U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

95–926 2016

NEXT STEPS FOR SPECTRUM POLICY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2015 

Serial No. 114–28 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

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 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

Ranking Member 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

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 .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 5 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 39 

WITNESSES

Roger Sherman, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission ..................................................................................... 7 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 53 

Gary Epstein, Chair, Incentive Auction Task Force, Federal Communications 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 7 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 53 

Julius Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering And Technology, Federal Communications Commission .......................................................................................... 7 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 53 

John Leibovitz, Deputy Bureau Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

Federal Communications Commission ............................................................... 7 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 53 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Article entitled, ‘‘FTC’s Hot Mess of a Database May Not Bode Well for 

Future Airwaves Sharing,’’ Re/code, March 17, 2015, submitted by Mr. 

Long ....................................................................................................................... 40 

Statement of National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, submitted 

by Mr. Walden ...................................................................................................... 47 

AWS–3 Auction Results, submitted by Ms. Eshoo ................................................ 49 

(1) 

NEXT STEPS FOR SPECTRUM POLICY 

THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

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

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Shimkus, 

Lance, Guthrie, Olson, Pompeo, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Collins, 

Cramer, Eshoo, Yarmuth, Clarke, Loebsack, Rush, Butterfield, 

Matsui, and McNerney. 

Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor for Communications and Technology; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; 

Gene Fullano, Detailee, Telecom; Kelsey Guyselman, Counsel, 

Telecom; Grace Koh, Counsel, Telecom; David Redl, Counsel, 

Telecom; Charlotte Savercool, Legislative Clerk; David Goldman, 

Democratic Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Margaret McCarthy, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member; and 

Ryan Skukowski, Democratic Policy Analyst. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. We are going to go ahead and call to order the subcommittee on Communications and Technology, and welcome our 

Members and our witnesses here today. Since this is a go-away day 

and we have votes coming up in about an hour or so, we are going 

to go ahead and get started. 

There is no question that mobile technology is one of the key 

components of the economy of both today and of the future. Americans have wholeheartedly embraced the role of mobile in their 

lives. In fact, there are more wireless devices in the country than 

there are people in the country. Mobile is even more critical in developing nations for whom mobile is the first national network for 

connectivity. Time and again, as the country that pioneered spectrum auctions once, and is the process of doing it again, the world 

looks to the United States to lead spectrum policy and answer the 

challenge of meeting spectrum demand. We must continue to rise 

to that challenge. 

Demand for connectivity will only continue to grow as the Internet of Things becomes a ubiquitous part of our daily lives. People 

rely on spectrum to stay connected to friends and family, conduct 

2 

business, engage with the government, and access resources for 

things like healthcare and education. 

This committee has long been a leader in freeing up spectrum for 

commercial and unlicensed use to meet demand and feed the innovation that has been the hallmark of U.S. spectrum policy. In just 

the last few Congresses we have brought forth bipartisan legislation to authorize a first-of-its-kind broadcast television incentive 

auction, formed working groups that Ms. Matsui and Mr. Guthrie 

co-chaired that we organized to look at how do we modernize the 

federal spectrum, how do we work together to ensure that this vital 

national resource is put the most efficient and effective use. By the 

way, going into that legislation, the Congressional Budget Office 

said it would never happen, and they gave us a zero score, or something like that. And after the fine work of you all at the FCC and 

the people who actually arrived with checkbooks, I think the net 

is somewhere around $41 billion, paying fully for the interoperable 

system for public safety, as well as 911 enhanced process, and paying down debt. And that is just the first part of the auction with 

AWS–3. 

Now, as we go forward, we need to make sure that there continues to be good cooperation and understanding about all the parties as we go into the broadcast incentive auction. I know our 

broadcasters were involved in this auction with some of the spectrum they had with the Defense Department and other federal 

agencies, so it was more than just the Federal Government, and I 

commend the broadcasters for their involvement. But the model 

can hopefully be recreated in other spectrum bands through the 

Federal Spectrum Incentive Act. This was introduced, by the way, 

by Congressman Guthrie and Congresswoman Matsui, as the 

broadcast incentive auction is doing for broadcasters, this legislation would allow participating government agencies to receive a 

portion of the proceeds from the auction of spectrum assigned to it. 

That makes sense. It incentivizes agencies to take a hard look at 

the modern spectrum needs and consider alternatives, free up even 

more spectrum for commercial or unlicensed use. 

Now, in the past, there has been a great deal of focus on socalled beachfront spectrum, the spectrum with the best propagation 

characteristics for commercial mobile use. Some of this will be auctioned off in the upcoming incentive auction of the 600 megahertz 

band currently used for UHF broadcasting. But these types of opportunities are going to be even more scarce in the future and it 

means we have to start looking outside of the traditionally desirable spectrum bands. There is only so much spectrum out there, so 

we need to work together with what we have and that means expanding use into the spectrum frontiers. 

The FCC began a proceeding last fall to examine the use of frequencies above 24 gigahertz. To put that in perspective, most commercial use happens below 6 gigahertz, and most mobile use is in 

the 3 gigahertz level. Development of technologies that can utilize 

higher frequencies to meet current and future needs could be a real 

game-changer. I look forward to hearing more about the FCC’s 

work in the space from our witnesses. 

So how do we achieve these goals and ensure that America remains a leader in wireless technology, development and deployVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-28 CHRIS
3 

ment of mobile innovations? It will require a great deal of working 

together to leverage industry and engineering know-how, government authority, and agency implementation. To achieve this, both 

Congress and the FCC must be flexible and forward-looking stewards of our public spectrum asset. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. And with 

that, I will turn over the remaining time to my vice chair, Mr. 

Latta. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

There’s no question that mobile technology is one of the key components of the 

economy of both today and of the future. Americans have wholeheartedly embraced 

the role of mobile in their lives-in fact, there are more wireless devices in this country than people—and mobile is even more critical in developing nations for whom 

mobile is the first national network for connectivity. Time and again, as the country 

that pioneered spectrum auctions once, and is the process of doing it again, the 

world looks to the United States to lead spectrum policy and answer the challenge 

of meeting spectrum demand. We must continue to rise to that challenge. 

Demand for connectivity will only continue to grow as the ‘‘Internet of Things’’ becomes a ubiquitous part of our daily lives. People rely on spectrum to stay connected 

to friends and family, conduct business, engage with government, and access resources for things like healthcare and education. 

This committee has long been a leader in freeing up spectrum for commercial and 

unlicensed use to meet demand and feed the innovation that has been the hallmark 

of U.S. spectrum policy. In just the past few congresses we have brought forth legislation to authorize a first-of-its-kind broadcast TV incentive auction legislation, 

formed working groups focused on modernizing federal spectrum, and worked together to ensure that this vital national resource is put the most efficient and effective use. 

The most recent example of this committee’s spectrum leadership came just a few 

months ago with the successful auction of 65 MHz of AWS–3 spectrum for more 

than $44 billion. This is particularly significant not only because this single auction 

raised enough to fully fund FirstNet, but perhaps more strangely, because some said 

that this auction would never happen. The spectrum auctioned was occupied by the 

U.S. Department of Defense and other federal agencies, but thanks to bipartisan 

leadership of this committee and cooperation between industry and government, we 

were able to bring more spectrum to market to meet demand without adversely impacting government operations. This success is a terrific example of what can be 

achieved when we work together. 

This model can hopefully be recreated in other spectrum bands through the Federal Spectrum Incentive Act. Introduced by Mr. Guthrie and Ms. Matsui, as the 

broadcast incentive auction is doing for broadcasters, this legislation would allow 

participating government agencies to receive a portion of the proceeds from the auction of spectrum assigned to it. By incentivizing agencies to take a hard look at their 

modern spectrum needs and consider alternatives, we can free up even more spectrum for commercial or unlicensed use. 

In the past, there has been a great deal of focus on so-called ‘‘beachfront’’ spectrum-the spectrum with the best propagation characteristics for commercial mobile 

use. Some of this will be auctioned off in the upcoming incentive auction of the 600 

MHz band currently used for UHF broadcasting. But these types of opportunities 

are going to be even more scarce in the future and it means we’re going to have 

to start looking outside of the traditionally desirable spectrum bands. There’s only 

so much spectrum out there, so we need to work with what we have and that means 

expanding use into the ‘‘spectrum frontiers.’’ The FCC began a proceeding last fall 

to examine the use of frequencies above 24 GHz—to put that in perspective, most 

commercial use happens below 6 GHz, and most mobile use is below 3 GHz. Development of technologies that can utilize higher frequencies to meet current and future needs could be a real game-changer. I look forward to hearing more about the 

FCC’s work in the space from our witnesses. 

So how do we achieve these goals and ensure that America remains a leader in 

wireless technology, and development and deployment of mobile innovations? It will 

require a great deal of working together to leverage industry and engineering knowhow, government authority, and agency implementation. To achieve this, both ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-28 CHRIS
4 

gress and the FCC must be flexible and forward-looking stewards of our public spectrum asset. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses how the commission is 

working to ensure a successful incentive auction, as well as their hard work to ensure we can meet spectrum demand in the future. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. And thank 

you for our witnesses for being here with us today. 

The demand for wireless spectrum capacity is growing daily, as 

technologically advanced devices and products are increasingly 

using unlicensed spectrum instead of cellular networks to connect 

to the Internet. There is no doubt that spectrum has become an integral part of our everyday lives, and contributes greatly to economic growth and innovation. It is vital that the capacity of our 

Nation’s airways is able to accommodate advanced mobile innovation, therefore, we must examine all ways to expand access to spectrum. That is why I introduced H.R. 821, the Wi-Fi Innovation Act, 

which would examine ways to maximize the use of spectrum in the 

upper 5 gigahertz band, without creating harmful interference with 

incumbent users. My bill also recognizes that unlicensed spectrum 

is a critical component of promoting continued economic development, increased connectivity, and greater productivity. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses, 

and I thank you for yielding. And I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Latta, we appreciate your participation and 

your comments. 

We will turn now to Ms. Eshoo from California for an opening 

statement. 

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

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

of our witnesses. It is wonderful to see you. Roger, is this the first 

time you have ever testified? It is. 

Mr. WALDEN. Oh, boy. 

Ms. ESHOO. Isn’t that great? Yes. Well, we miss you, but we are 

proud of you. 

$41.3 billion. How would you like to have that in your checking 

account? That is a lot of money. It is really unprecedented in 

terms—that it was raised from the AWS–3 auction. It is a huge 

win, and I think that it is instructive to all of us in the value of 

spectrum. Spectrum is gold. Some is 18 karat, some is 24 karat, 

there are different levels of gold, but it is still gold. And we know 

that these funds are going to be used to reduce the deficit by some 

$20 billion. I don’t know what other committee is producing that, 

but everyone here should pat themselves on the back. It is going 

to pay for the build-out of the first ever nationwide interoperable 

public safety network. That was the only recommendation of the 9/ 

11 Commission that the Congress had not made good on, and it is 

going to upgrade our 911 call centers across the country to support 

next-generation technology. So this is, I think anyone that takes a 

look at this would say this is a success story. 

Now, less than 2 years ago, Chairman Walden and I began regular meetings with NTIA, with the FCC, with the DoD, to ensure 

that our efforts to relocate or share spectrum held by federal agenVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-28 CHRIS
5 

cies really stayed on track. And those were important informal 

meetings as well as hearings, but it really paid off. Many thought 

that the DoD wouldn’t cooperate, but thanks in part, I think, to 

this bipartisan process and their cooperation that we established in 

June of 2013, 65 megahertz of spectrum will be brought to market 

to support America’s insatiable appetite for wireless broadband. 

But our work is far from complete, because our goal is to free-up 

500 megahertz of spectrum, and ensure that every American has 

access to 4G high-speed wireless broadband. 

According to Cisco’s latest forecast, global mobile data traffic will 

increase nearly tenfold over the next 4 years. That is a lot; increasing tenfold over the next 4 years, reaching an estimated 24.3 X-bits 

per month by 2019. So as a finite resource, we have to think big 

in our approach to spectrum management. 

I think a 21st century spectrum policy should recognize the following. The complimentary benefits of both licensed and unlicensed 

spectrum. The need for competitive safeguards to prevent excessive 

concentration of spectrum, particularly within the prime beachfront 

bands below 1 gigahertz. And the need to utilize new sharing technologies to enhance efficiency and better manage spectrum. 

The upcoming incentive auction can achieve, I think, each of 

these policy goals, while generously compensating broadcasters 

who voluntarily chose to participate. And I salute the broadcasters 

for cooperating. I want this to work very well for them because 

when it does, it is going to compliment the rest of the system. Similarly, freeing up additional unlicensed spectrum in the 5 gigahertz 

band will unlock immense economic value in our country, promote 

access to broadband, and expand the digital sandbox used by 

innovators and entrepreneurs. 

So it is a pleasure for me to welcome all of you here, the experts, 

and as I said before I began my opening statement, to see our 

former Chief Democratic Counsel, Roger Sherman, you are a great 

source of pride to us, Roger. So I look forward to your testimony 

and the conversation that we are going to have, and the input that 

you will give to us. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlelady yields back. 

Anyone on the Republican side want to make an opening comment, or should we move on to our witnesses? OK. 

We will go to Ms. Matsui now, using Mr. Pallone’s time as the 

senior Member on their side. 

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

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding me time. 

And I also would like to welcome Roger Sherman. It is great to see 

you. 

The future of American innovation would be fueled by spectrum, 

and more and more spectrum. Never has this been more evident 

than the record-breaking AWS–3 auction which generated nearly 

$42 billion. That is more than four times the reserve price that the 

FCC put on the sale, and more than double the previous record of 

$18.9 billion set in the 2008 wireless auction. 

6 

The planning for the AWS–3 auction did not happen overnight. 

There were many skeptics who doubted this auction would ever 

occur. But as a result of years of bipartisan congressional collaboration with the Department of Defense, the FCC and the NTIA, along 

with our Nation’s broadcasters, the final product of the AWS–3 

auction was truly historic for the wireless market and for consumers. The major investments put forth all provides us with fresh 

evidence of the increasing consumer demand for Internet access by 

smartphones, tablets and devices. Spectrum has become one of the 

lynchpins in our economy. 4G speeds will soon become 5G speeds. 

New cars rely on spectrum to improve driver safety. Wi-Fi hotspots 

are popping up across the country. Innovative healthcare devices 

are being introduced utilizing spectrum to monitor blood pressure, 

oxygen levels, and activity levels. Technologies that allow consumers to control home energy consumption from mobile devices 

also rely on spectrum. 

To more efficiently utilize our Nation’s airwaves, America needs 

a national spectrum plan, one that would require a healthy mix of 

licensed and unlicensed spectrum bands. To that end, Congress 

must look for creative ways to produce more spectrum and create 

a pipeline for spectrum reallocation or sharing. That is why today 

I join Congressman Guthrie in introducing legislation that would 

create the first ever incentive auction for federal agencies, and for 

once, offer revenue to federal spectrum users in exchange for federal spectrum. It is a game-changer. 

I thank Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo for cosponsoring this bill. I also welcome the Senate Companion Bill also 

introduced today by Senators Ed Markey and Deb Fischer. 

Moving forward, I also believe that unlicensed spectrum should 

be part of our spectrum plan. It is important for the FCC to develop a testing process on the upper 5 gigahertz band this year. It 

is time for the FCC to bring together in one room engineers from 

both the auto and technology sectors to see if they can coexist without interference in the 5 gigahertz band. That was the underlying 

principle of the bipartisan law passed in 2012. 

I look forward to continuing to work in a bipartisan manner on 

spectrum issues. It is one of the key issues for our economy. 

I would now like to yield the balance of my time to the 

gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke. 

Ms. CLARKE. I thank the gentlelady from California. 

Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo, thanks for convening this hearing. Thank you once again to Congresswoman Matsui for yielding time. 

For years, we have been discussing the Nation’s spectrum 

crunch, and it is good to see the progress in this area, particularly 

as consumers are increasingly becoming dependent on their mobile 

devices. The world is going wireless, needless to say. Most of us 

couldn’t even imagine going through the day without our mobile 

devices. But it is more than having our phones in our pockets. Our 

kids are using connected textbooks, our cars are equipped with 

fourth-generation wireless technology, our doctors treat us faster, 

at lower cost, by using wireless equipment, and everyone expects 

to watch what they want, when they want to, where they want it, 

and with whatever wireless devices they have handy. 

7 

Americans are clearly more engaged in the wireless ecosystem, 

and we need to ensure that our Nation has the capacity to accommodate current and future wireless needs. But all of this innovation does not happen alone. Our hunger for all things mobile is 

driving our insatiable demand for the airwaves that feed our devices. These airwaves are the invisible infrastructure that is all 

around us. It powers the devices and services we use every day. 

That is why Congress charged the FCC with managing this scarce 

public resource on our behalf, and that is why we directed the FCC 

to conduct spectrum auctions that make more spectrum available 

for wireless carriers, and to supercharge the Nation’s supply of 

spectrum of Wi-Fi. 

The FCC has taken the ball and ran with it. Earlier this year, 

the agency completed the most successful auction in history. It 

raised over $41 billion for public safety and wireless, and made a 

significant slice of the airwaves available for mobile broadband. 

The FCC also gearing—is also gearing up for the broadcast incentive auction next year, but if we want the United States to continue 

to lead the world in wireless, there is a lot more to be done. 

I look forward to the hearing from—to hearing from our expert 

panelists today about what is next in the spectrum pipeline, and 

I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlelady yields back. We appreciate her comments. 

And now we will go to our witnesses. We want to thank each of 

you for being here, not only before our committee but also the work 

you do not far away at the FCC. So thanks for being here. 

And we will start out with Mr. Roger Sherman, he is the Chief 

of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Sherman, we are delighted to have you 

back here. I have 23 yes-or-no questions Mr. Dingell submitted, but 

go ahead with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER SHERMAN, CHIEF, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY GARY EPSTEIN, CHAIR, INCENTIVE AUCTION TASK FORCE, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; JULIUS KNAPP, CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; AND JOHN LEIBOVITZ, DEPUTY BUREAU CHIEF, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU, 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Walden, 

Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss next steps for spectrum policy, 

and welcome your interest in this topic. 

At the table with me today are three experts well known to this 

committee; Julie Knapp, the Chief of the Office of Engineering and 

Technology; Gary Epstein, the Chair of the Incentive Auction Task 

Force; and John Leibovitz, the Deputy Chief of the Wireless Bureau, and Special Advisor to the Chairman for Spectrum Policy. 

We know that time is limited and you are probably anxious to 

ask questions, so I won’t reiterate our testimony, but instead briefly highlight three basic points. First, the demand for spectrum conVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-28 CHRIS
8 

tinues to grow exponentially, and as a nation, we need to maintain 

our collective focus on this resource to continue to be the world 

leader in wireless. There is no debate that wireless is an engine of 

economic growth and progress in the United States, and there is 

no debate that spectrum fuels this engine. 

As Chairman Walden and Chairman Wheeler pointed out in a recent op-ed upon the close of Auction 97, there is direct linkage between spectrum, jobs and economic growth, not to mention innovation, competition and consumer choice. You can be sure FCC staff 

is focused on making licensed and unlicensed spectrum available 

for mobile broadband to meet consumer and business demands. 

This has certainly been a key area of focus for Chairman Wheeler 

and all of the commissioners. 

Second, we are actively bringing more spectrum online. Since 

Chairman Wheeler’s arrival at the FCC, we have auctioned the 10 

megahertz H block, and 65 megahertz of AWS–3 spectrum. We 

have also made other spectrum newly available and useable for 

wireless broadband and unlicensed uses. Of course, we are working 

towards the incentive auction early next year. 

A couple of quick observations about AWS–3, many points that 

you have already raised in your statements. AWS–3 was a team effort, and it is well known that it was a success in large part due 

to the important work of NTIA, DoD, and other Federal agencies. 

What is less well known, at least outside the Rayburn Building, is 

that full engagement of the Energy and Commerce Committee was 

a critical element of this success. Members of this subcommittee in 

particular took a personal interest in the success of this effort, and 

did everything possible to bring along other stakeholders with interest in this spectrum. These collective efforts yielded a great result. More spectrum is available for wireless broadband, federal 

agency transitions are paid for, and a number of congressional priorities have received critical funding, including the nationwide 

broadband public safety network, public safety research, next generation 911 implementation, and more than $20 billion for federal 

deficit reduction. As you are well aware, these priorities came directly from legislation authored by this subcommittee. 

Third, and finally, the FCC is continuing to think hard and creatively about how to ensure a continuing supply of spectrum is in 

the pipeline. We all know how long it takes to ready spectrum for 

auction, or otherwise make it available for commercial use. The 

agency intends to use the tools Congress has provided towards this 

end. We will also continue to working closely with this committee 

and our federal partners going forward. Along these lines, I am 

pleased to report that tomorrow Chairman Wheeler plans to circulate with the commissioners draft final rules to create a new 

service in the 3.5 gigahertz band, the Citizens Broadband Radio 

Service. This is an exciting opportunity to use new innovative technologies and policies to leverage 150 megahertz for wireless 

broadband. We have also initiated a proceeding aptly titled Spectrum Frontiers. This Notice of Inquiry examines spectrum high up 

on the spectrum chart, the bands above 24 gigahertz. This proceeding will help us understand better the future of wireless services, and hopefully create a regulatory environment in which new 

innovative technologies can flourish for the benefit of consumers. 

9 

On behalf of my colleagues here today and at the FCC, we thank 

the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify, and stand ready to 

answer your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman follows:] 

10 


95926.001
11 


95926.002
12 


95926.003
13 


95926.004
14 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Sherman, thank you for your testimony. We 

thank the other witnesses for being here today for the committee. 

Mr. Sherman is the only one presenting testimony today, so we 

will go right into our questions and then he told me he is more like 

the point guard, he will hand it off to the other experts on the 

panel as well, but feel free to ask him questions too. 

So we will start with—please, lots of questions, Mr. Sherman. We 

will start with Mr. Epstein. The FCC’s budget requests include $2.4 million to engage an administrator to manage the broadband relocation fund. Is that engagement going to be awarded through competitive bidding, and if 

not, why, and is this a one-time request or do you think additional 

funding will be necessary? I have a couple of other follow-up questions, but—— 

Mr. EPSTEIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. And, yes, turn on that mic. There you go. 

Mr. EPSTEIN. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the 

opportunity to testify today. The broadcast administrator is going 

to be a crucial part of the transition post-auction, and yes, we do 

anticipate it as being a fair and open compete, and we do anticipate 

that it will be a one-time-only request. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. And where will those funds come from, the $2.4 million estimated cost? 

Mr. EPSTEIN. I am not an expert in the budget aspects of things. 

My anticipation is it will come out of auction proceeds, but I will 

confirm that with our Office of Managing Director. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. And the commission has engaged clearinghouses before to manage cost sharing in the clearing of spectrum 

bands. Do you know how much it costs those entities to manage a 

clearinghouse? 

Mr. EPSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have those numbers. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, if other members on the panel have answers 

to any of these questions our Members have, please feel free to 

speak up. 

VOICE. We will get that back to you. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

Mr. EPSTEIN. We will get that information back to you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Perfect. OK. And, Mr. Knapp, welcome, by the way. 

We are always delighted to have you in the room, and helping us 

on the technical side of these issues. And so I want to talk about 

performance requirements for receivers. Do you think that a sort 

of one-size-fits-all rule setting performance requirements for receivers or defining the interference environment will solve the problems across many different types of radio devices, and if not, how 

would you tailor an appropriate framework? 

Mr. KNAPP. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. We have had our technological advisory council look at this issue. One of the things that 

came out of that is a proposed new approach for dealing with receivers. It is based on something called interference harm threshold. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. 

Mr. KNAPP. Rather than setting standards for receivers, which as 

we got into it, found that a one-size-fits-all would be really difficult—— 

15 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. KNAPP [continuing]. To come up with. In fact, I was at a conference earlier this week where I heard another idea that is coming 

out of a multi-stakeholder group that is a variation on that, which 

talks about more of a generic mask. So the receiver issue continues 

to come up. We are still working with the industry on approaches 

that we can take to this without moving quickly to mandatory 

standards. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. I will go to this next question. Mr. Knapp 

and Mr. Sherman, the proposed use of heightened receiver performance standards as a solution to interference problems has long been 

of interest to our subcommittee, as you all know. However, we recognize requiring more stringent standards for receivers can result 

in over-engineering and higher consumer prices, which I think is 

what you are alluding to there. So how do we balance this? Is there 

a way to improve receiver performance without concurrent increase 

in price or device size? And then I still have people asking me 

about, you know, spectrum is limited, are there ways to maximize 

use, and that leads to a discussion about FM chips in cell phones 

and all of that. So, Mr. Knapp, do you want to address that? 

Mr. KNAPP. So the problem is a lot easier to deal with when introducing new services. In the spectrum that Roger referred to, the 

proceeding on Citizens Broadband Radio Service, one of the things 

that we are looking to a multi-stakeholder group to do is to try to 

address the receiver issues at the start. That is how we are trying 

to approach this. It is difficult to do something about receivers that 

are already out there, but we think—— 

Mr. WALDEN. I think we learned that with LightSquared and 

GPS and all of that, right? 

Mr. KNAPP. Right. Absolutely. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Sherman? 

Mr. SHERMAN. On the question about FM chips thatyou—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. Asked earlier, I think Chairman 

Wheeler spoke about that last week at one of his hearings. 

Mr. WALDEN. I heard he was on the Hill. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I think he indicated that he thinks the market 

seems to be working, and if consumers want their FM chips, they 

can let their carriers know, and that the market should solve that 

problem. I probably don’t have anything to add to that. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Those are the only questions I have, so 

I will yield back the balance of my time. 

And I will turn now to my friend from California, Ms. Eshoo. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to go as quickly as I can because I have a lot of questions, and I doubt I will get them all in, but the ones that I don’t, 

we will submit them to you in writing for a response. 

To Roger, I think, very well that it has been a long-held belief 

of mine that the upcoming incentive auction rules really have to be 

sufficient to prevent excessive concentration of spectrum among the 

Nation’s largest wireless providers. Now, today, approximately 73 

percent of the highly desirable spectrum below 1 gigahertz is held 

by two companies in the country. Is it the commission’s view that 

16 

wireless carriers who lack substantial low frequency spectrum are 

at a competitive disadvantage? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thanks for the question, Ms. Eshoo. I think the 

commission has been wrestling with this issue for the last several 

years in various competition reports. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. It is a sticky wicket, yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And last year—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. About a year ago, when it adopted 

the incentive auction order, it also adopted a companion order of 

mobile spectrum holdings in which it recognized that a complimentary mix of spectrum, including low band spectrum, because of its 

special properties, was critical to competition. And it took steps in 

that order to recognize the unique characteristics of low band, 

which as you know, is better for rural coverage because it propagates over further distances—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. And it also is great for urban areas 

where it can go through buildings and walls. So the commission 

took action in that item to recognize the special qualities of low 

band, and in transactions it gives special deference to the amount 

of low band spectrum being transferred. And then importantly, in 

the incentive auction, it established what we call a market-based 

reserve, which is a real balancing act to try to make sure that nobody can get all of it—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. And make sure it is available to the 

smaller providers, because as you mentioned, it is disproportionately held by a couple of large carriers. Not suggesting those carriers did anything wrong, it is just a historic fact. 

Ms. ESHOO. No, they didn’t, but the whole issue is that we have 

competition in our country. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Right. Right. 

Ms. ESHOO. We have free markets, but competition is one of the 

essential ingredients in our national economy. Thank you. 

Mr. Knapp, it is great to see you. I have fought very hard for unlicensed in the TV white spaces, which is why I was concerned to 

hear that the FCC recently received a petition to suspend the TV 

white spaces database. Can you explain to the committee exactly 

what is going on with this, and if you are aware of any instances 

of interference as a result of the database problems raised by the 

NAB? 

Mr. KNAPP. Sure. These are databases that were set up through 

private providers where only fixed users, the people who do things 

like wireless broadband and provide service to businesses, can register their locations and some related information into the databases. We are aware there are some anomalies in the databases, 

and we have been working with the database providers and the 

other stakeholders to take care of any housekeeping that needs to 

be done, as well as continuing to work with the broadcasters to correct any problems that we find. But we have not—— 

Ms. ESHOO. What is the upshot of it though? Is this going to be 

settled, is it going to be left hanging in limbo, what is going to happen to the TV white spaces? 

17 

Mr. KNAPP. So I am confident that this can be easily corrected. 

Ms. ESHOO. That is great. 

Mr. KNAPP. It is things like missing phone numbers. 

Ms. ESHOO. I like the word easily. OK, good. Moving on. 

Both to Mr. Leibovitz and to Mr. Knapp, the prospect of 5G technology is very exciting. It is very exciting for consumers. I think for 

everyone on the committee, we understand what superfast speeds 

will bring about for people in our country, and that is the cause of 

excitement. It is my understanding that the commission is currently examining which bands of spectrum would best be suited for 

5G services. When can consumers expect to see 5G deployed in our 

country? 

Mr. LEIBOVITZ. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thanks for the 

invitation to speak today. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. LEIBOVITZ. 5G is a topic of growing interest in the wireless 

industry. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. LEIBOVITZ. As I think Members know here, in the U.S. our 

policy is not to earmark spectrum for certain technologies. We have 

a strong policy of technology neutrality and we intend to continue 

that. 

Ms. ESHOO. And I think that is a sound policy. 

Mr. LEIBOVITZ. At the same time, we recognize that some of the 

new technologies that are coming down the pipe have the potential 

to use very wide channels, and use spectrum that otherwise is previously thought unusable for terrestrial service. We put out the 

NOI last fall on spectrum frontiers which teed-up a number of different bands above 24 gigahertz for both licensed and unlicensed 

5G-type service. There are also incumbents in those bands. Some 

of those bands that we have to think about protecting their users, 

satellite users and others, but the technology itself is not really 

ready yet, it is still in the lab. I think most people anticipate that 

these technologies would happen in the 2020-plus time frame. If 

you look at the history of wireless, the schedules sometimes tend 

to slip a little bit. We want America to be the first country to have 

it, and the place where the technology gets developed and thrives. 

Ms. ESHOO. Speed it up. 

Mr. LEIBOVITZ. Is that my testimony, or are you—— 

Ms. ESHOO. No, your testimony is over. My time is up. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlelady’s time has expired. We have to move 

now to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, gentlemen, thanks very much for being here today to testify. 

Mr. Knapp, if I could just start questioning with you. The FCC 

has done very good work in facilitating compromise solutions so 

that the 5.1 gigahertz band can be shared to the benefit of Wi-Fi 

consumers. We now need more such compromise solutions to enable 

efficient use of the 5.9 gigahertz band to keep up with consumer 

Wi-Fi demand. Wi-Fi can share the band with future intelligent 

transportation systems if those systems are ever deployed. What is 

your timeline do you think for allowing Wi-Fi operations in this 

band? 

18 

Mr. KNAPP. We brought together the stakeholders for the two 

bands that are in play. One is a band of 120 megahertz that is 

used primarily by the Department of Defense. We have set up a 

working group with Department of Defense, NTIA, NASA, and industry stakeholders. There have been studies done on the required 

protections. We are not quite there on the ability of the equipment 

to meet what the requirements would be. So we are still working 

on that. Once we get to a point where we have a solution, there 

will need to be prototype devices from industry to be tested to 

make sure it works. 

So it is a little bit hard to give you a firm timeline. I can tell 

you that we are trying to accelerate this as fast as we can. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask, when did the working groups first 

form—— 

Mr. KNAPP. So most of the work had been going on internationally. So that has been going on actually probably a year and a half, 

2 years. We reached a point where it was clear we were not going 

to be able to have everything necessary in place to succeed internationally, so we created the work group, I think we started late 

last summer, and then we picked up the pace with meetings once 

a month earlier this year. 

Mr. LATTA. So you are meeting with the working groups about 

every month that you are working—— 

Mr. KNAPP. Every month. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. 

Mr. KNAPP. We created a technical subgroup that is meeting in 

between. So we have all the players there trying to find an answer 

here. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Let me ask also, given the tremendous advance 

in the wireless technology over the last decade, should the commission review its DSRC spectrum designation to determine in the 

public interest if there are other more advanced vehicle-to-vehicle 

safety technologies using services like the LTE advance 5G or WiFi? 

Mr. KNAPP. So this is the other portion of the spectrum, 75 megahertz, that we have been looking at. There, the technology is very 

similar to Wi-Fi, and so the IEEE, which is basically the developer 

of both the Wi-Fi standard and the DSRC standard, put together 

a tiger team to try to find a solution. They are nearing the completion of a report. There are a couple of proposals on the table to be 

looked at, plus we have been meeting separately with the NTIA 

and Department of Transportation, and one of the things I think 

that we have agreed we need to look at is the broader scope of communications for vehicles beyond just the DSRC. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Leibovitz, if I could ask you quickly, how can we move forward and ensure shared use of the upper 5 gigahertz band, and 

would it be beneficial for the FCC to hold routine meetings with 

the committee in order to accomplish the goal? 

Mr. LEIBOVITZ. So I would like to yield to Mr. Knapp on that 

question. 

Mr. LATTA. OK, that is fine, if you want to do that. He is on the 

hot seat then. 

19 

Mr. KNAPP. We would be more than happy to meet if you would 

like and keep you apprised of the progress. 

Mr. LATTA. Yes, we would appreciate that. 

Mr. Sherman, as stated in your joint testimony, in 2010, the FCC 

analyzed spectrum demands and determined that the 300 megahertz would be needed by 2015. It is now 2015, and as you have 

outlined, the FCC has released 145 megahertz of spectrum for 

wireless broadband use. 

What is the plan for our Nation to meet the skyrocketing consumer demand for wireless services? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thanks for the question, Mr. Latta. I think he announcement about the 3.5 gigahertz item that is being circulated 

will make progress, but I would defer to my colleague, John 

Leibovitz, because he has been working on this plan for several 

years, and he probably can give you more up-to-date information. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. LEIBOVITZ. Yes, so the National Broadband Plan, which of 

course, was authorized and directed by Congress, which came out 

in 2010, talked about 2 goals. One was 300 megahertz for mobile 

use in 5 years, and then 500 megahertz within 10 years. Towards 

the first goal, as you mentioned, we have succeeded in getting close 

to 150 megahertz out already, which if you look at the history of 

spectrum release, is very fast actually. The 3.5 gigahertz item, 

which looks to be voted in the April meeting, would add another 

100 megahertz of new spectrum. And then, of course, we have the 

incentive auction coming in early 2016. So it might not exactly be 

in the 5-year time frame, but it is pretty close, that we actually 

have a roadmap to get to the 300 megahertz. 

Beyond that, we would be looking at other bands. We have 

talked about some of them today for both unlicensed and licensed 

broadband use, which would take the Nation to 500 megahertz. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. And we will now turn to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Yarmuth, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to 

the witnesses for being here today. 

I know there are some stakeholders who think the FCC should 

focus exclusively on allowing opportunities for licensed spectrum. 

And, Mr. Sherman, I think in your testimony you referenced the 

commission’s commitment to both licensed and unlicensed, which I 

think is a good idea. Could you explain why it is important to allow 

the opportunities for unlicensed spectrum? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Sure, I would be happy to. And I would ask if my 

colleagues, Julie Knapp or John Leibovitz, have anything to add, 

but I think the agency recognizes that in this environment, licensed spectrum and unlicensed spectrum are complementary and 

support each other in a lot of ways. Consumers use both and consumers want both, and there are benefits to licensed users and licensees by having unlicensed, and vice-versa. Congress recognized 

this in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act by allowing for unlicensed uses in the 600 megahertz. So I think everybody 

is very comfortable with the symbiotic relationship between licensed and unlicensed. 

20 

I would ask if Julie or John have anything to add. 

Mr. KNAPP. No, I completely agree with what Roger said, and we 

are working hard on both fronts to provide spectrum and opportunities for growth of both licenses and unlicensed services. 

Mr. YARMUTH. I know that unlicensed spectrum is really important for innovation and for small business and so forth. How do 

some of the larger wireless carriers use unlicensed? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, I think the most obvious way is unlicensed—a lot of people in their everyday use of their smartphones 

will be on a licensed network, so to speak, as they travel from their 

office to their house. When they get into their house, a lot of times 

their phone will transfer onto a Wi-Fi network within the residence, and they will be using data on an unlicensed Wi-Fi network. 

Mr. YARMUTH. OK. 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes, I would just add that certainly, Wi-Fi gets all 

the attention, but in those same devices are Bluetooth to connect 

to your headphones and the Near Field Communications for the 

automatic payment that is emerging. All that is unlicensed. 

Mr. YARMUTH. OK. Thank you for that. 

And one of my kind of personal obsessions now is how we make 

policy in real time with as fast as the world is changing, and certainly, in this area, that kind of dilemma is certainly relevant. You 

talked about research on 5G and so forth, is there anything going 

on out there, research and so forth, that actually scares you, and 

might be so disruptive that the world as you know it, and we know 

it, will change? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, if you are talking about research, I should 

probably defer to the engineer. 

Mr. YARMUTH. For instance, I read something a few weeks ago 

where somebody has invented a way to transmit electricity through 

sound waves to appliances, and I think that, if it is scalable and 

if it actually works, that is a disruptive technology because then we 

have to say, well, should we really be investing trillions of dollars 

in the grid if we are going to have another way to transmit electricity. I was just curious whether in your specific area there are 

things that promise that kind of disruption. I mean it is fine if you 

say no. 

Mr. LEIBOVITZ. I would just add, I would just say that I think 

this is a big policy challenge that we always face about how do you 

prepare for the next disruptive technology. I think it is instructive 

and reinforces the policy of technology neutrality, of flexibility, as 

much as possible so that we don’t, as much as possible that we 

don’t lock certain types of uses categorically into the rules, we 

allow lots of different applications to thrive. Our 3.5 gigahertz proceeding actually is an attempt to try to push the boundary of flexibility even farther. So in some ways it is a hybrid between licensed 

and unlicensed uses, and I think there is a lot more we can do looking forward to 5G and so forth. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Yes. I have no other questions. I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back. 

And we now turn to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Lance. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much. Good morning to you all. 

21 

The incentive auction will be the first time the FCC auctions a 

band plan that is not set in advance of the auction, using a new 

auction mechanism, ascending clock, that includes a separate 

round to assign licenses after the main auction is over. It will also 

include a spectrum reserve triggered when bidding reaches a certain level, impaired licenses and something called intra-round bidding. As I understand it, all of this new, even for those wireless 

carriers who have participated in traditional auctions. 

To the panel in general, and perhaps to Mr. Epstein and Mr. 

Leibovitz, what steps will you take to help prepare carriers for bidding in this first of its kind auction? For example, will there be 

multiple mock auctions and seminars? 

Mr. EPSTEIN. Thank you very much, Congressman. You are absolutely right. Outreach is extremely important in this auction on 

both sides of it; both the reverse auction side and on the forward 

auction side. 

On the reverse auction side, broadcasters are really not used to 

bidding in an auction, and especially in a new auction, a voluntary 

auction like this. And so I can go into detail later, but we have 

taken many new steps to encourage and to inform broadcasters. 

On the forward auction side are—wireless providers are more familiar with auctions, they are expert, but you are exactly right, 

there are several new features of this auction. We have been working with them on a daily and on a weekly basis to help formulate 

the appropriate policy, and we will have outreach and we will have 

mock auctions as part of the planning to go forward before the auction. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. Would others like to address the issue? 

VOICE. No, thank you. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. The FCC’s incentive auction public notice 

proposes to sell both impaired and unimpaired licenses. As I understand it, a license is impaired when a carrier cannot serve the entire geographic market due to interference from television broadcasts. Before bidding on a license, carriers will need to know the 

extent to which licenses are impaired, meaning which parts of their 

license area they may not serve or may be subject to interference. 

What kind of information will carriers have prior to bidding regarding the geographic areas that may be impaired? 

Mr. EPSTEIN. This concept of impairment, Congressman, comes 

from the fact that the commission made the policy decision that it 

really doesn’t want to go to what is called the least common denominator. And, you know, if we can’t get a reasonable amount of spectrum in certain congested areas, we don’t want the whole country 

to have that limited amount of spectrum. And what that means is, 

as you said, you are exactly right, we may have broadcasters in 

that particular band which will mean that hopefully in some limited areas, bordering congested areas, that certain blocks in the 

auction will be subject to interference. 

What we have said in the public notice that you have talked 

about, and what the commission will decide in the summer when 

it resolves that, is the amount of detail, what we have talked to the 

carriers about, is very specific detail so that they will know exactly 

what they are bidding on in the forward auction, almost on a 2 by 

2 sale level. 

22 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. Anyone else on the panel like to comment? 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

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

Now turn to the gentleman from Iowa for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I was not expecting to speak this soon. Thank 

you, Mr. Chair. 

I want to be pretty brief just because some of the things that I 

wanted to ask about have already been covered, but I would like 

to just—and I may be repeating, and that is fine, but refer to the 

unlicensed issue, and this is to any of the witnesses. Some stakeholders argue that the FCC should focus exclusively on maximizing 

opportunities for licensed spectrum. I believe, however, that the 

FCC should pursue a balanced spectrum policy that includes more 

spectrum for both licensed and unlicensed. I know unlicensed spectrum has lower barriers to entry which can help startups, I think 

that was mentioned already, and small businesses get access to 

this platform for innovation. How do larger wireless carriers use 

unlicensed spectrum? And that is really for anybody here. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, I think we would agree that there is a symbiotic relationship between licensed and unlicensed spectrum, and 

they are not mutually exclusive; you can have both. And I think 

the Congress has recognized that, and the FCC strives to implement a policy that recognizes that. 

I mentioned earlier the example of offloading data usage onto an 

unlicensed network to ease capacity, and there are other new innovations that are coming down that use both licensed and unlicensed technology, and seamlessly between unlicensed and licensed 

services. 

I don’t know if John or Julie have anything to add. 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes, I mentioned some before, and I think most people appreciate where we had the arguments years ago about should 

be one or the other or more, that the two win when there is spectrum for both. 

I mentioned a couple of things before, even on the medical front, 

we have got glucose monitors that use unlicensed spectrum, or 

lightly licensed spectrum, to collect data. They feed it to the wireless device, and then the information can go back to the doctor, so 

there are things that are being accomplished and innovations that 

are occurring because we have both, and we need to continue to 

provide for both. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. Anyone else? OK. Just one—go 

ahead. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I just wanted to add one other thing. We often 

look at it also, consumers don’t really care if it is licensed or unlicensed—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. They just want their device to work 

and the services—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. To perform. So I think at the end of 

the day, consumers are going to want services in both the required 

to make things robust. 

23 

Mr. LOEBSACK. And I think that is the bottom line for us here 

in Congress too. We have to make sure that that access is there. 

Mr. Sherman, paying for a broadband connection, including wireless broadband, can be a major challenge obviously for many of my 

constituents, many of the folks here on the dais today, and competition in the wireless industry is critical, no doubt, if we are 

going to help low-income Americans get connected. And I have a 

particular concern about rural America, I have to say, not just because I represent a lot of rural areas, but a lot of folks on this committee now who have that particular concern as well. 

How does access to spectrum impact the level of competition in 

the wireless industry, because competition, hopefully, would lead 

to, you know, lower prices or at least more competitive prices, and 

providing the same kind of access as well. And so if you could 

speak specifically to the rural areas, I think that would be important for a lot of us here. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thanks for that question. It is also very important 

to the Commission on a bipartisan basis. And there are a number 

of policies that the Commission has adopted over time to incent 

rural deployment and build out. We need to do more but there are 

a lot of things already in place. 

One thing that is critical is low band spectrum, which we talked 

briefly about before. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. You mentioned that earlier. Can you elaborate on 

that a little bit? 

Mr. SHERMAN. The low band spectrum, because of its propagation 

characteristics—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. Is really well suited for rural areas. 

It goes farther with less infrastructure—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. So that it costs less and can serve 

those areas where people live longer distances apart. Or in congested cities oftentimes you can have multiple sites attached to 

buildings and serve lots of densely populated areas, but rural areas 

you have bigger distances, so low band spectrum is particularly 

well suited. We want to make sure that there is lots of low band 

spectrum in rural areas with lots of providers having options, so 

rural consumers have the same benefit of competition that—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. That urban consumers have. We also 

have incentives for building out—we have build-out requirements. 

There are, right now in looking at small business preferences and 

incentives in an open NPRM, the question of rural build-out incentives is also keyed up and the commission is very sensitive to those 

issues. 

But I think in everything we do with competition policy, rural is 

a big part of it. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. It is. And again, I cited a lot of examples where 

it is just really hard for folks in a rural area to—because there isn’t 

that much competition. And in the end, they end up paying a lot 

of money and they are not getting as good a service often as is the 

case in urban areas. So how we can incentivize that is the question. 

24 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, one other thing I should mention in the incentive option, one thing the commission did is it changed the 

standard license size to what is called a PEA—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. And it was a compromise amongst 

various stakeholders, but it allows smaller providers to have access 

to a smaller license area, which might not be as expensive as a 

large, nationwide or regional license—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. OK. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. And a lot of the small rural providers 

that we talked with and engaged in that proceeding were really 

pleased that the commission came up with a way that they can get 

into the auction—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. At a reasonable basis. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. 

Mr. Chair, I see my time has expired. I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back. And I just concur with 

what he said about the rural areas. I have a town, Mitchell, Oregon, 130 people in 2010, now to 129. The local city had to pay to 

put in a payphone because there is no cell coverage, and you have 

a highway going by, and people have a problem, break down, knock 

on somebody’s door. We still have these areas, like Mitchell, Oregon, that need coverage. 

Ms. ESHOO. Would you just yield for a moment—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, sure. 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. WALDEN. I don’t know whose time I am on. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes, I—sure. You have the best time. It is the chairman’s time. But it is great spectrum, yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. On this issue of rural, in the last Congress, I had 

counted how many members of the Energy and Commerce Committee represented rural areas, and a combined from both sides of 

the aisle there were 18 members. So, the rural representation could 

take over this entire committee. I don’t know how many—— 

Mr. WALDEN. We just haven’t told you we have them. 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. I haven’t counted. I haven’t counted for 

this Congress, but this issue is sweeping in terms of—and it has 

excellent representation here. So it is very important to highlight 

it. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, actually in this county, there is one person for 

every 9 miles of power line. So it is hard to find the economic— 

anyway. 

We will go now to Mr. Guthrie, who helped lead our bipartisan 

task force on this issue. Thanks for your leadership, you and the 

rest of the Members did a terrific job. So please go ahead. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, and I appreciate that, and I think people who have heard this will get tired of hearing me say this but 

it is true that now that we are having these spectrum meetings, 

it is interesting when you get into public service, things you get involved in you never thought about. I have said I didn’t walk around 

25 

Kentucky going, ‘‘send me to Washington and I will deliver you 

spectrum,’’ but that is something that people want and expect, and 

so it is really good that we are here doing this. And so I would just 

kind of make a statement for a few minutes and then ask a couple 

of questions. But I would like to thank all you guys for testifying. 

It is very important. And I also want to mention my appreciation 

for working with Doris Matsui and for all of her efforts working 

with me on the spectrum issues, as co-chairs of the Congressional 

Spectrum Caucus, it was a bipartisan effort and worked well together. And, in fact, today we have reintroduced together the Federal Spectrum Incentives Act, a bill that would provide financial incentives to encourage government agencies to relocate from their 

existing spectrum bands in order to free up additional spectrum for 

other uses. And I look forward to working with all of you to move 

this forward. 

As we have already discussed at length today, spectrum is an important limited resource, and by encouraging federal agencies to 

make additional spectrum available, we can invest in innovation 

and ensure spectrum is available to meet the demands of our critical emergency needs and commercial uses. And this bill received 

strong bipartisan support last Congress, and I look forward to 

working at the same again this time. 

And just what my friend from Iowa, Mr. Loebsack, just said, I 

was going to mention that we also want to recognize the commission’s work to create rules for the upcoming incentive auction that 

does use the partial economic areas for geographic support in Kentucky. I am one of those 18. I have a couple of good-sized cities, 

but I do have a lot of rural area, and it will aid my constituents 

and it will aid better participation in the auction, so we appreciate 

that. 

I just have a couple of questions with the couple of minutes I have left. Mr. Epstein, for you, I have heard concerns that the $1.7 

billion relocation fund for broadcaster expenses may be inadequate 

for the true cost of relocating stations. What is your opinion on 

this, and assuming that it could be inadequate, what are potential 

solutions? 

Mr. EPSTEIN. Yes, we too, Congressman, are concerned about 

both the amount and the process, so we commissioned an expert report called the Widelity Report, that was out there, and they came 

back with the conclusion that it was challenging but feasible to do 

so if we were careful and took certain steps. So we have no reason 

to believe that the $1.75 billion which Congress set forth will be 

insufficient to be able to do the relocation, but we are working with 

the NAB, with broadcasters, with the industry generally, and we 

are also taking certain other steps such as building into the software ways to minimize relocation costs. And that includes, you 

know, minimizing the number of stations that have to change 

channels, or taking special account of those stations which have 

really expensive relocations new—and minimizing those. So we 

look forward to working with the industry and with everybody else, 

but at this point we have no reason to believe the $1.75 billion 

won’t be sufficient. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Yes, it was just pointed out to me, I said $1.75 million. We couldn’t do it for that, could we? 

26 

Mr. EPSTEIN. Billion. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. If we could do it for that, we could use the money 

for the deficit—— 

Mr. EPSTEIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTHRIE [continuing]. Couldn’t we? And I will ask Mr. Sherman, we are talking about referring spectrum through broadcasting, trying to free the bill to free spectrum through government 

spectrum, but outside of the crunch for procurement of more spectrum, is FCC doing to encourage more spectrum, and—don’t create 

spectrum, better use of spectrum, maybe sharing, efficiencies, those 

types of things? I have about a minute left, if you could elaborate 

on what you guys are doing to create more spectrum than what we 

have—— 

Mr. SHERMAN. I—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE [continuing]. Or more availability. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I can initially respond, but then will ask John to 

elaborate. But I think all of the above is what the FCC is doing. 

Unlicensed, licensed, sharing, exclusive use, we are exploring everything because we have to be as efficient as possible. And I know 

John has spent a lot of time working on that. 

Mr. LEIBOVITZ. Yes, I will come back to the theme of flexibility. 

Obviously, the unlicensed spectrum is the ultimate in flexibility, 

and sharing and unlicensed spectrum today is where most of the 

spectrum sharing happens, and people don’t even realize it, Wi-Fi 

is intensive sharing with Bluetooth and other technologies. We 

have secondary market rules which allow people to transfer spectrum to others. They can essentially sell the rights so the market 

can work, which is really important. And then we are looking at 

ways to push the rules to even be more flexible. I mentioned the 

3.5 gigahertz item in some ways will encourage not only sharing 

between commercial and federal users, but also among different 

types of commercial users so that, for example, maybe in the future 

some very large industries, including some that are well known by 

the committee, energy, and so forth, will have access to a 150 

megahertz band that they can use for LTE to do lots of smart grid, 

deployments, other types of things. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank the gentleman for his good work and good 

questions. 

We will now turn to the gentleman from California, Mr. 

McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the witnesses. 

Mr. Leibovitz, is there any language in the current regulations 

that discuss how new technologies in the unlicensed spectrum 

should interact so that existing technologies are not unfairly hampered? 

Mr. LEIBOVITZ. I think Mr. Knapp is probably the—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK, sure. 

Mr. LEIBOVITZ [continuing]. Best person to answer that. 

Mr. KNAPP. So the way unlicensed works is the devices, they all 

have a little label on them that says they are not protected against 

interference, but obviously they are serving a wide public good. So 

27 

when new technologies—the beauty of it is it allows flexibility for 

cutting-edge technologies to be introduced, but we also try to keep 

an eye on that so there is not something that disrupts all of the 

good applications—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes. 

Mr. KNAPP [continuing]. That are out there now. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So that was kind of vague. I mean—— 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY [continuing]. When we expect some new technologies to come in, can’t they be disruptive to existing technology 

like Wi-Fi? 

Mr. KNAPP. What we try to do, because there is freedom there, 

is just keep an eye on what is going on. There is not a specific 

benchmark like in the licensed service where there is protection. 

And most of those technologies are built to be robust and operate 

in a shared environment. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes, I am little worried though that some of the 

new technology can come in and be very dominant, like the 

LightSquared problem. 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes, I think we are always keeping an eye on what 

is coming in the way of new technologies and those bands, and we 

have been encouraging the industries, because they normally sort 

out the details of the sharing, to work those things out before a 

new technology is introduced that is disruptive. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. I am not sure who to ask this question, but 

is there any portion of the spectrum that will be reserved for small 

bidders in future auctions? Mr. Sherman? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, I think the question is about the ability of 

small bidders in future auctions? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The way the FCC has approached that in the last 

few years is through something called our competitive bidding rules 

where we have small business discounts, and that is an issue that 

is currently open before the commission, evaluating whether the 

current rules make sense or we should update them. And there are 

some proposals in the record to update the rules to allow small bidders to get a more realistic opportunity to bid for a spectrum, 

which is pretty expensive. So that is an active proceeding that the 

commissioners are all engaged in. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. I don’t understand exactly what is going on 

with the incentive auction. What are the current holders of the 600 

megahertz band and how are they going to be treated in an auction? 

Mr. EPSTEIN. Well, most generally, the current holders of the 600 

megahertz band are UHF broadcast television stations, and the act 

that Congress passed was an innovative act, a way to look at spectrum in a different way, and what we are charged with by this subcommittee and the Congress and the commission with doing is having a workable back-to-back auction, and by that I mean is a reverse auction where the broadcasters will voluntarily submit their 

spectrum for compensation for a share of the proceeds that we will 

get in the forward auction from the wireless providers. And that is 

the challenge that Congress has put before us. 

28 

There are other present users of the 600 megahertz band such 

as wireless microphones and unlicensed, and as part of our overall 

planning, we have to make transition and other plans for them. So 

it is a complex of items which is part of the Spectrum Act which 

we are charged with implementing. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back. 

Chair now recognizes, let us see, Mr. Pompeo has left, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Epstein, given the success of AWS–3 and the feedback that 

you have received, do you feel that you have a better idea of how 

much spectrum might be reallocated as a result of the incentive 

auction? 

Mr. EPSTEIN. Congressman, I think we are more optimistic, we 

are comfortable. The success of the AWS–3 auction may not be directly transferrable or relatable, but it is an optimistic and good 

thing, and we are noticing it not by any kind of administrative decision that the commission makes, but by the increased interest of 

the broadcasters in participating. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. 

Mr. EPSTEIN. We have a very strong broadcaster outreach program, and we are seeing a lot of interest. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Maybe this has already been asked, and if it has 

just say so and we will move on. How did you come up, or how are 

you coming up with the calculations on how much spectrum is to 

be auctioned? 

Mr. EPSTEIN. It is really a market-based decision that Congress 

put before us. We don’t have a predetermination. We have put out 

a bunch of sample band plans, but the challenge of this auction and 

the new innovative thing that Congress put before the commission 

is it is market-based. So we will know how much spectrum when 

the broadcasters show up. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Can you be specific about maybe some of the 

lessons learned from AWS–3 that can be applied to this upcoming 

incentive auction? Mr. Epstein, that is for you. 

Mr. EPSTEIN. OK. One of the lessons is that, as Roger noted, we 

have an ongoing proceeding about entities that are considered 

small businesses, and we are looking at that issue. We have to see 

whether there are any lessons learned, and the Wireless Bureau 

and the commission has said that that will be resolved prior to the 

start of the incentive auction. We are looking at some of the financial results, and seeing whether any of the metrics we have in the 

incentive auction should be tweaked and modified. And I am sure 

there are other lessons that we will look at and we will learn from 

that very successful auction. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So is it safe to say that your experience with 

AWS–3 informs the agency’s actions as you move forward with this 

major undertaking? 

Mr. EPSTEIN. Yes, sir, to some extent, yes, it does. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Mr. Sherman and Mr. Knapp, what industry 

initiatives have you encountered that effectively attempt to use 

29 

spectrum more efficiently and with less impact on adjacent users? 

Mr. Sherman, you can go first. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I am not aware of specific industry initiatives. I 

know that industry is always working to be more efficient and do 

more with less, and are constantly changing out equipment and 

building more facilities to be more efficient with their spectrum 

use, but I would defer to Julie’s expertise on how it happens technically. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Knapp? 

Mr. KNAPP. Thanks, Roger. As I sit here thinking about it, we 

are seeing innovation as a result of flexible rules on multiple 

fronts. On the unlicensed front, one of the things that doesn’t get 

much attention is that there is spectrum that we have opened up, 

way up, at 60 gigahertz. You are going to see what I think is a result of an industry developed standard, new unlicensed equipment 

that will be called Wi-Gig. So it is trying to use spectrum more efficiently. In the existing unlicensed bands, all of the development in 

the standards that have gone from the slower standards to the 

more faster and improved products you are seeing on the shelf has 

been a progression of industry initiatives. And on the licensed 

front, as we are sitting here just talking about the success of an 

auction that has occurred, we are just moving through 4G, and we 

are already talking about 5G. And so I think across industry and 

on all fronts you are seeing lots of innovation and trying to use 

spectrum more efficiently for new services and products. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, as a 30-year IT professional myself, one of the 

questions that continues to go around in my head is that with current technology there is only so much spectrum. I am wondering 

what the industry is doing to explore the unknown. How do we create more spectrum? What is the next big advance in technology 

that will get us there? Anybody? 

Mr. LEIBOVITZ. I will take that. So, I think there are two big 

trends to keep an eye on. One is the densification of the network. 

So using a spectrum with smaller and smaller cells, both on the license and unlicensed sides of the equation, so that the spectrum 

gets reused more effectively. And the other is, as Julie mentioned, 

looking at higher spectrum bands and using new technologies 

which I think mainly have to do with smart antennas to focus energy using those higher-up bands in ways that were not practical 

beforehand. And that we are looking at technologies that can 

produce 10 gigabit speeds in the lab by using very wide channels, 

of course, shorter distance. So there are some really exciting things 

happening, and that is really the subject of the 5G—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. We could have some great conversations over dinner but I have run out of time. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank the gentleman for his questions and comments. 

We will now go to the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke. 

Thank you for being here and for your participation. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank 

the ranking member and our panelists as well. 

Mr. Sherman, I wanted to ask, what is the plan to ensure that 

broadcasters adequately participate in the auction, and what incenVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Jul 14, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-28 CHRIS
30 

tives are the FCC offering to increase their engagement? Much of 

the incentive auction’s success is based on broadcaster participation 

so that they will in turn provide the demand for the auction’s next 

stage. 

Can you give us some insights there? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Sure, I can tell you that we do have a plan, and 

we are in the process of implementing it. And Gary Epstein is leading that effort and I think he can walk you through a number of 

the steps the commission is taking. 

Mr. EPSTEIN. Yes. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. Your 

point is absolutely the most crucial one. We won’t have an auction 

unless we have broadcaster participation. And so we have done 

what we usually do which is meet with broadcasters and have 

Webinars and seminars, but we have taken two special extra steps, 

and we intend to take more. 

One of those steps is, in response to requests from broadcasters, 

we have released 2 broadcaster information packages, made them 

available to every licensee in the country, and they contain both 

business information and estimated pricing information. And that, 

combined with the AWS–3 auction figures, has piqued a lot of interest by broadcasters. 

And the second major effort we have undertaken is we are going 

around the country on broadcaster information trips, OK, and visiting, both in general sessions and in private sessions, we are getting out of Washington, we are visiting 50 cities, we are going 

around the country and meeting with broadcasters in order to inform them so that they can make decisions on whether to participate. 

Ms. CLARKE. Have you begun receiving any feedback as of yet? 

I am concerned about averting any unintended consequences to 

smaller, perhaps rural broadcasters, and maintaining an inclusive 

and diverse broadcast ownership and offerings that perhaps repackaging and channel shifting that is being proposed may inadvertently create some consternation out there. What kind of feedback are you getting? 

Mr. EPSTEIN. Congresswoman, an excellent point. We have gotten a lot of positive feedback from a lot of stations who are interested in participating in the auction and in allowing the commission to reclaim their spectrum, and that is from small broadcasters 

and large broadcasters alike, but with some other broadcasters like 

the broadcasters you are talking about, there are other options to 

participate in the auction, such as channel sharing and going from 

U to V, which Congress has as an option in the statute. So what 

we have done is we have emphasized those alternatives with these 

other broadcasters. They can get proceeds from the auction, but 

continue the broadcast even after the action is over. 

Ms. CLARKE. That is good news. Can you share with us how the 

FCC proposes to engage in repacking and channel shifting, and ensure that consumers are adequately informed about the impacts? 

Mr. EPSTEIN. We have learned lessons from the digital transition, 

and if you look at the report and order that the commission adopted in May, there is a whole section on consumer outreach. And so 

we have delegated to part of the commission, the CGB part, the 

consumer governmental part, with the responsibility to come up 

31 

with an overall comprehensive plan to engage with consumers and 

make sure that people do not lose service. 

Ms. CLARKE. Well, on that very point of consumer outreach, that 

will be necessary to minimize confusion and disruption of the stations after they are repacked. Is there any discussion currently at 

the FCC about how to work that out logistically? 

Mr. EPSTEIN. Yes, there is. OK, there is planning going on. There 

is a specific obligation in the commission’s report and order for— 

at the appropriate time for the commission to come up with a specific plan. And we are at the beginning stages of that because the 

auction is a year away. I don’t want to go beyond that, but it is 

an important part of our outreach efforts. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Good questions. I thank the gentlelady. 

We will now go to the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you all for being 

here today. 

Mr. Knapp, I have a story here that appeared in the publication 

Re/code on March the 17th, and I would like to have that added 

to the record. And—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection. 

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

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first couple of paragraphs, he is among dozens—let us see, John Doe of 123 Jump 

Street has some explaining to do. He is among dozens of questionable characters in a Federal Government database that is supposed 

to keep unlicensed Wi-Fi devices from knocking broadcast TV signals off the air. There are actually four John Does in the system, 

along with six entries for Sue Q. Public of Any Town, USA, and 

two from John Q. Public of the ever-popular location None/None. 

Even a quick look at the database suggests there is something not 

quite right. Is there really a company called Acme at 1600 Amphitheater Parkway, an address more generally associated with 

Google, and does Lin Su really own 59 unregistered—or, excuse 

me, registered, unlicensed Wi-Fi devices, or have actual owners 

simply copied that name from the installer’s guide of the devices 

that they bought? Is it possible to go to the white space databases 

and enter fake addresses? 

Mr. KNAPP. So I think what we did is we went through the databases. We did find the four John Does. It appears to us that these 

may have been for testing purposes when this was rolled out. 

There are some things, these databases are cutting-edge, and I 

think from anything, there are some things that you can improve 

upon, and one of them maybe is the authentication of the individuals that we can work on with the database providers. But out of 

roughly 550 records, we only found four John Does and one John 

Q. Public, and they are easily taken out. 

Mr. LONG. OK, so Lin Su—— 

Mr. KNAPP. Lin Su is with Acme Company. 

Mr. LONG. Or Sun—excuse me, Lin Sun. 

32 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes, he is an employee of a company that makes 

these products, and so it would not be unreasonable for them to be 

testing them at their location. 

Mr. LONG. What is the effect of entering a fake address? 

Mr. KNAPP. So bear in mind that the way the database works, 

the device can’t operate because it has to get the available channels 

from the database. The database was a tool to just help us locate 

a source of interference if it occurred. Even if the information 

wasn’t right, we could still find the interference and take enforcement action if we needed to. 

Mr. LONG. Well, is requiring GPSs for fixed white space devices, 

would that fix it? 

Mr. KNAPP. So the things that were referred to were things like 

a phone number wasn’t right, or there was an incomplete e-mail 

address. So these weren’t incorrect locations, so just having the 

GPS location alone is not going to address some of these other 

issues. But we are working with the database providers to make 

sure that you can’t enter in something that is just erroneous. 

Mr. WALDEN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LONG. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. How will closing so many field offices help deal 

with interference issues in a timely manner? 

Mr. KNAPP. So the restructuring of the field offices that is being 

contemplated, at the same time we would be looking at alternative 

ways that we could more effectively get out and locate and diagnose the interference cases. There are tools that are available now 

to actually have sensors in place and do the outreach, and I think 

we are also looking at things like tiger teams that we could send 

out when we had an interference case. So we are mindful of that 

in that exercise as well. And, of course, it is pending with the commissioners. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. I yield back to Mr. Long. 

Mr. LONG. And I yield back also, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back. 

We will now go to Mr. Rush, it appears is next. We are glad you 

are here and—— 

Mr. RUSH. Good morning. 

Mr. WALDEN [continuing]. Please go ahead. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly want to 

welcome the witnesses. 

I must be quite frank, I sit here as an angry, black American 

male. We are all aware of the scarcity of spectrum, and we just witnessed a successful AWS–3 auction where again the millionaires 

were able to buy up valuable so-called beachfront property. And 

soon we will be witnessing another auction, the broadcast incentive 

auction where it seems as though, unless something drastically 

changes, we will have a—the same outcome. 

I have been on this committee for 22 years, and 20 years I have 

sat on this subcommittee. I was a part of the subcommittee that 

worked on legislation to grant the FCC its competitive bidding authority back in 1993. I was here, I was present, sitting in these 

very same seats. And all the major auctions, going all the way back 

to the C block auction, H block auction, the AWS–3, and seem to 

33 

be ill-designed to enable small and minority businesses to bid and 

to win. 

The question still looms large for the FCC. In light of the abysmal failures of these last three auctions, to be fair and equitable 

to minority and small businesses, what can you say to us this very 

morning that can assure us that this next auction will give us an 

opportunity for small and minority bidders to fair better and to 

have different and better outcomes? Again, in my opinion, where 

some might say these auctions have been successful, success is in 

the eye of the beholder, and from my vantage point, my eyes, my 

constituents, they are an abysmal failure. Reassure me please if 

you can. 

Mr. Chairman, with that, I think that we ought to really have 

some hearing in the future on the status of these auctions as it relates to the minority and small business bidding process isn’t fair 

and equitable, some time in the near future. 

With that, I will ask—Mr. Epstein, maybe you can answer the 

question that I have. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thanks for that question, Mr. Rush. This is a priority for the Commission, and last year the Commission issued a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to focus on the issue of empowering 

small businesses, including businesses owned by women and minority groups. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking recognizes that 

the wireless industry has changed dramatically since the rules 

were last updated, and that our current rules may not work anymore to get people into the business. And so what it proposed, 

through a number of specific proposals, was allowing more flexibility and maybe looking at updating business models to reflect the 

reality that 95 percent of wireless consumers are served by four 

carriers. In such a capital-intensive business, how do you allow 

small entities to get into the market, and how do you allow them 

to acquire spectrum? That has been teed-up. 

In the interim, we had AWS–3 which also raised a number of 

questions about the designated entity program and bidding practices. So just this week, Chairman Wheeler circulated with the 

other commissioners a public notice asking a number of additional 

questions about this issue; how do we promote and empower small 

businesses while preserving the integrity of the auction process. 

And it is open, and once that is voted on by the commissioners, 

there will be an additional comment period. And it is something 

that we are going to wrap up before the incentive auctions start. 

So there are proposals on the table. There is a vigorous debate in 

the record by various stakeholders. 

One of the things that was in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

was a proposal that has been put forth by a number of groups that 

have been active in the designated entity space. I think it was 

MMTC that had a proposal about the attributable material relationship rule, and one of the proposals was to change the way we 

apply that so that a small company that might have a business relationship with a big company isn’t automatically excluded. 

These are complicated issues, and we need to make sure we do 

them in a way that doesn’t allow for gaming of the system, but all 

of these topics are on the table. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

34 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank the gentleman. 

We will go now to the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. 

Cramer. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses. 

I am just going to throw it out for discussion because I have to 

admit, you might have to bring it down a level or two for me to 

really grasp this. But I come from one of these rural places, yes. 

You can make it 19 now if you—I don’t know we lost, but anyway 

it is—North Dakota is very rural, right, and so my small market, 

broadcasters have expressed, of course, this concern about the repacking cost. And we have talked about whether $1.7 billion is inadequate and whether you need more, and where it would come 

from, and that has been fascinating, but my question more is a 

step even further back, and that is if a small market TV broadcaster, for example, in Fargo declines to participate, can we be assured that they then won’t have to also then participate later in 

the repacking? In other words, hear conflicting messages about 

that, so somebody really smart explain to me how either we avoid 

that, or secondly, what do we do to mitigate it? 

Mr. EPSTEIN. Well, I won’t claim to be real smart, I will defer to 

Julie on that. 

Mr. CRAMER. I have set the bar very low, just so you know. 

Mr. EPSTEIN. But let me start and Julie can pick up. 

Mr. CRAMER. Sure. 

Mr. EPSTEIN. What we are seeking to do in this auction is to 

have a near nationwide contiguous band of spectrum, and that is 

the key, so that when you have your cellphone and you move from 

Fargo to New York, to New Jersey, or anywhere else, it works. 

Mr. CRAMER. Yes. 

Mr. EPSTEIN. And so two things have to happen. One, we have 

to get volunteers, stations to participate in the auction, especially 

in crowded areas, but in some smaller markets too. And then everywhere, if we cleared down from channel 51, and a station even 

in a rural market is at channel 47 or channel 46, we won’t get that 

contiguous band of spectrum unless we repack them—— 

Mr. CRAMER. Yes. 

Mr. EPSTEIN [continuing]. Even though we may have room to do 

that. And what Congress did—what you did in the act is you said, 

yes, we have the authority to repack it, but we have to repay your 

expenses. 

Mr. CRAMER. Yes. 

Mr. EPSTEIN. And that is just from an overview standpoint why 

somebody in a smaller market would have to move. So we have this 

contiguous band of spectrum for the wireless providers in the forward auction. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you for that very nice clarification. 

Then that does bring up the rest of the questions that we have 

already tried to sort of ask, and that is how much is enough, and 

if it is not enough, how do we do it differently, but I suspect we 

are going to continue discover that through this process. But thank 

you for that 101 for the guy from North Dakota. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank the gentleman. 

35 

And we will now go to Mr. Butterfield for questions. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Looks 

like we are getting very close to votes and so I am going to forego 

some of the formalities that I normally would go through in the 

early part of my remarks, and get right to the meat of the point 

that I want to make. 

Let me just begin by associating myself with the remarks made 

by my good friend, Mr. Rush, from Illinois. I agree with him completely. I am the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, and 

the CBC takes the position that Mr. Rush just articulated a few 

moments ago. 

One of our top priorities in the CBC is to increase representation 

of African-Americans at all levels of corporate America. That includes the Boards of Directors, that includes executive leadership, 

the workforce, vendors, contractors, and even community reimbursement. And so the CBC will not only be focused on increasing 

diversity in general, but we are focused on African-American representation in particular. So this is not only about spectrum, this 

is about corporate diversity as well. 

And so it is in this context that I want to ask, I guess Mr. Epstein, the following question about diversity and specifically how it 

relates to the companies who come before the commission for a variety of matters, including those who seek to acquire spectrum. As 

chair of the CBC, and as a member of this committee now for 22 

years, one of my priorities is to encourage companies to have both 

leadership and rank and file employees who better represent the 

makeup of their communities and their customers and our country. 

However, when you look closer at many of the entities that come 

before your commission, they do not have a very good diversity profile. That is just a fact, they do not have a good diversity profile 

in either the internal or external operations. And so I am wondering, how do you and other members of the panel today think we 

can better address the lack of diversity in the companies that are 

competing for spectrum? 

Mr. EPSTEIN. OK. Well, let me start. My specialty and what I do 

24/7 is the incentive auction, and to focus on your questions and 

Congressman Rush’s questions, it is the proceeding—the general 

proceeding that Roger Sherman talked about, OK, where we are 

looking very seriously about generally, in auctions throughout the 

commission, and specifically, with respect to the incentive auction, 

how do we do exactly what you are talking about. How do we increase diversity? We have done things like have smaller geographic 

areas, and we are looking at the bidding issues which Roger talked 

about, but specifically with the incentive auction, those are some 

of the initiatives that we are undertaking. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. But you do acknowledge the lack of diversity. 

Mr. EPSTEIN. We acknowledge the need for small business and 

diversity. This Commission does, yes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Yes, all right. All right. 

In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter regarding the FCC’s 

designated entity program, and the letter was written to you and 

Ranking Member Eshoo—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. 

36 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD [continuing]. On March 25 by the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters. I ask to put it in the 

record. 

Mr. WALDEN. I have read the letter. Without objection, it will be 

entered into the record, sir. 

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

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. And I appreciate the gentleman. 

And will now move on to Mr. Shimkus of the great State of Illinois. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to have 

you all here, and we are getting close to getting out of town. So, 

Roger, welcome back. It is good to see you. 

And the points raised by my two colleagues, Mr. Butterfield and 

Mr. Rush, just brings me to, a lot of us extolled the success of the 

AS–3 auction, everybody being pleased. Obviously, we find out not 

everyone is pleased, and that there are bidding rules in this process. Has the FCC done an after-action review on to do a lessons 

learned, and can you say everyone is pleased? You know, in an auction, I think there are disappointed people, right, if they don’t win 

the auction, but are there—does anyone storm away angry, that 

they felt that the bidding rules may not have been adequately exercised? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, the way the process works, after the auction 

we always do an after-auction review of things, and in fact, as the 

auction was ongoing I mentioned this proceeding that we were asking for comments on updating the competitive bidding rules. We 

were watching the auction develop, and we thought there might be 

some lessons learned, so we, on our own motion, delayed the comment period 3 times to make sure people had a chance to bring in 

lessons that is all public from bidding activity, that they may want 

to enter into the record. And I mentioned Chairman Wheeler circulated something earlier this week asking additional questions 

about that specific issue. There are 2 tracks. That is 1 track, the 

sort of forward-looking rulemaking, and what changes or tweaks 

we might consider in response to what happened in the auction to 

empower small business and make sure nobody is getting an unfair 

advantage through the rules through technicalities. I am not saying that occurred, but those were the questions. 

The other track is to evaluate the applications from the winning 

bidders. And a number of the winning bidders applied for a designated entity credit, and the Commission has a longstanding process whereby we evaluate those requests. We put them out basically 

for comment and for people who might object to weigh-in and file 

a petition to deny. We haven’t—I am not aware of any petitions to 

deny being filed yet, although we have not completed our review 

where we put them out for public comment. We are doing that, but 

it is a very time-intensive process because these applications are 

complicated, and we want to make sure we are being very thorough. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, because this broad—the whole—now moving 

into the broadcast debate with the next round, it is kind of different. It is almost regional, the old UHF, now the 600 megahertz, 

and then how do you cobble that together, which raises issues of 

37 

package bidding and other ways to try to put together something 

that makes sense to different entities. So I think an after action 

review on the success or that issue will help us as we move forward. I just find it very interesting. A lot of new members on the 

committee. I have always said, you all have heard me say, the 

great thing about this subcommittee is really technology moves 

faster than we can regulate. And then you all have to be involved 

in trying to mitigate the interference issues or some of the complexities, but this is probably the greatest example of free and open 

market competition, and the ability for great minds to do great 

things, and—that I have experienced I think in any other area. So 

I enjoyed that. 

And final question, really directed to Roger again, is these, the 

fragmented management process between the FCC and the NTIA 

on spectrum. Is there any talk about how we get that all cobbled 

together where, when we have hearings, we are dealing with 1 and 

maybe not 2, and the different processes? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, I will make an observation, and then I 

would defer to John and Julie who spend a lot of time with the 

agencies and NTIA, but in my experience since I have been at the 

Commission, the relationship with NTIA is great, and there is a lot 

of collaboration and coordination going on, everybody moving towards the same goal. I know John and Juli have been engaged for 

years, and everybody sort of has their responsibilities under the respective statutes, but I think it is all working towards getting more 

spectrum out there. 

I don’t know if John or Julie have anything to add to that. 

Mr. KNAPP. No, just ditto to everything that Roger said. We 

know that our responsibilities overlap, and that we have to work 

together for the good of the country, and that is what we try to do. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. There is no—or issues that—duplication that—in 

this process? 

Mr. KNAPP. I don’t think so much duplication because they’ve got 

different systems that they are overseeing, military, justice, et 

cetera. What we try to do through a lot of good work, both formally 

and informally, is break down the barriers. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Apparently, we have had votes on, I am sorry, I didn’t realize we 

were to that point. There are 6 minutes left, but I will be happy 

to go to—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN [continuing]. Mr. Collins. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. Mine may only 

take 30 seconds. It is for Mr. Epstein. 

I represent Buffalo and then the Rochester area. Our broadcasters, many of the Canadians, are getting our signal. And in 

spending 24/7 on the spectrum, I hope that includes some time on 

border coordination. And I just wondered where do we stand on 

border coordination specifically between the U.S. and Canada, and 

when do we anticipate an agreement being reached? 

Mr. EPSTEIN. We have been working on this for a couple of years. 

It is really important that we do this. We have been working with 

38 

Industry Canada, we have had meetings almost weekly with them. 

We were most pleased by about 4 months ago they put out a band 

plan which was analogous to our band plan, and we are hopefully 

getting reasonably close. They have just got comments in what they 

call a consultation, which is like our rulemaking, where it is to our 

mutual benefit to reach agreement—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. EPSTEIN [continuing]. Because we will get spectrum on both 

sides of the border and coordination. And we are hoping well before 

the auction, within a matter of months, we will be able to reach— 

that is our goal. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. 

Mr. EPSTEIN. Can’t promise it will happen because it is a sovereign country—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Right. 

Mr. EPSTEIN [continuing]. But that is our goal. 

Ms. ESHOO. Would the gentleman yield just for a moment? 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, certainly. 

Ms. ESHOO. One of the questions that I didn’t get to ask was 

what you just raised, and it was an issue that Mr. Dingell raised 

over and over again. So we will get a written response and I will 

share that with you—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, we appreciate that. 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. When we get it. Thank you. 

Mr. COLLINS. I mean as bad as the Buffalo Bills are, the Canadians still watch our team play. 

Mr. WALDEN. Wow. You may want to revise and extend those remarks. 

We will go now to Mrs. Ellmers for final questions. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our 

panel. And I apologize for coming in late, so if the questions I ask 

have already been answered, if you can just indulge me. 

Mr. Knapp, the commission looks at the 3.5 gigahertz and the 

600 megahertz unlicensed bands. Will the commission be placing 

any new restrictions on unlicensed users? 

Mr. KNAPP. I don’t think so in terms of placing new restrictions, 

it is just we will develop a framework that will include the technical standards to make sure that everything works together without interfering. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. OK. Thank you, Mr. Knapp. 

Mr. Leibovitz, the subcommittee has heard time and time again 

about the value of innovation and experimentation within the unlicensed technologies. We have all been concerned that the mantra 

innovation without permission be applied to improve all aspects of 

connectivity. Is the commission planning to prohibit the use of 

LTE-U in any unlicensed bands? 

Mr. LEIBOVITZ. The answer is no at this time. We are working 

with the parties and trying to ensure that people talk to each other 

so that the technical—— 

Ms. ELLMERS. Yes. 

Mr. LEIBOVITZ [continuing]. Issues don’t become something that 

needs any involvement from the Government. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Great. Well, thank you. My work is done, and I 

yield back the remainder of my time. 

39 

Mr. WALDEN. Appreciate that. 

I recognize the gentlelady from California. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the panel. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to place this in the 

record. I asked the question about competition, and these are the 

results of who did what AWS–3 auction. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. That will be entered into the record. 

And with that, I thank the witnesses for being here today, and 

the good work you do at the FCC. We appreciate it. 

And we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Today the future of spectrum use and availability takes center stage—an issue 

that this subcommittee has rightly spent significant time considering. With the rise 

of mobile devices and the Internet of Things, American consumers’ appetite for spectrum will only continue to grow. Some of the most important and successful work 

this committee has accomplished has centered on spectrum. We have examined 

many ways to make spectrum available and ensure that both federal users and commercial licensees are using it efficiently and effectively. 

We’ve passed legislation that gives the FCC the tools it needs to conduct auctions 

and help meet the growing demand for low-band spectrum. We’ve also asked the 

FCC to report back on opportunities and challenges in other bands, particularly the 

5 gigahertz (GHz) band. We look forward to hearing how work has progressed on 

finding solutions that allow for the expansion of unlicensed use in that band, without harming the blossoming Intelligent Transportation System technologies that will 

make driving safer. 

The incentive auction legislation was achieved through bipartisan collaboration 

with the input of industry, engineers, and so many others. It’s been more than three 

years since the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act was passed and the 

FCC has made good progress in the implementation of the legislation. This first of 

its kind auction will undoubtedly spur innovation, create jobs, and enable new technologies. If the recent AWS–3 auction is any indication of the level of success we’ll 

see in the incentive auction—this will surely be a job well done. But there are still 

hurdles to be addressed before the auction can move forward, including border coordination. Representing a state that borders Canada, I am concerned that a failure 

to adequately solve cross-border coordination issues will mean less spectrum cleared 

for auction and reallocated for commercial use, and potentially impair the ability of 

folks in Michigan to receive broadcast signals over-the-air. As we ask broadcasters 

to make major decisions about the future of their stations, we need to be sure that 

we have answers for their valid questions about interference, signal protection, and 

their potential new station location. 

Spectrum is a vital resource for the future of our economy and sound policy will 

ensure the continued leadership of the United States in the mobile space. As the 

committee responsible for this sector, it’s essential that we continue to keep an eye 

on the status of the spectrum in the pipeline and what is being done to make it 

available for consumer use. If we do our jobs right, the future for consumers, jobs, 

and our economy is very bright. 

40 


95926.005
41 


95926.006
42 


95926.007
43 


95926.008
44 


95926.009
45 


95926.010
46 


95926.011
47 


95926.012
48 


95926.013
49 


95926.014
50 


95926.015
51 


95926.016
52 


95926.017
53 


95926.018
54 


95926.019
55 


95926.020
56 


95926.021
57 


95926.022
58 


95926.023
59 


95926.024
60 


95926.025
61 


95926.026
62 

Æ 


95926.027