple pie and motherhood. It often is not, for various 

strategic or tactical reasons of various licensees. So we get involved 

in a big brouhaha, legal challenges, and so forth. 

If we just said you can put any technology in there and allowed 

the market to reallocate those resources, not without being subject 

to Government oversight, but hands off a little bit more than we 

have had in the past, I think that would go a long way. 

60

Another approach would be, frankly, a little bit more interventionist, by actually writing rules. This dichotomy is set out in the 

public notice that the spectrum policy task force released last week: 

Should we have rules on spectrum efficiency, for example, that say 

you have to use, you have to hit some measure of spectrum efficiency? For example, in the public safety bands at 700 megahertz 

we did specify; 25 kilohertz is the standard voice channel on a public safety system. We said you had to start at 12.5, in other words 

twice that, and you have to migrate to 6.25 over time, and there 

is a schedule to do that. 

We could do comparable things in the commercial side. Our approach has generally been on the commercial side we try to provide 

the right market incentives for that and on the public safety and 

private side we often feel we have to intervene somewhat. 

By the way, the public safety agencies typically are in favor of 

at least reasonable spectrum efficiency standards, in part because 

a lot of their spectrum is shared, so if one agency is using spectrum 

inefficiently that detracts from the pool that is available for all of 

them. So I think it is a win-win there. 

Senator ALLEN. Well, thank you. 

Is there any legislation, Mr. Chairman—or I would ask Mr. 

Sugrue—so far as the first point, I think that it makes sense that 

if you have Government agencies the Government can have greater 

oversight or intervention to make sure that they are not utilizing—

it is a question of Government efficiency, really, in a technological 

sense. 

Is there any legislation proposed and has it been subject to any 

comment on your first point, as far as the greater flexibility and 

utilization of existing granted bandwidth? 

Mr. SUGRUE. On market mechanisms? I think for the most part 

we have some discretion. I will look over my shoulder. I am looking 

at our Deputy Chief who is in charge of the auction program and 

she would chastise me if I did not mention our auctions authority 

expires in 2007 and we would lose that very effective market-based 

mechanism in assigning licenses, which is a little different than 

what you talk about, but it is part of the toolkit we have. So an 

extension of that at an appropriate time would be useful. 

But I can give that some thought and we can get back to you on 

that. 

Senator ALLEN. Well, again, I do not think that we are going to 

solve it this year, but this Committee hearing is very important. 

We have had a previous one in this Committee earlier in the session, but I think that we need to build momentum for solutions and 

getting this solved. 

As far as 2007, whether we make it an Oklahoma land rush approach or continue with the way it is, that remains to be seen. The 

most pressing issue is this. I look forward the working with you. 

I know Senator Burns has great concerns on this as well, and I 

look forward to working with him, you, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Wyden, and others. 

Yes, Mr. Price. I see you want to say something to me or to share 

with the rest. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, sir. I just want to make a couple of quick 

points. Going back to the last question, I heard the point. I would 

61

just caution you a little bit, if I may, on the harmonization issue 

worldwide, some would say an argument, some would say rhetoric. 

I think it is a little bit more myth than reality that the world is 

harmonized around any bands. 

I think it is fair to say that if you actually look at specifics, the 

world is waiting for the United States to see where, to some extent, 

where we go. In fact, where other countries have put 3G, in many 

cases it is where the U.S. has 2G. So our view is that harmonization should occur, but it should occur through technology. You already have tri-band radios. The Department of Defense is working 

on software-defined radios. Our JTRS core platform will have 33 

different wave forms, so you can go in almost any band with a single radio. In our view it obviates the need to harmonize just 

through spectrum bands. 

The second point is you mentioned property rights. It is not our 

place to get into an argument about whether or not spectrum is 

property rights. That is the folks to my left to get into that argument. But the important thing for the Department and I think as 

people think through a national spectrum plan is the need for incumbents to have predictability and certainty. The risks of should 

we move, will we have to relocate, where will we relocate, it affects 

us; as you mentioned, it affects the host nation; it affects NATO; 

it affects our allies, our coalition partners. 

I was in a meeting yesterday for 3 hours with the Joint Strike 

Fighter program office, a large new program, a large program at 

the Department of Defense. These planes will be flying, I do not 

know the exact year, some 10 years out. They have already identified the spectrum bands they are going to be in for over 20 different uses: radars, command and control, communications. Those 

have not even been close to being procured yet and yet we have already picked the spectrum bands. 

So to have predictability and long-term certainty as to where we 

are going to operate is a fundamental issue that DoD fears going 

forward. 

Senator ALLEN. Well, I am glad you shared those views with us, 

not just me, with all of us, because I do not think any of this will 

ever arise or occur in the event that the Department of Defense 

feels, justifiably, that it is harming their essential mission, which 

is the primary mission of the Federal Government. I think that a 

lot of the technological advances actually will be coming from the 

military. The fact that our military is so technologically advanced, 

especially with our air superiority and superiority on the seas, is 

what is allowing us to fight this war on terrorism with minimal 

casualties to ourselves as well as minimal casualties for indirect 

hits on nontargets. 

I do think it is important that there is a predictability for the 

military as you deploy and procure the systems in the future. It is 

also important, predictability and credibility, for the private sector 

if people are going to be investing millions, if not billions, of dollars 

on various platforms or enterprises, to know that when they do deploy it it is not just going to be flippantly changed by the Government. 

The flexibility ideas that Mr. Sugrue is talking about has no 

harm whatsoever to the Department of Defense. It is a creative 

62

way of maybe allowing the private sector to do what you are envisioning, as far as the way to switch from maybe a dozen different 

spectrum bands. I realize the DoD concerns are important and it 

can never be emphasized too much. However, I do think that we 

are getting behind in 3G, and 3G is very important internationally. 

I think it is also important for our economic competitiveness as a 

country and has the potential to be very helpful in rural areas as 

far as getting high-speed or broadband to rural areas. 

I know that is not necessarily a primary concern of the Department of Defense, but it is important for homeland opportunities. 

Yes, Ms. Victory. 

Ms. VICTORY. Senator, since you had emphasized predictability 

and certainty as something that you also hear from the private sector, I just wanted to mention that I hear it from both sides as well. 

Government agencies want predictability and certainty and so does 

the private sector. I think one of the challenges in spectrum management is trying to provide that predictability and certainty, when 

technology and consumer demand and Government demand is anything but. 

So I think that we are constantly trying to do a little bit of a balancing here. But I think the predictability and certainty would be 

a lot easier if technology was static and consumer demand was 

static and Government ideas were static. But I think the challenge 

that we all face is that this is a very dynamic environment and trying to come up with that predictability and certainty in this environment is going to be extremely hard. 

Senator ALLEN. Well, we certainly do not want any static 

thought in Government. We do not want static approaches in the 

private sector. The status quo is not good enough in this area or 

anywhere else. The advances in technology are wonderful for our 

quality of life, for communications, for security and all the rest. So 

when you have a situation that is so dynamic as this, where there 

are things that are in constant motion and every new day there is 

a new improvement and a better way of doing thing, that is exciting. 

In a situation such as that, what you have to have are guiding 

principles which people can operate in. Now, obviously for the military, their guiding principles are national security. For the private 

sector, you have guiding principles or rules that will allow them to 

adapt to change, to innovate, and to improve within a credible, stable situation. 

That is where we have to look at this as a philosophical approach 

of how are we going to address this. That is why I think the idea 

of the creativity or the flexibility, making sure, though, that they 

are not squatting. In other words, it is being utilized when it is a 

Government service, so they are not squatting or slow or static and 

utilizing more than they are wasting. In the private sector, maybe 

if you could give them greater opportunity, greater flexibility. If 

they do not want to use it, maybe they can sublease it, so to speak. 

So I look forward to working with all of you. I think it can be 

achieved. It will not be easy, but if there is a will there is a way, 

and we have to adapt, we have to innovate, and we must improve. 

Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Senator. 

63

Because of the complexity of the issue before us and because of 

the uncertainty and the ambiguity of the policy, if we are to have 

an impact on this issue, this will be the first of a whole series of 

hearings. We have yet to hear from other interested parties. 

Accordingly, the record will be kept open for this hearing for 3 

weeks, and during that time if you have any corrections, 

addendums, or suggestions or statements that you would like to 

place in the record. It will be open to the Members of this Committee to submit more questions if they so wish. 

I have just one question I would like to ask Mr. Price before we 

adjourn. I am certain that after September the 11th home security 

missions resulted in more extensive use of the spectrum by your 

Department. In conducting combat air patrol missions over the cities as part of Operation Noble Eagle, did you experience any difficulties in coordinating spectrum operations with civil authorities, 

like the FAA? 

Mr. PRICE. Almost shockingly, we did not. That was because 

within hours the FCC, FAA, NTIA, Department of Defense worked 

together around the clock to coordinate extensive use of military 

aircraft over the United States. There were also NATO AWACS 

planes as well as U.S. planes. It was a very complex ecosytem of 

military aircraft that were protecting the skies, not only for the 

first few days, but for a number of months. 

It took a significant coordination within the interagency—there 

were no rules, no regulations. This was just hard-working people—

to help coordinate that, and subsequently helped coordinate when 

there was military support to the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt 

Lake, helped coordinate when there were National Guard and 

other troops at airports around critical infrastructure. 

These were uses that had not heretofore been anticipated. We 

did not necessarily have spectrum where we had used it in the 

past, assignments or allocations. But the hard work of a number 

of people within the Government allowed that to work very smoothly. 

Senator INOUYE. I wish to commend you for that. Do you think 

that this coordination should be made part of rules and regulations? 

Mr. PRICE. Well, we’re talking through how to work similar kinds 

of issues as they arise and should they arise. Not only airplanes 

but first responder kinds of events. I do not know if it is rules, regulations, but we are thinking through all those processes within 

the Government. 

Senator INOUYE. It would appear that in this crisis everyone saw 

the need for coordination and collaboration. Do you think this can 

happen again in the crisis we face today? 

Mr. PRICE. I believe so. 

Senator INOUYE. With that high note, I thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(65)

APPENDIX

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MAX CLELAND

TO PETER GUERRERO

Question 1. Do you believe there currently exists a non-partisan person or group 

who can objectively review spectrum recommendations and uses? If not, do you believe such a person or group would be helpful? 

Answer. Our work to date has not directly looked at whether a person or group 

outside of the current spectrum management process is needed. However, we are 

currently gathering information from spectrum management organizations in several countries and have found that the organization of spectrum management functions varies considerably. In the U.K., for example, the United Kingdom Spectrum 

Strategy Committee (UKSSC) addresses issues that affect all spectrum managers 

within the UK Similarly, we found that in Canada, an entity known as the Radio 

Advisory Board, which includes trade groups and government representatives, is 

very important in gaining consensus and developing recommendations on spectrum 

policy issues that are provided to Canada’s spectrum managers. We are continuing 

to gather information for several other countries as well, and will report in January 

on these issues.

Question 2. Do you believe this country has in place an efficient spectrum use 

plan? Why or why not? 

Answer. Virtually none of the federal or commercial officials we interviewed said 

that the U.S. has a national spectrum plan or strategy. FCC officials told us that 

while FCC does planning on specific spectrum issues, it does not plan comprehensively by itself and there has been no comprehensive, coordinated interagency planning by FCC and NTIA. They noted that the closest thing to a national spectrum 

strategy is the process used by FCC, NTIA, and the State Department to reach consensus on a U.S. position for agenda items for World Radiocommunication Conferences. 

There is debate, however, as to the usefulness of long-term planning. A key problem is the difficulty of predicting future trends in wireless services. For example, 

FCC officials noted that the growth in cell phone and PCS deployment was much 

greater than either FCC or the industry anticipated in the early 1990s. Emerging 

technologies may not develop as planned and could result in wasted spectrum if 

plans are not flexible. For this reason, FCC prefers to rely on market forces as much 

as possible. For its part, NTIA has done studies of long-term federal spectrum 

needs. Overall, there is a consensus around the importance of defining core values 

and goals for spectrum management, while retaining flexibility to allow for technical 

innovation.

Question 3. Cost of moving from one band of spectrum to another is an issue. 

However, do you believe that if a move could result in greater efficiency, then it 

could result in actual cost savings? 

Answer. It is certainly possible for the savings from greater spectrum efficiency 

to outweigh the cost of moving. However, it can be a difficult issue to estimate these 

relative costs and benefits. In a well-developed market environment, market forces 

provide information about the relative costs and benefits of alternative arrangements. With spectrum resources, however, these markets are not fully developed. 

Moreover, for some users, including the Department of Defense and certain other 

government agencies, the financial evaluation of alternative means of achieving a 

particular mission capability would be extremely complex even if additional market 

information were available. Our January 2003 report will be looking at whether 

there are feasible ways of valuing spectrum when market information is not available.

Question 4. How long do you think it would take to do a comprehensive examination of our domestic spectrum plan? 

Answer. GAO believes that a comprehensive spectrum evaluation could be important, and we are examining this issue for our January 2003 report. We believe that 

66

an appropriate analysis should address the multitude of spectrum-related issues the 

Congress faces today, because these issues are highly interrelated. Moreover, an effective analysis requires the involvement of all interested parties. The United Kingdom completed a comparable review in one year. A study in the US could take more 

or less time depending on the resources devoted to the review. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS

TO PETER GUERRERO

Question 1. What can be done to improve U.S. participation in the World 

Radiocommunication conferences? 

Answer. A central challenge for United States spectrum management is preparing 

for the WRC. This has become more difficult in recent years because of increases 

in the frequency of conferences, the number of attendees, and the size of conference 

agendas. Federal and non-federal spectrum experts have suggested a number of improvements to our WRC preparatory process.

• Appointing the head of the U.S. delegation earlier. Many experts believe that 

the appointment of an ambassador to head the U.S. delegation to the WRC just 

six months before the conference does not leave enough time for them to adequately prepare for the conference and resolve any disagreements in the U.S. 

position. Appointing an ambassador for a longer term, or having a career civil 

servant head the delegation could address this problem. However, each of these 

choices also has drawbacks. Appointing an ambassador for a longer term would 

involve a potentially time-consuming Senate confirmation process. A career official, on the other hand, would lack White House connections and ambassadorial 

status. State Department officials also said that the ambassador title provides 

a good tool for recruiting top non-government candidates. The government may 

have found an informal way around the short term of the appointment. For the 

last several international conferences, the government has tried to identify the 

person that is to become the ambassador and involve her/him in conference 

planning prior to the 6-month appointment. For example, this approach was effectively used for the 2000 WRC ambassador, State Department officials said 

that she was told that she would be appointed to the position and given a temporary telecommunications policy position in the White House four months prior 

to her appointment. That allowed her to learn the issues and observe WRC preparatory meetings, but she could not lead the meetings until her formal appointment about 5 months before the conference.

• Setting deadlines for achieving important WRC preparatory objectives. Federal 

officials said that some of the difficult issues regarding the U.S. position for 

WRC agenda items are not resolved until the eve of a WRC, when the need to 

reach a decision has become urgent. Setting firm deadlines for formulating and 

finalizing the U.S. position for an upcoming conference could help to force earlier action. However, setting deadlines could have drawbacks. It is unclear how 

such deadlines would be enforced. In addition, some of the U.S. positions rely 

on reaching consensus with the other countries in our regional telecommunications body, which will not be governed by U.S. deadlines.

• Merging the separate NTIA and FCC preparation processes. NTIA and FCC currently develop the U.S. position for WRCs through separate processes. At the 

end of the WRC preparatory process, the two positions must be merged into a 

unified U.S. position. In order to accomplish this, FCC and NTIA must work 

out any disagreements they have with the assistance of the Department of 

State. WRC 2000 Ambassador believes that merging the separate processes into 

one WRC planning process could help resolve disagreements in the U.S. position 

earlier in the preparatory process. However, NTIA said that the separate processes are needed because much of government side of spectrum policy and use 

is classified.

Question 2. Congress has, in the past, called for the FCC and NTIA to engage in 

national spectrum planning. What did GAO learn about the status of implementing 

these plans and based on GAO’s review what concerns have been raised with respect to establishing a national spectrum plan? 

Answer. Although FCC and NTIA conducted individual planning efforts of various 

sorts, they said that they have not fully complied with requirements to engage in 

joint national spectrum planning. However, the agencies have both recently indicated that they plan to comply through increased joint coordination and planning. 

For example, FCC and NTIA could use the momentum from recent NTIA Spectrum 

67

Summit and the new FCC Spectrum Task Force to fulfill their requirements for 

joint national spectrum planning. 

Please refer to the prior answer to Senator Cleland for further views on a national 

spectrum plan.

Question 3. Do federal agencies have spectrum that is under or un-utilized? If so, 

how can this spectrum be identified and better utilized? 

Answer. Our review did not focus on identifying unused or underused federal government spectrum, and we did not find any specific examples of such. However, 

NTIA does not have assurance that its activities to encourage efficient spectrum use 

among federal government agencies are effective. It has eliminated all of its monitoring programs due to staff and resource shortages, and it depends on agencies that 

are also struggling with staff and resource shortages to review their spectrum assignments as required. As a result of staff shortages, many of the agencies we reviewed are behind in conducting their reviews and/or do not conduct robust reviews 

of their spectrum use. 

Improving the quality and timeliness of frequency assignment monitoring and reviews would increase accountability for efficient use among federal agencies, but it 

may not be possible to centrally manage hundreds of thousands of frequency assignments in an effective way. NTIA may want to consider creating incentives at the 

user level to encourage spectrum conservation. Our continuing work on spectrum 

management is looking into the question of how other countries pursue efficiency 

in government use. For example, we have learned that other countries are moving 

toward using payment mechanisms for government spectrum users that are specifically designed to encourage government users to conserve their use of spectrum. 

NTIA currently requires agencies to pay spectrum fees (about $50 per frequency assignment), but the purpose of the fees is to recover part of the costs of NTIA’s spectrum management function, rather than provide an economic incentive for effective 

spectrum use. 

Once unused or underused spectrum assignments are identified through monitoring, reviews, or some sort of incentive, they can be deleted from the Government 

Master File—NTIA ‘s spectrum database—making them immediately available for 

other uses.

Question 4. In your statement, you noted that some federal agencies were unable 

to complete the required spectrum management reviews because of staffing and resource shortages. How serious is this staffing problem? 

Answer. We found that the staffing and resource shortages were significant for 

some agencies. Several agencies told us that their staff had been reduced during a 

time when requirements of their offices were increasing. This problem may be getting worse. Several of the agencies we reviewed are facing recruitment and retention problems and/or are facing the retirement of key spectrum management staff 

Several agencies said that the staffing problems caused them to reduce the timeliness and depth of their frequency assignment reviews. Some frequency managers 

said that this could lead to mistakes or inefficient spectrum use. Specifically, two 

agencies we reviewed have conducted spectrum management workforce needs assessments that showed their staffing levels to be inadequate. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE

TO PETER GUERRERO

Question 1. What can be done to improve the current coordination process between the FCC and NTIA and more effectively allocate spectrum and better balance 

the needs of commercial and government users? 

Answer. FCC and NTIA could improve their coordination by fully implementing 

the congressional mandate to conduct joint spectrum planning and meeting on a 

more regular basis to coordinate spectrum issues. Although they are making 

progress through the NTIA Spectrum Summit and the FCC Spectrum Task Force, 

FCC and NTIA have not yet fully implemented these requirements. 

The current allocation process depends on FCC and NTIA being able to reach consensus, but this is often difficult because the entire usable spectrum has already 

been allocated. As a resul4 reallocation negotiations between FCC and NTIA can become lengthy and difficult. To help force a decision, some officials we interviewed 

have suggested establishing a third-party to arbitrate or resolve differences between 

FCC and NTIA. However, FCC officials said that there could be complicated legal 

issues of establishing an arbitrator over an independent commission like the FCC. 

In some other countries, decisions are made within one agency or within interagency 

mechanisms that exist for resolving contentious allocation issues. Our continuing 

68

spectrum work focuses, in part, on the regulatory structure for spectrum management in 12 other countries. It will be published in early 2003.

Question 2. The President’s FY 2003 Budget calls for a new process, a ‘‘Spectrum 

Relocation Fund,’’ for reimbursing government users for costs incurred when they 

are required to relocate to different spectrum blocks. 

‘‘The Administration will propose legislation to streamline the current process for 

reimbursing Federal agencies that must relocate from Federal spectrum which has 

been reallocated for auction to commercial users. Under current law, winning bidders must negotiate with Federal entities upon the close of an auction and reimburse the agencies directly for their relocation costs. The Administration proposes 

to streamline this process by creating a central spectrum relocation fund. Auction 

receipts sufficient to cover agencies’ relocation costs would be paid into the fund, 

and Federal agencies would be reimbursed for their relocation costs out of the fund.’’ 

Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, Page 241. 

The Administration has not yet submitted language to Congress. 

Do you have any specific concerns about how such a Fund to reimburse government users for relocation costs might work? 

Answer. Generally, providing some certainty that government users would be reimbursed for having to relocate from existing spectrum assignments could facilitate 

their willingness to move. There are a number of ways to provide such compensation; this proposed fund is just one approach that appears to mitigate the burden 

industry would face in individually negotiating reimbursement amounts with each 

affected agency. Generally, whatever approach is used to compensate federal agencies, it is important to establish up front what control the Congress wants to maintain over these funds. For example, if this type of fund were to be used, Congress 

might want to maintain control over it by requiring agencies to obtain annual appropriations. 

Also, it seems from the description in the budget that the reimbursement under 

current law is negotiated in addition to the auction receipts. If the proposal is to 

have the reimbursement paid out of the auction receipts, the government may be 

receiving less overall as a result. It might be desirable to specify that the auction 

bids are to include amounts to finance the relocation.

Question 3. Do you believe that the proposal to use auction proceeds to reimburse 

government users as outlined in President Bush’s budget would make the spectrum 

management process more effective and efficient? 

Answer. Using auction proceeds to reimburse government users for moving to 

other parts of the spectrum would help to facilitate such moves to the extent that 

cost is a determining factor. However, other factors can be just as determinative as 

cost and even more difficult to resolve. For instance, government users may need 

to be given spectrum that has comparable technical qualities to the spectrum they 

are vacating in order to meet mission requirements. Also, because much of the spectrum is shared, interference issues may make it difficult to move users to other 

parts of the spectrum where incumbents are already operating. In addition, considerable time may be needed to effect a move, even if adequate reimbursement funds 

were available, as in the case of satellite-based systems where new satellites might 

need to be built and launched in order to obtain new frequency assignments.

Question 4. There is some discussion that the Relocation Fund could be established as a trust fund. However, monies in Trust Funds are sometimes used for 

other budgetary purposes. How can legislators ensure that monies will be available 

for government users to address their relocation costs since in some instances it 

could take years for a government user to complete its relocation? 

Answer. Trust funds are one of several accounting mechanisms used to link earmarked receipts with the expenditure of those receipts. Concerns have been raised 

that, because the actual earmarked cash in such funds is commingled in the Treasury with other receipts and used to pay whatever bills the government currently has 

on hand, the federal government has inappropriately diverted funds for purposes 

other than what was intended. Treasury accounts for earmarked monies by crediting these collections to the appropriate funds, in this case, the Relocation Fund. 

Although monies are commingled in the Treasury, amounts equal to the earmarked 

funds are available when needed for the purposes for which they are earmarked. 

In most cases the trust funds are given special, nonmarketable Treasury securities 

in return for the cash. These are claims on the Treasury (i.e., IOUs) that can be 

redeemed in the future to obtain the cash needed to be spent on the intended purposes. History provides no evidence to suggest that the U.S. would not honor these 

obligations as it does its other obligations. 

However, trust funds are not the only mechanism for earmarking funds. Special 

funds are also used for the same purpose of tracking receipts and spending for proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
69

grams that have specific revenues earmarked for their use. The only difference between a ‘‘special’’ fund and a ‘‘trust fund’’ is the word ‘‘trust’’ in the legislation establishing the account. GAO has said that the use of the term ‘‘trust ‘‘fund is confusing 

to the public, primarily because in the federal budget the meaning of the term 

‘‘trust’’ differs significantly from its private sector usage. The federal government 

does not have a fiduciary responsibility to the trust beneficiaries and can raise or 

lower future trust fund collections and payments or change the purposes for which 

the collections are used by changing existing laws. Use of a term that is not identical to a private sector term with a different meaning could clear up some of the 

public’s confusion. For example, using the term ‘‘special fund’’ instead of trust fund 

could eliminate the confusion. 

Finally, a permanent earmarking of auction receipts limits Congress’s ability to 

change priorities, especially if the trust or special fund has a permanent appropriation. If Congress did not wish to restrict its budget flexibility to such an extent, it 

could retain some control over the earmarked funds. For example, when the various 

transportation trust funds were created, Congress dedicated receipts to particular 

purposes but retained annual control, through the appropriations process, over the 

timing of the expenditures.

Question 5. The United States seems to be at a disadvantage in the World Radio 

Conference (WRC) process with respect to other countries such as those in Europe. 

How can Congress ensure that the U.S. develops a U.S. position as well as names 

its delegation in a timely manner and prior to a WRC, thereby allowing for sufficient time to lobby other parts of the world? 

Answer. Federal and non-federal spectrum experts have suggested a number of 

improvements to our WRC preparatory process.

• Appointing the head of the U.S. delegation earlier. Many experts believe that 

the appointment of an ambassador to head the U.S. delegation to the WRC just 

six months before the conference does not leave enough time for them to adequately prepare for the conference and resolve any disagreements in the U.S. 

position. Appointing an ambassador for a longer term, or having a career civil 

servant head the delegation could address this problem. However, each of these 

choices also has drawbacks. Appointing an ambassador for a longer term would 

involve a potentially time-consuming Senate confirmation process. A career official, on the other hand, would lack White House connections and ambassadorial 

status. State Department officials also said that the ambassador title provides 

a good too/for recruiting top non-government candidates. The government may 

have found an informal way around the short term of the appointment. For the 

last several international conferences, the government has tried to identify the 

person that is to become the ambassador and involve her/him in conference 

planning prior to the 6-month appointment. For example, this approach was effectively used for the 2000 WRC ambassador, State Department officials said 

that she was told that she would be appointed to the position and given a temporary telecommunications policy position in the White House four months prior 

to her appointment. That allowed her to learn the issues and observe WRC preparatory meetings, but she could not lead the meetings until her formal appointment about 5 months before the conference.

• Setting deadlines for achieving important WRC preparatory objectives. Federal 

officials said that some of the difficult issues regarding the U.S. position for 

WRC agenda items are not resolved until the eve of a WRC, when the need to 

reach a decision has become urgent. Setting firm deadlines for formulating and 

finalizing the U.S. position for an upcoming conference could help to force earlier action. However, setting deadlines could have drawbacks. It is unclear how 

such deadlines would be enforced. In addition, some of the U.S. positions rely 

on reaching consensus with the other countries in our regional telecommunications body, which will not be governed by U.S. deadlines.

• Merging the separate NTIA and FCC preparation processes. NTIA and FCC currently develop the U.S. position for WRCs through separate processes. At the 

end of the WRC preparatory process, the two positions must be merged into a 

unified U.S. position. In order to accomplish this, FCC and NTIA must work 

out any disagreements they have with the assistance of the Department of 

State. WRC 2000 Ambassador believes that merging the separate processes into 

one WRC planning process could help resolve disagreements in the U.S. position 

earlier in the preparatory process. However, NTIA said that the separate processes are needed because much of government side of spectrum policy and use 

is classified.

70

Question 6. Should the ambassador to a WRC be appointed at least a year instead 

of 6 months prior to the conference? Should there be a State Department employee 

designated to drive consensus with respect to the U.S. position prior to and until 

the ambassador is appointed? 

Answer. As noted above, many experts believe that the appointment of an ambassador to head the U.S. delegation to the WRC just six months before the conference 

does not leave enough time for them to adequately prepare and resolve any disagreements in the U.S. position. 

The U.S. ambassador to the 2000 WRC suggested establishing a high-level civil 

servant as the permanent deputy head of delegation within the Department of 

State. While that has not happened, the current Deputy Assistant Secretary of State 

for International Communications and Information Technology has taken the lead 

in chairing WRC organizational meetings and is mediating disagreements between 

FCC and NTIA until an ambassador is named.

Question 7. Should the State Department be required to establish a timetable for 

resolving issues, establishing consensus and lobbying other countries prior to WRC? 

If a timetable is established, what incentives can be used to ensure that NTIA, the 

FCC, and industry work to meet the timetables? 

Answer. As noted above, federal officials said that some elements of the U.S. position on WRC agenda items are not resolved until the eve of the conference. Part 

of the ambassador’s role is to facilitate the process of consensus-building and compromise. Setting firm deadlines for formulating and finalizing the U.S. position may 

help to force earlier resolution of these issues, since the presumption would be that 

the ambassador would make the final call on any positions unresolved when the 

deadline passed. However, setting deadlines could have drawbacks. It is unclear 

how such deadlines would be enforced. In addition, some of the U.S. positions rely 

on reaching consensus with the other countries in our regional telecommunications 

body, which will not be governed by U.S. deadlines.

Question 8. Do you have any other concerns about coordinating a U.S. position 

for the World Radio Conference? What can be done to address these concerns? 

Answer. Besides the challenges to the preparatory process we identified, we were 

also told that the United States does not implement WRC agreements in a timely 

manner. Although the U.S. can informally implement WRC agreements, none of the 

agreements reached at the 1992, 1995, 1997, or 2000 WRCs have been formally ratified by the Senate. The Department of State said that the delays were necessary 

because of the policy overlap in recent WRCs. In addition, NTIA officials said that 

FCC has occasionally changed parts of WRC agreements causing adverse impacts 

to government and the scientific community’s use of the radio spectrum. FCC officials, however, stated that they occasionally interpret WRC agreements differently 

than NTIA. We continue to look into this issue and will report on it in our final 

report in August.

Question 9. GAO has indicated that while NTIA has attempted to promote spectrum efficiency, there is no accountability to ensure government users are using 

spectrum efficiently. Also GAO found that many federal agencies are understaffed 

with respect to employees who could assist agencies to manage spectrum. The FCC 

has recently indicated its need to increase its number of engineers. 

Does NTIA believe that increasing engineers in federal agencies could assist agencies in better managing spectrum as well as improving spectrum efficiency? 

Answer. NTIA officials said that some IRAC member agencies seem to have a 

shortage of engineering expertise in their spectrum management departments. For 

example, NTIA officials noted that the Coast Guard has been unable to provide the 

needed engineering support for maritime issues at the World Radiocommunication 

Conferences. We spoke with officials from the U.S. Coast Guard and they confirmed 

this shortage of engineering support for international conferences and said that they 

are working to improve the situation. We asked NTIA whether increasing the number of engineers could help agencies manage their spectrum more efficiently. NTIA 

is currently looking at this matter and told us they will respond to you directly.

Question 10. Is there anything else that can be done to increase the level of accountability with respect to government users and spectrum efficiency? 

Answer. NTIA places primary responsibility for promoting efficiency in the hands 

of the individual agencies because they are in the best pos ition to know their spectrum needs. Yet, because agencies are resource constrained they do not often conduct spectrum reviews in a timely or meaningful way. For example, one agency has 

over 1,000 frequency assignments that have not been reviewed in 10 years or more. 

NTIA, itself has eliminated its oversight of agency spectrum due, in part, to resource shortages. Reactivating these oversight programs, which NTIA said provided 

important and useful information about agencies ‘ spectrum use, would increase acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
71

countability among the federal agency users. NTIA could also make a greater effort 

to enforce its five-year review requirement for federal agency frequency assignments. 

However, these efforts alone may not be sufficient given the hundreds of thousands offrequency assignments to be managed. NTIA may want to consider creating 

incentives at the user level to encourage spectrum conservation. Our continuing 

work on spectrum management is looking into the question of how other countries 

pursue efficiency in government use. For example, we have learned that other countries are moving toward using payment mechanisms for government spectrum users 

that are specifically designed to encourage government users to conserve their use 

of spectrum. NTIA currently requires agencies to pay spectrum fees (about $50 

perfrequency assignment), but the purpose of the fees is to recover part of the costs 

of NTIA’s spectrum management function, rather than provide an economic incentive for effective spectrum use. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MAX CLELAND

TO STEVEN PRICE

Question 1. Do you believe there currently exists a non-partisan person or group 

who can objectively review spectrum recommendations and uses? If not, do you believe such a person or group would be helpful? 

Answer. Under current law, the Assistant Secretary for of Commerce for Communications and Information (Administrator, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA) is responsible for cooperating with the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC), to develop long-range plans for improved management of all electromagnetic spectrum resources and to jointly determine the National Table of Frequency Allocations. One of the primary functions of the NTIA is 

to manage the spectrum use by the Federal Government, while one of the primary 

functions of the FCC is manage spectrum use by non-Federal Government entities. 

Therefore, the NTIA and FCC, by nature of their defined roles, share the responsibility for managing the nation’s spectrum. The coordination between NTIA and the 

FCC, which each represent different constituencies, allows the balancing of different 

priorities and the compromises inherent in managing a scarce resource. There is 

currently no single ‘‘person or group’’ that has sole responsibility for determining 

spectrum allocation, but all of the agencies of the Federal Government have a role 

in shaping allocation decisions and spectrum policy. 

DoD supports a spectrum management process that allows for planning and setting of national priorities. Development and enforcement of a national, long-term 

spectrum plan that would set national priorities would afford the incumbent user 

a higher degree of predictability and certainty that currently exists. DoD’s view is 

that in such a plan, essential national security needs would have highest priority.

Question 2. The cost of relocating due to switching spectrum bands can be significant. Reimbursement proposals are being developed in order to reimburse government users when they move. What affect do you think reimbursement has on the 

success of auctions and the amount that commercial users are willing to pay for 

spectrum? 

Answer. Under current law (the FCC’s auction authorities and 47 USC 923(g)), 

successful spectrum auction bidders are required to pay into the General Treasury 

the amount of their winning bid and, separately, negotiate with and pay to federal 

agencies the costs of relocating federal incumbent systems prior to the actual relocation. In general, we believe that auction winners view reimbursement of relocating 

incumbents as a cost of doing business and an expected ‘‘capital’’ expense. This approach, however, has the benefit of ensuring that new spectrum users, rather than 

the general public, will pay the costs of relocating existing federal government spectrum users. To the extent that the objective of spectrum auctions is to raise money 

for the U.S. Treasury, the current law also has the benefit of avoiding hidden costs 

to the U.S. Treasury of spectrum auctions and enhancing the validity of Congressional Budget Office scoring. 

The goal of cost reimbursement should be to fully reimburse the incumbent for 

all actual costs—direct and indirect—associated with moving to new spectrum. The 

reimbursement should include all costs, including for example training and testing 

of new systems and the cost of calculating all the expenses required in such a move. 

It must be emphasized, however, that the issue of finding and securing comparable spectrum is inextricably linked to the issue of relocation. Current federal 

law, section 1062(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 

(47 U.S.C. 921 note), provides that ‘‘[if, in order to make available for other use a 

band of frequencies of which it is a primary user, the Department of Defense is reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
72

quired to surrender use of such band of frequencies, the Department shall not surrender use of such band’’ until several conditions are met. First, the NTIA must 

make available to DoD ‘‘for its primary use, if necessary, an alternative band or 

bands of frequencies as a replacement for the band to be so surrendered.’’ Second, 

the Secretaries of Defense and Commerce, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, must jointly certify to the congressional armed services and commerce committees that ‘‘such alternative band or bands provides comparable technical characteristics to restore essential military capability that will be lost as a result of the 

band of frequencies to be so surrendered.’’ We note that the statute does not apply 

to the 1710–1755 MHz band. The statute would apply to the 16 protected sites within the 1710–1755 MHz band if they were required to move. 

Thus, any relocation compensation regime must dovetail with DoD’s requirements 

for comparable spectrum. Indeed, the identification of comparable spectrum must be 

completed before any practical assessment of relocation costs can be attempted. This 

provision of the law is a vital protection for national defense and helps ensure the 

continuing operational quality of military communications systems. 

The availability and suitability of comparable spectrum that will meet ongoing 

and growing DoD needs will always be a critical factor in determining relocation 

costs. And the level of such costs is likely to be a key influence in attracting potential bidders, setting potential bidding floor prices, and otherwise conducting a successful auction. 

A final point is that the issue of switching or relocating from spectrum bands is 

far more than a cost issue. Clearly, cost is important but DoD focuses on operational 

impacts: will we be able to operate as efficiently, will we be relocated in time should 

that national call on our warfighter to act, will we remain interoperable with allies 

and other Coalition partners who use the same frequencies we currently do, will we 

be able to garner the crucial host nation approvals to operate our systems within 

the new frequencies to which we are relocated. These are important issues—and 

ones that are distinct from cost reimbursement—that must be taken into account 

during relocation discussions.

Question 3. As you know the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) designated two bands of spectrum for international harmonization of Third Generation 

or 3G use. European and Asian countries are able to secure this spectrum for this 

use. However, the U.S. has government and commercial entities operating in these 

bands. Specifically, with regard to the DoD users, if our troops are using one band 

of spectrum to communicate domestically, will they be able to communicate with 

American troops abroad who will not be using the same spectrum bands? 

Answer. Member States and Sector Members of the International Telecommunication Union have actually identified multiple bands that countries are able to consider for the implementation of Third Generation (3G) systems. At the World Administrative Radio Conference of 1992 (WARC–92), the bands 1885–2025 MHz and 

2110–2200 MHz were identified (230 MHz total). Almost every European country 

and all major Asian countries have allocated these two bands for the initial implementation of 3G capabilities and have conducted auctions to implement the allocation to our knowledge. No country is planning at this time to establish initial 3G 

systems in the 1755–1850 MHz band that is designated in the U.S. for Federal Government systems and on which the Department of Defense is critically dependent. 

The World Radiocommunication Conference of 2000 (WRC–2000) did identify additional bands to those identified at WARC–92. These bands were 806–960 MHz, 

1710–1885 MHz, and 2500–2690 MHz (total for WRC–2000 of519 MHz). The total 

of bands identified by the ITU at both WARC–92 and WRC–2000 is 749 MHz. The 

U.S. Federal band that falls within these ITU identified bands is the 1755–1850 

MHz band (95 MHz total). Within the ITU and regional working bodies, most countries are indicating a preference to follow the initial 3G implementations in the 

WARC–92 bands with expansion in the WRC–2000 band of 2500–2690 MHz and not 

the U.S. Federal band of 1755–1850 MHz. Many of these same countries have existing second-generation cellular systems operating in the 1710–1885 MHz band. 

U.S. forces do currently use the 1755–1850 MHz band both domestically and 

abroad. The use of the band abroad is possible due to several factors. DoD carefully 

works with foreign governments and their military to coordinate frequency usage for 

our systems, ensuring foreign spectrum users do not cause or suffer from interference from DoD systems. In addition, DoD negotiates host nation agreements with 

many countries across the globe to use this spectrum abroad. Finally, for certain 

systems in some locations we use spectrum other than 1755–1850 MHz—spectrum 

not available to DoD in the U.S.. 

Often, reaching understandings with host nations takes considerable time and requiring DoD to move out of its current spectrum assignments in this band would 

necessitate DoD to seek and negotiate new host nation agreements in a different 

73

band, some of which might not be achievable. Retaining these bands for DoD use 

is the most effective and efficient manner to protect access to spectrum for our nation’s warfighters.

Question 4. Do you believe this country has in place an efficient spectrum use 

plan? Why or why not? 

Answer. Efficiency in spectrum use is a continuing challenge. Spectrum management continually needs to be adapted to meet changing needs and new technologies. 

Greater spectrum efficiency should be a goal common to all users of the radio spectrum and this is an area of continuing examination for both the FCC and NTIA. 

Moreover, there are justifiable variations in views regarding spectrum efficiency and 

system reliability. From a DoD perspective, efficient spectrum use takes on a very 

different meaning than it might to a commercial operator. A dropped call or message from an American soldier in the field, or a misguided instruction to a smart 

bomb, takes on implications well beyond those of the average dropped wireless call. 

While the DoD does and must operate its spectrum-based systems as efficiently as 

it can, it does so in circumstances where there is no margin for error. This requires 

us to plan for our spectrum use in a very different fashion than others might. To 

DoD, efficiency means 100% certainty and reliability of access; this is not the same 

standard used by commercial entities. 

As manager of the Federal Government’s use of the radio spectrum, NTIA continues to encourage Federal agencies to deploy the most spectrum-efficient technology to meet their missions. At the same time, efficiency is but one factor NTIA 

considers when making decisions involving the specialized and critical missions that 

many Federal agencies perform, including national security, law enforcement and 

public safety. Others include the economic costs and the degree to which the mission 

requirements can be met. New technologies, including software defined radios and 

dynamic frequency selection, hold great promise for significant future advances in 

spectrum utilization by the Federal Government, and ultimately through technology 

transfer, by the private sector. NTIA also advocates adoption by the FCC of policies 

that promote spectrum-efficient use by the private sector, including secondary markets and careful accommodation of ultra wide band systems. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BYRON L. DORGAN

TO STEVEN PRICE

Question 1. Does the Department of Defense believe that commercial satellites 

have an important role to play in meeting its communications needs? If so, what 

can be done to ensure that this important industry remains competitive and viable? 

Answer. The Department historically looks at a variety of methods to satisfy long 

haul communication requirements and the commercial sector has been an integral 

part of such capabilities. We expect this trend to continue, if not accelerate, for the 

foreseeable future. Commercial satellite services should be valuable and useful complements to government-owned assets. 

The military’s current satellite assets are making a very real contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom. The scope and speed of joint operations would be impossible without MILSATCOM systems. But it is equally clear that the U.S. military 

cannot, and will not, rely solely on DoD space assets for its satellite communications. This means there will have to be an ongoing partnership with the U.S. commercial satellite industry in order to satisfy the demand for military bandwidth. 

We all must be concerned about creating the proper conditions for a vibrant U.S. 

satellite industry. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS

TO STEVEN PRICE

Question 1. Last year, NTIA concluded that it would be difficult for DoD to share 

the entire 1710–1850 MHz band and NTIA is now focusing its efforts to address 

sharing in the 1710–1770 portion of the band. Would you both agree that the scaledback plan means that there is less impact on specific DoD systems—compared to 

the original plan? (For example, three of the systems that operate in the 1710–1850 

MHz band do not operate in the 1710–1770 MHz portion of the band.) So, in general 

terms, the specific DoD systems would be better accommodated by the October 2001 

NTIA plan? 

Answer. The DoD would agree that the most recent NTIA plan would have less 

of an impact on DoD systems compared to the original plan which considered the 

impacts that would result from loss of the entire 1710–1850 MHz band. The DoD 

74

would also agree that, in general terms, specific DoD systems would be better accommodated by the October 2001 NTIA plan. Currently DoD is participating in the 

NTIA-FCC 3G viability assessment process within the 17 10–1770 MHz band. DoD 

has a vast number of permanent and temporary assignments in the 1755–1770 band 

alone. These include important systems used for satellite control, precisions guided 

munitions, tactical communications, tactical data links, air combat training and 

other uses. Further, it is one of the few places that DoD can look to when considering new mobile applications and weapons platforms. The unique propagation characteristics of the band is ideally suited for military use in that it enables small 

(therefore light-weight) antennas, supports low power transmissions for extended 

range and allows sufficient beam widths for simple, reliable link establishment and 

preservation. 

Moreover, times and circumstances have changed since the original NTIA plan. 

Given the events of September 11 plus DoD’s aggressive moves to a transformed, 

network centric military, DoD believes that over time it will need access to more, 

not less, spectrum in order to continue to meets its mission.

Question 2. It appears from DoD’s testimony that DoD remains concerned about 

the potential reallocation of the 15 megahertz (between 1755–1770 MHz) from the 

DoD to commercial use. In broad terms, is this concern with a ‘‘net-loss’’ of DoD 

spectrum based on your expectation that the DoD will be seeking to implement additional wireless systems? 

Answer. Current law provides that comparable spectrum must be identified in 

order to insure that there is no ‘‘net loss’’ of capability to DoD. DoD has always stated that it would analyze any comparable spectrum that could be used if required 

to move. DoD’s concern in the 1755–1770 study is that no comparable spectrum has 

yet been identified and therefore the capability will be lost. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, DoD is concerned about the specific systems that 

would be affected by the reallocation of 1755–1770. The major class of systems that 

would be affected is satellite telemetry, tracking and command systems which reside 

in this band. These systems allow operators to communicate with airborne satellites. 

As you know, airborne satellites are not re-tunable and very expensive to replace 

in advance of the end of their service life. Other systems that would be affected include Precision Guided Munitions and Tactical Radio Relay, which is a battlefield 

communications system.

Question 3. I also understand that DoD’s concern is not just with the number of 

megahertz, but obtaining spectrum below 3 GHz. Are you concerned about this spectrum because the spectrum below 3 GHz has certain propagation characteristics 

such as penetrating foliage and buildings? 

Answer. Yes, spectrum below 3GHz is highly valued for military operations given 

its unique technical characteristics that dovetail with DoD’s need for reliable, all 

weather, ad hoc wireless communications that can afford our warfighters communications with the lowest probability of detection. 

Current law provides that comparable spectrum must be identified in order to insure that there is no ‘‘net loss’’ of capability to DoD. This is necessary to meet the 

Department’s operational requirements. DoD has always stated that it would analyze any proposed comparable spectrum that could be used if our systems are required to move. DoD’s concern in the 1755–1770 study is that no comparable spectrum has yet been identified. Technical analysis would need to be done to determine 

if spectrum above 3 GHz could be ‘‘comparable spectrum’’ for spectrum below 3 GHz. 

It is true, however, that spectrum below 3 GHz does have unique propagation characteristics of the band is ideally suited for military use in that it enables small 

(therefore light-weight) antennas, supports low power transmissions for extended 

range and allows sufficient beam widths for simple, reliable link establishment and 

preservation. 

The spectrum DoD uses for a particular system is carefully chosen based on the 

physical properties such as, propagation characteristics, power required, antenna 

sizes, etc. Different regions of the spectrum have different properties and DoD optimizes system design by choosing particular frequencies. None of DoD choices for frequencies are accidental; they are purposeful and carefully thought out. Moving particular functions from one frequency band to another may or may not be feasible 

based on the physical properties of the new spectrum and the engineering decisions 

and compromises that these properties compel.

Question 4. If DoD is able to share the 1710–1770 MHz band with 3G service, 

what would be the estimated cost of modifying or relocating DoD’s operations in 

order to accommodate 3G service? How long would it take for DoD to modify or relocate its operations? 

75

Answer. The key element in determining the cost to relocate DoD operations is 

the identification of replacement spectrum that meets operational requirements and 

that, as provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2000 

(Pub. L. 106–65), has ‘‘comparable technical characteristics to restore essential military capability’’ (‘‘comparable spectrum’’). To date, replacement spectrum that could 

be considered comparable for all of the systems that would be relocate/modified has 

not been identified. Accordingly, any cost estimates provided prior to such identification are a guess. We note also that relocation may often mean the development of 

new systems. The normal development and acquisition cycle for DoD systems is 8 

to 12 years depending upon the complexity of the system and what other DoD systems the replacement systems must interoperate with. 

The costs associated with modifying or relocating operations from the 1755–1770 

MHz band are likely to be on the order of the cost estimates provided for segmentation options of the 1755–1850 MHz band, which could reach several billion dollars. 

The timelines for relocating systems out of this band are also significantly longer 

than for the 1710–1755 MHz relocations with some systems requiring more than ten 

years to complete relocation.

Question 5. Does DoD share the 1710–1770 MHz band with wireless providers in 

other countries? If so could you identify the kind of wireless services and/or technologies and in which countries are these wireless services and/or technologies operating? If DoD does share the band internationally with other wireless providers, 

what techniques does the DoD employ in order to protect each of DoD’s wireless operations (i.e. Satellite; Conventional Fixed Microwave; Tactical Radio Relay; and 

Precision Guided Munitions) and accommodate each of the non-DoD wireless services? 

Answer. DoD does share the use of the 1710–1770 MHz band in some other countries with commercial wireless services. The primary commercial systems that operate in this band on a widespread basis are second-generation cellular telephone systems. Some countries, such as Japan have also employed this band for national purposes similar to the U.S.. The DoD is able to coexist in this band in other countries 

with second-generation cellular systems due to several factors. These include the 

fact that second generation cellular systems do not create sufficient energy levels 

to cause significant interference to DoD systems, DoD systems typically operate at 

training facilities that are remote from extensive cellular networks, and frequency 

coordination procedures are employed to avoid harmful interference between DoD 

systems and host country commercial systems. These coordination procedures have 

been painstakingly established over the years, and any alteration of spectrum use 

by DoD would necessitate a time-consuming and costly duplication of negotiations 

around the world to re-establish coordination agreements involving the new DoD 

bands. 

In addition, DoD has been able to negotiate host nation arrangements to use this 

spectrum abroad and is confident that retaining these bands for DoD use is the 

most effective and efficient manner to protect access to spectrum for our nation’s 

warfighters.

Question 6. There were seven basic categories of military systems that were being 

studied by NTIA, FCC and DoD in the entire 1710–1850 MHz band. Those systems 

are: Air Combat Training; Land Warrior; Combat Identification for the Dismounted 

Soldier; Satellite; Conventional Fixed Microwave; Tactical Radio Relay; and Precision Guided Munitions. However, NTIA and DoD are currently exploring the option 

of using the 1710–1770 MHz band for 3G service. I understand that three of these 

systems Air Combat Training; Land Warrior; and Combat Identification for the Dismounted Soldier do not use spectrum in the 1710–1770 bands. Is it correct to assume that since there is no overlap for these three systems, there is no potential 

for harmful interference from the 3G service operating in the 1710–1770 MHz band? 

Answer. Unfortunately, these assumptions are not correct. The Air Combat Training systems air-to-ground air frequencies are above 1770 MHz, but the ground-toground links that transfer the aircraft data to and from the Master Station use frequencies below 1770 MHz. However, these ground links could be relocated to other 

federal frequency bands if necessary. 

The Land Warrior system uses frequencies between 1772 MHz and 1822 MHz 

with a bandwidth of 20 MHz. This means that the lowest channel of Land Warrior 

uses spectrum from 1762 MHz to 1882 MHz, with a center frequency of 1772 MHz. 

The second channel also overlaps the 1755–1770 MHz band, so reallocation of the 

1755–1770 MHz band would mean the loss of two of the 11 channels possible, or 

about 18 per cent of the system’s capability. 

The Combat Identification for the Dismounted Soldier system has been 

superceded by the Individual Combat Identification System (ICIDS). ICIDS operates 

76

in the 1755–1850 MHz band. The reallocation of the 1755–1770 MHz band would 

mean the loss of 150 channels out of a possible 950 channels, or about 16 per cent 

of the system’s capability. 

The Land Warrior and the Combat Identification for the Dismounted Soldier systems do depend to some extent on operations within the 1755–1770 MHz band. The 

loss of access to this spectrum would constrain the operations of either system, possibly requiring a redesign to restore full system capabilities. No acceptable alternate 

bands were identified for the relocation of the Land Warrior or Combat Identification systems.

Question 7. Satellite systems are one of the seven major DoD systems in the 

1710–1770 MHz band. To be specific, I understand that the satellite systems at 

issue is the Satellite Control Stations—the satellite up-link for Tracking Telemetry 

& Control (TT& C). These satellite stations operate between 1761–1842 MHz. So, 

under the current NTIA proposal, commercial carriers and DoD would use the 

1761–1770 MHz band at the same time. I understand that under NTIA current proposal, the only commercial use permitted in the 1710–1770 MHz would be relatively 

low-powered cell phones and not the higher-powered cellular towers. Is that the 

case? 

Answer. NTIA has not made a specific proposal regarding 3G accommodation. 

NTIA has examined several options for the accommodation of 3G services in the 17 

10–1850 MHz band. All these options have been analyzed under the assumption 

that the mobile component of the 3G system (e.g., the low-powered, hand-held 

phone) would transmit in the lower part of the band, including 1710–1770 MHz, and 

the 3G base stations would transmit in the higher part of the band (above 2110 

MHz).

Question 8. With respect to the operation of DoD satellite systems in the 1755–

1770 MHz portion of the band, NTIA in its Final Report at October of 200l recognized the ‘‘the potential interference is within the range of prudent risk management.’’ As a result, the commercial mobile systems operating at 1710–1770 MHz will 

have no adverse impact on the military satellite systems. However, there could be 

interference from the satellite systems into the commercial mobile systems. Is this 

correct? Given that NTIA has concluded that potential interference into DoD’s satellite operations in the 1755–1770 MHz portion of the band is within range of prudent risk management, is it correct that commercial cell phones would not interfere 

with DoD satellite systems—but, that DoD satellite systems could interfere with 

commercial cell phones that might be near a satellite base station? 

Answer. Assuming the cell phones are in 1755–1770 MHz as discussed above, that 

is what the analysis shows. 

The major source of potential interference between the two systems would be from 

Federal ground-based satellite control stations into 3G base stations. These 3G base 

stations receive on the frequency on which the hand-held phones transmit. The 

high-power satellite control stations could cause interference up to 300 kilometers, 

in a worst-case situation. Terrain shielding between the base station and the satellite control station, and the fact that the satellite control station antennas move 

when tracking the satellites, serve to mitigate the interference.

Question 9. In this situation would commercial systems have the burden of not 

interfering with DoD satellite systems and are there mitigation techniques that can 

be used to protect DoD satellite operations? 

Answer. New entrants into a frequency band generally have the burden of protecting the incumbent users. In this case, 3G operators would have to protect Department of Defense operations. Among other problems, the Department of Defense 

satellites have a wide view of the Earth and will receive signals from a large number of hand-held phones in the United States. Shielding is not an option since the 

phones must be in sight of a cell base station tower. Moreover, Department of Defense requirements will likely increase over time requiring greater protection and 

accommodation by 3G operators. The concern is how to address this issue if harmful 

interference is caused to Department of Defense satellites. Possible mitigation techniques would be to limit the number of mobile phones transmitting simultaneously 

on satellite channels, and by using smaller cell sizes so the power transmitted from 

the mobile phones would be lower.

Question 10. DoD’s Fixed Microwave Systems operate throughout the 1710–1770 

MHz band and would need to be moved to other spectrum before commercial systems could use the spectrum. I understand that the DoD in its February 2001 Report on the original NTIA spectrum plan indicated that alternative, comparable 

spectrum is available for the Fixed Microwave Systems: 

‘‘A significant amount of frequency spectrum is already allocated to the Government on an exclusive basis for Fixed Service operations in higher frequency ranges. 

77

The 4400 to 4990 MHz and 7125 to 85 MHz bands are already employed by the DoD 

for fixed point-to-point microwave communications.’’ DoD IMT 2000 Assessment, Appendix E, Page 9

Do you agree with the finding that there is comparable spectrum available for 

these systems? 

Answer. The report cited in the question indicates that the 4400–4940 MHz band 

is NOT comparable spectrum to the 1710–1770 MHz band. Among other factors, the 

fact that fixed, point-to-point microwave systems operate in both bands does not 

imply that the bands are comparable. The 4400–4940 MHz band is characterized 

by a much more severe propagation environment in which to operate radio communication systems than the 1710–1770 MHz band. Some of these engineering challenges include, multi-path, ducting, fading, and atmospheric absorption. Substantial 

non-recurring engineering funds will be required to assess systems on a case-by-case 

basis as part of a frequency band transition. This factor was implicitly recognized 

during NTIA and FCC deliberations when commercial licensees in the 2500–2690 

MHz band unanimously rejected both the 3600 MHz and 4940 MHz bands as spectrum into which they could move, because of technical characteristics and for other 

reasons. 

In addition, it should be pointed out that almost all of these alternative bands 

are already used extensively and relocating systems to these bands may be impossible. A recent survey, conducted by the Range Commanders Council found there 

are no available assignments in the 4400–4940 MHz band for the Southwest United 

States—an area where many of the major DoD test centers such as White Sands 

Missile Range, Ft. Huachuca, and the Yuma Proving Grounds are located.

Question 11. If there is comparable spectrum available, what would DoD need in 

order to relocate these operations, what would be the cost to relocate these operations, and how much time would it take for such relocations? 

Answer. Relocation cost and schedule are critically dependent on the band selected for relocation. Since the 4400–4940 MHz band has not been identified as comparable spectrum to the 1710–1770 MHz band and since no other spectrum has 

been so identified, no accurate cost estimates exist. 

However, if comparable spectrum were identified each existing fixed point-to-point 

microwave link would have to be addressed individually. Assuming no additional 

constraints, such as environmental impacts, which is a very aggressive assumption, 

it is anticipated that it will require at least 2–4 years to change the operating frequency of each of the fixed microwave point-to-point systems operating in the 1710–

1770 MHz band. Additional non-recurring engineering funds will be required if 

these systems are operated in other than nearby frequency bands.

Question 12. Is it true that many of these systems are in very remote areas of 

our nation, which might facilitate a phased approach to re-location? 

Answer. The draft report cited in the question indicates that a high-powered 

weapons control system now operates in the 4400–4940 MHz band, and successful 

relocation of fixed microwave systems from the 1710–1770 MHz band into the 4400–

4940 MHz band is problematic. The 1710–1770 MHz band systems and the highpowered weapons control systems operate in the SAME areas of the country, so remoteness of operations is not a consideration. Some of the ranges such as White 

Sands Missile Range, Utah Test and Training Range, and the DOE Nevada Test 

Site are located in what were once considered very remote areas. The increasing 

population of the Southwestern United States has caused population centers to be 

established in locations ever closer to the borders of decades old DoD test ranges. 

Unfortunately, their location does not make them immune from interference that 

may result from the lack of available frequency guard bands or adequate transmitter power control. 

As a prime example, in the mid 1980’s the DoD built a system to be used at Ft. 

Erwin, CA, an extremely remote location at the time, that operates in the 800 MHz 

band. The proliferation of cellular telephone service in that frequency band and increased vehicular traffic in this area has resulted in severe limitations and restrictions on the use of this system that continues to affect testing and training at this 

range. 

The important consideration is that all systems now operate in close physical 

proximity and would operate over the same frequencies if the reallocation were accomplished. An analysis tool named ‘‘Spectrum XXI’’ was utilized to identify the potential for relocating the 1710–1770 MHz band systems into the 4400–4940 MHz 

band. Parameters contained in a frequency assignment database are utilized by this 

tool to produce preliminary estimates of the spectrum potentially available to a system. The tool does not consider system operational characteristics or detailed performance characteristics, and databases do not always contain classified systems. 

78

Additional analysis must be accomplished to include these effects. After further consideration, the final version of the draft report (to be published late June or early 

July) cited in the question removes all references to relocating systems into the 

4400–4940 MHz band.

Question 13. Another of the seven DoD systems in the 1710–1770 MHz band is 

referred to as ‘‘Tactical Radio Relay’’ wireless communications system that can be 

set up for a battlefield to provide vital communications. I understand that these radios can be ‘‘tuned’’ to different spectrum frequencies—allowing them to be used 

throughout the 1710–1850 MHz band. In other words, the DoD could use these radios in spectrum between 1770 and 1850 MHz, without interfering with commercial 

use in 1710–1770 MHz (as contemplated by the October 2001 NTIA plan). Is this 

correct? If it is correct, what would be the cost of retuning these radios and how 

long would it take to retune the radios? 

Answer. The reduction of available spectrum from 1710–1850 MHz to 1770–1850 

MHz will be particularly detrimental to the operations of the Marine Corps and 

Navy Digital Wideband Transmission System (DWTS) which are Tactical Radio 

Communication systems. Due to interference from other systems, the operations of 

the Navy and Marine Corps DWTS are generally restricted to 1710–1850 MHz. Reducing the available spectrum to 1770–1850 MHz would severely impact training 

exercises using these mission critical radios since the same radio transmit/receiver 

frequency separation (minimum 63 MHz frequency separation between its transmit 

and receive frequencies) for co-site situations can be as great as 25 MHz. The Marine Corps routinely co-locates multiple radios in all large-scale exercises and training scenarios which are conducted frequently. A single node terminating just two 

links may require slightly more than 88 MHz of spectrum, so therefore, limiting our 

use to the 1770–1850 MHz (aggregate of 80 MHz) band cannot accommodate our 

communication requirements. 

Question 14. DoD uses spectrum in the 1710–1770 MHz band, at least in part, 

for Precision Guided Munitions. Here in the U.S., training with Precision Guided 

Munitions relies on spectrum in this band. I understand that the DoD has deployed 

these systems not only here in the U.S., but in many locations around the world—

including areas of Europe. In Europe, I understand that there is already extensive 

use of the 1710–1770 MHz band for commercial wireless operations. 

What can you tell us about how the DoD handles the potential for interference 

into precision guided munitions operations overseas? If DoD’s precision guided munitions system affected by wireless systems in other countries can work around European commercial traffic—can DoD do the same here in the U.S.? 

Answer. To the best of our knowledge Air Force and Navy units in Europe have 

not reported any interference problems from wireless systems. In addition, Air Force 

units in Europe report that they do not employ any specific or general interference 

work-arounds. 

The U.S. European Command has negotiated frequency usage agreements 

through NATO and bilateral agreements for frequency use in each European nation. 

DoD PGM use in peacetime in Europe is limited to training scenarios but that training is significantly limited to prevent interference to the wireless systems. The overwhelming majority of proficiency training and exercise missions—for both U.S. and 

Allied forces—occur here in the U.S. because of the access to the air ranges and the 

frequency band, so the potential for interference from wireless systems here in the 

U.S. to affect our armed forces is much greater here than overseas. Also, live firing 

of PGMs, essential to U.S. and Allied combat crew performance, is only done in the 

U.S.

Question 15. If DoD’s Precision Guided Munitions could be interfered with by commercial cell phones—is this a potential vulnerability overseas? 

Answer. PGM data link system vulnerabilities are classified and can be made 

available where appropriate. However, one should note that the same potential 

vulnerabilities would apply, regardless of where the PGM data links are employed. 

Additionally, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA) study released to the public described generalized training impacts to PGMs.

Question 16. I also want to understand the specific nature of potential interference issues. Is it the case that commercial cell phones would interfere with Precision Guided Munitions? Or is it that Precision Guided Munitions might interfere 

with commercial cellphones? Does DoD ‘s systems or the commercial wireless systems bear the burden of not interfering? 

Answer. The PGMs currently in question (AGM–130 and E/GBU–15) use two simultaneous frequencies for command and video transmission respectively. Without 

delving into system specifics, we can say that one channel is susceptible to interference and the other is likely to cause interference. In most cases PGM data link 

79

systems would overpower commercial systems. The burden in the United States for 

not interfering depends upon the details of how the spectrum is allocated. For example, if the 1755—1850 MHz band remains allocated on an exclusive basis to the Federal Government, then the question is moot. If the U.S. reallocates the spectrum to 

the nonfederal sector on an exclusive basis, then any Federal use would be on—at 

best—a noninterference basis to any civil systems. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE

TO STEVEN PRICE

Question 1. If DoD is required to share or vacate some portion of the 1710–1770 

MHz band so that it can be used for third generation wireless service, to what spectrum would DoD be able to relocate? How much would such a move cost DoD? 

Answer. Current law provides that comparable spectrum must be identified in 

order to insure that there is no ‘‘net loss’’ of capability to DoD. DoD has always stated that it would analyze any comparable spectrum that could be used if required 

to move. To this date no comparable spectrum has been identified by NTIA to which 

DoD could move. Without knowledge of to what band DoD might be asked to move 

it is not possible to provide a cost estimate for moving.

Question 2. The President’s FY2003 Budget calls for a new process, a ‘‘Spectrum 

Relocation Fund, ‘‘for reimbursing government users for costs incurred when they 

are required to relocate to different spectrum blocks. 

‘‘The Administration will propose legislation to streamline the current process for 

reimbursing Federal agencies that must relocate from Federal spectrum which has 

been reallocated for auction to commercial users. Under current law, winning bidders must negotiate with Federal entities upon the close of an auction and reimburse the agencies directly for their relocation costs. The Administration, proposes 

to streamline this process by creating a central spectrum relocation fund. Auction 

receipts sufficient to cover agencies’ relocation costs would be paid into the fund, 

and Federal agencies would be reimbursed for their relocation costs out of the fund.’’ 

Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, Page 241. 

The Administration has not yet submitted language to Congress. 

Do you have any specific concerns about how such a Fund to reimburse government users for relocation costs might work? 

Answer. We are working closely with the Office of Management and Budget, the 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration and other interested 

federal agencies put forward an Administration proposal that streamlines the reimbursement process in a manner that both benefits successful auction bidders and 

incumbent spectrum users that are required to relocate and ensures the continued, 

seamless operational transition of federal systems to new spectrum. The principal 

of cost reimbursement should be to fully reimburse the incumbent for all actual 

costs—direct and indirect—associated with moving to new spectrum. The reimbursement should include all costs, including for example training and testing of new systems and the cost of calculating all the expenses required in such a move. We believe that any proposal must provide both additional certainty as to reimbursement 

costs to successful bidders and assurance that relocating federal government incumbents are made whole (in terms of costs of relocation and maintaining operational 

capacities). We also believe it is vital to ensure that federal system operators have 

first priority in reimbursement from the fund, before additional monies are diverted 

for other public policy needs.

Question 3. Do you believe that the proposal to use auction proceeds to reimburse 

government users as outlined in President Bush’s budget would make the spectrum 

management process more effective and more efficient? 

Answer. Use of auction proceeds to reimburse federal government users in itself 

does not make the spectrum management process more effective or more efficient. 

Rather, spectrum is a national asset that must be used to, among other purposes, 

carry out national security, public safety, law enforcement and other critical public 

services. Cost reimbursement can help to ensure that changes in federal spectrum 

allocations do not adversely impact these critical public services and that the broad 

based costs of changing spectrum uses are appropriately taken into account when 

such decisions are made. However, we should resist the temptation to view a reimbursement trust fund as a panacea for dealing with complex spectrum policy issues, 

which include maintaining sufficient spectrum access for critical public services and 

national security. Indeed, any mechanism which appears to make relocation easier, 

but which does not address key issues of comparable spectrum and preventing the 

loss of critical government capabilities may, in fact, harm the national interest.

80

Question 4. There is some discussion that the Relocation Fund could be established as a trust fund. However, monies in Trust Funds are sometimes used for 

other budgetary purposes. How can legislators ensure that monies will be available 

for government users to address their relocation costs since in some instances it 

could take years for government a user to complete its relocation? 

Answer. We look forward to working with the Congress and with the Office of 

Management and Budget and other parts of the Executive branch to craft legislation 

and appropriate Executive branch implementation procedures that ensure that federal government entities are provided with all funds necessary to successfully relocate when spectrum is to be made available through auction to commercial users. 

As the question implies, it is DoD’s view that a trust fund should be trustworthy 

(i.e. a fund that the incumbent spectrum user can rely on for full reimbursement 

of all costs associated with relocation). Government users should have top priority 

to receive sufficient funding to ensure their successful relocation without the loss 

of crucial national security and public safety capabilities.

Question 5. Do you have any concerns about coordinating a U.S. position for the 

World Radio Conference? What can be done to address these concerns? 

Answer. As with U.S. preparation for past WRC and WARC conferences, there is 

a role for all stakeholders in the spectrum allocation process, including government 

agencies that rely on spectrum resources, as well as the U.S. telecommunications 

industry, which also relies on the WRC process, in part, for its growth and profitability. In an era in which the demand for spectrum is extremely high, all stakeholders must realize that the U.S. position going into a WRC will be based upon 

the needs and views of government and commercial users alike. As in the past, the 

current WRC preparation process is proceeding upon this basic understanding, 

which is the foundation for any consistent approach to developing a national position. We are confident that the country will be well represented by its delegation 

to the next WRC, and look forward to continuing to work with the State Department, the NTIA, the FCC and our colleagues in the U.S. telecommunications industry to make sure that diverse and important U.S. interests are wellserved. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MAX CLELAND

TO NANCY J. VICTORY

Question 1. Do you believe there currently exists a non-partisan person or group 

who can objectively review spectrum recommendations and uses? If not, do you believe such a person or group would be helpful? 

Answer. Both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) are charged with managing the nation’s radio spectrum resources in the public interest and perform their 

respective responsibilities in a cooperative manner to ensure that the spectrum is 

used for its highest and best purpose whether by the Federal agencies or private 

sector users. The NTIA Organization Act (47 U.S.C. § 901(c)(4)) specifically charges 

NTIA with fostering full and efficient use of telecommunications resources, including effective use of the radio spectrum by the Federal Government, in a manner 

that encourages the most beneficial use of such resources in the public interest. In 

performing its spectrum management responsibilities on the President’s behalf, 

NTIA is always mindful that the spectrum policy decisions it makes must be consistent with both the national security and economic security of the nation and understands the importance of balancing both commercial and Government perspectives for better policy outcomes. 

Since most use of the radio spectrum is shared between Government and non-government users, NTIA and the FCC work together to ensure that the needs of all 

constituents are met. I do not believe that an outside entity capable of reviewing 

these decisions currently exists or that the addition of one to the spectrum management process would result in better or more timely decisions.

Question 2. Do you believe this country has in place an efficient spectrum use 

plan? Why or why not? 

Answer. Efficiency in spectrum use is a continuing challenge. Spectrum management continually needs to be adapted to meet changing needs and new technologies. 

Greater spectrum efficiency should be a goal common to all users of the radio spectrum and this is an area of continuing examination for both the FCC and NTIA. 

As manager of the Federal Government’s use of the radio spectrum, NTIA continues 

to encourage Federal agencies to deploy the most spectrum-efficient technology to 

meet their missions. At the same time, efficiency is but one factor NTIA considers 

when making decisions involving the specialized and critical missions that many 

Federal agencies perform, including national security, law enforcement and public 

81

safety. Others include the economic costs and the degree to which the mission requirements can be met. New technologies, including software defined radios and dynamic frequency selection, hold great promise for significant future advances in 

spectrum utilization by the Federal Government, and ultimately through technology 

transfer, by the private sector. NTIA also advocates adoption by the FCC of policies 

that promote spectrum-efficient use by the private sector, including secondary markets and accommodation of ultrawideband systems.

Question 3. How long do you think it would take to do a comprehensive examination of our domestic spectrum plan? 

Answer. The National Table of Allocations, which represents the United States’s 

spectrum plan, is comprised of over 40 radio services spread out over 900 frequency 

bands. A comprehensive re-examination of all of these services and bands would be 

a time-consuming and resource-intensive undertaking. This task would be complicated by the fact that a number of our domestic spectrum allocations are the subject of international agreement and harmonization (e.g., frequencies used internationally for commercial aviation and space communication). Moreover, the rapid 

advances of technology often completely change the relative requirements of the 

services studied during the course of their study. 

The FCC and NTIA, therefore, currently conduct examinations of those services 

and bands as circumstances dictate, usually in areas of congestion or where growth 

is expected, or to accommodate a new technology or service. NTIA has examined 

various aspects of the Federal Government’s ability to meet its spectrum requirements, including the use of radars, land mobile radio, and fixed microwave systems. 

These studies generally focus on the identification of current or foreseeable problems 

(such as congestion), future spectrum demands for these services, and spectrum efficiency policy initiatives. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS

TO NANCY J. VICTORY

Question 1. Last year, NTIA concluded that it would be difficult for DoD to share 

the entire 1710–1850 MHz band and is now focusing its efforts to address sharing 

in the 1710–1770 portion of the band. Would you both agree that the scaled-back 

plan means that there is less of an impact on specific DoD systems—compared to 

the original plan? (For example, three of the systems that operate in the 1710–1850 

MHz band do not operate in the 1710–1770 MHz portion of the band.) So, in general 

terms, the specific DoD systems would be better accommodated by the October 2001 

NTIA plan? 

Answer. I would agree that the current focus on the 1710–1770 MHz portion of 

the 1710–1850 MHz band for accommodation of third generation (3G) mobile systems is, in part, due to a recognition of the greater impact on certain Department 

of Defense systems if the entire band had remained under consideration. An interagency working group led by NTIA and the FCC is currently completing a viability 

assessment of the 1710–1770 MHz portion of the band for 3G use in the United 

States, which, upon completion, will provide a clearer picture of the impact on the 

Department of Defense.

Question 2. What if any spectrum below 3 GHz that can be made available for 

DoD systems if it is determined that DoD must share the 1710–1770 MHz band 

with commercial users, and as a result, DoD will need additional spectrum? 

Answer. NTIA has not yet identified any band of spectrum below 3 GHz to accommodate Department of Defense systems if they must be relocated from 1710–1770 

MHz band. Current efforts are focused on ways in which the band can be shared 

without such relocation to other spectrum bands. This viability assessment will be 

completed shortly.

Question 3. What can be done to improve the U.S. preparatory process for reaching consensus and naming a U.S. delegation with respect to the World Radio Conference? What can the NTIA do to improve its participation in this process? 

Answer. The keys to the United States’ success at any World Radio Conference 

(WRC) are coordinated efforts by U.S. Government and industry stakeholders in the 

early formulation of U.S. positions and unified and consistent advocacy of those positions in the months preceding the conference in both governmental and industry 

fora. WRCs occur on a three-year cycle. In recognition of the increasing complexity 

and importance of the issues addressed in these conferences, the U.S. Government 

has initiated the preparatory process much earlier in the cycle to give the United 

States the ability to formulate its positions and to obtain domestic consensus. For 

example, preparations started for WRC 2003 almost immediately after the close of 

82

the last conference, and most of the U.S. proposals have been completed—nearly a 

year early. The United States can now actively begin to promote U.S. positions in 

bilateral meetings and regional fora. These regional fora have become important 

venues in which the United States has been able to persuade neighboring countries 

of our common interests, garner support for U.S. proposals, and build strong coalitions. 

NTIA is an active participant in all areas of WRC preparation, focusing principally on those issues on which NTIA has particular expertise. To promote the improved spectrum management process for this country, including WRC preparations, 

NTIA, the FCC and the Department of State, have established a ‘‘One Team’’ spectrum management approach. Specifically, we have taken the steps to improve our 

interagency communications and to coordinate our international outreach efforts.

Question 4. What do you consider the critical items for the US Government to 

support on behalf of US commercial industry at WRC–03 and why? 

Answer. NTIA will support all U.S. proposals to WRC–2003 as key members of 

the U.S. delegation. There are a number of issues that appear to be particularly important to certain segments of the U.S. industry, including, but not limited to, identification of frequency bands within the fixed satellite service to permit the ubiquitous deployment of future high density satellite earth stations; authorization of 

satellite communications within the 14 GHz band to permit Internet connectivity 

aboard commercial aircraft; the resolution of certain issues affecting the Global Positioning System (GPS); and accommodation of radio local area networks in the 5 GHz 

band.

Question 5. What are you and your colleagues in Government doing to ensure U.S. 

commercial interests are advanced at WRC–03? 

Answer. Government members of the U.S. delegation, including NTIA representatives, actively advocate U.S. positions at the WRC, including those of particular interest to U.S. commercial stakeholders. This advocacy includes garnering support 

for these positions in all bilateral meetings and regional fora in the months leading 

up to the WRC. It also includes advancing these positions through the Committee 

meetings and plenary sessions of the conferences themselves.

Question 6. GAO noted that some federal agencies were unable to complete the 

required spectrum management reviews because of staffing and resource shortages. 

How serious is this staffing problem at NTIA and other federal agencies? What can 

Congress do to address this issue? 

Answer. NTIA can verify that several Federal agencies have not completed fiveyear reviews of their frequency assignments; however, we cannot independently 

verify whether Federal agencies with whom GAO spoke have experienced staffing 

or resource shortages that have prevented them from conducting these reviews. 

With respect to additional spectrum management resources for NTIA, the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2003 contains an initiative that would provide funding 

to permit NTIA to review and improve its overall performance of spectrum management duties.

Question 7. I understand that spectrum below 3 GHz is congested in part because 

it has certain characteristics that are useful in a mobile environment. Are there any 

incentives that Congress should be contemplating that would encourage the development of technology that makes better use of spectrum above 3 GHz and more efficient use of spectrum below 3 GHz? 

Answer. The spectrum below 3 GHz does have favorable propagation characteristics for a variety of commercial, private sector and governmental uses. One of our 

top priorities at NTIA is to work with the FCC to examine policies to alleviate the 

current congestion below 3 GHz. Over 93 percent of all FCC licenses and Federal 

Government frequency assignments are in the 0 to 3 GHz range. Among other 

things, spectrum managers should be examining ways to encourage migration to 

higher frequency bands as the technology permits. Such policies should include clear 

incentives for relocation to higher bands, where possible. 

In 1998, Congress enacted such a tool to permit Federal agencies to be reimbursed 

by the private sector for the costs associated with relocating from certain frequencies bands below 3 GHz, as well as any future reallocation of spectrum from 

the Federal Government to private sector users. Working with the FCC and the 

Federal agencies, NTIA has finalized these rules, which were published in the Federal Register on June 17, 2002. Moreover, the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 

2003 contained a legislative proposal to streamline this reimbursement process by 

creating a fund from spectrum auction proceeds to reimburse the affected Federal 

agencies. The Department of Commerce expects to transmit this proposal to Congress this summer. 

83

The President has also proposed broadening and making permanent the research 

and experimentation (R&E) tax credit. The R&E tax credit could encourage private 

sector investment in research on advanced technologies that would provide greater 

spectrum efficiency or allow all spectrum users to utilize frequencies in the higher, 

less congested spectrum bands.

Question 8. If DoD is able to share the 1710–1770 MHz band with 3G service, 

what would be the estimated cost of modifying or relocating DoD’s operations in 

order to accommodate 3G service? How long would it take for DoD to modify or relocate its operations? 

Answer. There is no current estimate of the modification or relocation costs for 

Department of Defense systems if they shared the 1710–1770 MHz band with 3G 

mobile systems. NTIA, in coordination with the Department of Defense and industry, is analyzing the sharing potential with Department of Defense systems that operate in the band. The costs for such sharing could vary depending on which systems would have to be modified or relocated and the spectrum to which such systems would be relocated. 

The time required for modifying or relocating Department of Defense systems depends on the specific systems that must be moved or modified. Earlier 3G studies 

estimated that any satellite system relocations would take the longest time, since 

satellites would operate until their end-of-life or as late as 2017. The estimates indicated that conventional fixed systems can be moved within two to four years and 

other systems within two to five years.

Question 9. There were seven basic categories of military systems that were being 

studied by NTIA, FCC and DoD in the entire 1710–1850 MHz band. Those systems 

are: Air Combat Training; Land Warrior; Combat Identification for the Dismounted 

Soldier; Satellite; Conventional Fixed Microwave; Tactical Radio Relay; and Precision Guided Munitions. However, NTIA and DoD are currently exploring the option 

of using the 1710–1770 MHz band for 3G service. 

I understand that three of these systems Air Combat Training; Land Warrior; and 

Combat Identification for the Dismounted Soldier do not use spectrum in the 171 

0–1770 bands. Is it correct to assume that since there is no overlap for these three 

systems, there is no potential for harmful interference into these systems from the 

3G service operating in the 1710–1770 MHz band? 

Answer. Unfortunately, these assumptions are not correct. The Air Combat Training systems air-to-ground air frequencies are above 1770 MHz, but the ground-toground links that transfer the aircraft data to and from the Master Station use frequencies below 1770 MHz. However, these ground links could be relocated to other 

federal frequency bands if necessary. 

The Land Warrior system uses frequencies between 1772 MHz and 1822 MHz 

with a bandwidth of 20 MHz. This means that the lowest channel of Land Warrior 

uses spectrum from 1762 MHz to 1782 MHz, with a center frequency of 1772 MHz. 

The second channel also overlaps the 1755–1770 MHz band, so reallocation of the 

1755–1770 MHz band would mean the loss of two of the 11 channels possible, or 

about 18 per cent of the system’s capability. 

The Combat Identification for the Dismounted Soldier system has been 

superceded by the Individual Combat Identification System (ICIDS). ICIDS operates 

in the 1755–1850 MHz band. The reallocation of the 1755–1770 MHz band would 

mean the loss of 150 channels out of a possible 950 channels, or about 16 per cent 

of the system’s capability.

Question 10. Satellite systems are one of the seven major DoD systems in the 

1710–1770 MHz band. To be specific, I understand that the satellite systems at 

issue is the Satellite Control Stations—the satellite up-link for Tracking Telemetry 

& Control (TT&C). These satellite stations operate between 1761–1842 MHz. So, 

under the current NTIA proposal, commercial carriers and DoD would use the 

1761–1770 MHz band at the same time. 

I understand that under NTIA’s current proposal, the only commercial use permitted in the 171 0–1770 MHz would be relatively low-powered cell phones and not 

the higher-powered cellular towers. Is that the case? 

Answer. NTIA has not made a specific proposal regarding 3G accommodation. 

NTIA has examined several options for the accommodation of 3 G services in the 

1710–1850 MHz band. All these options have been analyzed under the assumption 

that the mobile component of the 3G system (e.g., the low-powered, hand-held 

phone) would transmit in the lower part of the band, including 1710–1770 MHz, and 

the 3G base stations would transmit in the higher part of the band (above 

2110MHz).

Question 11. With respect to the operation of DoD satellite systems in the 1755–

1770 MHz portion of the band, NTIA in its Final Report at October of 2001 recogVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Feb 08, 2005 Jkt 092638 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\92638.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
84

nized the ‘‘. . . the potential interference is within the range of prudent risk management.’’ As a result, the commercial mobile systems operating at 1710–1 770 MHz 

will have no adverse impact on the military satellite systems. However, there could 

be interference from the satellite systems into the commercial mobile systems. 

Is this correct? Given that NTIA has concluded that potential interference into 

DoD’s satellite operations in the 1755–1770 MHz portion of the band is within range 

of prudent risk management, is it correct that commercial cell phones would not 

interfere with DoD satellite systems—but, that DoD satellite systems could interfere 

with commercial cell phones that might be near a satellite base station? 

Answer. The conclusion that interference would be ‘‘within the range of prudent 

risk management’’ does not mean that NTIA has concluded that there would be no 

interference to Department of Defense satellites. It means that NTIA believes that 

the interference could be managed to an acceptable level, though NTIA is not an 

expert source on Department of Defense mission analysis. Since the release of 

NTIA’s March 2001 report, industry has increased its estimate of the number of 

hand-held phones that may be operating. In this regard, potential interference to 

Department of Defense satellites may need to be re-analyzed using new data. 

The major source of potential interference between the two systems would be from 

Federal ground-based satellite control stations into 3G base stations. These 3G base 

stations receive on the frequency on which the hand-held phones transmit. The 

high-power satellite control stations could cause interference up to 300 kilometers, 

in a worst-case situation. Terrain shielding between the base station and the satellite control station, and the fact that the satellite control station antennas move 

when tracking the satellites, serve to mitigate the interference.

Question 12. In this situation would commercial systems have the burden of not 

interfering with DoD satellite systems and are there mitigation techniques that can 

be used to protect DoD satellite operations? 

Answer. New entrants into a frequency band generally have the burden of protecting the incumbent users. In this case, 3G operators would have to protect Department of Defense operations. Among other problems, the Department of Defense 

satellites have a wide view of the Earth and will receive signals from a large number of hand-held phones in the United States. Shielding is not an option since the 

phones must be in sight of a cell base station tower. Moreover, Department of Defense requirements will likely increase over time requiring greater protection and 

accommodation by 3G operators. The concern is how to address this issue if harmful 

interference is caused to Department of Defense satellites. Possible mitigation techniques would be to limit the number of mobile phones transmitting simultaneously 

on satellite channels, and by using smaller cell sizes so the power transmitted from 

the mobile phones would be lower.

Question 13. DoD’s Fixed Microwave Systems operate throughout the 1710–1770 

MHz band and would need to be moved to other spectrum before commercial systems could use the spectrum. I understand that the DoD in its February 2001 Report on the original NTIA spectrum plan indicated that alternative, comparable 

spectrum is available for the Fixed Microwave Systems: 

‘‘A significant amount of frequency spectrum is already allocated to the Government on an exclusive basis for Fixed Service operations in higher frequency ranges. 

The 4400 to 4990 MHz and 7125 to 85 MHz bands are already employed by the DoD 

for fixed point-to-point microwave communications.’’ DoD IMT 2000 Assessment, Appendix E, Page 9

Do you agree with the finding that there is comparable spectrum available for 

these systems? 

Answer. NTIA agrees that there is alternative spectrum available to relocate the 

Government’s conventional fixed microwave systems now located in the 1710–1770 

MHz band, including Department of Defense links. As the Department of Defense 

notes in its IMT 2000 Assessment, it already operates fixed point-to-point microwave systems in other Government exclusive bands.

Question 14. If there is comparable spectrum available, what would DoD need in 

order to relocate these operations, what would be the cost to relocate these operations, and how much time would it take for such relocations? 

Answer. Like all Federal agencies that would be required to relocate fixed microwave operations from the band, the Department of Defense would need adequate 

resources to cover the costs of such relocation. Implementing current law, NTIA recently issued rules that would require new licensees to compensate federal agencies 

that relocate their operations to make frequency spectrum available for commercial 

use. See 67 Fed. Reg. 41182 (June 17, 2002). The President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 

2003 contained a legislative proposal to streamline this reimbursement process by 

85

creating a fund from spectrum auction proceeds to reimburse the affected Federal 

agencies. 

NTIA has estimated that the average cost of relocating a conventional fixed micro- wave system would be approximately $350,000 per frequency assignment. The Department of Defense currently has 289 such for a total of approximately $101 million in relocation costs. The time for relocation, from reimbursement, is estimated 

to be from two to four years.

Question 15. Is it true that many of these systems are in very remote areas of 

our nation, which might facilitate a phased approach to re-location? 

Answer. For Department of Defense systems, many of the fixed links are in rural 

or remote areas. There may be merit to a priority list of links to be relocated, but 

the interdependence of links within a system must be established before any phased 

approach is planned. The integrity of systems must be maintained at all times.

Question 16. Another of the seven DoD systems is referred to as ‘‘Tactical Radio 

Relay’’ wireless communications system that can be set up for a battlefield to provide vital communications. I understand that these radios can be ‘‘tuned’’ to different spectrum frequencies—allowing them to be used throughout the 1710–1850 

MHz band. In other words, the DoD could use these radios in spectrum between 

1770 and 1850 MHz, without interfering with commercial use in 1710–1770 MHz 

(as contemplated by the October 2001 NTIA plan). Is this correct? If it is correct, 

what would be the cost of retuning these radios and how long would it take to 

retune the radios? 

Answer. The Tactical Radio Relay system (TRR) tunes from 1350 MHz to 1850 

MHz in 125 kHz steps. TRRs could technically be retuned to avoid channels between 1710 MHz and 1770 MHz. However, this would reduce the number of available channels by approximately 500 channels and could affect the usefulness of the 

TRR system for military training operations.

Question 17. DoD uses spectrum in the 171 0–1770 MHz band, at least in part, 

for Precision Guided Munitions. Here in the U.S., training with Precision Guided 

Munitions relies on spectrum in this band. I understand that the DoD has deployed 

these systems not only here in the U.S., but in many locations around the world—

including areas of Europe. In Europe, I understand that there is already extensive 

use of the 1710–1770 MHz band for commercial wireless operations. 

What can you tell us about how the DoD handles the potential for interference 

into precision guided munitions operations overseas? If DoD’s precision guided munitions system affected by wireless systems in other countries can work around European commercial traffic—can DoD do the same here in the U.S.? 

Answer. NTIA is not qualified to completely answer questions on this subject, and 

much of the technical and operational information regarding Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) is classified. It is our understanding that PGM training is conducted 

primarily in the United States. Air units deployed overseas using PGMs use them 

operationally. PGMs have been used in the Persian Gulf war, in the Balkans, and 

in Afghanistan. In an operational situation, some interference can be expected, and 

could reduce the efficiency of the munition.

Question 18. If DoD’s Precision Guided Munitions could be interfered with by commercial cell phones—is this a potential vulnerability overseas? 

Answer. NTIA is not qualified to answer questions related to Department of Defense weapons vulnerability.

Question 19. I also want to understand the specific nature of potential interference issues. Is it the case that commercial cell phones would interfere with Precision Guided Munitions? Or is it that Precision Guided Munitions might interfere 

with commercial cell phones? Is it DoD systems or the commercial wireless systems 

that bear the burden or not interfering? 

Answer. As I understand it, there is a slight potential for 3G mobile hand-held 

phones to interfere with PGMs, but the main interference problems would arise 

from PGMs into receiving 3G base stations. Commercial operators would have to accept any harmful interference to their operation of 3G systems caused by Department of Defense operations of PGMs in the authorized protected sites and would 

also be required to protect such Department of Defense operations from interference. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE

TO NANCY J. VICTORY

Question 1. What can be done to improve the current coordination process between the FCC and NTIA and more effectively allocate spectrum and better balance 

the needs of commercial and government users? 

86

Answer. In early April, NTIA and the FCC co-hosted a Spectrum Summit to focus 

on these issues. At the Summit, we elicited the views of expert panelists from industry, government, and academia on the spectrum management process and how it 

can be improved to serve all stakeholders and users. Among the major problems 

identified were: gaps in governmental coordination between NTIA, the FCC, and the 

State Department; the length and complexity of the allocation process; inefficient 

uses of spectrum and the absence of efficiency-stimulating incentives; challenges 

making ‘‘room’’ or ‘‘homes’’ for new services and technologies; and lack of clarity 

about spectrum rights and the federal spectrum management process. 

The U.S. Government agencies involved in spectrum management must work together collaboratively as ‘‘One Spectrum Team’’ to serve our Nation’s collective interests. FCC Chairman Michael Powell and I have established a ‘‘One Team’’ spectrum management approach where we will be meeting on a regular basis to discuss 

various spectrum issues including spectrum planning. This approach is an effort to 

improve our interagency communications and to take a more forward-looking approach to accommodate advances in technology. These improvements will enable our 

agencies to be more ‘‘proactive’’ and ‘‘predictive’’ in spectrum management. 

The FCC has created a special Task Force on spectrum management and one of 

the major themes of the effort is spectrum efficiency. NTIA plans to support the 

FCC’s Task Force and work closely with the FCC to address the issues of efficiency. 

NTIA also plans to meet with the FCC to see what improvements can be made in 

the coordination of various rule-makings, the assignment/licensing process, the preparation to radio conferences, and long range planning. Finally, the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2003 contained an initiative to review the entire spectrum management process and implement such reforms that would make the spectrum management processes more effective and the use of spectrum more efficient.

Question 2. The FCC is examining whether the 2110–2170 MHz band can be used 

for third generation wireless service. Do you know of any difficulties that may exist 

in allowing 3G providers to use in this band? 

Answer. There are over 6,900 licenses in the 2110–2170 MHz band, including 

common carrier, radiotelephone, local television transmission, and paging services. 

The FCC has indicated that these stations will need to be relocated into other spectrum. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) also operates a 

deep-space facility at Goldstone, California that transmits high power signals to 

space probes in the 2110–2120 MHz portion of the band. Interference to hand-held 

mobile 3G phones is possible within approximately 200 km of the NASA facility.

Question 3. If DoD is required to share or vacate some portion of the 1710–1770 

MHz band so that it can be used for third generation wireless service, to what spectrum would DoD be able to relocate? How much would such a move cost DoD? 

Answer. If Department of Defense systems are able to share the band with 3G 

systems, the cost to the Department of Defense should be minimal and relocation 

would be unnecessary. However, if the Department of Defense systems cannot share 

with 3G systems and must be relocated to other spectrum, NTIA has not yet identified such spectrum. For the most part, conventional fixed systems could be relocated 

to alternate federal spectrum, but spectrum has not yet been identified for systems 

such as tactical radio relay, air combat training systems, precision guided munitions, satellite control stations, Land Warrior, and the Individual Combat Identification System. Pending the identification of such spectrum, NTIA cannot provide cost 

estimates. The costs of designing and implementing new systems have many factors, 

one of which is the operating frequency that affects the costs of components, the 

power required to achieve the required range, and the antenna size.

Question 4. The President’s FY 2003 Budget calls for a new process, a ‘‘Spectrum 

Relocation Fund,’’ for reimbursing government users for costs incurred when they 

are required to relocate to different spectrum blocks. 

‘‘The Administration will propose legislation to streamline the current process for 

reimbursing Federal agencies that must relocate from Federal spectrum which has 

been reallocated for auction to commercial users. Under current law, winning bidders must negotiate with Federal entities upon the close of an auction and reimburse the agencies directly for their relocation costs. The Administration proposes 

to streamline this process by creating a central spectrum relocation fund. Auction 

receipts sufficient to cover agencies’ relocation costs would be paid into the fund, 

and Federal agencies would be reimbursed for their relocation costs out of the fund.’’ 

Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, Page 241. 

The Administration has not yet submitted language to Congress. 

How would such a Fund be structured? Do you have any concerns about how such 

a Fund to reimburse government users for relocation costs might be structured? 

87

Answer. Under current law, Federal agencies that must relocate their radio communications operations from certain bands of Government spectrum that have been 

reallocated to private sector uses are entitled to reimbursement from the private 

sector entities that obtain licenses to use the spectrum through an FCC auction. 

Each FCC licensee is required to negotiate with each affected Federal agency in 

their new license area upon the close of an auction and pay the agencies directly 

for their relocation costs. Current law, however, provides that such payments are 

subject to further authorization or appropriations, and thus, Federal agencies would 

be unable to expend these payments without additional Congressional action. 

The proposed Spectrum Relocation Fund would replace this potentially complex 

series of negotiations and payments between Federal agencies and licensees with a 

centrally managed account from which the Federal agencies’ relocation costs will be 

paid. The fund will be managed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

and funded by receipts from the auction of the reallocated Government spectrum. 

The Administration anticipates that the internal Executive Branch processes for 

this Fund would be similar to the processes used to administer the Y2K and Emergency Response Funds, also centrally managed by 0MB. The President’s proposal 

also would provide Federal agencies with mandatory spending authority (often also 

called ‘‘direct spending authority’’) to expend these funds without requiring further 

Congressional action. The proposal would also make the funds available until expended.

Question 5. Do you believe that the proposal to use auction proceeds to reimburse 

government users as outlined in President Bush’s budget would make the spectrum 

management process more effective and more efficient? 

Answer. By replacing the time-consuming and potentially complex and costly negotiations between Federal agencies and FCC licensees with a centrally managed 

relocation fund, the proposal will benefit Federal agencies by providing greater certainty in recovering the costs of relocations; the private sector by ensuring more 

timely access to the reallocated spectrum and greater certainty about the ultimate 

price of spectrum licenses obtained at auction; and consumers by providing opportunities for new communications services to the public. By significantly streamlining 

the reimbursement process, the President’s proposal will make the spectrum management process more effective and efficient.

Question 6. There is some discussion that the Relocation Fund could be established as a trust fund. However, monies in Trust Funds are sometimes used for 

other budgetary purposes. How can legislators ensure that monies will be available 

for government users to address their relocation costs since in some instances it 

could take years for government a user to complete its relocation? 

Answer. The Administration does not propose to set up the Spectrum Relocation 

Fund as a trust fund. Rather, the Spectrum Relocation Fund will be a special fund 

set up for the specific purpose of ensuring that Federal agencies receive payment 

for their relocation costs. As noted above, the Administration intends to seek mandatory spending authority for the payments so that once the auction receipts are 

deposited in the Fund, funds would be immediately available to the Federal agencies to relocate their operations. In addition, the Administration’s proposal would 

make the funds available until expended in recognition that some relocations could 

take a period of time to complete.

Question 7. The United States seems to be at a disadvantage in the World Radio 

Conference (WRC) process with respect to other countries such as those in Europe. 

How can Congress ensure that the U.S. develops a U.S. position as well as names 

its delegation in a timely manner and prior to a WRC, thereby allowing for sufficient time to lobby other parts of the world? 

Answer. The keys to the United States’ success at any World Radio Conference 

(WRC) are coordinated efforts by U.S. Government and industry stakeholders in the 

early formulation of U.S. positions and unified and consistent advocacy of those positions in the months preceding the conference in both governmental and industry 

fora. WRCs occur on a three-year cycle. In recognition of the increasing complexity 

and importance of the issues addressed in these conferences, the U.S. Government 

has initiated the preparatory process much earlier in the cycle to give the United 

States the ability to formulate its positions and to obtain domestic consensus. For 

example, preparations started for WRC 2003 almost immediately after the close of 

the last conference, and most of the U.S. proposals have been completed—nearly a 

year early. The United States can now actively begin to promote U.S. positions in 

bilateral meetings and regional fora. These regional fora have become important 

venues in which the United States has been able to persuade neighboring countries 

of our common interests, garner support for U.S. proposals, and build strong coalitions. 

88

The United States has been very successful in past WRCs and we are optimistic 

that we can meet our objectives for WRC–2003. Europe does have an advantage because European countries generally vote as a block (45 votes for Europe versus 1 

vote for the United States). On the other hand, the United States has been successful in pursuing its objectives by developing technically sound proposals and strongly 

advocating their importance to other countries. NTIA is currently examining a wide 

range of spectrum management issues under our spectrum reform effort.

Question 8. Should the ambassador to a WRC be appointed at least a year instead 

of 6 months prior to the conference? Should there be a State Department employee 

designated to drive consensus with respect to the U.S. position prior to and until 

the ambassador is appointed? 

Answer. Most countries in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) rely 

completely on career ITU technical and regulatory experts. These people know each 

other and are well versed on the issues. The United States, on the other hand, selects an ambassador specifically for each WRC. The ambassador brings knowledge 

of the Administration’s policy goals, but may not know the key WRC players, details 

of the issues, or have sufficient time to develop the necessary expertise. The ambassador’s six month appointment presents a tremendous challenge for learning the 

issues, becoming part of the team in a preparation process that has been underway 

for two and a half years, and conducting outreach. The possibility of moving the appointment date forward should be considered. 

Given that the WRC ambassador cannot serve more than approximately 6 months 

without Senate confirmation, the State Department could designate an employee to 

serve as interim WRC delegation head starting about 15 months prior to the WRC 

being held. The purpose of such an appointment would be to begin to facilitate formal outreach efforts and promulgate U.S. views and proposals. This would also 

allow administrative planning for the conference to begin in a timely manner. The 

interim head of delegation would also be in a good position to bring the appointed 

Ambassador rapidly ‘‘up to speed’’ on the issues. Nonetheless, the U.S. preparatory 

processes within the FCC and NTIA and reconciliation of their views and proposals 

proceeds separately from the appointment of the ambassador.

Question 9. Should the State Department be required to establish a timetable for 

resolving issues, establishing consensus and lobbying other countries prior to WRC? 

If a timetable is established, what incentives can be used to ensure that NTIA, the 

FCC, and industry work to meet the timetables? Do you have any other concerns 

about coordinating a U.S. position for the World Radio Conference? What can be 

done to address these concerns? 

Answer. While WRCs have gotten a lot more attention over the last few years at 

the senior level, there is still room to improve coordination among the State Department, NTIA, FCC and other key agencies in promoting U.S. positions, particularly 

in our dealing with other countries. Having a more clearly defined State Department focal point earlier would be helpful. The general timetable for WRC preparatory activities is well established based on the motivation of federal and nonfederal participants to meet regional deadlines and to begin promoting positions. 

The State Department’s formulation and promotion of an agreed timetable would be 

helpful in bringing issues to closure and helping all parties involved to understand 

the process objectives. At the same time, some flexibility may be required to solve 

particularly difficult issues. The State Department’s development of a WRC outreach plan would be a big step in gaining support. However, outreach on WRC 

issues, though having political components, tends to be highly technical and require 

experience in radio regulation, and cannot be realistically covered in broad highlevel bilateral discussions on telecommunications in general. To be successful, outreach must be focused on WRC issues specifically and include experts knowledgeable on those issues.

Question 10. GAO has indicated that while NTIA has attempted to promote spectrum efficiency that there is no accountability to ensure government users are using 

spectrum efficiently. Also GAO found that many federal agencies are understaffed 

with respect to employees who could assist agencies to manage spectrum. The FCC 

has recently indicated its need to increase its number of engineers. 

Does NTIA believe that increasing engineers in federal agencies could assist agencies in better managing spectrum as well as improving spectrum efficiency? 

Answer. At the most basic levels, Federal agencies need adequate personnel resources with the requisite expertise (telecommunication specialists, engineers, and 

computer specialists) to perform the tasks necessary to ensure spectrum efficiency. 

Various members of the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee have indicated 

to NTIA spectrum management staff that the lack of resources has affected their 

ability to address spectrum efficiency initiatives as well as to perform their basic 

89

tasks of processing agency requests for frequencies and review of spectrum management policy decisions.

Question 11. Is there anything else that can be done to increase the level of accountability with respect to government users and spectrum efficiency? 

Answer. One mechanism NTIA uses to ensure some level of accountability is the 

review process in which each Federal agency is required to certify that the frequency they are authorized to use by NTIA is still required and the characteristics 

of the system using the spectrum are still up-to-date. Most frequency authorizations 

require this review every five years. Some agencies have indicated that they have 

been unable to perform this five-year review for lack of personnel resources. 

In the past, NTIA performed spectrum management surveys (as many as four per 

year) in which various locations were visited where spectrum was authorized. NTIA 

would audit these various Federal agencies to determine whether the agencies were 

using the spectrum under the conditions for which it was authorized. The audit was 

an incentive for agencies to ensure they were using the spectrum authorized as approved by NTIA. NTIA discontinued this practice a number of years ago because of 

the lack of fiscal and staff resources to perform such audits. 

To increase the level of accountability for spectrum usage within the Federal 

agencies, NTIA also imposes fees to recover a portion of the costs of its spectrum 

management responsibilities. These fees are assessed on the basis of the percentage 

of spectrum utilized by the Federal agencies. Along with adoption of various spectrum efficiency initiatives (e.g., narrowbanding for land mobile radio services), this 

fee system has reduced the number of Federal assignments over the last 5 years 

by approximately seven percent. NTIA has also developed a new computer software 

program that the Federal agencies can use to prepare frequency assignment requests that comply with spectrum management rules and regulations and ensure 

interference-free operations with others in the environment. This capability is continually being revised based on feedback from the Federal agencies.

Question 12. Most government and commercial users estimate that they will need 

more spectrum over the coming years as they introduce advanced mobile services 

such as consumer broadband and richer information for emergency responders. 

Given that the amount of spectrum for such uses is finite, will it be possible to accommodate these demands if spectrum efficient technologies are implemented? 

Answer. NTIA anticipates increased spectrum demand for all Federal agencies, 

particularly those with national security, public safety, and law enforcement missions, in the future. NTIA believes that these demands can only be met if new technologies are available that permit greater spectrum efficiencies or allow Federal 

agencies to migrate their operations to bands above 3 GHz to relieve some of the 

current congestion. New technologies, including software defined radios and dynamic frequency selection, hold great promise for significant future advances in 

spectrum utilization by the Federal Government, and ultimately through technology 

transfer, by the private sector. NTIA also advocates adoption by the FCC of policies 

that promote spectrum-efficient use by the private sector, including secondary markets and accommodation of ultrawideband systems.

Question 13. It is possible that the government and industry are not using spectrum—a valuable public resource—as well as we might. For instance, in some cases, 

they are using technologies that are more than 50 years old and were not designed 

to make efficient use of spectrum. In other cases, spectrum has been allocated to 

services that are not making extensive use of it. And, in still other cases, the spectrum has been allocated to services that could instead operate in other, less crowded 

frequency bands. 

Should we consider a regulatory or legislative approach that reviews spectrum allocations say every 25 years, reallocating spectrum that has not been efficiently 

used? 

Answer. Given the accelerating pace of advances in telecommunications technologies and the increasing demand by all users of the spectrum, a review of spectrum allocations should be conducted more frequently than every 25 years. Conversely, too short a time frame might tend to undermine the stability of well established telecommunications industries. Currently, at the international level, the 

International Telecommunication Union has adopted a policy of major spectrum 

planning conferences every two to three years to address specific agreed-upon topics. 

Domestically, reviewing spectrum allocations is essentially a continuous, on-going 

process through the FCC’s rulemaking proceedings and parallel activities within 

NTIA. In these proceedings, current and projected spectrum needs are addressed as 

they are defined with appropriate spectrum review and allocation being effected as 

required. NTIA has for many years undertaken detailed reviews (called Spectrum 

Resource Assessments) of selected frequency bands to characterize the current and 

90

projected use of the identified bands, identified spectrum sharing and interference 

issues, and identified alternative spectrum management approaches. These studies 

provide support for NTIA’s spectrum policy actions. Since each of the myriad telecommunications industries in the United States evolve along unique time scales, establishing a predetermined fixed time for reviewing and reallocating spectrum use 

may be counter-productive in promoting new technologies, meeting national defense 

and homeland security spectrum needs, and promoting spectrum efficiency.

Question 14. If so, is 25 years an appropriate timeframe to determine whether to 

reallocate spectrum or is the element of risk that this introduces too great for the 

spectrum users, whether in the government or private industry, to bear? 

Answer. As noted above, a 25-year time frame is not appropriate given the accelerated pace of advances in telecommunications technologies.

Question 15. Would such a requirement stifle innovation and the deployment of 

services, etc.? If not, what mechanisms would you suggest we employ to update 

spectrum allocations over time? Would we need to employ a different approach to 

promote spectrum efficient use among government users? 

Answer. Undertaking a major spectrum review and reallocation at predetermined 

fixed intervals might well stifle innovation and deployment of services. Telecommunications advances do not follow predetermined schedules. As discussed 

above, the process to update spectrum allocations over time is an on-going process 

through the FCC rulemaking proceedings and the spectrum management activities 

at NTIA. Conducting more focused periodic reviews by both NTIA and FCC on selected bands or services of interest in a manner similar to NTIA’s Spectrum Resource Assessments would be a positive step forward.

Question 16. Is there a quantitative mechanism to measure the efficiency with 

which spectrum is used such as the number of subscribers served per MHz of spectrum used? Should there be a different definition of efficiency for each general type 

of service, for example paging versus PCS voice services? 

Answer. NTIA uses the definition of spectrum efficiency described by the ITU, 

namely the ratio of the communications achieved to the spectrum space used. In 

practice, this definition has value when applied to many types of commercial communications systems such as cellular/wireless systems, pagers, fixed microwave, and 

some communications satellite systems. For each of these systems, the specific technical equations may take a different form. For example, for wireless systems, spectrum efficiency might be measured in terms of subscribers served per MHz of spectrum used per square kilometer of service area. However, many or most of the systems used by the Federal government do not fall within the scope of this type of 

measure of spectrum efficiency. These systems include, for example, radars, navigation, military tactical, and scientific systems. To date, no effective measure for spectrum efficiency has been identified for the latter types of systems.

Question 17. What incentives or disincentives should be put in place to encourage 

the efficient use of spectrum? Should there be spectrum efficiency measurements 

and standards that progressively increase over time? 

Answer. A number of incentives have been established by both NTIA and the 

FCC, and are currently in place to encourage the efficient use of spectrum. The incentives adopted and/or planned by NTIA take a wide variety of forms including, 

(1) requirements to use only as much transmitter power as necessary to ensure a 

satisfactory service; (2) assigning new users to the most heavily used channel first 

before resorting to those less heavily used, in order to minimize the total spectrum 

space used; (3) charging an annual fee to recover costs of NTIA spectrum management services based on Federal frequency assignments, which has encouraged the 

release of underused or unused frequencies; (4) requiring that use of the radio spectrum by Federal agencies be justified for reasons such as specific Presidential, legislative, or international commitments; (5) mandating that federal agencies adopt 

narrowband technology for land mobile communications, releasing channels for future Federal growth; (6) adopting effective receiver performance standards for Federal radiocommunications equipment, and advocating greater use of receiver standards, in general, to reduce interference and allow tighter ‘‘packing’’ of frequency assignments; (7) promoting and conducting research into new spectrum efficient technologies such as software defined radios; (8) promoting the continued transition to 

more spectrum-efficient digital techniques; (9) adopting stringent emission standards for high power systems such as radars to facilitate spectrum sharing; and (10) 

promoting greater sharing among incumbent spectrum users. 

While the concept of establishing spectrum efficiency standards should be included in any assessment of most radio communications systems, this would be but 

one element in a more comprehensive strategy to improving the efficient use of the 

spectrum. Establishing spectrum efficiency standards that progressively improve 

91

with time may on the surface appear desirable, yet it may at the same time be 

viewed as excessive micromanaging spectrum management. Also, technical definitions of spectrum efficiency based on current technology may be less valid for new 

emerging technologies, thus tending to stifle new developments.

Æ