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

85–821 PDF 2014

KEEPING THE NEW BROADBAND SPECTRUM LAW 

ON TRACK 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 12, 2012 

Serial No. 112–184 

( 

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

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 20 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 20 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 21 

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

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 21 

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

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 22 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 138 

WITNESSES

Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission ............ 23 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 139 

Robert M. McDowell, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission .... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 151 

Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission ........... 58 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 158 

Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission ..... 62 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

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

Ajit Pai, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission .......................... 69 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71 

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

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter, dated December 10, 2012, from Broadcom, et al., to Mr. Walden 

and Ms. Eshoo, submitted by Ms. Eshoo ............................................................ 7 

Letter, dated February 13, 2012, from 3-dB Netowrks, Inc., et al., to Senators 

and Representatives, submitted by Ms. Eshoo .................................................. 13 

Letter, dated December 11, 2012, from Ms. Eshoo and Hon. Darrell Issa 

to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 

submitted by Ms. Eshoo ...................................................................................... 17 

Letter, dated December 12, 2012, from Preston Padden, Executive Director, 

Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition, to Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. Walden .......................................................................................... 77 

Letter, dated December 11, 2012, from Grant E. Seiffert, President, Telecommunications Industry Association, to Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. 

Walden .................................................................................................................. 80 

Letter, dated December 11, 2012, from High Tech Spectrum Coalition to 

committee and subcommittee leadership, submitted by Mr. Walden .............. 82 

Slide presentation, submitted by Mr. Walden ....................................................... 85 

Page

IV 

Letter, dated December 11, 2012, from Atlantic Tele-Network, et al., to committee and subcommittee leadership, submitted by Mr. Doyle ........................ 112 

Cisco Blog entry, dated October 20, 2011, by Mary Brown, submitted by 

Mr. Latta ............................................................................................................... 119 

(1) 

KEEPING THE NEW BROADBAND SPECTRUM 

LAW ON TRACK 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walden, Terry, Stearns, 

Shimkus, Rogers, Blackburn, Bilbray, Bass, Gingrey, Scalise, 

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

Barrow, Christensen, Pallone, Rush, Dingell, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Mike Bloomquist, General Counsel; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Matt Bravo, Professional Staff Member; Andy 

Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Neil Fried, Chief Counsel, 

Communications and Technology; Debbee Keller, Press Secretary; 

David Redl, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Charlotte 

Savercool, Executive Assistant; Lyn Walker, Coordinator, Admin/ 

Human Resources; Tom Wilbur, Digital Media Advisor; Roger Sherman, Democratic Chief Counsel; Shawn Chang, Democratic Senior 

Counsel; David Strickland, Democratic FCC Detailee; Margaret 

McCarthy, Democratic Professional Staff Member; and Kara van 

Stralen, Democratic Special Assistant. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. I would like to call to order the Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology for our hearing on ‘‘Keeping the 

New Broadband Spectrum Law on Track.’’ 

I want to thank everyone for being here today. 

And before I begin, I would like to start the hearing off, this subcommittee hearing, recognizing five hardworking members of our 

subcommittee who will be departing the United States Congress, 

including our colleagues Cliff Stearns, Mary Bono Mack, Brian 

Bilbray, Charlie Bass, and Ed Towns. We certainly appreciate the 

service that they have rendered to the people of the United States, 

to this full and our subcommittee, and the work they have done. 

And we appreciate both their service, and we wish them well in the 

next chapter of their lives. 

2 

We will also miss Phil Gingrey’s presence in our subcommittee’s 

hearings. Now, he won’t be going far. 

Phil, we wish you well in your new role as vice chair of the Environment and Economy Subcommittee. 

Meanwhile, we will have some new members joining our full 

committee and subcommittee, including Billy Long, a member of 

the Missouri Professional Auctioneers’ Hall of Fame. So, Commissioners, as you write your rules for these auctions, I humbly volunteer Billy to be your auctioneer. 

Look, we are here today to check on the progress at the Federal 

Communications Commission at following the law and implementing the incentive auction legislation Congress passed last 

year. 

Not only does this new law hold the potential to unleash new 

technology and create hundreds of thousands of American jobs, but 

it also is the source to fund the build-out of the interoperable 

broadband public safety network. That is an important process for 

our police and firefighters. It is important that we get this done. 

It was one of the remaining items of the 9/11 Commission that lingered for session after session after session until our subcommittee 

and our full committee finally got this across the line. 

While I am not about to micromanage how the FCC operates 

your auction, I do expect the FCC will follow the law, including 

maximizing the proceeds from the auction. Not only does our leadership of the wireless world hinge on the agency’s efforts, so, too, 

does the fate of the public safety broadband network. Making this 

a successful auction is a goal I know each and every one of us 

shares. 

The U.S. has long led the world in spectrum auctions, with an 

auction model based on the elegant simplicity of one-course concept. Markets, not the whims of regulators, are best-suited to ensure that spectrum is put to productive and innovative use. I know 

from some of your testimony you have pointed out, I think, especially some of our newer Commissioners, the success the FCC has 

had over the years at doing good auctions. 

However, we have also learned of overly prescriptive auction 

rules can lead to less than successful auction results. The FCC so 

encumbered the D block auction of the lower 700 meg band that 

a 10 megahertz license for the use of prime broadband spectrum 

failed to garner more than a few token bids, and those were well 

below the true value of that very important spectrum. So the FCC 

must avoid overly prescriptive auction rules and, instead, rely on 

market mechanisms that have a proven record of success. 

Remember, the revenue generated, which was used in part to 

help pay for the middle-class tax cut and extension of unemployment benefits, will also be used to help pay for the interoperable 

public safety broadband network under FirstNet and to fund the 

Next Gen 911 service and to invest in public safety research and 

development. A broadcast incentive auction that fails to raise the 

revenue needed for these projects or that unnecessarily gives away 

billions in cleared spectrum will be considered a failure. 

In particular, I would like a commitment that the Commissioners 

will honor the language of the act that requires guard bands to be, 

and I quote, ‘‘no larger than is technically reasonable to prevent 

3 

harmful interference between license services outside the guard 

bands.’’ That is a direct quote out of the statute. 

As we discussed in last month’s receiver performance hearing, 

guard bands, although sometimes necessary to prevent interference 

between neighboring services, are a suboptimal use of spectrum. 

Their size should be minimized. Yet the Commission’s NPRM contemplates two guard bands of at least 6 megahertz and contemplates expanding them to as much as 10 megahertz. I want to 

see the engineering analysis that justifies such fat guard bands. 

Is 6 megahertz the minimum size needed? Could the Commission 

use channel 37 as a guard band between mobile broadband and 

broadcasting to reduce the need for additional dedicated guard 

bands? Could the FCC reduce the need for guard bands by improving receiver performance? These are just a few of the unanswered 

and, in some cases, unasked questions from the Commission’s 

NPRM. 

Finally, let me make it clear, I support the use of unlicensed 

spectrum to foster innovation and provide much-needed offload for 

congested broadband networks. That is why our bill that is now 

law expanded the amount of unlicensed spectrum by identifying an 

additional 195 megahertz in the 5 gig band, frequencies ideal for 

this kind of use. It also codifies the use of white spaces. 

What I cannot support is the unnecessary expansion of unlicensed spectrum in other bands that are actually needed for license 

services, especially at the expense of funding for public safety. 

So let me be clear: Every megahertz of broadcast television spectrum that the FCC doesn’t auction means less revenue to fund prerogatives already determined by this committee and this Congress, 

including prerogatives like FirstNet, Next Gen 911, and wireless 

research and development. 

Thanks for joining us today. I Look forward to hearing your remarks and that of my colleagues. 

Now I would like to recognize my friend from California, Ms. 

Eshoo, for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

4 


85821.001

Opening Statement ofthe Honorable Greg Walden 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Hearing on "Keeping the New Broadband Spectrum Law on Track" 

December 12, 2012 

(As Prepared for Delivery) 

Before I begin, I'd like start the last hearing of this subcommittee of the 112th Congress by recognizing 

five hard-working members of this subcommittee who are departing Congress, Cliff Stearns, Mary Bono 

Mack, Brian Bilbray, Charlie Bass, and Ed Towns. We appreciate your service and wish you well in the 

next chapter of your life. 

We will also miss Phil Gingrey's presence in our subcommittee's hearings, but he won't be going far. Phil, 

we wish you well in your new role as vice-chair of our Environment and the Economy Subcommittee. 

Meanwhile, we will have some new members joining our committee, including Billy Long, a member of the 

Missouri Professional Auctioneer's Hall of Fame. Commissioners-as you write the rules for these 

auctions, I am volunteering Billy to be your auctioneer. 

We are here today to check on the progress at the FCC at following the law and implementing the 

incentive auction legislation Congress passed last year. Not only does this new law hold the potential to 

unleash new technology and create hundreds of thousands of American jobs, it also is the source to fund 

the build out of the interoperable public safety network for our police and firefighters. 

While I'm not about to micro-manage how the FCC operates the auction, I do expect the FCC will follow 

the law, including maximizing the proceeds from the auction. 

Not only does our leadership of the wireless world hinge on the agency's efforts, so too does the fate of 

the public safety broadband network. 

The U.S. has long led the world in spectrum auctions with an auction model based on the elegant 

simplicity of one core concept: markets, not the whims of regulators, are best suited to ensure that 

spectrum is put to productive and innovative use. 

Hopefully, we've learned that overly prescriptive auction rules can lead to less than successful auction 

results. The FCC so encumbered the D block auction of the lower 700 MHz band that a 10 MHz license 

for the use of prime broadband spectrum failed to gamer more than a few token bids, and those were well 

below the true value of the spectrum. The FCC must avoid overly prescriptive auction rules and instead 

rely on market mechanisms that have a proven track record of success. 

Remember, the revenue generated, which was used in part to help pay for the middle class tax cut and 

extension of unemployment benefits, will also be used to help pay for the interoperable public safety 

broadband network under FirstNet, to fund next generation 9-1-1 service and to invest in public safety 

research and development. A broadcast incentive auction that fails to raise the revenue needed for these 

projects, or that unnecessarily gives away billions in cleared spectrum, is a failure. 

In particular, I would like a commitment that the commissioners will honor the language of the Act that 

requires guard bands to be "no larger than is technically reasonable to prevent harmful interference 

between licensed services outside the guard bands." 

As we discussed in last month's receiver performance hearing, guard bands, although sometimes 

necessary to prevent interference between neighboring services, are sub-optimal use of spectrum. Their 

size should be minimized. Yet the Commission's NPRM contemplates two guard bands of at least six 

megahertz and contemplates expanding them to as much as 10 Mhz. I want to see the engineering 

analysis that justifies such fat guard bands. Is six megahertz the minimum size needed? Could the 

Commission use channel 37 as a guard band between mobile broadband and broadcasting to reduce the 
5 


85821.002

need for additional dedicated guard bands? Could the FCC reduce the need for guard bands by 

improving receiver performance? These are just a few of the unanswered-and unasked-questions from 

the Commission's NPRM. 

Finally, let me make it clear, I support the use of unlicensed spectrum to foster innovation and provide 

much needed offload for congested mobile broadband networks. That's why our bill expands the amount 

of unlicensed spectrum by identifying an additional 195 MHz in the 5 GHz band, frequencies ideal for this 

kind of use. It also codifies the use of white spaces. What I cannot support is the unnecessary expansion 

of unlicensed spectrum in other bands needed for licensed services, especially at the expense of funding 

for public safety. 

Let me be clear: every megahertz of broadcast television spectrum the FCC doesn't auction means less 

revenue to fund prerogatives already determined by this committee and this Congress, including FirstNet, 

next-generation 9-1-1, and wireless research and development. 

### 
6 

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 you 

and to the Chairman of the FCC and the Commissioners. Welcome. 

It is wonderful to have you here. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by requesting that the December 10th letter signed by more than 370 companies and organizations who care about the future of unlicensed spectrum be placed 

in the hearing record. This letter and a February 13th letter describe the importance of unlicensed technologies to innovation, job 

creation, and public safety. 

And I would also like to request that a bipartisan letter I sent 

to the FCC Chairman yesterday with Chairman Darryl Issa be included in the record. The letter demonstrates the significant unlicensed developments that have taken place just in the last 9 

months since the spectrum bill was signed into law. 

So I ask for unanimous consent to place both of these in the 

record. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection. 

[The letters follow:] 

7 


85821.003

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Chairman 

December 10, 2012 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2182 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Anna Eshoo 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

241 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo: 

The undersigned companies and organizations commend Congress and the FCC for working to unleash 

additional spectrum in the current broadcast bands. We are committed to working with all stakeholders 

on auction rules and a band plan that supports diverse, efficient, and innovative broadband services while 

protecting broadcast licensees. To accomplish this goal, it is critical that the FCC pursue policies that 

strike a productive balance between the need for more spectrum that accommodates both exclusive-use 

licensed and non-exclusive unlicensed technologies. 

The nation's unlicensed bands are critical to innovation and have generated hundreds of billions of dollars 

in economic growth. Indeed, a recent study by economist Richard Thanki found that the economic value 

generated even by a subgroup of unlicensed broadband applications is between $16-$37 billion per year. 

Throughout 2012, we have seen further evidence of the importance of unlicensed technologies to 

innovation, job creation, and, most recently, public safety. For example, during the devastating Hnrricane 

Sandy and its aftermath, when many wireless phone networks were overloaded, flooded, or completely 

omine, Wi-Fi provided access to the Internet for critical news and information (and continues to do so in 

some areas still recovering). 

Demand for unlicensed services is growing at a higher rate than either wired or licensed wireless services. 

Cisco projects that by 2015, IP traffic originated over Wi-Fi networks will surpass traffic originated over 

wired networks. The number of intelligent connected devices is growing so quickly that it is likely to 

exceed 100 billion by 2020, potentially generating an economic contribution of $1.4 trillion-five times 

greater than the Internet today. Technologies using unlicensed spectrum are set to provide over 95% of 

those machine-to-machine connections. This skyrocketing demand for unlicensed technologies is 

outstripping the supply of unlicensed spectrum and threatens to soon saturate the core 2.4 GHz band, 

leaving innovators and consumers with only the high-frequency 5 GHz band. While the 5 GHz band is 

extremely important, it is not a substitute for lower-frequency spectrum given its limited range due to 

higher attenuation and, over much of its range, lower power limits and more restrictive technical rules. 

With additional unlicensed spectrum allocations, the FCC can enable innovators to create tremendous 

economic value for the country. But if the Commission does not designate more unlicensed spectrum, the 

fuel for this growth engine will be lost and consumers will face degraded service and slowed innovation. 

Fortunately, the current television broadcast spectrum presents the FCC with a once-in-a-generation 

opportunity to begin to address the unlicensed spectrum crunch by making powerful sub-l-GHz 

unlicensed spectrum available for innovative approaches to broadband access and machine-to-machine 
8 


85821.004

services. A well-designed auction will allow the Commission to both free up new licensed spectrum and 

expand unlicensed spectrum resources. The undersigned companies and organizations therefore urge the 

FCC to designate an ample amount of spectrum for non-exclusive unlicensed technologies, and urge 

Congress to allow the FCC to accomplish this task unimpeded. 

Sincerely, 

Broadcom 

CompTIA 

Consumer Federation of America 

Consumers Union 

CSR Technology, Inc. 

Electronic Frontier Foundation 

Free Press 

Google 

Marvell 

MediaTek 

Microsoft 

National Hispanic Media Coalition 

Native Public Media 

Open Technology Institute, New America Foundation 

Public Knowledge 

XG Technology Inc. 

10lNetlink 

1635u52 Ontario Limited o/a WaveDirect 

Telecommunications 

360 Communications, LLC 

ACCS,Inc. 

ADT Systems, Inc. I Rural Texas Broadband 

Adtech 

Advanced Automation 

Advanced Broadband LLC 

AeroVive LLC. 

Air Advantage, LLC 

Air Link Rural Broadband LLC 

Air Networks 

AIRbaud 

AirLink Internet Services 

AirLogic Internet Services 

Alamo Broadband Inc. 

AlasConnect 

AL-GA WIRELESS BROADBAND LLC 

Alluretech 

Aloha Broadband 

Altazip Inc. 

Altius Broadband 

Alyrica Networks, Inc. 

Amplex 

Antelecom, Inc. 

Aroostook Technologies Inc. 

Aston Technology 

Atlas Broadband 

ATM-INTERNET LLC 

AVISP 

B2X Online, Inc. 

BackWoods Wireless 

Baltic Networks 

Battles Xtremc Networks, LLC 

Believe Wireless, LLC 

Bitlomat 

BitWind Communications 

BizVox Communications 

Blast Communications, Inc. 

Blaze Broadband 

BloosurfLLC 

Blue Zoom Inc. 

BluegrassNet 

Boardman River Communications, LLC 

Bolt Internet 

BPS Networks 

Bright.net North Inc. 

Broadband Corp 

Broadband VI 

Bspeedy Wireless Inc. 

Business Only Broadband 

Business Systems Connection, Inc. 

Butch Evans Consulting 
9 


85821.005

Cal.net, Inc. 

California Broadband Services, 

Carlson Wireless Technologies 

CBTR Services, LLC 

CCAonline, Inc., BroadTech, Inc. 

CellTex Networks, LLC 

Center for Innovative Technology 

Central Coast Internet 

Central States Security, LLC 

Central Valley Broadband 

Cherry Capital Connection, LLC 

Circle Computer Resources, Inc. 

City of Coffeyville 

City of Greenfield 

CKS Wireless, Inc. 

ClearTalk 

Cloud Alliance LLC 

CLOUDWYZE, INC. 

CMS Internet LLC 

CNSP, Internet 

Cnywireless 

Coast Networks, LLC. 

Coastal Sierra, Inc. - dba Skyline Broadband 

Service 

Coeur d' Alene Tribe 

Columbia Energy 

Columbia Wireless Inc. 

ColusaNET Iuc. 

CommFnnction, LLC 

Community Broadband 

Computer Dynamics ofNW IL LLC 

Computer Sales and Services, Inc. 

Computers & Tele-Comm Inc. 

Comspeco.net 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation (CTUIR) 

Contractdata 

Country Connections LLC 

CoxWireless 

Craig Williams Consulting 

CRESCOMM WIFI, L.L.C. 

CresComm WiFi, LLC 

Crestone Telecom 

Crossfire Media 

Crossroads WiFi 

CSlnet Internet Access Corp. 

cn Networks I P A.net 

Cue Band, LLC 

CV-Access, Inc. 

CV ALINK Broadband 

Cyber Broadband Inc. 

Cyber Broadcasting, LLC 

Cybernetl, Inc. 

Cyberpine Cooperative, Inc. 

db Wireless, Inc. 

Desert Wireless, LLC 

Digital Wind, LLC 

DiMan Systems 

DMCI Broadband, LLC 

DSLbyAir, LLC 

East Allen High Speed Internet, LLC 

Eastern Indiana WIFI, Inc. 

Eastern Oregon Net, Inc. 

Eastern Shore Communications 

eCom Direct, Inc. 

ECSIS.NET, LLC 

Egan Technology Services 

Elevated Access LLC 

Elite Broadband LLC 

Elk Country Wireless 

Energy Innovation Foundation 

Estes Valley Networks, Inc. 

Exceed Technologies, Inc. 

Excel.Net, Inc. 

Exwire 

Farm to Market Broadband 

Fast-Air Internet, Inc. 

Fastnet Wireless LLC 

Fire2Wire 

Firenet1.com 

FireServe Broadband Internet 

First Step Internet, LLC 

Fluidmesh Networks 

Fourway Computer Products, Inc. 

Freeway Networks 

Freewire Broadband LLC 

Fullair Wireless 

Fullnet, Inc. 

Future Link of ILL. 

Future Wireless Technologies of Nebraska 

G Link Systems 

GBIS Holdings Inc, dba Great Basin Internet 

Services, Inc. 

Getwireless.net, Inc. 

Global Net, Inc. 

GlobalNet Internet Services 

Gonthier, Inc., dba Radio Communications 

Service 

Gozoe Wireless LLC 

Grand A venue Broadband 

Grand County Internet Services Inc. 

Great American Broadband, Inc. 
10 


85821.006

Guacamole Press, LLC (dba Solano Wireless & 

Yolo Wireless Internet) 

GVEC.net 

Haug Communications Inc. 

Helix Technologies, Inc. 

Highspeedlink.net 

Hstar, Inc. 

ICON Technologies Inc. 

Imagine Networks 

Indian Creek Internet services, Inc. 

Indigo Wireless 

Info Link Wireless, Inc. 

InfoWest, Inc. 

Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Intellilink Communications, LLC 

International Communication, R&C 

Internet Free Planet, Inc. 

Invictus Networks, LLC dBa Invictus Wireless 

InvisiMax Inc. 

Iron Goat Networks, LLC 

IT GROUP, INC (DBA HOOSIER INTERNET) 

Itelite Antennas, Inc. 

iWiSPLLC 

JAB Wireless, Inc. 

Jade Communications 

JKM Consulting, Inc. dba M2 Connections 

Jo-Carroll Energy, Inc. (NFP) 

Joink, LLC 

KCNAP,LLC 

Keenwire 

Ken-Tenn Wireless 

Kinex Telecom, Inc. 

KissMyTek 

Kitepilot Solutions LLC 

Knetworx LLC 

Kremmling Technology Services LLC 

KyWiFi 

LakeNetLLC 

Lease Corporation of America 

Lcxsar Solutions, Inc. 

Lighthouse.Net 

Lobo Internet Services Ltd 

LocaLoop, Inc. 

Los Guys Wireless Internet 

M2 Connections 

Magnolia Wireless, LLC 

Magnum Wireless, LLC 

Mchenrycom Company / dba-me.net 

MCMSystems 

McMinnville Access Company 

Megagate Broadband 

Mercury Network Corporation 

Mercury Wireless 

Mesh.Net Internet 

MetaLINK Technologies, Inc. 

Methownet.com 

Mille Lacs Energy Cooperative 

Mobile Communications LLC 

MohaveBroadBand 

Mojavewifi.com LLC 

Monon Telephone Company, Inc. 

Mosier WiNet LLC 

Mountain Radio Systems, Inc. 

Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc. 

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 

Myakka Technologies, Inc. 

NAP2 Networks 

Nature Coast Networks, LLC. 

Navigue.Com 

NCI Datacom, Inc. 

NetBee Wireless 

netB lazr Inc. 

Net-Change.Com 

NetsurtUSA, Inc. 

Network Business Systems, Inc. 

Network Tool and Die Company, Inc. 

NetX Internet, LLC. 

New Wave Net Corp. 

NEWBREAK COMMUNICA nONS 

NewWays Networking, LLC 

NexGenAccess Inc. 

Nextera Wireless 

North Branch Networks, LLC 

North Nova Cable Ltd. 

Northeast Oklahoma Wireless 

Northern Neck Wireless Internet Services, LLC 

Novarum 

NOW Wireless. LLC 

NTInet Inc. 

OACYS Technology 

OceanWiFi 

OINC Wireless 

On Ramp Indiana 

Orbit Broadband LLC 

Orchard Wireless 

OregonF AST.net 

Parallax Systems, Division of Richmond Power 

& Light 

PB Consulting 

PCS-WIN 

PEAK Internet, LLC 

Phoenix Internet 
11 


85821.007

Port Networks 

Portative Technologies, LLC 

Precision Data Solutions, LLC 

Precision Wireless Internet 

Premier Systems Unlimited Inc. 

Premium Choice Broadband 

Quinault Indian Nation 

Q-Wireless, LLC 

Ranch Wireless, Inc 

Rapid Systems Corporation 

Rapidwave, LLC 

Razzo Link, Inc. 

Red Shift Internet Services 

Relay Networks, Inc. 

RelayServices 

Resonance Broadband 

Rio Verde Wireless, LLC. 

River Delta Wireless, LLC. 

Roadstar Internet Inc. 

Rowe Wireless Networks LLC 

Royell Communications, Inc. 

Rural iNet, LLC 

Rural Technology Group 

RuralConnection.ca 

Sandhills Wireless 

SCS, Ltd. 

Shelby Broadband 

Sierra Economic Development Corporation 

(SEDCorp) 

Skycoml 

SKYFREQUENCY, INC. 

Skywave Wireless, Inc. 

Siopeside Internet LLC 

SmarterBroadband, Inc. 

Snappy Internet & Telecom 

Sonic Spectmm, Inc. 

SonicNet Inc. 

Sooner Wireless LLC 

Sound Internet Services Inc. 

Southwestern Wireless, Inc. 

SpeedyQuick Networks 

SPITwSPOTS, Inc. 

S!. Louis Broadband, LLC 

Star Telephone Membership Corporation 

STARTOUCH INC 

Stewart Computer Services 

Streakwave Wireless, Inc. 

Succeed.Net 

Summit Digital, Inc. 

SuperWiFi Conference 

SystemsOne, LLC 

Teclnfo 

Telebeep Wireless 

TeleSystem Services 

Te1etec Communications 

Telpage, Inc. 

TerraNovaNet, Inc. 

Texas Cellnet, Inc. 

Texas Communications 

TG Ferguson Company, Inc. 

The Seimitsu Corporation J eSavannah LLC 

theWISP.net, CORP 

Thunderbird Broadband, Inc. 

Tincans Wireless Internet 

Tnet Broadband Internet, LLC 

Town of Warwick MA 

TransWorid Network, Corp. 

Triad Wireless 

Tucker Communications, Inc. 

Txox Communications LLC 

U.P. Logon 

Ultimate Internet Access, Inc. 

United, Inc. 

Universal Connectivity 

US Broadband 

Valnet 

Vector Data Systems, LLC 

Velocity Online 

Vergennes Broadband LLC 

Virginia Computer Guys 

Vistabeam 

Vistanet Telecommunications, Inc. 

Vue Inc. 

WasabiNet, LLC 

WaveDirect Telecommunications LLC 

Webformix Company 

Webhiway Communications LLC 

Wercs Communications Inc. DBA Mountain 

West Telepbone 

West Michigan Wireless ISP 

Wheatland Electric Cooperative DBA 

Wheatland Broadband 

WhiteS pace Alliance 

Wildfire Broadband 

Williams Tel Data 

Wilson Creek Communications, LLC 

Winters Broadband LLC 

Wired or Wireless, Inc. dba AIR-PIPE 

Wired Waters, Inc. 

Wireless Beehive 

Wireless Data Net, LLC 

Wireless Etc. 
12 


85821.008

Wireless Hometown LLC 

WISPA 

WISP A Emergency Communications Action 

Team (WECAT) 

WisperISP 

Wisper, LLC 

WISP-Router, Inc. 

Worldwide Technologies, Inc. / TurboNet 

WVVA.net Inc. 

Xl Communications 

Xpressweb Internet Services, Inc. 

Yakama Nation Networks 

YubaGold 

ZigWireless LLC 

ZIRKEL Wireless, LLC 
13 


85821.009

February 13,2012 

The Honorable Harry Reid 

522 Hart Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable John Boehner 

1011 Longworth House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Jay Rockefeller 

531 Hart Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

2183 Rayburn House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Senators and Representatives: 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

317 Russell Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi 

235 Cannon House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison 

284 Russell Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Henry Waxman 

2204 Rayburn House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The broad group of undersigned companies, trade associations, and public interest groups writes 

to reaffirm our support for spectrum reform legislation that will ensure that commercial users, 

public safety, and federal users all have access to wireless capacity to meet our ever growing 

needs. However, as Congress considers that legislation, it must ensure the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) maintains its flexibility as an expert independent agency to 

make more spectrum available for a diversity of uses and users. 

It is particularly critical that some of the "beachfront" spectrum located in the television bands 

remain available for unlicensed services, which are driving innovation, promoting rural 

broadband deployment, and creating new services in the wireless ecosystem. We need unlicensed 

access to ensure that commercial deployments like the one recently launched in Wilmington, 

North Carolina spread throughout the country. And we must ensure that the United States does 

not lose its global leadership position to other countries. Earlier this month, the UK regulator, 

Of com, released draft regulatory requirements for white space devices in the UHF TV bands in 
14 


85821.010

anticipation for white spaces technologies to be launched there in 2013. The rest of the world is 

not waiting, and nor should we. 

To that end, we reiterate our strong belief that compromise legislation should include language 

that gives the FCC clear flexibility to make appropriate spectrum allocation decisions that will 

raise revenue, support vibrant wireless competition and technological innovation, and promote 

rural broadband deployment. We urge Senate and House negotiators to include provisions that 

preserve the FCC's existing authority to respond to changes in this continually evolving and 

dynamic market. 

Under its existing authority to find the right balance between licensed and unlicensed spectrum 

access, the FCC has successfully auctioned courmerciallicenses to use spectrum since the mid1990s, raising over $50 billion for the U.S. Treasury and driving growth of the wireless industry 

to over $150 billion in annual revenue, with mobile phone penetration now at over 90% of the 

population. At the same time, the FCC's judicious use of flexible authority has simultaneously 

created an unlicensed industry that generates an estimated $50 billion annually for the American 

economy, and has made America the world-leader in development of wireless technology from 

LTE to Wi-Fi to broadcast band white spaces technology. 

We applaud both the Senate and House Committees, from both parties, for their tireless work to 

develop bipartisan legislation that will promote public safety, create jobs, enhance competition, 

and foster even greater innovation. We remain fully committed to working with Congress to pass 

legislation that allows us to fully unlock the power of the wireless revolution. 

Sincerely, 

3-dB Networks, Inc. 

360 Communications, LLC 

6Harmonics Inc. 

Access Humboldt 

Advanced Automation 

Airity 

AirLink Internet Services 

Akaku: Maui Community Television 

Alluretech 

Avolve 

BackWoods Wireless 

Barrier Communications Corporation 

Blast Courmunications, Inc. 

Broadband Corp 

Broadband Heaven 

Broadcom Corporation 

Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited 

Carlson Wireless 
15 


85821.011

Center for Rural Strategies 

Cherry Capital Connection, LLC 

Clear Talk 

Cloud Alliance LLC 

Com-Waves 

Communication Specialists Company of 

Wilmington, LLC 

Computer Sales & Services, Inc. 

Consumers Union 

Country Connections LLC 

CRESCOMM WlFI, LLC. 

CV-Access, Inc. 

Cyber Broadband / Advanced Broadband 

DC Access, LLC 

Digital Biz, Inc. / PopNet Wireless 

DMCI Broadband, LLC. 

e-vergent LLC 

Eastern Indiana WlFI, Inc. 

Eastern Oregon Net, Inc. 

eCom Direct, Inc. 

Environmental Support Services, Inc. 

FireServe Broadband Internet 

First Step Internet, LLC 

Fourway Computer Products, Inc. 

Free Press Action Fund 

Future Link ofILL. 

Future Technologies 

Google, Inc. 

Grand County Internet Services 

GVECNet 

Haug Communications Inc. 

Info-Ed, Inc. 

Intelligent Computing Solutions 

InvisiMax Inc. 

Key Bridge Global LLC 

KWOM Internet 

LakeNetLLC 

Main Street Project 

Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. 

MCM Systems 

Mercury Wireless, LLC 

MetaLINK Technologies, Inc. 

Microsoft Corporation 

Mountain Area Information Network 

NAP2 Networks / WiMAX Broadband 

National Alliance for Media Arts & Culture 

National Cable & Telecommunications 

Association 

National Telecommunications Cooperative 

Association 

netBlazr Inc. 

NetsurfUSA, Inc. 

NeulLtd. 

New America Foundation 

New Wave Net Corporation 

NexGenAccess Inc. 

North Branch Networks, LLC 

Northern Neck Wireless Internet Services, 

LLC 

NOW Wireless, LLC 

NTInetInc 

NYSYS Broadband 

OACYS Technology 

Odessa Office Equipment 

On-Ramp Indiana, Inc. 

OnlineNW 

Oregon Fast Net 

PCSWIN / RC-WiFi 

Portative Technologies, LLC 

President - Electronic Solutions, Inc. 

Prometheus Radio Project 

Public Knowledge 

Qwireless Broadband 

Radiosoft 

Red Shift Internet Services 

Rock Solid Internet & Telephone 

Royell Communications, Inc. 

Rural Broadband Network Services LLC 

SmarterBroadband, Inc. 

SonicNet Inc. 

Spectra Access 

Spectrum Bridge, Inc. 

St. Louis Broadband, LLC 

TerraNova Telecom 

TerraNovaNet Internet Services 

Texas Communications 

Tucker Communications, Inc. 

TWIN Inc. 

United Church of Christ, Office of 

Communication, Inc. 

Vistabeam 

Washington Broadband, Inc. 

Wheatland Broadband Services 
16 


85821.012

Wired or Wireless, Inc. dba AIR-PIPE 

Wireless Data Net, LLC 

Wireless ETC 

Wireless Internet Service Providers 

Association 

WISP-Router, Inc. 

xG Technology 

ZigWireless LLC 

ZIRKEL Wireless 
17 


85821.013

December 11, 2012 

11. ~. }!JOUSt of l\tprt~mtatibt~ 

mtajfJtngton, 11. (t. 20515 

The Honorable Julius Genachowski, Chairman 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20554 

Dear Chairman Genachowski, 

Earlier this year, 40 Members of the House of Representatives joined us on a bipartisan letter to 

Conferees on the Payroll Tax Cut Conference Committee, urging them to protect public access to 

unlicensed spectrum. Through our efforts and the support of entrepreneurs and innovators around 

the nation, the compromise included in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 

2012 preserved, protected and enhanced access to this innovative public resource. 

As the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) considers proposed rules implementing an 

incentive auction of broadcast television spectrum, the agency has a responsibility to adhere to 

the statute - recognizing the enormous economic value of both licensed and unlicensed spectrum 

in the television band. We support the proposed rulemaking adopted on September 28,2012, as it 

recognizes that nationwide guard bands needed for interference protection can simultaneously 

provide unlicensed access, ensuring that every megahertz of spectrum is used efficiently. We 

also believe the Commission should implement the incentive auction and resulting 

reorganization of the band in a manner that optimizes the value of both licensed and unlicensed 

spectrum access. 

In the nine months since the legislation was signed into law, we've seen several examples of the 

public benefits that unlicensed brings to consumers and businesses, as well as what lies ahead. A 

few examples include: 

• During Hurricane Sandy, when many wireless phone networks were overloaded or 

completely inoperable, Wi-Fi provided access to the Internet for critical news and 

information. 

• In September, Nottoway County, Virginia became the first FCC certified TV white 

spaces (TVWS) rural broadband deployment. One of the nation's more than 1,500 small 

business WISPs is using TVWS to extend connectivity to this heavily forested and 

mostly unserved area, including the Fort Pickett Army National Guard base. 

• In August, Florida-based Spectrum Bridge, Inc. announced the launch of a TV White 

Space Certification Program that will assist radio manufacturers as they prepare for FCC 

approval ofTVWS radios. 
18 


85821.014

• In July, a cross-section of the unlicensed ecosystem convened at Stanford University, 

bringing together application developers, chip manufacturers, database developers, 

investors, academics, press and poJicymakers to discuss the extraordinary progress in the 

industry and hear from the innovators and engineers on the front lines of these 

developments. 

• In June, AIR.U (Advanced Internet Regions University), a coalition of over 500 

educational institutions announced an initiative using TVWS that would bring high-speed 

broadband to colleges and universities with limited existing service. 

Following successful testing in Cambridge, England, the Cambridge TV White Spaces 

Consortium issued a recommendation to Of com, the UK's telecommunications regulator, 

encouraging the agency to issue proposed regulations allowing for the use ofTVWS. As U.S. 

mobile data traffic continues to increase, we cannot afford to fall behind other nations in thc mcc 

to deploy new and innovative unlicensed technologies. 

Thank you for your leadership and continued efforts to drive a 21st century spectrum policy. 

Sincerely, 

cc: Commissioner Robert M. McDowell 

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn 

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel 

Commissioner Ajit Pai 
19 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, ensuring that the FCC successfully implements 

the voluntary incentive auction, a mechanism that this subcommittee established, holds great potential to produce new jobs 

and to free up more spectrum at a time in which demand for wireless broadband continues to soar. The economic importance of this 

auction I don’t think can be understated. Last month, a new study 

from the GSMA and Deloitte concluded that the doubling of mobile 

data use results in a 0.5 percentage point increase in GDP per capita growth. 

As the FCC Chairman stated in adopting the proposed incentive 

auction rules, the Commission must engage in a process that is 

transparent, fact-based, data-driven, and draws on the leading experts in both engineering and economics. While I have confidence 

in the Commission’s ability to carry out its process in such a manner, there are three key areas which I think deserve additional 

focus. 

The first is the importance of constructing a band plan that 

maximizes the enormous economic benefits of both licensed and unlicensed spectrum. The proposed rulemaking adopted on September 

28th of this year, consistent with congressional intent, recognizes 

that nationwide guard bands needed for interference protection can 

simultaneously provide unlicensed access, ensuring that every 

megahertz of spectrum is used efficiently. Simply put, nowhere in 

the act does it require the FCC to auction guard bands. 

And as the title of today’s hearing reflects, this subcommittee has 

a responsibility to keep the new broadband spectrum law on track. 

That is the title of this hearing. Not to go off track, but to remain 

on track. Attempts to rewrite the law through the rulemaking process should be rejected by the Commission and will only serve to 

delay the release of new spectrum. 

Second, Congress crafted the spectrum law to ensure that the 

FCC, by rulemaking, can adopt rules enhancing competition, consumer choice, and innovation. With the potential to free up as 

much as 120 megahertz of beach-front spectrum, wireless carriers 

of all sizes, both regional and national, must have an opportunity 

to participate in the auction process. Promoting a competitive landscape can be furthered through the completion of the Commission’s 

interoperability proceeding as well as a revision of the Commission’s spectrum screen, the process used to determine how much 

spectrum anyone carrier can hold in a given market. 

Finally, the Commission must be proactive, I believe, in its approach to educating broadcasters. Without voluntary broadcaster 

participation, there will be no new spectrum to repurpose. The 

FCC’s Learning Everything About Reverse-Auctions Now, the 

LEARN program, is an important step in this process. 

And I encourage the Commission to engage in individual outreach that ensures that broadcasters fully understand the benefits 

of participation. Ultimately, this is going to have to be a collaborative process that brings together broadcasters, wireless carriers, 

and technology companies for the purpose of revolutionizing the 

mobile broadband marketplace. 

I thank Chairman Genachowski and every member of the Commission for your tireless efforts to ensure a successful auction, the 

20 

first in the history of our country that is voluntary, and to each 

Commissioner for being here today to share your perspectives. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

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

The chairman recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. 

Terry. 

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

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And for this Congress, this I expect to be my last official business 

as your vice chair. I want to thank you for a fun and good year. 

But even though I may lack that title on this subcommittee, it 

won’t change my enthusiasm and activity on this committee in the 

113th. 

This incentive auction, if it is successful—and I expect it will— 

will accomplish a number of goals that will benefit consumers. As 

the Commission drills down to a set of final rules, I have confidence that it can balance the concerns of this stakeholders. 

In doing so, I want to be sure that the intent of the Spectrum 

Act is respected. And in doing so, I want to be sure that this means 

that the Commission must raise the revenue necessary to pay for 

the FirstNet public safety network; it means that the guard bands 

must be no longer than technically reasonable to avoid interference. It also means that all bidders must be able to follow and 

participate in the forward auction. Finally, a faithful interpretation 

of the Spectrum Act requires the Commission to ensure that the 

auction spectrum is not encumbered with value-sapping restrictions on use or alienability. 

I look forward to working with the Commission and my colleagues on the subcommittee in the coming months to make sure 

that this opportunity is not wasted and that we, along with the 

FCC, get it right. 

At this time, I will yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Terry. 

I want to compliment the chairman, who is not here, for the new 

seats up here on the dais. They are very comfortable. I guess it is 

intentional that the Commissioners still are in the uncomfortable 

seats. I am not sure. 

I appreciate the subcommittee holding this hearing. 

The Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 

was passed when I was chairman. That created 84 megahertz of 

spectrum to be auctioned. Since then, we have also had the Middle 

Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012, which requires 

that 65 megahertz of this spectrum be auctioned by 2015. 

When it is my turn to ask questions to the Commission, I will 

have two issues: One is what happens to the low-power television 

stations in the major metropolitan markets who don’t have Class 

A licenses. They are very concerned that they may lose their license and be left out in the cold. And, secondly, I am very puzzled 

21 

about this three-way simultaneous auction. I really don’t understand how that is going to work, and I hope one of the Commissioners can explain that to me. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Latta. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, also, I appreciate the FCC Commissioners for being here at the committee with 

us today. 

The Spectrum Act was a landmark legislation by authorizing volunteer incentive auctions. Everyone knows that the success of the 

auction is critical for deployment of a public safety network, for 

bringing spectrum to a competitive marketplace for mobile 

broadband, and the continued vitality of our Nation’s broadcasters. 

This is truly an issue of global competitiveness. In fact, a recent 

study by Deloitte using Cisco data revealed a doubling of mobile 

data use leads to an increase of 0.5 percentage points in GDP per 

capita growth rates. And while the incentive auction is a key component to our Nation’s spectrum policy, we must remember that it 

is only one component. The administration needs to work with Congress to look at ways to clear Federal spectrum, particularly the 

1775 to 1780 megahertz band. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, we thank you for 

being here today, and we appreciate your transparency and openness as the incentive auction proposal is developed. We look forward to hearing your testimony. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn. 

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

And I want to welcome our Commissioners. We are so pleased 

you are here for your Christmas visit. 

And, Chairman Walden, I thank you for holding the hearing. 

The spectrum auctions have been authorized, and they should 

maximize the amount of spectrum that is available for licensed 

commercial mobile use and maximize revenues to the Treasury. Everywhere we go, all of our innovators to the broadband are saying, 

Let’s maximize this, let’s get these auctions out there. And the voluntary auctions will be easier if the Commission is faithful to the 

statute that Congress passed. 

Commissioner Pai, we are delighted that you recognized that in 

your testimony. So we thank you for that. 

We know that it is going to be necessary to get the spectrum out 

there if we are going to achieve our shared goals: mitigating our 

Nation’s spectrum crunch; improving public safety; generating billions in revenue to help pay down this massive debt that we are 

facing in this country; creating good-paying, sustainable, long-term 

jobs. And we need to maximize participation among all interested 

parties. 

22 

So we welcome you. I am looking forward to the hearing. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this important hearing on the FCC’s implementation of spectrum 

legislation that Congress passed with strong bipartisan support. 

And I am grateful for the chairman and all of the members of the 

Commission’s work in this with regard. 

The Public Safety and Spectrum Act implemented one of the last 

remaining recommendations from the 9/11 Commission and created 

a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network for 

first responders. It also provided new authority to the FCC to conduct the incentive auctions, with the purpose of alleviating the 

spectrum crunch fueled by the ever-growing demands for mobile 

broadband services and providing a downpayment for the public 

safety network. Overall, the new law will help drive our national 

economic growth while keeping the American people safe through 

state-of-the-art communications infrastructure for public safety. 

The act was the result of months of bicameral,bipartisan negotiations that included many elements of compromise. The Federal 

Communications Commission is now grappling with several of 

these areas, and I would like to highlight two in particular. 

The first is unlicensed spectrum. Unlicensed spectrum has been 

an incredible economic success story. Innovative services like WiFi and Bluetooth are now ubiquitous parts of our communications 

system. They came about because of the use of unlicensed spectrum. 

The law advances unlicensed use in several ways: It allows the 

FCC to use the existing white spaces in the broadcast band for unlicensed use; it gives the FCC authority to reorganize these existing 

white spaces to maximize their value; and perhaps most important, 

it allows the FCC to create guard bands in the repurposed broadcast television spectrum that may be used for new unlicensed services like Super Wi-Fi. This is smart spectrum policy that recognizes 

the increasingly interdependent nature of licensed and unlicensed 

operations. 

The guard bands will both enhance the value of the spectrum to 

be auctioned by protecting it from interference and create a nationwide band of prime spectrum that can be used for new innovations 

in unlicensed use. That is why I am pleased that the FCC’s proposed rules are faithful to congressional intent to promote innovation in unlicensed use. 

Second, the law preserves the FCC’s ability to use auction rules 

to promote competition in the wireless industry, while ensuring no 

single carrier is unfairly excluded from the auction process. As the 

steward of the public’s airwaves, the FCC must have the authority 

to write auction rules that aim to avoid the concentration of spectrum in the hands of just a small group of companies. 

23 

The act strikes the proper balance in recognizing that while 

every carrier should be eligible to participate in some fashion in a 

system of competitive bidding, the FCC can continue to promote 

competition through its spectrum policies. To implement this part 

of the law, the FCC is appropriately seeking comment on whether 

to establish spectrum aggregation limits or other rules to achieve 

these aims. 

The conferrees on the Public Safety and Spectrum Act spent significant time debating and ultimately rejecting other proposals on 

unlicensed and bidder eligibility. No conferree’s position was accepted outright, and our carefully crafted compromise is what became law. So I am troubled by attempts by some to relitigate issues 

that were resolved earlier this year when the bill passed Congress 

with widespread support. After-the-fact spin that unfairly twists 

the language of the law deserves little weight by the Commission 

or the courts. 

My judgment is that the FCC is off to a good start in proposing 

incentive auction rules. I commended Chairman Genachowski and 

his colleagues on the Commission for these efforts. And I look forward to hearing all of your testimony today. 

And I have 30 seconds if anybody wants it. Otherwise, I will 

yield it back so we can hear from our witnesses. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

And with that, we will proceed to hear the testimony of our witness. And we will start with the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Mr. Julius Genachowski. 

We welcome you back before our subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, 

and we look forward to your statement and commend you on all the 

work your commission is doing. Please proceed. 

STATEMENTS OF JULIUS GENACHOWSKI, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; ROBERT M. 

MCDOWELL, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION; MIGNON L. CLYBURN, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; JESSICA 

ROSENWORCEL, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; AJIT PAI, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL 

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

STATEMENT OF JULIUS GENACHOWSKI 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Ranking 

Member Eshoo, members of the committee. 

Mr. WALDEN. We seem to have a spectrum problem here. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. There we go. 

Mr. WALDEN. There we go. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. I think it is unlicensed. 

It is a pleasure to be here, and thank you for the many opportunities both to testify here and to work with all members of the committee outside of the hearing process on work in this very important area. 

I do want to take a minute to thank Congressman Terry and 

Congressman Doyle for coming to the FCC last week when we 

adopted our Low Power FM Order, implementing a bipartisan act 

24 

of Congress. It was a very special day for the Commission, the 

Commission staff, and I thank both of you for joining us. 

This past week, Commissioner McDowell and I were part of the 

U.S. delegation to the WCIT in Dubai, where we worked together 

to defend a free and open Internet. I would note that members of 

the committee staff on a bipartisan basis were there, as well, and 

on a bipartisan basis were fighting for Internet freedom and openness. 

The situation in Dubai right now is fluid. People are literally 

meeting right now. We have a strong American delegation on the 

ground led by Ambassador Kramer and including representatives 

from across government and the private sector. As I said, the situation is fluid. The issues are important. And I think we all understand that this will not be the last conference at which these important issues arise. And fighting for Internet freedom and openness globally will be something that we will all be working on together for quite some time. 

In the U.S., the broadband sector is strong, and the U.S. has regained global leadership in mobile communications. We have more 

4G LTE subscribers than the rest of the world combined, and we 

are setting the pace globally on innovation in mobile software, 

apps, and devices. 

This leadership means that we face a particularly acute challenge to meet exploding mobile demand, the ‘‘spectrum crunch,’’ 

and that we must use all policy levers at our disposal to address 

it. That is why a few months ago at the Commission we freed up 

30 megahertz of WCS spectrum for broadband. It is why yesterday 

we unanimously adopted an order freeing up 40 megahertz of underutilized satellite spectrum for land-based mobile broadband, and 

a proposal setting the stage for an auction of an additional 10 

megahertz, the H block, in 2013. It is why later today I expect my 

colleagues and I to approve a proposal to make 100 megahertz of 

spectrum in the 3.5 gigahertz band available for broadband. 

And, of course, Congress recognized the importance of innovative 

policy solutions to the spectrum crunch in authorizing the Commission to conduct incentive auctions. As a result of this important legislation, landmark legislation, the U.S. will be the first country in 

the world to conduct incentive auctions. 

Of course, our obligation is to implement the legislation in accordance with the statute. With our vote on a notice of proposed 

rulemaking in September, the Commission launched formal implementation of the new law. Implementation is on track. 

Key goals and principles include maximizing the overall amount 

of spectrum freed up, including by maximizing broadcaster opportunities for participation in the auction; enabling the continued role 

of a healthy broadcast industry; generating very substantial revenue, including providing funding for FirstNet; driving private investment and innovation and ongoing U.S. leadership in mobile; focusing on the engineering and the economics; engaging with all 

stakeholders in a transparent process; and doing everything we can 

to make a complex, multipart process as simple as possible. 

In my written testimony, I outline the significant steps taken 

since enactment of the statute to ensure success. The new incentive 

25 

auction concept poses a long list of new challenges, but we are focused together on smart solutions. 

For example, our proposed wireless band plan for 600 megahertz 

consists of 5-megahertz building blocks to allow for the greatest 

amount of flexibility and efficient optimization for the new mobile 

data world. Specifically, we are anticipating for the first time the 

possibility that we might have more spectrum for downlinks than 

uplinks, which in a data world could make sense as compared to 

the symmetrical uplinks and downlinks in a voice world. 

In addition, the notice proposes to free up a significant amount 

of unlicensed spectrum for Wi-Fi-like uses and other innovations. 

Both licensed and unlicensed spectrum have contributed to U.S. 

leadership in mobile. Like auctioned licensed spectrum, unlicensed 

spectrum has a powerful record of driving innovation, investment, 

and economic growth—hundreds of billions of dollars of value creation for our economy and consumers. 

Our proposal sets out a balanced approach designed to drive investment innovation for years to come and drive continued U.S. 

leadership. 

We are also engaging broadcasters in a constructive dialogue to 

meet statutory directives concerning repacking. 

We look forward to comments on all of these proposals as well 

as ways to implement the post-auction transition with minimal 

consumer disruption and within the timetable set by the law. 

To make clear, as we all know, the implementation is now in the 

notice stage. We put out a concrete proposal designed to generate 

concrete and efficient response from stakeholders. We will be looking very carefully at the responses that we get, deciding issues on 

a record and consistent with the statute. 

With that, thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I 

look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Genachowski follows:] 

26 


85821.015

STATEMENT OF 

CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWKSI 

HEARING ON "KEEPING THE NEW BROADBAND SPECTRUM LAW ON TRACK" 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

DECEMBER 12,2012 

Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to be here today. 

I will focus my remarks on the implementation of incentive auctions, but will first briefly 

update you on some of the Commission's work since my fellow Commissioners and I we were 

last before this Committee. 

Mobile and other communications technologies are creating enormous opportunities and 

challenges in connection with natural disasters and other public safety emergencies, as 

Hurricane Sandy recently reminded us. The agency worked around the clock to monitor the 

impact on communications networks and broadcasters, and to coordinate with local, state, and 

federal authorities to support disaster response and recovery, including by helping get resources 

such as fuel and generators where they were needed to sustain communications services. After 

the storm, I announced a series of field hearings to help inform recommendations and actions to 

improve network resiliency during natural disasters, and we will also soon release a report on 

the 911 outages that followed last summer's Derecho. 

Last week, I was pleased to announce that the nation's four largest wireless carriers, working 

with leading public safety organizations NENA and APCO, will accelerate the availability of 

text-to-911, with major deployments expected in 2013 and a commitment to nationwide 

availability by May 15,2014. This agreement ensures that over 90 percent of the nation's 

wireless consumers, including millions of consumers with hearing or speech disabilities, will be 

able to access emergency services by sending a text message to 911. At our Commission 

meeting later today, we will consider further actions to advance text-to-911. 

We have also moved forward with our initiative to crack down on cell-phone theft. Answering 

calls from major city police departments and members of Congress, the Commission announced 

the creation of a new mobile industry database to blacklist stolen cell phones. Last month, I 

signed agreement with the Mexican government to extend the database across our borders, so 

that mobile phones stolen in the U.S. can't be activated in Mexico, and vice versa. These 

actions send a clear message to criminals: cell phone theft is a crime that doesn't pay. 

Also last month, the Commission adopted final rules to implement the Local Community Radio 

Act, authorizing thousands of lower power FM radio stations. This will empower community 
27 


85821.016

voices, promote media diversity, and enhance local programing. We were pleased to have the 

two key sponsors of the law, Congressmen Doyle and Terry, speak at the Commission meeting. 

It is a great example of Congress and the FCC working together, and of Democrats and 

Republicans working together. 

This past week Commissioner McDowell and I were part ofthe U.S. delegation to the World 

Conference on International Communications in Dubai, where we defended the free and open 

Internet by opposing efforts by some nations to impose new rules that would radically change 

the existing model ofInternet governance. 

While in Dubai, conversations with many of my foreign counterparts drove home the fact that 

we are living in a flat, competitive world, where capital and talent can flow anywhere, and 

where broadband infrastructure-wired and wireless-is critical to attracting capital and talent. 

We're in a global bandwidth race, similar to the space race in that success will unleash waves of 

innovation that will go !\Iong way toward determining who leads our global economy in the 21 st 

century. 

In the last few years, America has regained global leadership in mobile communications. We 

have more 4G L TE subscribers than the rest of the world combined, and we are setting the pace 

on innovation in mobile software, apps, and devices. This leadership means that we face a 

particularly acute challenge to meet exploding mobile demand-the spectrum crunch-and that 

we must use all policy levers at our disposal to solve it. 

Congress recognized this in authorizing the Commission to conduct incentive auctions. As a 

result of this important legislation, the U.S. will be the first country in the world to conduct 

incentive auctions. Our obligation is to implement the legislation in accordance with the 

statute. 

With our vote on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in September, the Commission launched 

formal implementation of the new law. 

Key goals and principles include: 

• Maximizing the overall amount of spectrum freed up, while enabling the continued role of a 

healthy broadcast industry. 

• Maximizing broadcaster participation in the auction by making the auction process as 

transparent and easy to understand as possible. 

• Providing funding for the FirstNet broadband network for first responders. 

• Focusing on engineering and economics by drawing on the expertise of the world's leading 

economists, auction design experts, and engineers, both inside and outside the agency. 

2 
28 


85821.017

• Engaging with all stakeholders in a transparent process in which we wiIllearn from the 

public record we are building, aim for simplicity, and adjust our proposals as necessary to 

ensure the auction succeeds. 

In addition to the NPRM, we have taken significant steps since enactment ofthe statute to 

ensure success. 

Shortly after passage of the legislation, I assembled a cross-agency team, including the Wireless 

Bureau, Media Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and Office of General Counsel 

to coordinate implementation. 

In March, the Commission announced the retention of leading experts in auction theory and 

implementation. We are delighted to have this world-class team of experts advising the 

Commission on this historic undertaking. The knowledge and experience ofthis team 

complements the substantial expertise of agency staff and will help us meet the statute's goals. 

During the summer and fall, we expeditiously took the actions necessary for NTIA to stand up 

FirstNet, including transfer of the D Block license. We continue to coordinate with NTIA and 

assist them in bringing FirstNet into existence. 

We established the Broadcaster LEARN (Learning Everything About Reverse Auctions Now) 

Program, which is designed to inform and empower broadcaster decision-makers as they 

participate in our comment process and consider the business opportunities that incentive 

auctions create. 

We have already conducted more than 40 webinars to inform and empower broadcasters and 

their investors, attracting 2,500 attendees. 

We have begun coordination with our Mexican and Canadian counterparts to address crossborder issues, as the statute requires. 

And as I mentioned in September the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

with detailed proposals and draft rules. Comments from stakeholders are due in the first quarter 

of2013. We anticipate going to order in 2013 and conducting the auction in 2014. 

The new incentive auction concept poses a long list of new challenges, but we are focused on 

smart solutions. For example, our proposed wireless band plan consists of 5 MHz "building 

blocks" to allow for the greatest amount of flexibility and efficiency, including allowing for 

additional downlink blocks that could be auctioned separately. In developing this proposal, 

we're optimizing for the new mobile data world. 

3 
29 


85821.018

In addition to unleashing a substantial amount of licensed spectrum, the NPRM proposes to free 

up a significant amount of unlicensed spectrum for Wi-Fi-Iike uses and other innovations. Both 

licensed and unlicensed spectrum have contributed to U.S. leadership in mobile, and I believe 

both will be essential parts of the landscape in the future. Unlicensed spectrum has a powerful 

record of driving innovation, investment, and economic growth - hundreds of billions of dollars 

of value creation for our economy and consumers. 

As part of our implementation of incentive auctions, we are also engaging broadcasters in a 

constructive dialogue to meet statutory directives concerning repacking. Our notice describes 

specific ways in which we could implement the Act's directive to preserve broadcasters' 

coverage areas and population served, and we look forward to comments on those proposals, as 

well as ways to implement the post-auction transition with minimal consumer disruption and 

within the timetable set by the law. 

* * * 

Incentive auctions are one of a number of vital tools to address the spectrum crunch. Later 

today, the Commission will formally launch an effort to free up 100 MHz of spectrum in the 3.5 

GHz band for broadband use. That action promotes two major policy and technology 

innovations that will advance our global competitiveness, and demonstrate our leadership in 

mobile: spectrum sharing and small celis, both innovations that will help us seize the 

opportunity of wireless broadband, economic opportunities as well as advance healthcare, 

education, energy and other uses yet to be discovered that touch people's lives every day. 

We are also on track to initiate a proceeding in early 2013 to free significant amounts of 

additional spectrum in the 5 GHz band for unlicensed use. 

This year we've already taken steps to free up about 30 MHz of spectrum for wireless 

broadband by removing unnecessary regulatory barriers from spectrum in the wireless 

communications service bands, and we are committed to final action to free up an additional 40 

MHz in the mobile satellite service band. We're moving forward with new auctions that will 

result in about 65 megahertz of newly available spectrum by early 2015, in addition to the 

substantial spectrum from incentive auctions. I expect the Commission to hold the first of those 

auctions ofR block - in 2013. 

We've also unleashed more spectrum for broadband by approving efficiency-enhancing 

transactions that will enable the use of previously underutilized spectrum. And we're pursuing 

spectrum sharing, small cell use, and next-generation database-driven unlicensed spectrum use. 

* * * 

4 
30 


85821.019

I was at the FCC in the days of the first spectrum auctions. I remember how the auction design 

evolved from a simple oral outcry -like a cattle auction - to today's sophisticated simultaneous 

ascending auction format. 

I recall the concerns that spectrum auctions would never work, but thanks to the incredible work 

of FCC staff, the auctions turned out to be a major success. 

Working with my colleagues and FCC staff, I hope and expect that incentive auctions will be 

another major success for the country. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

5 
31 

Mr. WALDEN. And just for the record, thank you for thanking my 

colleagues for coming down to the FCC. As a licensee of the FCC 

in the broadcast world for 22 years, I made sure to do everything 

possible to make sure I never had to go before the FCC in person, 

and so I am glad they went. 

We will go to Commissioner McDowell now for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. MCDOWELL 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Eshoo and all members of the subcommittee. It is terrific to be 

back here today. Thank you for inviting us. 

I share your goals of putting more spectrum into the hands of 

American consumers while raising funds for the Treasury and a 

nationwide broadband public safety network. 

It is important for all of us remember today that the FCC is at 

the earliest stages of developing rules to implement Congress’s will 

regarding incentive auctions—auctions that will literally be the 

most complex in world history. Initial comments are not even due 

until next month. We will have to cull through a plethora of ideas 

and new questions we did not contemplate when we launched the 

rulemaking last September. And so, consequently, it would be premature for me to offer a final opinion on where the Commission 

should go with new auction rules until it is time for us to vote on 

them. 

Nonetheless, being the only Commissioner before you today who 

is also a veteran of two of the largest spectrum auctions in American history, as well as the digital television transition—seems just 

like yesterday—I have learned a lot through trial and error, sometimes more error than anything else. In our conversation today, I 

hope I can help illuminate a path forward based on past successes 

and failures. 

My entire testimony could be boiled down to one sentence: The 

FCC should approach these auctions with simplicity, humility, and 

regulatory restraint. But with almost 4 minutes left, what the 

heck, I will go on further. 

Through intelligently designed band plans and auction and service rules, we could provide opportunities for all stakeholders and 

potential new entrants to successfully participate in the auctions. 

Similarly, we should avoid micromanaging the wireless market 

through unnecessary rules that would deter bidders and reduce 

auction revenue. The goal of maximizing revenue is especially important here due to the congressional mandate that part of the auction proceeds fund the construction of the new nationwide public 

safety network. 

Furthermore, we should keep in mind that technology advances 

constantly, and what may seem impossible to achieve today may be 

routine tomorrow. So let’s not underestimate market innovation, or, 

worse, let’s not inadvertently preempt it. 

Beyond the spectrum auctions, American policymakers should 

continue their vigilance against encroachments upon Internet freedom, especially internationally. Chairman Genachowski, as he 

mentioned, and I worked together with the rest of the U.S. delegation in Dubai last week, and members of your committee staff, to 

32 

prevent the International Telecommunication Union from expanding its reach into the Internet’s complex ecosystem. 

And as the chairman mentioned, right now is a crucial time. Literally, as we sit here, it is nighttime in Dubai. And it is at a crucial 

intersection, and the next 12 to 24 hours will determine the fate 

of things. But if we are lucky enough to have Internet freedom escape the WCIT this year, we have to remember there is a much 

more fundamental negotiation in the year 2016. And there is a big 

meeting in May that lays the foundation for that. So we should all 

keep that in mind. 

But I would like to thank this committee for its unanimous and 

bipartisan resolution opposing even the smallest of international 

encroachments on Internet freedom. 

In the meantime, I hope we could all share a New Year’s resolution to close the Title II docket at the FCC. Now, my hopes may 

not be realized, I realize, but ending this proceeding would send a 

strong signal around the globe that the U.S. opposes subjecting the 

Internet to late-19th-century industrial policy. 

Instead of new regulation in this space, we should revive a concept that I proposed nearly 5 years ago, and that is to use the tried 

and true multi-stakeholder model to resolve alleged anticompetitive 

conduct that would threaten the open Internet. Supported by the 

backstop of existing antitrust and consumer protection laws, the 

multi-stakeholder model could spotlight market failures and cure 

them more quickly and probably more effectively than antiquated 

telephone laws. If this concept is good enough for us to preach 

abroad, shouldn’t we also practice it at home? 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions, with 46 seconds 

left on the clock. 

Mr. WALDEN. We will make note of that. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDowell follows:] 

33 


85821.020

STATEMENT 

OF 

COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDoWELL 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

BEFORE THE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY 

OVERSIGHT 

OF THE 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Keeping the New Broadband Spectrum Law on Track 

DECEMBER 12,2012 
34 


85821.021

Thank you Chainnan Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and Members of the 

Subcommittee for inviting us to appear before you today. I share your goals of putting 

greater amounts of spectrum into the hands of America's mobile consumers and setting 

aside some ofthe auction proceeds for constructing a nationwide broadband public safety 

network. I am pleased to accept your invitation to discuss ideas on how to keep the new 

broadband spectrum law 1 on track. 

As set forth below, I will discuss ideas on what the Commission should do to 

advance these goals, as well as avenues the Commission should avoid. The overarching 

goals of the law are to auction all reclaimed spectrum to offer consumers more 

opportunities to harness wireless broadband, while raising badly needed funds for the 

U.S. Treasury and attempt to fund a nationwide, interoperable, mobile broadband public 

safety network. 

Specifically, the Commission must: (1) ensure that the rulemaking and auction 

processes are transparent and the final rules intuitive so that all stakeholders - no matter 

their technology preference or size - have a meaningful opportunity to understand and 

participate; (2) avoid imposing anything that functions as a spectrum cap; (3) refrain, for 

now, from reserving new airwaves to create a "nationwide unlicensed spectrum band" 

within the new 600 MHz Band; (4) pragmatically balance the tension between flexibleuse spectrum policies and adequate interference protections to account for the 

technological improvements that will undoubtedly develop while the proceeding is 

underway and after the rules are implemented; and (5) steer clear of encumbrances that 

scare away bidders and lead directly to unintended hannful consequences. 

I Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, §§ 6402-6404, 126 Stat. 156, 

224-230 (2012) (broadband spectrum law). 
35 


85821.022

Next, I will highlight recent Commission actions on media ownership and special 

access. Finally, I will briefly discuss ideas regarding an overhaul of America's outdated 

communications laws and the peril of increasing attempts by a growing number of 

countries to establish international regulations over the Internet. 

Implementing the Broadband Spectrum Law 

Transparency and simplicity. As required by statute, the Commission launched a 

comprehensive notice of proposed rulemaking regarding incentive auctions in 

September.2 Comments on the Incentive Auction Notice are due on January 25, 2013. 

At the outset, I acknowledge and thank Chairman Genachowski for his willingness to 

accommodate edits and suggestions to improve the document. We agree that working 

together is especially important given the unique characteristics and complexities ofthe 

project. We will have to cull through a plethora of proposals and new questions. At this 

early stage, some ideas appear to be better than others. Nonetheless, I'm pleased that we 

included questions designed to capture comments regarding all concepts and practicable 

ideas. 

As we are discussing an open proceeding, I must reserve final judgment until at 

least the time that the comment period closes in the spring and more likely until final 

rules issue. That said, learning from my experience with the A WS-l and 700 MHz 

auctions, the general thoughts that I have offered for some time now merit repeating 

today: Quite simply, the incentive auctions will be the most complex in world history 

and the entire process may take the greater part of a decade. I urge the Commission to 

work in a deliberate and transparent manner, with an eye toward simplicity, humility and 

2 See Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities o/Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, WT 

Docket No. 12-268, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 12357 (2012) (Incentive Auction 

Notice). 

2 
36 


85821.023

restraint. The agency's historic light touch regulatory policy for mobile technologies has 

enabled the U.S. wireless sector to flourish and consistently lead the world. I am hopeful 

that the Commission will not put America's positive momentum in the wireless area at 

risk as we explore the myriad options related to the incentive auctions. 

History teaches us that past regulatory efforts to micromanage the wireless 

market, despite presumed good intentions, have resulted in harmful unintended 

consequences. Problems resulting from bad decisions always return to the Commission 

and ultimately harm consumers. Similarly, Members of Congress must spend valuable 

time dealing with such regulatory failures. As a result, uncertainty lingers over markets 

and inhibits investment while spectrum lies fallow. For these reasons and more, we must 

avoid the temptation to design rules that may be fashionable-at-the-moment, but fail to 

attract new entrants. When it comes to spectrum policy, simplicity works best. 

Avoid imposing the fUnctional equivalent ora spectrum cap. Auction rules should 

present realistic opportunities for small, medium and large entities - no matter their 

preferred technology - to bid for and secure licenses without excluding any interested 

participant. While the broadband spectrum law explicitly prevents the Commission from 

excluding entities that meet the prospective auction rules, as well as the long-standing 

technical, financial, character and citizenship requirements,3 the law also clarifies that the 

Commission may adopt and enforce new rules concerning spectrum aggregation.4 

Consequently, some may be tempted to adopt the functional equivalent of a spectrum 

cap, which, assuredly, would be given a different name. 

3 See broadband spectrum law § 6404. 

'Seeid. 

3 
37 


85821.024

Indeed, a proposal to cap spectrum holdings is discussed at length not only in the 

Incentive Auction Notice, but in a companion Spectrum Aggregation NoticeS adopted on 

the same September day. I am concerned that reviving the concept of a spectrum cap 

under any moniker could create harmful uncertainty and may reduce the pool of auction 

participants. Until now, spectrum caps were a dead and buried 20th century industrial 

policy relic. Let's not exhume them. 

By way of brief background, in 2001, the Commission adopted the current caseby-case analytical process after determining that spectrum aggregation limits were no 

longer necessary due to meaningful competition among providers of telecommunications 

services. Since that time, the Commission has analyzed commercial wireless spectrum 

holdings on the basis of the transaction as a whole, oftentimes in close consultation with 

the. Department of Justice. The current approach was created to result in narrowlytailored, transaction-specific spectrum remedies that safeguard against anticompetitive 

behavior, encourage increased investment, and spur the creation of innovative consumer 

offerings. 

I voted to concur on the substance of the Spectrum Cap Notice because I cannot 

agree with the view that the Commission's current flexible approach, which examines 

spectrum holdings on a case-by-case basis and within the unique context of each auction 

or proposed transaction, is broken at its foundation. Further, I question whether the 

proposals discussed in the Spectrum Cap Notice are compatible with the goal of the 

broadband spectrum law: to make spectrum more abundant in the mobile marketplace by 

5 See Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings, WT Docket No. 12-269, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 27 FCC Red 11710 (2012) (Spectrum Cap Notice). 

4 
38 


85821.025

allowing it to flow to its highest and best use as quickly as possible. As the new law 

makes clear, spectrum, which ultimately ends up in the hands of our nation's wireless 

broadband consumers, is the path to some of the best innovations that boost broadband 

adoption and economic growth. Adopting a one-size-fits-all cap, or some functional 

equivalent, will reduce auction proceeds, therefore undermining efforts to build the 

nationwide broadband public safety network mandated by Congress. 

Refrain, for now, from reserving a new spectrum band for unlicensed use. 

have long been an ardent supporter of unlicensed uses of the television white spaces.6 

That said, I respectfully disagree with calls to create within the new 600 MHz Band the 

world's first nationwide unlicensed spectrum band suitable for robust wireless broadband 

on contiguous low-band frequencies. 7 As a preliminary matter, any action in this regard 

would be premature. I wholeheartedly agree that unlicensed spectrum, no matter where it 

exists, plays a critical role in the context of mobile broadband services. Nonetheless, at 

this early stage in the incentive auction process, it is not apparent that we should stop the 

progress well underway in the TV white spaces arena to create a solution for a problem -

an alleged shortage of unlicensed spectrum in lower spectrum bands - that may never 

exist. The time line for identifying, auctioning and ultimately clearing additional licensed 

spectrum within this new band is unclear, let alone the time line for setting aside and 

reserving a given amount of channels for unlicensed use. In any event, over-the-air 

6 See e.g., Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands. ET Docket No. 04-186, Additional Spectrum 

for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 02-380, Second 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 18661 (2010); Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast 

Bands. ET Docket No. 04-186, Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 

GHz Band, ET Docket No. 02-380, Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 

FCC Red 16807 (2008). 

7 FCC Launches First-in-the-World Incentive Auction to Repurpose Broadcast Television Spectrum for 

Mobile Broadband; Auction Set to Unleash Wave of Economic & Innovation Opportunities for us., FCC 

News Release (reI. Sept. 28, 2012). 

5 
39 


85821.026

television broadcasting, and its associated white spaces, will still be with us in a postincentive auction world giving consumers approximately the same amount of white 

spaces that were available prior to the passage of the incentive auction legislation. 

More importantly, reserving a large unlicensed slice of spectrum would go 

directly against the Commission's goal in the TV white spaces effort - to maximize 

efficiency and gain consumer benefits from an undefined and under-used resource. Put 

another way, a contiguous swath of spectrum would be clearly defined, exclusive and 

easily transferable - everything the white spaces are not. Given today's unprecedented 

budget deficits and the consumer benefits of exclusive-use licenses, I question whether 

the U.S. can afford not to auction any and all spectrum recovered in this band. Would 

reserving a large swath of unlicensed spectrum frustrate Congress's express directive that 

the Commission attempt to raise at least $7 billion for a nationwide, interoperable public 

safety network? 

Carefully balance flexible-use with interference protections. Similarly, I question 

whether the proposed five megahertz channel blocks discussed in the Incentive Auction 

Notice would result in a band plan that reserves too much spectrum for unlicensed use, 

contrary to Congress's explicit intent. Or, would auctioning spectrum in six megahertz 

channels, that is, on a broadcast channel-by-channel basis, be more intuitive and thus lead 

to a more efficient and fruitful auction? I am eager to learn from all interested 

stakeholders during the public comment process. 

I also wonder whether the proposed six megahertz guard bands are in fact "no 

larger than technically reasonable to prevent harmful interference between licensed 

6 
40 


85821.027

services outside the guard bands."g Are six megahertz guard bands truly necessary to 

prevent harmful interference given the technological improvements that may come over 

the horizon after we adopt rules? As technology advances, smaller guard bands could 

end up being more practical notto mention more spectrally efficient. We certainly would 

not want to prevent such a beneficial byproduct from coming forth tomorrow as an 

unintended consequence of our actions today. 

Likewise, I will work to ensure that, consistent with the statute's explicit call for 

"flexible-use" spectrum allotments,9 the new licensing rules are intuitive, appropriately 

minimal and "future proof," which will draw bidder interest and, ultimately, more easily 

lead innovators to develop and design devices and services that we cannot imagine today. 

We must keep in mind that technology and user preferences evolve quickly. For 

example, no one had heard of the iPhone, e-readers, wireless tablets, or SmartTV just six 

short years ago when I first joined the Commission. Yet these devices are part of 

everyday life today. 

While we may collectively acknowledge the scientific tension between flexibleuse licensing and the appropriate size of guard bands, all policymakers have an obligation 

to provide entrepreneurs the freedom to run with their imaginations and bring new 

experiments to the marketplace. I am hopeful that we will proceed with humility and 

invest the necessary time and energy to think carefully and thoughtfully before we act. 

As none of us can predict the next disruptive technology, or where its spectrum home will 

be, I caution against inadvertently preventing further innovation and stifling future uses 

of spectrum based on trends, including: labeling certain spectrum as "prime" (i.e., that 

8 broadband spectrum law § 6407(b). 

9 See e.g., id. §§ 6401(b)(l)(B), 6402. 

7 
41 


85821.028

located below 1 GHz); classifying other bands as "junk;" or prejudging the "value" of 

spectrum bands that have yet to be auctioned. History shows us that today's "junk" is 

often tomorrow's "prime."JO 

No encumbrances. Many of us recall the 700 MHz auction that concluded in 

early 2008, which raised a record amount of revenue, over $19 billion. The auction also 

succeeded in reallocating this valuable slice ofthe airwaves to licensees who have since 

been rolling out new and exciting "fourth generation" wireless broadband services, such 

as "Long Term Evolution" (L TE). Nonetheless, two important objectives ofthe auction 

were not met. First, the Commission failed to entice a winning bidder to build a state-ofthe-art nationwide, interoperable network for America's public safety personnel. Second, 

even after satisfying the demands of potential new entrants by imposing an "open access" 

condition on a 22 megahertz swath known as the "c" Block, the Commission failed in its 

quest to attract a new national broadband provider. Now four years later, today's 

discussion gives us an opportunity to recall and reanalyze the lessons learned. 

With respect to the public safety partnership, the FCC's order included a plan to 

spark a pUblic/private partnership by allocating 10 megahertz of spectrum for public 

safety use, known as the "D Block." The Commission created this framework after 

working closely with the public safety community, and I supported it. Hopes were high 

that this additional spectrum would provide an incentive for a private entity to construct a 

]0 Relinquished by the federal government and commonly known as a 'junk band," the FCC allocated the 

2.4 GHz band for unlicensed use in 1995. Among other ubiquitous devices such as digital cordless 

telephones, utility metering devices, fire and security alarm systems, wireless bar code readers, wireless 

local area networks and baby monitors, entrepreneurs deployed "wireless fidelity" or "Wi-Fi" in the 2.4 

GHz band. In 2011, more than 37% ofall U.S. Internet traffic flows over unlicensed Wi-Fi at some point. 

See CISCO, VNI FORECAST HIGHLIGHTS, 

http://www.cisco.comlweb/solutions/sp/vnilvnijorecast_highlights/index.html#-Country (last visited Dec. 

11,2012) (filter using United States and Network Connections). 

8 
42 


85821.029

nationwide, interoperable, broadband public safety network all of us have been 

discussing since at least the attacks of September 11, 200 1. We did this to try to create an 

incentive for the private side of the public/private partnership to invest risk capital to 

build a nationwide public safety network suitable for 21st century challenges. In the 

aftermath of the auction, we learned that potential bidders were deterred by onerous 

build-out and service rules that would have required the eventual licensee to incur 

massive costs in an atmosphere of extreme uncertainty regarding how many, if any, 

public safety entities might actually sign up as paying customers. 

Of course, Congress has given new life to the D Block and we are grateful for 

your leadership. Based on this experience, the lesson learned is that encumbrances on 

spectrum and prescriptive rules tend to scare off bidders. 

With respect to the "open access" requirements for the "C" Block, I cast the only 

dissent because the evidence in the record told me that the market was already headed 

toward open access through natural evolution. I also did not think that the plan would 

achieve the advertised goal of attracting new broadband competition. Additionally, as I 

pointed out in my dissent, I was concerned that larger carriers would avoid the 

encumbered C Block and outbid smaller players in the smaller, less-regulated spectrum 

blocks. Sadly, all of my fears proved to be correct. 

Here again, I am hopeful that the Commission will keep these lessons in mind as 

we develop new auction and licensing rules for spectrum located in the 600 MHz Band. 

The "open access" encumbrance was unnecessary and, ultimately, harmful. Wireless 

"openness" is prevalent today - consumers have a choice of no fewer than three operating 

9 
43 


85821.030

systems, plus unlicensed Wi-Fi. Yet, we must wonder whether that condition led to a 

lack of interoperability within the 700 MHz band. 

We should all remember that we are at the beginning of what will surely be a 

lengthy and complicated process. All of the hard decisions lie ahead. I am eager to 

contribute to the Commission's ongoing effort and will greatly appreciate the thoughts 

and insights of the members of this subcommittee and all involved. 

Liberating Federal Spectrum for Auction 

Finally, the Executive Branch must do more to relinquish spectrum occupied by 

the federal government and send it to auction for exclusive use licenses. The federal 

government occupies a majority of the most useful spectrum. Without a doubt, much of 

it is used for important purposes such as national defense, air traffic control and law 

enforcement. But does anyone believe that all federal spectrum is being used efficiently? 

We don't have clear answers to these questions because the process can be opaque and 

the incentives encourage inefficiencies. 

History teaches us that exclusive use licenses are the best vehicle to promote the 

most efficient development of spectrum. Although policies regarding spectrum sharing, 

the cornerstone of the Administration's federal spectrum policy, could offer a few 

benefits, they are anemic when compared with the strengths of exclusive use licenses 

allocated through auction. Accordingly, Congress, the Executive Branch and the FCC 

should all work together to implement policies that would give federal users of spectrum 

an incentive to relinquish it for auction. This scenario could be a win-win-win for the 

government, the economy and consumers alike. With progress in spectrum policy all too 

often measured in decades, however, we should implement constructive new ideas wiII 

10 
44 


85821.031

all deliberate speed. America's mobile broadband marketplace, and especially its 

consumers, cannot afford to wait. 

Special Access 

During both my career in the private sector and my six and a half years at the 

Commission, I have spent countless hours working on public policy concerning "special 

access" services and facilities. I have digested competing, and often conflicting 

arguments, hypotheses and scenarios. During this time, I have maintained that the only 

way to conduct a proper assessment of the current rules is to first conduct a 

comprehensive and granular data collection followed by a bonafide market analysis. 

Ideally, we should have before us a current and detailed building-by-building, cell-siteby-cell-site map of the variety of facilities and services available and their price. 

Furthermore, we should know what new facilities and services may have arrived in the 

market that may be substitutable for what was dubbed "special access" in the late 20th 

century. Although such a large data collection may seem daunting, the Department of 

Justice was able to gather such valuable information during its review of the SBC/AT&T 

and VerizonlMCI mergers in the last decade. If this information was necessary for 

transaction reviews then, it is surely needed for potential important rule changes now. 

Unfortunately, none of the FCC's previous voluntary data collections yielded 

enough data to build an adequate evidentiary record. II The FCC admitted as much in a 

t I See Parties Asked to Comment on Analytical Framework Necessary to Resolve Issues in the Special 

Access NPRM, we Docket No. 05-25, RM-I0593, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13638 (2009); Data 

Requested in Special Access NPRM, we Docket No. 05-25, RM-I0593, Public Notice, 25 FCC Rcd 15146 

(20 10); see also Clarification of Data Requested in Special Access NPRM, we Docket No. 05-25, RM10593, Public Notice, 25 FCC Red 17693 (2010); Competition Data Requested in Special Access NPRM, 

we Docket No. 05-25, RM-I0593, Public Notice, 26 FCC Red 14000 (201l). 

11 
45 


85821.032

court filing last year.12 Despite this incomplete record, in August, the Commission 

"temporarily" suspended - in other words, changed - its special access rules.13 Precisely 

because the Commission changed a substantive rule before building a sufficient 

evidentiary record to support such a pivot, I dissented from that order and continued my 

call for a comprehensive data collection. 

The Commission is now in the process of finalizing and releasing a 

comprehensive data collection. Since the order has not yet been released to the public, I 

am prevented from providing details. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the order is 

mandatory and will be conducted largely on a nationwide basis. 

This important exercise will require the cooperation of all the players in what I 

hypothesize to be a complex special access market. Accordingly, it is my hope that the 

Commission will work with all affected parties to ensure that the burdens of this data 

collection are as minimal as possible. I am also supportive of the Commission's efforts to 

protect confidential and sensitive data. Our work should help ensure that any additional 

rule changes are legally sustainable. 

In the meantime, I thank Chairman Genachowski, and all of my colleagues, for 

their willingness to incorporate many of my numerous edits along the way. 

Modernizing the Commission's Media Ownership Rules 

I am hopeful that the Commission will conclude the quadrennial media ownership 

proceeding as soon as possible. As is required by Section 202(h) of the Communications 

12 Opposition of the Fed. Comme'ns Comm'n to Petition for Writ of Mandamus at 1, In re COMPTEL, et 

al., No. 11·1262 (D.c. Cir. filed Oct. 6,2011). 

13 Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers; AT&T Corporation Petition for Rulemaking to 

Reform Regulation of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Rates for Interstate Special Access Services, WC 

Docket No. 05·25, RM·10593, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 10557 (2012). 

12 
46 


85821.033

Act, the FCC must modemize its media ownership rules to reflect the current economic 

realities of the marketplace and eliminate any and all unnecessary mandates. 14 Because 

oftoday's competitive media landscape, the Commission should resist proposals that 

would result in new and unnecessary regulation, such restricting broadcasters from 

entering into some forms of contracts that could provide efficiencies ultimately benefiting 

consumers. 

Evidence continues to mount that the 1975 newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership 

ban should be largely eliminated. Although the Commission proposed a relaxation of the 

ban on newspaper-television ownership for the largest markets and considered 

eliminating restrictions on newspaper-radio combinations, these proposals are anemic and 

do not reflect marketplace realities. Over the past decade, broadcast stations and daily 

newspapers have grappled with falling audience and circulation numbers, diminishing 

advertising revenues and resulting staff reductions, 15 as online sources gain in 

14 Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that: 

The Commission shall review its rules adopted pursuant to this section 

and all of its ownership rules quadrennially ... and shall determine 

whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the 

result of competition. The Commission shall repeal or modifY any 

regulation it determines to be no longer in the public interest. 

Telecommunications Act ofl996, Pub. L. No. 104-104,110 Stat. 56,111-12 § 202(h)(1996); Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-199, § 629,118 Stat. 3, 99-100 (2004) (amending Section 

202(h) of the 1996 Act). I concurred in the December 2011 notice of proposed rulemaking, because the 

Commission appears to be prepared to accept a regulatory status quo while I think major changes are 

necessary and required by Section 202(h). 

15 Although some sectors of the news industry have experienced a slight resurgence, newspapers continue 

to face decline with both advertising and circulation revenues continuing on a downward path. In 20ll, 

network and local news viewership increased for the first time in years; however, local TV station 

advertising revenues still experienced a decline. See PEW REsEARCH CTR'S PROJECT FOR EXCELLENCE IN 

JOURNALISM, THE STATE OF THE NEWS MEDIA 2012, KEY FINDINGS, 

http://stateofthemedia.orgl2012/0verview-4lkey-findings/ (last visited Mat 14, 2012) ("THE STATE OF THE 

NEWS MEDIA 2012"); THE STATE OF THE NEWS MEDIA 20 12, LOCAL TV, 

http://stateofthemedia.orgl20l2/0verview-4/key-findings/ (explaining that some ofthis loss is due to a 

reduction of political and automotive advertising from 2010 and that these revenues will rebound during a 

busy election cycle. 

13 
47 


85821.034

popularity.16 This trend has led many prominent daily newspapers to declare bankruptcy, 

while others have faced more dire circumstances. In fact, over the past five years, an 

average of 15 daily papers, or about one percent ofthe industry, have shuttered their 

doors each year. 17 

Regardless of any rule changes we may implement, traditional media owners are 

now choosing to invest in new, unregulated digital outlets rather than acquire more 

heavily-regulated traditional media assets. Many dailies are experimenting with new 

business models, such as reducing the number days that the newspaper is printed, 18 

moving to online-only formatsl9 or partnering with online distributors.2o These rules are 

truly remnants of a bygone era. Once again, the marketplace has moved quickly past 

obsolete communications laws. 

16 In fact, the White House's Council of Economic Advisors has found that newspapers are one of 

America's fastest-shrinking industries losing approximately 28.4 percent of its workforce between 2007 

and 2011. Online publishing job growth, on the other hand, increased by more that 20 percent in the same 

time period. See, e.g., EcONOMIC REpORT OF lliE PRESIDENT TOOElliER Willi THE ANNUAL REPORT OF 

lliE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS 188 (February 2012) (citing a LinkedIn study), available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defaultlfilesldocs/erp_2012_complete.pdf; Matt Rosoff, Newspapers Are 

The Fastest Shrinking Industry In The u.s., BUSINESS INSIDER (Mar. 8,2012), 

http://artic1es.businessinsider.coml20 12-03-08/techl31135175 _I_linkedin-job-growthnewspapers#ixzzl usOz9Urf. 

17 THE STATE OF lliE NEWS MEDIA 2012, MAJOR TRENDS, http://stateofthemedia.org/2012/overview4/major-trends/. 

18 For instance, the 175-year-old daily New Orleans Times-Picayune is now printed only three times per 

week. See, e.g., Maya Rodriguez, Former and Current Times-Picayune Staffers Bid Farewell to Daily 

Paper, WWLTV.COM, http://www.wwltv.comlnewsllocallFormer-and-Current-Times-Picayune-staffersbid-farewell-to-daily-newspaper-171955991.html (Sept. 30, 2012). 

19 Currently, 172 newspapers have launched online subscription plans or placed content behind a paywall. 

This represents a IS percent increase since January alone and more papers are expected to follow suit in the 

coming months. Papers with Digital Subscriber PlanslPaywalls, NEWS & TECH (May 10,2012), 

http://www.newsandtech.comlstatslarticle_22aclefa-2466-11 e 1-9c29-00 19bb2963f4.html (Jast visited May 

14,2012); THE STATE OF lliENEWS MEDIA 2012, NEWSPAPERS, 

http://stateofthemedia.org/20 12/newspapers-building-digital-revenues-proves-painfully-slowl (stating that 

roughly 150 newspapers have instituted a "metered model"). 

20 THE STATE OF lliE NEWS MEDIA 2012, OVERVIEW, http://stateofthemedia.org/2012/overview-4/ (stating 

that Reuters is producing original news shows for YouTube; Facebook has entered into partnerships with 

The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The Guardian; and Yahoo! paired with ABC News to 

be its sole provider of news video). 

14 
48 


85821.035

Further, evidence before the Commission demonstrates that in-market 

combinations do not negatively affect viewpoint diversity21 and may actually increase the 

quantity and quality oflocal news and information provided by commonly-owned outlets 

to benefit the American consumer.22 More than likely, the FCC ban on broadcastnewspaper cross-ownership has hastened a decline in newsgathering across the country. 

We must ensure that the heavy hand of government regulation does not continue to 

distort the marketplace or limit the options of broadcasters and the newspaper community 

to attract investment, increase efficiencies, and share the costs of news production. 

Second, the Commission must resist calls for limiting the use of joint sales, shared 

service, and local news service agreements. These agreements provide efficiencies 

lowering the operation and production costs for broadcasters enabling them to deploy 

economized resources to the benefit of consumers. By creating new overly-regulatory 

attribution rules targeting these agreements, the FCC may cause the unintended 

consequences of raising expenses and reducing the amount of local programming 

provided by a broadcaster. Further, the Commission should not regulate without a full 

understanding of how these agreements are used in the marketplace and whether there are 

21 See, e.g., Newspaper Association of America, Comments, MB Docket No. 09-182, at 18-20 (Mar. 5, 

2012) ("NAA Comments"); Adam D. Renhoffand Kenneth C. Wilbur, Local Media Ownership and 

Viewpoint Diversity in Local Television News, at 3, 15 (June 12,2011), available at 

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs...public/attachmatch!DOC-308596Al.pdf("[T]hese findings show that under 

the proposed definition of viewpoint diversity, variation in television station co-ownership and crossownership is generally found to [have] negligible effects on viewpoint diversity. However, it is important to 

note that the data are limited to the degree of media co-ownership and cross-ownership currently allowed 

under FCC rules. "). 

22 See, e.g., 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review - Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules 

and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of J 996, MB Docket No. 

09-182, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17489, 17519,85, n.l85 (2011); NAA Comments at 

15-18; Diversity and Competition Supporters, Initial Comments, MB Docket No. 09-182, at 40-43 (Mar. 5, 

2012); Adam D. Renhoffand Kenneth C. Wilbur, Local Media Ownership and Media Quality, at 3, 15 

(June 12,2011), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs'''public/attachmatch!DOC-308504Al.pdf; Jack 

Erb, Local Information Programming and the Structure of Television Markets, at 4, 27-28, 40-41 (May 20, 

2011), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs "'public/attachmatch!DOC-308508A I.pdf. 

15 
49 


85821.036

systemic abuses that have limited competition and viewpoint diversity in broadcast 

markets. In the face of an intensely competitive new media marketplace, placing new 

rules on these agreements could violate the spirit and letter of Section 202(h). 

Finally, the Commission needs to move forward soon on reviewing our policies 

and rules regarding diversity in broadcasting built upon the firm foundation of new 

diversity studies. As part of the FCC's media ownership review, the Commission 

requested comment on a myriad of proposals to enhance media diversity. Forthose 

proposals aimed at expanding opportunities for minorities and women, however, we have 

to be mindful that any action the Commission would undertake regarding race- and/or 

gender-based regulations must satisfy the rigorous demands of the Constitution's Equal 

Protection Clause, including the strict scrutiny standard under the Supreme Court's 

Adarand23 line of cases. Although the Commission has made improvements in its 

collection of minority ownership data and taken the initial steps to acquire information 

regarding the information needs of communities, it should conclude badly needed studies 

to assist us in supporting any new race- and/or gender-based regulations to determine the 

best approaches to increase media diversity, in accordance with the Constitution. As a 

matter of good government, the Commission should act quickly. We are long overdue 

for such action. 

Broadcast Indecency 

In June, the Supreme Court held that the Commission failed to provide fair notice 

regarding the application of its broadcast indecency standards to cases involving fleeting 

23 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). 

16 
50 


85821.037

expletives and momentary nudity.24 When the Court ruled, the Commission had 

approximately 1.5 million indecency complaints pending involving about 9,700 

broadcasts. I am pleased that the dedicated staff of the Enforcement Bureau has begun to 

tackle this monumental undertaking and has already reduced the backlog to 

approximately a half million complaints involving about 5500 broadcasts. We owe it to 

American families and the broadcast licensees involved to carry out our statutory duties 

by resolving the remaining complaints with all deliberate speed. Going forward, the 

Commission must ensure that its indecency standards are clear, that broadcasters have the 

requisite notice and that Americans, especially parents such as myself, are secure in their 

knowledge of what content is allowed to be broadcast. 

Modernizing FCC Procedures and Regulations 

Reform of our communications laws and FCC procedure have been an important 

topic of debate for many years. Many have suggested that the Commission streamline its 

procedures and ensure that unnecessary, outdated or harmful FCC rules are repealed. 

Chairman Genachowski has taken notable steps in reforming various procedures at the 

agency, but more can be done. 

I commend your Committee for its work on FCC reform legislation which 

includes many constructive ideas. For example, requiring the Commission to include in 

its rulemaking process cost benefit analyses to support any future rules would result in a 

24 FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., No. 10·1293, slip op. (U.S. June 21,2012). The Court also denied 

certiorari in FCC v. CBS Corporation, No. 11·1240, slip op. (U.S. June 29, 2012), bringing an end to the 

litigation over the momentary exposure of Janet Jackson's breast. In vacating the Commission's order, the 

Third Circuit held that the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious, because the agency 

departed from its policy of excusing the broadcast of fleeting moments of indecency. CBS Corp. v. FCC, 

663 F.3d 122 (3,d Cir. 2011). 

17 
51 


85821.038

smarter rulemaking process. Additionally, updating the Government in Sunshine Act25 in 

a way that improves the FCC's efficiency and ability to negotiate while preserving its 

transparency is something that has also gained wide support. Also, requiring that future 

regulatory proceedings start with a thorough market analysis that examines the state of 

competition would be a positive change. In the absence of market failure, adopting 

unnecessary regulations in the name of serving the public interest can have the perverse 

effect of harming consumers by inhibiting the constructive risk-taking that produces 

investment, innovation, competition, lower prices and jobs. I look forward to working 

with all of you in pursuit of these worthy goals. 

Regarding updating and repealing outdated regulations, the Commission should 

focus on the market's transition from telecom networks that were built for analog voice 

services to state-of-the-art data networks that convey an infinite slurry of ones and zeros 

(the "IP transition"). Comments filed at the FCC indicate that within at least the 22 states 

where AT&T operates, 70 percent of the residential customers with access to plain old 

telephone service over aging copper networks are projected to have chosen a competitive 

alternative by the end of 20 12.26 As in so many cases, while our statute and rules stay 

firmly rooted in the 20th century, the market is whizzing past us. We are overdue for a 

fresh look at how our laws may be hindering rather than helping such market evolutions. 

Complex questions abound and they will need to be answered prior to the 

completion of this transition. How do we encourage continued investment in the 

networks supporting an IP transition? What can the Commission do to speed the 

25 5 U.S.C. § 552b. 

26 See Comments of AT&T, In the Matter of Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90 (February 24, 

2012). 

18 
52 


85821.039

transition along? What happens with legacy infrastructure? How can we ensure that the 

Commission remains faithful to the Act and Commission precedent, both of which treat 

broadband Internet access as an information service? These questions, and many more, 

require careful and focused consideration by the Commission and all stakeholders. 

Protecting Internet Freedom 

The Commission could start with a much-needed modernization by closing the 

Title II docket with no action taken.27 Closing this proceeding would send a strong signal 

to investors and regulators around the world that the United States rejects the notion of 

subjecting nimble Internet innovations to late 19th century industrial policy that is the 

foundation of the Communications Act of 1934. We can do better. We can adopt new 

policies that provide entrepreneurs the freedom to invest and innovate without fear of 

suffocation from obsolete laws written for a monopoly analog voice world. If 

approached intelligently, consumers would be the ultimate beneficiaries of a powerful 

explosion of entrepreneurial brilliance. 

Furthermore, should the FCC's 2010 regulation ofInternet network management 

be overturned by the court, in lieu of resorting to the destructive option of classifying, for 

the first time, broadband Internet access services as common carriage under Title II, the 

FCC should revive a concept I first proposed nearly five years ago - that is to use the 

tried and true multi-stakeholder model for resolution of allegations of anti-competitive 

conduct by Internet service providers. A multi-stakeholder forum, where governments 

can have a seat at the table, supported by the backstop of existing antitrust and consumer 

21 Frameworkfor Broadband Internet Service, GN Docket No. 10-127, Notice ofInquiry, 25 FCC Red 

7866 (2010). 

19 
53 


85821.040

protection laws, could spotlight market failures and cure them more quickly - and more 

effectively - than antiquated telephone laws. 

Ifwe are going to preach the virtues of the multi-stakeholder model at the pending 

World Conference on International Telecommunications (WClT) in Dubai, we should 

practice what we preach. Not only would the U.S. then harmonize its foreign policy with 

its domestic policy, but such a course correction would yield better results for consumers 

as well. 

And while I am on the important topic of the WCIT, Chairman Genachowski and 

I were in Dubai last week and we can report that our delegation is working hard to 

prevent an expansion of the ITU's jurisdiction into any aspect ofthe Internet. The WCIT 

has not yet concluded, but I welcome any questions on this topic. I have attached a 

recent op-ed on the WCIT for your reference. See attachment A. 

If Internet freedom survives the Dubai talks, however, we should not let our guard 

down. The next conference is in May and it will lay the foundation for a more 

fundamental and far-reaching negotiation on these and other matters in 2014 in Korea. 

Accordingly, I strongly urge all of us to maintain our vigilance because freedom's foes 

are patient and persistent incrementalists. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for having us before you today, and I look forward to your questions. 

20 
54 


85821.041

ATTACHMENT A 
55 


85821.042

POLITICO 

Staring down Internet freedom's foes 

By: Robert M. McDowell 

November 30,2012 

On Monday, representatives from 193 countries are convening in Dubai in the United Arab 

Emirates, to renegotiate a treaty that could give an arm of the United Nations new powers 

over the Internet. Despite increased scrutiny of these talks, many countries seem more 

determined than ever to turn the supremely bad idea of establishing international 

regulation of the Net into reality. American diplomats will have to navigate a torrent of 

formal proposals that would curtail Internet freedom, limit consumers' choices and 

increase costs for all Net users. How the negotiations end will shape the future of the Net, 

as well as the prospects for global freedom and prosperity. 

The purpose of the Dubai talks, known as the World Conference on International 

Telecommunications, is to re-examine a 1988 treaty that loosened rules covering 

telephone and computer communications. The regulatory framework adopted in 1988 took 

a "hands off" approach to emerging technologies, such as what later became the Internet. 

As a result, the Internet is now the greatest deregulatory success story of all time. For 

instance, in 1995, shortly after it was privatized, only 16 million people used the Net. That 

number has spiked to more than 2.5 billion today with upward of a half million people 

becoming first-time Internet users each day. If, however, some key regimes have their 

way, such soaring positive trend lines will flatten. 

For a decade, countries such as Russia and China, plus dozens of others from Arab and 

African regions, have pushed with increasing intensity for the International 

Telecommunication Union, a treaty-based organization operating under the U.N., to 

expand its authority over the Internet. In fact, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin 

candidly revealed last year in a meeting with the ITU secretary general that he has a goal 

to establish "international control over the Internet" through new ITU rules. Net users 

everywhere should take Putin and his allies quite seriously. 

Months ago, chatter intensified that some countries were going to propose expanding the 

ITU's rules to cover many corners of the complex Internet ecosystem. Yet many of these 

same countries, and ITU leaders, continue to issue vehement denials of an ITU Internet 

power grab. In recent days, however, the truth has been revealed in irrefutable, black and 

white diplomatic proposals to regulate key aspects of the Net. Stranger than fiction, here 

are just a few of the most recent submissions: 

• Changing the treaty's definitions of terms so the ITU and its member states can regulate 

the Internet economy like an ancient telephone monopoly; 

• Eliminating anonymity for Internet consumers through new international "registration 

records" (in the name of "privacy") allowing government monitoring of consumers' Net 

activity; 
56 


85821.043

• Replacing existing nonprofit private-sector groups that keep the Net working with global 

government agencies that would regulate vital Web naming, numbering, addressing and 

identification functions that allow every Web-connected device (such as mobile phones, 

tablets and personal computers) to work; and 

• Creating global rules so foreign phone companies or governments could charge fees to 

consumers' favorite websites (costs ultimately passed on to consumers), perhaps on a 

"per click" basis. 

Increasingly, pro-regulation forces are shrouding their proposals in seemingly innocuous 

sales pitches, such as the need for better cybersecurity, more stable markets or 

ubiquitous Internet access. ITU leadership and some member states have even brazenly 

argued that the 1988 rules already give the ITU jurisdiction over the Net and give 

legitimacy to censorship. If these aggressive regulatory expansionists are conspiring today 

to trash long-standing international consensus to insulate the Net from regulation by 

conjuring limitless ITU authority where plainly none exists in current treaty text, think of 

how they would contort a new pact that gave them even the tiniest hook into the Internet's 

affairs. 

If new regulatory ideas gain steam, the ensuing uncertainty is likely to inhibit Net 

entrepreneurs' constructive risk taking, investment and innovation because engineering 

and business decisions would become politicized within intergovernmental bodies. 

Consequently, consumer costs would rise and fewer Net-powered products and services 

would emerge. Furthermore, the Net could become divided between countries opting for 

the ITU regulatory structure versus those that choose to stick with the current hands-off 

approach. In addition to creating an engineering nightmare for the Net, a borderless and 

global network of networks, the result would be a lower-quality and more expensive 

Internet for everybody. Each Internet consumer in the world would suffer the effects of the 

ensuing confusion. 

Ironically, some of the most energetic proponents of expanded ITU powers hail from the 

developing world, which would be hurt the most by increased costs resulting from more 

Net regulation. Several independent studies, including a World Bank report, show that an 

open and freedom-enhancing Web grows developing world economies faster than those 

of industrialized nations, all while giving individuals an information gateway to escape 

poverty and oppression. Preserving an unfettered Net is the best way to continue this 

positive trend. Yet whether hoping new rules would steer cash from popular websites into 

their treasuries or whether a new paradigm could provide insidious ways to track and 

crack down on political rivals, authoritarian regimes resent an unregulated Net. 

Some rays of hope have crested the horizon, however. Our diplomats' efforts are fueled 

by a rare unwavering consensus emanating from Washington. Recently, both houses of a 

divided Congress unanimously passed bipartisan resolutions championing Internet 

freedom and directing our diplomats to oppose even the smallest expansion of ITU 

authority. Our negotiators should avoid at all costs agreeing to seemingly minor, technical 

or harmless treaty "tweaks" that most likely would be used later to undermine Net 

2 
57 


85821.044

freedom. 

Slightly encouraging are a few recent statements from ITU leadership asserting that 

changes to the rules will emerge only if they are "agreed upon by all participants through 

consensus: and "[the WCIT1 cannot empower governments to exercise greater regulation 

of the Internet." Curiously, however, ITU leaders take a giant step backward when they 

also claim, "there have not been any proposals calling for a change from the bottom-up 

multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to an ITU-controlled modeJ." The explicit 

language of several proposals on file at the ITU, as well as in officiallTU documents, 

contradict this misleading assertion -leaving observers wringing their hands over 

leadership's ultimate designs. 

A successful WCIT would produce a treaty that not only eschews expanded regulation of 

any aspect of the Internet but also commits to free markets, freedom of speech, 

competition and deregulation. The people of every nation, but especially tomorrow's firsttime Net users in the developing world, deserve no less. 

After the December WCIT, new talks commence in May. Defenders of Internet freedom 

should never let their guard down, for freedom's foes are patient and persistent 

incrementalists. To be continued '" 

Robert M. McDowell is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission and 

a member of the U. S. delegation to the WCIT. 

© 2012 POLITICO LLC 

3 
58 

Mr. WALDEN. Now we will go to Honorable Commissioner Clyburn. 

Thank you for being here today. We appreciate all you do at the 

Commission. Look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MIGNON L. CLYBURN 

Ms. CLYBURN. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member 

Eshoo, and distinguished representatives. Good morning. Thank 

you for the opportunity to discuss the FCC’s efforts in implementing the historic legislation you passed earlier this year. 

I respectfully request that my full statement be admitted in the 

record of this proceeding. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection. 

Ms. CLYBURN. Over the past few years, consumer demand for 

wireless services has increased by startling rates. These realities 

require that the Nation put in place targeted yet nimble legislative 

and regulatory policies in order to keep pace. 

It is sometimes hard to believe this, but when I first started at 

the Commission in the summer of 2009, tablet devices had not even 

been introduced to the U.S. consumer. And now, according to the 

most recent data for this year, 22 percent of American adults own 

such a device. 

When you consider these statistics, together with the fact that 

tablets consume 121 times more spectrum than ordinary 

cellphones, then you realize that two elements of spectrum management have become critical policy priorities: First, we must find 

quicker ways to repurpose spectrum for commercial mobile services, and, second, we must promote more efficient uses of spectrum. 

Congress understood this when it passed the JOBS Act of 2012. 

The plain language of the statute makes clear that through a voluntary incentive auction we have the authority to find a quicker 

tool to reallocate spectrum. 

Congress directed that the incentive auction of broadcast television spectrum consist of three major features: a reverse auction, 

a repacking of the broadcast TV band, and a forward auction. For 

those broadcast TV licensees who want to continue to use their 

spectrum to provide services, the Commission must make all reasonable efforts to preserve their coverage area and populations 

served. 

I am pleased to report that the Commission has been moving 

quickly to implement these statutory directives. Just 2 months 

after enactment, a unanimous three-member commission released 

an order that put forth some basic ground rules for the channelsharing aspects of the incentive auctions. 

This past September, the Commission at full complement unanimously adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking on the full range 

of procedural and technical rules that it could adopt. That notice 

proposes a band plan with 6 megahertz guard bands that meet the 

statutory requirement that they are no larger than technically reasonable to prevent harmful interference between licensed services. 

It seeks comment on the proposal. 

I believe it was important for the notice to propose a band plan 

with an appropriate balance of licensed and unlicensed spectrum. 

59 

Section 6407 of the act correctly authorizes the Commission to permit the use of such guard bands for unlicensed use. 

Unlicensed spectrum has played a critical role in helping the 

wireless industry use its valuable resource more efficiently. Commercial wireless carriers are increasingly using unlicensed Wi-Fi 

services to offload their smartphone traffic, resulting in wireless 

carriers not having to construct an estimated 130,000 cell sites at 

a savings of more than $25 billion each year. 

The unlicensed spectrum proposals in the notice would also encourage development of wireless services that can make effective 

use of unused spectrum or white spaces in the broadcast TV band. 

It is also clear that continued innovation in the unlicensed service industry is important to our national economy. As Representatives Eshoo and Issa pointed out, it is estimated that unlicensed 

spectrum generates between $16 billion and $37 billion each year 

for the U.S. economy. 

The incentive auction notice also appropriately seeks comment on 

ways the Commission could design the incentive auction to accomplish all of the funding goals of the act, including funds for a national first responder network. 

Thank you all for allowing me to make these opening remarks. 

I look forward to any questions you may have. 

Mr. WALDEN. Commissioner Clyburn, thank you for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Clyburn follows:] 

60 


85821.045

Statement of FCC Commissioner Mignon L. Clyburn 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

Wednesday, December 12,2012 

Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Waxman, and distinguished Representatives, good morning. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss spectrum policy and the efforts of the Federal Communications 

Commission to implement the historic legislation you passed in February of this year. 

Over the past few years, consumer demand for wireless services has been increasing at a startling 

pace and the Nation needs legislation and regulation that can promote deployment of services. It's hard to 

believe that when I first started at the Commission in the summer of 2009, tablet devices had not yet been 

introduced to the U. S. consumer. And now, according to the most recent data for this year, 22 percent of 

American adults now own such a device. That figure is up from 11 percent in 2011. When you consider 

these statistics, with the fact that tablets consume 121 times more spectrum than ordinary cellphones, you 

immediately realize that our Nation's demand for wireless spectrum is on such an exponential trajectory 

that two elements of spectrum management have become critical policy priorities. First, we must find 

quicker ways to repurpose spectrum for commercial mobile services. Second, we must promote more 

efficient uses of spectrum. 

Congress understood this when it passed, on a bipartisan basis, the Middle Class Tax Relief and 

Job Creation Act of2012. The plain language ofthe spectrum management and public safety 

communications sections of that Act make clear that, through a voluntary incentive auction, Congress was 

giving the Commission authority to find a quicker tool to reallocate spectrum from broadcast TV services 

to wireless services. Congress directed that the incentive auction of broadcast television spectrum have 

three major pieces: a "reverse auction" in which broadcast television licensees submit bids to voluntarily 

relinquish spectrum usage rights in exchange for payments; a reorganization, or "repacking" ofthe 

broadcast television bands in order to free up a portion of the ultra-high frequency (UHF) band for other 

uses; and a "forward auction" of initial licenses for flexible use of the newly available spectrum. For 

those broadcast TV licensees who want to continue to use their spectrum to provide those services, the 

Act mandates that the Commission make all reasonable efforts to preserve, as of the date of the enactment 

of this Act, the coverage area and population served of each broadcast television licensee. 

The Act also had clear directives for the proceeds from the forward auction. The Act requires 

that the incentive auction result in proceeds that are greater than the sum of the total amount of 

compensation the Commission must pay successful bidders in the reverse auction, the cost of 

administering the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction, and the estimated amount of the 

relocation cost reimbursements. The first $1.75 billion ofthe proceeds would go into a fund to repay 

broadcast TV licensees reasonably incurred costs for being required to change frequencies as a result of 

the repack process. The rest ofthe proceeds would be deposited in the Public Safety Trust Fund to fund a 

national first responder network, state and local public safety grants, public safety research, and national 

deficit reduction. 

Congress also gave the Commission authority to promote the use of unlicensed spectrum. The 

Act allows the Commission to implement guard bands that are technically reasonable to prevent harmful 

interference between licensed services outside the guard bands. The statute also permits the use of such 

guard bands for unlicensed use. 

1 
61 


85821.046

I am pleased to report that the Commission has been moving carefully but expeditiously to 

comply with both the spirit and plain language of all the mandates in the Act. I also particularly 

appreciate that the Commission staff members has been proactive in seeking the active engagement of the 

public and all stakeholders. They began conducting webinars and workshops even before Congress 

passed the Spectrum Act and it plans to hold several more such events throughout this proceeding. In 

addition, FCC staff members have been trying to implement these statutory directives with the same 

bipartisan approach that resulted in Congress passing the Act. Just two months after its enactment, a 

unanimous, three-member Commission released an Order that set some basic ground rules for preparing 

for incentive auctions. For example, it identified the specific broadcast TV licensees who may participate 

in channel sharing and clarifies that channel sharing will be voluntary and flexible. 

This past September, the Commission, this time at full complement, unanimously adopted a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that sought comment on the full range of procedural and technical rules 

that the Commission would have to adopt to conduct the voluntary incentive auctions. That Notice 

proposes a band plan, with six megahertz guard bands, that meet specific requirements that they be no 

larger than technically reasonable to prevent harmful interference between licensed services. It seeks 

comment on the plan and asks the public to provide alternative band plans. 

I believe it was important for the NPRM to propose a band plan with an appropriate balance of 

unlicensed and licensed spectrum. Unlicensed spectrum plays a critical role in advancing more efficient 

use of spectrum, and commercial wireless carriers are increasingly using unlicensed Wi-Fi services and 

small cell architecture to offload their smartphone traffic. In November of last year, the Consumer 

Federation of America found that unlicensed Wi-Fi offload resulted in wireless carriers not having to 

construct 130,000 cell sites. This resulted in annual cost savings of more than 25 billion dollars. The 

unlicensed spectrum proposals in the NPRM would also encourage development of wireless services that 

can make effective use of unused spectrum, or White Spaces, in broadcast TV bands. In addition, 

promoting continued innovation in the unlicensed service industry is important to our National economy. 

As Representatives Anna Eshoo and Darryl Issa pointed out in a letter they presented to ensure the Act 

contained statutory provisions for unlicensed spectrum use, it is estimated that unlicensed spectrum 

generates between 16 and 37 billion dollars each year for the U.S. economy. 

The Incentive Auction Notice also appropriately seeks comment on ways the Commission could 

design the incentive auction to accomplish all the funding goals of the Act including funds for a national 

first responder network. I believe the public safety goals of the Act are very important. When Congress 

created the FCC in 1934, it made one of the Commission's foundational obligations "the promotion of 

safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications." The devastation and 

service outages caused by Derecho and Super Storm Sandy show that obligation remains as vital today as 

it did almost eighty years ago. We may not be able to prevent natural disasters, but we can and must 

improve our Nation's ability to respond to these events. Doing our best to make First Net successful 

would go a long way toward enhancing our responses to these crises. 

Thank you for allowing me to make these opening remarks. I look forward to your questions. 

2 
62 

Mr. WALDEN. And now we will move to Commissioner 

Rosenworcel. 

Thank you for being here today. We look forward to your comments, as well. 

STATEMENT OF JESSICA ROSENWORCEL 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Good morning, Chairman Walden, Ranking 

Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. It is an honor 

to appear before you with my colleagues to discuss our progress in 

implementing the incentive auction provisions of the Middle Class 

Tax Relief and Job Creation Act. 

The Commission embarked this past September on the complex 

but critical task of conducting wireless incentive auctions. We must 

get them right because if we get them right, we will facilitate the 

voluntary return of spectrum from commercial licensees and promote its efficient reuse. If we get them right, we will ease congestion on our airwaves and expedite the development of new wireless 

services and applications. And if we get them right, we will drive 

digital-age innovation, spur job creation, and grow the wireless 

economy. 

But before we get there, it is useful to consider what has come 

before. For nearly 2 decades, the Commission’s path-breaking spectrum auctions have led the world. The agency has held more than 

80 auctions, it has issued more than 36,000 licenses, and it has 

raised more than $50 billion for the United States Treasury. In 

short, the Commission’s auctions have been a model for governments and commercial wireless providers across the globe. 

We are now again poised to be the world’s pioneer with incentive 

auctions. For my part, I believe that there are four principles that 

should guide us: simplicity, fairness, balance, and public safety. 

Simplicity is key. Incentive auctions are undeniably complicated, 

but at every structural juncture, a bias toward simplicity for participants is crucial. Simplicity will allow the market to work and 

yield the most favorable participation. 

Fairness is essential. Fairness demands that we consider how to 

accomplish repacking by minimizing unnecessary broadcaster disruption and maximizing the ability of the public to continue to receive free over-the-air television. At the same time, we ask that 

broadcasters make a fair assessment of the opportunities this auction provides. By offering incentives to share channels and incentives to relocate from the UHF to VHF band, this auction can mean 

new resources for broadcasters to develop new programming and 

deploy new services. 

Balance is necessary. None of the three legs of the incentive auction—the reverse action, the repacking, or the forward auction— 

can stand on its own. For instance, the interference rules we consider will not only impact broadcast services but also how much 

spectrum will be available for auction, which in turn will impact 

the revenues raised. We must also pay attention to the balance between licensed and unlicensed spectrum. The former provides reliability and interference protection; the latter provides low barriers 

to entry and promotes the efficient use of limited resources. Good 

spectrum policy requires both. 

63 

Finally, public safety is fundamental. Congress designated auction revenues to support the first nationwide interoperable wireless 

broadband public safety network. The recent storms in the Northeast have provided a stark reminder of the importance of communications in a disaster. The success of these auctions requires delivering on our promise to America’s first responders. 

Even with incentive auctions on course, the demand for our airwaves will continue to grow. To meet this demand, efficiency is 

critical. At the FCC, efficiency means getting all of our auctions 

done on a clear timeline. For industry, efficiency means squeezing 

more out of the spectrum already allocated for commercial use. 

Now is the time to invest in technologies—geographic, temporal, 

and cognitive—that multiply the capacity of our airwaves. 

Finally, for the Federal Government, efficiency means finding 

new approaches that facilitate repurposing of spectrum better than 

our old three-step process of clearing, relocating, and auctioning. To 

this end, I believe that it is time to develop a series of incentives 

to serve as the catalyst for freeing more Federal spectrum for commercial use. What if we were to financially reward Federal authorities for efficient use of their spectrum? If we want to convert more 

airwaves to commercial use, I believe it is time to work with our 

government partners so they can realize value from using spectrum 

efficiently instead of only seeing loss from its reallocation. 

It is an exciting time in communications. Incentive auctions 

present real challenges, but their smart execution can yield great 

opportunities. 

Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Commissioner. We appreciate your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenworcel follows:] 

64 


85821.047

STATEMENT OF 

COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

"KEEPING THE NEW BROADBAND SPECTRUM LAW ON TRACK" 

DECEMBER 12, 2012 

Good morning, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the 

Subcommittee. It is an honor to appear with my colleagues before you today to discuss our 

progress implementing the incentive auction provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 20 12. 

The Commission embarked this past September on the complex but critical task of 

conducting wireless incentive auctions. As you undoubtedly know, incentive auctions are a new 

tool that Congress provided the FCC to address the near-term demands on our nation's airwaves. 

We must get them right. Because if we get them right, we will facilitate the voluntary return of 

spectrum from commercial licensees and promote its efficient reuse. Ifwe get them right, we 

will ease congestion on our airwaves and expedite development of new wireless services and 

applications. And if we get them right, we will drive digital age innovation, spur job creation, 

and grow the wireless economy. 

But before we get there, it is useful to consider what has come before. For nearly two 

decades, the Commission's path-breaking spectrum auctions have led the world. The agency has 

held more than 80 auctions; it has issued more than 36,000 licenses; and it has raised more than 

$50 billion for the United States Treasury. The Commission's simultaneous multiple round 
65 


85821.048

ascending auctions have been a model for governments and commercial wireless providers 

across the globe. 

We are now again poised to be the world's pioneer with incentive auctions. But big 

choices and hard work lie ahead. We must make sure our rules encourage a competitive 

marketplace, with opportunities for incumbents as well as new entrants, while keeping an eye on 

the larger context within which our proceedings take place. We will need input from the best 

minds in the broadcasting, wireless, technology, and public interest communities. 

For my part, I believe that there are four principles that should guide us as we collect 

input and develop auction rules: simplicity, fairness, balance, and public safety. 

Simplicity is key. Incentive auctions are undeniably complicated. But at every structural 

juncture, a bias toward simplicity for participants is crucial. A broadcaster should be able to 

quickly and transparently evaluate the opportunities auctions provide. Simplicity will allow the 

market to work and yield the most favorable participation. 

Fairness is essential. This is especially true with regard to the treatment of broadcasters 

that do not participate in the auction. Fairness demands that we consider how to accomplish 

repacking by minimizing unnecessary disruption and maximizing the ability of the public to 

continue to receive free, over-the-air television. At the same time, we ask that broadcasters make 

a fair assessment of the opportunities that this auction provides. By offering incentives to share 

2 
66 


85821.049

channels and incentives to relocate from the UHF to the VHF band, this auction can mean new 

resources for broadcasters to develop new programming and deploy new services. 

Balance is necessary. None of the three legs of the incentive auction-the reverse 

auction, the repacking, or the forward auction can stand on its own. For instance, the 

interference rules we consider will not only impact broadcast services, but also how much 

spectrum will be available for auction, which in tum will impact the revenues raised. Choices in 

one area affect others. This also requires attention to the balance between licensed and 

unlicensed use of spectrum across all frequency bands. The former provides reliability and 

interference protection; the latter provides low barriers to entry and promotes the efficient use of 

limited resources. Good spectrum policy requires both. 

Finally, public safety is fundamental. The Commission must remember that Congress 

designated auction revenues to support the first nationwide, interoperable wireless broadband 

public safety network. The recent storms in the Northeast have provided a stark reminder of the 

importance of communications in a disaster. We must not forget that the success of these 

auctions requires delivering on our promise to America's first responders. 

Even with incentive auctions on course, demand for our airwaves will continue to grow at 

a breathtaking pace. To keep up, more must be done. To meet this demand, efficiency is 

critical: efficiency at the FCC, efficiency from industry, and efficiency across the government. 

3 
67 


85821.050

At the Commission, efficiency means getting all our auctions done quickly and on a clear 

timeline. It also means exploring innovative policies that encourage the creative use of 

spectrum. We will be doing that just this afternoon when we consider a proposal to use the 3.5 

GHz band for small cells. 

For industry, efficiency means squeezing more out of the spectrum already allocated for 

commercial use. Now is the time to invest in technologies-geographic, temporal, and 

cognitive-that multiply the capacity of our airwaves. Additional spectrum is not and should not 

be the only solution. 

Finally, for the federal government, efficiency means finding new approaches that 

facilitate repurposing of spectrum better than our old three-step process of clearing, relocating, 

and auctioning. This Committee's bipartisan Federal Spectrum Working Group has been a 

leader in this area. Your efforts have already started paying dividends by helping us all better 

understand how the government uses its spectrum. 

As a next step, I believe it is time to develop a series of incentives to serve as the catalyst 

for freeing more federal spectrum for commercial use. What if we were to financially reward 

federal authorities for efficient use of their spectrum? If we want to convert more airwaves to 

commercial use, I believe it is time to work with our government partners so they can realize 

value from using spectrum efficiently-instead of only seeing loss from its reallocation. 

4 
68 


85821.051

It is an exciting time in communications. Incentive auctions present real challenges, but 

their smart execution can also yield great opportunities. I look forward to working with you and 

would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

5 
69 

Mr. WALDEN. We will go now to the final Commissioner, Commissioner Pai. 

Thank you for being with us today. Look forward to your testimony, sir. 

STATEMENT OF AJIT PAI 

Mr. PAI. Thank you. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, 

members of the subcommittee, it is a privilege to appear before you 

today. 

The Spectrum Act originated in the efforts of this subcommittee 

and was the result of bipartisan leadership, hard work, and compromise by you and many other dedicated Members of Congress. 

Given the pressing need to make more spectrum available for 

mobile broadband, the FCC must act promptly to implement the 

act. Accordingly, this past summer, I called for the FCC to commence the incentive auction rulemaking process in the fall. Chairman Genachowski launched a timely proceeding in September, and 

I thank him for that. 

I thank him, as well, for his recent announcement of the formation of a Technology Transitions Policy Task Force, which will address crucial issues that we will encounter as we undergo the IP 

transition. 

As the Commission moves forward in the incentive auction rulemaking process, I believe that four principles should animate our 

work: 

First, we must be faithful to the statute. It is our job to implement this legislation, not to rewrite it to conform to our own policy 

preferences. 

Second, we must be fair to all stakeholders. This is especially important because the incentive auction will fail unless both broadcasters and wireless carriers choose to participate. 

Third, we must keep our rules as simple as possible. The auction 

will be complicated enough as it is. 

Fourth and finally, we need to complete this proceeding within 

a reasonable time frame. I believe that we should set a deadline 

for concluding these auctions no later than June 30th of 2014. 

Fidelity to these four principles will result in a successful broadcast incentive auction. 

That said, I do have some concerns with the direction of our rulemaking proceeding. Most notably, September’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking appears to envision an auction that will yield no net 

revenues. That would mean no money for the First Responder Network Authority to build out a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network. That would mean no money for State and 

local first responders. That would mean no money for public safety 

research. That would mean no money for deficit reduction. And 

that would mean no money for Next Generation 911 implementation, even though Spectrum Act specifically mentions each of these 

items. 

Most of the problem, in my view, stems from the structure of the 

proposed auction. The only closing conditions set forth in the 

NPRM is that the revenues from the forward auction cover the 

costs of the reverse auction. This is essentially like ending a traditional auction as soon as the reserve price is met. 

70 

Another part of the problem derives from limits the FCC might 

place on auction participation. For example, if we start picking and 

choosing who may participate in the forward auction, that won’t be 

good for anybody. By contrast, maximizing participation in the auction will maximize our net revenues. And as we set up the auction, 

I hope we take to heart the guidance that we receive from commenters and, importantly, from Congress. 

Aside from the broadcast incentive auction, the Spectrum Act 

sets several additional targets for getting more spectrum to market. For example, I expect in the near future that we will commence a rulemaking proceeding on making available almost 200 

megahertz of spectrum for unlicensed use in the 5 gigahertz band. 

This is a legal obligation under the Spectrum Act, to be sure, but 

I am particularly excited about it because it is smart policy. The 

standard for next-generation Wi-Fi, 802.11ac, already has been developed, and it requires large, contiguous swaths of spectrum for 

high-capacity, high-speed data transfers. The 5 gigahertz spectrum 

identified in the Spectrum Act is well-suited for taking advantage 

of this innovative standard. 

The Spectrum Act also directs the FCC to auction off the 2155 

to 2180 megahertz band, which is adjacent to AWS–1. The spectrum ideally would be paired with another 25-megahertz block adjacent to AWS–1, the 1755 to 1780 bands. These bands already are 

internationally harmonized for commercial use, which means a deployment will be swifter and cheaper than other options. 

If we auction off the spectrum within the next 2 years, it could 

raise billions of dollars. With productive collaboration among the 

FCC, the NTIA, commercial users, and Federal users, we can 

achieve the twin goals of efficient commercial use and effective 

Federal use. 

In closing, the Spectrum Act gave the FCC some very challenging 

tasks, but if we accomplish them, our Nation’s commercial and 

public safety communications capabilities will improve dramatically. 

Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the 

subcommittee, I thank you once again for holding this important 

hearing. I look forward to listening to your views, answering your 

questions, and continuing to work with you in the weeks, months, 

and years ahead to implement this landmark legislation. 

Mr. WALDEN. Commissioner, thank you for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pai follows:] 

71 


85821.052

STATEMENT OF AJIT PAl 

COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNTED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

"KEEPING THE NEW BROADBAND SPECTRUM LAW ON TRACK" 

DECEMBER 12,2012 

Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a 

privilege to appear before you today. The Spectrum Act originated in the efforts of this 

Subcommittee and was the result of bipartisan leadership, hard work, and compromise by you 

and many other dedicated Members of Congress. You deserve great credit for the passage of this 

historic legislation. 

I began my term at the Federal Communications Commission just a few months after 

Congress passed the Spectrum Act, and thus a large part of my time at the agency has been spent 

evaluating and implementing the responsibilities that Congress entrusted to us in the statute. 

The Commission's primary charge in this regard is to release additional spectrum into the 

commercial marketplace to address the looming spectrum crunch. As an advocate of an all-ofthe-above approach to spectrum policy, I have happily embraced the challenge. 

When it comes to FCC implementation of the Spectrum Act, two factors counsel in favor 

of prompt action. First, consumers are adopting devices like data-hungry smartphones and 

tablets operating on 40 L TE networks that are straining the capacity of the airwaves. More 

spectrum is needed to meet this demand. Second, the broadcast incentive auction is our best 

opportunity to push a large amount of spectrum well-suited for mobile broadband into the 

commercial marketplace. Accordingly, this past summer, I called for the FCC to commence the 

incentive auction rulemaking process in the fall. To his credit, Chairman Oenachowski launched 

a timely proceeding in September, and I thank him for that. 

As the Commission moves forward, I believe that four principles should animate our 

work. First, we must be faithful to the statute. It is our job to implement this legislation, not to 

rewrite it to conform to our policy preferences. Second, we must be fair to all stakeholders. This 

is especially important because the incentive auction will fail unless both broadcasters and 

wireless carriers choose to participate. Third, we must keep our rules as simple as possible. The 

broadcast incentive auction is inherently complicated; unnecessary complexities are likely to 

deter participation. Andfourth, we need to complete this proceeding in a reasonable timeframe. 

I believe that we should set a deadline for conducting these auctions no later than June 30, 2014. 

I am optimistic that fidelity to these principles will result in a successful broadcast incentive 

auction. 

That said, I do have some concerns with the direction of our proceeding. Most notably, 

September's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking appears to envision an auction that will yield no net 

revenues. That would mean no money for the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to 

build out a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network; no money for state and 

local first responders; no money for public safety research; no money for deficit reduction; and 
72 


85821.053

no money for next-generation 911 implementation. The Spectrum Act mentions each of these 

items, which makes it difficult to square that legislation with an auction that would provide no 

funding for them. 

Most of the problem stems from the structure of the proposed auction. The only closing 

condition set forth in the NPRM is that the revenues from the forward auction must cover the 

costs of the reverse auction. l I do not believe that this closing condition is sufficient since it is 

essentially like ending a traditional auction as soon as the reserve price is met. 

Another part of the problem derives from limits the Commission might place on auction 

participation. We need robust participation from television broadcasters, current wireless 

operators, and new entrants. The more people at the party, so to speak, the better the party will 

be. But if the Commission preemptively tells broadcasters "You may bid this high, but no 

higher,"Z many may not show up for the reverse auction. And if the Commission starts picking 

and choosing who may participate in the forward auction-such as by setting a spectrum cap or 

narrowing the spectrum screen despite the robust competition in the wireless markee-it will 

result in less participation, less revenue, less spectrum available for mobile broadband, and less 

funding for public safety. 

It's worth exploring a bit further the implication ofthe last item I mentioned. Ensuring 

interoperable public safety communications has been a national priority for over a decade. 

Indeed, the 9/11 Commission identified the lack of interoperability as a serious hole in our 

nation's public safety communications and demanded that it be addressed. 4 Given the 

importance of constructing an interoperable public safety network, as well as the need to reduce 

the deficit and fund next-generation 911, I believe the FCC must seek to maximize the net 

revenues obtained through the commercial broadcast incentive auction. 

We have yet to hear from the public about the Commission's proposed structure for that 

auction. But I hope that commenters will point us in the right direction. I also look forward to 

continuing to receive input from Congress, particularly Members of the Subcommittee. Given 

your key role in crafting this legislation, it is vital that the Commission keep open the lines of 

communication with you. 

Aside from the broadcast incentive auction, the Spectrum Act sets several additional 

targets for getting more spectrum to market. An important one involves the so-called H Block, a 

set of frequencies that has lain fallow for years. This afternoon, we will propose rules for 

auctioning that spectrum. It has been four long years since the Commission last held a major 

I See Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities o/Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Docket No. 

12-268, Notice of Proposed Ru1emaking, 27 FCC Rcd 12357, 12379, paras. 67, 69 (2012). 

2 See id at 12377, para. 53 ("[W]e also will consider implementing a reserve price, or maximum payment, that 

would be made to broadcasters relinquishing spectrum usage rights. This reserve price could take the form of a 

maximum dollar payment to a broadcaster based on characteristics of the station such as population or 

viewership."); id at 12564 (same). 

J See Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings, WT Docket No. 12-269, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 

FCC Rcd 11710, 11720, 11728, paras. 20-21, 39 (2012); id. at 11758-59 (Concurring Statement of Commissioner 

Ajit Pail (outlining concerns about certain propnsals), available at http://go.usa.gov/gQWe. 

4 See The 9/1 I Commission Report at 292-93 (2004) (observing that lack of inter operability impeded coordination 

of New York Port Authority Police Department's response); id. at 398 (recommending establishment of 

"communications connectivity between and among civilian authorities, local first responders, and the National 

Guard"). 

2 
73 


85821.054

spectrum auction. Although the 10 MHz ofH Block spectrum is much less than the 52 MHz we 

sold in Auction 73, the upcoming auction may create the momentum needed to free up more 

commercial spectrum. 

Next, I hope and expect that in the near future we will commence a proceeding on 

making available almost 200 MHz of spectrum for unlicensed use in the 5 GHz band. Doing so 

is a legal obligation-the Spectrum Act directs us to do so-but I am especially excited about it 

because it's smart policy. The standard for next-generation Wi-Fi-IEEE 802.11 ac-already 

has been developed. That standard requires large, contiguous swaths of spectrum for high-speed, 

high-capacity data transfers. The 5 GHz spectrum identified in the Spectrum Act is tailor-made 

for this innovative standard. For one thing, there are relatively few incumbents compared to, 

say, the broadcast television spectrum, which mitigates coordination and relocation difficulties. 

For another, the propagation of 5 GHz spectrum is relatively short, which minimizes interference 

and makes 5 GHz perfect for common unlicensed applications such as in-home use. Finally, the 

technical attractiveness of this spectrum will encourage manufacturers to focus their investments 

on what consumers want: faster processing with less power consumption at lower prices. 

The Spectrum Act also directs the Commission to auction off the 25 MHz of spectrum 

adjacent to AWS-l (2155-2180 MHz). This spectrum would ideally be paired with another 25 

MHz block adjacent to AWS-1: 1755-1780 MHz. These bands are already internationally 

harmonized for commercial use, which means deployment will be swifter and cheaper than other 

options. If we auction off this spectrum in the next two years, it could raise billions of dollars. 

But as you know, this spectrum is currently allocated to the federal goverument. 

Reallocating it for commercial purposes will require the cooperation of the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and incumbent users. 

Unfortunately, recent developments on this front are less than encouraging. In March, the NTIA 

relayed what other federal agencies told them: that it would cost $18 billion and take at least ten 

years to relocate federal incumbents to clear a substantially larger band of spectrum.5 These 

claims were not verified, nor did the NTIA's report identify what it would take to clear just the 

1755-1780 band. In July, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 

recommended that the government divert its efforts from clearing spectrum and focus instead on 

sharing it. 6 In short, it has become apparent that some have given up on clearing this spectrum in 

favor of auctioning off "shared rights." 

I'm not opposed to spectrum sharing. For example, geographic sharing by creating 

exclusion zones around certain areas can be a useful tool. And spectrum sharing may be a 

workable alternative when auctions can't be used to raise funds for relocation, such as in higher 

bands like the 5 GHz band. But if our goal is to incentivize investment in wireless networks, 

nothing beats clearing. 

Spectrum sharing is a complicated and largely untested endeavor that requires a lot of 

coordination among potentially hundreds of federal users and licensees. The largest wireless 

providers in America may be both willing and able to do so. But I doubt that smaller ones who 

lack the time or resources are. Indeed, the GAO recently reported to Congress that federal 

5 U.S. Department of Commerce, An Assessment oj the Viability oj Accommodating Wireless Broadband in the 

1755-/850 MHz Band (Mar. 2012). 

6 President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the President: Realizing the Full Potential 

oJGovernment-Held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth (July 2012). 

3 
74 


85821.055

sharing would require a lengthy and unpredictable process that would be especially costly for 

new entrants.7 

And sharing could embroil the Commission in lengthy and sensitive interference 

disputes. After all, an interference dispute between a commercial licensee and a government 

user is far more likely to become mired in politics than an argument between two private 

parties-especially if the government agency uses that spectrum for defense or other highpriority operations. Recent experience suggests that we should be reluctant to enter this thicket. 8 

The better course, in my view, would be to prioritize the clearing offederal spectrum and 

to develop proposals that could enable productive collaboration between and among the FCC, the 

NTIA, commercial users, and federal users. We need to think creatively about all options, such 

as establishing financial incentives for federal users to relocate. And we should be proactive in 

this effort, for the opportunities-and opportunity costs-are tremendous. I can't put it any 

better than the House Energy and Commerce Committee's bipartisan Federal Spectrum Working 

Group: "Finding more efficient ways for the government to use this valuable public asset 

without compromising critical objectives would not only produce dividends for government 

agencies, but also inject additional resources into the private sector to spur our economy.,,9 

So those are some of the projects we are working on at the Commission with regard to 

commercial spectrum. But what about the other goal of the Spectrum Act: improving public 

safety? Most of the work on public safety will be done at other agencies, especially the NTIA, 

which hosts the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet). The Act did, however, require 

the Commission to facilitate the transition of the public safety broadband spectrum to the new 

administrator. We have worked efficiently toward this goal in three basic ways. 

First, the Commission created a Technical Advisory Board for First Responder 

Interoperability and on June 21, 2012 transmitted the Board's minimum technical requirements 

to FirstNet via the NTIA. 

Second, on July 31, 2012, the Commission adopted an order replacing the waivers held 

by certain state and local early-adopters with a process we call "Special Temporary Authority" or 

ST A. This gives jurisdictions permission to continue to deploy and operate their wireless public 

safety networks if they meet the interoperability standards, have completed significant 

deployment, and demonstrate a specific safety need. (Unfortunately, only Harris County, Texas 

has been able to obtain an STA to date.) 

Finally, the Commission granted FirstNet its official license with call sign WQQE234 on 

November 15,2012. The Commission is still working on a proceeding to establish service rules 

and other requirements related to this license, and I hope we complete that proceeding in a timely 

fashion. 

7 See Government Accountability Office, Spectrum Management: incentives, Opportunities, and Testing Needed to 

Enhance Spectrum Sharing, GAO-13-7, at 14 (Nov. 2012). 

8 See, e.g., Letter from Lawrence Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, 

to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission at 1,8 (Feb. 14,2012) (describing 

potential impact of lightS quare d's proposed terrestrial operations on Global Positioning System services and stating 

that no mitigation strategy could alleviate concerns about potential interference), available at 

http://go.usa.gov/gQZj. 

9 Letter from House Energy and Commerce Committee Federal Spectrum Working Group to Lawrence Strickling, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications at 1 (July 10,2012), available at http://go.usa.gov/gQ5d. 

4 
75 


85821.056

The Act also required the FCC to establish a Do-Not-Call registry for telephone numbers 

used by Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and to prohibit the use of automatic dialing 

equipment to contact registered numbers. Congress recognized that when Americans call 911, it 

is vital that they reach emergency personnel quickly. Public safety lines can't be tied up with 

non-emergency calls, and those who staff Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) can't be 

diverted by such calls. I am pleased that the Commission adopted rules on October 17,2012 to 

allow for the creation of the PSAP Do-Not-Call registry. Our rules provide effective protection 

for public safety while at the same time minimizing the compliance burdens on those who 

operate automatic dialing equipment. 

*** 

The Spectrum Act gave the Federal Communications Commission some very challenging 

tasks. But if we accomplish them, our nation's commercial and public safety communications 

capabilities will improve dramatically. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you again for holding this important hearing. I look 

forward to listening to your views, answering your questions, and continuing to work with you 

and your staff to implement this landmark legislation. 

5 
76 

Mr. WALDEN. Thanks to all of you for coming today to testify before our subcommittee. 

I would like to put in the record three different letters: one from 

the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition announcing a coalition of more than 25 broadcasters at this early date who 

are interested in selling this spectrum in major markets, a letter 

from the Telecommunications Industry Association supporting efforts to maximize licensed spectrum for mobile broadband, and a 

letter from the High Tech Spectrum Coalition supporting swift implementation of the spectrum law. 

Without objection, they will be in the record. 

[The letters follow:] 

77 


85821.057

December 12, 2012 

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Walden: 

OPPORTUNITIES 

BROADCASTERS 

Attached please find a press release announcing a coalition of television 

broadcasters who, under the right circumstances, are willing to contribute some 

or all of their assets to the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC") 

incentive auction. Although the group, the Expanding Opportunities for 

Broadcasters Coalition ("Coalition"), was formed only recently, our membership 

includes more than 25 stations in the largest markets where the FCC's need for 

willing sellers is likely to be the greatest. And, we receive additional membership 

inquiries on a weekly basis. 

We would be grateful if you would enter this letter and the attached press release 

into the record of your December 12 hearing as an indication that the incentive 

auction can be a success if the relevant provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief 

Act are implemented we!!. Thank you very much. 

Sincerely, 

Preston Padden 

Executive Director 

CC: The Honorable Anna Eshoo 
78 


85821.058

Release Date: November 13, 2012 

Contact: Preston Padden, 202-649-0215 or 

ppadden@broadcastcoalition.org 

EXPANDING 

OPPORTUNITIES 

FOR 

BROADCASTERS 

COALITION 

New Coalition Formed To Advocate For 

Successful Auction Of Broadcast Spectrum 

The group, Expanding Opportunities/or Broadcasters 

Coalition, will represent broadcast stations considering 

participation in this historic auction, under the right 

conditions 

November 13,2012, Washington, D.C. - A group of broadcasters has formed 

the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition ("Coalition") to 

advocate for the successful auction of broadcast spectrum. The Coalition will 

represent broadcasters conSidering contributing some or all of their assets to 

the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC1 incentive auction. The 

announcement was made today by the Coalition's leader, former Fox, ABC, 

and Disney executive, Preston Padden. 

In making the announcement Padden said, "This coalition's sole focus is to 

advocate for the success of the voluntary incentive auction of broadcast 

spectrum. The FCC has only one shot to get it right. The Coalition is 

dedicated to ensuring we have the rules and procedures in place to maximize 

the auction's chance to succeed." 

The founding members of the Coalition include television broadcast stations 

that, under the right conditions, would like to participate in the auction. 

These stations have come together to ensure that the FCC's process provides 

the proper incentive and structure for a successful auction. 

The CoaUtion welcomes the participation of other broadcasters and 

stakeholders that share this common interest in a successful auction. The 

Coalition will work with all stakeholders to ensure a successful auction as 

envisioned by Congress, the Administration, and the FCC. The Coalition win 
79 


85821.059

partner with trade associations, public interest groups, and others to 

maximize participation by broadcasters and wireless carriers alike. 

"l have spent the bulk of my career as a broadcaster. It is important to me 

that the Coalition fully support those broadcasters that wish to remain in that 

great and noble business. We hope that by providing an effective vehicle for 

those broadcasters that choose another path, the FCC's auction can 

strengthen the nation's broadcast and wireless future," Padden said. 

Consistent with the confidentiality requirements of the Spectrum Act and the 

confidentiality discussion in the FCC's Incentive Auction Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Coalition will not be disclosing the identity of its Members. 

"These are ongoing broadcast businesses with employees, advertisers, and 

viewers. The need for confidentiality is obvious," said Padden. 

Press inquiries, please contact: Preston Padden, 202·649·0215 or 

ppadden@broadcastcoalition.org. Broadcasters interested in joining the 

Coalition should also contact Preston Padden. 

For over three decades, Preston Padden has been one of the most prominent 

media policy experts in Washington, D.C. He recently retired from Walt Disney 

Company. where he served as Executive Vice President of Government 

Relations. He has also served as an executive at Metromedia, ABC, Fox, and the 

Association of Independent Television Stations, as well as on the boards of both 

the NAB and MPAA. He is currently Senior Fellow at the University of Colorado's 

Silicon Flatirons Center. 

### 
80 


85821.060

December 11,2012 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2183 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology 

2182 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members: 

1

10G Sbte1.NE.SulleSSO 

www.UaonUneorg washington, DC 20002 I Tel; +1.202.346.3240 I fax: +1.202.346.3241 

The Honorable Henry Waxman 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2204 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Anna Eshoo 

Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology 

205 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), the leading trade association for global 

manufacturers, vendors, and suppliers of information and communications technology, wishes to 

thank you for your key roles in the passage of voluntary incentive auction legislation. The 2012 

spectrum law will help to alleviate the spectrum crunch, raise revenues for debt reduction, and 

fund the construction of a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network. 

TIA and its member companies have been working with the FCC as it proceeds to implement the 

voluntary incentive auctions. TIA has also been working closely with NTIA on collaborative 

efforts to make additional spectrum available for broadband use. As the Energy & Commerce 

Committee prepares to receive testimony from the FCC commissioners, we urge you to focus on 

the following issues: 

Voluntary Incentive Auctions 

Maximizing Licensed Spectrum. The FCC should develop a spectrum "re-packing" plan that 

maximizes the amount of spectrum available at auction for licensed mobile services. In doing 

so, the FCC must abide by Congress' mandate that guard bands be minimized so that they are no 

larger than is technically reasonable to prevent hannful interference between licensed services. 

SimplifYing Auction Rules. The reverse auction rules should be as simple as possible to attract 

the greatest possible number of broadcast participants. The FCC should offer existing licensees 

an attractive financial incentive for facilitating the clearing of spectrum, since the spectrum law 

gives the agency only one chance to "get this right." 

Allowing Broad Participation. The success of the incentive auction ultimately hinges on the 

participation of all possible bidders in the forward auction. The FCC should not limit the 

eligibility of participants, and the rules should also provide for the earliest possible repacking I 

reclaiming of the broadcast spectrum. 
81 


85821.061

Federal Spectrum 

Clearing Bands. TIA supports the clearing of re-purposed federal spectrum bands to the 

maximum extent feasible. Cleared, exclusively licensed spectrum bands allow for the most 

efficient and dependable use of spectrum suitable for mobile broadband deployment, and 

maximize network investment, marketability, availability and consumer use. 

In spectrum bands that cannot be cleared for exclusive licensed use, the most promising forms of 

sharing by mobile broadband networks, including those based on L TE technology, are licensed 

sharing with geographic, frequency or time-based coordination, including exclusion 

zones. Spectrum sharing, whether based on sensing technology or the FCC's Part 15 unlicensed 

rules, presents technical challenges when required of certain tecImologies, including L TE. 

Transparency. TIA also urges Congress to continue pressing federal stakeholders for additional 

transparency regarding existing uses of federal spectrum. A comprehensive inventory of federal 

spectrum use would facilitate the development of market -oriented process that would ensure that 

limited spectrum resources are allocated more efficiently - whether to federal or commercial 

purposes. 

Simplifying Regulations 

Congress should continue to support the FCC's efforts to streamline and simplifY regulations, 

resulting in increased market certainty. investment, and heightened quality and choice in lCT 

products and services. As one example, the FCC is currently seeking comment on a TIA Petition 

for Rulemaking that would facilitate more widespread use of electronic device labeling - a 

common-sense proposal that would increase the accessibility of important product infonnation 

for consumers while simultaneously reducing manufacturing costs. 

Public Safety 

As the Committee looks ahead to 2013, TIA encourages Congress to continue its oversight to 

ensure the rapid development of a nationwide public safety broadband network, and to build on 

the important progress in the 2012 spectrum law by working with stakeholders on additional 

legislation to further modernize the nation's 9-1-1 system. 

*** 

For more infonnation, please contact Danielle Coffey at (202)-346-3243 or by email at 

dcoffev@tiaouline.org. TIA once again thanks you for your work on these important issues, and 

we look forward to continued progress in 2013 and beyond. 

Sincerely, 

C-$i:-~ Grant E. Seiffert 

President 
82 


85821.062

December 11,2012 

The Honorable Fred Upton, Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Greg Walden, Chainnan 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

2182 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

near Chairmen and Ranking Members, 

HTSC 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

2322A Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Anna G. Bshoo, Ranking Member 

Suboommittee on Communications and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

241 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

As you and your coIleagues address the challenges associated with the federal budget and the "fiscal cliff", the 

members of the High Tech Speclrum Coalition (HTSC) believe that authorizing new speclrum auctions is timely and 

relevant to this dehate. The authority granted by the Middle Class Tax Reliiif and Job Creation Act, H.R. 3630 will spur 

tecll11010gicai innovation, create new jobs, help satisfy the exploding consumer demand for mobile data, and raise 

significant revenues to fund the construction of a nationwide network for first responders. Authorizing the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) to auction spectrum for licensed mobile broadband use will be one of the greatest 

achievements of the IIZili Congress as it wi!! reaffirm the U.S. as the global Jeader in the wireless industry. 

We were pleased that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined the voluntary incentive auction 

provisions oontained in H.R. 3630 will produce at least $24 billion in revenues. We also appreciate the Commission's 

timely effort to reJease a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and their willingness to hear all interests. Now is the time to 

ensure the incentive auctions are as robust and successful as possible at liberating speclrum. We should also tum our 

collective attention on ways to reap the economic benefits ofunderutilized federal spectrum assets. 

As the Administration and countless others have acknowledged, there is a pressing need to find 500 MHz of high 

value spectrum for mobile broadband. HTSC has repeatedly stressed the empirical need for additional licensed speclrum 

to be made available because the increasing demand for mobile data services is astounding. The numbers below reinforce 

why the search for more spectrum is a time-sensitive priority: 

In 20 II, four percent of users were generating more than one gigabyte of mobile data. By 2016, seventyfour percent will generate that much data. 

Mobile video traffic will nearly double every year between 201l and 2016, and by 2016, sixty-eight 

percent of mobile traffic in the US will be video. 

In 201 1, eight percent of US subscribers used multiple mobile devices. By 201 6, that number advances to 

twenty-five percent of subscribers. 

Forecasts project that the volume of data traffic on mobile service provider networks will increase sixteen 

times from 2011 to 2016. 

As technology companies, we joined this debate because policymakers need to know that we cannot simply 

engineer our way out of this problem. While our industry is continuing to develop and deploy increasingly efficient 

spectrum technologies, the fact remains there is a looming spectrum crunch that no amount of technology efficiencies will 

satisfy. As you know, in 2010 the FCC concluded that the industry will need 275 MHz of cleared spectrum for licensed 

use. Voluntary incentive auctions alone will not fulfill this need. Our attention must also focus on transitioning federal 

spectrum for commercial use. 
83 


85821.063

The host of bone fits that should be realized from the voluntary incentive auction proceedings can be replicated 

when accessing appropriate federal government spectrum. The voluntary incentive auction must prove to be a success. 

We all have a vested interest in making sure that significant swaths of spectrum are cleared, the rules gnverning 

interference and utilization encourage the highest and best use, and that they achieve the financial goals Congress expects. 

The challenges posed by identifying and liberating federal spectrum are multi-faceted and more complex than those in the 

incentive auctions. We must be innovative in our collective thinking about how to incent federal users to become more 

efficient, to share with one another, to vacate, or to lease their spectrum. 

The mobile industry is unique because of its ability to create enormous efficiencies while stimulating growth in 

our economy. A recent Deloitte study builds on the growing body of econontic analysis linking information and 

communications to national growth. It found a doubling of mobile data use leads to an increase of.5 percentage points in 

GDP per capita growth. Two other reports indicate that transitioning more spectrum for licensed wireless broadband will 

have a substantial impact onjob creation and the American economy. The reports concluded that unleashing 300 MHz of 

spectrum for mobile broadband by 2016 will spur $75 billion in new capital spending, create between 300,000 to 770,000 

new jobs, and add $230 billion in GDP. 

We believe these are compelling reasons for this Committee to devote attention to these efforts. We want to work 

with you to recognize the full potential of this valuable resource. Continuing the effort to clear 500 MHz of spectrum 

remains a critical, timely, and economically essential challenge. 

Sincerely, 

AlcateHucent 
84 

Mr. WALDEN. Commissioners, obviously we have a lot to cover 

today, and so I have, at least first up, a yes-or-no question. I want 

to start with Commissioner Pai. 

Do you believe the Commission should be ensuring that the auction produces the $7 billion for the public safety network? 

Mr. PAI. Mr. Chairman, I do believe that the Commission should 

focus on maximizing revenue to fund the public safety network. 

Mr. WALDEN. Commissioner Rosenworcel? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes, absolutely. We need to deliver on our 

promise to our Nation’s first responders. 

Mr. WALDEN. Commissioner Clyburn? 

Ms. CLYBURN. Absolutely, it should. 

Mr. WALDEN. Commissioner McDowell? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Chairman Genachowski? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. 

Now I would like to put a slide up here and draw everyone’s attention to it and ask unanimous consent to include it in the record. 

[The information follows:] 

85 


85821.064
86 


85821.065
87 


85821.066
88 


85821.067
89 


85821.068
90 


85821.069
91 


85821.070
92 


85821.071
93 


85821.072
94 


85821.073
95 

Mr. WALDEN. As the chart they are about to put up will show you, the FCC may be forgoing as much as $19 billion, potentially, 

with its guard band and unlicensed proposal. I believe you all have 

copies of this before you. 

Commissioner Pai, before the FCC nets a single penny for public 

safety, it has to pay broadcasters that relinquish spectrum and reimburse stations it relocates. We can’t know in advance how much 

that will cost, nor do we know how much spectrum broadcasters 

will relinquish or how much that spectrum will sell for. 

In light of these unknowns, are you comfortable forgoing even a 

single dollar of potential revenue? 

Mr. PAI. I am not, Mr. Chairman. And that is precisely one of 

the reasons why, in my separate statement on September 28th 

when we adopted the notice of proposed rulemaking, I expressed 

my concern that the closing condition did not appear to envision a 

circumstance in which the auction would yield net revenues. 

That is why I proposed asking questions; for example, should we 

go beyond the contemplated structure of the auction, which at this 

point, as I understand it, seems to say that the forward auction 

will close once there is sufficient revenues to pay bidders in the reverse auction, to pay for reimbursable costs under the Spectrum 

Act, and to pay for the administrative costs of administering the 

auction. 

So I share that concern. And I believe that the closing condition 

that we ultimately do adopt should be structured in such a way to 

maximize net revenue, precisely for this reason that you identify. 

Mr. WALDEN. For those who may not be able to see the slide up 

there, what it shows is the spectrum that is available for auction 

in blue. That doesn’t mean it is all going to be auctioned or that 

there are going to be that many stations that come forward and 

give up their licenses. But that, in theory, is what could be available. And then in red is channel 37. And then yellow is the remainder, and green is guard band. 

Now, obviously, you are going to need some guard bands. And, 

obviously, some of that won’t be auctionable and all of that. But I 

want to put in perspective that even at a conservative dollar per 

megahertz pop, the FCC’s plan could forgo over $7 billion gross. 

And that would be enough, if it were net, to fully fund FirstNet. 

These are big numbers we are talking about. These are programs 

that the Congress has already said need to be funded through this 

auction. And we have also allocated—some of the other net revenues from the proposed auction have already been spent to extend 

the middle-class tax cut and to extend unemployment benefits. 

Paying for all of that was part of the big compromise that got this 

into law. 

My concern is that if we take spectrum off the table from auction 

right off the top, there won’t be the revenues, potentially, to pay 

for the things we have already committed to, and it ends up going 

out there in the unlicensed world. 

Commissioner McDowell? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Real quick, Mr. Chairman. Actually, looking at 

this chart, just for right now, the assumptions actually could be 

very generous. So you have here about 55 megahertz, the assumption that the broadcasters will actually be able to yield. I am a litVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:33 Apr 16, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-18~4\112-18~1 WAYNE
96 

tle skeptical that they will actually be able to yield that much for 

that auction. And I hope I am wrong. I will be the happiest person 

on Earth if I am wrong about this. But I am skeptical that it will 

be that much. 

So this is the variable portion, the how much can be auctioned. 

The fixed portion is already here. As you said, there is a minimum 

amount of 12 megahertz for guard bands, and then you have the 

6 for the channel 37, and then the remainder. So this is the fixed 

portion. 

And so I wanted just to point that out, that that is a guaranteed 

amount that wouldn’t be auctioned. What will be auctioned is not 

guaranteed. We don’t know; there are a lot of assumptions there. 

Then, lastly, at a dollar per megahertz pop, in the 700 megahertz 

auction of 2008 the A and the B blocks, which were the least encumbered, went for about $2.70 per megahertz pop, in some cases. 

Mr. WALDEN. So this could be worth two to three times what we 

are showing. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Exactly. 

Mr. WALDEN. So it could be a figure of $14 billion or—— 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Fourteen, 16, something like that. 

Mr. WALDEN. Now we are talking a lot of money. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Even in Washington. 

Mr. WALDEN. Even in Washington. And I think that is the issue 

here. And I know we are having a debate about how much should 

be available for unlicensed. I know there is other unlicensed at the 

5-gig level and others that are being put forward. And I know we 

have some disagreement within our subcommittee about what the 

statute says or doesn’t say. And we will get to that a little later, 

I think. 

I will recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Eshoo, for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that we will have 

another round because there really are a lot of questions that need 

to be asked. 

First of all, I am troubled by some of the claims that the Public 

Safety and Spectrum Act is all about revenue-raising. The last time 

I checked, this is the Energy and Commerce Committee, not the 

Budget Committee. Having said that, I think that we did a good 

job to bring about a balance, to bring about dollars that would fund 

the public safety network, that we would produce dollars for deficit 

reduction. 

But, again, this is the Energy and Commerce Committee. In Section 309 of the Communications Act, it explicitly prohibits the FCC 

from basing its auction rules predominantly on the revenue that 

would be generated. And during the bipartisan negotiations on this 

bill, a compromise was reached to allow unlicensed services to operate in the guard bands that would be created as a part of the band 

plan which would not be auctioned. The CBO looked at the proposal that became law and concluded that the guard band concept 

does not decrease the revenue. 

So I don’t know where all of this is coming from. I think it is 

kind of interesting. But it seems to me that, again, the hearing 

today is ‘‘Keeping the New Broadband Spectrum Law on Track.’’ 

Now, I want to start with the chairman. 

97 

Mr. Chairman, the Commission, I know, is currently—this is a 

little off to something else, but I am still very curious about it because I think it is so important. The Commission is currently undergoing a review of its media ownership rules. And while I recognize that no agreement has been reached within the agency, I 

would like to know what is being done to respond to the Third Circuit’s instructions to address ownership and the viewpoint of diversity. 

If you could just be brief, because I have a whole bunch of questions and I have got—— 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Just briefly, diversity remains a core obligation of the Commission, something that we care about deeply and 

have been focused on. 

We have overhauled our data collection on broadcast ownership 

so that we finally are getting accurate information about minority 

ownership. We have a major study under way right now looking at 

the issues that are required in this area in order to support legal 

action. And we have requested funding in 2013 for additional studies to do the work that we need to do over time. 

As you know, the quadrennial reviews that we have to undergo— 

the one we are looking at now is a 2010 review that started in 

2009—they continue on an ongoing basis. It is time to get the one 

before us done. But, of course, we will then move on to the next 

one and continue to look at diversity as a central objective of the 

Commission. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, I think on this whole subject matter of media 

and consolidation that there should be an underlying principle that 

in a democracy that there be as many voices to the many as possible. I mean, this goes to the heart of democracy. This is not just 

something to fiddle around with, and so I just wanted to put that 

out there. 

Now, to the Chairman again, some have argued that the FCC’s 

proposal on unlicensed represents an unlawful give away. How do 

you respond to that? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Well, one, I think as you said, the statute 

clearly gives the Commission the authority to do unlicensed in 

guard bands, and I would add one point to the one you made before, which is that any economic value analysis of spectrum methods I would think would have to look at the hundreds of billions 

of economic value and related tax revenue that have come from innovations on unlicensed platforms. So when the FCC authorized 

unlicensed use for the first time, no one predicted Wi-Fi. 

Ms. ESHOO. No. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. It was a new platform for innovation that together with licensed spectrum has now made us the global leader. 

When I talk to my counterparts overseas, they are very focused on 

the opportunities of mobile, they are looking at next generation unlicensed, and I think if we don’t lean into this we run the risk of 

falling behind other countries, seeing innovations happen overseas 

and not here. Of course, we will operate within the confines of the 

statute, which I know that both sides of the aisle very carefully 

constructed. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. To Commissioner Clyburn, on the issue 

of bidder eligibility, do you believe that consumers would be 

98 

harmed if the incentive auctions freed up the spectrum that was 

only acquired by the two largest wireless companies? 

Ms. CLYBURN. I believe that the FCC should keep in mind as we 

craft these rules what one of the core missions of this agency is, 

which is competition, and I believe that we should, again, craft 

these rules to ensure that the framework and the environment 

would promote such, promote competition. It is good for innovation, 

it is good for the investment, and so it has got to be, we have got 

to look at it in a broad framework but never forgetting our mandate to provide, to stimulate competition. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. And to Commissioner Rosenworcel, it is 

wonderful to see you and hear your testimony. We have heard the 

suggestion today that auction rules that promote competition could 

result in lower auction revenues, but isn’t it also true that allowing 

one or two firms to effectively shut out other competing bids could 

result in less revenue? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think that that is possibly true, but I think 

fundamentally we need to hold these auctions in a way where there 

are opportunities for everyone. That will include incumbents and 

new entrants, and ultimately we need to make sure that the revenues we raise are sufficient to support the first responder network 

authority. 

Ms. ESHOO. So two bookends, money and real competition. Terrific. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The chairman 

will recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Terry of 

Nebraska, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. We will go with the Chairman on this 

one. I think we all believe the auction should happen as soon as 

possible but of course getting the rules correct, but broadcasters 

have expressed concern about the folks who will lose a signal if 

broadcast contours change from repacking. 

What is the Commission doing to address this concern, number 

one? Is there a further NPR, notice of proposed rulemaking, that 

will delay the process too much and is there an alternative approach to addressing this issue? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Well, in the statute Congress addressed this 

issue and laid out guidelines that the Commission has to follow in 

repacking. Those issues were teed up in the notice of proposed rulemaking. We expect comments on that and be in a position to make 

a decision. Meanwhile, we are engaging in direct dialogue through 

workshops and webinars and other ways to engage directly with 

broadcasters, both broadcasters who like the one Chairman Walden 

mentioned who are looking at participating and also the ones who 

aren’t and are therefore focused on repacking. 

Mr. TERRY. Appreciate that. Now, following up on the gentlelady 

from California’s theme, I am going to move to Commissioners 

McDowell and Clyburn on this one. 

Many commenters have argued that there should be no spectrum 

cap. Do you think the current spectrum screen with the safe harbor 

of one-third of the total spectrum in the local market is sufficient 

to protect consumers and create more competition? McDowell first. 

99 

Mr. MCDOWELL. I do, and I expressed my concern when we 

launched our spectrum aggregation NPRM about reverting back to 

the days of the hard spectrum cap. It might be under a different 

name or have a different way of approaching it, but spectrum is a 

lot like real estate, and so you have to look at each transaction on 

its own unique case-by-case characteristics, and what was considered, what were considered apples and oranges in terms of different frequencies a few years ago today is no longer the case. LTE 

is being built out above two gigahertz as well as below one 

gigahertz, for instance, and so the same services are being built in 

frequencies that just a few years ago were thought to be very different in their propagation characteristics, as it is called in the 

business. So I think we need to be very careful about where that 

proceeding could go. 

Ms. CLYBURN. And one of the things that I keep in mind, and I 

go back to the competitive landscape which is optimal for us, and 

we need to keep that in front of our mind as we craft policies. Also 

in terms of the spectral aggregation currently, we have not looked 

at that proceeding. There has been no reform or no adjustments 

since 2003. So I think the time is right for us to look at the policies, 

current policies. There have been a lot of changes in the environment and also, again, keep in front of mind what our goal is to 

have a competitive landscape and the benefits of that, and so all 

of the—I have an open mind as it relates to this, and I think that 

is healthy. 

Mr. TERRY. So you think that the screen may not be conducive 

as much as you would like for competition, and so we need to look 

at that again? 

Ms. CLYBURN. A lot has changed since 2003 since that last review. 

Mr. TERRY. And then our new Commissioners, Rosenworcel, what 

would you think, and then Mr. Pai. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Arguably our existing spectrum screen has a 

certain lack of clarity to it, so I think it is a good thing that the 

agency has opened up a proceeding to talk about that. At the same 

time, technology evolves, and we are finding that spectrum in the 

two gigahertz range, for instance, is now viable for mobile 

broadband use, so I do have some concern that if we put rigid requirements in place, they may not respect the way that technology 

evolves. 

Mr. PAI. Congressman, I agree with my colleagues. In particular 

I agree with Congressman Clyburn that the time is right to revisit 

this framework in light of some of the deficiencies identified when 

we kicked off this notice of proposed rulemaking, notably, number 

one, our current approach understates competition in the market 

because it takes out of the spectrum equation certain spectrum 

that, as my colleagues McDowell and Rosenworcel pointed out, are 

in fact used for 4G service, like the broadband radio service, the 

educational broadband service. Number two, our current approach 

also creates needless uncertainty because parties, since this is a 

case-by-case basis, if they don’t know ex ante how the Commission 

is going to approach their particular spectrum holdings. So for 

those two reasons I think the time is right to revisit the screen, 

100 

mindful of the fact that we need to preserve what is right, and in 

my current view the current screen does a good job of that. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had our differences 

on this committee and with the Senate, and we finally reached a 

compromise, and we settled by agreeing to allow the FCC to utilize 

guard bands that might allow both unlicensed and licensed uses to 

flourish. We understood this to be a good compromise that showed 

unlicensed and licensed uses did not have to be mutually exclusive. 

Unfortunately, some are now suggesting that the FCC’s proposal to 

create the guard bands contemplated in the legislation is an unlawful giveaway. 

Chairman Genachowski, do you think we have to decide between 

the licensed or unlicensed model? Is there an opportunity to create 

a band plan that includes both? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. No, I don’t think we have to make that decision. And, yes, there is the opportunity to create a balanced band 

plan that uses both licensed and unlicensed and maximizes the economic value created for the country. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Some have expressed concern about guard bands 

that are too big or not technically reasonable. How will the FCC 

determine the appropriate size for any guard bands? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Well, on a record, based on the engineering 

and input that we get, we made a proposal that is based on our 

expert staff, our engineers and the work that they did, which we 

believe in the first instance is technically reasonable, and we will 

consider all the comments that come in. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Why do you think that start-ups, innovators, technology companies, many of which populate Miss Eshoo’s district 

and my district, care so much about unlicensed spectrum? I have 

heard from the cable industry that it is critical spectrum located 

in the television bands be made available for unlicensed use. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Because it is an extraordinary platform for 

innovation. It has been proven to be that. When it was first done 

20, 30 years ago it was a theory. Now we know, and we have a 

choice now, do we expand on this good idea or do we let other countries do it before us? The innovation will go to whichever country 

builds the most robust licensed and unlicensed spectrum infrastructure. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And how do you explain the cable industry support 

that what you are trying to do with regard to making sure there 

is an unlicensed spectrum available in the broadcast band? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Well, they, too, have been innovating in the 

area, taking, looking at unlicensed and using it to provide alternative broadband access to consumers. Innovation can come from 

tiny start-ups in Silicon Valley or larger companies. We want to 

maximize all innovation. 

Mr. WAXMAN. You gave a speech several months ago at Wharton 

in which you suggested there is a war on Wi-Fi. What did you 

mean by that? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Well, I think I asked why anyone would want 

to launch a war on Wi-Fi, and it is really the reasons that we are 

101 

talking about. This has been such a productive, beneficial policy innovation for the country. My view is that we should lean into it 

consistent with the statute and anticipate that American 

innovators will take advantage of new platforms for innovation and 

invent things that we can’t even imagine now. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you for that clarification. This is an important provision. It was very important to people on this committee, 

and the compromise I thought was a good one to allow this kind 

of innovation to be able to go forward. 

Commissioner Rosenworcel, how will the adoption of Next Generation 911 benefit American citizens and first responders, and do 

you believe this is an important component of the FCC’s public 

safety mission? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. I think the first—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Your mic. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. I think the first duty of the public servant is the public safety, but that is not just my opinion, it is the 

law, it is right there in the first sentence of the Communications 

Act. Next Generation 911 is going to improve all of our safety. In 

the future we will have a world where every call into our 911 centers may be accompanied by videos, photographs, and your medical 

records. It can make us all safer. 

But the challenge is getting from here to there, and that is going 

to take three things. First, it is going to take technical standards. 

The FCC is at work on that with our public safety colleagues. Second, it is going to take a lot of coordination. The agency will need 

to work with the more than 6,000 public safety answering points 

around this country as well as carriers to produce that kind of outcome. And, finally, it is going to take funding, and to that end I 

would note that in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 

Act as a result of the work of this committee, there is up to $115 

million in grant funds available for Next Generation 911. That is 

a terrific resource, and it is my hope that the public safety answering points from around this country will benefit from that. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. And Commissioner Clyburn, if I could 

squeeze in a question to you, you have been an advocate for wireless consumers and the importance of competition. As more Americans, especially economically vulnerable populations, rely exclusively on wireless service, do you believe consumers will benefit if 

the FCC exercises authority to promote wireless competition in the 

upcoming incentive auctions? 

Ms. CLYBURN. Absolutely. Competition, when the markets are 

healthy and robust, there are more opportunities, you know more 

options, and that is good, especially for lower income consumers. 

There is not a one-size-fits-all, I don’t take a one-size-fits-all from 

a regulatory standpoint, and I believe that I should help promote 

that in the market, in the competitive market standing in that 

framework. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair will 

recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the 

Commissioners. First let me mention how pleased I am that we are 

working collaboratively with the industry on the text 911 issue. 

102 

You know, that is what kids use today. They move way quicker 

than we do, and if the reports that I am reading are true, then I 

like what is going on, and that is what we would hope, that we 

would be working with regulators and the industry to resolve an 

identifiable need, so kudos, congratulations, and I would say keep 

it up. 

Obviously the goal of this was to do two things. One was to have 

spectrum available and also try to help fund this, and that is kind 

of where this debate is going, and being part of kind of what Anna 

said, you know, it is keeping the new broadband spectrum law on 

track and kind of like an oversight hearing, and a lot of us are asking questions that pertain to that. 

I was also—Chairman, I was appreciating this because when we 

talk about the guard bands it just raises the historical aspect of 

LightSquared, and for me I had great hopes that LightSquared 

would provide Wi-Fi to rural small town America, but—and I like 

GPS, we all use it, but I think they cybersquatted on spectrum that 

wasn’t there. There was no band, there was nothing there to protect the spillover, and we lost this great opportunity for rural 

America to really have high speed Internet access, and so I think 

that is part of this debate of how much is too much, where is the 

band, so we don’t have encroachment but we also get full compensation. Is that kind of the debate that we are having you think? 

Chairman? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Well, I think the discussion about how to get 

this exciting new opportunity right is the one that we are having. 

The incentive auction law was a landmark piece of legislation. It 

involved a lot of people, and the obligation is now on us consistent 

with the statute to get the balance right and to do something that 

drives U.S. leadership in mobile, that raises very substantial revenues for the Treasury, and that drives private investment and innovation, including through things like unlicensed which the statute anticipated in guard band. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, and part of the legislation was to make sure 

we had the funds available also to deploy, and because part of that 

debate was, you know, some people are saying, well, if there is not 

enough money, we will just go back to Congress and they will give 

us more, and we are just not in that world today. We are expecting 

it to come through this process. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. There is one piece here that I look forward 

to working with the committee on, which was the channel 37 piece 

on this chart. I think we share your interest in freeing that up for 

auction, and as we looked at it in our notice process, we saw a 

much higher amount of actual use than we would like, and the congressional authorization for the amount to clear that spectrum at 

300 million we believe at this stage won’t be enough, and this is 

an area where I do think we can work together on a bipartisan 

basis, perhaps clear channel 37, and I hope that is an area that we 

can follow up together because it is a way to get more licensed 

spectrum up for auction and also move forward on unlicensed. Look 

forward to working with you on that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, that would be an interesting process because 

of the full deployment in that channel and what it does. It is almost like moving military spectrum. 

103 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. That is why we haven’t proposed auctioning 

it. Other things on this chart really aren’t reversible decisions if 

that is true. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. So let me end with a question to Commissioner Rosenworcel and Commissioner Pai. There has always been 

a large debate, we have never really moved on it, on just restructuring, reorganizing it, you are relatively new. Having observed the 

process in the short amount of time you have been there, what are 

your thoughts about how we can really move the Commission from 

the copper wire era to today and what would restructuring look 

like? 

I have a minute left, so if you could kind of split that time, that 

would be helpful. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, I think in part you are referring to the 

task force that the chairman just put in place, which I think is a 

very good idea. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Your ideas. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. All right. So I will say that years ago we 

used to all exist with a wire line, copper line into our houses. The 

networks we use today are far more diverse. One-third of our 

households only have wireless phones. We have probably about 30- 

to 40,000 VoIP lines out there. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So how do we reform the Commission? I mean, I 

am trying—we know that. I mean, so how do we reform the Commission? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, I think part of reforming the Commission is understanding the communications networks that are actually out there today and making sure that the Commission’s structure reflects those networks, and so we do have concerns about how 

we look at this as a matter of silos today, where we treat cable differently than we treat traditional wire line architecture, different 

than we might treat wireless or broadband, and harmonizing 

across those platforms to reflect the way we use networks today 

would be a good idea. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Chairman, 30 seconds for Mr. Pai without objection. 

Mr. PAI. Just to add to my colleague’s answer, I think there are 

two basic questions as we undergo the IP transition that we need 

to be mindful of. Number one, what role, if any, should the economic regulation of the copper era have in a world of IP? In my 

view it should have relatively little to the extent that those types 

of regulations no longer make sense in a competitive all-IP world 

where we have convergence across different platforms. Then there 

is the question of are there any particular social goals that we 

should try to achieve in the all-IP world that we think are important? For example, when somebody calls 911, should it matter 

whether they are calling on a land line telephone, on a wireless 

phone or on a VoIP application? So those two basic questions, the 

economic and the social goals of regulation in the IP world, are 

going to be central challenges for the Commission, and that is part 

of the reason why I am glad that the Chairman announced the task 

force which I first called for in July because I think this really is 

the biggest challenge that we face at the FCC, how do we approach 

the all-IP world. 

104 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman’s time has expired. We now recognize the chairman emeritus of the committee, the honorable gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My commendations for 

this hearing. We need to do what we are doing, and I commend you 

for that. These questions will be yes or no. First to Chairman 

Genachowski. 

Mr. Chairman, section 6403(b) of the Spectrum Act requires the 

Commission to coordinate with Canada and Mexico when authorizing the reassignment and reallocation of broadcast frequencies. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would note that similar such coordination took place for the DTV transition and that it took a very 

long time. Is that correct? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the Commission commit to negotiating new arrangements with the State Department, Canada, 

and Mexico as mentioned in paragraph 34 of the Commission’s notice of proposed rulemaking before repacking broadcast frequencies? Yes or no? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. I am not sure of that provision, but we are 

committed to working with Canada and Mexico. 

Mr. DINGELL. Is that a yes or no? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. I would have to look at that provision to give 

an accurate answer. 

Mr. DINGELL. The law requires you to do it. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. We will comply with the law. 

Mr. DINGELL. I hope so. Mr. Chairman, section 6403(b)(2) of the 

Spectrum Act requires the Commission to, quote, make all reasonable efforts to preserve as of the date of the enactment of this act 

the coverage area and population served of each broadcast licensee 

as determined using the methodology described in OET Bulletin 69 

of the Office of Engineering and Technology. Does the Commission 

intend to define explicitly what such reasonable efforts will constitute? Yes or no. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes, as part of our decision. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, does the Commission expect to 

have defined such reasonable efforts? Yes or no. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes, as part of our decision. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, paragraph 49 of the NPRM states, 

quote, the allotment optimization model may have limited or no applicability to this proceeding. The Commission states in paragraph 

50 that, quote, it expects interested parties will have an opportunity for meaningful comment on all specific repacking methodologies it is considering before it makes a decision, close quote. 

Does the Commission publicly commit to sharing with the public 

the repacking methodology it adopts as well as the variables and 

other inputs it may use to predict repacking results? Yes or no. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. That is a big question. I had a hard time getting 

it out. I am sure you added your share of difficulty to it, Mr. Chairman. 

105 

Mr. Chairman, I note the Commission has had a proceeding 

pending on its spectrum screen since September of this year. Does 

the Commission intend to complete this proceeding before releasing 

rules for the voluntary incentive auction authorized by the Spectrum Act? Yes or no. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes, that is our plan. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, on a related note, does the Commission intend to use its authority under section 309(j) of the Communications Act to ensure broad participation in the voluntary incentive auction authorized by the Spectrum Act? Yes or no. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the Commission released a technical paper by the staff in 2010 which concludes that an additional 

275 megahertz of licensed spectrum will need to be cleared in order 

to meet rising consumer demand for mobile broadband. Does the 

Commission believe that it can achieve that goal? Yes or no. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, other than incentive auctions, how 

does the committee intend to meet that goal? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Well, by freeing up spectrum through removing regulatory barriers, like we did just yesterday and also a few 

weeks ago with WCS, by recovering more spectrum from the government through spectrum sharing approaches, through clearing 

and reallocating government spectrum, and through unlicensed 

spectrum. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

We in the border States are very much concerned about what 

could or will happen to us in this process, losing service, seeing stations go dark, seeing additional confusion and conflict with our 

neighbors to the north and south. I hope you will keep that in mind 

as you go forward. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask your kindness in just one thing, and that 

is to commend Commissioner Clyburn for her work on prison calling petitions before the Commission. I appreciate the progress the 

Commission has made on these petitions and encourage the Commission to resolve these matters as expeditiously as possible. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, thank you for your 

courtesy to the committee today. 

Mr. TERRY [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Dingell. Mr. Barton, you 

are recognized. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am tempted to yield 

back to Mr. Dingell just to let him continue asking his yes or no 

questions. Sooner or later he will get to one that they can’t answer. 

But Chairman Dingell did ask a question that I am going to put 

a little bit different slant on. He referred to that part of the H.R. 

3630, the new law, that the Commission in making these reassignment or reallocations shall make every effort, every reasonable effort to preserve the existing population and coverage area for each 

broadcast licensee. 

Over on the next page, on page 72, subparagraph 5, with regard 

to low power television usage, it says nothing in the subsection 

shall be construed to alter the spectrum usage rights of low power 

television stations, yet in the FCC PowerPoint presentation in response to the question can low power television participate in a reVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:33 Apr 16, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-18~4\112-18~1 WAYNE
106 

verse auction, the answer to that is no. I understand that part of 

it. It says low power television services have only secondary interference protection and must make way for full power and class A 

TV stations assigned to new channels. I understand that. But then 

they go on to say that they have to promote—they may be required 

to go to a different technology, MVPD systems, and/or the Internet. 

I can’t speak for the entire committee obviously or even the subcommittee, but I can speak for myself, who has been a member of 

the subcommittee and who supported the enactment. I didn’t envision that we would have the end result that a low power television 

station would simply end up off the air, and so I would like to ask 

the Chairman and the other Commissioners if, in fact, you are willing to commit that low power television stations that have acted in 

good faith, they understand that they may have to move or be repacked, but I personally believe it is not fair at all that the end 

result is that a low power television station that has been a good 

licensee ends up totally off the air. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Well, these are questions that we asked in 

our notice. Congress did not change the status of the low power 

stations, and so they remain secondary services. Many, as you 

point out, provide valuable programming in their communities. Our 

job is a hard one, which is how do we free—maximize the spectrum 

that we free up, generate revenue for the Treasury and for 

FirstNet and also address the issues you are raising, which are the 

number of LPTV stations around the country that are providing 

valuable programming. It is a difficult question which we have not 

answered yet. We look forward to working with you and getting 

very robust input from stakeholders as part of our process. 

Mr. BARTON. But can we agree, and again the low power television stations understand that they are secondary, they understand under current law that they provide service only if it doesn’t 

interfere and that as the full power stations and the class A stations operate they have to work around them. They understand 

that they don’t have the right to participate in this auction. The 

one thing that they are not willing to agree to is that they can be 

just kicked out of business, kicked off the air, and that is that. 

Can we agree as a committee and as the Commission that we are 

going to take steps to make sure that if a low power station has 

operated in good faith and complied with its existing license that 

we will make an effort to keep them on the air? Not necessarily on 

the same channel and the same, but at least in the same market. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. We will work with the LPTV community. We 

have an obligation, as has come up a number of times, to act within the statute. Certainly keeping LPTV stations on the air where 

we can is something that makes sense, but I think at this point we 

haven’t made a proposal on this. We have an obligation to listen 

to the record, act consistent with the statute, and we will continue 

to work with you and the other members of the committee and the 

LPTV community to ultimately reach the goals of the statute, some 

of which, as you point out, are in tension with each other. 

Mr. BARTON. Can I ask the newest Commissioner, Mr. Pai, do 

you believe that the current reverse auction, forward auction simultaneous system that has been outlined is really workable? 

107 

Mr. PAI. It is certainly a novel construction which is necessary 

since the entire incentive auction process presents questions; a first 

impression, as Congresswoman Eshoo pointed out in her opening 

statement. I think the simultaneous auction has the advantage, as 

the NPRM points out, of certainty in real time as to what spectrum 

will be available, but there are obviously some complications. Participants in the reverse auction aren’t necessarily well versed in 

auction processes, and they might not know, you know, exactly 

what the nature of the auction is going to hold for them. On the 

forward side, the bidders might not know what spectrum they are 

bidding on which inhibits, obviously, their ability to form a coherent strategy. 

So there are going to be some challenges there, and I am hopeful 

that in the NPRM process that commenters will give us a wide 

range of perspectives that will allow us to understand whether the 

simultaneous approach is the best one. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, I would encourage the Commission and the 

staff and the members of this committee to keep an open mind on 

this because we have conflicting goals. We want to maximize revenue for deficit reduction, we want to maximize reallocation of 

spectrum for new uses, and we want to preserve the rights of the 

existing licensees that don’t wish to participate in the auction. 

When you put that all together, it is very difficult to come up with 

a system that actually makes sense, and I would hope you all keep 

an open mind on how to do that. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Barton. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Mr. Chairman, could you help us to frame this tension that exists under existing law? That is, that what we are trying to do is 

to make new spectrum available for the wireless revolution while 

at the same time ensuring that broadcasters are protected, that 

they only have to act voluntarily, but that there is proper protection against interference. So what is the process that you have established that telescopes the time frame to ensure that that issue 

is resolved and done so in a way that meets all the technical requirements but forces the parties who sometimes have a stake in 

just, you know, waiting until eternity to finally just get to the point 

where they accept the reality of the technology? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Two points briefly. One, on the time frame, 

this is why we moved so quickly to start the NPRM. We have announced that we intend to hold an auction in 2014, and we will 

drive this step by step to a conclusion. 

The second point, on the framing, what many people don’t realize 

is that in many major markets, most major markets in the U.S. 

today there are many more over-the-air TV licensees than people 

realize. In New York, where I am from, the number is 28. And 

there were, there was a large allocation of these licenses before 

cable and satellite, and what we are doing now, and this is I think 

the innovation of incentive auctions, is to say, how can we use market mechanisms to reallocate some of that spectrum to mobile 

broadband in a win-win way? And that is what we are doing. That 

is why there will be broadcasters who remain in markets like New 

108 

York and others that are healthy, indeed stronger, but there is also 

tremendous opportunity to free up spectrum to generate revenue 

and to promote innovation. 

Mr. MARKEY. When we moved over the 200 megahertz out of this 

committee in 1993, we had a two-star general sit here and say you 

just can’t do it, it is just absolutely technologically impossible to do. 

So, again, do you have a process that is totally fair to the broadcasters and to the wireless industry that is in place? Have you had 

them in your office simultaneously with their engineers to talk 

about the issues so that you can hear and your experts can hear 

the differences which they have? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. That is exactly what we are doing. Through 

the notice and comment process, also through the workshops, also 

through direct engagement with our engineers, that is what I have 

said to both industries, which is get your engineers working because we will resolve these largely as engineering issues consistent 

with the economic and innovation goals of the statute. 

Mr. MARKEY. Do you ever have a meeting yourself with the engineers in the room, with the other, you know, from all industries 

just sitting there with your engineers hearing the disagreements? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. I very much enjoy meeting with engineers 

and business executives, and I won’t express an opinion on what 

is fun to meet with. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. No, I appreciate that. Let me just say last year 

The Economist magazine predicted, this is hyperbolically I think, 

The Economist predicted that the expected economic benefits of unlicensed spectrum alongside finding a crack in the code for curing 

cancer would be amongst the most significant developments expected in 2012. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes, I do. I don’t know about the 2012 piece, 

so I would have to think about that, but as I said before, the WiFi was not an expected innovation from unlicensed policy when it 

was first done, and I think there is every reason now to expect that 

we will get unexpected innovations in the future from a new platform for innovation. 

Mr. MARKEY. And we had a hearing in this committee just a couple of weeks ago where one of the FCC’s top engineers testified 

that advances in technology are not likely to obviate the need for 

guard bands anytime soon. 

Do you believe that the FCC should put licensed spectrum at risk 

for interference by reducing the size of the guard bands? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Until we can change the law of physics and 

eliminate the possibility of interference, we are going to have to 

have guard bands. 

Mr. MARKEY. And so, again, is there a process that gives people 

deadlines in terms of resolving these technical issues? Because we 

are congressional experts, which is an oxymoron compared to real 

experts, and when you put engineers in a room, we have to just remain silent and listen. So that is, to us, it seems to me, the real 

question, how timely are the deadlines given here to resolve these 

issues because I think it is almost like a homework assignment, 

you know. You have got a deadline, you have got to get that answer, and then we will find a tie breaker to make a judgment as 

to who is right and who is wrong, and I don’t know what exactly 

109 

the timelines are here, but it just seems to me that the economic 

benefits are so overwhelming, while the risks actually to the broadcasting industry could be great, but to resolve it in a way that benefits the American people and these industries. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. So that is a fair question. If I could answer 

it briefly. Comments in response to our notice are due, I believe, 

in January, with replies due shortly after that. At my level, the 

Commissioner level, and the staff level, we have been encouraging 

all the industries to give us their best engineering and to do the 

hard work to put us in a position. From there, as we have in past 

proceedings, we will move forward in exactly the direction that you 

are suggesting, which is getting engineers together from the different industries and sitting there until we get answers and we will 

have a timetable, and we will drive it to conclusion. It won’t be the 

first time we have done that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes, because just as an engineering final exam, it 

is win-win for broadcasters and for wireless. That is just one of the 

exams scheduled, to make sure that we just resolve it in a timely 

fashion. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Markey. At this time the Chair will 

recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner 

McDowell referenced the Title II proceedings in light of the WCIT 

conference in Dubai. So Chairman Genachowski, why is that title, 

Title II still open? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Well, it is common to have notices of inquiry 

stay open where there is public interest and commenting, as there 

have been here. We don’t see any uncertainty being created by that 

proceeding. The sector is actually quite strong, investment and innovation are going up. To the extent there is any uncertainty, it 

is coming from the Verizon litigation. As I have done before, I 

would call on Verizon to withdraw its litigation. That would increase certainty and allow us all to move forward. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well, have you had any discussions with the 

other Commissioners? Chairman, Commissioner McDowell, do you 

want to weigh in on that? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Real quick, I would respectfully disagree with 

what the Chairman just said. Actually when I speak with Wall 

Street analysts, that is one of the first questions I get is what is 

the future of that Title II docket. At the time that it was first floated in the summer of 2010 there was an incredible amount of anxiety expressed from the investment community over that docket. It 

frequently comes up in conversations that I have with our international counterparts and diplomats internationally. So I think it 

does create uncertainty, and the litigation against the order regarding the regulation of Internet network management actually I don’t 

think is creating the uncertainty. The uncertainty was started by 

the FCC in this space. There was no evidence of any market failure 

for the FCC to address at all to begin with. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I had an entrepreneur tell me this week that 

they are distressed that so many Federal agencies are trying to 

solve problems that don’t exist, and I think there is a problem with 

that. 

110 

Mr. Chairman, have you had discussions about a reclassification 

of broadband services via Title II if the FCC loses the DC Circuit 

and loses the case? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. No. We are focused on a framework that is 

in place, that is working, that is driving private investment and innovation across the ecosystem. I think if we can preserve what we 

have right now it will continue to be a win for the country. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well, do you feel like you have the authority 

to reclassify broadband services under Title II and subject them to 

Title II regulations? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Our general counsel at the FCC has said consistently that we do have that authority. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. When do you plan to close that title? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. We don’t have plans to close it. It has been 

a forum for public input and participation. And as I said, we are 

seeing a sector that is very strong and growing and leading the 

world. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So you plan to just leave it open as long as you 

want to? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. It is a forum for the public to comment, and 

they have done so, and I expect they will continue to do so. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes, sir, I think you are going to hear a lot of 

public comments. I think people are going to be weighing in readily 

with you on these issues, and I think the uncertainty that is generated around some of the activity does not serve our innovative 

community well, and I hope that we can provide some certainty. 

The task force and, Commissioner Pai, I appreciated that you 

mentioned that, and I know that you are looking forward to working on that task force. So, Mr. Chairman, is the task force going 

to be focused on modernizing an obsolete regulatory framework so 

that we can finally rationalize this new marketplace of converged 

services and hasten the IP transition to next generation networks 

or do you intend to use it to put legacy regulations on new technology? So where are you planning to head with that? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Our goal really since I arrived in 2009 was 

to focus on unleashing the opportunities of broadband and addressing all of the policy issues associated with that. We did that 

through the Universal Service Fund reform and creation of the 

Connect America Fund, the Disabilities Act implementation, et 

cetera. We will continue as we have been doing to drive the rollout 

of digital networks, digital IP networks. It is very exciting for the 

country, and we need to see continued private investment in that. 

We also need to make sure that in the world, in this transition consumers are protected. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Let me interrupt there just a second. Do you 

think it is necessary for you to drive it or do you think that the 

free market drives it? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. I think the free market is driving tremendous 

investment. I think we create a climate for investment, and we 

have to make sure that any rules we have in place that shouldn’t 

be there get taken away, and things we need to protect—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Can I submit a list? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI [continuing]. Consumers, public safety, and 

competition, are in place. 

111 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Commissioner Pai, 5 seconds. 

Mr. PAI. I will try to be very brief. I would just support the 

Chairman in his formation of the task force, look forward to working with him, the Commission staff on making sure that we have 

a regulatory framework that incentivizes, not penalizes, investment 

in next generation networks. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well done. I will yield back. Mr. Chairman, I 

have one question that I am going to submit for the record. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman 

from Pittsburgh, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to welcome 

the Commissioners back to our committee room and tell you that 

it was good to see all of you last week in your committee room. 

Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, because this is a little off topic, 

but I have to ask, can you give us any update on special access? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Sure, it won’t be the first time that you asked 

that question and we have had a chance to talk about it. As you 

know, we have been working as a commission on what we have announced would be the next step, a data collection order. I don’t 

know if this has been announced, but I can tell you now that order 

has been voted, and as soon as it is finalized it will be issued, and 

we will be moving forward in the special access area in the ways 

that we have announced. 

Mr. DOYLE. Excellent. And what is the timing? So that all Commissioners have voted? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes, it has all been voted and the staff is finalizing the process to release it. 

Mr. DOYLE. Very good. OK, thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you about the Commission’s work 

on designing the forward auction process with regards to the eligibility of competitive wireless carriers to bid for a license. I think 

it is very important that we ensure a competitive wireless marketplace, and that requires all carriers to have a sufficient amount of 

spectrum to be able to offer comparative quality of service. That 

means being able to deploy 4G LTE service in a reasonable time 

frame and being able to avoid frequent dropped calls. So for every 

carrier, the ability to secure spectrum licenses means the ability to 

stay competitive with other providers. So I think it is important, 

Mr. Chairman, for the FCC to be able to give all potential participants a fair shot at the bidding process. I would like to see more 

carriers have LTE capability and more robust coverage. That 

means the FCC has to design auctions in a way that will maximize 

the competitive benefits of this resource. 

Mr. Chairman, I do want to enter into the record before I go further a letter from the Competitive Carriers Association addressing 

the issue of bidder eligibility because I think it does a good job in 

laying out the concerns these carriers have with being able to participate in the auction. So I would like that entered in the record. 

Mr. TERRY. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

[The letter follows:] 

112 


85821.074

BWEGRASS 

CELWLAR 

Sprint 

December ! 1, 2012 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chainnan, Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Henry Waxman 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Thc Honorable Greg Walden 

Chainnan, Snbcommittee on Communications and Technology 

The Honorable Anna Eshoo 

US. Cellular 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Raybnrn Honse Office Bnilding 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, Chaimlan Walden, and Ranking Member 

Eshoo: 

We write in strong support of Congress's reaffirmation, in the Spectrum Act, of the FCC's 

authority to adopt and enforce rules to promote competition and increase auction revenue.l! The 

Spectrum Act reaffinns the FCC's authority to design competitive auctious to maximize return 

for U.S. taxpayers and ensure consumers enjoy the benefits of a competitive marketplace, which 

depends on competitive calTiers' access to critical spectrum resources. Preserving the FCC's 

authority to manage spectrum is essential to ensuring competition in the wireless broadband 

marketplace. Competition, in tum, creates jobs, enhances auction revenues and spurs new and 

innovative services for consumers while allowing a continued light-touch regulatory rcgime in 

our dynamic industry. 

Ensuring a competitive wireless marketplace requires that all market participants have sufficient 

spectrum to compete effectively. With only a limited amount of new spectrum coming available 

Ii Middle Class Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L No. 112-96, § 6404 

("Spectrum Act"). 
113 


85821.075

over the next few years, it is imperative that the Commission have the tools to design auctions 

that address today's and tomorrow's wireless marketplace. The Spectrum Act preserves the 

Commission's ability to adopt generally applicable spectrum aggregation rules that promote 

competition. Rules that apply to every bidder apply generally. While generally applicable rules 

will always affect different companies differently, rules are no less "generally applicable" as a 

result. 

The Commission has long used generally applicable spectrum aggregation rules to promote 

competition, stimulate investment, and encourage innovation for the benefit of consumers. In the 

1990s, for instance, the Commission adopted rules on personal communications service (PCS) 

spectrum holdings to foster broad participation in the marketplace. The Commission also 

implemented an overall limitation on the amount of commercial mobile radio spectrum anyone 

entity could acquire at auction to help ensure diversity in the provision of mobile wireless 

services. These policies were fundamental to the emergence of a wireless marketplace in which 

new entrants challenged the established incumbent telephone companies on price, service, and 

innovation. Reversing course and allowing the dominant incumbents to monopolize this scarce 

and essential resource will inevitably exclude, eliminate, or weaken the competitiveness of the 

mobile market in ways that will raise consumer prices, destroy jobs, and stifle innovation in the 

wireless industry. 

The incumbent providers' suggestion that spectrum aggregation rules could negatively affect 

auction revenues is inaccurate. In fact, there is clear and decisive evidence that encouraging 

multiple parties to pursue spectrum has resulted in higher revenues for the government. 

Therefore, it is critical to craft rules that encourage participation in auctions. In tum, enhanced 

participation ensures that competitive providers are able to obtain the quantity and quality of 

spectrum necessary to meet growing consumer demand while maximizing revenues for a finite 

taxpayer-owned resource. This authority has been critical to the success of previous auctions, 

and reaffirmation in the Spectrum Act of Commission authority "to adopt and enforce rules of 

general applicability, including rules concerning spectrum aggregation that promote 

competition" provides the FCC with the necessary tools and flexibility to structure successful, 

competitive auctions going forward. 

Sincerely, 

Atlantic Tele-Network 

Bluegrass Cellular 

C Spire Wireless 

Competitive Carriers Association 

Cricket Communications, Inc. 

MTPCS, LLC d/b/a Cellular One 

Nex-Tech Wireless 

nTelos Wireless 

SouthernLiNC Wireless 

Sprint 

T-Mobile USA 

U.S. Cellular 
114 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

There should be no confusion on this point. The legislation 

passed by Congress gives the FCC flexibility to design auctions in 

a way that allows everyone to participate, including smaller carriers. I want to urge all of the Commissioners to take advantage 

of the tools at your disposal to protect competition. 

So, Mr. Chairman, let me ask you, is this an issue to which you 

will give close consideration? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes. And I agree with the way you characterized it. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you a little 

bit about media ownership, too. You might remember I brought up 

this issue at a previous hearing, and I continue to be very concerned about moving forward with relaxing cross ownership rules 

again before we complete an FCC analysis on the impact such a 

rule would have on changes in female and minority ownership. Mr. 

Chairman, the FCC’s incentive auction NPRM envisions that television stations could engage in channel sharing in order to free up 

spectrum for reallocation. Have you considered the impact of this 

proposal on media ownership and diversity in light of the ownership order that you are currently circulating? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. We do think that the incentive auction process will provide new opportunities for minority owners to continue 

providing service in a difficult marketplace, by receiving money for 

sharing channels or by potentially receiving money for moving from 

UHF to VHF, so we see the incentive auctions as a net plus for minority ownership, and we are working and will continue to work 

with the community to work through those issues. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, I think some are just concerned that we understand what these impacts are before we move forward because the 

concern is sometimes after a ruling is made and you continue to 

study these issues, it is very hard to get the genie back into the 

bottle, so to speak. So I would just urge you and the Commissioners to take a closer look at the impact of these auctions in light 

of your media ownership review, and I thank you for the work that 

you are doing. 

Mr. Chairman, with that I will yield back my time. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. At this time recognize the 

gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman, and appreciate the 

hearing and especially the five Commissioners for being here with 

us. I want to start by looking at the Congressional Budget Office 

estimate on the spectrum auction. If you look at the NPRM, the estimates are that it would raise about $25 billion from the broadcast 

incentive auctions, and I just want to get your take on what you 

think can be achieved. If you look at the CBO report, does that 

match with where you think you will be? I will start with the 

Chairman, get your take on that. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Well, both CBO and OMB have looked at the 

proposal, they scored it, and certainly it is not in our expertise to 

revise that scoring. We are certainly focused on running an auction 

that generates very substantial revenue for FirstNet and beyond. 

One of the key factors in that will be broadcaster participation, and 

that is why we are all working together with the industry and with 

115 

others, why we are happy to see the group formed that we heard 

about at the beginning of the hearing from Chairman Walden of 

broadcasters who are saying you know what, this makes sense, and 

we want to work proactively with the Commission to design rules 

that encourages our participation because that is the best way to 

free up the most amount of spectrum. 

Mr. SCALISE. Commissioner McDowell? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. I am a little bit more cautious. I hesitate to use 

the word ‘‘pessimistic.’’ And I hope that I am proven wrong as to 

how much that will actually raise. As was pointed out earlier in 

this pie chart, it has the 55 megahertz actually being auctioned. 

You have to keep in mind that in the markets where we need spectrum the most, these are the largest cities, that is where we are 

the most spectrum constrained for mobile broadband. That is also 

where broadcasting is the most profitable because there are more 

eyeballs condensed, you know, compacted into a small area, like, 

let’s say, New York City where there are 28 TV stations. So in 

order to yield 60 megahertz, let’s say, at 6 megahertz per TV station, that is 10 TV stations or licensees that would have to go dark 

or channel share in a New York City, for instance. That is more 

than a third. That is a lot. I hope that is the case. I hope it actually 

happens, but I am not convinced yet that it will. 

So I think we need to be more cautious and sort of fiscally conservative with some of the assumptions that went into the CBO or 

the OMB estimates. 

Mr. SCALISE. If I could just emphasize because, you know, there 

are some components of the bill for public safety, other expenditures, but another part of that legislation was to provide some revenue to pay down the national debt. $15 billion is right now estimated to be raised that would go towards paying down the debt. 

So as you are conducting the auction, clearly we want to free up 

more spectrum, and that is going to create jobs, it is going to allow 

us to do a lot more things that we can’t do today, but it also allows 

us an opportunity to have some real money to start paying down 

the debt. So I would like to emphasize that as well. 

I want to talk about the Dubai hearings, and I know you touched 

on it, both Chairman Genachowski, Commissioner McDowell, I 

want to thank you all for both representing the United States in 

those talks, and we are going to be following it, and I was glad that 

we passed the legislation out of the House, now the Senate and 

House have both spoken very loudly in a bipartisan and unanimous 

way that we oppose any attempt by the United Nations to take 

over parts of the Internet, and we want to see it continue to be an 

open and free model with a multi stakeholder approach. I think, 

Commissioner McDowell, you touched on this some in your opening. Do you see some hypocrisy where Title II is open here in the 

United States and yet we are in Dubai telling them not to use this 

outdated approach to trying to grab more pieces of the Internet 

internationally, but here in the United States there still seems to 

be this open ended question with Title II open that that maybe 

sends a mixed signal. I wonder if either of you would like to touch 

on that. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Excellent question, and I will try to be diplomatic with the response because we are at a crucial time in these 

116 

diplomatic negotiations. The answer is both yes and no. Yes in that 

we say internationally we want to keep government out of the 

space, that the multi stakeholder model is the way to resolve conflicts, and it has worked very well for consumers ultimately. No in 

that one of the messages being put forth is that each nation has 

the sovereign right to determine what its Internet policy should be, 

and there should not be an international regulatory overlay. So 

there is a distinction between an international regulatory overlay 

and a domestic policy overlay. I happen to think it is more intellectually honest and consistent to say that government should stay 

out of the space altogether as much as possible, and we should 

therefore close things like the Title II docket. 

Mr. SCALISE. Chairman Genachowski. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. In both cases the goals and the actions are 

designed to preserve Internet freedom and openness, to preserve 

the Internet as we know it, and to ensure that no gatekeepers, public or private, interfere with Internet freedom so that we have the 

innovation and free speech that we have seen from the Internet for 

the last 20 years continue for the next 20 years and beyond. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you for your time and answers, and I yield 

back the balance. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you very 

much for holding this hearing today. 

And I want to thank the Commission for being here today. And, 

well, as you know, you are going to be arguably undertaking probably the most complex spectrum auction in history, and I think you 

all know it needs to be transparent. And I believe Congress must 

work closely with the Commission to ensure the auction’s success. 

Mr. Chairman, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act 

directed the FCC to auction up to 120 megahertz of additional spectrum to be reallocated from mobile broadband services for the 

broadcast incentive auction. If we don’t see strong participation 

from the broadcasters during the incentive auction process that 

reaches Congress’ goals, does FCC have a fallback plan? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Well, our focus is on implementing the statute. It is a very good idea to provide a mechanism to reallocate 

spectrum from existing commercial to broadband. I say that not 

only because Congress passed it, but because we originated it in 

our national broadband plan in 2010. 

I think ‘‘caution’’ is a good byword here. But we are seeing more 

and more reason to be optimistic, including the formation of the 

group of Chairman Walden mentioned before. And my hope and expectation is that we will see a successful process. Certainly, we are 

on optimizing all of our work to make the process simple, understandable, and allow broadcasters to be in a position with a—can 

make an economically rational decision. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. In case, just in case it does not work out quite 

the way you feel it should work out, do you have a next step at 

all? I mean, where do you look for the next tranche of spectrum? 

I am sure you are looking at this not just in a linear way. That 

117 

is not the way everyone operates here. You are thinking about 

other opportunities here. 

So where do you see the next tranche of spectrum coming from 

after the upcoming incentive auction? Are you looking at the 1755 

to 1850 band? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes. It is a great question. And we don’t see 

these as mutually exclusive at all. And so 1755, the 3.5-gigahertz 

item that we will vote on later today, which is 100 megahertz that 

we are very excited about, 40 megahertz of spectrum that the Commission voted on last night to free up in the satellite band, 30 

megahertz of WCS, we see other opportunities for government spectrum. So this is a very high priority; as a commission, we all agree 

on it. And whatever happens with incentive auctions, we will continue to move forward relentlessly on all of the other opportunities 

and policies. 

On the incentive auction piece, I expect it will work. Congress 

will continue to be interested. I think what Congress has done in 

the law is to say, this is a band where we expect to see a significant amount of spectrum freed up for mobile broadband. 

Ms. MATSUI. Right. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. This is how we would like to see it work. And 

I expect that the broadcast industry will get that message. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Commission Rosenworcel, you know, spectrum 

is going to be a big part of the budget debates in the coming years. 

So we will need to generate new revenues for the Treasury. As 

stakeholders continue their efforts for a long-term spectrum solution, do you see any opportunities for a meaningful amount of revenues that can be generated, at least probably in the short term, 

from sharing opportunities? What are your ideas on ways to generate revenues from sharing and ways to incentivize agencies to relocate? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. With respect to spectrum, I think demand is 

only going to continue to grow. So we are going to need to have an 

all-of-the-above approach. That will include things like sharing. 

And as you are probably aware, with the 1755 band, we are trying 

to identify if that is viable for sharing with the 2155 megahertz 

band that we need to auction within the next 3 years. 

With respect to existing Federal users, I believe that agencies are 

mission-focused. They use their spectrum in service of their missions, but they lack today incentives to use that spectrum efficiently. I think it is time that we infuse those missions with rewards for using their spectrum efficiently. And if we do that, we 

are highly likely to be able to call more spectrum back from Federal users over time and repurpose it for commercial use. 

Ms. MATSUI. So in working with some of the agencies and talking 

with them, I think they understand that. But this idea of relocating 

en masse is something they can’t do. Not in a short term, anyway. 

So as we move forward, I think we need to be very creative about 

how we incentivize the agencies to move forward in a way that is 

timely by trying to figure out more incentivizing ways to do this 

and also incentivize the sharing as maybe an interim step as moving forward. And I think what I am saying is what we need to do 

is have a long-term process with certain benchmarks along the way 

so there is a sense that we are moving forward. 

118 

So anyway, I thank you very much for everything you are doing, 

and I yield back my time. 

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

The Chair recognizes is incoming vice-chair of the Subcommittee 

on Communications and Technology, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Latta. 

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

very much for conducting the hearing today, and again to all the 

Commissioners for appearing before us today. 

I have an explanation from Cisco, ‘‘Why Spectrum of 5 Gigahertz 

is Better for Unlicensed Use Than Even the White Spaces.’’ 

I would request unanimous consent to submit it for the record. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

119 


85821.076

12112112 An Unlicensed Roadblock? 

.. o Blogs Horne 

o AlI of Cisco 

Cisco Blogs 

4 

Twe.t 

2 

• Uke 

.. o 

.. 

.. 

Cisco Blog> High Tech Policy 

An Unlicensed Roadblock? 

Mau' Brown I October 20, 2011 at 2:39 pm PST 

The road to US spectnun reform often feels like anything bnt a Superhighway. New obstacles emerged just 

today, when it became apparent that House Members on the Energy and Commerce Committee have yet to 

reach agreement on rrruch needed spcctnun legislation 

The latest roadblock? What to do about unlicensed spectrum 

As the leading provider of unlicensed devices in the world, Cisco has a unique business perspective on this 

matter and has thought a lot about this should be reconciled, and our perspective is wen settled. 

We strongly believe that unlicensed technology such as WiFi will be a critical part of addressing the rising 

demand fur data traffic from smartphones, tablets, laptops, and a myriad of other mobile devices. Mobile 

carriers need more spectnun to address this demand, and more spectnun is needed for unlicensed devices, too. 

)logs,cisco.comfgov/ar;..un!icensed~roadblockl 117 
120 


85821.077

12112112 An Unlicenaed Roadblock? 

For un1icensed, policymakers should fucus their attention on 5 GHz and the benefits of expanding the exi'lting 

vibrant WiFi ecosystem 

Ifwe take a wrong turn now, then we will miss an enonrous opportunity to free up IDJre spectrum fur IDJbile 

broadband and generate biIOOns of revenue fur the rederal governm::nt. 

Here's why: 

First - Congressional action on spectrum would yiek! enonrous benefits in the short term - driving economi: 

growth, creating jobs, and spurring innovation. With any legislation, there will be difrerent views. That's part of 

the process. But difrerences should not bring the process to a standstilL 

Spectrum legisJation is needed to give the FCC tools to make IDJre wireless broadband spectrum available. 

Based on Cisco's Visual Networking Index data deIronstrating the projected growth in Irobile data, it is critical 

to get this issue addressed. In addition, it is critical to Irove furward on transitioning IDJre spectrum from fuderal 

use to commercial use. We are at the velY beginning of the Irobile broadband explosion, and:fhllure of 

policymakers to act now will mean a Jack of connectivity, dropped connections, and slow data rates in the future. 

Noone wants that outcome. 

Second - the value ofWiFi and other un1icensed teclmologies that nm on unlicensed spectrum is to take 

spectrum that would otherwise not be used, and to put it to productive work. In other words, in situations where 

un1icensed can co-exist with an exi'lting use, and not interfure with that use, that ability to "share" is the economi: 

dividend that should command the policymaker's attention. 

The expansion ofun1icensed teclmologies such as Wi-Fi from the original 2.4 GHz band into 5 GHz occurs in a 

shared environment and has proven to be remarkably successfuJ- un1icensed shares with rederal systems at 5 

GHz, using spectrum that would otherwise lie fiIIJow. Maximizing industry's ability to pnt that spectrum to work, 

without creating hannful interfurence to existing users, should be everyone's goal in a work! where WiFi is in 

every IDJbile device, and new WiFi applications are growing at a brisk clip. 

Third - a critical question in spectrum refurm is whether the refurm will resuh in spectrum being put to work in 

the economy. Unlicensed spectrum at 5 GHz consists ofan ecosystem ofJarge, well-established chipset 

manufilctorers, hundreds of radio manufilcturers and others who already are producing teclmology fur sale in 

IDJst countries of the world. If additional un1icensed spectrum is made available at 5 GHz, there is an inm::diate 

impact to US industry to produce innovative new products, and drive new applications, to benefit business and 

consumers. For that reason, Cisco strongly mvors policies that support an examination ofwbether additional 

shared spectrum at 5 GHz can be made available to un1icensed. 

Proposals befure Congress to create a new, sub 3-GHz spectrum band fur un1icensed, such as a new band in 

the TV UHF band dedicated to un1icensed, put the emphasis in the wrong place. New radio ecosystems, even 

in mvorabJe circumstances, can take a decade or Irore to develop, leaving spectrum unused at a time when the 

licensed Irobile industry has an acute demand fur it. Whether a new un1icensed ecosystem could successfuJJy 

develop in the UHF band is anybody's guess. 

Of equal importance, clearing spectrum below 3 GHz fur un1icensed excludes one use (licensed Irobile) in mvor 

of another (un1icensed). Contrast that to un1icensed use at 5 GHz, wbere exi'lting federal users remain, 

un1icensed devices operate on spectrum that would otherwise remain idle, and evelYone benefits from IDJre 

blogs.cisco.com/gcv lan-unllcenaed-tOadbfockl 217 
121 


85821.078

An Unlicensed Roadblock? 

intensive use of the radio spectrum To Cisco, shared spectrum use, building off the existing ecosystem at 5 

GHz, presents the most compelling vision fur unlicensed. 

In an effort to keep conversatinns fresh, Cisco Blogs closes comments after 60 days. Please visit the ~ 

Blogs hub pail!' fur the latest C{)n!en!. 

1 Comments. 

1. 

Richard Bennett October 2Q, 2011 at4'19 pm 

Good article, Mary. 

• Subscribe Now 

RSS Feed 

o~ 

o Google+ 

o~ 

o~ 

o News@Cisco 

o~ 

o~ 

o YlmThlll: o E1i£.!g: 

o~ 

• Leam MQre 

Already a rewards member? I&g1u 

• Blogs at a Glance 

o~ 

Recent 

o~ 

COmmented 

o~ 

The Internet of Everything? To Gen Y. the Internet IS Everything 

Jessica Williamsen 112 Dec 2012 

(1 Comment) 

Uke 

TW .. !.15' 

logs ,cisco. comlgov lan-unlicensed-roadblock! 317 
122 


85821.079

., 

., 

Holiday Shopping with Mobility 

Sarah Vanier! 12 Dec 2012 

Cisco WAAS 5.0 Achieyes SAP-Certified InteiJll!jon with SAP Nelli'eayer® 

Allison Park III Dec 2012 

(0 COmments) 

Uke , 0 

TW'.I ,,6 

Cisco Delivers the Power ofWi-Fi to a Colorado University 

Gaty Serda III Dec 2012 

(9 CO!lJlrenlS) 

Uke', ° , Tweet '\61 

The Power of Mobility & Learning 

Kathy Trahan III Dec 2012 

More Posts > 

., 0 What We're Reading 

o Politics and Technology 
123 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Commissioner Pai, the statute identifies an additional 195 megahertz of spectrum above 5 gigahertz for unlicensed use. In light of 

that, does it make sense to jeopardize the auction and the public 

safety network by pulling out for unlicensed use the broadcast incentive spectrum ideally suited for licensed wireless broadband? 

Mr. PAI. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

As I stated in my testimony, I am very bullish about unlicensed 

use in the 5 gigahertz band for the reasons that I expect are identified in the letter you just submitted for the record. I have spoken 

with Cisco and other players in the industry who have worked on 

and helped develop Super Wi-Fi technologies that would be compatible with the 5 gigahertz band, 802.11ac standard, which I mentioned earlier. 

But the basic reason I am bullish about 5 gigahertz in particular 

is this: If you think about what the ideal use for unlicensed is, it 

is fast speeds for data transmission within a relatively small area, 

such as a home or an office. Five gigahertz is perfect for that because you can, as the Spectrum Act envisions, dedicate gigantic 

channels that would be 160, even larger megahertz, for the sole 

purpose of transmitting data. 

And, additionally, not an engineer—much to my parents’ chagrin—but what I have been informed is that the propagation characteristics of 5 gigahertz waves are such they don’t travel through 

walls, they don’t travel very far. So you don’t have the risk of interference that you might have lower in the band. 

So if you have, you know, gigabit wireless throughput, thanks for 

5 gigahertz, that is a tremendous opportunity that I think we 

should take advantage of. 

So I am pleased that the Spectrum Act requires the Commission 

to commence the rulemaking process on 5 gigahertz by February, 

because I think that this is an area, consistent with the Chairman’s call for greater innovation and investment in unlicensed, 

where we could really see some bang for relatively little bucks. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Commissioner McDowell, the administration has talked a lot 

about the need to bring additional spectrum to the market for commercial use. In your view, has their behavior matched the rhetoric 

and how important is the secondary market in dealing with the 

spectrum crunch? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. I think there are two issues, actually. One 

would be spectrum sharing in the Federal spectrum space, and the 

other would be secondary markets. 

So to answer a your secondary markets question first, I think we 

could do better to ensure a freer and faster flow of spectrum in 

those markets to make sure that spectrum flows to its highest and 

best use in as unencumbered a way as possible. 

Secondly, I would love to see the executive branch, Federal users 

spectrum, actually do a better job of offering up spectrum for auction rather than sharing. Sharing can be very beneficial, as we 

have just discussed; unlicensed use, that is a form of sharing. But 

there is no substitute for exclusive-use licenses. 

I think Congress can have a role here in maybe trying to provide 

Federal users of spectrum an incentive to get off their spectrum. 

124 

It is an opaque process right now. The law says that if it costs 

more to move them off their spectrum than it would raise at auction that you can’t move them. So let’s do what we can to get them 

off that spectrum and try some carrots. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Chairman Genachowski, in the NPRM it talks about a geographic area. It says, ‘‘items available for bid.’’ And when I was 

reading through this and kind of going back, what Mr. Dingell was 

also talking about because, you know, where we are located from 

northwest Ohio, and of course growing up as a kid, we got Canadian television stations in our area, and vice versa for Canadians. 

What is the definition and how would you define that geographic 

area because you say the multiple blocks of spectrum available in 

a geographic area? What is a geographic area? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. I think that is a question that we teed up for 

comment and input in our public proceeding. 

If I could say one thing on the border issues, these are very important issues that come up every time there is any transition in 

spectrum, whether it is commercial or public safety, and we have 

very good processes in place both with Canada and Mexico to negotiate through these issues. And in decades of work, our countries 

have solved every one of them. And so I fully expect that that will 

happen here and that we will address the border issues in a way 

that doesn’t interfere with the incentive auction. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

The chairman recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, I believe is next, Mr. Pallone. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman Walden. 

Let me quickly say that I encourage the FCC to keep on track 

with implementation of this spectrum law, but not to overlook important details that will ensure a successful auction for all stakeholders. 

However, today, I am interested in discussing the recent 

superstorm Sandy. Its devastation has greatly impacted my district 

and many other districts in New Jersey and New York. An examination of the communications performance and reliability in the 

wake of Sandy is of great importance. And that is why my Democratic colleagues sent a letter to you, Chairman Walden, requesting 

a hearing following the storm. It seems that communication services failed to perform as needed during and after the storm, power 

outages and floods disrupted many types of communications, including wireless, TV, telephone, and Internet services. According to 

the FCC, the storm knocked out a quarter of the cell towers in an 

area spreading across 10 States, leaving millions of cell phone 

users unable to make calls. 

I had three questions I wanted to ask Chairman Genachowski. 

And first, what are you doing to ensure the reliability of the communication networks during and after natural disasters? And, 

more specifically, what efforts are underway at the FCC to identify 

and highlight best practices and, where necessary, to address potential vulnerabilities in our communications infrastructure? 

All that in a minute or two. 

125 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Let me try to cover a little bit of ground. Obviously, the devastation in New Jersey and that region was tremendous. And I want to note that our 24/7 operations center at the 

FCC played in this disaster as it had in others a very important 

role in the recovery efforts. In New Jersey in particular, we were 

engaged with the New Jersey Broadcaster Association in efforts to 

get fuel to cell towers as quickly as possible, working with State 

and local authorities in New Jersey, as well as FEMA. 

We did receive your letter. And, in fact, as you might know, we 

have announced field hearings that we will be starting in January. 

That continues an effort that has been underway at the Commission to ensure, working with State and local authorities, the resilience and reliability of our communications networks. 

These disasters show that communications devices, mobile communications devices, are interwoven in our lives. They are how we 

communicate with our families, with emergency services providers, 

our businesses. And we need to constantly look at these issues, 

make sure we have in place systems, including best practices, that 

give us a reliable communications network. And we have to take 

seriously the interconnection between our communications grid and 

our power grid which have their own issues—— 

Mr. PALLONE. Right. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI [continuing]. And address what we need to do 

to make sure the communications networks stay up. 

Mr. PALLONE. Let me move on because I want to ask two more 

things. 

But if those field hearings haven’t been scheduled, if there is 

some way to coordinate it with our schedule in the House, because 

it would be nice to be able to be there, if that is possible. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. We will work with you on that. 

Mr. PALLONE. Large numbers of people, as you know, because 

they didn’t have power, turned to the radio and other broadcasting. 

You mentioned the broadcasters. Audiences were up 247 percent 

Monmouth County, 195 percent in Middlesex. These are part of my 

district. 

How are you working with the broadcasters to ensure that they 

continue to play an important and robust role in information sharing during natural disasters like Sandy? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. I agree with your point. And we saw both TV 

and radio continue to play a important role in disasters at the 

same time as we see mobile and new Internet, social media play 

important roles. I agree with Craig Fugate, our FEMA head, that 

these multiple platforms together can help improve our public safety profile all around. 

The broadcasters, one of the things that we do during crises like 

these is make sure that when they have tower or other issues affected by the storm, we immediately do what we need so that they 

can stay on the air. And during this disaster, we granted a number 

of what are called STAs, essentially Special Temporary Authorizations, to make sure broadcasters can stay on the air. This is a hard 

thing for broadcasters to do, and others. 

And I just want to take a moment to note that the broadcasting 

industry, the mobile industry, the cable industry, in the worst 

126 

parts of the storm, each of those sectors had people on the ground, 

at risk to their own personal safety—— 

Mr. PALLONE. That is true. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI [continuing]. To get networks up and get 

them back up. 

Mr. PALLONE. Let me just ask you lastly about Wi-Fi. When 

many citizens in the States lost access to wireless and Internet, I 

understand that Wi-Fi hotspots were offered for free in public areas 

during and after the storm and became an alternative for Internet 

access. 

Does this highlight the approach you discussed today about the 

need for a balanced spectrum policy that includes unlicensed uses 

like Wi-Fi? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. You have 2 seconds for that. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thanks so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Were you able to get the questions in you needed? 

Mr. PALLONE. Yes. ‘‘Yes’’ was fine for the last one. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right, thank you. We will look forward, Chairman, to the results of your hearings out there as well. I think the 

committee, obviously, on both sides, very concerned about response 

in a disaster situation. And as we have talked after the nationwide 

EAS test, which you initiated for the first time didn’t quite come 

out as we would all hope. These things matter a lot. So thank you. 

We will go now to the gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray, 

for questions. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, I 

would like to follow up on the questions from the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Dingell. 

You know, Mr. Chairman, the conversation with Mr. Dingell has 

got me kind of concerned. I don’t know what part of the country 

you hail from. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. I was born in Boston, grew up in New York. 

Mr. BILBRAY. All right. Can you imagine what the response 

would be from the people in Boston or New York or Washington, 

DC, if they tried to make a phone call and someone in a foreign 

language, or in English, notifies them that France—you know, the 

Paris cell phone company has confiscated your call and that if you 

want to make this call you need to call this number and get a license—basically get an account with them. 

That is the kind of response that people along our international 

borders get, and have in the past. 

Can you imagine my constituents or my brother says to me, 

‘‘When I am a part of the United States, why is a foreign corporation confiscating my calls?’’ 

So I am very concerned when, first of all, when Mr. Dingell 

brought this issue up, it didn’t seem to be on your radar, quote, unquote. 

And I am also concerned when you state that we have a history 

of great cooperation with our neighbors to the north and the south. 

I want to make sure today that you are all aware this is an issue 

that you need to address. And the people along the fronteras, both 

127 

north and south, are just a much a part of the United States and 

have as much right to access to telecommunications as somebody 

in New York, Boston or DC. And should not have to accept the fact 

that, well, you are on the border so you just accept the fact foreign 

companies can confiscate your calls. 

So that said, and I think I made it clear, what conversations are 

you having today with the United States of Mexico and Canada? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Well, I would like to follow up with you on 

the issues you are mentioning and learn more. 

With respect to the incentive auction transition and border issues 

that will come up with broadcasters who may have to move to stations where they are concerned, and I understand these concerns 

with the potential for interference, we have begun the process at 

the staff level with both Mexico and Canada to work those issues 

out. These are similar to issues that have been worked out in public safety bands and in other bands. But I look forward to working 

with you and make sure we fully understand your concerns. 

Mr. BILBRAY. I mean, it is an essential issue. My hometown, at 

least half of the city cannot make cell phone calls at certain times 

because of foreign interference. And then we finally worked that 

out with some deals. 

But how close are we to resolve these issues, though? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. I would say we are at the beginning of the 

process with respect to incentive auctions in Canada and Mexico. 

Mr. BILBRAY. What incentive is there for Canada and Mexico to 

cooperate with us on this issue? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Ultimately, they seek to put in place spectrum-related services in their countries that have counterbalancing 

effects on people who live on the U.S. side. And so it is in both 

countries’ interests in order to maximize their own services to 

reach accommodations at the borders. It is true for both commercial and public safety. It is sometimes a bumpy process, and I certainly wouldn’t want to overstate how easy it is to get through— 

these issues resolved. But I do know over the last 4 years while I 

have been chairman, we have resolved some very complex issues 

and then our expectation is we will be able to do that here and we 

will work very hard to do so. 

Mr. BILBRAY. OK. Let me say for the record, because everybody’s 

talking about what—you know, the situation with Sandy. 

First of all, somebody who had family that lived through Katrina, 

and I was in there after Katrina and in California that lived 

through the fires in San Diego, the reverse 911 and the cell phone 

capabilities worked extraordinarily well in San Diego. That technology was a lifesaver and worked well. 

The fact is that those of us that were hit by Hurricane Katrina 

found that it was much more probable that when your electricity 

gave out that your cell phone worked enough to be able to call and 

say you were out of power. And I know it for a fact that transformers were replaced. And it was because of that public/private 

partnership that we had during those disasters, both in San Diego 

and down in the Gulf that that ability to have that public/private 

was absolutely essential. 

128 

So I just got to tell you, with everything, the problems we pointed out, the fact is that it was much more probable after Katrina 

that you had phone services than if you had power services. 

And so those who want to talk about the old hard line technology 

as being dependable, it definitely was not more dependable than 

the new technology we had. So with all problems they talk about 

Sandy, I will just tell you as somebody who lived through two disasters, the system worked well. 

My concern still is on you. The people along the borders of the 

United States put up with a lot because of where they live. They 

darn well shouldn’t have to put up with foreign corporations or foreign governments confiscating their communication system. And 

you, all of you, have as much responsibility to make sure that does 

not happen again and make sure they have equal assess to their 

technology or their government and their system as somebody who 

lives in Kansas. 

And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back. 

And I appreciate the Chairman’s willingness to continue to work 

with our colleague from California in the future. 

Now I recognize the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Dr. 

Christensen, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to 

the Commissioners for being here this morning. 

I guess a lot of my questions have been at least in part answered. We talked about the importance of the radio and television 

broadcasters during Sandy. And as a person who comes from an 

area that is prone to hurricanes, those are important to us. And we 

also—Congressman Pallone talked about the importance of Wi-Fi, 

and we know that the cable companies were able to use Wi-Fi and 

provide services so that families could communicate during Sandy 

and communicate with emergency services. 

So some of you have already indicated your commitment to this, 

but I just wanted to assure from each of you that you are committed to promulgating rules that will promote the use of unlicensed technology in the guard bands. 

I think you answered it, Commissioner Pai, in your last question, 

that each of you are committed to promulgate rules that will promote the use of unlicensed technologies in the guard band? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Is that—that was our proposal. And we are 

now seeking comment. And we have laid out the Commission proposal, which is to do that. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. 

And, again, on the issue of diversity, which at least two questions were asked regarding this already. But a continuing concern 

to the Tri-Caucus is the need for more women and minorities in 

ownership positions in media companies. 

Are you concerned at all, Chairman Genachowski and maybe 

Commissioner Clyburn, that the television stations most likely to 

offer to return their spectrum in a voluntary incentive auction 

might also be stations that offer unique and more often the more 

ethnically diverse programming? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. I am concerned in general about diversity. It 

is a fundamental obligation of the Commission. I do think that the 

129 

incentive auction provides new economic opportunities for minority 

broadcasters, for language broadcasters, et cetera, because in a difficult market it creates opportunities to receive additional capital 

for spectrum sharing or for moving from UHF to VHF. And we certainly heard from members of the minority community that they 

are interested in learning more about those possibilities, because 

this could be win-win for minority broadcasters. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Commissioner Clyburn. 

Ms. CLYBURN. As you know, the existing ecosystem as it relates 

to diversity, particularly with people of color and women, it is almost nonexistent. I mean, we are talking about single-digit ownership engagement. So that always has been, even before I got sworn 

in, has always been an interest of mine and a concern of mine. 

As it relates to this current pathway, as it relates to incentive 

auctions, one of the things that I say all the time, and I am very 

monotone and repetitive about it, is this is a voluntary engagement. And because of that, even though the numbers could be few, 

they do have an opportunity to participate in this framework. I am 

hopeful that it will take advantage of and consider any and all opportunities, including sharing, so existing programming cannot or 

will not be lost. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And perhaps the Tri-Caucus could be helpful 

in providing information and opportunities or encouraging some of 

our stations to participate. 

Ms. CLYBURN. Absolutely. And as it relates to employment, too, 

this office has been engaged with a lot of principals and a lot of 

people in the ecosystem. And I look forward to working with you 

on those issues. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thanks, and Commissioner Rosenworcel, just 

a follow-up to Ms. Matsui’s question, were there specific incentives 

that you had in mind for—I serve on the task force. So we were 

discussing these with some of the government agencies, how they 

can reallocate, give up some of their spectrum. Did you have some 

specific ideas about incentives? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. For starters, though, I want to say that 

the task force that the subcommittee has set up on Federal spectrum is a terrific idea. I appreciate that it is bipartisan. 

The wireless revolution is here to stay. The demands on our airwaves are only going to continue to grow. As far as incentives for 

Federal users, I think we need to create them so that they can be 

efficient and they are inspired to return spectrum so that we can 

auction it off for commercial uses. That could include financial rewards associated with the revenues from its subsequent auction for 

commercial use, it could also include structural rewards in the 

budget and appropriations process. And, finally, I think that these 

ideas are consistent with the idea of synthetic currency, which was 

proposed by the President’s Council of Advisers of Science and 

Technology in their recent report on Federal spectrum use. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

And I guess my last question to the Chairman, Commissioner Pai 

suggested June 30th, 2013, as a deadline for the auction. Is that 

a reasonable or an achievable date? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. I think, I stand to be corrected I think it was 

2014. 

130 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. 2014. Sorry. Yes. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. So 2014 is I think when we are targeting. I 

think we will know more about what would maximize the benefits 

of the auction as the comments come in. But we are certainly on 

a path to conduct the auction in 2014. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. I really appreciate the Commissioners for being here today. I appreciate your taking your time 

to be here. 

A couple of questions, three questions. One for the Chairman 

first. 

In the statute, the language ‘‘all reasonable efforts,’’ the language 

is in there designed to preserve the contour of a current television 

signal. 

Could you tell me what that phrase means to you, and will that 

phrase be interpreted to mean no more than a certain amount of 

interference will be tolerated and, if so, how much will that be? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Well, I think that is the kind of question 

where we have an obligation to run the process we are running, 

hear from stakeholders and get input on the precise definition. The 

statue is clear ‘‘reasonable efforts on population and coverage,’’ and 

our obligation is to comply with the statute. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. So you don’t have any personal interpretation of 

that? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. No. No. We laid out, I believe, some thoughts 

in the notice of proposed rulemaking, but we will work very closely 

with stakeholders on giving content to the Congressional directive. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. All right, thanks. 

Commissioner Pai, I was on the working group for government 

spectrum, and Congresswoman Matsui and I led that effort, and we 

took a deep dive into it. And one thing that we were looking around 

is the issue of shared spectrum. So in the PCAST report, the 2012 

PCAST report suggested that we should move away from licensing 

and towards a greater reliance on spectrum sharing. 

And my question for you is, are you aware of any commercial 

available product that is available today for use if we move towards 

a system of sharing? And to the extent that infrastructure and devices are not currently built around the concept of sharing, what 

might the challenging tradeoffs be? 

Mr. PAI. It is a great question and I think I am not personally 

aware at this point. But one of the things I do have concerns about 

with the sharing is it is a largely untested, untried endeavor that 

requires coordination among potentially hundreds of Federal users. 

One of the fears, as I pointed out in my testimony, is that while 

larger players and on the commercial side may be up for the challenge of doing that kind of coordination, some of the smaller players might not. 

I think—I am not opposed to innovative sharing strategies, as I 

said, again, in the testimony, that geographic sharing, for example 

by creating exclusion zones, can allow us to reuse the spectrum in 

places where Federal users aren’t using it. But I think, by and 

131 

large, our focus really should be on clearing. I think an 

unencumbered right to spectrum creates a maximum incentive for 

a user on the commercial side to develop it and to deploy it in an 

efficient manner to the benefit of consumers. And so one of the 

things that I think we really need to prioritize is not just sharing 

writ large or even sharing as an interim measure, but clearing as 

the gold standard for our approach to Federal spectrum in particular. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. 

Then for Commissioner McDowell, also from the work of the 

working government spectrum working group, the GAO recently reported that total percentages of the most highly valued spectrum 

exclusively or predominantly used by Federal government is as 

high at 57 percent. And given Federal agencies’ budgets, many of 

these systems are not up to date and thus operate inefficiently. 

And would you discuss whether or not some of these Federal 

uses could be served by commercial mobile private providers and 

how could Federal spectrum holdings be operated more efficiently? 

So could commercial also take some use of this Federal—of government use and then how would it be more efficient? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Excellent question. And this is something I have 

been talking about for years, actually, is the potential for off-theshelf private sector solutions, including with a nationwide public 

safety network. I think that is going to have to be a must. Seven 

billion isn’t going to cover it, as the statute calls for. You are going 

to have to have off-the-shelf, private sector technologies to help 

there. 

But we don’t know how efficiently the Federal Government is 

using spectrum. I think we can safely assume, however, that it is 

not using it terribly efficiently. And that is why I think Congress 

really needs to step in here to try to make that whole world less 

opaque and more transparent respecting classified spectrum and 

all the rest, but to make it more transparent and also to give Federal spectrum users an incentive to relinquish their spectrum for 

exclusive use licenses through auction as Mr.—as Commissioner 

Pai just eloquently pointed out. That does provide the best incentive for build-out and use of these frequencies. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. While I have got a few—a half of minute, I guess, 

basically, the question for Commissioner Pai, anybody else want to 

respond to what was basically to commercial available products 

that sharing will work or the likelihood of it happening, it working. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. I would just point out that it is in the interest of both the commercial sector and the military to develop incentives to get more commercial technology into military use. The reason is, there is a growing gap between the price and functionality 

of military communications equipment and commercial. There always has been. It is getting larger because of the tremendous innovation on the commercial side. 

I have had a chance over the last few months to speak directly 

with senior officials in our military services. And I believe that 

there is real work going on to think about how to take advantage 

of commercial innovation on the military side more quickly, providing better communications to our troops at lower cost. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. 

132 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to the Commissioners, 

happy holiday. And I welcome you here to this hearing. 

You five Commissioners are some of the—are five of the most important people in our Nation. You five Commissioners oversee networks, industry, mediums that inform our democracy and that are 

essential to protecting our freedom. You oversee industry, the sectors that make up more than a fifth of our GDP and employ tens 

of millions of our Nation’s workforce. 

However, I have been on this committee for about 17 years. And 

for those—each of those 17 years, I have seen a litany or many, 

many Commissioners come before us to discuss minority ownership. And we seem to get more and more platitudes, less promises, 

but absolutely no performance. And I am getting pretty fed up with 

this continuum of excuses that seem to come forth from the Commission itself. I think it is high time now for you to get serious 

about this issue of media ownership. 

As a matter of fact, there has been—and I am going to ask you 

the question. And you each can answer this with a yes or no answer. Is it acceptable to each of you that there are only 28 fullpower TV broadcasters owned by minorities in this country? Yes or 

no. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. No, that is not acceptable. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. No. 

Ms. CLYBURN. No. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. No. 

Mr. PAI. No. 

Mr. RUSH. Does the Commission know, for example, how many 

minority employees are in the broadcasting or new media industries? Do you know the answer to that question? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. I don’t know the number off the top of my 

head. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. No. 

Ms. CLYBURN. I don’t have that information. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. No, I don’t have that information right now. 

Mr. RUSH. I am also glad that you all postponed your rulemaking 

on media or media ownership because you did not know the impact 

of the proposed rules on minority ownership and audiences. And so 

that leads me to another question that I have. 

What besides a new tax certificate policy could increase diverse 

ownership of special licenses? 

Let me just give you some figures. 

In the 17 years that FCC had the minority tax certificate policy, 

that policy produced 364 tax certificates and over 200 million 

transactions, totaling more than $1 billion in value. That represented about two-thirds of all minority-owned stations. When the 

policy, the tax certificate policy, began minorities owned about 40 

of the 8,500 broadcast stations. Over its lifetime, the policy, the tax 

certificate policy, helped raise that number to 333 stations; 290 

radio stations, 43 TV stations. It also yielded 31 cable systems. 

Currently, there are no minority-owned cable systems that are operating today. 

133 

And my question to you is, what do you believe, other than a new 

tax certificate policy, could increase diverse ownership of broadcast 

licenses, given the history of the tax certificate program, which was 

ended by the Republican Congress in 1995? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. A few points, if I could. I agree with you on 

tax certificates and encourage the ongoing consideration of that. I 

will mention several areas of potential. One is the Low Power FM 

order that we adopted last month, which will create new opportunities for minority and other broadcasters to get into the business at 

lower levels of capital. And so for new entrants from the minority 

community, I think that is an important opportunity. 

A second is the work that we have been doing under the leadership of Tom Reed in our Office of Communication Business Opportunities to try to bring together capital and minority women, other 

small business entrepreneurs. Very good work, and I thank Tom 

Reed for that work. 

And the third that I would point to is the Open Internet Order, 

which keeps the Internet and content media on the Internet available for anyone around the country to develop the business and 

reach an audience. And we are seeing minority entrepreneurs take 

advantage of that platform, create online content businesses, and 

then use that as a way to move to traditional media platforms. 

Mr. WALDEN. I know the gentleman’s time has expired, but go 

ahead. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. With the Chair’s indulgence, if I could add to 

that. Five years ago this month, December 27th, the Commission 

voted out its historic Diversity Order. There were 13 items adopted; 

six were turned back by the Federal appeals court in Philadelphia, 

the Third Circuit, seven still remain. 

I have been a long time, ardent supporter of the tax certificate 

program, but there is more that can be done. Incubator programs, 

incentives in general to make it easier to convey stations from nonminority owners to minority owners. We also need policies that promote more access to capital. This is really what is at the root of 

all this. That is where the tax certificate program is so helpful. So 

whatever policies we could find, whatever we want to call them, 

that promotes access to capital for minorities and disadvantaged 

businesses. 

Ms. CLYBURN. Number one, of course, is access—may I? 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. 

Ms. CLYBURN. Thanks. Number one of course, as my colleague 

stated, is access to capital. 

But number two, in terms of the FCC’s jurisdiction, at this time 

we do not have sufficient data in order to have a judicially upheld 

standard of framework, to meet that framework in order to move 

forward in any narrowly tailored approach. So the studies, fully 

funded studies to that end could help. 

Mr. WALDEN. If you want to be quick, then we have to get to Mr. 

Stearns. 

Mr. PAI. Very quickly, Congressman, two ideas that don’t depend 

on congressional action. One idea is an idea that I have endorsed 

with the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, and 

that is increasing access to capital by allowing more foreign investment in U.S. broadcast holding companies. Currently, broadcasting 

134 

is the only niche the communication industry where the FCC maintains a 25 percent cap, which inadvertently limits the amount of 

capital that U.S. broadcasters, minority broadcasters in particular, 

can get. 

Secondly, I endorsed in September the—what I call an AM radio 

revitalization initiative. Minority broadcasters in particular are disproportionately in the AM band. And it is between 21 years since 

we have revisited our rules at the FCC. So one of the things I 

would like to do is revitalize the band by trying to figure out 

whether there are any of rules which, inadvertently or not, stand 

in the way of greater minority ownership on the radio side. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

Mr. WALDEN. I know my ranking member wants to make a quick 

comment. Then we will go to Mr. Stearns. 

Ms. ESHOO. It is my understanding that, Mr. Chairman, that you 

haven’t allocated the funds for this study. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. For—well, there is a study ongoing. 

Ms. ESHOO. To meet that standard. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. There is a study ongoing for which we have 

allocated substantial funds. That is ongoing. And we have requests 

for funds in our 2013 budget that would allow us to move forward 

with the next round of studies. 

Ms. ESHOO. Is it enough money to complete it? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. I think the amount we have requested for 

2013 is enough money to complete it, yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, having given almost twice as much time as 

anybody else, we will now move on to Mr. Sterns to wrap up our 

hearing. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is 

a very good hearing. 

Chairman Genachowski, just a question. When we passed the bill 

in February with this middle class tax cut, I think as I recollect 

the figure was, we were going to try and give back or auction off, 

make about 26 billion. Is that the figure you remember? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. I think the CBO score was roughly that. 

Mr. STEARNS. Roughly that. Based upon what you see now and 

your effort so far, do you think that is feasible we will get that kind 

of money back? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Well, I actually shared Commissioner 

McDowell’s characterization before, which was that we should be 

cautious. But certainly maximizing, generating a very substantial 

amount of revenue to at least cover First Net and beyond is an important part of our implementation of the statute. 

Mr. STEARNS. In your notice of proposed rulemaking, I think 

there was a—there is some question I think in the industry by 

some segments that they are worried about the—when you go to 

different geographic locations there is not enough specific information so that the repacking process is clear. And I guess to minimize 

the extensive task of repacking for the broadcasters, I guess, have 

you done an analysis across the board on some geographic locations 

where that spectrum could be more broad and less narrow, something like that? Does that make sense? 

135 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Congress, in the law, it instructed the FCC 

or had some language on how to calculate that. Reference to OET 

Circular No. 69. So we are now working with the congressional language. This is part of our proceeding. And to the point Congressman Markey made before, rolling up our sleeves with the engineers 

in the broadcast industry and the mobile industry to maximize the 

opportunity. 

Mr. STEARNS. So you say it is a formula that you are using? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. We haven’t decided how we will do it. Our job 

now is to implement the provision of the statute that sets some 

guidance for the methodology for repacking. 

Mr. STEARNS. Should part of that be part of the notice of proposed rulemaking so that they could understand what you are 

doing, or is this just going to be after the notice is over? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. The notice addresses this issue, and this will 

be an ongoing process involving engineers at the industries and at 

the FCC to maximize the ability to free up spectrum. 

Mr. STEARNS. Commissioner McDowell, what percent of the spectrum usable for mobility is controlled by the Federal Government? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. I have seen estimates at about 60 percent. That 

may vary. 

Mr. STEARNS. Is it a concern that other countries seem to be able 

to clear spectrum for commercial use while we don’t seem to be 

making the same progress? 

Mr. MCDOWELL. First of all, I think the U.S. as always been a 

world leader in spectrum. But we do have to have serious concerns 

about our competitors abroad, yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. I think—is this a question of leadership for us to 

be more expeditious, perhaps like folks overseas, or is this just a 

failure of why we are not as equipped as they are? Do you think 

there is any reason why we can’t be? Or you just think—— 

Mr. MCDOWELL. So many thanks to Congress for passing the 

Digital TV Act of 2005, and that opened the door to the last major 

spectrum auction we had, which was almost 5 years ago, in 2008. 

That actually helped us leapfrog other nations. But in the past 4, 

5 years, we haven’t had any major auctions, and we need to get on 

to that. 

Mr. STEARNS. That is what I hear when I talk to other countries, 

that they seem to be ahead of us. And so we just wonder whether 

it is our leadership here or it is whether—what can we do? 

Let me move on here. Commissioner Pai, the July 2012 PCAST 

report suggests that the new Federal spectrum architecture is that 

the norm for spectrum use should be sharing, not exclusivity. Comparing the track records for sharing and exclusivity, which approach has driven more investment in our wireless networks? 

Mr. PAI. I think, Congressman, without question, it has been the 

latter approach, clearing exclusivity—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Exclusive is much more. 

Mr. PAI. Correct. 

Mr. STEARNS. Right. And with that in mind, it is worth more all 

the time? 

Mr. PAI. I agree. And that is why I think it should be our priority 

when it comes to spectrum policy in the Federal spectrum area. 

136 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Mr. Genachowski, several of the major wireless providers have joined efforts to work with the Department of 

Defense on the testing of several of the systems identified in the 

NTIA’s 2012 report. It appears it is costly, time consuming to relocate, and the DOD seems to be not cooperating and negotiating 

well with them. 

I guess the question is, have you followed this at all? What is 

your status or—— 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes. You are asking about the 1755 band? 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes. 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Yes. This is an area, there is a tremendous 

opportunity to move forward with testing around different bases. 

My understanding is that the DOD and the wireless industry are 

in what I hope will be the final stages of negotiating the details of 

the arrangement. I think it is good for all the parties to hear that 

there is bipartisan desire to move this process quickly so that we 

can test the ideas and free up spectrum in that band and do it in 

time to pair it with the other spectrum that Congress has required 

us to auction by, I believe, 2015. 

Mr. STEARNS. We were just told about a month ago things seem 

to have come to a grinding halt. Are you familiar with that? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. My understanding is that it is not moving as 

quickly as we would all like. It has not halted and that there is 

negotiations back and forth. Again, I think it is helpful for everyone to know that there is strong desire in Congress to see this 

done. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCDOWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Congressman Sterns for his service, and we are going to miss you. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. WALDEN. Just a second. Just saying we all concur with that 

statement. He has done a terrific job in this committee for many 

years, in this subcommittee, and his leadership is greatly appreciated, and we are going to miss you. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Rush has asked to be able to ask another question or two. And I have yielded. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for 

your consideration. 

I want to say to Cliff, it has been a pleasure sitting with you on 

this committee. We have not agreed on anything yet, but it has still 

been a wonderful, wonderful pleasure serving with you. 

Mr. STEARNS. If the gentleman would yield. 

I think we had a privacy bill that we were working on together 

and a data security for a while when you were the chairman of the 

Commerce, Consumer Protection and Trade. 

Mr. RUSH. There was some agreement, not too much. 

Mr. WALDEN. I will try and intercede. 

Congressman Sterns, would you agree that Mr. Rush should 

have another minute to ask another question? 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes. 

Mr. RUSH. Fine gentleman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Rush for another minute or so. 

137 

Mr. RUSH. One issue that doesn’t get much attention, and I want 

to thank Commissioner Clyburn for her excellent work, is the exorbitant prison phone rates. As a matter of fact, it has taken this 

Commission 9 years and some months to rule on the right petition. 

That petition would cap prison phone rates at reasonable levels. It 

shouldn’t cost more to make a cell phone call to Singapore than it 

is to receive a long distance call from a loved one in prison. 

Does the Commission intend to issue a notice at the next Commission meeting to move forward with the right proceeding? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. Thank you for that question. That proposal, 

I believe, is on circulation and is being actively considered by the 

Commission and hopefully will be resolved soon. 

Mr. RUSH. Yes or no? 

Mr. GENACHOWSKI. It is a yes, as quickly as possible. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. RUSH. Yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. I am happy to accommodate his additional request. 

I think that concludes our opportunity today. We appreciate the 

work of the Commission, and your testimony helps guide us in our 

understanding how the law it is being implemented. The record 

will be open for 10 days for additional questions from our members 

who maybe didn’t get a chance to offer them or think of a few others after the hearing. So we appreciate again your work, look forward to continuing the dialogue as we go forward to create jobs and 

innovation in America across all the spectrum and all the bands. 

Thank you. 

The committee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

138 


85821.080

Opening Statement of the Honorable Fred Upton 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Hearing on "Keeping the New Broadband Spectrum Law on Track" 

December 12, 2012 

(As Prepared for Delivery) 

More than a decade has passed since the September 11th attacks, and we still have not met the 9111 

Commission recommendation to create a nationwide public safety network. So when faced with the 

opportunity to help fund construction of the network by freeing spectrum to meet soaring demand for 

mobile broadband services, we leapt at the chance. The result? The broadcast incentive auction 

provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act. 

I will not pretend it is an easy piece of legislation for the FCC to implement. Designing a reverse auction 

that encourages television stations to relinquish spectrum, reorganizing the stations that choose to remain 

on air, and repackaging and selling the cleared spectrum in a way the generates $7 billion for First 

Responders certainly presents the agency with some challenges. To meet those complex challenges, the 

FCC should focus on maximizing the spectrum it clears and the revenue it generates. 

The agency should not complicate matters by artificially enlarging guard bands or giving away blocks of 

reclaimed broadcast spectrum for unlicensed use. Doing so would violate the act, which states that guard 

bands shall be no larger than technically reasonable to prevent interference and requires the FCC to 

auction all the spectrum it makes available by repurposing spectrum that stations relinquish or 

reorganizing stations that remain. It would also jeopardize the funding for public safety in a fiscal climate 

that is unlikely to provide alternate sources for the foreseeable future. 

Doing so is also unnecessary. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act is a balanced piece of 

legislation. It provides the proverbial garage entrepreneur plenty of other unlicensed opportunities to 

generate economic benefit. First, as the FCC's NPRM acknowledges, it preserves a 'substantial amount" 

of unlicensed 'white space" spectrum. Second, it allows, but does not require, unlicensed use in guard 

bands. Third, it identifies an additional 195 megahertz of other spectrum for unlicensed use. That is in 

addition to more than 670 MHz of spectrum below 6 GHz already available for unlicensed use, which is 

more than the 580 MHz currently available below 6 GHz for licensed wireless use. 

The FCC must also refrain from picking winners and losers and excluding certain parties from the auction. 

This, too, would not just reduce revenues but also violate the statute. While the act does preserve any 

authority the FCC has to impose generally applicable rules on spectrum aggregation, it does not allow the 

FCC to prevent parties from competing for spectrum through auctions. 

Let's not squander this unprecedented and long overdue opportunity by trying to do too much. Neither 

First Responders nor the nation can afford it. 

### 
139 


85821.081

Federal Communications Commission 

Office of Legislative Affairs 

Washington. D.C.20SS4 

February 20, 2012 

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Chainnan 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chainnan Walden: 

Please find attached responses from Federal Communications Commission Chainnan 

Julius Genachowski to the post-hearing questions from the Subcommittee's December 

12,2012 hearing entitled "Keeping the New Broadband law On Track". Please let me 

know if I can be of further assistance. 

Enclosure 

~':l'r.:I\ :"rV..\oCIfi:=::' ::::::-=-:_ 

( <3,' "'( ~ ---::::, - I' tir.:~.l, Ilk.: 

LJin:;:lUr . 

O/licc' of I q.!i~laliw ;\ nil.!' 
140 


85821.082

The Honorable Lee Terry 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the Broadband Law On Track" 

December 12, 2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

I. As the FCC considers identifying additional spectrum for terrestrial wireless use, it is 

important not to lose sight of the critical services provided by incumbent users of spectrum. 

What is the process that the Commission intends to use to ensure that the valuable services 

currently prQvided •• both to commercial and U.S. Govermnent customers .- will not be 

disrupted by the potential reallocation or reuse of spectrum? 

Response: Maintaining our country's global leadership in mobile requires making more 

spectrum available for wireless broadband. In doing so, the Commission recognizes the 

importance of existing spectrum uses-by both govermnent and commercial stakeholdersand will continue to ensure that those uses are fully considered. Our processes will continue 

to be transparent and open, enabling all parties to engage with the Commission, and our 

decisions will continue to be data-driven. 

The Honorable Mike Rogers 

1. The FCC's approach to petitions seeking agency action has been disappointing. For example. 

I understand that the FCC's Consumer and Govermnental Affairs Bureau issued an order in May 

dismissing a Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by Anda, Inc., a generic pharmaceutical 

distributor, asking the agency to clarify the statutory basis for its rule requiring opt-out notices on 

faxes sent with the recipient's express consent. The Petition languished at the FCC for 17 

months without even being docketed, and when the FCC finally did take action, it had its staff 

simply dismiss the Petition without clarifying the rule's statutory basis. The FCC did so even 

though the uncertainty about the rule's legal basis apparently has exposed legitimate businesses 

to lawsuits seeking massive damages that Congress never intended to authorize. Such 

uncertainty also prompted the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to ask the FCC to 

clarify the legal basis for its opt-out rules in a pending appeal. In light of the substantial 

uncertainty surrounding the legal basis for this rule-and the resulting exposure to enterprise' 

crippling liability now faced by businesses across the country-why did the FCC fail to provide 

the clarification sought in the Petition? 

2. The manner in which the FCC staff dismissed this Petition is also troubling. The order was 

issued by FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. and so it is reviewable only by 

the Commission, not by a court. I understand that Anda has filed an Application for Review 

with the Commission, but I am concerned that the FCC may simply engage in further delay 

before undertaking that review-or may decline to act at all, in an effort to avoid judicial 

scrutiny. In fact, it has now been more than two years since Anda first sought a final, reviewable 

order from the Commission. Does the FCC intend to move more quickly on this Application for 

Review and finally produce an order that would be reviewable in court? Particularly given the 

FCC's assertions before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that the FCC alone (and not the 

courts) may determine the scope of the opt-out notice requirements for faxes sent with express 

consent, doesn't the FCC have a duty to promptly issue a final agency order in response to 

requests for clarification? 
141 


85821.083

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the Broadbanll Law On Track" 

December 12, 2012 

Alldilional Questions for the Record 

3. Will the FCC commit to a 90-day timeframe for its review of the staff decision in question? 

Three months should be more than enough time, particularly given how long the underlying 

Petition has been pending and commitments made to Members of the House of Representatives 

in September 2011 to act expeditiously. 

Response (questions 1-3): On May 2, 2012, the Commission's Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau issued an order dismissing the petition filed by Anda, Inc. to 

issue a declaratory ruling clarifying the statutory basis for a Commission rule on fax 

advertisements. The Administrative Procedure Act provides that an agency, in its sound 

discretion, may issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty, 

but the Bureau found that the Petition did not identify any controversy to terminate or 

uncertainty to remove. The Bureau also concluded that, to the extent that the Petition 

challenged the Commission's authority to issue the rule itself, the challenge was time-barred, 

because under the Act and the Commission's procedural rules, requests for reconsideration of 

this rule were due in June 2006. The Bureau also observed that a previous Commission order 

had specifically tied the opt-out notice requiremel).t to the purposes of section 227 of the Act. 

It is not uncommon for a Bureau to dismiss a petition for declaratory ruling when, in the 

opinion of the Bureau, no controversy or uncertainty has been identified. Anda has filed an 

Application for Review of the Bureau order to the full Commission, which is currently under 

review. I anticipate that an order resolving the Application for Review will be circulated to 

the other Commissioners for their consideration in the next few months. 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

I. Chairman Genachowski, I understand that the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau issued an order in May 2012 dismissing a Petition for Declaratory Ruling asking the 

agency to clarify the statutory basis for its rule requiring opt-out notices on faxes sent with the 

recipient's express consent. The Petition, which was filed by Anda, Inc., a generic 

pharmaceutical distributor, languished at the FCC for 17 months without even being docketed, 

and when the FCC finally did take action, it had its staff simply dismiss the Petition without 

clarifying the rule's statutory basis. The FCC did so even though the uncertainty about the rule's 

legal basis apparently has exposed legitimate businesses to lawsuits seeking massive damages 

that Congress never intended to authorize. 

o Why did the FCC wait 17 months before taking action on this Petition? 

o Why, after Chairman Genachowski promised to act "expeditiously" on the Petition in 

a September 2011 letter to Members of House of Representatives, did it take an 

additional 8 months for the FCC to act? 

o Why did the FCC fail even to docket the Petition, issue a public notice, or seek public 

comment during that entire 17-month period? 

2 
142 


85821.084

· Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the Broadband Law On Track" 

December 12, 2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

o In light of the substantial uncertainty surrounding the legal basis for this rule-and 

the resulting exposure to enterprise-crippling liability now faced by businesses across 

the country-why did the FCC fail to provide the clarification sought in the Petition? 

o Since this issue was reviewable only by the Commission and not by a court, did the 

FCC act in this manner in order to avoid judicial review? 

Response: On May 2, 2012, the Commission's Consumer &. Govemmental Affairs Bureau 

issued an order dismissing the petition filed by Arida, Inc. to issue a declaratory ruling 

clarifying the statutory basis for a Commission rule on fax advertisements. The 

Administrative Procedure Act provides that an agency, in its sound discretion, may issue a 

declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty, but the Bureau found that 

the Petition did not identify any controversy to terminate or uncertainty to remove. The 

Bureau also concluded that, to the extent that the Petition challenged the Commission's 

authority to issue the rule itself, the challenge was time-barred, because under the Act and the 

Commission's procedural rules, requests for reconsideration of this rule were due in June 

2006. The Bureau also observed that a previous Commission order had specifically tied the 

opt.out notice requirement to the purposes of section 227 of the Act. 

It is not uncommon for a Bureau to dismiss a petition for declaratory ruling when, in the 

opinion of the Bureau, no controversy or uncertainty has been identified. Anda has filed an 

Application for Review of the Bureau order to the full Commission, which is currently under 

review. I anticipate that an order resolving the Application for Review will be circulated to 

the other Commissioners for their consideration in the next few months. 

The Honorable Phil Gingrey 

I. Mr. Chairman, I am curious about what the FCC's spectrum plans are for places like my State 

of Georgia. My entire district falls within the Atlanta media market, which is the 9th largest in 

the country. However, there are other parts of Georgia that wouldn't fall into the top SO 

television markets. Can you tell me if the FCC is focusing its spectrum reclamation efforts on the 

top 20 or 30 television markets, or are you looking at all markets? If that is the focus, would it 

even be necessary to repack television stations in more rural areas in areaS? Can you please 

describe what the FCC plans are fOf states like mine <;If the test the Commission be using to 

determine where your efforts will be focused? 

Response: The Commission is focused on providing opportunities for broadcasters in all 

markets to participate in the incentive auction. The auction requires broadcasters to 

volunteer to clear a portion of the current upper UHF TV band, spectrum that is contiguous 

to the 700 MHz spectrum already allocated for wireless use. A successful auction will result 

in nationwide contiguous blocks of spectrum for commercial wireless which will enable 

significant economic growth and consumer benefits in all areas, urban and rural. 

3 
143 


85821.085

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the Broadband Law On Track" 

December 12.M12 

Additional Questions for the Record 

Both the Commission and Congress recognized that an incentive auction would have an 

impact on stations that choose not to participate, potentially resulting in the repacking of 

spectrum held by some broadcasters in the smaller or more rural markets. This is why there 

are specific provisions that require the Commission in the repacking process to "make all 

reasonable efforts to preserve ... the coverage area and population served of each broadcast 

television licensee." Additionally, Congress specifically provided for a relocation fund that 

will pay for those stations that have to change channels as part of the repacking process. 

I am committed to working with the broadcast industry on these issues, and encourage their 

participation in the process. Resources for broadcasters interested in learning more about the 

process are available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/lucent!veauctions/learn-programlindex.html. 

2. Let me move on to a different topic and one that has an impact on my district in Georgia - The 

Atlanta Channel. Admittedly. the organization failed to fully complete the necessary application 

under the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 for Class A designation. 

Unfortunately. after denial in 2000, the company's appeal languished at the Commission for 12 

years before it was denied once again last month. Given this inaction for so many years when 

the Commission Cited a deadline - particularly in the additional comments by Commissioners 

McDowell and Pal - was the stated cause of rejection. is it entirely unreasonable for this 

petitioner to have the opportunity to simply submit application for Class A designation at this 

point? If each Commissioner could answer, I would appreciate it. One quick follow up for each 

of you, the missed deadline notwithstanding, what is the Commission' s justification to the people 

and businesses of Atlanta to prevent this station from even the opportunity to apply for Class A 

status given the footprint that The Atlanta Channel has - even as a low power operator - in the 

9th largest market in the county and as a community servant in Atlanta? 

Response: Since becoming Chairman, I have worked to significantly reduce the backlog 

across the Commission, and as I assured you at our oversight hearing last year I would do. I 

moved this issue to decision. However, regardless of timing, the Commission unanimously 

denied the request because the substantive issues remain the same - ACI failed to meet the 

statutory certification deadline. and did not claim or demonstrate that its failure was due to 

the kind of "extraordinary circumstances" courts have found are necessary for the 

Commission to toll a statutory deadline. The station has filed a Petition for Reconsideration 

of the Commission's decision, which is currently being reviewed. 

The Honorable Bob Latta 

1. As I've read in the NPRM, the Commission proposes doing the reverse and forward auction 

simultaneously versus separately. Can you elaborate on the differences between those two 

options, and can you speculate which format will result in more spectrum being available in the 

forward auction. 

Response: In order to be successful, the reverse and forward auctions must work together. 

The NPRM seeks comment on how to integrate those two processes. 

4 
144 


85821.086

Subcommittee on Communication, and Technology 

"Keeping the Broadband Law On Track" 

December 12.2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

The auctions could run sequentially, running the reverse auction fIrst, followed by the 

forward auction. This approach could provide greater certainty about the number of licenses 

available in each geographic area in the forward auction, but would require reverse auction 

bidders to answer hypothetical questions about their potential bids. A concurrent approach 

could take less time, and would enable reverse auction bidders to answer questions based on 

actual demand and competition. 

All parties have the opportunity to review and comment on the Commission's incentive 

auction proposals, and we encourage them to do so. Our decisions will be data-driven and 

based on a thorough record. 

2. In northwest Ohio, we have television stations with signa! contours that cover Ottawa and 

Ontario - that's Ottawa and Ontario, Ohio. But those signals also reach parts of Ontario, 

Canada. Can you assure me that in implementing any repacking of the broadcast bands, the 

Commission will coordinate with your Canadian counterparts to ensure that my constituents and 

others who live near our intemational borders will continue to have robust access to broadcast 

television? 

Response: Yes. The Commission has already started discussions with Industry Canada with 

regards to our incentive auction proposals. The Spectrum Act reiterated the Commission's 

existing duty to coordinate with Canada and Mexico, and we will of course do so. 

3. Chuck Jackson, who is an adjunct professor at George Washington University, an electrical 

engineer, and spectrum expert at a recent event on spectrum policy submitted a paper that 

predicted that "the 100 MHz of unlicensed spectrum at 5 GHz made available by legislation 

earlier this year will generate between ten and one hundred times more consumer benefits than 

will unlicensed use of the TV white space." The FCC has taken considerable effort to create an 

unlicensed market in the white spaces even though there is no consumer white spaces devices. 

Mr. Jackson seems to think even in the best case scenario that unlicensed at 5GHz will be far 

more valuable, so why is the FCC spending so many resources trying to make white spaces work 

in the TV band? 

Response: Over the past few years, America has regained global leadership in mobile 

communications, leading the world in deploying 4G to scale. We have nearly half the world's 

4G LTE subscribers, and we are setting the pace on innovation in mobile software, apps, and 

devices. This success means that we face a particularly acute challenge to meet exploding 

mobile demand-the spectrum crunch-and that we must use all policy levers at our disposal 

to solve it. Both licensed and unlicensed spectrum have contributed to an explosion of new 

services and applications and increasing mobile broadband speeds, and both will be essential 

parts of the landscape in the future. 

When I arrived at the FCC in mid-2009, my staff and I quickly became aware of the 

magnitude of the spectrum challenge facing the country. We also saw that the spectrum 

pipeline we inherited was largely dry. To address this, our work on the National Broadband 

Plan focused on laying out a comprehensive spectrum strategy and action plan. As part of 

5 
145 


85821.087

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the Broadband Law On Track" 

,December 12,2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

that spectrum strategy, the Commission introduced the idea of incentive auctions - an idea 

that Congress enacted into law last year. We are actively implementing that law and fully 

expect it to free up very significant amounts of spectrum for auction. 

Incentive auctions are a big deal, but they're only one of many ways we've been working to 

free up additional spectrum for auction for licensed use over the last three years. The 

Commission is now on track to auction an additional 75 MHz of spectrum by 2015, and 

we've removed regulatory barriers on another 70 MHz of spectrum, enabling its use for 

licensed mobile broadband. 

The FCC has also pursued an ambitious strategy for unlicensed spectrum. The FCC was the 

first agency in the world to allow unlicensed use of what were at the time known as "junk 

bands" of spectrum. Innovators seized this opportunity and brought to market cordless 

phones, Bluetooth. and Wi-Fi. Today, approximately one-third of mobile data traffic is 

offioaded to Wi-Fi, as carriers increasingly develop new methods to manage capacity on their 

networks. People depend on unlicensed spectrum every single day: to connect wirelessly to 

their home and business Internet networks; to stream news and movies onto their tablets; to 

connect their hands-free Bluetooth devices; to monitor inventory using RFID tags. New 

smartphones switch seamlessly between licensed and unlicensed networks, helping 

consumers whose wireless plans have data caps avoid penalties. 

TV white spaces create a powerful new platform for next-generation innovation - a worldleading platform at a time when many other countries are actively working to leapfrog the 

U.S. While this is still a nascent effort, it is important to remember that it took well over a 

decade after the mid· I 980s decision to allow unlicensed use in the ''junk bands" for Wi·Fi to 

become a major commercial success. Enabling unlicensed use of TV white spaces is a win 

for innovation and a big opportunity for our country that must be seized. But we also 

recognize, as did Congress, that there are numerous spectrum bands that offer opportunities 

for unlicensed use, including the 50Hz. In fact, at the February Commission meeting, we 

will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to unleash up to 195 megahertz in the 50Hz 

band for unlicensed use. 

4. As you know, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of2012 required the FCC to 

report on the "rejection rate" for certain common carrier microwave bands. In that report, the 

Commission noted that "It is not possible to calculate a precise rejection rate for coordination 

requests in the 110Hz, 180Hz, and 230Hz bands because frequency coordinators do not keep 

records on rejected coordination requests." 

As one who supports transparency in the oversight of our national spectrum assets, I'm curious 

why this information isn't tracked more closely. And as the expert agency charged with the 

administration of these bands; don't you agree that there needs to be a better, more transparent 

means of tracking their use and demand? Shouldn't your agency - the one charged with 

oversight of the nation's communications infrastructure, both wired and wireless - be 

responsible for knowing exactly what is the status and availability of these critical assets? And if 

6 
146 


85821.088

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the Broadband Law On Track" 

December 12, 2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

is not your agency, who is responsible? Since accurate data is what we need to make spectrum 

policy decisions, I would like to know what you need in order to collect and report on this data. 

Response: The Commission has detailed information on all of the licenses that it has granted 

in all of the microwave bands, as well as all of the applications for such licenses that have 

been filed. This information is publicly available in the Commission's Universal Licensing 

System (ULS). 

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of2012 required the Commission to 

report on the "rejection rate" for microwave applications in the 11 GHz, 18 GHz and 23 GHz 

bands. As noted in the Report to Congress, the rejection rate for coordination requests was 

less than one percent. The Report also noted that the rejection rate for applications filed with 

the Commission was zero. 

In order to calculate the rejection rate more precisely, the Commission would have to impose 

recordkeeping burdens on potential applicants or change the long-standing microwave 

frequency coordination process. Such a change could increase costs and burdens on 

applicants and delay the licensing process. 

The Honorable Anna Eshoo 

1. Last year, the International Telecommunications Union announced that operations of 

unmanned aircraft will require radioftequency spectrum for air traffic control, vehicle command 

and control, and sense and avoid capabilities - all of which are essential safety functions. 

This year, the Federal Aviation Administration was instructed to begin integrating unmanned 

aircraft into the national airspace by 2015. 

According to reports from GAO and CRS, one of the biggest obstacles to safely operating these 

aircraft at home is signal interference. What steps have been taken by the FCC taken to make 

sure that interference issues are comprehensively addressed before 2015? 

Response: The Commission is committed to mitigating the risk ofinterference to 

aeronautical uses of radiofrequency spectrum, particularly for air traffic control, vehicle 

command and control, and sense and avoid capabilities of Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

(UAS). The World Radiocommunication Conference 2012 (WRC·12) began to address 

radiofrequency spectrum requirements for UAS operating in non-segregated airspace and is 

pursuing further studies to provide a basis for considering regulatory, technical, and 

operational conditions to use certain fixed-satellite service frequency bands for UAS control 

and non-payload communications. WRC-lS will consider the use of these frequency bands 

based on the results of these additional studies. The FCC has and will continue to work 

closely with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which 

represents federal aeronautical stakeholders such as the FAA, and the State Department to 

prepare for WRC·15 and intervening international forums such as ITU-R Study Groups and 

7 
147 


85821.089

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the Broadband Law On Track" 

December 12. 2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

International Civil Aviation Organization working groups. Also, through the advisory 

committee process, the FCC is working with commercial aeronautical stakeholders to 

develop innovative policy solutions that would facilitate international deployments and 

operations of the UAS. As WRC·15 considers actions based on the results of additional 

studies, the FCC will remain engaged in the international development ofUAS spectrum 

requirements and will consider national spectrum allocations and service rules consistent 

with international aviation standards and recommended practices. 

The Honorable Henry Waxman 

1. At the hearing, Chairman Walden displayed several slides on incentive auctions. The first 

slide states that under the terms of the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the 

broadcast incentive auction, there will be $19.2 billion in lost revenue from 23 MHz of spectrum 

that is not being auctioned "if valued at the same price per MHz·POP as the unencumbered 700 

MHz B Block." The 23 MHz includes 6 MHz from Channel 37, 12 MHz from the proposed 

guard band, and 5 MHz from any "remainder" spectrum. The slide further states that "even at a 

conservative $1 per MHz·POP, the FCC's plan would forgo over $7 billion. enough to fully fund 

FirstNet." Please comment on Chairman Walden's assumptions about the 23 MHz and lost 

revenue. Do you believe the FCC is foregoing up to $19.2 billion in revenue? 

Response: I do not believe that the proposals in the incentive auction NPRM regarding 

guard bands and unlicensed spectrum would result in foregone revenues. To the contrary, the 

Commission's proposals would (1) provide auction bidders certainty regarding interference 

protection. thereby bolstering auction revenues; and (2) free up substantial amounts of 

spectrum for both licensed and unlicensed broadband use, generating very significant 

economic value and associated revenues for the Treasury on an ongoing basis. 

When I arrived at the FCC in mid·2009, my staff and I quickly became aware of the 

magnitude of the spectrum challenge facing the country. We also saw that the spectrum 

pipeline we inherited was largely dry. To address this, our work on the National Broadband 

Plan focused on laying out a comprehensive spectrum strategy and action plan. As part of 

that spectrum strategy, the Commission introduced the idea of incentive auctions - an idea 

that Congress enacted into law last year. We are actively implementing that law and fully 

expect it to free up very significant amounts of sp~ctrum for auction. 

Incentive auctions are a big deal, but they're only one of many ways we've been working to 

free up additional spectrum for licensed use over the last three years. The Commission is now 

on track to auction an additional 75 MHz of spectrum by 2015, and we've removed 

regulatory barriers on another 70 MHz of spectrum, enabling its use for licensed mobile 

broadband. 

As to the specifics of the Incentive Auctions NPRM, based on the statutory authority 

provided by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of2012, the proposals seek a 

8 
148 


85821.090

· Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the Broadband Law On Track" 

December 12, 2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

balanced approach to repurposing the 600 MHz band for broadband. Freeing up additional 

spectnun -- both licensed and unlicensed -- is key to maintaining the United States' global 

leadership in mobile. The Commission proposed clearing and auctioning as much spectnun 

as possible for licensed use, adding spectrum for commercial providers and substantial 

revenues for the Treasury. The Commission is also making a significant amount of spectrum 

available for unlicensed use, creating an open platform for innovation to drive economic 

growth, and ultimately tax revenues as well. 

Regarding the slide you reference, first, the analysis appears to overstate the appropriate 

price comparable to use in valuing the guard band spectnun. The price precedents cited in the 

slide were for high-powered blocks in the 700 MHz auction. In order to provide adequate 

interference protection to licensed spectrum blocks. the guard bands can permit only low 

power operations (such as the unlicensed uses proposed in the NPRM). and could not be used 

for macro-cellular networks. There is no reason to believe that spectrum authorized only for 

low power operations would generate even a small fraction of the revenues generated by the 

700 MHz spectnun licensed for high-powered blocks. 

Second. with respect to quantity, the slide appears to overstate the amount of spectrum that 

could be auctioned. For example. the slide assumes that Channel 37 could be auctioned for 

high power use. Today Channel 37 is allocated for Radio Astronomy and Wireless Medical 

Telemetry uses, including patient monitors in hospitals. If Channel 37 incumbents can be 

relocated. consistent with the statutory relocation cost cap of $300 million. the spectrum can 

be cleared and auctioned. But if the incumbents cannot be relocated. the continued presence 

of Radio Astronomy and Wireless Medical Telemetry will prevent the auction of this 

spectrum for high power licensed use. The NPRM sought to maximize the utility of this 

spectrum by proposing Channel 37 as one ofthe necessary guard bands between television 

and wireless services. Additionally, the slide overstates the amount ofunauctioned 

''remainder'' spectrum, because if five megahertz of remainder spectrum were available, it 

could be auctioned as an additional licensed block. 

Finally. a policy of auctioning guard bands could substantially increase uncertainty about the 

long-term interference protections afforded by the guard bands. and therefore reduce 

certainty about the overall value of the high-powered spectrum to be auctioned. Such 

uncertainty would likely suppress auction revenues. It is notable that wireless carriers, 

including AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint. and MetroPCS; along with the wireless trade 

association, CTIA; and the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), all support unlicensed 

use in the guard bands to the extent technically feasible. 

More generally, foreclosing opportunities for unlicensed spectrum in the 600 MHz band 

would deprive the United States of a powerful new platform for wireless innovation and 

investment with tremendous potential for generating economic growth and consumer 

benefits. It would also risk ceding America's global leadership in spectrum policy, enabling 

other countries to leapfrog us and become the world's test beds for new wireless 

technologies. 

9 
149 


85821.091

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the Broadband Law On Track" 

December 12.2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

Unlicensed spectrum has a powerful record of driving innovation, investment, and economic 

growth - hundreds of billions of dollars of value creation for our economy and consumers, 

resulting in billions of dollars of tax revenues. Opening up opportunities for unlicensed 

spectrum in the 600 MHz band promises to increase these benefits, unleashing important 

innovations like "Super Wi-Fi," next-generation Smart Grid monitoring, "Smart City" 

monitoring, enhanced distance learning, and services and applications that innovators have 

not even thought of yet. 

2. In his written testimony, Commissioner Pai stated that the NPRM on the broadcast incentive 

auction appears to envision an auction that will yield "no net revenues." As a result, 

Commissioner Pai asserts there will be no money for the construction of a nationwide, 

interoperable public safety broadband network or deficit reduction. Do you agree? 

Response: No. A key goal of the incentive auction is to raise sufficient revenues to meet the 

policy objectives of the Spectrum Act, including funding FirstNet. I would note that other 

auctions required under the Spectrum Act, such as the H Block auction later this year, will 

also be a source of funding for FirstNet. As I stated when the Commission adopted the 

NPRM, "Our duty and intention is to faithfully implement the law, freeing up spectrum, 

raising very substantial revenue, and helping fund FirstNet first responders." The NPRM 

points out that Spectrum Act requires incentive auction to raise a minimum amount of 

proceeds to pay broadcasters in the reverse auctioh, reimburse Treasury for amounts 

borrowed for the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund and cover the costs of conducting the 

incentive auction. It also asks what other policy issues should be addressed when 

establishing auction closing conditions, which would include funding FirstNet. The 

Commission intends to faithfully implement the Spectrum Act, freeing up spectrum and 

raising very substantial revenue. All parties have the opportunity to review and comment on 

the Commission's incentive auction proposals, including closing conditions, and we 

encourage them to do so. 

The Honorable John DingeU 

I. With respect to the open proceeding conceming the structure and rate methodology of the 

Video Relay Service (VRS) program, is the CommiSSIon considering changes that would, as a 

practical matter, degrade the quality of service that deaf and hard-of-hearing users receive? If so, 

please detail such changes. Also, will the Commission preserve or improve the availability and 

quality ofVRS service and technology available to consumers? 

Response: The Commission is considering proposals to improve the structure and efficiency 

of the VRS program, to ensure that it is available to all eligible users and offers functional 

equivalence - particularly given advances in commercially-available technology - and is as 

immune as possible from the waste, fraud, and abuse that threaten the long-term viability of 

the program. Our goal is to ensure that this vital program is effective, efficient, and 

sustainable for the future. Any actions the Commission takes to reform the VRS program 

will further our statutory obligations to "ensure that interstate and intrastate 

10 
150 


85821.092

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the Broadband Law On Track" 

December 12,2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

telecommunications relay services are available, to the extent possible and in the most 

efficient manner, to hearing-impaired and speech-impaired individuals in the United States," 

and will "encourage .•. the use of existing technology" and will "not discourage or impair 

the development of improved technology." 

2. Does the Commission believe that deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers should have the same 

ability to choose their VRS provider as hearing consumers do with voice telephone providers? 

Response: 

Yes. 

3. I understand that no further accessibility guidance based on Access Board recommendations 

will be available until mid-2013. What does the Commission intend to do to help industry push 

forward with implementing provisions of the Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 

2010 to the benefit of disabled Americans? 

Response: The Commission is committed to the effective implementation of the Twenty 

First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CV AA). The Commission has 

met every rulemaking deadline set by the CV AA to date, ensuring full, timely. and effective 

compliance with the legislation's provisions. We will continue to proactively work with 

industry to help push forward and achieve the objectives of this landmark legislation. 

The Commission has also conducted extensive outreach and training on the CV AA at 

numerous industry conferences and meetings. Through these events, the Commission's 

Consumer and Oovernmental Affairs Bureau has enabled the exchange and sharing of 

information and ideas with stakeholders on how to best implement the new legislation. The 

Cortunission will continue these presentations in the coming months and years. 

In addition, since October 2011, the Commission has maintained a clearinghouse of 

information on accessible communications products and services. The Cortunission is now 

taking steps to upgrade this clearinghouse to make it more user friendly. and to enable its use 

as a tool for companies and developers seeking accessibility solutions that can serve as 

models for their own prodUcts and services. 

11 
151 


85821.093

FRED UPTON, MICHIGAN 

CHAIRMAN 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

(:ongrtSS of tbt Ilnittb ~tattS 

~ouS't of ~tpftS'tntatlbtS' 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

The Honorable Robert M. McDowell 

Commissioner 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20554 

Dear Commissioner McDowell: 

Majority (202) 225-2927 

Minority (202)225-3641 

February 7, 2013 

Thank you for appearing at the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing 

entitled "Keeping the New Broadband Law on Track" on December 12,2012. 

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: (I) tbe 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.govbythecloseofbusiness on Friday, February 22, 2013. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerely, 

GregW d 

Chairm 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Anna Eshoo, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 
152 


85821.094

The Honorable Lee Terry 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the New Broadband Law on Track" 

December 12, 2012 

Additional Questions for tbe Record 

Page 1 

I. As the FCC considers identifYing additional spectrum for terrestrial wireless use, it is important not to 

lose sight of the critical services provided by incumbent users of spectrum. What is the process that the 

Commission intends to use to ensure that the valuable services currently provided -- both to commercial 

and U.S. Government customers -- will not be disrupted by the potential reallocation or reuse of 

spectrum? 

The Commission's primary objective in administering wireless policy is to prevent 

harmful interference to spectrum licensees. The Commission's responsibility is to analyze the 

necessary level of protection for an incumbent user and the technical efficiencies (or lack 

thereof) in the new user's operations or proposed operations. Whether interference is likely to 

occur to services in adjacent bands or within the same band, in the context of the secondary use 

of spectrum, is fact specific and can be affected by such things as power levels, tower height, 

type of technology deployed, topography or other propagation characteristics. Therefore, 

instances of harmful interference between services - whether commercial or federal- arise under 

unique sets of circumstances and should be examined on a case-by-case basis. This is an 

undertaking that, by its nature, is careful, deliberative and somewhat time-consuming. 

The Honorable Phil Gingrey 

1. Let me move on to a different topic and one that has an impact on my district in Georgia - The Atlanta 

Channel. Admittedly, the organization failed to fully complete the necessary application under the 

Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 for Class A designation. Unfortunately, after denial in 

2000, the company's appeal languished at the Commission for 12 years before it was denied once again 

last month. Given this inaction for so many years when the Commission cited a deadline- particularly in 

the additional comments by Commissioners McDowell and Pai - was the stated cause of rejection, is it 

entirely unreasonable for this petitioner to have the opportunity to simply submit application for Class A 

designation at this point? If each Commissioner could answer, I would appreciate it. One quick follow 

up of each of you, the missed deadline notwithstanding, what is the Commission's justification to the 

people and businesses of Atlanta to prevent this station from even the opportunity to apply for Class A 

status given the footprint that The Atlanta Channel has - even as a low power operator- in the 9th largest 

market in the country and as a community servant in Atlanta? 

I remain disappointed by the Commission's handling of The Atlanta Channel proceeding 

over the past 12 years. Our decision finally resolved an application for review that was filed on 

December 20, 2000. It is inexplicable that a licensee had to wait almost twelve years for a 

response from the Commission. Although the procedure followed to bring this matter to a 

resolution was flawed, the substance on the decision was not. 

On November 28,1999, the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 (CBPA) 

was signed into law. This law allowed for a one-time opportunity for LPTV licenses to obtain 

Class A status if they met the specified statutory criteria and filed a "certification of eligibility," 

on or before the statutory deadline, establishing they met these criteria. The CBP A did not 

provide the Commission with the ongoing authority to designate LPTV stations as Class A 

stations. For this reason, the Commission did not accept applications from LPTV stations that 

did not meet the statutory criteria and that did not file a certification of eligibility by the statutory 
153 


85821.095

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the New Broadband Law on Track" 

December 12, 2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

Page 2 

deadline, absent compelling circumstances. Although The Atlanta Channel filed by the statutory 

deadline, it failed to certify compliance with any of the qualification requirements. Thus, its 

request for Class A status was dismissed as materially deficient. 

As mentioned above, the CPBA only allowed the Commission to accept certifications of 

eligibility for Class A status during a specified window (i.e., within 60 days after the date of 

enactment). The Commission, therefore, does not have the statutory authority to consider a new 

request to change The Atlanta Channel's designation from a lower-power TV to Class A TV 

station at this time. 

2. Lastly, I would like to ask a question briefly on federal spectrum. I personal\y believe that we can find 

the needed balance of ensuring our national security and consolidating federal spectrum simultaneously. 

Commissioners McDowell and Pai, why is it that other countries, each of which have standing militaries, 

public safety users, and broadcast industries, are managing to bring multiple hundreds of megahertz to 

market for commercial use while we seem unable to accomplish that same goal? What, in your view, is 

the cost of failure to make additional spectrum available for commercial use? 

I agree with you, which is why I have repeatedly called for the Executive Branch to act 

more aggressively to evaluate its spectrum usage and establish a goal of relinquishing bandwidth 

to auction for exclusive use licenses regulated lightly through flexible use policies. 

As I am sure you know, America continues to lead the way in rolling out advanced 

mobile technologies. For example, the United States has approximately 17 percent of the 

world's 3G and 4G subscribers, and approximately half of the world's LTE subscribers, even 

though the U.S. is home to less than five percent of the global population. American wireless 

providers are also investing more in their infrastructure than their international counterparts. In 

2012, over $28 billion was invested in the United States' wireless infrastructure versus $20.9 

billion invested in 15 of the largest European countries combined. 

Such investment is necessary as Americans are consuming sophisticated devices and 

complex mobile applications, which are taxing spectrum availability, at an unprecedented rate. 

Fifty-one million new devices were connected to U.S. mobile networks in the last year alone to 

bring the total of American mobile-enabled devices to 424 million. In 2012, U.S. mobile data 

traffic reached 207 petabytes per month, a 62 percent increase over the previous year. To put 

this amazing growth into context, processing 207 petabytes per month is equivalent to watching 

52 million DVDs per month or sending 570 million text messages each second over our wireless 

networks. And mobile usage will only continue to surge well into the future. It is estimated that 

mobile data traffic will grow nine fold in the next five years. 

Furthermore, the American mobile market enjoys more competition than most 

international markets. Eight out of ten American consumers have a choice of at least five 

wireless service providers. In Europe, that number is around three. As a result, American 

consumers enjoy lower prices and higher mobile usage rates compared to consumers in the 

European Union (EU) - 3 cents per minute in the U.S. versus 12 cents generally in the EU. 

Wireless subscriber usage on average in the United States is approximately 5 times more than the 
154 


85821.096

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the New Broadband Law on Track" 

December 12, 2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

Page 3 

European average, At the same time, American consumers pay at least one-third less for their 

more enhanced wireless services than consumers in many other parts of the world. 

As these statistics illustrate, Americans demand more spectrum to meet their needs. We 

must ensure that spectrum continues to flow toward its highest and best use to promote 

innovation, investment and economic growth. Further, federal spectrum needs to be auctioned 

for exclusive use licenses. Spectrum "sharing," which is an ill-defined concept, and the 

auctioning of exclusive use licenses are not equivalent. "Sharing" arrangements are not designed 

for or suited to robust, high-powered and ubiquitous commercial availability. Without more 

spectrum, or by relying on spectrum "sharing" and unlicensed use, critical needs will be unmet 

and America's global competitiveness will be severely undermined. 

The Honorable Bob Latta 

1. The Administration has talked a lot about the need to bring additional spectrum to market for 

commercial use. In your view, has their behavior matched their rhetoric? 

No. I have repeatedly called for the Executive Branch to review its spectrum usage with 

an eye towards relinquishing federal spectrum to auction for exclusive use licenses so that more 

spectrum can be put into the hands of American consumers quickly and efficiently. As I am sure 

you are aware, there has been no significant auction of spectrum since 2008. Although we have 

started the proceeding to implement Congress's mandate that we conduct incentive auctions, 

more needs to be done. 

The latest actions by the Administration appear to indicate a reluctance to free up 

spectrum. For instance, as our colleagues at the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) reported in March 2011, various federal government operations are 

employing spectrum located within the 1755-1850 MHz range that could be made available for 

commercial uses. As you know, the NTlA report concluded that while it is possible to repurpose 

all 95 megahertz of the band, various agencies allege it would cost about $18 billion and take 

over ten years to move current government users off of that spectrum. The underlying message 

is disappointing primarily because, by all appearances, other Executive Branch agencies did not 

provide NTlA with the granular data and analyses necessary to support many of the report's 

assumptions and conclusions. At a minimum, the agencies did not provide the data underlying 

their assumptions in a transparent manner. I am hopeful that clarity in the underlying cost 

assumptions would create greater market certainty as we attempt to attempt to satisfy longerterm commercial spectrum needs. 

Furthermore, the report issued by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology concluded that the traditional practice of clearing and reallocating portions of the 

spectrum used by Federal agencies is not a sustainable model for spectrum policy. Instead, 

PCAST stated that the best way to increase capacity is to leverage new technologies that enable 

larger blocks of spectrum to be "shared." PCAST endorsed "sharing," in part, because "it does 

not require licensed businesses and government entities to fully clear certain wavelengths already 

in use-a process that can be time consuming and expensive." 
155 


85821.097

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

'~Keeping the New Broadband Law on Track" 

December 12,2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

Page 4 

Spectrum "sharing," which is an ill-defined concept, should not be seen as a substitute for 

auctioning more spectrum, especially federal spectrum. Additionally, "sharing" is not a panacea 

and should only be a fallback once we have fully exhausted options for auctioning exclusive 

licenses for cleared spectrum. "Sharing" arrangements are not designed for or suited to robust, 

high-powered and ubiquitous commercial availability. For instance, when referring to the 

private sector "sharing" spectrum with federal users, many questions abound, such as: Are 

federal users given priority of use over private sector users? How would "shared" use of federal 

spectrum be determined? Through a unique technological protocol? By time of day? 

Geographically? On an ad hoc basis? Should consumers expect their use of "shared" federal 

spectrum to be interrupted with or without notice? What would the value proposition be for 

various spectrum "sharing" scenarios? Before moving forward on any spectrum "sharing" 

initiatives, these questions, and many more, will need to be answered thoroughly. 

Moreover, despite the assertions by PCAST, there is also no evidence that spectrum 

"sharing" with the federal government will allow for the more-timely deployment of federal 

spectrum for commercial use. Spectrum "sharing," by its very nature, raises interference issues 

that need to be analyzed before "sharing" can occur. This very issue came up in the recent 

February 2013 Commission meeting when we initiated a proceeding, as mandated by the 

Spectrum Act, to permit unlicensed use on an additional 195 megahertz of spectrum in the 5 

GHz band and to harmonize the rules across this band to make the spectrum more attractive for 

innovation and investment. This spectrum would be available on a secondary basis to 

commercial users. There are federal government primary users in this band and it is likely that it 

will be a long time before new rules are adopted to make this spectrum available. In fact, NTIA 

reported that there were interference risks that need to be considered and submitted a letter that 

portions of this band could be used to relocate federal users if the 1755-1850 MHz band were 

cleared. For these reasons, we cannot be complacent and stop advocating for additional federal 

spectrum to be auctioned for exclusive use licenses. 

And how important is the secondary market to dealing with the spectrum crunch? 

An unfettered secondary market process is crucial to ensuring that spectrum flows to its 

highest and best use. Wireless providers look to the secondary market to acquire or lease 

spectrum where they are experiencing spectrum congestion or to realign their spectrum holdings 

to make their networks operate more efficient. 

I have long expressed my strong support for thorough but speedy transaction reviews 

given that delay and uncertainty surrounding the Commission's current process may have the 

unintended consequence of chilling investment that could benefit consumers. For example, the 

lack of a fixed timetable increases the Commission's leverage to extract conditions from the 

merged entity. Effectively, parties often have to either swallow unpalatable conditions or face 

months of additional review. In the meantime, uncertainty is costly. Being suspended in 

regulatory limbo strains both the companies and their employees, and provides a governmentcreated, and therefore artificial, competitive advantage for other industry players. Does this 

construct speed the flow of spectrum to its highest and best use? Or are we at a point where not 
156 


85821.098

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the New Broadband Law on Track" 

December 12, 2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

Page 5 

only is the hope of more federal spectrum coming to market dimming, but the federal 

government is impeding the flow of already-licensed spectrum to its highest and best use? If 

these trends continue, today's consumer frustration may quickly tum to outrage while we lose 

our global lead in wireless. The FCC can and should do better. 

Further, the Commission must not adopt the functional equivalent of a spectrum cap. The 

FCC commenced a proceeding at the same it released the Incentive Auction notice. Not only 

could the Commission consider applying a new spectrum cap regime to the Incentive Auction, 

but any such attempt would likely result in a spectrum cap for secondary market transactions as 

well. This also could hinder spectrum going to its highest and best use in the secondary market. 

The Honorable John Dingell 

1. With respect to the open proceeding concerning the structure and rate methodology of the Video Relay 

Service (VRS) program, is the Commission considering changes that would, as a practical matter, degrade 

the quality of service that deaf and hard-of-hearing users receive? If so, please detail such changes. 

Over a year ago, the Commission approved a rulemaking seeking comment as to whether 

the VRS program's structure and methodology should be reformed. My office has been 

reviewing the comments filed in this rulemaking and has been meeting with interested 

stakeholders to find ways to make the program more efficient while also ensuring that the deaf 

and hard of hearing are able to communicate "in a manner that is functionally equivalent" to a 

hearing individual's ability to communicate with voice communications services.! It is not my 

intention that any reforms ultimately adopted by the Commission would result in the degradation 

of the quality of service that the deaf and hard-of-hearing users receive. 

Also, will the Commission preserve or improve the availability and quality ofVRS service and 

technology available to consumers? 

Yes, the Commission is considering reforms that would improve the availability and 

quality ofVRS service and technology available to eligible consumers. For example, as part of 

the pending rulemaking, the Commission is currently considering whether it should make 

changes to the rules to ensure interoperability between various types of video equipment and 

applications. 

2. Does the Commission believe that deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers should have the same ability to 

choose their VRS provider as hearing consumers do with voice telephone providers? 

Speaking for myself, yes. 

3. I understand that no further accessibility guidance based on Access Board recommendations will be 

available until mid-20J3. What does the Commission intend to do to help industry push forward with 

implementing provisions ofthe Communications and Video Accessibility Act of2010 to the benefit of 

disabled Americans? 

I See 47 U.S.C. § 225, as amended by Section 103(a) ofthe Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 

Accessibility Act of2010. 
157 


85821.099

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the New Broadband Law on Track" 

December 12, 2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

Page 6 

The Commission has already issued all of the rulemakings mandated by the CV AA. 

Currently, two of the rulemakings are still pending before the Commission. The comment 

periods have closed for both of the rulemakings, and my office is currently reviewing the record 

and meeting with interested parties. As for what other implementation activities the Commission 

may undertake, I defer to Chairman Genachowski because he controls the Commission's agenda. 
158 


85821.100

FRED UPTON, MICHIGAN 

CHAIRMAN 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

~ongre~~ of tbe Itniteb ~tateS' 

"OU~t of l\tprt~tntatibt5 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

The Honorable Mignon Clyburn 

Commissioner 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20554 

Dear Commissioner Clyburn: 

Majority ~202) 225-2927 

Minority (202) 225-3641 

February 7, 2013 

Thank you for appearing at the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing 

entitled "Keeping the New Broadband Law on Track" on December 12,2012. 

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 22, 2013. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Gregw, en 

Chairm 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Anna Eshoo, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Attachment 
159 


85821.101

The Honorable Lee Terry 

1. As the FCC considers identifying additional spectrum for terrestrial wireless use, it is 

important not to lose sight of the critical services provided by incumbent users of spectrum. 

What is the process that the Commission intends to use to ensure that the valuable services 

currently provided - both to commercial and U.S. government customers - will not be disrupted 

by the potential reallocation or reuse of spectrum? 

I agree that the Commission must carefully consider the critical services provided by 

incumbent users of spectrum, and expect that as Chairman Genachowski stated and as the 

staff has demonstrated in the voluntary incentive auction proceeding, the Commission 

will continue to allow all stakeholders to provide comments on the best way to preserve 

the integrity of all incumbent services while also reallocating sufficient spectrum for 

terrestrial wireless services. 

The Honorable Phil Gingrey 

1. Let me move on to a different topic and one that has an impact on my district in Georgia - The 

Atlanta Channel. Admittedly, the organization failed to fully complete the necessary application 

under the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 for Class A designation. 

Unfortunately, after denial in 2000, the company's appeal languished at the Commission for 12 

years before it was denied once again last month. Given this inaction for so many years when 

the Commission cited a deadline - particularly in the additional comments by Commissioners 

McDowell and Pai - was the stated cause of rejection, is it entirely unreasonable for this 

petitioner to have the opportunity to simply submit application for Class A designation at this 

point? If each Commissioner could answer, I would appreciate it. One quick follow up of each 

of you, the missed deadline notwithstanding, what is the Commission's justification to the status 

given the footprint that The Atlanta Channel has - even as a low power operator - in the 9th 

largest market in the country and as a community servant in Atlanta? 

The Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 provided that licensees seeking 

Class A designation had 60 days after November 29, 1999, to file a certification of 

eligibility based on the qualification requirements of the Act. The Atlanta Channel's 

statement of eligibility tiled during that time period included no certifications as to 

whether WTHC-LD met any of the Class A qualification requirements. This statutory 

deadline was non-discretionary, and the FCC has held in similar circumstances that, in 

order to toll such deadlines, a licensee must show that it was unable to meet the deadline 

due to extraordinary circumstances, despite the exercise of due diligence. Although the 

Atlanta Channel cites clerical error, it failed to take corrective action before the statutory 

deadline even though the station had one month to review its statement before the 60 day 

deadline expired. In addition, Atlanta Channel has offered no reason for its failure to do 

so. 

1 
160 


85821.102

In light of these facts, the Commission reasonably determined that The Atlanta 

Channel had failed to show extraordinary circumstances justifying waiver of a 

strict statutory deadline, and that it therefore lacked discretion to excuse the 

Atlanta Channel's attempt to cure the material defects in the Statement of 

Eligibility filed during the 60-day period, 

Since WTHC-LD has continued to operate as a low-power television station since 

the staff dismissed its original Statement of Eligibility, the Commission's decision 

has not deprived the people of Atlanta of service from station WTHC-LD, As the 

Commission stated in its order implementing the Community Broadcasters 

Protection Act, Congress intended to permit a one-time conversion of a single 

pool of low-power televisions stations that met specitic criteria before the statute 

was enacted and filed a "certitication of eligibility" based on the qualitication 

requirements on or before the statutory deadline, Our action was consistent with 

Congressional intent in passing the Community Broadcasters Protection Act 

The Honorable John Dingell 

I. With respect to the open proceeding concerning the structure and rate methodology of the 

Video Relay Service (VRS) program, is the Commission considering changes that would, as a 

practical matter, degrade the quality of service that deaf and hard-of-hearing users receive? If so, 

please detail such changes. Also, will the Commission preserve or improve the availability and 

quality of VRS service and technology available to consumers? 

VRS is an essential scrvice, Americans who are deaf and hard of hearing rely on VRS 

for their daily communications needs, The Commission is only considering changes to 

VRS that would improve the service, not limit it For example, we are considering 

changes that would achieve interoperability among different types of video equipment 

and applications (including off-the-shelf video equipment), ensure high quality of video 

interpreters, preserve consumer choice of services, and facilitate innovations for services 

and features. As always, we will continue to meet with consumers on a regular basis to 

obtain their feedback on proposed VRS changes, and if any changes are implemented, we 

will adopt a transition plan so that no VRS consumer loses service, 

2. Does the Commission believe that deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers should have the same 

ability to choose their VRS provider as hearing consumers do with \'oice telephone providers? 

Yes. Deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers are entitled to have telecommunications relay 

services, including VRS, that are functionally equivalent to voice telephone service. The 

Commission has had a long-standing commitment to ensuring that deaf and hard-ofhearing consumers get this servicc, 

3, I understand that no further accessibility guidance based on Access Board recommendations 

will be available until mid-2OI 3, What does the Commission intend to do to help industry push 

2 
161 


85821.103

fOlWard with implementing provisions of the Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 

20 I 0 to the benefit of disabled Americans? 

The Commission is committed to effectively implementing the Twenty First Century 

Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CV AA) and has already made progress 

towards this end. We've achieved every rulemaking deadline Congress set out for us to 

guarantee full compliance with the CVANs language. We've also partnered with the 

regulated industry and worked hand in hand with them. 

We've been at their conferences, their meetings, and spoken at their events. OUf 

Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau has ensured that information and ideas are 

communicated to and received from stakeholders as to how to best implement CV AA, 

and this partnership will continue for the foreseeable future. Commission staff are 

attending and speaking at the Telecommunications Industry Association and the 

American Council of the Blind's upcoming events, and staff will also host the second MEnabling Summit with the Global Initiative for Inclusive Information and 

Communication Technologies (G3ict), an international event designed to make sure that 

people with disabilities are fully included in wireless communications accessibility. The 

first G3ict event, in December 2011, was a stunning success and drew delegates from 

over 30 countries. 

CV AA also requires service providers and device manufacturers to make sure that their 

technology is accessible, whether through internet browsers or next generations of 

existing services such as TTD. The Commission is working toward ensuring full 

compliance and recently issued a Public Notice urging providers and manufacturers to 

document their CV AA compliance upgrades and outreach. These records will be 

publically-available through a Recordkeeping Compliance Certification and Contact 

Information Registry" (RCCCI Registry) starting in April. The RCCCI registry will be 

even more important in October of this year when the CVANs accessibility rules are set 

to be fully implemented. The Commission is also working toward upgrade its existing 

database of accessible communications products and services. After these upgrades are in 

place, customers with disabilities, advocates, and industry insiders will have access to an 

easy to use tool showing the current status of communications accessibility as well as 

models for future products and services. 

3 
162 


85821.104

Questious for the Record 

Jessica Rosenworcel 

Federal Communications Commission 

"Keeping the New Broadband Law on Track" 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

December 12,2012 

The Honorable Lee Terry 

1. As the FCC considers identifying additional spectrum for terrestrial wireless use, it is 

important not to lose sight of the critical services provided by incumbent users of spectrum. 

What is the process that the Commission intends to use to ensure that the valuable services 

currently provided-both to commercial and U.S. Government customers-will not be 

disrupted by the potential reallocation or resuse of spectrum? 

I agree that good spectrum policy requires considering the potential benefits of reallocating 

spectrum and also the costs associated with such a change. Moreover, I believe that it is 

important for the Commission to provide opportunities for interested parties to provide input on 

these issues when the Commission considers changes that impact existing commercial and 

govemment users. 

In certain instances, Congress mandates a specific process that the Commission must follow with 

respect to existing spectrum licensees and the possibilities for new commercial auctions. For 

example, in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, Congress directed the 

Commission to conduct incentive auctions providing broadcast licensees with the opportunity to 

voluntarily relinquish some or all of their existing spectrum usage rights. The Commission is 

then required to repack the remaining broadcasters and auction recovered spectrum for new 

wireless broadband purposes. The law also mandates certain protections for broadcasters with 

respect to how they may be repacked and directs the Commission to "make all reasonable efforts 

to preserve, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, the coverage area and population served 

of each broadcast television licensee." 

When it comes to spectrum used by federal government entities, the Commission works closely 

with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Through processes such 

as the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee, the Commission works with the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration to address concerns raised by federal 

government use of our airwaves-as well as opportunities for reallocation and new shared use. 

The Honorable Phil Gingrev 

1. Let me move on to a different topic and one that has an impact on my district in 

Georgia-The Atlanta Channel. Admittedly, the organization failed to fully complete the 

necessary application under the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 for Class 

A designation. Unfortunately, after denial in 2000, the company's appeal languished at the 

Commission for 12 years before it was denied once again last month. Given this inaction for 

so many years when the Commission cited a deadline-particularly in the additional 
163 


85821.105

comments by Commissioners McDowell and Pai-was the stated cause of rejection, is it 

entirely unreasonable for this petitioner to have the opportunity to simply submit 

application for Class A designation at this point? If each Commissioner could answer, I 

would appreciate it. One quick follow up of each of you, the missed deadline 

notwithstanding, what is the Commission's justification to the people and business of 

Atlanta to prevent this station from even the opportunity to apply for Class A status ~iven 

the footprint that The Atlanta Channel has--even as a low power operator-in the 91 

largest market in the country and as a community servant in Atlanta? 

I agree that taking twelve years to affirm the decision to dismiss The Atlanta Channel's 

Statement of Eligibility for Class A Television Status is excessive and unacceptable. 

The Community Broadcasters Protection Act was designed to permit a one-time conversion of a 

single pool of low power television licenses to Class A licenses provided that they met specific 

criteria prior to enactment of the statute and also filed a "certification of eligibility" prior to a 

statutory deadline. The Atlanta Channel's filing failed to include the required certification. As a 

result, all five Commissioners agreed that The Atlanta Channel's Statement of Eligibility was 

materially deficient. Moreover, all five Commissioners agreed that the Commission's authority 

to waive or extend a congressionally-established deadline is limited, absent extraordinary 

circumstances. At this point, I question whether the Commission has the statutory authority to 

reopen The Community Broadcasters Protection Act proceeding or to convert additional low 

power television station licenses to Class A licenses under its own authority. Furthermore, in 

light of the decision by Congress last year to treat low power television stations and Class A 

stations differently in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, the conversion of 

additional low power television stations to Class A stations could have significant impact on the 

spectrum incentive auctions mandated by Congress. Larger markets, such as Atlanta, may have 

less wireless spectrum available for broadband service should a number of low power television 

stations be granted Class A status. 

I note, however, that The Atlanta Channel has filed a Petition for Reconsideration, which the 

Commission is in the process of reviewing. r will work to ensure that the petition is voted in a 

timely manner and in accordance with the law. Finally, should Congress choose to provide more 

guidance with respect to this agency's oversight of low power television stations by updating 

The Community Broadcasters Protection Act, I pledge to faithfully follow any new law. 

The Honorable Henry Waxman 

1. Last month, you said that it was time for "an honest conversation about network 

reliability in the wireless and digital age." I agree, and I was pleased to see that the FCC is 

planning a series offield hearings to examine new challenges to the resiliency of U.S. 

communications networks during natural disasters and other times of crisis. What do you 

see as the role for Congress in this conversation? 

The way we stay connected is changing. An increasing portion of the population no longer relies 

on traditional, wire line voice service. The data demonstrating this shift is striking. According 

to the Centers for Disease Control, 41 percent of children live in households served only by 

wireless phones. One in three adults relies exclusively on wireless service at home. These 

2 
164 


85821.106

numbers are only likely to grow in the future. So it is important to understand how these 

services work when the unthinkable occurs. 

Unlike traditional, wire line phones based on copper infrastructure, wireless and fiber networks 

are dependent on commercial power. When the power goes out, service may cease. In the 

aftennath of Hurricane Sandy, for instance, one in four wireless towers was out of service in the 

affected area. This hampered communications for too many customers in too many communities 

in the Mid-Atlantic region. 

Shortly after the storm, I called for "an honest conversation about network reliability in the 

wireless and digital age" because I think it is imperative for us to understand what the 

implications of network transition are for public safety. I think this conversation needs to have 

two components. First, from the carrier perspective we must understand the mechanics of backup power and the need for access to fuel for generators. Second, from the consumer perspective 

we need to make sure that households are prepared-with things like back-up batteries or solar 

chargers. 

I am pleased that in response to this call, the Commission is holding a series of hearings around 

the country on communications and disaster preparedness. But this is only a start. That is why I 

support calls for Congress to conduct hearings to investigate these issues and assess the 

reliability of our network infrastructure. This would provide an opportunity to identify best 

practices and any areas where the law should be adjusted to reflect network evolution. I would 

be happy to provide assistance if called upon. 

The Honorable John Dingell 

1. With respect to the open proceeding concerning the structure and rate methodology of 

the Video Relay Service (VRS) program, is the Commission considering changes that 

would, as a practical matter, degrade the quality of service that deaf and hard-of-heariug 

users receive? If so, please detail such changes. Also, will the Commission preserve or 

improve the availability and quality of VRS service and technology available to consumers? 

As you know, the Video Relay Service is an important service, used by many deaf and hard-ofhearing individuals to meet their everyday communications needs. 

Prior to my arrival at the Commission, on December 15, 20 II, the agency released a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on ways to improve the efficiency of the Video Relay 

Service program. Commission staff followed this up with a Public Notice on October 15, 2012, 

requesting further comment on issues raised by the rulemaking effort. To date, no decision 

addressing these issues has been presented to my office. However, when the Commission does 

consider these issues, I will strive to make decisions that do not materially degrade the quality of 

service that deaf and hard-of-hearing users receive. I understand how vital Video Relay Service 

is to deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans who rely on it to do their jobs, keep in contact with 

friends and family, and participate in modem life. As a result, I will seek to review adjustments 

to the Video Relay Service program with an eye toward improving the availability and quality of 

Video Relay Services technology for consumers. At the same time, I believe that the 

Commission must continue to take steps to ensure that this program operates without waste, 

fraud, and abuse. 

3 
165 


85821.107

2. Does the Commission believe that deaf and hard-of-hearing consnmers shonld have the 

same ability to choose their VRS provider as hearing consumers do with voice telephone 

providers? 

Yes. Competition among Video Relay Service providers can inspire technological innovation 

and improved customer service, benefiting deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers. 

3. I understand that no further accessibility guidance based on Access Board 

recommendations will be available until mid-2013. What does the Commission intend to 

do to help industry push forward with implementing provisions ofthe Communications 

and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 to the benefit of disabled Americans? 

I am committed to the effective and timely implementation of the Twenty-First Century 

Communications and Video Accessibility Act. It is an essential part of making sure that modern 

communications technologies are available for all consumers. I am pleased to report that to date 

the Commission has met every rulemaking deadline in this law. Among other things, the 

Commission has reinstated video description rules, established a National Deaf-Blind Equipment 

Distribution Program, and implemented new closed captioning requirements. In the course of 

doing so, the Commission has engaged in extensive outreach to all stakeholders impacted by this 

law, in order to identify the best way to implement its requirements. 

The United States Access Board is the federal agency responsible for developing technical 

standards under Section 255 of the Communications Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation 

Act. These standards are closely related to those in the advanced communications services 

provisions of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act. As a 

result, in its Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released on October 

7,2011, the Commission chose not to put in place specific technical standards for entities 

covered by the advanced communications services provisions of the law until the Access Board 

adopts final recommendations and submits them to the Commission. 

This deferral did not alter or delay any compliance deadlines. Moreover, covered entities are not 

without guidance on technical standards. Draft accessibility guidelines from the Access Board, 

which were updated last year, are being used by industry in preparation for achieving 

compliance. 

During the next year, I will do my part to keep implementation of the Twenty-First Century 

Communications and Video Accessibility Act on track. I also will continue to support the 

Commission's outreach efforts, which have included providing guidance on record-keeping 

obligations, maintaining a clearinghouse of information on accessible communications products 

and services, and providing training on accessibility obligations at a variety of conferences and 

industry events. 

4 
166 


85821.108

FRED UPTON, MICHIGAN 

CHAIRMAN 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA 

RANKING MEMBER 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

€ongrt~~ of tbt ltntttb ~tatt~ 

~ouSt of !\tprtstntatlbts 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

The Honorable Ajit Pai 

Commissioner 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20554 

Dear Commissioner Pai: 

Majority {l02l 226-2927 

Minority (202} 225-364' 

February 7, 2013 

Thank you for appearing at the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing 

entitled "Keeping the New Broadband Law on Track" on December 12,2012. 

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 22, 2013. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

GregW I 

Chairm . 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Anna Eshoo, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Attachment 
167 


85821.109

The Honorable Lee Terry 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the New Broadband Spectrum Law on Track" 

December 12,2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

As the FCC considers identifying additional spectrum for terrestrial wireless use, it is important 

not to lose sight of the critical services provided by incumbent users of spectrum. What is the 

process that the Commission intends to use to ensure that the valuable services currently 

provided-both to commercial and U.S. Government customers-will not be disrupted by the 

potential reallocation or reuse of spectrum? 

Response: Your question raises at least two separate issues. First, while we seek to 

make more efficient use of spectrum, we must also protect licensees from harmful interference. 

In order to accomplish this goal, we must ensure that our technical rules are formulated in a 

transparent manner that allows for input by all stakeholders-ideally, through a generalized 

rulemaking (as opposed to individual waiver requests). Where appropriate, we should also 

develop standards that are informed by testing conducted by the Commission's expert engineers. 

Second, as we go about reallocating spectrum, we must ensure that incumbent users 

retain sufficient spectrum to provide valuable services in an efficient manner. With respect to 

federal spectrum, this requires coordination both within the executive branch as well as between 

the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the FCC. 
168 


85821.110

The Honorable Phil Gingrey 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the New Broadband Spectrum Law on Track" 

December 12,2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

1. Let me move on to a different topic and one that has an impact on my district in GeorgiaThe Atlanta Channel. Admittedly, the organization failed to fully complete the necessary 

application under the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 for Class A designation. 

Unfortunately, after denial in 2000, the company's appeal languished at the Commission for 12 

years before it was denied once again last month. Given this inaction for so many years when 

the Commission cited a deadline-particularly in the additional comments by Commissioner 

McDowell and Pai-was the stated cause of rejection, is it entirely unreasonable for this 

petitioner to have the opportunity to simply submit application for Class A designation at this 

point? If each Commissioner could answer, I would appreciate it. One quick follow up of each 

of you, the missed deadline notwithstanding, what is the Commission's justification to the people 

and businesses of Atlanta to prevent this situation from even the opportunity to apply for Class A 

status given the footprint that The Atlanta Channel has--even as a low power operator-in the 

9th largest market in the country and as a community servant in Atlanta? 

Response: I believe that the Commission's twelve-year delay in addressing The Atlanta 

Channel's application for review is inexcusable. Nevertheless, after careful study, I reached the 

conclusion that the terms of the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 (CBPA) left me 

with no choice but to vote to affirm the Media Bureau's decision. Were the Atlanta Channel to 

file a new application for Class A designation, the Commission would have to decide whether 

the CBPA permitted such a filing to be made at that time. Because I have not yet been presented 

the arguments on both sides of that question of statutory interpretation, I would approach that 

issue with an open mind. 

2. Lastly, I would like to ask a question briefly on federal spectrum. I personally believe that we 

can find the needed balance of ensuring our national security and consolidating federal spectrum 

simultaneously. Commissioners McDowell and Pai, why is it that other countries, each of which 

have standing militaries, public safety users, and broadcast industries, are managing to bring 

multiple hundreds of megahertz to market for commercial use while we seem unable to 

accomplish that same goal? What, in your view, is the cost of failure to make additional 

spectrum available for commercial use? 

Response: Clearing federal spectrum so that it can be reallocated for commercial 

purposes requires strong executive branch leadership. I was therefore very concerned by some 

of the recommendations contained in last year's report by the President's Council of Advisors on 

Science and Technology (PCAST), which appeared to dismiss further clearing offederal 

spectrum in favor of various spectrum sharing schemes. We have shown in the past that we can 

clear federal spectrum with strong leadership from the highest levels of the executive branch, and 

I see no reason why that can't happen in the future. 

I also think that the bifurcated nature of our system for spectrum management may be a 

reason why we have greater difficulty than some other nations in reallocating spectrum. 

Congress has given the FCC jurisdiction over commercial spectrum, while it has given the 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) jurisdiction over federal 

spectrum. As a result, the two bodies must often coordinate decisions. This process can take 

2 
169 


85821.111

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the New Broadband Spectrum Law on Track" 

December 12,2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

time. Most other countries, by contrast, embrace a unified approach to regulating spectrum 

assets. 

Like you, I hope that we can find the necessary balance between ensuring our national 

security and public safety on one hand and freeing up more spectrum for commercial use on the 

other. Ifwe fail, commercial providers will not have access to enough spectrum. Networks will 

become clogged, wireless broadband connections will slow, and calls will be dropped. 

Eventually, carriers will have to limit the services they offer and likely charge more for them. 

3 
170 


85821.112

The Honorable Bob Latta 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the New Broadband Spectrum Law on Track" 

December 12, 2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

I. Question/or Chairman Genachowski: As I've read in the NPRM, the Commission proposes 

doing the reverse and forward auction simultaneously versus separately. Can you elaborate on 

the differences between those two options, and can you speculate which format will result in 

more spectrum being available in the forward auction. 

Question/or Commissioner Pai: What are your thoughts on both options? 

Response: The Spectrum Act gives the Commission the discretion to do a sequential or a 

simultaneous auction. This decision will not be easy. We must consider not only the theoretical 

advantages and disadvantages of each option, but also how theory is likely to play out in 

practice, especially given that some participants will be participating in a spectrum auction for 

the first time. 

The comment cycle in the incentive auction proceeding has yet to close, and I will need 

to review the full record carefully before drawing any final conclusion as to which path we 

should follow. However, here are some of the considerations that I will keep in mind in 

reviewing the record. We must strive to keep our rules simple and provide as much certainty as 

possible to auction participants. In this regard, there are good reasons to believe that completing 

the reverse auction before moving to the forward auction would be simpler and provide more 

certainty for auction participants. On the other hand, a simultaneous auction may give reverse 

auction participants greater opportunity for price discovery, leading to more efficient bids. 

2. You have stated publicly your will to reaffirm the goals set forth in the National Broadband 

plan, to reallocate 300 MHz of spectrum for mobile broadband by 2015 and 500 MHz by 2020. 

Can you elaborate on your three-step plan to achieve these goals? 

Response: In my first months in office, I became concerned by the fact we were not on 

track to meet the spectrum goals set forth in the National Broadband Plan. For example, the Plan 

called for making 180 MHz available for mobile broadband in 2010 and 2011. But by mid-2012, 

we hadn't made any new spectrum available for that purpose since the release of the Plan. In 

July 2012, I therefore proposed a three-step plan for getting us back on track to meet the goal of 

reallocating 300 MHz of spectrum for mobile broadband by 2015: (I) begin the incentive auction 

rulemaking process in the fall of2012; (2) revise our rules to enable LTE to be deployed in the 

WCS band; and (3) adopt rules to allow the A WS-4 band to be utilized for mobile broadband. I 

am pleased that we completed each of these steps by the end of2012. 

But now is not the time for complacency. Ifwe are to meet the spectrum goals set forth 

in the National Broadband Plan, we must continue to make progress on a variety of fronts. For 

example, we should adopt rules this year so that we can hold the incentive auction in 2014. We 

should issue rules promptly so that we can auction up to 10 MHz in the H Block this year. And 

we must redouble our efforts to clear federal spectrum and reallocate it for commercial use. We 

should start with the most obvious target: the 1755-1780 MHz band. This band is already 

internationally harmonized for commercial use, which means deployment will be swifter and 

cheaper than other options. Ifwe pair it with spectrum we have already cleared (2155-2180 

MHz), an auction in the next two years could raise billions of dollars for the Treasury and put 50 

MHz of spectrum into the commercial marketplace. 

4 
171 


85821.113

The Honorable Henry Waxman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the New Broadband Spectrum Law on Track" 

December 12, 2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

Commissioner Pai, in your November 9,2012 response to a letter from Ranking Member Eshoo, 

you stated that you believe questions addressing the Commission's legal authority under the 

Public Safety and Spectrum Act are necessary and you raised several of them concerning 

unlicensed spectrum when the NPRM was adopted. In your written testimony for this hearing, 

however, you stated that the most important principle for the Commission moving forward is to 

"be faithful to the statute" and that it is your job "to implement this legislation, not to rewrite it to 

conform to our policy preferences." How do you reconcile your two statements? 

Response: These two statements are perfectly consistent. Because it is important for the 

Commission to be faithful to the statute--among other things, we want the implementation of the 

incentive auction to withstand judicial review-I believed that it was vital to ask questions 

addressing the Commission's statutory authority in the incentive auction NPRM. By soliciting 

comment and compiling a complete record on these legal issues, we will best be able to ensure 

that the FCC complies with terms of the statute when we adopt our rules. 

5 
172 

Æ 


85821.114

The Honorable John Dingell 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

"Keeping the New Broadband Spectrum Law on Track" 

December 12,2012 

Additional Questions for the Record 

1. With respect to the open proceeding concerning the structure and rate methodology of the 

Video Relay Service (VRS) program, is the Commission considering changes that would, as a 

practical matter, degrade the quality of service that deaf and hard-of-hearing users receive? If so, 

please detail such changes. Also will the Commission preserve or improve the availability of 

VRS service and technology available to consumers? 

Response: The Communications Act requires that the Commission ensure that deaf and 

hard-of-hearing consumers receive telecommunications relay services such as VRS "in a manner 

that is functionally equivalent to the ability of a hearing individual who does not have a speech 

disability to communicate using voice communication services by wire or radio." Given this 

statutory command, I believe any reform undertaken by the Commission must not degrade the 

quality of a service that has proven to be valuable to deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans. 

2. Does the Commission believe that deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers should have the same 

ability to choose their VRS provider as hearing consumers do with voice telephone providers? 

Response: Deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers should enjoy the benefits of competition 

just as hearing consumers do. 

3. I understand that no further accessibility guidance based on Access Board recommendations 

will be available until mid-2013. What does the Commission intend to do to help industry push 

forward with implementing provisions of the Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 

20 I 0 to the benefit of disabled Americans? 

Response: I believe that it is vital for the Commission to continue its work implementing 

the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of201O. Last 

November, for example, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking 

comment on ways to make televised emergency information more accessible to individuals who 

are blind or visually impaired. This NPRM also sought comment on how to ensure that 

television apparatuses are able to make available video description as well as make emergency 

information accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired. We are required by the 

CVAA to complete the "access to emergency information" rulemaking by April 9, 2013 and the 

"apparatus" rulemaking by October 9,2013. I will do whatever I can to help the Commission 

meet these deadlines. 

6