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

86–420 PDF 2014

THE LIGHTSQUARED NETWORK: AN 

INVESTIGATION OF THE FCC’S ROLE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 

Serial No. 112–180 

( 

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 OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Chairman 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Ranking Member 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 9 

Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement ...................................................................................... 9 

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

WITNESSES

Julius P. Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission ..................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement 1

Mindel De La Torre, Chief, International Bureau, Federal Communications 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Chart, dated March 2012, ‘‘Selected VHF and UHF Frequency Bands,’’ Office 

of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, submitted by Ms. DeGette ......................................................................................... 45 

Subcommittee exhibition binder, submitted by Mr. Stearns ............................... 48 

1Mr. Knapp and Ms. De La Torre submitted a joint statement for the record. 

(1) 

THE LIGHTSQUARED NETWORK: AN 

INVESTIGATION OF THE FCC’S ROLE 

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:33 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Stearns, Burgess, Blackburn, 

Bilbray, Griffith, and DeGette. 

Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Karen Christian, Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Neil Fried, 

Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Kirby Howard, 

Legislative Clerk; Brian McCullough, Senior Professional Staff 

Member, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; David Redl, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Alan Slobodin, Deputy Chief 

Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; John Stone, Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Daniel Tyrrell, Counsel, Oversight and 

Investigations; Alvin Banks, Democratic Investigator; Tiffany Benjamin, Democratic Investigative Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Shawn Chang, Democratic Counsel; Brian Cohen, Democratic 

Investigations Staff Director and Senior Policy Advisor; Kiren 

Gopal, Democratic Counsel; Roger Sherman, Democratic Chief 

Counsel. 

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning, everybody. And let me start the 

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee this morning. And I 

have my start with an opening statement. 

But I would say because the House is having some early votes 

this morning, I ask unanimous consent that the written opening 

statements of all the members be introduced into the record. 

Without objection, the documents will be entered into the record. 

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

My colleagues, today, after 8 months of investigation, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will examine the Federal Communications Commission’s decision and orders relating to 

LightSquared and the Commission’s efforts to build a wireless mobile broadband network. 

The controversy regarding LightSquared and its efforts to build 

a national wireless broadband network revolves around a piece of 

2 

spectrum called the L-band. This band of spectrum has historically 

been reserved for satellite services. In 2003, in order to encourage 

more efficient use of the band, the FCC issued an order permitting 

mobile satellite service providers to integrate an ancillary terrestrial component or land-based component into these networks as 

long as they met certain requirements. 

Since that time, LightSquared and its predecessors have been involved in multiple proceedings before the FCC involving the development of its terrestrial component. During these proceedings, 

LightSquared reached agreement with GPS companies about ‘‘out 

of band emissions’’ that may result from its terrestrial-base stations and invested approximately $4 billion in its network. In 

March 2010, the FCC approved the transfer of SkyTerra’s L-band 

licenses to LightSquared, enabling the company to deploy a nationwide broadband network. This transfer was conditioned on 

LightSquared meeting an aggressive build-out schedule and agreeing not to provide service to the Nation’s two largest wireless carriers. 

In January 2011, the FCC granted a conditional waiver allowing 

LightSquared’s customer to access its network using devices only 

capable of receiving terrestrial signals. The waiver was conditioned 

on LightSquared resolving an overload interference issue raised by 

the GPS community. These interference issues were a different 

technical concern from out-of-band emission problems that had 

been raised by the GPS community in a prior proceeding. 

A Technical Working Group was formed to examine the overload 

interference issues affecting GPS receivers. NTIA later charged 

PNT ExCom with validating the testing. In February, NTIA concluded that LightSquared’s system would cause unacceptable interference to GPS. Only 1 day later, the FCC moved to revoke its conditional approval of LightSquared’s plan to build a 4G wireless 

broadband network leaving the company and spectrum holdings in 

regulatory limbo. 

That is where we stand today. LightSquared, a company that 

committed billions of dollars and years of time in developing its 

network, has filed for bankruptcy. Its 40 megahertz of spectrum is 

left unused at a time when demand for wireless service and 

broadband is exploding. We have convened this hearing today to 

determine whether this could have been prevented. 

This hearing also raises important implications for spectrum policy going forward. Regulatory uncertainty at the FCC will deter 

new innovative ideas and competition in the mobile space. Moreover, it is not sound spectrum policy to allow 40 megahertz of spectrum to sit fallow, while at the same time seek to relocate broadcasters and Federal users off of spectrum holdings to free up more 

space for wireless use. 

So I look forward to the testimony of our two witnesses today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stearns follows:] 

3 


86420.001
4 


86420.002
5 


86420.003
6 


86420.004
7 


86420.005
8 


86420.006
9 

Mr. STEARNS. And I recognize the ranking member, Ms. DeGette, 

for an opening statement. 

Just a moment. I think we are going to just take 5 on this side 

and 5 on your side. 

So I will go to Dr. Burgess. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the Chairman for yielding. 

I thank the witnesses for being here today. I am grateful we are 

having a hearing. I know my constituents appreciate it. 

So the expansion of the 4G cellular networks to a portion of radio 

spectrum traditionally reserved for mobile satellite communications 

would improve mobile satellite communications and benefit U.S. 

consumers needing more brandwidth for communication. 

But somehow somewhere along the way things went off track. 

The FCC obviously has the obligation to be the caretaker of the 

electromagnetic spectrum. The question is raised, did they do their 

job? A decision to grant LightSquared the conditional waiver order 

on January 26, 2011, does seem to be ill advised. The period for 

public comment before the granting of the conditional waiver order 

was brief, and whether it was intentional or unintentional, it was 

placed in the middle of the holiday season the year before. Requests for an extension of the period for comment were not honored 

and a decision was made in haste over the objections of the United 

States Air Force and the GPS industry itself. 

Benjamin Franklin said, haste makes waste. In the operating 

room, we have a saying, go slowly, I am in a hurry. This time it 

seems that haste was in fact the enemy of good decision making. 

The FCC attempted to address the concerns in the formation of a 

government and industry working group, but the solutions have 

not proved up to the task. I hope today’s testimony will shed light 

on these events. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the recognition. I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. I now recognize the ranking member, Ms. DeGette. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I really want to thank you for having this hearing today on 

LightSquared and expanding access to broadband, which we all 

agree is a key driver of economic growth for our Nation. 

This administration has taken unprecedented steps to accelerate 

deployment of wired and wireless broadband networks, and the 

FCC has been a key partner in that effort. 

Mr. Chairman, as you said, the policy issues today are important, 

and LightSquared and the GPS dispute deserve our scrutiny. Several other House committees have already looked at this issue over 

the last 2 years, and so, as the committee with primary jurisdiction, I wish we had looked at it sooner, but I am glad we are going 

to hear from the FCC witnesses today. These are experts who are 

widely respected for their knowledge and expertise, and I know we 

can learn a lot from them. 

10 

Mr. Chairman, in a lot of ways, the FCC was put in a no-win 

position. This was a difficult decision for them, and no matter what 

the agency did, someone was going to end up being very unhappy. 

And I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t have the technical expertise and detailed knowledge to be in a position to second 

guess the FCC’s decisions in this, but I do think we can look carefully at the FCC’s decision-making process. 

And I think the committee’s investigation has revealed a regulatory review process working as it should. LightSquared was licensed to use spectrum to provide communication service. Over the 

years, LightSquared sought approval from the FCC to move ahead 

with its plans, and at every step of the way, the FCC solicited and 

received public comment on the committee’s proposals. 

Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, LightSquared 

received approvals from the FCC to create and modify its business 

plans to build a network. 

During the approval process, public safety concerns with GPS receivers were brought to the FCC’s attention. The FCC warned 

LightSquared of these concerns and only gave a conditional approval to the company to move ahead. Then they set up a process 

to let technical experts determine if these concerns were meritorious. The FCC made the decision to retract LightSquared’s waiver only after the experts found that ‘‘there is no practical way to 

mitigate the potential interference.’’ The FCC took the responsible 

steps that one would expect in order to address this problem. 

FCC clearly told LightSquared that it would have to solve interference problems before it was allowed to move forward with its 

plan. FCC set up a technical working group to explore problems 

and made sure that all stakeholders were represented. When experts concluded that there were continued risks from deployment 

of the LightSquared network, the FCC took preventative action to 

ensure public safety. 

As of today, LightSquared has offered alternatives to move 

ahead, and I hope they work, by the way. And the FCC remains 

open to exploring viable solutions. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, it is not Congress’ role to make these kinds 

of detailed technical decisions. I don’t have the expertise to do so, 

and nobody else on the committee does. That is why Congress gave 

the authority to the FCC in the first place. 

I would be concerned, of course, if the FCC made a politicallymotivated decision or was swayed by political process, but I don’t 

think anybody here thinks that that was the case in this situation. 

Instead, we have the FCC weighing the pros and cons and making 

a very difficult decision based on the advice of the technical experts. 

I appreciate our witnesses being here, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to take just one minute of personal privilege. This 

might be the last hearing that we have in this Congress in the 

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, and I just want to say 

on a personal note how much I have enjoyed serving as ranking 

member with you, Mr. Chairman. We haven’t always had calm and 

sedate hearings in this subcommittee, but we have always had respectful discourse, and we have always had debates and investigations that have attempted to shed the light on things. 

11 

And I have said, probably you have heard me say every single 

hearing we have had, I have been on this subcommittee for 16 

years, and I have enjoyed serving with all of my chairmen. This 

chairman is no exception. I know I can speak for the entire side 

of my aisle in wishing you God speed and all success in whatever 

you decide to do in the future, Mr. Chairman. 

And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette follows:] 

12 


86420.007
13 


86420.008
14 


86420.009
15 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, I thank my colleague. And she and I both 

know how much we have enjoyed our friendship here. And it is beyond just the hearing. And we have talked to each other on the 

floor many times, and we were friends even before I was chairman 

of this committee. 

So I appreciate your salute and felicitations, and I appreciate our 

friendship after I am gone, too. 

With that, let’s recognize the two witnesses here. We have Ms. 

De La Torre, who serves as Chief of the International Bureau at 

the Federal Communications Commission. She previously served as 

Deputy Chief of the Telecommunication Division of the International Bureau. She was president of Telecommunication Management Company in Washington, DC. And she has a B.A. from Vanderbilt and a doctor’s from the University of Texas. 

We have Mr. Julius Knapp. He is Chief of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology. He became Chief in 2006, having previously served as Deputy Chief since 2002. He has a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the City College of New York. 

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

COMMISSION, AND MINDEL DE LA TORRE, CHIEF, INTERNATIONAL BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Mr. STEARNS. At this point, let me swear each of you in here. As 

you know, the testimony you are about to give is subject to Title 

18, Section 1001, of the United States Code. While holding a hearing—when holding an investigative hearing, this committee has the 

practice of taking testimony under oath. 

Do you have any objection to testifying under oath? 

The Chair then advises you that, under the Rules of the House 

and the rules of the committee, you are entitled to be advised by 

counsel. 

Do you desire to be advised by counsel at this time? 

In that case, would you please rise and raise your right hand, 

and I will swear you in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. STEARNS. We now welcome your opening 5-minute testimony. 

Start with you, Ms. De La Torre. OK. Mr. Knapp, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF JULIUS P. KNAPP 

Mr. KNAPP. Good morning Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member 

DeGette and members of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. My name is Julius Knapp and I am the Chief of the 

Federal Communications Commission’s Office of Engineering and 

Technology where I have served for 38 years. OET is the commission’s primary—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Would you just pull the mic a little closer? 

Mr. KNAPP. OET is the commission’s primary resource for engineering expertise and provides technical support to the chairman, 

commissioners and the FCC’s bureaus and offices. I appreciate this 

opportunity to join my colleague, Mindel De La Torre, chief of the 

International Bureau in appearing before you today. My portion of 

the testimony will focus on the FCC’s role in evaluating and atVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:38 Feb 07, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-18~1\112-18~1 WAYNE
16 

tempting to resolve spectrum interference issues in connection with 

the mobile satellite service in the L-band. 

Ms. De La Torre will address the process in historical context relating to granting Ancillary Terrestrial Component, or ATC, authority to mobile satellite or MSS providers. At the commission, we 

are focused on ensuring that businesses and consumers are able to 

take full advantage of the economic opportunity presented by underutilized spectrum but only when consistent with public health 

and safety. In its decade-long proceeding to remove regulatory barriers and align the service rules for the L-band with the rapid evolution of mobile communications technologies and markets, the 

commission considered a unique proposal that had the prospect of 

attracting new investment, increasing competition, bringing additional broadband service to rural and hard-to-reach regions and 

creating thousands of jobs. 

This proposal was the direct result of proceedings designed to ensure that MSS spectrum would be utilized to its full potential. As 

with any proceeding before the commission that has a potential for 

spectrum interference with nearby spectrum users, the FCC relies 

on licensees and stakeholders to raise any relevant interference 

concerns. During the decade preceding the LightSquared November 

2010 waiver request, the GPS industry had numerous opportunities to inform the commission of the receiver overload issue. Despite participating extensively throughout these proceedings and 

raising other interference issues that were ultimately resolved, it 

did not do so. 

The FCC would have investigated any potential interference 

issues as soon as they were raised and attempted to resolve them. 

Nevertheless, once GPS receiver manufacturers and service providers ultimately informed the commission of the potential for interference to legacy devices, the commission halted the licensees’ 

proposed commercial service. 

To be clear, in November 2010, the GPS industry was not complaining about signals from LightSquared signals falling into the 

GPS band; they were instead notifying us that GPS receivers would 

pick up signals far into the neighboring band. In responding to 

those GPS concerns, the commission acted responsibly under its 70- 

year memorandum of understanding with the Department of Commerce to protect national security and public safety, while simultaneously attempting to find a solution to the GPS receiver overload 

issue. The commission’s goals and proceedings such as these are to 

foster cooperative engineering solutions to what sometimes seemed 

to be impossible problems. We worked equally with all of the interested entities, including NTIA, the Department of Defense, other 

Federal agencies and the GPS Industry Council to assess 

LightSquared’s proposal and to encourage the parties to work together to resolve this matter. This process has been fact-based, 

transparent and in accordance with the commission’s established 

policies and procedures. 

Now, as I have mentioned in this instance the interference is 

caused by GPS receivers picking up signals outside of the GPS 

band. The commission relies on receiver manufacturers and service 

providers to report potential interference issues because they are in 

the best position to understand the parameters and limitations of 

17 

their own equipment. The commission does not possess the technical specifications for the hundreds of different types of GPS devices utilized by commercial users, government contractors and 

government entities. 

Moreover, since the FCC does not regulate GPS devices we are 

not prepared to test such devices or determine their capabilities 

and interference issues. Manufacturers and service providers have 

the relevant information, and they also have the incentive to notify 

the commission of the potential for receiver overload, so as to avoid 

problems with their services and products. The lack of technical 

data provided in response to earlier commission proceedings prevented us from addressing that issue until well after permission 

had been granted in 2003 for MSS providers to use the L-band for 

terrestrial service. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you and 

I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you. 

Ms. De La Torre. 

STATEMENT OF MINDEL DE LA TORRE 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Good morning, Chairman Stearns and Ranking Member DeGette and members of the Oversight—— 

Mr. STEARNS. You might have to pull the mic just a little closer, 

too, if you don’t mind. 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Good morning. 

My name is Mindel De La Torre, as we have said, and I am Chief 

of the International Bureau at the FCC. I am pleased to have this 

opportunity to follow my esteemed colleague Julius Knapp in providing you the background and context related to the FCC’s process 

in the MSS ATC L-band matter. 

I have been Chief of the International Bureau since October 

2009, where I oversee the Bureau’s functions with regard to licensing of international and domestic satellites, international long distance, international broadcast stations and submarine cables, as 

well as the FCC’s participation in bilateral and multilateral efforts. 

I previously worked at both the NTIA and the FCC, and I appreciate the two distinct roles that these agencies play in ensuring 

adequate spectrum for America’s consumers and governmental entities. As my colleague mentioned, the commission is focused on 

lifting regulatory barriers and ensuring economic growth. 

The MSS ATC L-band proposal, filed with the International Bureau in March 2009, represented such an opportunity. However, 

when we were informed that there was a potential for receiver 

overload interference from the GPS community, we took action to 

ensure that these essential U.S. services, government services as 

well as commercial activities, would not be disrupted. The detailed 

summary in my written statement and the attached appendix outline the commission’s 10-year history in the MSS proceeding. 

The commission has consistently, across the tenures of three 

chairmen, worked to promote terrestrial use of MSS spectrum. This 

history further shows that the commission acted in accordance with 

established procedures and allowed multiple opportunities for public participation. Also, the commission staff exercised delegated authority only where consistent with commission rules and provided 

18 

at least 48 hours advanced notice to individual commissioners to 

inquire about these decisions. 

The proceedings relevant to this hearing began in 2001, when 

LightSquared’s predecessor in interest, Mobile Satellite Ventures, 

MSV, along with ICO Global, petitioned the commission to allow 

for the addition of an ancillary terrestrial component, ATC, to integrate terrestrial services with their mobile satellite services. These 

parties argued to the public that the public would benefit from the 

terrestrial component because it would enhance coverage in areas 

where reliable satellite service was challenging. In 2003, the commission approved rules to permit MSS licensees to operate up to 

1,725 base stations, and in 2005, this limitation was lifted to provide mobile service to areas where satellite signals are degraded or 

blocked, specifically urban areas and inside of buildings. 

The U.S. GPS Industry Council filed the petition for reconsideration of the out-of-band emission rules noting, that the rules failed 

to adopt emission limits specified in the 2002 agreement. USGIC 

noted that the limits were necessary to protect against potential 

deployment of tens of thousands of cell towers and millions of mobile devices. The receiver overload issue, however, was not raised 

in this proceeding. 

Over the course of the next 8 years, the commission engaged in 

several actions designed to foster MSS ATC deployment. The 

record shows that the GPS industry consistently failed through 

several proceedings to specifically notify the FCC of receiver overload problems or concerns until briefly referencing the issue in 

comments related to the July 2010 MSS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry and then again in response to the 

November 2010 waiver request. 

In the interim, the commission provided MSS ATC authority, set 

power limits and other operating parameters, as well as acted on 

the transfer applications ultimately leading to LightSquared’s status as a licensee. On January 26, 2011, the International Bureau 

responded to the concerns raised by the GPS industry and other 

parties by preventing LightSquared from deploying commercial 

service in the L-band until it resolved concerns about harmful interference. The Bureau did so through a conditional waiver order 

that also directed LightSquared to organize and participate in a 

GPS Interference Technical Working Group, in which all interested 

parties worked directly with LightSquared to resolve the interference concerns. The Technical Working Group included more 

than 120 participants, including representatives from the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies, as well as the GPS 

community and various telecommunications companies and, of 

course, LightSquared itself. 

On June 30, 2011, LightSquared filed a final report of the Technical Working Group with the commission. And based on these results, LightSquared recognized that in its proposed use of part of 

its spectrum, what we call the upper 10 megahertz band, would result in GPS receiver overload. LightSquared offered an alternative 

proposal to operate only in the lower 10 megahertz band and to coordinate and share the cost of underwriting a workable solution for 

GPS legacy precision measurement devices that were at risk of 

overload. 

19 

The FCC released a Technical Working Group’s report as well as 

LightSquared’s alternative proposal for public comment in June 

2011 and subsequently required further testing. On February 14, 

2012, the commission received a letter—— 

Mr. STEARNS. If you could just sum up. 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. OK. And so the commission staff is currently 

reviewing the extensive record developed in response to the public 

notice. Currently, LightSquared still cannot deploy its service commercially because of the unresolved receiver overload interference 

issue. And this concludes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knapp and Ms. De La Torre follows:] 

20 


86420.010
21 


86420.011
22 


86420.012
23 


86420.013
24 


86420.014
25 


86420.015
26 


86420.016
27 


86420.017
28 


86420.018
29 


86420.019
30 


86420.020
31 


86420.021
32 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you. 

And I will start with my questions. 

And Ms. De La Torre, I am going to ask you a question. If possible, you could just answer yes or no. In an August 4, 2011, email, 

marked as Exhibit 1 in your binder, you made an analogy that a 

LightSquared GPS situation determining interference, the interference dispute on the highway, where LightSquared is operating— 

and this is what you indicated—is operating in the left lane and 

GPS is operating in the middle lane; you state that GPS ‘‘has been 

driving in the left lane with impunity, but now that it looks like 

the left lane might actually have traffic in it, the GPS community 

is yelling bloody murder.’’ Is that true? Is that what you wrote? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. I did write that. 

Mr. STEARNS. Each operator has responsibility to stay in its lane, 

using your analogy. Is that correct? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. And when one operator veers into the adjacent 

lane, is it the responsibility of that operator to correct its course, 

or is it the role of the FCC to patrol the highway, briefly? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Really what was happening here was that—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Isn’t the responsibility of the operator to correct its 

course, yes or no? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. That is a difficult question. That is the question that is before us. 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes or no. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Can’t you let her answer it? 

Mr. STEARNS. No. I am asking for a yes or no. Do the best of your 

ability? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Well, I think that they do have a duty to respond. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. I am going to take that as a yes. 

Does GPS companies have a duty to design receivers that filter 

out signals in adjacent bands, yes or no? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. I will let Mr. Knapp, who is the engineer, answer that question. 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, you can answer, too. Based upon your email, 

I would say your answer would be yes; they have a duty to design 

receivers that filter out signals in adjacent bands, is that correct? 

Say yes. 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. 

Mr. Knapp, I am ready for you now. You state in your testimony, 

some GPS legacy equipment effectively treats the GPS spectrum 

and the L-band spectrum as one band, is that true? 

Mr. KNAPP. That is true. 

Mr. STEARNS. Since the problem appears to be GPS devices and 

not LightSquared’s emission, what does this mean for the future of 

the L-band? 

Mr. KNAPP. So the difficult issue we have is all of the millions 

of legacy devices that are out there relied on for things like public 

safety and so forth, and there is no easy way to fix many of them. 

So we absolutely do need to be thinking about what we do going 

forward, and we are doing just that. 

33 

Mr. STEARNS. If GPS does not make changes to its wide frontend receiver devices, do you envision a scenario where anyone can 

operate in the L-band in the future? 

Mr. KNAPP. I think what we are trying to do—— 

Mr. STEARNS. If they do nothing is the L-band available? 

Mr. KNAPP. Well, for the high power equipment that has been 

proposed, the issue of the upper 10 is problematic; the lower 10, 

I think, is still subject to our open proceeding. 

Mr. STEARNS. But wouldn’t you say, based upon what I just said, 

that this L-band is going to be in jeopardy if there is not some type 

of effort by GPS to make changes to its front-end receiver? Isn’t 

that true? 

Mr. KNAPP. What we need to do—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes or no. 

Mr. KNAPP. It would be yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK, yes. 

Ms. De La Torre, one day after receiving LightSquared’s updated 

business plan and request for a waiver of the integrated services 

rule on November 18, 2010, the FCC placed the request on public 

notice providing a 10-day period for initial comments. How many 

days does the FCC normally provide for comments after issuing a 

public notice for an ATC modification request? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Anywhere from 7 to 21 days. 

Mr. STEARNS. Was the expedited comment period relating to the 

FCC’s March 2010 order requiring that LightSquared follow an aggressive build-out schedule for its network? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Well, they had—the proceeding, as I mentioned, has been going on since 2001, so there was a lot of documents in the record, so we put it out for public notice. 

Mr. STEARNS. Did anyone request an extension of the comment 

period, and if so, who and was the request granted? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Yes, there was a request for extension, and 

we did grant that extension. We granted the extension for 3 days. 

Mr. STEARNS. Did the parties requesting an extension have a 

chance to actually file their comments in the proceedings? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Yes, they did. 

Mr. STEARNS. There are many concerns I have with the process, 

but the greatest concern that I have is that your agency, acting 

only on one day after the NTIA sent their comments to the FCC, 

rushed through a public notice that would put LightSquared in regulatory limbo with no alternative in sight. Can you explain to me 

why the FCC did not first look to alternatives, short of proposing 

to suspend the company’s licenses? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. What we wanted to do is we wanted to get 

public comment as much as we possibly could on this important report that we had gotten from NTIA and the letter from NTIA. We 

wanted to get as much comment as we possibly could, so we put 

it out as soon as we could. 

Mr. STEARNS. But acting only one day after NTIA sent their commitment to the FCC, it seems like you rushed it. 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. I don’t know that we rushed it, but we were 

definitely—we wanted to get as much information as we possibly 

could. 

34 

Mr. STEARNS. I am anxious for the FCC to reach a conclusion on 

this matter and continue to hope a solution can be found. When do 

you plan to wrap up your review of your February public notice? 

Mr. KNAPP. So we don’t have a specific target. It is a complex 

issue and LightSquared has put some new ideas on the table, and 

we think everything is worth considering at this point. 

Mr. STEARNS. All right. My time is expired. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. De La Torre, I just want to clarify your answers to the previous questions. This memo, this August 4, 2011, memo, Exhibit 1, 

that the chairman was referring to, I think it would be fair to say 

that what happened here was that the spectrum was allocated in 

a certain way, so that the GPS had a certain portion of the spectrum, correct? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Yes, that is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And LightSquared had been approved conditionally for portions of the spectrum that were adjacent to the GPS 

portions, correct? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Yes. Dating back to 2004. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes. And after the conditional approval, the GPS 

community came forward belatedly and told the FCC that they 

were concerned because they were actually going into portions of 

the spectrum that LightSquared had been conditionally approved 

to use, is that correct? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. There had been an order that had been—the 

transfer of control order from SkyTerra to Harbingerhad been 

issued the year before in March 2010. And with that order, there 

was another accompanying order that modified the license. And so 

that had happened earlier in the year. 

Ms. DEGETTE. But you were frustrated when you wrote this 

memo because the GPS folks were supposed to stay, as you said, 

in their lane, but they consistently went over into the other lanes 

that had been conditionally authorized for others, right? Yes or no 

would work with this one. 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. 

But you also recognized in this memo, and the part that the 

chairman didn’t refer to, that the problem here is that GPS—and 

I want to ask you about this, too, Mr. Knapp, because there had 

been some glancing references to it—but this GPS wave length is 

very important, security wise, is that right? 

Mr. KNAPP. Absolutely. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So, Mr. Knapp, in your testimony, you said that 

there are concerns about national security and safety with GPS, is 

that right? 

Mr. KNAPP. Of course. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And Ms. De La Torre, at the end of your memo, 

you say, ‘‘this is a very complicated issue and tough choices will 

need to be made and may in fact change the established rules of 

the road, but how many times do we have to reiterate we will not 

endanger one person on an airplane, one soldier, one voter or one 

driver who relies on your GPS service.’’ Is that what you said in 

the memo? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Yes, I did. 

35 

Ms. DEGETTE. And that is because, even though it is irritating 

that maybe GPS is not staying in their lane, if you literally hold 

them to that and there is some problem with this GPS, then it 

could affect national security communications or transportation, 

like airplane communications, is that correct? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Knapp. 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. So I can see why you would be frustrated, because poor LightSquared, you know, they got this conditional approval, and through no fault of their own, the GPS is going over 

into their lane. And I think that is why your review process is still 

open, because you are still trying to find a solution to it; is that 

correct Ms. De La Torre? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Yes, absolutely. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And so here is my question: I know that 

LightSquared has come forward with some other proposals to use 

different parts of the spectrum and so on. Are you considering 

those other proposals right now? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Yes. As Mr. Knapp said, yes, we are currently 

considering them. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Knapp. 

Mr. KNAPP. If I may, I should add that several of those proposals 

include spectrum that is used by the Federal Government, so the 

Federal side, NTIA, would have the lead in determining whether 

those are viable. 

Ms. DEGETTE. In order to make that determination, do you need 

congressional action? 

Mr. KNAPP. No. At this juncture, I can’t project whether that 

would be necessary or not, but certainly we would come back if 

that seemed to make sense. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. So it is not like, and either one of you can 

answer this, it is not really like the FCC is trying to arbitrarily 

sabotage this investment that LightSquared has made, which is 

substantial, correct? 

Mr. KNAPP. Absolutely not. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And in fact, you are still trying to find a solution, 

is that right? 

Mr. KNAPP. That is right. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. I don’t have any more questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. You have got one second left. Do you want to ask 

him, is there a solution? 

Ms. DEGETTE. You can ask him. 

Mr. STEARNS. I will take your one second. Is there a solution? 

Mr. KNAPP. There are ideas worth considering. 

Mr. STEARNS. So the answer to the question is, yes, there is a 

solution. 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Thank you. 

With that, I recognize Dr. Burgess for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Now, Mr. Knapp, you said ‘‘worth considering’’ twice, so it is intriguing. This is an enormously complex issue made even more 

36 

complex. By now I have got mental images of double wides and 

winding mountain roads. But I think that is really what the committee is asking is about a solution and a solution where both parties can actually come away with something, neither party is 

harmed to the extent that they can be kept from harm, and we 

don’t tread upon the rights of other people who have reasonable 

uses for spectrum that already exists; is that a fair statement? 

Mr. KNAPP. That is a fair statement. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, then, in the things that you have—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Dr. Burgess, can you just pull your mic up a little 

bit, just so it is easy to hear you. We are waiting on every word 

you say, so we have got to hear it. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, in that context of having things that are 

worth considering, surely you have some solutions that you have 

been pushing back and forth between yourselves at the FCC. Is 

there any of those that you are willing to share with the committee 

this morning? 

Mr. KNAPP. Not specifically. I will say that it is not only this immediate issue, but we also think long term about the implications 

for use of the spectrum because of the spectrum crunch and the importance of getting every ounce of benefit out of all of the spectrum 

that we possibly can. 

Mr. BURGESS. And we certainly bump up against this from time 

to time in this committee because of the fact that the spectrum is 

a valuable asset owned by the People of the United States. The 

government is in a cash crunch, so sometimes, we actually go to 

spectrum as a solution. 

Let me just ask a couple process questions of both of you, and 

I referenced this in my opening statement, the comment period before the issuance of the conditional waiver. It does seem to be condensed, especially when you are dealing with an issue of this complexity. Is that a fair observation for me to make? And bear in 

mind I am just a simply country doctor; I am not an engineer. So 

it seems like you drop it before Thanksgiving or between Thanksgiving and Christmas. It looks like Harry Reid’s health care bill to 

me. That is not a time where a lot of people are paying attention. 

Mr. KNAPP. If you view this in the broader context of the long 

history of the proceeding, we had a commission rulemaking proceeding that set out the policies that were to apply here. What the 

staff was doing was just implementing those policies. There already 

was provisions for a substantial terrestrial network. And if you 

look at what action was actually taken, we took the very tough step 

of saying that the system could not be operated commercially until 

this issue was resolved. And we put in place a process to understand the scope of the problem and try to find a way to get solutions to it. So although the specific timeframe of the action may 

have appeared in isolation as short, what we were doing was moving as quickly as we could through the process to find an answer. 

Mr. BURGESS. And yet some of the principals involved, the GPS 

industry, the Air Force, did seem to feel that there was inadequate 

time, did they not? Did they not express that to you? 

Mr. KNAPP. So what we did in the action, they had asked that 

we needed time for further tests, so the process we put in place did 

just that. And we made sure that those parties were all engaged, 

37 

and they were engaged heavily in the process of conducting the 

tests and examining solutions. 

Mr. BURGESS. But then there was an extension granted, is that 

correct? 

Mr. KNAPP. There was an extension of time for the comments. 

Mr. BURGESS. For the comments. 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes, absolutely. And it was all considered, and it resulted in the action that the agency took. 

Mr. BURGESS. And refresh my memory, how long was the extension of the comment period? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. It was 3 days. 

Mr. BURGESS. Again, I am just a simple outside observer. For an 

issue of this complexity, did the parties who complained about the 

length of the comment period, were they mollified by a 3-day extension. 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Well, they did in fact file comments in the 

proceeding, and they came in and they had various meetings with 

us during that time. So there was plenty of time for them to meet 

and to give us their views on the proceeding. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, just as an outside observer across the street, 

3 days doesn’t seem like a lot of time for an issue of this complexity. I appreciate the fact it had been worked on for a long time 

and a lot of people had much more working knowledge on this than 

I do, but it does seem condensed. What did they relate to you when 

you said, OK, you got 3 more days? Did they say, this is great, that 

is all we needed? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Well, what I recall is that they in fact did file 

within that period. And then they had plenty of time to come in 

before the waiver order was issued in January. So they had many 

weeks to come in. They took advantage of that time. We heard 

their concerns. In fact, as Mr. Knapp said, the action that we took, 

took direct consideration of what they had raised with us. And we 

basically stopped LightSquared from going forward with commercial deployment of its system until the interference concerns were 

resolved. Now, we did not resolve those. 

Mr. BURGESS. Can I stop you here for a second? I know my time 

is up. But it seems like the interference questions haven’t been resolved even at this stage. Am I understanding that correctly? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. You are. And that is one reason why getting 

the process started as soon as possible was really important. We 

wanted to get that started and get all the parties together. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the indulgence. 

Mr. STEARNS. And the gentlelady from—oh, Mr. Bilbray was 

here. 

I think Mr. Bilbray is next for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, let me first clarify; I have got a personal stake 

in this. Any one of us that go off into the ocean with our families 

offshore know how important the GPS is, not just for aircraft, not 

just for finding our way around streets, but basically getting home 

and making sure you don’t run into some rocks. 

On the flip side, if I may say to the ranking member, just as 

much as the GPS is essential, there are thousands of people offVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:38 Feb 07, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-18~1\112-18~1 WAYNE
38 

shore every day that would have a huge safety factor if they could 

pull up their iPhone and from 200 miles offshore to be able to call 

for emergency services. So this has a safety issue going from both 

ways. 

But I think this is a much bigger issue than just GPS or a new 

access into the LightSquared. And if I could say to the ranking 

member, we need to recognize that this is setting the message 

across the country and around the world of exactly how the Federal 

Government is going to handle the situation. And if we do not 

straighten this out, the alternative is for us to have an intransigent 

locked-in system that says, nope, we won’t allow anyone to move 

outside any arbitrary lines we make because once you cross those 

lines, we know we can’t get you back. And I will give you an example, an analogy: This is like somebody using a passing lane or going 

into the other lane to pass. We do that all over this country. But 

once you start allowing people to claim a right for using a right of 

way that was not set aside for them, the only alternative is to 

eventually for the government to put up regulatory jersey walls to 

where that option is no longer available in the future. Even though 

no one is using that lane 99 percent of the time because we won’t 

enforce it when somebody wants to use the lane, we have got to 

block it off, and that asset is not going to be used with flexibility. 

We are going to become intransigent at bureaucratic lines. So I 

think that we have got to recognize this issue was very strongly 

setting an example to the next group that bids on something, are 

we going to apply it and be flexible and thus when the time comes, 

are we going to implement it, or are we going to create the barriers. Isn’t this a situation of squatting and squatters’ rights, and 

how do we tell anybody when they do bids, that there is not going 

to be a squatter sitting on their spectrum if we don’t straighten 

this thing out and make it clear to everybody that the Federal Government will make you whole and will not allow squatting to supersede the due process that we set aside? How do we avoid that? 

Mr. KNAPP. Well, first of all, as we conduct our processes, they 

are open, and it is incumbent on all the parties to participate in 

that. This situation has been, in my 38 years at the FCC, an anomaly. Almost invariably, the parties come in and explain—— 

Mr. BILBRAY. OK. When the parties explain this—let me interrupt one second. When they talk about interference, are you saying, wait a minute, is there interference, or is there—does the—is 

it harmful interference? There is one thing to have static with GPS. 

There is something else to be blocking the GPS. Isn’t it true that 

the, quote-unquote, interference may not be harmful interference 

that would block the item. It may give some difficulty but still 

won’t be able to block the service; the service still gets through 

with GPS. Isn’t that true? 

Mr. KNAPP. This is one of the issues that has been raised, and 

it is one of the core issues that the commission routinely has to address in deciding whether interference is harmful or not. We also 

have to take into account, when we are dealing with public safety 

services or defense, a much higher threshold for ensuring against 

problems. 

Mr. BILBRAY. OK. There is the problem. We are now creating the 

issue of that we will go so far because we think it is a public safety 

39 

issue, and once you name that, if somebody that has run police departments and sheriff departments, the question is, does that become now the excuse to use that lane all the time, even without 

a red light running, even though it is not a code three, because we 

are public safety, we get to drive in the left lane all the time, without having to show that there was reasonable application here? 

And that is what I am concerned about. And let me tell you something, as someone has run police departments, that happens all the 

time, you know. But we don’t sit there and continue to allow it just 

because somebody claims it. They need to prove it. And that is that 

harmful interference. When will you get that clarified, and what is 

your obligation to make sure that we make this whole so this Congress and future Congresses don’t have to start building jersey 

walls and blocking off all kinds of great flexible opportunities because we have seen what happened with LightSquared, so we are 

not going to allow any flexibility in the future? How do we maintain that flexibility? 

Mr. KNAPP. So this issue I think has given greater focus to receivers and the issue of staying in your lane. And we conducted a 

workshop at the commission on addressing receiver standards 

going forward. Just this past March, we have tasked our Technological Advisory Committee, which includes experts across industry, to make recommendations on how we can deal with these 

kinds of issues in the future as we are making spectrum allocation, 

so we are working on it. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, what he just told me is, now, they are going to 

be harder and put up a jersey—basically block it off, that flexibility 

to avoid this problem. That is exactly what I want to avoid, and 

that is why we should be working to straighten this out so they 

don’t have to start putting up those jersey walls, and we maintain 

our flexibility. I think both sides want that. 

I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman for his insight. 

And the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

And Mr. Chairman, I do want to take a moment and just thank 

you for your leadership. You are going to be missed. We are all 

going to miss you and appreciate the leadership and guidance you 

have given this committee on so many issues. 

To our witnesses, we are going to have votes called in just a few 

minutes, and I want everyone to have the opportunity to get 

through their questions. I want to talk with you specifically about 

your February 10th memo, or it is an email from February 10th, 

and the March 26, 2010, order dealing with preventing SkyTerra 

from making its ATC spectrum available to AT&T and Verizon. 

So let’s start, Ms. De La Torre, with you with that February 10th 

email from Joel Rabinovitz. You are on that email, correct? You are 

a recipient of that? It is Exhibit 9 in your binder. 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Yes, I was aware of that. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Would you please speak into the microphone? 

40 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Yes, I am on that email, but I wasn’t participating in the email as far as sending, responding to it. I am on it, 

though. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. But you read in there that, and I am 

quoting from the email, the condition is that Harbinger not sell to 

Verizon and AT&T. So is this email consistent with your thoughts 

regarding the purposes of the conditions? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

In fact, where we ended up was not where the email started actually. We ended up—there was a loophole in the FCC’s sort of 

framework for secondary markets of spectrum. And terrestrial systems at the time could use secondary markets, and they could lease 

their spectrum, but MSS operators could not. And so one of the 

reasons that we had wanted to put this condition in on AT&T and 

Verizon, it didn’t prohibit them from actually gaining access to that 

spectrum, but it said that the FCC needed to be notified of that. 

And I think that that just basically filled in a gap in our rules that 

we then actually changed the rules later in the following year, in 

April 2011, to apply it to the mobile satellite service as well. So 

AT&T and Verizon, just to be clear, were not prevented from actually accessing that spectrum; they just had to give notification of 

that. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Well, let me ask you this then. Do you 

think it should be common practice for the FCC to impose conditions like this when it really—so that it affects the rights of nonparties to a proceeding? Should that be common practice of the 

FCC? Should they move forward in that vein? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. I have been at the commission for 3 years, 

and during that time, in most of the transactions that we have 

worked on, we have conditions that are applied. And they are specific to the particular transaction, and I think that is what we did 

here as well. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Let’s talk about Globalstar for a second. 

I have got a couple of questions I wanted to ask about that. On 

June 30, 2010, the FCC granted Globalstar an extension of its 

deadline to come into compliance with the ATC gating criteria until 

August 2nd of 2010. Despite the fact that the FCC granted Global 

Star’s 30-day extension the RUS suspended Open Range’s future 

loan advances on July 14, 2010, and threatened to suspend its remaining funds unless it found an alternative spectrum partner. So, 

during this period, were there any conversations between the FCC 

and RUS or the FCC and the White House discussing the possibility that LightSquared could serve as an alternative spectrum 

partner to Open Range? 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

I was not a party to any of those conversations. If they were 

held, I was not a party to them. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Were you aware that there were any? 

Mr. Knapp, do you want to respond to that? 

Mr. KNAPP. I just wanted to add that neither was I. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. You were not a party to them or you were 

not aware that they were taking place? 

Mr. KNAPP. I was not aware that they were taking place. 

Ms. DE LA TORRE. Either one. 

41 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

My time is expired. I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. 

And the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me echo the comments of my colleagues on how much I, particularly as a freshman, have appreciated your leadership, and I 

have learned a great deal from you, and I am kind of hopeful we 

will have some more hearings. But in the event that we don’t, let 

me add my comments to those of my colleagues and how greatly 

I appreciate your leadership. Thank you. 

That being said, if I might ask, how does the FCC define harmful 

interference? And let me do some subparts on that. Is the level of 

harmful interference specific to each GPS device, or is there a particular industry standard that defines whether interference is 

harmful? Is any interference harmful? Who makes the decision at 

what level it is harmful? Is that the FCC or is that the GPS device 

manufacturer or user? And is the design of the receiver relevant to 

the determination of harmful interference? And be happy to repeat 

the subparts if you need me to. But the base question is, how do 

you determine harmful interference, and who makes those decisions? 

Mr. KNAPP. First, I would be more than happy to provide the 

precise language of the definition in the commission’s rules. It is 

consistent with the international definition. It generally, in lay 

terms, is, it is subjective. It talks about repeated disruption of a 

service, particularly in the context of safety and navigation services 

as well. So the definition itself gives deference to the importance 

of protecting safety services. 

In the case of GPS, there are multiple kinds of receivers. So, in 

some instances, there are industry standards. So, for example, for 

the GPS chips that are used in cell phones for 911 location, there 

are industry standards that are in place. As commented, I think in 

the letter that we received forwarding the test results from NTIA, 

there is no accepted standard for general navigation equipment. 

There is a standard for aeronautical, and so I will stop there. So, 

in some cases, there are standards and others not, and the criteria 

for determining what is helpful is not always consistent. Is there 

a question I missed? 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes. How is the filter designed relevant to 

that—— 

Mr. KNAPP. Filter design comes into play usually at the intersection between two adjacent bands. So it is not unusual to have some 

play, some flexibility, between the services right at the borders. 

And normally, those problems are solved between the parties themselves. We have to look at the overall characteristics of the equipment and the service and what it is capable of doing in making decisions like this as to what is harmful or not. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And this is one that has always got to bother you, 

and for centuries, the law has tried to figure out on different items 

how to make this work. But the FCC has relied on the fact that 

no party raised the overload interference issue until late 2010 to 

account for its late consideration by the FCC. And I have to ask, 

42 

what standards of timeliness does the FCC have? I mean, oftentimes, if you don’t raise an objection in other areas of the law, you 

lose them, and whether it is the statute of limitations or the theory 

of latches, you have a timeliness issue. So what is the FCC’s rule 

on that? 

Mr. KNAPP. So we are governed by the public interest standard. 

And in this case, although it is a very difficult situation, we cannot 

put at risk things like air safety or defense or 911 systems and so 

forth. So we have to be very careful when we evaluate those kinds 

of situations. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at this 

time and yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. I think what we are going 

to do is I am going to have a second round, and the ranking member has a very short question, too, and then we will adjourn the 

committee. 

So my question is to Mr. Knapp. Obviously, a company has lost 

$4 billion, a huge amount of money. The technology they had was 

a game changer. The whole thing has been scuttled. And so what 

we are trying to do now is understand what solutions are available. 

So, Mr. Knapp, the Technical Working Group and the PNT 

ExCom both conducted interference testing on multiple types of 

GPS devices. Is that correct, yes or no? 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. How many different types of GPS receivers did the 

Technical Working Group test, actually test. 

Mr. KNAPP. They tested a pretty significant number of each different type. So for cell phones, for example, and for the personal 

navigation devices, I believe it was well over 75 or so. 

Mr. STEARNS. Seventy-five, OK. How many different types of 

GPS receivers did the PNT ExCom test? 

Mr. KNAPP. As broad categories, I believe there were six or seven 

different categories. 

Mr. STEARNS. In the Technical Working Group testing, what 

types of GPS devices were deemed susceptible to harmful overload 

interference? 

Mr. KNAPP. So the report from NTIA commented that the cell 

phones—well, for any device if they get close enough, you can have 

interference, but the cell phones appeared to be OK. That there 

was concern that 75 percent of the—and I am just reciting what 

the report said—75 percent of what are called the general navigation devices. In the case of aeronautical, the judgment was against 

an industry standard. 

Mr. STEARNS. Were there certain types of GPS receivers that did 

not receive harmful interference from LightSquared’s signal, yes or 

no? 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. What standard was used to determine harmful interference in the Technical Working Group’s testing? 

Mr. KNAPP. So there were different standards for each of the different working groups. In the case of cell phones, they used the 

worldwide standards developed by a group called the 3G PP, which 

is Third Generation Partnership. There were no standards for genVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:38 Feb 07, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-18~1\112-18~1 WAYNE
43 

eral navigation. They used a standard for the aeronautical equipment based on the radio technical. 

Mr. STEARNS. What is the FCC’s responsibility to oversee the 

working group? 

Mr. KNAPP. So, in this case, we did what we often do; we brought 

all of the parties together through this process with the—— 

Mr. STEARNS. So you are a facilitator and not much more? You 

are not an investigator, oversight or an enforcer—— 

Mr. KNAPP. Part of the rationale here is we want to be careful 

not to steer the work of the group, because in the end we may have 

to make a decision and assess its work. 

Mr. STEARNS. I understand. 

Who provided the devices for the Technical Working Group testing? 

Mr. KNAPP. That came from the working group itself, which was 

co-chaired by the GPS industry and LightSquared. 

Mr. STEARNS. In the PNT ExCom testing, what types of receivers 

were deemed susceptible to harmful overload interference? 

Mr. KNAPP. So, just to be clear, there was a first round of testing. 

And in the second round, all that was looked at was cell phones 

and general navigation devices and then a particular class of aeronautical equipment that was used for mapping terrain. 

Mr. STEARNS. I think I have asked this before, but certain types 

of GPS receivers, weren’t some of them—did not receive harmful 

interference from LightSquared? Isn’t it true some of them did not, 

isn’t that true? 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Would you say there are a lot of receivers that did 

not receive it, or was it significant, would you say significant? 

Mr. KNAPP. So it varied across the categories. And one of the categories that was particularly not covered in the second round was 

called high-precision equipment. And that is some of the equipment 

that is designed actually to operate across both bands together. 

Mr. STEARNS. If harmful interference was not observed in a particular category of GPS devices, does that mean a potential solution 

might exist for that category? 

Mr. KNAPP. Well, for the equipment that didn’t experience harmful interference, yes, there is a solution for that category. 

Mr. STEARNS. In your mind’s eye, can this problem be solved? 

Mr. KNAPP. I think the—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Just yes or no. 

Mr. KNAPP. I can’t answer yes or no because just as when we 

went into this, until you work through the problems, you don’t 

know the answer. 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, describe what your solution would be? 

Mr. KNAPP. I can’t describe what my solution would be. I know 

that there are ideas that are on the table that we are considering. 

Mr. STEARNS. And do you endorse any of those ideas? 

Mr. KNAPP. No, we have an open proceeding. It would prejudice 

the outcome for me to endorse one or the other. 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, as an electrical engineer, don’t you think this 

could be solved? 

Mr. KNAPP. As an electrical engineer, we always strive to solve 

the problem, but there is no certainty that you are going to. 

44 

Mr. STEARNS. You got to pass the exam. It is either yes or not. 

All right. Well, as I say, you know, I am just—I think all of us are 

a little frustrated with this huge possible innovation leap here in 

the loss of this company. So, anyway, my time is expired. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to ask 

unanimous consent to put the spectrum chart into the record, 

which I had shared with your staff. 

Mr. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, it will be made part of the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 

45 


86420.022
46 


86420.023
47 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. 

I also understand that you are going to put the exhibit notebook 

into the record, subject to some redactions that will be agreed upon 

by staff. 

Mr. STEARNS. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I would just ask unanimous consent that we put 

Ms. De La Torre’s memo Exhibit 1 in the exhibit book in without 

redaction. 

Mr. STEARNS. Unanimous consent, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much. 

I just want to say I don’t have any questions, you will be happy 

to know. But I just want to say that this entire hearing really highlights the urgency of the work that the Select Working Group that 

Chairman Upton put together and which I was privileged to serve, 

a subcommittee—select subcommittee of this full committee, because as we look more and more at the use of spectrum and as we 

look at increasing demands on our spectrum, we are really going 

to have to figure out how we balance really important legitimate 

commercial needs, like in this situation with LightSquared, with 

GPS and other security needs and so on. And I think that that 

work that the select working group has been doing throughout the 

spring, summer, and fall has real urgency, and I am sure that the 

FCC would agree with that. 

And Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working in the next session 

of Congress on both sides of the aisle to start to figure out what 

we do with some of these issues. Because, unfortunately, I think 

it was Mr. Knapp who said that in his 30-plus years at the agency, 

he hasn’t seen a situation like this. But I think everybody would 

agree if we can’t start to think about what we are doing with our 

spectrum, we are going to see more and more situations and more 

and more demands bumping up against each other. 

I see both of our witnesses nodding their heads yes. 

So thank you for having this hearing, and I look forward to continuing to work with you. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. 

I thank the witnesses for their testimony this morning. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank all the members for staying 

here. I remind members they have 10 business days to submit 

questions for the record. 

And I ask the witnesses to all agree to promptly respond to these 

questions. 

And with that, this is my last hearing as a Member of Congress, 

and I just want to thank the members on both sides for their participation and, more importantly, the staff. The staff has done a 

great job throughout my tenure as chairman of the Oversight Committee, and I appreciate all their hard work. 

[Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

48 


86420.024
49 


86420.025
50 


86420.026
51 


86420.027
52 


86420.028
53 


86420.029
54 


86420.030
55 


86420.031
56 


86420.032
57 


86420.033
58 


86420.034
59 


86420.035
60 


86420.036
61 


86420.037
62 


86420.038
63 


86420.039
64 


86420.040
65 


86420.041
66 


86420.042
67 


86420.043
68 


86420.044
69 


86420.045
70 


86420.046
71 


86420.047
72 


86420.048
73 


86420.049
74 


86420.050
75 


86420.051
76 


86420.052
77 


86420.053
78 


86420.054
79 


86420.055
80 


86420.056
81 


86420.057
82 


86420.058
83 


86420.059
84 


86420.060
85 


86420.061
86 


86420.062
87 


86420.063
88 


86420.064
89 


86420.065
90 


86420.066
91 


86420.067
92 


86420.068
93 


86420.069
94 


86420.070
95 


86420.071
96 


86420.072
97 


86420.073
98 


86420.074
99 


86420.075
100 


86420.076
101 


86420.077
102 


86420.078
103 


86420.079
104 


86420.080
105 


86420.081
106 


86420.082
107 


86420.083
108 


86420.084
109 


86420.085
110 


86420.086
111 


86420.087
112 


86420.088
113 


86420.089
114 


86420.090
115 


86420.091
116 


86420.092
117 


86420.093
118 


86420.094
119 


86420.095
120 


86420.096
121 


86420.097
122 


86420.098
123 


86420.099
124 


86420.100
125 


86420.101
126 

Æ 


86420.102