U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

68–466 2012

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–65] 

SUSTAINING GPS FOR NATIONAL 

SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio, Chairman 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California 

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

TIM MORRISON, Professional Staff Member 

LEONOR TOMERO, Professional Staff Member 

ALEJANDRA VILLARREAL, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2011 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, September 15, 2011, Sustaining GPS for National Security ............. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, September 15, 2011 ............................................................................... 25 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 

SUSTAINING GPS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces ...................................................................... 5 

Turner, Hon. Michael, a Representative from Ohio, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Strategic Forces ............................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Knapp, Julius, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission .......................................................................................... 14 

Nebbia, Karl, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ............................................................................................... 11 

Russo, Anthony J., Director, National Coordination Office, Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Training, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .......................................................................................................... 12 

Shelton, Gen William L., USAF, Commander, U.S. Air Force Space Command ..................................................................................................................... 7 

Takai, Teresa M., Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Defense ........ 9 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Knapp, Julius .................................................................................................... 85 

Nebbia, Karl ...................................................................................................... 56 

Russo, Anthony J. ............................................................................................. 71 

Sanchez, Hon. Loretta ...................................................................................... 33 

Shelton, Gen William L. ................................................................................... 34 

Takai, Teresa M. ............................................................................................... 49 

Turner, Hon. Michael ....................................................................................... 29 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn and Deputy Secretary 

of Transportation John D. Porcari’s Letter to Julius Genachowski, Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Dated March 25, 2011 ..... 105 

Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn’s Letter to Julius 

Genachowski, Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Dated 

January 12, 2011 .......................................................................................... 97 
Page

IV 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD—Continued 

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski’s 

Letter to Hon. Michael Turner, Chairman, Subcommittee on Strategic 

Forces, Dated September 15, 2011 .............................................................. 106 

National Legal and Policy Center Chairman Ken Boehm’s Letter to Hon. 

Darrell Issa and Hon. Edolphus Towns, House Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform, Dated February 2, 2011 .................................... 98 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Garamendi ................................................................................................. 115 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 119 
(1) 

SUSTAINING GPS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES, 

Washington, DC, Thursday, September 15, 2011. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:42 a.m. in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Turner (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL TURNER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM OHIO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

STRATEGIC FORCES 

Mr. TURNER. Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to the 

Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on sustaining GPS [Global 

Positioning System] for national security. 

I was planning to make the usual statement of appreciation to 

the witnesses for their appearance here today. And to those witnesses who took this issue seriously enough to be here—General 

Shelton, Ms. Takai, Mr. Nebbia, Mr. Russo and Mr. Knapp—I do 

want to thank you for taking the time to be here and your testimony. 

That said, I have the unfortunate responsibility to inform the 

subcommittee that the Federal Communications Chairman 

Genachowski refused to appear today. I must also make clear that 

I consider the chairman’s failure to show up today to be an affront 

to the House Armed Services Committee. 

Further, it appears to be symptomatic of a disregard by the 

chairman to the consequences of the FCC’s [Federal Communications Commission] January 26th waiver to LightSquared. 

Now, we have heard that perhaps even the chairman was even 

in this very building today. We would like to know that from the 

chairman, whether or not he even came so close to this hearing as 

to be in this building and still not appear. 

At no time did the chairman offer an alternative time to appear. 

We are unaware of any issue of this being merely a scheduling conflict. And the chairman did say that he was concerned about it 

prejudicing the process about what he might say during the hearing. 

Personally, I believe this is an absolute effort by the chairman 

to avoid the oversight questions by Congress, to avoid the responsibility of the issue of how this will affect GPS and what the FCC’s 

processes appear to be irregular as to how this manner is moving 

forward. 
2 

So I am very concerned that the chairman has not appeared and 

has not given us, really, a very good understanding or a very good 

reasoning as to why he is not answering these questions. 

Now, I do appreciate the chairman is apparently willing to provide personal responses to written questions for the record submitted by the subcommittee, according to staff. But the chairman’s 

priority should be the same as the subcommittee’s: Sustaining GPS 

for national security. 

Now, we all understand the difference between written questions 

and in-person testimony. You don’t have an ability to ask a followon question. No one else gets to hear the aspect of his question to 

have them follow a different take. This, I think, makes the ability 

of this subcommittee to get to the bottom of these issues and to, 

more importantly, advance the issue of sustaining GPS for national 

security more difficult. 

With that out of the way, I wish to introduce and express my appreciation to the witnesses who are here: General William Shelton, 

Commander of the Air Force Space Command. I note this is General Shelton’s second appearance before this subcommittee in as 

many weeks. Either the General really likes us or he is working 

to accommodate us on a very strong basis. Ms. Takai, Chief Information Officer for the Department of Defense; Mr. Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration; and Mr. Anthony Russo, National Coordination Office, Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Training, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Mr. Julius Knapp, Chief of the Federal 

Communications Commission Office of Engineering and Technology. 

Mr. Knapp, I want to thank you for being here today. And I want 

it to be clear that neither I nor my colleagues have anything other 

than gratitude for your service. Our concerns are with the chairman’s lack of appearance. And we certainly appreciate the information that you are going to provide us today, but we do believe that 

the chairman has additional questions that he needs to be answering. 

I want to thank all of you for being here. 

Now, why are we here this morning? 

General Shelton, you might remember this question. It was 

asked by a member of the subcommittee during the classified briefing you provided all of us last week on LightSquared GPS test results. 

And that question is, why are we here? I mean, to some extent 

this issue seems relatively clear, and yet we are still facing a process that is moving forward. And so that is why we are having this 

hearing today, which is to try to get some light on the issue of 

LightSquared and GPS. 

A brief recap of how we got here to the point of this hearing: On 

January 26th of this year, the FCC granted a conditional waiver 

of its own rules allowing LightSquared to establish a terrestrial 

broadbanded network and be freed of certain gating requirements, 

which were designed to keep any potential terrestrial service from 

overwhelming the satellite spectrum that LightSquared held. 
3 

As we now know, this network would operate with over 40,000 

base stations operating at a frequency adjacent to that long used 

by Global Positioning System, known as GPS, at almost 5 billion 

times the power of the GPS system. The chairman of the FCC 

knew that there were concerns about the proposed waiver for 

LightSquared as he received a letter from Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill Lynn on January 12, 2 weeks before the waiver was 

issued. 

The Deputy Secretary wrote to Mr. Genachowski that ‘‘there is 

strong potential for interference to these critical national security 

space systems,’’ referring to GPS. This letter also asked that the 

chairman pay ‘‘personal attention on this matter.’’ 

Without objection, this letter will be made part of the record of 

this hearing. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 97.] 

Mr. TURNER. We also know that National Telecommunications 

Information Administration Assistant Secretary Lawrence 

Strickling wrote to Chairman Genachowski recommending that the 

FCC not go forward with the LightSquared waiver request. 

Many have observed that the FCC followed an irregular process 

on the LightSquared waiver. First, the National Legal and Policy 

Center stated in a February 2, 2011, letter to the chairman and 

ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform 

Committee that ‘‘over the course of the past year, a series of odd 

decisions, questionable meetings and procedural anomalies at the 

Federal Communications Commission and White House highlight 

Mr. Falcone’s growing influence in the hallways of government.’’ 

Mr. Falcone is the CEO of the hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners, which owns LightSquared. 

Without objection, this letter will be made a part of the record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 98.] 

Mr. TURNER. Additionally, in a March letter to Chairman 

Genachowski, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, joined by the Deputy Secretary of Transportation noted that, ‘‘the DOD [Department 

of Defense] and DOT [Department of Transportation] were not sufficiently included in the development of the LightSquared initial 

work plan and its key milestones.’’ This letter again sought the 

FCC chairman’s personal attention. 

Without objection, this letter will also be made a part of our 

record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 105.] 

Mr. TURNER. And just yesterday, the Center for Policy Integrity 

released a report detailing, ‘‘emails show wireless firm’s communications with the White House as campaign donations were 

made.’’ 

In my capacity as a member of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I will be asking Chairman Issa and 

Ranking Member Towns to promptly investigate this matter. We 

cannot afford to have Federal telecommunications policy, especially 

where it affects national security, to be made in the same way that 

the White House has parceled out a half billion dollars in loan 
4 

guarantees to the failed Solyndra Corporation, a large political 

campaign contributor of the President. 

While there is clearly concern about how the FCC has conducted 

this process, those concerns are within the purview of the House 

Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform. Also, aside from the scope of 

today’s hearing, but of significance and concern nonetheless, is the 

impact to GPS receiver manufacturers, like Trimble Navigation in 

my home town of Dayton, Ohio, which manufacturers GPS receivers for the agricultural sector and heavy machinery producers, like 

Caterpillar. 

But this subcommittee’s main purview is national security. And 

the national security consequences of the LightSquared network 

are significant. As I mentioned, the concern in this case is that 

LightSquared’s proposed network of 40,000 base stations around 

the U.S. which broadcast at an adjacent signal frequency to that 

used by the GPS system, but at 5 billion times the signal strength, 

will render or may render useless the DOD’s GPS receivers. 

I think General Shelton will be telling us today that it does. General Shelton, Commander of the Air Force Space Command, informed the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee members in last 

week’s briefing that ‘‘tests show LightSquared’s signal causes significant interference to military GPS.’’ Simply put, if the FCC gives 

LightSquared the final go-ahead to build out this network, I fear 

that the DOD’s training activities in the United States may come 

to an end. This cannot be allowed to happen. As the members of 

the House Armed Services Committee know, before U.S. troops are 

deployed, they conduct extensive real world training, which includes the use of GPS for orientating U.S. Forces, locating friendly 

forces and locating enemy forces, conducting search and rescue activities, targeting of precision-guided ordnance and calling in close 

air support. None of these activities are possible without DOD’s 

high-precision GPS receivers, which would be most affected by the 

LightSquared network. 

As a Member of Congress I can think of no higher responsibility 

than making sure our U.S. military forces are fully trained and 

equipped before they are deployed overseas to Afghanistan, Iraq, or 

any place in harm’s way. 

Likewise—and this is something in all of our minds close to the 

10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States—significant harmful interference to the GPS system would be a tremendous liability to our defense of our homeland. 

General Shelton, I recall you making this point, and I look forward to your comments on that today. 

The Armed Services Committee’s position, as articulated by the 

Turner-Sanchez amendment to the National Defense Authorization 

Act of fiscal year 2012, is that the Federal Communications Commission should not grant LightSquared final approval of the conditional waiver granted to the company on January 26, 2011, until 

the Commission has dealt with potential harmful interference to 

DOD’s GPS receivers. 

LightSquared itself has no apparent objection to this provision. 

LightSquared has been making a vigorous case for its $4 billion investment in its proposed network build-out of a new nationwide 
5 

broadband service. That it is a bipartisan policy objective to encourage more nationwide broadband service and more competition as a 

policy is not in dispute, at least not before this committee. 

The question for the subcommittee today is how to evaluate the harm identified by the Department of Defense to its $34 billion investment in GPS, GPS ground stations and DOD high-precision 

military GPS receivers. 

Again, it is more important than how much this cost, the issue 

of what is the effect upon the warfighters who rely on this technology for safety and their technological edge against adversity. 

And let me state that harm to GPS, once again very clearly, ‘‘tests 

show LightSquared’s signal causes significant interference to military GPS.’’ 

As my colleagues know by now, on Tuesday of this week, the 

FCC apparently came to the same conclusion and issued a Public 

Notice that ‘‘potential for harmful interference’’ meant that ‘‘additional targeted testing is needed.’’ I consider this to be the understatement of the decade. But we need to know what this Public Notice actually means for DOD GPS users. This may very well be an 

effort to push matters off merely a few months under the assumption that Congress will be distracted. 

I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses to get to the bottom of this matter. 

And with that, let me turn to my ranking member, Ms. Sanchez, 

who has done some excellent work on this topic and has been a 

great defender of our GPS system for the Department of Defense. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner can be found in the Appendix on page 29.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

STRATEGIC FORCES 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to the witnesses for being here before us. 

You know, I am not really concerned, Mr. Chairman, about 

Chairman Genachowski not being before our committee today. I 

think that you and I had a very good meeting with him last week. 

And he stated some of the reasons why he really didn’t want to be 

before our committee today, if you will. 

And he also sent a letter, I know, to you, which I would like to 

put into the record so that everybody can see what the chairman 

of the FCC has said with respect to this issue at this point. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 106.] 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I would like to say that it seems to me that this 

is really a fight brewing, a fight brewing out there between commerce, if you will, and the civilian issues that we face every day 

with respect to communicating, between people in particular and 

information sharing, et cetera, and our military security. And if 

that is the case, if this is going to be sort of a battle between commerce and our national security, I think that you and I would 

agree, Mr. Chairman, that I think national security is going to be 

on the top layer for, not only us and not only the Congress, but for 

Americans if they are faced with that ‘‘one or the other’’ solution. 
6 

So what I think this process is about is to see if there is an accommodation that allows our commercial aspects to move forward 

in order to make our country as competitive as it can be and yet, 

at the same time, continue to allow us the type of national security 

that we all have worked so hard toward. And, you know, those 

types of pushes and those types of fights, if you will, are really 

what this Congress is about, and it is really about policy issues and 

really it is about Americans and what they decide that they want. 

And that is why it is important that we have these types of hearings and that we have things pretty out in the open as much as 

we can so that Americans can also see not only the type of work 

that the Congress does, but what is really at stake. 

So I do—and I want to take note that in the Congress in particular, there are always these judicial types of issues. Energy and 

Commerce as a committee, of course, is pushing to see more jobs 

come forward, to see new technologies come forward, to have communication happen. We on the military committee, it is our job to 

ensure that our national security is at its best. 

So I look forward to this hearing for that reason, because we 

have heard from a lot of sides. There are a lot of people walking 

the halls of Congress trying to speak to these issues. 

GPS assets, I want to say, are critical to our national security 

and to our way of life. And so I actually support the increase and 

the improvement of broadband service, but not at the expense of 

national security. So I just want people to know that. 

Again, I don’t know that it is one or the other. There might be 

accommodations. 

But here is the issue: The issue is that we are in a time of limited budgets, and that we have a deep investment by our military 

and by our taxpayers with respect to the programs that we already 

have, to the devices that we have, and so anybody trying to do 

something from a commercial aspect will have to show us that it 

doesn’t affect our national security and that if there is mitigation 

to be done, that that should not necessarily fall on the taxpayer. 

But then again, that is what public policy is about. That is what 

votes are about. That is what elections are about as we move forward. 

I would like to say, Mr. Turner, you and I have worked very well 

on this committee, and I don’t think that we need to point fingers 

or politicize or really call into question people’s intents or what 

their motives are. I hope that is not the case in some of the harsher 

language that I heard right now in your opening statement. 

You know, I want to do the right things, and Members of Congress want to do the right things. I hope that this hearing will give 

us a better understanding for several key issues. 

I also want to say another thing before I get into the specifics 

of this. A lot of questions are being placed on whose intent, whose 

motivation, et cetera, including to our military men and women. 

And I think it is right to question, but I do not want to see anybody 

smeared in this about what their motives or intents are, especially 

not our military people. So I just want to say that, too, to our general sitting there. I think it is important to have this discussion. 

This hearing, I hope, will provide us the opportunity to better 

understand key issues that we need to understand in making deci-
7 

sions: First of all, the risk and the impacts of LightSquared’s proposed terrestrial 4G network plan and how that interference will 

affect our weapons systems; the level to which our military depends 

on GPS assets; whether the interference can be mitigated, and 

whether the fixes would require recertification of our weapons programs; what the impact is to the mission, and what those costs 

would be. 

It bears noting, and I think the chairman put that forward, that 

our investment from the taxpayer standpoint is almost $35 billion. 

And if there is to be further testing, what that would look like and 

what the timelines would be for something like this. 

What the FCC’s process is for deciding whether to allow implementation of LightSquared’s proposal, and what consultations are 

ongoing with other agencies, and whether those agencies in their 

consultation, if that is being taken seriously by the FCC. I think 

that is an important point because, you know, some would think 

that they are not listening. 

How the interagency process will ensure that our national security issues are considered and resolved satisfactorily. 

I think those are the important issues, and I look forward to this. 

And again, I am glad that it is out in the open so that we can do 

away with whose intent, and who is a winner and loser, and really 

focus on our national security and our communication for the future for America. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will submit my written testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sanchez can be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. 

Without objection, the letter you referenced will be made part of 

the record, though I note I do believe that it is nonresponsive and 

ambiguous in many key respects of the questions that we had 

asked. 

I will be submitting additional questions to Chairman 

Genachowski that he has indicated that he will accept personally. 

As we are turning to our witnesses, I just want to reiterate the 

central purpose for this hearing: We currently are in a situation 

where DOD says that LightSquared, their system affects GPS and 

our national security. We are looking at this information in light 

of the fact that the FCC has already, in part, proceeded with 

LightSquared in a manner which would affect our national security, and we still understand that there is a process going forward 

with the FCC that, ultimately, this could go forward. So we are in 

the context of understanding its effects on national security, and I 

think the understanding—and I am looking forward to General 

Shelton’s testimony—of the clarity that this is not ambiguous, that 

this affects national security and affects our GPS. 

With that, General Shelton. 

STATEMENT OF GEN WILLIAM L. SHELTON, USAF, 

COMMANDER, U.S. AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND 

General SHELTON. Mr. Chairman, Representative Sanchez and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to ap-
8 

pear before you today alongside these other witnesses as the Commander of Air Force Space Command. 

Our command is the DOD lead for the Global Positioning System 

constellation of satellites responsible for developing, building, 

launching, and operating GPS to deliver precision, positioning, 

navigation and timing services to billions of military, civil and commercial users. 

Although GPS is a military-procured and operated satellite constellation, it is recognized as a global utility, serving users around 

the globe. In fact, its use is so ubiquitous here at home, I would 

put GPS in the category of critical infrastructure for the United 

States. 

And for our military, GPS has become an essential capability for 

a host of applications in joint operations. 

Today I appear at the subcommittee’s request to discuss the testing conducted thus far for the proposed LightSquared terrestrial 

broadband network. The test we conducted in concert with the FAA 

[Federal Aviation Administration] was robust, with over 100 receivers from 24 different organizations, and it spanned the military, 

Government, aviation, precision, agriculture, automotive, and general-use communities. It is important to note that the testing was 

conducted using an actual LightSquared transmitter, broadcast filters, and antennas which would be used in their network. 

In addition to providing their equipment and setting it up to ensure an accurate test, LightSquared personnel reviewed our test 

plan to ensure it was consistent with their originally planned network deployment. 

The test results showed LightSquared signals, operating according to their originally filed deployment plan, interfere with every 

type of receiver in the test. These results were compiled in a report 

submitted through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to the FCC on July 6th of this year. 

LightSquared has since proposed an alternative deployment plan, 

which involves lower power broadcasts and the use of only the 

lower 10 megahertz of their assigned frequencies. We conducted 

only limited testing on broadcasts in the lower 10 alone, but precision receivers, and even some cell phones, were still affected. Further testing would be required to fully characterize the potential 

interference with this lower 10 plan. 

As we move forward under NTIA’s [National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration] direction in evaluating the latest 

LightSquared proposal, Air Force Space Command remains open to 

ideas on mitigation strategies, but we must ensure we continue to 

lead the world in PNT [positioning, navigation and timing] services 

and reliably support our users worldwide. 

In summary, based on the test results and analysis to date, the 

LightSquared network would effectively jam vital GPS receivers, 

and to our knowledge thus far, there are no mitigation options that 

would be effective in eliminating interference to essential GPS 

services in the United States. 

I thank the committee for your continued support of Air Force 

Space Command and the capabilities we provide this Nation, and 

I look forward to your questions. Thank you, sir. 
9 

[The prepared statement of General Shelton can be found in the 

Appendix on page 34.] 

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Takai. 

STATEMENT OF TERESA M. TAKAI, CHIEF INFORMATION 

OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Ms. TAKAI. Good morning, Chairman Turner, Ranking Member 

Sanchez, and distinguished subcommittee members, and thank you 

for the opportunity to testify regarding the importance of GPS to 

our national defense capabilities. 

My testimony today will focus on the importance of GPS reliability to the Department of Defense in ensuring that our 

warfighters and allies have the critical positioning, navigation and 

timing, or PNT, capabilities that they require. 

As General Shelton said, we believe the GPS stands as a cornerstone of the DOD PNT capability and is integrated into almost 

every aspect of our U.S. military operations. To give you but a few 

examples, GPS signals are used to ensure the accuracy of precisionguided munitions, to guide troop movements, to synchronize communication networks, and to enable battlespace situational awareness, and to conduct search and rescue missions. 

DOD is committed to sustaining and modernizing GPS to maintain and improve our military PNT capabilities. Several GPS innovations are scheduled during the next 10-plus years, including 

three new civil signals, enhanced encrypted military signals, and a 

new constellation operational control segment, which are scheduled 

to come on line by 2018 and then be implemented systemwide into 

the GPS receiver populations over the successive 5 or more years. 

As DOD’s chief information officer, I have the collateral duty as 

the co-chair of the executive steering group of the National Executive Committee for Space-Based PNT, along with my counterpart 

from the Department of Transportation. The role of that EXCOM 

[executive committee] is to advise departments, agencies and the 

Executive Office of the President regarding strategic policies, requirements, and security of all PNT infrastructures, including GPS. 

In response to the January 2011 Federal Communications order 

that conditionally allowed LightSquared to unbundle their ancillary 

terrestrial component restriction in the mobile satellite services 

band adjacent to GPS, the PNT EXCOM tasked the National 

Space-Based PNT Engineering Forum, or the NPEF, to perform 

testing to ascertain the potential interference. As General Shelton 

mentioned, that testing was performed at White Sands Missile 

Range in Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. 

That report was completed on June 15th of 2011 and then submitted to NTIA for their review and transmitted to FCC. The test 

data indicated that proposed LightSquared terrestrial operations 

would cause harmful interference to GPS operations. GPS receivers 

of various types of manufacturer, operated not just by DOD but by 

the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation Administration, the 

State of New Mexico Public Safety, commercial aviation, and precision farming systems showed varying degrees of degradation of 

GPS accuracy, interruptions to GPS signal acquisition, or total loss 

of GPS tracking and position. 
10 

None of the parties cognizant of the NPEF testing dispute that 

the LightSquared terrestrial network plan that was tested by 

NPEF caused unacceptable levels of harmful interference to GPS. 

The testing also showed a source of interference that was due to 

the combined effect of the LightSquared dual-channel signal. This 

inter-modulation product was generated on top of the GPS L1 signal in its GPS band, interfering with GPS receivers. This IMP 

[inter-modulation product] was caused by the LightSquared dualchannel choice and its design, and not by the designs or filtering 

limitations of the GPS receivers. 

Subsequently, LightSquared and the GPS industry filed their 

Technical Working Group report. That report also does not contest 

the NPEF results, nor does it offer a mitigation solution of the IMP 

interference. Instead, as has been mentioned, LightSquared proposed to the FCC the recommendation of an alternative terrestrial 

network that was not in the test plans of either the NPEF or TWG 

[Technical Working Group] tests and was not tested to any extent 

comparable to the dual-channel tests. 

LightSquared’s modified proposal recommends launching commercial services initially in only their lower 10 megahertz. DOD at 

this time has not received a sufficiently clear and complete description of a LightSquared lower 10 megahertz deployment plan to professionally analyze its new aggregate interference environment. 

In addition, we are evaluating the effects of LightSquared’s terrestrial transmissions on the military’s use of the Inmarsat satellite systems for data and voice communication. The LightSquared 

terrestrial system will interfere with DOD usage if Inmarsat if appropriate mitigation actions are not taken. 

We are diligently working with Inmarsat to identify mitigating 

techniques for reducing the potential interference for military, 

land, maritime, and aeronautical missions and communication requirements. 

The Department will continue to work with its administration 

partners and NTIA, as well as with Congress, to address long-term 

solutions regarding the balance between Federal spectrum requirements and the expanding demand for mobile broadband services. 

We look forward to working with the FCC, NTIA, and 

LightSquared to ensure that all further proposed mitigations or alternatives for the LightSquared terrestrial network are thoroughly 

tested to ensure no harmful interference to GPS receivers or other 

military spectrum requirements. The ability of GPS to operate 

without harmful interference remains of paramount importance to 

the Department. Thank you for your interest in the Department’s 

efforts in this area, and I would be glad to answer any questions 

that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Takai can be found in the Appendix on page 49.] 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Nebbia. 
11 

STATEMENT OF KARL NEBBIA, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, 

OFFICE OF SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. NEBBIA. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Sanchez, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, the President’s principal advisor on telecommunications and information policy, and manager of Federal use of the 

radio spectrum. 

As Associate Administrator for the Office of Spectrum Management, I oversee this critical spectrum function. I am pleased to discuss NTIA’s efforts to ensure that critical uses of GPS continue 

without interference. 

In November of last year, LightSquared proposed to modify its 

authorization for a mobile satellite service auxiliary terrestrial 

component previously understood to be a satellite service gap filler. 

This proposal requested authorization to deploy, on a wholesale 

basis, a nationwide terrestrial network with handsets that do not 

connect to the satellite system. These operations would occur in 

two spectrum bands on either side of the GPS range, with two signals within each of these two bands. 

This proposal represented the potential for increased mobile 

broadband capacity and choice for all Americans. However, 

LightSquared’s proposal generated concern from the GPS community that the network would cause interference to GPS receivers. 

These concerns did not arise from LightSquared’s emissions spilling into the GPS band, but from the fact that some GPS receivers 

would not adequately filter LightSquared signals outside of the 

GPS band. Also, some other GPS receivers, including precision receivers, improved their accuracy by extending into the MSS [Mobile 

Satellite Services] band. 

On January 12th, NTIA advised the FCC that the Federal agency concerns warranted a full evaluation. On the 26th of January, 

the Commission granted LightSquared a waiver conditioned on 

consultation with NTIA and the resolution of GPS interference concerns. Between January and June, a Technical Working Group cochaired by LightSquared and the GPS Industry Council; NASA 

[National Aeronautics and Space Administration], via the Jet Propulsion Lab; RTCA [Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics], 

on behalf of aviation interests; and the Executive Committee for 

Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing, the EXCOM, all 

conducted tests of GPS devices in the presence of LightSquared signals. These tests were based on LightSquared’s original plan to 

transmit two separate 10 megahertz base station signals within the 

band just below GPS. 

On July 6th, NTIA submitted the results of the EXCOM test 

showing that LightSquared’s proposed operations would cause interference to both Government and commercial GPS uses. NTIA 

recommended that the FCC continue to withhold authorization to 

commence commercial operations. The report of the Technical 

Working Group reached similar conclusions. 

As a result, LightSquared proposed to modify its plan and use 

only the lower 10 megahertz channel. This change came too late for 
12 

full testing and evaluation by Federal agencies and raised concern 

about applying critical resources to an evolving proposal. 

NTIA and the Federal agencies have been reviewing the test 

data to determine whether the use of the lower 10 megahertz 

would eliminate interference to general navigation and cellular 

GPS receivers, and whether additional testing and analyses are 

needed. 

Everyone agrees that some timing and precision devices will receive interference even if LightSquared uses only the lower 10 

megahertz. Therefore, for those applications, some other mitigation 

technique will have to be developed and tested. 

Last week NTIA requested that the EXCOM work with 

LightSquared to develop a test plan to study, by November 30th, 

remaining concerns for general navigation and cellular receivers, 

and we have provided that document as an exhibit within our testimony. 

Meanwhile, LightSquared is pursuing the design and manufacture of a filter to mitigate impacts to precision receivers. With respect to timing receivers, LightSquared has identified an antenna 

with filter characteristics that may provide a possible solution. 

LightSquared has agreed that it will not commence commercial 

operations until the Federal agencies test these techniques and 

conclude that they prevent interference without degrading the performance of the receivers. 

The Administration intends to protect critical and national security-relevant GPS services. Due to the need for additional spectrum 

for mobile broadband, we will try to resolve these interference 

issues to maximize use of the band. 

We will, in coordination with the FCC, work to complete the required testing or analysis and determine what strategies can provide workable solutions. We await LightSquared’s delivery of a filter for the high-precision receivers and will seek prompt agency 

testing and analysis of that solution when it arrives. 

LightSquared has submitted a new proposal to the Commission 

seeking to protect GPS operations based on an agreed signal level 

on the ground. We will also review this approach as we move forward. 

In coordination with the Federal agencies, we will provide thorough and expert input to this dialogue so that the American public 

can extract the greatest possible benefit from the radio spectrum. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I am pleased 

to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nebbia can be found in the Appendix on page 56.] 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Russo. 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY J. RUSSO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

COORDINATION OFFICE, SPACE-BASED POSITIONING, NAVIGATION AND TRAINING, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. RUSSO. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Sanchez, and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. 
13 

The Global Positioning System has grown into a worldwide utility whose multi-use services are integral to our national and homeland security. Services dependent on GPS information are now an 

engine for economic growth and improve both the safety and the 

quality of life. The system is essential to first responders and a key 

component to multiple critical infrastructure sectors. 

Since 1983, the United States has had a multi-use policy in place 

for GPS. This policy has had strong bipartisan support, and each 

successive administration has strengthened the interagency participation in the program. In 2004, President Bush issued a policy establishing a deputy secretary-level executive committee, or 

EXCOM, to advise and coordinate on GPS issues. Last year, President Obama signed a comprehensive National Space Policy which 

left this EXCOM structure in place but added emphasis and additional guidance in four key areas related to GPS, and specifically 

addressed the issue of GPS interference. This policy also directs the 

identification of impacts to Government space systems prior to any 

reallocation of spectrum for commercial, Federal, or shared use. 

To execute the staff functions of the EXCOM and to assist them 

in ensuring implementation of the President’s policy objectives, a 

National Coordination Office was established with representatives 

from every department or agency with major equities in GPS. I am 

the director of this interagency office. 

On the 26th of January of this year, the FCC approved a conditional waiver for LightSquared’s high-powered broadband network 

that the executive committee had warned might cause significant 

interference to GPS applications. And with the permission of the 

executive committee, I tasked interagency working group called the 

NPEF to conduct modeling, simulation, analysis, bench testing, 

chamber testing, and live sky testing to evaluate the effects of 

LightSquared’s transmissions on GPS receivers. 

The group was co-chaired by leaders in FAA and the Air Force, 

but with supporting technical representatives from across the 

interagency. And despite the numerous limitations and constraints 

that I have listed for you in my written testimony, the NPEF was 

able to complete the job they were asked to do. They evaluated a 

wide range of representative receivers against all three phases of 

LightSquared’s proposed deployment. 

The answer is definitive: LightSquared’s proposed system will 

create harmful interference. The NPEF could not identify any feasible option that would mitigate harmful interference for all, or 

even most, GPS users and still allow LightSquared to meet their 

system requirements. 

Now, when the FCC granted the conditional waiver, they directed the creation of a LightSquared-led working group to conduct 

tests and resolve the interference concerns that the EXCOM had 

raised. The FCC highly encouraged participation from the Government, so 10 of our best technical experts from across the interagency participated in this Technical Working Group, or TWG, 

along with strong representation from across the diverse GPS industry. The test results collected and analyzed by this TWG were 

consistent with the results of the Government NPEF test. 

On June 29th, LightSquared submitted their TWG report acknowledging the harmful interference their system would create. 
14 

And simultaneously, LightSquared submitted a separate recommendations report outlining a proposed three-part solution. The 

LightSquared recommendation report was not reviewed or evaluated by the TWG, and all 10 of the Government participants disagree with the assertion it makes about TWG results. 

LightSquared’s three-part proposal is very constructive and involves both lower authorized power and a rephasing of their deployment so that the channel further from the border of GPS comes 

first. This would decrease, but not eliminate, the number and extent of initial impacts to GPS devices and allow more time for the 

development of mitigation methods. 

This new initial phase was not tested by the Government, since 

it wasn’t proposed until after we had submitted our results. But 

yesterday, I did receive permission from the executive committee to 

begin a new round of testing focused on this new signal configuration. 

In LightSquared’s new proposal, they offered a standstill for operating their second higher frequency channel, which does impact 

all classes of GPS receivers. Now, just when they would need to use 

the second channel was undefined. However, LightSquared testified 

to Congress they were seeking a glide path to using it within 2 to 

3 years. Therefore, any necessary mitigation measures would have 

to be in place by that timeframe. 

Further study is needed, and in progress, on the most recent 

LightSquared proposals, and my office will support these studies. 

I thank you for this opportunity to speak on this issue of great 

strategic importance to the Nation and to over a billion worldwide 

users of GPS. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Russo can be found in the Appendix on page 71.] 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Knapp. 

STATEMENT OF JULIUS KNAPP, CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Mr. KNAPP. Good afternoon, Chairman Turner, Ranking Member 

Sanchez, and members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Julius Knapp, and I am chief of the Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering and Technology, where 

I have been an engineer for 37 years. 

OET [Office of Engineering and Technology] is the Commission’s 

primary resource for engineering expertise and provides technical 

support to the chairman, commissioners, and the FCC’s bureaus 

and offices. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Commission concerning the process for working with other agencies to resolve spectrum interference issues and on LightSquared. The FCC 

has managed America’s commercial spectrum since 1934, although 

our predecessor agencies were operating since 1912. We have nearly 100 years of accumulated experience in governing airways and 

ensuring that the services using our Nation’s valuable spectrum do 

not cause harmful interference to one another. This work is a central part of our core mission. 
15 

As you are aware, the FCC and the NTIA share responsibility for 

managing the radio spectrum. While the FCC is responsible for use 

of the spectrum by the commercial sector, as well as State and local 

governments, the NTIA is responsible for use by the Federal Government, including the Department of Defense. The FCC and NTIA 

have coordinated use of the spectrum by various services, and prevented and resolved harmful interference under a memorandum of 

understanding that has worked effectively for more than 70 years. 

My written testimony provides historical background on the development of rules for the ancillary terrestrial component service of 

the Mobile Satellite Service. There are two brief points I would like 

to make. First, the provisions for terrestrial service were first 

adopted in 2003 and affirmed in 2005 in an open rulemaking, in 

which GPS interference issues were considered. 

Second, an authorization was granted to LightSquared’s predecessors in 2004 to offer ancillary terrestrial service in the L-Band 

spectrum adjacent to GPS. The Commission, in January 2011, 

granted LightSquared a conditional waiver of the rule requiring an 

integrated satellite and terrestrial service. Under this conditional 

waiver, customers of LightSquared’s wholesale mobile satellite and 

terrestrial service could themselves offer standalone terrestrial 

service at retail, provided LightSquared itself offers only a fully integrated terrestrial and satellite service. 

The waiver did not alter any of the provisions governing 

LightSquared’s terrestrial network and continued to require 

LightSquared to provide a robust satellite service consistent with 

the launch of its new satellite last November. 

After LightSquared submitted its request, the GPS industry, the 

NTIA, and other Federal agencies raised strong concerns that 

LightSquared’s base stations operating adjacent to the GPS band 

would cause overload interference to GPS receivers. This was a 

new issue that had not come up previously. 

Accordingly, the conditional waiver stipulated that LightSquared 

could not provide commercial service until the Commission, in consultation with NTIA and working with the agencies, is satisfied 

that the concerns about potential or harmful interference to GPS 

have been resolved. The conditional waiver also directed 

LightSquared to organize and participate in a GPS interference 

Technical Working Group, in which interested parties could work 

directly with LightSquared to resolve potential GPS harmful interference concerns. LightSquared filed the final report of the Technical Working Group on June 30th, and the public comment period 

on that closed on August 15th, although we have continued to meet 

with all of the parties. 

Based on the results of the working group’s testing, 

LightSquared submitted its recommendations to address the interference problems. LightSquared, recognizing that the upper portion 

of its band significantly interfered with GPS receivers, proposed to 

operate only in the lower portion of its band furthest away from 

GPS. Earlier this week, the Commission’s international bureau and 

the Office of Engineering and Technology released a Public Notice 

which reflects the Commission’s determination, in consultation 

with the NTIA, that additional targeted testing is needed to ensure 
16 

that any potential interference from commercial services offered by 

LightSquared do not cause harmful interference of GPS. 

In closing, I want to make absolutely clear that, as Chairman 

Genachowski has said, and I believe it is in his letter as well, the 

Commission will not authorize LightSquared to begin commercial 

service if its operation would cause harmful interference to GPS. 

The Commission and its staff would never take, and have never 

taken, an action that would threaten the safety or security of 

American citizens. 

We will continue to work closely with the NTIA, the Department 

of Defense, and the Federal agencies to assess LightSquared’s latest proposal and determine the viability of technical solutions that 

would enable both services to coexist. We would be certainly happy 

to keep the committee informed of our progress, and I look forward 

to answering any of your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knapp can be found in the Appendix on page 85.] 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you so much, Mr. Knapp. 

I appreciate your statement of that commitment. That is why, of 

course, we are having this hearing. And we have four witnesses before you who said that this system absolutely affects our national 

security and our GPS, upon which we are reliant, and so as we said 

before, we are certainly looking forward to this being resolved so 

we can all have that confidence that the FCC will recognize the 

clear and unambiguous statements of the four people that spoke 

before you. 

General Shelton, you have been just incredible in helping this 

committee to try to understand this and to come up to speed on it. 

As we look to GPS, the operations of our military, we look to you, 

the technical experts, to come and tell us, in balancing these issues 

of technical capabilities, is there an impact to our national security, 

and is there an impact to the GPS on which we rely? 

We appreciate your very clear statements and your dedication in 

looking at testing and engineering requirements so that when you 

have provided us your conclusion, that we can all be confident in 

it. 

In your prepared testimony you state, ‘‘testing showed unacceptable interference to all 33 high-performance receivers, as well as 

certain military receivers, tested in the vicinity of the 

LightSquared low band transmitter.’’ 

In our classified briefing, you provided us with some slides that 

are unclassified, and I have those here, and I appreciate this representation of showing the interference that is coming from the terrestrial system upon the GPS’s frequency. And I ask that this slide 

be included in the record of today that shows that this encouragement or interference is really the area where we start to see the 

problems in the operations for GPS. 

And then also, on slide 11, which comments on the proposal of 

the lower 10 channel, your statement on this slide is, ‘‘not acceptable, based upon initial test results from both the Engineering 

Forum and Industry Council reports,’’ and then you say more tests 

needed. I note, in your written testimony you state, similarly, clearly this affects GPS even at their proposal of the lower 10. So, with 

that, knowing that, both in your testimony and the slide, there is 
17 

a statement of ‘‘additional testing needed,’’ could you please tell us, 

going forward, what would be the path for evaluating this option 

of the lower 10 that is proposed by LightSquared? 

And from what you have seen so far, what is your opinion as to 

whether or not this is at all even a realistic option as you continue 

to test it? 

General. 

General SHELTON. Mr. Chairman, as we looked at that under the 

previous testing we saw, certainly, interference even with the lower 

10. The TWG saw the same thing. They saw interference in certain 

types of receivers—not all—but certain types of receivers. The latest direction from the NTIA—and Mr. Nebbia may want to talk 

more about this—but the latest direction is to not test the high-precision receivers and the timing receivers just yet because there are 

some mitigation options that have been proposed, but aren’t quite 

yet ready for prime time; that is, filters on the high-precision receivers and a special antenna on the timing receivers. We—— 

Mr. TURNER. Now, before you go forward, I want you to finish, 

so don’t lose your thought process there, but to clarify the issue of 

the filters, the filters are something that you would have to do, not 

that they would have to do, right? I mean, it doesn’t go on 

LightSquared’s system? It goes on your system? 

General SHELTON. It does. LightSquared has proposed that they 

could develop these filters. 

Mr. TURNER. And then you would have to put this in everything? 

General SHELTON. Absolutely. Every precision receiver would 

have to be retrofitted. How that might affect the overall platform 

that it is on is an unknown. 

Mr. TURNER. And the concepts of any time that you are modifying these systems, you add the issue of vulnerability to the systems and all type of unintended consequences that we can’t be certain of, including the enormous cost that you would be facing. 

General SHELTON. Enormous cost, time, integration testing to 

thoroughly wring out these filters, if they are technically feasible. 

And even with that, because there is a difference of opinion, technical difference of opinion here, we believe that the precision of 

those receivers would be impacted even in the presence of that filter. There is, without getting too technical here, there is a center 

frequency, and then there are harmonics off that center frequency. 

It is those harmonics that go out among other frequencies that are 

important for the precision of those wideband receivers, if you will. 

Clipping off those harmonics decreases the accuracy of the receiver. 

If there is something else magic out there, we don’t know about it. 

Mr. TURNER. And that is an interesting point, because certainly 

you are very aware of the existing engineering, that the technology 

that is there—so to summarize for a moment, what we have here 

is your unambiguous statement that LightSquared system interferes. The two options that have been proposed, the lower 10 is one 

that does not ameliorate the interference, and the filters, both of 

which at this point seem to be unacceptable options from your testimony. 

And then I have to ask you a question that is, I think, a little 

bit amusing, and I would like your thoughts or reactions. We are 

going to go a little bit from the technical. As you know, while we 
18 

were sitting in the classified briefing, one of the Members brought 

with them this giant ad in Politico by LightSquared. And this ad 

says, ‘‘Excuse me, you are in my space.’’ And in this picture, they 

have got these two guys on a train and the one guy is leaning over 

in the other guy’s space. I think the guy who is infringing on the 

space is supposed to be DOD and commercial users. 

I think they are trying to indicate, General, that this may be you 

on the train going into LightSquared’s space. And this—it was odd 

in the tone of the ad, because again it is not that it is an issue of 

technical clarity; it was an ad of blame. And so I have some questions for you. LightSquared argues that in this ad they say, 

‘‘They’re causing the problem. They’ve ignored government standards for eight years. They’re taking advantage of an $18 billion 

subsidy.’’ 

General, can I have your thoughts on these allegations? I know 

you have seen the ad, too, and I think it is just very curious, and 

I would just love your response. 

General SHELTON. Mr. Chairman, the frequency band that we 

are talking about here has, by FCC rulings in the past, has always 

been intended to be a ‘‘quiet neighborhood,’’ that GPS could coexist 

with other signals of the same magnitude. GPS is a very weak signal coming from space. It is a spread spectrum signal. It takes very 

special processing by receivers to pull that signal out of the background noise. If you have signals of a similar strength to GPS, that 

is not a problem for the receiver. However, if you put a rock band 

in the middle of that very quiet neighborhood, it is a very different 

sort of circumstance. 

Does that reach into the spectrum that LightSquared was assigned? Absolutely, it does, but that was intentional in the design 

of the GPS receivers to, again, take those harmonics that stretch 

out. So to say that the manufacturers aren’t adhering to a standard, if you look at what we think they are considering to be the 

standard, that standard is about broadcasts from the satellite, not 

about receiver design. 

Mr. TURNER. Well, I just want to point out also, then, my interpretation of this graphic picture here, because I think what is happening is not just that it is actually DOD and GPS users that are 

being pushed away; with the LightSquared system, according to 

current testing, no one else would be allowed on the bus. So we are 

not even trying to share space. We are having one completely block 

out the other. 

I have additional questions. I know other members do. But I will 

turn at this time to the ranking member. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you again to the witnesses. 

General, could you elaborate on the impact of redesigning, manufacturing, testing, integrating, modifying cost and time on everything that would be affected if you—if there was a technical solution to this and there was a prototype that actually worked and 

you were convinced it worked, what would be the timing and the 

cost, in your opinion, to DOD to fix just our stuff that needs to 

work, continue to work? 

General SHELTON. We have not estimated costs. However, I think 

it would be very safe to say that the cost would be in the B’s, bil-
19 

lions of dollars. We believe that the timing would probably be a 

decade or more to accomplish all this. 

And the reason for that is, there are probably a million GPS receivers out there in the military. Maybe even more than that. But 

again, its use is so ubiquitous in weapons, in high-performance 

platforms, in timing of computer networks and all those sorts of applications that we take advantage of the GPS signal. We would 

have to install this filter—again, if it is technically feasible—we 

would have to thoroughly test it. We might even have to do software modifications to accommodate it. I mean, there is just a whole 

bevy of questions that are unanswered at this point. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. Knapp, would the FCC be the one who addresses the question of who would pay for all this fix? 

Mr. KNAPP. The first focus is on, do you have a fix that works, 

and how could it be implemented, and is it viable? And, certainly, 

the judgments relative to the military systems would have to be by 

Department of Defense. 

Whether there is a way to pay for that and the timing of it, we 

would have to be working with the parties to see if there is a viable 

solution. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Nebbia, given the technical complexities and, 

as you probably can tell, the political sensitivities that are arising, 

can you assure this committee that you and your colleagues have 

the right ability and the right process to effectively analyze and resolve this issue? What is your comfort level? Because this is going 

to come to a head here some time. 

Mr. NEBBIA. Thank you, Ranking Member Sanchez. 

We certainly have an ability within NTIA to work with the Federal agencies, including the General’s team, who are experts in 

dealing with GPS issues. There are quite a number of agencies, including experts within the Department of Transportation, NASA, 

and others. And certainly, under the coordinated effort of the 

EXCOM, we have a significant resource there to delve into these 

issues. 

It is critical for us—I really can’t speak to the political issues in 

that sense—but that we work through the factual and technical 

issues. That is what our team can do. We can look at the technical 

problems that have arisen from this proposal, and we can work 

through that through real testing, through analysis, through modeling, to come up with answers. So I think in that process we have, 

certainly, adequate involvement of various Federal agencies. We 

have done a lot of consultation back and forth with the Commission. We have the Interdepartment Radio Avisory Committee, a 

committee of Federal agencies, that supports us, in addition to the 

EXCOM that has provided able input. So I think the ability there 

is to work through it and to look for what solutions are, in fact, 

available in the end. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 

General Shelton, according to the FCC and LightSquared, neither DOD nor GPS raised any concerns during the multiyear process. Would you take this opportunity to fully explain why it took 

so long for the Department and GPS to respond to the significant 

terrestrial network? 
20 

General SHELTON. Yes, ma’am. I don’t know that it is totally accurate to say that there were no concerns. I think this was a very 

different business plan that was put forward, and I do believe we 

were caught a bit off guard. The network proposed originally was 

a space-based network, and then it was space augmented by 

ground and then it became principally ground. A very significant 

shift: 40,000 transmitters out there is a very different business 

plan than just a few augmentation transmitters. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And when did you really kind of start sticking 

your foot in and say, ‘‘Wait a minute, something is wrong here, we 

need to be involved here’’? At what point in this 8-year—— 

General SHELTON. About January 2011, the January-February 

timeframe this year is when we really started to get concerned. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And the last question—I know there are plenty of 

members here who have questions. It is very well attended here. 

The last question I have for all of you very quickly, do you all each 

individually feel that your agencies have the ability to work 

through this and that the interagency communication and listening 

to each other is happening or do you think there are breakdowns? 

General SHELTON. I think we have got good representation. 

Ms. TAKAI. I would agree with General Shelton. 

I think it is important to note that the PNT EXCOM has really 

been the focal point for all of our discussion. And we have done 

that very deliberately because it does include representation from 

all of the parties. And I think being able to work through that committee enables us to look at all of the interests. And I think one 

of the interests that we haven’t talked about a lot here is our partnership with DOT and making sure that we have the FAA concerns 

adequately registered as well, because we are very dependent upon 

the commercial, and it is very important that we have them included. So I think using the PNT EXCOM and then having the 

close cooperation with NTIA and FCC gives us the ability to have 

the open dialogue that we need. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. NEBBIA. I agree. I think I already gave an answer along this 

line. So I will just pass on to Tony and put him in the hot seat. 

Mr. RUSSO. Well, I concur with the other speakers. 

We do have very strong participation from all of the departments 

and agencies that are affected, and at very high levels. We have 

had assistant secretaries, under secretaries, deputy secretaries, 

personally working on this issue. 

One area of caution I would have is that the technical expertise 

on this mostly resides with General Shelton’s folks. We have a lot 

of people that are users of GPS but don’t necessarily understand 

how the black box works. So they can tell you how important it is 

to their operation, but when it gets down to the very detailed technical discussions with LightSquared, we need help from the Air 

Force. 

Mr. KNAPP. I feel very confident in the process that we have in 

place. What we have tried to do is engage all of the experts in this. 

We have had many tough problems before, I know in my career, 

and at times, they have seemed unsolvable. You work through it. 

You have a debate, and wherever the chips fall based on the engineering is where it will come out. 
21 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Knapp. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, Madam, Mr. Russo. 

Mr. Knapp, thank you for your statement that you would not 

allow anything that would interfere with national security come 

through with the FCC. 

I want to go back to this letter. Mr. Nebbia, is that correct? Is 

that how I say it? I am somewhat—I have read this letter and just 

briefly. 

But I want to read one of the sentences. ‘‘Without waiting for the 

interference issues to be resolved relating to high-precision and 

timing receivers, we would like to move forward to reach resolution 

of any remaining federal agency concerns with respect to the cellular and personal/general-navigation receivers.’’ This is from—and 

it says to contact you if there are any questions. 

And it is signed by Lawrence Strickling, who I don’t know. 

But I have been in politics for 14 years. I have never seen an 

agency advocate so strongly for something like this, unless there 

was pressure from above or a relationship that was not being disclosed. And I guess I would like for you to explain to me why your 

agency is advocating with the strength, and going to the lengths 

that you are, in advocating for this private company when you have 

got a general sitting there—and you are a graduate of the Naval 

Academy, as I understand. You have got a general sitting there 

saying that what these people are doing will affect national security, and yet we have got a Federal agency that is advocating on 

behalf of a private business. Why should the taxpayers be paying 

to prove these things? Why shouldn’t that private company be bearing the burden of the expenses? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Thank you. Certainly, in this case, there is an effort 

on both sides to come to a resolution. 

I would not characterize NTIA’s efforts on this part in any way 

as advocacy, as one side or another but, in fact, to move the proper 

people into place to work on the issue. We have had to bring together agencies on our side, get together with the Commission, talk 

to the GPS Industry Council, work with LightSquared, and so on. 

In this particular case, the situation we have is that we know 

that there has been a proposed fix for a certain number of the categories of GPS uses that will not be available for some time. Our 

purpose here was to try to move the ball forward on the other parts 

that we felt could be worked on at this point, as opposed to waiting 

until some later date and getting back into it. So we still have that 

difficulty ahead of us. The precision uses, the timing uses will still 

have to be dealt with in the time to come. But it seemed like an 

opportunity, before then, for us to work specifically on these issues. 

The agency—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Sir, I am down to about 2 minutes. Can you give me 

another example of where your agency, the agency that you work 

for, has advocated on behalf of a company, that the Department of 

Defense has said that this particular issue affects national security? Can you give me another example of where your agency has 

written a letter with similar language, without waiting for these 
22 

issues to be resolved, that you want the other agencies to move 

ahead with licensing this? Can you give me an example of another 

company that you all have advocated for to that level and strength? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Actually, the letter does not ask for us to move 

ahead with licensing. It is moving ahead in this process of testing. 

The NTIA regularly deals with difficult situations in looking at 

new commercial interests and demands for radio spectrum and the 

fact that, in some cases, we have to be looking at spectrum currently occupied by the military. We are engaged in that at this 

time. We have been engaged in it in the past. 

In this particular case, the fact that it involves one company in 

this band, I can’t say whether that is usual or unusual. We generally are dealing with issues of broad issue and broad policy. 

Mr. SCOTT. Sir, the letter reads ‘‘move forward to reach resolution of any remaining Federal agency concerns.’’ I have never seen 

an agency, a State agency or a Federal agency, advocate that 

strongly on behalf of any private sector company, unless somebody’s wheel was getting greased. 

I mean, the fact that we are even here having this discussion, 

I think, is absolutely ridiculous. 

And, Mr. Knapp, I want to thank you for the commitment that 

the FCC will not allow the licensing of anything that will affect our 

national security. 

General, I want to thank you for the work that you have done 

on this to protect America. 

I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. 

Mr. Garamendi and Dr. Fleming also would like to go before the 

votes. 

And if that is the case, then what we will do is, if these two gentlemen can complete in the time in which we need to go, we will 

conclude the hearing, and we will submit the remainder of our 

questions for the record. 

Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Perhaps the best way for me to proceed is not 

to ask a question but, rather, to state what I believe to be the situation. We have a very, very important system in place, the GPS 

system. It involves all types of activities, all of which have been 

mentioned here. It is, therefore, extremely important, in my view, 

that that system, in all of its various ways, be protected. 

This goes to you, Mr. Knapp. It is not just the national security 

through the military. It is the economic security and the personal 

security of Americans and others around the world that are at risk 

here. 

So I would suggest in every way I can that you look way beyond 

just the national security. My questions would go to that area. 

Secondly, this is going to be a very expensive process of testing. 

We have a new company entering space occupied by others. It 

seems to me that that new company ought to bear the full cost of 

proving that it is not harming others. 

It appears to me that is not the case. I have not heard anything 

from any of you that the company is paying for the testing that, 

it seems to me, is going to be both extensive and expensive. 
23 

And I would like all of you to comment in writing about what 

your costs of testing will be and where in your budgets you have 

that money, or whether it is best that the new company that wants 

to occupy this space should pay for the testing. 

The subsequent question is, if the testing proves that certain 

things can be done—antennas or filters—who, then, pays for putting those into effect? 

And I would like to have a written response from all of you. 

Thank you. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 115.] 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Garamendi, thank you so much for your brief 

statement. 

Dr. Fleming. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will try to be brief also. I came in a little bit late because I had 

another HASC [House Armed Services Committee] meeting that 

overlapped with this one. 

What I basically would like to know in a nutshell, just frame, 

how did we get here on this? I know General Shelton made reference to the fact that the company originally was going to be primarily space-based and not terrestrially based, but it reversed over 

time. Perhaps engineering, science led us to go in that direction. 

So can you give me a better explanation to encapsulate, how did 

we get here? And we have got engineers; we have got representatives from both sides. So I am open to anybody who might want 

to—— 

Mr. RUSSO. I think I can add a little to that. 

Since 1971, the band below GPS has been allocated for Mobile 

Satellite Services. We have no problem coexisting with that neighbor. 

And in the orders you heard about earlier—and you may, sir, 

have missed it, the oral testimony earlier—they talked about adding an ancillary terrestrial component. That was done for a very 

specific reason, to give the Mobile Satellite Services operators additional flexibility. And specifically it talked about a fill-in capability 

for gaps in coverage inside buildings and in dense urban terrain. 

That is actually written into the FCC orders on this, and that is 

what the company at the time applied for, to give them some extra 

capability to cover places where it might have a problem with coverage. 

They also talked about, in answering complaints about this new 

authority, they talked about the fact that they would be limited in 

what they could do by a self-interference. In other words, they were 

required to have handsets that talked to space and terrestrial systems, and therefore, the company itself argued that that would 

then limit what power they could put out, and how many stations 

because, they would be interfering with their own service. 

So what we are talking about now is, through a series of orders 

and amendments and mods [modifications] and reconsiderations 

and waivers, over time, that foundation, the assumptions that were 

made have changed, and we find ourselves now in a situation that 

is different than—— 
24 

Dr. FLEMING. Could we have not contemplated this? Was it just 

something that morphed gradually without anybody really being 

able to contemplate that down the road, all these changes and 

amendments would eventually get us in trouble? 

Mr. RUSSO. Sir, I think there are pieces of this that there could 

have been more discussion of along the way. But the big piece was 

this last piece. This last piece changes it from a space-based system 

with an ancillary fill-in capability to a primary terrestrial system. 

And that is this last waiver, and that is what that does. 

Dr. FLEMING. I see. Well, was it not possible to stay with the 

original plan in a space-based system? Or did the company just 

find out that that wasn’t going to work as planned? 

Mr. KNAPP. I would largely agree with Mr. Russo, but I would 

also say that things evolved on both sides with the evolution of 

GPS and the expanded capabilities over time. This is something 

that—I think your description was fair. It slowly came about. The 

important thing is when we all understood that there was a problem there, we put the brakes on the deployment until we get it 

fixed. 

Even, I think, with what we have learned here, the number of 

base stations, if each one were to have caused interference at 22 

miles, I think everybody would agree that wouldn’t have been acceptable anyway. 

Dr. FLEMING. Right. Sure. Okay. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And I will only ask one question for 

the sake of time and with votes pending. 

And this will to be you, General Shelton. Thanks for being here. 

You may have addressed this earlier. Please accept my apology if 

you have because I was chairing another subcommittee, so I was 

not able to get here until a little bit later. And this is a little more 

general of a question. What are your concerns from a command and 

control perspective should GPS signals be somehow impaired? 

General SHELTON. Congressman, if you are talking about the 

broadest sense of command and control, clearly we count on GPS 

precision as one of our key tenets of command and control, knowing 

where our forces are, knowing where the adversary’s forces are at 

very precise locations, that is just fundamental to everything we do 

in command and control and modern warfare. So, without GPS, I 

think we back up quite a bit. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And even in the U.S., not a global, but just a U.S. 

focus on this? 

General SHELTON. Yes, sir. We train the way we prepare to fight. 

And if you take us back in training, you take us back in the way 

we fight. So we have to be as realistic as we can in training. And 

if you change the training environment to that degree, I think it 

is a fundamental step backwards. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. TURNER. I want to thank all of our witnesses today. We appreciate your participation. And we look forward to the Chairman 

of the FCC providing us with additional answers to our questions. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 

(29) 

Statement of Hon. Michael Turner 

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 

Hearing on 

Sustaining GPS for National Security 

September 15, 2011 

Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to the Strategic 

Forces Subcommittee’s hearing on Sustaining GPS for National Security. 

I was planning to make the usual statement of appreciation to 

the witnesses for their appearance here today, and to those witnesses who took this issue seriously enough to be here—General 

Shelton, Ms. Takai, Mr. Nebbia, Mr. Russo and Mr. Knapp—I do 

thank you for your time and testimony. 

That said, I have the unfortunate responsibility to inform the 

subcommittee that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

Chairman Genachowski refused to appear today. I must also make 

clear that I consider the Chairman’s failure to show up today to be 

an affront to the House Armed Services Committee. Further, it appears to be symptomatic of a disregard by the Chairman to the consequences of the FCC’s January 26 waiver to LightSquared. I trust 

Chairman Genachowski is doing something very important this 

morning if he couldn’t be here to discuss the significant harm to 

national security that may result from the FCC’s action on January 

26th of this year. 

I appreciate that the Chairman is apparently willing to provide 

personal responses to written Questions for the Record submitted 

by this subcommittee, according to staff. But the Chairman’s priority should be the same as the subcommittee’s: ‘‘Sustaining GPS 

for National Security.’’ 

With that unpleasantness out of the way, I wish to introduce and 

express appreciation to the witnesses who are here today: 

• General William Shelton, Commander of Air Force Space 

Command—I note this is General Shelton’s second appearance before this subcommittee in as many weeks . . . either 

the General really likes us or he’s working to accumulate his 

frequent flier miles; 

• Ms. Teresa Takai, Chief Information Officer, Department of 

Defense; 

• Mr. Karl Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National Telecommunications and Information Administration; 
30 

• Mr. Anthony Russo, National Coordination Office, SpaceBased Positioning, Navigation and Training, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and 

• Mr. Julius Knapp, chief of the Federal Communications 

Commission’s Office of Engineering Technology. 

Mr. Knapp, I want to thank you for being here and I want to be 

clear that neither I nor my colleagues have anything other than 

gratitude for your service at the FCC; our concerns are with Chairman Genachowski. Thank you all for appearing before this subcommittee this morning. 

Why are we here this morning? General Shelton, you might remember this question. It was asked by a member of the subcommittee during the classified briefing you provided all of us last 

week on LightSquared–GPS test results. 

A brief recap of how we got here. On January 26th of this year, 

the FCC granted a conditional waiver of its own rules allowing 

LightSquared to establish a terrestrial broadband network and be 

freed of certain gating requirements which were designed to keep 

any potential terrestrial service from overwhelming the satellite 

spectrum LightSquared held. 

As we now know, this network would operate with over 40,000 

base stations operating at a frequency adjacent to that long used 

by the Global Position System (GPS), at almost 5 billion times the 

power of the GPS system. 

The Chairman of the FCC knew there were concerns about the 

proposed waiver for LightSquared, as he received a letter from 

Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill Lynn on January 12, 2 weeks before the waiver was issued. The Deputy Secretary wrote to Mr. 

Genachowski that ‘‘there is strong potential for interference to 

these critical National Security Space Systems’’ referencing GPS, 

Inmarsat terminals, and Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry operations. 

This letter also asked for Chairman Genachowski’s ‘‘personal attention on this matter.’’ Without objection, this letter will be made a 

part of the record. 

We also know National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Assistant Secretary Lawrence Strickling wrote 

to Chairman Genachowski recommending that the FCC not go forward with the LightSquared waiver request. Many have observed 

that the FCC followed an irregular process on the LightSquared 

waiver. 

First, the National Legal and Policy Center stated in a February 

2, 2011, letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that, ‘‘over the 

course of the past year, a series of odd decisions, questionable 

meetings and procedural anomalies at the Federal Communications 

Commission and White House highlight Mr. Falcone’s growing influence in the hallways of government.’’ Mr. Falcone is the CEO of 

the hedge fund, Harbinger Capital Partners, which owns 

LightSquared. Without objection, this letter will be made a part of 

the record. 

Additionally, in a March letter to Chairman Genachowski, the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense, joined by the Deputy Secretary of 

Transportation noted that ‘‘the DOD and DOT were not sufficiently 

included in the development of the LightSquared initial work plan 
31 

and its key milestones.’’ This letter again sought the FCC Chairman’s personal attention. Without objection, this letter will be 

made a part of the record. 

And just yesterday, the Center for Public Integrity released a report detailing, ‘‘Emails show wireless firm’s communications with 

White House as campaign donations were made.’’ In my capacity 

as a member of the House Committee on Government Reform and 

Oversight, I will be asking Chairman Issa and Ranking Member 

Towns to promptly investigate this matter. 

We cannot afford to have Federal telecommunications policy, especially where it affects national security, to be made in the same 

way that the White House parceled out a half billion dollars in loan 

guarantees to the failed Solyndra Corporation, a large political 

campaign contributor of the President. 

While there is clearly a concern about how the FCC has conducted this process, those concerns are within the purview of the 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

Also outside the scope of today’s hearing, but of significant concern nontheless, is the impact to GPS receiver manufacturers like 

Trimble Navigation in my home town of Dayton, Ohio, which manufacturers GPS receivers for the agriculture sector and heavy machinery producers like Caterpillar. 

But this subcommittee’s main purview is national security, and 

the national security consequences of the LightSquared network 

are significant. As I mentioned, the concern in this case is that 

LightSquared’s proposed network of 40,000 base stations around 

the U.S., which broadcast at an adjacent signal frequency to the 

signal used by the GPS system, but at 5 billion times the signal 

strength, will render useless the DOD’s GPS receivers. 

General Shelton, Commander of Air Force Space Command, informed the HASC–Strategic Forces Subcommittee members in last 

week’s classified briefing that ‘‘tests show LightSquared signal 

causes significant interference to military GPS.’’ 

Simply put, if the FCC gives LightSquared the final go-ahead to 

build out its network, I fear the DOD’s training activities in the 

United States would come to an end. This cannot be allowed to 

happen. As the members of the House Armed Services Committee 

know, before U.S. troops are deployed, they conduct extensive realworld training, which includes use of GPS for orienteering of U.S. 

forces, locating friendly forces, locating enemy forces, conducting 

search-and-rescue activities, targeting of precision-guided ordnance, 

and calling in close air support. None of these activities are possible without DOD’s high-precision GPS receivers, which would be 

most affected by the LightSquared network. 

As a Member of Congress, I can think of no higher responsibility 

than to make sure U.S. military forces are fully trained and 

equipped before they are deployed overseas to Afghanistan, Iraq, or 

any place in harm’s way. Likewise, and this is something in all of 

our minds this close to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks 

on the United States, significant harmful interference to the GPS 

system would be a tremendous liability to our defense of the homeland. General Shelton, I recall you making this point last week. 
32 

The Armed Services Committee’s position as articulated by the 

Turner–Sanchez amendment to the National Defense Authorization 

Act for FY2012 is that the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) should not grant LightSquared final approval on the conditional waiver granted to the company on January 26, 2011, until 

the Commission has dealt with potential harmful interference to 

the DOD’s GPS receivers. LightSquared itself has no apparent objection to this provision. LightSquared has been making a vigorous case for its $4 billion 

investment in its proposed network build-out of a new nationwide 

broadband service. That it is a bipartisan policy objective to encourage more nationwide broadband service and more competition is 

not in dispute . . . at least not before the Armed Services Committee. 

The question for this subcommittee today is how to evaluate the harm identified by the Department of Defense to its $34 billion investment in GPS, GPS ground stations, and DOD high-precision 

military GPS receivers. Again, it is more important than money . . . 

this is about our warfighters who rely on this technology for safety 

and their technological edge against adversaries. 

And let me state that harm to GPS once again very clearly: 

‘‘tests show LightSquared signal causes significant interference to 

military GPS.’’ 

As my colleagues know by now, on Tuesday of this week, the 

FCC apparently came to the same conclusion, and issued a Public 

Notice that the ‘‘potential for harmful interference’’ meant that ‘‘additional targeted testing is needed.’’ I consider that the understatement of this decade. But, we need to know what this Public Notice 

actually means for DOD GPS users; this may very well be an effort 

to push matters off by a few months under the assumption Congress will be distracted by then. I look forward to the testimony of 

the witnesses to get to the bottom of this matter. 
33 

Statement of Hon. Loretta Sanchez 

Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 

Hearing on 

Sustaining GPS for National Security 

September 15, 2011 

I would like to welcome General Shelton, Mr. Knapp, Ms. Takai, 

Mr. Nebbia, and Mr. Russo to this hearing on sustaining GPS capabilities for national security. Thank you for being with us today. 

I would also like to note FCC Chairman Genachowski’s meeting 

with Chairman Turner and me on this important issue, along with 

his letter to our subcommittee and the FCC announcement this 

week that the Commission ‘‘has determined that additional targeted testing is needed to ensure that any potential commercial 

terrestrial services offered by LightSquared will not cause harmful 

interference to GPS operations.’’ 

I believe this provides initial reassurance that a deliberate and 

careful process for assessing the question of whether concerns 

about significant interference with GPS capabilities can be satisfactorily resolved. GPS assets are critical to national security and to 

our way of life. 

While I support efforts to increase and improve broadband service, we must ensure that plans for expanding this service do not 

adversely impact crucial navigation, timing and precision systems 

on which many of our nation’s defense, as well as commercial, capabilities depend. 

Last week, at our request in preparation for this hearing, General Shelton provided a closed briefing to our subcommittee detailing the classified test results and concerns about the consequences 

of GPS interference. 

This hearing will provide the opportunity to better understand 

several key issues, including: 

• The risks and impacts from LightSquared’s proposed terrestrial 4G network plan, and how interference will affect weapons systems • The level to which our military depends on GPS assets • Whether this interference can be mitigated, whether ‘‘fixes’’ 

would require recertification of weapon systems, what the 

impact to the mission might be and what the costs would be. 

It bears noting that DOD investment in GPS stands at about 

approximately $35 billion taxpayers dollars • What further testing remains necessary • What the FCC’s process is for deciding whether to allow implementation of LightSquared’s proposal and what consultations are on-going with other agencies • How the interagency process will ensure that national security issues are considered and resolved satisfactorily 

These are important questions to assess in order to understand 

what is at stake and consider a way forward that will safeguard 

national security. Again, welcome. I look forward to your testimony. 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 

(97) 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 

(115) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI 

General SHELTON. Testing on the initial LightSquared deployment plan cost the 

Air Force approximately $500K. The first round of follow-on testing is expected to 

cost the Air Force approximately $400K. These figures include test asset costs, but 

do not account for travel or personnel time. The costs for further rounds of testing 

have not been estimated. None of this testing was budgeted for by AFSPC; this reduces the resources available to support other testing and activities required to provide space and cyber capabilities to our warfighters. 

Determination of who will be obligated to pay for adding the filters has not yet 

been made. This decision would likely be made by the FCC. [See page 23.] 

Mr. NEBBIA. NTIA does not perform interference testing, so the additional costs 

of testing on NTIA is de minimis and consists principally of staff time to analyze 

test results, coordinate with the agencies of the Interdepartment Radio Advisory 

Committee (IRAC), and communicate views to the FCC. While LightSquared has indicated that it is willing to share the cost of any proposed interference mitigation 

approach for Federal users of precision and timing receivers, the precise extent of 

the cost and the responsibility for paying such costs has not been determined. [See 

page 23.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 

(119) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER 

Mr. TURNER. 1. I have learned that during the testimony coordination process, you 

were asked to include the following in your prepared remarks: 

‘‘The Administration believes that we must protect existing GPS users from disruption of the services they depend on today and ensure that innovative new GPS 

applications can be developed in the future. At the same time, recognizing the President’s instruction to identify 500 MHz of new spectrum for innovative new mobile 

broadband services, we will continue our efforts at more efficient use of spectrum. 

Therefore, in the short run, we will participate in the further testing required to 

establish whether there are any mitigation strategies that can enable LSQ operation 

in the lower 10MHz of the band. We also encourage commercial entities with interests to work with LightSquared toward a possible resolution, though any proposed 

mitigation must be subjected to full testing. We hope that testing can be complete 

within 90 days. The challenge of meeting the President’s goal also depends on longterm actions by Federal agencies in the area of research and development, procurement practices that encourage spectrally-efficient applications, and new policy development.’’ 

a. Who, specifically, asked that this be included? 

b. If you declined to include the language, in whole or in part, please describe 

why. 

c. Did anyone in the Administration attempt to persuade you to include the language? Who? 

General SHELTON. 1a. As the hearing was rescheduled from 3 August to 15 September, my written testimony entered the formal review process twice. Both times 

the testimony followed a normal review process. For the 3 August scheduled date, 

we received a paragraph to add to the testimony from the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), relayed through our Air Force Legislative Liaison office (SAF/ 

LL). The specific author of the paragraph is unknown to us. 

1b. I chose not to concur with this edit because I didn’t feel an Administration 

comment was appropriate for a military officer’s testimony. I was also concerned 

about the suggested timeline for testing. 

1c. This OMB paragraph was the only issue from the Administration or other 

Government agencies that we were not able to resolve for the 3 August hearing 

(which was later postponed). We were in the process of seeking resolution when the 

hearing was rescheduled and the review process ended. During the testimony review 

process for the 15 September hearing date, there was no suggested paragraph from 

OMB and the testimony moved forward without significant issue. 

Mr. TURNER. 2. Are your responses to these QFRs your own views or those of your 

agency? Have your responses been approved/edited by anyone other than yourself 

or someone reporting to you? 

General SHELTON. 2. These responses are my own. The QFR responses are sent 

forward for Air Force policy review and for the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

policy review as part of the standard process for Questions for the Record. 

Mr. TURNER. 3. Please describe when you and your agency became aware of the 

LightSquared network proposal and its potential for significant interference. 

General SHELTON. 3. In the January/February 2011 timeframe, AFSPC became 

significantly concerned about LightSquared plans and began to engage our higher 

authorities on the issue. This coincides with the January 2011 order from the Federal Communications Commission granting LightSquared a conditional waiver. 

Mr. TURNER. 4. LightSquared has recently announced that it has solved the interference issue for 99.5 percent of GPS users. 

a. Do you agree with this statement? 

b. What is the solution? 

c. Is it a solution for uses of GPS for which you are responsible? 

d. Has it been tested by the Federal Government? If so, please provide details. 

General SHELTON. 4a. We have insufficient data at this point to assess the potential effectiveness of LSQ’s proposed solution and have not seen substantiation of the 

99.5% figure. Even if the 99.5% figure is statistically accurate, the .5% of affected 

GPS users represents a group of military and high precision receivers that con-
120 

tribute significantly to national defense, economic, business, scientific, safety of life, 

and precision agriculture. 

4b. The LSQ proposed solution includes transmitting on only the 10 MHz low 

channel (which is further away from the GPS spectrum), operating at reduced 

power, and use of a filter for high precision and timing devices. 

4c. Further testing is required to determine the efficacy of these solutions. 

4d. The proposed filter is not yet available for testing so we cannot draw any conclusions about its effectiveness. Additionally, we have not done sufficient testing 

against LSQ’s revised plan to determine conclusively whether it will mitigate the 

risk to military receivers. Initial testing identified significant interference even at 

the 10 MHz low channel. We are in the process of planning and executing followon testing on the revised plan as directed by the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA). This round of follow-on testing is focused on 

general navigation receivers and cell phones. Additional testing on high precision 

and timing receivers will be accomplished once the proposed LSQ filters are available. 

Mr. TURNER. 5. General Shelton, you stated that you believed that LightSquared’s 

filter ‘‘solution’’ could cost billions of dollars over more than a decade. 

a. Are you in a position to elaborate specifically as to costs, timing, and potential 

degradation effects to military GPS receivers from these filters? 

b. And please describe what testing has occurred thus far with LightSquared’s filters and military GPS receivers. 

c. Who would be obligated to pay for the costs of adding filters? 

General SHELTON. 5a. The estimate of billions I stated is based on the required 

modification of a typical platform that uses GPS (an F–15 and associated precision 

weaponry for example). The typical costs and timing factors include: development, 

manufacturing, installation and testing. As we rotate platforms and devices between 

CONUS and OCONUS, all affected platforms would require implementation of the 

filters which could be expected to have significant mission impact. At this point it 

is too early to describe specific costs, scope and impact of the fixes that will be required by DOD systems because we have not been able to comprehensively test 

weapons systems with the proposed mitigations against the revised LSQ deployment 

plan. 

5b. As the filters are not yet available, no testing has been done. 

5c. Determination of who will be obligated to pay for adding the filters has not 

yet been made. 

Mr. TURNER. 6. My understanding is that Mr. Russo solicited all Federal Government agencies with GPS equities on their concerns with the LightSquared proposal. 

Are you aware of any Government position papers on LightSquared interference 

which have been provided to the National Coordination Office or to the NTIA that 

have not been forwarded to the FCC and then made public? If so, why were they 

not made public immediately? 

General SHELTON. 6. We are not aware of any undisclosed position papers; however, that question would best be answered by the National Coordination Office or 

the NTIA. 

Mr. TURNER. 7. Mr. Nebbia—based on my reading of the Public Notice, the FCC 

seems to be putting the weight of the Department of Defense’s equities entirely on 

your agency. In turn, in Assistant Secretary Strickling’s letter to Deputy Secretaries 

Lynn and Porcari, the NTIA is instructing DOD and DOT to conduct additional testing and develop solutions to the LightSquared problem. General Shelton, we are 

counting on you to keep this committee informed of the results of testing and we 

seek your expert and impartial judgment about the results of those tests. Will you 

please contact the Subcommittee staff or Ms. Sanchez or myself to provide us your 

recommendation as to whether it is necessary to schedule another classified briefing 

with you on GPS interference test results. 

General SHELTON. 7. We will keep the committee informed of developments. 

Mr. TURNER. 8. We have heard that LightSquared believes the FCC process, including all testing, can be wrapped up by November 30th. However, the Strickling 

letter to Deputy Secretaries Lynn and Porcari clearly describes a second phase of 

testing ‘‘to evaluate proposed mitigation plans for high precision and timing receivers which would commence once LightSquared develops a filtering solution to avoid 

interference with those classes of devices.’’ 

Are you operating under any sort of commitment or obligation to wrap up testing 

under a November 30th or other arbitrary date? 

a. Do you have an expectation for when both phases of testing will conclude? 

b. Might there need to be further testing beyond the two phases suggested in the 

Strickling letter of September 9th? 
121 

General SHELTON. 8a. The PNT EXCOM 5 October letter to Mr. Strickling (NTIA) 

acknowledged that the 30 November test deadline, for cellular and personal/general 

navigation receivers, is ambitious and the actual testing may be completed by the 

deadline date, but analysis and final report may take longer. The NPEF test team 

is working expeditiously to complete the testing of general navigation devices and 

to have an initial executive draft report available by 30 Nov. At present we expect 

the first phase of testing to be completed on 4 Nov. The second phase of testing is 

dependent upon LSQ filter availability. We do not have an estimate for the filter 

availability at this point so I cannot provide an estimate for completion of the second phase testing. 

8b. NTIA’s intent as expressed in their 9 September letter is for testing to be ‘‘conclusive and final’’ with respect to assessing the impact of LSQ’s revised proposal. 

Our understanding is LSQ’s final deployment plan may still require the upper 10 

MHz channel. If true, further testing would be required. 

Mr. TURNER. 9. LightSquared has proposed, as part of its ‘‘lower 10 MHz’’ option 

a ‘‘standstill’’ on the upper 10 MHz of the spectrum adjacent to the GPS signal. At 

the same time, LightSquared is said to believe that it needs access to its full spectrum, both the lower and the upper, to be profitable. 

a. Please explain what the ‘‘standstill’’ means and what terms LightSquared is 

proposing for the ‘‘standstill.’’ 

b. Has LightSquared indicated the ‘‘upper 10’’ of the spectrum is completely, permanently off-the-table? Is that what the ‘‘standstill’’ means? 

c. If the ‘‘standstill’’ was only a matter of a few years, what would that mean to 

your agencies? 

d. Should Congress, or the FCC, codify somehow the terms of the ‘‘standstill’’ if 

it is ultimately determined that the ‘‘lower 10 MHz’’ option is acceptable? 

e. Please provide a specific description of the defense equities regarding 

LightSquared’s ‘‘lower 10’’ proposal, for the near term and into the future. 

General SHELTON. 9a. While we interpret ‘‘standstill’’ to mean temporary halt to 

deployment and operation in the upper 10 MHz band of LSQ’s two authorized 

bands, we expect FCC to clarify. 

9b. LSQ has not given any formal indication that they intend to remove the upper 

10 band from their final deployment plans. 

9c. It has been agreed by both LSQ and the GPS community that the upper 10 

MHz band causes unacceptable interference to GPS. Until an acceptable mitigation 

solution is identified and implemented, operation in that band would result in the 

level of interference described in my testimony. Assuming an acceptable solution can 

be found, I estimate it would take many years to implement across DOD. 

9d. I believe it is essential the FCC clearly codify the terms of the ‘‘standstill.’’ 

9e. We are still in the process of assessing the impacts of the ‘‘lower 10’’ proposal. 

Initial NPEF testing of the proposal indicated significant interference concerns for 

DOD receivers. The initial testing was limited with respect to the types of devices 

tested but the interference noted was applicable to aviation and maritime applications. 

Mr. TURNER. 10. Please give us an idea of the size and scope of the GPS system 

to include applications and users. Please elaborate to the extent possible in an open 

hearing on the military capabilities that rely on GPS. 

General SHELTON. 10. The Global Positioning System is DOD’s largest satellite 

system currently consisting of 30 operational satellites. Total expenditure for the 

GPS program since its inception is $34B. It provides 24/7 positioning, navigation 

and timing services to the entire world, free of charge. GPS is integrated into nearly 

every facet of U.S. military operations and is essential to Federal aviation, first responders, precision agriculture, banking, cell phone service, and automobile/personal 

navigation systems. There are over a million DOD GPS receivers and it has been 

estimated that there are more than 4 billion users worldwide. 

Mr. TURNER. 11. Describe how GPS is used by the military and the degree of dependence the military has on GPS. Is the military’s use of GPS primarily overseas 

and in theater, or is the military also dependent on GPS within the continental 

United States (where LightSquared plans to deploy its communications services)? 

General SHELTON. 11. GPS is integrated into nearly every facet of U.S. military 

operations. Combat troops, military aircraft (manned and unmanned), naval vessels, 

high speed communications networks, and precision guided munitions all depend 

heavily on the accuracy, availability and reliability of GPS. Our primary military 

uses are overseas but our aircraft support CONUS and North American defense 

missions. The military also supports CONUS search & rescue and drug interdiction 

operations (Coast Guard operations are a prime example). Additionally, our training 

missions, development and testing of new and modified systems take place primarily 

in CONUS. Military equipment and platforms rotate between CONUS and 
122 

OCONUS and must therefore be completely interoperable with other U.S. equipment as well as with that of our allies. As LSQ’s deployment covers a significant 

portion of the U.S., the vast majority of our CONUS operations, to include combat 

training and preparation, would be impacted. 

Mr. TURNER. 12. What is the DOD’s total investment in GPS, including satellites, 

ground stations, receivers, etc? 

General SHELTON. 12. We estimate the total expenditure for the GPS program since its inception at $34B. 

Mr. TURNER. 13. LightSquared would operate in a different part of the spectrum 

(1525–1559 megahertz) than GPS (1559–1610 megahertz). Why is there an interference problem when the two systems would operate in different, but neighboring, 

parts of the spectrum? 

General SHELTON. 13. The original deployment calls for nearly 40,000 transmitters operating in the frequency band immediately adjacent to GPS. With potential 

transmitter spacing of .25 to .5 miles apart in cities, the LSQ transmit signal will 

be over 5 billion times more powerful than the GPS signal received from space. Essentially, the LSQ signal would overpower the GPS signal causing receivers to become unable to isolate the GPS signal from the ‘‘noise’’ caused by the more powerful 

LSQ signal. It is also important to note that in order to achieve the greatest possible 

accuracy, high precision GPS devices are designed to ‘‘listen’’ to sidelobes of the GPS 

signal that extend outside of the GPS band. This design feature has not been an 

issue in the past as GPS receivers can easily distinguish the GPS signal from those 

in adjacent bands so long as the signals are of comparable strength. Previously, only 

such signals were allowed in these frequency bands. 

Mr. TURNER. 14. What is the magnitude of the harmful interference and the national security implications of such interference? Discuss the results of the Department’s testing and any specific examples that substantiate these observations. 

General SHELTON. 14. GPS is used by all Services, from ground forces, to precision-guided munitions, to synchronization and security of communications networks, 

to search and rescue operations, to humanitarian relief operations. GPS is also used 

by the Department of Homeland Security for National border and maritime security. 

As discovered during testing of the original LightSquared deployment plan, aviation receivers operating as far as 7.5 miles from LightSquared transmitters completely lost the GPS signal and were degraded out to distances of more than 16.5 

miles. For two representative receivers tested by the FAA, results also showed GPS 

would be completely unusable for an aircraft 500 feet above the ground in an area 

spanning Stafford, Virginia through Washington and Baltimore, and out to Frederick, Maryland. 

High precision GPS receivers such as those used for surveying and geological 

study requiring precise measurements were adversely affected out to 213 miles and 

totally lost the GPS signal out to 4.8 miles. 

Based on testing performed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a class of receivers 

used in space to conduct certain types of atmospheric measurements would be unusable up to 12% of the time while in their typical orbits. 

The State of New Mexico E–911 Program Director, who sent several GPSequipped emergency and police vehicles to the test, stated in a letter to AFSPC that 

their equipment showed ‘‘the LightSquared network will cause interference to GPS 

signals and jeopardize 911 and public safety.’’ 

Actual test results for the original LightSquared deployment plan indicated significant degradation to every receiver-type tested. Most units tested completely lost 

their GPS service at some point. The specific military receiver test results are classified, but the results were consistent with the other receiver test results. 

Mr. TURNER. 15. The reviews undertaken suggest that there are certain GPS applications that, even with modification or complete redesign, would still not be able 

to perform their current mission in the presence of such network broadcasting directly adjacent to the GPS L1 band. What applications? 

General SHELTON. 15. At present there is no proven/tested mitigation that will resolve the interference issues for high precision devices even under the revised LSQ 

deployment plan (‘‘Lower 10’’). Proposed filters have not yet been made available for 

testing. It is unclear if the proposed filters would impact military receiver accuracy 

for our high precision systems. This would be determined through extensive testing. 

No mitigations have been identified to resolve interference issues for any type of receiver with respect to LSQ operations at the upper 10 MHz band. 

Mr. TURNER. 16. Assuming FCC provides authorization for LightSquared to move 

forward with its deployment plans, as outlined in its November 2010 filing, how 

would this build-out affect military systems and users in the near-term? 

General SHELTON. 16. Testing results demonstrated empirically that the 

LightSquared signals operating in the originally proposed manner would signifi-
123 

cantly interfere with all types of receivers tested. Specific military receiver test results are classified, but the results were consistent with other receiver results. Impacts would be expected to all Services’ and Allies’ ground forces, over 290,000 

hand-held navigation receivers, combat aircraft, search and rescue aircraft, remotely 

piloted aircraft and precision guided munitions. 

Mr. TURNER. 17. Does LightSquared’s June 30, 2011, submission to the FCC provide sufficient information on its ‘‘lower 10’’ proposal for your organizations to determine whether the proposal mitigates GPS interference? 

General SHELTON. 17. We have sufficient information on the lower 10 to begin initial testing. For the longer term, we need to better understand specific LSQ deployment plans to determine potential impacts. 

Mr. TURNER. 18. Is your organization concerned that the FCC can provide final 

approval for LightSquared operations prior to resolving the GPS interference issues? 

General SHELTON. 18. Thus far, the FCC has not granted final approval and has 

indicated that it will not do so until the GPS interference issues are satisfactorily 

resolved. The NTIA reported in a September 9, 2011, letter to Deputy Secretary of 

Defense Lynn and Deputy Secretary of Transportation Porcari that there is agreement by both LSQ and the GPS community that operations in the lower 10 MHz 

signal will cause unacceptable interference to high precision receivers. This letter 

also documents LSQ statements that it will not commence commercial operations 

unless and until Federal agencies test the LSQ proposed filter and conclude that 

it is an effective mitigation for the high precision receivers. It is acknowledged by 

all parties, including LSQ, that operations in the upper 10 MHz band are currently 

unacceptable for all GPS applications. 

I agree with the NPEF recommendation to rescind the FCC’s waiver. Although 

high precision receivers are a small percentage of all receivers in use, their functions are vital to military operations in support of national defense. At an absolute 

minimum it would be helpful for the FCC to formally order that operations in the 

upper 10 MHz band be prohibited until an acceptable solution can be found and implemented. The implementation timeline should be based on input provided by the 

impacted users. 

Mr. TURNER. 1. I have learned that during the testimony coordination process, you 

were asked to include the following in your prepared remarks: 

‘‘The Administration believes that we must protect existing GPS users from disruption of the services they depend on today and ensure that innovative new GPS 

applications can be developed in the future. At the same time, recognizing the President’s instruction to identify 500 MHz of new spectrum for innovative new mobile 

broadband services, we will continue our efforts at more efficient use of spectrum. 

Therefore, in the short run, we will participate in the further testing required to 

establish whether there are any mitigation strategies that can enable LSQ operation 

in the lower 10MHz of the band. We also encourage commercial entities with interests to work with LightSquared toward a possible resolution, though any proposed 

mitigation must be subjected to full testing. We hope that testing can be complete 

within 90 days. The challenge of meeting the President’s goal also depends on longterm actions by Federal agencies in the area of research and development, procurement practices that encourage spectrally-efficient applications, and new policy development.’’ 

a. Who, specifically, asked that this be included? 

b. If you declined to include the language, in whole or in part, please describe 

why. 

c. Did anyone in the Administration attempt to persuade you to include the language? Who? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 1. My testimony went through the standard review process overseen 

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which includes review by other 

Federal agencies and entities of the Executive Office of the President. As with all 

testimony and other similar documents, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) welcomes input from other Federal entities but determines on its own which, if any, suggestions to incorporate, in full or in part. We 

received the text cited above both from the standard legislative interagency clearance process that is overseen by the Office of Management and Budget and through 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy. NTIA chose not to include the statement regarding the completion of testing within 90 days in its final testimony. The 

final NTIA testimony reflects the views of the NTIA as the Administration’s technical and policy expert on telecommunications and information policy. 

Mr. TURNER. 2. Are your responses to these QFRs your own views or those of your 

agency? Have your responses been approved/edited by anyone other than yourself 

or someone reporting to you? 
124 

Mr. NEBBIA. 2. The responses to the QFRs reflect my views, which are consistent 

with the views of the NTIA. 

Mr. TURNER. 3. Please describe when you and your agency became aware of the 

LightSquared network proposal and its potential for significant interference. 

Mr. NEBBIA. 3. NTIA became aware of the potential for interference in November 

2010, when LightSquared submitted to the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) an application for modification of its existing Ancillary Terrestrial Component 

(ATC) authorization to enable it to deploy, on a wholesale basis, a nationwide 4th 

generation (4G) terrestrial wireless broadband network with handsets that do not 

include the satellite service. Following the application for modification, several Federal agencies expressed concerns relating to potential interference. In light of these 

concerns, NTIA wrote the FCC in January 2011 stating the Administration’s position that LightSquared should not be allowed to move forward to commence commercial operations unless interference issues were resolved. 

Mr. TURNER. 4. LightSquared has recently announced that it has solved the interference issue for 99.5 percent of GPS users. 

a. Do you agree with this statement? 

b. What is the solution? 

c. Is it a solution for uses of GPS for which you are responsible? 

d. Has it been tested by the Federal Government? If so, please provide details. 

Mr. NEBBIA. 4. In response to LightSquared’s revised proposal to operate in only 

the lower 10 megahertz signal of the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) band, NTIA requested, in a September 9, 2011, letter, that the National Executive Committee for 

Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (ExCom) work with LightSquared 

to develop a test plan and conduct tests to measure interference to cellular and personal/general navigation receivers by November 30, 2011. This testing on cellular 

and personal/general navigation receivers is now complete. NTIA has received the 

test data and is analyzing it as expeditiously as possible. In addition, NTIA’s letter 

noted that LightSquared acknowledged that its modified operating proposal to use 

only the lower 10 megahertz signal would cause unacceptable interference to highprecision and timing receivers. Accordingly, LightSquared is proceeding to procure 

the design and manufacture of a filter to mitigate these impacts. LightSquared 

agreed that it will not commence commercial operations unless and until the Federal agencies test the filter and conclude that it is effective at eliminating unacceptable overload without degrading the precision performance of the receivers. With respect to timing receivers, LightSquared has identified the PCTEL antenna as a possible solution to mitigate interference. LightSquared has acknowledged that the 

Federal agencies need to perform a more rigorous review of the effectiveness of this 

antenna in mitigating interference without degrading the performance of timing receivers. Accordingly, even if the analysis of the tests we requested on September 9 

shows that impacts to general navigation and cellular can be mitigated, there will 

need to be additional testing to evaluate proposed mitigation plans for high-precision and timing receivers which would commence once LightSquared develops a filtering solution to avoid interference with those classes of devices. However, if analysis does not point a path to mitigation of interference effects to general navigation 

and cellular, the testing of high precision and timing devices may not be warranted. 

Mr. TURNER. 5. General Shelton stated that he believed that LightSquared’s filter 

‘‘solution’’ could cost billions of dollars over more than a decade. Who would be obligated to pay for the costs of adding filters? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 5. While LightSquared has indicated that it would share the cost of 

any proposed interference mitigation approach for Federal users, the precise extent 

of the cost and the responsibility for paying such costs has not been determined. 

State and local governments as well as commercial users may be responsible for the 

full costs of the filters. 

Mr. TURNER. 6. In a September 29, 2011, Washington Post article by Cecilia Kang, 

it was reported that LightSquared chief executive Sanjiv Ahuja said during an interview on C–SPAN’s ‘‘The Communicators’’ that the company is offering Federal agencies ‘‘a sufficient amount of money to replace most receivers or fix most receivers 

out there.’’ 

a. Please provide an estimate of how much money LightSquared would have to 

spend to ‘‘replace most receivers or fix the Federal Government’s GPS receivers.’’ 

b. How much has the United States Government spent on its GPS receivers? 

c. How much have GPS users other than the United States spent on their GPS 

receivers? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 6. NTIA does not have the information, including the extent and cost 

of agency GPS uses as well as sufficient detail regarding LightSquared’s proposed 

deployment plan, all of which would be necessary to estimate the replacement costs 

you describe. 
125 

1LightSquared Subsidiary LLC; Request for Modification of its Authority for an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, SAT–MOD–2010118–00239; Call Sign: S2358, Order and Authorization 

(Order), 26 F.C.C. Rcd. 566 (2011). 

Mr. TURNER. 7. My understanding is that Mr. Russo solicited all Federal Government agencies with GPS equities on their concerns with the LightSquared proposal. 

Are you aware of any Government position papers on LightSquared interference 

which have been provided to the National Coordination Office or to the NTIA that 

have not been forwarded to the FCC and then made public? If so, why were they 

not made public immediately? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 7. NTIA received input from some Federal agencies regarding the potential impact of LightSquared’s original plan. Other agencies provided input regarding the FCC public notice in July. NTIA has also requested information regarding agencies’ use of precision and timing receivers. Consistent with NTIA’s mission 

to ensure efficient and effective use of spectrum while protecting critical Federal 

Government operations, NTIA regularly consults with agencies on important spectrum policy matters. NTIA values the candid input of agencies, which NTIA, as the 

manager of Federal spectrum use, utilizes as a critical input into its decision-making. NTIA does not typically release to the public the pre-decisional agency input 

it receives. NTIA’s final views will be provided to the FCC and made part of the 

public record in this proceeding. 

Mr. TURNER. 8. Based on my reading of the Public Notice, the FCC seems to be 

putting the weight of the Department of Defense’s equities entirely on your agency. 

In turn, in Assistant Secretary Strickling’s letter to Deputy Secretaries Lynn and 

Porcari, the NTIA is instructing DOD and DOT to conduct additional testing and 

develop solutions to the LightSquared problem. 

a. Can you please lay out what options are available to the NTIA to ensure that 

the FCC does not finalize a rule that allows interference with the DOD’s precision 

receivers? 

b. Is there any circumstance in which General Shelton would say he believes 

there to be harmful interference to GPS, regardless of the mitigation solution offered by LightSquared, and the FCC would be permitted to go ahead and remove 

the condition on the January 26 waiver? Put another way, what are the NTIA’s options to block the FCC from finalizing the LightSquared waiver? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 8. Beginning last January and continuing to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on behalf of Federal entities regarding potentially harmful 

interference to GPS-reliant systems from LightSquared’s proposed terrestrial operations and has urged the FCC not to permit LightSquared to commence operations 

until those concerns are resolved. NTIA continues to work with the FCC, Federal 

entities, and industry on a data-driven, engineering-based approach to addressing 

interference concerns. The FCC’s January 26, 2011, Waiver Order stated that the 

FCC would not allow LightSquared to commence operations until ‘‘the Commission, 

after consultation with NTIA, concludes that the harmful interference concerns have 

been resolved and sends a letter to LightSquared stating that the process is complete.’’ 1 NTIA appreciates that the FCC takes very seriously the concerns raised by 

NTIA and the Federal agencies in this matter, as well as its commitment to ensure 

that these concerns are resolved before permitting LightSquared to begin commercial operations. We look forward to providing thorough, expert input to the Commission as it moves toward a final decision in this matter. 

Mr. TURNER. 9. We have heard that LightSquared believes the FCC process, including all testing, can be wrapped up by November 30th. However, the Strickling 

letter to Deputy Secretaries Lynn and Porcari clearly describes a second phase of 

testing ‘‘to evaluate proposed mitigation plans for high precision and timing receivers which would commence once LightSquared develops a filtering solution to avoid 

interference with those classes of devices.’’ Please explain the significance of November 30th. 

Mr. NEBBIA. 9. In response to LightSquared’s revised proposal to operate in only 

the lower 10 megahertz signal of the MSS band, NTIA requested, in a September 

9, 2011, letter, that the ExCom work with LightSquared to develop and implement 

a test plan to measure interference to cellular and personal/general navigation receivers by November 30, 2011. Based on NTIA’s technical expertise, we believe this 

is an appropriate amount of time for the testing. This phase of testing on cellular 

and personal/general navigation receivers is now complete. NTIA has received the 

test data and is analyzing it as expeditiously as possible. NTIA will consider all 

available data before proposing any recommendations on behalf of the administration with respect to commercial deployment of the LightSquared network. But that 

is not all the testing that needs to be done. As described in the September 9 letter 

and in my response to Question 4, there will later need to be an additional phase 
126 

of testing to evaluate proposed mitigation plans for high-precision and timing receivers which would commence once LightSquared provides a filtering solution to avoid 

interference with those classes of devices. The testing will also evaluate the impact 

of the filtering solution on receiver performance. However, if analysis does not point 

a path to mitigation of interference effects to general navigation and cellular, the 

testing of high precision and timing devices may not be warranted. 

Mr. TURNER. 10. LightSquared has proposed, as part of its ‘‘lower 10 MHz’’ option 

a ‘‘standstill’’ on the upper 10 MHz of the spectrum adjacent to the GPS signal. At 

the same time, LightSquared is said to believe that it needs access to its full spectrum, both the lower and the upper, to be profitable. 

a. Please explain what the ‘‘standstill’’ means and what terms LightSquared is 

proposing for the ‘‘standstill.’’ 

b. Has LightSquared indicated the ‘‘upper 10’’ of the spectrum is completely, permanently off-the-table? Is that what the ‘‘standstill’’ means? 

c. If the ‘‘standstill’’ was only a matter of a few years, what would that mean to 

your agencies? 

d. Should Congress, or the FCC, codify somehow the terms of the ‘‘standstill’’ if 

it is ultimately determined that the ‘‘lower 10 MHz’’ option is acceptable? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 10. LightSquared has not yet clearly explained its definition of temporary ‘‘standstill’’ and if or when the standstill would cease. However, 

LightSquared’s December 12, 2011, filing with the FCC indicated that they would 

not use the upper 10 MHz without the concurrence of the PNT ExCom. We anticipate that this would be among the items that the FCC should clearly and fully articulate in its final determination in this matter. 

Mr. TURNER. 11. LightSquared’s business plan calls for providing service to 260 

million people by 2015. If LightSquared limited its network operations to its ‘‘lower 

10’’ proposal, including lower power levels, how much of its business plan does it 

achieve? Does it need both the ‘‘lower 10’’ and ‘‘upper 10’’ megahertz bands to realize 

full coverage of 260 million people? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 11. NTIA defers to LightSquared for specific questions relating to its 

business plan. 

Mr. TURNER. 12. Part of this proposal is a ‘‘standstill’’ on the use of the upper 

10 MHz spectrum. What is a ‘‘standstill’’ and how would it work? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 12. LightSquared proposed to modify its original deployment plan to 

use only the lower 10 megahertz signal of the MSS spectrum in its initial deployment and operate its base stations at lower power. In addition, LightSquared agreed 

that it would not operate (i.e., ‘‘standstill’’) its terrestrial component signal in the 

upper 10 megahertz immediately adjacent to the GPS band. LightSquared has not 

yet clearly explained its definition of ‘‘standstill’’ and if or when the standstill would 

cease. However, LightSquared’s December 12, 2011, filing with the FCC indicated 

that they would not use the upper 10 MHz without the concurrence of the PNT 

ExCom. 

Mr. TURNER. 13. It has been said by the FCC, including the Chairman, that the 

FCC handles interference issues all the time, so we can trust it to handle this one. 

This is a troubling statement, as it seems to be suggesting that this case is a routine 

matter. Mr. Nebbia, is it the public interest for the United States to have a GPS 

system that operates free of harmful interference? Is it the public interest for the 

U.S. to have set the global standard in precision, navigation and timing? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 13. GPS provides services and benefits of great utility and value to 

the nation and NTIA is committed to protecting GPS users from disruption. As the 

manager of Federal agency spectrum use, NTIA is focused on enabling Federal 

agencies to perform their missions while ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, 

that those agencies use and share spectrum efficiently and effectively. Beginning 

last January and continuing to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on 

behalf of Federal entities regarding potentially harmful interference to GPS-reliant 

systems from LightSquared’s proposed terrestrial operations and has urged the FCC 

not to permit LightSquared to commence operations until those concerns are resolved. At the same time, NTIA is collaborating with the FCC to identify and make 

available over the next decade an additional 500 megahertz of spectrum for fixed 

and mobile wireless broadband by either reallocating or creating opportunities to 

share spectrum currently used by commercial or Federal users. The goal is to nearly 

double over the next decade the amount of spectrum that is currently available for 

commercial wireless broadband. By doing so, the NTIA and FCC will help spur innovation, expand economic growth and job creation, and preserve America’s global 

technology leadership. NTIA is working diligently to consider all available data in 

order to address these goals in the most rapid and responsible manner possible. 

Mr. TURNER. 14. The subcommittee has asked Mr. Knapp if the FCC has discussed with LightSquared whether it will include technology by two firms linked to 
127 

2LightSquared Subsidiary LLC; Request for Modification of its Authority for an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, SAT–MOD–2010118–00239; Call Sign: S2358, Order and Authorization 

(Order), 26 F.C.C. Rcd. 566 (2011). 

the Communist Chinese People’s Liberation Army, Huawei and ZTE Corp., in this 

4G nationwide network, assuming it is approved in some configuration. Will you 

please take this back to LightSquared and provide a written response to this Committee for the record of the hearing? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 14. NTIA recommends that the Committee request such a written 

response directly from LightSquared. 

Mr. TURNER. 15. Please give us an idea of the size and scope of the GPS system 

to include applications and users. Please elaborate to the extent possible in an open 

hearing on the military capabilities that rely on GPS. 

Mr. NEBBIA. 15. GPS, and the innovation derived from its application, provides 

services and benefits of great utility and value to the nation, including for military 

and public safety purposes that protect the homeland and save lives. GPS technologies impact finance, agriculture, military, public safety, transportation, maritime, energy, and nearly every critical economic and social activity. NTIA is committed to protecting GPS users from disruption and continues to work with the 

FCC, Federal entities, and industry on a data-driven, engineering-based approach 

to addressing interference concerns. 

Mr. TURNER. 16. LightSquared would operate in a different part of the spectrum 

(1525–1559 megahertz) than GPS (1559–1610 megahertz). Why is there an interference problem when the two systems would operate in different, but neighboring, 

parts of the spectrum? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 16. LightSquared’s existing satellite operations utilize relatively lowpowered, satellite-based transmissions that do not create harmful interference to 

GPS operations in the adjacent band. By contrast, LightSquared’s proposed terrestrial-only operations would utilize a very large number of high-powered, groundbased transmissions. It is the combination of significantly more high-power, groundbased transmitters, combined with the proximity to GPS receivers, that result in the 

interference. For a more detailed explanation of the causes of this interference, 

please see my September 15 testimony before your Subcommittee, available at: 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2011/testimony-karl-nebbia-hearingsustaining-gpsnational-security-0. 

Mr. TURNER. 17. The reviews undertaken suggest that there are certain GPS applications that, even with modification or complete redesign, would still not be able 

to perform their current mission in the presence of such network broadcasting directly adjacent to the GPS L1 band. What applications? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 17. The tests performed thus far indicate that many precision and 

timing devices would be impacted by LightSquared’s use of the lower 10 MHz. However, these results are based on current technology and do not take into account any 

proposed filter solution. Unless and until LightSquared proposes a filtering solution, 

we cannot say whether the precision and timing systems would be impaired even 

after making modifications or redesigning the devices. 

Mr. TURNER. 18. Is LightSquared allowed to build out a terrestrial network today? 

What are the limitations, if any? Under what circumstances could/would buildup be 

stopped? Assuming FCC provides authorization for LightSquared to move forward 

with its deployment plans, as outlined in its November 2010 filing, how would this 

build-out affect military systems and users in the near-term? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 18. Under its existing authorization, LightSquared is permitted to 

offer dual-mode MSS/ATC devices and/or services (i.e., handsets that can communicate both with orbiting satellites and terrestrial base stations). In November 2010, 

LightSquared requested a modification to its current authorization to deploy terrestrial-only handsets and services that do not utilize the satellite signal. LightSquared 

is not permitted to commence operations on this terrestrial-only network until interference concerns have been adequately addressed. The FCC’s January 26, 2011, 

LightSquared Order stated that the FCC would not allow LightSquared to commence operations until ‘‘the Commission, after consultation with NTIA, concludes 

that the harmful interference concerns have been resolved and sends a letter to 

LightSquared stating that the process is complete.’’ 2 Beginning last January and 

continuing to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on behalf of Federal 

entities, including military users, regarding potentially harmful interference to GPSreliant systems from LightSquared’s proposed terrestrial operations and has urged 

the FCC not to permit LightSquared to commence operations until those concerns 

have been resolved. 

Mr. TURNER. 19. Are FCC and the NTIA looking at other parts of the spectrum 

for possible LightSquared operations? 
128 

3See Federal Communications Commission, Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L–Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, 

IB Docket Nos. 01–185, 02–364, 18 F.C.C. Rcd. 1962, 1964–65 (2003); see also Federal Communications Commission, Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service 

Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L–Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 01–185, 

20 F.C.C. Rcd. 4616 (2005); see also, Federal Communications Commission, SkyTerra Communications, Inc., Transferor and Harbinger Capital Partners Funds, Transferee Applications for 

Consent to Transfer Control of SkyTerra Subsidiary, LLC, IB Docket No. 08–184, Memorandum 

Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 25 F.C.C. Rcd. 3059 (March 25, 2010); Federal Communications Commission, SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC Application for Modification Authority for 

an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, File No. SATMOD–20090429–00047, Call Sign: AMSC–1, 

File No. SAT–MOD–20090429–00046, Call Sign: S2358, File No. SES–MOD–20090429–00536, 

Call Sign: E980179, Order and Authorization, 25 F.C.C. Rcd. 3043 (March 26, 2010). 

Mr. NEBBIA. 19. NTIA is not currently looking at other spectrum bands for 

LightSquared’s operations. In June 2010, President Obama directed NTIA to collaborate with the FCC to identify and make available over the next decade an additional 500 megahertz of spectrum for fixed and mobile wireless broadband by either 

reallocating or creating opportunities to share spectrum currently used by commercial or Federal users. The goal is to nearly double over the next decade the amount 

of spectrum that is currently available for commercial wireless broadband. By doing 

so, the NTIA and FCC will help spur innovation, expand economic growth and job 

creation, and preserve America’s global technology leadership. To date, NTIA has 

identified 115 megahertz of Federal spectrum for reallocation and is currently evaluating another 95 megahertz of spectrum with the goal of making a recommendation 

on that band in the coming weeks. 

Mr. TURNER. 20. DOD briefings to the committee suggest that the part of the LBand spectrum in question was intended primarily for space-to-ground transmissions. Can you explain the history here and why decisions were made to allow 

significant terrestrial transmissions in this band? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 20. In 2003, the FCC granted MSS providers flexibility in how they 

could deliver their communications offerings by enabling them to integrate an ATC 

into their MSS networks. As envisioned, the ATC would augment MSS services by 

utilizing ground stations and mobile terminals that re-use frequencies assigned for 

satellite communications in order to enhance MSS coverage. By granting providers 

flexibility to integrate MSS and ATC, the FCC sought to maximize spectrum efficiency and expand communications capabilities in the United States by filling in the 

‘‘gaps’’ in satellite coverage. However, the FCC stated that in order to meet its ‘‘integrated service rule,’’ the added terrestrial component had to remain ancillary to the 

principal MSS offering. This ancillary requirement was particularly important to 

users of GPS since emissions from terrestrial base stations represent a significantly 

different interference threat to GPS than the far weaker signals emitted from satellites to the ground. 

In November 2004, the FCC’s International Bureau granted a predecessor company to LightSquared Subsidiary LLC (LightSquared) the authority to operate ATC 

facilities providing voice and data communication for users equipped with dual-mode 

MSS/ATC devices (i.e., handsets that could communicate both with orbiting satellites and terrestrial base stations). Additionally, in subsequent Orders in 2005 and 

2010, the FCC afforded LightSquared additional flexibility for the technical design 

of its ATC network by, for example, waiving the requirement for the handsets to 

seek a satellite connection before connecting to a terrestrial base station, by waiving 

the requirement for a fixed number of base stations, and by allowing increased 

power. 3

Mr. TURNER. 21. Does LightSquared’s June 30, 2011, submission to the FCC provide sufficient information on its ‘‘lower 10’’ proposal for your organizations to determine whether the proposal mitigates GPS interference? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 21. No. In response to LightSquared’s revised proposal to operate in 

only the lower 10 megahertz signal of the MSS band, NTIA requested, in a September 9, 2011, letter, that the ExCom work with LightSquared to develop and implement a test plan to measure interference to cellular and personal/general navigation receivers by November 30, 2011. This phase of testing on cellular and personal/ 

general navigation receivers is now complete. NTIA has received the test data and 

is analyzing it as expeditiously as possible. There may later need to be a second 

phase of testing to evaluate proposed mitigation plans for high-precision and timing 

receivers which would commence once LightSquared provides a filtering solution to 

avoid interference with those classes of devices. However, if analysis does not point 

a path to mitigation of interference effects to general navigation and cellular, the 

testing of high precision and timing devices may not be warranted. 
129 

4See Letter from Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator, U.S. Department of Commerce, to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (Jan. 12, 2011), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ 

fcc-filing/2011/letter-regarding-lightsquaredsapplication-provide-mssatc-service. 5LightSquared Subsidiary LLC; Request for Modification of its Authority for an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, SAT–MOD–2010118–00239; Call Sign: S2358, Order and Authorization 

(Order), 26 F.C.C. Rcd. 566 (2011). 6 Id. 

Mr. TURNER. 22. How are DOD comments and concerns addressed at this point 

in the process? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 22. As the manager of Federal agency spectrum use, NTIA is focused 

on enabling Federal agencies to perform their missions while ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, that those agencies use and share spectrum efficiently and effectively. Beginning last January, and continuing to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on behalf of Federal entities—including the Department of Defense— 

regarding potentially harmful interference to GPS-reliant systems from 

LightSquared’s proposed terrestrial operations and has urged the FCC not to permit 

LightSquared to commence operations until those concerns have been resolved. 

NTIA values the candid input of agencies, and considers it a critical input into its 

decision-making. The Department of Defense co-chairs the Executive Steering Group 

of the ExCom, which NTIA has requested work with LightSquared to undertake additional testing. The results of the additional testing will serve as a critical input 

as NTIA develops the Administration position on this matter. 

Mr. TURNER. 23. The National Positioning, Navigation & Timing (PNT) Engineering Forum (NPEF) report recommends that the U.S. Government should ‘‘conduct 

more thorough studies on the operational, economic and safety impacts of operating 

the LightSquared Network.’’ What additional studies and analysis do your organizations (or, you in your professional opinion) believe need to be conducted and why? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 23. Please see my answers to Questions 4, 9, 17, and 21, as well as 

NTIA’s September 9, 2011, letter, which is available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ 

ntia/publications/stricklingletter_09092011.pdf. 

Mr. TURNER. 24. Describe your organization’s involvement in the FCC process 

leading to the FCC’s January 2011 conditional waiver to LightSquared. Was the Department of Defense, in particular, able to register its concerns with the FCC prior 

to its decision in January, and if so, how were those concerns addressed? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 24. Beginning last January, prior to the FCC’s Order, and continuing 

to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on behalf of Federal entities—including the Department of Defense—regarding potentially harmful interference to 

GPS-reliant systems from LightSquared’s proposed terrestrial operations. On January 12, 2011, NTIA advised the FCC that the LightSquared proposal raised significant interference concerns that warranted a full evaluation to ensure that 

LightSquared’s proposed terrestrial network would not adversely impact GPS and 

other critical Federal systems. 4 The FCC’s January 26, 2011, Waiver Order stated 

that the FCC would not allow LightSquared to commence operations until ‘‘the Commission, after consultation with NTIA, concludes that the harmful interference concerns have been resolved and sends a letter to LightSquared stating that the process is complete.’’ 5 NTIA appreciates that the FCC has taken very seriously the concerns raised by NTIA on behalf of Federal agencies in this matter. We look forward 

to providing thorough, expert input to the Commission as it moves toward a final 

decision in this matter. Please see my September 15 testimony before your Subcommittee for further elaboration on NTIA’s involvement with this issue. 

Mr. TURNER. 25. Are your organizations concerned that the FCC can provide final 

approval for LightSquared operations prior to resolving the GPS interference issues? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 25. From the outset, the Federal agencies expressed a desire to resolve all interference concerns prior to granting a waiver. However, the FCC’s January 26, 2011, Waiver Order clearly stated that the FCC would not allow 

LightSquared to commence operations until ‘‘the Commission, after consultation 

with NTIA, concludes that the harmful interference concerns have been resolved 

and sends a letter to LightSquared stating that the process is complete.’’ 6 Both the 

NTIA and the FCC have requested additional testing to determine the extent of interference from LightSquared’s proposed network. NTIA appreciates that the FCC 

has taken very seriously the concerns raised by NTIA on behalf of Federal agencies 

in this matter, as well as its commitment to ensure that these concerns are resolved 

before permitting LightSquared to begin commercial operations. We look forward to 

providing thorough, expert input to the Commission as it moves toward a final decision in this matter. 
130 

Mr. TURNER. 26. There appears to be a tension between national space policy, 

which seeks to mitigate harmful interference to GPS, and national broadband policy, 

which in this particular case, would cause harmful interference to GPS. How do we 

reconcile these two policies? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 26. GPS provides services and benefits of great utility and value to 

the nation, and NTIA is committed to protecting GPS users from interference. As 

the manager of Federal agency spectrum use, NTIA is focused on enabling Federal 

agencies to perform their missions while ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, 

that those agencies use and share spectrum efficiently and effectively. Beginning 

last January and continuing to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on 

behalf of Federal entities regarding potentially harmful interference to GPS-reliant 

systems from LightSquared’s proposed terrestrial operations and has urged the FCC 

not to permit LightSquared to commence operations until those concerns have been 

resolved. At the same time, NTIA is collaborating with the FCC to identify and 

make available over the next decade an additional 500 megahertz of spectrum for 

fixed and mobile wireless broadband by either reallocating or creating opportunities 

to share spectrum currently used by commercial or Federal users. The goal is to 

nearly double over the next decade the amount of spectrum that is currently available for commercial wireless broadband. By doing so, the NTIA and FCC will help 

spur innovation, expand economic growth and job creation, and preserve America’s 

global technology leadership. NTIA is working diligently to consider all available 

data in order to address these goals in the most rapid and responsible manner possible. 

Mr. TURNER. 27. Is LightSquared the only current or planned broadband provider 

where the GPS interference concern is an issue? How are other interference issues 

being resolved to enable co-existence of broadband and GPS services? 

Mr. NEBBIA. 27. NTIA leads and manages the IRAC, which is comprised of representatives from 19 Federal agencies that provide advice to NTIA on spectrum policy matters. As part of its Federal spectrum management duties, NTIA, in consultation with the IRAC, regularly reviews systems coming into use to determine their 

potential for interference into other spectrum bands used by Federal agencies. NTIA 

has reviewed a number of operations for potential interference to GPS. NTIA is not 

aware of another MSS provider with proposed operations that pose similar interference concerns for GPS users. 

Mr. TURNER. 1. I have learned that during the testimony coordination process, you 

were asked to include the following in your prepared remarks: 

‘‘The Administration believes that we must protect existing GPS users from disruption of the services they depend on today and ensure that innovative new GPS 

applications can be developed in the future. At the same time, recognizing the President’s instruction to identify 500 MHz of new spectrum for innovative new mobile 

broadband services, we will continue our efforts at more efficient use of spectrum. 

Therefore, in the short run, we will participate in the further testing required to 

establish whether there are any mitigation strategies that can enable LSQ operation 

in the lower 10MHz of the band. We also encourage commercial entities with interests to work with LightSquared toward a possible resolution, though any proposed 

mitigation must be subjected to full testing. We hope that testing can be complete 

within 90 days. The challenge of meeting the President’s goal also depends on longterm actions by Federal agencies in the area of research and development, procurement practices that encourage spectrally-efficient applications, and new policy development.’’ 

a. Who, specifically, asked that this be included? 

b. If you declined to include the language, in whole or in part, please describe 

why. 

c. Did anyone in the Administration attempt to persuade you to include the language? Who? 

Mr. RUSSO. 1a. As part of the normal Legislative Referral Memorandum (LRM) 

process, I received guidance to include this paragraph in my testimony from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on August 1, 2011. I understand that the 

language was informed by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). 

1b. I included this entire paragraph exactly as written with the exception of the 

one sentence that established a target deadline for completion of testing. I expressed 

my reservations about including this sentence to OMB on August 2, 2011. I objected 

to only this one sentence because I had low confidence testing would be completed 

by November 3, 2011, as implied. At the point in time when I was testifying, we 

had not even begun test planning and therefore I believed this was an unrealistic 

target. 
131 

1c. No one pressured me to include the language. I omitted the one sentence I 

did not agree with and subsequently the testimony was cleared by OMB through 

the standard process. 

Mr. TURNER. 2. Are your responses to these QFRs your own views or those of your 

agency? Have your responses been approved/edited by anyone other than yourself 

or someone reporting to you? 

Mr. RUSSO. 2. These QFR responses are my own views, although I sought input 

from representatives from all the agencies that are stakeholders in GPS. Once I 

drafted the responses, I sent them out to a wide array of GPS experts across the 

Federal Government for fact-checking and editing. And like all Federal agency witnesses, I submitted my final draft for approval to OMB and incorporated comments 

received back from the LRM process to get final clearance. 

Mr. TURNER. 3. Please describe when you and your agency became aware of the 

LightSquared network proposal and its potential for significant interference. 

Mr. RUSSO. 3. The National Coordination Office (NCO) is an administrative office 

serving the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Executive 

Committee (EXCOM). The NCO itself is not a decision-making or policy-making 

body. The EXCOM is comprised of the Deputy Secretaries of the nine different Federal departments or agencies that are the principal Government stakeholders in 

GPS and systems that augment or back-up GPS. 

The issue was brought to the NCO’s attention on December 21, 2010, in the context of LightSquared’s application for a waiver to the integrated service rules, which 

would have resulted in a de facto re-purposing of the spectrum for terrestrial 

broadband instead of Mobile Satellite Service (MSS). This represented a significant 

change to the interference environment in terms of the number and density of the 

Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) base stations we would expect to see. I immediately brought the issue to the attention of the EXCOM’s Executive Steering 

Group (Assistant Secretary-level) and on December 27, 2010, I wrote to NTIA to request any action on LightSquared’s request for waiver be deferred until testing 

could be performed. On January 3, 2011, I provided a point paper to all the members of the EXCOM (Deputy Secretary-level) and requested the Deputy Secretary of 

Defense engage the FCC Chairman to seek a delay to the waiver decision until specific interference effects and mitigation actions could be identified. 

Mr. TURNER. 4. LightSquared has recently announced that it has solved the interference issue for 99.5 percent of GPS users. 

a. Do you agree with this statement? 

b. What is the solution? 

c. Is it a solution for uses of GPS for which you are responsible? 

d. Has it been tested by the Federal Government? If so, please provide details. 

Mr. RUSSO. 4a. No. 

4b. LightSquared’s 99.5 percent number is associated with their ‘‘Recommendation 

Paper’’ filed with the FCC on June 30, 2011. I included a summary of this Paper’s 

recommendations in my written testimony to this subcommittee on September 15, 

2011, and discussed its implications in both the oral and written testimony. The 

LightSquared recommendation paper has three main points: 

a) Lower Power. LightSquared proposes operating at significantly lower power 

than currently authorized by FCC. They propose to operate at a maximum 

base station EIRP per sector for a single carrier at 32 dBW. This was the 

power level authorized for LightSquared’s predecessor in 2005 and it was 

also the maximum level used for live-sky transmission tests done this past 

April through June. However, the current power authorized by the FCC is 

10 times higher than this level to allow for future growth. 

b) Standstill Period. LightSquared proposes they will not deploy the upper 10 

MHz of its terrestrial network without receiving explicit approval from the 

FCC. The standstill period is undefined, but not less than six months. The 

purpose of the standstill period is to allow GPS device manufacturers time 

to improve their equipment to coexist with LightSquared. 

c) Initial Operations Restricted to the Lower 10 MHz Channel. LightSquared 

will start operations in the lower channel instead of the upper channel as 

originally planned. This channel is separated from the GPS frequency by 23 

MHz, which greatly reduces interference. 

4c. The Executive Committee I serve is responsible for helping to implement the 

President’s policy with respect to GPS use ‘‘ . . . for U.S. national and homeland security, civil, scientific, and commercial purposes.’’ 

No, the recommendation is not a solution for these uses, primarily because of the 

‘‘standstill’’ provision, which means LightSquared will still transmit high power terrestrial signals near the GPS L1 spectrum at some point in the future. In addition, 
132 

even the lower channel transmission, with the lower power limitation still interferes 

with some GPS users. 

4d. The Government conducted extensive testing of the LightSquared system in 

April 2011. The power tested was the same ‘‘lower power’’ in the recommendation, 

which is actually the current technical limit of the LightSquared hardware. Most 

of the data points conducted during the ‘‘live-sky’’ tests in Las Vegas were significantly below this level. The tests also included a dual-channel (upper and lower 10 

MHz) and therefore fairly represented what we understand to be the end-state configuration (after ‘‘standstill’’). However, the Government tests did not extensively 

test operations in only the lower 10 MHz, which is a key part of LightSquared’s current recommendations. Some data was collected in what the Government test report 

refers to as an ‘‘initial exploratory evaluation,’’ but it must be remembered this signal configuration was not proposed by LightSquared until several months after the 

Government testing. 

The Government tests conclusively demonstrated that LightSquared’s proposed 

dual-channel deployment causes unacceptable interference to all types of GPS applications. However, the testing of the ‘‘10 MHz Low’’ now proposed as the first phase 

of LightSquared’s new deployment was insufficient to reach a conclusion. Therefore, 

the Government has requested additional testing on this recommendation. The details of the Government testing conducted earlier this year were attached to the 

written version of my testimony in the document called ‘‘Assessment of 

LightSquared Terrestrial Broadband System Effects on GPS Receivers and GPS-dependent Applications’’ from the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and 

Timing Systems Engineering Forum (NPEF). 

Mr. TURNER. 5. General Shelton stated that he believed that LightSquared’s filter 

‘‘solution’’ could cost billions of dollars over more than a decade. Who would be obligated to pay for the costs of adding filters? 

Mr. RUSSO. 5. The FCC has not yet made a determination as to who will pay for 

the mitigation of LightSquared interference to GPS. 

The Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing believes the public sector should not bear any financial responsibility for the cost of 

retrofitting any filters (if they prove to be effective). In the original 2003 Order 

granting the Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) license to LightSquared’s predecessor, the FCC clearly placed the responsibility for ensuring compatibility on the 

ATC service provider: 

‘‘We [the FCC] adopt technical parameters for ATC operations in each of the 

bands at issue designed to protect adjacent and in-band operations from interference from ATC. We fully expect that these operational parameters will be 

sufficient. Nevertheless, in the unlikely event that an adjacent MSS or other 

operator does receive harmful interference from ATC operations, either from 

ATC base stations or mobile terminals, the ATC operator must resolve such 

interference.’’ 

This responsibility is still placed upon the ATC service provider in the FCC 

Rules, specifically in 47 CFR § 25.255. 

If, for any reason, the FCC concludes 47 CFR § 25.255 does not apply, then the 

costs of mitigation would likely be borne by the Federal, State, and local agencies 

that own and operate the GPS systems and by commercial users. LightSquared has 

offered to pay up to $50 million for retrofitting or reequipping Federal agencies. 

Mr. TURNER. 6. In a September 29, 2011, Washington Post article by Cecilia Kang, 

it was reported that LightSquared chief executive Sanjiv Ahuja said during an interview on C–SPAN’s ‘‘The Communicators’’ that the company is offering Federal agencies ‘‘a sufficient amount of money to replace most receivers or fix most receivers 

out there.’’ 

a. Please provide an estimate of how much money LightSquared would have to 

spend to ‘‘replace most receivers or fix the Federal Government’s GPS receivers.’’ 

b. How much has the United States Government spent on its GPS receivers? 

c. How much have GPS users other than the United States spent on their GPS 

receivers? 

Mr. RUSSO. 6a. The cost is unknown because the number and types of GPS receivers that would have to be replaced or fixed is unknown. This will depend on the 

outcome of the additional testing requested by the FCC and will also depend very 

significantly on whether the end-state signal configuration is dual-channel (‘‘upper 

and lower 10 MHz’’) or single channel (‘‘lower 10 MHz only’’). It will also depend 

on how long the ‘‘standstill’’ period is before LightSquared deploys its upper channel, if the lower 10 MHz-only regime is not permanent. 

6b. The U.S. Government as a whole does not track the total amount it spends 

on GPS receivers, but the Department of Defense alone has spent $9.3B on receivers 
133 

according to an October 2011 report by the Congressional Budget Office. The FAA 

reports it has already invested more than $3B in GPS equipment through FY 2011, 

with another $8B planned in GPS infrastructure investments planned through FY 

2018. 

Industry sources put the total Government figure at a minimum $47B for GPS 

infrastructure and devices, although this likely includes more than just GPS receivers. 6c. According to the Space Foundation, the total global expenditures are over $55B per year. The U.S. portion of those expenditures is between 23–28 percent. 

Mr. TURNER. 7. Mr. Russo, my understanding is that you solicited all Federal 

Government agencies with GPS equities on their concerns with the LightSquared 

proposal. Please detail which agencies did and did not respond to your solicitation. 

If an agency did not respond, please explain, to the best of your understanding, why. 

Are you aware of any Government position papers on LightSquared interference 

which have been provided to the National Coordination Office or to the NTIA that 

have not been forwarded to the FCC and then made public? If so, why were they 

not made public immediately? 

Mr. RUSSO. 7. All member agencies of the National Executive Committee for 

Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (EXCOM) have provided information to NTIA about their concerns with the LightSquared proposal. I am unaware 

of the manner and extent to which NTIA will factor in these concerns in its recommendation to the FCC. 

At the request of the EXCOM, I tasked each member agency to quantify the economic and operational impact of mitigating GPS interference and to provide their 

statements to NTIA. Not all agencies were able to provide the requested statements 

because of the uncertainty of the final end-state signal configuration and of the unknown effectiveness of mitigation techniques. Some were able to answer only in general terms, while others did make an ‘‘order of magnitude’’ estimate. DOD did not 

provide a response at all, citing insufficient information as described by Ms. Takai 

in her testimony to this Subcommittee. NTIA has asked Federal agencies not to 

make any of these statements public yet because they are considered pre-decisional 

and part of the deliberative process of the Executive Branch. 

Mr. TURNER. 8. LightSquared has proposed, as part of its ‘‘lower 10 MHz’’ option 

a ‘‘standstill’’ on the upper 10 MHz of the spectrum adjacent to the GPS signal. At 

the same time, LightSquared is said to believe that it needs access to its full spectrum, both the lower and the upper, to be profitable. 

a. Please explain what the ‘‘standstill’’ means and what terms LightSquared is 

proposing for the ‘‘standstill.’’ 

b. Has LightSquared indicated the ‘‘upper 10’’ of the spectrum is completely, permanently off-the-table? Is that what the ‘‘standstill’’ means? 

c. If the ‘‘standstill’’ was only a matter of a few years, what would that mean to 

your agencies? 

d. Should Congress, or the FCC, codify somehow the terms of the ‘‘standstill’’ if 

it is ultimately determined that the ‘‘lower 10 MHz’’ option is acceptable? 

Mr. RUSSO. 8a. I believe LightSquared intends the ‘‘standstill’’ term to mean that 

they wish to have approval to operate their network on the ‘‘lower 10 MHz’’ channel 

immediately, but agrees the current conditions on the upper channel should remain 

in place for an undefined period of time (but not less than six months). 

During the standstill period, LightSquared would expect to continue to work with 

the FCC, the NTIA, and Federal agencies on GPS receiver engineering and design 

solutions to allow LightSquared to be able to use the upper channel for their future 

capacity requirements. 

The removal of the conditions for the upper channel would require FCC approval, 

in consultation with NTIA. 

8b. No, this is not what ‘‘standstill’’ means. Standstill indicates that LightSquared 

seeks to use the ‘‘upper 10’’ at some point in the future. The standstill period is 

meant to give the Government and the GPS community time to find solutions to 

permit coexistence. 

LightSquared has referred to the ‘‘upper 10’’ being off-the-table in numerous public statements, but has not indicated this in any official filing with the FCC. 

—On June 23, Mr. Carlisle, Executive Vice President of LightSquared testified to 

the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that LightSquared 

would delay operations in the upper 10 MHz and sought a ‘‘glide path’’ of 2–3 years 

before using this portion of their spectrum. 

—In its June 30 ‘‘Recommendation Paper’’, LightSquared states: 

‘‘While LightSquared intends ultimately to deploy a network using a full 

complement of terrestrial frequencies operating at appropriate power levels, in 

order to provide LTE capacity and service levels to its customers, it will delay 
134 

incorporating into its terrestrial network the upper 10 MHz of its frequencies 

. . . ’’ 

—On September 8, Mr. Carlisle repeated in testimony to the House Committee 

on Space, Science and Technology the concept of a ‘‘standstill’’ period for eventual 

upper 10 MHz operations. In follow-on answers to Congressional Questions for the 

Record, Mr. Carlisle indicated this standstill period was on the order of 5–6 years. 

‘‘Standstill’’ clearly implies eventual use of the upper 10 MHz. 

8c. Given the lengthy process for Agency budgeting, authorization and equipment 

procurements, most agencies would reequip based only on the projected end-state 

configuration. Unfortunately, the target date for the end-state is undefined. This 

makes it nearly impossible to build credible cost and impact estimates and to initiate requests for the required funding. 

Certainly Federal agencies do not want to begin lengthy and expensive procurement actions, only to have to reinitiate them again in a few years. 

8d. Yes, the FCC should codify all terms in their final ruling. If ‘‘lower 10 MHz’’ 

is a permanent configuration, that needs to be specified. If it is approved as a temporary state, then the nature and timing of the final configuration need to be specified. 

Mr. TURNER. 9. LightSquared’s business plan calls for providing service to 260 

million people by 2015. If LightSquared limited its network operations to its ‘‘lower 

10’’ proposal, including lower power levels, how much of its business plan does it 

achieve? Does it need both the ‘‘lower 10’’ and ‘‘upper 10’’ megahertz bands to realize 

full coverage of 260 million people? 

Mr. RUSSO. 9. Our office has not been involved in any analysis or evaluation of 

LightSquared’s business plans. However, an important point to consider is the difference between ‘‘coverage’’ and ‘‘capacity.’’ LightSquared tells us that approval of 

the ‘‘lower 10’’ will allow them to realize full coverage of 260 million people as required by their agreement with the FCC. But just because someone is in the coverage area, does not mean they will be using LightSquared’s service. The number 

of people actually using the service, as well as how they are using the service, determines the capacity needs. LightSquared projects the ‘‘lower 10’’ band is insufficient 

to meet their future capacity needs as demand for their broadband service grows. 

Mr. TURNER. 10. Part of this proposal is a ‘‘standstill’’ on the use of the upper 

10 MHz spectrum. What is a ‘‘standstill’’ and how would it work? 

Mr. RUSSO. 10. I believe LightSquared intends the ‘‘standstill’’ term to mean that 

they wish to have approval to operate their network on the ‘‘lower 10 MHz’’ channel 

immediately, but agrees the current conditions on the upper channel should remain 

in place for an undefined period of time (but not less than six months). 

During the standstill period, LightSquared would expect to continue to work with 

the FCC, the NTIA, and Federal agencies on GPS receiver engineering and design 

solutions to allow LightSquared to be able to use the upper channel for their future 

capacity requirements. 

The removal on the conditions for the upper channel would require FCC approval, 

in consultation with NTIA. 

Mr. TURNER. 11. It has been said by the FCC, including the Chairman, that the 

FCC handles interference issues all the time, so we can trust it to handle this one. 

This is a troubling statement, as it seems to be suggesting that this case is a routine 

matter. 

Is it the public interest for the United States to have a GPS system that operates 

free of harmful interference? Is it the public interest for the U.S. to have set the 

global standard in precision, navigation and timing? 

Mr. RUSSO. 11. The answers are clearly ‘‘yes’’ to both. President Obama’s Space 

Policy (June 2010) states: 

‘‘Provide continuous worldwide access, for peaceful civil uses, to the Global Positioning System (GPS) and its government-provided augmentations, free of direct user charges;’’ 

And, 

‘‘The United States must maintain its leadership in the service, provision, and 

use of global navigation satellite systems (GNSS).’’ 

Mr. TURNER. 12. The subcommittee has asked Mr. Knapp if the FCC has discussed with LightSquared whether it will include technology by two firms linked to 

the Communist Chinese People’s Liberation Army, Huawei and ZTE Corp., in this 

4G nationwide network, assuming it is approved in some configuration. Will you 

please take this back to LightSquared and provide a written response to this Committee for the record of the hearing? 
135 

Mr. RUSSO. 12. On October 24, 2011, I received this response from Mr. Jeff Carlisle, Executive Vice President for LightSquared: 

‘‘The FCC has not discussed with LightSquared any specific sourcing of the 

technology in our network. Regardless, LightSquared will not include any technology from Huawei or ZTE Corp. in any part of its network.’’ 

Mr. TURNER. 13. Please give us an idea of the size and scope of the GPS system 

to include applications and users. 

Mr. RUSSO. 13. The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a U.S.-owned utility that 

provides users with positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) services. This system 

consists of three segments: the space segment, the control segment, and the user 

segment. The U.S. Air Force develops, maintains, and operates the space and control segments. 

Space Segment: 

GPS satellites fly in medium Earth orbit (MEO) at an altitude of approximately 

20,200 km. Each satellite circles the Earth twice a day. 

The satellites in the GPS constellation are arranged into six equally-spaced orbital planes surrounding the Earth, each containing four ‘‘slots’’ occupied by baseline 

satellites. This 24-slot arrangement ensures there are at least four satellites in view 

from virtually any point on the planet. 

The Air Force normally flies more than 24 GPS satellites to ensure coverage 

whenever the baseline satellites are serviced or decommissioned. The extra satellites 

may increase GPS performance but are not considered part of the core constellation. 

Currently, there are 30 satellites operating with an additional four satellites still 

functional, but considered to be in ‘‘residual’’ status and not actively contributing 

to user navigation solutions. 

The GPS constellation has now attained the most optimal geometry in its 42-year 

history, maximizing GPS coverage for all users worldwide. 

Control Segment: 

The control segment consists of worldwide monitor and control stations that maintain the satellites in their proper orbits through occasional command maneuvers, 

and adjust the satellite clocks. It tracks the GPS satellites, uploads updated navigational data, and maintains health and status of the satellite constellation. 
136 

User Segment: 

The user segment consists of the GPS receiver equipment, which receives the signals from the GPS satellites and uses the transmitted information to calculate the 

user’s three-dimensional position and time. Most of the GPS receiver equipment is 

not built or owned by the U.S. Government. There are over a billion GPS receivers 

worldwide. 

Augmentations: 

To date, U.S. taxpayers have invested over $35B in GPS infrastructure and this 

figure does not include the extensive investment in systems that augment or enhance GPS services. These services include the FAA’s Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), Department of Commerce’s Continuously Operating Reference Stations 

(CORS), the U.S Coast Guard and Department of Transportation’s Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS), NASA’s Global Differential GPS 

(GDGPS), or any of the many international and commercial augmentation systems. 

Applications: 

GPS is used for many diverse applications; it would be impossible to adequately 

cover them in this response. A sampling of the civil applications include: agriculture, 

roads and highways, aviation, shipping/asset tracking, space, recreation, surveying/ 

mapping, weather, disaster preparedness, public safety and disaster relief, rail safety, marine operations, and a host of environmental programs. In addition, the GPS 

timing service is critical to energy exploration and distribution, telecommunications, 

cyber networks, banking and finance, and numerous scientific and research applications. 

Mr. TURNER. 14. Please elaborate to the extent possible in an open hearing on the 

military capabilities that rely on GPS. 

Mr. RUSSO. 14. GPS provides a constant worldwide source for highly precise position and time, both of which are critical for the safe and efficient conduct of military 

operations and for a transformation to net-centric operations. GPS enhances interoperability in all aspects of military combat operations because of its commondatum, common-grid, and common time capabilities. GPS has also been the catalyst 

for precision operations by increasing individual weapon effectiveness and minimizing collateral damage. GPS military applications are numerous and include: 

navigation, target tracking, precision munitions, communications, asset tracking, 

search and rescue, missile and projectile guidance, aviation, reconnaissance, delivery 

of humanitarian aid, blue-force tracking, and battlefield management. 

Mr. TURNER. 15. LightSquared would operate in a different part of the spectrum 

(1525–1559 megahertz) than GPS (1559–1610 megahertz). Why is there an interference problem when the two systems would operate in different, but neighboring, 

parts of the spectrum? 

Mr. RUSSO. 15. The issue has to do with the differences between digital radio communications and digital radio navigation. For a communications signal, the receiving device must determine whether each bit is a zero or a one. Determining the se-
137 

quence of zeros and ones, determines the message, which is the point of the transmission. 

For navigation, the incoming, one-directional signal sequence of zeros and ones is 

already known. What the receiver must determine is the precise time of the transition between the ones and zeros. In communications, a message with errors, or 

missing information, can be retransmitted. For navigation, errors create integrity 

issues and missing information cause a continuity issue that is critical to some realtime applications. For communications purposes, you only need to see one portion 

of the transmitted signal to be able to determine the message. For navigation purposes you need to see the full width of the signal. The wider the filter response, 

the more accurate the solution. However, if the filter receives too much unwanted 

energy (noise) it can experience something called ‘‘overload’’ or ‘‘desensitization’’ interference. Current GPS filters work fine in an environment where the neighboring 

signals are weak transmissions from other satellites. Many existing GPS filters are 

inadequate for the much higher power signals from ground-based towers. 

The notional chart above illustrates that GPS filters as they exist today allow full 

use of the entire width of the GPS signal and still reject the low power satellite 

transmissions from the band right below GPS. However, the much higher power terrestrial transmissions proposed by LightSquared overload the receiver (particularly 

for the upper channel transmission). 

It may be possible to build a filter system that excludes the higher power signals 

and still allows the receiver to see the full range of GPS signals. JAVAD GNSS 

claims to have a system of filters that can do this for the lower of the two 

LightSquared transmission channels (the one furthest to the left on the chart 

above), but not the closer of the two channels (or ‘‘upper band’’). 

Federal agencies are concerned even if the lower band filter solutions work, they 

will increase the cost, weight and power requirements of the GPS receiver, and negatively impact performance characteristics. In addition, it is unclear how the current 

installed user base would be addressed or who would bear the cost. FCC and NTIA 

have asked for additional testing to determine the effectiveness of LightSquared’s 

proposed mitigation strategies and the impacts to application performance requirements. 

Mr. TURNER. 16. What is the magnitude of the harmful interference and the national security implications of such interference? Discuss the results of the Department’s testing and any specific examples that substantiate these observations? 

Mr. RUSSO. 16. The testing the Government did on the original LightSquared proposal earlier this year conclusively indicates harmful interference to every category 

of GPS user, including national security users. Gen. Shelton mentioned several specific examples in his testimony before this Committee in both the closed and open 
138 

sessions. I defer a more specific discussion of national security implications to Ms. 

Takai, who testified on behalf of DOD. 

In my original written testimony, I included the unclassified portion of the Government’s test report. Here are some excerpts relative to the civil applications (all 

of which assume LSQ operations in both the upper and lower band): 

1) LightSquared’s out-of-band emissions were within the limits they had 

agreed to with GPS industry and significantly better than what is required 

by the FCC 

2) All GPS receiver applications (but not all receivers) were impacted by the 

proposed network 

a. Aviation receivers degraded between 0.9 and 19.3 km (for a single 

tower) 

i. Aggregate effects would deny aviation use of GPS for hundreds of 

km 

b. Space receivers degraded as far as 305.5 km which includes certain 

NASA satellites in low Earth orbit 

c. Maritime receivers lost satellite tracking between 0.3 and 1.0 km 

d. High Precision receivers lost satellite tracking between 1.7 and 6.1 km 

3) Anecdotal observations from single data points during live transmission test 

a. New Mexico State Police cruiser lost reception 600 ft from LSQ tower 

i. Police HQ also lost the location of the cruiser on their tracking system 

b. An ambulance lost GPS tracking 1,000 ft from the LSQ tower 

i. Also indicated speed of 9 MPH, while vehicle was actually stationary 

c. Fire Department vehicle lost GPS at 1,000 ft from LSQ tower 

i. Last reported location was not near actual location 

Some information was collected on LSQ’s new proposal for starting operations in 

only the lower 10 MHz, but was insufficient for a conclusion. 

Mr. TURNER. 17. The reviews undertaken suggest that there are certain GPS applications that, even with modification or complete redesign, would still not be able 

to perform their current mission in the presence of such network broadcasting directly adjacent to the GPS L1 band. What applications? 

Mr. RUSSO. 17. Certain applications use not only GPS L1 signals but also signals 

from the Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) band right below it—the band where 

LightSquared operates. Since the augmentation signals they receive in the MSS 

band can come from any portion of that band, just redesigning the receiver cannot 

solve this issue. Applications that incorporate these MSS band augmentation signals 

include precision farming, military reconnaissance drones, surveying, and GM’s ‘‘OnStar’’ automobile services. 

In other instances, applications may not achieve the extremely high precision they 

require, even if the proposed filters work properly. These applications may include 

natural hazard and environmental monitoring, and scientific/research functions. 

Further testing is needed to determine the effectiveness of proposed receiver modifications and their ultimate impact on mission performance. 

Mr. TURNER. 18a. Is LightSquared allowed to build out a terrestrial network 

today? 

18b. What are the limitations, if any? 

18c. Under what circumstances could/would buildup be stopped? 

18d. Assuming FCC provides authorization for LightSquared to move forward 

with its deployment plans, as outlined in its November 2010 filing, how would this 

build-out affect military systems and users in the near-term? 

Mr. RUSSO. 18a. Yes. 

18b. There are many limitations and conditions on LightSquared’s build out of a 

terrestrial network. One of the most significant is that LightSquared may not commence offering commercial service until the GPS interference issues are resolved. 

On September 13, 2011, the FCC issued a Public Notice stating ‘‘ . . . additional targeted testing is needed to ensure that any potential services offered by LightSquared 

will not cause harmful interference to GPS operations.’’ 

18c. My understanding is only the FCC would have the authority to stop the 

buildup. I am not knowledgeable about the criteria they would use to decide this 

or the procedures they would use to implement their decision. 

18d. I believe Gen. Shelton covered this in his testimony to this Subcommittee 

when he testified that tests based on the original LightSquared deployment plans 

and original FCC authorization ‘‘ . . . demonstrated empirically that the 

LightSquared signals interfere with all types of receivers in the test.’’ His testimony 

referenced 29 different types of military receivers. I defer discussion of specific mili-
139 

tary system impacts to Ms. Takai and Gen. Shelton, and would expect that the details would be classified at SECRET or above. 

Mr. TURNER. 19. Does LightSquared’s June 30, 2011, submission to the FCC provide sufficient information on its ‘‘lower 10’’ proposal for your organizations to determine whether the proposal mitigates GPS interference? 

Mr. RUSSO. 19. Even LightSquared admits in their June 30, 2011, submission that 

the ‘‘lower 10’’ proposal does not mitigate GPS interference for all users. In numerous technical interchanges with FCC, NTIA, and LightSquared we have learned 

more about LightSquared’s mitigation strategies which do not solely rely on the 

‘‘lower 10’’ proposal. Their proposal partially relies on development of filters and antennas for GPS receivers which we will need to test. 

Mr. TURNER. 20. The National Positioning, Navigation & Timing (PNT) Engineering Forum (NPEF) report recommends that the U.S. Government should ‘‘conduct 

more thorough studies on the operational, economic and safety impacts of operating 

the LightSquared Network.’’ What additional studies and analysis do your organizations (or, you in your professional opinion) believe need to be conducted and why? 

Mr. RUSSO. 20. In my professional opinion, the following additional studies and 

analyses need to be done: 

1) Comprehensive testing of GPS receivers against the actual proposed 

LightSquared signal configuration. The signal configuration LightSquared 

states will mitigate interference for 99.5 percent of GPS users was not 

part of the original plan. 

2) Systems-level testing in the expected operational environment. Most of the 

testing to date has been component-level. Over the past decade, we have 

seen harmful interference occur on integrated systems in tests, exercises 

and real-world incidents that were difficult to create in the laboratory environment. 

3) Test and/or analysis of aggregate effects. With the exception of Aviationcertified receivers, most of the data reported so far has been based on a 

single LightSquared base station. Under real conditions, interference effects from multiple base stations can produce a larger effect. 

4) More thorough testing of LightSquared handsets. To date, actual handsets 

have been unavailable and the simulations we have done are of questionable fidelity. The handsets are much weaker in terms of power compared 

to base stations, but much more numerous and are expected to be in close 

proximity to GPS receivers. 

5) Realistic testing of the effectiveness of LightSquared’s proposed mitigation 

solutions for both high-precision receivers and GPS timing. LightSquared 

has proposed several different timing antennas and filter systems that appear promising. Government tests need to verify these can be incorporated 

in high precision receivers and still permit the receivers to meet their mission requirements. 

6) Once the final end-state is determined, high-fidelity cost estimates need 

to be done for the costs of retrofitting or replacing existing GPS receivers 

and associated infrastructure. 

Mr. TURNER. 21. Describe your organization’s involvement in the FCC process 

leading to the FCC’s January 2011 conditional waiver to LightSquared. Was the Department of Defense, in particular, able to register its concerns with the FCC prior 

to its decision in January, and if so, how were those concerns addressed? 

Mr. RUSSO. 21. The National Coordination Office (NCO) is an administrative office 

serving the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Executive 

Committee (EXCOM). The NCO itself is not a decision-making or policy-making 

body. The EXCOM is comprised of the Deputy Secretaries of the nine different Federal departments (including DOD) or agencies that are the principal Government 

stakeholders in GPS and systems that augment or back-up GPS. 

The issue was brought to the NCO’s attention on December 21, 2010, in the context of LightSquared’s application for a waiver to the integrated service rules, which 

would have resulted in a de facto re-purposing of the spectrum for terrestrial 

broadband instead of Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS). This represented a significant 

change to the interference environment in terms of the number and density of the 

Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) base stations we would expect to see. I immediately brought the issue to the attention of the EXCOM’s Executive Steering 

Group (Assistant Secretary-level) and on December 27, 2010, I wrote to NTIA to request any action on LightSquared’s request for waiver be deferred until testing 

could be performed. On January 3, 2011, I provided a point paper to all the members of the EXCOM (Deputy Secretary-level) and requested the Deputy Secretary of 

Defense engage the FCC Chairman to seek a delay to the waiver decision until specific interference effects and mitigation actions could be identified. 
140 

The Department of Defense registered its concerns on several levels prior to the 

FCC decision. Mr. Price, the chief spectrum officer for the DOD, wrote to NTIA on 

December 28, 2010, to request deferment of action on LightSquared’s waiver request 

and also to request formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to allow for a 

robust public record and adequate interference analysis. Ms. Takai, the DOD Chief 

Information Officer, personally engaged the NTIA Administrator to express national 

security concerns. The Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Lynn, wrote to the FCC 

Chairman on January 12, 2011, to assert there was a ‘‘ . . . strong potential for interference to these critical National Security Systems.’’ The Deputy Secretary strongly 

recommended deferral of the waiver decision until interference studies could be 

done. 

The concerns of DOD, and other Federal agencies, were also registered with the 

FCC in a January 12, 2011, from the NTIA Administrator to the FCC Chairman 

recommending that LightSquared not be permitted to offer service until the interference issues were resolved. 

The FCC did not agree to use the NPRM process or to defer the waiver as requested by DOD. However, it did address their concerns by making the waiver conditional on resolving the GPS interference concerns raised by DOD and others. 

Mr. TURNER. 22. Are your organizations concerned that the FCC can provide final 

approval for LightSquared operations prior to resolving the GPS interference issues? 

Mr. RUSSO. 22. Yes, the organizations are concerned. However, FCC representatives at every level have assured us they will not provide final approval until the 

GPS interference issues are resolved. The FCC liaison to the Executive Committee 

made that statement unequivocally to the Deputy Secretaries that sit on the Committee. FCC also testified to this intent to this Subcommittee. And the FCC Chairman himself has said, ‘‘ . . . the commission will not permit LightSquared to begin 

commercial service without first resolving the commission’s concerns about potential 

widespread harmful interference to GPS devices . . . Under no circumstances would 

I put at risk our nation’s national defense or public safety.’’ 

Mr. TURNER. 23. There appears to be a tension between national space policy, 

which seeks to mitigate harmful interference to GPS, and national broadband policy, 

which in this particular case, would cause harmful interference to GPS. How do we 

reconcile these two policies? 

Mr. RUSSO. 23. These policies are not mutually exclusive. The President issued 

a comprehensive Space Policy in June 2010, which supported maintaining U.S. leadership in space-based positioning, navigation and timing services and also reinforced 

a long-standing commitment to offer these services on a worldwide, continuous basis 

free from interruption. Also in June 2010, the President issued an Executive Memo 

seeking to make available additional spectrum for wireless broadband, but included 

a provision to ‘‘ . . . ensure no loss of critical existing and planned Federal, State, 

Local and Tribal Government capabilities.’’ 

Therefore, the Administration’s guidance to Federal agencies seems clear: We 

should do what we can to collaborate with FCC to find ways to improve the efficiency of spectrum use, but not at the expense of existing and planned GPS services. 

Mr. TURNER. 24. Is LightSquared the only current or planned broadband provider 

where the GPS interference concern is an issue? How are other interference issues 

being resolved to enable co-existence of broadband and GPS services? 

Mr. RUSSO. 24. The Executive Committee requested a briefing on this topic from 

FCC and NTIA last year after the Presidential Memorandum on Spectrum was 

issued. On November 5, 2010 the Associate Administrator of NTIA briefed the Executive Committee on the implications of the Broadband initiative on GPS and indicated there were no known impacts. The Chief of the Office of Engineering and 

Technology for the FCC was also present and had no concerns. However, as the 

Broadband plan is implemented and evolves, the Executive Committee will continue 

to work closely with NTIA and FCC on any new developments that could impact 

GPS service. The Committee’s Executive Steering Group has opened an Action Item 

to create a Spectrum Protection Plan for GPS. 

Mr. TURNER. 1. I have learned that during the testimony coordination process, you 

were asked to include the following in your prepared remarks: 

‘‘The Administration believes that we must protect existing GPS users from disruption of the services they depend on today and ensure that innovative new GPS 

applications can be developed in the future. At the same time, recognizing the President’s instruction to identify 500 MHz of new spectrum for innovative new mobile 

broadband services, we will continue our efforts at more efficient use of spectrum. 

Therefore, in the short run, we will participate in the further testing required to 

establish whether there are any mitigation strategies that can enable LSQ operation 

in the lower 10MHz of the band. We also encourage commercial entities with inter-
141 

ests to work with LightSquared toward a possible resolution, though any proposed 

mitigation must be subjected to full testing. We hope that testing can be complete 

within 90 days. The challenge of meeting the President’s goal also depends on longterm actions by Federal agencies in the area of research and development, procurement practices that encourage spectrally-efficient applications, and new policy development.’’ 

a. Who, specifically, asked that this be included? 

b. If you declined to include the language, in whole or in part, please describe 

why. 

c. Did anyone in the Administration attempt to persuade you to include the language? Who? 

Mr. KNAPP. 1. I did not receive any requests to include this language, or any other 

statement from the Administration in my testimony. 

Mr. TURNER. 2. Are your responses to these QFRs your own views or those of your 

agency? Have your responses been approved/edited by anyone other than yourself 

or someone reporting to you? 

Mr. KNAPP. 2. Based on an agreement with your staff on September 14, 2011, 

FCC Chairman Genachowski designated me as the Commission witness for the September 15, 2011, hearing before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. I drafted my 

own testimony in consultation with other Commission staff consistent with standard 

procedure, and I stand by the contents of my testimony. Since I served as the Chairman’s designee, his staff also reviewed the testimony before it was submitted. 

Mr. TURNER. 3. Please describe when you and your agency became aware of the 

LightSquared network proposal and its potential for significant interference. 

Mr. KNAPP. 3. The specific answer to your question is that prior to December 

2010, I was unaware of the potential for receiver overload of GPS devices, although 

I now know that the GPS industry raised some concerns in comments and provided 

assurances of mitigation in September, 2010. To assist the Committee in its understanding of this matter, a more complete explanation of the procedural history is 

warranted. The relevant timeframe at issue is 2001 to the present. During 2001, I 

served as Chief of the Policy and Rules Division in the Office of Engineering and 

Technology (OFT) and became Deputy Chief of OET in 2002. In 2006, then-FCC 

Chairman Kevin Martin appointed me as OFT Chief. 

Additionally, it should be understood that the Commission typically addresses interference issues by setting parameters for transmitters to ensure that they do not 

emit excessive energy into frequency bands used by other services. The Commission 

then relies upon equipment manufacturers, service providers, and other stakeholders to ensure their receivers comply with those technical parameters. We also 

look to these equipment manufacturer and service providers to provide technical information on the performance characteristics of their receivers. They are best positioned to know of their limitations and specifications and should notify the Commission if overload interference is a potential issue as a result of receiver characteristics. Because terrestrial transmitters were expected to operate with some frequency 

separation from the edge of the GPS band, the potential overload problem was not 

one that the FCC would have examined in the ordinary course of the proceeding. 

Below is the procedural history of the LightSquared matter: 

• Commission issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to permit mobile satellite 

service providers to offer an ancillary component in response to requests filed 

by Mobile Satellite Ventures Inc. and New ICO Global Communications. 

• Proposal invites comment on whether the proposed rules would protect GPS 

systems. See Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite 

Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L–Band and the 1.6/2.4 GHz band, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, TB Docket No. 01–185, 16 FCC Rcd. 15,532 

(2001). 

2003 

• Commission adopts rules permitting MSS licensees to integrate ATC into their 

satellite networks to provide mobile service to areas where satellite signals are 

degraded or blocked (i.e., urban areas and inside of buildings). See Flexibility 

for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 

GHz Band, the L–Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, TB Docket Nos. 01–185, 

02–364, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd. 1962 (2003), as modified by Order on 

Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd. 13,590 (2003). 

• Rules require MSS licensees to offer an integrated satellite and terrestrial service. 

• They must maintain a viable satellite service and cannot offer terrestrial service 

separately. 
142 

• Rules also allow up to 1,725 terrestrial base stations to be deployed in the L– 

band, which includes the spectrum adjacent to and below the GPS band. 

2004 

• Commission’s International Bureau authorizes SkyTerra (formerly MSV), to 

offer an integrated MSS/ATC service to users equipped with dual-mode MSS/ 

ATC mobile devices. Authorization provides for expansive ATC, including the 

deployment of thousands of terrestrial base stations. See Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC Application for Minor Modification of Space Station License for AMSC–1, File Nos. SAT–MOD–20031 118–00333, SAT–MOD–20031 

118–00332, SESMOD–20031 118–01879, Order and Authorization, 19 FCC Rcd. 

22,144 (Int’l Bur. 2004). 

2005 

• Commission modifies the MSS ATC rules in response to petitions for reconsideration of the 2003 Order. 

• Adopted rules were (and remain) consistent with the recommendations of the 

GPS industry and the Executive Branch, which included input from the Department of Defense. 

• Commission removes the previously adopted limitation on the number of terrestrial base stations that may be deployed. See TB Docket Nos. 01–185, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration 20 FCC Rcd. 

4616 (2005) (ATC Reconsideration Order). 

• Extensively discusses the potential overload interference from L–band 

(SkyTerra) ATC base stations to Inmarsat mobile satellite terminals as well as 

potential overload interference from 2 GHz ATC mobile devices operating above 

1995 MHz to PCS mobile receivers operating in the adjacent band below 1995 

MHz. 

• No one raises receiver overload interference issue. 

2009 (March–April) 

• Harbinger and SkyTerra together file an application for transfer of control of 

SkyTerra to Harbinger. SkyTerra subsequently files an application for modification of its authority for an ancillary terrestrial component, including requests 

for waivers of a number of the Commission’s rules for ATC operation. Commission invites public comment on both requests, triggering extensive comments. 

2009 (July–August) 

• GPS industry raises concerns about SkyTerra’s application for ATC modifications, stating that the existing out-of-band emissions limits would be insufficient to protect against interference to GPS from LightSquared’s planned low 

power base stations and indoor ‘‘femto-cells.’’ Note out-of-band emissions are not 

the same as receiver overload, which is the basis of the current controversy. No 

one raises receiver overload issue. SkyTerra and the U.S. GPS Industry Council 

submit a joint letter to the Commission stating that the out-of-band emissions 

interference issues had been resolved. No commenter raises any other concerns 

about GPS interference. 

2010 (March 15) 

• National Broadband Plan Recommendation 5.8.4 calls for the FCC to accelerate 

terrestrial deployment in the MSS spectrum. 

2010 (March 26) 

• Commission’s bureaus and offices issue two orders addressing the 2009 Harbinger and SkyTerra requests and comments: 

(First Order) SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC Application for Modification Authority 

for Ancillary Terrestrial Component, Order and Authorization, 25 FCC Rcd. 

3043 (Int’l Bur. 2010). 

> Authorizes the transfer of control from SkyTerra to Harbinger, explaining Harbinger’s plans to construct a hybrid-satellite-terrestrial network 

and noting terrestrial component would cover 90 percent of the United 

States. 

> Notes Harbinger’s plans to deploy a network that will cover 100 percent 

of the U.S. population via the satellite component and ultimately over 

90 percent of the population via its terrestrial component. 

> Observes that if Harbinger successfully deploys its integrated satellite/ 

terrestrial network, it would be able to provide mobile broadband communications in areas where it is difficult or impossible to provide coverage by terrestrial base stations. 

> Does not waive or alter MSS/ATC rules. 
143 

(Second Order) See SkyTerra Communications, Inc., Transferor and Harbinger Capital partners Funds, Transferee Applications for Consent to Transfer 

Control of SkyTerra Subsidiary, LLC, lB Docket No. 08–184, Memorandum 

Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 25 FCC Rcd. 3059 (TB, OET, WTB, 

rel. March 25, 2010). 

> Modifies SkyTerra’s authorization to provide ATC, applying conditions 

to address all technical concerns raised in the comment cycle and granting a request to increase the power level of the base stations. 

> Commission’s bureaus coordinate Order with relevant Executive Branch 

agencies. Notes DOD’s concerns about potential interference to national 

security systems in certain circumstances and instructs the licensee to 

continue to work with DOD to resolve these concerns. 

> No one raises receiver overload interference issue. 

2010 (July–September) 

• Commission follows National Broadband Plan recommendations and initiates a 

rule making to provide greater flexibility to deploy terrestrial service in the mobile satellite service. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 

ET Docket No. 10–142, 25 FCC Rcd. 9481. 

• GPS Industry Council files comments in September that include reference to 

the possibility of receiver overload interference to GPS receivers at a distance 

of about 100 meters from ATC base stations based on state-of-the-art filtering, 

and notes that for much of the mobile consumer UPS in use, including public 

safety (e.g., 911 cellphones), the harmful interference effect would be somewhat 

worse than this case. 

• UPS Council notes ‘‘[i]n earlier Commission proceedings, the Council has 

worked collaboratively with MSS operators of ATC to seek mutual agreements 

that facilitate successful MSS ATC operations and avoid interference to the 

UPS installed base. The Council believes that solutions are available to mitigate 

the otherwise unavoidable harmful effects described in these comments and 

looks forward to working collaboratively with interested parties to explore these 

issues and potential solutions.’’ 

2010 (November–December) 

• November 15: LightSquared announces the successful launch of its first nextgeneration satellite, SkyTerra 1. 

• November 18: LightSquared files a request to modify its ATC authority to accommodate its business plan of selling data network capacity at wholesale, 

rather than retail (as SkyTerra had done). The request seeks to allow wholesale 

service providers to offer terrestrial-only handsets at the same power levels and 

conditions previously granted. See LightSquared Subsidiary LLC Request for 

Modification of its Authority for an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, SAT– 

MOD20101118–00239. 

• Commission places November 18th request on Public Notice. See Policy Branch 

Information, Satellite Space Applications Accepted for Filing, Report No. 

SAT0073 8, Public Notice (rel. November 19, 2010); see also LightSquared Subsidiary LLC Request for Modification of its Authority for Ancillary Terrestrial 

Component, SAT–MOD 20101118–00239, Order, DA 10–2243 (TB, Sat. Div., rd. 

Nov. 26, 2010). 

• GPS industry, GPS users and Federal interests object to LightSquared’s 

planned terrestrial deployment alleging that the GPS environment will be 

changed by LightSquared’s wholesale model because it will no longer be motivated to be cognizant of the impact on its own satellite service—based on a concern about major potential GPS interference due to ‘‘receiver overload.’’ 

• Limited technical data is submitted related to the scope of the receiver overload 

problem and no mitigation is submitted. 

2011 (January) 

• International Bureau issues January 26th Order modifying LightSquared’s authorization. Order provides a conditional waiver of the ATC ‘‘integrated services’’ rule to allow wholesalers to offer mobile terminals with only terrestrial capability, rather than ‘‘dual mode’’ capability (i.e., the ability to communicate in 

a single handset or terminal via either a satellite or a terrestrial network). 

Order establishes a process to investigate the GPS interference issue that had 

been raised and stipulates that LightSquared may not offer commercial service 

until the process is complete and the risk of harmful interference has been resolved. 

• Order imposes numerous other conditions to ensure that LightSquared will continue to provide a commercially competitive satellite service and will continue 
144 

to develop and make available in the marketplace dual mode MSS/ATC-capable 

devices. 

2011 (July) 

• Technical Working Group submits report concerning results of testing on the 

GPS receiver overload issues. 

• LightSquared states it will not utilize the upper 10 MHz of the L–Band in order 

to satisfy interference concerns. 

• Commission issues a Public Notice requesting comment on the report. 

2011 (August) 

• Commission receives over 3,000 comments in the proceeding. 

2011 (September) 

• Commission releases Public Notice requiring additional testing. See Public Notice, Fed. Commc’ns Comm., Status of Testing in Connection with 

LightSquared’s Request for ATC Commercial Operating Authority (Sept. 13, 

2011). 

I should also note that I only recently learned that John Deere & Co. (Deere) in 

2001 filed comments opposing the proposed merger between LightSquared’s predecessor companies (Motient and TMI) based on concerns that this would reduce competition in the provision of mobile satellite service. Deere mentioned in a filing to 

that proceeding that terrestrial service contemplated under the merger could cause 

receiver overload interference to GPS. Inmarsat Ventures also filed an opposition to 

this merger and mentioned the possibility of overload interference to GPS. Neither 

party provided any data or analyses on this point in their filings a decade ago. 

As noted in the timeline above, the Commission subsequently issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in 2001 seeking comment on proposals to deploy terrestrial 

service using the MSS spectrum. To my knowledge, neither Deere nor Inmarsat 

raised the issue of overload interference to GPS receivers within the context of the 

subsequent industry-wide MSS/ATC rulemaking proceeding. I am unaware of any 

other filings that would have advised the Commission of potential interference 

caused by GPS receiver overload. 

Mr. TURNER. 4. LightSquared has recently announced that it has solved the interference issue for 99.5 percent of GPS users. 

a. Do you agree with this statement? 

b. What is the solution? 

c. Is it a solution for uses of GPS for which you are responsible? 

d. Has it been tested by the Federal Government? If so, please provide details. 

Mr. KNAPP. 4. LightSquared proposes several mitigation measures. First, 

LightSquared has proposed to initially use only the lower 10 MHz channel in its 

spectrum, a step that it believes would avoid harmful interference to the vast majority of existing GPS equipment without any modification. Second, LightSquared has 

stated that it has developed filters for certain types of GPS equipment that would 

otherwise still experience interference from its use of the lower channel. 

In accordance with the Commission’s September 13 Public Notice, further tests 

and evaluations are underway relative to operation on the lower 10 MHz. NTIA currently is analyzing the results of tests designed to gauge whether LightSquared’s 

proposed network will interfere with the operation of GPS receivers in cellphones, 

car navigation systems, and other consumer-oriented devices used for marine and 

outdoor recreation activities. 

NTIA also will review the results of separate tests planned for UPS receivers used 

for high-precision and timing applications. Those tests will include GPS devices 

modified with new filtering technology that LightSquared and other companies have 

said will solve interference and would need to be added to existing GPS devices. We 

cannot assess the effectiveness of these measures until the agencies have evaluated 

and tested the solution and LightSquared or the Executive Branch presents the data 

to the Commission. 

Mr. TURNER. 5. General Shelton stated that he believed that LightSquared’s filter 

‘‘solution’’ could cost billions of dollars over more than a decade. 

• Who would be obligated to pay for the costs of adding filters? 

• Will the FCC lift the conditional waiver and allow a final waiver to go forward 

if the costs of the proposed filters are to be borne by the Federal Government? 

Mr. KNAPP. 5. I have not been provided with the data or other sources of information General Shelton relied upon for his statement, and I have not been provided 

with any specific cost assessments. As I noted during the hearing, it would be premature to attempt to determine costs without first establishing and testing an engineering solution to the problem. 
145 

• Until an engineering solution is tested and vetted in the public record, any potential cost analysis or allocation would be premature. 

• Under the January 26, 2011, Order, LightSquared must resolve all harmful interference claims before it can offer commercial service. The threshold question 

in any analysis of a filter solution would be whether the filter is effective and 

viable to retro-fit existing equipment. 

Mr. TURNER. 6. In a September 29, 2011, Washington Post article by Cecilia Kang, 

it was reported that LightSquared chief executive Sanjiv Ahuja said during an interview on C–SPAN’s ‘‘The Communicators’’ that the company is offering Federal agencies ‘‘a sufficient amount of money to replace most receivers or fix most receivers 

out there.’’ 

a. Please provide an estimate of how much money LightSquared would have to 

spend to ‘‘replace most receivers or fix the Federal Government’s GPS receivers.’’ 

b. How much has the United States Government spent on its GPS receivers? 

c. How much have GPS users other than the United States spent on their GPS 

receivers? 

Mr. KNAPP. 6a. See my answer to Question 5, above. 

6b. The Commission does not have access to any information on expenditures by 

other Government agencies for GPS equipment. 

6c. The Commission does not have data on the amount of money the public has 

spent on GPS equipment. 

Mr. TURNER. 7. My understanding is that Mr. Russo solicited all Federal Government agencies with GPS equities on their concerns with the LightSquared proposal. 

Are you aware of any Government position papers on LightSquared interference 

which have been provided to the National Coordination Office or to the NTIA that 

have not been forwarded to the FCC and then made public? If so, why were they 

not made public immediately? 

Mr. KNAPP. 7. I am not aware of any such papers. 

Mr. TURNER. 8. LightSquared has proposed, as part of its ‘‘lower 10 MHz’’ option 

a ‘‘standstill’’ on the upper 10 MHz of the spectrum adjacent to the GPS signal. At 

the same time, LightSquared is said to believe that it needs access to its full spectrum, both the lower and the upper, to be profitable. 

a. Please explain what the ‘‘standstill’’ means and what terms LightSquared is 

proposing for the ‘‘standstill.’’ 

b. Has LightSquared indicated the ‘‘upper 10’’ of the spectrum is completely, permanently off-the-table? Is that what the ‘‘standstill’’ means? 

c. If the ‘‘standstill’’ was only a matter of a few years, what would that mean to 

your agencies? 

d. Should Congress, or the FCC, codify somehow the terms of the ‘‘standstill’’ if 

it is ultimately determined that the ‘‘lower 10 MHz’’ option is acceptable? 

Mr. KNAPP. 8a. Although LightSquared is best positioned to explain its own proposals, I understand LightSquared’s current proposal is to initially deploy terrestrial 

operations on the lower 10 MHz channel. Further, the Commission’s September 13, 

2011, Public Notice specifically states that further targeted testing will focus on the 

lower 10 MHz channel. 

8b. LightSquared is not now proposing to use the upper 10 MHz channel. 

8c. The answer to this question would depend on the engineering solutions and 

the population of devices and their characteristics. 

8d. The current conditional waiver contained in the January 26, 2011, Order appropriately addresses any potential use of this spectrum, by requiring that all harmful interference issues be resolved. LightSquared would not be permitted to use that 

spectrum absent satisfaction of the condition. 

Mr. TURNER. 9. LightSquared’s business plan calls for providing service to 260 

million people by 2015. If LightSquared limited its network operations to its ‘‘lower 

10’’ proposal, including lower power levels, how much of its business plan does it 

achieve? Does it need both the ‘‘lower 10’’ and ‘‘upper 10’’ megahertz bands to realize 

full coverage of 260 million people? 

Mr. KNAPP. 9. LightSquared is best positioned to answer questions concerning the 

implementation of its business plan. 

Mr. TURNER. 10. Part of this proposal is a ‘‘standstill’’ on the use of the upper 

10 MHz spectrum. What is a ‘‘standstill’’ and how would it work? 

Mr. KNAPP. 10. See my answer to Question 8, above. 

Mr. TURNER. 11. It has been said by the FCC, including the Chairman, that the 

FCC handles interference issues all the time, so we can trust it to handle this one. 

This is a troubling statement, as it seems to be suggesting that this case is a routine 

matter. 
146 

a. I have to ask, is it routine for the Deputy Secretary of Defense to warn the 

FCC two weeks before it takes an action that that action ‘‘has strong potential for 

interference to . . . critical National Security Systems’’? 

b. Is it routine for the Deputy Secretary of Defense to have to have to say to the 

FCC that it and another Department ‘‘were not sufficiently included in the development of . . . [a] work plan and its key milestones’’ and that ‘‘we are concerned with 

this lack of inclusiveness regarding input from federal stakeholders’’? 

c. We’ve been told that bureaus are permitted to grant waivers of the Commission’s rules instead of initiating a rulemaking where a waiver will serve the public 

interest and good cause has been shown. Please explain the ‘‘public interest’’ or 

‘‘good cause’’ where significant national security concerns were known two weeks before the waiver was issued by the FCC on January 26th. 

Mr. KNAPP. 11a. The Commission takes all concerns about the potential for harmful interference seriously, especially those involving public safety, national security, 

and defense. Indeed, the Commission has successfully resolved many issues in the 

past where the Department of Defense initially raised concerns about harmful interference. The radio spectrum is a crowded and complex environment, and changes 

in the use of any particular band of frequencies often lead to disagreements about 

the potential for interference, including from the Executive Branch. A review of the 

U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations (available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osrnhome/ 

allochrt.html) gives a visual illustration of why we continually engage other Government entities in discussions about this issue and why the Memorandum of Understanding with NTIA exists. NTIA manages Federal spectrum and is advised by the 

Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC). Among the members of IRAC 

are DOD, DOE, NASA, DOT, and the State Department. DOD often raises concerns 

about spectrum matters in this forum, and NTIA takes these concerns, along with 

other considerations, into account in its deliberations with the Commission on any 

spectrum proceedings that could affect Federal operations. 

11b. The January Order established a process that called for LightSquared to 

form a Technical Working Group including all interested parties and representatives 

of the Federal Government. The Commission coordinated the Order with NTIA and 

the Federal agencies so they were aware of this process, and they were encouraged 

to participate. The Department of Defense and the other Federal agencies with GPS 

interests participated in the Technical Working Group. At the time that the Department of Defense raised its concern about the test plan in March, it believed that 

the process was moving too quickly and it had not been provided sufficient opportunity to shape the test plan. We contacted the interested parties to ensure that 

these concerns were addressed. In addition to the report submitted by the Technical 

Working Group, Federal agencies conducted their own tests under the auspices of 

the National Positioning, Navigation & Timing (PNT) Engineering Forum (NPEF) 

that were submitted to the FCC by the NTIA and were inserted in the public record 

for comment. 

11c. The Commission’s staff acted responsibly by taking the unusual step of preventing LightSquared from deploying its network until concerns about potential 

harmful interference could be resolved. Prior to that point, and based on its current 

license, LightSquared could have deployed its terrestrial base stations, as long as 

its handsets included dual satellite and terrestrial capabilities, instead of singular 

terrestrial capabilities. The staff’s waiver condition addresses this issue. The waiver 

standard for all Commission activities is longstanding and dates to 1972. See 

WAITRadio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 

1027 (1972). 

Mr. TURNER. 12. The FCC has attempted to assure Congress all along the way, 

including in the Public Notice dated September 13, 2011, that it won’t permit any 

national security harm. What does that mean? How will that be enforced? Does this 

mean General Shelton, the general officer in charge of assuring GPS reliability and 

effectiveness, will have to give a thumbs up to any final action with respect to 

LightSquared? If not, why not? 

Mr. KNAPP. 12. The Commission’s January 26, 2011, Order specifically stated that 

LightSquared may not deploy commercial service until concerns of harmful interference to GPS have been resolved. The Commission is working pursuant to its 

MOU with NTIA to determine whether LightSquared’ s proposal can satisfy this requirement. The testing and evaluation process remains ongoing pursuant to the 

September 13, 2011, Public Notice. NTIA currently is analyzing the results of tests 

designed to gauge whether LightSquared’s proposed network will interfere with the 

operation of GPS receivers in cellphones, car navigation systems, and other consumer-oriented devices used for marine and outdoor recreation activities. 

NTIA also will review the results of separate tests planned for UPS receivers used 

for high-precision and timing applications. Those tests will include GPS devices 
147 

modified with new filtering technology that LightSquared and other companies have 

said will solve interference and would need to be added to existing GPS devices. 

The Commission deals directly with NTJA, which represents the Executive 

Branch on spectrum management and negotiates on behalf of the Federal agencies. 

Under the MOU, the Commission will continue to work with NTIA directly to resolve this matter. The Department of Defense and General Shelton will have the 

opportunity to continue to work with the NTIA to ensure that his concerns about 

interference are adequately addressed through the longstanding and consultative 

process. It should be noted, however, that we have reached out to individual agencies, including DOD, to discuss their concerns. 

Mr. TURNER. 13. Can you tell us if the FCC has discussed with LightSquared 

whether it will include technology by two firms linked to the Communist Chinese 

People’s Liberation Army, Huawei and ZTE Corp., in this 4G nationwide network, 

assuming it is approved in some configuration? Will you please take this back to 

LightSquared and provide a written response to this Committee for the record of 

the hearing? 

Mr. KNAPP. 13. The Commission’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau 

and Office of Legislative Affairs have been working closely with the appropriate congressional offices to ensure that they are aware of the FCC’s role in addressing telecommunications equipment importation issues. Questions related to LightSquared’s 

vendor selections are best directed to LightSquared. 

Mr. TURNER. 14. LightSquared would operate in a different part of the spectrum 

(1525–1559 megahertz) than GPS (1559–1610 megahertz). Why is there an interference problem when the two systems would operate in different, but neighboring, 

parts of the spectrum? 

Mr. KNAPP. 14. Out-of-band interference and in-band interference may occur when 

two systems operate in adjacent spectrum allocations. These two forms of interference have been raised in the context of the LightSquared matter. 

Out-of-band emission limitations ensure that a licensee’s signal does not bleed 

into the other frequency band and cause interference to receivers in the adjacent 

band. The Commission fully considered the issue of out-of-band emissions into the 

GPS band during the 2001–2005 rulemakings. At that time, the Commission adopted the out-of-band emissions limits recommended by the GPS industry and the 

NTIA. As noted in the timeline set out to Question 3, the GPS industry raised concerns about ‘‘out-of-band’’ emissions from indoor consumer terminals as a potential 

problem during the SkyTerra-LightSquared transfer of control process but told the 

Commission in a 2009 letter that these concerns had been resolved. 

In-band interference can cause ‘‘receiver overload.’’ This type of interference occurs when a receiver that is intended for reception in one band picks up signals in 

an adjacent band. In the current case, the primary issue is that GPS receivers will 

experience ‘‘receiver overload’’ because they do not have sufficient capability to reject 

signals legally transmitted in the adjacent mobile satellite band from 

LightSquared’s high power base stations. 

The FCC does not regulate receivers. As discussed in Question 3, the Commission 

typically addresses interference issues by setting parameters for transmitters to ensure that they do not emit excessive energy into frequency bands used by other services and relies on equipment manufacturers, service providers, and other stakeholders to ensure their receivers comply with those technical parameters. 

It should be noted that other testimony in this hearing suggested that a change 

in LightSquared’s business plan in late 2010 created the receiver overload issue. To 

correct the record, LightSquared’s ATC business plan is based on the FCC’s original 

MSS/ATC rules and on LightSquared’s 2004 authorization. LightSquared’s planned 

terrestrial deployment was described plainly in the Commission’s March 2010 Order 

authorizing the transfer of control from SkyTerra to Harbinger. Concurrently, the 

March, 2010 Order that modified LightSquared’s authorization to provide terrestrial 

service applied technical and operational conditions to address concerns raised by 

commenters. 

LightSquared’s waiver request in November 2010 sought authority to operate on 

the same channels, with the same network, and at the same power levels, as currently authorized for ATC and required under the March 2010 Order, but serving 

some handsets designed for solely terrestrial service, rather than dual-mode (terrestrial and satellite) communications. The radio frequency environment affecting GPS 

is technically identical whether the handsets served by LightSquared’s network 

have the ability to provide terrestrial or combined terrestrial-satellite operations. 

Mr. TURNER. 15. The reviews undertaken suggest that there are certain UPS applications that, even with modification or complete redesign, would still not be able 

to perform their current mission in the presence of such network broadcasting directly adjacent to the GPS L1 Band. What applications? 
148 

Mr. KNAPP. 15. The Commission’s September 13, 2011, Public Notice states that 

further targeted testing will focus on the lower 10 MHz channel. Since the testing 

and evaluation and review process is still ongoing and the Commission’s record remains open, I cannot predict the outcome of that process. 

Mr. TURNER. 16. Is LightSquared allowed to build out a terrestrial network today? 

What are the limitations, if any? Under what circumstances could/would buildup be 

stopped? Assuming FCC provides authorization for LightSquared to move forward 

with its deployment plans, as outlined in its November 2010 filing, how would this 

build-out affect military systems and users in the near-term? 

Mr. KNAPP. 16. Until the Commission issued its conditional waiver in the January 

26, 2011, Order, LightSquared had authority to build out its network as long as the 

handsets served by its network had dual-mode terrestrial and satellite capability. 

LightSquared’s November 18, 2010 filing requested permission to allow wholesaler 

customers of LightSquared’s network capacity to offer their retail customers terrestrial-only handsets. As noted earlier, as a condition of the waiver, LightSquared was 

required to maintain a competitive mobile satellite service and to develop dual-mode 

MSS–ATC mobile terminals that would be available at retail. 

The Order took the unusual and stringent step of stopping commercial deployment until all harmful interference issues raised in the comment period were resolved. The harmful interference concerns raised in December 2010 involved receiver overload problems. The Commission’s Order in January 2011 states that no 

deployment is permissible absent the resolution of harmful interference concerns. 

This requirement includes protection for military systems and users. 

Mr. TURNER. 17. Are FCC and the NTIA looking at other parts of the spectrum 

for possible LightSquared operations? 

Mr. KNAPP. 17. The FCC is not, and there have been no such discussions with 

NTIA. 

Mr. TURNER. 18. DOD briefings to the committee suggest that the part of the L– 

Band spectrum in question was intended primarily for space-to-ground transmissions. Can you explain the history here and why decisions were made to allow 

significant terrestrial transmissions in this band? 

Mr. KNAPP. 18. My answer to Question 3 provides a timeline that illustrates the 

historical background of this matter. To summarize, as early as 2001 the Commission proposed to permit ancillary terrestrial service in the mobile satellite spectrum. 

In 2003, the Commission permitted mobile satellite service (MSS) licensees to integrate ancillary terrestrial components (ATC) into their satellite networks to provide 

mobile service to areas where the satellite signal is degraded or blocked (i.e., urban 

areas and into buildings). The Commission determined in 2003 that this change in 

policy would encourage innovative techniques and better services. In 2004, 

SkyTerra, the predecessor to LightSquared, was given ATC authorization, which 

provided for expansive ancillary authority, including authorization to deploy thousands of terrestrial base stations to provide terrestrial services on its authorized satellite spectrum. 

Mr. TURNER. 19. Does LightSquared need to submit a formal modification to its 

November 2010 application outlining its ‘‘lower 10’’ proposal? If not, how will the 

Federal agencies have sufficient information about the details of its revised plans 

to provide assessments on potential interference? Does LightSquared’s June 30, 

2011, submission to the FCC provide sufficient information on its ‘‘lower 10’’ proposal for your organizations to determine whether the proposal mitigates GPS interference? 

Mr. KNAPP. 19. LightSquared has not requested a modification to its authorization, and the Commission’s record is open on this issue. I believe that sufficient information has been submitted for parties to evaluate LightSquared’s proposals, and 

whatever provisions are necessary to avoid causing harmful interference can ultimately be included in any modification to its authorization. 

The Commission’s September 13, 2011, Public Notice indicates that further targeted testing related to the lower 10 MHz channel is necessary in conjunction with 

the written request of NTIA and in compliance with the January 2011 Order. NTIA 

is appropriately positioned to take into account Federal agency concerns about 

harmful interference to GPS. Under the MOU, the Commission will continue to 

work with NTIA and other interested agencies to resolve this matter. 

Mr. TURNER. 20. How are DOD comments and concerns addressed at this point 

in the process? 

Mr. KNAPP. 20. NTIA represents Federal spectrum users, including DOD. Under 

the long-standing MOU and as noted in the January 26, 2011, Order, the Commission will work with NTIA to resolve all Executive Branch concerns about interference issues. In this instance, we also have engaged in direct discussions with all 

affected agencies, including DOD. 
149 

Mr. TURNER. 21. Section 911 of H.R. 1540, the FY11 National Defense Authorization Act, provides that the conditional waiver for LightSquared issued by the FCC 

on January 26, 2011, may not he lifted until ‘‘the Commission has resolved concerns 

of widespread harmful interference by such commercial terrestrial operations to the 

Global Position System devices of the Department of Defense.’’ How would the Commission comply with this provision? Please be specific. 

Mr. KNAPP. 21. Section 911’s language is consistent with the Commission’s January 26, 2011, Order. As stated in the Order, the Commission is not permitting 

LightSquared to deploy commercial service until the resolution of harmful interference issues. 

Mr. TURNER. 22. In April of this year the Commission issued a Report and Order 

where it reallocated portions of the 2 GHz spectrum from primary Mobile Satellite 

Service (MSS) to coprimary MSS and Fixed Mobile uses. This reallocation increased 

the amount of spectrum available for terrestrial mobile broadband operations by a 

significant 40 MHz. Why did the Commission not undertake a similar reallocation 

with the L-Band spectrum that is the subject of the LightSquared conditional waiver of the MSS Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) gating rules? Are the results 

of these two processes not effectively the same when it comes to the amount of mobile broadband spectrum being made available? 

Mr. KNAPP. 22. The circumstances for the L-Band are different from those for the 

2 GHz MSS spectrum, which accounts for why they were handled differently. 

LightSquared shares the L-Band spectrum with Inmarsat. Both LightSquared’s and 

Inmarsat’s spectrum was fragmented into narrow slices. Consistent with Commission policies to encourage satellite licensees to cooperate in their use of the spectrum, LightSquared reached an agreement to fund the reorganization of Inmarsat’s 

spectrum to better enable deployment of LightSquared’s integrated satellite and terrestrial service. In short, this was a situation that only the two parties could resolve. 

In contrast, the 2 GHz MSS spectrum is authorized to licensees in contiguous 

blocks so there was no need to untangle use of the spectrum by multiple licensees. 

The Commission’s April 2011 order was largely a ministerial action. The Commission modified the Table of Frequency Allocations to add a co-primary Fixed and Mobile allocation to the 2 GHz MSS band to make it consistent with the International 

Table of Allocations. This action for the 2 GHz band laid the groundwork for more 

flexible use of the band, including for terrestrial broadband services, in the future. 

See ET Docket No. 10–142, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd. 5710. 

Substantive changes to the Table of Frequency Allocations are generally made 

through the rule making process. Since there is no international fixed and mobile 

allocation for the L-Band, the Commission did not propose to change the allocations 

for this spectrum and rule making was not required. 

The Commission has received requests from Dish Network for approval of a transaction to transfer the licenses for the existing 2 GHz MSS spectrum and grant a 

waiver to deploy terrestrial service under conditions similar to LightSquared. The 

Commission has not detennined how it will address these requests. The Commission 

has put Dish’s proposed transaction and waiver requests out for public comment, 

and that proceeding remains open. 

Mr. TURNER. 23. Is it not FCC policy enshrined in several orders absolutely to 

prevent un-integrated terrestrial service in the MSS band, and to ensure that any 

ATC offered is compatible with co-coverage MSS? If that isn’t the policy, when did 

the policy change? 

Mr. KNAPP. 23. LightSquared has never proposed to provide un-integrated terrestrial service in the MSS band. LightSquared continues to integrate its services and 

grow its satellite-based services. For instance, using MSAT–1 and MSAT–2, 

LightSquared provides voice and low-speed data services to customers for various 

applications, including (1) land-based applications (e.g., voice, asset tracking); (2) 

maritime applications; and (3) Government applications (e.g., disaster relief). These 

services are available in North and Central America, the Caribbean, Hawaii and 

coastal waters. 

LightSquared’s satellite system currently serves Federal, state, and local agencies 

involved in public safety and emergency response operations, including organizations such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Coast Guard, and 

local fire and police departments. LightSquared also provides fleet management and 

other services to the transportation and natural resources industries. LightSquared 

also has entered into an agreement with the Indian Health Service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide satellite service to American Indian and Alaska Native communities until 2020. 

The waiver granted to LightSquared is based on existing Commission policy and 

a 2005 Order related to its number of base stations and power levels, as well as 
150 

the language in the 2010 Order permitting the transfer of control from SkyTerra 

to LightSquared. In granting LightSquared’s proposal and the waiver request, the 

International Bureau considered several factors demonstrating an integrated satellite and terrestrial service: (1) LightSquared’s provision of substantial satellite 

service in the L–Band; (2) its ongoing efforts to coordinate with other L–Band operators and make substantial investments to rationalize operations in the L–Band to 

enable use of this spectrum for both MSS and ATC broadband services; (3) the steps 

it has taken to promote dual-mode satellite/terrestrial devices; and (4) its deployment of a 4G satellite/terrestrial network in the L–Band pursuant to unique and 

substantial terrestrial build out requirements. The Bureau determined that these 

factors together satisfied the integrated service requirement for ATC, which applies 

to LightSquared as well as other MSS providers. 

Mr. TURNER. 24. When LightSquared filed its request to provide terrestrial-only 

mobile broadband services in November 2010, was the Commission aware of the 

GPS receiver overload problem? 

• If not, when did the Commission first become aware of this problem? 

• Was it ever addressed in the context of the various MSS ATC rulemakings and 

licensing orders? 

Mr. KNAPP. 24. Please see my answer to Question 3, above, for a thorough history 

of this matter. I first became aware of the receiver overload issue in December, 

2010, although I have learned that GPS filed comments that mentioned possible 

overload interference and mitigation in September, 2010. Also, to clarify and as discussed in my response to Question 23, above, LightSquared will provide integrated 

satellite and terrestrial services on a wholesale basis. It will not provide terrestrialonly service. 

Mr. TURNER. 25. The L-Band and 2 GHz MSS licensees did not pay upfront fees 

for their use of valuable spectrum. When they operate in ATC mode, especially if 

the gating rules are waived and they are allowed to operate within their assigned 

MSS spectrum in terrestrial-only mode, in effect they will be providing a service 

identical in nature to that provided by the terrestrial carriers. 

• Is it fair that the MSS spectrum users in ATC mode will not have paid for use 

of their spectrum, when others such as ATT and Verizon were required to spend 

billions of dollars for access to their spectrum? 

• Does this disparity not skew the market and place the terrestrial carriers at 

a disadvantage? Were the gating rules not adopted in large part to avoid this 

disparity? Please explain. 

Mr. KNAPP. 25. The assumption that terrestrial providers such as AT&T and 

Verizon paid the Government for all of the spectrum they use is mistaken. Prior to 

the implementation of the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, entities receiving FCC 

licenses did not pay the Government for the value of their spectrum. Licenses were 

assigned through a range of methods, including comparative hearings and lotteries. 

AT&T and Verizon hold licenses from the pre-auction period, although they have expanded their networks since that time and acquired spectrum through the auction 

process. 

LightSquared’s predecessor in interest (SkyTerra) obtained its licenses in 1995 

and assigned them to Harbinger in 2010 in a financial transaction in which Harbinger paid $1.8 billion. At the time of the initial licensing process, the Orbit Act 

forbade the auction of MSS spectrum. 

Mr. TURNER. 26. The National Positioning, Navigation & Timing (PNT) Engineering Forum (NPEF) report recommends that the U.S. Government should ‘‘conduct 

more thorough studies on the operational, economic and safety impacts of operating 

the LightSquared Network.’’ What additional studies and analysis do your organizations (or, you in your professional opinion) believe need to be conducted and why? 

Mr. KNAPP. 26. The Commission’s September 13, 2011, Public Notice calls for additional targeted testing and adopts by reference the NTJA’s letter concerning additional testing requirements. NTIA currently is analyzing the results of tests designed to gauge whether LightSquared’s proposed network will interfere with the 

operation of GPS receivers in cellphones, car navigation systems, and other consumer-oriented devices used for marine and outdoor recreation activities. 

NTIA also will review the results of separate tests planned for GPS receivers used 

for high-precision and timing applications. Those tests will include UPS devices 

modified with new filtering technology that LightSquared and other companies have 

said will solve interference and would need to be added to existing GPS devices. 

Mr. TURNER. 27. There appears to be a tension between national space policy, 

which seeks to mitigate harmful interference to UPS, and national broadband policy, which in this particular case, would cause harmful interference to UPS. How 

do we reconcile these two policies? 
151 

Mr. KNAPP. 27. I do not believe that the two policies are in conflict. Rather, one 

of the goals in the interference-resolution process has been to bring all of the parties 

together to develop engineering solutions. From an engineering standpoint, I believe 

that technical and operational solutions will bring closure to this matter. 

Furthermore, the 2004 Presidential Policy on Position, Navigation and Timing 

(PNT Policy) states that the United States shall, among other things, ‘‘improve the 

performance of space-based positioning, navigation, and timing services, including 

more robust resistance to interference for [emphasis added], and consistent with, 

U.S. and allied national security purposes, homeland security, and civil, commercial, 

and scientific users worldwide,’’ which is consistent with the 2010 National Space 

Policy stating that the United States will ‘‘support international activities to detect, 

mitigate, and increase resiliency to harmful interference to GPS’’ [emphasis added]. 

Æ