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

80–674PS 2002

THE FCC’S UWB PROCEEDING: AN EXAMINATION

OF THE GOVERNMENT’S SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT PROCESS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND

THE INTERNET

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 5, 2002

Serial No. 107–114

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

JOE BARTON, Texas

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

TOM SAWYER, Ohio

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

LOIS CAPPS, California

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana

JANE HARMAN, California

DAVID V. MARVENTANO, Staff Director

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

JOE BARTON, Texas

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

Vice Chairman

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

CHARLES ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

(Ex Officio)

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

BART STUPAK, Michigan

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

JANE HARMAN, California

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

TOM SAWYER, Ohio

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

2

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Gallagher, Michael D., Deputy Assistant Secretary, National Telecommunications and Information Administration ..................................... 9

Johnson, Dennis I., President, Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc ................ 45

Knapp, Julius P., Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology,

Federal Communications Commission ........................................................ 31

Petroff, Ralph G., Chief Executive Officer, Time Domain Corporation ....... 35

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

and C3 Policy, U.S. Department of Defense ............................................... 15

Shane, Jeffrey N., Associate Deputy Secretary, Department of Transportation .............................................................................................................. 23

Material submitted for the record by:

Alongi, Anthony J., President, Penetrader Corporation, letter dated June

3, 2002 to Hon. Fred Upton ......................................................................... 70

Nowakowski, Richard C., Coordinator of Special Projects, City of Chicago,

letter dated May 30, 2002 to Hon. Fred Upton .......................................... 71

(III)

(1)

THE FCC’S UWB PROCEEDING: AN EXAMINATION OF THE GOVERNMENT’S SPECTRUM

MANAGEMENT PROCESS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AND THE INTERNET,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton (chairman)

presiding.

Members present: Representatives Upton, Stearns, Shimkus,

Davis, Bass, Terry, Tauzin (ex officio), Markey, McCarthy, DeGette,

and Sawyer.

Staff present: Howard Waltzman, majority counsel; Will

Nordwind, policy coordinator; Brendan Williams, professional staff;

Hollyn Kidd, legislative clerk; Andy Levin, minority counsel; and

Jessica McNiece, minority staff assistant.

Mr. UPTON. Well, good morning, everyone. Sorry we are late. We

had a vote, pressing business on the House floor, a picture. Had to

say cheeseburger a few times. We also have a deadline for another

subcommittee using this room, so we are going to get started.

Today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘The FCC’s Ultrawideband Proceeding: An Examination of the Government Spectrum Management Policy.’’ And while to the casual observer the title of today’s

hearing may sound esoteric and academic, let me suggest why it

is not. Ultrawideband, otherwise known as UWB, is an exciting

new technology with many promising applications for Americans

across the country as well as public safety officials.

One need only consider the three categories of UWB applications

to see. First, there are imaging systems, including ground penetrating radar systems, which can help public safety officials detect

images of buried objects; wall imaging systems, which can help

public safety officials or construction companies detect the location

of objects obviously contained in a wall; through-the-wall imaging

systems, again help public safety officials; surveillance systems,

which will help public safety officials detect intrusions into a secure

perimeter; and medical systems, which will help doctors see inside

an individual’s body. In fact, right after September 11, through-thewall UWB systems were deployed at Ground Zero and the Pentagon to help with the rescue efforts.

2

Second, there are vehicular radar systems, which will help drivers detect the locations of objects in their vehicle, enabling vehicles

to automatically slow down or stop to avoid collisions in pretension

seatbelts. Third, there are communications and measurement systems, which will enable wireless high-speed home and business

networking devices and storage tank measurements.

Clearly, UWB has many exciting potential applications for public

safety and American consumers, and since UWB devices employ

very narrow or short-duration impulses that result in a very wideband transmission bandwidth, they certainly have the potential

with appropriate technical standards of operating using spectrum

occupied by existing radio services without causing interference;

therefore, permitting scarce spectrum resources to be used more efficiently.

So why are we here today? Two reasons: First, we want to specifically examine the FCC’s UWB order released on April 22. I

would note that the FCC indicates through its order that based on

NTIA’s recommendation, it was proceeding cautiously and that it

was concerned that the standards it was adopting may be overprotective and could unnecessarily constrain the development of

UWB technology.

Accordingly, the FCC announced that it would review the UWB

standards within the next 6 to 12 months and issue a further rulemaking to explore more flexible, technical standards and to address

additional types of UWB operations and technologies. We will still

want to know why the FCC feels the way that it does and what

the NTIA’s response is to those feelings.

Second, we are here today to use the UWB proceedings as a case

study to examine how our Nation’s spectrum is managed and to inquire as to whether that system of management with its bifurcated

division of responsibility between the NTIA and FCC best serves

the needs of the 21st century technology. Using the UWB case

study, we should explore whether there is a better way to manage

our spectrum.

Chairman Tauzin announced that he, along with myself, Mr.

Markey, Mr. Dingell and other concerned members of the committee, would begin to focus on spectrum management questions

through the creation of a Spectrum Management Task Force, and

today’s hearing certainly will form the task force examination.

Without a doubt, the UWB proceedings was controversial. The

issues were complex, the stakes were high. Notwithstanding that,

I want to particularly recognize the efforts of the Commerce Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary Michael Gallagher and the

FCC’s Deputy Bureau Chief Julius Knapp for all of the sweat equity, which they and their colleagues invested in the process, all

under enormous pressure. And I particularly want to tip my hat to

them for striking the balance which will enable vehicular radar

systems to be deployed because I am convinced that these systems

will save lives on America’s highways and byways. I am pleased

that they are here to testify along with the rest of our witnesses.

I look forward to that, and I yield for an opening statement to my

friend and colleague from Ohio, Mr. Sawyer.

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank

you for calling this hearing. There are a number of questions that

3

we share, and you covered most of them in your opening statement.

The innovation such as ground penetrating radar and through-thewall imaging systems, as well as the automotive applications, are

very substantial. They are important not only in terms of military

applications but in terms of public safety and in a lot of applications that would have commercial interest. All of them deserve our

careful attention today, and that is why this hearing is important.

I would simply observe, however, that in addition to the military

and public safety applications, it seems to me that electronic devices that have come into uses in both of those fields have not been

far behind in coming into application in consumer settings. And it

seems to me that if we are to respect one another’s sense of privacy, that we need to take care with regard to those applications

as well as those that you have mentioned.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will submit my opening statement

for the record and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. I would announce that I will obviously

allow all members to include their opening statements as part of

the record and yield at this time to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Tauzin.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank

you for convening this hearing today. I commend you for tackling

this cutting-edge, complex telecommunications issue. The manner

in which ultrawideband technology is fostered or stifled by government policy has huge implications, both for future technologies and

for our Nation’s spectrum management process, as the chairman

pointed out.

Ultrawideband is an exciting new technology that has many

promising applications. It has fire and rescue applications, it has

military applications, it has vehicular safety applications, it has

huge telecommunications applications, it has all sorts of commercial applications. And the FCC’s recent ultrawideband decision can

be called a major step, but it can also be called very much of a baby

step.

The FCC’s ultrawideband rulemaking was a hotly contested and

contentious proceeding. One could argue that it accurately reflected

the give and take that we should expect when any new technology

comes along that defies the rigid confines in which we have previously categorized energy emissions. But that’s not quite the way

I see it.

I watched this proceeding with more than a small degree of horror. I watched certain government bureaucrats and certain industries try their absolute best to stifle this new technology.

Ultrawideband technology terrified some people because it was different. Whether it was out of a competitive concern or because

technology created intentional emissions where none had previously been encountered, ultrawideband has been met with the

fiercest resistance of any technology in recent memory.

This leaves us to evaluate where we are now. We have an FCC

order that permits a limited deployment of this new technology.

The Commission itself acknowledged just how conservative an approach it was taking. ‘‘We are proceeding cautiously in authorizing

UWB technology, based in large measure on standards that the

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

4

found to be necessary to protect against interference to vital Federal Government operations.’’ The Commission also stated, ‘‘We are

concerned that the standards we are adopting may be overprotective and could unnecessarily constrain the development of UWB

technology.’’ The FCC had lots of conflicting data upon which to draw its conclusions. NTIA and other agencies produced mountains of data detailing the potential interference that could be caused by

ultrawideband devices. And ultrawideband developers countered

with mountains of data regarding why ultrawideband devices will

not cause harmful interference.

Now, hopefully, we can get to the bottom of the interference debate. The FCC will conduct its own tests, and conduct them on real

devices, not by formulating hypothetical models. I hope, during the

next 6 to 12 months, I hope that during the next 6 to 12 months

the FCC is able to conduct enough real-world testing so that we

have solid, real-world evidence as to whether ultrawideband creates harmful interference in the restricted bands.

I don’t want military operations to be interfered with, none of us

do, and I don’t want planes to fall out of the sky; of course, none

of us do. But I want real-world evidence that tells us whether

ultrawideband devices, on a stand-alone or cumulative basis, could

cause these things to occur.

I want to make one final comment about the implications of this

proceeding on the spectrum management process. The way this

proceeding was conducted makes me, and I hope other members,

very nervous about the current state of how we manage spectrum.

NTIA determined the outcome of this proceeding. Let there be no

doubt about it, NTIA determined the outcome of this proceeding,

not the FCC. The FCC’s order is pretty clear about that. The Commission adopted emissions limits based on levels with which NTIA

was comfortable. And the NTIA, of course, manages spectrum for

the Federal Government, but the FCC is supposed to set the rules

for commercial devices, even those that may intentionally emit in

the restricted bands. The FCC is supposed to coordinate with the

NTIA regarding emissions from commercial entities in the restricted bands.

But I wonder, and I look forward to testimony regarding, whether NTIA’s coordination role was a lot more than mere coordination

in this proceeding. And if it was, what are the implications of the

interaction between the FCC and the NTIA for new technologies

that might also intentionally emit energy in the restricted bands or

somehow defy current standards in some other way that we can’t

imagine today?

Sound spectrum management involves a balancing of government

and non-governmental interests. While balancing these interests

always involves policy issues, good spectrum management requires

that sound policy be supported by sound engineering. I don’t think

that necessarily happened this time.

And I look forward to the FCC’s ultrawideband testing, and I

hope it demonstrates that ultrawideband technology can flourish

without causing harmful interference. This technology is simply too

promising, has too many incredibly important applications to stifle

it based upon unfounded and unproven concerns. We will see what

5

happens in the next 6 to 12 months, and I look forward to the testimony today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Recognize Ms. McCarthy.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having the hearing today. Like the chairman of the full committee

mentioned, I really do look forward to hearing how these devices

can come to the marketplace without interfering with existing cell

phone spectrum and global positioning systems.

For example, Geo Technology is a consulting company which operates in my district, and it uses ground penetrating radar to detect cracks under roads or locate ruptured pipelines without

digging. This company has been using GPR technology to advise

government road construction contractors where highway repairs

are needed, but the FCC order would not allow Geo Technology or

other consulting companies to continue the use of GPR. Since 1987,

Geo Technology has used ground penetrating radar and global positioning systems side by side without any interference. The FCC has

promised to revisit the order within a year of this enactment, and

I hope to see changes to allow GPR consultants to continue their

important work.

I agree with Mr. Tauzin’s 6 months to 12 months, as he emphasized, would be a good timetable for the FCC to use its own realworld data rather than that of theoretical models to determine with

accuracy any interference effects of UWB. The public safety and

commercial impact of this technology has the potential to be amazing, and I hope the regulatory barriers do not prevent it from saving lives.

UWB has great potential. We must ensure that its development

proceeds without interfering with existing technologies that companies have paid billions for use of exclusive uses spectrum. So I look

forward to the roll-out of these defense and consumer application

as soon as possible, and I am very grateful to the experts who have

joined us today to help us sort through this very important technology.

I will put the formal remarks in the record, Mr. Chairman, and

yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Karen McCarthy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KAREN MCCARTHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Markey for holding this hearing

on the ultra wideband approval process. Ultra wideband has the potential to bring

to market revolutionary technology previously only imaginable in science fiction

works. With wideband high speed, low power devices, police officers and firemen can

look through walls to assess dangers within, while cars have the option to speed

up and slow down automatically if a crash is imminent. Like the Chairman, I look

forward to hearing how government agencies can work together to permit these devices to enter marketplace without interfering with existing cell phone spectrum and

global positioning systems (GPS).

UWB will no doubt save countless lives in the future through use of technology

that can detect a human body or the smallest amount of movement under rubble

or through the wall of a building. I am pleased to see that several companies, including Time Domain, which is represented here today, are ready to fill this public

safety void.

I look forward to the results of the FCC tests and their follow up report within

the next six to twelve months to determine if UWB causes harmful interference, and

if UWB rollout should be expanded to different power levels. The FCC’s use of its

own real world data rather than that of theoretical models will accurately determine

6

interference effects of UWB. The public safety and commercial impact of this technology has the potential to be revolutionary, and I hope that the FCC’s regulatory

barriers do not prevent UWB from saving lives.

Geotechnology, a consulting company which operates in my district, uses ground

penetrating radar (GPR) to detect cracks under roads or locate ruptured pipelines

without digging. This company has been using GPR technology to advise government road construction contractors where highway repairs are needed, but the FCC

order would not allow Geotechnology or other consulting companies to continue use

of GPR because consultants are not specifically mentioned in the order. Since 1987,

Geotechnology has used ground penetrating radar and global positioning systems

side by side without any interference. I hope the FCC makes needed changes to

allow GPR consultants to continue their important work.

I understand that the NTIA made a very conservative recommendation in part because the Department of Defense was worried about interference. However, the Department of Defense is eager to use UWB for military applications, and I would like

to know how their planes and aircraft radar will work if used in conjunction with

UWB.

The FCC has followed the conservative recommendation made by the NTIA, but

I look forward to hearing how these agencies will work together to determine the

effects of UWB and promote its rollout in the future, as long as there is no interference with existing spectrum users.

UWB has great potential to save lives and make life easier, and we must ensure

that its development proceeds without interfering with existing technologies that

companies have paid billions for exclusive use of spectrum. I look forward to the

rollout of these defense and consumer applications as soon as possible.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Shimkus?

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for

this hearing. Ultrawideband technology holds great promise, as everyone has said, for public safety and a whole host of commercial

applications that would save many lives. One popular example is

cited in collision detectors in cars, and I know the chairman has

mentioned that numerous times in hearings we had when he was

the chairman of this committee, which would also detonate airbags

and actually help drivers avoid accidents.

Another is the ability to see underneath building rubble after a

disaster and through walls of a burning building to detect in order

to save survivors. However, ultrawideband technology sends lowpowered pulses across many bands. It has raised some concern that

it might cause harmful interference to spectrum bands used by the

Department of Defense, Department of Transportation and GPS

community. To my knowledge, the testing has shown that the emission levels are low and harmful interference is not an issue. Nevertheless, the FCC issued a very conservative ruling on

ultrawideband with a promise to revisit the issue in the next 6 to

12 months.

Now, this is the high-tech committee, I think, of the whole Capitol Hill and especially the House, but we all bring our own different perspectives, and as a former active Army officer and a Reservist, I do carry some of the concerns of the Department of Defense in this debate. I do agree with the chairman that we need

real science to help us clear up the confusion over the use of this

technology, and I hope we see that to the benefit of all, the commercial community and our men and women who are in uniform

fighting to protect us all.

I also have continued concerns over just the whole examination

of our spectrum management process, and I think the chairman

mentioned this also. And I am not sure if our process works or is

fair and if it hinders the development of new technology and can

7

we improve it? I have had my battles with the NTIA, and I look

forward to more battles in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing this morning

and for your oversight and leadership on this issue. I look forward

to hearing from the distinguished panel, and I yield back my time.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Ms. DeGette?

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, in the hopes of hearing at least a

little of the testimony before I have to leave for another hearing,

I will submit my opening statement for the record.

Mr. UPTON. Terrific.

Mr. Bass?

Mr. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And before I

begin my formal statement, I want to welcome a constituent of

mine, Mr. Dennis Johnson, who is on the far right there, president

of Geophysical Survey Systems in Salem, New Hampshire. Good

morning, Mr. Johnson, and welcome to the hearing.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing

today and inviting Mr. Johnson and these other witnesses to testify

on the FCC’s ultrawideband rulemaking, and I look forward to beginning our oversight of this spectrum process allocation. My interest in this issue began when Mr. Johnson first approached me to

explain the effect that severely restricting the use of high bandwidth but low power ground penetrating radars would have on his

firm and his clients.

He explained the enormous public safety and efficiency benefits

of being able to detect and determine the integrity of underground

pipes and cables prior to digging and of locating sink holes and

other structural voids, defects and stresses. Indeed, several States,

including my State in New Hampshire, require the use of GPR or

similar technology to determine and document the integrity of new

bridges, highway overpasses and other critical safety uses. And it

should be noted that these applications, as the name implies, direct

their transmission into solids, almost always downward and not in

a manner likely to cause interference.

It seems that no one disputes the benefits of using ultrawideband

transmissions for these purposes and the many additional purposes

that others will describe today, but at issue are the questions about

interference and the larger debate over spectrum allocation. As for

interference, I will also note that several of the GPR technologies

use GPS, global positioning satellites, for mapping purposes without any apparent problems.

I appreciate the Commission’s cautious approach and their deference to NTIA’s concerns about government interest in this spectrum space. However, I also recognize the enormous benefit to

State and local governments of sharing the spectrum in such a

manner that will allow all desired uses. I am also encouraged that

the Commission has previously announced and am sure, I will repeat here, the intent to review the new rules, as my distinguished

chairman said, and conduct the type of testing not done prior to

their issuance. I urge that work begin as soon as a body of evidence

can be formed, and I look forward to the testimony and yield back

to the chairman.

8

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. That concludes our opening statements.

Again, all members will have the opportunity to put their opening

remarks as part of the record.

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

First, I would like to thank Chairman Upton for calling this hearing into the

FCC’s UWB proceeding. I believe a close examination of this process is invaluable

to obtaining a roadmap of where spectrum management efforts need to go in the

future.

As Time Domain CEO Ralph Petroff states in his testimony, were it not for the

contracts his company had with the Department of Defense, his company would

have gone out of business waiting for regulatory approval. We cannot allow the

promise of future technologies to whither on the vine while a regulatory process

lumbers on. The 3.5 years it took to develop the final UWB rules are a prime example of what to avoid in the future. Most companies simply cannot afford to wait that

long.

We all know the conflicts between government agencies and private industry regarding spectrum use are not going to go away. Rather, as demand for spectrum

increases, we can expect an increase in the number of conflicts that arise. Therefore,

there must be an objective, open system by which conflicts are resolved, concerns

addressed, and policy developed. I fully appreciate that national defense and public

safety issues must be taken into account in spectrum issues. However, I would hope

the FCC and NTIA would do everything in their power to ensure that restrictions

deemed necessary were based on sound science. Furthermore, we must acknowledge

that the government is both the decision-maker regarding spectrum as well as a

consumer. As we continue our efforts to efficiently manage spectrum, we must take

care that one consumer—in this case government agencies—does not have approval

power over FCC decisions that apply to all other consumers of spectrum.

Specifically regarding the FCC’s First Report and Order, I was happy to have

rules at last so we can get on with things. I realize the FCC itself feels the rules

may be too conservative, but I am encouraged by the plans to conduct further review. The lowest-common-denominator approach the FCC has taken may not be the

right solution—I will be eager to see the results by the end of this year and remain

hopeful UWB applications will be allowed to develop to the greatest extent possible.

Let me close by saying that I appreciate the difficult task both the FCC and NTIA

have in developing spectrum policy. While it will never be possible to please all concerned parties, I would hope the focus would be to determine how we can make new

technologies and applications possible, rather than why we cannot.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ELIOT ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing. Few issues, like spectrum, are

harder to get your arms around. I also want to thank the panelist for taking the

time to come and testify.

Looking at how spectrum has develop in the past century, I am reminded of the

Malthusian dilemma—that the ability of the world farmers to grow enough food to

feed the population was running out. Malthus believed that we would have hordes

of hungry people. Luckily, at least here in the United States, this has not come to

pass as Malthus predicted—though I must say that we still have a worldwide problem with hunger.

One can make the same arguments about Spectrum. We have a common resource

which, due to physics, has limited capacity to carry all the signals we would want

it to. The explosion of the wireless industry is a truly amazing feat. It helped drive

the record economic expansion during the Clinton Administration.

What Malthus did not factor into his theory was technological improvement. We

must not make the same mistake. In fact, Congress and the Administration should

be actively encouraging the development of new technologies that seek to exploit

spectrum efficiency.

The good news is that through improvements in technology, the industry has increased the number of transmissions that can fit into the same spectrum every year.

But it is evident that spectrum needs are surpassing the efficiency capabilities of

today’s traditional deployed technologies—new technologies that can get more out

of the same spectrum are needed to provide the advanced wireless services we have

9

heard so much about. We must encourage the deployment of technologies that will

create more wireless services within our finite valuable spectrum.

Thus, as I have started to look at Ultra Wide Band technologies, I am greatly encouraged. I am certainly not an expert at this technology, but it seems to me to have

great promise in aiding our firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel.

I am quite willing to go slowly on a broad deployment of UWB networks. However, as I understand it, technologies such as Ground Penetrating Radar have been

around for decades and proven invaluable in search and rescue operations. Since,

this is a proven technology, we should seriously consider this in a different vein

than broader deployment.

Also, since previously these devices operated under a blanket approval, the new

FCC rules could actually harm existing companies. I have a letter here from a New

York company called Penetradar. The President of this company writes that ‘‘We are

quite concerned with the affect that the new rules will have and believe time is critical.’’ They are concerned that the GPR industry will disappear in the short time

that it takes the FCC to review these new rules.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be entered into the record.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the question and answer segment of

our hearing.

Mr. UPTON. At this point, we welcome our witness guests. Mr.

Michael Gallagher who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for NTIA;

Mr. Steven Price, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Spectrum at the

Department of Defense; Mr. Jeff Shane, Associate Deputy Secretary from the Department of Transportation, Mr. Julius Knapp,

Deputy Chief of Commissions Office of Engineering and Technology

from the FCC; Mr. Ralph Gregory Petroff, CEO of Time Domain

Corporation; and Mr. Dennis Johnson, president of Geophysical

Survey Systems.

Gentlemen, your full statement will be made part of the record,

and we would like to have you limit your remarks to about 5 minutes. Watch this little timer. And we will be off to the races.

Mr. Gallagher, welcome you first. If you wouldn’t mind turning

that mike on. Terrific.

STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL D. GALLAGHER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND

INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION; STEVEN PRICE, DEPUTY

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SPECTRUM, SPACE, SENSORS

AND C3 POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; JEFFREY

N. SHANE, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION; JULIUS P. KNAPP, DEPUTY CHIEF,

OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; RALPH G. PETROFF, CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIME DOMAIN CORPORATION; AND

DENNIS J. JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY

SYSTEMS, INC.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. Ultrawideband is certainly on the tip of

everybody’s tongue these days, and it is a development I am

pleased to be here to address and answer questions to. I would also

like to thank in particular your staff and the staff of Mr. Tauzin.

Your involvement through your staffs was much appreciated and

very helpful in getting to the result we finally achieved. I would

also like to thank all of the commissioners, the FCC’s technical

staff and the technical staff of the agencies. It took all of these

minds to come together, find the answers, and strike the right balVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:16 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 80674.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
10

ance. And also it is important to recognize the contribution of the

commercial spectrum community and the very valuable input and

analysis that they provided. And, finally, but not to diminish their

role, I would like to commend the staff work at NTIA that went

into this project over 31⁄2 years.

Ultrawideband, we have heard today, holds great promise. The

ground penetrating radar applications are already in use. Throughthe-wall imaging and the applications for public safety are very

compelling. Vehicular radars hold great promise. There are over

41,200 lives lost every year in automobiles, and the estimates are

that 88 percent of those could be avoided through rear-end collision

avoidance systems, like ultrawideband. Communications devices

can have a much greater capacity and use much less battery power.

When we approached ultrawideband at the Department of Commerce, we approached with two pillars in mind. Secretary Evans

and Deputy Secretary Bodman made very clear that it is our job

to authorize and facilitate the creation of new, world-leading technologies; our economic security depends on it. However, we must

also protect critical life and defense systems in the process; our national security depends on it. And within the scope of those systems, the concerns were very clear about weather radar, airport

surveillance radar, GPS and passive earth-satellite systems, to

name a few. Doing one or the other is not bold or creative. We had

to achieve both, and it took leadership from the very highest levels

to accomplish the task. And that leadership came from the FCC

and from our leadership at the Department of Commerce, and we

were pleased with the result.

Now, one of the primary reasons that there was a strong sense

of urgency is we face international risk. If the United States fails

to lead in deploying ultrawideband technology that fits our congested spectrum chart, then another country could develop

ultrawideband technology that would not be as respectful of our

systems, our critical life systems, our defense systems as what ultimately was born.

What is next? Testing. We need more facts. We need more peerreviewed comprehensive real data, and we are looking forward to

the development of that data with the Commission and with the

private sector. Second, truth. Facts, not theory, should guide our

decisions, and in that respect, NTIA performed six technical reports and three analyses with test protocols open to public review.

We need to continue to build on that data in order to come up with

the absolute best balance over time for ultrawideband. Finally is

timeliness. We need to accomplish ultrawideband deployment and

any modifications, if necessary, at the right time, when we have

the additional real-world data, when we have a penetration more

extensive market number of devices, and that will lead us to truth

and to the right answer.

I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that we were able to adopt a

regulatory framework that isn’t just vertical but in fact looked horizontal. Thank you. I look forward to answering questions.

[The prepared statement of Michael D. Gallagher follows:]

11

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. GALLAGHER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND

INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Chairman Upton, I would like to thank you and the members of the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify today about the National Telecommunications

and Information Administration’s (NTIA’s) role in the development of rules to authorize ultrawideband (UWB) technology. I particularly want to commend the leadership of Chairman Michael Powell and the Federal Communications Commission

(FCC), as well as the FCC staff, in the UWB authorization process. The process was

long, the arguments were highly technical, and the record was voluminous. But, together, the FCC and NTIA were able to meet the challenge and develop a technically sound set of regulations for the safe and effective authorization of UWB technology while preserving public safety and national security.

I am very pleased that new rules adopted by the FCC will ensure that UWB devices will soon be readily available in the marketplace. It is one of the most promising technologies of our time. UWB can perform a number of useful telecommunications functions that make them very appealing for both commercial and government applications. It can be used for communications devices such as wireless networks to transmit high-speed data with low battery drain, remote sensing or tracking, and ground penetrating radar (GPR). UWB through-the-wall imaging systems

can also provide great assistance in locating survivors within collapsed buildings

and provide situational awareness to law enforcement personnel. UWB technology

can also be used for collision avoidance radars—reducing deadly automobile accidents. With the number of invaluable applications of the technology that will soon

be available, NTIA fully expects the U.S. Government to continue its role as the

UWB industry’s best customers.

The regulatory challenge with UWB technology is, as its name implies, that it operates across very wide bandwidths of radio spectrum in which many other commercial and governmental communications systems operate. While most conventional

communications technologies are authorized within specific frequency bands to avoid

harmful interference to other devices, this traditional spectrum management technique was not an option given the wide bandwidths used by UWB devices. In many

cases, their average power levels may have been low enough to be authorized under

NTIA’s and the FCC’s respective rules for unlicensed devices. However, the

bandwidths of UWB devices are so wide that some of the systems emit signals in

bands in which such intentional transmissions have previously not been permitted

because of the potential harmful effects on safety of life and other critical governmental systems. Finding a solution for authorizing UWB devices within the existing

spectrum management regime was no small feat and required groundbreaking technical research and the dedication of the professional staffs of NTIA and the FCC.

Admittedly, the outlook for UWB’s authorization last fall was dim. The FCC had

proposed rules that were strenuously and publicly opposed in writing by several

agencies. The pressure from UWB companies was intense, and the FCC was pressing forward on a timeline to close the matter by the year’s end. However, with engaged leadership, and a shared focus by NTIA and the FCC on the technical data

in hand, we were able to authorize this new, world leading technology that will be

sensitive to the needs of the congested U.S. spectrum environment and not imposed

on us by the rest of the world.

NTIA is fully aware that with an effort this broad in scope and its potential impacts, many challenges will continue to arise. We have already begun discussion

with one group of GPR users who have been unintentionally excluded by the new

rules from using GPRs to determine ways to help resolve their concerns. We are also

working with the Department of Transportation to complete a study assessing the

compatibility of UWB devices and aviation systems operating below 1 GHz.

BACKGROUND

NTIA, like the FCC, has long been aware of UWB technology’s earliest practical

implementations as GPRs, which grew from research originally begun at some of the

government laboratories. As early as 1994, NTIA made preliminary provisions for

accommodating this developing technology within NTIA’s systems review processes

to encourage further developments. In 1997, a number of UWB developers, including

TimeDomain, Fantasma, Multispectral Solutions, Inc., and XtremeSpectrum briefed

NTIA spectrum managers and researchers on the rapid advances in the technology.

These discussions heightened NTIA’s awareness of the incredibly exciting opportunities the technology could present not just for commercial applications, but also for

Federal agencies in their performance of critical services on behalf of the American

people from law enforcement to roadbed construction. Moreover, from a spectrum

12

management perspective, UWB technology, if properly managed could lead to a

much-needed advance towards greater spectrum efficiency.

NTIA identified the challenges and difficulties of analyzing the characteristics of

this new technology and its interaction with critical spectrum-dependent public safety and national security systems, including aviation systems used for aircraft landings. These challenges were made greater by the expectation that these new UWB

devices had the potential to become ubiquitous in American households and businesses, would be highly mobile, and would be offered on an unlicensed basis, making interference issues more difficult to resolve.

The spectrum managers and researchers at NTIA, however, took very seriously

the agency’s dual charge to foster new technology and, to assure the Federal agencies’ continued protection to the spectrum necessary to perform their critical missions. Thus, in 1998 when Time Domain Corporation, U. S. Radar and Zircon Corporation filed petitions to waive the FCC’s rules for low power unlicensed transmitters, referred to as the Part 15 rules, to allow them to manufacture import and sell

certain UWB devices, NTIA worked very closely with the FCC to accommodate the

requests. In consultation with the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee

(IRAC), NTIA was able to devise safeguards to protect public safety and critical government systems during the period of the waiver, which the FCC approved when

it granted the Time Domain, U.S. Radar, and Zircon waiver requests in 1999. These

waivers provided an opportunity for all interested stakeholders to develop a more

thorough understanding of the potential impacts that this technology could have on

other commercial and governmental systems operating in the bands. Since that

date, NTIA has routinely approved requests for Special Temporary Authority from

UWB companies seeking to demonstrate the technology’s capabilities from commercial technology demonstrations to emergency assistance. In all cases the waiver requests were granted under conditions that did not present a risk to critical safetyof-life or national defense systems. For example, after the September 11th tragedy,

NTIA, upon coordination with the potentially affected Federal agencies, and the

FCC authorized the use of through-the-wall imaging systems for first responder use

at the World Trade Center and Pentagon within 8 hours of the initial request for

their use.

NTIA began a significantly detailed measurement and analysis effort at its Institute for Telecommunication Sciences in Boulder, Colorado and within NTIA’s Office

of Spectrum Management here in Washington when the FCC issued its Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking on UWB in May of 2000. These efforts first focused on determining the characteristics of UWB signals in the time and frequency domains. Once

the UWB signals were characterized, the information to model the effect of receiver

filters on received UWB signals was developed. Using this data with other information concerning interference thresholds, the impact of UWB signals on the critical

receiving systems operated by the Federal government in the ‘‘restricted bands’’ was

assessed. The restricted bands consist of 64 frequency bands between 90 kHz and

36.5 GHz (a span which covers over 96% of all spectrum use) and occupy a total

of 13.283 GHz of spectrum protected by the FCC, NTIA, and international rules

against intentional emissions because critical or sensitive receivers operate in them.

Protected receivers include radio astronomy and satellite passive sensing and the

systems used to land and control aircraft. NTIA focused only on the restricted bands

in the 960 MHz to 6 GHz frequency range because of the high density of critical

governmental use of those frequencies and the then-limitations of the UWB technology.

NTIA obtained samples of 20 UWB devices for measurement and chose five of the

20 as fairly typical of the group for detailed measurements. NTIA then started two

measurement programs to determine the potential effects UWB devices could have

on conventional narrowband devices operating in the restricted bands. The documents outlining the two measurement programs were made available to the public

and the FCC for comment. The first program examined the emissions from several

UWB devices to determine how best to characterize the many types of UWB signals

and to describe procedures and methods for measuring UWB signals for developing

operable certification standards and criteria. These measurements determined the

interference impact of UWB devices on several sensitive devices to determine permissible power levels and corresponding required separation distances and an assessment of the impact of aggregates of several UWB devices.

As part of the first measurement and analysis program, NTIA identified relevant

system characteristics and developed operational scenarios for conducting susceptibility studies on several systems that operate in restricted bands. The studies included devices as diverse as radars and other guidance devices used to navigate and

safely land airplanes; receive signals from beacons transmitting from plane crash

victims and mariners in distress and transmit them to rescue organizations; weathVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:16 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 80674.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
13

1 UWB technology can be based on very short pulses of radio energy. Its wide bandwidth

yields low probability of intercept and excellent multipath immunity. For more information see

the NTIA Institute For Telecommunication Sciences website http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/home/

programs/uwb/.

er radars used in forecasting and alerting the public to severe weather and floods;

and earth stations receiving signals from communication satellites and satellites

gathering weather data and photographs.

Recognizing the critical role the Global Positioning System (GPS) plays in the nation’s infrastructure, the second portion of NTIA’s measurement and analysis program focused on an assessment of the compatibility between UWB devices and GPS

receivers. GPS is a satellite navigation system developed by the military that provides accurate navigation signals to any location in the world. The military uses

GPS on all land, air, sea, and space platforms and for precision-guided munitions.

GPS will also be used in all urban warfare operations in support of homeland defense. GPS has become the preferred navigation system for the aviation community

for en-route flight, precision and non-precision approach landings and for maritime

navigation. Civilian use of GPS has risen dramatically due to enhanced coverage,

improved accuracy, and rapidly decreasing user equipment cost. Some examples of

existing and planned uses of GPS include: car navigation, consumer and recreational location, surveying, tracking and machine control, public services, public

safety (Enhanced-911 position location) in mobile phones, timing, scientific research,

environmental management, precision agriculture, open pit mining, and space navigation. Although these examples are not all inclusive, they illustrate the wide

spread use of GPS signals, as well as GPS’s ubiquitous availability.

GPS has also proven to be a powerful enabling technology driving the creation of

many new industries such as telematics and geographic information systems. A

2001 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Space Commercialization report estimated that worldwide GPS hardware sales will exceed $9 billion in 2002. As part

of the GPS modernization program two new navigation signals will be provided for

civil use. Assisted GPS systems, which use local terrestrial stations to process location data, are also being developed to enhance position location inside buildings as

well as in difficult propagation environments such as urban canyons.

Once the analyses were completed, NTIA sought public comment on its measurement programs and provided the results in six reports made available to the FCC

and placed on the public record in the UWB proceeding. These reports are available

at the NTIA website http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/uwbreports/. The conclusions

reached in these reports formed the technical basis of NTIA’s understanding of the

limits on UWB devices necessary for compatible operation with critical government

systems and GPS receivers and were used as the technical baseline for UWB emissions by virtually all parties engaged in the UWB debate.

THE FCC’S AMENDMENT TO THE PART 15 RULES

On February 14, 2002, the FCC approved amendments to its Part 15 rules to permit UWB devices to operate on an unlicensed basis under conditions that are expected to protect existing radio systems operating in the environment. The First Report and Order for UWB devices establishes different technical standards and operating restrictions for different types of UWB devices based on their potential to

cause interference. The different types of UWB devices are: 1) imaging systems including GPRs, wall, through-wall, and medical imaging systems; 2) surveillance devices; 3) vehicular radar systems; 4) communications and measurement systems;

and 5) mobile hand-held systems. In all frequency ranges, the UWB devices are expected to meet or fall below the emission limits permitted for narrow band Part 15

devices. Narrow band refers to Part 15 devices that operate within a specific frequency band. In the range of frequencies between approximately 1 GHz and 10 GHz

additional reduction in the UWB emission levels are required to protect the critical

systems discussed above (see Exhibit A). In the bands used by GPS between 960

MHz and 1610 MHz the emission limits are between 12 to 34 dB below the emission

limits permitted for unintentional emissions from narrowband devices in order to

protect the critical applications of base station assisted GPS. In the 1.6 GHz to 10.6

GHz frequency range, the UWB emission limits are between 10 to 12 dB below the

narrowband limits for unintentional emissions. Though these limits are conservative, they are based on NTIA’s measurements and comments made on the public

record, and reflect the effect of UWB signals on narrowband receivers. Most importantly, these measurements and analysis reflect NTIA’s commitment in encouraging

UWB technology while maintaining the utmost reliability and safety of our current

radio services.1

14

The new UWB rules also address the needs of automobile manufacturers seeking

to deploy new short-range vehicular radar systems that could provide greater automotive safety. A 1999 report from the National Safety Council estimates that a

death from vehicle crashes every 13 minutes resulting in 41,200 motor vehicle

deaths per year. Statistics from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration indicates that short-range radar systems could address 88 percent of

all causes of rear-end collisions. The short-range radar systems are under development as a key component of the next generation of collision mitigation systems. For

example, possible applications include braking automatically to avoid an impending

collision with a car ahead that is unseen by the driver, or tightening seat belts or

other restraint systems for optimal safety and deployment depending on the expected severity and position of impact. The automotive industry is seeking to develop these radar devices with their frequencies centered at 24.125 GHz with intentional emissions extending between 22.125 to 26.1252 GHz.

The band 23.6-24 GHz is a restricted frequency band currently used by the Federal Government for satellite passive sensing operations because of its unique characteristics. The majority of the measurements using this band are performed over

land and depends upon measurements of microwave energy naturally upwelling

from the Earth’s surface. The atmospheric measurements derived from the satellite

sensors operating in the 23.6-24 GHz frequency band are important to Department

of Defense air combat mission planners and National Weather Service numerical

forecast models. Since emissions from proposed vehicular short-range radar systems

will extend into the 23.6-24 GHz band, NTIA recognized the possibility that these

systems could cause interference to the Federal Government’s passive satellite sensing operations. NTIA worked with representatives from the automobile industry

representatives, the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA), and

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to perform an analysis examining under what conditions compatible operation would be possible.

Based on this analysis, NTIA proposed to establish a time phased approach for

emissions from vehicular short-range radar systems into the band, which would

allow the technology to be deployed in a phase-in approach. The approach struck

a balance between protecting critical Federal passive sensing operations and allowing the deployment of this potentially life-saving technology. I am pleased to note

that the FCC adopted this compromise in its rules. Because of the worldwide nature

of passive sensing operations, compatibility with UWB short-range radars is also

being studied internationally. It is anticipated that the approach recommended by

NTIA and adopted by the FCC will drive the standard worldwide.

NTIA’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW PART 15 RULES

NTIA has already begun to implement the new UWB rules. Our rules authorize

Federal agencies to procure and use any device available in the marketplace that

has been certified in accordance with the FCC’s rules as being compliant with Part

15. When the FCC’s new rules go into effect in July, government agencies may purchase and operate or contract for the operation of UWB systems that have been certified as being in conformance to those regulations with no further authorization

from NTIA (See Part 7.8 of the NTIA Manual). Further, NTIA expects to incorporate appropriate portions of the new Part 15 text into its rules so that the government agencies may construct custom UWB devices that conform to these Rules with

no further authorization by NTIA (See Part 7.9 of the NTIA Manual). NTIA expects

that the vast majority of UWB applications used by the government will fall under

either one or the other of these two cases. However, if an agency does need a UWB

device that does not conform to the Part 15 Rules, it may seek spectrum support

and frequency assignments through our Systems Review and Frequency Assignment

processes. Operation of these latter devices will be closely controlled and coordinated

with all nearby affected users.

NEXT STEPS

NTIA is quite aware that more testing and analysis is required on the impact of

UWB devices on other radio systems. The FCC has indicated a desire to do additional measurements when more UWB devices are developed. We support the FCC’s

testing and the development of real world test data and will actively participate in

these measurements. NTIA is pleased that the United States is now in a position

to lead the evolution of UWB technology while protecting safety-of-life and national

security systems.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, NTIA works closely with the FCC and the Federal

spectrum management community to balance the spectrum needs of the government

agencies with those of the private sector. We look forward to continuing to work

15

closely with them in the future. I thank you for this opportunity to share with you

the views of NTIA on this important issue, and I look forward to answering any

questions you may have.

GLOSSARY

FCC—Federal Communications Commission

GPR—Ground Penetrating Radar

GPS—Global Positioning System

GHz—Gigahertz

IRAC—Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee

MHz—Megahertz

NASA—National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI—Notice of Inquiry

NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rule Making

NTIA—National Telecommunications and Information Administration

R&O—Report and Order

UWB—Ultrawideband

EXHIBIT A

OVERVIEW OF SYSTEMS ANALYZED BY NTIA

SYSTEM FREQUENCY RANGE OF OPERATION

Search and Rescue Satellite (SARSAT) Satellite ............................... 406-406.1 MHz

Distance Measuring Equipment Interrogator ..................................... 960-1215 MHz

Distance Measuring Equipment Transponder .................................... 1025-1150 MHz

Global Positioning System (GPS) ....................................................... 1164-1188 MHz; 1215-1240 MHz; and 1559-1610 MHz

Air Traffic Control Radio Beacon System Transponder ..................... 1030 MHz

Air Traffic Control Radio Beacon System Interrogator ...................... 1090 MHz

Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR-4) ............................................. 1240-1370 MHz

Search and Rescue Satellite (SARSAT) Ground Station Land User

Terminal.

1544-1545 MHz

Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9) ................................................... 2700-2900 MHz

Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) ........................................ 2700-2900 MHz

Maritime Navigation Radars .............................................................. 2900-3100 MHz

Fixed Satellite Service Earth Stations ............................................... 3700-4200 MHz

Radar Altimeters4200-4400 MHzMicrowave Landing System (MLS) 5030-5091 MHz

Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) .......................................... 5600-5650 MHz

Satellite Passive Sensors ................................................................... 23.6-24 GHz

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Price.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN PRICE

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Chairman Upton and members of the subcommittee, for inviting me today. I would also like to thank Howard Waltzman and the other members of your staff for helping us

prepare for this hearing.

The Department of Defense truly appreciates that your committee is looking at spectrum issues, in general, and

ultrawideband, in particular. 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 spectrum and radios to conduct their missions and to return home safely.

A special forces team leader operating in Afghanistan recently

came back and reported to me and others on his experience during

Operation Enduring Freedom. ‘‘We could go in there naked with

flip-flops and as long as we have good radios, we could do our job.’’

Information is one of our most important weapons, and our spectrum and information needs are growing rapidly.

16

It is critical you understand how the Department of Defense approached the FCC’s ultrawideband proceeding earlier this year. As

Assistant Secretary of Defense, John Stenbit, my boss, clearly stated in his letter of January 11 to Mike Gallagher at NTIA—you remember this letter—‘‘DOD supports UWB development. However,

DOD seeks to ensure that such development will proceed in a manner consistent with core national security needs and objectives.’’ The Department has been an early and ardent proponent, in fact

a founder of ultrawideband technology and plans to use UWB to

advance the Nation’s defenses. In other words, DOD was not saying

no, not trying to stifle anything. We worked hard to develop approaches, even suggesting filters and masks to permit commercial

deployment of UWB, so long as they didn’t pose risks to sensitive

and vital national security systems, such as GPS. To do anything

else, we felt, would have been to abdicate our responsibilities. The

proceeding did produce a win-win solution to a complex problem.

I think most of the people here would agree with that.

We commend the FCC and NTIA, as well as others, for their

hard work in this proceeding. It raised a number of new and significant issues. It proposed to approve unlicensed and uncoordinated use of UWB in all Part 15 bands, including heretofore restricted bands. Never before had the FCC and NTIA authorized

such unconstrained use across an entire horizontal slice of the

spectrum, including restricted bands. This is important because the

stakes were exceedingly high for national security.

Tests showed that UWB devices could disrupt GPS operations

with emission levels well below the FCC’s originally proposed limits. Measurements taken by NTIA and the Department of Transportation and associated government studies have clearly shown

that non-licensed use of this technology without proper emission

constraints could cause interference to existing radio services. Disruption of GPS by UWB operations could have potentially undermined U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism, eroded homeland defense and led directly the loss of life of forces here and abroad. In

such a case, prudence was dictated and prudence was delivered.

It seems fair to argue that the burden of proof was on the UWB

proponents to prove that commercial deployment would not interfere with GPS and other systems and to prove so beyond a reasonable doubt. If the goal of the UWB spectrum proceeding was to

meet the twin goals of protecting vital national security systems

from harmful interference and allowing for the robust development

of a new commercial technology, it would seem by initial indications that the FCC accomplished that goal. It is wise public policy

to go slow in the initial phases of new technology developments.

The alternative, to embrace unacceptable risk with unknown consequences on the basis of conflicting science, would have been unacceptable.

We completely agree with Chairman Tauzin and others that once

enough devices are out there, and we can debate the timing of

when that will be, and sound science is able to be studied, what

the tests show the tests will show, and we will support those tests.

In DOD, we have a duty to the young men and women who defend

our country, a duty to ensure that they have the tools they need

to do their job. We owe them policies to ensure that lack of access

17

to spectrum should not be a constraint on our war fighter. Thank

you very much for your time.

[The prepared statement of Steven Price follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN PRICE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

DEFENSE

1. INTRODUCTION

I would like to thank the members of this committee, and particularly Chairman

Upton, for holding this hearing. Spectrum allocation decisions are timely and important issues, both for commercial interests and the Department of Defense.

The Executive branch, through NTIA and the FCC adopted a ‘‘win-win’’ approach

to a very complex and intricate rulemaking proceeding. DoD believes that the final

order and future decisions by NTIA with respect to governmental systems will ensure the protection of national security and public safety while opening the door to

commercial deployment of UWB. They did not accept the alternative, which was to

embrace unacceptable risk, with unknown consequences. Everyone involved should

be proud that the nation’s spectrum resources were, in this case at least, managed

in a manner that safeguarded the national interest, particularly during a time when

the country faces domestic and foreign threats while allowing for commercial innovation and technological advancement.

Let me say at the outset that it is critical that you understand how the Defense

Department approached the Federal Communications Commission’s (‘‘FCC’’) Ultra

Wideband (‘‘UWB’’) proceeding earlier this year. The proceeding, which culminated

in the FCC’s ruling on February 14, 2002, did not come at an opportune time for

our nation’s military. Post September 11 and in the midst of Operation Enduring

Freedom, the proceeding took considerable time and effort on the part of our nation’s Defense Department. Nonetheless, DoD understood the importance of FCC

priorities and DoD played an active role trying to reach consensus and we participated in all aspects of the proceeding.

Far from being an opponent of UWB development and deployment, the Department has been an early and ardent proponent of UWB technologies and plans to

use UWB to advance the nation’s defense systems. The Department also recognizes

that it will benefit from the operational and cost improvements that will result from

commercial deployment.

As Assistant Secretary of Defense John Stenbit, my boss, clearly stated in his letter of January 11, 2002 to Michael Gallagher of NTIA, ‘‘DoD supports UWB development. However, DoD seeks to ensure that such development will proceed in a manner consistent with core national security needs and objectives... DoD, in keeping

with our national defense responsibilities, cannot accept any interference with its

systems.’’ In other words, DoD was not saying ‘‘no’’. DoD worked hard to develop

approaches to permit commercial deployment of UWB technologies in a manner that

would not pose risks to sensitive and vital defense and national security systems,

such as the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS.) To do anything less would have been

to abdicate our constitutional responsibility.

It is important to understand why the Defense Department takes spectrum allocation proceedings so seriously. Spectrum is the life’s blood 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. A Special Forces team

leader operating in Afghanistan was recently quoted as saying that team members

could do their jobs naked, in flip-flops, as long as they had the proper radios. Information has become our most effective weapon.

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.

Clearly, DoD’s spectrum needs are increasing due to these 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.’’ 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. It will also

include use of new technologies.

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

18

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 technologies unimagined several years ago: tiny wireless phones, wireless

LANs, Internet access from virtually anywhere in the world.

The same is true for military technology. Wireless technology is particularly important for our military forces because of their increasingly mobile and flexible nature. The ongoing revolution in military 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. But these technologies

are even more important to the military because of the lack of a wired alternative

in many military operations. We can make a call or access the Internet on a

landline, but the ship captain, bomber pilot or tank commander has no other option

but wireless communications. And because of the way we fight, that information is

more important than ever, both to the troops in the field and to the commanders—

whether they are in theater or 12,000 miles away.

As these wireless technologies have flourished, competition for the resource that

enables them has skyrocketed. One only needs to look at the amount of money bid

for spectrum in the most recent auctions to notice this, though not all auctions have

been a success in terms of revenues. Over the past 10 years, DoD and other federal

agencies have begun to relinquish 247 MHz of prime spectrum to industry. Every

re-allocation of spectrum essential to military capability from DoD reduces flexibility, requires that replacement equipment be purchased or a work-around developed and erodes our realistic training. While we recognize that there are many competing needs for spectrum, including needs for commerce, important national defense needs must be a top priority.

The pressure on government spectrum will not end. Wireless technologies and

other commercial uses of spectrum will continue to proliferate. UWB, like all other

new technologies, is a mere stepping-stone to other technologies—we must arrive at

a sound spectrum policy that allows our commercial interests to coexist with public

interests. And, at the same time as commercial demands increase, so does DoD becomes increasingly spectrum constrained. It is our view that DoD will need access

to additional spectrum allocations in order to meet our long-term goals of transforming to a network-centric military and to meet our obligation to protect our citizens, at home and abroad. To quote the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, ‘‘True transformation must include training and education, doctrine and

organizations. As we transform our forces, we need to build capabilities that allow

us to defend our interests in a wide array of situations. The key to that, in my view,

are flexibility and adaptability.’’

Before I discuss the FCC’s UWB proceeding, I’d like to share the Department of

Defense’s principles regarding spectrum in order to put the matter in proper context. I believe that it is useful for you to understand how the Defense Department

approaches spectrum policy.

2. DOD SPECTRUM PRINCIPLES

DoD spectrum policy is guided by certain core principles. DoD has been guided

by these principles during our work with the NTIA and the FCC with regard to the

UWB proceeding for the last year and it informs all of our spectrum policy. 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. Senior

DoD leadership recognizes that network-centric warfare and the military’s ongoing

transformation will depend on technology as a force multiplier and demands on

bandwidth and access to spectrum will increase. This is true even without taking

into account potential requirements of homeland defense. DoD spectrum needs

should be driven by military requirements and capabilities, not spectrum allocations.

19

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. Much of DoD’s spectrum use is unique—

unlike the commercial sector’s drive for low cost, high revenue solutions, the DoD

must put a premium on network and system reliability. 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 lifesaving information to troops on the ground, there cannot be ‘‘busy’’ signals. Some

spectrum use that industry might label as ‘‘inefficient’’ is actually designed for antijam 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.

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 softwaredefined radio, and, for that matter, those that show potential, such as ultra wideband technologies. 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.

Fifth, DoD commits to actively supporting US policies and interests in international organizations and multinational and bilateral negotiations for spectrum allocation and use. To do this, however, it is vital that the U.S. national processes

recognize that in allocating spectrum according to the balance of needs among Department of Defense, commercial and other users, important national defense needs

must be a top priority.

3. U.S. SPECTRUM ALLOCATION PROCESS

Every time a new technology arises the same interests must be balanced against

each other: commercial interests versus national security and other public policy interests, such as aviation safety and law enforcements. We can only expect more of

these regulatory balancing acts in the future, as more technologies are developed

to share spectrum—or reuse it, as is the case of UWB. We must arrive at a sound

spectrum policy.

There is an important point that national policy makers need to consider as we

make spectrum allocation decisions. The current system places asymmetric risks on

the national security and other federal incumbents. From DoD’s position, if we lose

spectrum or are forced to share and such sharing causes interference with vital systems, as a practical matter little can be done after the fact. Once an allocation has

been made, it is difficult if not impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. As

the Precursor Group, an industry analyst, says, ‘‘the FCC has never repealed authorization of a technology once granted.’’

DoD bears all of this risk—including the risk that our systems won’t operate. The

fact that vital systems might be interfered with raises concerns and uncertainties.

The uncertainty caused by relocations pose 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 capabilities,

will we be able to get host nation approvals to use the system in the new frequency

band in all of the parts of the world we might need to do so, will our allies who

bought interoperable systems now also be required to modify their existing equipment and, if so, will they pay their bill, will the new spectrum be free of interference?

We believe that the current spectrum management process creates imbalances

and asymmetric risks and that these must be set straight through development and

enforcement of a rational, long-term spectrum management policy that mirrors national priorities. DOD believes it is important to have a spectrum management system which recognizes that important defense needs for spectrum should be a top

priority in 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 costs and risks (including financial

risks) associated with the reallocation. However we implement our national spectrum policy, these national security priorities must be accommodated, in terms of

how competing interests are balanced, before such a proceeding not during it.

20

4. FCC UWB PROCEEDING

I want to stress a few key points about the FCC’s UWB proceeding. First, we commend FCC for making a very hard and complex decision and doing it by striking

a reasoned balance. Second, we commend NTIA for their efforts and their process

and role in this complex proceeding. As you know, NTIA, as the President’s spectrum manager, has the authority to make decisions regarding government use of

spectrum dependent systems. To the extent the FCC February decision impacts federal government use of spectrum, the Executive branch, through NTIA, had concurred.

Third, the FCC’s proceeding posed new and significant issues. The proceeding proposed to approve the nonlicensed and uncoordinated emissions of ultrawide band

signals into all Part 15 bands. NTIA and FCC had previously agreed that certain

narrow band systems could emit at extremely low levels into certain federal government spectrum but not into so-called restricted bands, where commercial users are

prohibited from intentionally emitting. Never before had the FCC and the NTIA authorized such unconstrained use of a horizontal slice of the entire spectrum including restricted bands. To the extent that NTIA has agreed to this limited use of ‘‘re- stricted band’’ spectrum in no way diminishes NTIA and DoD’s understanding that ‘‘restricted bands’’ Are often the appropriate mechanism to protect spectrum used

for essential national interests, including national security interests. Importantly,

the proposed FCC rules set precedent that has the potential to eliminate protection

of Government restricted bands. These are essential to national security, safety of

life and economic security. In addition, the FCC was not proposing the imposition

of any aggregation controls in the licensing process.

Fourth, the stakes were extremely high for our national security. None of the systems at risk from UWB is more important than the federal government systems,

including the GPS and other military systems that directly support U.S. troops and

public safety officials. In fact, a recent Heritage Foundation homeland security task

force report listed as its number two priority, designating GPS as a critical national

infrastructure. But the Part 15 emissions originally proposed by the FCC to be allowed into all spectrum, including restricted bands, were inadequate for protection

of most federal systems. UWB devices can disrupt GPS operations with emission

levels well below the FCC’s originally proposed limits, as well as by emission spikes

that would exceed those proposed limits. As a result, the proposed rules could have,

among other things:

• Degraded the ability to use GPS to navigate and land military aircraft and commercial airliners, threatening the lives and safety of military personnel and the

general public;

• Degraded the operation of government airport radars, affecting flight safety;

• Risked causing interference to ground distance-measuring systems that provide

vital navigation information to military and commercial aircraft, as well as to

rescue stations that host military and public safety operations;

• Eroded our ability to train with precision guided munitions without which so

much of our modern tactics would be impossible.

Disruption of these systems by UWB operations could undermine U.S. efforts in

the war on terrorism and erode homeland defense. More to the point, disruption of

these operations could directly lead to loss of life among U.S. forces and American

citizens.

One other reason why the UWB proceeding proved so difficult was because the

technology is so new that at the outset no hard science or empirical data existed.

Some in the UWB industry said they believed that UWB devices, no matter how

many in use, would never interfere with existing users such as GPS. Our view was

that unconstrained, aggregated and non-licensed use of UWB devices, as originally

proposed, posed a severe risk of interference to existing licensed systems and, therefore, must be governed by sensible technical parameters. Other government agencies

believed that even more stringent limits were needed.

Unlike traditional wireless technologies which are restricted to a specific band of

frequencies, UWB emits signal energy across an extremely wide range of spectrum

bands. Thus, UWB would operate, on a non-licensed basis, across many different

wireless bands, in which hundreds of government and commercial users are licensed

to provide hundreds of vital and needed wireless services—including vital military,

aviation safety and law enforcement systems. In theory, UWB offers ‘‘free spectrum’’

by thinly spreading its energy over many bands. If existing spectrum users are not

adversely affected, what’s the harm? Yet measurements taken by NTIA and the Department of Transportation—and associated government studies—have clearly

shown that non-licensed use of this technology, without proper emission constraints,

could cause interference to existing licensed radio services, including public safety

21

and critical national security systems. For example, even thinly spread UWB energy

interferes with very low power signals from distant sources, such as GPS satellites

which are over 12,000 miles away. In such a case, prudence is dictated because no

one knows for sure—and that is what the FCC, with NTIA concurrence, essentially

said.

It is worth considering, What if the FCC had come up with a different outcome?

Suppose the following: First, the FCC had decided to allow unconstrained, uncoordinated use of commercial UWB devices throughout the spectrum. Second, UWB industry successfully marketed such devices so that there was widespread deployment. Third, we accept the DoD view that such aggregated, widespread use of UWB

devices below 3 GHz could interfere with and hamper GPS operations, in addition

to other systems. In such a scenario, the following would have occurred as a direct

result of the FCC ruling: money spent on the constellation of GPS satellites would

be wasted; safety would be compromised in civil and military aviation which uses

GPS for navigation, including in the critical approach phase; spectrum-dependent

warfighting systems which depend on GPS would be unusable, degrading our readiness, mission effectiveness and capability, while wasting millions of taxpayer dollars; and the substantial civil investment in GPS would be wasted, including taxpayer dollars, and irreparable harm to US industry that depends on GPS.

Is that an outcome that is in our national interest? Did the proponents of unconstrained use of UWB prove with any scientific facts and to any reasonable person

beyond a reasonable doubt that this would not happen? Did they offer DoD and the

nation any guarantees? Is any risk such as this worth taking?

Rather, our view and the FCC’s ruling took a prudent approach. Allow a commercial industry to develop. In fact, let it thrive. Protect national security and vital systems by imposing moderate limitations that the majority of companies felt were acceptable. Then, see what happens.

In his remarks on February 14, 2001, FCC Chairman Powell stated that the rules

announced that day were ‘‘fully coordinated with the U.S. Government.’’ The Department agrees with NTIA Deputy Administrator Mike Gallagher’s analysis that

section 305 of the Communications Act of 1934 preserves the President’s authority

to authorize use of the radio spectrum for U.S. government owned and operated stations. We are confident that our colleagues at the Commission recognize the authorities and responsibilities of the President, authorities delegated to the NTIA as the

Executive Branch spectrum manager, with regard to managing spectrum in a manner that protects Federal Government systems, as set forth in the May 15, 2002 letter.

In this regard, we believe that NTIA should not treat authorization of all DoD

UWB device uses in the same way as nonlicensed commercial devices. Under current NTIA Manual provisions, we are required to and do provide NTIA—and all

other Federal agencies—the details of our planned UWB device use and seek NTIA

authorization to so operate. We intend to continue this practice. Certain DoD

present and future uses of UWB will require operation at power levels greater than

those allowed for the general public to perform specific missions. DoD will operate

many fewer UWB devices than the public. DoD UWB devices will be operated mainly on DoD installations and training areas under the control of the Executive

branch. In the case of EMI, the UWB device can easily be located and turned off

by local spectrum or command personnel. No such controls exist for UWB devices

mass-marketed to the public.

We do agree with NTIA that government use of commercial off-the-shelf UWB devices authorized by the FCC in the FCC proceeding should be encouraged. When

possible, we want to use such systems—in part because such use may make these

systems more affordable. We support NTIA’s intention to update the applicable sections of the NTIA Manual to so make clear. However, we must be free to operate

high power UWB—in accordance with criteria appropriate for limited use government systems in order to fulfill military missions. Some of the military missions for

which we expect to use UWB include: sniper detection/location; buried weapon cache

detection; unexploded ordnance detection; and tunnel complex detection. Without

these devices, we would have to send our troops directly in to harm’s way in very

risky missions. Other uses include, runway void detection; all weather precision formation flying; ship docking radar; and precision radar altimeters for ultra-small

UAVs. Without these systems the associated functions would either be impossible

or much more dangerous. The NTIA, as the President’s spectrum manager, must

continue to have the discretion to individually authorize DoD UWB systems at specific locations for specific times and with specific technical characteristics. DoD intends to continue to coordinate the uses of such devices to ensure protection operation of all critical federal government systems and to seek to maximize the efficient

use of spectrum.

22

5. RESULT OF FCC UWB PROCEEDING

If the goal of the UWB spectrum allocation proceeding was to meet the twin goals

of (a) protecting vital national security systems from harmful interference while (b)

allowing an innovative new technology to develop, then it would seem by initial indications that the FCC accomplished that goal.

DoD primarily was concerned about interference to GPS. GPS is now used by the

military in almost every phase of operations. It is used in precision-guided munitions; airplanes use it for navigation; and special operations units operating in Afghanistan use it for coordination with airborne platforms and allied troops. These

functions are also performed within the United States, as well. Today’s military is

designed to ‘‘train like they fight.’’ This means that they use the same equipment,

the same tactics and even the same frequencies in training that they will use in

overseas operations to the greatest extent possible. This goal of making our training

as realistic as possible is intended to prepare our troops for combat as best we can,

so that when they get there casualties are minimized.

Allowing degradation to systems our troops use in the field would reduce the effectiveness of their training and increase the risk of casualties. The net effect is to

cause harm to our national security. UWB operates at such a low power level, that

a few UWB devices will not cause interference with critical DoD equipment. However, it is the aggregate effect of the proliferation of such devices that has the potential to cause interference. This effect is often referred to as ‘‘raising the noise level’’

and it occurs when the aggregate effect of many, many UWB devices raises the level

of ambient noise. Correcting for this would be very difficult and expensive in systems that are currently deployed because they are engineered for the existing ambient noise level and not the heightened noise level caused by the aggregated effects

of UWB devices. This aggregate effect is difficult to predict and, therefore, a ‘‘go

slow’’ approach is the preferred way to deal with it.

The R&O contains several emission masks for the various types of envisioned

UWB devices. This allows a tailored approach for each individual type of mass-marketed UWB device. The technical criteria indicated by the masks cover DoD’s inputs

on the draft R&O. The UWB discussion has always been ‘‘how low is low enough?’’

We are dealing with a new technology and feel the masks are a good compromise

between allowing the technology into the spectrum on an nonlicensed basis and the

need to protect vital current—and future federal and civil spectrum dependent services that have a good chance to be in the same operating area. In all cases, the 960-

1610 MHz part of the emission mask is the most stringent, since that spectrum supports many safety-of-life radio systems—air traffic control, GPS, and others.

To allow unrestrained deployment of UWB devices could mean opening Pandora’s

box: once it is opened it is impossible to close and mitigating the negative effect is

very difficult and expensive. There are no geographical limits on where the public

might use non-licensed UWB devices or under what circumstances. For example,

there isn’t any reason why a mass-marketed UWB device couldn’t be used in or

around Reagan National Airport. The potential harm is that widespread commercial

use might raise the overall noise level in localized areas to the point where RF reception by licensed services is degraded. We have practical experience with current

narrowband Part 15 devices causing interference to licensed users: tactical VHF frequencies near 50 MHz are degraded at some bases due to nearby cordless phone

use. This is a clear example of raising the noise floor through aggregate use—no

single cordless phone can do this but together they can interfere with critical military and civil systems.

The American public would not, nor should they, tolerate such a mishandling of

our spectrum resources. We, therefore, adopted sensible policies as well as technical

criteria for public UWB devices that will protect the sanctity of military equipment.

Nearly 90% of all federal and civil RF devices operate below 3.1 GHz—it is the most

crowded part of the spectrum. Forcing UWB—initially—above 3.1 GHz is part of the

Administration’s overall strategy to strike a balance between the need to jump-start

this technology, but in a responsible manner. One company, Kohler, currently uses

UWB technology near 6 GHz, so the technical barriers must be less than envisioned

for UWB use above 3.1 GHz. Building and clear path attenuation above 3.1 GHz

is greater than below 3.1 GHz. Operating mass-marketed UWB devices above 3.1

GHz provides more isolation between UWB and licensed systems. Therefore, the

FCC’s decision that allowed for widespread deployment of UWB devices above 3.1

GHz—and out of GPS bands ‘‘was not too conservative but rather prudent and logical.

UWB technology brings great possibilities for expanding use of the spectrum because theoretically it can reuse spectrum already employed for other purposes. However, if it turns out that UWB interferes with existing users it will end up costing

23

us far more than it saves us. We would either have to stop the use of UWB technology or move the existing systems to another band of spectrum. Both of these solutions are highly problematic and expensive. It is much better to go more slowly

in the initial phases and ensure that we have a regulatory regime in place that allows for development of a new technology while maintaining the viability of the existing technologies.

6. IMPACT OF FCC RULING

It is too early to know the ultimate impact of the FCC ruling. Only after enough

UWB devices are commercially deployed, can the real empirical evidence be gathered and measured to determine whether UWB devices at certain levels cause

harmful interferences to federal and commercial systems. But statements by various

parties immediately prior to or following the FCC’s ruling leads to the conclusion

that the FCC and NTIA got it right.

Several UWB proponents issued statements prior to the FCC ruling stating that

they believed that a vigorous commercial industry could develop if UWB devices

were restricted to intentional emissions above 3.1 GHz. Time Domain, a UWB proponent, issued a public statement on February 14, the day of the FCC ruling, stating that, ‘‘The FCC action enables Time Domain to deliver its patented UWB technology to the company’s development partners for integration into certain products

and applications, including wireless broadband links and precision radar products.’’ Martin Rofheart, chief executive officer of another UWB firm, XtremeSpectrum, Inc.,

said the FCC’s decision was ‘‘great for the industry and good for us.’’ In other words, the commercial vendors do not need to operate below 3.1 GHz in

order to market UWB devices commercially. And a Washington Post article last

week noted that since the FCC UWB ruling, ‘‘competition is growing’’ and cited a

Precursor Group analyst who expressed his view of UWB—‘‘we believe that this will

be a serious threat to Blue Tooth and 802.11b.’’

The UWB industry needs a chance to develop the technology and prove its business case. We have seen many examples where promised technology failed to succeed in the market, even when provided with the required spectrum and policy incentives. We, other federal spectrum users, NTIA and the FCC, need time to learn

how to address UWB interference. We need time to gather real world data on interference incidents—or lack of them. We need to see how the coordination process

works out. We also need time to do more testing and analysis. The Department has

concerns that 6-12 months may not be sufficient to obtain the necessary information

to make further policy or technical standards.

7. CONCLUSION

The Executive branch, through NTIA and the FCC adopted a ‘‘win-win’’ approach

to a very complex and intricate rulemaking proceeding. DoD believes that the final

order and future decisions by NTIA with respect to governmental systems will ensure the protection of national security and public safety while opening the door to

commercial deployment of UWB. They did not accept the alternative, which was to

embrace unacceptable risk, with unknown consequences. Everyone involved should

be proud that the nation’s spectrum resources were, in this case at least, managed

in a manner that safeguarded the national interest, particularly during a time when

the country faces domestic and foreign threats while allowing for commercial innovation and technological advancement.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Shane.

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY N. SHANE

Mr. SHANE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the

subcommittee. On behalf of Secretary Mineta, I would like to thank

you for holding a hearing on these very important topics,

ultrawideband technology, and particularly the government’s spectrum management process. We appreciate very much the opportunity to participate.

The Department of Transportation is, first and foremost, a public

safety and security agency with the responsibility for ensuring the

integrity of our Nation’s transportation system. In our continuing

efforts to improve the safety, security and efficiency of all modes

24

of transport in these challenging times, we have become increasingly reliant on assured access to the radio spectrum in support of

a broad range of what we refer to as communications, navigation

and surveillance, CNS, systems. Because these CNS systems are so

important today to the safety and efficiency of the movement of

people and goods in all modes of transport, it is fair to say that

their assured reliability is now essential to the Nation’s economic

well-being, to its safety and increasingly to its security.

It is from this perspective that the Department of Transportation

approaches all new technologies that require access to radio spectrum. We want to explore their promise carefully, but we also want

to protect against any interference that could compromise the reliability of vital existing systems. The burden must be, as Stephen

Price said, on the proponents of new technologies to demonstrate

their deployment will not diminish in any way the essential reliability of these systems.

Having said that, though, I want to assure the subcommittee

that the Department fully supports the development and deployment of ultrawideband technology. Indeed, as several members

have noted and as Mr. Gallagher noted, some ultrawideband-based

applications hold enormous promise for improving transportation

safety, ground penetrating radar being one, potential collision

avoidance systems for vehicles being another. We simply have to

have, however, the highest level of confidence that these applications will be deployed in a way that ensures the continued integrity

of transportation-related, safety-of-life systems.

Mr. Chairman, because we attach such importance to the reliability of our CNS systems, they operate in bands of the spectrum

that have traditionally been protected from emissions of other systems. That is why Part 15, unlicensed devices, historically have

been prohibited from producing intentional emissions into these

bands. Anyone seeking to use spectrum for a new purpose had to

demonstrate that the newly proposed operations would not interfere with existing systems. We think that this is the appropriate

approach, particularly in the case of an emerging and unique technology like ultrawideband, frankly, about which so much is still unknown.

Spectrum requirements for transportation systems are complicated by the fact that particularly for aviation and maritime

transport they are often predicated on globally accepted standards.

For example, spectrum allocations and standards for aviation are

developed by two United Nations organizations: The International

Telecommunications Union and the International Civil Aviation

Organization. Another U.N. agency, the International Maritime Organization, develops standards for ocean shipping. In international

fora like these, the United States has consistently advocated protection for those bands of the spectrum in which critical transportation-related and other systems operate.

The FCC’s first Report and Order regarding ultrawideband

transmission systems, the so-called R&O, was adopted on February

14. DOT worked very closely with both the FCC and NTIA as they

prepared the R&O. Mr. Chairman, you outlined the categories of

ultrawideband equipment in the R&O different technical standards

apply to each category, including specific frequency bands, marVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:16 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 80674.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
25

keting restrictions, emissions limits, operating restrictions and coordination requirements. The FCC committed in the R&O to undertake expedited enforcement action in the event of rule violations or

harmful interference from UWB devices. That undertaking and the

protection it represents is absolutely critical. While the details of

the coordination process remain to be developed, that too is a crucial step toward addressing potential interference with our critical

CNS systems.

But we already experience from Part 15 devices in the restricted

bands, and we have expressed serious concern about the additional

potential risk of interference that ultrawideband devices may represent, particularly given the wide swath of spectrum into which

they emit energy. I might also note that no equipment is currently

available that can readily detect and locate UWB devices should

they malfunction. In other words, there would be no way to find

and contact the user of a malfunctioning device. While we are

working to identify such equipment, the fact that we have not yet

done so indicates the need for great care.

We will work together with all appropriate parties to devise a

process that spots and resolves cases of interference promptly and

effectively, but until we have done so, we will continue to insist on

caution. The FCC said in the R&O that it too was proceeding cautiously. At the same time, it indicated that prescribed standards,

and I am quoting, ‘‘may be overprotective and could unnecessarily

constrain the development of UWB technology.’’ The Commission,

therefore, announced its intention to review the standards within

6 to 12 months and to, ‘‘explore more flexible technical standards

and to address the operation of additional types of UWB operations

and technology.’’ We are certainly prepared to explore with the

FCC and NTIA whether the new standards can be relaxed, but we

reserve the right to argue that they may actually have to be

strengthened.

The Department also has questions about the timeframe announced by the FCC for the review because, frankly, it seems a little hasty. We will certainly endeavor to provide the needed supporting data and analyses, and in circumstances like these, we understand that there simply is just no substitute for empirical testing and hard data. But DOT’s tests and probably other tests will

supply only part of the data necessary to reach an informed decision on possible future UWB rules.

Additional analytical work is needed in two areas: prototype testing and aggregation effects. Unfortunately, prototypes of many

UWB devices have not been available for testing. Until this equipment is more readily available, crucial data will be lacking. Before

changes are made to the current rule, DOT, in conjunction with the

NTIA, FCC and other Federal agencies, must be in a position to

examine actual real-world results of pro-type testing.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Transportation

will continue to approach with caution the deployment of any new

technology that has the potential to interfere with transportationrelated safety-of-life systems. We do not think the FCC has taken

too conservative an approach with the current UWB R&O. As we

work with NTIA and the FCC to examine potential changes to this

26

rule, we will continue to demand the highest levels of protection for

our transportation systems and the safety of the traveling public.

I thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and we look forward to answering any questions that the subcommittee may have.

[The prepared statement of Jeffrey N. Shane follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY N. SHANE, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

INTRODUCTION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I would like to

thank you and the members of this Subcommittee for holding a hearing on this important topic. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) welcomes this opportunity to present its views on ultra-wideband (UWB) technology.

DOT is first and foremost a public safety and security agency with responsibility

for the Nation’s transportation systems and those who use them. In our continuing

efforts to modernize and improve the safety, efficiency and security of our transportation systems, we have become increasingly reliant on access to spectrum to support a broad range of communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) systems.

These systems are critical to the safe and efficient movement of people and goods

in all modes of transportation and must remain absolutely reliable. It is from this

perspective that we approach new technologies, exploring their promise while adhering to the imperative that they not interfere with vital existing systems. You will

not be surprised to hear that, from DOT’s vantage point, the assured integrity of

these safety-of-life systems must be a given in the debate about new technologies.

The burden should be on the proponents of new technologies to demonstrate that

their deployment will not diminish in any way that essential integrity.

That is how we approach the ultra-wideband issue. DOT fully supports the development and deployment of UWB technology. Indeed, several UWB-based applications hold promise for improving transportation safety, such as ground-penetrating

radar and potential collision avoidance systems. But we seek assurances that UWB

applications are deployed in a way that ensures the continued integrity of transportation-related safety-of-life systems.

SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT ISSUES

The radio spectrum has become an indispensable resource. The huge demand for

access to spectrum has increased the potential for interference and this is a serious

concern. The Federal Government has a fundamental responsibility to ensure that

the highest level of service is provided as we explore new and innovative ways to

take advantage of radio spectrum.

DOT makes every effort to scrutinize proposals to introduce new systems or technologies into the electromagnetic environment if they might affect transportation

systems. No matter what benefits are foreseen from a proposed new technology or

application, we must be certain of its compatibility with existing systems in order

to avoid potential conflicts with transportation-related services. If, for example, the

FAA’s management of the spectrum is affected by unwelcome changes in the spectrum environment, the problem of flight delays might well be exacerbated. FAA

might have to slow down the National Airspace System to maintain safe operations.

In the past, spectrum used for navigation was largely allocated exclusively for

that purpose. As pressure resulting from spectrum congestion increased, others

sought to share the spectrum used for transportation safety systems—and they enjoyed some success in that regard. That success, coupled with the recent rules

adopted for UWB devices and the trend towards overlay of services different from

the incumbent services, may seriously limit the ability of transportation industries

to modernize their systems to keep pace with increasing demands.

DOT’s spectrum requirements are complicated by the fact that they are predicated

on globally accepted protocols—notably in the case of aviation and maritime shipping. For example, spectrum allocations and standards for aviation are developed

by two United Nations organizations—the International Telecommunication Union

and the International Civil Aviation Organization. Pilots who fly U.S.-registered aircraft between continents thus can be confident today that the avionics with which

their aircraft are equipped will work as well overseas as they do in the U.S. Maritime standards are developed through the International Maritime Organization and

provide similar benefits for intercontinental maritime traffic. The allocations and

standards have taken many years and resources to adopt and implement. It would

27

take at least as many years to change them if rules that govern the use of UWB

devices are not adequate.

CRITICAL CNS SYSTEMS

It is important to describe at least briefly the CNS systems for which DOT is responsible, and their location in the spectrum. The importance of protecting them

against the threat of interference—and the reasons for our concern about the deployment of UWB devices—are described below.

First, roughly eighty percent of CNS systems used for air traffic control operate

in bands below 960 Megahertz (MHz). Additional systems operate in bands up to

approximately 3 Gigahertz (GHz) to include the Global Positioning System (GPS),

maritime radar, airborne collision avoidance, surveillance and communications systems. Some additional critical systems lie between 4 and 6 GHz, including systems

for weather radar, landing and airborne altitude measurement. And still more scattered systems for various transportation modes use spectrum up to 90 GHz. A more

complete list of transportation systems is appended to my statement.

DOT is particularly concerned about the effects of UWB emissions on the following systems:

• Global Positioning System (GPS) (center frequencies at 1176, 1227 and 1575

MHz)—GPS is being implemented in the U.S. and globally to improve the safety

and efficiency of land, air, and maritime transportation. It is also used in many

other applications, both civil and military.

• Various Aids to Navigation using frequencies below 960 MHz:

• Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range (VOR) equipment (108-118 MHz),

one of the main en route navigation systems used globally by aircraft today.

• The Instrument Landing System (ILS) (108-111.95 MHz; 328.6-335.4MHz), an

aviation precision approach and landing aid during severe weather and ‘‘no visibility’’ conditions. It is the main system used both domestically and globally for

these as an all-weather landing aid.

• Air Traffic Control Surveillance Radars

• Air Route Surveillance Radar-4 (ARSR-4) (1215-1390 MHz), the most modern of

the long-range surveillance radars.

• Airport Surveillance Radar-9 (ASR-9) (2700-2900 MHz), an air traffic control

radar used at numerous airports throughout the U.S. and its follow-on ASR-11.

• Systems around 5-6 GHz:

• The Microwave Landing System (MLS) (5030-5091 MHz), an aviation precision

approach and landing aid for severe weather conditions—still used at some airports in the U.S. and currently being more widely implemented in Europe.

• The Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) (5600 to 5650 MHz) that provides

critical weather advisories for windshear and microburst phenomena to aircraft

on final approach.

• The Runway Incursion System (5090-5150 MHz), a system in the early stages of

development aimed at reducing the number of runway incursions, a top safety

issue for aviation.

PROTECTION OF VITAL CNS SYSTEMS IS PARAMOUNT

These and other safety-of-life CNS systems are critical components of the national

and international transportation infrastructure. Ensuring the highest level of reliability for these systems and supporting technologies is essential to securing the

safety of the traveling public. For this reason, these critical systems operate in

bands of the spectrum that are currently protected from the emissions of other systems. That is why Part 15 unlicensed devices traditionally have been prohibited

from producing intentional emissions—and their threat of interference—into these

restricted bands.

Historically, those who sought to use spectrum for a new purpose had to demonstrate that their operations would not interfere with existing systems. We think

that this is the appropriate approach. A similarly cautious approach is indicated in

the case of an emerging and unique technology like UWB, about which so much is

still unknown.

THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DECISION

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Report and Order Regarding

Ultra-wideband Transmission Systems (R&O), issued on April 22, was the product

of a coordinated effort between the FCC, which regulates those portions of the radio

spectrum dedicated to the private sector and to state and local governments, and

the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which

28

regulates the Federal government’s portion of the spectrum. When spectrum is

shared between Federal and non-Federal users, as much of spectrum is, these agencies must coordinate the exercise of their authority as co-regulators. DOT worked

closely with both agencies as they prepared the R&O.

The R&O approved operation of UWB equipment in three categories: imaging systems, vehicular radar systems, and communications and measurement systems. The

first category includes ground penetrating radar, wall and through-wall imaging,

and surveillance and medical imaging devices. The second refers to devices mounted

on vehicles to detect nearby objects. The third includes home and business networking devices as well as storage tank measurement devices.

Different technical standards apply to each—with specific frequency bands, emission limits, and operating restrictions. For example, the use of imaging systems

(other than in emergencies) will be limited to law enforcement, construction companies, and other entities, and subject to coordination with NTIA. Communications

and measurement systems will be allowed to operate only indoors or via hand-held

devices. In the R&O, the FCC also committed to undertake expedited enforcement

action in the event of rule violations or harmful interference from UWB devices.

These protections—coordination and enforcement—are critical. While the details of

the coordination process remain to be developed, it is a crucial step toward avoiding

and addressing potential interference with critical CNS systems. As we move forward with implementing this rule, we look forward to working with NTIA and the

FCC to define more fully the details of an effective coordination process.

Rigorous enforcement of the FCC rule is also critical. Such vigilance is necessary

both because tests to date have demonstrated the potential for interference to CNS

systems from UWB operations, and because experience with other wireless devices

has shown that faulty manufacturing or design can lead to malfunctions and interference, even in equipment that is designed to protect against such interference. For

example, CNS systems have experienced interference in the past from malfunctioning Part 15 devices that are specifically designed to avoid intentional emissions

into the restricted bands. This interference has caused disruptions in the National

Airspace System and has taken weeks or longer to find and mitigate. We will work

together with all appropriate parties to devise both a responsible and a responsive

process that promptly and effectively identifies and resolves cases of interference.

I might also note in this connection that DOT is not aware of any equipment currently available that can detect UWB devices, should they malfunction and need to

be located. The characteristics of UWB, such as wide bandwidth, make it very hard

to detect. While we are working to identify detection equipment, the lack of this

equipment also argues for a cautious approach.

The FCC, in the R&O, acknowledged that it was ‘‘proceeding cautiously—based

in large measure on standards that the NTIA found to be necessary to protect

against interference to vital federal government operations.’’ The FCC expressed

concern as well, however, that these standards ‘‘may be overprotective and could unnecessarily constrain the development of UWB technology.’’ The Commission therefore announced its intent to review these standards within six to twelve months and

‘‘to explore more flexible technical standards and to address the operation of additional types of UWB operations and technology.’’

IMPLEMENTING THE FCC DECISION

As I indicated, DOT considers it prudent to approach new technology with caution

where critical CNS systems are concerned. There is no substitute for hard data,

stringent analyses, and validation by tests. As we move forward to implement the

FCC rule, we are certainly prepared to explore with the FCC and NTIA whether,

on the basis of additional information, the new standards may be either relaxed or

strengthened. The Department questions the adequacy of the timeframe announced

by the FCC for this purpose, but we will strive to provide needed data and analyses.

In this regard, DOT is instituting tests and analysis in areas where additional

information is needed to determine possible effects on many of the systems mentioned earlier. These efforts will focus on:

• The Global Positioning System—verifying previous test results.

• Air traffic control surveillance radars:

• The Air Route Surveillance Radar-4—validating analysis.

• The Airport Surveillance Radar-9—validating analysis.

• Systems below 960 Megahertz including:

• The Instrument Landing System—analysis and testing.

• Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range Equipment—analysis and possible

testing.

• The Microwave Landing System—further analysis and possible testing.

29

There are two points that I would like to emphasize. First, while we appreciate

that much attention has been given to protecting GPS, many of the technical solutions that would protect GPS from UWB interference are not necessarily transferable to other systems. Because of different design characteristics, results derived

from GPS analyses cannot simply be extended to other systems.

Second, we must protect against even marginal degradations to our critical transportation systems. Taking aviation as an example, even minor weather or other disruptions at an airport can result in delays and ground stops at other airports

throughout the nation due to the ripple effect in our congested airspace. Likewise,

as policy makers, we need to be cautious of unknown impacts that may result from

our decision on one issue, such as UWB technology, to be sure there are no adverse

effects in other areas. I have stated some examples of impacts that we believe warrant further scrutiny, such as aggregate noise effect due to proliferation of UWB devices and direct radio frequency interference to certain transportation safety systems that have not been fully analyzed and tested. This is why the Department is

so insistent that every effort is made to make the correct decision the first time.

It should be noted that some ultra-wideband vendors have indicated a willingness

to constrain the frequencies of their transmissions in order to be compatible with

existing uses of the radio spectrum, while others have not. The difference appears

to be partly a matter of technology design and implementation, and partly of cost.

It is appropriate that any further consideration of rules governing UWB devices

take this capability into account.

But DOT’s tests will supply only part of the data necessary to reach an informed

decision on possible future UWB rules. Additional analytical work is needed in two

areas: prototype testing and aggregation effects.

Prototypes of proposed equipment are commonly tested to measure the characteristics of their emissions and their effects. Unfortunately, prototypes of UWB devices

have not been available for testing. The FCC had hoped to gain experience on the

impact of UWB devices on existing systems as a byproduct of the waivers it granted

in 1999 to several UWB manufacturers. To date none of these waivers has resulted

in prototype devices for testing or useful test data. Until this omission is corrected,

crucial data will remain unknown. Before changes are made to the current rule,

DOT, in conjunction with the NTIA, FCC and other Federal agencies, must be in

a position to examine the results of prototype testing. We look forward to working

with NTIA, FCC and the industry in planning and conducting the appropriate tests.

The aggregate effect of numerous UWB devices and their effect on the noise floor

remains to be determined. The noise floor is the level of background energy always

present and is increased by emissions from manufactured devices. Some systems

like GPS operate below the noise floor level and may suffer reduced accuracy from

additional energy in the noise floor. As the use of UWB devices proliferate, we need

to pay keen attention to their aggregate impact. Opinions differ about any potential

impact and we simply don’t know enough about UWB at this time to draw firm conclusions in this regard. We do, however, anticipate that UWB chips will increasingly

be used in personal electronic devices. The airline industry already has a growing

concern over these personal electronic devices on aircraft. Currently, such electronic

devices are required to be turned off during certain critical phases of flight because

of their potential for interference.

Experience has shown that low-level signals from a number of otherwise benign

devices can, in the aggregate, cause harmful interference. A telling example of this

impact has been the proliferation of microwave ovens in this country. The frequency

band in which they operate—2.4 GHz—has been rendered useless for critical applications because the background noise level from microwave ovens has increased the

noise floor by a thousand-fold, causing significant interference to other uses of the

band.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the Department of Transportation will continue to encourage the

adoption of a cautious approach to the deployment of new technologies that have

the potential to interfere with transportation-related safety-of-life systems. We do

not think the FCC has taken too conservative an approach. As we work with NTIA

and the FCC to implement and examine potential changes to this rule, we all must

continue to demand the highest levels of protection for our transportation systems

and for the safety of the traveling public. I thank you for the opportunity to testify

and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

30

List of CNS Systems Used for Transportation

Frequency Range System/Short Description

Aviation

90-110 kHz ....................... LORAN-C1 1—en route navigation aid

190-435 & 510-535 kHz .. Non-directional Beacon—en route navigation aid

2100-28,000 kHz .............. High Frequency Communications—en route (mostly oceanic and remote) communications

75 MHz ............................. Navigation Aid (NAVAID) Marker Beacon—used for approach and landing, part of Instrument

Landing Systems (ILS)

108-118 MHz .................... NAVAID (Very High Frequency (VHF) Omni-directional range (VOR), ILS Localizer, Special Category I (SCAT-I)—ILS approach and landing aid; SCAT-1 GPS assisted landings; Local Area

Augmentation System (LAAS) future precision approach and landing aid (GPS augmentation)

118-137 MHz .................... VHF Air/Ground Communications Pilot/controller communication; en route and terminal

162-174 MHz .................... Fixed, Mobile Communications—Comm. for maintenance and administrative, controlling runway

lights, etc.

225-328.6 & 335.4-400

MHz.

Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) Air/Ground Communications—Military pilot/controller

328.6 & 335.4-400 MHz .. NAVAID (ILS Glideslope)—Approach and landing aid

406-406.1 MHz ................. Satellite Emergency Position Indicating Radiobeacon 1—Emergency beacon for search and rescue

406.1-420 MHz ................. Fixed, Mobile Communications—Communications for maintenance and administrative, controlling runway lights, etc.

932-935 & 941-944 MHz Fixed Communications—Data links (radar information) between control towers and remote

equipment

960-1215 MHz .................. NAVAID (TACAN, Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), etc)—TACAN en-route guidance for

military aircraft; DME en-route navigation, UAT

1030 & 1090 MHz ............ Radar Beacon, Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS), Mode S—Identification of

aircraft in flight, collision avoidance

1176.45 MHz .................... GPS L5 Downlink 1—Future En-route and non-precision landing aid

1227.6 MHz ...................... GPS L2 Downlink 1

1215-1400 MHz ................ Air Route Surveillance Radar—En-route surveillance

1544-1545 MHz ................ Emergency Mobile Satellite Comm. (Downlink)—en route/Oceanic communications

1545-1559 MHz ................ Aeronautical Mobile Satellite (R) (Downlink)—Safety communication

1559-1610 MHz ................ Satellite Navigation 1

1575.42 MHz .................... GPS L1 Downlink 1—en-route and non-precision landing aid

1645.5-1646.5 MHz .......... Emergency Mobile Satellite Communications (Uplink)

1646.5-1660.5 MHz .......... Aeronautical Mobile Satellite (R) (Uplink)—Safety communication

1710-1850 MHz ................ Fixed Communications (LDRCL)—radar data, air/ground communication

2700-3000 MHz ................ Airport Surveillance Radar, Weather Radar—Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) terminal radar;

NEXRAD weather radar

3700-4200 & 5925-6425

MHz.

ANICS (Commercial Satellite Link)—Remote communication in Alaska (leased service)

4200-4400 MHz ................ Airborne Radar Altimeter—Altitude measuring equipment

5000-5250 MHz ................ NAVAID Microwave Landing System (MLS) to 5150 MHz—Precision approach and landing aid;

Runway Incursion System (future system)

5350-5470 MHz ................ Airborne Radar and Associated Airborne Beacons—airborne weather radar

5600-5640 MHz ................ Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)—wind shear, microbursts, storms, etc.

7125-8500 MHz ................ Radio Communications Link—Data links (radar information) between control towers and remote equipment

8750-8850 MHz ................ Airborne Doppler Radar

9000-9200 MHz ................ Military Precision Approach Radar—Transportable landing aid; ASDE-X

9300-9500 MHz ................ Airborne Radars and Associated Airborne Beacons

11.7-12.2 & 14.0-14.5

GHz.

FAA Satellite (Commercial Satellite Links)—Leased service for communication between major

FAA facilities

13.25-13.4 GHz ................ Airborne Doppler Radar

15.7-16.2 GHz .................. Television (Video) Microwave Link—Radar data to remote control towers

15.7-16.2 GHz .................. Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE III)—Surveillance of airport surface area

21.2-23.6 GHz .................. Microwave Link (Multi-Use)—Various communication links

35 and 94 GHz ................. Synthetic Vision (Experimental)

Maritime

90-110 kHz ....................... LORAN-C 1—Vessel navigation

283.5-315 kHz .................. DGPS corrections link; DGPS—used for harbor/harbor entrance and navigation on inland waterways, rail transportation; and navigation integrity

315-325 kHz ..................... DGPS; DGPS—used for harbor/harbor entrance and navigation on inland waterways, rail transportation, and navigation integrity

415-535 KHz .................... MF Radiotelegraphy and data

518 kHz ............................ NAVTEX broadcast maritime safety information

31

List of CNS Systems Used for Transportation—Continued

Frequency Range System/Short Description

1605-3800 KHz ................ MF Radiotelephony including distress and safety communications

4-27.5 MHz ....................... HF data/radiotelephony—Maritime distress and safety, including Global Maritime Distress &

Safety System (GMDSS)

121.5-243 MHz ................. EPIRB/ELT distress alerts and emergency locating

156-165 MHz VHF ............ Radiotelephony—VHF Maritime Communications, including distress, safety, and vessel traffic

control

161.975-162.025 MHz ...... Universal shipborne automatic identification systems (AIS)

162-174 MHz .................... Fixed, Mobile Communications—Communications for command and control and public safety

225-328.6 & 335.4-400

MHz.

UHF Air/Ground Communications—USCG aircraft

406-406.1 MHz ................. Satellite Emergency Position Indicating Radiobeacon 1

406.1-420 MHz ................. Fixed, Mobile Communications—Comm. for public safety and maintenance

1176.45 MHz .................... GPS L5 Downlink 1

1227.6 MHz ...................... GPS L2 Downlink 1

1535-1544 MHz ................ GMDSS maritime satellite communications (Downlink)

1544-1545 MHz ................ Satellite emergency position-indicating radiobeacon (EPIRB) (Downlink)—Distress alerts

1559-1610 MHz ................ Satellite Navigation 1

1575.42 MHz .................... GPS L1 Downlink 1—Primary maritime navigation

1602-1615 MHz ................ GLONASS Downlink—Maritime navigation

1626.5-1645.5 MHz .......... GMDSS maritime satellite communications (Uplink)

2900-3100 MHz ................ Shipboard and vessel traffic services radar—maritime navigation and collision avoidance (primarily foul weather)

9300-9500 MHz ................ Shipborne Radars—maritime navigation and collision avoidance

Surficial Transportation

5.8 GHz ............................. Dedicated Short Range Communications System

1 It is the case that with these radionavigation systems, there are multi-modal user communities far beyond transportation. In addition to

navigation, Loran-C is used to some extent by the telecommunications community for timing. GPS has numerous additional user communities

and applications.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Knapp.

STATEMENT OF JULIUS P. KNAPP

Mr. KNAPP. Chairman Upton, Chairman Tauzin, members of the

subcommittee, good morning. The FCC welcomes this opportunity

to discuss its proceeding to provide for the introduction of

ultrawideband technology. This technology holds great promise for

a vast array of new products that have the potential to provide significant benefits for public safety, businesses and consumers. Some

of the applications for this technology include radar imaging of objects buried under the ground or behind walls, short-range highspeed data services and vehicle radar systems.

Ultrawideband devices operate by employing very narrow or

short-duration pulses that result in very large or wideband transmission bandwidths. With appropriate technical standards,

ultrawideband devices can operate using spectrum occupied by existing radio services without causing interference, thereby permitting scarce spectrum resources to be used more efficiently.

On February 14, the Commission adopted a First Report and

Order, establishing rules to provide for the development and marketing of unlicensed, low-power ultrawideband devices. The Commission’s rules provide for three categories of UWB devices: imaging systems, vehicle radar systems and communications and measurement systems. The first category, imaging systems, includes

ground penetrating radars, wall imaging systems, through-wall imaging systems, surveillance systems and medical systems.

32

Imaging systems generally need to operate in the lower parts of

the radio spectrum to operate properly. However, these are also the

parts of the spectrum that are used most heavily by other radio

services. The rules allow imaging devices to operate below 960

megahertz or above 3.1 gigahertz, preventing them from causing

interference in the most sensitive frequency bands used for services

such as air traffic control and global positioning systems.

The rules also restricted the users to include law enforcement,

fire and emergency rescue organizations, scientific research institutions, commercial mining companies, licensed health care practitioners and construction companies. And at the request of NTIA,

the FCC will coordinate the operation of all imaging systems with

the Federal Government.

The second category of UWB technology permitted by these rules

is vehicle radar systems. Vehicle radars can be used for collision

avoidance, safer deployment of airbags and smoother suspension

systems that better respond to road conditions. These systems will

operate in the upper reaches of the spectrum between 22 and 29

gigahertz where the spectrum is not as heavily used as lower frequency bands.

The third category of UWB devices is communications and measurement systems. These devices can be used for applications such

as high-speed home and business networking devices, in-home distribution of digital TV signals and storage tank measurement systems. Existing users of the spectrum expressed the greatest concerns about this category of devices due to the potential for widespread proliferation. The Commission restricted operation of these

devices to the frequency band 3.1 to 10.6 gigahertz, thereby avoiding parts of the spectrum that are most heavily used, including the

GPS band.

Because ultrawideband devices emit energy over large swaths of

spectrum, emissions in the spectrum used by both government and

non-government systems cannot be avoided. Therefore, the FCC

and the NTIA have shared jurisdictional responsibilities. Throughout the ultrawideband proceeding, the staffs of the Commission,

NTIA and other Federal agencies and departments, worked together cooperatively to develop rules that will enable initial deployment of ultrawideband technologies while ensuring that incumbent

government systems are fully protected against harmful interference.

The technical rules are based, in large measure, on standards

recommended by NTIA, that NTIA believes are necessary to protect

against interference to vital Federal Government operations, including safety systems. We are extremely confident that the standards the Commission adopted for UWB devices will protect against

harmful interference to both government and non-government operations.

The FCC plans to closely monitor the introduction of this technology through our Equipment Authorization Program. In addition,

the Commission is committed to take enforcement action for noncompliance with the rules and to act expeditiously to resolve any

interference.

The Commission’s action is a cautious first step in authorizing

ultrawideband technology. In taking its action, the Commission exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:16 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 80674.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
33

pressed concern, however, that the standards may be overprotective and could unnecessarily constrain the development of

ultrawideband technology. Upon adoption of the First Report and

Order, the Commission indicated its intent to review the

ultrawideband standards within 6 to 12 months. We are currently

undertaking a study at the Commission’s laboratory in Columbia,

Maryland to better understand whether the limits that were adopted are appropriate, particularly relative to the levels of background

noise that already may exist from other devices. We plan to make

the results available for public evaluation by the end of this year.

We have invited other organizations to perform further studies of

ultrawideband technology as well.

The reactions to the Commission’s decision have generally been

quite favorable. Several companies have announced that they plan

to introduce ultrawideband products very soon. We recognize that

some ultrawideband users have raised concerns about the new

rules, in particular manufacturers and users of ground penetrating

radars. However, we are confident that any remaining issues can

be resolved in an expeditious manner.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to

appear before you today. This concludes my testimony. I would be

pleased to take any questions.

[The prepared statement of Julius P. Knapp follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JULIUS P. KNAPP, DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING

AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee:

Good morning. I am Julius Knapp, Deputy Chief of the Office of Engineering and

Technology at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I welcome this opportunity to discuss the FCC’s proceeding to provide for the introduction of ultrawideband (UWB) devices.

INTRODUCTION

Ultra-wideband technology holds great promise for a vast array of new products

that have the potential to provide significant benefits for public safety, businesses

and consumers. Some of the applications for this technology include radar imaging

of objects buried under the ground or behind walls, short-range high-speed data devices, and vehicle radar systems.

UWB devices operate by employing very narrow or short duration pulses that result in very large or wideband transmission bandwidths. With appropriate technical

standards, UWB devices can operate using spectrum occupied by existing radio services without causing interference, thereby permitting scarce spectrum resources to

be used more efficiently. To that end, the Commission reviewed extensive comments

that were filed in the UWB proceeding by numerous industry stakeholders.

On February 14, 2002, the Commission adopted a First Report and Order establishing rules to allow development and marketing of unlicensed low power UWB devices. The Commission’s action is a cautious first step in authorizing UWB technology. The technical rules are based in large measure on standards recommended

by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) that

NTIA believes are necessary to protect against interference to vital federal government operations, including safety systems. In taking its action, the Commission expressed concern, however, that the standards may be overprotective and could unnecessarily constrain the development of UWB technology. Upon adoption of the

First Report and Order, the Commission indicated an intent to review these standards and explore more flexible technical standards to address the operation of additional types of UWB operations and technology.

OVERVIEW OF THE NEW PROVISIONS FOR UWB DEVICES

The Commission categorized UWB devices into three types: (1) imaging systems;

(2) vehicle radar systems: and (3) communications and measurement systems.

34

The first category, imaging systems, includes ground penetrating radars (GPRs),

wall imaging systems, through-wall imaging systems, surveillance systems and

medical systems.

• Ground penetrating radars detect the location and image of buried objects and can

be used for applications such as law enforcement investigations and for detecting flaws in bridges and roadways. • Wall-imaging systems can be used to examine the foundations of buildings and

to locate objects such as pipes inside a wall. • Through-wall imaging devices can be used by law enforcement, fire and rescue organizations for hostage rescue and locating persons trapped inside a burning

building.

• Surveillance systems, although technically not imaging, can operate as ‘‘security

fences’’ by establishing a stationary radio frequency (RF) perimeter field and detecting the intrusion of persons or objects in that field.

• Medical imaging is used to detect the location or movement of objects within the

body of a person or animal.

Imaging systems generally need to operate in the lower parts of the radio spectrum in order to work properly. However, these are also the parts of the spectrum

that are used the most heavily by other radio services. The recently adopted rules

generally allow imaging systems to operate below 960 MHz or above 3.1 GHz, prevent them from causing interference in the most sensitive frequency bands used for

services such as air traffic control and the global positioning system. The rules also

restricted the users to include law enforcement, fire and emergency rescue organizations, scientific research institutions, commercial mining companies, licensed health

care practitioners and construction companies. At the request of NTIA, the FCC will

coordinate the operation of all imaging systems with the federal government.

The second category of UWB technology permitted by these rules is vehicle radar

systems. Vehicle radars can be used for collision avoidance, safer deployment of airbags, and smoother suspension systems that better respond to road conditions.

These systems will operate in the upper reaches of the spectrum between 22 and

29 GHz, where the spectrum is not as heavily used as lower frequency bands.

The third category of UWB devices is communications and measurement systems.

These devices can be used for applications such as high-speed home and business

networking devices, in-home distribution of digital TV signals, and storage tank

measurement devices. Existing users of the spectrum expressed the greatest concerns about this category of devices due to the potential for widespread and uncontrolled use. The Commission restricted operation of these devices to the frequency

band 3.1-10.6 GHz, thereby avoiding the parts of the spectrum that are used most

heavily, including the GPS band.

PROTECTION OF EXISTING RADIO SERVICES AGAINST HARMFUL INTERFERENCE

The establishment of standards to protect against harmful interference from UWB

devices has been a daunting task. Most interference issues involve potential interactions between two, or perhaps a few, radio services, because the energy generated

by a particular service tends to be limited to a narrow range of frequencies. In contrast, UWB devices emit energy over wide swaths of the spectrum used by dozens

of services, raising the possibility of many potential interference interactions, each

of which needed to be analyzed.

Since the UWB proceeding commenced in 1998, many parties filed comments in

the Commission’s rules making proceeding raising concerns about potential interference from UWB devices to the personal communications service, multipoint distribution service, satellite digital audio radio service, GPS, and others. The Federal

Government, under the auspices of NTIA, also evaluated potential interference to

a wide variety of systems such as GPS, aeronautical navigation systems, weather

radars, and systems used by agencies such as the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Department of Transportation.

The FCC’s engineering and technology staff analyzed the extensive tests performed by NTIA, Stanford University, the University of Texas and others. We reviewed and considered more than 700 filings that were submitted in the Commission’s rule making proceeding. We also coordinated extensively with NTIA.

We are extremely confident that the standards the Commission adopted will protect against harmful interference to other radio services. For example, the rules require ultra-wideband communications devices to operate above 3.1 GHz, well away

from the frequency band at 1.6 GHz used for GPS. In addition, any spurious emissions in the GPS spectrum would need to be suppressed by 34 dB below the emissions limits that apply to millions of existing radio frequency devices—in other

35

words, more than 2000 times less than the radio noise permitted to be emitted by

a personal computer.

The FCC plans to closely monitor the introduction of this technology through our

equipment authorization program. In addition, the Commission is committed to take

enforcement action for noncompliance with the rules and to act expeditiously to resolve any instances of interference.

COORDINATION WITH NTIA

As I previously mentioned, FCC staff coordinated extensively with NTIA staff in

developing the standards adopted in the First Report and Order and in large part

based the standards on measures that NTIA believes are necessary to protect

against interference to vital federal government operations. Throughout the proceeding NTIA and FCC staffs were in constant dialogue. Because UWB devices emit

energy over large swaths of spectrum, emissions into spectrum used by both Government and non-Government systems cannot be avoided. Therefore, both NTIA and

the FCC have shared jurisdictional responsibilities. Given the multitude of radio

services that could potentially be affected by UWB emissions and the complexity of

the technical analyses, it should not be surprising that there were different points

of view on some issues among the agencies as well as the parties. However, the

staffs of the Commission, NTIA and the other Federal agencies and departments

worked together cooperatively to develop rules that will enable initial deployment

of some UWB technologies while ensuring that incumbent government systems are

fully protected against harmful interference.

NEXT STEPS: FURTHER TESTING AND MEASUREMENTS

UWB technology is still in its infancy and it is important that the government

continue to monitor the development of this technology. Additional scientific work

is needed to expand our understanding of this technology and its interference potential as it develops.

As I mentioned earlier, the Commission has committed to review the standards

for UWB devices in the next six to twelve months. We are undertaking a study at

the Commission’s Laboratory in Columbia, Maryland, to better understand whether

the limits that were adopted are appropriate, particularly relative to the levels of

background noise that may already exist from other devices. We plan to make the

results available to the public for evaluation by the end of the year. We have invited

other organizations to perform further studies of UWB technology as well.

REACTION TO THE FIRST REPORT AND ORDER

The reactions to the Commission’s decision on UWB have generally been quite favorable. Several companies have announced that they plan to introduce new UWB

products very soon. We recognize that some UWB interests have raised concerns

about the new rules, in particular, manufacturers and users of ground penetrating

radars. We also realize that some non-Government radio services may not be satisfied that they will be adequately protected against interference. We are confident

that any remaining issues can be resolved in an expeditious manner.

CONCLUSION

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you

today. This concludes my testimony and I would be pleased to answer any questions

you or the other members may have.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Petroff.

STATEMENT OF RALPH G. PETROFF

Mr. PETROFF. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and——

Mr. UPTON. You just need to hit that—I think you need to hit

the mike button there.

Mr. PETROFF. Now? Okay. Mr. Chairman and distinguished

members of the subcommittee, I am honored to testify, thank you

very much. And, Mr. Tauzin, before I begin I would like to take a

moment to recognize this committee and particularly your leadership on behalf of new technologies. Your advocacy has contributed

36

to the success of new technologies and increased choices and services for the public. I would also like to take a moment to recognize

the distinguished public servants who sit here on this panel. We

worked closely with FCC, NTIA and DOD throughout the approval

process. I respect Julie Knapp and Mike Gallagher and Stephen

Price, and they deserve praise for their work on a difficult issue.

I only met Mr. Shane earlier this morning.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, while you may

hear different views from the distinguished panelists today on the

specifics surrounding the UWB approval process, I believe there

are two points upon which everyone will agree. First, we are all

pleased the First Report & Order was adopted. It is an historic

first step for a technology that will ultimately bring significant benefits to government, military, transportation and consumers. Second point is our spectrum management can be improved to promote, rather than delay, important new technologies. Our current

process takes too long. We started this regulatory approval 13

years ago, including nearly 4 years of detailed regulatory proceedings, and it is not over yet. This is far too much time, if new

technologies are going to have any chance of getting to market. Too

often government agencies and commercial interests act based on

spectrum politics, rather than spectrum policymaking. If we do not

improve this process of spectrum management, we will fall behind

the rest of the world in deploying new technologies.

Let me start by describing UWB. It is a new wireless technology

that enables several orders of magnitude improvement in three

core technologies: communications, radar and precision positioning

and tracking. UWB is different from existing radio in that it emits

infinitesimally low levels of power across a wide band. To put this

in context, a mobile phone emits almost 7 million times the power

of a UWB device into the same spectrum. Because the signal looks

like the emissions from computers and has the same power level

as computers, we initially sought approval to be treated like computers in FCC’s Part 15 rules.

I have a chart here. You can see at the very bottom that red line

that cuts across all spectrum. That is the Part 15 limit, and it is

not drawn to scale. It is actually much lower than that. This is a

spectrum sidewalk that cuts across every single government and

commercial spectrum band. In the sidewalk, billions of devices like

laptops and palm pilots have operated without interference, even

in the restricted bands, since the 1980’s. This sidewalk is infinitesimally small. Cell phones are allowed to put out half a watt per

megahertz, while Part 15 devices are limited to 0.00000007 watts.

To put things in perspective, if the power level for a cell phone was

a building, it would be as tall as the Empire State Building, but

the spectrum sidewalk would be only the width of a human hair.

I want to be very clear, this is issue is not about reallocation of

spectrum. It is about using the same spectrum sidewalk that billions of other low-power devices use without harm to existing users

and without requiring any existing user to move to different bands

in the spectrum. We agree with the FCC’s public statements about

a conservative first step. In fact, if you examine the text in the ruling, the word ‘‘conservative’’ appears 30 times; ‘‘cautious,’’ 11; ‘‘limited,’’ 36. Despite this cautious first step, the NTIA/FCC ruling will

37

permit some applications of UWB technology to reach the market

and benefit the public. Other applications will have to wait.

What will the public see from UWB in the short term? The first

market where the public will see UWB products is for personal

area networkings, wirelessly connecting consumer electronics and

personal computers in the home and office. This is the focus of our

commercial business. UWB can provide ultra high-speed wireless

connectivity between consumer devices, wirelessly transferring

video among camcorders, digital cameras and printers.

Another market where we believe the public will see product is

in ground penetrating radar and through-wall radar. We have developed a through-wall imaging radar device, called Radarvision, to

help military, police and fire fighters. It can help them determine

the location of people on the other side of the door for policemen,

fire fighters to determine in what room a victim might be located

in a burning building and rescue workers to locate victims under

earthquake rubble by detecting their breathing. Like GPR, it is

only used in isolated instances by trained personnel. We have a

waiver from the FCC to deploy a limited number products. However, we will not be able to fully do our job with this through-wall

imaging under the current rules. I hope this is one quick change

to the rules that we can all agree to make quickly.

How can UWB benefit the public over time? It is a remarkable

new technology for all sorts of applications in medical and in military. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, with all of

these unprecedented benefits to offer, UWB faced enormous hurdles getting approval. The regulatory process fell victim to spectrum politics rather than spectrum policymaking. There needs to

be objective oversight of technical testing and analyses to ensure

that everyone plays by the same rules.

UWB should be a win-win for incumbent government and nongovernment users of spectrum. After all, UWB can use spectrum efficiently without displacing existing users. For new technologies

like UWB to reach the public, we need timely spectrum management that fairly balances the need to deploy new technologies with

the need to protect existing users. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ralph G. Petroff follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RALPH G. PETROFF, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIME

DOMAIN CORPORATION

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, I am honored to be

invited to testify before you today—thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that a copy of my complete remarks be entered as part of the record.

I would like to start out by recognizing the distinguished public servants who sit

on the panel. I am fortunate to be appearing in the company of our nation’s experts

on spectrum management. We worked closely with the Federal Communications

Commission (‘‘FCC’’), National Telecommunications Information Administration

(‘‘NTIA’’) and the Department of Defense (‘‘DOD’’) throughout the UWB approval

process. I respect Julie Knapp, Mike Gallagher, and Steven Price and they deserve

praise for their work on this difficult issue. While we may have had differences at

times during the first phase of the Ultra Wideband (‘‘UWB’’) approval process, these

gentlemen worked very hard on the difficult and thankless task of UWB regulatory

approval. At times, they faced tremendous pressure from within their own agency

or department, other agencies or departments, and parts of the private sector, yet

they fought hard to find a way to respond to the participants in the process and

approve UWB. Their efforts have resulted in the first step in the UWB regulatory

approval process.

38

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, while you may hear different views

from the distinguished panelists today on specifics surrounding the UWB approval

process, I believe there are two points on which everyone will agree. First, we are

pleased the First Report & Order was adopted. It is an historic first step for a technology that will bring life-saving and other benefits to the public. Second, our spectrum management process can be improved to promote, rather than delay important

new technologies. Our current process takes too long to evaluate and approve new

technologies. The path to UWB regulatory approval took more than 13 years, including three and one half years of regulatory proceedings. This is far too much time,

if new technologies are going to have any chance of getting to market. Too often

government agencies and commercial interests act based on spectrum politics, rather than spectrum policy-making. There needs to be objective oversight in areas such

as testing and technical analysis that can form the basis for sound spectrum policymaking. Finally, there are often inherent conflicts within and among the government entities involved in spectrum management that diminish their ability to function independently. If we do not improve our process of spectrum management, we

will fall behind the rest of the world in deploying new technologies.

This morning, I would like to briefly cover the history of the UWB proceeding,

quickly discuss what the FCC’s First Report & Order means for industry and the

public, and then discuss in greater detail some of the challenges in the regulatory

process that we faced as a company seeking regulatory approval.

I. BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME DOMAIN CORPORATION AND ITS BREAKTHROUGH ULTRA

WIDEBAND TECHNOLOGY

A. History of Time Domain

Time Domain’s UWB technology was discovered in 1974 by the proverbial inventor in his garage—an Arkansan named Larry Fullerton. While in college, one of Fullerton’s engineering professors challenged his class by telling them that pulses of

the kind now used by Time Domain could not be sent through an antenna. Larry

Fullerton thought the professor might be wrong. After years of experimentation,

Fullerton succeeded in sending pulses that transmitted radio programming across

his workbench in Huntsville, Alabama.

Fullerton’s discovery remained hidden from the rest of the world for many years

as he toiled away in near obscurity. Many of the people with whom he shared his

discovery told him that what he claimed the technology could do simply could not

be done. Fullerton did not have the money to develop the technology for commercial

deployment, so he used whatever money he could scrape together to file patents on

his technology and build crude functioning prototypes.

After receiving his first patent in 1987, Fullerton founded Time Domain, with a

goal of building more support for his discovery and, ultimately, commercializing the

technology. While some progress was made in this regard, particularly in terms of

further technology development and acquiring additional patents, Time Domain remained a struggling small business for many years.

By 1995, Fullerton had 15 patents and had built 22 prototypes, including: radar

devices that could detect motion through walls, ‘‘see’’ underground, and create security bubbles to determine the exact size and shape of an object penetrating the bubble; location and tracking devices that worked like GPS, except that they did not

need satellites, worked underground and indoors where GPS could not go, and were

accurate to approximately two centimeters; and communications devices that could

wirelessly send digital video through walls.

In 1996, the Petroff family, who had been involved in NASA programs and several

successful start up technology companies recognized that Fullerton had potentially

discovered a once-in-a-generation technology. The Petroffs did a year’s worth of due

diligence on the technology and the patents and concluded that: (1) Fullerton had

excellent patent coverage on his UWB technology; (2) the UWB technology worked

and had the potential to be a fundamental technology; and (3) the technology was

enabling in that it could create entirely new products and even entirely new industries. The Petroffs proceeded to make a significant multi-million dollar investment

in Fullerton’s company and, convinced of the technology’s significance and potential,

joined the company as its management team.

By 1998, there was still no movement on obtaining regulatory approval and the

Petroffs had supplemented their initial investment with a substantial portion of

their net worth. In order for the company to remain solvent, the CEO was forced

to take out a mortgage on his house. Then, the technology community and press

began to discover UWB technology, writing stories that described a technology that

could potentially change the world, and investors began to invest in the company.

39

Today, Time Domain has attracted the attention of corporate America and financial investors, including a number of Fortune 500 strategic investors and more than

a dozen venture capital investors. The company is working on its third generation

chipset and has more than 240 patents filed or granted. The company has completed

or is currently working on more than 50 government contracts, most of which are

for the Department of Defense. The IEEE, the governing body for standards setting

in the engineering world, is working on a standard for UWB for consumer products.

The military is using UWB technology in more than 100 programs.

B. Time Domain’s Ultra Wideband Technology

UWB technology is different from existing radio. It does not use an assigned carrier frequency, nor does it employ sine waves using traditional concepts such as amplitude or frequency modulation. Instead, Time Domain’s technology uses extraordinarily brief pulses—from 40 million to a several billion a second. These pulses

emit very low energy, similar to the energy emitted by a Part 15 device such as a

laptop computer. As you know, Part 15 devices are not licensed. They operate at

very low power and may not cause harmful interference to other radio services. To

put this in context, a UWB device emits about 1/10,000th the power of a cell phone.

We initially approached regulatory approval believing that because our technology

met the Part 15 rules regarding emissions levels, UWB would be approved to operate under those same rules. The final rule does not allow UWB to operate at Part

15 power levels in key parts of the spectrum, but at power levels more than 2000

times less than Part 15 devices such as laptop computers. UWB is permitted to operate at Part 15 power levels in spectrum above 3.1 GHz. The FCC indicated, and

we agree, that this very conservative decision should be revisited in coming months.

Time Domain’s UWB technology produces vastly reduced wave cancellation from

multipath distortion of the sort that plagues conventional radio systems. This enables incredible efficiencies and several orders of magnitude improvement in three

areas: communications, radar, and position-location-tracking. This technology is

unique in that all three of these capabilities can be fused into a single chipset. Time

Domain’s business model is to design the chipset, which the company’s strategic

partners will then integrate into their own products to bring substantial new benefits to consumers, businesses and government.

II. THE FCC’S FIRST REPORT & ORDER: WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR INDUSTRY AND THE

PUBLIC?

We agree with the FCC’s public statements that the First Report & Order is a

very conservative first step. If you examine the text of the First Report & Order,

the word ‘‘conservative’’ appears 30 times, the word ‘‘cautious’’ appears 11 times,

and the word ‘‘limited’’ appears 36 times. Despite being a cautious first step, the

First Report & Order will permit some applications of UWB technology to reach the

market and benefit the public. Other applications of the technology that would have

been possible will have to wait for a reexamination of the limits set forth in the

First Report & Order.

What will the public see in the short to medium term from UWB? The first market where we believe the public will see UWB products is for personal area networking (‘‘PAN’’)—or connecting consumer electronics and personal computers in the

home and office. UWB can provide wireless connectivity among camcorders, PCs,

DVD players, flat screen television displays, digital cameras, printers, MP3 players

and other digital devices. UWB’s ability to transmit very high bandwidth over short

distances offers wireless connectivity for multimedia applications that no other technology can provide. Devices with UWB will consume low power enabling the technology in hand held devices and preserving these devices’ battery life. UWB will be

priced low enough for equipment manufacturers to include the technology in their

consumer electronic products. Finally, because of UWB’s use of spectrum, it can coexist with other technologies without causing or receiving interference like other

technologies operating in unlicensed spectrum. The IEEE is working on a standard

for UWB in PAN and large consumer electronics companies such as Motorola, Sony,

Intel, Phillips, Panasonic, Intersil, and Kodak are supporting the effort. We expect

products with UWB for the PAN market to be on store shelves as early as the end

of 2003.

The second market where we believe the public will see products in the near term

is for automotive radar. While Time Domain does not work in this area, we are

aware that Daimler Chrysler and other companies have performed considerable

work on automotive radars operating in the 24 GHz frequencies. We believe that

Daimler Chrysler has a working demonstration of a 24 GHz radar for automotive

collision avoidance sensors and is actively developing products for this application

using UWB.

40

A third market where we believe the public will see product shortly is in the applications for ground penetrating and through-wall radar. I am less qualified to talk

about GPRs than our panelist, whose company has worked with this application of

UWB for many years. As I am sure he will recount, they have been used for years

by public safety and law enforcement personnel, and others. Similar to ground penetrating radar, Time Domain has developed a through-wall imaging radar device

under military contract called RadarVision for the military, police, firefighters and

rescue workers. This may allow, for example, police to determine the location of people on the other side of a door; firefighters to determine in what room a victim

might be located in a burning building; and rescue workers to locate under earthquake rubble where a survivor may be alive simply by detecting breathing. Time

Domain’s RadarVision 2000 product will be ready for deployment in October this

year. Time Domain has successfully demonstrated the prototype product at major

law enforcement agencies including, the Fairfax County Rescue Squad and the Dade

County Search and Rescue team, two of the top organizations in the country that

respond to earthquakes to rescue victims.

Time Domain has had a waiver from the FCC to deploy a limited number of its

Radarvision products. The FCC’s First Report & Order extended the duration of the

waiver for an additional year. However, like the GPR community’s ground penetrating radar, Time Domain’s through-wall radar would not be able to achieve full

functionality under the rules set forth in the First Report & Order absent the extension of the waiver. Under the current rules, these devices would be able to be used

by the military and federal, but not state and local, law enforcement and public

safety personnel. Given that there will only be a limited number of these devices,

operated by trained life-saving first responders, we urge the FCC and NTIA to revisit this issue as quickly as possible so these devices can save lives in the hands

of state and local safety personnel, in the same manner as they will in the hands

federal users. I hope this is one change to the FCC rules on which we can all agree.

III. POTENTIAL LONG TERM BENEFITS OF UWB TECHNOLOGY TO THE PUBLIC

How can UWB benefit the public over time? UWB has the potential to enable entirely new wireless applications and products, and to make significant advances in

critical areas such as public safety, aviation safety, military effectiveness, medical

applications, and communications.

UWB enables radar with superior clutter rejection and much higher resolution

than traditional radar, achieving range resolutions of less than six inches. This facilitates new short-range radar applications such as ‘‘through-walls’’ radar and radar

that can ‘‘see’’ underground; security bubbles and electronic security fences that can

tell the exact size and shape of an object penetrating them; and sensors for ‘‘smart’’

airbag deployment. The military is evaluating UWB radar technology for terrain

mapping to aid in the location and removal of landmines.

Time Domain’s UWB technology enables precise-location-tracking applications

that complement GPS by providing relative position information to enhance the absolute position information provided by GPS. UWB technology can provide position

information indoors, underground, in urban canyons, and under foliage where GPS

often cannot provide position information. The positioning information from UWB

is accurate to within two centimeters. Thus, UWB can complement GPS by extending the reach of GPS locally indoors, underground, and in urban canyons based

upon the last GPS reading. The applications for this functionality are numerous.

UWB can be used to track which workers enter sensitive areas of hospitals, nuclear

plants, and military installations. The technology can be used to track assets such

as mobile, life-saving equipment in hospitals, packages and containers in a factory

or warehouse, or objects in the home. The military is currently evaluating the technology to solve one of their most difficult problems—the precise location and tracking of soldiers in urban combat and training exercises.

A number of firefighters and other first responders urged the FCC to allow public

safety use of UWB for tracking personnel, for example, tracking firefighters inside

a burning building. If this tracking use were permitted in the future, it could be

combined with communications functions to provide a dramatic improvement in firefighter safety. While we are not engaged in this business, we urge the Committee

to support the approval of these public-safety tracking applications when the FCC

reexamines the rules in six to twelve months.

In the area of communications, UWB can provide very high bandwidth, hundreds

of megabits per second, at very short distances. In time, UWB will enable ultra

high-speed indoor wireless networks across many devices for the true ‘‘smart’’ home

and office.

41

IV. THE REGULATORY APPROVAL PROCESS FOR UWB: LESSONS LEARNED

A. History of UWB Proceeding

Time Domain began its quest for regulatory approval in 1989 when Larry Fullerton made his first visit to Washington, DC to the FCC. I would like to briefly

summarize the process because I believe it demonstrates a number of ways that it

could be improved. During the subsequent early years after Larry’s first visit, and

even later, Time Domain met with FCC officials to move the regulatory approval

process for UWB forward. In 1992, a predecessor company that later merged with

Time Domain filed a request for a pioneer’s preference at the FCC which was denied

that same year. In 1994, the FCC granted Time Domain a special temporary authority to test UWB and Time Domain voluntarily filed its testing data to speed up the

regulatory process. In 1995, the company filed comments in the UNII proceeding

urging the FCC to approve UWB. In 1996, Time Domain presented an overview of

UWB technology to the FCC’s Office of Engineering Technology.

During the first half of 1997, Time Domain met with FCC labs and OET staff approximately a dozen times. In April 1997, Time Domain demonstrated UWB to the

Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee (‘‘IRAC’’) at NTIA and discussed intentionally radiating into the government bands at Part 15 level power. In September 1997, Time Domain demonstrated its technology for the FCC Office of Engineering Technology ‘‘(OET’’), FCC labs, NTIA, and ITS labs staff.

In February 1998, Time Domain filed a request for a waiver of Part 15 rules to

permit operation of a limited number of Radarvision devices for public safety and

law enforcement personnel. 14 law-enforcement, defense, public safety, and counterterrorism entities file comments in support of granting the waiver. No party filed

comments in opposition to the granting of the waiver request during the comment

period. From April 1998 to March 1999, Time Domain attended approximately 25

meetings with the FCC to discuss UWB technology. On June 30, 1998, OET wrote

a letter to the Office of Spectrum Management, NTIA, tentatively concluding that

Time Domain’s waiver request is ‘‘ripe for grant subject to coordination with NTIA.’’ In September 1998, the FAA Administrator’s office voiced strong opposition to the

use of UWB devices, claiming in a letter to the NTIA Administrator and the FCC

Chairman that a proliferation of UWB devices could pose potential safety problems

due to interference with avionics and navigation units.

During the next several months, Time Domain repeatedly met with FAA officials.

On May 11, 1999, the FAA Administrator writes a letter to the FCC Chairman in

which she agreed to remove FAA’s objections to Time Domain’s request for waiver.

On June 15, 1999, nearly a year after Time Domain first filed its waiver request,

NTIA indicated that the FCC could grant the waiver for use of 2500 units with nine

conditions on the use of the devices. On June 29, 1999, the FCC granted the waiver

requests from Time Domain and two other companies with the NTIA conditions attached. In August 1999, Professor Per Enge, on behalf of the GPS Industry Council,

filed a petition for reconsideration of the grant of the waiver requests. In September

1999, Professor Enge withdrew his petition for reconsideration of the grant of the

waiver requests.

On September 1, 1998, the FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry on UWB technology.

From August to November of 1999, Time Domain worked with NTIA’s ITS labs to

develop a test plan for testing UWB with GPS systems. On December 1, 1999, after

four months of working with ITS engineers on the test plan, NTIA staff oppose moving forward with testing and the plan is set aside. On September 29, 1999, the

Ultra-Wideband Working Group sponsored the first international Ultra-Wideband

Conference in Washington, D.C. Representatives from more than 14 countries attend, and the Working Group expands to more than 75 members. FCC Commissioner Susan Ness delivered the keynote address in which she calls on the FCC and

NTIA to: (1) issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on UWB within a few months;

(2) complete a rule making on UWB by the end of the year 2000; and (3) conduct

joint testing with government users and industry participants concurrently with the

rulemaking process.

On December 5-6, 1999, Time Domain learned that the Department of Transportation planned to sponsor a meeting at Stanford University to discuss testing for

potential interference of UWB with GPS. On December 7, 1999, representatives of

Time Domain attended the DOT/Stanford University meeting as uninvited participants. At the meeting, Professor Enge presented testing results that purport to

show that UWB devices cause harmful interference with GPS devices. As part of

his presentation, Professor Enge performed a demonstration in which he places a

UWB device operating at higher power levels than Part 15 in proximity to a GPS

receiver to demonstrate interference. Representatives of several of the airlines are

in attendance at the meeting. On December 21, 1999, the Air Transport Association

42

circulated a draft letter for Members of Congress to sign to William Kennard, Chairman of the FCC, expressing concerns over UWB technology.

On May 11, 2000, the FCC released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on UWB.

During the remainder of 2000 and the first half of 2001, NTIA, the Department of

Transportation and Stanford University, and the University of Texas and Johns

Hopkins University conducted compatibility studies and analysis between UWB and

other radio services. Interested parties filed hundreds of comments on the test results and other issues in the FCC docket during this period.

On November 20, 2001, Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz sent a letter to

Secretary Evans urging the FCC to delay its pending December decision on UWB.

On December 11, the FCC pulled the UWB item from its December 12, 2001 meeting agenda citing a request of the Commerce Secretary.

On February 14, 2002, the FCC adopted the First Report & Order in the UWB

proceeding. On March 20, 2002, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz sent letter to Secretary

Evans applauding his efforts in ensuring that the FCC’s UWB decision contained

sufficient safeguards to protect spectrum dependent military systems. On March 15,

2002, Deputy Assistant Secretary Gallagher sent a letter to Chairman Powell indicating that the government users may not be required to follow the rules in the

First Report & Order for use of UWB.

B. The Process for Approving New Technologies Takes Too Long

It took 13 years, including three and one half years of intensive efforts, to gain

regulatory approval for UWB. I personally made over 100 trips to Washington since

1996 to meet with regulators, and we spent several million dollars seeking regulatory approval. Often I am amazed that we are still in business. Fantasma Networks, the second largest UWB company that was backed by Intel and Paul Allen’s

Vulcan Ventures, went out of business last year waiting for regulatory approval.

Without the ability to earn revenue from government contracts with the Defense Department, we would have gone out of business years ago waiting for regulatory approval.

In today’s difficult business climate, early-stage companies have trouble raising

capital to sustain their businesses. Unlike the mid and late 1990’s when capital was

plentiful, companies today have less operating capital and thus shorter timelines to

get their products to market. No company or industry is going to be able to wait

several years for regulatory approval. There must be a way to shorten this process,

so that new technologies have a chance to get to market.

C. Conflicts Between Government Agencies on Spectrum Management

The UWB proceeding may have been unusual in that it involved both government

and commercial spectrum and a large number of incumbent users of spectrum. However, there are other issues, such as 3G, where this dynamic exists and there are

likely to be more such issues in the future. The legal requirement as I understand

it, is that the FCC and NTIA must ‘‘coordinate’’ on issues affecting commercial and

government spectrum. Throughout the UWB regulatory approval process, it appeared as though the FCC and NTIA had difficulty coordinating the views of the

government and commercial users of spectrum, as illustrated by a few examples

below.

It took NTIA nearly a year to obtain internal sign off by government users of

spectrum to approve with conditions the requests for waivers submitted by Time Domain and other companies. This despite the fact that the devices requested by Time

Domain were lifesaving instruments for public safety and law enforcement personnel, and all 2500 devices requested, if operating together in a single room, would

emit less than one quarter the power of a cell phone.

The FCC and NTIA had a very difficult time agreeing on the final wording of the

order on reconsideration of the waivers. The petition for reconsideration still had not

been dealt with at the time the FCC issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

nearly a year after the FCC first approved the requests for waivers. The FCC was

sufficiently concerned about its coordination efforts with NTIA that in its final order

dismissing the petitions for reconsideration, Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth expressed his views on the FCC interaction with NTIA on the item as:

. . . an unacceptable distortion of the appropriate consultative role that NTIA

should play in our decision making. Although the FCC and NTIA have a legitimate obligation to coordinate their activities regarding shared spectrum, NTIA’s

intrusive role in this proceeding is a source of concern for all of us who value

the independence of this Commission. Repeated NTIA editing of orders after

adoption undermines our independence and the integrity of our processes. No

other entity had repeated opportunities to review drafts of our decision. No

other entity was able to ‘‘sign off’’ on edits from Commissioner offices. Equally

43

important, neither the public, the parties, nor many of the Commissioners were

aware that this ‘‘process’’ was even going on. The process was not transparent

or even discernible. Those regulated by the Commission have a right to know

that FCC decisions are truly FCC decisions. When an item sits for five months

after adoption, it turns our voting process into a sham.

Once the staff has a complete record and develops its final recommendation

for the Commission, NTIA should not be provided with additional drafts or have

‘‘sign off’’ authority on revisions. The circulated Order should be the sole province of the Commissioners and the staff. NTIA has every right to be heard, but

no right to edit every word.

The FCC may have found itself in a difficult position evaluating test results for

compatibility between UWB and other systems when one of the major testing efforts

was performed by NTIA. The raw data of the different tests were very similar, although the interpretation of data varied to produce different ‘‘results.’’ It appears

as though the FCC did not have the resources to conduct its own independent testing.

It appears as though the FCC and NTIA may have had difficulty agreeing on the

rules for UWB in the First Report & Order. As reported in the trade press, the FCC

appeared ready to adopt rules for UWB in December of 2001 that reportedly were

significantly less restrictive than the rules ultimately adopted by the agency. As a

result of strongly worded, public letters from high level officials at the Defense Department to the Commerce Department, and the Commerce Department to the FCC,

adoption of these rules was postponed for 60 days to provide the Department of Defense additional time to submit their comments to NTIA. The proceeding had been

ongoing for more than three and one half years at this point. During the 60-day

delay, it appears as though the rules for UWB became more stringent as the FCC

strove to achieve the requisite consensus with NTIA on the rules.

While conflicts between agencies are nothing new, the conflicts in the UWB proceeding in large measure revolved around spectrum politics, not policy. This resulted in a lack of objectivity in interpreting technical data that made reaching

sound policy decisions more difficult.

D. The Regulatory Process Should Rely on Sound Spectrum Policy, Not Spectrum

Politics

In 2000, I had the opportunity to visit with David Hendon, the head of the Radio

Communications Agency in the UK, the British equivalent to our FCC Chairman

Powell. The U.K. had just finished their spectrum auctions for 3G licensees and

taken in more than 40 billion dollars. Mr. Hendon remarked that the North Atlantic

oil rights had sold for several billion dollars in the 1970’s, and, in inflation adjusted

terms, the sale of spectrum in the U.K. had fetched an even higher price, perhaps

making it the most valuable commodity on the planet. I think few would disagree

with him that spectrum has become the most valuable commodity on the planet

today for governments and commercial users. Not only is spectrum a limited commodity, but there is a finite amount of this valuable resource so that all spectrum

decisions are part of a virtual zero sum game: when one player gains another player

almost always loses. The battles over the last several years between government

users and commercial are a good example of this phenomenon. When spectrum was

reallocated from government users to auction for commercial use, government users

had to find new spectrum for their services. The zero sum game creates an incentive

for spectrum users to oppose all spectrum actions that might harm their interests,

and even those actions that are neutral or the effect of which is unknown. The lowest-cost, rational action is to oppose all spectrum management proposals that do not

directly benefit your position. This is true whether the actor in question is a government agency or a commercial user. So even when we proposed a use of spectrum

that would not require any incumbent to move and efficiently shared spectrum

under Part 15, there was no incentive for either commercial or government operators to support this new technology.

The Congress relies on the FCC and NTIA for spectrum management policymaking based on scientific analysis and objective assessment of competing needs

and interests. In the UWB proceeding, spectrum politics, rather than sound policymaking often dictated the course of decision making. For example, there were three

major testing efforts conducted on GPS and UWB compatibility: one by Stanford

University/DOT, another by NTIA, and a third effort funded by Time Domain and

conducted by the University of Texas and Johns Hopkins University. The results of

the three tests differed greatly from finding that there was no harmful interference

to GPS until the UWB devices were within one meter of each other to finding harmful interference at greater distances. The Department of Defense Joint Spectrum

Center analyzed the test data and found that the data were very close on all tests.

44

What differed among the three tests was the interpretation of the data based on

assumptions applied to the data about how UWB and GPS devices would operate

in the real world and the scenarios for UWB and GPS interaction. Parties used assumptions and scenarios that would produce the results they sought. This phenomenon was not limited to the GPS testing. The same dynamic occurred with the

PCS testing. In the absence of agreed upon joint testing and analysis by the NTIA,

the FCC, and commercial and government users, there needs to be an objective way

to evaluate the different test data, the assumptions, and scenarios. Otherwise, parties will simply spin technical data to their advantage without sound scientific basis

for their positions.

After the FCC requested parties in its NPRM to submit compatibility data, Time

Domain spent millions of dollars funding the University of Texas and Johns Hopkins University, two of the top GPS facilities in the country, to conduct testing

under their independent control. The test plan was created through an open process

in which numerous parties participated, including UWB opponents. In the final

analysis in the Report & Order, the UT/JHU test data was almost entirely ignored.

Whether this occurred because an interested party funded the test, or the results

disagreed with preconceived philosophical positions is open to debate. If privatelyfunded tests are going to be dismissed, then the government needs to have the capability and the mission to test objectively and independently of even the government’s

own, internal interested constituents.

E. Conflicts Within Government Agencies

The Commerce Department plays a critical role in promoting new technologies

and advising the President on technology and telecommunications issues. The Commerce Department, through NTIA, also plays an important role in managing the

spectrum used by federal agencies and departments. When it comes to spectrum

management issues, these two roles may conflict, as they did in the UWB proceeding. The Commerce Department may want to promote new technologies to save

lives, benefit the public, and help the economy, but it also must protect the spectrum of its government users. When these two missions conflict, the likely losers

will be the commercial interests seeking to promote new technologies. In the case

of UWB, for example, the Office of Spectrum Management within NTIA played a

large role in the proceeding, while the Technology Administration did not participate. This is understandable, as the Commerce Department’s government agency

constituents may claim that national security and public safety demand that their

spectrum be protected at any cost. There is no question that government spectrum

should be protected, as there are lives that depend on this spectrum being free from

harmful interference. However, the question is who should make the determination

as to whether there is a threat to the government spectrum, and how to balance

the possibility of any effect on government spectrum with advancing new technologies?

Today, the NTIA and the FCC coordinate their views and make these decisions

jointly. However, when it comes to spectrum management, the government is an interested party—it holds spectrum, fights to maintain its spectrum, and seeks to acquire additional spectrum. At the same time, however, the government also sits in

judgment of what spectrum can be made available to non-government users. It is

in effect operating as a party to proceedings and the judge of those very same proceedings.

The potential conflict of interest inherent in such an arrangement is obvious on

its face. However, it goes one step further. Since the release of the First Report &

Order, government agencies have been debating whether government users of UWB

have to follow the same rules that the government has imposed upon non-government users. Paragraph 273 of the First Report & Order suggests that government

users might have to follow the rules set forth in the First Report & Order. However,

the Commerce Department has informed the FCC in a letter last week that they

do not believe this to be the case. It appears as though Commerce was acting in

its role as judge, rather than a party to the proceeding in informing the FCC of this

position.

These conflicts are not unique to UWB. They have occurred in the past. They will

occur in the future over issues such as 3G. In any proceeding in which the government is both an interested party due to its need to protect and increase its spectrum

and arbitrating the rights of non-government users to spectrum it cares about, there

is a potential conflict of interest. This potential conflict is heightened by the fact

that the government does not have to reveal its views and role in shaping a proceeding to the same extent as non-government participants.

45

F. Secrecy on Issues of Spectrum Management Affecting Non-Government Interests.

Throughout the process we met frequently with the FCC and NTIA, and on a few

occasions with DOD, NASA, and the FAA. At least one agency, even took pride in

what they stated as an ‘‘open door’’ policy. However, while the door may have been

open, the information from government agencies was not always forthcoming. The

NTIA, for example, took the stance that they would meet with us and listen to our

viewpoint, but they could not provide any information on their position, nor respond

to any information we presented. It is difficult for commercial users to know what

issues may exist with their proposed use of spectrum that impacts government spectrum or respond to proposals generated by government agencies without openness.

This is not an issue when NTIA is making a decision that only affects government

users of spectrum. In those instances, the issue is debated before the IRAC and a

position reached. However, when NTIA is making a decision that affects both government and commercial users of spectrum, secrecy often prevents non-government

users from commenting on information that directly affects them. IRAC proceedings

are generally closed to non-government entities, even when the issues debated concern NTIA’s views on non-government use of spectrum.

The FCC conducted a proceeding in which contacts with the agency were permitted, but were required to be disclosed on the record in the FCC docket. There

were more than 900 comments filed in the first phase of UWB proceeding. However,

government as a commenter to the FCC did not need to comply with the ex parte

rules, and—sent letters and filings to FCC that were not made public before the decision. It was very difficult for interested parties in the proceeding to assess these

filings or rebut them. Perhaps more disturbing, the government sent letters to the

FCC saying their studies supported conclusions of interference, but they did not

submit the studies. This prevented any evaluation or critique of these claims by parties to the proceeding.

V. CONCLUSION

There is a worldwide race to deploy UWB. Since FCC approval of UWB, startups

have sprouted up in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Europe and parts of Asia

are moving quickly to approve UWB for commercial use. Some countries, such as

Singapore, are examining approval UWB at higher power levels than the levels set

forth in the FCC’s First Report & Order. While these parts of the world may be the

first countries to enjoy the full promise of UWB, this is an undesirable outcome.

UWB was invented in the United States and the U.S. should enjoy the benefits of

the technology and retain technological leadership in UWB.

The United States’ future with UWB and other new technologies depends on an

efficient system of spectrum management. Our regulatory processes must operate in

a timely manner in which the agencies charged with spectrum management collaborate to advance the deployment of new technologies, while protecting the rights of

incumbents. Our proceedings must operate according to science, not spectrum politics. And the public needs to have some information on the positions government

agencies are taking with regard to spectrum decisions that affect non-government

users. Our global economic competitiveness depends on it.

I hope that some good will come from the process we went through with UWB

approval, so future technologies will have an easier path through the regulatory

process. Perhaps the lessons learned from UWB approval can help improve our spectrum management process to better advance new technologies, while protecting

spectrum incumbents.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify. I would be happy to answer

any questions.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Johnson.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS J. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the

subcommittee.

Mr. UPTON. You need to move the mike over a little closer to you.

Mr. JOHNSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the

subcommittee. I am pleased to be here on behalf of Geophysical

Survey Systems, GSSI, which is one of several manufacturers of

ground penetrating radar, or GPR. For the past 32 years, GSSI has

designed, manufactured and sold GPR systems worldwide. We

46

thank you for the opportunity to be here today to speak about GPR

and the recent UWB Report and Order issued by the Federal Communications Commission. The new regulations are an extremely

important subject to everyone in the GPR industry.

I want to be clear that I am speaking for only a part of the UWB

industry. This part is called ground penetrating radar. GPR is a

very important class of UWB devices with a long history of applications relating to public safety, infrastructure inspection, and I will

comment on those more shortly. First, let me explain a little bit

about GPR.

Ground penetrating radar is an established technology widely

used in a variety of applications in the United States and the rest

of the world. GPR looks downward into the earth, fresh water, ice

and man-made materials, such as concrete, to non-destructively detect anomalies. Many of these applications provide unique and significant safety-of-life and other benefits in the public interest.

I have four points to make today: One, GPR is an established

technology with many important applications. GPR is different

from air UWB transmitters and should be treated differently in the

regulations. No. 2, there is no record of GPR interference with

other receivers—32 years. The two most onerous and confusing provisions in the new rules were not contained in the NPRM, which

gave us no opportunity to comment on them during the rulemaking

process. We only found out about them after the rulemaking was

concluded. No. 4, if the rules are not changed, the outcome and consequences for the GPR industry are extremely serious. Many companies will go out of business and the public’s access to a new and

useful technology will be severely limited, if not eliminated.

To amplify those four points, GPR is an established industry. We

are one of several manufacturers and for the past 32 years, we

have been selling equipment worldwide. In a nutshell, the business

was started in 1970 in New Hampshire, developed and sold the

first commercial GPR systems that same year. Average selling

price is about $25,000 per system. It is not a consumer product. We

have been a GSA supplier since 1984. Products have been sold to

over 25 government agencies, including every military branch. We

have sold products and exported to 50 countries. Some working systems are now 10 to 15 years old and still ticking.

So some of the standard applications for GPR include utility pipe

detection and 3D mapping. Safety for the public is a consideration.

Concrete inspection to find rebar and pipes, fiber optic lines before

cutting and coring into concrete. Again, safety a consideration.

Highway inspection to identify voids, pipes and required pavement

thickness. Again, safety a consideration. Bridge deck inspection for

quality assurance condition assessment and maintenance decisions;

public safety a consideration. Geophysical surveys to locate bedrock, water tables and other geological properties, detection of voids

and anomalies before construction; safety a consideration. Airport

runway inspection to find voids for quality assurance of pavement

thickness. Our equipment has been used at every major airport in

the country during flight operations with no interference. Railroad

bed inspection to find leaking pipes and voids; safety a consideration. Forensics, locating bodies and evidence in criminal cases. Environmental contamination surveys to determine location and exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:16 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 80674.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
47

tent of contamination, pipe leaks, waste pits; safety a consideration. Archaeology, mapping of underground sites prior to digging.

Mining, location of mineral deposits, seams and water levels; safety

a consideration. Measuring ice thickness in rivers, lakes and the

Antarctic; safety a consideration. It is worth noting that GPR systems are compatible with GPS systems, because we have sold them

together for over 10 years. No interference.

I want to give you a few of the more interesting one-of-a-kind

discoveries. Discovery of the wooly mammoth in Siberia—you

might have seen that on the Discovery Channel; survey of unopened royal tomb in Xian, China; discovery of unknown village

near Macchu Pichu—that was on National Geographic a month

ago. We have done surveys at Mount Vernon, Monticello, FDR’s

home; discovery of emerald deposit in North Carolina, North Americas largest emerald deposit discovery. And we are also developing

a GPR system to go to Mars. The purpose, to define creek beds

where remnants of life might be found.

More applications can be listed but clearly GPR technology has

a high value to society in the United States and the rest of the

world. We mention the rest of the world because as many of you

know, the UWB standards set here will surely be followed in other

countries.

GPR is different from air UWB transmitters. I see I am over my

time, but if you don’t mind, I will keep going, sir. During the rulemaking process, there was a tendency to treat GPR as just another

UWB transmission device. There are several important distinctions

between GPR and other UWB transmission devices to consider

when formulating rules for UWB transmission. By definition, GPR

looks downward into the earth, water, ice and man-made materials.

GPR is not intended for air transmission. GPR manufacturers go

to great lengths to minimize air transmission. In addition to the

fact that GPR does not intend to transmit into air, GPR is also different from air UWB devices in spectrum used and in Pulse Repetition Rate.

Comments on the UWB rulemaking process. The long history of

GPR and the testing of GPR equipment provide no basis for these

regulations, and we were not even aware of some of them until

they appeared in the final Report and Order. As I mentioned earlier, many important aspects of the published rules were a complete surprise to the GPR community, as they were not part of the

public disclosure and debate. At no time in the past 30 years has

the FCC recorded any GPR interference with other receivers. Indeed, one of the few areas in which all parties agreed throughout

the FCC proceeding was that GPRs were not a source of interference. The proposed FCC rules published for comment did not include the NTIA coordination requirements and limits on who can

buy GPRs, as one example.

The probable consequences of the new regulations will be two immediate outcomes for the GPR industry. One is substantial reduction of sales for GPR manufacturing companies; two, many GPR

service providers, our customers, will go out of business. The longterm impact of the new regulations will be the end of the GPR industry.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Johnson——

48

Mr. JOHNSON. In summary—— Mr. UPTON. That helps you, ‘‘In summary.’’ All right.

Mr. JOHNSON. In summary, we propose that the FCC treat GPR

differently from other UWB devices, because GPR is different from

other forms of wireless communication. Surprise rules such as

those encountered with the UWB regulations should not be a part

of the process to regulate and allocate bandwidth. We are confident

that reasonable regulatory requirements can be developed that will

allow for the development and use of new wireless air transmission

UWB devices, while protecting current users of the spectrum and

the continued growth of the GPR industry. We look forward to

working with policymakers on that subject. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Dennis J. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS J. JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY

SYSTEMS, INC.

Good morning Chairman Tauzin, Sub-committee Chairman Upton, and members

of the Sub-committee. I am pleased to be here today on behalf of Geophysical Survey

Systems, Inc. (GSSI), which is one of several manufacturers of ground penetrating

radar (GPR) systems. For the past 32 years, GSSI has designed, manufactured and

sold GPR equipment worldwide. We thank you for the opportunity to be here to

speak about GPR and the recent ultra-wideband (UWB) Report and Order issued

by the Federal Communications Commission. The new regulations are an extremely

important subject to everyone in the GPR industry.

I want to be clear that I am speaking for only a part of the UWB industry. This

part is called ground penetrating radar or GPR. GPR is a very important class of

UWB devices, with a long history of applications relating to public safety and infrastructure inspection that I will comment on shortly.

I have four points to make today:

1. GPR is an established technology with many important applications. GPR is different from air UWB transmitters and should be treated differently in the regulations.

2. There is no record of GPR interference with other receivers.

3. The two most onerous and confusing provisions in the new rules were not contained in the NPRM, which gave us no opportunity to comment on them during

the rulemaking process. We only found out about them after the rulemaking

was concluded.

4. If the rules are not changed, the outcome and consequences for the GPR industry

are extremely serious. Many companies will go out of business... and the

public’s access to a very useful technology will be severely limited, if not eliminated.

Point #1: GPR is an established industry

Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. (GSSI), is one of several manufacturers of GPR

systems. For the past 32 years, GSSI has designed, manufactured and sold GPR

equipment worldwide.

In a nutshell . .

• Business started 1970, purchased by the Oyo Group, Tokyo, 1990

• Developed and sold first commercial GPR systems in 1970

• Average selling price $25,000 per system (range $13,000 to $100,000)

• A GSA supplier since 1984

• Products sold to over 25 government agencies in the U.S.

• Products sold and exported to 50 countries

• Some working systems are 10 to 15 years old, and still ‘‘ticking’’

An important class of UWB devices is Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR). GPR is

an established technology widely used in a variety of applications in the United

States and the rest of the world. GPR looks downward into the earth, fresh water,

ice and man-made materials to non-destructively detect anomalies. Many of these

applications provide unique and significant safety-of-life and other benefits in the

public interest.

Standard applications for GSSI GPR equipment include:

• Utility pipe detection and 3D mapping (safety a consideration)

49

• Concrete inspection to find rebar and pipes and fiber optic lines before cutting or

coring (safety a consideration) • Highway inspection to identify voids, pipes and required pavement thickness

(safety a consideration) • Bridge deck inspection for quality assurance condition assessment and maintenance decisions • Geophysical surveys (locate bedrock, water table and other geological properties,

also detection of voids and anomalies) • Airport runway inspection to find voids and for quality assurance of pavement

thickness (used at all major airports and by NASA) (safety a consideration) • Railroad bed inspection to find leaking pipes and voids (safety a consideration) • Forensics (locating bodies, evidence, etc.) • Environmental contamination surveys to determine location and extent of contamination, pipe leaks, waste pits, etc. (safety a consideration) • Archaeology—mapping of underground sites prior to digging • Mining, location of mineral deposits, seams and water levels (safety a consideration) • Measure ice thickness in rivers, lakes and in Antarctic research (safety a consideration)

(It is worth noting that GPR systems and GPS systems are compatible; indeed

GPR systems are sold with GPS systems without special modification.)

Non standard and ‘‘once-in-a-lifetime’’ uses/results of GPR surveys:

• Discovery of the wooly mammoth in Siberia (Discovery channel) • Survey of unopened tomb in Xian, China • Discovery of unknown village near Macchu Pichu (National Geographic expedition) • Surveys at Mount Vernon, Monticello, and FDR’s home • Frozen river bed survey—Russia • Discovery of buried murder victims, some leading to convictions • Discovery of emerald deposit in North Carolina, North Americas largest find • Developing a GPR system to go to Mars; purpose, to define creek beds where remnants of life might be found

More applications can be listed but clearly GPR technology has a high value to

society in the United States and the rest of the world. We mention the ‘‘rest of the

world’’ because as many of you know, the UWB standards set here will surely be

followed in many other countries.

Point #2: GPR is different from air UWB transmitters

During the rule-making process, there has been a tendency to treat GPR as just

another UWB transmission device. There are several important distinctions between

GPR and other UWB transmission devices to consider when formulating rules for

UWB transmission:

• By definition, GPR looks downward into the earth, water, ice and man-made materials to non-destructively detect anomalies. GPR is not intended for air transmission. GPR manufacturers go to some length to reduce unwanted air transmissions. • In addition to the fact that GPR does not intend to transmit into air, GPR is also

different from air UWB transmitters in Pulse Repetition Rate and in the frequency spectrum used. • A primary issue behind rule changes centers on the protection of Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system operations. GPR works well with GPS systems,

as evidenced by the fact that for the past 10 years GPR manufacturers have

sold GPS systems that work successfully in conjunction with their GPR systems.

Point #3: Comments on the UWB Rule-Making Process

The long history of GPR and the testing of GPR equipment provide no basis for

these regulations, and we were not even aware of them until they appeared in the

final Report and Order. As I mentioned earlier, many important aspects of the published rules were a complete surprise to the GPR community as they were not part

of the public disclosure and debate. Isn’t the rulemaking process itself designed to

be the opportunity for public disclosure and debate? Surely were we to have had

knowledge of these particular rules, we could have easily explained why they are

inappropriate and unnecessary.

The background leading to this nexus:

• FCC Rules, Part 15, created for frequency domain transmitters to keep systems

from interfering with each other

• Original Part 15 Rules did not contemplate UWB transmitters (time domain).

50

• At no time in the past 30 years has the FCC recorded any GPR interference with

other receivers.

• All parties agreed throughout the FCC proceeding that GPRs are NOT a source

of interference.

• UWB rules are now being written for the first time.

• The proposed FCC rules published for comment in 2000 did NOT include the

NTIA coordination requirements and limits on who can buy GPRs—and the

FCC cannot lawfully adopt rules that were never proposed.

• We believe that requirements for overly stringent rules come from (1) a perceived

need to protect against in-the-wall and through-the wall radars, not GPRs; and

(2) NTIA policy (not technical) concerns about ‘‘intentional’’ emissions into certain bands, even at completely harmless levels.

• The new UWB rules protect GPS frequency spectrum beyond reasonable limits,

resulting in the elimination of an entire industry—the GPR industry.

Point #4: The probable consequences of the new regulations

The recently published regulations intended to govern UWB devices will have two

immediate outcomes for the GPR industry:

1. Substantial reduction of sales for GPR manufacturing companies

2. Many GPR service providers will go out of business

The longer-term impact of the new regulations will be the end of the GPR industry.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

We propose that the FCC treat GPR differently from other UWB devices—because

GPR is different from all forms of wireless communication. (See above)

Surprise rules such as those encountered with the UWB regulations should not

be a part of the process to regulate and allocate bandwidth, or for any rulemaking

process.

We are confident that reasonable regulatory requirements can be developed which

will allow for the development and use of new wireless air transmission UWB devices, while protecting current users of the spectrum and enabling the continued

growth of the GPR industry. We look forward to working with policymakers on that

solution.

Thank you.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. I would recognize first from the panel

the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Tauzin.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Petroff did a

good job of putting this in perspective when he compared the width

of a human hair to the Empire State Building in terms of the relative position of Part 15 services. But let put it in layman’s terms.

The last time the Commission, Mr. Knapp, reviewed its Part 15

rules was 1989. In 1989, there was a big revision that followed up

on actions in the 1960s and the 1980s to open up Part 15 services

for Americans. I want to talk about some of the devices that came

into being because the Commission was willing to open up Part 15

rules in the 1960s and 1980s.

Provisions were made under Part 15 to permit the operation of

such things as wireless microphones, telemetry systems, garage

door openers, TV interface devices, you know, like video recorders.

Wouldn’t have them but for the 1980’s amendments. Such things

as a field disturbance centers, you know the anti-theft systems in

stores, auditory assistance devices for people with hearing defects,

control and security alarm apparatus, cordless telephones. That is

what we are talking about. We are talking about all these little devices that Americans use in so many different ways to make our

lives comfortable and useful and to protect us in alarm systems, et

cetera, that wouldn’t be in existence but for Part 15 rules that say

you don’t need to go get a license from the FCC to buy a VCR, for

heaven sakes.

51

That is what we are talking about, folks. We are talking about

those kinds of devices under Part 15, and the Commission has generally been very good about making sure those devices come to the

marketplace. In fact, in the 1989 proceedings, Mr. Knapp, I am

going to read it to you: ‘‘We note that NTIA’s calculations represent

theoretical noise levels generated with a receiver under ideal conditions. They do not take into consideration existing background

noise, et cetera. NTIA’s calculations appear to represent the worstcase situation. NTIA has also not supplied any information detailing the cumulative effect referenced in their comments.’’

And then it goes on, ‘‘For these reasons, we are not adopting

NTIA’s proposal for tighter emission limits for the restricted

bands.’’ In 1989, the Commission had guts. It stood up for consumers, and it stood up for commercial use of new technologies,

and it said to the NTIA, ‘‘Unless you can come in and prove to us

that something is really here instead of these imagined problems,

we are not going to adopt your restricted standards. We are going

to give this stuff a chance to show us what it can do.’’

It noted in that same review that in fact there is no evidence

that licensed communication services have been significantly impacted by the widespread proliferation of computing devices operating under proposed limits. You made the point, Mr. Petroff, all

the computers, we don’t go get a license from the Federal Government to have a PC in America. So we have got devices operating

in this Part 15 area, and I suppose the first question I have to ask

you, Mr. Knapp, has there ever been any documented evidence of

interference by Part 15 devices to GPS or other safety-of-life systems in this country?

Mr. KNAPP. Not that I am aware of.

Chairman TAUZIN. Not that you are aware of. And I guarantee

you won’t find it anywhere in the record. All these devices operating, no documented evidence of any interference at these such

limited low levels of operation of power with any lifesaving systems.

Now, Mr. Petroff, Mr. Price makes a comment in his written

statement that commercial vendors do not need to operate below

3.1 gigahertz in order to market UWB devices commercially. Would

you respond to that?

Mr. PETROFF. Well, I think that is a reference in the written testimony to one company, Kohler, the plumbing manufacturer

who——

Chairman TAUZIN. Yes. In fact, Mr. Price brags about one manufacturer, Kohler, operating at 6 megahertz and say if they can do

it, anybody can do it, right? What device is operated by Kohler at

6 megahertz?

Mr. PETROFF. It is a plumbing fixture.

Chairman TAUZIN. It is a toilet flusher.

Mr. PETROFF. Yes.

Chairman TAUZIN. Yes, right. It is a toilet flusher. So we are

going to have to apparently walk by our toilets to operate our home

video systems if we have to operate at 6 megahertz. I mean for you

to cite one device, a toilet flusher, as a good example of how these

tight restrictions can work, if that is all we are going to get out of

52

this, is toilets that flush when we walk by then instead of having

to pull the handle, woopy ding.

I am serious, guys. I mean that is hardly something to brag

about, and the tight restrictions that NTIA has recommended, that

the Commission just adopted this time, when in 1989 they said,

‘‘No, we are not going to do that. We are not going to adopt such

tight restrictions without proof that there is real problem, because

we know of no problems. There has never been a documented case

of a problem. So we are not going to take your advice and adopt

these restrictions.’’ But this time, Mr. Knapp, you did. This time

you said, ‘‘Look, we have got joint jurisdiction here. We talk about

background noise, we have got governmental uses that obviously

have a problem with background noise. So we have two responsibilities here: NTIA has one and we have one.’’ What was NTIA’s responsibilities in this case, Mr. Gallagher? What was NTIA’s responsibility first? What was your job?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Our job was to find the right answer, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. Was to find what?

Mr. GALLAGHER. The right answer, find the right balance.

Chairman TAUZIN. But who do you represent? Don’t you represent protecting the government spectrum uses?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, we have two responsibilities

under our enabling statute: One is the President’s primary advisory on telecommunications matters——

Chairman TAUZIN. Right. I understand that point.

Mr. GALLAGHER. [continuing] and the other is the manage the

Federal spectrum.

Chairman TAUZIN. Management of the Federal spectrum. What

is your responsibility in this shared responsibility, Mr. Knapp?

What is the FCC’s job when you have got to work with the NTIA

in coming up with the right policy?

Mr. KNAPP. Certainly, one of our roles is to make sure that our

rules are as flexible as possible, that they allow the technology, and

in this case ultrawideband technology——

Chairman TAUZIN. Is your job simply to say that the manager of

the Federal spectrum will adopt your restrictions, whatever they

are?

Mr. KNAPP. When it comes to spectrum that is allocated on exclusive primary basis for the Federal Government, we provide wide

deference to their recommendation.

Chairman TAUZIN. Provide wide deference to them. In 1989, you

say, ‘‘No deal. We are not adopting those restrictions.’’ But this

year you did. This year you said, ‘‘Okay, we will go ahead and take

the NTIA’s word on it, and we will adopt such tight restrictions on

the use of this new technology that in some cases, we hear testimony, it might not survive.’’ What is the difference? What happened between 1989 and now?

Mr. KNAPP. Well, the difference was the standards that you are

referring to are spurious emissions as contrasted to an

ultrawideband product.

Chairman TAUZIN. The difference is intention.

Mr. KNAPP. Yes.

53

Chairman TAUZIN. Yes. The difference is that this technology is

based upon using literally background noise. It is based upon intentional emissions. It is not just spurious, they just happen. But

shouldn’t the technology, the engineering question be not whether

you intended it or whether it was accidental but whether it in fact

causes any problem? Shouldn’t that be the real question?

Mr. KNAPP. Certainly.

Chairman TAUZIN. Yes. But that is not what happened here.

What happened here is that you made a different decision based

upon the fact that this technology intends to do it, intends to emit

into the spectrum, whereas computing services and garage door

openers and cordless telephones just do it accidentally so they are

okay. Where is the rationale for that, where is the engineering rationale for that distinction?

Mr. KNAPP. Part of the concern is that when we allow products

to intentionally emit in particular bands there is always the risk

that they will proliferate and add up.

Chairman TAUZIN. We may get a lot of computers and we may

get a lot of garage door openers. Haven’t we gotten a lot of computers and a lot of garage openers? Didn’t the Commission in 1989

say, ‘‘The NTIA has given no information regarding the cumulative

effect referred to in their comments,’’ and haven’t we found out

since 1989 that there is no such thing as a cumulative effect, that

all our computers and all this equipment is not having the deleterious effect that the NTIA predicted it would have in 1989.

Mr. KNAPP. Yes.

Chairman TAUZIN. Right. So the facts are that in 1989 you said, ‘‘You didn’t bring us any evidence of the cumulative effect of these

spurious emissions,’’ and sure enough since 1989 the cumulative effect has not shown up, there has been no documented case of interference. But in this case, when you look at it, you said, ‘‘Even

though you didn’t bring us any information regarding the cumulative effect and even though the facts, reality, tells us that there

has been no cumulative effect, as was predicted by the Commission

in 1989, we are going to clamp down on this new technology this

year.’’ You see why I am a little confused as to the FCC’s role this

year?

Mr. KNAPP. Yes.

Chairman TAUZIN. This year, it looks like the FCC said to the

NTIA, ‘‘Okay. We understand your hypothetical concerns, we understand your argument there may be a cumulative effect, so we

will just adopt your restrictions this year.’’ You understand.

Mr. KNAPP. Right.

Chairman TAUZIN. And all of a sudden now new technologies

may not make it—may not survive, and consumers may be denied

a lot of new products; worse than that, we might not find bodies

in rubble, we might not find people in time to save their lives the

next earthquake or the next 9/11 catastrophe. Or we may not be

able to locate somebody lost inside a building or lost inside some

natural disaster in Louisiana when a hurricane strikes or something, because this technology may not be there. We may not have

a better alarm system, we may not have a better military protection system for our country, better military communications in the

field battle, because we restricted these communications. We may

54

not have the home video distribution systems in broadband we

want 1 day. All kind of things we may not have because you decided this year just to go ahead and adopt the NTIA restrictions

without proof that their claims of potential interference were real.

You see our concerns.

Mr. KNAPP. I do understand, and I——

Chairman TAUZIN. Look, I don’t want to beat up on you terminably, although I enjoyed it.

I simply want to make the case that you said you could do something in 6 to 12 months to review these rules and to decide whether or not you have been too restrictive, as you think you have been,

even in your own report. Now, I am counting on you, and I think

America is counting on you, to do a good job and all of you to help

the Commission get a good job done on here. And if you have to

amend this order in order to give this technology a chance to show

what it can do in a way that gives us reasonable assurance it will

not interfere or that you can pull the plug on it if it does, then for

heaven sake’s do that. I mean the FCC is supposed to be the balance to the NTIA. It is supposed to say to the NTIA once in a

while, ‘‘No, you just can’t come stop something because you are

scared of it. You can’t stop something because you think it might

be hurtful or damaging somewhere. Come show us what you got.’’

So let us do some quick show-and-tell over the next 6 to 12

months, and we will be watching carefully the process at the FCC,

and we will be watching carefully NTIA’s collaborative efforts and

Defense and Transportation and all of you guys in trying to work

this out. But for heaven sakes, don’t let anybody out there who has

a commercial product encourage you to stop a new one from coming

in just because it might be better, because there are some of us

who believe maybe that is going on too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Recognize Mr. Markey.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. First, I

would like to ask Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Knapp to explain how

they intend to proceed on resolving unintended impacts with respect to ground penetrating radar systems. Please give me both

your short-term and long-term suggestions on how to address the

issue. And then, Mr. Johnson, I would like you to comment on their

explanations. And I have one other question I want to ask, so

please try to be brief in your answer. Mr. Gallagher.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Mr. Markey. First, the process is already underway in which we are understanding the concerns and

we have already met with the GPR community to address the path

forward. There was absolutely no intention of limiting or inhibiting

the growth of small business or overregulating any particular set

of entities. We are purely concerned about the emissions above the

ground from GPR receivers. And some of the specific thoughts that

we have discussed with the community are enhancing our definition, which currently restricts the eligible users, also, perhaps, if

it is necessary, a waiver of some sort, and, finally, more closely understanding and testing their equipment, which up to this point

has not been tested by the FCC or by NTIA to understand the

types of emissions that are coming out from around the device.

Again, it is not the emissions that are focused into the ground,

55

there is no limit on those, the R&O simply speaks to what leaks

around the edges.

Mr. MARKEY. What is your timetable for fixing the problem?

Mr. GALLAGHER. With all due haste.

Mr. MARKEY. What does that mean? This year?

Mr. GALLAGHER. We will work with the FCC. I think there are

some technical limitations imposed by regulatory rules that we

need to comply with, but as fast as we can under those constraints.

Mr. MARKEY. Okay. So you don’t have like an FBI-CIA relationship, right?

Mr. GALLAGHER. No. No, absolutely not.

Mr. MARKEY. So let us go—I mean you are not putting that up

as some big barrier. I mean that actually telescopes the timeframe

that we have to work with the FCC, right? Let us go to you, Mr.

Knapp.

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. First of all, we are very supportive of the GPR

technology. We certainly don’t want to shut down this industry;

they are very worthwhile products. I think the immediate things

we can do, part of it had to do with the wording of the usage restrictions in the rules. Certainly, what we have heard described to

us is the applications, including consultant use, for example, in inspecting the foundations of buildings, were all envisioned in our

Report and Order. So I think that we have some latitude to take

care of that problem without a further order.

On the issue of coordination, we want to make that as streamlined as possible so that, for example, rather than getting a coordination for every individual use, you could get a coordination for

statewide operation if you are a State highway department.

Mr. MARKEY. So how much time to fix this issue?

Mr. KNAPP. Immediately. I think we are already talking about

how we can address those issues. The coordination issue I think we

can take care of, working together between the agencies—— Mr. MARKEY. By the end of this year?

Mr. KNAPP. Certainly.

Mr. MARKEY. Certainly. Excellent. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Because of the Internet and the widespread information being transferred to everybody very fast, many of our customers that have placed orders have already canceled them because of the impending rules. We have had other potential customers call and say they are not going to place an order because

of the rules. So we are already being impacted today by the rules

that will go into effect. So I do appreciate—we have had some

meetings with Mr. Knapp and the FCC, do appreciate their consideration in doing something immediately to give us some immediate

relief.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. And my second and final question is I

have introduced legislation, H.R. 4641, that would, among a number of other things, require NTIA and the FCC to work together

to make progress in creating a spectrum commons. The Legislation

asks for chunks of spectrum to be freed up and clear but not auctioned to the private sector. Instead such frequencies would remain

unlicensed and therefore available for use by the general public.

High-tech manufacturers, entrepreneurs and the proverbial kid in

the garage could make more robust use of wireless communications

56

if sufficient spectrum were available in unlicensed form for the general public. Such a public set-aside could foster the formulation of

an open platform for innovation, entrepreneurial activity and public communications. It would also militate against unhealthy consolidation of spectrum in the hands of too few providers. We have

already seen growth in Blue Tooth and 802.11 technologies, but we

need to do more. Is the spectrum commons idea a good idea or a

bad idea, yes or not, that is all? Yes or no, Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not sure how to answer that, sir.

Mr. MARKEY. Okay. Mr. Petroff?

Mr. PETROFF. Yes, an excellent idea.

Mr. MARKEY. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Knapp?

Mr. KNAPP. Yes.

Mr. MARKEY. Yes. Mr. Shane?

Mr. SHANE. It would have to be a pretty wide spectrum, a wide

commons to accommodate ultrawideband.

Mr. MARKEY. But good idea?

Mr. SHANE. If it were feasible, yes, sir.

Mr. MARKEY. Okay. Yes. Mr. Price?

Mr. PRICE. It depends if part of it means taking spectrum from

DOD for the commons.

Mr. MARKEY. Okay.

Mr. PRICE. If not, I support it, sir.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Gallagher?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Seeing how we are able to expand here, I would

say that it is a good idea when you measure where the spectrum

is going to come from and also that we avoid a tragedy of the commons.

Mr. MARKEY. I understand that, but if we could do that, yes?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Absolutely.

Mr. MARKEY. Okay. My point in mentioning this proposal is simply to underscore that the process that has just been completed by

NTIA and FCC for so-called Part 15 devices and UWB technology

is likely to be repeated again and again. We need to work well, not

only for government users but also for consumers, high-tech manufacturers, innovators and entrepreneurs. Our economy is affected

by how well NTIA and the FCC perform our spectrum management

tasks. So my question to NTIA and FCC is whether they need additional resources to do the kind of real-world testing to distinguish

between fact and fantasy, between theoretical interference and actual observed interference and to do that kind of testing in the future so that we can accelerate the introduction of new technology

into the marketplace. Mr. Gallagher?

Mr. GALLAGHER. The issue of funding is always an interesting

one. We are just now preparing our 1904 budgets and the like and

one——

Mr. MARKEY. Do you need resources, Mr. Gallagher, or not? It is

an interesting question.

Mr. GALLAGHER. We definitely need to additional testing, and I

would suggest that funding in that area would be necessary and

appreciated.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Knapp?

Mr. KNAPP. The short answer is yes, and we have been explaining to the Congress that we need resources for engineers and the

57

equipment for our laboratory, and we thank you for the support we

have gotten so far. And I think we are certainly a lot better off now

than we were a year ago.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if we want to see a revitalization of

a sector we now call the Nasdaq that no one heard of before 1995,

I would suggest that a lot of what we are talking about here today,

about technologies and companies whose names we do not know or

understand yet, are central to a next generation boom that gives

people a good reason to invest in companies and technologies, assuming that the accounting standards for those companies have

been updated to reflect lessons learned since Enron/Arthur Andersen. But I think that, to a large extent, the key to a Nasdaq revitalization sits at our table today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Thank my friend from Massachusetts. Mr. Gallagher, how is it that you all resolve these conflicts between the business end of those knocking on the door trying to get their products

out using the spectrum and folks like your neighbor, Mr. Price,

looking for the domino theory of if you take this little bit of spectrum, it is all going to go? And as you look at other Federal Government incumbent spectrum users, what is the process that you

all begin to look at as you weigh those—— Mr. GALLAGHER. Well, the first thing you have to do is listen, because there is a lot that we need to learn from the private sector

coming in explaining what it is they are trying to accomplish, the

technical data on this is extraordinary in length. Over 900 comments have been filed on the docket, multiple studies introduced by

multiple parties. You have to grasp and understand and be able to

translate those into concepts that normal people can understand.

Mr. UPTON. Well, Mr. Petroff had a pretty good chart that was

shown, I don’t know if you were able to see it at the end, of using

just a very narrow red line versus the Empire State Building, and

we see a lot of different examples of that, whether they be the

bathroom example that Mr. Tauzin used or a whole host of things.

Mr. GALLAGHER. And I would suggest that sometimes those

charts can distort the truth, because if you look at the data about

ultrawideband, the testing that was done in our Boulder facility,

the emissions that come from ultrawideband, the characteristics of

the signal are fundamentally different. Instead of just a random

spike that would appear in a restricted band under the Part 15

rules, this is an intentional, as many as a million emissions per

second in that band. That is a lot of energy, and it is particularly

distortive to GPS and we documented that, and it is part of the

record of the rulemaking.

But I would say besides the listening and the learning, it took

multiple meetings with the Commission so they could understand

every db of protection that was being requested by NTIA. It took

multiple meetings of NTIA with DOD and Department of Transportation making them justify and explain it, sending them back to

the engineer drawing board to answer particular questions, and I

think you see the benefit of that in the results. If you look back

to September, the Department of Defense’s position was further notice, put it all above 6 gigahertz and, you know, by the way, you

have to have a high-pass filter. If you look at where we ended up

in the final order, it is the need of the ultrawideband signals at 3.1

58

gigahertz, substantial movement, and also there is no requirement

for a high-pass filter. Instead, there is agreement that the mask

that was developed by NTIA was the right approach. Under those

circumstances, it just shows that when you engage on a technical

and a factual level and you do it with leadership, you can achieve

the right results.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Sawyer.

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess my questions

are largely all follow-up to many of the things we have heard before. Mr. Gallagher, you are telling us that this inherent conflict,

this tension between your dual missions is a good thing despite the

fact that it slows down the process. Is that essentially what you are

saying?

Mr. GALLAGHER. I would agree it is good to have both perspectives in coming up with the right balance, yes.

Mr. SAWYER. In the post-911 situation, apparently there was a

way to achieve a waiver in this extraordinary circumstance. What

would happen in the event of a smaller scale disaster, a simple

earthquake, the kind of bridge collapses we saw in urban highway

systems? Is there a mechanism in place to achieve this sort of thing

on a regular basis so that you don’t have to have the kind of disaster that occurred in September? You can both answer.

Mr. GALLAGHER. The answer is yes, and we have a history of responding favorably to the types of situations you have described.

Mr. KNAPP. And I agree completely.

Mr. SAWYER. I guess I don’t understand, on another subject, why

the testing wasn’t done before the FCC issued this rule. But just

to go beyond that, if in fact the tests that will take 6 to 12 months

to undergo show that the concern over harmful interference was

less than necessary, does that imply a new rulemaking process?

And if so, is there any reason why those can’t operate in parallel

instead of sequentially?

Mr. KNAPP. I think we need to develop the data through the tests

and then make that public. We would probably have to issue another proposal to change the standards to allow everybody, remember these rules also affect non-government services as well, to have

an opportunity, if we are going to make a change, to comment on

it.

Mr. SAWYER. Considering how far this has gone, don’t you have

a substantial amount of information on which to condition the

pathway that the new rulemaking would take?

Mr. KNAPP. I think, legally, under the Administrative Procedures

Act, if we are going to change the rules, we would have to issue

a proposal. So we would have to go through that administrative

step.

Mr. SAWYER. And yet you largely accepted the standards that

were originally issued by the NTIA. Should the NTIA be anticipating a favorable result from the testing so that you have something in hand?

Mr. KNAPP. What we are going to do is once our results are completed, we will make them public. We are going to talk to NTIA

and the other agencies as we go through the process of conducting

these tests.

59

Mr. SAWYER. Overall then, how long do you anticipate this entire

process taking?

Mr. KNAPP. We still said 6 to 12 months for examining the rules.

We should have our data out publicly before the end of the year.

Mr. SAWYER. Does the rulemaking under the Federal procedures

is that then subsequent to that step?

Mr. KNAPP. No. No, we would have a proposal out certainly within 6 to 12 months.

Mr. SAWYER. So at least there is something that Mr. Johnson can

look at and have some hope that he can deal with in a reasonable

period of time. The answer is yes?

Mr. KNAPP. Yes.

Mr. SAWYER. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Shimkus.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to direct my

questions to Mr. Price, and I do this out of love and admiration.

I think if you all think through these questions, these are the questions that people are asking, and so let us go through them. You

indicate in your testimony that the Department of Defense needs

more time, and does that time also apply to the Pentagon’s own

ultrawideband devices?

Mr. PRICE. That is a fair question, sir. If you are talking about

the time on the 6 to 12 months that was just being discussed, I

would weigh in probably with a counter argument that our concern

at the Department of Defense is that as we understood what the

FCC said, and Mr. Tauzin said and a number of people have said

this, there has been conflicting data. This was a case of, ‘‘My study

is prettier than your study,’’ to some extent. There was no hard

science, there was no sound science. And part of the reason is because you can’t measure the aggregation effects of ultrawideband

devices, a whole bunch of them in a particular area, to see how

much it raises the noise floor if there aren’t a whole bunch of them

in a metropolitan area out there being used as they would in commercial settings.

So I thought the point of the—we thought the point of the 6 to

12 months was to give the industry a chance to commercially deploy—manufacture, sell, deploy devices, get them out there, get

people playing with them, using them, breaking them, getting new

ones the way people typically use cell phones, other kind of new

technologies, and then be able to examine the real science, as Mr.

Tauzin said, sound testing. We agree with that. We are not sure

that that can be done within the 6- to 12-month period. There

won’t be enough—our concern is there won’t be enough devices out

there.’’ If you start the testing today, the devices aren’t in widespread use.

So the first part of the question is in terms of the delay, there

is no delay. Once the science is out there, we will be happy to—

we have even said that we would contribute resources to help review the test plan, if that would be useful. Because, clearly, a

strong safe commercial deployment of ultrawideband is in the Department’s interest.

As far as the second part of your question, which is, I think,

whether or not the Department of Defense is going to use or be

treated the same as commercial, was that the second?

60

Mr. SAWYER. Well, you could skew it that way, but the basic

issue is you do have the technology, you are using it. There are

military applications, you like it. So if there—I mean the other

question I was going to follow-up with then is if you like it but you

are afraid of it interfering with aviation or GPS, wouldn’t that

cause you to be a little bit concerned of your own use?

Mr. PRICE. Well, our use is typically very constrained. It is only

in certain places, it is limited in number, limited in area and limited in duration. It is on a range, it is in a particular place. The

concern with—our concern with this proceeding was that it was unconstrained, unaggregated, unlicensed use.

Mr. SAWYER. Well, let me ask the panel, because I want to go

back to the first answer to the first question, because you said

there is no hard science, and I want to ask the rest of the panel,

starting with Mr. Gallagher, do you agree that there is no hard

science on the aggregation effects?

Mr. GALLAGHER. I would say that we tested I believe it was two

devices in an anechoic chamber and built a model based on that,

but even then they were UWB emitters. They were on loan from

the companies manufacturing the technology or hoping to—— Mr. SAWYER. So you agree with Mr. Price.

Mr. GALLAGHER. I think we need to see real penetration of real

devices and then test those devices in those settings and come up

with the truth. And I think that the time to do those tests is when

they have penetrated into the market.

Mr. SAWYER. Okay. Let me ask Mr. Shane.

Mr. SHANE. Absolutely, Congressman. The Department of Transportation, from the get-go in this proceeding, has been arguing for

more testing and more specific prototype testing, empirical testing

in the real world as a basis for making what at the end of the day

is a national security decision about the allocation of a critical piece

of our infrastructure—the spectrum.

Mr. SAWYER. That is fine. Let me go to Mr. Knapp. And I also

follow the great discourse of the chairman, so you kind of addressed this in some of your comments, so how would you respond

to that question?

Mr. KNAPP. I wouldn’t agree that there was no hard science, I

think there was some. This was an issue where we received information in our record. It was examined as part of the testing. But

I think there certainly is a lot more to do. Ultrawideband devices

are not of one consistent set of technical standards. They have different pulse rates and so forth, so there are questions about how

they would add up.

Mr. SAWYER. And, Mr. Chairman, if I may finish up the panel

with this one question, Mr. Petroff?

Mr. PETROFF. Yes. There was much testing done. Chairman Powell was quoted as saying there had been more testing done on this

proceeding than on any other proceeding. DOD’s Joint Spectrum

Center evaluated the different tests, there were four of them, and

found that all the data basically said the same thing, it is just a

question of which assumptions were used. There are two types of

ways these tests are done. One is real-world testing, and in our

case we spent well over $1 million with Johns Hopkins and the

University of Texas, the two foremost GPS testing labs in the counVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:16 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 80674.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
61

try, developing. And then there is also what happens after the testing when you do assumptions.

And if you look at these assumptions, they make all the difference in the world. Because under some assumptions you can run

the numbers and you can find that a baby monitor will not GPS

from 200 miles away. So we need to watch carefully the assumptions. And there was aggregate testing done during this. So there

has been extensive testing this time. I don’t know if it is the most

in FCC history but it has been a lot.

Mr. SAWYER. And, finally, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, speaking again from a GPR standpoint, I

think GPR was not tested very extensively at all. Our pulse repetition rate is much lower than the area UWB, and I think we have

got a rough number of maybe 1,000 units working in the U.S. already, so we have got units that can be tested today.

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just end by saying

that if we have this interim of 6 to 12 months and we come and

we don’t have an answer to that question, whether the stakeholders agree that there has been enough testing or not, then we

are just going to be back here next year. So I would encourage us

somehow to get a scientific basis to make these public policy decisions, and I yield back my time. Thank you.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Bass.

Mr. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson, I heard you

in your testimony mention that you noted some surprise that several provisions were included in the rule that were not in the Notice of Rulemaking. Can you describe those? Which provisions were

those?

Mr. JOHNSON. Two of them in particular. One is the limit of

types of industries that we can sell to. And, second, the coordination where every user has to contact the FCC 15 days prior to use.

Both of those were a surprise to us.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Knapp, can you comment on that?

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking had several

broad questions. Certainly, the waivers that we had issued previously included restrictions on use and a coordination requirement, and that came essentially from NTIA. NTIA’s comments that

they furnished that were inserted in the record requested the coordination requirement.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Johnson, do you have any rebuttal to that or not?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we didn’t look up on the waiver given to one

company as representative of what the rules were going to be, so

I think we have a different viewpoint.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Price, you mentioned that there are not enough

devices out there to have the full body of evidence for interference.

Now, if the order places a chill or reduces the ability for devices

to be created, how can you develop the evidence if they can’t be created? Don’t you have a chicken and egg issue here?

Mr. PRICE. I wouldn’t say so, because I don’t think that the order

places a chill on ultrawideband deployment. I think if it is widely

available above 3.1 gigahertz and with various constraints depending on the type of device and within what band. I think if you look

at the web sites of the various companies and industry analysts,

I think the genera consensus would be that the FCC’s order alVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:16 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 80674.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
62

lowed for ultrawideband deployment. This wasn’t a case where the

FCC or NTIA said no; they said yes in these areas. And I think

most of the companies that certainly we had met with or whose

statements we read believe that there will be ample deployment of

ultrawideband. So I think there will be enough science out there

but just in areas that protect national security systems.

Mr. BASS. Do either of you gentlemen from industry have any

comment on that? Do you agree?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think, as I have stated, we have been out

selling systems for some time with no interference, and I think that

the R&O went a little too far.

Mr. PETROFF. And just to follow-up on that question, I think we

are of two minds. On the one hand, it was good to get something

out there, and it will allow some developments. We will be able to

make lots of our wonderful PAN devices. But I do think that the

public safety and GPR applications were unfairly penalized. There

is not enough power there to do the kind of work that needs to be

done. And, moreover, it sets sort of a double standard where Federal public safety will be able to use the technology at higher power

but State and local will not.

Mr. BASS. I would just like to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by associating myself with the comments made by our full committee chairman. He said it better than I ever could have said it, and I hope

the message is clearly received by the agencies involved. I would

also note I have here the—this is a sales brochure for Geophysical

Survey Systems in which there is a device here on the front called

a Pathfinder, obviously emitting low-level frequencies, but it also

has a computer that is connected to GPS; is that not correct? So

if there was a problem with interference, how well would this device work?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We sell systems with both differential

GPS, which has a one-inch accuracy as long as it is picking up six

satellites or more, and it is an expensive system, $27,000 system,

and we also sell systems that will work with a $150 GPS system.

In both cases, the GPS system is working one foot away from the

radar system.

Mr. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Pickering.

Mr. PICKERING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you

for giving us the opportunity to address this very important issue.

Mr. Price, let me ask some questions as we try to strike the balance in our policy between the commercial applications in development and innovation and investment and our national security

needs. And we just want to understand the Department of Defense’s concerns and this goes to the very heart of what we are trying, I think, to achieve in the end. If we set a very conservative

authorization in our first decision, how quickly will we have an

evolving standard testing and how quickly can we move forward on

being less restrictive if in fact the testing shows that we do not

have interference, especially with our national security?

Again, to understand the standard at which we are starting, my

understanding is that Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz, in

his letter to Secretary Evans on November 20, 2001, he took a position that approval of UWB be at a power level more than 2,000

63

times lower than Part 15. Now, why would DOD take the position

that UWB be restricted to a power level more than 2,000 times

below the level of billions of other Part 15 devices that are currently not interfering with GPS and other safety-of-life systems?

Mr. PRICE. Those devices aren’t in the GPS band, sir.

Mr. PICKERING. Okay.

Mr. PRICE. So it is a little bit of a different story. The concern

here is that—— Mr. PICKERING. So is it—— Mr. PRICE. I am sorry.

Mr. PICKERING. The question is not so much the power level but

the band in which they operate.

Mr. PRICE. Right. Those devices aren’t in the GPS band, so we

have no problem with those.

Mr. PICKERING. Okay. But even if you are in a separate band,

why such a conservative approach, 2,000 times?

Mr. PRICE. Well, we don’t think it was conservative. We think

the testing showed that it was prudent. UWB energy may seem

negligible certainly compared to a TV tower or a broadcast tower

or the business I used to be in, the cell phone business. But not

to a receiver that is trying to measure a weak signal from GPS

12,000 miles away. And especially if you think about urban canyons and the like, this is a very sensitive area, and the testing

showed that even a single UWB device can raise the noise floor at

a 6-foot separation by 1 DB, causing 26 percent sensitivity decreases. So there were real risks to GPS. And the point here wasn’t

to say no, it was just to say that we need to protect GPS. If it is

outside of the GPS bands, which is the particular area we had concerns, and I know other departments had other concerns, above 3.1

gigahertz we didn’t have a problem. In fact, we are looking forward

to commercial development because it will be cheaper for us to buy

COTS technology. So we support that. It was just to protect the

GPS bands.

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Petroff, your response to that.

Mr. PETROFF. Well, right now there are presently billions of consumer devices putting their energy into the GPS bands. They are

doing this and they have been doing it for 20 years. But they are

doing it at such a low power level that they are virtually

undetectable and unnoticed. And this is part of the genius of Part

15 that it has allowed so many billions of devices to be used in government spectrum and in commercial spectrum without any interference. And, indeed, the first time I met Mr. Knapp over here, almost 6 years ago, he said, ‘‘If you are going to be in Part 15, you

have to remember one very important rule, and that is you are not

allowed to create any harmful interference into anybody’s band.

That is the standard that has to be met.’’ And all the testing that

we have done has consistently showed that.

I want to take issue with Mr. Gallagher on one point. This signal

is a noise-like signal that is virtually indistinguishable from what

you see out of a computer. So it is very, very close in terms of what

its impact is.

Mr. PICKERING. So you would disagree with Mr. Price and Mr.

Gallagher. You would say that it is not only the power level, but

you are also operating within GPS bands.

64

Mr. PETROFF. Yes. There are many, many, dozens, hundreds,

thousands of consumer devices. There are probably, if you add

every palm pilot, every laptop, every pocket calculator, all these devices I see over here, all of these give off ultra low-level energy,

and many of them put some amount of energy into the GPS bands,

and they do it on a non-interfering basis, and they have been doing

it for 20 years.

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Price, Mr. Gallagher, your defense?

Mr. PRICE. I hate to argue with Mr. Petroff because I am probably his biggest customer by a factor of 10—— Mr. PICKERING. But not 2,000.

Mr. PRICE. I would argue it is probably 2,000, but I haven’t seen

his financial statements. I just know everywhere we go in Department of Defense they are testing various ultrawideband devices,

and for good reason because it is a great technology. But I think

the argument—the discussion you are seeing here is the point.

There is no hard science. We can’t all go to your district and

see——

Mr. PICKERING. Would you disagree with Mr. Petroff’s assertion

that there are thousands of devices out there operating within GPS

bands?

Mr. PRICE. I would certainly disagree that there is no potential

harm to GPS from ultrawideband devices. This something-for-nothing argument is one I have trouble buying across the board in life,

and here as well. If there is an emission, there is a danger for interference.

Mr. PICKERING. But what he said, that there are thousands of devices operating now, is that true?

Mr. PRICE. I would have to take that for the record. I don’t know

the exact number and various—— Mr. PICKERING. But I guess the question is it seems like it would

be a pretty easy thing to ascertain, to know, do you have, Mr. Gallagher, would you say today, thousands of devices operate in that

band today? Mr. Gallagher?

Mr. GALLAGHER. I would say there are no doubt millions, but you

have to listen very carefully to Mr. Petroff’s words.

Mr. PICKERING. Okay. Let me ask, we acknowledge that there

are now millions of devices operating in that band. So that is a fact

we——

Mr. GALLAGHER. They are not operating, they are emitting energy on a spurious or out-of-band basis intermittently. These are

random signals that are in or out. They are not there a million

times a second at whatever level we authorize UWB operation.

Mr. PICKERING. Let me—one last question, Mr. Chairman. I

thank you for your time and your patience. Mr. Gallagher, you

would say that what you and the FCC authorized or your recommendations, the FCC’s authorization was a starting point. We

are now trying to get the testing and the penetration and the scientific facts and evidence that would allow us to then hopefully liberalize over time and evolve over time. Do you have a recommendation—does the administration have a recommendation as to what

your benchmarks are, what your timetables are, when should the

FCC authorize greater levels or begin to permit greater penetration

and use of UWB technology?

65

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Pickering, the first thing I would say is

that, and quoting the chairman of the FCC, is that, ‘‘These numbers, these protections can go up or down—we can liberate them

or we can make them more stringent depending on what the facts

show us.’’ The dial can be turned either way if the facts demonstrate that there is a greater risk.

Mr. PICKERING. But when is your benchmark, what is your timetable?

Mr. GALLAGHER. The benchmark is we need real-life devices in

consumers’ and professional hands which we can test. Now, we are

understanding from the investor community, from the companies

that we could see those devices begin to be introduced by year-end.

We would want to have an adequate sampling of those devices arrive at a peer-approved measurement plan to do the test in conjunction with the Commission, do our own tests, and work with the

agencies who have the affected systems.

Mr. PICKERING. Would you envision 6 months, 12 months from

now whether you either liberalize or go more stringent—take a

more stringent approach? What is your timetable?

Mr. GALLAGHER. I think that is a very ambitious timetable. I

don’t expect—— Mr. PICKERING. 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, what would

you say?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Again, I go back, Mr. Pickering, to when the

time is right, when we have the devices to test, and I don’t have

that today, and I don’t control that. When they are available, we

will of course move expeditiously—— Mr. PICKERING. Don’t you think for the industry, for the investment that we should have benchmarks, some timetables, some certainty in this process?

Mr. GALLAGHER. But the industry, in many ways, determines the

certainty, because we don’t have the devices in the marketplace

yet.

Mr. PICKERING. Now, I am afraid the government is going to decide the certainty or the uncertainty, and our role and responsibility is to create as much certainty as possible, and I would encourage you all to set timetables of when you are going to measure

and when you will make decisions to either go more liberal or more

stringent based on the facts. And with that, Mr. Chairman, let me

yield back.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Markey.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had a great debate

in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s over the transfer of 200 megahertz of spectrum that was going to be used for the creation of

something that was called the PCS revolution that would move cell

phone technology from analog to digital. And at that time, Mr.

Price, we used to have a two-star general who would sit here and

tell us what the national security consequences would be if we

moved over that 200 megahertz. And he was adamantly opposed to

us doing it, and he let us know that. And there was absolutely no

way, from his perspective, that we could reconcile this private sector/public sector tension. And so finally the subcommittee, and then

the full committee, in 1993, as part of the Budget Act of 1993, we

just moved over the 200 megahertz. And since then we have had

66

a third, fourth, fifth and sixth cell phone license in each one of the

communities in the country license, a dramatic drop in the price,

vast millions and billions made by people, Mr. Price, who are in the

cell phone industry because of that decision and a revolution in

communications in our country. And thus far we have had no accusation that it has undermined national security, at least no testimony I have heard.

And so when we reach this stage once again, different people representing the same interests show up to testify. And, obviously,

this committee has a stake in seeing the further advancement of

the private application of technology using spectrum. And it always

reminds me, Mr. Price, of the movie, ‘‘Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark,’’ where this relatively low-level person is sent

off to find this very valuable thing, and finally they return it—Indiana returns it to Washington, and the government officials then

take it, put it inside of a container, nail it down and then put it

on a forklift and house it in a warehouse, knowing some day, in

some way they will be able to use it. But, ‘‘Thank you, Mr. Jones.

We will take it from here.’’ So you have all these private sector companies who have identified this incredible valuable resource, they bring their testimony

here to Washington, they talk about all the marvelous things that

it can do for our economy, for our economic competitiveness, and

pretty much they are told, ‘‘Well, that is going to be a difficult

thing to resolve.’’ Of course, it is by the same agency that says that

it is possible in a minute and a half to launch a missile using incredibly sophisticated outerspace technology to shoot down a North

Korean missile in a minute and a half after it has been launched

at 2:30 in the morning with no notice.

Now, many scientists say, ‘‘That is impossible,’’ and we are 20

years into trying to prove that it is possible, that is the government

who supports this technology, and so far they have been able to

prove that if the actual incoming test missile yells electronically,

‘‘Yoohoo, over here,’’ they can shoot it down if they are given the

exact latitude and longitude and time that it will arrive and it is

saying, ‘‘Yoohoo, over here.’’ That is where we are with that so far.

However, when you have an issue like this that it seems has a

lot of historical analogs in terms of proving that it can work, we

are told that because of resource problems at FCC or NTIA, our

lack of coordination between NTIA and FCC working with the Defense Department, that it could take a very long time to resolve

those issues that would have a tangible near-term benefit for the

American public looking for a shot in the arm in the sector that

we will broadly call the Nasdaq.

And so while we are not in any way opposed to ensuring that we

have the maximum amount of security for our country in using

spectrum-based technologies, we also, because of past experience,

know that perhaps there are people inside of some of these agencies that still have a, we will call it, pre-end-of-the-Cold-War view

of these issues. And they aren’t—not saying you, Mr. Price, but

others to whom you report who might not have the technical sophistication. I mean you are here because many of those people

who are your superiors would be afraid to undergo some of the

questioning using any one of the acronyms that you use so fluently.

67

And so it is those people about whom we are talking, those people

who we never get to testify before our committee.

So that is what we are concerned about, not your knowledge and

ability brilliantly to fence with any members of our committee or

any other people who are here, but it is those who are up above

who have given you the orders to fence without themselves knowing anything about these technologies whatsoever. And I say that

from long experience with all of your superiors that they know almost nothing about it. And it is not to denigrate them because they

have many other very important that they have to work on, but

they actually just want the status quo to be preserved until the

point in time when they get enough time to visit these issues,

which means never, because they never actually have that time.

And I actually have many opportunities to talk to your superiors,

and none of them ever knows anything about any of the acronyms

about which you are speaking about here quite eloquently today.

So that is the message to you, Mr. Price, that we are looking for

coordination and specific recommendations for resource augmentation from the NTIA and the FCC, and we understand that they

have to act with some trepidation in making those requests because of the enhanced defense budget request. Now, we would hope

that as part of your increased ability to get any resources that you

want, Mr. Price, for anything that is related to the defense of our

country, that perhaps part of the request could be to help to resolve

this other issue, which could then help the civilian economy to

move forward, because the NTIA and FCC is not as strong a position to make those requests as are you.

So perhaps you could do that, and using your authority, your

clout, get the money that resolves the technical issues and then to

share it with these other two agencies in a way that telescopes the

timeframe that it will take in order to ensure that Mr. Petroff and

many others here can also see the civilian benefits flow to our economy. Does that make sense to you, Mr. Price? By the way, are you

the winner of the Vito Fossella look-a-like contest?

I mean that is unbelievable. I mean you are—you know, I mean

I kept thinking Vito is doing a good job today testifying down there.

Mr. PRICE. I have been called a lot of things. I have never been

called that before. I think that, first of all, the Department of Defense is spending a lot of money in spectrum areas. Our budget,

and I am actually having people pull together the numbers, and

when we get it I will send it to you, something on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars on spectrum-efficient technologies,

which I think ultimately, you would agree, is one of the ways to

solve the problems of the spectrum-constrained feeling by both government and non-government users.

I would also say I take issue slightly with the point that my superiors, who I gather you talk to more than I do, which is probably

a fair point, don’t——

Mr. MARKEY. All of your present-day superiors and all of their

predecessors in their various ideological—they all kind of—where

you stand depends upon where you sit, and it doesn’t make any difference who gets the job at any of these Pentagon jobs, regardless

of the administration, they always take the same position.

68

Mr. PRICE. Well, I will commend the current leadership in OSD,

in the Office of Secretary of Defense, because they decided that

spectrum was important enough—an important enough area to

raise it to the Deputy Assistant Secretary level and to have somebody, actually it gave me a job, but to create a job that is dedicated

to spectrum issues. So at least now—and it was really something

that Dr. Hamre, when he was at the Department of Defense, started to raise these issues. So I think the fact that spectrum is important, needs expertise, needs to be shaped, is something that this

administration has focused on, and I think we will continue to do

that, looking at ultrawideband, looking at software-defined radio,

some of those other things.

I think it is a little different—the ultrawideband scenario is a little different than the 200 megahertz that was decided in 1993, but

I do take the point that everyone, the Department of Defense as

well as the commercial interests, do need more spectrum. And if

there are ways to do that, be it sharing or otherwise, or raising

noise floors, as long as it doesn’t constrain national security interests, like GPS, we support it, and we think we supported it in this

proceeding.

Mr. MARKEY. And I appreciate that, and I think that the record

will note that you did praise your superiors effusively, and I

think—— Mr. PRICE. Thank you.

Mr. MARKEY. [continuing] that is absolutely something that

should be noted. And my hope is that we would find evidence to

justify that praise as we move forward. And, again, you know what,

a good example of this whole conflict is even when Secretary Rumsfeld says that he doesn’t want the crusader giganto cannon, he has

to be told, ‘‘Mr. Secretary, there are limits to your power. You need

this cannon, okay?’’ And even as he says, ‘‘No, I would rather use

the same money on more high tech, more sophisticated stuff,’’ he

is being told, ‘‘No, there are real pressures here inside of the Army,

the Air Force that you might not be able to control in terms of the

way the ultimate process leads to a resolution of the issue.’’

So all we are saying here is that we are cognizant of the problem

that exists inside the Pentagon, and it is very severe, it is ongoing,

and it is in fundamental conflict with these other agendas which

we have for America, which we believe can move forward simultaneously, but we need the resources that are dedicated to the resolution of the issue, because in the absence of that, the status quo

ante, the homeostasis of an issue then puts all the weight on not

moving, and then the rest of the agenda is harmed. So I appreciate,

Mr. Price, that they have named someone with the level of expertise on the subject that they have, and my hope is that we can,

again, resolve the issue in a way using Defense Department money

to help the civilian economy get a shot in the arm. Thank you, Mr.

Price.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Would recognize the gentleman from

Florida, Mr. Stearns.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am sorry that I

wasn’t here earlier. Like you, I chaired a committee this morning

for about 3 hours, so we just finished up, but I did want to get

down here, obviously to pay my respects but also the staff who sat

69

in during this morning’s hearing indicated there were two questions that were not asked that I might ask, and these are for Mr.

Shane, who is with the Department of Transportation.

Mr. Shane, these questions are—the first one is I understand the

Department of Transportation in a report by the Volpe Center determined that GPS is not robust enough for critical commercial aircraft use. And, further, Boeing is working on next-generation GPS,

including increasing the transmit power for GPS, decreasing the

self-interference of the GPS signals and adding more channels. So

the question is are not the concerns with GPS overblown, given

that the signal is going to be strengthened to such a great degree

or are they not overblown? So I think that is the question.

Mr. SHANE. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I think

the concerns about GPS are not overblown. GPS has not been

strengthened. Both civilian and military applications are absolutely

essential to our national security right now, and I am happy to report that as far as I can tell from the R&O there isn’t a GPS problem in the FCC’s decision, that the FCC and NTIA took the concern about GPS very seriously, and that is one of the issues that

nobody is arguing about right now. So it seems to me that that

question has been mooted by the R&O, the Report and Order

issues by the FCC.

Mr. STEARNS. Anyone else like to comment? No? Mr. Shane, you

indicate in your testimony that, ‘‘There is no substitute for hard

data, stringent analyses and validation by test.’’ You also expressed

a lot of concern that UWB devices could interfere with critical aviation systems, but where is the hard data to support that and validation by tests?

Mr. SHANE. That is in fact our question, where is the hard data

to support any final decision with respect to the deployment of—— Mr. STEARNS. No, but you have indicated a concern that these

devices could interfere with critical aviation systems. How do you

know that?

Mr. SHANE. Well, the burden should not be on those who are responsible for maintaining critical safety-of-life applications in spectrum.

Mr. STEARNS. No, but if you make a claim, then you should be

able to substantiate or corroborate your claim.

Mr. SHANE. I don’t want to substantiate it. I want to substantiate

the fact that UWB equipment can be deployed without any harm

to the spectrum. That is our interest. We are interested in this

technology. The problem is there simply is no prototype, not sufficient prototypes available, and this has been the consensus within

the panel, to support the kind of empirical testing that we could

rely upon with real confidence before liberalizing the content of the

FCC’s Report and Order.

I don’t think we really—there is no difference among any of the

agencies that have participated about whether or not we need more

empirical testing. This is not just the Department of Transportation. This has been a problem. The NTIA had a very difficult job

in this case, and it has done a magnificent job, I think, in pulling

together different threads of interest from different agencies in the

commercial sector and making recommendations to the FCC, which

it has adopted, for purposes of getting this technology launched.

70

Now the question is, is it launched with only a baby step, as someone said earlier today? Should we be liberalizing the rules? This is

a brochure put out by the Federal Highway Administration, one of

our agencies. It supports ground penetrating radar for the use of

measuring the quality of pavement in our highways. We have

talked earlier today about the importance of GPR for bridge quality

and a whole host of other transportation applications. We are interested in this technology, we want it deployed, that is what the Department of Transportation is about. The only issue here is whether or not there is sufficient science right now to say that we can

deploy it without the kinds of limits that the FCC and NTIA have

agreed upon. Nobody at this table knows the answers to that as we

sit here today, and all we seek is to find out that answer as quickly

as possible.

Mr. STEARNS. I understand. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Stearns. Gentlemen, we appreciated

your testimony. I can assure you that we are going to continue to

look at this issue. We are going to have a number of multiple hearings over the next number of months, and we welcome your input

and your thoughts on the whole range of—the whole spectrum of

issues. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

PENETRADAR CORPORATION

NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK

June 3, 2002

The Honorable ELIOT L. ENGEL

United States Congress

Washington, DC Office

2303 Rayburn HOB

Washington, DC 20515

RE: The FCC’s UWB Proceeding: An Examination of the Government’s Spectrum

Management Process

DEAR CONGRESSMAN ENGEL: In reference to the June 5, 2002 meeting of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet hearings we would like to request your assistance in expressing our concerns to the FCC and NTIA in regard

to the recent FCC Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding UltraWideband (UWB) Transmission Systems, FCC 02-48 Released April 22, 2002.

Penetradar Corporation is a small, high-technology business located in Niagara

Falls, New York, involved in the manufacture and use of Ground Penetrating Radar

(GPR) systems. GPR’s are a special class of radar system designed to penetrate solid

materials, such as soil or concrete and our products and services are used in a multitude of engineering as well as public safety related applications, ranging from

bridge deck and highway pavement condition evaluation to detection of subsurface

hazardous spills. The new FCC ruling, FCC 02-48, which restricts the domestic sale

and use of Ground Penetrating Radar devices will effectively shut-down our company and many other small businesses in our industry that manufacture and/or use

this technology. The result of this will be the loss of hundreds of jobs and ultimately

the loss of an industry of which the United States presently leads the world.

We are quite concerned with the affect that the new rules will have and believe

that time is critical.Although the FCC has indicated that the new part 15 rules represent a very conservative approach to dealing with UWB and has promised to revisit this issue in the next 6 to 12 months, with the new rules becoming law in midJuly it is unrealistic to believe that there will be a GPR industry remaining by this

time the ruling is reviewed.

In our recent meetings with the FCC and NTIA, we have found the NTIA to be

adverse to the GPR industry citing hypothetical cases of potential interference with

government systems and GPS receivers. In over 30 years of GPR usage, there has

never been a reported instance of interference caused by any GPR device on any

other user of the frequency spectrum. The interference potential of GPR is negligible

71

1For example, one NTIA analysis assumes large numbers of GPR’s operating in close proximity to an E911 GPS receiver at separation distances of approximately 2 meters and at elevations of 3 meters, thereby resulting in interference. This ignores the fact that GPR’s are typically used individually—not in large numbers in one area, and are in contact (or within a few

inches) of the ground and not operated at 3 meters in height where the GPS receiver may be

located. In normal operation, the hypothetical NTIA operational scenario would not be possible.

In another example, the NTIA proposed the possibility of interference between a UWB device

and Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR-4), a high power, surveillance radar with sufficient radiated power to literally overload and destroy any nearby device receiving in its frequency band.

This analysis was not conducted using an actual GPR but rather signals were simulated and

tests performed with the ARSR-4 transmitter off, thereby eliminating its own normal clutter interference and antenna cross talk, which are greater than low level GPR emissions. We do not

believe this to be a realistic analysis but rather one that was improperly designed.

as its intent is to propagate signals into the ground and not into the air. Further,

the proliferation of GPR devices is low, with no more than a total of 1000 units industry wide operating in the United States.

We have reviewed NTIA publications 01-43 and 01-45 which are analyses conducted on the compatibility of UWB devices on federal systems and GPS, and are

the basis for the new FCC rules. We believe that the NTIA analyses are based upon

improper assumptions of ‘‘worst case’’’ scenarios, all of which cannot or will not

occur in situ.1 When operated in a normal manner GPR’s will never pose an interference problem and to summarily eliminate an entire industry and ultimately compromise public safety for hypothetical and unrealistic scenarios proposed by the

NTIA would not be in the public interest.

In the past, GPR has been supported, used and in fact developed by governmental

agencies such as the DOD, for land mine detection and DOT for bridge deck, pavement and runway inspection. The GPR industry has provided critical products and

services that have enhanced public safety and have been used in the development

and preservation of the nation’s infrastructure. Typical application of GPR includes

highway pavement and airport runway condition evaluation for the detection of

voids and sinkholes prior to collapse, on bridge decks, parking garages and tunnels

to determine the condition of concrete and structural safety, inspection of integrity

of nuclear containment facilities, power plants and buildings, detection of underground utilities such as gas and electrical lines, detection of underground chemical

spills and for law enforcement in forensic investigations.

Attached is a separate statement describing the particular points in the new rules

which have created considerable consternation to our company and much of the

GPR industry. I am hopeful that you will be able to address our concerns in the

upcoming Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet and that you will

support our position.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,

ANTHONY J. ALONGI

President

cc: Addressed to Congressman Vito J. Fossella

May 30, 2002

Honorable FRED UPTON

Chair, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet

The Committee on Energy and Commerce

United States House of Representatives

2125 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

DEAR CHAIRMAN UPTON: Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee. Ultra wideband technology will allow for radio spectrum efficiency and

development of such devices as through the wall radar, ground penetrating radar,

and new wireless technology that are much faster than the current Blue tooth technology. The Federal Communications Commission approved ultra wideband at

power levels significantly lower than originally requested. While this power level is

minimally sufficient to operate certain devices, others will not operate at all.

Public Safety’s, First Responders need power levels that will allow for through the

wall radar systems and ground penetrating radar systems to work efficiently and

safely. These through the wall radar detection units need to be remotely activated

in most cases. Ultra wideband technology will allow a Fire Fighter to use a Video

Image Display piece to display maps and other critical information such as location

72

technology, personnel body telemetry’s and equipment status information onto the

mask of his self contained breathing apparatus.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD C. NOWAKOWSKI, Coordinator of Special Projects

City of Chicago, Office of Emergency Management and Communications

On August 28, 2001, Chicago Police Detective Joseph Airhart Jr., was assigned

to a Federal Bank Robbery Task Force that was serving a warrant on a suspected

bank robber. Detective Airhart posed as delivery man and knocked on the suspects’

door. When the suspect answered the door, he shot Detective Airhart in the head

and dragged him into the apartment. Assisting officers were held at bay as the offender continued to fire and dragged the seriously wounded detective behind a wall.

Daniel Salley also held his wife and two small children in the apartment, and out

of sight of backup officers. After a two-hour standoff, Salley agreed to let paramedics

remove the detective. Today, Detective Joe Airhart is still hospitalized and remains

in serious condition suffering from seizure attributed to his head and brain injuries.

Had the Chicago Police Departments, Hostage and Barricade Team been equipped

with remote through the wall radar devices they may have been able to secure a

faster release of the injured detective and arrest of the suspect.

We welcome the February 14, 2002, ruling of the Federal Communications Commission on ultra wideband technology as a great first step. We applaud the long and

arduous work of the Commission and National Telecommunications and Information

Administration in their technical analysis of UWB, and also respect those companies, agencies, institutions and individuals that submitted comments.

Public safety needs UWB as a tool in their arsenal. Through the wall radar that

utilizes UWB needs to deployed and remotely operated in most Police usages, while

miniature units mounted on Fire Fighters helmets need to be on constant during

primary and secondary searches of structures. Power levels need to be of sufficient

strength to penetrate through several layers and at distances of 20 to30 feet.

A Fire Fighter responds and prepares to enter a structure. He dons his SCBA

(Self Contained Breathing Apparatus) and enters the building. His SCBA immediately begins a system of tracking his location in the building and overlays a small

(you are here type) dot onto a digital floor plan of the building (provided be the

OEMC, Office of Emergency Management and Communications) and then transmits

the images to a heads up, translucent display screen in the masks’ face piece. The

heads up display will also show the level of air in the SCBA Bottle. As the Fire

Fighter makes his way through the building, his Motorola XTS5000 portable radio

will be leaving the equivalent of digital breadcrumbs that can be tracked. As he enters a room, he turns and scans a 360-degree area while utilizing a helmet mounted

UWB device that will penetrate walls and doors and display the images behind.

Body acoustic sensors will monitor the firefighter’s telemetry and report back on his

physical condition. UWB will provide short range communications systems that will

allow mobility and high data rates in order to facilitate information sharing with

this Virtual Fire Fighter. This Fire Fighter must work unencumbered by hand-held

devices as he searches, therefore it is important that UWB devices used by Public

Safety be free from any requirement that mandates contact points on devices.

Licensing of these UWB devices under Part 90 to Public Safety Agencies will

allow strict regulations and provide remedies if interference is experienced. These

devices must also be free to operate in broad, pre-approved geographic areas. The

operation of these devices would be limited in duration and any interference caused

would be minimized, easily detected and corrected.