U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

85–378 PDF 2014

CREATING OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH IMPROVED 

GOVERNMENT SPECTRUM EFFICIENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 

Serial No. 112–177 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

Vice Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

Ranking Member 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

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

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

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

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. Mary Bono Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 8 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 9 

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

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 9 

Hon. John Barrow, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

WITNESSES

Karl Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department 

of Commerce ......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 147 

Major General Robert E. Wheeler, USAF, Deputy Chief Information Officer 

for Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (C4) and Information Infrastructure, Department of Defense ...................................................... 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 155 

Mark L. Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office ................................................................................................ 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 162 

Douglas C. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer, Oceus Networks ..... 63 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 166 

Preston Marshall, Deputy Director, Information Sciences Institute, Viterbi 

School of Engineering, University of Southern California ................................ 81 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 168 

Mark Racek, Director, Global Spectrum Policy, Ericcson, Inc. ............................ 91 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 93 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 172 

Steve B. Sharkey, Director, Chief Engineering and Technology Policy, T– 

Mobile USA, Inc. .................................................................................................. 100 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 102 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 175 

Page

IV 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter, dated September 12, 2012, from Steven K. Berry, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, Competitive Carriers Association, to Mr. Walden and 

Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Ms. Eshoo ................................................................... 118 

Letter, dated September 12, 2012, from Steve Largent, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, CTIA–The Wireless Association, et al., to committee and 

subcommittee leadership, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ...................................... 130 

(1) 

CREATING OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH IMPROVED GOVERNMENT SPECTRUM EFFICIENCY 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.m., in room 

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

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walden, Terry, Stearns, 

Shimkus, Bono Mack, Blackburn, Bilbray, Bass, Gingrey, Scalise, 

Latta, Guthrie, Kinzinger, Barton, Eshoo, Markey, Matsui, Barrow, 

Christensen, DeGette, and Waxman (ex officio). 

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

Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Andy Duberstein, Deputy 

Press Secretary; Neil Fried, Chief Counsel, Communications and 

Technology; Debbee Keller, Press Secretary; Alexa Marrero, Deputy 

Staff Director; David Redl, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Charlotte Savercool, Executive Assistant; Lyn Walker, Coordinator, Admin/Human Resources; Shawn Chang, Democratic 

Senior Counsel; Margaret McCarthy, Democratic Professional Staff 

Member; Roger Sherman, Democratic Chief Counsel; David Strickland, Democratic FCC Detailee; and Kara Van Stralen, Democratic 

Special Assistant. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. If everybody would please take their seats, we will 

get started here. 

Good morning, and welcome to our hearing on creating opportunities to increase government spectrum efficiency. I welcome our 

witnesses and appreciate their counsel as we examine ways to increase government spectrum efficiency and satisfy American consumers’ growing demand for wireless broadband services. I am convinced we can create new jobs from our work and bring innovation 

and efficiency to the Federal Government. 

In the months since the Congress passed the Middle Class Tax 

Relief and Job Creation Act, including the spectrum incentive auction provisions this subcommittee brought to the table, we have 

turned our attention to Federal Government usage of spectrum. In 

coordination with Representative Eshoo, I appointed a working 

2 

group led by Brett Guthrie and Doris Matsui, and asked them to 

examine in depth how the government uses its spectrum. Our goal 

is to create more jobs by freeing up spectrum to meet demand and 

spur innovation in America. It is also our goal to bring innovation 

and spectrum efficiency to the government users. 

One way we can create additional spectrum opportunities is 

through use of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act. As you 

know, under the CSEA, commercial providers bear the cost of moving Federal incumbents to clear spectrum. Given the budgetary 

pressures facing the country, and the potential for sequestration to 

pose significant challenges, especially to our defense agencies, we 

have an opportunity to work together to optimize the value of underutilized spectrum and upgrade equipment and services used by 

our Federal agencies. 

The best example of this process is the 2006 AWS–1 auction, 

which made 90 megahertz of spectrum available for wireless 

broadband and raised more than $13.7 billion for the Treasury. 

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 

affectionately known as PCAST, has provided us with one view of 

how to create spectrum opportunities in Federal bands. Rather 

than look to ways to increase the efficiency of the government 

users, however, the recently released PCAST report assumes that 

it would cost too much and take too long to move most Federal systems. Instead, the report recommends that commercial providers 

operate around government systems and share spectrum. The concept of sharing is not new, and is certainly worth continued exploration. Sharing technologies and the underlying business models, 

however, are not sufficiently developed to make it the entire focus 

of our spectrum strategy nor to supplant clearing. 

Spectrum sharing may hold potential in the future for some spectrum bands where clearing is impossible or we have certainty that 

the cost of relocation exceeds the value of that spectrum. I am not 

ready to accept the opinion that ‘‘the norm for spectrum use should 

be sharing’’ today. That is simply not good enough. 

I am also concerned about the conclusion which appears based, 

at least in part, on a recent NTIA report concluding that it would 

cost $18 billion and take 10 years to clear the Federal Government 

from the 1.7 gigahertz band. The NTIA has admitted, however, 

that it did not conduct an independent analysis to reach those estimates. Instead, the NTIA compiled estimates from the Federal 

users. As the GAO’s written testimony for today’s hearing indicates, we need more rigorous analysis before giving up on clearing 

spectrum and working to maximize efficiency in how the government uses that spectrum. 

I appreciate our witnesses’ testimony today. You are all very talented individuals who really help us in our work, and we appreciate what you are bringing to the table. I am particularly pleased 

to see Major General Wheeler with us today, as NTIA’s preliminary 

responses to a letter from our government spectrum working group 

indicate that the Department of Defense is the largest government 

user of spectrum, with just under 90 percent of the ground-based 

assignments and over 99 percent of the airborne use of government 

spectrum below 3.1 gigahertz. Government systems can and should 

be comprised of the most efficient and technologically advanced 

3 

products available. We appreciate the work you have given to our 

working group, and to this committee. 

Working together, I think we must increase efficiency, upgrade 

government systems, and make spectrum available to meet our 

country’s wireless broadband demand. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

4 


85378.001

Opening Statement of the Honorable Greg Walden 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Hearing on "Creating Opportunities through Improved 

Government Spectrum Efficiency" 

September 13,2012 

(As Prepared for Delivery) 

I welcome our witnesses and appreciate their counsel as we examine ways to increase government 

spectrum efficiency and satisfy American consumers' growing demand for wireless broadband services. 

I'm convinced we can create new jobs from our work and bring innovation and efficiency to the federal 

government. 

In the months since the Congress passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which 

included the spectrum incentive auction provisions this subcommittee brought to the table, we have 

turned our attention to federal government usage of spectrum. In coordination with Representative Eshoo, 

I appointed a working group led by Brett Guthrie and Doris Matsui, and asked them to examine in depth 

how the government uses spectrum. Our goal is to create more jobs by freeing up spectrum to meet 

demand and spur innovation in America. It's also our goal to bring innovation and spectrum efficiency to 

the government users. 

One way we can create additional spectrum opportunities is through use of the Commercial Spectrum 

Enhancement Act. Under the CSEA, commercial providers bear the cost of moving federal incumbents to 

clear spectrum. Given the budgetary pressures facing the country - and the potential for sequestration to 

pose significant challenges to our defense agencies - we have an opportunity to work together to 

optimize the value of underutilized spectrum and upgrade equipment and services used by federal 

agencies. 

The best example of this process is the 2006 AWS-1 auction, which made 90 MHz of spectrum available 

for wireless broadband and raised more than $13.7 billion for the Treasury. 

The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology - or PCAST has provided us with one 

view of how to create spectrum opportunities in Federal bands. Rather than look to ways to increase the 

efficiency of the government users, the recently released PCAST report assumes that it would cost too 

much and take too long to move most federal systems. Instead, the report recommends that commercial 

providers operate around government systems and share spectrum. The concept of sharing is not new, 

and is certainly worth continued exploration. Sharing technologies and the underlying business models, 

however, are not sufficiently developed to make it the entire focus of our spectrum strategy or to supplant 

clearing. 

Spectrum sharing may hold potential in the future for some spectrum bands where clearing is impossible 

or we have certainty that the cost of relocation exceeds the value of the spectrum. I am not ready to 

accept the opinion that "the norm for spectrum use should be sharing" today. That's simply not good 

enough. 

I am also concerned because that conclusion appears based, at least in part, on a recent NTIA report 

concluding that it would cost $18 billion and take 10 years to clear the federal government from the 1.7 

GHz band. The NTIA has admitted, however, that it did not conduct an independent analysis to reach 

those estimates. Instead, the NTIA compiled estimates from the federal users. As the GAO's written 

testimony for today's hearing indicates, we need more rigorous analysis before giving up on clearing 

spectrum and working to maximize efficiency in how the government uses spectrum. 

I appreciate our witnesses' testimony today. You are all very talented people who help us in our work. I 

am particularly pleased to see Major General Wheeler with us, as NTIA's preliminary responses to a letter 

from our government spectrum working group indicate that the Department of Defense is the largest 

government user of spectrum, with just under 90 percent of the ground-based assignments and over 99 
5 


85378.002

percent of the airborne use of government spectrum below 3.1 GHz. Government systems can and 

should be comprised of the most efficient and technologically advanced products available. 

Working together we must increase efficiency, upgrade government systems, and make spectrum 

available to meet our country's wireless broadband demand. 

### 
6 

Mr. WALDEN. And with that, I would yield the balance of my 

time to the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Terry, for additional comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank you 

for holding this hearing and this series on how we are able to more 

efficiently use our spectrum. This time, the issue is spectrum efficiency and discussions about Department of Defense spectrum, and 

whether it is best used in a variety of different ways by allowing 

access to it by either having full power over it or shared to the private sector, and as consumers continue to demand more spectrum 

or access to spectrum. 

Now, I also—just in my balance, General Wheeler, I represent 

Stratcom, a big user of the communication system and the spectrum, and so I probably have more of a nuanced position in making 

sure that we protect those assets for our military, at the same 

time, making sure that we do use the spectrum most efficiently. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back the balance of his time. I 

now recognize my friend from California, Ms. Eshoo, for her opening statement, and thank her for her work on the working group. 

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

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to all 

of the witnesses. We thank you for being here. This is a very distinguished panel. To Major General Wheeler, I think that this may 

be a first. I don’t ever recall in my service on this subcommittee 

where we had the DoD testifying relative to telecommunications 

and spectrum. So this is an important hearing, and I think we are 

all going to draw a great deal from your testimony. 

To advance a 21st century spectrum policy, I think we have to 

think outside of the box. With data traffic on mobile service provider networks expected to increase 18 times from 2011 to 2016, we 

have to, I think, also move quickly, while we, of course, consider 

both clearing and sharing to most efficiently use this scarce resource. I don’t see this as an either/or situation. I think that they 

are complimentary. 

Through the passage of legislation authorizing voluntary incentive spectrum auctions, our subcommittee took an important step 

toward achieving the President’s goal of freeing up 500 megahertz 

of spectrum for expanded wireless broadband service. But our work 

is not complete, as evidenced by NTIA’s report on the 1755 megahertz band, as well as the recently adopted report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, as the chairman said we affectionately call PCAST. 

Today, I would like to offer three observations that I believe are 

necessary to achieve our vision of a 21st century spectrum policy. 

First, there is a simple reality that Federal agencies do not have 

the same financial incentive as commercial wireless providers to efficiently use the spectrum they hold. The PCAST report wisely proVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:22 Apr 01, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-17~3\112-17~1 WAYNE
7 

poses the concept of spectrum currency, because it does have enormous currency—it is gold—an accounting, an allocation, and an incentive system that would encourage Federal agencies to relinquish 

or share more of their spectrum. 

Second, we need greater investment in R&D. The use of database 

technology as well as automatic wifi switches, small cell technology, and cognitive radio can be part of the solution, making 

more efficient use of spectrum and even increasing the usability of 

spectrum above 2 gigahertz. 

Finally, increased communication between the Federal Government and commercial wireless providers will promote greater collaboration and a mutual understanding of each other’s needs. I 

don’t think that has really taken place. I am encouraged by recent 

industry testing that explores the feasibility of sharing spectrum 

between Federal and commercial users in the 1755–1780 megahertz band. Embracing these concepts will support a growing base 

of mobile users with the bandwidth needed to drive the next generation of mobile applications and services. 

I think that this is an opportunity for us to plan our spectrum 

future, and to keep America number one in this, and I think that 

is the goal for all of the members of the entire subcommittee. 

I now would like to yield the balance of my time to Congresswoman Matsui, who has done, I think—really made wonderful contributions to the working group with Mr. Guthrie, and also has offered legislation with Mr. Stearns on this very subject matter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Eshoo, for 

yielding me time, and I want to thank the chairman for holding 

this hearing today. I want to join in welcoming our witnesses here 

today. 

You know, over the last several months the spectrum working 

group has conducted a series of productive meeting with government and industry stakeholders, and I do believe that DOD, NTIA, 

and the FCC understand the urgency that they must reevaluate 

underutilized government spectrum holdings. There could be viable 

opportunities for both spectrum clearing and sharing to meet the 

short-term and long-term demands for a digital economy, all while 

protecting our national security interests. 

It is my hope that today’s panel will provide clear answers on 

which spectrum bands can be cleared below 3 gigahertz, and as a 

practical manner, which bands or areas would be ideal for sharing 

above 3 gigahertz. In addition, I am also interested in hearing from 

our panelists about how we can move forward in the short-term on 

repurposing the 1755 to 1850 bands, especially the lower megahertz between the 1755 and 1780 bands. I am also interested in 

hearing new ideas on incentivizing government agencies to relocate, including PCAST recommendations on spectrum currency. 

The CSMAC process should have the full involvement of all 

sides. The government needs to talk to industry and vice versa. 

The process must not be a one-way street. The industry testing efVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:22 Apr 01, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-17~3\112-17~1 WAYNE
8 

fort by T–Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T will also provide valuable insight and hopefully answer some important questions. 

I do look forward to working with my colleagues and all stakeholders moving forward. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. 

The Chair now recognizes the former chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. Stearns, for his comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In February, I think all 

of us realized after a year of hearings and discussions which affected all the stakeholders, we passed important legislation that 

will result in a new—in a number of new spectrum auctions. Obviously, however, our work is not done. We must ensure that all 

spectrum users are using their spectrum as efficiently as possible, 

including the Federal Government. Examining spectrum that could 

be reallocated from government agencies and commercially auctioned could open money-raising opportunities to offset the upcoming sequestration. 

As my colleague, Congresswoman Matsui, has indicated, I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at the bill that she 

and I introduced, which is H.R. 4817, earlier this year. I believe 

spectrum sharing should be explored as part of a long-term solution. We simply, my colleagues, do not have the technology for such 

sharing available today is my understanding, and it is unclear 

what business models would sustain them if we used it. So I believe that sharing should not be considered simply as a substitution 

for clearing. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee’s continuing focus on spectrum. It is extremely important for innovation, 

productivity, and the future of this country. 

And so I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank the gentleman for his testimony. I now recognize the gentlelady from California who has been a real leader 

on our telecom issues, Ms. Bono Mack. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO MACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday in my 

own subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade, we took a hard look at growth in the app economy. Mr. Chairman, the sector is booming. Today, an estimated 90 

million U.S. consumers spend about 60 minutes each day accessing 

the Internet with smartphones, while another 24 million people 

spend 75 minutes a day using the Internet on their tablets. If you 

haven’t heard business leaders talk about the importance of mobile 

to their future, then you haven’t been listening very closely. But 

what drives all of this growth? You guessed it, spectrum, and we 

need more of it. 

Today we are examining Federal uses of spectrum. Unfortunately, the administration seems willing to settle only for spectrum 

sharing, and in my opinion, has based that strategy on an incomVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:22 Apr 01, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-17~3\112-17~1 WAYNE
9 

plete analysis. Spectrum sharing is an important piece of the puzzle, but by no means the only solution. 

So I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today. I 

especially welcome Dr. Marshall, who is a fellow Trojan, working 

at USC, and I know we might not agree on all the issues, but we 

do agree that we are hoping for a big year out of Matt Barkley and 

the USC Trojans, and sorry, Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back her time. 

Mrs. BONO MACK [continuing]. Your Ducks, you know—— 

Mr. WALDEN. We have done all right. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. We have done all right. Rose Bowl, yes. 

Ms. Blackburn, we recognize you now. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank you, and I want to welcome our witnesses. We do appreciate that you are here, because we all agree 

that we are going to face a spectrum shortage or a spectrum crisis. 

Chairman Bono Mack referenced the hearing that we did yesterday 

that dealt with the app economy. We know what is coming toward 

us, what innovators are bringing to the marketplace very soon. 

Now, one of the things we will want to explore today is the 

PCAST report, and then the GAO report, and the differences in 

these two. I think we can all agree that these two reports were not 

compatible when it comes to meeting consumer expectations of 

what is going to be there for their use and available spectrum. 

So welcome to all, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlelady yields back. Anyone else on our side 

who wants to make a comment? If not, we will return the balance 

of the time and I now recognize the chairman emeritus, Mr. Waxman, for an opening statement. 

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Walden, for holding this timely hearing on the role of the Federal Government and 

how we can play a part in easing our Nation’s anticipated spectrum 

crunch. 

Since April, members of the bipartisan Federal spectrum working 

group led by Representatives Matsui and Guthrie have met with 

Federal agencies and industry stakeholders to explore opportunities for maximizing Federal spectrum efficiency. Today’s hearing 

provides an opportunity for the entire subcommittee to discuss 

these issues. 

I believe the administration is appropriately pursuing an all of 

the above approach to make more spectrum available for commercial mobile services. In 2010, the President called for 500 megahertz of spectrum to be made available for mobile broadband. Since 

then, the administration has already identified and begun freeing 

up over 400 megahertz of spectrum currently occupied by Federal 

users. 

10 

With the administration’s support, this committee has taken action as well to increase available spectrum. Working on a bipartisan basis, we passed legislation that authorizes the first ever incentive auctions. Experts believe the new auction mechanism could 

clear up to 120 megahertz of underutilized broadcast television 

spectrum for commercial broadband services. 

In preparation for this hearing, our staff spoke with several companies in the wireless industry to discuss options for utilizing Federal spectrum better. I am pleased to hear that these companies report that there has been an unprecedented level of cooperation between Federal and commercial stakeholders. In fact, one company 

told our staff that Federal agencies have shared more information 

in the last 2 months than in the previous 10 years. This collaborative process must continue if we are to meet our shared goal for 

greater spectrum availability. 

Many individual have contributed to the progress we are making, 

and I want to commend Mr. Nebbia, Major General Wheeler, Mr. 

Sharkey, and the other members of the Commercial Spectrum 

Management Advisory Committee for their coordinated efforts to 

make more spectrum available, to fuel wireless innovation, and economic growth. I also want to commend efforts by members of the 

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in authoring a forward thinking report focused on spectrum sharing as 

a way to improve the use of underutilized Federal spectrum. Given 

the looming spectrum crunch, I agree that we cannot afford to take 

any options off the table. Spectrum sharing is an innovative concept that should be part of a multi-prong strategy going forward, 

and I look forward to hearing from Dr. Marshall on the work of 

PCAST. 

When Congress passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, they made significant changes to the Federal relocation process that created new incentives to encourage agencies 

to participate in the clearing or sharing of spectrum. Today, we 

should explore whether there may be additional incentives that 

would encourage Federal users to relinquish more underutilized 

spectrum. This could be a winning proposition for both the commercial and public sectors. Properly crafted incentives can give Federal 

users better tools to help fulfill their missions and ensure our Nation’s long-term spectrum needs are met. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this time and I want to yield the 

balance of time that’s been allocated to me to Mr. Barrow. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Chairman, today we tackle the important issue of how to use 

government spectrum more efficiently and how to create new opportunities that serve our national interest through improved efficiency. 

As technology advances, broadband spectrum becomes more and 

more essential to everything we do in our daily lives. Given that 

our spectrum resources are limited, it is essential that we identify 

areas where spectrum isn’t being used so well and make it available to those who can put it to higher and better use. For the past 

11 

4 months, I have had the privilege of working with the bipartisan 

Federal spectrum working group on a constructed examination of 

how we can use the Nation’s airwaves better. I look forward to 

hearing our panelists’ perspectives on spectrum clearing and spectrum sharing, and working on a common sense strategy to free up 

spectrum to meet demand before we reach a spectrum crisis. 

I thank Mr. Waxman for the time, and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back the balance of his time. I 

think we have had our opening statements from both sides, so we 

will now proceed with the hearing and our witnesses. We thank 

you again for your work in preparing your statements and assisting 

our committee in its work. 

We will start with Mr. Mark Goldstein—I am sorry, Mr. Karl 

Nebbia. We will start at that end. Associate Administrator, Office 

of Spectrum Management, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. So Mr. Nebbia, we appreciate your being 

here today. Pull that microphone close and turn it on, and you are 

on. 

STATEMENTS OF KARL NEBBIA, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, 

OFFICE OF SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT E. 

WHEELER, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 

FOR COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS, AND COMPUTERS (C4) AND INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; MARK L. GOLDSTEIN, DIRECTOR, 

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; DOUGLAS C. SMITH, PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OCEUS NETWORKS; PRESTON MARSHALL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INFORMATION 

SCIENCES INSTITUTE, VITERBI SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, 

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; MARK RACEK, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL SPECTRUM POLICY, ERICSSON, INC.; AND 

STEVE B. SHARKEY, DIRECTOR, CHIEF ENGINEERING AND 

TECHNOLOGY POLICY, T–MOBILE USA, INC. 

STATEMENT OF KARL NEBBIA 

Mr. NEBBIA. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of NTIA, the President’s principle advisor on telecommunications and information policy, and manager of Federal 

use of the radio spectrum. As Associate Administrator for NTIA’s 

Office of Spectrum Management, I oversee frequency assignment, 

engineering, planning, and policy activities. It has been my privilege to work along side NTIA’s staff, Federal spectrum managers, 

our FCC counterparts, industry representatives, and your staff. 

Spectrum—it cannot be overstated the importance of spectrum to 

our Nation. Increasing commercial use of broadband is transforming business, healthcare, government, and public safety. 

PCAST estimated that increasing spectrum for wireless broadband 

could yield benefits of over $1 trillion, and create millions of American jobs. 

Spectrum also supports vital agency missions. Federal radio systems have supported the war on terror, including helping to elimiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:22 Apr 01, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-17~3\112-17~1 WAYNE
12 

nate Osama bin Laden. Weather satellites project hurricane paths, 

helping Americans prepare. Air traffic systems ensure that the 

American public fly safely. These safety and security systems provide the underlying framework that allows our society to thrive. 

Federal systems also put Neil Armstrong on the Moon, and more 

recently set curiosity to work on Mars. 

In June, 2010, the President directed that an additional 500 

megahertz be made available for wireless broadband by 2020. 

NTIA and other Federal agencies working in collaboration with the 

FCC, OMB, and OSTP have explored options and priorities. By November, 2010, NTIA recommended relocating, reallocating 115 

megahertz of the 1695 to 1710 and 3550 to 3650 bands. NTIA and 

the other agencies then pressed forward to evaluate the 1755–1850 

band. Federal uses include military tactical radio, law enforcement 

surveillance, drone control, air combat training systems, air nautical telemetry, and satellite control, among others. They all share 

that spectrum. Spectrum to which to relocate these systems is 

dwindling, as many operations actually require characteristics best 

suited for the spectrum beach front. 

In March, 2012, NTIA reported that the full 95 megahertz could 

be repurposed once certain challenges are overcome, and based on 

estimates from 20 agencies with over 3,100 frequency assignments 

in the band, the report projected that clearing users would take at 

least 10 years and cost approximately $18 billion. While the cost 

and time estimates are preliminary, relocating every system will be 

costly and take a long time. 

Therefore, NTIA is pursuing a new path to make this band available faster and at lower cost than under a relocation-only process. 

Such an approach relies on relocating Federal users where feasible 

and affordable, and sharing spectrum where practical. 

A critical component of this approach is to bring industry and 

government together to work collaboratively. In using our Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, NTIA organized groups of 

industry and government experts and by accounting for each Federal system, along with innovation and commercial technology, 

these groups can tailor and determine the best approach. In many 

cases, we expect recommendations for traditional relocation or geographic sharing. In others, we would expect that they approach a 

third option, that is, the possibility that commercial and Federal 

users can share frequencies through spectrum availability and 

technical flexibility. Sharing this spectrum could allow for more efficient use, matching intermittent or localized government use with 

other uses, and may reduce the uncertainties and disruptions that 

result from the constant threat of relocating in the future. We expect the findings of these groups in early 2013. 

In support of this effort, NTIA and Federal agencies are working 

with Mr. Sharkey at T–Mobile and other carriers to perform measurements, while Verizon has committed $5 million to test sharing 

approaches. NTIA is also evaluating 195 megahertz in the 5 

gigahertz range for unlicensed wifi devices that enable service providers to offload traffic. In October, NTIA will complete a study 

identifying the risks as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief 

Act. Further collaborative work with industry will be required to 

13 

understand what technology approach will yield the best results, 

and safeguard Federal missions. 

I want to thank the subcommittee for your efforts and support 

to improve the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, allowing 

agencies to recover costs for planning, sharing, equipment upgrades, and moving to non-spectrum technology or commercial 

services where possible. Other provisions support the transparency 

and effectiveness of the auction preparation process and band transition, and NTIA has begun to implement these provisions. NTIA 

and the Federal agencies have made substantial progress and are 

currently close to meeting the President’s goal. Our work on the 

Federal side has already recommended or is currently working on 

as much as 405 total megahertz, while safeguarding Federal operations, minimizing the cost and making spectrum available quickly. 

We look forward to the successful incentive auctions by the FCC, 

and other initiatives to improve access to nonfederal spectrum. I 

welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nebbia follows:] 

14 


85378.003

Testimony of 

Mr. Karl Nebbia 

Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Hearing on 

"Creating Opportunities through Improved Government Spectrum Efficiency" 

September 13, 2012 

I. Introduction 

Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) regarding federal agencies' use of spectrum. NTIA, an agency within 

the Department of Commerce, is the President's principal advisor on telecommunications and 

information policy matters and manages the federal agencies' use of radio spectrum. 

As Associate Administrator for NTIA's Office of Spectrum Management, I oversee 

NTIA's federal spectrum management operations, including all frequency assignment, 

engineering, and spectrum planning and policy functions. It is a privilege to serve in this 

capacity and I am pleased to appear today to discuss federal use of the radio spectrum and 

NTIA's substantial and multi-pronged efforts to identify spectrum for wireless broadband use 

while ensuring the ability of federal agencies to fulfill their challenging missions. 
15 


85378.004

II. Moving Forward to Make Additional Spectrum Available for Commercial 

Broadband Use 

It is hard to overstate the importance of radio frequency spectrum to our nation's 

economy and its impact on virtually every aspect of our society. Increasing commercial use of 

wireless spectrum for broadband is transforming multiple areas of the U.S. economy, including 

small businesses creation, productivity, employment, consumer welfare, health care, government 

services, and public safety. Research studies suggest that increased investment in new wireless 

broadband networks will boost national income,l significantly expand GDP growth,z and create 

hundreds of thousands of new jobs.3 A study commissioned by CTIA (the wireless industry 

trade association) estimated that the productivity gains from wireless broadband adoption result 

in nearly $100 billion in annual cost savings in the United States.4 Recently, an expert working 

group of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) - ably 

represented here today by Dr. Marshall - estimated that increasing the availability of spectrum 

for wireless broadband could yield social benefits of over $1 trillion and create millions of 

American jobs over many years.s 

I See, e.g., Pearce, Alan and Pagano, Michael, Accelerated Wireless Broadband Infrastructure Deployment: The 

Impact on GDP and Employment, Media Law and Policy, (2009), available at: 

http://www .nyls.edu!user filesll !3! 4/30/84/187 1245IPearce%20&%20Pagano, %20SPRfNG%202009%20&%20Pag 

ano,%20 18%20MEDIA %20L.%20&%20POL %E2%80%99Y .pdf. 

2 Deloitte Development, LLC, The impact of 4G technology on commercial interactions, economic growth, and Us. 

competitiveness (Aug. 2011), available at: http://www.deloitte.com/assetslDcomUnitedStates/Local%20AssetslDocuments/TMT us tmtlllS tmt impactof4g edited060612.pdf. 

3 See, e.g., Crandall, R. and Singer, H., The Economic Impact of Broadband Investment," (Feb. 23, 2010), released 

by the Broadband for America coalition, available at: http://www.nc!a.comlDocumentBinarv.aspx?id=880;See 

also, Sosa, D. and M. Van Audenrode, Private Sector Investment and Employment Impacts of Reassigning Spectnlm 

to Mobile Broadband in the United States, Analysis Group, Inc. (Aug. 20 II). 

4 Enlner, Roger, The Increasingly Important Impact of Wireless Broadband Technology and Services on the us. 

Economy (2008), available at: http://files.ctia.org/pdflFinai OvumEconomicfmpact Report 5 21 08.pdf. 

5 "Realizing the Full Potential ofGovemment-Held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth," Repnrt to the President 

by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (July 2012), at 

http://www.whitehouse,gov/sites/defaultifiles/micrositesiostp/peas! spectrum report final july 20 2012.pdf. 

- 2-
16 


85378.005

Spectrum is vital to enabling federal agencies to perform their essential missions, as it 

supports national security, critical defense operations, law enforcement, homeland security, 

transportation safety, scientific research, environmental monitoring, power marketing and 

weather prediction. As set forth more fully in General Wheeler's testimony, federal radio and 

radar systems have been indispensable to fighting the war on terror, eliminating Osama Bin 

Laden and preparing for future threats and military conflicts. Weather radar and satellite 

communications systems are critical to our ability to accurately project and monitor hurricanes 

and to help our citizens to prepare for weather emergencies. Air traffic control radar and radio 

systems are vital to ensuring that the American public flies safely, supporting an ever-improving 

flight safety record in the face of an increasing number of flights. Federal radio communications 

helped put Neil Armstrong on the moon and, more recently, set Curiosity to work on Mars. 

Recognizing the importance of jumpstarting additional investment in wireless broadband, 

the President has taken decisive action to ensure that American businesses and entrepreneurs 

could continue to meet the skyrocketing demand. In June 2010, the President directed the 

Department of Commerce, working through NTIA, to collaborate with the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) to make available an additional 500 megahertz of spectrum 

for commercial wireless broadband use by 2020.6 Since then, NTIA and other federal agencies 

have had our noses to the grindstone, determined to find the spectrum necessary to make these 

economic, technological and societal benefits a reality. In particular, we have been working 

closely with federal and non-federal stakeholders to explore all options for making additional 

spectrum available to commercial providers, licensed and unlicensed uses, clearing bands 

6 Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Unleashing the Wireless Broadband 

Revolution (Jun. 28, 2010). available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandumunleashing-wireless-broadband-revolution. 

- 3-
17 


85378.006

currently used by federal agencies, and sharing spectrum where technology and other factors 

permit. 

In November 2010, soon after receiving the President's assignment, NTIA identified 

2,200 megahertz of spectrum for evaluation. We have since added another 195 megahertz in the 

5 GHz range to this list of candidate bands. Also in 2010, NTIA led an interagency "fast track" 

evaluation of certain bands that could be reallocated without requiring relocation of federal 

systems and recommended reallocating 115 megahertz in the 1695-1710 MHz and 3550-3650 

MHz bands for wireless broadband use on a shared basis.7 

As the FCC undertook its responsibility of determining how and when to make that 115 

megahertz available, NTIA and the other agencies pressed forward to take on the substantial 

challenge of evaluating the 95 megahertz in the 1755-1850 MHz band, recognizing that the 

lower 25 megahertz is the most appealing to commercial carriers. With current federal uses in 

that band ranging from point-to-point microwave to covert law enforcement surveillance, drone 

control, and air combat training systems - where radio antennae are literally conformed to the 

skin of the aircraft - the critical and complex missions performed by federal agencies in the 

1755-1850 MHz band have required systems of greater and greater sophistication and have 

increased the agencies' own needs for spectrum. The opportunities to find spectrum in which to 

relocate federal operations are dwindling rapidly as many of these missions, especially airborne 

systems, require high mobility, small size and, in some cases, the ability to access the spectrum 

internationally. 

7 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Plan and Timetable to Make Available 500 MHz of 

Spectrumfor Wireless Broadband (Nov. 15,2010), available at: 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reportsI2010ITenYearPlan 1115201 O.pdf. 

-4-
18 


85378.007

In a report to the President in March 2012, NTIA determined that the full 95 megahertz 

of this prime spectrum band could be repurposed for wireless broadband use once certain critical 

challenges are overcome.s Based on preliminary estimates from the 20 agencies that have more 

than 3, 100 individual frequency assignments in this band, this report projected that completely 

clearing all of these federal users would take at least ten years and cost approximately 

$18 billion. Together with our agency partners, we concluded that the best and most fiscally 

responsible, long-term approach to this band is to evaluate the entire 95 megahertz of the band, 

and not some smaller portion, because many federal systems require access across the entire 

band to carry out their missions. Furthermore, reaching the goal of 500 megahertz will require 

larger steps. The extraordinary cost and time estimates identified in the report, while 

preliminary, compel us to explore a broader, more innovative, more aggressive approach to 

making the band, or some substantial portion thereof, available for commercial broadband use. 

III. Spectrum Sharing, Combined with Traditional Relocation, Will Help Address 

Spectrum Needs 

In light of the significant challenges in repurposing the 1755-1850 MHz band, NTIA is 

pursuing, with our industry and federal agency stakeholders, a new and innovative path forward 

that could allow us to make this band available faster and at a lower cost than would be possible 

under a traditional, relocation-only process, while still protecting critical federal missions. Such 

an approach relies on a combination of relocating federal users where feasible and affordable, 

and sharing spectrum between federal agencies and commercial users where possible and 

practical. By accounting for the unique requirements of each federal mission, along with recent 

• National Telecommunications and Infonnation Administration, An Assessment of the Viability of Accommodating 

Wireless Broadband in the 1755 -1850 MHz Band (March 27, 2012), available at: 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntialpublications/ntia 1755 1850 mhz report march2012.pdf. 

- 5 -
19 


85378.008

innovation in commercial technology, a tailored approach that employs a combination of 

relocation and sharing may provide the best way to achieve: (I) faster entry by commercial 

services; (2) substantially lower costs for the taxpayer; (3) more available spectrum due to 

efficiencies; and (4) greater innovation in the wireless marketplace. 

Today, NTIA is fully engaged to make this happen. NTIA's Commerce Spectrum 

Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) has organized several working groups, made up of 

experts from industry and government - an example of the public/private cooperation this 

Administration has favored - to evaluate all the. different federal uses and the prospective 

commercial technology and to determine the fastest, most cost-effective way forward to allow 

commercial broadband access. In many cases, we expect that traditional relocation will be the 

CSMAC's recommendation. Systems such as point-to-point microwave circuits, for example, 

are relatively straightforward to move. Within this band, these are among the least costly 

systems to relocate, as both the necessary equipment and alternative spectrum is available. In 

other cases, such as federal satellite earth stations, the working groups are evaluating how to 

better define geographic protection and coordination zones as a way of allowing commercial 

access in large parts of the country. It is not possible to relocate these critical satellite control 

links to new bands in the near future because they support satellites already launched. 

In addition to the relocation and geographic sharing options, the CSMAC working groups 

are considering a third option - the possibility that commercial users and the federal agencies can 

have access to the same frequencies in the same geographic areas through greater spectrum 

availability and the use of to day's new commercial technologies, which possess flexibility, 

agility and growing acceptance by international standards development organizations such as the 

3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). While significant technical and policy challenges lie 

ahead, sharing would allow for more efficient use of this spectrum, could match intermittent 

-6-
20 


85378.009

government use with other valuable uses, and may reduce the uncertainties and disruptions to 

agency missions that result from the constant threat of relocating again in the future. The 

CSMAC working groups are currently hard at work analyzing the available information, and we 

expect to receive these findings in early 2013. We very much appreciate the working group 

members' service and active participation. 

Another example of the collaboration among federal and non-federal entities to find winwin solutions for the nation's spectrum needs can be seen in NTIA and the Defense 

Department's (DOD) support of the wireless industry'S monitoring, analysis and testing efforts. 

T-Mobile USA, on behalf of the wireless industry, recently received experimental authorization 

from the FCC to engage in a pilot program to test sharing approaches to determine the feasibility 

of sharing the 1755-1850 MHz band with select categories of DoD systems. Additionally, 

Verizon has committed $5 million to further testing of spectrum sharing approaches. NTIA 

strongly supports these types of collaborative efforts between federal agencies, the wireless 

industry and other wireless technology innovators. They are critical to driving this process 

forward, as quickly as we can, toward successful outcomes for all stakeholders. 

The combined efforts ofNTIA, federal agencies and industry to pursue spectrum clearing 

and sharing, along with the critical efforts of the FCC to conduct incentive auctions, will result in 

tremendous progress towards the goals we all share of maximizing the availability of commercial 

spectrum for wireless broadband uses. 

IV. Unlicensed Devices in the 5 GHz Band 

Pursuant to Section 6406(b) of the Middle Class Tax Reliefand Job Creation Act of2012 

(Tax Relief Act), NTIA and the federal agencies have begun to evaluate known and proposed 

spectrum-sharing technologies and the risks to federal users if Unlicensed-National Information 

- 7-
21 


85378.010

Infrastructure (U-NIl) devices are allowed to operate in the 5350-5470 MHz band and in the 

5850-5925 MHz band. This additional 195 megahertz of spectrum holds the potential to expand 

significantly the bandwidth available for unlicensed broadband devices, which often provide a 

link to the Internet while enabling service providers to offload traffic from their licensed wireless 

networks, thus easing network congestion. We have held discussions with device manufacturers 

regarding these potential expansion bands as well as technical and regulatory options for 

addressing ongoing interference issues in other parts of the 5 GHz band. 

In October, NTIA will complete a study of the 5350-5470 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz 

bands in accordance with the Tax Relief Act. Based on this study and further quantitative 

analyses, NTIA, the FCC and the federal agencies will need to work cooperatively with industry 

representatives to fully assess the conditions under which sharing is or is not possible in those 

bands and to mitigate the identified risks to authorized systems. As the Tax Relief Act requires, 

the FCC and NTIA must determine that licensed users will be protected by technical solutions 

and that the critical missions offederal spectrum users will not be compromised by unlicensed 

use in these bands. In addition, NTIA will also need to collaborate with the Department of State 

to address the international dimensions and ramifications of these issues. 

V. Spectrum Sharing Research and Testing 

The Administration has also moved forward to facilitate research, development, 

experimentation, and testing of innovative spectrum-sharing technologies. The Wireless 

Spectrum R&D Senior Steering Group (SSG) held three workshops between 2011 and July 2012 

with the goal of identifying promising projects whose implementation will significantly advance 

progress in this area. The Senior Steering Group has also identified the federal research 

programs developing new sharing technologies and providing critical test capabilities. The most 

-8-
22 


85378.011

recent workshop held this summer in Boulder, Colorado, provided the opportunity for 

participants to review proposals for projects that would address the challenges identified by 

Congress, the FCC, NTIA, and the WSRD to make spectrum sharing technologies more 

available to all sectors of the wireless community. 

VI. Incentives for the Relocation of and Sharing with Federal Users 

The recent enactment of the Tax Relief Act will also play an important role in providing 

the incentives and means for federal agencies to relocate from or share their existing spectrum 

bands. I want to thank the members of this Subcommittee and their staff for their substantial 

efforts and support to include key spectrum management reforms. The improvements made by 

Congress to the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (CSEA) will allow agencies to recover 

costs for, among other activities, planning for the reallocation and/or sharing of spectrum, and 

implementing reallocation and/or spectrum sharing arrangements. They also open the door to 

agencies' upgrading their systems with state of the art technology and other technology or 

commercial platforms. Other improvements in the new law are aimed at facilitating better 

transparency, coordination, and predictability for bidders in FCC spectrum auctions and the 

ultimate winners of those auctions through, for example, a new requirement that NTIA publish 

agencies' spectrum transition plans on its website at least 120 days before the commencement of 

the corresponding FCC auction, with the exception of classified and sensitive information. 

NTIA has been working with the Office of Management and Budget, the FCC and other 

federal agencies to implement these provisions well before the FCC announces the next auction 

of reallocated federal spectrum bands. NTIA's objectives in this effort are to ensure the 

accuracy and sufficiency of agency transition plans, assure sufficient and timely funding to pay 

for and implement such plans, reduce risk and uncertainty in the auction and transition process, 

-9-
23 


85378.012

and avoid interruption or adverse impact to federal agencies' operations. New NTIA guidelines 

and regulations develop a common format for agency transition plans, establish a mechanism to 

review the sufficiency of such plans by an expert Technical Panel, and create a fair and efficient 

dispute resolution process for addressing disagreements that may arise over the execution, 

timing, or cost of transition plans. 

VII. Conclusion 

NTIA and the federal agencies have made substantial progress toward fulfilling the 

President's goal of doubling the amount of commercial wireless spectrum available this decade, 

and are excited by the strong momentum that today is driving our efforts. Indeed, our success is 

critical to enable businesses to grow faster and create more jobs, improve education and job 

training, enhance public safety, and encourage innovation and economic growth. To date, NTIA 

has put on the table 210 megahertz of additional federal spectrum to reallocate for commercial 

use. Together with similar efforts by the FCC, collaboration with industry, and the authority that 

Congress provided to the Commission to conduct incentive auctions, we are well on our way to 

achieving this success. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and welcome your questions. 

- 10-
24 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank you for your testimony. We will now go 

to—Major General Robert Wheeler is next, the Deputy Chief Information Officer for Command, Control, Communications, and Computers, C4, and Information Infrastructure at the U.S. Department 

of Defense. Major General Wheeler, first, thank you for your service to the country. We are all indebted to you and the men and 

women who wear our Nation’s uniform and have worn it in the 

past, and we are especially indebted to you for your work with us 

on this topic, so please, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. WHEELER 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, sir, I appreciate that. Good morning, 

Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and distinguished subcommittee members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee regarding the vital importance of scarce 

radio frequency spectrum to U.S. national defense capabilities, the 

economy, and consumers. My name is Major General Robert E. 

Wheeler, and as we discussed, I am the Deputy Chief Information 

Officer for Command, Control, Communications, and Computers, 

and Information Infrastructure Capabilities. 

Military spectrum requirements are diverse and complex given 

the variety of different missions the Department must support 

around the world. For example, the Air Combat Training System 

uses the 1755–1850 megahertz band to support combat readiness 

pilot certification for U.S. aircrews, as well as for crews from allied 

countries. The system is used at training ranges and bases across 

the U.S. with over 10,000 training flights per month. I have personally used this system several hundred times. 

Spectrum is the critical enabler that ensures information is dependably available to train our forces and ensure safe and successful mission accomplishment. The Department’s use of unmanned 

aerial systems to support its overseas operations requires spectrum 

to process volumes of critical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data. Our inventory of UAS platforms has increased from 

167 in 2002 to nearly 7,500 in 2010, and created an associated increase in demand for spectrum to satisfy those particular missions, 

and I believe it is going to increase even further. 

Within the DoD, we understand that the strength of our Nation 

is rooted in the strength of our economy. We are dependent on industry for innovative products that can be used for national security. In that regard, we remain fully committed in support of our 

national economic and security goals of the President’s 500 megahertz initiative. The implementation of more effective and efficient 

use of this finite radio spectrum and the development of solutions 

to meet these goals is equally important to both national security 

and the economic goals. 

The Department continues to work with NTIA, other administration partners, and industry to develop the information required to 

ensure balanced spectrum repurposing decisions that are technically sound and operationally viable from a mission perspective. 

The reallocation feasibility assessment of the 1755–1850 megahertz band shows that while there are challenges to overcome, it 

is possible to repurpose all 95 megahertz of that particular spectrum, based upon the conditions outlined in the NTIA report. DoD 

25 

is fully engaged in addressing these challenges, by closely working 

with industry to evaluate sharing possibilities. 

The Department estimated it would cost almost $13 billion to vacate or relocate out of the 1755 to 1850 megahertz band. This estimate was led and overseen by the Department’s independent Cost 

Assessment and Program Evaluation, CAPE organization, to ensure consistency in methodologies and assumptions. The cost to 

modify or replace the existing systems to use the identified comparable spectrum were also included in the DoD’s analysis. 

Let me briefly address the issue of the lower 25 megahertz or the 

1755 to 1780 megahertz band. As we worked within NTIA’s established process to identify the 500 megahertz directed by the President, the Federal agencies, including DoD, were instructed to study 

reallocation of the entire 95 megahertz, as 25 megahertz would not 

reflect significant progress toward the overall end goal. This was 

due in part to the fact that many of the systems, including critical 

DoD systems, operate in this frequency band, operating across the 

entire 95 megahertz band. Thus, a detailed study of vacating solely 

the lower 25 megahertz has not been conducted, and the results of 

the full 95 megahertz band study cannot be extrapolated to a solution for just the lower 25 megahertz. 

The Department has and continues to work with NTIA and the 

Federal Communications Commission to determine ways to share 

spectrum with commercial users when possible. A recent success is 

the FCC’s new rules for Medical Body Area Network sensor devices 

in the 2360 to 2390 megahertz band. DoD is also cooperatively 

working with three major wireless providers to evaluate sharing 

the 1755 to 18 megahertz band, including spectrum monitoring at 

selected DoD sites. 

DoD recognizes the need to move forward. We are developing a 

spectrum strategy focused on investing in technologies and capabilities aimed at more effective and efficient use and management 

of spectrum, and that begins at the acquisition cycle. 

The ability to operate spectrum-dependent national security capabilities without causing and receiving harmful interference while 

understanding the critical needs of our Nation’s economy remains 

absolutely paramount to this Department. The Federal Government and our industry partners have built an impressive team that 

is working toward solving the technical and policy issues so we can 

move ahead. Together, we will develop long-term solutions to 

achieving a balance between national security spectrum requirements and meeting the expanding demand of commercial 

broadband services. 

I thank you for listening, and the time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler follows:] 

26 


85378.013

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

UNTIL RELEASED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY 

STATEMENT OF 

MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT E. WHEELER 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPUTY 

CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER FOR 

COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS AND 

COMPUTERS (C4) AND INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE 

(DCIO FOR C4IIC) 

BEFORE 

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

Creating Opportunities through Improved Government Spectrum 

Efficiency 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

UNTil RELEASED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY 
27 


85378.014

Introduction 

Good morning Mr. Chairmen and distinguished Subcommittee members. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee regarding the vital importance of 

scarce radio frequency spectrum to U.S. national defense capabilities, the economy, and 

consumers. My name is Major General Robert Wheeler and I am the Deputy Chief 

Information Officer for Command, Control, Communications and Computers (C4) and 

Information Infrastructure Capabilities. My testimony today will focus on the importance 

of spectrum to the Department of Defense (DoD) in ensuring that our warfighters and 

mission partners have the critical capabilities they need to prepare for and execute the 

missions assigned to them by the Commander in Chief as safely and effectively as 

possible. 

Importance of Spectrum to DoD 

Military spectrum requirements are diverse and complex given the variety of different 

missions the Department must support around the world. DoD uses federally allocated 

and regulated spectrum assignments for command and control operations, 

communications, intelligence, surveillance and target acquisition, on land, at sea, in the 

air and in space. In the United States, our systems utilize spectrum in order to properly 

train as we must fight. 

For example, the Air Combat Training System (ACTS) uses the 1755-1850 MHz band to 

support combat readiness pilot certification through robust United States aircrew training 

along with crews from allied countries. The system is used at training ranges and bases 

across the United States with over 10,000 training flights per month. ACTS is also used 

for 10-12 large Carrier Strike Group exercises annually, where it is used 24 by 7 for up to 

six weeks in duration. 

In short, spectrum is the critical enabler that ensures information is dependably available 

to train our forces and ensure safe and successful mission accomplishment. 

1 
28 


85378.015

The Department, like the rest of the country and world, also has growing requirements 

resulting from our increasing reliance on spectrum-dependent technologies. An example 

is the Department's use of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) requires spectrum to process 

volumes of critical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data in support of our 

missions in military areas of operation. Our inventory ofUAS platforms has increased 

from167 in 2002 to nearly 7,500 in 2010. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in 

UAS use and training requirements, and consequently an increase in demand for 

spectrum to adequately satisfy those missions. 

While the Department critically depends on wireless and information technology that 

require spectrum, DoD is cognizant of the scarcity of this resource and its importance to 

the economic well-being of our nation. When referencing the United States Frequency 

Allocation chart, and using the strict interpretation of the allocations, one will find in 

spectrum bands 225 and 3700 MHz 18% government exclusive use, 33% 

non-government exclusive use, and 49% for government/non-government shared use. 

When you apply real-world factors for how spectrum is actually used within the United 

States, these numbers will vary, but they do illustrate the fact that there is not a 

significant gap between the amount of spectrum allocated to government and nongovernment users. Even within the exclusive federal bands, the majority of this spectrum 

is shared between DoD and all of the federal agencies, across a wide array of systems, 

performing a multitude of varied missions, often with very different technologies. 

As noted above, the Department recognizes the importance of the growing needs for 

spectrum for economic development, technology innovation and consumer services. 

Within the DoD, we understand that the strength of our nation is rooted in the strength of 

our economy. We are dependent on industry for innovative products that can be used for 

national security. In that regard, we remain fully committed in support of the national 

economic and security goals of the President's 500 MHz initiative. The implementation 

of more effective and efficient use of this finite radio-frequency spectrum and the 

2 
29 


85378.016

development of solutions to meet these goals is equally important to both national 

security and economic goals. 

The Department continues to work with the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA), other Administration partners, and industry to 

develop the information required to ensure balanced spectrum repurposing decisions that 

are technically sound and operationally viable from a mission perspective. The results so 

far have been promising. For instance, in support of the President's 500 MHz initiative, 

the initial frequency band assessment, commonly referred to as the "fast track study," 

resulted in arrangements to geographically share the 1695-1710 and 3550-3650 MHz 

bands. 

Furthermore, the reallocation feasibility assessment of the 1755-1850 MHz band also 

marks another important step. While there are significant challenges yet to overcome, it 

is possible to repurpose all 95 MHz of spectrum, based on the conditions outlined in the 

NTIA report. DoD is fully engaged in addressing these challenges, by closely working 

with industry to evaluate sharing possibilities. 

In general, in order to avoid critical mission impacts, there are three things the DoD 

requires if we are to relocate our systems out of spectrum to be repurposed for wireless 

broadband; cost reimbursement, sufficient time, and comparable spectrum (summarized 

at attachment I). 

Existing statutes provide for relocation costs to be reimbursed through the Spectrum 

Relocation Fund, using auction revenue. Auction revenues by law must meet 110% of 

the estimated federal relocation costs for the auction to go forward. During the 

Department's study of the 1755 - 1850 MHz band, the Service Cost Agencies led the 

development of cost estimates for their respective systems, while the entire process was 

led and overseen by the Department's independent Cost Assessment and Program 

Evaluation (CAPE) organization to ensure consistency in methodologies and 

assumptions. The costs to modify or replace existing systems to use the identified 

3 
30 


85378.017

comparable spectrum were included in the analysis. Any affected systems planned to be 

retired or already programmed to be replaced within the ten-year transition period (e.g., 

Air Force Precision Guided Munitions and Army Explosive Ordinance Disposal robots) 

were excluded. The Service Cost Agencies interviewed technical experts associated with 

each of the major systems to understand what components needed modification, made 

site visits to major test and training ranges to view the actual equipment, and gathered 

cost data for similar modifications and new components where available. The cost 

estimates were peer-reviewed through the respective Service Cost Agencies and reviewed 

again by CAPE and the DoD ChiefInformation Officer. 

Sufficient time to relocate is dependent upon the schedule of developing and deploying 

alternative capabilities, and can vary from a few years for simple systems with readily 

available alternatives, up to 10 years for more complex systems, and upwards of 30 years 

for space systems, where modification is not an option. The last requirement is 

comparable spectrum to relocate systems into; this spectrum must have the physical 

properties to support the mission currently being performed. With the finite nature of 

spectrum, and growing requirements, this has become a tough requirement to meet. 

Let me also address the issue of the lower 25 MHz or the 1755 - 1780 MHz band. We 

fully understand the desire to bring this 25 MHz to market rapidly, particularly with a 

potential pairing band called out for auction within three years in the Middle Class Tax 

Relief and Job Creation Act, but the Department has some significant reservations. As 

we worked within NTIA's established process to identifY the 500 MHz directed by the 

President, the federal agencies, including DoD, were instructed to study reallocation of 

the entire 95 MHz band, as 25 MHz would not reflect significant progress toward the end 

goal. Thus, a detailed study of vacating solely the lower 25 MHz has not been 

conducted, and the results of the full 95 MHz band study cannot be extrapolated to a 

solution for just the lower 25 MHz. Further, it is important that DoD understand the long 

4 
31 


85378.018

term status of the full band as part of any decision on the lower 25 MHz, in order to fully 

understand the impacts on DoD warfighting missions and cost implications of any 

relocation. Further details are provided at attachment 2. In order to make balanced 

decisions about relocating from or sharing spectrum, the Department requires adequate 

time to conduct operational, technical, cost and schedule-feasibility analysis to ensure 

national security and other federal capabilities are preserved, while supporting the 

economic benefits spectrum use affords the nation. These studies are critical to 

preserving the warfighting advantages our weapons systems provide so that our soldiers, 

sailors, airman and marines can perform their missions with the greatest possible 

advantage over our adversaries, and return home to their loved ones safely. 

Recognizing the relocation challenges, focus is shifting to spectrum sharing as a potential 

option for repurposing spectrum bands for commercial wireless broadband use. 

The Department has and is continuing to work with NTIA and the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) to determine ways to share spectrum with 

commercial users when possible. A recent success is the FCC's new rules for Medical 

Body Area Network (MBAN) sensor devices in the 2360-2390 MHz band. This band is 

critical to our aeronautical mobile telemetry testing, yet collectively DoD and the medical 

community were able to establish the rules to permit this new use to enter the band 

without risk of harmful interference. 

While moving from an exclusive right spectrum management regime to one focused on 

large-scale spectrum sharing presents new challenges, DoD is committed to working with 

government and industry partners to develop equitable spectrum sharing solutions. DoD 

is actively supporting efforts through NTIA-established working groups under its 

Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) to further the 1755-

1850 MHz band assessment, working with interagency partners, NTIA, FCC and 

industry. The main focus of the evaluation is to determine the feasibility of sharing the 

5 
32 


85378.019

1755-1850 MHz band versus relocation. DoD is also cooperatively working with three 

major wireless providers to evaluate sharing the 1755-1850 MHz band including 

spectrum monitoring at selected DoD sites as well as modeling, simulation and analysis 

to develop an understanding of the sharing environment in the band. Results will inform 

the NTIA CSMAC working groups. 

DoD recognizes the need to look forward. We are developing a spectrum strategy focused 

on investing in technologies and capabilities aimed at more effective and efficient use 

and management of spectrum. 

Summary 

The ability to operate spectrum-dependent national security capabilities without causing 

and receiving harmful interference while understanding the critical needs of our Nation's 

economy remains paramount to the Department. The federal government and our 

industry partners have built an impressive team that is working toward solving the 

technical and policy issues so we can move ahead. Together, we will develop long-term 

solutions to achieving a balance between national security spectrum requirements and 

meeting the expanding demand of commercial broadband services. 

I want to thank you for your interest in hearing the importance of spectrum to DoD. 

6 
33 


85378.020

Comparable Spectrum: Limited places to relocate 000 without loss of 

capability 

- Favorable, technically viable spectrum bands are already congested 

- The functionlcapability requirements drive the spectrum band options 

Note: Public Law 106-65 mandates that 000 obtain alternate spectrum with 

comparable technical characteristics before relinquishing any spectrum for 

commercial use 

• Cost: Potentially high cost (e.g., 000 1755-1850 relocation cost is 

estimated $12.98) 

Timelines: Realities of DoD/Federal relocations don't match 

commercial schedules 

- Systems reengineering, acquisition, and procurement drive 000 timelines 

- Funding to modify systems not provided until after auction 

- Protection zones are needed until transitions are complete (exacerbates the 

problem) 

Attachment 1 
34 


85378.021

'1710-1755 1755-1780 MHz 

*DoD completed 

relocation in 2011 Can't Truncate into 1780~1850 MHz 

wfo Operational Impacts 

1780-1850 MHz 

• DoD would require additional study of the 1755-1780 MHz scenario to assess: 

- Technical Feasibility: Assess technical feasibility for multiple scenarios centered on: 

(1) relocating to a new band, or 

(2) sharing within the band 

Note: Availability of Comparable spectrum as required by PL 106-65 is a cfitical factor 

- Operational Impacts: Assess nearly 100 distinct, operational systems in the band for 

both scenarios (relocation or sharing) 

Costs: Multiple scenarios based on technical/operational determinations; costs may be high 

Timelines: Programmatic requirements will require more than 5 years to complete 

Attachment 2 
35 

Mr. WALDEN. We appreciate your testimony. 

We will now go to Mr. Mark Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues for the Government Accountability Office. Mr. 

Goldstein, thanks for your work. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MARK L. GOLDSTEIN 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to testify today on 

issues related to the management of Federal spectrum and spectrum sharing. 

Demand for spectrum is increasing rapidly with the widespread 

use of wireless broadband devices and services. However, nearly all 

usable spectrum has been allocated either by NTIA for Federal use 

or the FCC for commercial and nonfederal use. Federal initiatives 

are underway to identify Federal spectrum that could be 

repurposed or possibly shared by Federal users, or wireless 

broadband providers and other nonfederal users. Our statement 

today discusses how NTIA manages spectrum to address government-wide spectrum needs, the steps NTIA has taken to repurpose 

spectrum for broadband, and as part of an ongoing review, the 

statement also discusses preliminary information from the factors 

that prevent spectrum sharing and actions that can encourage 

sharing efficient spectrum use. 

The following is what GAO has found in the two reports that we 

are talking about today. 

First, while NTIA is responsible for government-wide Federal 

spectrum management, GAO reported in 2011 that its efforts in 

this area had been limited. Almost 10 years ago, the President directed NTIA to develop plans identifying Federal and nonfederal 

spectrum needs, and in 2008, NTIA issued the Federal plan. We 

found that this plan did not identify government-wide spectrum 

needs and did not contain key elements and conform to best practices for strategic planning. Generally, NTIA’s primary spectrum 

management operations do not focus on government-wide needs. 

Instead, NTIA depends on agency self-evaluation of spectrum 

needs, and focuses on mitigating interference among spectrum 

users with limited emphasis on overall spectrum management. 

Additionally, NTIA’s data management system is antiquated and 

lacks internal controls to ensure the accuracy of agency-reported 

data, making it unclear if reliable data informed decisions about 

Federal spectrum use. NTIA is developing a new management system, but its implementation is years away. 

Despite these limitations, NTIA has taken steps to identify spectrum that could potentially be made available for broadband use. 

For example, in 2010, NTIA evaluated various spectrum bands and 

identified 115 megahertz of spectrum that could be repurposed 

within the next 5 years. For each of the identified bands, NTIA reviewed the number of Federal frequency assignments within the 

band, the types of Federal operations and functions that the assignments support, and the geographic location of Federal users. 

However, the private sector has indicated that most of the frequencies located in these bands are not the most useful for expanding commercial broadband activities. 

36 

Second, in addition to efforts to repurpose spectrum, some stakeholders have also suggested that sharing spectrum between Federal and nonfederal users be considered to help make spectrum 

available for broadband. However, ongoing work has identified several significant barriers that limit sharing. Primarily, many Federal users may lack incentives to share inside a spectrum. Typically, paying the market price for a good or service helps to inform 

users of the value of the good and provides an incentive for efficient 

use. Yet Federal agencies pay only a small fee to NTIA for spectrum assignments and may, in some contexts, have little incentive 

to conserve or to share it. And accurate information about which 

areas might be best shared is inadequate. Federal agencies may 

also have limited budgets to upgrade to more spectrally efficient 

equipment that would better enable sharing. Nonfederal users also 

are reluctant to share with Federal users, due to a variety of regulatory hurdles, and are also wary of sharing with others in the private sector due to competition concerns. 

Finally, GAO’s ongoing work suggests that some actions might 

provide greater incentives and more opportunities for more efficient 

spectrum use in sharing. These actions could include studying spectrum usage fees to provide economic incentive for more efficient use 

in sharing, expanding the availability of unlicensed spectrum, and 

increasing the Federal focus on research and development of technologies that can enable spectrum sharing as well. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy 

to answer any questions that the committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein follows:] 

37 


85378.022

GAO 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:15 a.m. EDT Thursday, September 13, 2012 

GAO-12-1018T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives 

SPECTRUM 

MANAGEMENT 

Federal Government's Use 

of Spectrum and 

Preliminary Information on 

Spectrum Sharing 

Statement of Mark L. Goldstein, Director 

Physical Infrastructure Issues 

GAO 

Accountability * Integrity '" Reliability 
38 


85378.023

1$.j§1i,lrntjM"ltif 

SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT 

Federal Government's Use of Spectrum and 

Preliminary Information on Spectrum Sharing 

What GAO Found 

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is 

responsible for governmentwide federal spectrum management, but GAO 

reported in 2011 that NTIA's efforts in this area had been limited. In 2003, the 

President directed NTIA to develop plans identifying federal and nonfederal 

spectrum needs, and in 2008, NTIA issued the federal plan. GAO found it did not 

identify governmentwlde spectrum needs and did not contaIn key elements and 

conform to best practices for strategic planning. Furthermore, NTIA's primary 

spectrum management operations do not focus on governmentwide needs. 

Instead, NTIA depends on agency self-evaluation of spectrum needs and 

focuses on mitigating interference among spectrum users, with limited emphasis 

on overall spectrum management. Additionally, NTIA's data management system 

is antiquated and lacks internal controls to ensure the accuracy of agencyreported data, making it unclear if reliable data inform decisions about federal 

spectrum use. NTIA is developing a new data management system, but 

implementation is years away. 

Despite these limitations, NTIA has taken steps to identify spectrum that could 

potentially be made available for broadband use. For example, in 2010 NTIA 

evaluated various spectrum bands and identified 115 megahertz of spectrum that 

could be repurposed within the next 5 years. In doing so, NTIA worked with a 

special steering group consisting of the Assistant Secretaries with spectrum 

management oversight in agencies that were the major stakeholders 1n the 

spectrum bands under consideration. For each of the identified bands, NTIA 

reviewed the number of federal frequency assignments within the band, the types 

of federal operations and functions that the aSSignments support, and the 

geographic location of federal use. 

In addition to efforts to repurpose spectrum, industry stakeholders have also 

suggested that sharing spectrum between federal and nonfederal USers be 

considered to help make spectrum available for broadband. Our ongoing work 

has identified several barriers that limit sharing. Primarily, many users may lack 

incentives to share assigned spectrum. Typically, paying the market price for a 

good or service helps to inform users of the value of the good and provides an 

incentive for efficient use. But federal agencies pay only a small fee to NTIA for 

spectrum assignments, and may, in some contexts, have little incentive to 

conserve or share it. Federal agencies may also have limited budgets to upgrade 

to more spectrally-efficient equipment that would better enable sharing. 

Nonfederal users are also reluctant to share spectrum. For instance, license 

holders may be reluctant because of concerns that spectrum sharing could 

encourage competition. A lack of information on federal spectrum use may limit 

users' ability to easily identify spectrum suitable for sharing. 

GAO's ongoing work suggests that some actions might provide greater 

incentives and opportunities for more efficient spectrum use and sharing. These 

actions could include assessing spectrum usage fees to provide economic 

incentive for more efficient use and sharing, expanding the availability of 

unlicensed spectrum, and increasing the federal focus on research and 

development of technologies that can enable spectrum sharing and improve 

spectral efficiency. However, all of these actions also involve challenges and may 

require further study. _____________ United States Government Accountability Office 
39 


85378.024

Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on issues related to 

spectrum management and spectrum sharing practices in the United 

States. Radio frequency spectrum enables wireless communications 

services critical to the U.S. economy and a variety of government 

functions, such as scientific research and national defense. Spectrum 

capacity is necessary to deliver wireless broadband to consumers and 

businesses and broadband deployment stimulates economic growth and 

boosts the nation's capabilHies in areas such as education and health 

care. As the U.S. experiences significant growth in commercial wireless 

broadband services, the demand for spectrum has increased and 

additional capacity will be needed. However, nearly all usable spectrum 

has been allocated either by the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) for federal government use or by the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for commercial and other 

nonfederal use. Virtually no "green fields" of spectrum are currently 

available to allocate to new uses or technologies. 

Currently, federal government initiatives are under way to identify 

spectrum that can be made available to meet the nation's increased 

demand for commercial wireless broadband services. In particular, the 

National Broadband Plan recommended that 500 megahertz (MHz) of 

spectrum be made newly available for broadband use within the next 10 

years,' and in June 2010, the President issued a memorandum directing 

NTIA to begin identifying federal spectrum that can be made available for 

wireless broadband. 2 Solutions geared toward greater sharing of 

spectrum among users-federal and nonfederal-have become attractive 

because of the potential access to more spectrum and opportunities to 

use spectrum more efficiently that sharing presents. The President's 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) recommended 

'In 2010, an FCC task force issued the National Broadband Plan. Federal 

Communications Commission, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, p. 84, 

Recommendation 5.8, (Mar. 16, 2010) 

2See, Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution, 75 Fed. Reg. 38387 (2010). 

Page 1 GAO-12-1018T 
40 


85378.025

that 1,000 MHz of spectrum previously occupied only by federal users be 

shared with nonfederal users.3 

Based on our April 2011 report, my testimony today discusses NTIA's 

spectrum management to address governmentwide spectrum needs and 

the steps NTIA has taken to repurpose spectrum for broadband. 4 Based 

on an ongoing review, I will also discuss our preliminary information on 

the factors that prevent spectrum sharing and actions that might be taken 

to encourage sharing and efficient spectrum use. We plan to issue a 

report on these issues in fall 2012. In conducting our work, we reviewed 

NTIA documents, including its Manual of Regulations and Procedures for 

the Federal Radio Frequency Management (commonly referred to as the 

Redbook); an assessment of spectrum bands that could possibly be 

repurposed for wireless broadband (referred to as the Fast Track 

Evaluation); and other documentation of NTIA's current processes, 

pOlicies, and procedures. We interviewed officials from NTIA's Office of 

Spectrum Management about their spectrum management policies and 

procedures and interviewed stakeholders with knowledge of spectrum 

issues including industry and academic experts, and representatives of 

an industry association and telecommunications companies. We selected 

the experts and industry stakeholders based on prior published literature, 

stakeholders' recognition and affiliation with the spectrum management 

industry, and NTIA and other stakeholders' recommendations. We also 

reviewed federal legislation, regulations, and processes regarding 

spectrum sharing, including various FCC plans, notices, orders and other 

publications. We conducted interviews with officials from FCC, NTIA, and 

various advisory committees, including the Commerce Spectrum 

Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC).5 We also interviewed 

several agencies on the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee 

3President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the President; 

Realizing the Full Potential of Govemment-held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth 

(Washington, D.C.: July 2012). 

4GAO. Spectrum Management: NTIA Planning and Processes Need Strengthening /0 

Promote the Efficient Use of Spectrum by Federal Agencies. GAO-11-352 (Washington, 

D.C.: April 12. 2011). 

5CSMAC is a federal advisory committee that provides advice and recommendations to 

NTIA. It is organized through NTIA's Office of Policy Analysis and Development and 

consists of approximately 25 spectrum policy experts from the private sector. 

Page 2 GAO-12-1018T 
41 


85378.026

Background 

(IRAC).· Additional information on our scope and methodology is 

provided in our 2011 report. We conducted our work related to federal 

management and use of spectrum from May 2010 to April 2011 and our 

work related to spectrum sharing from September 2011 to September 

2012. All of our work was conducted in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. We provided a draft of this 

statement related to spectrum sharing to FCC and NTIA officials to obtain 

their comments. FCC and NTIA provided technical corrections, which we 

incorporated where appropriate. 

The radio frequency spectrum is the part of the natural spectrum of 

electromagnetic radiation lying between the frequency limits of 3 kilohertz 

(kHz) and 300 gigahertz (GHz). Not all spectrum has equal value. The 

spectrum most highly valued generally consists of frequencies between 

225 MHz and 3700 MHz, as these frequencies have properties well suited 

to many important wireless technologies, such as mobile phones, radio, 

and television broadcasting. According to NTIA, as of September 2012, 

federal agencies had exclusive access to about 18 percent of these highvalue frequencies, and nonfederal users had exclusive licenses to about 

33 percent. The remainder of this spectrum is allocated to shared use. 

However, in many cases in these shared bands, federal or nonfederal 

uses may dominate and actual sharing is nominal. NTIA has concluded 

that overall, approximately 43 percent of these high-value frequencies are 

predominantly used by federal operations. 

Federal agencies use spectrum to help meet a variety of missions, 

including emergency communications, national defense, land 

management, and law enforcement. Over 60 federal agencies and 

departments combined have over 240,000 frequency aSSignments. 

Agencies and departments within the Department of Defense have the 

most assignments, followed by the Federal Aviation Administration, the 

Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the 

Department of the Interior, the Department of Agricunure, U.S. Coast 

Guard, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Commerce, 

respectively. These federal agencies and departments hold 94 percent of 

is an interagency advisory committee that was established in 1922 to coordinate 

use of spectrum and provide policy advice on spectrum issues. It is comprised of 

representatives from 19 federal agencies that use spectrum. Those agencies hold aver 90 

percent of federally assigned spectrum. 

Page 3 GAO·12-1018T 
42 


85378.027

all federally assigned spectrum. Nonfederal entities (which include 

commercial companies and state and local governments) also use 

spectrum to provide a variety of services. For example, state and local 

police departments, fire departments, and other emergency services 

agencies use spectrum to transmit and receive critical voice and data 

communications, while commercial entities use spectrum to provide 

wireless services, including mobile voice and data, paging, broadcast 

radio and television, and satellite services (see fig. 1). 

Figure 1: Examples of Allocated Spectrum Uses, and FederaJ Spectrum Use in the High~Value Range 

In the United States, responsibility for spectrum management is divided 

between NTIA and FCC. NTIA and FCC jointly determine the amount of 

spectrum allocated for federal, nonfederal, and shared use. After this 

allocation occurs, in order to use spectrum, nonfederal users must follow 

Page 4 GAO·12·1018T 
43 


85378.028

rules and obtain authorizations from FCC to use specific spectrum 

frequencies, and federal users must follow rules and obtain frequency 

assignments from NTIA. In order for nonfederal users to share federal 

spectrum, NTIA and FCC are jointly involved in the process. The 

nonfederal party petitions FCC, and FCC in turn coordinates rulemakings 

and licenses with NTIA through IRAC. NTIA manages sharing between 

federal users on a day-te-day basis. If federal users are requesting 

frequency assignments in exclusive nonfederal or shared bands, that 

request is coordinated through IRAC with FCC. If sharing is solely 

between nonfederal users in exclusive nonfederal bands, sharing is 

generally governed by FCC rules and does not go through NTIA, unless 

there could be out-of-band interference. In addition to its spectrum 

allocation and authorization duties, NTIA serves as the President's 

principal advisor on telecommunications and information policy and 

manages federally assigned spectrum, including preparing for, 

participating in, and implementing the results of international radio 

conferences, as well as conducting extensive research and technical 

studies through its research and engineering laboratory, the Institute for 

Telecommunication Sciences. NTIA has authority to issue rules and 

regulations as may be necessary to ensure the effective, effiCient, and 

equitable use of spectrum both nationally and internationally. It also has 

authority to develop long-range spectrum plans to meet future spectrum 

requirements for the federal government. 

Spectrum sharing can be defined as the cooperative use of common 

spectrum. In this way, multiple users agree to access the same spectrum 

at different times or locations, as well as negotiate other technical 

parameters, to avoid adversely interfering with one another. For sharing 

to occur, users and regulators must negotiate and resolve where 

(geographic sharing), when (sharing in time), and how (technical 

parameters) spectrum will be used (see fig. 2). 

Page 5 GAO·12-1018T 
44 


85378.029

Figure 2: Illustration and Examples of Spectrum Sharing 

Spectrum sharing also occurs with unlicensed use of spectrum, since it is 

accessible to anyone using wireless equipment certified by FCC for those 

frequencies. Equipment such as wireless microphones, baby monitors, 

and garage door openers typically share spectrum with other services on 

a non-interference basis using low power levels to avoid interference with 

higher priority uses. In contrast with most licensed spectrum use, 

unlicensed spectrum users have no regulatory protection against 

interference from other licensed or unlicensed users in the band. 

However, unlicensed use is regulated to ensure that unlicensed devices 

do not cause undue interference to operations with a higher priority. For 

example, in the 5 GHz band, wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) devices share a 

band with military radar subject to the condition that the Wi-Fi devices are 

capable of spectrum sensing and dynamic frequency selection; if radar is 

detected, the unlicensed user must immediately vacate the channel. 

PageS GAO-12-1018T 
45 


85378.030

NTIA's Processes for 

Managing Federal 

Spectrum Lack 

Governmentwide 

Focus and 

Accountability 

NTIA:s Spectrum 

Management Efforts 

As the federal agency authorized to develop national spectrum policy, 

NTIA has been directed to conduct several projects focused on reforming 

governmentwide federal spectrum management and promoting efficiency 

among federal users of spectrum; however, we reported in 2011 that its 

efforts in this area had resulted in limited progress toward improved 

spectrum management. NTIA has authority to, among other things, 

establish policies conceming assigning spectrum to federal agencies, 

coordinate spectrum use across federal agencies, and promote efficient 

use of spectrum by federal agencies in a manner which encourages the 

most beneficial public use. As such, NTIA has a role in ensuring that 

federally allocated spectrum is used efficiently. According to NTIA's 

Redbook and agency officials, efficient use includes ensuring that federal 

agencies' decisions to use spectrum to support government missions 

have been adequately justified and that all viable tradeoffs and options 

have been explored before making the decision to use spectrumdependent technology, and ensuring that these tradeoffs are continuously 

reviewed to determine if the need for spectrum has changed over time. 

NTIA's primary guidance to federal agencies is technical guidance 

provided through NTIA's Redbook concerning how to manage assigned 

spectrum. 

In 2003, the Bush Administration directed NTIA to develop strategic 

plans, and in March 2008, NTIA issued its report on federal spectrum use 

entitled the Federal Strategic Spectrum Plan. 7 While the intent of the 

Federal Strategic Spectrum Plan was to identify the current and projected 

spectrum requirements and long-range planning processes for the federal 

government, we reported in 2011 that the final plan is limited in these 

70epartment of Commerce, Nationa! Telecommunications and Information Administration, 

Spectrum Policy for the 21st Century - The President's Spectrum Policy Initiative: The 

Federal StrategiC Spectrum Plan (March 2008). 

Page 7 GAO·12·1018T 
46 


85378.031

NTIA Focuses on 

Interference Mitigation 

Rather than on Best Use of 

Spectrum across 

Government 

NTIA:s Current Data 

Management System Is of 

Limited Usefulness 

areas, For example, the plan does not identify or include quantitative 

governmenlwide data on federal spectrum needs. Instead, NTIA's plan 

primarily consists of a compilation of the plans submitted by 15 of the 

more than 60 agencies that use federal spectrum. Additionally, due to the 

fact that they contained limited information regarding future requirements 

and technology needs, NTIA concluded that its "long-range assumptions 

are necessarily also limited," Furthermore, NTIA's plan did not contain 

key elements and best practices of strategic planning. 

NTIA's primary spectrum management operations include authorizing 

federal frequency assignments and certifying spectrum-dependent 

equipment for federal users; however, these processes are primarily 

focused on interference mitigation as determined by IRAC and do not 

focus on ensuring the best use of spectrum across the federal 

government. In 2011, we found that the process as established by federal 

regulations for review and approval of frequency assignment and system 

certification was technical in nature, focusing on ensuring that the new 

frequency or system that an agency wants to use would not interfere with 

another agency's operations. According to NTIA Officials, this focus on 

day-to-day spectrum activities, such as interference mitigation, is due to 

the agency's limited resources, This focus, while important, makes limited 

consideration about the overall best use of federally allocated spectrum. 

Therefore, NTIA's current processes provide limited assurance that 

federal spectrum use is evaluated from a governmenlwide perspective to 

ensure that decisions will meet the current and future needs of the 

agencies, as well as the federal government as a whole, 

NT lA's data management system is antiquated and lacks transparency 

and internal controls. In 2011, we reported that NTIA collects all federal 

spectrum data in the Government Master File (GMF), which according to 

NTIA officials is an outdated legacy system that was developed primarily 

to store descriptive data. These data are not detailed enough to support 

the current analytical needs of NTIA or other federal users, as the system 

was not designed to conduct such analyses. NTIA does not generate any 

data, but maintains agency-reported spectrum data in the GMF, which are 

collected during the frequency assignment and review processes, 

NTIA's processes for collecting and verifying GMF data lack key internal 

controls, including those focused on data accuracy, integrity, and 

completeness. Control activities such as data verification and 

reconciliation are essential for ensuring accountability for government 

PageS GAO.12.1018T 
47 


85378.032

NTIA Has Taken Steps 

to Identify Spectrum 

for Future Wireless 

Broadband Use 

NTIA Efforts to Identify 

Spectrum for Broadband 

resources and achieving effective and efficient program results. In 2011, 

we reported that NTIA's data collection processes lack accuracy controls 

and do not provide assurance that data are being accurately reported by 

agencies. Rather, NTIA expects federal agencies to supply accurate and 

up-to-date data submissions, but it does not provide agencies with 

specific requirements on how to justify that the agencies' spectrum 

assignments will fulfill their mission needs. 

NTIA is developing a new data management system-the Federal 

Spectrum Management System (FSMS)-to replace the GMF. According 

to NTIA officials, the new system will modernize and improve spectrum 

management processes by applying modern information technology to 

provide more rapid access to spectrum and make the spectrum 

management process more effective and efficient. NTIA projects that 

FSMS will improve existing GMF data quality, but not until 2018. 

According to NTIA's FSMS transition plan, at that time data accuracy will 

improve by over 50 percent. However, in the meantime it is unclear 

whether important decisions regarding current and future spectrum needs 

are based on reliable data. 

In response to the government initiatives to make a total of 500 MHz of 

spectrum available for wireless broadband, in 2010 NTIA (1) identified 

115 MHz of federally allocated spectrum to be made available for wireless 

broadband use within the next 5 years, referred to as the Fast Track 

Evaluation, and (2) developed an initial plan and timetable for repurposing 

additional spectrum for broadband, referred to as the 10-Year Plan. 

Fast Track Evaluation. NTIA and the Policy and Plans Steering Group 

(PPSG)' identified and recommended portions of two frequency bands, 

PPSG consists of the Assistant Secretaries, or equivalent, with spectrum 

management oversight in agencies that are major stakeholders in the spectrum issues 

under consideration. 

Page 9 GAO-12-101ST 
48 


85378.033

totaling 115 MHz of spectrum within the ranges of 1695-1710 MHz and 

3550-3650 MHz to be made available for wireless broadband use. 9 For 

each of these bands, NTIA reviewed the number of federal frequency 

assignments within the band, the types of federal operations and 

functions that the assignments support, and the geographic location of 

federal use. Since clearing these bands of federal users and relocating 

incumbent federal users to new bands was not an option in the given time 

frame, the bands that NTIA recommended be made available will be 

opened to geographic sharing by incumbent federal users and 

commercial broadband. 

10-Year Plan. Bya presidential memorandum, NTIA was directed to 

collaborate with FCC to make available 500 MHz of spectrum over the 

next 10 years, suitable for both mobile and fixed wireless broadband use, 

and complete by October 1, 2010, a specific plan and timetable for 

identifying and making available the 500 MHz for broadband use. 10 NTIA 

publicly released this report in November 2010." In total, NTIA and the 

National Broadband Plan identified 2,264 MHz of spectrum to analyze for 

possible repurposing, of which 639 MHz is exclusively used by the federal 

government and will be analyzed by NTIA. Additionally, NTIA will 

collaborate with FCC to analyze 835 MHz of spectrum that is currently 

located in bands that are shared by federal and nonfederal users. 

Furthermore, NTIA has stated that it plans to seek advice and assistance 

from CSMAC, its federal advisory committee comprised of industry 

representatives and experts, as it conducts analyses under the 10-Year 

Plan. 

In January 2011, NTIA announced that it had selected the 1755-1850 

MHz band as the first priority for detailed evaluation under the 10-Year 

Plan. According to NTIA, this band was given top priority for evaluation by 

NTIA and the federal agencies, based on a variety of factors, including 

industry interest and the band's potential for commercial use within 10 

years. This is not the first time NTIA has studied this band. This band was 

November 2010, NTIA publicly released its results. In its final report. NTIA summarized 

its analysis of four frequency bands: 1675-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 3500-3650 MHz, 

and 4200-4400 MHz. 

10 Unleashing the Wi",less Broadband Revoluljon, 75 Fed. Reg. 38387. 

"NTIA, 10 Year Plan and Timetable to Make Available 500 MHz of Spectrum for Wi",less 

Broadband (2010). 

Page 10 GAO-12-1018T 
49 


85378.034

Industry Concerns with the 

Usefulness of the 

Identified Spectrum 

previously evaluated for reallocation, and in 2001, we reported that at the 

time adequate information was not currently available to fully identify and 

address the uncertainties and risks of reallocation." 

Industry stakeholders, including wireless service providers, 

representatives of an industry association, and a think tank representative 

we contacted in 2011 expressed concerns over the usefulness of the 

spectrum identified by NTIA in the Fast Track Evaluation, since most of 

the spectrum identified (100 of the 115 MHz) is outside the range 

considered to have the best propagation characteristics for mobile 

broadband. Overall, there has been limited interest in the bands above 3 

GHz for mobile broadband use because, according to industry 

stakeholders, there has been minimal development of mobile broadband 

in bands above 3 GHz and no foreseeable advances in this area at this 

time. 

According to industry representatives, the 1755-1780 MHz band that 

NTIA considered as part of the Fast Track Evaluation has the best 

characteristics for mobile broadband use, and it is internationally 

harmonized for this use. NTIA did not select this band to be made 

available in the 5-year time frame due to the large number of federal 

users currently operating there. However, NTIA identified it as the first 

band to be analyzed under the 10-Year Plan to determine if it can be 

made available for commercial broadband use. An industry stakeholder 

has stated that the 1695-1710 MHz band identified by NTIA in the Fast 

Track Evaluation is the second-best aHernative for wireless broadband if 

the 1755-1780 MHz band were not made available; however, the 1695-

1710 MHz band is not currently used internationally for wireless 

broadband, which may reduce device manufacturers' incentive for 

developing technology that can be used in these frequencies. 

12GAO, Defense Spectrum Management: More Analysis Needed to Support Spectrum 

Use Decisions for the 1755-1850 MHz Band, GAO-01-795 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 21, 

2001). 

Page 11 GAO-12-1018T 
50 


85378.035

Some Users Lack 

Incentives and Face 

Several Barriers to 

Sharing Spectrum, 

and Cannot Easily 

Identify Available 

Spectrum to Share 

Some Users Lack 

Economic Incentives to 

Share Spectrum 

While federal spectrum users often share spectrum among themselves, 

they may have little economic incentive to otherwise use spectrum 

efficiently, including sharing it with nonfederal users. From an economic 

perspective, when a consumer pays the market price for a good or 

service and thus cannot get more of it without this expense, the consumer 

has an incentive to get the most value and efficiency out of the good as 

possible. If no price is attached to a good-which is essentially the case 

with federal agencies' use of spectrum "-the normal market incentive to 

use the good effiCiently may be muted. In the case offederal spectrum 

users, obtaining new spectrum aSSignments may be difficult, so an 

agency may have an incentive to conserve and use the spectrum it 

currently has aSSigned to it or currently shares efficiently, but the extent of 

that incentive is likely weaker than if the agency had had to pay a market 

price for the all of their spectrum needs. As such, federal spectrum users 

do not fully face a market incentive to conserve on their use of spectrum 

or use it in an effiCient manner. The full market value of the spectrum 

assigned to federal agencies has not been assessed, but, according to 

one expert, would most likely be valued in the tens of billions of dollars. 

Similarly, many nonfederal users, such as television broadcasters and 

public safety entities, did not pay for spectrum when it was assigned to 

them and do not pay the full market price for their continuing use of 

spectrum so, like federal agencies, they may not fully have market-based 

incentives to use spectrum effiCiently. 

While licensed, commercial users who purchased spectrum at auction 

generally have market incentives to use their spectrum holdings 

13Agencies pay only a small, annual fee for their spectrum which is not comparable to its 

full market value. According to NTIA, federal agencies pay $122 for each frequency 

assignment, totaling about $30 million paid by 47 agencies to NTIA for fiscal year 2012. 

Page 12 GAO-12-1018T 
51 


85378.036

Several Barriers Can Deter 

Users from Sharing 

Spectrum 

efficiently, these users also have incentives that work against sharing 

spectrum, except in those instances where the incumbent licensee is 

unlikely to build out tis network or offer services to a particular area, such 

as in certain remote, sparsely populated areas. FCC officials and industry 

stakeholders and experts told us that these users may prefer not to share 

their unused spectrum because they are concerned about the potential 

for interference to degrade service quality to their customers. Also, they 

may prefer to not give potential competitors access to spectrum. Industry 

stakeholders and experts also said that companies seeking spectrum 

may prefer obtaining exclusive spectrum licenses over sharing spectrum 

that is licensed to another company or federal user, given uncertainties 

about regulatory approvals, interference, and enforcement if interference 

occurs. 

There are several barriers that can deter sharing. One such barrier is that 

federal agencies will not risk mission failure, particularly when there are 

security and public safety implications. According to the agency officials 

we contacted, federal agencies will typically not agree to share spectrum 

if it puts achieving their missions at risk. The offiCials stressed that when 

missions have security and safety implications, sharing may pose 

unacceptable risks. For example, the military tests aircraft and trains 

pilots over test ranges that can stretch hundreds of miles, maintaining 

constant wireless contact. The ranges, according to offiCials, cannot 

share the communication frequencies because even accidental 

interference in communications with an aircraft could result in 

catastrophic mission failure. Further, sharing information about such 

flights could expose particular pilots and aircraft, or the military's larger 

mission, to increased risk. 

According to FCC officials, concerns about risk can drive conservative 

technical standards that can make sharing impractical. In general, the 

technical analyses and resulting standards are based on worst-case 

scenarios, and not on assessments of the most likely scenario or a range 

of scenarios. Moreover, in contrast to FCC's open rulemaking process, 

there is little opportunity for public input to the standards setting process. 

Stakeholders may meet or have discussions with NTIA and the relevant 

federal agencies, but this occurs without any formal public process. Nor 

do stakeholders have any effective means to appeal other than by asking 

FCC to reject NTIA's analysis or standards. 

Page 13 GAO·12·1018T 
52 


85378.037

Another barrier is that spectrum sharing can be costly. Stakeholders told 

us that sharing federal spectrum can be costly for both the nonfederal and 

federal users seeking to share for the following reasons: 

Mitigation of potential interference can be costly in terms of equipment 

design and operation. 

Users applying to share federal frequencies may find that those 

frequencies are being used by more than one federal agency or 

program. As a result of needing to mitigate inference for multiple 

users, costs to share spectrum in that band could increase. 

Federal users often use and rely on proven older technology that was 

designed to use spectrum to meet a specific mission and typically is 

not conducive to operating as efficiently or flexibly as the state-of-theart technologies might now allow. Limited budgets may prevent them 

from being able to invest in newer technology which can facilitate 

easier sharing. 

Additionally, we found that spectrum sharing approval and enforcement 

processes can be lengthy and unpredictable. FCC and NTIA processes 

can cause two main problems when nonfederal users seek to share 

federal spectrum, or when nonfederal users share with one another, 

according to stakeholders: 

The spectrum-sharing approval process between FCC and NTIA can 

be lengthy and unpredictable, and the risk associated with it can be 

costly for new entrants. FCC officials told us that its internal processes 

can potentially last years if requiring a rulemaking to accommodate 

shared use of spectrum. 14 In addition to that time, NTIA officials said 

that IRAC's evaluation of potential harmful interference could take 

months. In one example, the Department of Defense, along with other 

federal agencies and nonfederal entities, currently shares a spectrum 

band between 413-457 MHz with a nonprofit medical devices provider 

for use in implant products for veterans. It took approximately 2 years 

14The time it takes to complete rules may vary because of the unique nature of each 

rulemaking. Certain factors, such as the technical complexity of the issue being addressed 

and the priority of the rulemaking in comparison to other issues, can also affect 

rulemaking time frames. FCC's rulemaking process includes multiple steps as outlined by 

law with opportunities for the public to participate, and FCC is generally not required by 

statute to complete rules within limited time frames. 

Page 14 GAO.12-1018T 
53 


85378.038

Users May Be Unable to 

Easily Identify Spectrum 

Suitable for Sharing 

(from 2009 to 2011) for FCC and NTIA to facilitate this arrangement, 

as FCC required a rulemaking and NTIA required a lengthy evaluation 

of potential interference. This nonprofit is funded by an endowment 

and was not dependent on income from the device to sustain itself 

during this process, but such delays, and the potential for a denial, 

could discourage for-profit companies from developing and investing 

in business plans that rely on sharing federal spectrum. 

Stakeholders we interviewed told us that when federal or nonfederal 

users share spectrum, both parties have concern that harmful 

interference may affect their missions or operations if the other party 

overreaches or does not follow the agreement. They also fear that the 

enforcement actions that are taken by FCC will happen too slowly to 

protect their interests or that enforcement outcomes can be 

unpredictable. 

Besides lacking incentives and overcoming other barriers, users may also 

have difficulty identifying spectrum suitable for sharing because data on 

available spectrum is incomplete or inaccurate, and information on some 

federal spectrum usage is not publicly available. According to NTIA 

officials, coordinating spectrum sharing requires accurate data on users, 

frequencies, locations, times, power levels, and equipment, among other 

things. We recently reported that both FCC's and NTIA's spectrum 

databases may contain incomplete and inaccurate data." Further, federal 

agency spectrum managers told us that agencies have not been asked to 

regularly update their strategic spectrum plans, in which they were 

required to include an accounting of spectrum use. '6 

As mentioned, NTIA is developing a new data system that officials believe 

will provide more robust data that will enable more accurate analysis of 

spectrum usage and potential interference, which may in turn identify 

151n November 2011, we reported on FCC's Universal licensing System, Consolidated 

Database System, International Bureau Filing System, and Experimental licensing 

System. See GAO, Commercial Spectrum: Plans and Actions to Meet Future Needs, 

Including Continued Use of Auctions, GAO-12-118 (Washington, D. C.: November 23, 

2011). In April 2011, we reported on NTIA's Govemment Master File database. See 

GAO-11-352. 

16The Bush Administration directed federal agencies to submit spectrum plans to NTIA 

and provide updates every 2 years. Since 2008, NTIA has ceased requesting those 

updates, and has put its strategic planning initiatives on hold due to limited resources. 

Page 15 GAO-12-1018T 
54 


85378.039

Incentives and 

Opportunities to 

Share Could Be 

Expanded 

more sharing opportunities. In addition, recently proposed legislation 

would require in part that FCC, in consultation with NTIA and the White 

House Office of Science and Technology Policy, prepare a report for 

Congress that includes an inventory of each radio spectrum band they 

manage. 17 The inventory is also to include data on the number of 

transmitters and receiver terminals in use, if available, as well as other 

technical parameters--<:overage area, receiver performance, location of 

transmitters, percentage and time of use, a list of unlicensed devices 

authorized to operate in the band and description of use-that allow for 

more specific evaluation of how spectrum can be shared. However, 

experts and federal officials we contacted told us that there may be some 

limitations to creating such an inventory. For instance, measuring 

spectrum usage can be difficult because it can only be accomplished on a 

small scale and technologies to measure or map widespread spectrum 

usage are not yet available." Additionally, FCC and NTIA officials told us 

that information on some federal spectrum bands may never be made 

publicly available because of the sensitive and classified nature of some 

federal spectrum use. 

We have previously reported that to improve spectrum efficiency among 

federal agencies, Congress may wish to consider evaluating what 

mechanisms could be adopted to provide incentives and opportunities for 

agencies to move toward more efficient use of spectrum, which could free 

up some spectrum allocated for federal use to be made available for 

sharing or other purposes. ,. Federal advisors and experts we talked to 

identified several options that could provide incentives and opportunities 

for more efficient spectrum use and spectrum sharing by federal and 

nonfederal users, which include, among others: (1) assessing spectrum 

usage fees; (2) expanding the availability of spectrum for unlicensed 

uses; and (3) increasing the federal focus on research and development 

of technologies that can enable spectrum sharing and improve spectral 

efficiency. 

"s, 455. § 3, (2011). 

18The Department of Defense's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is working 

on frequency mapping. 

"GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12~342SP (Washington, 

D.C.: February 28, 2012). 

Page 16 GAO-12·1018T 
55 


85378.040

Assessing spectrum usage fees. Several advisory groups and spectrum 

industry experts, including those we interviewed, have recommended that 

spectrum fees be assessed based on spectrum usage. As previously 

mentioned, with the exception of administrative fees for frequency 

assignments, federal users incur no costs for using spectrum. As such, 

federal users may have little incentive to share spectrum assigned to 

them with nonfederal users or identify opportunities to use spectrum more 

efficiently-except to the extent that sharing or more efficient use helps 

them achieve their mission requirements. In 2011, the CSMAC Incentives 

Subcommittee recommended that NTIA and FCC study the 

implementation of spectrum fees to drive greater efficiency and solicit 

input from both federal and nonfederal users who might be subject to 

fees. 20 The National Broadband Plan has also recommended that 

Congress consider granting FCC and NTIA authority to impose spectrum 

fees on unauctioned spectrum license holders-such as TV broadcasters 

and public safety entities-as well as government users. Fees may help 

to free spectrum for new uses, since licensees who use spectrum 

inefficiently may reduce their holdings or pursue sharing opportunities 

once they bear the opportunity cost of letting it remain fallow or 

underused. Further, FCC officials told us that they have proposed 

spectrum usage fees at various times, including in FCC's most recent 

congressional budget submission, and requested the legislative 

authorities to implement such a program. 21 

While noting the benefits, the CSMAC Incentives Subcommittee report 

mentions specific concerns about the impact of spectrum fees on 

government users. For instance, some CSMAC members expressed 

concern that fees do not fit into the federal annual appropriations process 

and new appropriations to cover fees are neither realistic nor warranted in 

the current budget environment. Other members suggested that fees will 

have no effect because agencies will be assured additional funds for their 

spectrum needs. Similarly, the National Broadband Plan notes that a 

different approach to setting fees may be appropriate for different 

spectrum users, and that a fee system must also avoid disrupting public 

20CSMAC Incentives Subcommittee Final Report (Washington, D.C.: January 11, 2011). 

21Federal Communications Commission, Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Estimates Submitted to 

Congress (Washington, D.C.: February 2012). 

Page 17 GAO-12-1018T 
56 


85378.041

safety, national defense, and other essential government services that 

protect human life, safety, and property. 22 

To address some of the concerns regarding agency budgets, the recent 

PCAST report recommended the use of a "spectrum currency" process to 

promote spectrum efficiency. Rather than using funds to pay for 

spectrum, federal agencies would each be given an allocation of synthetic 

currency that they could use to "buy" their spectrum usage rights. Usage 

fees would be set based on valuations of comparable private sector uses 

for which the market has already set a price. Agencies would then have 

incentive to use their assignments more efficiently or share spectrum. In 

the PCAST proposal, agencies would also be rewarded for making 

spectrum available to others for sharing, by being reimbursed for their 

investments in improving spectrum sharing from a proposed Spectrum 

Efficiency Fund. 2

' 

Expanding the availability of spectrum for unlicensed use. Unlicensed 

spectrum use is inherently shared spectrum access, and according to 

spectrum experts we interviewed and other stakeholders, unlicensed use 

of spectrum is a valuable complement to licensed spectrum and more 

spectrum could be made available for unlicensed use. Spectrum for 

unlicensed use can be used efficiently and for high value applications, like 

Wi-Fi, for example. 24 Increasing the amount of spectrum for unlicensed 

use may allow more users to share without going through lengthy 

negotiations and interference mitigations, and also allow for more 

experimentation and innovation. 

t>rc>aOJ,ana ,..·,an. p. 83, Recommendation 5.6, (Mar. 16,2010). 

23The PCAST recommended that the existing Spectrum Relocation Fund be redefined as 

a revolving Spectrum Efficiency Fund that reimburses federal agencies for investments in 

spectrum sharing and efficiency. 

24 The Industrial (900-928 MHz), Scientific (2.4 - 2.485 GHz) and Medical (5.7 - 5.825 

GHz) are examples of the unlicensed spectrum bands. Wi-Fi networks can permit multiple 

computing devices in each discrete location to share a single wired connection to the 

Internet, thus efficiently sharing spectrum. Wi¥Fi technologies are also being used to 

relieve network congestion. One report suggests that major wireless carriers, even with 

their large portfolios of exc!usive-use, licensed spectrum, often rely on Wi-Fi infrastructure 

to offload traffic from their networks in congested areas, as much as 21 percent by some 

accounts. 

Page 18 GAO-12-1018T 
57 


85378.042

More recently, FCC has provided unlicensed access to additional 

spectrum, known as TV "white spaces," to help address spectrum 

demands.25 The white spaces refer to the buffer zones that FCC assigned 

the television broadcasters to mnigate unwanted inference between 

adjacent stations. With the more efficient TV transmission capabilities that 

resulted from the digital television transnion, the buffer zones are no 

longer needed and FCC approved the previously unused spectrum for 

unlicensed use. To identify available white space spectrum, devices must 

access a database which responds with a list of the frequencies that are 

available for use at the device's location. 26 As an example, one local 

official explained that his city uses TV white space spectrum to provide a 

network of public Wi-Fi access and public safety surveillance functions. 

Increasing the federal focus on research and development of 

technologies. Several technological advances promise to make sharing 

easier, but are still at early stages of development and testing. For 

example, various spectrum users and experts we contacted mentioned 

the potential of dynamic spectrum access technology. If made fully 

operational, dynamic spectrum access technology will be able to sense 

available frequencies in an area and jump between frequencies to 

seamJessly continue communication as the user moves geographically 

and through the spectrum. According to experts and researchers we 

contacted, progress has been made but there is no indication of how long 

it will be before this technology is fully deployable. Such new technologies 

can obviate or lessen the need for extensive regulatory procedures to 

enable sharing and can open up new market opportunities for wireless 

service providers. If a secondary user or sharing entity employs these 

technologies, the incumbent user or primary user would theoretically not 

experience harmful interference, and agreements and rulemakings that 

are currently needed may be streamlined or unnecessary to enable 

sharing. 

Although industry participants indicated that extensive testing under 

realistic conditions is crnical to conducting basic research on spectrum 

Matter of Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, 27 FCC Red. 3,692 

2012). 

26To date, FCC has designated two administrators to locate available white space 

spectrum for users of unlicensed devices, Spectrum Bridge and Telecordia Technologies. 

Devices must operate only on those channels deSignated by the administrator. 

Page 19 GAO·12.1018T 
58 


85378.043

efficient technologies, we found that only a few companies are involved in 

such research and may experience challenges in the testing process, 

Companies tend to focus technology development on current business 

objectives as opposed to conducting basic research that may not show an 

immediate business return, For example, NTIA officials told us that one 

company that indicated it would participate in NTIA's dynamic spectrum 

access testing project removed its technologist from the testing effort to a 

project more closely related to its internal business objectives, 

Furthermore, some products are too early in the development stage to 

even be fully tested, For example, NTIA officials also said six companies 

responded to NTIA's invitation to participate in the previously mentioned 

dynamic spectrum access testing project However, only two working 

devices were received for the testing, and a third device received did not 

work as intended, Other companies that responded told NTIA that they 

only had a concept and were not ready to test an actual prototype, 

Recent federal advisory committee recommendations emphasize the 

importance of funding and providing incentives for research and 

development endeavors, For example, to promote research in efficient 

technologies, PCAST recommended that (1) the Research and 

Development Wireless Innovation Fund" release funds for this purpose 

and (2) the current Spectrum Relocation Fund be redefined as the 

Spectrum Efficiency Fund, As discussed, this adjustment would allow for 

federal agencies to be reimbursed for general investments in improving 

spectrum sharing, Similarly, CSMAC recommended the creation of a 

Spectrum Innovation Fund, Unlike the Spectrum Relocation Fund, which 

is strictly limited to the actual costs incurred in relocating federal systems 

from auctioned spectrum bands, the Spectrum Innovation Fund could 

also be used for spectrum sharing and other opportunities to enhance 

spectrum efficiency, 28 

27The Wireless Innovation Fund is a part of the 2012 payroll tax agreement for spectrum 

research and development It will initially be a $100 million fund althe National Institute of 

Standards and Technology. The fund wi!! receive an additional $200 million after approved 

auction income has been secured. 

28CSMAC Incentives Subcommittee Final Report. 

Page 20 GAO·12·1018T 
59 


85378.044

Conclusions and 

Recommendations 

Radio frequency spectrum is a scarce national resource that enables 

wireless communications services vital to the U.S. economy and to a 

variety of government functions, yet NTIA has not developed a strategic, 

governmentwide vision for managing federal use of this valuable 

resource. NTIA's spectrum management authority is broad in scope, but 

NTIA's focus is on the narrow technical aspects of spectrum 

management, such as ensuring new frequency assignments will not 

cause interference to spectrum-dependent devices already in use, rather 

than on whether new assignments should be approved based on a 

comprehensive evaluation of federal spectrum use from a 

governmentwide perspective. Lacking an overall strategic vision, NTIA 

cannot ensure that spectrum is being used efficiently by federal agencies. 

Furthermore, agencies are not required to submit justifications for their 

spectrum use and NTIA does not have a mechanism in place to validate 

and verify the accuracy of spectrum-related data submitted by the federal 

agencies. This has led to decreased accountability and transparency in 

how federal spectrum is being used and whether the spectrum-dependent 

systems the agencies have in place are necessary. Without meaningful 

data validation requirements, NTIA has limited assurance that the 

agency-reported data it collects are accurate and complete. 

In our April 2011 report, we recommended that NTIA (1) develop an 

updated plan that includes key elements of a strategic plan, as well as 

information on how spectrum is being used across the federal 

government, opportunities to increase efficient use of federally allocated 

spectrum and infrastructure, an assessment of future spectrum needs, 

and plans to incorporate these needs in the frequency assignment, 

equipment certification, and review processes; (2) examine the 

assignment review processes and consider best practices to determine if 

the current approach for collecting and validating data from federal 

agencies can be streamlined or improved; and (3) establish internal 

controls for management oversight of the accuracy and completeness of 

currently reported agency data.29 With respect to our first 

recommendation, NTIA has not developed an updated strategic plan and 

previously noted that the Presidential Memorandum of June 28, 2010, 

and the Wireless Innovation Initiative provide significant strategic direction 

for NTIA and the other federal agencies. In September 2012, NTIA 

officials told us that NTIA intends to update its strategic plan by October 

Page 21 GAO·12·1018T 
60 


85378.045

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(543313) 

2013. NTIA concurred with our other two recommendations and is taking 

action to address them. For example, NTIA has proposed approaches to 

implement new measures to better ensure the accuracy of agencyreported data, and is taking steps to implement internal controls for its 

data management system in a cost efficient manner. 

With respect to spectrum sharing, there are currently insufficient 

incentives to encourage more sharing, and even if incentives were 

created, several barriers to sharing will continue. Options to address 

these issues in turn create new challenges, and may require further 

study. 

Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to 

respond to any questions you may have at this time. 

For further information on this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-

2834, or bye-mail at goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this 

testimony include Sally Moino and Andrew Von Ah, Assistant Directors; 

Amy Abramowitz; Colin Fallon; Bert Japikse; Elke Kolodinski; Maria 

Mercado; Erica Miles; and Hai Tran. 

Page 22 GAO-12-1018T 
61 


85378.046

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
62 


85378.047

GAO.s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

by Phone 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO's website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select "E-mail Updates." 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact: 

Website: http://www.gao.govlfraudnetlfraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngcl@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

." "'1 Please Print on Recycled Paper. 
63 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Goldstein, thanks for the work you and your 

people do at GAO. We appreciate it. 

We will now go to Mr. Doug Smith, President and CEO of Oceus 

Networks. Thank you for being here. We look forward to your comments, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS C. SMITH 

Mr. SMITH. Good morning, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member 

Eshoo, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you 

for inviting me to talk with you about how commercial wireless 

broadband technologies can provide opportunities to make government spectrum use more efficient and effective. 

I am here today to discuss the importance of commercial wireless 

broadband technology, specifically, 4G LTE as a part of the tool set 

to meet growing broadband communications requirements for military and other Federal users. 

Oceus Networks provides mobile broadband communication services and tactical military solutions for delivering high speed voice, 

video, and data communications. We are headquartered in Reston, 

Virginia, with a major R&D center in Plano, Texas. Our 4G LTE 

solution, Xiphos, provides mission-critical apps for Federal users, 

including the Department of Defense, for situational awareness, 

video streaming, voice over IP applications, among other lifesaving 

apps. Our solution provides the functionality of a full cellular network in a single unit to address warfighter broadband requirements on the move, without traditional cellular architectures. 

Our mobile LTE networks can be placed aboard ships, installed 

in tactical warfighter vehicles, mounted on unmanned aerial systems, and/or be soldier backpacked. We provide these capabilities 

to standard headsets or switching algorithms. This allows the full 

cost savings of commercial economies of scale to flow to government 

users. 

The mobile broadband revolution that is transforming consumers’ 

daily lives has profound implications for government users, presenting both opportunities and challenges. DoD has a level of spectrum requirements that is unprecedented, driven by increasing 

data needs and increased reliance on advanced technology capabilities. Congress recognized the prevalence of LTE as the worldwide 

commercial standard for wireless broadband when adopting it as 

the standard for the nationwide public safety network. Such policies reflect an even larger reality. The expanded apps, continually 

evolving devices, and improved network performance of commercial 

mobile networks are embraced by most of our Nation’s young men 

and women who are entering the military service. They grew up 

with wireless broadband devices, ranging from smartphones to tablets. They ask how the same advanced capabilities with stronger 

security features and military-appropriate apps could be made 

available when in training and in battle. 

How are these technologies being used by the military today? 

One example is a Navy pilot in which Oceus Networks is participating to provide communication systems using our Xiphos solution, which marks the first operational deployment of 4G LTE for 

the Department of Defense. This 4G tactical network, using Android devices, will support communications, including classified 

64 

communications, for up to 3,500 Marines and sailors deployed with 

the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group. The project designates 4G 

as a mission-critical requirement for the Counter-Piracy Task 

Force, which mostly operates off the Horn of Africa. 

Oceus Networks is also using its 4G LTE-based solution to support the FCC’s consideration of the role of high altitude platforms 

in the national public safety network. In a trial this fall, we will 

demonstrate the role of 4G LTE in a rapidly deployable aerial communications architecture that can provide broadband communications to disaster areas shortly after the occurrence of a major natural disaster or terrorist attack. 

As directed by the Middle Class Tax Relief Act, the FirstNet network will provide much-needed nationwide broadband reach for 

first responders, including deployment milestones for substantial 

rural coverage. Our mobile LTE solution cost effectively extends 

the LTE broadband footprint to public safety users in remote and 

rural communities. 

Looking forward, policymakers are increasingly interested in 

sharing as a potential option to both enhance the effective and efficient spectrum use of government operations, and provide capacity 

for commercial broadband use. For new policies based on sharing 

to remain viable as a true win/win solution for commercial and government spectrum users, sharing must be viewed as a two-way 

street. To obtain improved economies of scale by adopting commercial technologies such as LTE, Federal users need access to commercial bands. As one aspect in a larger spectrum supportability 

tool set, this is an important option for government users, for 

whom modifying commercial technology to work effectively in government bands is expensive, time consuming, and off the commercial roadmap. 

The timing of today’s hearing comes as we remember the tragedy 

of September the 11th. It underscores the importance of giving our 

soldiers and first responders interoperable communications as they 

defend our Nation. Also this week, Apple has announced the release of LTE-based iPhone 5, which demonstrates widespread adoption of the technology and U.S. leadership in key technologies. 

I want to thank the committee for asking the important question 

and raising awareness of how to advance commercial and military 

interests, and provide these critical advanced communications capabilities for our economy and our Nation’s security. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing, and 

I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

65 


85378.048

Testimony of 

Douglas C. Smith 

President and CEO 

Oceus Networks 

Before the 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Hearing on 

Creating Opportunities through Improved Government Spectrum Efficiency 

September 13,2012 10:15 a.m. 

Rayburn House Office Building 2123 
66 


85378.049

Summary 

Federal spectrum users require advanced commercial wireless technology to support bandwidth-intensive 

- and increasingly mobile - data communications to meet their mission. Commercial off-the-shelf 

technologies are an important part of the solution for how these needs are met. 

DoD has a level of spectrum requirements that is unprecedented, driven by growing video and other data 

needs and increased reliance on advanced technology capabilities. Via state-of-the-art tactical use of L TE, 

Oceus Networks is committed to providing DoD and other Federal users the same technological 

capabilities for wireless broadband to which commercial consumers are now accustomed. With our 

portable 4G L TE broadband solution, Xiphos, we are demonstrating the capabilities of this technology to 

meet warfighter needs for many missions across the Services, including the first operational deployment of 

4G LTE for DoD in the Navy. We are also using this solution to support the FCC's consideration of the 

potential role of High Altitude Platforms in the national public safety network. 

As the globally accepted mobile broadband standard of choice, 4G L TE "evens the technology playing 

field" for government users. 4G L TE provides a clear way forward for many of DoD's advanced 

communications requirements by providing a technology roadmap with the same economies of scale, rapid 

technology life-cycles and low cost factors from which commercial users now benefit. Bringing the 

advantages of a commercial technology roadmap to Federal user requirements is impactful because: 

1. Standardized commercial technologies such as L TE leverage the extensive ecosystem of 

commercial R&D investment and greatly reduce time from development to deployment. 

2. Use of commercial wireless broadband technologies, when appropriate to meet mission needs, can 

allow military and other Federal government operations to use spectrum efficiently and costeffectively. 

3. Systems that rely on the same wireless broadband standard embraced in the commercial world 

(i.e., L TE) facilitate interoperability and sharing between government and private sector users. 

Federal policymakers are increasingly looking to sharing as a potential option to both enhance the effective 

and efficient spectrum use of government operations and provide capacity for commercial broadband uses. 

Given the increasingly congested nature ofthe portions of spectrum most attractive for mobile broadband, 

the terms and conditions of how to apply a sharing framework to accommodate commercial operations in 

Federal spectrum are now being studied. For new policies based on sharing to remain viable as true "winwin" solutions, sharing should be viewed as a "two-way street." Government and commercial use of 

standard technologies such as L TE facilitates the challenges associated with sharing over the long-term. 

Sharing is easier between "like" systems, recognizing that it is imperative that individual user requirements 

(i.e., national security needs) be protected. 
67 


85378.050

Testimony 

Good morning Chairman Walden, ranking member Eshoo and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to talk with you about how commercial wireless 

broadband technologies can provide opportunities to make government spectrum use more 

efficient and effective. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Oceus Networks provides mobile broadband communications services and tactical 

military solutions for delivering high-speed voice, video and data communications. We are 

headquartered in Reston, Virginia, with a major R&D center in Plano, Texas. 

The topic of to day's hearing, "Creating Opportunities Through Improved Government 

Spectrum Efficiency," is very timely. A related, but critical, issue is the need that Federal 

spectrum users have for advanced commercial wireless technology to support bandwidthintensive - and increasingly mobile data communications to meet their mission. Commercial 

off-the-shelf technologies (COTS) are an important part of the solution set for how these needs 

will be met. 

Needfor 'Future-Proofed'Solutions: Few technology and policy challenges are more important 

for national security and economic growth. Fortunately, sound decisions can lead to "futureproofed" solutions, for both commercial wireless ecosystem development and the advanced, highspeed tactical and enterprise wireless communications required by military users on bases. 

Across the Federal government, spectrum is a critical enabler. The mobile broadband 

revolution that is transforming consumers' daily lives has profound implications for government 

users, presenting both opportunities and challenges. DoD has described a level of spectrum 
68 


85378.051

requirements that is unprecedented, driven by increased data needs and increased reliance on 

advanced technology capabilities.l Shrinking budgetary resources and a growing reliance on 

unmanned operations that require mobile, portable high-bandwidth solutions are other key 

drivers. In addition, the U.S. Armed Forces must maintain a high tempo of training, focused on 

expeditionary warfare capabilities, but with 80 percent of forces at home? Warfighters are 

trained to fight through U.S.-based operations but must be ready to deploy with little or no notice. 

This means that for training and testing purposes, our soldiers, sailors and airmen and women 

require spectrum access on bases. 

Through state-of-the-art tactical use of Fourth Generation Long Term Evolution 

technology, commonly known as 4G L TE, Oceus Networks is deeply committed to providing 

Federal users the same advanced technological capabilities for wireless broadband to which 

consumers have access. With our portable 4G L TE broadband solution, called Xiphos, we are 

today demonstrating the capabilities of this technology to meet warfighter needs for many 

missions across the Services, including the first operational deployment of 4G L TE for DoD in 

the Navy.3 

The rapid evolution in modern communications technology is well-documented, with 

CTIA's semi-annual survey indicating that wireless data traffic grew 123 percent from 2010 to 

1 Statement by Teresa M. Takai, 000 Chief Information Office, Before the House Armed Services 

Committee, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, on Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request for 

Information Technology and Cyber Operations Programs, March 20, 2012, available at 

http://armedservices.house.gov(index.cfm(files(serve?File id-d6dSS7bc-a941-4geO-996a-d29cf376fbOd. 

2 CHIPS Magazine, December, 2009, Interview with Commanding General, Network Enterprise 

Technology Command/9th Signal Command Maj. Gen. Susan lawrence, available at 

www.doncio.navv.mil!chips(ArticieDetails.aspx?ID=2610. 

3 Oceus Networks Press Release, "First U.S. 000 Operational Deployment of 4G LTE with Navy Pilot of 

Oceus Networks' Xiphos Solution," March 29, 2012, available at http://oceusnetworks.com/news/oceusnews/first-us-dod-operational-deployment-4g-lte-navy-pilot-oceus-networks-xiphosTM-solutio. 

2 
69 


85378.052

2011.4 However, this success story should not be limited to mass-market consumer devices. 

These capabilities meet mission needs today for Federal users who also need high-speed, mobile 

voice, video and data communications. 

Parallel 'Spectrum Crunches': Oceus Networks appreciates the work that the Federal Spectrum 

Working Group has undertaken to examine more efficient ways for the Federal government to use 

spectrum. These challenges are neither new nor easy to resolve. Both commercial and 

government users face parallel trendlines of a "spectrum crunch" to meet growing bandwidth 

needs. Cisco estimates that video traffic will comprise 55 percent of all consumer Internet traffic 

in 2016, up from 51 percent in 2011, and that mobile data traffic will increase 18-fold between 

2011 and 2016.5 With regard to mobile data services, I can personally vouch for these growing 

commercial requirements. I was an early employee at Ericsson in the United States and now have 

spent more than 20 years in the private sector working on broadband communications, including 

in support of carrier needs for wireless high-speed data. 

At the same time, for DoD, there are parallel needs for bandwidth and apps for mission 

and enterprise use. As is the case in the private sector, these increased bandwidth requirements 

are driven, in part, by video, which has been a contributor to increased spectrum requirements. 

One case in point is the stunning increase in the number of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs), 

which rely on Federal spectrum, to process critical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance 

data, including through video transmission capabilities. For DoD, the number ofUASs rose from 

4 CTIA Press Release, CTIA-The Wireless Association® Semi-Annual Survey Shows Significant Demand by 

Americans for Wireless Broadband, April 13, 2012, available at 

http:Uwww.ctia.org/media/press/body.cfm/prid/2171. 

5 Cisco Visual Networking Index, The Zettabyte Era, May 30, 2012, available at 

http :Uwww.cisco.com/en/US/ solutions/collate ra I/ns341/ ns5 25/ns53 7 Ins 705/ ns827 NN I Hyperconnecti 

vity WP.html. 

3 
70 


85378.053

167 in 2002 to more than 7,500 in 2010.6 In the face of such increased demands, we laud the 

efforts that DoD is undertaking to use spectrum effectively to meet growing mission requirements 

for broadband. As DoD CIO Teri Takai recently noted: "We must ... recognize the growing 

spectrum demands resulting from [DOD's] increasing reliance on spectrum-dependent 

technologies.,,7 

II. OVERVIEW 

You may be asking why a player from a relatively new, but fast-growing, wireless 

technology firm is testifying today on this topic? I am here today to discuss the importance of 

commercial wireless broadband technology - specifically 4G L TE - as part of a toolset to meet 

the current and ever-emerging broadband communications requirements for military and other 

Federal users. 

Oceus Networks recognizes that open, standards-based communications infrastructures, 

including those relying on 4G LTE, are not a one-size-fits all approach for all Federal spectrum 

user needs. Given the diversity of government spectrum requirements - for both 

communications and non-communications capabilities - no single technology could be. At the 

same time, it is a matter of long-standing DoD policy to rely on COTS technology, when 

technologically feasible to meet military requirements.8 As the Defense Science Board pointed 

out in a 2009 report: "Defense-funded research and development once drove commercial 

technology, but commercial technology now leads DOD in many key areas.,,9 LTE is a prime 

6 DOD News Article, "Defense CIO: Wireless Spectrum a Critical Enabler," by Claudette Roulo, American 

Forces Press Service, July 20, 2012 available at 

http://www.defense.gov!news!newsarticle.aspx?id=117210. 

'Id. 

B 10 U.S. Code § 2501, "National security objectives concerning national technology and industrial base." 

9 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Integrating Commercial Systems into the DOD, 

4 
71 


85378.054

example of this commercial-driven technology trend and the opportunity it presents for DoD and 

other Federal government users to leverage private industry R&D investments and have greater 

capabilities sooner and often at a lower cost than largely custom-built communications solutions. 

4G LTE as Complement: DoD has a broad range of complex and often unique spectrum user 

requirements, for which the Department may need to rely on programs of record tailored to more 

specific mission requirements. Commercial technologies, including 40 LTE, are a strong 

complement to certain existing programs. L TE is the globally accepted mobile broadband 

standard of choice. 10 As such, 40 L TE "evens the technology playing field" for government 

users. 40 LTE provides a clear way forward for many of DoD's communications requirements 

by offering a technology roadmap with the same economies of scale, rapid technology life-cycles 

and low cost factors from which commercial users now benefit. 

At the same time, these broadband communications requirements, based on L TE, are not often 

otherwise supported by commercial carriers on the bases and training ranges where warfighters 

require access, including remote parts of the country. As the FCC's National Broadband Plan 

pointed out, increased spectrum demands are "primarily an urban phenomenon."ll Rather than 

waiting indefinitely for wireless broadband services to be made available as part of commercially 

deployed networks, portable L TE solutions such as ours are bringing this capability directly to our 

armed forces, where and when they need it. 

"Effectively and Efficiently Buying Commercial: Gaining the Cost/Schedule Benefits for Defense Systems," 

February 2009, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, 

available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA494760.pdf. 

10 "The Benefits of Using LTE Digital Dividend Spectrum," 4G Americas, November 2011: "LTE is the 

global standard developed by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) for next- generation mobile 

broadband networks supported by all major players in the industry." Available at 

wwwAgamericas.org/documents/Benefits %20of%20L TE%20in%20Digita 1%20Dividend 11.08.11. pdf. 

11 FCC National Broadband Plan, Chapter 5, Spectrum, available at http://www.broadband.gov/plan/. 

5 
72 


85378.055

While the topic of security is outside of the scope of this hearing, Oceus Networks 

appreciates that this is an important issue for national security users. We are working with the 

Federal government to secure the 4G L TE waveform and user devices. 

Federal Policy Drivers: Federal policy is increasingly recognizing the opportunities presented by 

powerful mobile broadband platforms, including L TE. Congress in its wisdom earlier this year 

recognized the prevalence of L TE as the worldwide commercial standard for wireless broadband 

when adopting it in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act as the standard for the 

nationwide public safety network for interoperability.'2 The White House issued a Digital 

Government Strategy earlier this year that included goals such as developing models for the 

delivery of commercial mobile applications into the federal environment. 13 DoD released a 

ground-breaking Mobility Device Strategy in June. 14 

These important policy initiatives also reflect a larger reality. The expanded apps, 

continually evolving devices and improved network performance of commercial mobile networks 

are already embraced by most of our nation's young men and women who are entering military 

service. They grew up with wireless broadband devices ranging from smartphones to tablets. As 

a result, they ask how the same advanced capabilities, coupled with stronger security features and 

military-appropriate apps, could be made available on mobile devices when training and in the 

battlefield? 

12 Pl112-96, Section 6203. 

13 "Building a 21st Century Digital Government," May 23, 2012, available at 

http:Uwww.whitehouse.gov!sites!default!files!omb!egov!digital-government!digital-governmentstrategy. pdf. 

14 DoD Mobility Device Strategy, June 8, 2012, available at 

www.defense.gov!news!dodmobilitystrategy.pdf. 

6 
73 


85378.056

III. COMMERCIAL TECHNOLOGY PATH FORWARD 

As the Federal Spectrum Working Group has recognized, finding more efficient ways for 

government users to utilize spectrum "without compromising critical objectives" will produce 

valuable dividends for agencies and help foster economic growth in the private sector. IS To this 

end, DoD's ability to harness commercial technological capabilities has several long-term 

benefits for our nation's warfighters, both within the Continental United States (CONUS) and 

outside of it (OCONUS). Both scenarios are critical to members of the Armed Forces who need 

assured access to spectrum and modern technologies to "train as we fight." 

Bringing the advantages of a commercial technology roadmap to Federal user 

requirements is impactful because: 

1. Standardized commercial technologies such as L TE leverage the extensive ecosystem of 

commercial R&D investment and reduce the time from development to deployment by 

years, and even decades. This is important for the ability to leverage today's commercial 

innovations but even more important as it provides the ability for government users to 

more easily remain current going forward as emerging standards-based advanced 

capabilities are developed. 

2. Use of commercial wireless broadband technologies, when appropriate to meet mission 

needs, can allow military and other Federal government operations to use spectrum even 

more efficiently and cost-effectively. 

3. Deploying systems that rely on the same wireless broadband standard that is embraced in 

the commercial world (i.e., L TE) facilitates interoperability between government and 

private sector users. 

15 House Energy and Commerce Committee press release, "Federal Spectrum Working Group Seeks 

Update on Government Spectrum Use," July 10, 2012, available at 

http://energycommerce.house.gov!press-release/federal-spectrum-working-group-seeks-updategovernment-spectrum-use. 

7 
74 


85378.057

4. There is a technology gap between the technology development life-cycles of commercial 

cellular systems and specific 000 programs of record that can be measured in orders of 

magnitude. Relying on COTS, when it meets the mission, can help bridge this gap. 

L TE offers technological capabilities that facilitate sharing between government, public 

safety and commercial users, including the ability to more easily coordinate operations in adjacent 

geographic areas. In addition, where security issues permit, it offers the ability for military users 

to roam onto a commercial network when leaving a base or installation. To help meet rising 

demands for mobile broadband data, Oceus Networks has been working with an array of Federal 

government and private sector users to ensure that 4G L TE technology solutions are part of 

comprehensive, forward-looking strategies for using commercial mobile broadband platforms. 

Specifically, Oceus Networks delivers end-to-end cellular network solutions of varying 

sizes. These solutions range from full power macro solutions supporting multiple sectors to 

reduced size, backpack solutions. These deployable cellular solutions can be networked together 

to satisfy the needs of users over a large area. In contrast to traditional cellular networks, our 

highly survivable architecture establishes a core network in each radio node. Further, Oceus 

Networks offers a "network of networks" capability providing solutions for administration, 

maintenance, security, and provisioning. These features are accomplished via open interfaces 

facilitating expansion and integration with other systems. Nodes can be fixed, portable, mobile, 

airborne, marine, or ground. All nodes integrate into a network of networks, providing a seamless 

mobile experience for user and operator. All "networks of networks" interoperate with traditional 

mobile network architecture through open standard interfaces. The networks interoperate either 

as independent networks or as an integral part of a traditional carrier network. 

8 
75 


85378.058

Oceus Networks provides these capabilities securely and reliably, without changes to 

standard handsets or switching algorithms. This allows the full cost savings of commercial 

economies of scale to flow to Federal government users. 

IV. MEETING W ARFIGHTER REQUIREMENTS 

Our 40 L TE solution Xiphos ensures that specific military user needs are addressed, 

through meeting specific encryption requirements and ruggedizing equipment as needed. We 

provide mission-critical apps for the warfighter, for situational awareness, video streaming and 

VoIP. Our mobile 40 LTE solution provides the functionality ofa full cellular network in a 

single unit to address warfighter broadband requirements "on the move," which would not be 

possible with fixed switching equipment. This means our mobile L TE networks can be placed 

aboard ships, installed in tactical warfighter vehicles, mounted on UASs and other aerial vehicles, 

and/or be soldier back-packed. 

In addition, it is worth noting that it is no accident that for the first time in the history of 

the cellular wireless world, technology developers have converged on a single global standard 

technology of choice, which is L TE. What we are working on is strengthening our own product. 

However, we are also mindful that it would be a missed opportunity for Federal users to not 

incorporate L TE as part of their mobile data use profiles, to reflect the current commercial 

technology roadmap. 

How are these technologies being used by the military today? One example is a Navy trial 

in which Oceus Networks is participating to provide communications systems using its 40 L TEbased Xiphos solution, which marks the first operational deployment of 40 L TE for the U.S. 

DoD. This technology allows the Navy to leverage the global mobile phone industry's R&D 

investment. This 40 tactical network, using Android devices, will support communications, 

9 
76 


85378.059

including classified, for up to 3,500 marines and sailors deployed with the Kearsarge 

Amphibious Ready Group. The 4G solution that the Navy is currently testing here is an example 

of how Federal users are relying on commercial wireless broadband technology to use spectrum 

more efficiently and effectively. The data needs that the project supports free up limited 

bandwidth on intraship communications for other mission-critical needs. The project designates 

4G as a "mission critical requirement" for the Counter-Piracy Task Force, which mostly operates 

off the Hom of Africa. 16 

V. REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER FEDERAL USERS 

Oceus Networks is also using its 4G L TE-based solution to support the Federal 

Communications Commission's consideration of the potential role of High Altitude Platforms in 

the national public safety network. 17 In a Notice ofInquiry launched in May 2012, the FCC is 

considering how Deployable Aerial Communications Architecture (DACA) can restore the 

communications capabilities of first responders shortly after the occurrence of a major natural 

disaster or terrorist attack. DACA technologies are aerial technologies, ranging from UASs to 

weather balloons, which could provide emergency communications in the period immediately 

following a major disaster, when terrestrial communications infrastructures typically are damaged 

or disrupted. In a trial scheduled to begin this fall, we will demonstrate the role of 4G L TE in a 

rapidly deployable aerial communications architecture that can provide immediate broadband 

16 Fast Company, "The 4G System That Powers The Navy's Pirate Fights," April 20, 2012, available at 

http://www.fastcompany.com!1834739!4g-system-powers-navys-pirate-fights. 

17 FCC Notice of Inquiry, Utilizing Rapidly Deployable Aerial Communications Architecture in Response to 

an Emergency, adopted May 24,2012, PS Docket No. 11-15. 

10 
77 


85378.060

communications to such disaster areas. 18 

Extending Reach with 4G LTE: Because the 4G LTE network based on Xiphos is an entire 

network of capability in each node, our robust, compact technology solution can be built to extend 

the reach of wireless broadband into remote or rural areas. These areas are not always a priority 

of coverage for large network operators, due to the cost-benefit trade-offs of deploying fixed 

networks to less densely populated areas. But for our Xiphos technology solution, this provides 

an excellent example of how advanced commercial wireless technology can enable more efficient 

and effective spectrum use in geographic areas that might not otherwise have access to the 

advanced communications capabilities provided with 4G L TE. 

In the Middle Class Tax Relief Act, Congress envisioned the much-needed new public 

safety broadband network as providing nationwide reach to meet the broadband requirements of 

first responders, including deployment milestones for substantial rural coverage. 19 To this end, 

our proven mobile 4G L TE solution can provide a cost-effective means to extend the national 

public safety network's L TE broadband footprint, both rapidly and cost-effectively, to reach 

public safety users in remote and rural communities. Given limits oftime and funding, it is not 

otherwise reasonable to expect that a fixed cellular infrastructure could be feasibly built to 

completely fill out the required terrestrial footprint of the FirstNet network. But the portable 4G 

L TE solution developed by Oceus Networks could be deployed cost-effectively and quickly, 

including as part of vehicle-mounted solutions, to provide broadband connectivity to first 

responders as part of the FirstNet network. Multiple solutions will be required to extend the L TE 

180ceus Networks Press Release, "Oceus Networks to Demonstrate Rapidly Deployable Networks for 

Public Safety," May 24, 2012, available at http://oceusnetworks.com/news/oceus-news/oceus-networksdemonstrate-rapidly-deployable-networks-public-safety. 

19 PL 112-96, Section 6206. 

II 
78 


85378.061

footprint of the larger FirstNet network. The cost and time advantages of our solution are 

important given the need to stretch the finite FirstNet network funding as far as possible. 

VI. SHARING AS A TWO-WA Y STREET 

Federal policymakers are increasingly interested in sharing as a potential option to both 

enhance the effective and efficient spectrum use of government operations and provide capacity 

for commercial broadband uses. Spectrum sharing based on time and geography is not a case of 

first impression, and in fact dates back to the creation of the Radio Act of 1912. But given the 

increasingly congested nature of the portions of spectrum most attractive for mobile broadband 

deployment, the terms and conditions of how to apply a sharing framework to accommodate 

commercial operations in Federal spectrum are now being studied. For new policies based on 

sharing to remain viable over the long-term as a true "win-win" solution for commercial and 

government spectrum users, sharing must be viewed as a "two-way street." To obtain improved 

economies of scale by adopting commercial technologies such as LTE, Federal users need 

potential access to commercial spectrum bands. As one aspect in a larger spectrum supportability 

tool set, this is an important option for government users, for whom modifying commercial 

technology to work effectively in government bands is expensive, time consuming and off the 

commercial roadmap. 

Need/or Balance: The implications of finding solutions that get this balance right are farreaching. Both Federal government and commercial wireless broadband users are integral to U.S. 

global leadership in mobile broadband technology. As the President's Digital Government 

Strategy released earlier this year noted, the amazing mix of smarter mobile devices, cloud 

computing and collaboration tools is not only changing consumers' experience but is "bleeding 

into government as both an opportunity and a challenge." 

12 
79 


85378.062

Government and commercial use of standard technologies, such as LTE, facilitates the 

challenges associated with sharing over the long-term. Sharing is easier between "like" systems, 

although it is imperative that individual user requirements (i.e., national security needs) be 

protected. We are also studying the more dynamic-based sharing ideas raised in the recent 

recommendations to the President made by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology (PCAST). At the same time, we recognize that Dynamic Spectrum Access (DSA)-

focused sharing may be more feasible in the longer-term, rather than currently available 

geography- and time-based alternatives. 

VII. CONCLUSION 

In sum, assured access to the kinds of modern advanced communications capabilities 

provided by technology solutions such as 4G L TE is essential for warfighters to maintain 

information dominance on the battlefield and for efficient and effective use as part of enterprise 

solutions. 

Helping Federal users to harness the full advantages of 4G L TE is important for 

improving access to wireless broadband communications. To this end, Federal users need access 

to this technology in the bands identified by worldwide standards bodies for L TE deployment. As 

Congress has already recognized, this is a critical aspect of the buildout plans for the nationwide 

network for first responder interoperability that will unfold under FirstNet, which will rely on 

L TE technology in the 700 MHz band. In other areas, balanced policy approaches are also 

needed that view sharing as mutually beneficial to commercial and government users. Just as 

commercial users require access to current Federal spectrum bands for future deployments of 4G 

L TE, government users will need the flexibility to access bands that are globally harmonized for 

this technology, as well. 

13 
80 


85378.063

The stakes are high for getting the policy part of this equation right, including the terms of 

access for Federal users involved in first response. Ensuring a wireless broadband future for 

Federal government users that is on par with that of U.S. consumers is a key contributor to 

economic growth, technological competiveness and national security. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testifY at today's hearing and I look forward to 

answering any questions you may have. 

14 
81 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Smith, thank you. We appreciate your testimony and good work. 

Now we will turn to Dr. Preston Marshall, Deputy Director, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, 

who is an advisor to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science 

and Technology. 

Dr. Marshall, good to see you again. Thank you for being here. 

We look forward to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF PRESTON MARSHALL 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Chairman Walden and Ranking 

Member Eshoo. I appreciate this opportunity to continue the dialogue we had with many of the members and staff of the spectrum 

working group. My name is Preston Marshall. I am, as you said, 

Deputy Director of Information Sciences Institutes, author of several books in the field, and I was the program manager for 7 years 

at DARPA developing some of the wireless technology now being 

deployed in DoD, and have participated as an advisor. 

Mr. Chairman, as you have noted, spectrum sharing is not new. 

There is nothing the PCAST report has that hasn’t been done for 

decades. LTE shares with LTE, cellular shares with other commercial users, DoD shares with DoD, DoD shares with other Federal 

agencies, Federal agencies share with civil. What makes PCAST report unique is that it proposes to take sharing out of one-on-one relationships that are unpredictable and put it into a framework 

where every American can see what spectrum is available for new 

innovation and new business opportunities. It proposes to take it 

out of one-on-one relationships between a cellular provider and a 

Federal agency, and that Federal agencies document all the sharing opportunities they can provide, publish them, and make them 

available for innovators. Someone wishing to innovate in spectrum 

doesn’t have to worry that they get into the death spiral or lightsquared saw or M to Z, or some of these other conflicts. This is a 

fundamentally different approach to sharing. It is not technologically new, but it makes sharing the norm. It says we are going 

to share spectrum, we are going to document what it does. It addresses many of the issues the GAO brought up. It provides a way 

for Federal agencies to monitorize the value of the spectrum by 

having a secondary market but a right to share Federal spectrum. 

You can measure its goal. 

We have always had a problem that Federal agencies can get acquisition money from Congress but not operational money. This is 

a way to bring an operational cash stream in to fund for the kind 

of offload for military systems to civil systems. It is appropriate. It 

provided a new framework at the White House for the spectrum 

management team to recognize that spectrum policy is fundamentally a policy decision, not just an engineering one, and to elevate 

and create and understand the tensions between economic opportunity and national security, and other Federal emissions. 

We have been criticized—the report has been criticized for essentially concurring in the NTIA report, and that is certainly true. It 

concurred in the general framework that sharing—clearing spectrum has become increasingly difficult. We essentially created a— 

certainly you don’t have it in California, but if you grew up in New 

82 

England, as a plow pushes against the snow, it starts out very soft 

and it becomes and turns into hard ice. Well in some cases, our 

Federal spectrum has turned into hard ice. We pushed and pushed, 

we compressed Federal users. It becomes exponentially more difficult to relocate them. Where it can be done, my reading of the 

PCAST report is that it was quiet. If there are ways to clear 25 

megahertz or 50 megahertz for cellular, it in no way proposes to 

stand in the way. What it does say is that our goal should not be 

50 or 100 megahertz, it should be support massive innovation 

throughout the spectrum on an order of a gigahertz a spectrum. 

And the only way to do that is to share what is there. We are not 

going to relocate a gigahertz of Federal users. 

We are enabled in this by the fact that new low power technologies are much more sharable. When you look at the report from 

NTIA and you look at the restrictions on the use of, say the 3.6 gig 

band, you see that it is essentially useless for civil if you put high 

power LTE, but massively useful if you put low power devices. 

There is a convergence between where technology is going and 

where spectrum sharing can do. More power, more local communications is the way we are going to meet wireless needs, and spectrum sharing is particularly appropriate to that. 

For those who read the report and say my gosh, it is all different, 

we will have to do different things, imagine if you had gone to the 

wireless industry 10 years ago, perhaps when Mr. Sharkey was at 

QUALCOMM, and said we want you to take your—50 percent of 

your wireless business, put it over congested, open to everyone, 

shared with every device in the country, $100 devices, only 80 

megahertz, and all of you have to share it, they would have 

laughed at you, and yet today, over half of our smartphone traffic 

runs across wifi. These are the opportunities for innovation. We are 

the first to meet this. We are the first to come up against this spectrum crunch. This is not bad, this is an opportunity to own the 

beach front innovation, and the key to that is sharing spectrum, 

not to walk away from licensed and exclusive use. I am a communications engineer. I know I would rather have a clear channel. I 

don’t want to deal with sharing, but if the alternative is no spectrum at all, then this is a desirable path. This is an opportunity 

to do all of the above, continue the path on unlicensed and exclusive licensing, but open up this new opportunity for this third way 

which goes right down the middle. It draws the best from licensed 

use and it draws the best from unlicensed. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:] 

83 


85378.064

Prepared Remarks by Dr. Preston Marshall for the House Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing: 

"Creating Opportunities through Improved Government Spectrum Efficiency." 

Thursday, September 13th 

Summary of Points to be made: 

1. Spectrum Sharing is not new, and we know how to do it. The PCAST advance is to propose it 

hecome transparent and systematic so it can support innovation and new services without the 

disruption and cost of relocating Federal or Commercial users. 

2. Industry has invested and innovated in shared spectrum, such as WiFi for enhanced cellular 

carrier offload, despite its shared and less predictable nature. The recommendations PCAST 

made will create enormously more opportunities for innovation and investment in technologies 

that would not be viable, given the delay, risk, and cost of long-term,licensed spectrum. 

3. Lower power technologies, such as femtocells make sharing spectrum with Federal users more 

viable, and can exploit spectrum that is unsuitable for higher power uses. 

4. Spectrum policy should consider that we do not know what the next big innovation will be. 

Flexible spectrum policy is likely to be critical to the viability of many innovations, and 

America's ability to lead in innovation. 

5. PCAST report is not dependent on any new technology. Its technology assumptions are highly 

conservative, and available now. 

6. While the NTIA report may not be "perfect", it is unlikely to be fundamentally incorrect in its 

premise that it is increasingly difficult, expensive, and disruptive to relocate Federal users. 

Some new mechanism is required to make use of this unused spectrum. 

7. In summary, the PCAST recommendations do not remove any current access from either 

Federal or commercial users, and provide the opportunity for at least doubling the spectrum 

available for innovation throughout our economy. 
84 


85378.065

Prepared Remarks by Dr. Preston Marshall for the House Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing: 

"Creating Opportunities through Improved Government Spectrum Efficiency." 

Thursday, September 13th 

Thank you Chairman Walden, and Ranking member Eshoo. I appreciate the opportunity 

the Committee has provided to comment on spectrum policy, and some of the technology 

implications. I welcome this opportunity to continue the informal dialog we had with many 

of the members and staff of this committee. 

My Name is Preston Marshall, and I am Deputy Director of the Information Sciences 

Institute at University of Southern California's Viterbi School of Engineering. I am also a 

Research Professor in the Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical Engineering. I am the author 

of two books on the subject of wireless networks, the latest of which is due to be released 

by Cambridge University Press in the fall. I was Program Manager for seven years of the 

Defense' Advanced Research Projects Agency managing projects in wireless and 

networking, including the dynamic spectrum access program. I also participated as a 

technical advisor to the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) 

study titled "Realizing the Full Potential of Government-Held Spectrum to Spur Economic 

Growth." However, the opinions expressed here are my own, and not that of PCAST. 

Spectrum sharing is not new. Cell towers share with cell towers, Federal users share with 

other Federal users, and often Federal users share with specific civil users, as well. Just 

recently, the FCC approved a Special Temporary authorization for T-Mobile to experiment 

with sharing one of the most contentious bands, 1755 MHZ. What makes the PCAST 

recommendation new and exciting is that it makes Federal spectrum sharing systematic 

and transparent. This will be based on a fundamental principle that underutilized Federal 
85 


85378.066

spectrum should be shared to the greatest possible extent. Sharing opportunities would be 

visible to all potential users. No special connections or knowledge of Federal agencies or 

regulators would be required for potential innovators, or current spectrum users to 

determine the availability of sharable spectrum. A marketplace for sharing spectrum 

rights would operate to monetize these opportunities for the Federal Government, and to 

ensure protection for investors and innovators in these bands. 

I have heard it said that industry would not invest in shared spectrum. Clearly this is not 

correct. Industry finds shared spectrum quite acceptable for investment, as we see more 

and more investment in large scale WiFi networks in unlicensed, shared spectrum. It is 

true that these investments have a very different cost and obsolescence structure than the 

large cellular towers, but this is exactly the innovation that is needed to bridge the gap 

between these two extreme models of wireless, and meet the need for exponential, not 

linear, growth in wireless capacity. In my opinion, the PCAST report recommendations will 

lead to any number of technology and service opportunities that can leverage the unique 

opportunities provided by different characteristics of spectrum, licensing, and exclusive 

operation. 

The success ofWiFi has another lesson for us. One of the major carriers has stated that it 

has shifted over half of its smartphone traffic to WiFi offload. The WiFi 2.4 GHz spectrum 

is significantly less than that exclusively licensed by that carrier. Just their usage ofWiFi (a 

small fraction of all WiFi usage) is providing more capacity per MHz than the dedicated 

cellular spectrum. 
86 


85378.067

I am not arguing for WiFi, but this does demonstrate that low power,localized 

communications is the solution to the bandwidth needs in our dense usage areas. Whether 

supplied by carrier, or private, femtocells, microcells or WiFi, the fact is that these low 

power systems essentially replicate their bandwidth hundreds of times in the same area 

that a tower has only one unit of capacity. This is the only way to meet bandwidth 

demands. Even if Federal usage was reduced to zero, the additional spectrum would only 

double the available spectrum, clearly not enough to meet demands for 50 or more times 

user bandwidth! 

The use of smaller and smaller, low power cell sites is central to the ability to leverage 

Federal spectrum by commercial wireless. While sharing Federal spectrum with high 

power towers might have severe challenges, sharing with these emerging, low power, often 

indoor technologies provides a practical and effective application of spectrum that 

otherwise would serve no one. For example, the NTIA report shows that exclusion zones 

for the 3600 MHz band would essentially preclude access to most of the US population 

when sharing with high power L TE, but could be highly useful when used for lower power 

applications, such as femtocells. 

It is true that the proposed sharing regime is not the same as the current exclusive regimes. 

Different does not mean inferior. The introduction of unlicensed spectrum was different, 

but it lead to the explosion of unlicensed innovation, and an industry largely dominated by 

US Corporations. I believe the PCAST proposal provides for many more such opportunities 

for US firms to innovate and develop new products for the home market, and be in a 

position to dominate this technology as these principles are adopted worldwide. And, this 

opportunity does not require reallocating spectrum from any existing or future application, 
87 


85378.068

just sharing the spectrum currently allocated to, and needed by, Federal users, and 

therefore not available for reallocation. 

We should not assume that spectrum policy must consider only cellular. Innovation had 

been rampant when we have made spectrum available. Again, WiFi is a good example for 

this. However, it is hard to see that the current spectrum policy alternatives, which are 

completely shared, or auctioned and exclusively licensed, can support the emergence of 

new technologies. The National Broadband Plan shows the average delay from spectrum 

being identified to being used is over eight years. Issues with incumbent users, and band 

clearing can add years to this, as well as risk to the investment, as we all saw in the 

LightSquared issues. This is a poor environment to foster the innovation needed In this 

highly dynamic space. It fails to support the innovation cycle that has been so successful in 

creating domination in Internet, applications, devices, and Smartphones, as examples. For 

US companies to dominate these future environments, we must have a spectrum policy that 

enables them to predictably, rapidly, and affordably obtain access to spectrum to develop 

and promote these applications. 

Some have commented that the PCAST report depends on high-risk technologies. If 

anything the opposite is true. There are exciting technologies that could have been 

included in the recommendations, An example of this is the Dynamic Spectrum Access 

technology I worked on at DARPA. However, the recommendations initiate spectrum 

sharing using very conservative and available technology that extends the current analytic 

approach to spectrum sharing. It builds on systems that have already been approved by 

the FCC for the TV Whites paces. It is a pragmatic solution using today's technology. 
88 


85378.069

I believe the peAST report was correct in not challenging the fundamental conclusions of 

the NTIA report. While it is possible that specific Federal usages, relocation costs, or 

required timelines could be challenged, such system-by-system adjustments would not be 

likely to change the overall dynamic. Relocation of Federal users will be increasingly more 

expensive, technically challenging, operationally disruptive, and costly. A metaphor for this 

might be that when a plow first pushes against snow, it moves easily, but with increased 

movement, the snow compresses and becomes an intractable block of ice. With each 

reallocation, Federal users are, and will become more compressed into the remaining 

Federal spectrum, and reallocation will be increasingly difficult. 

Further, the report recognizes that Federal usage is no more static than civil, and faces the 

same growth in information access seen in civil users. The peAST report approach enables 

Federal usage to evolve, and avoids locking Federal users into a new, but equally rigid and 

inflexible set of spectrum aSSignments. 

Another comment I have heard is that the peAST recommendations abandon the successful 

model of exclusive licensing. I did not read that anywhere in the report! Spectrum that can 

be freed up through mechanisms such as incentive auctions, clearing, or other repurposing 

could still be provided for exclusive use auctions. What is does say is that the current 

toolkit to deploy spectrum for use by the civil community is inadequate, and can not make 

best use of spectrum that would otherwise lie fallow. Would industry prefer to let this 

spectrum remain unusable, rather than be provided for use under potentially restrictive 

terms. If so, the marketplace will respond that way. However, our experience shows 

otherwise. The investment by industry in WiFi and carrier offload into the non-exclusive, 
89 


85378.070

and massively congested unlicensed bands is proof that exclusive control is not a 

prerequisite for investment. 

Spectrum sharing is not in opposition to license or auction processes. Instead, it is an 

alternative to letting spectrum lay fallow due to allocation policies that are not flexible 

enough to accommodate a wide range of applications and usage. Additionally, spectrum 

sharing offers the opportunity for revenue from spectrum that would otherwise not be 

eligible for auction. It eliminates the delay for clearing and auction, we enable a much 

wider range of bidders. I read the PCAST report as clearly embracing market solutions, and 

applying them to a whole new class of spectrum. 

Lastly, I believe the PCAST recommendations are very friendly to, and enabling for 

innovation: Current spectrum allocation processes take ten years through the clearing and 

auction process, have high levels of uncertainty due to the political and regulatory process, 

and carry risk due to unknown impact on incumbent users. This is hardly conducive to the 

investment ecosystem that has spawned US domination in many areas of technology. 

In summary, why should anyone oppose this approach? It takes nothing off the plate for 

commercial spectrum users. If bands can be cleared and auctioned with exclusive 

licensing, and I believe the PCAST recommendations in no way preclude that. If Federal 

spectrum is as underutilized as some say, then that spectrum will be almost immediately 

available for use. If federal users could more effectively utilize commercial services, then 

there is a model for that spectrum to placed into a secondary sharing rights market, 

generate revenue, and have that revenue defray the costs of the commercial services, and 

provide revenue. 
90 


85378.071

Yes, the PCAST recommendations represent change, but it is change that takes nothing 

from current users; either commercial or Federal, and provides both category of 

participant the flexibility to fully exploit the full extent of the national spectrum resource. 

What more desirable accomplishment could any recommendation provide? 

Thank you very much for your time and attention. 
91 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Dr. Marshall. We appreciate your comments and your good work on the PCAST report, and for briefing 

our committee before. 

We will now go to Mr. Mark Racek, Director, Spectrum Policy of 

Ericsson. So we appreciate your being here and look forward to 

your testimony. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF MARK RACEK 

Mr. RACEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to all 

the members of the committee. My name is Mark Racek and I help 

lead the development of Ericsson’s global legislative, regulatory, 

and industry positions with regard to spectrum. As communication 

changes the way we live and work, Ericsson is playing a key role 

in this evolution. Using innovation to empower people, business, 

and society, we are working towards a networked society in which 

everything that can benefit from a connection will have one. 

For our part, Ericsson is responsible for more than 40 percent of 

the world’s mobile traffic which passes through our networks every 

day serving roughly 2.5 billion subscribers, and we have been at 

this game a long time. When our company was founded 136 years 

ago, Ulysses S. Grant occupied the White House. With time has 

come experience, knowledge, and we believe, credibility. 

The lifeblood of the networked society is a network that is built 

on a robust mobile broadband ecosystem made possible by access 

to sufficient licensed spectrum, something that is in short supply 

and high demand. 

A market data report Ericsson released last month cited a doubling of global mobile data traffic from 2011 to 2012 with a growth 

forecast of 15 times that amount by 2017. Ericsson invests more 

than $5 billion annually in research and development, employs 

22,000 R&D engineers, and holds 30,000 patents, all in an effort 

to improve the capability of networks and increase the efficient use 

of spectrum. But technology alone won’t cure the demand for capacity. 

Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues deserve a great deal of 

praise for passing voluntary incentive auction legislation. While 

this key achievement was an important step, the question still remains, where can more spectrum be found? 

Federal spectrum holdings prove to be the next logical possibility 

given that Federal Government is the largest user of spectrum 

below 3 gigahertz. And the new spectrum law is encouraging efficiency through collaboration with industry, and the Federal spectrum holders. As opportunities are identified within the Federal 

Government, a determination must be made as to which approach 

will serve the solution best, spectrum clearing or spectrum sharing? 

Being a global leader in building networks that can operate in 

numerous spectrum ecosystems, we believe there are two key 

points to keep in mind as we answer that question. 

The first is that clearing spectrum for licensed use is still the 

best option available today. The engineering is ready and there is 

a well-established and commercial business model for providers to 

rely upon to profitably build and operate such systems. 

Second, while there is a lot of interest in the concept of spectrum 

sharing, I would caution policymakers from being too optimistic 

92 

about its potential. There are a host of challenges to building and 

operating shared spectrum networks and there is no evidence yet 

that business models exist to sustain them. The examples of challenges come in at least four different areas. The first is economic 

potential. The value of spectrum is directly dependent upon the extent to which services can be guaranteed. There has not been sufficient testing of technology or economic modeling to prove that the 

types of services can be met by a system predicated on sharing. 

Without these certainties, there will be little incentive for large 

scale investment. 

Number two is the technical and commercial viability. Existing 

commercial mobile technologies have been optimized based upon a 

well-understood licensed spectrum, which has fueled innovation 

and investment. The technical requirements for a shared environment, on the other hand, are undefined and will require significant 

time for researching and for testing. 

Number three, the operational complexity. For sharing to work, 

carriers will need clear answers to many questions about operational constraints. For example, what kinds of services can be supported in a shared environment, or can the spectrum be used nationwide? 

And finally, number four, the regulatory structures. Sharing 

raises a number of regulatory challenges which will take years to 

test and model. Will shared spectrum users have to meet public interest requirements such as CALEA and E–911? Can this spectrum 

be auctioned? What are the interference protections for incumbent 

users? 

Taken together, I believe that an analysis including these four 

factors leads us to the conclusion that while spectrum sharing solutions in the right circumstances may be able to support licensed operation and should be further assessed, sharing should not be considered as a substitute for cleared, licensed, spectrum to meet our 

Nation’s needs. And when met, those needs will yield great returns 

for the economy. 

The work ahead will be challenging, but our mission is clear: to 

ensure that everything that can benefit from being connected is 

connected. This will transform lives, it will revolutionize businesses, but more important than that, it will have a profound impact on our entire society. Our industry needs spectrum to deliver 

on that promise. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to be here today, 

and I look forward to answering any questions that this subcommittee has. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Racek follows:] 

93 


85378.072

Before the 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

Hearing on 

·Creating Opportunities through Improved Government Spectrum Efficiency· 

Statement of Mark Racek 

Director, Global Spectrum Policy 

Ericsson Inc. 

September 13, 2012 
94 


85378.073

Mark Racek, Ericsson Inc. 

Summary of Key Points 

Septennber13,2012 

• Using innovation to empower people, business and society, we are working towards the 

networked society, in which everything that can benefit from a connection will have one. 

• High-performing, cost-efficient, mobile networks depend on continued development of 

4G/LTE technology and advanced network architectures, and will only exist with a robust 

mobile broadband ecosystem made possible by access to sufficient spectrum. 

• Technology alone won't cure the demand for more spectrum. The allocation of additional 

licensed spectrum is the best way to relieve congestion and promote prosperity, jobs, and 

innovation. 

• While spectrum legislation signed into law earlier this year was a key achievement, the 

question still remains - where can more spectrum be found? 

• Federal spectrum holdings prove to be the next logical possibility given that the federal 

government is the largest user of spectrum below 3GHz. 

• Spectrum sharing comes with a number of key challenges: 

o #1 Economic Potential- The value of spectrum is directly dependent upon the 

extent to which seryices can be guaranteed. 

o #2 Technical and Commercial Viability - The technical requirements for a shared 

environment are undefined and will require significant time for research and 

testing. 

o #3 Operational Complexity - For sharing to work, carriers will need clear answers 

to many questions about operational constraints. 

o #4 Regulatory Structures - Sharing raises a number of regulatory challenges all of 

which will take years to test and model. 

• In conclusion, while spectrum sharing solutions can, in the right circumstances, support 

licensed operation and should be further assessed, sharing should not be considered a 

substitute for cleared, licensed spectrum to meet our nation's needs. 

-2-
95 


85378.074

Mark Racek, Ericsson Inc. September 13, 2012 

Written Testimony of Mark Racek. Ericsson Inc. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and good morning to all the members of the Committee. 

My name is Mark Racek and I serve as Director of Spectrum Policy for Ericsson. In 

that capacity, I help lead the development of Ericsson's global legislative, regulatory, 

and industry positions with regard to spectrum. As communication changes the way 

we live and work, Ericsson is playing a key role in this evolution. Using innovation to 

empower people, business and society, we are working towards the networked 

society, in which everything that can benefit from a connection will have one. 

For our part, Ericsson is responsible for more than 40 percent of the world's mobile 

traffic which passes through our networks every day serving roughly 2.5 billion 

subscribers. We are the fifth largest software company in the world. And we've been 

at this game a long time - when our company was founded 136 years ago, Ulysses S. 

Grant occupied the White House. With time has come experience, knowledge, and 

we believe, credibility. 

The lifeblood ofthe networked society Is a network that delivers what users want -

wherever they are. This high-performing, cost-efficient, mobile network which In turn 

depends on continued development of 4G/LTE technology and advanced network 

architectures, will only exist with a robust mobile broadband ecosystem made 

possible by access to sufficient spectrum. 

- 3-
96 


85378.075

Mark Racek, Ericsson Inc. Septernber13,2012 

This subcommittee knows too well the severe spectrum shortfall our country faces 

due to sharp increases in spectrum demand. A market data report Ericsson released 

last month cited a doubling of global mobile data traffic from 2011-2012 with a 

growth forecast of 15 times that amount by 2017. Ericsson invests more than five 

billion dollars annually in research and development, employs 22,000 R&D engineers, 

and holds 30,000 patents in support of our effort to improve the capability of 

networks and increase the efficient use of spectrum. But technology alone won't 

cure the demand for capacity. The allocation of additional licensed spectrum is the 

best way to relieve congestion and promote prosperity, jobs, and innovation. 

Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues deserve a great deal of praise for passing 

voluntary incentive auction legislation contained in the 'Middle Class Tax Relief and 

Job Creation Act.' While this key achievement was an important step, less than a 

quarter of the 500 MHz needed by 2020 and outlined in the Administration's 

National Broadband Plan will likely be made available. Our industry is investing 

billions to drive spectral efficiency and performance in existing bands, but we know it 

won't be enough. So the question still remains - where can more spectrum be 

found? 

Federal spectrum holdings prove to be the next logical possibility given that the 

federal government is the largest user of spectrum below 3GHz. And the new 

spectrum law is encouraging efficiency through collaboration with industry. For 

example, in the area of public safety, FirstNet's adoption of standards-driven LTE is a 

model that can be used by federal agencies to benefit from commercial technology 

- 4-
97 


85378.076

Mark Racek, Ericsson Inc. September 13, 2012 

and increase spectral efficiency. In addition, federal agencies could also utilize 

commercial services wherever possible instead of relying on dedicated spectrum and 

dedicated systems. As similar opportunities are identified within the federal 

government, a determination must be made as to which approach will serve the 

solution best - spectrum clearing or spectrum sharing? 

As a global leader in building networks that can operate in numerous spectrum 

ecosystems, I believe there are two key points to keep in mind as we answer that 

question: 

First, clearing spectrum for licensed use is the best option available today. The 

engineering is ready and there is a well-established and commercial business model 

for providers to rely upon to profitably build and operate such systems. 

Second, while there is a lot of interest in the concept of spectrum sharing, I would 

caution policymakers from being too optimistic about its potential. There are a host 

of technical and engineering challenges to building and operating networks that will 

rely upon shared spectrum and there is no evidence yet that business models exist to 

sustain them. The examples of challenges come in at least four areas: 

#1 Economic Potential 

The value of spectrum is directly dependent upon the extent to which services can be 

guaranteed. There has not been sufficient testing of technology or economic 

modeling to prove that the types of services consumers demand can be met by a 

- 5-
98 


85378.077

Mark Racek, Ericsson Inc. September 13, 2012 

system predicated on sharing. Without these certainties, there will be little incentive 

for large scale investment. 

#2 Technical 

Existing commercial mobile technologies have been optimized based on wellunderstood licensed spectrum, which has fueled innovation and investment. The 

technical requirements for a shared environment, on the other hand, are undefined 

and will require significant time for research and testing. In addition, every sharing 

situation is unique. So even if one branch of government's spectrum is freed via 

sharing, there is no guarantee that another branch's spectrum can be utilized in the 

same way. In addition, many popular sharing technologies such as cognitive radio 

simply aren't commercially viable today. 

#3 Operational 

For sharing to work, carriers will need clear answers to many questions about 

operational constraints. For example, what kinds of services can be supported in a 

shared environment? Can the spectrum be used nationwide? What incentives will 

be in place to encourage collaboration between licensees? 

And finally, 

#4 Regulatory 

Sharing raises a number of regulatory challenges all of which will take years to test 

and model. Will the users of shared spectrum have to meet public interest 

requirements such as CALEA and E-911? Can this spectrum be auctioned? What 

6-
99 


85378.078

Mark Racek, Ericsson Inc. September 13, 2012 

about interference protections for incumbent users? Who will enforce issues that 

arise from interference or infringement? Who will develop the tests necessary to 

determine whether devices interfere? What legal rights will users and networks have 

with regards to federal spectrum? 

These questions must be answered in advance to provide assurances for any 

potential operation to develop a business model for a shared environment. 

Taken together, I believe that an analysis including these four factors leads us to the 

conclusion that while spectrum sharing solutions can. in the right circumstances. 

support licensed operation and should be further assessed. sharing should not be 

considered a substitute for cleared. licensed. spectrum to meet our nation's needs. 

And when met, those needs will yield great returns for the economy. 

In the future, we see a world where everything that can benefit from being connected, 

is connected. This will transform lives. It will revolutionize businesses. But more 

than that, it will have a profound impact on our entire society. Our industry needs 

spectrum to deliver on that promise. We at Ericsson stand ready to support Congress, 

the Administration, and our industry colleagues in meeting that goal. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the kind invitation to be a part of this important 

discussion today and I look forward to answering any questions that you, or any other 

members of the committee, may have. 

- 7 -
100 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Racek, thank you for your testimony and your 

work on this topic. 

And now to our final witness on today’s panel, Mr. Steve 

Sharkey, who is the Director, Federal Regulatory Affairs, and Chief 

Engineering and Technology Policy for T–Mobile USA, Inc. Mr. 

Sharkey, thank you for being here. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE B. SHARKEY 

Mr. SHARKEY. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Walden and 

Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. My 

name is Steve Sharkey and I am the Director, Chief Engineering 

and Technology Policy for T–Mobile, USA. Thank you for inviting 

me to testify today. 

Mobile broadband is a significant economic driver, providing millions of jobs, economic opportunities for Americans, and billions of 

dollars in productivity improvements that help America compete in 

a global economy. The demand for mobile broadband data continues to grow at an unprecedented rate, and the need for additional spectrum to meet this demand is well-documented. The wireless industry is investing billions of dollars in new technologies to 

solve this problem by improving spectrum efficiency, adding cell 

sites, and improving network management practices, but it will not 

be enough. Additional spectrum must still be made available to 

meet exploding demand. 

Among bands under consideration for reallocation, the 1755 to 

1780 megahertz band stands out as uniquely suited for commercial 

use. This spectrum is immediately adjacent to spectrum that we 

use today for mobile broadband, and could be readily integrated 

with existing networks to expand services. The band is identified 

internationally and already used around the world for mobile 

broadband. Harmonized use of spectrum will facilitate rapid equipment development and service deployment, and produce economies 

of scale and scope that reduce the cost of deploying services. 

There is also broad support in the wireless industry for pairing 

the 1755 to 1780 band with spectrum currently available for licensing at 2155 to 2180 megahertz, which Congress required to be licensed by February of 2015. Pairing 1755 to 1780 with 2155 to 

2180 aligns with existing services and will facilitate faster deployment and maximize efficient use of the spectrum. 

These benefits are reflected in how the spectrum is valued. One 

study found that auctioning the 2155 to 2180 megahertz band by 

itself would yield $3.6 billion, but auctioned together with 1755 to 

1780, the band would generate $12 billion, over three times as 

much. Auctioning these bands on a paired basis will ensure the 

best economic return for taxpayers and provide the most efficient 

use for broadband services. 

NTIA released a report earlier this year describing the considerable challenges to making the 1755 to 1780 megahertz band available for commercial use, given current Federal operations. T–Mobile believes, however, that the assessment of these challenges and 

their costs are overly pessimistic. T–Mobile’s experience in relocating Federal users from the AWS–1 band, which was also reallocated from Federal to commercial use, demonstrates that the chalVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:22 Apr 01, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-17~3\112-17~1 WAYNE
101 

lenges of relocation and sharing during a transition can be significantly overcome with dialogue and cooperation between Federal 

users and industry. 

Fortunately, several steps have now been taken that T–Mobile 

believes will provide a path forward to transition the 1755 to 1780 

megahertz band from Federal to commercial use. First, the FCC, 

working with NTIA, has granted T–Mobile special temporary authority to explore the prospects for limited sharing of the band. As 

part of an industry effort, we have already begun to work with the 

Department of Defense to identify the locations at which we will 

monitor the use of the band, and are pleased with the spirit of cooperation that has characterized our work with the Department of 

Defense and others so far. We anticipate that preliminary results 

for monitoring and simulations will be available before the end of 

the year and will provide a foundation for field testing. 

Second, T–Mobile is participating in working groups created 

under NTIA’s Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, or CSMAC. These working groups are a forum for exchanging technical and operational information between Federal entities 

and industry regarding their respective systems and the potential 

for sharing or facilitating relocation out of the band. 

Third, important changes to the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, or CSEA, provide resources for government agencies to 

study relocation options and to update equipment to facilitate 

clearing or shared use of the spectrum. We are hopeful that these 

efforts, taken together, will provide a path forward for making the 

1755 to 1780 megahertz band available on a primary basis for commercial broadband use, while fully protecting Federal operations. 

Where sharing is necessary, either through a transition period or 

indefinitely, it is important that the conditions for shared use are 

well understood and are clearly defined, and that substantial access for commercial operations is provided. 

Certainty regarding the extent of access to the spectrum is necessary to provide the incentive for carriers to make the very substantial investments needed to deliver world-leading, high quality 

mobile broadband services to American consumers. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

T–Mobile looks forward to continuing to work with you on these 

important and timely issues. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sharkey follows:] 

102 


85378.079

TESTIMONY OF STEVE B. SHARKEY 

DIRECTOR, CHIEF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, 

T-MOBILE USA, INC. 

on 

CREATING OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH IMPROVED GOVERNMENT SPECTRUM 

EFFICIENCY 

before the 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

September 13,2012 
103 


85378.080

TESTIMONY OF STEVE B. SHARKEY 

DIRECTOR, CHIEF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, 

T-MOBILE USA, INC. 

Introduction 

Good morning Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Steve Sharkey, and I am Director, Chief Engineering and 

Technology Policy for T-Mobile USA, Inc. T-Mobile, headquartered in Bellevue, Washington, 

offers nationwide wireless voice and data services to individual, business and government 

customers. It is the fourth largest wireless carrier in the United States and serves approximately 

33 million subscribers. I have overall responsibility for T-Mobile's technical policy agenda 

before government. Thank you for inviting me today to testify regarding efforts to create 

opportunities to make additional spectrum available for commercial broadband services through 

improved government spectrum efficiency. 

The Need for More Spectrum 

The need for additional spectrum for commercial mobile broadband services is well 

documented. As FCC Chairman Genachowski has noted, spectrum is the "oxygen" of the 

wireless industry, and "if we don't free up more spectrum, we're going to run into a wall that 

will stifle mobile innovation, hurting consumers and slowing economic growth." T-Mobile 

wholeheartedly concurs. We have repeatedly stated that more spectrum is essential for carriers 

to accommodate the changing wireless market and to meet increasing demands from consumers. 

According to a 2012 report by Recon Analytics, the Nation's mobile communications 

industry is a significant economic engine, directly or indirectly supporting 3.8 million jobs, or 

2.6 percent of all U.S. employment, contributing $195.5 billion to the U.S. gross domestic 
104 


85378.081

product and driving $33 billion in productivity improvements in 20 II. The industry is expected 

to expand as businesses and consumers increasingly rely on wireless technologies, including 

bandwidth-intensive smartphones, tablets, and other hand-held devices as well as machine-tomachine communications. A recent report issued by Cisco, for instance, predicts that global 

mobile data traffic will increase I8-fold between 2011 and 2016 at a compound annual growth 

rate of 78 percent. 

To help meet this demand, wireless carriers continually implement new and more 

efficient technologies and techniques to maximize the capacity of our limited spectrum. In fact, 

T-Mobile, which initially implemented technology evolutions every seven to eight years, now 

updates its technology almost annually to provide leading edge services that make the most of 

the spectrum we have. For instance, our predecessor Voicestream Wireless began providing 

service in 1994 using GSM technology. In 2002, T-Mobile launched the U.S.'s first Blackberry 

device using one of the first General Packet Radio Service, or GPRS networks. In 2006, we 

deployed EDGE technology in the network and also purchased additional spectrum for 

approximately $4.3 billion at auction. Service using that new spectrum was launched in 2008 

with a UMTS 3G deployment that was quickly upgraded to HSPA technology. In 2009, TMobile was the first carrier to launch an HSP A + network, and in 2011 was the first carrier to 

launch an HSPA+ dual carrier network. Finally, in 2012, we announced our plan to launch LTE, 

or Long-Term Evolution, service in 2013. 

In addition to using the newest technology, commercial wireless networks typically 

offload traffic to Wi-Fi systems where available to reduce the demand on commercial broadband 

spectrum, thereby reducing the overall need for additional spectrum. However, these and similar 

2 
105 


85378.082

industry efforts to use our spectrum more efficiently are simply not enough. To meet the everincreasing demand for mobile broadband, more spectrum must be made available. 

There are two potential sources for additional spectrum - reallocating spectrum used 

either for existing non-government operations or by Federal users. On the non-government side, 

Congress earlier this year passed legislation authorizing the FCC to reallocate television 

broadcast spectrum through the use of voluntary incentive auctions. Previous efforts relocated 

private users of valuable fixed microwave spectrum that could be used for mobile services. 

While the wireless industry continues to look for opportunities to use private sector spectrum 

more efficiently and for the services that are most highly valued, these efforts will be insufficient 

to meet the growing demand. We must therefore also look to spectrum used by government 

agencies to ensure that it is used as efficiently as possible and to seek opportunities to make 

some of the government spectrum available for commercial use. 

T-Mobile recognizes the essential role spectrum plays for government users,just as it 

does for commercial entities. However, according to a 2011 GAO study, the Federal 

government operates in approximately 70 percent of the spectrum below 3 GHz-18 percent on 

an exclusive basis and 52 percent on a shared basis with non-government users. Just as it is 

appropriate to ensure that spectrum available to the private sector is being used efficiently and 

for the most highly valued services, we must evaluate the Federal government's use of its 

spectrum and when it can be made available for commercial operations, it should be. The 

President recognized the need to provide additional spectrum for broadband services and to look 

at Federal spectrum as part of this effort when he issued a Memorandum in June 2010 directing 

NTIA to review Federal spectrum use and provide a plan to make 500 megahertz available. 

3 
106 


85378.083

The 1755-1780 MHz Band Is Uniquely Suited for Commercial Mobile Broadband 

The 1755-1780 MHz band is particularly appropriate for commercial use and T-Mobile is 

actively working with other carriers, manufacturers and industry associations to demonstrate how 

it can be allocated for commercial use. In the United States, the 1755-1780 MHz band is 

currently used by 000 and other Federal agencies. However, the band is identified 

internationally for commercial mobile services and is used for that purpose throughout most of 

the world. The configuration would therefore harmonize U.S. allocation of spectrum with 

international use. The 1755-1780 MHz band is also immediately adjacent to existing domestic 

wireless spectrum and would therefore fit seamlessly into the current mobile broadband spectrum 

portfolio allowing for more immediate equipment development and deployment. Manufacturers 

could easily migrate existing and developing technologies to these bands. Creating a domestic 

allocation that is consistent with international use will produce economies of scale and scope, 

making for a more robust equipment market for the band, lowering costs and speeding 

implementation. International harmonization of this spectrum will also facilitate consumers' use 

of their wireless devices while traveling to other countries by alleviating compatibility problems. 

T-Mobile and other wireless carriers therefore believe this band can and should be reallocated for 

commercial operations. 

There is also broad support in the wireless industry for pairing the 1755-1780 MHz band 

with spectrum currently available for licensing at 2155-2180 MHz. The Middle Class Tax Relief 

and Job Creation Act, or Jobs Act, requires that band to be licensed by February 2015. The 

1755-1780 MHz band should be available in the same time frame so that the two bands can be 

made available together. The benefits of pairing 1755-1780 MHz with 2155-2180 MHz, which 

will permit alignment with existing services, facilitate faster deployment of services, and 

4 
107 


85378.084

maximize efficient use of the spectrum, are also reflected in how the spectrum is valued. One 

study found that auctioning the 2155-2180 MHz band by itself would yield $3.6 billion - but 

auctioned together with 1755-1780 MHz band, the pair would generate $12 billion. Auctioning 

these bands on a paired basis would therefore ensure the best economic return for taxpayers, as 

well as the most efficient use for broadband services. The value and benefits of reallocating the 

1755-1780 MHz band consistent with this pairing are recognized by H.R. 4817, introduced by 

Representatives Steams and Matsui, which would require reallocation of the band on the same 

timeframe as the reallocation and auction of spectrum mandated by the Jobs Act. 

A Cooperative Process Can Facilitate Transition of the Spectrum 

Reallocation of the 1755-1780 MHz band for commercial use is consistent with efforts 

that date back to the 2000 World Radiocommunication Conference. NTIA issued studies and 

reports in 2001, 2002, and 2010 that addressed use of the band for commercial services and the 

spectrum was also identified in the National Broadband Plan as potentially available for 

reallocation. 

NTlA's most recent report, released March 2012, focuses in part on the 1755-1780 MHz 

band and makes clear that, given the Federal operations in the band, there are considerable 

challenges to making the band available for commercial use. However, studies of the potential 

to reallocate the band have largely been undertaken with little input from the private sector and, 

T -Mobile believes, have resulted in overly pessimistic results. Our own experience in relocating 

Federal users from the 1710-1755 MHz, or AWS-I band, showed that, while relocation is 

challenging by nature, it is feasible when all of the parties involved act cooperatively. In 

relocating Federal users from the A WS-I band, we found that fundamental misunderstandings of 

how our respective systems operate led to unnecessarily pessimistic predictions of potential 

5 
108 


85378.085

interference. As a result of more detailed technical discussions between T-Mobile and Federal 

users that took place as part of the relocation process, we were able to build a deeper 

understanding of how the systems would interact. These discussions resulted in T-Mobile being 

able to deploy services years earlier than originally anticipated, allowing consumers to benefit 

from early access to broadband services prior to completing the full transition of the band from 

Federal to commercial use. The experience that T-Mobile gained in relocating Federal users 

from the AWS-l band should inform the potential relocation of Federal users from the 1755-

1780 MHz band and points to the importance of a cooperative dialogue that takes into 

consideration the realistic operations of both the government and commercial operations. 

Fortunately, several steps have now been taken that, T-Mobile is optimistic, wi11lead to 

the conclusion that use of the 1755-1780 MHz band is possible for commercial use. 

T-Mobile Has Obtained Special Temporary Authorization to Explore the Prospects for 

Limited Sharing of the 1755-1780 MHz Band 

First, T-Mobile has begun to work cooperatively with appropriate Federal entities to 

examine the impact of commercial use in the 1755-1780 MHz band and to assess whether there 

may need to be temporary or permanent exclusion zones for certain Federal operations, or 

whether sharing can be facilitated through coordination procedures. We are pleased to report 

that on August 14, the FCC, working with the NTIA, granted our request for special temporary 

authority, or STA, to test the suitability of mobile broadband services in the 1755-1780 MHz 

band. As part of this effort, we are implementing a program, working with other carriers and 

DoD, to monitor operation of and gather accurate information about several of the systems 

identified in NTIA' s 2012 report that appear to be the most difficult, costly or time consuming to 

relocate. 

6 
109 


85378.086

As a first step, we have begun to work with the DoD to identify the locations at which we 

will monitor the use of the. 1755-1780 MHz band and are pleased with the spirit of cooperation 

that has characterized our work with DoD and others so far. Once the site selection process is 

finalized, we will establish our monitoring facilities in coordination with DoD. We are also 

working with NTIA's lab in Boulder, Colorado to conduct additional focused monitoring and to 

perform interference modeling and simulations. We anticipate that both of these steps will be 

largely completed before the end of this year, which will enable us to conduct field testing after 

that. We are mindful, as we hope our government partners are, that we need to keep the process 

moving productively forward to ensure an outcome that makes the best sense for this spectrum, 

especially considering the deadline to auction the companion 2155-2180 MHz band. 

Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee ("CSMAC'') 

Second, we are participating in Working Groups created under the auspices ofNTIA's 

CSMAC. Working Groups have been created to study each of the Federal systems operating in 

the 1755-1850 MHz band. These groups provide a forum for an exchange of technical 

information between Federal entities and industry regarding their respective systems and to 

discuss and explore potential solutions for relocation of Federal operations or for sharing. 

T-Mobile is hopeful that the information exchanged in these discussions will provide a path 

forward for making this spectrum available for commercial broadband operations. 

New and Existing Laws 

Third, new and existing laws will fully protect DoD and other Federal users in the 1755-

1780 MHz band and provide the potential for modernizing Federal equipment. In the Jobs Act, 

Congress made important changes to the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, or CSEA, 

which provides resources for government agencies to study relocation options and to update 

7 
110 


85378.087

equipment to facilitate clearing or shared use of spectrum. In particular, the Jobs Act allows 

NTIA to provide Federal agencies with compensation from the Spectrum Relocation Fund for 

"relocation or sharing costs" associated with the reallocation and auction of spectrum from 

Federal to non-Federal or shared use prior to auction. Those funds can be used for planning, 

equipment upgrades, spectrum sharing costs, and pre-auction planning costs associated with 

relocation or sharing. These changes to the CSEA provide the resources necessary to study and 

implement relocation or modernization of Federal systems. 

These new protections are in addition to other important provisions, which ensure that 

Federal operations are not harmed as a result of a reallocation of spectrum. First, relocation 

costs, now including "the acquisition of state-of-the-art replacement systems," are covered by the 

Spectrum Relocation Fund, would be funded through the proceeds of the auction of the band to 

commercial licensees. Second, the Secretaries of Defense and Commerce and the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have to certify that relocation spectrum identified by NTIA and 

the FCC "provides comparable technical characteristics to restore essential military capability," 

as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Finally, Federal 

agencies would also have the procedural protections of the CSEA, as recently amended, which 

requires NTIA review and approval of Federal spectrum users' relocation plans. 

Given the extent of protections for Federal operations, particularly provisions for auction 

proceeds to cover relocation costs, it is imperative that estimates of relocation costs be as 

accurate as possible. Overstating these costs could lead to a false conclusion that the spectrum 

should not be reallocated, producing a missed opportunity to deliver the benefits of broadband to 

all Americans. 

8 
111 


85378.088

NTIA's March 2012 report examining the feasibility of using the 1755-1850 MHz band 

for commercial operations provides little information about how it determined the nature and 

extent of the use of the band by Federal users. There is no data, for example, on the cost of 

equipment or other expenses that Federal users would incur in relocating. Based on the A WS-I 

relocation process, NTIA's economic and engineering impacts may be overstated. The NTIA's 

Fifth Annual Report on the progress of relocation from the A WS-I band shows that relocating 

outdated analog surveillance systems from the A WS-1 spectrum to more efficient digital systems 

has cost approximately $691 million. However, in its March 2012 report on the entire 1755-

1850 MHz band, NTIA estimates that relocating these systems will cost over $3 billion dollars. 

Thus, according to NTIA, it would cost more than four times more to clear users from 

approximately 40 percent of the spectrum. NTIA's March report also examined the entire 1755-

1850 MHz band. NTIA did not provide estimates for relocation of just the 1755-1780 MHz 

band. While reallocation of the entire band may ultimately be desirable, the immediate focus 

should be on 1755-1780 MHz. 

NTIA's estimates, even for the entire band, seem inconsistent with past estimates. We 

note in particular that NTIA's estimated costs for relocating systems from the entire 1755-1850 

MHz band would be $18 billion, but DoD earlier estimated that it would cost only $4.6 billion to 

clear the entire band. We respectfully urge this Subcommittee and the Spectrum Task Force to 

seek a more refined review of the costs for reallocating Federal users from these 25 megahertz of 

spectrum. 

Limitation on Sharing 

While the wireless industry is fully engaged in evaluating all solutions to spectrum 

shortages, we continue to believe that in order to most effectively use the 1755-1780 MHz band 

9 
112 


85378.089

and other spectrum now employed by the Federal government, the bands should be reallocated 

for commercial use on an exclusive, or near-exclusive, basis. In most cases, carriers need 

exclusive use of spectrum to provide service to the public. Sharing can be a tool to facilitate the 

transition of government spectrum to commercial use, but the ultimate goal should be 

reallocation to the extent possible. Except for limited cases shared spectrum is an inadequate 

resource because it is available only some of the time in particular places. Such a resource can 

help supplement a provider's exclusive spectrum, but it cannot replace it, nor does it provide the 

incentives or certainty necessary for carriers to make the very substantial investments needed to 

deliver world-leading, high quality mobile broadband services to American consumers. 

That said, T-Mobile recognizes that there are instances where sharing may be necessary 

and feasible and where advances in technology offer new techniques for implementing sharing. 

First, there are instances where sharing spectrum may mean that it is not available for nonFederal use only in limited rural areas where there is an identified Federal installation or where 

Federal use is limited in time. In those cases, carriers can plan around the identified geographic 

or temporal exclusion zones and still offer a commercially acceptable service. 

Second, sharing may be appropriate as a transition mechanism while spectrum is being 

cleared by Federal users. In that case, Federal users and commercial providers can plan where 

and when spectrum will be available, allowing entities like T-Mobile to begin to implement 

systems using the newly available spectrum while protecting Federal users as they transition to 

alternative communications solutions. 

T-Mobile supports continued study of technologies that can facilitate greater and more 

dynamic spectrum sharing, but the technologies for such sharing are not available today, have 

not yet been proven effective, and will not yield the capacity required to satisfy the growing 

10 
113 


85378.090

demand for broadband capacity. Sweeping conclusions that shared use is the only future are 

simply inappropriate. It is one of many available tools, and as technology advances it may 

provide additional opportunities for maximizing efficient use of the spectrum. The appropriate 

approach, whether shared use, reallocation for exclusive commercial use, or some mixture of the 

two, must be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Applied to the 1755-1780 MHz band, this means that relocation of Federal operations 

should be the first option. In some cases, however, Federal systems in the band will take too 

long, be too expensive, or prove too difficult to relocate. It is this subset of operations where 

coexistence and sharing should be further explored - either to facilitate commercial use during 

an extended transition period or in a very limited number of cases where sharing is limited to 

rural areas or where Federal use is infrequent and it may be feasible to share indefinitely. 

Sharing is therefore merely one tool, and for now a limited tool, that is available for use in 

making spectrum available for broadband. The focus should remain on clearing as a first priority 

where feasible. 

11 
114 


85378.091

Conclusion 

T-Mobile believes that the cooperative efforts I have described will serve as the 

foundation for demonstrating that the 1755-1780 MHz band can be allocated for commercial use, 

paired with the 2155-2180 MHz band, and auctioned without a requirement that all government 

facilities be cleared completely from the spectrum before commencement of commercial 

operations, while fully protecting government operations. Spectrum sharing for at least an 

interim period will allow much earlier deployment of broadband services in the spectrum than 

otherwise would be possible and will help facilitate competition in the nationwide deployment of 

wireless broadband services, ultimately benefitting millions of U.S. wireless consumers. 

T-Mobile appreciates this Subcommittee's continued focus on this important issue and it 

applauds the formation of the Spectrum Working Group task force. Interest by Congress and 

the Administration in making more Federal government spectrum available for commercial use 

is an important driver that provides the focus, resources and tools necessary to implement the 

processes I've described. 

* * * 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. T-Mobile looks forward 

to continuing to work with you on these important and timely issues. 

12 
115 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Sharkey, thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate that of all our panelists today. It is most helpful in our effort. 

I am going to start out with questions, and then of course we will 

go back and forth here on the dais. 

Mr. Goldstein, I want to start with you. You have testified about 

fundamental flaws in the way the NTIA manages Federal spectrum, namely, the NTIA does no independent analysis of the information Federal spectrum users provide or of whether those users 

need all the spectrum they have, is my understanding of your 

work. Did the NTIA fix those flaws before issuing their most recent 

estimates relied upon by PCAST in their report that clearing the 

1755 to 1850 megahertz band would take more than $18 billion 

and 10 years? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I don’t believe they have fixed those flaws yet, 

Mr. Chairman. The system I am talking about, which is called the 

Government Master File, which NTIA used to record the information that agencies send them on spectrum, is still being used today 

and won’t be replaced for at least 6 years. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Sharkey, Mr. Racek, Mr. Goldstein’s written testimony 

points out that Federal users will have a low tolerance for even the 

possibility of interference, which seems logical. Private sector, however, will be reluctant to invest significant capital in spectrum network equipment or devices if it doesn’t have greater assurances 

that it will be able to use the spectrum it pays for when and how 

it needs to, that certainty piece that you were speaking of. Isn’t 

this precisely why we should continue to emphasize clearing over 

sharing as our main strategy, not our singular strategy, but our 

main strategy if we are going to meet the spiraling demand for 

wireless broadband? Mr. Sharkey, Mr. Racek? 

Mr. SHARKEY. Thank you, yes. You know, I think it is important 

to stay focused on relocation and clearing as much as possible, and 

there are a variety of different uses in the 1755 to 1780 megahertz 

band, and the NTIA report makes it clear that a number of those 

can be cleared in a more accelerated time, within five years. There 

are a number of systems where it is likely to take longer or be 

more costly to move those, and that is where we are focusing our 

efforts to try and look at sharing options that would be limited geographically or by time. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Mr. Racek? 

Mr. RACEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The exclusive and dedicated globally allocated spectrum below 3 gigahertz is what we feel 

is necessary to be able to provide the regulatory certainty that is 

needed to be able to continue the investment and the innovation 

that has been done within the industry. So what we would like to 

see is a continuation of that. There is—part of the problem is with 

unlicensed type of spectrum that you get a level of uncertainty. It 

is ad hoc. It is definitely viewed as something that could be seen 

as a complement to licensed type of spectrum, but based upon its 

regulatory uncertainty it will not be the preferred methodology. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right, thank you, Mr. Racek. 

Major General Wheeler, Mr. Goldstein notes in his written testimony that the Federal users ‘‘often use and rely on older techVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:22 Apr 01, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-17~3\112-17~1 WAYNE
116 

nology that is not conducive to operate as efficiently or flexibly as 

state-of-the-art technologies may allow.’’ The Commercial Spectrum 

Enhancement Act, or CSEA, which we made even better in the 

spectrum legislation as noted by my friend, Mr. Waxman, provides 

a mechanism to upgrade Federal facilities with private sector funding during the relocation process. Don’t we have an opportunity 

here to help agencies better meet their missions in a fiscally challenged climate while simultaneously freeing spectrum for commercial broadband? 

Mr. WHEELER. I think there are some opportunities there in this 

particular area, sir, but I also understand that if you take a look 

at, for example, the satellite systems that are already up there in 

space right now with a single receiver or transmitter, the opportunity to change those out without significant costs and time, if you 

will, to put up a new satellite system, for example, is an example 

of where that area won’t work very well, and just the mass numbers of specific systems that we have. For example, if you were 

going to use the ACT system we talked about, which is the combat 

training system we discussed, that particular technology, there is 

no commercial variant of that particular one available, and that is 

in all of our airplanes, to include, for example, now internally to 

all of our Stealth airplanes, the F–35 and the F–22. 

So there are examples of where that can work very well, and 

there are examples of where that doesn’t have an applicability to 

that specific system. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Racek, Mr. Sharkey, in the past 5 years we have seen two 

other significant attempts at sharing. The 700 megahertz D block 

failed to garner a winning bid because commercial providers were 

reluctant to pay for a spectrum they would need to share with public safety officials, the way that one was structured. Nearly 4 years 

after the FCC white spaces order, there are very few takers willing 

to or able to build a business around unlicensed devices in the TV 

broadcast band. Is there any reason to believe commercial providers would be more willing to spend money under the PCAST approach? You are representing the commercial side, what do you 

think? 

Mr. SHARKEY. I think both of those examples are good examples 

of the need to have substantial access for commercial services in 

cleared spectrum and certainty about what is available. The problem with both of them was that 700 megahertz, there was no certainty about what would be available for commercial use at the end 

of the day and what that use would cost, so you were asked to pay 

a high cost up front with no certainty on the back end about what 

you were getting. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

Mr. SHARKEY. And on the TV white space, there was availability 

in very rural areas, but the top markets had little to no spectrum 

available. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right, Mr. Racek, very quickly if you can? 

Mr. RACEK. Yes, the—I think the difficulty is that sometimes the 

answer comes actually before the definition of the problem in sort 

of the TV white spaces that the trying to be able to utilize that to 

be able to provide the type of services that you see that are being 

117 

used by the tablets and the iPhones and those sort of type of things 

needs a certain type of service level, some guaranteed type of service level. Unfortunately, some of the solutions that you are talking 

about actually haven’t considered that. There are some—especially 

like when it comes to TV white spaces, the ability to gain access 

to spectrum is going to be limited, mostly to rural types of environments, but where you actually need the capacity is going to be in 

the urban type of environment. So it is sort of providing a solution, 

but not addressing sort of the needs of the commercial industry. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right, thank you very much. My time is more 

than expired. 

I will turn now to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. 

Eshoo, for questions. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first I would like to 

ask unanimous consent that the letter to the committee from the 

Competitive Carriers Association be made part of the record. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

118 


85378.092

Competitive Carriers Association 

Rural- Regional. Nationwide 

September 12, 2012 

The Honorable Greg Walden, Chairman 

The Honorable Anna Eshoo, Ranking Member 

u.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo: 

Competitive Carriers Association 

805 IS'" Street NW, Suite 401 

Washington, DC 20005 

Office: (202) 449 -9866 • Fax: (866) 436 -1080 

The Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) respectfully submits this letter for the record regarding the 

upcoming hearing on "Creating Opportunities Through Improved Government Spectrum Efficiency" before the 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. 

CCA commends the Committee, the Subcommittee, and its Members for your leadership on spectrum policy and 

for convening this important hearing. Through your work to free spectrum for mobile broadband services, CCA 

asks that the Committee consider reallocating spectrum for competitive carriers to further innovation and restore 

competition. Accordingly, CCA urges the Committee to: (1) work to restore interoperability in spectrum bands 

currently allocated for mobile broadband use and ensure interoperability in future bands; (2) emphasize clearing 

and reallocating spectrum above untested and uncertain sbaring solutions; and (3) focus on spectrum bands and 

frequencies already within mobile broadband ecosystems or otherwise aptly-suited for mobile broadband services. 

CCA represents over 100 competitive mobile providers, who provide new and innovative services, products, and 

price-plans. Competitive carriers require access to additional, useable spectrum. To provide additional 

frequencies for mobile broadband, spectrum - a limited, flnite, taxpayer-owned resource - must be reallocated 

from other private licensees or federal users. Supported by the Committee's efforts, Congress provided the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority to reallocate licenses held by private companies through 

incentive auctions in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 and reaffIrmed FCC authority to 

adopt rules of general applicability to support competition. \',7hile incentive auction authority is an important 

step, it has yet to provide additional spectrum for mobile broadband, and all spectrum sources must be 

considered, including federal spectrum. Competitive carriers desperately need access to usable spectrum. CCA 

praises the work of the bipartisan Federal Spectrum Working Group and the Committee for focusing on the 

Federal Government, the single largest user of spectrum, and investigating whether certain frequencies may better 

benefit taxpayers through commercial allocation. 

Restore Interoperability in Cumn! and Ensure Interoperability in Future Spectrum Bands Allocated for Mobile Broadband 

Dating back to the birth of cellular communications, interoperability has been a fundamental principle for wireless 

competition. As you scrutinize every hertz of taxpayer owned spectrum, interoperability is required to ensure 

efficient and full use by both commercial and federal users, and is particularly critical for efficient use for mobile 

broadband. Balkanizing spectrum into multiple, carrier-specific sub-bands decreases its utility overall and 

undermines and negatively impact its value at auction, 

Interoperable bands, on the other hand, promote certainty in the industry, lead to confidence in auctions, and 

support expanded services and competition. Steps need to be taken now to restore interoperability to the Lower 
119 


85378.093

September 12, 2012 

Page 2 

700 MHz Band and ensure that any future bands reallocated for mobile use, through incentive auction or 

reallocation from federal users, are interoperable. 

Emphasizr Clearing and Reallocating S pect11lm Above Experimental Sharing S o!utions 

Clearing spectrum and reallocating from federal to mobile broadband use also provides the certainty needed to 

spur investment. Together with interoperability, these concepts provide industry with the confidence needed to 

take part in a spectrum auction, Removing interoperability and access to cleared spectrum upends the successful 

spectrum auction model, whereas reinforcing both wherever possible maximizes the taxpayer return on our 

nation's spectrum resources, Such certainty is especially important when predicted auction values impact whether 

spectrum is made available for mobile broadband or deemed an acceptable replacement for potential looming 

federal budget cuts, 

Due to inherent limitations in spectrum sharing, CCA supports reallocating cleared spectrum wherever possible, 

CCA appreciates the need to continue to explore and study new technologies and techniques to advance spectrum 

sharing, hut these methods are not a replacement for cleared spectrum at this time, In the event that clearing 

spectrum is not possible, the FCC, National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) and 

other federal stakeholders should study shating spectrnm on a case-by-case basis, 

In frequencies where spectrum sharing is considered, the FCC and NTIA should [JISt consider sharing between 

and among federal users, Federal spectrum sharing will increase the efficiency of federal users in ways similar to 

how the commercial sector has become increasingly efficient in its use of spectrum in interoperable bands. 

Additionally, this will ultimately aid in identifying spectrnm that can be cleared and reallocated for commercial 

use, To facilitate this process, NTIA should continue to investigate federal spectrum use along the parameters 

outlined by the Federal Spectrum Working Group's July 10, 2012 letter to produce a final report by a date certain, 

Frequencies not included in the final report should be deemed no longer necessary for federal use, and NTIA 

should begin the process to reallocate for commercial use, 

Another appropriate spectrum sharing policy in the near term is to share spectrum to facilitate a transition from 

federal allocation to commercial. Statutory flexibility for sharing over a transition period encourages cooperation 

and could reduce the overall transition time and costs to reach clear bands. 

By no means should the premise of sharing spectrum erect a barrier to competition in the mohile industry by 

technologically blocking interoperability or roaming, For carriers to provide nationwide access to networks 

demanded by consumers, wireless networks have been and must remain accessible where technologically possible. 

Advances in technology should focus on expanding such technological possibilities. not limiting them, 

Implementation of any spectrum sharing policies must consider the impact on network access not only between 

and among Federal user(s) and specific carrier(s) but also on all carriers and consumers utilizing technology within 

a given mobile broadband ecosystem, 

Focus First on Spectrum Bands that are Mobile Broadband Realiy 

Additionally, efforts to reallocate spectrum currently used by the Federal government for mobile hroadband 

should focus primarily on bands and frequencies within latest generation mobile broadband technology 

ecosystems, which could qnickly be used to deploy services, These efforts allow carriers to leverage economies of 

scale and promote international harmonization and limit roaming issues while helping maximize revenue from a 

future, competitively structured spectrum auction, A prime example of spectrum that is ready for near-term 

deployment is the 1755 - 1780 MHz band, when paired with the 2155 - 2180 MHz band currently slated for 

commercial auction, CCA applauds the efforts of T-Mobile and other CCA members who are working with the 
120 


85378.094

September 12, 2012 

Page 3 

Federal Government to explore the feasibility of commercial operations in this band, CCA supports H.R, 4817, 

the "Efficient Use of Government Spectrum Act of 2012" and the work of Congressman Steams and 

Congresswoman Matsui to encourage commercial auction of this spectrum. A competitive auction of this 

spectrum allows competitive carriers to access LTE-ready frequencies in the near term to expand mobile 

broadband access while increasing competition in the industry, 

In closing, CCA supports all efforts to make cleared spectrum available to foster competition and innovation in 

the mobile broadband industry, The incentives of the largest carriers to warehouse useable spectrum are 

increased without a clear path for future spectrum availability, Policymakers must scrutinize all spectrum 

holdings, federal and commercial, and adopt a policy framework that supports competition to efficiently use and 

maximize the value of finite spectrum resources, 

CCA appreciates the opportunity to contribute to the record for today's hearing, We look forward to contioning 

to work with the Committee, Subcommittee, its Members, and the Federal Spectrum Working Group on these 

important issues and to restore and expand competition in the industry, Please do not hesitate to contact me with 

any questions, 

Best Regards, 

Steven K, Berry 

President & CEO 

Competitive Cartiers Association 
121 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, thank you to each one of you. I think that this has 

been an exciting panel, and you all come at this from different 

ways, which is not a surprise, but it is instructive to us. 

I would like to start with Dr. Marshall. The Majority has concerns that the PCAST approach is ‘‘too speculative’’ to be the focus 

of the committee’s spectrum strategy. Do you agree with this assertion? And I also have another question, and that is the PCAST report places a particular emphasis on spectrum bands over 2 

gigahertz. Are there ways in which these higher bands of spectrum 

could be used by wireless carriers to fill in gaps in coverage or provide additional capacity in dense urban areas? You just heard Mr. 

Racek and Mr. Sharkey speak about certainty and that the service 

or the outcomes would apply to areas that—where we won’t be able 

to optimize what we are looking for. So if you could just give the 

briefest and the best answer, OK? Thank you. 

Mr. MARSHALL. I think Mr. Chairman himself noted the TV 

white space has been out there for 3 years. It is a particularly unattractive spectrum option, but it did develop a technology base 

that the PCAST builds on. It does not build on the cognitive radio, 

many of the innovative and new ideas that are flowing. Those will 

make it better, but its basic deployment is the 3-year-old TV white 

space that otherwise has not had a lot of commercial uptake. 

I would certainly look at the spectrum that is made free not as 

filling gaps in coverage, but filling gaps in capacity. What we face 

is not a coverage shortfall—if I can go and get those little maps 

that cellular providers give and they are all colored whatever color 

is supposed to be good. The issue we have is capacity, and for that 

higher frequency, short range, low power, like the wifi offload, is 

in fact what the carriers need to meet 50 times more capacity. 

So I think we have to look at two strategies in wireless. One is 

coverage, and very clearly the licensed spectrum has allowed that 

to happen. When we talk about dense areas and urban, we get the 

opposite effect of the previous witness. Instead of—whereas TV is 

built where people are, much of the military is where people aren’t 

or where they don’t want them. And so here we have the opportunity to have the reverse to the TV white space experience. He 

can keep all the spectrum he wants in the Mojave Desert, and we 

take it in New York. He keeps his peak allocation, which is what 

he needs to do his job, and we can provide lots of offload capacity, 

much better than wifi. And very clearly, industry is willing to invest in that because you can’t go 2 weeks without seeing a press 

release of one major provider of Internet saying we are rolling out 

lots of wifi. And there is no spectrum less predictable and less desirable than wifi. And even so, it is attracting incredible investments. Think what a gigahertz could do. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you very, very much. 

I am interested—and I don’t know what witness wants to speak 

to this, but what is the global picture on this? Do we use—do our 

Federal agencies use more spectrum than other countries? I mean, 

we are larger and far more sophisticated, I believe, but are there 

any lessons that we can learn from others in what they are doing? 

I just don’t know what the answer to that is. Does anyone? Mr. 

Racek? 

122 

Mr. RACEK. Thank you, Chairwoman Eshoo. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you for calling me Chairman. That is very 

nice. I will remember that. 

Mr. RACEK. Congresswoman Eshoo. 

Ms. ESHOO. You are my new best friend. 

Mr. RACEK. I could take a little bit of a stab at that, and that 

is that the—Ericsson is very involved in standardization type of activities with respect to 3G PP, which is the Third Generation Partnership Program, and in that standardization development activity 

is where technologies like LTE that you have heard talked about 

are being developed. And one of the ways that they sort of develop 

the technology is by identifying bands, and then identifying the 

technology around that band. 

Ms. ESHOO. And you are doing this globally? 

Mr. RACEK. Yes, this is a global standards development organization, and the difficultly, though, is that the bands that are—sometimes that are identified seem to have more difficulty in actually 

being identified in the U.S. versus other countries. 

Ms. ESHOO. I see. 

Mr. RACEK. So it makes that in the U.S., oftentimes we end out 

having sort of unique solutions, and we try to work with the incumbents, work with the various regulators in each one of the countries 

to come up with as unified a position as we possibly can. And this 

is particularly for the 1755 to 1780. Originally in 3G PP, the band 

that is now called AWS–1 actually extended all the way up to 1780 

megahertz. This is one of the reasons why 1755 is—to 1780 is so 

important is because it extends the band that we would have in the 

U.S. to be more in line with what the other regions may actually 

be able to allocate. So it has some alignment, at least regionally. 

Ms. ESHOO. General Wheeler, would you like to comment? Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHEELER. Ranking Member Eshoo, the one thing I would 

add is from a—let us say, a Department of Defense perspective. 

They are watching how other militaries in the world—they come to 

us because they can’t get spectrum in their country. So for example, doing the training they do, our allies come to us before they 

deploy forward. When they are going to be our partners in Afghanistan, they come to the U.S., for example, and go out to that Mojave 

Desert area that we just discussed and we actually do the training 

out there because the frequency is available there and they can get 

that ‘‘best training in the world,’’ not just for spectrum, but because 

of the air space out there as well. So that becomes a big part of 

why they are so partnered with us, because we have the tools 

available to make them better and keep them safe in combat. And 

that is one of the areas, and that area that we are talking about, 

the 1755 to 1850 is where in other countries they use it for other 

purposes out there. 

The other part is we are the only country with a large number 

of UAS’s. The unmanned aerial vehicles, we have a ton of those 

particular types of things, and it has grown astronomically—— 

Ms. ESHOO. It has. 

Mr. WHEELER [continuing]. In the last 10 years, and that is an 

area where—that we, again, fall into that particular spectrum. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

123 

Mr. TERRY [presiding]. Sure, thank you. 

Sticking a little bit with General Wheeler and Mr. Goldstein, 

some commenters—we have actually had some people that have 

come to our office and presented the sharing option with the carrot 

approach, i.e., Department of Defense can share some of their spectrum with private sector companies and would be able to lease that 

spectrum, therefore, being a source of revenue for the Department 

of Defense or a particular agency government. Does that type of 

carrot approach resolve some of the issues with sharing? Have you 

looked into that type of a proposal? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We haven’t specifically at that, Congressman, we 

have looked more broadly at sharing. A couple things that I think 

respond, well, that may be possible. One of the things we have 

found in our review in talking to really dozens of industry stakeholders is that there is not simply a lot of sharing going on between the public and the private sector. Most of the people we 

talked to couldn’t really name more than one or two, and they are 

very well-known examples, and it is because the business model essentially does not work because of the uncertainty involved and 

frankly, the faith in technology—the leap of faith that is still required in many ways to get us there. 

So it is something that can happen, I think, at the margins, but 

I think many of the challenges that were talked about in our testimony are going to exist for some time to come. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. General Wheeler, what is your thoughts or 

the Department of Defense’s thoughts on sharing, but you control— 

in essence, you become the lessor under certain conditions. Is that 

something that is appetizing? 

Mr. WHEELER. It is an interesting concept, sir. What I would 

argue here is we are interested in sharing because we think that 

is a quicker way to vacate areas that you need, if you will. So in 

other words, to share would be an area to get availability of a set 

amount of spectrum, so we are looking at that from that perspective. The incentivizing, you know, I have a whole teams that works 

this and I put, actually, a lot of extra people on that. In fact, I pretty much dried up all the spectrum knowledgeable people within 

DoD to work on these particular parts, and the incentive for them 

is they believe that the economy is paramount so they really do 

force and work towards this. When you talk about a leasing aspect, 

we don’t physically own the spectrum—— 

Mr. TERRY. Right. 

Mr. WHEELER [continuing]. So we don’t have that ownership of 

the said spectrum. So while I think an incentivizing model would 

be useful to DoD to move things out of there from a monetary perspective, I don’t think it will make it move any faster from the perspective because our folks are working very hard and fast to try to 

find solutions to it to make sure that we can do that to make sure 

that we are following through on the President’s desire for the 500 

megahertz. 

Mr. TERRY. If sharing is possible, more through some of the regulatory aspects that have been raised here by your testimony, I wonder, though, are there any security implications? Is there ways to 

protect secret classified information if you are sharing the same 

spectrum? 

124 

Mr. WHEELER. That is a good question, sir. I think I am going 

to go back to what Ranking Member Eshoo started in her opening 

statement where she talked about it is not just the sharing or the 

vacating, but I think it is going to be—in some cases, it is going 

to be actually vacating or relocating to a different location. I think 

there is also going to be sharing in some aspects, especially if you 

want to do this in a shorter period of time. I also think there are 

going to be some technologies out there that will make us use our 

areas more efficiently within the area that we are given. In other 

words, it is going to be that basket, if you will, of ways of approaching this to get us moving in the right direction quicker. But there 

are methodologies to protect the security in most aspects, and 

where we can’t, we will vacate and move forward and have to go 

with those particular types of approaches. But we have that 

thought through pretty well. 

Mr. TERRY. General Wheeler seems more optimistic on the abilities to do this than you did, Mr. Racek. What do you think? 

Mr. RACEK. Thank you. The—I think if we look at the 3550 to 

3650 band—and this was one of the bands that was identified earlier by Mr. Karl Nebbia, NTIA, and this is one of the bands that 

could possible be made used for commercial types of services. And 

as we have heard before, though, is that there was a recognition 

that this spectrum could not be used for LTE high-powered types 

of systems. Well, this is typical where you actually sort of identify 

well yes, this spectrum could be shared but with sort of further 

identification, you understand well, there are going to be substantial limitations to its availability, and therefore, you start to question whether that spectrum could actually be used for the purposes 

that you had in mind. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. My time has ceased. 

Ms. Matsui, you are recognized for your 5 minutes. Thank you. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a question for Mr. Sharkey. We know that the FCC has 

less than 3 years to auction and license the 2155 to 2180 band, and 

we know that the 1755 to 1780 band is an ideal pairing opportunity. How important is it to move forward and find a solution in 

a timely manner to get this spectrum out there? 

Mr. SHARKEY. We think it is very important to move forward 

quickly and make it available, and we think that it is doable. We 

have a very good process in place now between the CSMAC working groups and the work that we are doing with DoD to really get 

the right people in the room that can dig down into the technologies and figure out the complexities around sharing. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, and how long do you anticipate the industry 

testing will last, and given we need to pair it with the 2155 to 2180 

band in a timely manner? 

Mr. SHARKEY. The—as I said in my earlier testimony, we expect 

to have some preliminary information from monitoring and some 

simulation work before the end of the year. That will lay the foundation for additional testing. We hope to have a good picture of 

what we can do moving forward early into next year, and then that 

can be refined as the overall regulatory process moves forward. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, thank you. 

125 

Mr. Nebbia, given that the FCC has less than 3 years to pair the 

AWS–3 band, do you believe the industry and the agencies are 

working cooperatively to ensure the 1755 to 1780 band will be 

made available for pairing with AWS–3 in the next 3 years? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Certainly we have been encouraged by the cooperation that is going on between government and industry. As was 

said earlier, I believe, by Congressman Waxman the amount of information that is being passed back and forth is unprecedented and 

I believe we can, in fact, conclude on this range of spectrum in a 

timely manner. So we are very hopeful. We see a lot of great work 

going on. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, so that is great. 

Mr. Racek and Dr. Marshall, as we explore each band for potential repurposing, which specific bands will be ideal to clear below 

3 gigahertz and which specific bands or areas will be better suited 

for sharing above 3 gigahertz? I really would like you to be specific. 

Mr. Racek? 

Mr. RACEK. Thank you. We would like to actually come back with 

you and provide some additional information. I do have some examples to give. We don’t have with me sort of an all-inclusive list of 

all of the bands that we think would be applicable for clearing 

below 3 gigahertz. If I can give you an example, the one is that we 

have talked about substantially and that is the 1755 to 1850. The 

other one happens to be the 2.7 to 2.9 gigahertz band. This is the 

band that was also identified in the PCAST report, but it was a 

band that was identified by NTIA some time ago in one of its analyses as a possible band that could be reviewed—could be analyzed 

for the purpose of commercial usage. We are very supportive of 

that band; we have been for quite a while. We operate in this International Telecommunications Union, and in that process, you 

know, we have talked to other regulators in other countries and 

found that this spectrum would be available in other countries, and 

feel like this could be something useful for the U.S. 

Now, for sharing above the 3 gigahertz, I think one of the things 

that probably would be useful to identify is that in the sharing opportunity, it isn’t just about sort of unlicensed. For our view, unlicensed definitely has its benefits. It has already been talked about 

sort of an offloading perspective, but it does bring uncertainty and 

we are very interested in sort of achieving economies of scale. And 

so our approach is as more of a licensed shared access, either on 

a co-primary or a secondary type of basis. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. 

Mr. RACEK. And we see that sort of being above 3 gigahertz. And 

the work that is being done within the 5 gigahertz, the 195 megahertz is the right step, but sort of a licensed approach is the step 

we would support. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Dr. Marshall, do you have the specific bands 

that are ideal below 3 gigahertz, and specific bands above—I mean, 

for sharing above? 

Mr. MARSHALL. OK. I think the industry—most over 1755. That 

was an incomplete action from—it was a political compromise from 

AWS–1, and like all compromises, it gets revisited. I think I am 

really enthused about the opportunity in 3.6, not just because it is 

spectrum that is available, but it does fit this new class of license 

126 

that PCAST proposes, which is to provide certainty of access to the 

industry partners, lets them acquire it, doesn’t take it away from 

DoD, and labels them to meet their emission but still gives them 

the certainty of access and premise of access for a certain—a large 

amount of that spectrum. Very clearly we are putting a lot of traffic off onto wifi. Wifi is very inadequate compared to spectrum with 

certainty, so I think here is an opportunity to provide industry 

what it wants, which is certainty of access, along with sharing of 

Federal bands and not damaging the Federal emission. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, thank you very much. I see I have been over 

my time. 

Mr. TERRY. Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns, is recognized 

for your 5 minutes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Nebbia, when Federal users were relocated from the AWS– 

1 band so that those bands could be auctioned for commercial use, 

CBO estimated that DoD’s relocation costs would exceed $4 billion. 

By the time the auction occurred, the OMB approved relocation 

cost for DoD dropped to less than $400 million. Given that track 

record, shouldn’t we consider NTIA’s $18 billion estimated for relocating Federal users from the 1755 to 1850 bands as merely a 

starting point for serious discussions about relocation costs? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Well certainly we have used that as a starting place, 

and it has, in fact, helped us to begin the communications and discussions regarding that particular band. The 1710 to 1755 band 

doesn’t act as a terrific example in all cases, but for instance, the 

agencies first supplied estimates of about $2.1 billion, and in that 

case later was adjusted to around $900 million, and now we are 

back up to about $1.5 billion. So we do realize there is some fluid 

activity, and certainly as we look at what systems we do not have 

to move out of the band, obviously that will have an impact on the 

cost. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Sharkey, based upon T–Mobile’s experience 

with the AWS–1 relocation, would you care to comment? 

Mr. SHARKEY. I think it is an excellent question that, you know, 

the costs came down significantly from initial estimates, and it is 

important to go back and—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Four billion to four hundred million? 

Mr. SHARKEY. So it is very important to go back and make sure 

that the costs are as accurate as possible. You know, I think like 

Karl noted, some of the work that we are doing now to look at 

sharing and transition issues and how to facilitate transition out 

of a band, I think will significantly impact any relocation costs for 

moving out of the band. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Mr. Marshall, you state in your testimony that 

‘‘if bands can be cleared and auctioned with exclusive licensing,’’ 

you ‘‘believe the PCAST recommendations in no way preclude 

that.’’ Does this mean that you agree with the statement of 

Genachowski, the chairman, and many commercial entities that 

while spectrum sharing should be explored, it should not come at 

the expense of clearing? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I think the argument in PCAST is you are going 

to have difficulty clearing. To the extent that argument doesn’t 

hold out, then certainly clearing is a desirable option. No electrical 

127 

engineer could possibly get up and say they wouldn’t want cleared 

spectrum over shared spectrum, so it is an absolute truth. 

The question is the pragmatic issues that get in the way of it, 

not the theoretic. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Mr. Sharkey, getting back to you. As you 

know, I have worked with Congresswoman Matsui to specifically 

reallocate and auction the 1755 to 1780 megahertz band for commercial use. Can you explain why this band is of particular value 

to the industry, and why NTIA should look at this band individually instead of the entire 1755 to 1850 megahertz band? 

Mr. SHARKEY. The 1755 to 1780 is really unique in that it is used 

around the world for mobile services, so use would be harmonized 

with other commercial services. It is immediately adjacent to our 

AWS–1 band, so we can add on to what we are already using, expand services very quickly. So it is—and we have got spectrum that 

is paired with it—can be paired with it, 2155 to 2180. That spectrum is available now. It has been available for a long time, and 

now has a clock ticking of February, 2015, where that must be auctioned. 

So this really is a unique opportunity that we need to move on 

very quickly, and I think, you know, one of the—one thing to keep 

in mind, too, with having it licensed by 2015, that doesn’t mean 

that government users would have to be off the band by 2015, but 

that there is a transition process that has been identified. 

Mr. STEARNS. Good point. General Wheeler, with the assumption 

that relocation involving the bands between 1755 and 1850 megahertz is coming, what percentage of current Federal operations 

could be delivered or accomplished in bands above the 3 gigahertz? 

Mr. WHEELER. Before I answer that, sir, if I may clarify the last 

part, that might help illuminate a little bit there in a discussion 

about the costs in the 1710 to the 1755. That particular study was 

done for a larger area of spectrum, and then when there was an 

agreement to only do the last 45 megahertz there, that price came 

down significantly in that aspect there. For DoD perspective, we 

ended up retuning, basically, many of our systems out of the 1710 

to 1755 megahertz into the 1755 to 1850. So we just finished that 

this year, in fact, and we moved some of our systems out of there 

into this other band that we are now looking at. So that is the reason why the cost came down, from a DoD perspective, because it 

was a smaller area than was originally looked at, so we didn’t have 

to vacate and we were able to tune many of those systems just into 

the adjacent band, which happened to be the 1755 to 1850 and. So 

that is what created some of those specific issues that made the differences in the cost. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Stearns. 

Gentlelady from Colorado, the list that I was provided had you 

next. Gentlelady from Colorado is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I want to thank the chairman and Ms. Eshoo for appointing me to the Federal spectrum working group. I have really 

enjoyed the entire process and learned a lot. 

128 

I just want to ask a couple of questions. I want to start with you, 

Dr. Marshall. I want you to comment about whether there is a 

standard to measure efficiency in spectrum use? 

Mr. MARSHALL. There is a very engineering one of bits per hertz 

that gets misapplied horribly that becomes the Holy Grail to people. The PCAST report proposes that we should really measure 

spectrum reuse, not spectrum use. 

Ms. DEGETTE. You need to speak into the microphone from this 

angle over here. I can’t hear everything. 

Mr. MARSHALL. The PCAST report proposes that we should really be measuring spectrum reuse. If I use a lot of spectrum but 100 

people can use it over and over again, then that is much more valuable than one person using it once, and that that should become 

the objective of Federal systems, not so much to optimize the signal, but to optimize how many signals sit in the spectrum. 

Ms. DEGETTE. But there is no—what you are saying is that there 

is no agreed upon standard that is used right now, just the standard that is proposed? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Only what someone wants to prove. 

Ms. DEGETTE. How can concepts of efficiency be used to distinguish a measure of actual spectrum use between commercial and 

Federal users? Does PCAST talk about that? 

Mr. MARSHALL. PCAST proposed that the SMT propose a set of 

metrics that probably look a little different than what NTIA would 

do. For example, we might want to measure Federal spectrum 

usage as a function of POP, so we don’t charge a lot of federals 

bucks when they use it in Mojave, but we charge them a lot when 

they use it in New York. And so we clearly want to measure the 

opportunity costs associated with Federal spectrum use, not the 

use itself. And that, I think, was the key to that appendix. 

What is the opportunity that Federal spectrum usage is taking 

away from the civil sector and being able to either share the spectrum or lease it? 

Ms. DEGETTE. And let me talk about that a little bit, because I 

think that is one of the questions. Everybody makes allegations 

that both commercial and Federal users are sitting on spectrum, 

but there is no agreed upon way to monitor how we build it out, 

how we deploy it in daily use, who is using it, and we talk a lot 

in particular about the Federal spectrum about how it is just sitting there. I want to know, after listening to this panel testify 

today, what incentives actually exist for a commercial site to use 

spectrum effectively? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Well, I think you have to ask—— 

Mr. SHARKEY. So I can answer—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Feel free. 

Mr. SHARKEY. I think there is tremendous incentives to use spectrum efficiently on the commercial side, and we do invest billions 

of dollars to use it efficiently. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So what are those incentives? 

Mr. SHARKEY. They are—as the FCC has moved to auctioning 

spectrum, there are financial incentives through auctions that cost 

us a lot of money to obtain new spectrum. Obviously, the more customers we can serve and the more information we can provide 

129 

them or data we can provide, the more money we can make by 

serving a larger base of customers. 

Dr. Marshall’s comment about measuring reuse and the ability 

to reuse frequencies as part of the efficiency, we—the technologies 

that we are implementing today reuse the same frequency everywhere. So where previous technologies would only reuse it—a particular slice of frequency every so often, new technologies use this 

entire spectrum we have available every place. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. Mr. Goldstein, I wanted to ask you, some people have said that the GAO should take a greater role in investigating the Federal agency’s spectrum use. Does the GAO have the 

resources and expertise to conduct this type of analysis? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We were talking about this the other day. We 

think maybe the best way to do this is getting the postal service 

to do it. They pass every house and every building in America. 

GAO would not have—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Assuming the postal service is still around. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Exactly. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So seriously, does the GAO have the resources to 

conduct these types of analyses? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I think it would be a tall order to ask almost 

anyone to be able to inventory Federal spectrum usage at this point 

in time. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So your answer is no? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Is there anybody who could do it at all? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I don’t know. We have not looked at that. I can 

certainly talk with staff and get back to you—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. It would seem to me—— 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN [continuing]. And see whether we have any suggestions for you. 

Ms. DEGETTE. If we are trying to figure out where the spectrum 

is, it might be helpful to have that. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Of course. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 

for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to have you 

all here. It is great testimony. It is a great debate, and timely and 

needed. 

Mr. Chairman, first I want to seek unanimous consent to enter 

into the record a letter from CTIA, the Wireless Association, Information Technology Industry, High Tech Spectrum Coalition, TIA, 

the Wireless Broadband Coalition, the Consumer Electronics Association, 4G America, urging the government to make more licensed, 

paired spectrum available. And I do this because then I go to—— 

Mr. TERRY. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

130 


85378.095

September 12, 2012 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy & Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Communications & Technology 

2182 Rayburn House Office Buifding 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Henry Waxman 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy & Commerce 

2322A Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Anna Eshoo 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Communications & Technology 

205 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairmen Upton and Walden and Ranking Members Waxman and Eshoo: 

We support the 10-year 500 MHz spectrum allocation goal outlined in the Federal 

Communications Commission's (FCC) March 2010 National Broadband Plan (NBP). The 

Administration, the FCC, and Congress deserve credit for taking the first concrete step toward 

implementing that goal by adopting the incentive auction provisions contained in the Middle 

Class Tax Relief Act 

Spectrum allocation poliCies that enjoy bipartisan support in Congress have helped make the 

wireless industry a bright spot in a sluggish U.S. economy. Recon Analytics reports that 

wireless added $146.2 billion to U.S. GOP from mid-2010 to mid-2011, created an entirely new 

business sector-applications-that expanded to $8.2 billion in 4 years, and was responsible for 

3.8 million direct and indirect jobs in 2011, Including 200,000 new jobs craated since 2005. 

Without near-term access to additional licensed spectrum allocations below 3 GHz, that growth 

and America's global leadership in mobile technology will be threatened by an inability to keep 

pace with dramatic increases in mobile broadband traffic. Over the past 2 years, actual traffic 

on licensed mobile networks has exceeded all the forecasts used by the FCC in developing the 

NBP spectrum allocation recommendations. Between 012011 and 012012, traffic on licensed 

mobile networks almost doubled. Cisco's U.S. mobile data forecast projects that mobile data 

traffic will increase 18 times from 2011 to 2016. Ericsson predicts that, over the next 5 years, 

mobile data traffic will grow 15 times. 
131 


85378.096

The wirelE!$s industry is investing billions of dollars in new technologies to solve this problem by 

improving spectrum efficiency, deploying L TE networks, adding cell sites, and improving 

network management practices and technologies, but it will not be enough. The evidence is 

overwhelming. More cleared, paired, intemationally-harmonized spectrum allocations below 3 

GHz are needed and needed soon. America's economy and its global leadership in mobile 

broadband depend on it. 

Sincerely, 

Steve Largent 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

CTIA - The Wireless AsSOCiation 

RhodShaw 

Executive Director 

High-Tech Spectrum Coalition 

David F. Taylor 

Executive Director 

Wireless Broadband Coalition 

Chris Pearson 

President 

4GAmericas 

Dean 

~ Garfield 

President 

Information Technology Industry Council 

Grant Seiffert 

President 

Telecommunications Industry Association 

;Xj~~~ Gary Shapiro 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

Consumer Electronics Association 
132 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Racek, do you think shifting emphasis toward 

the PCAST approach is more or less likely than clearing to help 

make such spectrum available? What does your crystal ball say? 

Mr. SHARKEY. I think that there are still a lot of opportunities 

that exist to clear spectrum and make it more fully available. Certainly we are open to sharing and the conditions around sharing 

will depend on, you know, the specifics. It is not an easy process, 

and it is, you know, it really is a process where the parties need 

to sit down and understand and make sure that you are not going 

to interfere with the other user, which is the process that we are 

going through in 1755 right now. A broader sharing that is, I 

think, at least out of the PCAST report, has been largely portrayed 

of a database that allows free use, I think, you know, doesn’t provide the kind of certainty that we need to provide a commercial 

service. You know, there does need to be substantial access to spectrum to be able to provide a reliable commercial service. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Racek? 

Mr. RACEK. Could you go ahead and repeat the question? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The point I was making was do you think shifting 

emphasis towards the PCAST approach is more or less likely than 

clearing—to clearing spectrum to help make such spectrum available? 

Mr. RACEK. I think that the type of services that the licensed 

spectrum provide is real time type of services. These are services 

that are statutorily mandated by the FCC. These are CALEA, this 

is e-911, you know, these are—there is a quality of service that is 

guaranteed on this spectrum. Those are the type of services that 

are currently in use. The types of services that we see for a licensed shared environment or a spectrum sharing environment, 

those are sort of like complementary to providing support for licensed type of operation. So you could see that as more of a best 

effort type of services, very good for sort of offloading, but it is an 

offloading of a licensed type of network. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I appreciate Dr. Marshall’s comment. Obviously being with PCAST, but as an engineer, you know that having 

it is better than sharing it. And for the private sector, their real 

testimony is they don’t want to blow and lose capital, and they 

have got to have consumers and they want to maximize the potential of that spectrum use. I mean, it is a great capitalist debate of 

how to best get the max use out of a spectrum is give it to the private sector and see if they can turn a profit by maximizing use in 

that area. 

But we have a history—I mean, we have history of sharing, or 

at least what happens to the economics of it, and the D block does 

talk about any takers. We also—and so the other question I have 

is—and sometimes we do this. I don’t like to compare United States 

with what Europe is doing and what other folks are doing, because 

we are so big and all that stuff. But can anyone tell me of any 

other country that is in the high tech arena, like maybe in Asia, 

Japan, Korea, South Korea, Europe? Has anyone talked about 

shared spectrum and the like, and does the PCAST report—you 

look like you are interested in answering this. 

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, in the EU Spectrum Management Conference, which the community just had, they actually got up and 

133 

said if they don’t get ahead of America, they will be in the dust. 

I think we have started a race to see who develops the technology 

that uses shared spectrum, because it is the next big sweet spot. 

There is some spectrum probably left over as Steve describes, but 

we are going to move to an era where this is the next—just like 

you moved out of the suburbs into further land, and after you did 

the plains you went to a little bit rockier soil because that was the 

only land available to farm. This is the place to farm for innovation, and I think the EU sees that opportunity as one they want 

to get ahead of us on. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. In my last second, what examples do we have of 

spectrum sharing right now by Federal agencies, and the difficulties or challenges that have been faced? 

Mr. NEBBIA. There is a great deal of sharing that already goes 

on among the Federal agencies, day in and day out. Few Federal 

assignments are exclusive types of assignments, but at the same 

time, we also share with a number of nonfederal uses. We share 

with wifi, we share with a system called Low Jack that we use to 

find stolen cars, we share with medical telemetry, public safety, 

land mobile satellite systems operated by the nonfederal side, amateurs. Almost every weekend, Federal spectrum is used by the 

broadcasting community to transmit signals related to sporting 

events that you are watching on TV. Weekend activities are a nice 

way to share. So that goes on all the time. The government has actually been operating in the TV white spaces for years, doing DoD 

training in those gaps between the broadcasters. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. Now I turn to Dr. Christensen for 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

this hearing. It has been very informative. 

I want to go back so I understand about the costs and the time 

frames. That March, 2012, NTIA report on the potential for clearing and reallocation of the 1755 to 1850 megahertz band indicates 

that the—indicated that the full relocation would take up to 10 

years and cost maybe $18 billion, and those projections, as we discussed already, were provided by Federal spectrum users. As the 

government and the commercial providers are like endeavors to 

find a solution to access this spectrum, are we still—in light of the 

response, and I believe it was in response to the question by Chairman Stearns and some comments by General Wheeler, are we continuing to rely on that data? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Congresswoman, that data is our starting point for 

the discussions we have been having. Certainly as we find ways to 

share the spectrum and we find opportunities where maybe some 

of those systems do not have to be moved, we will certainly see 

some of those numbers change. As we get closer to any auction 

process, there will be another review of that under the CSEA. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And I believe GAO recommended that NTIA 

reevaluate your approach to validating the agency-reported data. 

How do agencies get—derive that data? What are you doing to assess and scrutinize them to getting a more accurate assessment, 

and to gain a better understanding of the costs to reallocate Federal spectrum users and to tighten the timeframes for vacating? 

134 

Mr. NEBBIA. Well first of all, I think it is important to recognize 

that, for instance, in the cell phone community, the people that are 

organizing that spectrum space have base stations, they have 

handsets, and they have backhaul. In the government, we have got 

satellite systems, we have got sensing systems, we have got military tactical systems, and with the great number of different operations that we have, we simply have to rely on the experts in those 

systems to look at their uses and needs and to project the kind of 

costs that they will have to relocate and the time to relocate. That 

simply can’t be determined by our spectrum staff. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Sharkey, Mr. Marshall has testified that wifi offloading is 

‘‘providing more capacity per megahertz than a dedicated cellular 

spectrum.’’ Is offloading broadband traffic on wifi an acceptable alternative to commercial wireless providers? 

Mr. SHARKEY. It is not an acceptable alternative, but we do offload a lot of traffic onto wifi systems, and I think all the carriers 

now do that. Our devices can be set so that they prefer to be on 

a wifi network as a way to move traffic off of the broadband mobile 

network. However, you know, the projections that we see about 

growth of data on the broadband network are on the broadband 

network. When we report numbers about how much data our devices use, they don’t include the data that has been offloaded onto 

wifi networks, so the growth that we see continues to impact the 

broader mobile network which provides highly reliable services 

wherever people are. And we, you know, we need dedicated spectrum that will continue to meet that demand and that growth, and 

at the same time, we are always interested and always moving to 

implement new technologies and techniques to minimize the impact of that growth. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. I wanted to get that question in, 

and maybe I would go back to Mr. Goldstein to go back to my first 

question and your recommendation that NTIA reevaluate how they 

validate the agency’s assessment of costs, and if you wanted to add 

anything to what Mr. Nebbia said about the difficulty in doing that 

and meeting that recommendation? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Ma’am, it is a very critical part of what has to 

happen, because whether we are talking about clearing space or 

whether we are talking about sharing spectrum, it is impossible to 

really figure out how to do this effectively if we don’t know who is 

using what space, what spectrum. And in our analysis of use last 

year, we did a survey of all the Iraq members, and we found that 

many of them told us that they made many errors in assignments 

when they went back and looked, and for those agencies that actually did sample surveys or site visits to help them determine the 

accuracy of the information that they were providing to NTIA, 

much of the information that they provided they recognized was in 

error. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I will 

just yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Dr. Christensen. 

We will now go to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Bono 

Mack, for questions. 

135 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our 

panelists for very interesting and enlightening discussion. 

Mr. Sharkey, my first question is to you. Mr. Marshall says that 

the people who say industry won’t share spectrum are wrong because industry shares the wifi band, but as I understand it, commercial mobile providers do not use the wifi band as the primary 

means of enabling consumers to access mobile services. Instead, 

commercial mobile providers used—they use cleared spectrum for 

which they have exclusive rights. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. SHARKEY. That is correct, and as I mentioned, the projections 

of growth are growth on that cleared spectrum, that dedicated 

spectrum, and having that enables us to—we are on a cycle of updating technology almost annually now for our network and implementing new techniques and technologies, and having that cleared 

assured access to spectrum gives us incentives to continue that innovation and growth so that we can provide greater data and serve 

more customers. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, and also, Mr. Sharkey, haven’t 

preliminary conversations in the Commercial Spectrum Management Advisory Committee indicated that the Federal agencies had 

some fundamental misunderstandings about the technical specifications underlying the commercial sector’s proposed use of the spectrum, and don’t these types of misunderstandings underscore the 

need for independent verification of agency costs and time estimates? 

Mr. SHARKEY. I certainly support verification of costs of relocating systems, and I think the, you know, some of the fundamental misunderstandings go to even our ability to share either 

through a transition period or indefinitely. In our AWS–1 clearing, 

we were—we had to work with DoD to get access to spectrum earlier than originally anticipated, and we found that once—well, initially it looked like we would not get access to it. Once the engineers were able to sit down and explain that how our systems operate and how they limit the potential for interference and noise into 

where the government systems would operate, we were able to access and deploy that spectrum years earlier than originally anticipated. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. 

Dr. Marshall, in defending PCAST recommended sharing model, 

you assert that sharing will be based on the fundamental principle 

that underutilized Federal spectrum should be shared to the greatest possible extent. If that Federal spectrum is being underutilized, 

why shouldn’t Federal users be consolidated into fewer bands, rather than require commercial providers to share spectrum with inefficient and underutilized government systems? 

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you for the question. So the premise of 

the PCAST report was that there is fundamental different usage 

between the kind of spectrum represented by the commercial world 

and much of the Federal agencies. Federal agency spectrum is 

largely driven by contingency and very geographically specific. So 

in the western test ranges, it is very hard to find any open frequencies because there is so much test training activity out there, 

whereas that spectrum in New York may be very underutilized. 

The fact that it is underutilized in New York or is it used 7 percent 

136 

across America—and I don’t want to quote the number—doesn’t 

mean that you can reduce it by 14. They need the peak out in the 

western test range, but they can make available that spectrum in 

New York. If you do reallocation, you essentially have to say I am 

going to squeeze them everywhere. If you do spectrum sharing, you 

open the opportunity to say we are going to commit 90 percent 

spectrum availability in New York, minus a 9/11-like event, but we 

are going to let you still test and train with a full complement of 

spectrum for all your systems. So it lets you not have to make a 

one size fits all, one size goes everywhere in the United States solution. So there is no tension at all behind saying that Federal spectrum is underutilized in many places, in fact, where people are, 

while at the same time saying you can’t reduce those allocations. 

That is the conundrum you faced every time people have come to 

you to say reallocate, reallocate. The PCAST report says there is 

a different solution. Leave it like it is, learn to share. It is inconvenient, it is new. We don’t know how to do it. We shouldn’t be 

afraid of that. Let the Federal Government keep what it needs for 

its contingency. Now whether that contingency number is right or 

wrong is another question, but let it keep what it needs for contingency while you made the underused portion of that, the temporally and geographically underused portion available to people 

like Steve. It is a compromise that meets both side’s needs without 

having to do grievous injury to either. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back 

my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlelady yields back. Now gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, is recognized. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Back in 1993 when I was chairman of this subcommittee, we 

held hearings on reclaiming spectrum from the military from other 

government agencies, and it was necessity. We only had two cell 

phone companies. They were both analog and they were both 

charging 50 cents a minute. And so we have the hearings here, and 

we moved over 200 megahertz of spectrum. General, your predecessor on the job was sitting there, raising national security concerns, which we appreciated. But we moved over the 200 megahertz and created a third, fourth, fifth, and sixth cell phone license 

in each market in the United States by the year 1996, and the four 

new companies in each market went digital, dropped the price to 

under 10 cents a minute, and that is the year you all bought a cell 

phone. I am pretty sure you didn’t have brick you were carrying 

around in a bag. There might have been a few people, but not 

many. So we needed that revolution. 

And so now we reach, you know, this modern era here where the 

surging growth and data-intensive devices and applications is leaving our mobile industries gasping for air or spectrum. So it is important for us to find ways of efficiently, in these 20 years later— 

it is only actually like 15 years. Everyone thinks they have had a 

cell phone in their pocket their whole life, much less an iPhone, 

and they haven’t. It is just a very brief period of time that this 

whole era has existed, but this committee had to move over the 

spectrum and kind of balance the interests of the military and 

137 

other government agencies with the need to continue to provide 

that extra spectrum. 

So when I—Mr. Goldstein, when I talked to Commissioner 

Knapp last year here in the subcommittee hearing, he told me that 

it would be possible that we could increase the efficiency of the 

spectrum we have from 10 to 50 percent. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We haven’t looked at that, sir. I would be happy 

to talk to staff about doing it, but we have not done work specifically examining that. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. General Wheeler, what do you think? 

Mr. WHEELER. I don’t have a specific number out there, but I 

don’t think that is unreasonable. I think that we can increase efficiencies across the board, given the new technologies that are going 

out there. 

If I could clarify about a comment back on that vacating of the 

frequency, I was not here for the DoD guy that was nervous, I can 

tell you that. I was a young captain. 

Mr. MARKEY. I am sure you understand this. 

Mr. WHEELER. I do, because I was a B2 guy, a stealth bomber 

guy, and part of the area you vacated was the area for my radar, 

and so in that particular area that we had in there, we actually 

had to physically turn off in the weather on certain cases. And so 

we were at a 10-year area where we actually had to replace the 

radar for $1.1 billion and weren’t sure we could do it in the 

timeline we did, but we did find a way to do it. It did turn out to 

work. It did cost us money. It caused us some safety issues for a 

while, but we worked through those. 

Mr. MARKEY. You know what? Here is the deal. Every Democrat 

and Republican on this committee would support whatever money 

you need in order to do that, because honestly, by 1996 everybody 

had a cell phone in their pocket and as a result of that, the devices 

got so inexpensive and it was digital that it went to every village 

in the world. 

Mr. WHEELER. It started to balance. 

Mr. MARKEY. So that is quite a revolution, you know, that all 

happened because the military understood that that might actually 

be a good thing to spread this communications technology, but we 

have to lead it here. So my hope is that—you are not opposed to 

this sharing of the spectrum? 

Mr. WHEELER. No, sir, not at all. I think one of the points that 

I think is good to understand is that there is also geographics here, 

and I think that is where we are driving to over here, because 

there are areas where it is more difficult to move things from a cost 

perspective and those areas may—for example, a satellite control 

station, very difficult to change a satellite’s receiver in orbit, obviously. So instead of doing that, you don’t use that frequency in that 

particular area. Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. If I may, according to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the Federal Government’s use of 

domestic spectrum is rising in part because of the increasing drone 

usage here at home. According to this report, the number of drones 

operating by the Department of Defense has drastically increased 

from 167 to nearly 7,500 from 2002 to 2010, and the systems are 

carrying larger payloads and collecting increased volumes of intelVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:22 Apr 01, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-17~3\112-17~1 WAYNE
138 

ligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance data, and that has resulted in a much larger increase in the number of domestic training requirements. 

Dr. Marshall, in developing this report, what can you tell us 

about the types of information that the Pentagon collects when it 

flies drones over American soil, and what the Department does 

with that information? 

Mr. MARSHALL. We certainly didn’t audit what the government 

does with the information from the drones. Really, it wasn’t our— 

I don’t think the PCAST’s job to audit the Federal usage. It was 

enough to see that there were these very large Federal systems like 

air traffic controller radar—— 

Mr. MARKEY. I guess what I am asking is do they have policies 

to delete information about innocent Americans that they are collecting, the military? Do they have a policy in place to delete it? 

Mr. MARSHALL. I hope they have a policy not to collect it. 

Mr. MARKEY. You hope they do. Do you have a policy to delete—— 

Mr. WHEELER. May I clarify? Yes, sir, we have—there is a whole 

legal piece in there and they do that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Can you provide to the committee the Pentagon 

policy on eradicating all information that is gathered by 7,500, you 

know, drones flying over the United States of private American 

citizens—— 

Mr. WHEELER. Can I clarify a little bit on that particular—— 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman will need to move on. 

Mr. WHEELER. I think it is important to understand that what 

happens in Iraq and Afghanistan today, those pilots in those UAVs, 

in many cases, are actually in the United States. The airplane may 

very well not be flying over the United States, but the spectrum 

and the uplink going to the satellite, that individual could be, for 

example, at Nellis Air Force Base and he is actually flying the airplane over Iraq and Afghanistan. No video taken over the United 

States, but in fact actually using that uplink from Nellis—— 

Mr. MARKEY. No, I appreciate that, and I have been—but what 

I would ask is if, you know, anything that is gathered here domestically, in training missions, anything—— 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely. 

Mr. MARKEY [continuing]. What happens to that? And there is a 

policy, is that—— 

Mr. WHEELER. There is policy there, there is data not allowed to 

be used. There is no—they are very cautious of that particular Federal Government—and we will provide those rules to you so you 

can have those. 

Mr. MARKEY. I think both sides would love to know what those 

rules are. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. We will now go to Mr. Scalise for 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having 

this hearing. I know as we have done this work on the task force 

over the last few months, I think we all recognize that if you look 

at the economy, one of the growth sectors has been the technology 

industry, and probably one of the few, but one of the greatest growing—and you know, as we all use more technology, new technology, 

139 

you know, 3G networks are now 4G networks, the demand continues to increase for spectrum. And then, of course, as that demand is met it allows for more innovation, for more great new 

products that make everybody’s life easier, but also creates thousands of new high-paying jobs. You know, the jobs in this industry 

are tremendously high-paying, really important to our economy, 

and also helps us as we try to increase exports to lead the world, 

it is one of the areas where we continue to be a dominant force. 

So figuring how to free up more spectrum is critical, not only for 

the industry and the growth of jobs, but also for America’s economy 

to grow. 

I appreciate the Federal agencies that we have met with over 

these last few months, and the conversations we have had because 

clearly, there is a lot of spectrum held by the Federal Government, 

and some, I think everybody acknowledges, of which can be freed 

up. How do we best go about that? I think where we start, how do 

we best get an inventory of that available spectrum, and I think 

that has been probably one of the hardest things to get a grip on. 

I think the GAO report brought this up and I want to ask Mr. 

Goldstein about this, because one thing it seems like is, you know, 

to get the inventory we have today it was almost like, you know, 

they went to everybody and said how much money do you have 

available in your savings account that you don’t want to use? And 

you know, so when you are asking everybody how much spectrum 

do you have that you don’t need, I don’t know if that is the most 

objective way to get an inventory of spectrum. 

So if you, Mr. Goldstein, can comment on the inventory that we 

have, and is there a better way to get an impartial, true inventory 

of what the Federal agencies hold that they really don’t need, or 

could use more efficiently, especially if more was freed up where 

you generate money that could help build out a more efficient system for them so that more can be cleared and reallocated? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Congressman, I think because there is a lack of 

economic incentive on the part of agencies, we found that many of 

them simply don’t do the work to figure out how best to use the 

spectrum they have. And we also found in a report last year when 

we surveyed all of the members, you know, in Iraq that 15 of the 

18 Iraq members expect that they will have significant new needs 

for spectrum. I know that is probably not popular in this room 

right now. We have been talking about commercial needs, but almost all of them expressed the need for additional—significant additional spectrum themselves. 

Now certainly you could argue they ought to better use the spectrum they have, and there needs to be ways in which they should 

do that. One of the recommendations we made to NTIA, working 

with Iraq, was to figure out how better to do that, and they agreed 

with that recommendation. What I don’t know is how far along 

they have gotten on that recommendation since that report last 

April. 

Mr. SCALISE. And I mean, those are fair points to bring up because if you look at, you know, a number of Federal agencies, we 

all acknowledge that some have spectrum that they are using and 

you can identify those areas, but there are also areas that they are 

not using today that they say they will need in the future, you 

140 

know, and in some cases you have got to dig in and see is that really something that is realistic? Is that something that they are 

going to truly be using? In some cases the answer is yes, and in 

some cases the answer is probably no, but in the case where the 

answer is yes—and I really want to ask General Wheeler this question, because we see in so many constraints with the threats of sequestration, the threats to the Department of Defense, you know, 

one of our main constitutional duties is to provide for our national 

defense. I think everybody here strongly supports that and wants 

to make sure that you have the tools you need to meet your mission, but while at the same time if there have been constraints that 

have held you back from making the most efficient use of the spectrum you have, and even the spectrum you are holding that you 

are not using that you might want to use later, if this concept of 

having some kind of incentive, which is a very important concept 

to bring to the table, because of billions of dollars will be generated 

to the Federal Government to make this available in the private 

sector to create those jobs and innovation, some of that money can 

be set on the side to help incentivize the agencies that have spectrum today to make better use of it, where in some cases you know 

you can make better use, you just don’t have the money to do it. 

And some of that money could be made available to give you better 

use of your spectrum, which also frees up spectrum that can then 

go and generate even more money, billions of dollars to the Federal 

Treasury to go out to the private market. So if you can share with 

us what you have looked at in terms of the things that you could 

do if you had some money that was freed up from the sale of some 

of that spectrum that you can actually use to help make a more 

efficient use of what you have today? 

Mr. WHEELER. From the DoD perspective, that is the basis of the 

NDA language that says that we have to have comparable spectrum. That is going to take us time, and then we are going to have 

to have money to actually move those systems. Where sometimes 

that difficulty comes in is that happens after the auction occurs, 

and while you are trying to do some of the planning up front, we 

basically front the money, per se, and we don’t have real good avenues to receive that money within DoD from that side of the ballpark. The expectation is when we vacate something out of there is 

that we will have to get comparable spectrum time and money per 

the NDA language that actually addresses that specific issue. 

As far as other monetary incentive schemes, we would be happy 

to study those. I don’t have any direct answers to them, depending 

upon what the exact language, but I would also go back to one of 

my other comments that I made, that for the most part we are trying to vacate those areas and share, if you will, and find those efficient methodologies, because we also see from our perspective, 

economy is the strength of our Nation. So we are moving those forward, so we are putting a lot of assets against that. We actually 

move those specific areas that we are looking at, specifically we 

talk about the 1755 to the 1850. The other side of it is also from 

the DoD perspective is a long-term strategy, a long-term strategy 

for all of our spectrum, so we know what to expect and what we 

are going to move, and how to better purchase equipment, if you 

will, that has flexibility in the future. We can’t put a satellite up— 

141 

we are thinking we have to move that particular frequency with a 

single receiver or single transmitter, because it is very difficult, obviously, to move that particular piece. And that is where that 

thinking ahead acquisition type cycles are very important. And 

many of the weapons systems that we are bringing online today 

were envisioned, built, engineered 10, 15 years ago, in many cases 

where this was not an issue. So that is what we are running into 

right now is we are having to change the way we think from that 

perspective. 

So we are looking forward to building a long-term strategy for 

our spectrum, from a DoD perspective, to make sure that we are 

using it the most efficient way so that we can predict where to put 

our future systems so we don’t run into the issue that we recently 

ran into where we moved from 1710 to 1755 into the 1755 to 1850 

and now we are looking to move again quickly. So we are trying 

to find smart ways of doing this. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. We will now move on to Mr. Latta from 

Ohio. We welcome your questions. 

Mr. LATTA. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the very informational hearing that we are having today, and I want to thank all 

of our panelists that are here today for not only their testimony, 

but for their reasoned answers to a lot of questions. 

Mr. Racek, if I could turn to your testimony. I found it rather interesting because you have a lot of questions that you pose, and I 

would like to see what kind of answers you might be able to get. 

You know, in starting with it, you state that your premise that 

pretty much on spectrum clearing or spectrum sharing, which way 

to go, and you said the best way to look at this and be the cleanest 

would be that we should have spectrum clearing over the other option of spectrum sharing. If I could just ask you a few questions 

on what you stated, let us get on the technical side because, you 

know, in your testimony a little earlier, you said that—you cited 

a doubling of the global mobile data traffic from 2011 to 2012 with 

a global forecast of that going up 15 times by 2017. Do we have 

the technology out there in that—this next 5 years to be able to 

do that, you know, keep up with this if we are looking at global 

sharing versus global clearing? 

Mr. RACEK. Thank you, Congressman. That was sort of the point 

of the testimony is that the preference for the or the need for dedicated license spectrum is based upon looking at the data traffic 

study, predicting the growth and the ability to—for technologies to 

be able to address that growth. There are a lot of developments— 

as I said in the testimony, Ericsson is spending $5 billion in R&D 

every single year to be able to increase the spectrum efficiency of 

the technology to be able to address these sort of data traffic demands. But it is not going to be enough. The only way to be able 

to do that is going to be through licensed spectrum. 

Now, licensed spectrum provides the certainty needed for the investment and the performance and will be able to provide the types 

of services, but the recognition is that, you know, licensed spectrum, it may not always be possible. Obviously if the band is identified by 3G PP, we would not want to see that band be identified 

142 

for spectrum sharing, but spectrum sharing may be the only option 

for some bands that are identified by 3G PP, but not available in 

the U.S. So we would still like to sort of pursue that as an option, 

but it is not going to replace the need for 500 megahertz as identified by the National Broadband Plan. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask—let me go on with that, then, because 

in one of your other points, especially on the regulatory side, you 

say it is going to take—you say sharing raises a number of regulatory challenges, all of which will take years to test and model. 

How many years do you think it will take to test and model? 

Mr. RACEK. I think that is a difficult question to answer, because 

not all of the questions have been identified yet. I think that is 

part of the activity that we are involved in, especially if we look 

for—look towards CSMAC and the investigation that is being conducted within the working groups, as well as looking towards international types of activities that are starting to maybe look at this 

type of activity, even within PCAST. These sort of things are looking at what are the questions and what are the answers to those 

questions. I think that that—we are still in sort of the infancy of 

that process, and there are questions that are out there that are 

yet to be asked, and obviously not answered. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me just—one last question. Sorry that I am picking on you here, but overall, what would you say would be the best 

way to conduct a spectrum auction? What would be the best way 

to conduct an auction, a spectrum auction? 

Mr. RACEK. And you are considering spectrum sharing? 

Mr. LATTA. On your end, what would you see as how we should 

do something like that when you are looking at, you know, instead 

of on the sharing side but saying that we should go ahead and have 

some kind of an auction. What would you—how would you foresee 

that and how should we do it? 

Mr. RACEK. Well, I think if we are looking—for instance, there 

has been a discussion about the 3550 to 3650 megahertz band, and 

that because of the radar operation in the band, it is likely that 

you would not be able to sort of utilize that in the same way with 

the same type of technologies that you use in sort of lower bands 

that are exclusive use types of bands. But there may still be an opportunity to provide some regulatory certainty for that spectrum 

through a licensed shared approach. The licensing provides you the 

protection that you need to be able to operate without the fear for 

being interfered with so you can provide a good quality of service 

to your customers, and also, it provides you with the ability, therefore, to have an understanding of what the terms and conditions 

of operations are up front, and that, in effect, would provide more 

value for the spectrum so that there is the possibility to auction 

that type of spectrum. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the 

gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, who co-led our working 

group on this topic. Thank you. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you 

appointing the working group and bringing that together. I really 

enjoy working with Congresswoman Matsui and a lot of you that 

participated that are here today. We appreciate that very much, 

143 

and no, not every military installation is where people don’t want 

to be. Matter of fact, I would suggest coming to Fort Knox, Kentucky. It is a very beautiful place, and we are next to Louisville. 

I mean, Fort Knox is within 10 miles, probably, of definitely—not 

the heart of Louisville, but suburban Louisville, and so there are 

San Diego and Jacksonville and areas like that that we have to be 

mindful of in sharing. I have been to the Mojave Desert and I agree 

that I probably wouldn’t want to go back to the national training 

center, but California has some other beautiful places that the military is located, so you have got to be mindful of that. 

One thing—I think I heard Mr. Goldstein said it and I wrote 

down, leap of faith in technology for sharing. I guess my question 

is, if we got all this decided today and tomorrow we could turn over 

either full sharing or licensed—clearing license and all—we could 

snap our fingers and it happened, is the technology, I guess, Dr. 

Marshall, in place today to take advantage of that, or is this—we 

will build it and put it out there and have to innovate ourselves 

to make this work? 

Mr. MARSHALL. So very clearly the technology exists for clear 

spectrum, although we have shown it takes, even with the technology in place, 8 years, if you look at the national broadband plan, 

between identification and occupancy. So it is not exactly a rapid 

process. 

On the shared side, the PCAST report is remarkably conservative. We have been attacked for being too aggressive, but there 

are equal attacks for being unaggressive. The database technology 

is not the best way to do this, but it is available and it is certain, 

and it would provide certainty to Federal users that they could protect their equities while more fancy technologies came into play. So 

it is technologically unstressing. 

What it does do is it continues the evolution towards much more 

flexibility in the provider’s side, and so it will require the providers 

to make use of newer technologies, tunable filters and all. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. New technology on the horizon, or new technology 

I will just have to completely—you are imagining technologies that 

don’t exist? 

Mr. MARSHALL. To fully exploit this, they will have to make adjustments and initially, like 3.6 gig, one could imagine that that 

band, they could start to use in a sharing fashion very, very rapidly. Putting many, many frequencies in a handset probably is 

going to evolve technologies and filters, hopefully led by the United 

States. But LTE already has 27 different frequencies, 42 different—so they are heading that way anyway. 

So the PCAST is really a fast, low tech way to go there, and then 

you are going to build the technology in behind it. But you will get 

a lot out of it initially, and then you are going to make it better 

over 5 years. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. And then the second question, I guess, Congressman Latta as he talked to Mr. Racek on the regulatory scheme that 

would have to come into play, and do you agree that is a barrier 

to the type sharing that—I was asking Dr. Marshall that—from the 

PCAST report. Did you all address that? I mean, I know you talked 

about it, but—— 

144 

Mr. MARSHALL. We need to do a regulatory regime that is focused on sharing. Today we treat sharing as a special case. Steve 

is negotiating it with Karl, making their private deals. We have no 

framework for it. I think part of the PCAST report is just let us 

admit that that is going to become more and more fundamental to 

our approach to spectrum, and let us not treat it as a stepchild. Let 

us make it transparent. Let us make everyone able to make the 

same deal Steve does with Karl, and make that competitive, and 

in fact, let us auction the right to make that deal in a full and open 

marketplace. So I think it is different regulation. I think it is a fundamental commitment to a policy there. If we just do it—you don’t 

need PCAST if you just want to go do it. We are doing it anyway. 

The PCAST recommendation is to move it forward, put it in front, 

and really think about the policies for financial remuneration, like 

how do I design an auction for shared spectrum? How do I deal 

with the e-911 and all those issues. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. It is difficult to address, but the uncertainty for 

the users would be—and I am just kind of thinking out loud—is 

that we just said that we are going to create a system that nobody—you have to innovate to get there, and then people in Washington are going to have come up with a regulatory regime to try 

and manage that and a regulatory process is not as flexible as people innovate. 

Mr. MARSHALL. So we put a new generation of wifi out every 

year. That is incredible. We put a new generation of cell phone out 

every 10 years. If we leave people alone, they will innovate the 

technology. PCAST proposes 3 years to implement it, and that was 

two and three quarters of them in Washington, and maybe 3 

months for the engineers to start rolling things out. It will require 

a different kind of regulation. It requires a different thinking about 

what spectrum rights mean. It doesn’t replace what we have now, 

but it extends it, and that is an important dialogue. And frankly, 

it is a dialogue you are not having now if we do spectrum sharing 

as a bunch of one off deals. It is to put it in the framework, put 

it up front, make it a norm, make it so someone who is building 

a venture capital proposal understands what the rules are if they 

go and invest in something that takes spectrum. Imagine doing 

that now where it is 8 years from seeing spectrum going up for 

auction to when you get into it, or do it when you are worried 

about light squarage and you have got to find out what a whole 

pile of forces are. I mean, it is to make this thing transparent and 

predictable, rather than private. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thanks. Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. BASS [presiding]. Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes 

himself for 5 minutes for questions. I want to apologize in advance 

because I have been in and out of this hearing. 

Mr. Sharkey, your comments focus on the 1755 to 1780 megahertz sub-band. Does NTIA’s reported costs of reallocating the current government systems from the entire 1755 to 1850, $18 billion, 

fit with your own internal estimates and your experiences with the 

cost of reallocating government systems in the AWS–1 band, and 

if not, are there any estimates that specifically look at costs and 

potential revenues in the 1755 to 80 sub-band? 

145 

Mr. SHARKEY. Well first, if I can just make it clear that there are 

no private agreements between myself and Karl Nebbia. The process we are doing is an open—— 

Mr. BASS. Correction, so noted. 

Mr. SHARKEY. I think the costs—and I think we do need to take 

a careful look at the costs of relocating systems. The costs varied 

significantly from initial estimates of clearing AWS–1 to what were 

the final costs of clearing that spectrum. In a 2001 report, NTIA 

estimated that clearing the entire band up to 1780 would be about 

$4.6 billion, so now we have got an estimate that is $18 billion, and 

you know, there may be a lot that has changed and it is difficult 

for us to know what the—you know, what underlies that estimate. 

So I think it is an important one to look at, and you know, one of 

the important issues about getting that estimate right is that 

under the CSEA, the costs of the monies raised in an auction to 

have to cover the cost of reallocating, relocating government users. 

So it is important that the estimate is accurate enough so that we 

have—so that an auction can actually go forward to cover the costs. 

Mr. BASS. Second for, I suppose, Mr. Racek, you could address 

this as well. The PCAST study asserts that ‘‘Today’s apparent 

shortage of spectrum is, in fact, an illusion brought about because 

of the way spectrum is managed.’’ We have spent quite a while 

talking about this, actually. Do you agree with that statement? Do 

you think that carriers are not managing spectrum efficiently, or 

are there design issues associated with it? 

Mr. RACEK. I think they were probably talking about different 

services other than commercial mobile type of services. Maybe they 

were pointing to other type of activities that we see ongoing right 

now, maybe with respect to incentive and voluntary incentive auctions, but I don’t think they were talking about our industry. 

Mr. BASS. Anybody else want to comment on that? All right. 

Mr. Smith, NTIA’s report lists a number of video surveillance 

bands that are used by various Federal agencies. Is there any reason law enforcement video systems couldn’t use LTE to shrink 

their footprint and share resources? 

Mr. SMITH. That is a great question, and certainly, law enforcement can and does use cellular technology today for certain video 

streams, and LTE being a video and high definition video technology certainly enables that quite substantially. 

While I have the mic for just a second, if I could comment, there 

has been a number of questions around clearing versus sharing, 

and I just wanted to make—offer up the thought that geographic 

sharing—— 

Mr. BASS. Mr. Smith, you said they have it, but are they using 

it? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. Well, I don’t know how much is being used. 

Mr. BASS. All right. 

Mr. SMITH. In particular, LTE is just being largely rolled out the 

last year or two, but I don’t know how much today. 

But if I could just finish one quick thought and take a moment. 

Geographic sharing is being—you know, has been done in the industry, in the cellular industry from the start. You know, it is not 

a technological issue. So if, you know, DoD bases today are 24 million acres out of 2.3 billion acres in the United States, roughly 1 

146 

percent, mostly where people are not, and you know, the notion of 

considering—policymakers considering having geographic sharing 

exclusions on bands for LTE use by DoD on bases is something 

that is in the realm of the doable today. 

Mr. BASS. Thank you. I have no further questions. I would like 

to recognize the ranking member of the committee for a statement. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first to all of our witnesses, you—each one of you is absolutely superb. You really engaged the members and our thinking. You have given us even more 

to work with, answered a lot of, you know, the tough questions, 

and we are very grateful to you. And sitting here as a member of 

the committee, I can’t help but think collectively this is why our 

country is so great and has such enormous potential. You all represent that, and we are grateful to you. 

Mr. Stearns is not here, and—but I wanted to make a—say a few 

words about his service, both as a chairman of this subcommittee. 

He has been a member of this subcommittee for well over a decade, 

and has taken the issues very, very seriously, has moved the needle on so many things, and I just want to say on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, that we wish him all of our best. 

We wish him all of our best and that he will be missed here, and 

today may very well have been the last—his last Telecom Subcommittee hearing. So we wish him Godspeed. We thank him for 

working so hard to make important investments for the future of 

our country. And with that, I will yield back. 

Mr. BASS. The Chair thanks the ranking member for her comments and would like to associate himself with those remarks as 

well, as I am sure all of the other members of this subcommittee 

and full committee as well. 

There being no other members wishing to ask questions, members are reminded that the record will remain open for 10 days to 

submit questions for the record. There being no other business to 

come before the subcommittee, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:39 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

147 


85378.097

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Chairman 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

Washington. D.C. 20230 

MAR 1 1 2013 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Walden: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on September 13, 2012 before the Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology at the hearing entitled "Creating Opportunities through 

Improved Government Spectrum Efficiency." I am enclosing my responses to the additional 

qucstions for the record you forwarded to me on January 25, 2013. If you or your staffhave any 

additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or James Wasilewski, NTIA's Director 

ofCongressionai Affairs, at (202) 482-1840. 

Sincerely, 

~//Yk:£' / ~..--k'i <:"~1 

Karl Nebbia 

Associate Administrator 

Office of Spectrum Management 

cc: The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Enclosure 
148 


85378.098

Responses to Questions from the Honorable Anna Eshoo 

1. What steps can both government and industry take to increase R&D investment in 

technologies that promote spectrum efficiency? 

The Administration has several initiatives underway to support continued research and 

development (R&D) in the area of improving spectrum efficiency. The Wireless Spectrum 

Research and Development Senior Steering Group (WSRD SSG) of the National Information 

Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program, co-chaired by representatives from 

the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the National 

Science Foundation (NSF), was established pursuant to the President's June 2010 memorandum, 

which called upon the Secretary of Commerce to "create and implement a plan to facilitate 

research, development, experimentation, and testing by researchers to explore innovative 

spectrum-sharing technologies .... " 1 Since its formation in November 2010, the WSRD SSG has 

been engaged in outreach to private industry and academia to identify additional national-level 

R&D activities in spectrum sharing technologies that could result in improved spectrum 

efficiency. NITRD has developed an extensive database of over 600 ongoing or planned federal 

R&D projects and activities as well as a database of federal wireless testing facilities to share 

among federal, academic, and industry stakeholders.2 The group will develop recommendations 

for federal research and development investments, including opportunities for technology 

transfer within the federal sector and to the private sector. 

In 2008, NTIA established a spectrum sharing innovation test bed pilot ~rogram to analyze the 

sharing possibilities and efficiency gains of new spectrum technologies. This program is 

evaluating the ability of dynamic spectrum access devices employing spectrum sensing and geolocation techniques to share spectrum with land mobile radio systems in the 410-420 MHz 

federal band and the 470-512 MHz non-federal band. NTIA has actively promoted the 

publication of research surrounding spectrally-efficient technologies by sponsoring the 

International Symposium on Advanced Radio Technologies, an annual technical conference that 

brings together government, academia, and industry leaders to promote the development and 

I Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Unleashing the Wireless Broadband 

Revolution (reI. June 28, 2010), published at 75 Fed. Reg. 38387 (July 1,2010), available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pl'ess-office/presidential-memorandum-unleashing-wireless-broadband-revolution 

(Presidential Memorandum). 

2 See Wireless Spectrum Research and Development, available at 

http://www.nitrd.gov/nitrdgroups/index.php?title=Wireless Spectrum Research and Development (WSRD). 

J See NTIA, The President's Spectrum Policy Initiative - Spectrum Sharing Innovation Test-Bed, Notice ofInquiry, 

Docket No. 060602142-6142-01,71 Fed. Reg. 33282 (June 8, 2006); see also NTIA, Spectrum Sharing Innovation 

Test-Bed Pilot Program Fiscal Year 20 II Progress Report (December 2011), available at 

http://www .ntia.doc.gov/reportl20 12/spectrum-sharing-innovation-test-bed-pilot-program-fiscal-year-2011-

progress· report. 

2 
149 


85378.099

application of advanced radio communications technologies.4 In 2012, the conference focused 

on developing forward-thinking rules and processes for real-time federal spectrum sharing. 

Beginning in 2012, NSF began a research grant program on the topic of "Enhancing Access to 

the Radio Spectrum" (EARS) which funds research with a goal toward enhancing spectrum 

efficiency andlor improving access to the radio spectrum by traditionally underserved 

populations. The priority research areas for funding under the EARS program are informed in 

part by the ongoing collaboration between NTIA and NSF through the NITRD WSRD SSG. 

2. As each of you know, the PCAST report proposes the concept of "spectrum 

currency" as a way to incentivize federal agencies to relinquish or share more of 

their spectrum. While this idea has not been fully fleshed out, I'm interested in 

what factors would best motivate agency participation, particularly with respect to 

relinquishing the 1755 and 1780 megahertz band? 

The PCAST report found that requiring federal agencies to "purchase spectrum rights through a 

market mechanism would go a long way toward achieving transparency, accountability, and 

efficiency in Federal spectrum use.,,5 Such a mechanism would, according to the report, enable 

federal users to accurately internalize the opportunity cost of federal spectrum by allowing 

agencies to participate in a spectrum market within the federal government. This "synthetic 

currency" would be an alternative to spectrum fees and provide a positive incentive for agencies 

to adapt their systems to operate within large spectrum allocations through dynamic sharing with 

other federal and commercial systems. The PCAST report did not tie implementation of the 

spectrum currency concept to any particular spectrum bands. 

In considering additional incentives for federal agencies such as the "spectrum currency" 

concept, NTIA recognizes that preserving, protecting, and enhancing the agencies' ability to 

achieve their missions remains their primary objective. 6 It is also important to acknowledge 

some of the constraints under which agencies operate their mission-critical, spectrum-dependent 

systems. For example, NTIA assigns each agency the frequencies required for its particular 

needs, but agencies currently have no defined or marketable rights to the spectrum subject to 

4 See International Symposium on Advanced Radio Technologies, available at 

http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/isart/isart-home.aspx. 

5 "Realizing the Full Potential of Government-Held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth," Report to the President 

by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (July 2012) at 55-56, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defaultlfiles/microsites/ostplpcast spectrum report final july 20 2012.pdf. 

6 See, e.g., Testimony of Major General Robert Wheeler, USAF, Deputy ChiefInformation Officer for Command, 

Control, Communications and Computers (C4) and Information Infrastructure, U.s. Department of Defense, Before 

the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Committee on Energy and Commerce, United States House 

of Representatives, Hearing on "Creating Opportunities through Improved Government Spectrum Efficiency," 

(September 13,2012), available at 

http://energycommerce.house.gov/sitesirepublicans.energycommerce.house.gov/fllesiHearings/CT/201209131HHR 

G-112-IFI6.WState-WheelerR-20120913.pdf. 

3 
150 


85378.100

each assignment. Rather, each assignment is typically limited to the technical characteristics of 

the specific system, its geographic location, and other conditions that may not be easily reflected 

in a pricing mechanism. In some limited cases, an agency may have an assignment that covers 

the United States and possessions, but its uses are also constrained by the authorized, often 

unique, application. Furthermore, such broadly defined assignments seldom, if ever, provide 

exclusive access. Accordingly, to implement the PCAST recommendation, three key factors 

would involve: (1) addressing the spectrum needs and missions offederal agencies; (2) how their 

rights are defined and valued, especially in the absence of a market for comparable uses; and (3) 

the ability of agencies to authorize access to spectrum. 

4 
151 


85378.101

Responses to Questions from the Honorable Henry Waxman 

1. Some have suggested that the cost estimates for relocating from the 1710-1755 MHz 

band were initially around $4 billion and later were found to be closer to $1 billion. 

Is that correct? Does the 1710-1755 MHz band relocation experience serve as a 

helpful guide to the 1755-1850 MHz band relocation effort? 

The actual costs of relocating federal operations from the 1710-1755 MHz band were, in fact, 

close to the agencies' estimated costs. The $4 billion figure cited at the hearing may have come 

from a 2003 Congressional Budget Office estimate for relocating federal users from the 1710-

1850 MHz band or other options considered in NTIA's 2001 report that studied repurposing 

scenarios for these frequencies. 7 Importantly, NTIA also reported in 2001 that the agencies' 

estimates to move their systems out of the 1710-1755 MHz segment was approximately $2.1 

billion,8 only 30 percent ($550 million) higher than the final costs, which were approximately 

$1.5 billion. 

Although the govemment and industry gained valuable experience during the transition of 

federal operations from the 1710-1755 MHz band, the relocating systems from the 1755-1850 

MHz band presents significantly greater challenges and thus would require much more 

significant actions and costs. During the 1710-1755 MHz band relocation effort, many federal 

agencies reduced the number or size of their frequency channels and moved their operations 

above 1755 MHz. The variety of federal operations and large number of systems in the 1755-

1850 MHz band, as well as the length of the transition of those operations to other spectrum, 

would present greater coordination complexity and require commercial providers to operate in 

the presence of continuing and transitioning federal operations. Over 20 agencies utilize more 

than 3,100 individual frequency assignments in this band.6 Moreover, few bands and facilities 

are available to which these operations can move in order to achieve comparable capability of 

systems. Furthermore, relocating to other parts of the radio frequency spectrum means that many 

of the systems require redesign. 

Despite the challenges, promising advances in commercial wireless technology may provide 

opportunities for the wireless industry to deploy networks that are more tolerant of interference 

without having to displace some federal systems. These technology advances and the industry'S 

needs for additional spectrum capacity, especially in major metropolitan areas, have led to the 

exploration by government and industry stakeholders of early entry opportunities through 

spectrum sharing with certain incumbent federal systems. This collaborative effort seeks to 

optimize transition paths and reduce costs by leaving some federal systems in place where 

feasible. However, sharing during the transition period and thereafter would require clear 

7 See Committee on Energy and Commerce, "Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act" (H.R. 1320), H.R. Rep. No. 

108-137 at 14 (June 3, 2003), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-IOShrpt137/pdf/CRPT1 OShrptJ 37 .pdf; NTIA, "The Potential for Accommodating Third Generation Mobile Systems in the 1710-1850 

MHz Band: Federal Operations, Relocation Costs, and Operational Impacts - Final Report," NTIA Special 

Publication 01-46 at xix and 5-5 (March 2001), available at 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntialpublications/3g3 300 I.pdf. 

8 See id. at xix and 5-J3. 

5 
152 


85378.102

regulatory mechanisms prior to any auction to ensure appropriate protection of federal operations 

and clear expectations by prospective bidders of their status with respect to potential interference 

to and from federal operations. 

2. How did the specific processes used by NTIA to collect information from agencies 

regarding the costs and timeframes associated with relocating federal systems from 

1755-1850 MHz differ from NTIA's typical spectrum data collection efforts? 

In the context of identifying and recommending for reallocation bands of frequencies from 

federal government use to non-federal use, NTIA's process to collect data on the estimated costs 

and timetables have evolved over the years in accordance with applicable statutory mandates and 

Presidential proclamations. On the other hand, the applicable procedures and assessments of 

these estimates during the post-allocation transition phases have been and will be governed by 

the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (CSEA) modified by the Middle Class Tax Relief 

and Job Creation Act of2012. 9 

The 1710-1755 MHz reallocation and transition processes were guided by title VI of the 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, title III of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and 

other statutory provisions. iO These included, for example, band selection criteria that included 

the general cost considerations and operational impact factors that NTIA addressed in its 

reallocation reports. II 

Regarding cost data that NTIA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) collected as 

part of the post-reallocation transition process for the 1710-1755 MHz band, NTIA and OMB 

followed the requirements set forth in the CSEA enacted in December 2004. 12 Specifically, soon 

after enactment of the CSEA, NTIA requested that the federal agencies with systems in the 1710-

1755 MHz band submit their detailed relocation costs and timelines. In October 2005, NTIA 

provided this information to OMB for review pursuant to the CSEA, and then notified the FCC, 

Congress, and the Government Accountability Office of the total estimated costs. In February 

2007, OMB, in consultation with NTIA, submitted a report to Congress detailing a transfer of 

9 Pub. L. No. 112-96, Title VI, Subtitle G, 126 Stat. 245 (Feb. 22, 2012). 

JO See, Pub. L. No. 103-66, Title VI, § 6001(a)(3), 107 Stat. 379 (codified respectively at 47 U.S.C. § 923(a)(4), 

(c)(1 )(C)(i)-(ii) and (a)(4». 

J J See, e.g., NTIA, Spectrum Reallocation Final Report, Response to Title VI - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 

of 1993, NTIA Special Publication 95-32 at Sec. 3 (February 1995), available at 

http://www.ntia.doc.goY/legacy/osmhomeIEPS/openness/costs.html. 

12 Pub. L. No. 108-494, Title II, § 202, 118 Stat. 3991 (Dec. 23, 2004), Before Congress established the Spectrum 

Relocation Fund with enactment of the CSEA, each agency's anticipated relocation costs would haye been reported 

to NTIA, FCC and OMB pursuant to the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1999, Pub. L. No. \05-261, Diy. A, Title X, Subtitle G, § 1064, 112 Stat. 2132 (1998). This legislation mandated 

compensation payments from non-federal entities directly to federal entities when they relocate or modify their 

frequency use to accommodate the non-federal users of the reallocated spectrum. 

6 
153 


85378.103

$1.008 billion from the Spectrum Relocation Fund to the federal agencies to relocate from the 

1710-1755 MHz band. OMB transferred this amount to the agencies in March of2007. NTIA 

and OMB have continued to monitor the actual costs of relocation in this band since it was 

auctioned in 2006 and have submitted annual reports to Congress with this data. 

NTIA initiated its recent assessment of the potential reallocation of the 1755-1850 MHz band 

pursuant to President Obama's directive in his June 20 I 0 memorandum, directing the 

Department of Commerce, in coordination with the FCC, to identify and make available 500 

megahertz of spectrum over the next ten years for expanded wireless broadband use. 13 In its TenYear Plan, NTIA provided guidance to the agencies regarding costs to be considered in 

evaluating bands. 14 NTIA indicated specific costs to be included, such as engineering and 

operational analyses, research and development, equipment/system design (modifications or new 

designs), hardware integration, software development and integration, testing, operational and 

training costs, installation and maintenance. NTIA further specified that the cost data should 

support comparative analyses across systems, across repurposing options, and across candidate 

bands. Upon initiation of the 1755-1850 MHz band studies, NTIA provided further guidance to 

the agencies. For example, NTIA requested each agency to assume that all of the current 

systems would be relocated from the entire band within five to ten years and that the thenapplicable definitions and provisions from the 2004 CSEA would be applicable to covered 

relocation costs. 

NTIA and the federal agencies are currently at a juncture in the reallocation process for the 1755-

1850 MHz band that is most analogous to the point in March 200 I, evaluating several options for 

reallocating the 1710-1755 MHz band (and other bands), assessing different relocation and 

sharing scenarios, and relying on the agencies for their preliminary cost estimates based on 

applicable statutory provisions then in effect. NTIA's report last year on the 1755-1850 MHz 

band summarized the agencies' analysis and inputs on projected time lines, estimated costs, and 

prerequisites that would need to be satisfied to accommodate reallocation. IS As NTIA pointed 

out in that report, the estimated costs to relocate all federal operations from the band were 

"preliminary" assessments provided by each affected federal agency. 

Looking ahead and in light of these preliminary estimates, other reallocation approaches in the 

1755-1850 MHz band, such as sharing, which federal and industry stakeholders are currently 

discussing, may obviate the need for the relocation of some costly systems, resulting in lower 

costs. In addition, the new and amended provisions of the CSEA indicate that agencies have 

access to planning funds related to relocation and sharing scenarios. The law also requires that 

the agencies must have approved transition plans by the technical panel to be able to request 

13 Presidential Memorandum at § l(a). 

14 See NTIA, Plan and Timetable to Make Available 500 Megahertz of Spectrum for Wireless Broadband (October 

2010), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/tenyearplan II 1520 I O.pdf (Ten- Year Plan); 

Presidential Memorandum at § 1 (d). 

15 See National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, "An 

Assessment of the Viability of Accommodating Wireless Broadband in the 1755-1850 MHz Band," at x-xi (March 

2012), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia 1755 1850 rnhz report march2012.pdf. 

7 
154 


85378.104

planning funds. Their estimated relocation and sharing costs will be set forth in detailed 

transition plans and reviewed by a three-member technical panel made up of representatives 

from NTIA, OMB, and the FCC. 

As a result ofNTIA's experiences with the 1710-1755 MHz band, NTIA will implement new 

planning tools in connection with future transitions. The planning tools should facilitate 

accounting for better planning assumptions, which help close the gap between the initial cost 

estimate and the final cost. 

3. Last month NTIA submitted to members of this subcommittee a detailed inventory 

of federal frequency assignments, especially those assigned to what is known as the 

beach front property for mobile broadband services. Could you discuss how much 

spectrum is actually assigned to federal users and whether they are using the 

spectrum on an exclusive or shared basis? 

Of the 3,475 megahertz between 225 MHz and 3.7 GHz, approximately 18 percent has been 

allocated exclusively for federal use, 33 percent has been allocated for exclusive non-federal use, 

and 49 percent has been allocated on a shared basis. 16 Quantifying spectrum in terms of 

assignments is much more difficult. There is not currently a precise way to quantify the amount 

of total spectrum assigned to federal users because each federal assignment is based on unique 

technical factors such as the authorized frequencies, bandwidth, and power. Each assignment 

also is bounded by different geographic, temporal, and environmental aspects of the system and 

application in use. The data NTIA submitted to the subcommittee represents the number of 

individual assignments to each of the agencies multiplied by the bandwidth associated with each 

assignment. Therefore, the data counts the same spectrum multiple times due to the fact that 

agencies have overlapping operations all over the United States and its possessions. 

16 An Allocation (of a frequency band) is an entry in the International or U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations of a 

given frequency band for the purpose of its use by one or more radiocommunication services or the radio astronomy 

service under specified conditions. An Assignment (of a radio frequency or radio frequency channel) is an 

authorization (e.g., license) for a radio station to use a radio frequency or radio frequency channel under specified 

conditions. 

8 
155 


85378.105

Hearing Date: September 13,2012 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Communications and Telecommunications 

Member: Congressman Eshoo 

Witness: Major General Robert Wheeler 

Question: #1 

Question: What steps can both government and industry take to increase R&D investment 

in technologies that promote spectrum efficiency? 

Answer: DoD believes that the key step to promote spectrum efficiency is to forge a national 

level spectrum strategy, including R&D plans, through open and collaborative dialogue between 

government and industry to address challenges related to spectrum use by all the stakeholders. 

This plan must take into account the growing spectrum requirements of both federal and 

commercial users. In that regard, it is encouraging that the United States is moving to a new 

paradigm for spectrum sharing through technology where true real time sharing of spectrum is the 

end goal. 

DoD is actively engaged in R&D investments to improve spectrum efficiency and effectiveness 

and supports increased investment to continue to advance flexible, agile and affordable 

technology solutions. The Department recognizes the substantive contributions that U.S. 

technology developers are making toward wireless broadband services, applications and systems, 

which provide important opportunities to advance DoD mission requirements while promoting 

economic development and U.S. technological competitiveness. DoD is also increasingly focused 

on incorporating into its policies elements to ensure that research, planning and acquisition efforts 

enable more efficient and effective use of the spectrum. 

As part of implementing these goals, the Department is working with the Administration and the 

FCC to develop a sustainable mechanism for national level collaborative efforts between 

government and industry in order to advance flexible and agile technological solutions for 

improved spectrum efficiency while ensuring mission effectiveness. This effort will facilitate and 

optimize evaluation of spectrum sharing proposals between federal and commercial users. The 

effort will also expedite and optimize testing of spectrum dependent systems. This collaborative 

engagement will further the objective of co-existence and expand large-scale federal-commercial 

sharing opportunities in the long-term in any piece of the spectrum. 

Continued funding to these important areas of spectrum innovation will help the nation continue 

to improve its efficient use of spectrum. 
156 


85378.106

Hearing Date: September 13,2012 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Communications and Telecommunications 

Member: Congressman Eshoo 

Witness: Major General Robert Wheeler 

Question: #2 

Question: As each of you know, the PCAST report proposes the concept of "spectrum 

currency" as a way to incentivize federal agencies to relinquish or share more of their 

spectrum. While this idea has not been fully fleshed out, I'm interested in what factors 

would best motivate agency participation, particularly with respect to relinquishing the 

1755 and 1780 megahertz band? 

Answer: As the question notes, implementation details remain unclear regarding the PCAST 

"spectrum currency" concept, which implies that each federal agency would be given an 

allocation of a "synthetic currency" to "buy" their spectrum usage rights. Use of a monetary 

incentive mechanism based on the economic value of spectrum is challenging to implement 

because the economic value of spectrum from a commercial industry perspective is driven by a 

revenue-focused business model rather than the critical mission requirements that drive the value 

from a federal spectrum use perspective. Federal agencies do not "buy" spectrum usage rights or 

"own" spectrum, but are granted access by NTIA to spectrum based on mission requirements and 

availability of the spectrum. 

Thus, from a DoD perspective, the fundamental motivator is the ability to have assured access to 

spectrum in order to meet its current and future global mission requirements, consistent with 

overarching Administration goals. The Department remains fully committed in support of the 

national economic and security goals of President Obama's 500 MHz initiative to make spectrum 

available to meet increasing spectrum requirement for commercial broadband use while ensuring 

national security and other federal capabilities are preserved. Through NTIA established 

deliberate processes to methodically evaluate spectrum bands, the DoD is already proactively 

working with NTIA, other Administration partners, and industry to ensure balanced spectrum 

repurposing decisions that are technically sound and operationally viable from a mission 

perspective. 

These efforts include working through highly complex technical issues to assess and recommend 

practical frameworks for the development of relocation, transition, and sharing arrangements and 

plans for the 1755-1850 MHz bands. While these efforts are considering the feasibility of early 

commercial access to the 1755-1780 MHz band, their focus is on finding a solution for the entire 

95 MHz, consistent with NTIA's assessment of the band. A deliberate plan for the entire 95 MHz 

is the best approach. DoD and other federal agencies would need to conduct new analysis to 

assess the operational and cost impact of an independent relocation or sharing of just the 25 MHz 

between 1755-1780 MHz, to ensure no adverse impacts to military training, operations, and 

combat readiness. 

2 
157 


85378.107

Hearing Date: September 13, 2012 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Communications and Telecommunications 

Member: Congressman Waxman 

Witness: Major General Robert Wheeler 

Question: # 1 

Question: Please describe the process by which you reached your cost estimates for 

relocating your systems from the 1755-1850 MHz band. How did you verify the accuracy of 

these estimates? 

Answer: The development of the cost estimates to relocate DoD systems from the 1755-1850 

MHz band was led by the Office of the Secretary of Defense Cost Assessment and Program 

Evaluation (CAPE) in concert with the Army, Navy and Air Force service cost centers. The 

process used to estimate the costs followed standard processes used by the Department for 

estimating the costs to develop and procure weapons systems. The key differences in the 

development of this cost estimate and a cost estimate to support a milestone decision to begin 

development or procurement for a major defense acquisition program include: (I) the purpose of 

the estimate; (2) the program planning and documentation; and (3) the time and resources 

available to develop the estimate. 

First, per guidance from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA), the purpose of the cost estimates to support the 1755-1850 MHz feasibility study was 

only intended to determine the relative magnitude of the cost to relocate federal systems. 

Experience with the previous 2000 IMT study assessing feasibility of relocation from 1710-1850 

MHz, published in February 2001, also informed the preparation of this estimate. Similar to the 

initial estimates in the 2001 study, the Department developed this initial cost estimate based on 

key assumptions provided by NTIA and the information currently available. Detailed cost 

estimates are not typically done until the relocation decision has been made based on specific 

conditions. The initial cost estimate informs that decision, but would require refinement to the 

cost based on the specific conditions in lieu of the assumptions used to develop the initial cost 

estimate. For example, the 2001 cost estimates were revised and re-submitted only after the 

decision was made to auction the 1710-1755 MHz band and significant relocation planning for 

the affected DoD systems operating in that band was completed. 

Second, any cost estimate is only as accurate as the assumptions upon which it is based The key 

assumptions supporting the cost estimates for the 1755-1850 MHz feasibility study are well 

documented in the report; however, these assumptions are subject to change as a consequence of 

future decisions or as new information become available. In contrast to this study, detailed 

program planning precedes the development of an independent cost estimate for a major defense 

acquisition program (MDAP) approaching a milestone decision. MDAPs have an entire program 

office to plan the acquisition and sustainment of a weapon system and spend two to five years or 

more planning and preparing for a decision to begin engineering, manufacturing and 

development. These programs undergo several reviews at the service level and at the OSD level. 

Our estimates rely on this program documentation, and when a key assumption changes, we can 

often quantify how the cost estimate will change as a result. Since the cost estimates for the 

3 
158 


85378.108

feasibility study aren't built on the same level of pedigreed program documentation, we can be 

sure that assumptions are likely to change in any follow-on planning process which could have a 

significant effect on the cost estimates. 

Third, the manpower and time available to develop the cost estimates for multiple and diverse 

systems associated with this feasibility study was much less than that is typically available to 

estimate the costs for a single major defense acquisition program. 

Initially, the CAPE and service cost centers met regularly to develop a set of ground rules and 

assumptions to be applied consistently across all programs. These included the use of inflation 

indices, the timeline when relocation funding would become available to initiate relocation 

activities (planning, research and development, procurement, etc.), and most significantly, the 

definition of what is an applicable cost for relocation. The service cost centers then developed 

templates and questions, which were shared and reviewed as a group to ensure consistency across 

the services, and then distributed to program managers and field agencies. The cost estimators 

collected data and technical descriptions, and traveled to various operating locations to gain 

understanding of how each system was used and to interview engineers on the design of the 

system to understand what components needed to be modified or redesigned to operate in the new 

band(s) identified in the early phase of the study. 

Then, as individual cost estimates were developed, each was reviewed by the respective service 

cost center's management using their standard procedures to validate the methodologies used. 

The estimates then received a subsequent review by CAPE and updates were briefed periodically 

to the Director. In addition, a senior review group led by the DoD CIO was established to support 

the overall feasibility study which received detailed program briefings on all of the key systems 

and periodic updates on the cost estimates. Finally, the CAPE developed a crosswalk to the 2000 

IMT study and demonstrated that the cost estimates associated with the Spectrum Reallocation 

Feasibility Study for the 1755-1850 MHz Band were consistent with the previous study's cost 

estimates after accounting for the effect of inflation and changes in the quantities and types of 

systems within the band. 

4 
159 


85378.109

Hearing Date: September 13, 2012 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Communications and Telecommunications 

Member: Congressman Waxman 

Witness: Major General Robert Wheeler 

Question: #2 

Question: What risks, if any, does relocation pose to federal operations? What risks are 

posed by sharing? 

Answer: From a DoD perspective, both sharing and relocation decisions pose potential risks. 

While no decision to repurpose spectrum is "risk free," the risks can and must be managed. Any 

repurposing decisions made without proper technical, operational and cost impact assessment 

could preempt critical requirements, causing adverse impact to military training, operations, and 

readiness. These risks are further complicated for DoD due to the magnitude, complexity and 

diversity of its operations. 

Successful relocation of defense operations is dependent upon the ability to conduct adequate 

analysis to determine cost and operational feasibility; availability of alternate spectrum to relocate 

systems to; adequate implementation funding; and adequate time to execute the relocation. Ifany 

of these conditions is not met, then the ability to relocate defense and military operations is at risk. 

Specific to sharing, a move from an exclusive usage rights spectrum management regime to a 

large-scale spectrum sharing between federal and commercial systems represents a major shift in 

the way spectrum is managed at the national level today and presents many challenges and risks, 

including technical, operational, and security. The advanced technologies (e.g., dynamic 

spectrum allocation, whitespace database) that are expected to facilitate sharing have not been 

previously deployed in the envisioned large-scale and complex federal-commercial sharing 

schema. Thus, the maturity of the technologies and effectiveness of such president setting 

approach is untested in real-world operations and is still extremely uncertain. Also often 

overlooked is the security framework necessary to ensure effective exchange of information using 

spectrum sharing technologies. 

Additionally, neither federal operations nor commercial broadband operations will remain static 

as technologies and user requirements evolve. One risk in that regard is whether the spectrum 

regulatory and governance framework for sharing, including enforcement measures to protect 

against harmful interference, can be updated seamlessly to keep pace with the changes in the 

operating environment. Another risk is how the future growth in requirements for both 

commercial and government operations can be accommodated as bandwidth requirements grow. 

5 
160 


85378.110

Hearing Date: September 13,2012 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Communications and Telecommunications 

Member: Congresswoman Matsui 

Witness: Major General Robert Wheeler 

Question: #1 

Question: Can you provide information on when the last time that an evaluation was done 

to look at upgrading the technology? For instance, there have been press reports of the 

DoD's intent to use LTE technology. Would such a shift present new repurposing 

opportunities? 

Answer: The complex spectrum environment and evolving threats that warfighters face compel 

DoD to constantly evaluate a broad array of technology improvements to meet mission 

requirements. While in general the licensed wireless industry has one major broadband 

technology at a time it must assess for improvements (e.g., L TE), DoD must undertake such 

analyses across numerous diverse spectrum-dependent systems, including both noncommunications and communications technologies, with the same focus of mobility. 

DoD released a Mobile Device Strategy in 2012 to identify information technology goals to 

capitalize on the full potential of mobile devices. The objectives include expanding DoD's 

infrastructure to support wireless capabilities. The strategy clearly recognizes that this evolution 

must "leverage industry infrastructure, emerging technologies and commercial off the shelf 

products in accordance with policy and standards." One area highlighted in the strategy is the 

need for DoD to continue to expand its wireless network presence in areas critical for mobile 

device access via the use of industry standards such as 3GPP L TE-based 4G systems where 

feasible. While the transition to such important technologies is important, it is also not a onesize-fits-all approach, especially when it comes to ensuring that stringent security requirements 

are met from a DoD perspective. In that regard, the Strategy notes that "although the use of 

commercial devices is more cost-effective than developing customized devices, most do not come 

equipped out-of-the-box with the security controls, access protocols, and necessary security 

features required by DoD." 

Although use of commercial-off-the-shelf products, when and where appropriate, is nothing new 

to the department as long as mission needs can be met, that in and of itself does not open new 

spectrum repurposing opportunities. That is because in many of the federally allocated spectrum 

bands, extensive sharing between federal government systems, and in some cases with 

commercial systems, is already occurring. Therefore, repurposing decisions cannot be based on 

just one or a few systems without a holistic solution to accommodate all capabilities requiring the 

bands in order to prevent adverse operational impact, including to national security. 

For example, DoD Military Services and Agencies operate over 100 distinct systems in the 1755-

1850 MHz band. Capabilities include satellite launch and on-orbit control operations, electronic 

warfare systems, air combat training systems, air mobile telemetry for test and evaluation of aerial 

weapon systems, tactical communications, small unmanned aerial systems/vehicles, and precision 

guided munitions. Any repurposing solution regarding this band must address all of these 

6 
161 


85378.111

capabilities in order to achieve the necessary balance between national security spectrum 

requirements and meeting the expanding demand of commercial broadband services. 

7 
162 


85378.112

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

February 8, 2013 

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

Subject: "Creating Opportunities through Improved Government Spectrum 

Efficiency"-Response to Questions for the Record 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on September 13, 

2012, about the opportunities to improve government spectrum efficiency. On 

January 25, 2013, we received the Subcommittee's questions for the record. The 

enclosure is our response to the Subcommittee's questions. If you or members of 

your staff have any questions about our response, please contact me at (202) 512-

2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. 

Sincerely yours, 

Mark L. Goldstein 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Enclosure 

cc: The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

The Honorable Anna Eshoo, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology 
163 


85378.113

Enclosure 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Creating Opportunities through Improved Government Spectrum Efficiency" 

September 13, 2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Anna Eshoo 

1. What steps can both government and industry take to increase R&D 

investment in technologies that promote spectrum efficiency? 

As we have reported, government plays a key role in performing or encouraging 

research that private industry would not do on its own. 1 In our review of spectrum 

sharing, we found that, although industry participants indicated that extensive testing 

under realistic conditions is critical to conducting basic research on spectrum 

efficient technologies, only a few companies are involved in such research and that 

instead, companies tend to focus on current business objectives as opposed to 

conducting basic research that may not show an immediate business return.2 

Government agencies have already taken some steps to create opportunities for 

research and development in the private sector. For example, in January 2013, FCC 

adopted rules to add three new types of experimental licenses to allow universities, 

research labs, medical institutions, and other organizations to conduct research 

experiments and to test an array of devices without having to obtain a specific 

license for each trial. NTIA also has a pilot test bed program to evaluate dynamic 

spectrum access and technology for spectrum sharing in land mobile radio bands. 

We have also emphasized the importance of the government's providing financial 

incentives or funding for research and development endeavors. The President's 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)3 and the Commerce 

Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC)4 have both made 

recommendations to create funds that can provide financial incentives for 

development of more spectrum efficient technologies. The PCAST recommended 

creation of a Spectrum Efficiency Fund, which would allow federal agencies to be 

reimbursed for general investments in improving spectrum sharing and efficiency 

and the CSMAC recommended the creation of a Spectrum Innovation Fund to be 

used for spectrum sharing and other opportunities to enhance spectrum efficiency. 

lGAO, Research and Development: Lessons Learned from Previous Research Could Benefit FreedomCAR 

Initiative, GAO-02-810T (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2002). 

2GAO, Spectrum Management: Incentives, Opportunities, and Testing Needed to Enhance Spectrum Sharing, 

GAO-13-7 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14,2012). 

3President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the PreSident; Realizing the Full 

Potential of Government-held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth (Washington, D.C.: July 2012). 

'Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, Incentives Subcommittee Final Report (Washington, 

D.C.: Jan. 11,2011). 

Page 2 
164 


85378.114

Looking internationally, the Canadian government has instituted tax credits for 

research and development efforts by Canadian wireless companies, and required 

wireless companies to commit 2 percent of all revenues toward research and 

development activities related to spectrum. 

2. As each of you know, the PCAST report proposes the concept of "spectrum 

currency" as a way to incentivize federal agencies to relinquish or share more 

of their spectrum. While this idea has not been fully fleshed out, I'm interested 

in what factors would best motivate agency participation, particularly with 

respect to relinquishing the 1755 and 1780 megahertz band? 

In our recent spectrum sharing report, we found that federal agencies are reluctant 

to share spectrum for several reasons. 5 First, while federal spectrum users often 

share spectrum among themselves, they may have little economic incentive to 

otherwise use spectrum efficiently, including sharing it with nonfederal users. 

Furthermore, obtaining new spectrum assignments may be difficult for federal users, 

so an agency may have an incentive to conserve and use the spectrum it currently 

has assigned to it or currently shares efficiently, but the extent of that incentive is 

likely weaker than if the agency had to pay the market price for all of its spectrum 

needs. Second, federal users are not willing to risk mission failure and sharing or 

relinquishing spectrum may pose unacceptable risks in some bands. Third, sharing 

spectrum can be costly for both the nonfederal and federal users seeking to use the 

spectrum because of the cost of interference mitigation for federal users, and budget 

limitations that prevent users from investing in more spectrally efficient technologies. 

Our report identified several actions that could be taken to overcome these 

disincentives and promote more sharing and efficient use of spectrum by federal 

agencies. Such actions include requiring agencies to give more consideration to 

spectrum sharing and efficiency when designing or upgrading systems, dOing more 

to identify spectrum used by federal agencies that is more likely to be feasible to 

share, and expanding opportunities for unlicensed use of spectrum. We also 

identified the need to evaluate whether spectrum fees or currencies can provide 

appropriate financial incentives to agencies. While we agree that spectrum usage 

fees or spectrum currency should be given further consideration, designing a fee or 

currency system is fraught with numerous obstacles and challenges, such as how 

such fees should be incorporated into agency budgets and the appropriations 

process in order to create the right incentives. A full evaluation of the potential 

benefits and impacts of implementing a fee structure would be a potential step in 

identifying the most prudent and effective approach. Although we did not make a 

specific recommendation in our recent spectrum sharing report regarding a spectrum 

currency process, we recommended that FCC and NTIA jointly report their agencies' 

views and conclusions regarding spectrum usage fees to relevant congressional 

committees. 

5GAO-13-7. 

Page 3 
165 


85378.115

The Honorable Henry Waxman 

1. Your testimony expresses concern about whether NTIA has reliable data on 

which to base spectrum policy decisions. Are there particular instances that 

you can point to where inadequate data has hindered decision making? 

As we reported in 2011, it is unclear whether important decisions regarding current 

and future spectrum needs are based on reliable data. 6 NTIA's processes for 

collecting and verifying federal agency data lack key internal controls, including 

those focused on data accuracy, integrity, and completeness. Internal control 

activities, such as data verification and reconciliation, are essential for ensuring 

accountability for government resources and achieving effective and efficient 

program results. Lacking such controls, NTIA cannot ensure that agencies are 

accurately reporting data, and during our review, we found instances of inaccurate 

agency data. For example, officials from two federal agencies told us that they 

uncovered significant inaccuracies in their spectrum assignment records while 

completing in-depth reviews. In particular, officials from one agency told us that in a 

review of a sample of spectrum aSSignments in the Detroit, Michigan, metropolitan 

area, they uncovered that approximately half of the agency's assignment records 

were inaccurate. A spectrum manager from another agency told us that a review of 

spectrum assignments revealed that 25 percent of the aSSignments in one 

department were no longer being used, and the spectrum assignments were 

returned. As another example, according to a winning bidder in the 2006 Advanced 

Wireless Services spectrum auction,7 during the relocation of federal users, some 

agencies submitted inaccurate inventory data to NTIA and OMB causing delays in 

the transition time from federal to commercial use. As we noted in our 2011 report, 

these data weaknesses lead agencies to overestimate their need for spectrum 

frequency assignments, and better information would facilitate the more efficient use 

of spectrum because frequency assignments could be located closer together. 

6GAO, Spectrum Management: NTIA Planning and Processes Need Strengthening to Promote the EffiCient Use 

of Spectrum by Federal Agencies, GAO-11-352 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12,2011). 

7 Spectrum auctions are a market-based mechanism in Which FCC assigns a license to the entity that submits the 

highest bid for specific bands of spectrum. 

Page 4 
166 


85378.116

Responses To Additional Questions For the Record 

For "Creating Opportunities through Improved Government Spectrum Efficiency" 

By Douglas Smith, CEO, Oceus Networks 

February 8, 2013 

The Honorable Anna Eshoo 

1. What steps can both government and industry take to increase R&D investment 

in technologies that promote spectrum efficiency? 

Oceus Networks believes that govemment use of commercial technologies, such as 4G 

L TE, for a wide-range ofhigh-speed, high-bandwidth applications, promotes efficient 

spectrum use and leverages the huge investments in R&D by industry. In the current 

budgetary environment, government spending on custom-built technologies should be 

limited to those applications that industry cannot offer to meet the mission requirements 

of military and other government users. A continued focus on leveraging industry 

investment in commercial technologies will increase government's efficient use of 

spectrum and provide greater capabilities for certain high-bandwidth communication 

applications for less cost. 

Dceus Networks has adapted commercial 4G L TE technology for military and public 

safety high-bandwidth wireless applications. Extensive work was performed with DoD 

and other government users to ensure that these solutions would meet the unique 

requirements ofthese users, including for secure communications, without veering from 

the commercial roadmap. 

For example, the U.S. Department of Navy's Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) is 

using our portable 4G L TE-in-a-box solution, Xiphos, in a pilot to provide real-time highdefinition video, voice, and data to sailors on the U.S.S. Kearsarge for both shipboard 

communications and in support of tactical missions. Dceus Networks worked with the 

National Security Agency on developing a security framework that was approved for 

SECRET level communications across the network. Dceus Networks also worked with 

the Navy to ensure that the L TE signal would not interfere with existing on-board 

spectrum dependent systems. 

The NA VAIR trial represents the first operational deployment of 4G LTE for DoD. 

Oceus Networks is discussing, and in some cases demonstrating, the use of its 

technologies in other branches of the military and different federal government agencies. 

For non-communication spectrum-dependent government systems, Dceus Networks does 

not have the expertise to offer meaningful feedback about ways to spur R&D investment. 

However, Dceus Networks is committed to leveraging commercial investment in highbandwidth wireless technologies and making investments to modify them for government 
167 


85378.117

Oceus Network's Response 

February 8, 2013 

Page 2 of2 

use. By doing so, there is great opportunity for making government use of spectrum 

more efficient and, more importantly, providing government users with the necessary 

capability to meet their 21 51 century missions. 

2. As each of you know, the PCAST report proposes the concept of "spectrum 

currency" as a way to incentivize federal agencies to relinquish or share more of 

their spectrum. While this idea has not been fully fleshed out, I'm interested in what 

factors would best motivate agency participation, particularly with respect to 

relinquishing the 1755 and 1780 megahertz band? 

Oceus Networks does not have enough information to provide a viewpoint about how the 

"spectrum currency" idea proposed in the PCAST report could be implemented. 

However, on the issue of which factors would "best motivate agency participation, 

particularly with respect to relinquishing the 1755 and 1780 megahertz band," we would 

recommend focusing on policy outcomes that balance both economic security and 

national security requirements. 

Sharing on an equitable basis would be a valuable incentive to encourage Federal agency 

participation in efforts to make the 1755-1780 MHz band available for commercial 

wireless broadband (e.g., L TE). Extensive work on potential sharing of this band 

between incumbent government operations and L TE systems is already under way in the 

Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) working groups. In 

our view, developing sharing arrangements as a "two-way street" for Federal users would 

further expedite efforts to free this band, which is globally harmonized for L TE, for 

commercial 4G systems. 

Government users also face growing requirements for wireless broadband capabilities. As 

a result, for enterprise and some tactical communications, Federal agencies require access 

to the same bands in which commercial L TE networks are deploying, in order to gain the 

same cost benefits and advanced capabilities. As I mentioned in my testimony last fall, 

sharing is also easier between "like" systems, as long as other critical mission needs are 

protected (e.g., security requirements.) Future sharing arrangements for LTE spectrum 

should not only promote commercial broadband deployments but also foster shared 

agency access to commercial bands, on a geographically limited basis, as needed. 
168 


85378.118

Response to the Subcommittee on Communications and technology Hearing 

"Creating Opportunities through Improved Government Spectrum Efficiency" 

Additional Questions for the Record 

Dr. Preston Marshall, University of Southern California 

The Honorable Anna Eshoo 

Q: What steps can both Government and industry take to increase R&D investment in 

technologies that promote spectrum efficiency? 

A: We must promote spectrum policies that are as dynamic as the innovation process is. For 

example, the current clearing and auction process takes an average of eight years to make 

spectrum available, and the NTIA Report indicates that future relocations will be even more 

difficult and lengthy. There is little opportunity to innovate when there is this much delay from 

committing to such a Significant investment, and deploying a service. That view is supported by 

the incredible innovation we see in the unlicensed bands, where spectrum availability is not 

such a challenge to innovative offerings. By contrast, the telecommunications industry 

infrastructure process operates on decades-scale, and has much less US leadership in the 

technology base. The delays and uncertainty in the current spectrum process make spectrumdependent innovation a much less attractive investment. 

The PCAST report proposes to use the sharing of Federal spectrum as a vehicle to enable 

innovative concepts to advance rapidly from concept to application. It is true that sharing 

spectrum may be less attractive to the current spectrum users; however this is the very 

challenge that will spur innovation in these bands. Leadership in this innovation will position the 

US to lead this technology worldwide as every other country in the world will face the same 

challenges of doing more with the fixed spectrum. 

Q: As each of you know, the PCAST report proposed the concept of a "spectrum currency" as a 

way to incentivize federal agencies to relinquish or share more of their spectrum. While this 

idea has not been fully fleshed out, I'm interested in what factors would best motivate agency 

participation, particularly with respect to relinquishing the 1755 and 1780 megahertz band? 

A: The current spectrum relocation trust fund only subsidizes agencies from completely moving 

out of a band, and having it auctioned. It provides no benefit to agencies from reducing their 

usage in the band, arranging methods to share it, or even to make modification to their 

equipment or operation that would enable it to be used by the civil sector. Nor does the 

Government receive any revenue from non-auction spectrum usage. The PCAST 

recommendation provides incentives to agencies to reduce spectrum usage, even if the band is 

not completely cleared for auction. The middle tier of spectrum access produces a funding 

stream for both the treasury, and for agencies, based on the ability to share this spectrum. This 
169 


85378.119

process taps spectrum that otherwise is not used by the Federal Government at all times, and at 

all places, and makes it available for civil use, and produces income. 

Instead of having to decide "who needs the band most", civil users and Federal agencies can 

both use it, shortening the time to make it available from the current years to decades, to 

months and, ultimately, seconds. 

The PCAST notion of a spectrum currency enables the Federal Government to assess, track, 

and eventually reduce the spectrum footprint. It can provide a mechanism to investigate the 

marginal cost of improvements, or changes in Federal spectrum usage, and the value of that 

spectrum to the civil sector, as measured by the market value of the right to share this 

spectrum, on a locality by locality basis, 

The 1755 sharing process now underway shows that industry and Government can work 

together to free spectrum that high value to the civil sector, and assure continued operation of 

Federal missions, The PCAST recommendations institutionalize this same process, but make it 

also accessible to innovators in all industries in a transparent process so that new and 

innovative, as well as existing applications can benefit from these opportunities, 

The Honorable Henry Waxman 

Q: During the hearing, Major general Wheeler raised the concern that the dynamics of mobile 

broadband present significant design challenges for using a database approach, Yet in your 

own testimony, you stated that the PCAST report is grounded in available technology which 

builds on systems that have already been approved by the FCC. Could you respond to Mr. 

Wheelers assertion that the technology discussed in the PCAST report for sharing has not been 

fully validated and that the effectiveness of such an approach remains uncertain? 

A; I do not believe these two position are actually in conflict. There are a wide range of 

operating characteristics and technologies in use by Federal systems, MG Wheeler very 

correctly pOints out that some of them will be difficult to dynamically accommodate in a 

database system, Others, are static, and have very well known characteristics, The PCAST 

proposal was to begin with the systems that are most amenable to database approach, much as 

the FCC is currently moving to permit in the 3,5 GHz band, The power of the database 

approach is that if the understanding of how to share spectrum is not available at any point in 

time, that spectrum can be marked as unshareable, Industry and the Government should work 

together to determine the best targets of opportunity to increase Federal spectrum sharing, but 

only as this understanding develops. This is not a technology challenge, but one of 

engineering, We share spectrum between Federal and civil systems continually, The PCAST 

report proposes to extend this to a much larger scale, but does not propose any new sharing 

technology, As I noted in my testimony, the remaining challenge is to make the sharing 

information available to users, and the FCC certification od devices is a demonstration that this 

is readily achieved, and can be certified by Federal agency processes, 
170 


85378.120

Q: How do you respond to the assertion by some during the hearing that there is no evidence 

yet that business models exist to sustain building and operating networks that will rely on shared 

spectrum? 

A: I find that assertion from several witnesses obviously untrue. the same companies that 

demand exclusive rights for spectrum are building out extensive networks in unlicensed 

spectrum today to offload their wireless traffic. In fact, when the bits per Hertz of their networks 

is estimated, it is likely that major carriers are moving more user content over wireless 

bandwidth than over their dedicated spectrum; even when they are a small segment of the 

users of this spectrum! And this investment continues to be made, even as the unlicensed 

spectrum becomes more congested. 

Perhaps what the testimony might have meant is that the industry would be hesitant to invest 

large amounts in a single macro cell without assured access. But we all know that the future of 

wireless broadband is not more macrocells, but is instead smaller, more localized devices, such 

as micro and femtocell devices. These can be much more agile in frequency and configuration, 

and are cost per unit similar to the WiFi devices now being deployed in great quantities. 

Also, it is true that there is no current carrier equipment in shared spectrum because there is no 

suitable spectrum available today! What we do know from experience is that innovation finds 

ways to make value out of any spectrum that is not encumbered by over-regulation. Also, it is 

worth noting the carrier enthusiasm for sharing even portions of the 1755 MHz band! 

The Honorable Doris Matsui 

Q: As we explore each band for potential repurposing, which specific bands would be ideal to 

clear below 3 GHz, and which specific bands or areas could be better suited for sharing above 3 

GHz. Please provide specifics. 

A: I am hesitant to testify about specifics on existing Federal bands, as there is such an 

extensive quantity of inventory and analysis for the Federal sector, primarily through the NTIA 

reports. Some obvious candidates, such as portions of 1755 and 3.55 are already under 

consideration. Satellite downlink spectrum, where the usage is very local, and the stations are 

not mobile is obviously a candidate for sharing. Military test and training activities are generally 

concentrated geographically, and generally far from the dense civil population and thus 

bandwidth demand. 

I do not believe we have a good handle on this issue, in any case. The question generally 

asked is which bands can be reallocated? There could be very good reasons to not relocate or 

reallocate a band, and still have that band provide significant value to the civil sector. This is 

fundamentally a different question than was posed in the National Broadband Plan. 

In reality, all Federal spectrum can be shared to some extent. Ultra Wideband devices share 

this spectrum (except for GPS), as an example. The Government should document the 
171 


85378.121

constraints on the sharing, and industry should be able to challenge these constraints. It is 

likely that most Federal spectrum will be sharable with some technology and bussiness model, 

even if neither the model, or technology exist today. 

Q: For spectrum above 3 GHz, what do we mean by sharing (I.e. are we talking about 

technology, exclusion zones)? And would it be licensed or unlicensed? Would there be 

spectrum rights? 

A: The sharing proposed by PCAST will initially be primarily exclusion zones. These exclusion 

zones are not fixed, but would be determined based on the signal characteristics of the sharing 

devices. A low power device might be able top operate in close proximity to Federal users, 

while a higher power device would have to separated by more distance. For example, in the 

NTIA report, a significant exclusion zone was depicted for sharing in the 3.5 GHz band, base on 

the sharing devices being high-power L TE macrocells. However, in the FCC's proceeding 

targeting femtocells, the exclusion zone was much smaller. PCAST did not recommend any 

exclusion zone to protect the sharing device, and left this protection to the device itself, and as 

an area for future innovation. 

As for its licensing status, I would suggest that we think about licensing very differently than we 

do today. Technologies, markets, user needs and economics all change over time. Perpetual 

licensing does not facilitate that change, it impedes it! I believe itt is reasonable that investors 

would desire that their investment be protected over its economic life, but licensing should not 

preclude the successor investment and market. 

The PCAST report proposed that protected rights in shared spectrum should be a part of the 

policy, but that the terms and extent of these be much shorter (on the order of three years). 

New entrants could compete for this spectrum, presumably refreshing the technology and 

service model. Such a framework would also reduce the barriers to entry, since the short term 

licenses would be less of an investment than the effectively perpetual licenses of today. 

A license in the context of the PCAST report also has a subtle difference. A license protects the 

operation of receivers, but does not preclude other from use of the spectrum, so long as a 

receiver was not interfered with. Instead of build out rules, spectrum that was not used 

(populated by receivers) could be used by others, until receivers were actually deployed, at 

which point they would be protected. Broadly spread signals could coexist with other uses, and 

poorly performing receivers would have to effectively purchase rights to adjoining spectrum if 

they desired protection; whereas today these burdens are forced on new entrants in adjacent 

bands. By focusing on the protecting receivers, massive inefficiencies in the current 

management of spectrum will be overcome. 
172 


85378.122

FRED UPTON, MICHIGAN 

CHAIRMAN 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

(:ongrt55 of tUt Wnittb ~tatt5 

~ouse of l\epresentatlbes 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

Mr, Mark Racek 

Director, Spectrum Policy 

Ericsson Inc. 

1634 I Street, N.W., Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20006-4083 

Dear Mr. Racek: 

Majority (202) 22~2927 

Minority 1202) 225-3641 

January 25, 2013 

Thank you for appearing at the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing 

entitled ''Creating Opportunities through Improved Government Spectrum Efficiency" on September 13, 

2012. 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for 10 business days to permit Members to submit additional questions to witnesses, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please e-mail your responses, in Word or PDF 

format, to Charlotte.Savercool@mail.house.gov by the close of business on Friday, February 8, 2013. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

(1 oof!'JL- 'g:fi 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Anna Eshoo, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Attachment 
173 


85378.123

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Creating Opportunities through Improved Govemment Spectrum Efficiency" 

September 13,2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

Ericsson Inc. 

The Honorable Anna Eshoo 

1. What steps can both government and industry take to increase R&D 

investment in technologies that promote spectrum efficiency? 

There is no lack of investment and innovation being performed by the commercial 

mobile broadband industry. In fact the market is successfully driving the direction 

and scope of R&D in areas like modulation, compression, antennas, diversity, etc. 

The challenge, however, is overcoming the barriers to deployment like site 

acquisition or lack of suitable spectrum in sufficient amounts. 

2. As each of you know, the PCAST report proposes the concept of "spectrum 

currency" as a way to incentivize federal agencies to relinquish or share 

more of their spectrum. While this idea has not been fully fleshed out, I'm 

interested in what factors would best motivate agency participation, 

particularly with respect to relinquishing the 1755 and 1780 megahertz 

band? 

Although Ericsson does not have experience in this area, there is recognition that 

significant benefits can be attained in utilizing federal spectrum for broadband 

where that spectrum is unused or underutilized. As the PCAST report identifies, 

federal users have little incentive to improve their efficient use of spectrum. 

Instead they are concentrating on the mission that must be accomplished, and 

therefore spectrum utilization is not their main focus. Some factors that could be 

considered include leveraging commercial technology similarly to the way that 

the Public Safety Broadband Network is based on the commercial technology 

Long Term Evolution ("LTE"). Additional partnerships and interaction between 

the private and public interests could also incent federal agencies as these parties' 

knowledge of the others' technologies and operations grow. 

The Honorable Henry Waxman 

1. In clearing the 1755-1850 MHz band, what is your recommendation for 

where the vacating federal systems could be relocated? 

Some federal services in the 1755-\850 MHz band can be transitioned to existing 

federally allocated spectrum. For instance, impacted agencies with fixed point-topoint line-of-sight communications have selected either the 4400-4490 MHz band 

or the 7125-8500 MHz band for relocation. Further analysis is needed of the 

remaining federal systems to determine I) are there existing federally allocated 

bands suitable for relocation or sharing, 2) if commercial services can be utilized 

as a substitute, and 3) whether improvements in the spectral efficiency of these 

Page 1 of2 
174 


85378.124

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Creating Opportunities through Improved Government Spectrum Efficiency" 

September 13, 2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

Ericsson Inc. 

federal systems would mean they require less spectrum and thereby allow for 

commercial services in the vacated band. 

The Honorable Doris Matsui 

1. As we explore each band [beyond 1755-1850 MHz] for potential repurposing, 

which specific [federal] bands would be ideal to clear below 3 GHz and which 

specific bands or 'areas' could be better suited for sharing above 3 GHz? 

Pleas provide specifics. 

• Repumose. 1675-1710 MHz paired with 2075-2110 MHz (70 MHz). This 

allocation has the same duplex spacing as A WS-l and is also adjacent to 

A WS-l and therefore would benefit from the existing device eco-system 

in A WS-l. The 2075-2110 MHz band is currently allocated to Broadcast 

Auxiliary Systems. The 1675-1710 MHz band is currently allocated on a 

co-primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use for the meteorological 

aids service and the meteorological-satellite service (space-to-Earth). A 

portion of this band 1695-1710 MHz has been identified by NTIA in its 

Fast Track Report for possible spectrum sharing. 

• Repur.pose. The 2700-2900 MHz (200 MHz) band is globally harmonized 

and has radio wave propagation properties that make it an excellent band 

to consider for providing mobile broadband. Given the proximity of the 

2700-2900 MHz band to the Broadband Radio Service ("BRS") at 2.5 

GHz and the internationally standardized 3GPP Band 7 (2500-2570 MHz 

uplink paired with 2620-2690 MHz downlink), this band warrants 

particular consideration. 

• Repumose. 1300-1390 MHz (90 MHz). The band 1300-1350 MHz is 

allocated for Aviation service by Federal and Non-Federal uses. It is 

specifically allocated to aeronautical radionavigation service where it is 

restricted to ground-based radars and associated airborne transponders 

which transmit exclusively in these bands and only in response to radars 

operating in the same bands. The band 1350-1390 MHz is allocated for 

exclusive Federal Government use. Its primary allocation is fixed satellite 

service (space-to-Earth) and mobile satellite service (space-to-Earth) for 

the relay of nuclear burst data. This band was identified for potential 

commercial allocation in 1997 Balanced Budget Act. 

• Sharing. 5350-5470 MHz and the 5850-5925 MHz band (195 MHz). 

NTIA has initiated studies on the potential use of up to 195 MHz in the 

5350-5470 MHz and the 5850-5925 MHz band. 

Page 2 of2 
175 


85378.125

FRED UPTON. MICHIGAN 

CHAIRMAN 

HENRY A. WAXMAN. CALIFORNIA 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

Mr. Steve Sharkey 

€ongrt~~ of tbt Wnittb ~tatt~ 

AJOU!)t of l\tprt!)tntatiut!) 

COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majority (202) 225-2921 

Minority (202) 225-3641 

January 25,2013 

Chief Engineering and Technology Policy, Federal Regulatory 

T-MobileUSA 

601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

North Building, Suite 800 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

Dear Mr. Sharkey: 

Thank you for appearing at the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing 

entitled "Creating Opportunities through Improved Government Spectrum Efficiency" on September 13, 

2012. 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for 10 business days to permit Members to submit additional questions to witnesses, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please e-mail your responses, in Word or PDF 

format, to Charlotte.Savercool@mail.house.gov by the close of business on Friday, February 8, 2013. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

/ C,0M- g:a~e 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Anna Eshoo, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Attachment 
176 


85378.126

~. -Mobile·- 601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

North Building, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20004 

Honorable Greg Walden 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Walden, 

Thank you for the opportunity of appearing at the Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology's hearing entitled "Creating Opportunities through Improved Government Spectrum 

Efficiency" on September 13, 2012. My responses to the questions contained in your letter of 

January 25, 2013 are below. 

The Honorable Anna Eshoo 

1. What steps can both government and industry take to increase R&D investment in 

technologies that promote spectrum efficiency? 

A fruitful mechanism to promote R&D that advances technologies that promote sharing 

would be to create real opportunities to access spectrum on based on sharing of government 

spectrum by non-government users. T -Mobile continues to believe that carriers can best make 

use of spectrum that is allocated to them on an exclusive basis and that they have the right 

economic incentives to use that spectrum as efficiently as possible. However, as I said during 

my testimony, there are circumstances where spectrum sharing can be a useful tool that, when 

combined with traditional spectrum management mechanisms and economic incentives, can 

provide an overall approach for maximizing the efficient use of spectrum and create 

opportunities in cases where relocation is not feasible. 

Government users and the private sector are already seeking to utilize sharing as part of 

the broader effort to repurpose government spectrum for commercial use where possible. The 

current effort in which industry and the Department of Defense are examining the use of the 

1755-1780 MHz band is a good example of industry and government working together and one 

that is likely to yield technology advances related to sharing. Complex technical challenges can 

be solved if the technical staffs of industry and federal agencies work together to develop 

solutions that would for both parties. For example, in the 5 GHz band, government and industry 

worked together to develop a sharing approach that resulted in technology advances to allow 

unlicensed devices to "sense" when a government radar is using the spectrum and protocols for 

the unlicensed device to move to another channel to avoid interfering with the government 

operation. 

Adequate funding for federal agencies to study spectrum relocation and sharing options 

would advance this collaborative research and development effort. Changes to the Commercial 

Spectrum Enhancement Act (CSEA), or further guidance from the Office of Management and 

Budget to provide funds necessary for federal agencies to study the feasibility and approaches to 

Page I of6 
177 


85378.127

tF • -Mobile-- 601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

North Building, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20004 

sharing or reallocation prior to a decision to reallocate the spectrum and a transition plan has 

been approved would provide a vehicle for funding. Recent guidance from OMB limits agencies 

to only getting planning funds following acceptance of a transition plan. This results in a lack of 

resources to conduct the detailed studies necessary to make an informed decision regarding 

relocation and sharing. More funding should be available for studying sharing outside of the 

current spectrum-specific approach. 

Finally, requiring federal agencies to consider sharing mechanisms or technologies 

during the procurement process for a new system could have significant long-term impacts for 

sharing. Many federal systems have a long life span and are difficult or costly to make changes 

to after the system has been deployed. Requiring consideration of sharing mechanisms and the 

impact to other systems as part of the procurement process could make facilities opportunities in 

the future. This could include, among others, use of minimum channel bandwidths, provisions 

for technology updates and inclusion of signaling methods that could interact with other systems 

to facilitate temporal sharing. 

2. As each of you know, the PCAST report proposes the concept of "spectrum currency" as a 

way to incentivize federal agencies to relinquish or share more of their spectrum. While this 

idea has not been fully fleshed out, I'm interested in what factors would best motivate agency 

participation, particularly with respect to relinquishing the 1755 and 1780 megahertz band? 

Providing positive incentives for federal users to use spectrum as efficiently as possible 

has the potential to free up spectrum resources and be more effective than trying to mandate that 

users be more efficient. Commercial spectrum users are already strongly motivated by economic 

drivers. They generally buy spectrum at auction and are subject to a competitive business 

environment which promotes efficient spectrum use. Commercial providers also continually 

invest in technology and infrastructure to increase the utility of spectrum. It is much more 

complicated to apply those same incentives to federal users. 

Having a technique that allows federal users to assign value to spectrum based on the 

frequency, bandwidth, affected geography, and duration of use would be a significant 

improvement to enhancing spectrum efficiency. For such an idea to be effective it would be 

necessary for NTIA to assign the spectrum currency to all federal systems with input from 

federal and commercial stakeholders. As the PCAST report noted, this should be distinguished 

from a usage fee because assigning value would involve no further appropriation or expenditures 

for the federal spectrum users. Rather, it would be used as a metric intended to help agencies 

and the NTIA to better consider spectrum efficacy. However, from the PCAST report it is 

unclear what actual benefit agencies would derive from the spectrum currency and it may be 

useful to request further consideration of this issue from PCAST. 

While there are many issues that the PCAST report leaves undeveloped, it ties spectrum 

currency to a Spectrum Efficiency Fund that would provide real dollars to agencies to pay for 

changes that facilitate sharing or lead to more efficient use of the spectrum - thereby potentially 

Page 2 of6 
178 


85378.128

tF· ·Mobile" 60 I Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

North Building, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20004 

freeing up spectrum for other purposes. This is a significant recommendation that should be 

explored further.. It would provide the resources necessary for federal agencies to research, 

study and implement technologies and actions that can significantly advance access to additional 

spectrum. 

The Honorable Henry Waxman 

1. In clearing the 1755-1850 MHz band, what is your recommendation for where the vacating 

federal systems could be relocated? 

The primary focus of industry has been on accessing the 1755-1780 MHz portion of the 

1755-1850 MHz band. That portion of the band offers significant benefits for providing 

competitive broadband services because it can be readily paired with available spectrum at 2155-

2180 MHz. It would also extend the existing A WS band and align with international use. These 

factors would maximize the value and benefits of both the 1755-1780 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz 

bands - not only by maximizing the potential for broadband services, but also by maximizing the 

potential auction revenue. The Middle Class Tax Relief Act of2012 requires the FCC to auction 

and license the 2155-2180 MHz band by February 2015, which places additional pressure on 

efforts to make the 1755-1780 MHz band available as quickly as possible. Accordingly, while it 

is important to consider how existing users will be accommodated, availability of the 1755-1780 

MHz portion of the band should not be delayed by consideration of a longer term transition of 

the entire 1755-1850 MHz band. 

There is no single answer as to where the federal systems operating at 1755-1850 MHz 

should be relocated because each system is very different, both in the mission performed and the 

system operation. The best approach to making the 1755-1780 MHz band available is likely to 

be a combination of relocating systems out of the 1755-1850 MHz band, sharing within the band 

and restricting operations to the 1780-1850 MHz portion of the band. 

NTIA's March 2012 report An Assessment of the Viability of Accommodating Wireless 

Broadband in the 1755-1850 MHz band provides a high level inventory of comparable bands and 

an overview of operations within those bands. In addition, the report provides an assessment, by 

agency, of the potential for systems to be accommodated in comparable bands. Based on the 

analysis in the report, "NTIA concludes that it is possible to repurpose all 95 megahertz of the 

band." However, because the report is based on a complete clearing of the band, there are 

several significant challenges, including the availability of relocation spectrum, the cost of 

relocation and the timing of relocation, which must be overcome. 

As described in the NTIA report, numerous comparable bands are available for relocation 

- the majority of which are used primarily by federal agencies and currently available. However, 

the report focuses on the 2025-2110 MHz band as a high priority relocation band for almost 

every 000 system currently operating in the 1755-1850 MHz band. Such an approach is not 

optimal. While there are some federal operations currently in the 2025-21 10 MHz band, the 

majority of use is for commercial operations and the band has significant commercial potential 

Page 3 of6 
179 


85378.129

tF --Mobile·· 601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

North Building, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20004 

value for future commercial services, including for broadband services. Any move of 

Government systems into this band should only be done following consideration of the potential 

for sharing between government and commercial operations and the future potential use of the 

band for primarily commercial users. 

While the NTIA report identifies comparable relocation bands, it does not provide 

sufficient information to fully understand or evaluate the conclusions of the report or the 

underlying analysis. It also looks primarily only at clearing of the entire 1755-1850 MHz band, 

rather than evaluating the possibility of clearing just some of the systems out of the entire band 

and retuning remaining systems to operate about 1780 MHz as a way to clear 1755-1780 MHz. 

Nor does it fully evaluate the costs of relocation specific to the lower band. While some sharing 

of the band may remain necessary, this information is critical to a fully informed evaluation of 

relocation of government systems from the lower band. Additional analysis to evaluate 

relocation of government systems from the lower band should proceed and should include third 

party oversight and involvement. 

Significant work is being done as part of the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory 

Committee to analyze the potential for sharing in the 1755-1850 MHz band between commercial 

and federal operations. However, there has been no work in that committee to review relocation 

options or cost estimates. Rather the working groups have been specifically directed to not do 

work in these areas. Such efforts should be initiated and proceed in parallel with sharing studies 

in order to provide a full understanding of the options available. 

2. Given that WiFi offloading significantly reduces cellular network congestion today 

(especially in high density urban areas), what is your view on the feasibility and potential 

benefits of further advances in unlicensed spectrum? 

T-Mobile has a long and proud history of using unlicensed spectrum. From the launch of 

a nationwide Wi-Fi Hotspot network, to the early incorporation of Wi-Fi into handsets, to being 

the only major carrier to provide Wi-Fi based calling, unlicensed spectrum is an important tool in 

the T -Mobile spectrum toolkit. However, unlicensed spectrum is just that - a tool in a toolkit 

that includes licensed spectrum and a host of other network technologies that maximize our 

network's capacity. Unlicensed spectrum is not a replacement for licensed spectrum and is not 

suitable for the wide-area mobile broadband that consumers demand and which significantly 

advances America's global competitiveness. Reliable wide area service requires tens of billions 

of dollars of investment to deploy and manage infrastructure and WiFi is not well-suited to such 

an approach. 

We believe the focus should be on freeing up more licensed spectrum that enhances 

competition while making unlicensed spectrum available as possible. For example, the FCC has 

launched an effort to expand the amount of unlicensed spectrum in the 5 GHz band. We support 

this effort. The 5 GHz band would not be suitable for a wide area mobile service given the 

propagation characteristics of the band and restrictions on power and use necessary to share with 

Page 4 of6 
180 


85378.130

tF· ·Mobile·- 601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

North Building, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20004 

incumbent federal operations. However, provided suitable sharing arrangements can be 

developed to protect federal incumbents, the band holds promise for expanding unlicensed 

spectrum capacity. 

The Honorable Doris Matsui 

1. As the we explore each band for potential repurposing, which specific bands would be ideal 

to clear below 3GHz; and which specific bands or 'areas' could be better suited for sharing 

above 3GHz? Please provide specifics. 

Both the FCC in its Broadband Report and the NTIA in its October 2010 report, "Plan 

and Timetable to Make Available 500 Megahertz a/Spectrum/or Wireless Broadband," identify 

a significant number of suitable spectrum bands that should be evaluated for accommodation of 

commercial broadband services. In addition to the bands identified in the NTIA report, the 

2025-2110 MHz band should also be evaluated as a potential band for commercial broadband 

services. 

The evaluation of these other bands should not divert the focus on making spectrum 

available in the 1755-1780 MHz band and reallocating TV Broadcast spectrum though incentive 

auctions. The 1755-1780 MHz band, when paired with 2155-2180 MHz would provide 50 

megahertz of spectrum that is immediately adjacent to the existing A WS spectrum and is used 

for commercial mobiles services around the world. Significant progress has already been done 

to study this band and bringing these efforts to a successful conclusion should be a high priority. 

Similarly, reallocating TV broadcast spectrum pursuant to incentive auctions has the potential to 

make significant amounts of spectrum with excellent coverage and propagation characteristics 

available. 

In addition to those two bands, significant work has been done to develop a framework 

for sharing the 1695-1710 MHz band between federal and commercial operations. This is highly 

desirable spectrum that is also adjacent to the existing A WS band. To maximize the potential of 

the band for broadband services, the FCC must identify additional spectrum with which it could 

be paired. Given the requirement imposed by the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of2012 to 

auction and license the 1695-1710 MHz band by February 2015, the effort to identify a paired 

band should begin immediately. A strong candidate for pairing would be the 2095-2110 MHz 

band. Pairing these two spectrum blocks would create a downward extension of the A WS 

spectrum and holds significant potential to expand broadband capacity. 

2. Please comment on how the use 0/ LTE can impact repurposing opportunities? 

Long Term Evolution (L TE) technology can play an important role in repurposing federal 

spectrum. 

For instance, LTE can provide a lower cost, off-the-shelf technology solution for the 

highly efficient delivery of broadband data and video. Upgrading federal systems that transmit 

data and video using this technology could reduce overall federal spectrum requirements 

Page 5 of6 
181 


85378.131

tF --Mobile·- 60 I Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

North Building, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20004 

compared to technologies currently used, which, in some cases continue to use technology that is 

decades old. This would not only improve spectrum efficiency but also enhance the capabilities 

of these particular systems and allow use by a larger number of devices. While not every federal 

system could use L TE technology, there are systems that could make better use of existing 

commercial technologies and increasing the spectral efficiency of operations should be a critical 

part of any spectrum review. 

L TE can also facilitate spectrum sharing where that approach is appropriate. L TE 

provides a robust power control and spectrum selectivity capability that allows commercial 

carriers to power down transmissions or avoid certain portions of a band altogether where legacy 

federal systems are operating. The ability to tightly control the emissions and channels used by 

L TE devices can provide new opportunities to work around government operations, although the 

ability to do so must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with close coordination between 

commercial and federal users. The attached document provides a further description of L TE 

technology and features that can facilities shared use. 

Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Respectfully, 

~~~-;5 Steve B. Sharkey 

Chief of Engineering & Technology Policy 

Federal Regulatory 

T-Mobile USA, Inc. 

Cc: The Honorable Anna Eshoo, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Attachment 

Page 6 of6 
182 


85378.132

Overview of LTE Technology] 

I. Introduction and Summary 

Commercial mobile wireless systems have undergone significant changes over the past 

30 years, beginning with simple analog technology that was defined to support voice traffic, 

to more complex digital systems with rudimentary data capabilities. The purpose of this 

document is to provide an overview of the most prevalent ofthe current wireless standards 

driven by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project ("3GPP"). 3GPP has developed the 

standards surrounding the GSM family of technologies, including GSM, EDGE, UMTS, 

HSPA, HSPA+, and LTE. For purposes of this overview, this paper will focus on Long 

Term Evolution ("L TE") and its capabilities. LTE is already deployed by many wireless 

providers in the United States, and is the most plausible technology choice for uplink 

operation in the 1755-1850 MHz band, once it is made available for commercial wireless 

services. As is described herein, L TE has a number of inherent advantages and 

improvements that make it capable of using spectrum resources efficiently, while also 

facilitating limited sharing between Federal and commercial services. 

II. LTE Radio Access Features 

L TE radio access differs in the downlink and uplink. The downlink uses orthogonal 

frequency division multiple access ("OFDMA") to enable the high peak data rates desired for 

receiving data downloads from the Internet. The uplink path utilizes Single CarrierFrequency Division multiple access ("SC-FDMA") to mitigate the effects of the high peak to 

average ratios present if only OFDMA were used. High peak to average ratios compromise 

power efficiency which is a special concern for mobile units (that operate on the uplink side). 

Additionally, uplink system throughput and improved coverage and cell-edge performance is 

provided by use of SC-FDMA for the uplink. 

In OFDMA, both time and/or frequency resources are used to separate the multiple user 

signals. Typically, a burst in an OFDMA system consists of several OFDM symbols. The 

subcarriers and the OFDM symbol period are the finest allocation units in the frequency and 

time domain, respectively. Multiple users are therefore allocated different slots in the time 

and frequency domain - different groups of subcarriers and/or OFDM symbols are used for 

transmitting the signals to/from multiple users. 

1 This overview is a relatively basic overview. For a more thorough description of all features and capabilities of 

L TE, see e.g., http://www.amazon.com/4G-LTE-LTE-Advanced-MobileBroadband/dplO 12385489Xlref=pd sim b 1; http://www.amazon.com/LTE-UMTS-Evolution-TheorvPractice/dp/0470660252; 4G Mobile Broadband Evolution: Release 10, Release 11 and Beyond - HSPA, 

SAE/LTE and LTE-Advanced 

http://www.4gamericas.org/documents/4G%20Mobile%20Broadband%20EvolutionRel%201O%20Rel%2011%20and%20Beyond%200ctober%202012.pdf, and Mobile Broadband Explosion: 

The 3G PP Wireless Evolution 

http://www.4gamericas.org/documents/4G%20Americas%20Mobile%20Broadband%20Explosion%20A 

ugust%2020121.pdf 

Page 11 
183 


85378.133

For LTE, the time domain structure has a 10 millisecond frame consisting of 10 subframes of 1 millisecond. Each sub-frame consists of two slots ofO.S milliseconds. Each slot 

consists of seven OFDM symbols. The figure below describes the LTE physical resources: 

+-- One frame (10 ms) 

Uli\LLLmll i :1 iii- I 1 iris I nus I Hils I f m~ I 1 iili 11 illU:l.i.i.1iU 

12 sub·carriers {or 1 resourt;e block} 

A resource block is the key fundamental building block which is made up of 12 subcarriers per 0.5 millisecond slot. Because LTE enables the use of sub-carriers in this fashion, 

any bandwidth can potentially be supported. However, the 3GPP has adopted these specific 

channel bandwidths: 

Channel Bandwidth 1.4 3 5 (MHz) 

Transmission Bandwidth 6 15 25 (numbers ofresoUfce blocks) 

Page 12 
184 


85378.134

The number of resource blocks, as defined above, is limited to multiples of2, 3 or 5 to 

reduce complexity of device operations. Channel bandwidths of 1.4 and 3 MHz are designed 

for ease of upgrading spectrum from existing networks and greater efficiencies are derived 

from deploying 5 to 20 MHz channel bandwidths. Further, L TE allows for the resource 

blocks to be deployed dynamically - in response to interference issues or otherwise to limit 

the number of mobile units deployed per sector to best manage the spectrum resource. 

Within a sector, downlink capacity is allocated to UEs via time and frequency division 

mUltiplexing in time increments of I millisecond and bandwidth increments of 15 kHz. 

Within a sector, uplink capacity is allocated to UEs by the network via time and frequency 

division multiplexing in time increments of I millisecond and bandwidth increments of 180 

kHz. 

The basic synchronization and broadcast control structure of an L TE signal is designed 

around the 6 resource blocks around the carrier frequency. This control channel structure is 

bandwidth invariant. 

III. LTE Features That Enable Spectrum Sharing 

As described briefly above, and in more detail below, L TE has a number of features that 

potentially facilitate the sharing of spectrum. Features that could allow coexistence include 

power control, traffic shifting, channel scaling and base station control over handset 

operations. Each of these features enable L TE to provide wireless operators the flexibility to 

respond to the particular interference environment and allows for specific deployments to 

accommodate the requirements necessary to share with incumbent Federal systems. 

a. Power Control 

Strict power control over handsets is critical to ensure that a system is properly deployed 

without harmful self-interference. Additionally, maintenance of power control allows L TE 

to provide the best data rates to consumers possible, by providing physical resources to 

match the data demands within the network. Strict power control also enables the most 

capacity to be provided throughout the network. Absent tight power control of the L TE 

system, a wireless provider would not be able to control and manage the interference 

environment and would have a deleterious effect on the overall efficiency and capacity of the 

network. 

Power control for L TE is managed through an open loop power control algorithm. The 

open loop power control algorithm is configured to a fixed power level received by the base 

station for a resource block; this should be understood as a configuration of the received 

power spectral density for each UE transmission. This power spectral density is typically 

chosen to be at a level that provides a certain desired CII (or received signal power over the 

sum of interference and noise). Modem cellular systems use fractional power control to bias 

the desired CII of a user terminal downward when the user is at the edge of coverage. This in 

tum tends to lower the extent to which transmit power levels rise as the user gets closer to the 

edge of the cell. The effect of fractional power control is to lower the amount of interference 

Page 13 
185 


85378.135

cell edge users cause to other cells, thereby lowering the overall amount of noise rise due to 

interference in the system. 

The effect of this tight power control is to greatly limit the mobile station (or user 

equipment or "UE") effective power in an L TE deployment. UE conducted power levels 

span a range from -36 dBm to 23 dBm for LTE. The use of the peak power level of23 dBm 

will typically happen when the UE is at the edge of coverage and has no available power 

headroom in the power control procedures; the occurrence of the peak is rare in a well 

engineered system. Indeed, the cumulative distribution function provided by the industry 

(and agreed to as a fair representation by the Federal users) shows very low probabilities for 

the maximum power for UEs being utilized. Typical handheld mobile terminals have EIRP 

levels that are lower than the conducted peak due to the embedded antenna designs, and 

effects such as internal losses and body loss due to proximity with the user. EIRP levels are 

typically assumed to be around 20 dBm at peak transmit levels. Moreover, as described in 

more detail below, UE power control is managed closely by the base station and could 

potentially be controlled when in some proximity to protected Federal sites. 

In sum, the power control features of L TE: (1) minimize the amount of power used by 

UEs and (2) can be managed, if necessary, to enable sharing between commercial L TE 

systems and incumbent Federal operations. 

b. Traffic Shifting 

Wireless providers have spectrum in a variety of bands, including: (I) the 700 MHz 

band; (2) the 800 MHz cellular and SMR bands, (3) the Advanced Wireless Service 1.7/2.1 

GHz band; (4) the Personal Communications Service 1.9 GHz band and (5) the 2.5 GHz 

Broadband Radio Service band. In general, a single wireless provider has a license to use 

spectrum several of these spectrum bands and therefore has a diversity of available spectrum 

with which customers can be served. This spectrum diversity can allow providers to shift 

consumers, seamlessly, between spectrum resources in cases of capacity constraints or 

interference issues. In addition, UE devices have a variety of spectrum bands available 

within them to match up with the requirements of wireless providers. Indeed, so-called 

"multi-band" devices are widespread, that have five or more spectrum bands available 

within the device and even more if the ability to seamlessly interoperate between systems 

that use GSMIEDGE, WCDMAlHSPA and LTE is considered. 

Similarly, wireless providers that are licensed in the 1755-1850 MHz spectrum will have 

the potential to dynamically shift end users from this spectrum to other licensed spectrum in 

areas where needed to protect Federal users. Such traffic shifting can be dynamic in response 

to certain inputs or triggers, such as interference levels, or dynamic load control, or fixed if 

there are certain areas that could never be utilized without presenting harmful interference to 

incumbent Federal systems. 

Page 14 
186 


85378.136

c. Channel Scaling 

The L TE standard provides a wireless operator extensive flexibility in deploying physical 

resources dependent upon spectrum licensed as well as the interference environment. 

Because L TE breaks down communications into small sub-carriers, operators are able to 

dynamically scale the use of the spectrum to meet network realities. Moreover, both the 

uplink and downlink traffic channels are fully scheduled since they are dynamically shared 

channels. This means that the physical downlink control channel ("PDCCH") must indicate 

which users should decode the shared downlink traffic channel in each sub-frame and which 

users are allowed to transmit on the shared uplink traffic channel in each sub-frame. 

Additionally, the scalability of L TE allows for use of a variety of bandwidths for an L TE 

deployment, ranging from 1.4 MHz to 20 MHz. This variability would allow a wireless 

provider to initiate commercial services during a transition period with smaller amounts of 

spectrum, with the expectation that potentially over time more spectrum could be made 

available for a more robust network. This mechanism could be used when a Federal 

incumbent has an expectation that it will relocate, but on a timetable that is longer than the 

commercial provider can wait deployment. Thus, a commercial operator could initiate an 

LTE system with 1.4 MHz channel bandwidth immediately, with the potential for increasing 

the amount of spectrum as it is made available from the Federal incumbent that is relocating. 

d. Base Station Control 

A final key feature of L TE is that control of the UE is managed by the base station. LTE 

base stations manage the control channels, which dictates how the traffic channels are 

allocated (and the physical resource blocks to each UE) as well as the power utilized by the 

UEs. Moreover, a mobile unit may not power on (or power up) without a command from the 

base station to do so. 

This capability to manage handsets by the base station can be utilized to facilitate 

sharing. As described above, the base station can manage the power of the UEs and can 

force a shift in spectrum altogether. Moreover, base station control of mobiles could allow 

feedback into the network needed to enable sharing that is dynamic and based upon the 

actual operating environment. As an example, the base station network can monitor the 

interference environment and based on Federal station operations, migrate L TE UEs to 

spectrum that is less utilized, whether in the 1755-1850 MHz band or another band. 

Moreover, the base station can also manage the power used by UEs increasing or 

decreasing the power based on the needs of the network and ensuring protection to the 

Federal incumbents. 

IV. Conclusion 

The LIE standard contains features and characteristics that could be practically 

implemented, if needed, to facilitate temporal sharing, protection of government systems 

while simultaneously allowing wireless providers to serve customers with minimal impact. 

Page 15 
187 

Æ 


85378.137

The exact extent of sharing will depend greatly on the parameters of the government 

operations. 

Page 16