U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

86–387 2014

EQUIPPING CARRIERS AND AGENCIES IN THE 

WIRELESS ERA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 27, 2013 

Serial No. 113–63 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

Ranking Member 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex officio 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 3 

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

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 5 

WITNESSES

Karl Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, 

NTIA ...................................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 84 

Teri Takai, Chief Information Officer, Department of Defense ........................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Dean Brenner, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Qualcomm Incorporated .................................................................................................................. 35 

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

Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Executive Vice President, CTIA—The Wireless 

Association ............................................................................................................ 42 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 89 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Paper entitled, ‘‘Industry Roadmap to Assessing the 1755–1850 MHz Band,’’ 

submitted by Mr. Walden .................................................................................... 76 

Letter of May 27, 2013, from the Wi-Fi Alliance to the FCC and the NTIA, 

submitted by Mr. Latta ....................................................................................... 82 

(1) 

EQUIPPING CARRIERS AND AGENCIES IN THE 

WIRELESS ERA 

THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 2013 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in room 

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

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Shimkus, 

Blackburn, Scalise, Lance, Guthrie, Gardner, Kinzinger, Long, 

Ellmers, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Eshoo, Doyle, Matsui, Braley, 

Lujan, Dingell, Rush, DeGette, Matheson, and Waxman (ex officio). 

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

Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Neil 

Fried, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Kelsey 

Guyselman, Counsel, Telecom; David Redl, Counsel, Telecom; 

Charlotte Savercool, Executive Assistant, Legislative Clerk; Shawn 

Chang, Democratic Senior Counsel; Patrick Donovan, Democratic 

FCC Detailee; Margaret McCarthy, Democratic Staff; Roger Sherman, Democratic Chief Counsel; and Kara Van Stralen, Democratic 

Policy Analyst. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. I am going to call to order the Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology, and our hearing on ‘‘Equipping 

Carriers and Agencies in the Wireless Era.’’ I want to thank our 

witnesses for being here this morning as we examine ways to ensure our federal agencies and world leading wireless industry have 

the tools they need in the wireless era. 

I am convinced we can upgrade the federal system while freeing 

spectrum, thereby promoting both our Nation’s safety and our economic well-being. Last year, Congress passed the Middle Class Tax 

Relief and Jobs Creation Act, including the commercial incentive 

auction provisions that were the fruits of this subcommittee’s bipartisan labor. Such auctions can help make spectrum available to 

meet the growing demand for mobile broadband services, provided 

the FCC gets the auction and band plans right. We cannot afford 

to rest on our laurels, however. That is why last Congress Ranking 

Member Eshoo and I created a working group led by Representatives Guthrie and Matsui that focused on federal spectrum use. 

2 

Building on the knowledge gained by the working group, today we 

look at the tools available to maintain and even improve federal 

agencies’ capabilities while freeing spectrum for commercial use. 

How much would various approaches cost, how much might they 

raise, and how long would it take them to implement? What 

progress is being made today? What steps might Congress, agencies, and the private sector take to facilitate the process? One way 

we can create additional spectrum is through use of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act. Under CSEA, commercial providers bear the cost of moving incumbents to clear spectrum. This 

approach has been successful in the past, but is not without limitations. 

Might the principles underlying commercial incentive auctions be 

applicable here? As we look at the budgetary pressures facing the 

country, is there a way to somehow share with federal agencies 

some of the value generated from spectrum that they relinquish? 

Our agencies are facing a shortage of funding. The U.S. wireless 

industry is facing a shortage of spectrum. If we work together to 

harness the strengths and assets of our agencies and the private 

sector, we can meet the needs of government, we can advance our 

leadership in the mobile wireless world, and we can create jobs in 

the process. 

Our bipartisan staff, by the way, has spoken with the FCC to express our desire to see a proceeding opened on 1.6 gigahertz and 

1755 to 1780 megahertz bands identified in the testimony today. 

We look forward to expeditious action on these bands. The time has 

come to take action to bring them to market. 

I thank the witnesses and look forward to their counsel, and with 

that, I would recognize the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. 

Latta, for any comments he might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GREG WALDEN

I welcome our witnesses as we examine ways to ensure our federal agencies and 

world-leading wireless industry has the tools they need in the wireless era. I’m convinced we can upgrade federal systems while freeing spectrum, thereby promoting 

both our nation’s safety and economic well-being. 

Last year, Congress passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, including the commercial incentive auction provisions that were the fruits of this subcommittee’s labor. Such auctions can help make spectrum available to meet the 

growing demand from mobile broadband services, provided the FCC gets the auction 

and band plans right. 

We cannot afford to rest on our laurels, however. That is why last Congress Ranking Member Eshoo and I created a working group, led by Reps. Guthrie and Matsui 

that focused on federal spectrum use. Building on the knowledge gained by the 

working group, today we look at the tools available to maintain and even improve 

federal agencies capabilities while freeing spectrum for commercial use. 

How much would various approaches cost, how much might they raise, and how 

long would they take to implement? What progress is being made today? What steps 

might Congress, agencies, and the private sector take to facilitate the process? 

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

Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act. Under the CSEA, commercial providers 

bear the cost of moving federal incumbents to clear spectrum. This approach has 

been successful in the past but is not without limitations. 

Might the principles underlying commercial incentive auctions be applicable here? 

As we look at the budgetary pressures facing the country, is there a way to somehow share with federal agencies some of the value generated from spectrum they 

relinquish? Our agencies are facing a shortage of funding. The U.S. wireless industry is facing a shortage of spectrum. If we work together to harness the strengths 

3 

and assets of our agencies and the private sector we can meet the needs of government, advance our leadership in the mobile wireless world, and create jobs in the 

process. I thank the witnesses for their testimony and look forward to their counsel. 

# # # 

Mr. LATTA. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you 

holding this very important hearing today on federal spectrum. 

As we continue to see the demand for mobile broadband skyrocket, the Nation’s spectrum policy is one area that we must get 

right. The spectrum crunch is an undeniable fact, and in order for 

the United States to continue to lead the wireless world, we must 

get closer to the national broadband plan’s goal of making 300 

megahertz available by 2015. 

Similar to approaching our Nation’s energy challenge, we must 

take an all-of-the-above approach to spectrum. This includes looking at our vast federal holdings of spectrum and discussing solutions for ways to clear that spectrum for commercial use, particularly as the chairman said, the 1755 to 1780 megahertz band. 

I appreciate the witnesses being here today and I look forward 

to hearing from them, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time to 

you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Anyone else on the Republican side seeking the 

last minute and 24 seconds? The vice chair of the full committee, 

Ms. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When it comes to 

transparency and efficiency, as you said, this also gets to what we 

are trying to do with spectrum, and I think that when we look at 

the spectrum issue and the FCC, it is time to stop studying the 

issue and start delivering for the American people. As one of my 

constituents said last weekend, they wanted to send all of us to the 

Larry the Cable Guy school of politics and ‘‘Git-R Done’’ and they 

are tired of waiting. 

You mentioned the 1755 to 1780 megahertz band for commercial 

use, and also the 2155 to 2180 band. We are pleased to see these 

discussed today. We look forward to our witnesses to hearing from 

you, and we look forward to some action on these issues. I yield 

back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlelady yields back, and maybe at our next telehearing we could have Larry the Cable Guy come. 

With that, I will yield back the remainder of my time and recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, for 5 minutes. 

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

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

With the President’s call earlier this month for increased spectrum sharing, today is a timely continuation of the bipartisan examination we began in the last Congress on how to relocate or 

share spectrum held by federal agencies. Leading up to the enactment of the Public Safety and Spectrum Act last year, Democrats 

and Republicans on this subcommittee have worked hand in hand 

to ensure federal spectrum bands are used more efficiently. Today 

4 

is another manifestation of that cooperation, and with U.S. mobile 

data traffic expected to increase nine-fold between 2012 and 2017, 

making additional spectrum available for mobile broadband must 

remain a top priority for this subcommittee, because it is a top priority for the people of our country. 

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

better known as PCAST, highlighted in their 2012 report that the 

Federal Government uses about 60 percent of the most valuable 

spectrum located between 225 megahertz and 3.7 gigahertz, 18 percent of which is used on an exclusive basis. That is a lot. The bottom line is that federal agencies have a responsibility to ensure efficient use and maximum benefit of this scarce resource, just as 

wireless companies do. Federal agencies and the wireless industry 

have been working together to identify ways of relocating or sharing the 1755 to 1850 megahertz band. We are entering a crucial period when we must begin the process of making some of this spectrum available for commercial wireless broadband. The economic 

value of auctioning this spectrum cannot be understated, since it 

will go a long way toward providing a down payment for the construction of First Net and address our Nation’s spectrum crunch. 

It is also important for us to examine the 5 gigahertz band. In 

February, to increase Wi-Fi speeds and alleviate congestion, former 

FCC Chairman Genachowski announced a proposal to unleash up 

to 195 megahertz of spectrum in the 5 gigahertz band. The consumer benefits of such an expansion in unlicensed spectrum include faster data speeds and greater capacity that will support high 

definition video, large file transfers, and a new generation of technologies that have yet to be invented. I hope that NTIA, DOT, and 

the FCC will work with industry stakeholders on a path forward 

for connected vehicle technology, while recognizing the immediate 

economic and consumer benefits of expanding Wi-Fi in the 5 

gigahertz band. 

Consumer appetite for wireless broadband will only continue to 

grow, and this is very good news. This is all about innovation and 

growth and jobs and opportunities and exciting markets. So I think 

the time to act is now. We really cannot drag our heels on this. So 

with the conclusion of today’s hearing, Mr. Chairman, I know that 

we are going to work together and our staffs will work together to 

develop a plan to incent federal agency participation and provide 

the wireless industry with the certainty that they need to deliver 

fast, reliable wireless broadband service to all Americans. 

And Mr. Chairman, I also want you to know that I support and 

will work with you to see that the FCC releases an NPRM on the 

1755 to 1780 band as well. 

So with that, I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. 

Anyone else on the Republican side seeking the chairman’s 5 minutes? Any comments? If not, I turn to former chairman of the committee, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

5 

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Walden, for holding this timely hearing on federal spectrum and how it might be 

utilized to serve the needs of both commercial wireless carriers and 

federal spectrum users. 

Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the National 

Telecommunications Information Administration, and other federal 

agencies, they have identified over 400 megahertz of federal spectrum that can be repurposed for commercial mobile broadband 

services on an exclusive or shared basis, encompassing both licensed and unlicensed services. This comprehensive all-of-theabove approach has already led the Federal Communications Commission to initiate two proceedings to reallocate nearly 300 megahertz of federal spectrum for commercial use. 

I understand that companies like California-based Qualcomm are 

looking for innovative ways to share the spectrum with federal 

users, and I appreciate their willingness to testify today, and I welcome back Mr. Brenner. I also want to welcome Ms. Takai. I am 

pleased you are here, and Mr. Nebbia and Mr. Guttman-McCabe. 

You each represent critical parts of the cooperative public-private 

partnership that will be necessary to solve the challenges posed by 

repurposing the 1755 to 1850 megahertz band, and I look forward 

to hearing your perspectives today. 

Now that the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee is winding down, we are at a crossroads. Federal and nonfederal users must agree upon a roadmap to reallocate the lowest 

25 megahertz of the 1755 to 1850 megahertz band by February, 

2015. This is a valuable piece of spectrum real estate for many reasons, not the least of which is the opportunity to pair it with the 

2155 to 2180 megahertz band. Doing do so would maximize the option value of this spectrum, and it would also provide a source of 

funding for incumbent federal users to modernize their equipment 

and capabilities, while generating a substantial down payment for 

the construction of First Net and other priorities in the law we 

passed last year. 

The time to make this all happen is now, and I am hopeful that 

with the right tools and incentives we will be able to meet the 

deadline. The President recognizes the importance of this issue as 

demonstrated by the memorandum he issued earlier this month. 

The initiatives outlined in the memorandum should generate ideas 

and solutions to provide federal users with better tools to fulfill 

their missions, while ensuring our Nation’s long-term spectrum 

needs are met. Congress, too, has a role to play. I hope to work concurrently on a bipartisan basis to explore additional ways to encourage agencies to relinquish under-utilized spectrum. 

That completes my statement and I want to yield the balance of 

my time to my California colleague and friend, Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Ranking Member Waxman, for yielding 

me time. I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. 

I would like to applaud NTIA for their leadership during the 

CSMAC process, and I want to commend Teri Takai for her strong 

leadership in her capacity as CIO at the Department of Defense. 

6 

There is no doubt that the future of American innovation and 

growth depends on spectrum. Moving forward, we need a sound 

and smart spectrum policy. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution. 

There are opportunities for both clearing and sharing spectrum. I 

applaud the White House for putting forth a spectrum roadmap to 

guide government agencies to be more efficient in their spectrum 

holdings. 

In the short term, there is a need to act swiftly to reallocate the 

1755 to 1780 megahertz band. The clock continues to tick on the 

AWS–3 spectrum reallocation. Pairing the 1755 to 1780 band with 

AWS–3 makes sense, not just for revenue purposes, but also for 

spurring American innovation. 

For the most part, a thorough review of the 1755 band has already occurred, and I applaud both industry and government 

stakeholders for working closely together. Now we are at a point 

where we need to make decisions. Given the time crunch we are 

facing on the AWS–3 band, it is not in anyone’s interest to slow 

walk the process. The conversation needs to remain focused on the 

1755 to 1780 band. We should not waste this opportunity for our 

Nation. 

It is also my hope that once the Senate confirms Tom Weaver, 

he and the FCC will begin to move forward with service and option 

rules in consultation with NTIA and DOD on focusing on the 1755 

band. 

There are some tough decisions ahead. DOD does hold some valid 

concerns that must be addressed, and we should remain committed 

to finding a balance that meets both our national security and economic challenges. I look forward to continue working in a bipartisan manner moving forward, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. All 

time has been consumed. We will now go to our witnesses, and we 

again thank you all for your testimony and for participating in this 

discussion which is so important to our country’s future. 

We will start with Mr. Karl Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management for the NTIA. Mr. Nebbia, thank you 

for being here. We look forward to hearing your remarks. 

STATEMENTS OF KARL NEBBIA, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, 

OFFICE OF SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT, NTIA; TERI TAKAI, 

CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; 

DEAN BRENNER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT 

AFFAIRS, QUALCOMM INCORPORATED; AND CHRISTOPHER 

GUTTMAN-MCCABE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CTIA— 

THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION 

STATEMENT OF KARL NEBBIA 

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

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about the Administration’s efforts to meet the Nation’s spectrum demand. NTIA is the President’s advisor on telecommunications policy and manager of federal spectrum use, and shares 

your sense of the importance of these issues. I will update you 

7 

today on the progress toward the President’s spectrum goal and 

discuss his direction for the future. 

Spectrum enables agencies to perform their missions, whether 

defense, law enforcement, and emergency services, transportation 

safety, science, or weather warning and prediction. While agencies 

make heavy use of cell phones and unlicensed devices, their need 

for government-only capabilities continues. Modern commercial 

wireless operations tend to be standardized and responsive to the 

market’s desire for the latest capabilities and devices. Federal wireless, however, supports diverse missions and technologies, covering 

communications, many types of radars, science, ground, ship, aircraft, and satellite systems. These systems must work when they 

are needed and our men and women in uniform, including your 

local National Guard units, must be able to train at home before 

they feel the heat of battle. Furthermore, agencies develop systems 

with budgetary constraints and life cycles of 20 years or more. The 

physics of the spectrum beachfront supports mobility and small devices. While the beachfront makes possible pocket cell phones, it 

also allows systems to fit in the nose of a tactical aircraft, radars 

to detect at long distances, and rapid deployment of tactical systems. 

In light of challenges in repurposing spectrum, NTIA with government and industry is pursuing a path to make spectrum available faster and at lower cost, relocating federal users where feasible and affordable, and sharing spectrum where possible. Thus 

far, NTIA has put into direct discussion up to 405 megahertz. 

NTIA brought industry and government together under the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee and greatly improved the opportunity for commercial access in the 1695 to 1710 

megahertz band. The FCC then started a rulemaking on the 3550 

to 3650 band, drawing proposals for small cell deployments sharing 

with government radars. This is another band NTIA had put in 

play. We also evaluated expanding unlicensed use, like Wi-Fi, in 

two portions of the 5 gigahertz range. This spectrum holds the potential to improve Wi-Fi performance, supporting network offloading and lower cost consumer options. Radar systems, some airborne, and foreign satellite-based sensors operate in the lower segment. In the upper portion, the automotive industry has been developing connected vehicle technologies. As auto and Wi-Fi technologies use the 802.11 standard, we have encouraged them to 

work together. In any case, the incumbent uses need to be protected. 

To deal with the challenges of repurposing the 1755 to 1850 

megahertz band, NTIA initiated industry and government collaboration through the CSMAC. Working groups made up of industry 

and government experts evaluated each type of federal system and 

potential solutions. The discussions have received tremendous support from industry and government. Two of the four groups have 

essentially completed their work; two others are working to finish 

by the July 24 CSMAC meeting, but will almost certainly lead to 

some further discussion. 

Though cooperation and data exchange has been unprecedented, 

sharing sensitive information between agencies and industry is a 

challenge. DOD and industry are discussing a way forward right 

8 

now using the idea of trusted agents. In March, the FCC notified 

NTIA that it plans to auction the 1755 megahertz band as early 

as September, 2014. To make this a success, the FCC and NTIA 

must provide a plan for the 1780 to 1850 megahertz band and identify alternative spectrum to which the agencies could relocate. We 

are reviewing approaches, including the industry roadmap, to determine the best path. While we press ahead on specific bands, the 

President’s June 14 memo reflects his commitment to improving future spectrum access, creating a policy team to support advances 

in spectrum sharing. The team will consider how to give agencies 

incentives to share or relinquish spectrum. NTIA and NIST will establish a center of advanced communications to promote stakeholder collaboration on sharing technologies. The memo seeks improved federal usage information by directing NTIA to develop a 

plan to quantify federal spectrum use and develop and evaluate a 

spectrum monitoring capability. NTIA and the agencies have made 

substantial progress towards the President’s goal. We are excited 

by the momentum that CSMAC’s progress and the Presidential 

memo bring. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nebbia follows:] 

9 


86387.001
10 


86387.002
11 


86387.003
12 


86387.004
13 


86387.005
14 


86387.006
15 


86387.007
16 


86387.008
17 


86387.009
18 


86387.010
19 


86387.011
20 


86387.012
21 


86387.013
22 


86387.014
23 


86387.015
24 


86387.016
25 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Nebbia, thank you for your testimony. 

We will now turn to the Chief Information Officer for the Department of Defense, Ms. Teri Takai. Ms. Takai, thank you for being 

here. We look forward to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF TERI TAKAI 

Ms. TAKAI. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Walden—— 

Mr. WALDEN. You need to turn that microphone on, please. 

Thank you. 

Ms. TAKAI. There we go. Good morning, Chairman Walden, distinguished subcommittee members, and thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning to testify before the subcommittee 

regarding the vital importance of scarce radio frequency spectrum 

to the U.S. national defense capabilities, the economy, and consumers. 

Spectrum is critical to ensuring that our war fighters and mission partners have the critical capabilities they need to prepare for 

and execute their missions, an example of the Department’s use of 

unmanned aerial systems (UAS) which require spectrum to control 

air vehicles as well as process volumes of critical intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance data, which is in support of our missions in military areas of operation. 

Our inventory of UAS platforms has increased from 167 in 2002 

to nearly 7,500 in 2010, and that is an example of, again, our concern that we need to become better at spectrum to meet our needs 

as well as to meet the needs of the Nation. This has resulted in 

a dramatic increase in our use and training requirements, and consequently an increase in demand. 

But within DOD, we also understand that the strength of our 

Nation is rooted in the strength of our economy. In that regard, we 

remain fully committed in support of the national economic and security goals of the President’s 500 megahertz initiative. We continue to work with NTIA, other Administration partners, and industry to ensure balanced spectrum repurposing decisions that are 

technically sound and operationally viable. We are working closely 

with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the FCC, and industry to develop viable methods to share 

information about the systems that depend on spectrum in the 

1755 to 1850 band. Some of the key systems in that space include 

our satellite launch and on-orbit control operations, electronic warfare, air combat training, and many other systems that are the 

ones that we are focused on in the discussion. 

We recently met with NTIA and industry representatives. We 

have agreed on an approach to share information. We have signed 

our nondisclosure agreements that are important not only to protect DOD, but also to ensure that our industry partners who are 

participating with us are protected in the future as it relates to 

their activities and future procurements with DOD. 

So in summary, our ability to operate spectrum dependent national security capabilities without causing and receiving harmful 

interference is a part of our role in meeting the critical needs of 

our Nation’s economy, as well as national security. We recognize 

the growing importance and the need for spectrum for economic development, technology innovation, and consumer demand. Any 

26 

repurposing decisions must include decisions on comparable spectrum where necessary, adequate implementation funding, and adequate time to execute the transition, as well as very important 

rulemaking as it relates to how we will share and what the ground 

rules will be around sharing. 

We realize that no spectrum repurposing decision is without risk, 

but we believe those risks can be managed and must be managed 

for us to move together. We believe that we do need to move forward quickly. We do need to make decisions in terms of the 1755 

to 1850, but also do that in the context of our overall plan for spectrum going into the future. We believe those long-term solutions 

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

broadband services. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Takai follows:] 

27 


86387.017
28 


86387.018
29 


86387.019
30 


86387.020
31 


86387.021
32 


86387.022
33 


86387.023
34 


86387.024
35 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Ms. Takai. We appreciate your testimony. 

We will go now to Mr. Dean Brenner, the Senior Vice President, 

Government Affairs, for Qualcomm Incorporated. Thanks for your 

testimony. We look forward to hearing your comments here. 

STATEMENT OF DEAN BRENNER 

Mr. BRENNER. Good morning, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. I am proud to begin 

by saying that Qualcomm, an American company, is the world’s 

largest licenser of technology and the world’s largest manufacturer 

of chips for wireless devices. Our chips support licensed technologies, 2G, 3G, and 4G, unlicensed Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and NFC, 

and GPS. Our chips support as many frequency bands as possible, 

because there are now approximately 40 bands worldwide for LTE 

alone. 

We strive to develop new technologies, add them into our chips, 

and support every new band, as quickly as possible. We work with 

virtually every wireless carrier and manufacturer in the world. 

We base our views on spectrum policy on technical feasibility and 

implementation. When we think about a new band, we always ask 

what technology is technically best suited for it, and what policies 

will enable the industry to start using it rapidly and broadly. 

Every day, we deal with the enormous growth of wireless usage, 

and that is why we deeply appreciate the subcommittee’s efforts to 

enact the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. 

In our view, the subcommittee got it right, and to help ease the 

spectrum crunch, it is crucial that the FCC successfully implement 

the voluntary incentive auction authorized in the Act. 

Qualcomm’s goal is to meet what we call the ‘‘1000x Challenge’’ 

to expand wireless capacity by 1,000 times. Wireless data usage is 

doubling each year, and if that trend continues, in 10 years, the 

usage will be 1,000 times today’s. Qualcomm, the industry, and policymakers must work together on many fronts, in parallel, to meet 

the 1000x Challenge. The combination of massive research and development, extensive deployment of new small cells, and allocation 

of far more spectrum provides a good path to meet the 1000x Challenge. 

Let me start with R&D. Last year, Qualcomm spent almost $4 

billion, or over 20 percent of our revenues, on R&D, including many 

initiatives to help meet the 1000x Challenge, such as carrier aggregation and supplemental downlink to bond together separate bands 

for more capacity and faster data speeds for consumers; LTE broadcast for multi-casting of video and data in places where people 

want to see the same content; LTE direct to allow first responders 

and others to communicate device-to-device even if the cell network 

is down; 802.11ac and ad for faster Wi-Fi and unlicensed; DSRC, 

which enables cars to communicate with one another and with infrastructure to avoid collisions; and a next-generation system to 

provide broadband for airplane passengers. 

In addition, creating 1000x more capacity will require locating 

cellular base stations much closer to devices. I am not talking 

about putting cell towers closer to people’s homes; I am talking 

about integrating licensed small cells into networks, cells as small 

36 

as the one I am holding in my hand. This cell, with one of our chips 

inside, has the connectivity of a base station, but at much lower 

power. You can put it indoors, where so much wireless traffic originates. Software will integrate it into a wireless network to create 

what we call a hetnet, a heterogeneous network with cells of different sizes. 

The third prong to meet the 1000x Challenge is, of course, your 

focus today: spectrum. We need more spectrum, far more spectrum. 

We need more clear, exclusive use licensed spectrum, such as the 

new 600 megahertz band from the voluntary incentive auction. 

Clearing new bands by a date certain in a reasonable time, and 

auctioning them for exclusive use, is, of course, the industry’s top 

priority. For unlicensed, wide contiguous bands, adjacent to an existing unlicensed band, such as the 5.4 gigahertz band that the 

2012 legislation directed NTIA and the FCC to consider for sharing, is ideal. Other government bands are equally important but do 

not fall easily into the two categories I just mentioned. We support 

the President’s memorandum that seeks to enable the exchange of 

information and resolve the other practical issues that have hamstrung efforts to free up 1755 to 1780 megahertz. We look forward 

to working with the new Spectrum Policy Team created by the 

memorandum. 

We are also focused on other government bands that are not used 

coast-to-coast on a 24/7 basis, but will not become clear in a reasonable time, such as 3.5 gigahertz. 3.5 gigahertz would be ideal for 

licensed small cells like this one, operating at low power and minimizing any impact on government operations. A small cell can operate at 3.5 because its signal need not travel far, but it requires 

licensed spectrum to avoid interference. We are working very constructively with NTIA and the FCC on this band. 

Qualcomm, Nokia Siemens, and others have proposed what we 

call Authorized Shared Access, or ASA, to enable commercial use 

of a band such as 3.5 gigahertz when and where it is not used by 

the government. ASA is binary, either an operator or the government would use the spectrum at any given time and location. A 

database would ensure that government operations are fully protected from interference and when the operator uses the spectrum, 

it can provide a predictable quality of service. ASA can provide access to bands that would otherwise be unavailable for many years, 

without requiring any new technology for devices or networks. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brenner follows:] 

37 


86387.025
38 


86387.026
39 


86387.027
40 


86387.028
41 


86387.029
42 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Brenner, thank you for your testimony. 

And now our final witness this morning, Mr. Christopher 

Guttman-McCabe, the Executive Vice President, CTIA—The Wireless Association. Sir, please go ahead with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Yes. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s 

hearing. CTIA hopes this hearing will lead to a recognition that a 

well-planned, properly executed reallocation of federal spectrum 

can produce results that benefit the government, the wireless industry, the United States’ economy, and the American public. 

As I have noted in previous hearings, America’s wireless sector 

is facing unprecedented demand for wireless broadband capability. 

The demand curve we are facing requires that the wireless industry have access to additional licensed spectrum. 

Fortunately, Congress recognized this when it passed the Spectrum Act and authorized incentive auctions that should result in 

the conversion of some television broadcast spectrum for wireless 

broadband use. The FCC is moving to implement that legislation 

and it is vitally important that the process move forward expeditiously. But even if the incentive auction yields the 120 megahertz 

called for in the National Broadband Plan, that and other bands 

identified for auction by last year’s legislation will only provide a 

portion of what is needed for the industry to meet consumers’ and 

businesses’ need for wireless broadband. 

Additionally, absent an aggressive effort to make additional spectrum available, the leadership role that the U.S. has long enjoyed 

could be put at risk. Many of our trading partners have recently 

brought or are in the process of bringing substantial amounts of 

spectrum to market for commercial use. The United States must 

keep pace, but under the most optimistic scenario, the auctions 

flowing from last year’s legislation still will leave us short of these 

international efforts and fail to achieve the Broadband Plan’s call 

for making 300 megahertz available for mobile flexible use by 2015. 

To cover the shortfall Congress should, with leadership from this 

subcommittee, as has been the case countless times in the past, 

look to repurpose bands held by federal users. Clearing federal 

users from some of the bands they currently occupy will help the 

commercial sector gain access to the spectrum it needs while providing a critical infusion of funds to facilitate the federal users’ 

movement to state-of-the-art equipment. This will reduce ongoing 

maintenance and procurement costs and free up limited financial 

resources that are increasingly strained by the budget caps imposed under the Budget Control Act. 

The most logical frequency band to start with as we look to repurpose federal spectrum is the block between 1755 and 1780 

megahertz. That band is immediately adjacent to existing commercial spectrum and it will fit seamlessly into the current mobile 

broadband spectrum portfolio. It will allow for rapid and efficient 

equipment development and facilitate a more cost-effective migration of mobile broadband technologies into that band. Additionally, 

because most developed countries, including 17 of the 20 members 

43 

of the G–20, either use or have allocated the 1755 to 1780 band for 

commercial use, there are significant economies of scale and scope 

that favor commercialization of this band. Recognizing that most of 

the developed world has already made the decision to use this band 

for commercial service, CTIA believes that the United States 

should follow the course charted by our trading partners. To CTIA, 

the right choice is clear. We have been studying this band for well 

over 3 years. It is time for decisive action on the part of our federal 

partners. 

Near-term action by NTIA will allow the 1755 band to be paired 

with spectrum currently available for licensing at 2155 to 2180 

megahertz. Current law requires that 2155 band to be licensed by 

February, 2015, and it is our hope that the 1755 band will be made 

available so that the two bands can be auctioned together. Pairing 

these bands will maximize their value not only to industry, but also 

to the government. A study by the Brattle Group found that auctioning the 2155 band by itself would yield just $3.6 billion, but 

when paired with the 1755 and auctioned together, they could generate as much as $15 billion. Given the budget realities facing the 

country, a difference of that magnitude should not be ignored. With 

support from this committee and the rest of Congress, as well as 

the White House, NTIA can move quickly to capture the benefits 

of pairing these two bands. 

As an indication of our focus on this band, we have proposed a 

relocation roadmap that identifies alternative bands to which services currently operating in the 1755 to 1780 band could be relocated at a cost more than covered by auction revenue. This can 

happen in a way that improves their equipment and maintains and 

protects federal users’ ability to execute their missions while alleviating risks to taxpayers and limiting dependence on an unpredictable and strained appropriation process. 

We live in a wireless world. Every day we all see signs that our 

lives and our economy are tied directly to this amazing industry. 

We are willing to work in a collaborative and constructive manner, 

but we need your help to ensure that the process actually moves 

forward. We look forward to engaging with this subcommittee and 

with the teams at NTIA and DOD. Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guttman-McCabe follows:] 

44 


86387.030
45 


86387.031
46 


86387.032
47 


86387.033
48 


86387.034
49 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Guttman-McCabe. We share your 

concern about moving along and getting this done in a timely manner. 

Ms. Takai, the Department continues to be critical of part of the 

spectrum—a critical part, I am sorry, of the spectrum debate. Let 

me be clear, we all believe that DOD’s mission critical systems 

must be maintained and that operational readiness must be improved through this process. What special and specific challenges 

have hampered the Department’s ability to improve its systems, 

and how can we help DOD clear or relocate existing systems without impacting their readiness? So what are the specific challenges 

that you face? 

Ms. TAKAI. Well, I think if we talk to the specific challenges in 

terms of the systems that we have and then speak to the challenges of moving, I think the challenges that we have in terms of 

our specific systems is that today, what we focused on is because 

we have the availability of those systems to support our training 

needs, we have not necessarily been able to put the dollars into 

putting new innovative technologies into those systems in order to 

do some of these things. The second piece of it is that as some of 

the spectrum sharing capabilities are being developed, some of the 

new technologies, we have to look at how we introduce those into 

those capabilities and how long that would take. 

So for instance, just to give you probably the most difficult example, is really our air combat training system, which is used in all 

of our planes and is really used in all of our UASs. The challenge 

for us is that all of our training is done in the U.S., and so our ability to actually, first of all, use that system and be able to compress 

into the higher band, moving to the 1780 to 1850, causes us interference problems because we would run multiple missions in a 

smaller amount of spectrum. So that is just one example probably 

of the most difficult system. 

We have looked at some of the systems that are exclusive and 

we would have some opportunity to move, so I don’t want to give 

the impression that all of our systems are challenged in that way, 

but the one I think that is the most problematic, the specific example is that it would, in fact, give us interference issues. It would 

limit the number of training missions that we could fly at the same 

time, and therefore reduce the number of training hours, which 

again are necessary for pilot certification prior to being able to deploy. 

Mr. WALDEN. I am curious, to Mr. Guttman-McCabe, what does 

your roadmap say about the combat training system and pilot 

training? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So just 

to take maybe a half-step back, the roadmap was put in place to 

address specifically the concerns about the lack of information that 

was flowing, so what we did is we actually went back to NTIA’s assessment of several years ago, and we identified bands that NTIA 

had identified for possible reallocation and repurposing of these existing services. And what we found is that it looks—at least, it 

should be studied and if we are wrong, we should get some feedback, but it looks like each of these services have a band that they 

could go into, a band that already is a government-utilized band. 

50 

And so, there is no one in this room who wants to negatively impact our war fighters’ ability to prosecute their jobs, but I think 

there needs to be a balance and what we are looking for is that balance. We have put a roadmap on the table. I think it is something, 

at least a starting point that DOD could work from and Ms. Takai 

and her team could look at, but it is bands that they have identified. I mean, we didn’t pull this and create this from whole cloth. 

Mr. WALDEN. So Ms. Takai, bands you have identified several 

years ago could be used? Is that—do you and Mr. Nebbia want to 

comment on that? 

Ms. TAKAI. Yes. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I certainly don’t want 

to imply that we aren’t willing to work on moving and work on 

what the relocation would be. We have seen some of the results of 

the roadmap. We have not seen the full roadmap. My understanding is that is being released to us, and we are very willing 

to take a look at the recommendations that are in that roadmap 

and look to see where there are options and where there are areas 

that perhaps we have not studied adequately or where there may 

be opportunities for us to make the move that is suggested in that 

analysis. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. 

Ms. TAKAI. We have been working on some of those areas in the 

CSMAC process, but I don’t know that we have seen the complete 

one. 

Mr. WALDEN. So Mr. Guttman-McCabe, can you get her the complete roadmap, or have you done that? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Absolutely. We submitted it formally to 

the CSMAC process and it has been filed at the FCC as well, and 

I think Dean has one in his right hand. 

Mr. BRENNER. Here it is. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. This is great. We are all getting along. 

This is wonderful. We have made progress right there. 

My time—before I yield to my friend from California, just know 

that we are serious about trying to compress this timeline and get 

the answers, because it has been a number of years. And I also respect this is complicated stuff you have to get right, but I think I 

see a real bipartisan approach here to on a regular basis have some 

discussions and get some updates. We want to move this along. We 

want to move this along. 

So I will turn now to the ranking member of the subcommittee, 

Ms. Eshoo, for 5. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just in that exchange, 

maybe 6 months were saved, so maybe we should just keep having 

more—— 

Mr. BRENNER. Happy to be of service. 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. Hearings. So thank you very much to 

each one of you for your testimony. 

I can’t help but think—this is just a general observation that federal agencies obviously need to have incentives in order to do this, 

and we can’t just view this—or they can’t—agencies can’t just view 

this as a loss. You have to think of it as a win as well, and how 

we bring about the win is obviously what we want to zero in on. 

51 

But I have to say that the same old, same old that has prevailed 

for years simply is not going to be accepted around here. It just 

can’t be. So this is as serious as it gets, and we really want to see 

some movement and some action in the right places with all the 

right things surrounding it. 

So to Ms. Takai first. To date, DOD has not answered or directly 

answered what it would cost to reallocate the 25 megahertz of spectrum between 1755 and 1780, so I am going to ask about it again. 

Do you have a cost estimate and if not, when can you get one? 

Ms. TAKAI. Yes, ma’am, we have not done a cost estimate for only 

the 1755 to 1780 band in terms of the next steps on it, and the reasons for not doing it is, number one, what we are looking for is 

some direction in terms of what is going to happen as it relates to 

is this going to be a two-stage auction where it would be the 1755 

to 1780 and the second would be the—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, how can that be kind of short-circuited to get 

an answer from you? 

Ms. TAKAI. Well, I think I would need to turn to my colleague 

at NTIA, because generally the direction in terms of the agencies 

to be able to put those estimates together would come out to all of 

the agencies. 

Ms. ESHOO. But do you sit down and talk to each so that—if you 

have a commitment to reallocate and there needs to be a cost estimate, why wouldn’t the two of you sit down and talk about it? Why 

are we—why am I even having to ask this question again? Maybe 

Ms. Takai first and then maybe NTIA? I don’t want to use all my 

time on this, but this is frustrating. 

Ms. TAKAI. Sure. Right, and first of all, I think I didn’t mean to 

give the impression that we don’t sit and talk about it a lot. We 

have put—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, that is a Washington meeting, with all due respect. 

Ms. TAKAI. Well—— 

Ms. ESHOO. You have to have an outcome. We have meetings so 

that something comes out of it and we get something done. 

Ms. TAKAI. Yes, ma’am. The challenge, I think, is that as we 

have met, in order for us to do an estimate of what it would take 

to move out of the 1755 to 1850, we need to understand where we 

would either relocate to or what the requirement would be in terms 

of where to move. 

Ms. ESHOO. When do you think you will get this done? 

Ms. TAKAI. Until we get an estimate or until we get direction in 

terms of are we going to be asked to compress into 1850—1780 to 

1850— will we have the opportunity for either exclusive comparable spectrum or shared comparable spectrum—— 

Ms. ESHOO. OK. 

Ms. TAKAI [continuing]. And until we have some idea of where, 

in fact, we can go and effectively either move to or share—— 

Ms. ESHOO. I think I have got the picture. 

Ms. TAKAI. I can’t really give you an estimate. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. It hasn’t changed. 

Mr. Brenner, thank you for being willing to testify today. In your 

testimony, you talk about the benefits of connected vehicle technology as well as Qualcomm’s work to deliver faster Wi-Fi and 

52 

other unlicensed applications in the 5 gigahertz band. Is this an either/or scenario, or through spectrum sharing can we successfully 

achieve both goals? 

Mr. BRENNER. I think we can successfully achieve both goals. 

Ms. ESHOO. Nice soft setup. 

Mr. BRENNER. Thank you, I appreciate it. We can achieve both 

goals and it is crucial that we do, and let me explain why I say 

that. So at Qualcomm, we have been working on DSRC for years. 

Alistair Inquist, my colleague and I who is here with me, we attended the meeting at the FCC in 2003 in which they authorized 

the rules for DSRC. DSRC is ready, can be implemented. 

Ms. ESHOO. So that is a decade ago. 

Mr. BRENNER. Right. It is time to get DSRC going, and what we 

don’t want is a spectrum proceeding at the FCC that, as you know, 

can go on for years to delay DSRC. So here is what we said at 

Qualcomm. We looked at the spectrum map, and if you—a faster 

variant of Wi-Fi that we are launching, 802.11AC, it operates in 

channels of 40 megahertz, 80 megahertz, or 160 megahertz. But 

when you do the math, the last 30 megahertz of the DSRC spectrum, that is 5895 to 5925, is of no use for Wi-Fi. It will never be 

used for Wi-Fi. It is not a multiple of 40, 80, or 160. So what we 

propose to the FCC is let’s take that off the table for sharing. Let’s 

put DSRC safety applications into that clear 30 megahertz exclusive use. And by the way, the chips that we are making for DSRC 

and which are used in the testing that has gone on, they only use 

10 megahertz. So the 30 that is available would be ample for the 

DSRC safety applications that are ready to go. So what we said is 

put DSRC exclusively in that 30, and then we can talk about how 

do to sharing in the other 45. 

Ms. ESHOO. Good, thank you. 

Mr. BRENNER. And we have some ideas about how to do that. 

Ms. ESHOO. Great. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if we are going 

to have another round, but if we do, I have some additional questions. So thank you, and thanks again to the witnesses. 

Mr. WALDEN. Turn now to the vice chair of the subcommittee, 

Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and again, 

thank you very much to our witnesses for being here. 

Mr. Brenner, if I could just go to your testimony, because it is 

very interesting when you are talking about the 1,000 times challenge. We have had a lot of hearings and we have had individuals 

in here that have testified that by the year 2017, it is estimated 

that there will be 1.4 mobile devices per capita across the entire 

world. And we know that is not going to happen across the entire 

world, but it is really going to explode here in the United States. 

And you go on in your testimony talking about, again, the cellular 

base stations, and it really comes down to your last statement is 

that we have to have more spectrum to meet these needs. I would 

like you just to kind of walk me through this a little bit, because 

you are talking in your testimony about that 1,000 times, and that 

we are doubling the wireless data, doubling it each year, and that 

is where you are talking about being at least 1,000 times today. 

Just give me a picture of what things are going to look like in, let’s 

say, 10 years, what we are going to be seeing that people are going 

53 

to be having in their hand, what they are going to be utilizing 

them for, because again, if you are talking about just doubling and 

getting up 1,000 times, where we are going to be? 

Mr. BRENNER. Thank you, Congressman Latta. Let me answer 

that question with all dehumility, because I have to say that all the 

predictions about wireless broadband usage have always been 

wrong, and they have always been wrong because they have been 

too low. In fact, when Qualcomm developed the 1000x goal and actually if you say to any Qualcomm employee 1000x, we know as a 

company that is our goal. We originally had a goal that was much 

less than that, and we actually shared it with some of the operators, both in the United States and around the world, and they said 

you know what, Qualcomm, you are not thinking big enough. It is 

faster, it is bigger. So we went back to the drawing board and we 

came up with the goal of 1000x. 

So you know, what is it going to be like? I think that there will 

be these small cells everywhere because again, think of the fact 

that in Washington, D.C., all the best places to put one of the big 

towers, there is already a big cellular tower there. So in the—— 

Mr. LATTA. For me, just to interrupt here. How many of those 

small cells do you think you are going to envision, let’s just say, 

in 5 years? 

Mr. BRENNER. So actually, the studies that we have done, we 

could envision in a neighborhood there being—and by the way, 

they are in this form factor for now, but we think they could go 

right into a cable box or your set top box could be a little down 

goal. It doesn’t necessarily even have to be this big, but we could 

envision in neighborhoods 10, 20 percent of the neighborhood very 

quickly getting these small cells installed, and then what is exciting is although they will be placed indoors, they will provide also 

good coverage outdoors where again, there is tremendous extensity 

of use. 

So in terms of what the vision is like, I think you would walk 

into this room and the lights would have some form of connectivity. 

I think that your phone would be on and it would tell you whether 

there is any constituent from your district that is in the building 

and who they are. I think that—— 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. With proper privacy protection. 

Mr. BRENNER. Right, right. Thank you, Chris. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. BRENNER. And I think that, the history is that once people 

get these devices they want to use them all the time wherever they 

go, and I think that is only going to multiply. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me follow up with another question, and that 

would be what do different types of spectrum sharing due to potential spectrum evaluations at auction? 

Mr. BRENNER. That is a great question. So let me say that the 

reason why the authorized shared access model that Qualcomm 

proposed that I mentioned in our testimony is important is because 

if you are going to get access to spectrum for a cellular type application—I am not talking about Wi-Fi, Wi-Fi doesn’t work, I can use 

someone else’s Wi-Fi or whatever. You need to depend on it. You 

need a predictable quality of service. So you have got to be able to 

know that once you are on the spectrum, you will have it unless 

54 

and until you can’t, and then when you can’t, you need to know 

that you can go onto another band that is available. 

So if the spectrum is just a free-for-all, a wild, wild west, there 

will be almost no value to it. If the spectrum is auctioned in a way 

that there is a predictable quality of service, then I think the market can take into account the fact that it may not be available 24/ 

7, but it will still have considerable value. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. Mr. Guttman-McCabe, did you want to 

make a comment on that? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. I did, and I think what we are seeing 

around the world is the delivery of a large box of cleared spectrum, 

and what we want to make sure is that the United States doesn’t 

become the anomaly for bad reasons. Right now we are sort of the 

anomaly because we have LTE deployment and next generation 

technologies that no one else has. We are the test bed for the rest 

of the world. We don’t want to be the last to receive equipment because we are the only ones that are delivering a range of overly 

shared spectrum products that don’t allow carriers to really invest, 

to have a comfort level that they are going to get some return on 

their investment and actually be able to deliver. 

So the product that Dean is talking about is one that people are 

getting a level of comfort with, but I think in other instances we 

are talking about cognitive technologies that I think people don’t— 

they don’t exist, at least don’t exist commercially, and as we looked 

at this specific band that we are talking about, there are four uses 

in the band that the working groups have said can’t be shared. And 

so we are talking about sharing in a band where the conclusion has 

already been reached that we can’t share with those technologies. 

And so I am perplexed at times that we continue to prosecute this 

notion of sharing in this band when the subject matter experts, including those from the Department of Defense, have said you can’t 

share with the unmanned area vehicles. You can’t share with air 

combat training. You can’t share—you can go down system, system, 

system, and we continue to investigate sharing. And now we are 

having a debate whether we can investigate a sub-band. My father 

used to say—I brought this up the other day. My father used to say 

you measure twice, you cut once. I was a little bit of a spastic child 

and I always wanted to cut and I always got myself in trouble. We 

have been measuring this band for 4 years. It is time to cut. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, and Mr. Chairman, I see my 

time is expired and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the 

gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

yield to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton, to have a 

colloquy. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, my friend. We want to engage in a colloquy and say a couple things here. 

First of all, spectrum is quickly becoming the lifeblood of our 

economy, as commerce, entertainment, and the government go 

wireless. At the same time, our supply of readily usable spectrum 

is certainly dwindling, and finding better ways to manage the spectrum and meet increasing demand is now certainly a matter of economic and national security for our country. That is why we are 

55 

having the hearing today and that is why we have been discussing 

federal spectrum use for the better parts of this Congress and the 

last. 

I have talked with Ranking Member Waxman. We are both concerned that we are not making progress fast enough, and so therefore, the two of us, we have agreed on a bipartisan basis to ask 

Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo to convene monthly 

meetings with the NTIA, FCC, and DOD to make sure that we 

tackle the issues both responsibly and expeditiously. 

And I yield back to Mr. Waxman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much. I think that this bipartisan 

process can help us move forward. We have a limited time to act. 

It is imperative we push forward to make sure we are maximizing 

the use of the federal spectrum. We know that the agency professionals involved in this process are acting in good faith. They want 

what is best for the public interest. But if this hearing is any indication, Mr. Chairman, we are not making progress fast enough. 

The agencies seem to be pointing fingers at each other in justifying 

why they are not acting in accordance with the President’s directives to free up the federal spectrum. 

I believe that there is more than enough federal spectrum to take 

care of the spectrum needs of our armed forces, provide additional 

spectrum for commercial broadband, and raise additional revenues 

for priorities like First Net. We need to make sure that this effort 

is not slowed because agencies are talking past each other or because of bureaucratic inertia, which happens, and the stakes are 

too high. 

So that is why Chairman Upton and I have agreed that the committee will hold these monthly meetings with the key officials at 

NTIA, FCC, and DOD to assess progress. I am especially pleased 

we have agreed to pursue this effort in a bipartisan manner. This 

is a good example of an area where we can work together towards 

a common goal, and I look forward to engaging with our colleagues 

on the other side of the aisle. And I know that this effort is in good 

hands under the leadership of Chairman Walden and Ranking 

Member Eshoo. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back. We appreciate your confidence in us, and we look forward to working with the agencies on 

a regular basis, as you heard, on a monthly basis, to stay on top 

of this and move forward. 

We will now turn to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, 

if he is—wants to go for 5 minutes, would be up next. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a good segue, 

because let me move with Mr. Guttman-McCabe. You know, when 

we were talking broadband, we really pushed for a broadband inventory, and although some stuff came out fast, we started deploying stuff before we knew who had what and where it was and at 

what speeds and the like. So there are folks who are talking about 

a spectrum inventory, and I would encourage you all as you start 

these meetings to talk about it. 

Mr. Guttman-McCabe, what would—talk to me about doing a 

spectrum inventory and how that would be beneficial. 

56 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Sure. Thank you, Congressman, and I 

absolutely think it would be beneficial. I hope that it is used as a 

tool to move the process forward in an accelerated manner. You 

know, we often talk to the broadcasters and they say there should 

be an inventory before they are forced to move forward with the incentive auction process, and I say but we know where the broadcasters are, where they operate, and where their stations are. I 

hope it wouldn’t be used as a tool to slow down the 1755 to 1780 

because we have spent several years looking at what is in those 

bands. But I think as a whole, as sort of a holistic tool, it would 

be fantastic for us to get a sense of who is where. I, too, have seen 

the statistics that suggest that 60 percent of the beachfront spectrum is at least operationally used by the Federal Government, and 

so I think it would be good to get those exact numbers and get a 

sense of who is where and for what is it being used. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Brenner, I would hope that you would concur 

with that? 

Mr. BRENNER. Oh, absolutely. Of course, Congressman Shimkus, 

as you can imagine, on a regular basis I am in contact with our 

folks who design chips to look at new bands and to try and predict 

what is going to happen. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So it might even be important for you to know 

what is available? 

Mr. BRENNER. It is very important, right. 

Mr. WALDEN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would yield. 

Mr. WALDEN. I also think it would be interesting to know who 

has got it, is it is use, you know, how much is sitting out there. 

I realize there are licensed timelines where you have so many 

years to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Reclaim my time. That is what we tried to do last 

year in the Spectrum Working Group, and even though we got 

some briefings, I don’t think we walked away with a lot of comfort 

that we actually knew the actual spectrum holdings, and really, the 

more important question is actual use. And then if there is actual 

use, by what technology? Because actual use with old technology is 

really having more than you need currently. You know, the folks 

who know me, I do have a pretty solid military background in defense and security issues, and—but I will tell you that unless we 

know, we have a difficulty trusting that the Federal Government— 

that they may be holding on to assets that with new technology 

they might not need, and we could help grow this economy. So I 

think that is part of a bipartisan concern that we have out here. 

And let me just segue with—because you mentioned the 1755 to 

1780. I want to expand that out to the 1850. Ms. Takai and Mr. 

Nebbia, your testimony talked about the technical challenges in 

that area, right? My question is, this really segues into this a little 

bit. How old is that technology that is giving you technical difficulties? How old is that technology that is consuming that spectrum 

in that arena right now? Do you know? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Certainly can’t say for sure in every system. Certainly the Act system has some components that are very old. I 

might guess probably 20 years. Some of the law enforcement surveillance systems have been there for a long time also, once again, 

57 

working within the budget limitations that they have deployed 

those systems. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me ask Ms. Takai. Do you know? 

Ms. TAKAI. Yes, sir, let me just first say those systems and the 

systems that are in both the 1755 to 1780 and 1780 to 1850 can 

be either moved or in some instances, we have identified opportunities for sharing. So I don’t want to leave the impression that there 

is a problem with those systems or that those systems would not 

operate in other bands or under other conditions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that might be a technology debate that we are 

talking about that new technology might allow you to do the same 

thing in a different part of the spectrum, is that correct? 

Ms. TAKAI. Yes, sir, but in addition to that, the technologies that 

we have today can operate—and it depends upon the particular 

system, either, again, in a shared mode or relocated to another 

band. We can do that with the technologies that we have today. 

The challenge is to know where, in fact, we would move to and 

what the conditions would be, and then we are prepared—and 

when we did the 1755 to 1850 plan, we had a plan there developed 

with the costs associated to make the move. So I wouldn’t want to 

leave the impression that we are dependent upon new technology 

in order to do that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And my time is expired, but I think we are pretty 

much on record, too, that the bona fide cost of transition will be 

borne by the selling of some spectrum, but not a gross premium. 

Mr. WALDEN. First you have to have the spectrum to sell. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. First you got to have it to sell. 

Mr. WALDEN. And then I think it can be a real—we are about 

trying to help find a way to fund upgrades and enhance systems 

that are more efficient and can benefit protection of our country as 

we also do the jobs. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. Turn now to chairman emeritus of the 

committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I commend you for this hearing, 

and thank you for doing it. It is very important. I think the statement made that we are going to be inquiring into this monthly is 

a good one, and I am very pleased to hear it. 

I have my troubles with the way we are allocating spectrum. For 

years, we had it all being sat carefully on by the government, like 

a duck on an egg, and we couldn’t get anybody off to see to it the 

spectrum was made available. When we finally did, it appeared 

that the matter was driven by money and that this was—that the 

spectrum was licensed out in ways that was going to generate the 

maximum amount of revenue. It turns out it was rather sloppily 

and slovenly done, so I don’t think we gathered the maximum of 

revenue. I am hopeful we can avoid some of those things and stay 

within the good sense of wise use and proper allocation of the spectrum. 

Now I note that the U.S. auto industry has made substantial investments in developing intelligent transportation systems that use 

the upper 5 gigahertz of band. At the same time, Section 6406 of 

the Spectrum Act directs NTIA to study risks associated with perVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:13 Mar 05, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-63 CHRIS
58 

mitting unlicensed use in the 5 gigahertz band. Wireless, as we 

have witnessed, is a significant driver of economic and technological growth. I want to ensure that Americans driver safer vehicles and that they enjoy the benefit of wireless growth at the same 

time. Consequently, we need to have a clear understanding of how 

these two matters affect one another. 

Mr. Nebbia, these questions are going to be to you mostly, and 

will require a yes or no answer. Is NTIA helping facilitate direct 

interaction and cooperation between the wireless industry, automakers, the Department of Transportation to resolve any possible 

interference issues and potentially develop constructive proposals 

in the area? Yes or no? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Again, Mr. Nebbia, given the Federal Communications Commission the license ITS service almost 15 years ago, 

would it be premature for the Commission to authorize the use of 

unlicensed devices in the upper 5 gigahertz band before studies are 

completed that confirm these devices will not cause interference to 

ITS services or that strategies are available to sufficiently mitigate 

this risk? Yes or no? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Without those studies, yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Again, Mr. Nebbia, will NTIA recommend to the 

FCC that it make this band available for unlicensed devices only 

when and if NTIA is satisfied that unlicensed services can spare 

the spectrum with ITS services without interference? Yes or no? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Certainly. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Nebbia, I would like to urge NTIA to do 

its utmost to complete the 5 gigahertz study required in the Spectrum Act in the time allocated by Congress. Any FCC action in this 

area must be grounded on sound quantitative analysis. I intend to 

write this matter—write a letter on this matter to the Commission 

in order to establish definitively that it will not move to open up 

the upper 5 gigahertz band until successful completion of NTIA 

study. 

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that my letter and the 

Commission’s response be included in this hearing’s record. 

Now I would like to turn my attention to the relocation of federal 

spectrum. The committee called for such relocation for commercial 

use in both 1993 and ’97. Last year, we enhanced the protections 

available to federal users subject to reallocations. For example, we 

amended the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act to allow 

agencies to use funds for planning purposes, and we raised the 

threshold amount to 110 percent. Again, Mr. Nebbia, is it accurate 

to say that federal users now have more protections than they did 

in ’93 and ’97? Yes or no? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Nebbia, does NTIA believe these safeguards 

are sufficient? Yes or no? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Not completely, Congressman. 

Mr. DINGELL. Beg your pardon? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Not completely, no. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you please submit for the record further 

comments on that? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Certainly. 

59 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, these are to the remaining witnesses. Ladies 

and gentlemen, would you please comment briefly on Mr. Nebbia’s 

response to my last question? Ma’am? 

Ms. TAKAI. We certainly support the language that was in the 

CSEA. I think that is the heart of your question, sir. We believe 

that the—— 

Mr. DINGELL. So you believe the safeguards are sufficient or not? 

Ms. TAKAI. I believe the safeguard on the 110 percent requirement is sufficient in terms of being able to—— 

Mr. DINGELL. I have my doubts on that. 

Ms. TAKAI [continuing]. Support our—— 

Mr. DINGELL. Next witness, what are your feelings? 

Mr. BRENNER. So Congressman Dingell, I want to see any issue 

involving the federal spectrum between DOD and NTIA or between 

DOD, NTIA, and the FCC resolved absolutely as quickly as possible. 

Mr. DINGELL. And the last witness? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Congressman, yes, I do think the protections are much greater than they were during the last two reallocation efforts, and certainly, you know, I think we believe that they 

are sufficient, but if they are not, we would like to know where 

those gaps are. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you again for 

this hearing, but I want to urge that we have the FCC in here because without hearing from them, this whole exercise may be negatory because we will not have heard the people that are going to 

make the decisions. 

I thank you for your courtesy to me. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that in our monthly meetings we will have all three agencies before us. 

Mr. DINGELL. I would just observe that from time to time, the 

FCC has not been forthcoming and I would observe—and I am 

using time that I am not entitled to for which I apologize—but I 

would observe that they refuse to answer questions sometimes because the result might be embarrassing. I would hope that we 

would have a more forthright interchange with that agency if 

it—— 

Mr. WALDEN. We think in a bipartisan manner that may not 

apply to just one single agency. We are not pointing any fingers at 

any today, but we just occasionally think that. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. DINGELL. A wise comment, Mr. Chairman. They are the ones 

that aren’t here to hear us. 

Mr. WALDEN. Oh, they may be listening. And they may not be 

listening. 

We are going to turn now to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 

Scalise, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you convening this hearing, and thank our panelists for being here. I know 

this is something that our committee has been struggling with for 

a long time, but really if you look at the marketplace, consumers 

have been demanding this freeing up of spectrum because of the 

speed of which the devices, the great products that you all create 

and the things it allows people to do and make their lives so much 

60 

easier, that has increased the demand for spectrum, and yet the 

speed of government is just not moving fast enough. Unfortunately 

we see this in so many examples, but I think it was very significant 

that you had both Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman, who do not come to agreements on big issues like this a lot, 

to both be in complete unison that the timeframe is not moving fast 

enough. I think Chairman Walden and I think Ranking Member 

Eshoo both recognize that as well. And so I do think, you know, 

hopefully that will spark some urgency within the federal agencies. 

I think having the FCC and NTIA and DOD having monthly meetings with our subcommittee I think will not only emphasize the urgency, but also create some deadlines and some timelines that we 

can compress, because this does have to get answered. We have 

been waiting for years to have a spectrum sale that the low-hanging fruit is gone already. I mean, at this point if you are really 

going to make some progress in freeing this up, and not only to 

generate revenue in the Federal Treasury, but to allow more innovation. I mean, we are holding back innovation by not getting these 

answers, and so hopefully we can spark that urgency but start getting the answers to these questions so that more of the spectrum 

can get freed up. 

I want to ask first, Mr. Nebbia, we have got some reports that 

have come out, PCAST, even some Presidential memos that talk a 

lot about sharing, and it has usually been in the context of sharing 

between federal agencies and commercial users, but where the federal agencies would actually have the primary jurisdiction. If there 

was a conflict, the federal agencies could trump. And what we have 

seen is that dramatically reduces the value of that spectrum. One 

of the things I would like to ask you, have you all looked, as you 

all are looking at this concept of sharing, have you all looked at the 

concept of sharing between federal agencies where you could free 

up spectrum for commercial sale where it would be more valuable 

and not shared, and the sharing would occur between the federal 

agencies on some of that space that is not being utilized most efficiently? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Yes, I think the thing that is important to understand, the Federal Government lives in an environment of sharing. 

The federal agencies have almost no exclusive spectrum to any particular agency. In fact, in the 1755 to 1850 band, we have got over 

20 agencies sharing that spectrum on a day-to-day basis. So sharing is the norm among federal agencies. Almost no bands that we 

use have exclusive access to one federal agency. So that is our challenge. We already live in that environment, and as we begin to 

work to free up spectrum, one of the possibilities that that results 

in is packing those federal agencies closer and closer together in 

terms of frequency, and when there are emergencies, for instance, 

and everybody lights up their systems potentially you have problems with them interfering with one another, so—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Do you recognize that the—and I think it is a very 

valid concern that is coming from the commercial users. One of the 

goals that we are trying to achieve is, there will be an expense to 

relocate federal agencies, and part of it, if you have a successful 

sale of an auction of this space that would be freed up that not only 

generates money for the Federal Treasury, but it also provides the 

61 

money to go and relocate, and as the chairman said, to upgrade, 

to allow you to actually upgrade and make your technology much 

more efficient. Do you acknowledge that if you are just sharing between public and private, that it actually does diminish that value 

of that spectrum if it is just for shared use? 

Mr. NEBBIA. I think it depends on the specific nature of the sharing that you set up. For instance, right now we still have federal 

agencies in the 1710 to 1755 band. That auction was an overwhelming success. So there are ways and situations where you can 

continue sharing. Obviously the more undefined it is, the more difficult it is for somebody to understand what value—— 

Mr. SCALISE. And I know my time is running short. I want to 

bring in Mr. Brenner and Mr. Guttman-McCabe on this. I know 

you, Mr. Guttman-McCabe had talked about the joining together of 

the two lines of spectrum of the 2155 as well as 1755, that you 

value—the value of it to the taxpayer would increase dramatically 

if those were joined together. Of course, that relies on having NTIA 

and other agencies providing us the reports. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Correct. 

Mr. SCALISE. If you can expand on that and maybe touch on 

what we are talking about regarding the sharing? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Certainly. In our roadmap that we submitted, we suggest that the cost of clearing—an estimate for the 

cost of clearing the band 1755 to 1780 is about $4.7 billion. If this 

spectrum is unpaired, what some economists have suggested is that 

the unpaired auction of it would be $3.6 billion. It is south of the 

110 percent that is required under the CSEA, so it doesn’t happen. 

If you put it together and pair it together, I think it is reasonable 

to suggest, and I often hesitate to do this because that means my 

members have to pay that much, but I think it is reasonable to 

suggest $15 billion could come in if you look at comparable, including the AWS auction. 

And you had mentioned something else, Congressman. I know 

General Wheeler and his team and Ms. Takai and her team and 

Mr. Nebbia, they are working hard, but I think what we need is 

that speed to market, that market speed that you talked about to 

move this forward, and we know this because you, we think intelligently, set an auction deadline, a licensing deadline for the upper 

half of the spectrum, the 2155 to 2180. So all we are asking for is 

a little bit greater alacrity. We have had some great movement recently and we are happy with that and we have had some movement on nondisclosures and memorandums of understanding, but 

we—speed is something that I think is integral to this process. 

Mr. SCALISE. I see my time is expired, so I appreciate your answers and yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Takai and Mr. Nebbia, I understand that we know in the 

past there has been difficulties communicating between your two 

agencies and the issues related to the 1755 to 1780 band, but recently, however, a trusted agent program has been implemented. 

What is the status of this program, and has it been successful in 

resolving difficulties in communications between your two agenVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:13 Mar 05, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-63 CHRIS
62 

cies? And additionally, Ms. Takai, can you commit to moving forward expeditiously and resolving any outstanding issues in a timely fashion now that this trusted agent program is in place? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Let me just mention up front, Congressman, the 

concept of the trusted agent is dealing with communications between the federal agency that has sensitive information that cannot be made public, and the private sector. 

Mr. DOYLE. Right. 

Mr. NEBBIA. The distinction there is not in discussions between 

NTIA and the DOD. There is no difficulty in us communicating—— 

Mr. DOYLE. No, I understand that. What is the status of the program and how do you think this is going to help you move expeditiously? 

Ms. TAKAI. Well as I said, sir, it is in two steps. First of all, we 

have established MOUs, for instance, with DISH Network on some 

specific information sharing that is necessary around a particular 

band. So we are doing that to make sure that we have communication. The second thing is we have signed 12 NDAs with members 

of the CSMAC, so that is completed. The third step, which we really believe is a major step to speeding the process up, because the 

challenge, I think, has been for us to get this done quickly, is one 

where we have a proposal on the table. We are currently in discussion with NTIA and so we would anticipate moving that fairly 

quickly, and we are happy to come back and report on the status 

of that in one of the future meetings. 

Mr. DOYLE. Great, thank you. 

Mr. Nebbia, you said in your testimony that NTIA is working 

with DOD, FCC, and the industry on a two-phased roadmap to 

clear the entire 1755 to 1850 band. Can you give us a timeline for 

producing that roadmap, and can you produce that roadmap in 

time for the 1755, 1780 band to be paired for the September 2014 

auction? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Well certainly the work that has been done thus far 

in CSMAC is absolutely—has been absolutely crucial to being able 

to put that roadmap together. Industry drafted theirs based on the 

outcomes that they were seeing in that work. We are looking at 

similar types of input from DOD and the Commission, so I believe 

in the next few months we are going to have resolved that and we 

are going to be giving direction to the agencies concerning the preparation of their transition plans. But ultimately the critical issues 

that need to be solved is where do these systems go? A couple of 

the bands that we have talked about thus far, one of them is in 

the hands of the broadcasters so there will be some impact there. 

That is a door we would have to open. Another one of the bands 

is actually of interest to the Wi-Fi industry of 5 gigahertz that we 

are also discussing today. So there are not simple processes. We 

have got to move other pieces in order to make these things work. 

So that becomes the challenge in getting agreement with the FCC 

and the industries involved there for that type of arrangement. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague, Ms. 

Eshoo, has some additional questions and I would like to yield the 

balance of my time to her. 

Ms. ESHOO. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania. 

63 

The question that I would like to ask now is related to wireless. 

It is a little off the whole issue of spectrum, but nonetheless, I 

think it is an important one. I would like to go to Mr. GuttmanMcCabe, because he heads up CTIA. 

Last month, one of the larger member companies of your organization announced a 61 cent administrative fee for all of its contract 

wireless customers. Now, in looking at the bill, the contract is for 

$89.99. When you go online to sign up for it—this is for new service. You go to your Web site. There are three different pages and 

you move from one, you have to click to another. You go to page 

two, the due monthly still says $89.99. You go to step two, other 

charges applicable to wireless service—I have 20/20 vision, but I 

am telling you, God has got to give you another set of eyes to read 

this. I don’t know who can, and I think it may be purposeful so 

that you can’t figure it out. Then you go to step three, and yet it 

still doesn’t total out what all of these fees equal. 

Now this large company is not the only one that is doing this. 

I am just using this as an example, but the press reports say that 

this will gross this particular company at least a half a billion dollars in additional revenues. So you know, the consumer, I think, 

should have certainty. If there is a contract for $89.99 or whatever 

the contract is for, what are all these extra fees that are being— 

these new charges—what are they called? I don’t know. Name it. 

You can call it whatever you want, but it is not part of the contract. So you sign up for one thing and then you get another deal, 

which I don’t think is so terrific for consumers. So can you just 

briefly explain what the industry’s rationale is for separating these 

mandatory—I guess they are mandatory. I don’t know if they are 

mandatory or not. Below the line fees from advertised monthly 

price of the service? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Yes—— 

Ms. ESHOO. This is now across the board. Companies are all 

doing this. Sign up for one thing, you get all these other fees and 

charges but they are not advertised. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Certainly. I am going to be brief, because 

I just got a new job within CTIA and I would like to actually take 

it, and so talking about fees and prices gets me in trouble—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Timing is everything. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE [continuing]. With my general counsel 

who has probably the ability to remove that new title. 

Ms. ESHOO. I think it is important to—— 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. No, but I think—— 

Mr. WALDEN. I do also. 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. Have a conversation about this, but it 

is important to raise. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Sure, it is a good point. 

The reality is, we benefit, consumers benefit from national advertising from the ability to present the customer with a single price, 

but taxes and fees do vary in jurisdictions. I mean, I know you recognize that. And so I think our carriers are very clear up front, it 

is X plus taxes and fees, and the taxes and fees, the taxes are what 

the taxes are based on the municipality. We have some—we have 

on average 17 percent tax rate, which is troubling, I think, to most 

Americans. The fee portion of it is—— 

64 

Ms. ESHOO. These are not taxes though. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. No, it is—— 

Ms. ESHOO. What—— 

Mr. WALDEN. That may be. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. So you are saying there is an advertised 

price and then there are taxes and fees. The fee portion of it is a 

recovery of some of the costs of doing business in different locations, and what they do is they generally make an average. And 

the reality is in our marketplace, consumers will dictate what the 

carriers can charge by moving from company to company. And so 

those, we see different companies with different prices or different 

fees, and that is driven by what consumers will bear. 

But I think it is also fair to say that money is returned exponen- tially back into the marketplace. I mean, we have $30 billion in 

capital expenditure, and all of that is part of the revenue that the 

companies take in the cost of—— 

Mr. WALDEN. I am going to proceed here. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE [continuing]. Regulation and others, there 

is a fee, there is a cost to them and I think that is what you see 

in the fees. 

Mr. WALDEN. I think your point is you want better disclosure to 

the public and truth in advertising. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes, I think if you sign up for something, that is the 

cost. If that is not what the cost is going to be, then say so. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. But these additional fees—and I am not talking 

about taxes, so I think we will have—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, I will let you—— 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. More discussion. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. You will like my bill, too, then on Obamacare. It 

discloses all the taxes on your premium so you will know. That has 

been introduced. 

We will go to Mr. Long now for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here today. 

For the entire panel, the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, CSMAC, we call it, advises the Assistant Secretary of Communications and Information at NTIA on a broad 

range of spectrum policy issues. The members are spectrum policy 

experts appointed as special government employees from outside of 

the Federal Government. Committee members offer expertise and 

perspective on reforms to enable new technologies and services, including reforms that expediate the American public’s access to the 

broadband services, public safety, and long range spectrum planning. Members are selected based on their technical background 

and expertise, as well as NTIA’s commitment to ensure diversity 

and balance and points of view. Members serve in a personal capacity and do not represent any organization or interest. 

Now the CSMAC, it reads like a who is who on steroids. The cochairs, Dr. Brian Fontes, Chief Executive Officer, National Emergency Number Association, and the other co-chair, Dr. Gregory 

Rosston, Deputy Director, Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research of Stanford University. Members—I won’t list them all—but 

they include a product manager at Google, vice president and direcVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:13 Mar 05, 2014 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-63 CHRIS
65 

tor, Wireless Future Program, the New American Foundation, a 

professor from the University of Michigan Law School, president 

and chief executive officer, Enterprise Wireless Alliance, president, 

Association of Maximum Service Television, Inc., vice president of 

business development, Verizon, director of business development, 

Comsearch, executive director, Center for Law and Technology Entrepreneurship, University of Chicago, technology policy consultant, 

Intel Corporation, IT manager of communication, infrastructure, 

strategy, Exelon Corporation, the president of Shared Spectrum 

Company, the founder and president of Freedom Technologies, vice 

president, global advanced technology policy, Cisco Systems, assistant vice president of public policy at AT&T, the head spectrum 

management department at Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems, a vice provost of the New Initiatives and research professor 

of computer science, Illinois Institute of Technology, a consultant at 

Qualcomm, an aerospace corporation, head department of electrical 

and computer engineering, North Carolina State University, a senior vice president of government affairs at T-Mobile, and a vice 

president of technology policy and regulation, Lockheed Martin 

Corporation. That is not even the complete list, so like I said, it is 

kind of a who is who on steroids. 

So my question is for the entire panel. The CSMAC, Consumer 

Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, is working on clearing 

federal spectrum for commercial broadband use. It has been slow 

so far, more like dial-up, I would say, than broadband. What could 

you suggest to move this process along, and how can the pace of 

CSMAC’s work be improved? And as a sidebar, with that many 

people from that many different areas, is the committee too large? 

But what would you suggest to get them out of the dial-up age and 

into the broadband age as far as moving this along? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Thank you, Congressman. The work that this group 

is doing is very complex. In fact, the group that you specifically 

named are the members of the main committee. We have actually 

had many, many more people involved in the working groups, the 

actual engineers and representatives, the companies and technologies that are involved here. So we have broken this work out, 

actually, into working groups that have then reported back to the 

main body. So we have engaged a lot of people in this process. One 

of the challenges has been this issue of sharing specific sensitive 

information which DOD and the industry is working out, but some 

of it has just been the pure challenge of being able to model and 

understand how the networks work. For instance, it took us about 

4 months to get an accurate picture from the industry as to how 

we should represent their networks in any analysis that we did. 

These are very complex issues. The systems are very capable of 

changing how they are operating and so on, so it has been a difficult discussion. But I think the steps that DOD is taking in opening this—— 

Mr. LONG. I will move on to DOD. I am running out of time here, 

but suggestions on moving their work along more rapidly? 

Ms. TAKAI. Yes, sir. Well first of all, to comment, DOD has put 

over 50 full-time employees as a part of the CSMAC process to 

make sure that we move the engineering along. In terms of the answer to your question, we are now at the point where the CSMAC 

66 

results will be available in the July timeframe, and I think from 

that to the point of this committee, we are prepared to be able to 

make some decisions and make some tradeoffs and be able to move 

forward. 

Mr. LONG. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Brenner, even though I am over my time? 

Mr. BRENNER. Yes, respectfully, Congressman, the problem is not 

CSMAC. CSMAC is completely fine. The problem is monthly meetings up here, deadlines, accountability, clear delineation of responsibility, clear communication on the Federal Government side. 

These are the issues. CSMAC is just fine. 

Mr. LONG. Mr. Guttman-McCabe? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Yes, I would agree with Mr. Brenner, 

and I just think a lack of information hindered the process and I 

know we are moving there and Ms. Takai and General Wheeler 

and Mr. Nebbia are, I think, going to try to move the process forward and we have made some headway. Sharing of information is 

key. Whether it is sharing that results in actual sharing of spectrum or sharing of information that results in clearing and finding 

new bands, it is information exchange that is key. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Gentleman yields back his time. The chair now recognizes gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think all of you 

recognize the sense of urgency expressed here and the sense that 

we really need to move along. 

Mr. Guttman-McCabe, one of the most pressing issues that DOD 

would like answered and which is important is where DOD can relocate once they have vacated the 1755 to 1780 band. Do you have 

any ideas specifically for us to consider? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Certainly, Congresswoman, and I submit—and if we haven’t formally put the roadmap on the record, I 

would ask the ability to do that. But in our roadmap, we identify 

the ability for some systems to potentially truncate, for others to 

move out of bands maybe higher up in the spectrum, and then for 

others, we identify bands, I think as I stated earlier, that are already have some government use in them. So we have identified 

a range of bands—— 

Ms. MATSUI. Do you—can you be more specific in these bands 

that you are talking about? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Sure. I will pull this out, but for instance, particularly the four that are most difficult are in the working group five. They all involve some form—or almost all involve 

some form of aeronautical usage. So we talk about the air combat 

training systems able, hopefully, to be truncated, moved up within 

the 1755 to 1780, move from 1780 to 1850. As part of that, we talk 

about moving the AMT systems, the aeronautical mobile telemetry, 

moving them up higher in the band. The same thing is true with 

the small unmanned aerial vehicles is truncating some of their 

uses into the 1780 to 1850 band, and then to the extent that we 

can, we have identified some other bands that government can go 

into, the 1435 band, the 1780 band, the 2200 band. These are some 

of the bands that are already in play, have already been discussed 

in the original report from NTIA—— 

67 

Ms. MATSUI. When was this roadmap developed? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. It was I think finalized about a month 

ago. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, and this is—you all have not had the opportunity to actually look into it and study it, is that correct? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Actually, we have begun to study it, Congresswoman, so we see points of interest here. They did suggest, for instance, the 5.1 gigahertz band for some of the systems. That also 

was a band that Comcast would like to use for increased Wi-Fi capability. So once again, each of the bands that get identified ultimately have some of their own issues to them, and that is why we 

are trying to work out as many of the systems as possible that can 

stay. In fact, industry is suggesting even with some of these aeronautical systems that there may be other approaches that they can 

take to living with them. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, so is this a starting point then, for all? Ms. 

Takai? 

Ms. TAKAI. Yes. Just as a comment there, we do believe that it 

is a starting point. We do also feel that there—as the NDAs (nondisclosure agreements) are being signed so that we can increase the 

information sharing between the two groups, there will be additional information that will impact that industry roadmap, and so 

what we need to do now is to really take that additional information, use the industry roadmap, and then look at what the suggestions would be for the way ahead. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Question for Mr. Guttman-McCabe and Mr. 

Nebbia. In your view, if the FCC auctions AWS–3 band without the 

pairing of 1755 to 1780, then could the entire 1755 to 1850 band 

be potentially lost forever for commercial and innovation purposes? 

Mr. Nebbia? 

Mr. NEBBIA. I think certainly industry has expressed the fact 

that they need more downlink spectrum, so that certainly makes 

the upper portion worth more. I don’t think necessarily that auctioning them separately necessarily makes that a permanent situation, but in fact, forcing all the federal agency operations into the 

upper portion will almost certainly lock that piece out from being 

able to be used in the future. So I think there is a significant impact here if we take that short step without knowing where we are 

heading. So I don’t think it rules it out, but it certainly would 

make it more of a challenge. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. How about Mr. Guttman-McCabe? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Yes, there is a significant concern of ours 

that auctioning them separately wouldn’t bring sufficient revenue 

to satisfy the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, so as a 

threshold issue, you couldn’t hold the auction. And so that is obviously a significant concern. For us, the fear that you orphan the 

band when the rest of—we say 17 of the G–20, it is everyone. You 

don’t stop there. We have a map here—it is hard for me to see from 

this distance, but everything of color is where this band is being 

used for commercial operation, so it is Asia, south Asia, it is all of 

Europe, it is Africa. It is everywhere where we would want to compare ourselves to. But I think almost more importantly, Ms. Takai 

suggested that the Department of Defense—and this is logical— 

that they use spectrum to properly train as we must fight. Well, 

68 

I would argue every place where you are going to potentially fight 

is using this band for commercial purposes, so is this the proper 

band to train in the United States? 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Most of the Middle East, most of the 

countries in Europe and Asia and south Asia use this for commercial purposes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Certainly we all know that this band is really very 

important for America’s innovation economy, and it is really critical 

that we not let this ship sail. I think there is agreement there, and 

we shouldn’t pass on this unique opportunity. 

And I just want to say something here. Ms. Takai, you have demonstrated really strong leadership and shown an openness to work 

with us in good faith on this complicated issue. Moving forward, 

given the process as has been discussed between Chairman Upton 

and Ranking Member Waxman moving forward, can you commit to 

our subcommittee that you will continue to work with us in good 

faith and a constructive manner to find the solution here? 

Ms. TAKAI. Absolutely. DOD is committed to finding the solution 

to this issue. I really want to make sure that we have that on the 

record. We really have, number one as I mentioned, we have a plan 

to move and we certainly have worked, as I say—we put 50 fulltime folks in, even in this budget time, to work the CSMAC process 

to see if we can’t do the relocation, whether or not we can solve 

this problem through spectrum sharing. 

So we are committed, again, to finding a solution to this issue, 

to making sure that we can make the best decisions in 1755 to 

1780 as well as the rest of the band. So—— 

Ms. MATSUI. We appreciate that. 

Ms. TAKAI [continuing]. We welcome the opportunity to, quite 

frankly, be here with the FCC and have the three of us actually 

see what we can do to work through the issues, because I do think 

it will take the three organizations in order to make the necessary 

decisions to move forward. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, and I think you realize that 

there is this unique opportunity, and we really feel that we really 

need to move forward as quickly as possible. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. I would like to insert in the record a copy of the 

‘‘Industry Roadmap to Assessing the 1755 to 1850 Megahertz 

Band.’’ 

Without objection. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. And now we will turn gentleman from Kentucky, 

Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you being 

here. Sorry I was at another hearing of a subcommittee of this full 

committee. 

You know, the Federal Government is changing, the world is 

changing. Communications are so important, and it is difficult in 

these budget constrained times to get the right equipment at the 

right place at the right time. Ms. Takai, I just heard what you said 

to Ms. Matsui and I agree with that, but would the opportunity to 

purchase new state-of-the-art equipment due to money generated 

69 

from sales from spectrum—the opportunity to buy new state-of-theart equipment be an incentive for your agency to relocate? Some of 

your aging communications systems are moving away from the propriety federal to the sharing or the commercial systems. Would 

that be an incentive that would be helpful to DOD? 

Ms. TAKAI. Yes, sir. There are two things that you mentioned 

there that are important. One is the ability to look at new technologies that allow us to better take advantage of using less spectrum for the operations that we have. The second is the money for 

us actually to do the transition, either to a shared environment or 

to another exclusive environment. So those are the opportunities. 

Now some of that funding is included in the funding that would 

come to us as a part of the auction process, so it wouldn’t necessarily be incremental funding, but that is where we would really 

need to make those decisions around what those steps would be, do 

the auction, and then be able to have the funding to make those 

moves. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. We will take it. May be an opportunity to modernize some areas. 

Mr. Nebbia, does the NTIA, have they developed any metrics for 

assessing how effective federal agencies are in using efficient— 

spectrum efficiently? 

Mr. NEBBIA. There are certainly existing measures related to the 

nature of a particular transmission. For instance, we try to eliminate as much of the unwanted emissions in any radio signal. Trying to evaluate the efficiency in terms of how much the systems are 

actually turned on we do not have a measure that we implement 

along that line. Each agency operates its systems according to its 

schedules and immediate needs. For instance, Department of Justice in the particular band that we are looking at operates law enforcement surveillance systems across the country. They operate at 

any particular time and location, so if you are asking for that kind 

of data, we simply don’t have that kind of monitoring. To know 

more generally, yes, we have a sense of, in many cases, some of the 

systems are on all the time, others operate more sporadically. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Do you have any idea what kinds of carrots we 

could offer to agencies to be more efficient with their spectrum? 

Mr. NEBBIA. Well, the one carrot that is in the CSEA right now 

is this concept that they can move to improved equipment. That 

certainly is a benefit to everybody, but you still have to be able to 

perform the mission in some band, so not only do you get the better 

equipment, but there has to be a band to move it to. And then ultimately when you are looking to move in that direction, you have 

to have a sense that you have got some stability, some—it is not 

we are going to give you an incentive to move there tomorrow and 

then next week we are going upset the apple cart again and ask 

you to move again. So we have got to come up with approaches like 

that. It is like if I ask you or I direct you to move from your home 

and I say I am going to compensate you for that move, it is not 

an incentive to want to move. To provide an incentive, you actually 

have to give somebody something that improves their situation, 

and it is both the place to go, the equipment to use, and that longterm sense that they are going to keep meeting the mission that 

we have all given them to meet. 

70 

Mr. GUTHRIE. That is a fair point. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Nebbia, that is exactly what we are talking 

about trying to figure out how to do. 

So we will go now to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 

witnesses. As many folks have mentioned, we have multiple subcommittee hearings going on at the same time, so I have a couple 

of questions and I will apologize in advance if there is some redundancy or if there are questions you are already answered today. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Brenner a question. There has been—it is 

well accepted the huge increase in demand for spectrum with new 

devices and new technology is right there in front of us, and one 

suggestion has been a way to accomplish or to accommodate this 

is to establish some sharing regimes on parts of the spectrum. Can 

you explain what some of the different types of possible spectrum 

sharing regimes might have, and what impact those types of arrangements have on potential spectrum valuations at an auction? 

Mr. BRENNER. Sure, Congressman, thank you for that question. 

So in my testimony I described the sharing regime that Qualcomm, 

Nokia Siemens and other companies are working on. We call it authorized shared access. Now Wi-Fi itself is a sharing regime, right? 

I mean, it is unregulated, there is no management to it, maybe it 

works, maybe it doesn’t. Obviously if you are going to auction spectrum on the basis of that, you are going to get almost nothing for 

it. There is no predictability to its use at all. In contrast, obviously 

the best regime, the highest value regime is the spectrum is totally 

clear and pristine before the auction. You know you can get exclusive use to it the day the auction ends. That is obviously highest 

value. And by the way, we have done auctions three different ways 

in that regime. We have had the spectrum clear before the auction, 

we have had the spectrum clear after the auction, and now in the 

incentive auctions we are going to try to clear the spectrum 

through the auction. 

So authorized shared access, what we are trying to do is get the 

situation of bands that are in between where we don’t want to have 

them just be completely devalued and where they would be unusable for cellular, like just the pure unlicensed regime, and on the 

other extreme, you know, it is spectrum that just as far as the eye 

can see. There isn’t a date certain, there is no reasonable path to 

clear it. So then this intermediate regime we call authorized shared 

access and here is how it works. There are no changes to devices. 

There are no changes to networks. The device has to have support 

for the frequency band, and the cell has to have support for the frequency band, but that is not a big deal. There is no new technology. Instead, what there is is a database, and one authorized operator, and that is key to this system. It is binary. Either the government has the spectrum in use or an authorized operator has it, 

and that operator has a network. This device talks over some other 

frequency band or through a wired connection to the network and 

it says I want to go on. The network talks to the database. Only 

the network talks to the database. There is a clear accountability, 

and the database then has the information from the government as 

71 

to how much interference, how much power can be tolerated at the 

location of the small cell is located at. 

And we think that way, when the spectrum is not in use by the 

government, where the spectrum is not in use by the government, 

an operator could use the spectrum and we think you would get 

significant value for the spectrum. Again, only in this intermediate 

situation. Thank you. 

Mr. MATHESON. I would ask Mr. Guttman-McCabe, do you believe there would be a strong incentive to bid on spectrum licenses 

if there was some type of this sharing agreement? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Yes, I think the key, Congressman, 

would be agreement. I think Mr. Brenner had said the more you 

know up front, the more you know in advance, the greater the likelihood that you would feel comfortable bidding. And so we look at 

it sort of like Mr. Brenner does. It is almost bifurcated. On one side 

is geographic or temporal use, so something where you really know 

who is there geographically and you can use everything but that 

area, or we know time-based or temporal. You can have access to 

the spectrum for every day of the week except for X or Y. 

Then on the other side is cognitive, and what Dean’s company is 

doing is beginning to sort of, I think, blur that bright line in that 

there is a cognitive element to this, but there seems to be the ability to get some level of comfort. And so I think there has to be an 

understanding that you actually will get access and that the government will provide some real time or some in advance understanding of what access you are getting. But it is all about information. If you don’t feel comfortable that you actually will be able to 

use the spectrum a fair amount of time, then the value obviously 

is going to decrease precipitously. 

Mr. MATHESON. OK, appreciate those answers. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. Chair now recognizes Mr. Lujan for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I really appreciate you holding this hearing and Ranking Member Eshoo as well. 

I must say, coming into this hearing I am sensitive to both sides 

with the concerns that they have. I come from a rural State where 

it is challenging in some of the mountainous regions to get more 

penetration for additional bandwidth for many of my constituents. 

I represent two national—one national lab with two national labs 

residing in the district, Sandy and Los Alamos. The Air Force Research Lab is in the State of New Mexico. Cannon Air Force Base 

is in my district, currently an Air Force base, Holloman, White 

Sands. Parts of Fort Bliss from a training perspective, we have important training grounds in the State of New Mexico. But I must 

say, based on some of the responses today that I have some questions. 

Ms. Takai, you indicated that until we are told, so I guess until 

the Department of Defense is told or until the Department of Defense is given direction, that this is something that is being looked 

at but not necessarily a priority. If you could clarify that for me, 

I am trying to understand until Department of Defense is given direction to do what? 

72 

Ms. TAKAI. Well first of all, Congressman, let me just clarify. As 

I mentioned to you and as I mentioned to the committee, we are 

not hanging back and waiting for direction. I mean, we have put 

over, as I mentioned, 50 people into the CSMAC process to look at 

what the options are for spectrum sharing. The point is, there 

needs to be a decision in order to actually make the auction happen 

and make the decision happen around what bands we are going to 

auction and the dollars that are coming in. So what we are saying 

is that as a result of all of the participation we have had, both in 

the study we did on the relocation completely and the sharing, now 

we are to the point where we have significant information. We need 

to make the decision around what areas are we going to share, 

where is there going to be comparable spectrum in order for us to 

be able to move. 

Mr. LUJAN. So a decision needs to be made by whom? 

Ms. TAKAI. It is a combination. It is recommendations coming 

from NTIA and then ultimately FCC would be involved as well in 

making the decision, particularly around the comparable spectrum, 

and then—because right now, what we have is we have a menu of 

options of things that we could do. I don’t want to leave you with 

the impression that we don’t. In fact, we have any number of combinations of things that we could do. But from an engineering perspective, we need to pick those, make them fit together, and then 

go and implement those. And that is the challenge I think we have 

right now. 

Mr. LUJAN. And Ms. Takai, spectrum is important to the Department of Defense, correct? 

Ms. TAKAI. Absolutely. 

Mr. LUJAN. So I think that Ranking Member Eshoo asked a 

question about timeline. I think my colleague, Ms. Matsui, submitted into the record the President’s Executive Order or memorandum to the heads of the executive departments and agencies 

that lays out inherent timelines therein, 3 month timelines, 6 

month timelines, 12 month timelines, and I hope that that is 

enough to give direction, to say this has to be done and we need 

to move forward to be able to talk about this. 

The reason that I asked the question about the importance of 

spectrum to the Department of Defense is does the Department of 

Defense monitor filings at the FCC associated with spectrum? 

Ms. TAKAI. Yes, sir, we do. 

Mr. LUJAN. So how don’t you have what they gave you earlier 

when—there was a question about a report not being given to Department of Defense or not seeing it. How does Department of Defense not have it? 

Ms. TAKAI. Well sir, we have been working with the industry 

folks on the report. There are some areas where we have to increase the information sharing as it results on the report. But I 

think what we have been doing is we have been seeing some of the 

preliminary recommendations, but in terms of the final report, 

bringing it all together and also looking at where, in fact, they 

were able to take our input and where they weren’t. That was really where my comment was. 

Mr. LUJAN. So before today, has Department of Defense seen the 

document that was handed to you? 

73 

Ms. TAKAI. We have seen preliminary copies of the report, yes, 

sir. 

Mr. LUJAN. So you did have it? 

Ms. TAKAI. We had preliminary copies of the report, yes. 

Mr. LUJAN. Do you have the copy that was given to you today? 

Ms. TAKAI. I do. 

Mr. LUJAN. Did you have it before? 

Ms. TAKAI. No, we did not have that report before. 

Mr. LUJAN. So Mr. Brenner, was that filed with the FCC before 

today? 

Mr. BRENNER. It was. It was filed by T-Mobile. T-Mobile went 

and met with the FCC, gave it to the FCC, and under the FCC’s 

rules, T-Mobile was required to file it and I got it off the FCC’s 

Web site. 

Mr. LUJAN. So Mr. Chairman, before I was elected to Congress 

I was on the utility commission, and interested parties paid attention to cases that were important to them. When filings were made, 

you better know what was in that filing to be able to defend the 

position of the party and the client that you represent. And I would 

hope that after today, I think the chairman has made it abundantly clear, as has Ms. Eshoo, we need to be talking. We need to 

be monitoring these filings and doing all we can to be in a position 

to carry out the President’s memorandum that says we must do 

this as effectively and efficiently as possible. 

And again, Mr. Chairman, I am sensitive to both sides here, but 

some of the responses today I guess place some questions on my 

mind associated with information sharing. So I look forward to 

working with you, sir, and Ranking Member Eshoo. Thank you 

very much to the witnesses today. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. Turn now to our gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

thank the Ranking Member Eshoo for convening this hearing. 

My question is directed, first of all, to Ms. Takai. I recall sitting 

in a number of subcommittee hearings over the last Congress when 

we marked up the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act 

of 2012, and in doing that, we reallocated D–Block spectrum for 

public safety and first responders. The Congress also provided an 

incentive auctions framework for relocating TV broadcasters at government expense and paying for the national Public Safety Network, mainly to free up more wireless broadband spectrum. 

Ms. Takai, it is one thing to say that carriers may not invest in 

shared spectrum, and I am sure that that is true, but it sounds like 

you disagree with Mr. Guttman-McCabe that effective commercially available spectrum sharing technologies simply do not exist. 

Do you agree or disagree with that? 

Ms. TAKAI. Congressman, I hope I have not given the impression 

at all that we don’t believe the spectrum sharing is viable and 

workable. We absolutely do believe it is viable and workable. We 

share with other government agencies and we share with industry 

in many different situations where, in fact, we can. So if that was 

the impression I left, that was certainly not the impression I meant 

to leave. 

74 

There are, however, some systems where, in fact, we utilize really all of the band and therefore—and I think that was also expressed by industry—there are situations with particular systems 

where, in fact, sharing may not be viable going forward. 

Mr. RUSH. These technologies are highly complex, but can you 

quickly tell us about the major barriers in realizing and implementing these technologies? 

Ms. TAKAI. The major barriers in terms of implementing spectrum sharing, I think we have spoken of a couple of them. First 

of all, one of them is if we were to do geographic sharing, that, in 

fact, means that we have to ensure that where we are not using 

the spectrum that it is an advantage to industry to be able to use 

the spectrum in that geographic area. The second is we share it 

from a time standpoint, so on times that I am not using it, industry 

does use it. And there are cases where, in fact, we can do that. And 

then finally, there are areas where we are utilizing the band both 

from the standpoint of geography and from the standpoint of the 

amount of time we use it, which then makes it very difficult for us 

to be able to share. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Guttman-McCabe, do you have anything you want 

to add to that? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. No—well, I guess yes, Mr. Congressman. 

I agree with Ms. Takai completely. I mean, I think that there are 

areas where geographically I think we will be able to potentially 

share. We are looking at the satellite systems that are in the band 

as one example. We haven’t yet come across, but that doesn’t mean 

we won’t come across time-based or temporal sharing opportunities, 

at least in this scenario. Mr. Brenner’s company is investigating 

something that is even a little bit different than that, which is, you 

know, an intelligence-based type of sharing where you are dipping 

into a database that is already populated. So that, to me, is the 

next step but it is something that seems logical because I think 

people would know that the database is populated and be comfortable with a certain level. It is the step after that, it is sort of 

the real time intelligence or cognitive-based that, you know, we 

have heard and heard that it is not commercially available yet. We 

haven’t seen it. I am not sure that Department of Defense would 

be comfortable with that on either side of the equation. I am not 

sure commercial or Department of Defense would be comfortable 

with that. 

But the key thing to recognize here is that the four important 

systems that we are stuck having a debate back and forth about, 

I think everyone has already concluded we can’t share with those. 

And so we continue to have our wheels spinning investigating sharing when the reality is it doesn’t seem like sharing is going to deliver any usable spectrum or give the Department of Defense a 

comfort level. So—— 

Mr. RUSH. My time is running out and Mr. Guttman-McCabe, I 

represent a district where there is inter-generational unemployment, and jobs are the number one issue in my district and other 

similar districts across the Nation. If this Congress works with you 

to clear up spectrum for industry’s use, then what commitment do 

your member companies have to create jobs not overseas, but here 

at home? 

75 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Congressman, I am excited to say that 

our industry will commit to that, because that is what we do. I 

mean, we are one of the bright shining elements of the economy 

right now. You know, we have foreign companies moving their 

R&D facilities into the United States because we are at the cutting 

edge, so the Ericssons and the Nokia Siemens, all of these companies are moving their facilities into the United States and bringing 

jobs with them. So we are almost the opposite of some of the job 

flight that you see, and we have this concept, we call it the virtuous cycle. You bring spectrum to market, then companies like 

Dean’s and others come up with new technologies on the infrastructure side, then handset manufacturers come up with new capabilities in their handsets. Then we have this whole new applications 

world that didn’t exist comes about, and then consumers buy more 

products and we are back up asking for more spectrum. It is a cycle 

that benefits the economy, it benefits your constituents. Seventyeight percent of the apps developers are small businesses, so those 

are jobs that zero of them existed 3 years ago. So we are going to— 

we are driving jobs. We have more capital expenditures than the 

entire EU combined when it comes to mobile capital expenditures. 

So I will heartedly and excitedly make that opportunity—or make 

that commitment if you give us the opportunity in terms of new 

spectrum. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman for his questions. I thank 

our panelists for their testimony. It has been most enlightening, 

and I think you can see, we had 14 of our members here and asking questions throughout the course of the hearing, even though we 

had multiple hearings going on this morning. So we will look forward to seeing you on a regular basis to continue in joint progress. 

I believe Mr. Latta had something he wanted to put in the record 

on behalf of Chairman Upton. 

Mr. LATTA. Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do have 

a letter from the Wi-Fi Alliance and I would ask unanimous consent to have it submitted for the record, and ask for all the parties 

to work together, especially in the 5 gigahertz band, to get this 

thing moving. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection, it will be entered into the 

record. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. Again, we want to thank you all for your counsel 

and your hard work, and we look forward to continuing to free up 

spectrum and create jobs and take care of our men and women in 

uniform and their needs. 

So with that, the hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

76 


86387.035
77 


86387.036
78 


86387.037
79 


86387.038
80 


86387.039
81 


86387.040
82 


86387.041
83 


86387.042
84 


86387.043
85 


86387.044
86 


86387.045
87 


86387.046
88 


86387.047
89 


86387.048
90 


86387.049
91 

Æ 


86387.050