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

73–418 PDF 2012

LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO ADDRESS SPECTRUM 

AND PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 15, 2011 

Serial No. 112–76 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

Vice Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

Ranking Member 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 8 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12 

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12 

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

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 194 

Hon. Edolphus Towns, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, prepared statement .................................................................................... 197 

WITNESSES

Christopher M. Moore, Chief of Police, San Jose Police Department ................. 17 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 224 

Peter Cramton, Professor of Economics, University of Maryland ....................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 231 

Hon. Gordon H. Smith, President and CEO, National Association of Broadcasters ................................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 236 

Michael Z. Calabrese, Director, Wireless Future Project, Open Technology 

Initiative, New America Foundation .................................................................. 56 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 241 

Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA–The 

Wireless Association ............................................................................................ 85 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 87 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 251 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter, dated June 7, 2011, from Tom Kean, Chairman, 9/11 Commission, 

and Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission, to Senator Rockefeller 

and Senator Hutchison, submitted by Ms. Eshoo. ............................................ 11 

Statement, dated March 18, 2010, of Thomas H. Kean, Former 9/11 Commission Chair, and Lee H. Hamilton, Former 9/11 Commission Vice Chair, 

via Broadband.gov, submitted by Mr. Walden .................................................. 95 

Article, dated January 27, 2011, titled ‘‘Congress should implement FCC 

plan to improve first-responder communications,’’ by Slade Gorton in The 

Seattle Times, submitted by Mr. Walden ........................................................... 96 

Study, dated February 2008, titled ‘‘A Market-based Approach to Establishing 

Licensing Rules: Licensed Versus Unlicensed Use of Spectrum,’’ for the 

Federal Communications Commission, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ................ 102 

Page

IV 

Statement, dated July 14, 2011, of the High Tech Spectrum Coalition, submitted by Mr. Walden .......................................................................................... 143 

Statement, dated July 13, 2011, of Gordon Smith, President and CEO, National Association of Broadcasters, submitted by Mr. Walden ......................... 144 

Statement, dated July 14, 2011, of CTIA–The Wireless Association, submitted 

by Mr. Walden ...................................................................................................... 145 

Statement, dated July 13, 2011, of Verizon, submitted by Mr. Walden ............. 146 

Statement, dated July 14, 2011, of AT&T, submitted by Mr. Walden ................ 147 

Letter, dated June 30, 2011, from Phillip J. Bond, President and CEO, 

TechAmerica, to Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison, submitted 

by Mr. Walden ...................................................................................................... 148 

Letter, dated June 29, 2011, from Brian J. Raymond, Director, Technology 

Policy, National Association of Manufacturers, to Senator Rockefeller and 

Senator Hutchison, submitted by Mr. Walden .................................................. 150 

Letter, dated June 22, 2011, from Dean Garfield, President and CEO, Information Technology Industry Council, to Senator Rockefeller and Senator 

Hutchison, submitted by Mr. Walden ................................................................ 151 

Letter, dated June 23, 2011, from Grant Seiffert, President, Telecommunications Industry Association, to Senator Wicker and Senator Begich, submitted by Mr. Walden .......................................................................................... 153 

Excerpt, undated, from Federal Communications Commission Docket RM– 

11592, titled ‘‘Wireless Device Manufacturers on 700 MHz Device Mandates,’’ submitted by Mr. Walden ....................................................................... 155 

Study, dated June 2010, titled ‘‘The Public Safety Nationwide Interoperable 

Broadband Network: A New Model for Capacity, Performance and Cost,’’ 

submitted by Mr. Walden .................................................................................... 156 

Report, dated May 2010, OBI Technical Paper No. 2, ‘‘A Broadband Network 

Cost Model: A Basis for Public Funding Essential to Bringing Nationwide 

Interoperable Communications to America’s First Responders,’’ Federal 

Communications Commission, submitted by Mr. Walden ................................ 201 

Letter, dated July 13, 2011, from Mr. Rush et al., to House leadership, 

submitted by Mr. Towns ...................................................................................... 222 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO ADDRESS 

SPECTRUM AND PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES 

FRIDAY, JULY 15, 2011 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:17 a.m., in room 

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

Members present: Representatives Walden, Terry, Stearns, 

Shimkus, Blackburn, Bilbray, Bass, Latta, Guthrie, Eshoo, Matsui, 

Barrow, Dingell (ex officio), and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Jim Barnette, General Counsel; Ray Baum, Senior 

Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Michael Beckerman, Deputy 

Staff Director; Neil Fried, Chief Counsel, Communications and 

Technology; Kirby Howard, Legislative Clerk; Debbee Keller, Press 

Secretary; Carly McWilliams, Legislative Clerk; David Redl, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Lyn Walker, Coordinator, 

Admin/Human Resources; Nicholas Degani, FCC Detailee; Kelsey 

Guyselman, Legal Intern; Roger Sherman, Minority Chief Counsel; 

Shawn Chang, Minority Counsel; Jeff Cohen, Minority Counsel; 

Sarah Fisher, Minority Policy Analyst; Phil Barnett, Minority Staff 

Director; and Pat Delgado, Chief of Staff for Mr. Waxman. 

Mr. WALDEN. We are going to go ahead and get started so that 

we can get our statements and the witnesses’ statements. Today is 

a little challenging because we do have a series of votes on the 

floor, they estimate in about an hour and 15. So we will try to get 

through as much of this as we can. 

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

Good morning. I welcome our witnesses. I appreciate your counsel, along with that of dozens of others whom I think we have all 

met with and I have met with, from whom we have received testimony at our four prior hearings on spectrum policy and the individual meetings that we have had and the information that has 

come in. It has all been helpful. 

I am a firm believer that open and fair public processes can lead 

to better public policy outcomes, and the competing discussion 

drafts are a welcome addition to this process. Despite the differences on paper, the reality is we are not as far apart as it might 

seem, and we are personally committed to doing all within our 

power to write a bipartisan bill in the end. 

2 

I believe we share common goals on this subcommittee when it 

comes to spectrum policy. We want to finally answer the call of our 

public safety officials and ensure that they have the best, most innovative and affordable technology operating on a bulletproof network in an inoperable basis in times of need. And we will do our 

part as a Federal partner to make sure that that happens. We 

want to ensure that the scarce and valuable spectrum that the public owns is put to its best and highest use, with any proceeds 

enuring to the benefit of the public. And we want to ensure that 

those who voluntarily help us achieve this goal are treated respectfully and appropriately for their assistance. 

We all want to spur new American innovation and create highpaying jobs, especially in our own districts. We can enact the biggest jobs bill in the Congress that actually creates private-sector 

jobs throughout the land and results in deficit reduction at the 

same time. This is within the power of this committee to do. Chairman Upton has given us wide latitude as a subcommittee to 

achieve these goals. And throughout this process, he has encouraged us at every turn to find a bipartisan solution, and I thank 

him for his calm, and thoughtful and patient leadership. 

And let us be honest, but for the President’s call in February to 

allocate the D-block, we would be much further along today. After 

all, about a year ago, then-Chairman Waxman eloquently and 

forcefully argued that his discussion draft that auctioned the Dblock was the right public policy. The National Broadband Plan 

calls for auctioning the D-block, and the principles endorsed by the 

9/11 Commission Chair and Vice Chair last year, former Commission Chair—or former Commission member Senator Slade Gorton 

this year, and is still supported by the current FCC Chairman. It 

is also current law. And any plan to allocate this prime spectrum 

opens a $3 billion hole in the Nation’s budget. 

I know there are arguments about how that was then, and this 

is now, and things have changed, but the heart of the matter, absent the President’s proposal, D-block would not be quite the stumbling block it has become. 

Now, my comments are not intended to be partisan; however, 

they are intended to just state the political reality that has befallen 

our committee. I am just stating the obvious about the awkward. 

Our staffs on both sides of the aisle have joined us in healthy and 

vigorous discussions about other policy issues. Our product is 

strengthened by these discussions. When it became clear we could 

not reach agreement in time for this hearing, both sides chose to 

release their drafts in current form to facilitate further discussion 

and to solicit your input. Republicans have included the InsleeUpton-Boucher government relocation bill from the last Congress 

in that same spirit. Our discussion draft reflects input from the minority, and that input is very much appreciated. 

The Republican draft relies on the local expertise at the State 

level for implementation of the public safety network while providing for a strong Federal role in assuring interoperability. To 

capitalize on the United States’ leading position in wireless 

broadband technology and services, it also relies heavily on the 

commercial sector’s expertise through public-private partnerships. 

3 

We still have unresolved issues regarding the unlicensed space, 

interoperability requirements beyond those of public safety, and 

conditions on licenses, to name just a few. We will continue to work 

on these issues. Meanwhile, I welcome the input and counsel of my 

colleagues, our witnesses and others who can help us get this policy 

right for the public. But we all know the clock is ticking, and we 

must close out this matter sooner rather than later. 

With that, I would yield the balance of my time to the vice chair 

of the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

4 


73418.001
5 


73418.002
6 


73418.003
7 


73418.004
8 

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

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. And I just want to commend you for the 

methodical and mature way of processing through very complicated 

and sometimes divisive issues. This is something we have to get 

done. 

We have to have a comprehensive spectrum bill. There is no 

doubt everyone agrees with that. The dividing points have been 

public safety, D-block, and I think you took a path that addressed 

both of the issues. They need help, public safety, ‘‘they.’’ You have 

tried to resolve the issues of the broadcasters, and I think you have 

taken a very good approach on there, resolving those issues. 

So I encourage you to work with our Democratic side. I would 

like to see a bipartisan bill here. I do agree with you, I think we 

are close. 

I also want to just say last that I feel that the debt talks do have 

an impact here in the sense that this is one way of auctioning spectrum that can actually be a revenue raiser for the Federal Government to offset our deficit, and I think we have a responsibility to 

follow through. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. 

I turn now to the ranking member of the subcommittee, my 

friend, Ms. Eshoo from California. 

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

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for not only having today’s hearing, my thanks to all of the witnesses, especially those 

who had to travel long distances and endure interruptions in that 

travel, and to our respective staffs who have really worked very, 

very hard. But the work goes on. We are not done yet. 

Three months ago this subcommittee began a major undertaking; 

the goal: Bring forward legislation to address our growing need for 

spectrum while providing our first responders with a nationwide 

interoperable broadband network. While the majority’s discussion 

draft has provisions that I don’t support, I remain optimistic. And 

I want to say that again: I remain optimistic that we can produce 

a bipartisan bill. We feel very strongly about that on our side as 

well. 

To help with this effort, I joined with the full committee’s ranking member, Mr. Waxman, to offer our preferred path in a discussion draft entitled the Public Safety Broadband and Wireless Innovation Act of 2011. The draft reflects the testimony heard during 

the subcommittee’s four spectrum hearings, as well as the feedback 

of our fellow colleagues. 

From the beginning of this effort, I have expressed my belief that 

a nationwide public safety network must have a strong governance 

structure, leverage the commercial sector, and be built in a costefficient manner. Our discussion draft reallocates the D-block to 

public safety and includes a carefully developed, effective and efficient national governance mechanism with sufficient oversight and 

accountability. 

9 

In the area of voluntary incentive auctions, we shouldn’t be overly prescriptive, I don’t believe anyway, in our approach. We need 

to ensure that a process is fair to broadcasters and provides the 

FCC flexibility to carry out an auction and the subsequent repacking of the TV band. This discussion draft accomplishes, I believe, 

these goals. 

To date, unlicensed spectrum has unlocked tremendous innovation. I see it in my congressional district every day. By one estimate, within the next 5 years, WiFi devices will use more bandwidth than wire devices. That is really extraordinary. And I love 

saying that because I really do think it is the American way. I 

mean, this is where we enjoy more than an edge. Our discussion 

draft recognizes the importance of this resource not just for established technology companies, but for the entrepreneurs that exist 

now and will in the future. 

We also need to look at ways to spur innovation in the public 

safety device market and afford more opportunities for public safety to partner with a variety of commercial service providers, including small carriers. Our discussion draft supports the development 

and testing of new interoperable, nonproprietary broadband technologies that will help drive down the cost of public safety devices 

and applications, and that is very, very important. 

Our draft also calls for an examination into the feasibility of providing interoperability across the 700 megahertz band. In addition 

to supporting public safety, the 700 megahertz band interoperability would benefit the broader wireless ecosystem. It also will 

give consumers an expanded set of choices for commercially available devices like smart phones and tablets. 

Finally, we can’t forget about our Nation’s 911 call centers. 

Someone said—referred to me recently as ‘‘the 911 queen.’’ Well, I 

don’t know about that, but I had been on it for a long time before 

it was—it became popular. There was very little interest on either 

side of the aisle in the issue, but, of course, the attack on our country really raised the issue up and put a spotlight on it. 

As a founder and current cochair of the NextGen 911 Caucus 

with Mr. Shimkus in the House, I have fought to modernize our 

911 call centers. It makes sense as we build a nationwide public 

safety network that we develop a plan to update our public safety 

answering points and emergency operation centers to support a 

Next Generation 911 system. Such a system will enable first responders to receive photos, videos and text messages that can improve the quality and speed of emergency response. Our draft lays 

the foundation for such a transition, providing the resources to examine the costs, the specifications and the legal framework. So I 

think we owe it to our Nation’s first responders, to our innovators 

and the American people to come together and complete a bill. 

I want to thank each one of our witnesses again, and I look forward to working with the chairman, with our respective staffs, 

with members on both sides of the aisle of this important subcommittee to move forward with bipartisan legislation. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I have a request to enter into the record 

from the Bipartisan Policy Center a letter that was sent to Senators Rockefeller and Kay Bailey Hutchison from Tom Kean and 

Lee Hamilton, who were the Commission Chairman and Vice 

10 

Chairman of the 9/11 Commission. So with your permission, we can 

enter that into the record. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

11 


73418.005
12 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank you. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

I would now recognize the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Shimkus 

if he has any comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I will take time, Mr. Chairman, and then I will 

yield some to Cliff, if that is all right. 

Spectrum is so much more than D-block, and I do appreciate 

your comments about it is obvious about—stating the obvious about 

the awkward. And so all I would like to add is—a couple of 

things—is I do hope that the NextGen 911 Enhancement Act will 

be a part of this as we move forward; the NextGen Public Safety 

Technology Act, which Anna and I have been working on. 

This political process is always kind of fun. You can claw and 

scratch on one day, and then you can give the good big hug on the 

next day as you work together on things that are important. I have 

been clawing and scratching a lot lately. But I appreciate the times 

when I can cross the aisle and give someone a hug. Anna is working real hard with me on this, and it makes up for some of my 

frailties, I guess. 

The other thing is I am for private auction of the D-block regionally done. My concern is that if we don’t do it in that way, we won’t 

have deployment. Some of the worst cases of 911 lapses is where 

we don’t have connectivity, where we don’t have cellular connections, where we can’t do identification location. And the stories that 

we heard when we started moving the stuff out about the people 

caught in the snowstorm in the mountains, calling and couldn’t be 

found. The young kids in the rowboat in New York—Island Sound, 

that is—I am not going to diminish the importance of that. 

And if we truly want a bipartisan process to go forward, we can’t 

have this fight between urban and rural. We just can’t do it. And 

the rural areas have to be brought along, and the only way I see 

that that is done is if we have really a competitive atmosphere, and 

that we—with strong requirements so that all the Americans can 

benefit from a new system. 

With that, I will yield my time to Mr. Stearns. 

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

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague. 

Mr. Chairman, you and the staff, I want to compliment you on 

several provisions I particularly support in this draft legislation. 

First, I am pleased to see that the incentive auctions will be truly 

voluntary. 

Second, it is important that broadcasters can maintain their 

service areas and are not forced into VHF. 

Secondly, I am in strong support of preventing the FCC’s ability 

to impose conditions on the auctions. Unencumbered auctions decrease in value and limit their full revenue potential. We simply 

cannot afford the expensive social policy the FCC will likely try to 

impose on these auctions if it is just simply given the authority. 

And finally, as the clock continues to tick on the debt ceiling, and 

we just got back from a conference on this, and the government 

13 

searches for ways to pull itself out of debt, we have a bill in front 

of us that can raise billions of dollars for this country. Therefore 

I hope, Mr. Chairman, we can move this quickly. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Does the gentleman from Ohio want to make any 

comments, Mr. Latta, in the remaining time before I go to Mr. 

Waxman? 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. 

All I can say is I appreciate the hearing today, Mr. Chairman, 

and also how important it is, especially on the question of spectrum 

as to where we can go, especially the voluntary auction side. I 

think it is important that we can also bring dollars into the Treasury and help this deficit. So I appreciate the hearing today. Thank 

you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. 

And now I will turn to Mr. Waxman for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing this morning to discuss how we can quickly provide public safety with a nationwide interoperable broadband network and make 

more spectrum available for wireless broadband. Both goals are 

critical to our country and require Congress to act quickly and decisively. 

In less than 60 days, we will observe the 10th anniversary of the 

terrorist attacks on New York and Washington and the skies of 

Pennsylvania. Construction of a nationwide public safety 

broadband network remains critical unfinished business, and we 

should do everything possible to send a bill to the President that 

accomplishes this bipartisan objective. 

After several constructive hearings on spectrum policy, today we 

will consider a Republican discussion draft. I am pleased that we 

will discuss specific details about incentive auctions, public safety 

governance and Federal spectrum relocation, and still hope we can 

find common ground on several other issues. 

In order to highlight our areas of agreement and disagreement, 

yesterday Representative Eshoo and I released a discussion draft 

of the Public Safety Broadband and Wireless Innovation Act of 

2011. Although many details of the bill we put forward differ from 

the Republican draft, Democrats on the committee hope we can develop one legislative vehicle that takes the best ideas from both 

proposals. 

Senators Rockefeller and Hutchison did a commendable job on a 

bipartisan package to empower the FCC to conduct incentive auctions for broadcast spectrum and create a nationwide broadband 

network for public safety. The Democratic draft builds upon the bipartisan work of the Senate Commerce Committee. 

With regard to public safety, committee Democrats believe we 

must establish a strong governance structure to manage the highly 

complex undertaking of building and managing an advanced wireVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:00 Aug 16, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-07~2\112-76~1 WAYNE
14 

less network. Through a nonprofit corporation streamlined to act 

quickly and efficiently, we have put in place a number of policies 

and requirements designed to ensure we reach our primary goal of 

nationwide interoperability for first responders. This corporation 

could be statutorily required to operate in a fiscally responsible 

manner and to provide the technical and management expertise 

this network will need. Public safety will have a strong voice, but 

the network will rely heavily on commercial know-how, national 

standards and existing infrastructure. 

The public safety community has indicated its strong support for 

the robust governance approach in the Senate bill and in the 

Democratic draft. It is on the basis of this strong governance model 

and public safety’s commitment to this approach that I have come 

to support reallocation of the D-block for public safety’s use. Reallocation is the best way to ensure that public safety has the leverage to incentivize the public-private partnerships and networksharing arrangements that are essential through constructing a nationwide broadband network. Moreover, reallocation allows us to 

plan for public safety’s transition to broadband, and the Democratic 

draft requires the FCC to evaluate opportunities to gain additional 

efficiencies across all public safety spectrum, including the possible 

return of spectrum for future auction. 

Finally, reallocation is the best chance we have to pass legislation into law. It has bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. The administration is strongly supportive, and the entire public safety community, including mayors, Governors and numerous 

other State and local officials, are united on this path forward. In 

my view, strong governance, oversight, accountability and smart 

spectrum management provide us with a good solution. 

Although we have disagreements about the D-block, the specifics 

of a governance model and funding, Democrats and Republicans 

are not far apart on other details. We all agree that we need to leverage commercial networks, ensure that the public safety equipment market becomes more competitive, and allow State and local 

officials to play a significant role in the development of this network. 

We also found a good amount of common ground on spectrum 

policy. Both Democrats and Republicans want to enable the FCC 

to conduct voluntary incentive auctions that are fair to broadcasters. We want the FCC to have sufficient flexibility to make auctions successful, although we have slightly different approaches to 

providing that flexibility. We don’t agree on the future of—we don’t 

agree on the future of unlicensed spectrum or on limiting the FCC’s 

ability to impose conditions on spectrum licenses in the future. 

These decisions must be made by the expert agency based on market conditions and other factors. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here. I look forward 

to your testimony. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:] 

15 


73418.006
16 


73418.007
17 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, sir. We appreciate your comments. We 

will continue to work together on this. 

I would like to now turn to our panel of witnesses, and we will 

lead with the chief of police, San Jose Police Department, Mr. 

Christopher M. Moore, who had a wonderful transportation system 

getting him here. We appreciate you making it all the way through. 

Thank you, sir. And we welcome your testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF CHRISTOPHER M. MOORE, CHIEF OF POLICE, 

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA; PETER CRAMTON, PROFESSOR OF 

ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND; HON. GORDON H. 

SMITH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

BROADCASTERS; MICHAEL A. CALABRESE, DIRECTOR, WIRELESS FUTURE PROJECT, OPEN TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE, 

NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION; AND CHRISTOPHER 

GUTTMAN–MCCABE, VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CTIA–THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER M. MOORE 

Mr. MOORE. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Walden 

and Ranking Member Eshoo. My name is Chris Moore. I am the 

chief of police for the City of San Jose Police Department in California. I am one of the representatives of the Major City Chiefs Association to the Public Safety Alliance, which is a coalition of leading public safety associations that represent every law enforcement, 

fire, EMS, emergency management agency and first responder organizations in the country. 

My comments today will be brief and to the point. I am here on 

behalf of the PSA and millions of first responders across the country to ask for your support of companion legislation that came out 

of the Senate, S. 911, the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act of 2011, which was recently and overwhelmingly 

passed by a 21-to-4 bipartisan vote by your counterparts in the 

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. 

This act does what public safety and State and local governments 

have requested Congress to sponsor and support as a top priority 

for more than 2 years. This legislation allocates the D-block to public safety; provides necessary funding for the build-out of a nationwide public safety broadband network, especially in rural areas; 

and establishes the governance to oversee and manage the buildout, maintenance, operation and upgrade of a network for decades 

to come. We urge the committee to act now as if a 9/11 or a Hurricane Katrina event were to have occurred just yesterday and fulfill 

the last recommendation of the 9/11 Commission by allocating the 

D-block, as recently endorsed in testimony this year by the cochairs 

of the 9/11 Commission. 

The PSA is greatly encouraged by the Democratic discussion 

draft that was circulated by Congresswoman Eshoo and Congressman Waxman just this week, and we urge swift introduction and 

committee consideration to move this matter to the House floor. 

The PSA strongly believes that this language, as developed within 

the committee of jurisdiction, builds and improves upon H.R. 607, 

which has garnered bipartisan support of 43 cosponsors so far this 

year. Indeed, legislation to allocate the D-block to public safety inVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:00 Aug 16, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-07~2\112-76~1 WAYNE
18 

troduced in the House in the 111th Congress last year garnered 80 

bipartisan cosponsors. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the PSA representatives have testified before this committee as recently as this 

April and May to press for a nationwide public safety broadband 

network. We emphasize that this is a unique and truly one-time 

opportunity to change our operations of the past, a past highlighted 

by trying to, quote, make due by linking and patching together 

communication systems on thin slices of spectrum spread out over 

at least six different bands in order to acquire interoperability and 

achieve spectral efficiency. 

We also stressed the need for adequate capacity of a network 

with public safety control and mission-critical capabilities from the 

outset. The PSA strongly believes that allocation of the D-block 

with funding is the only proposal that establishes those baseline 

principles and needs. We need the upfront funding to jump-start 

investment and build out of the network, and to attract and encourage commercial interests and competition. We will partner 

with the private sector, with utilities and with critical infrastructure to leverage and to make maximum use of existing infrastructure that exists today. We do support a strong governance structure as proposed in the Senate’s bipartisan bill, S. 911. 

Mr. Chairman, the majority staff discussion draft, as currently 

written, does not meet those conditions as we have outlined previously in both the House and in the Senate. In fact, if passed into 

law as currently written, it would leave the public safety worse off 

than it is today. Mr. Chairman, we cannot support that draft legislation. 

While the PSA is opposed to the majority’s discussion draft on 

key points, including one, the auction of the D-block; two, 

multistate licensing; three, the governance structure; and, four, the 

lack of specified funding as the top priority of any auction proceeds, 

we do appreciate the ongoing dialogue and consideration of our 

views, experience and perspective. 

And on a personal and professional note, I would like to thank 

the staff members from both sides of the aisle, whether they were 

in the majority or in the minority, for their steadfast and thoughtful discussions with public safety over the last 2 years. 

We are committed to continuing to work with the committee to 

bring to the floor a bill in the House to achieve the final enactment 

of legislation on this critical matter this year. Indeed, the PSA continues to seek enactment before the 10th anniversary of the tragic 

events of 9/11. 

Over the past 2 years, numerous hearings have been held on 

public safety spectrum and a nationwide public safety broadband 

network by this committee in addition to the Homeland Security 

Committee; the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs 

Committee; the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation 

Committee. Congress has asked many good questions, and we in 

public safety and State and local government have worked hard to 

provide you with answers. We are not here asking for the spectrum 

and funding to make a profit. We are not here asking for the spectrum and funding for some personal gain or reward. We are here 

asking for spectrum and funding in order for us to better serve and 

19 

protect the American people. We are here to make sure that our 

first responders who do put their lives on the line every day have 

the resources they need to do their jobs more efficiently and effectively, armed with real-time data, video and other information that 

can only be accessed in the latest and best mobile broadband technology. 

I am here to let you know that the Public Safety Alliance will 

strongly oppose any legislative action that will require auctioning 

the D-block. This is not an acceptable solution and ignores everything we have been advocating long before 9/11. Auctioning the Dblock will put public safety at risk and will considerably limit our 

first responders’ ability to do their jobs. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for your continued time 

and commitment to finding a solution that will meet the communication needs of our first responders for decades to come. The time 

has come for Congress to act, and we urge that you pass legislation 

before the 10th anniversary of 9/11. And I will be happy to answer 

any questions that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:] 

20 


73418.008
21 


73418.009
22 


73418.010
23 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Moore, thank you for making your position 

very clear. And we look forward to working with you. I am serious 

about that. 

We are going to go to Dr. Cramton now, professor of economics 

for the University of Maryland. We are delighted to have you here 

as well, and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF PETER CRAMTON 

Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I 

am honored to appear before you today. My remarks are about 

spectrum policy, especially a much-needed enhancement, incentive 

auctions. Incentive auctions would allow the Federal Communications Commission to conduct two-sided auctions, auctions that simultaneously free up encumbered spectrum and put it to its best 

use. 

We are in the midst of a communications revolution. Spectrum 

is an essential input in this revolution. The success of the revolution hinges on making the best use of this essential resource. From 

1994 until today, the FCC spectrum auctions have done a superb 

job of putting the spectrum to its best use; however, it is becoming 

increasingly difficult for the FCC to find suitable spectrum to satisfy demand. 

The best spectrum for mobile broadband has already been allocated, much of it many decades ago for over-the-air TV broadcasts. 

In recent decades the value of over-the-air broadcast TV has declined as more and more viewers receive their TV signals via cable 

and satellite. 

At the same time, there has been an explosion in growth and use 

of smart phones and tablets. These devices use the latest communications technology and do amazing things. These devices are used 

nearly 24/7 by my students and are fueled by spectrum. This is the 

future. 

This shift in demand away from over-the-air TV and toward mobile broadband has created a huge disparity in value. Spectrum 

used for mobile broadband generates much more economic value 

than spectrum used for over-the-air TV; hence the need to reallocate much of the TV spectrum from its current low-value use to the 

high-value use of mobile broadband. The FCC understands this 

need and has proposed incentive auctions to accomplish this exchange of spectrum from TV to broadband. 

There is a consensus among economists and other experts that 

incentive auctions are the best approach. Unlike the FCC’s prior 

auctions, the incentive auction is a two-sided auction in which TV 

broadcasters voluntarily offer to sell some or all of their spectrum 

rights, and mobile operators bid to buy large blocks of spectrum 

that the latest technologies require. The FCC plays an essential 

role in this process, repacking the remaining broadcasters to free 

up as much spectrum as possible, and then clearing the market at 

a quantity that maximizes social welfare and guarantees positive 

revenue for the Treasury. 

The simple economics of the incentive auction can be explained 

with the most basic tool of economics, supply and demand. The 

supply of spectrum comes from the broadcasters’ offers to relinquish spectrum, and the demand comes from the mobile operators 

24 

who bid for the blocks of spectrum. Once offers and bids are received, the FCC can clear the market at a quantity that generates 

maximum economic value. Although this may appear simple, the 

incentive auction is complex in its details and requires a great deal 

of study by experts to get the important details right. The incentive 

auction is a new and essential innovation. Its development will 

have a positive transformative impact both in the United States 

and worldwide, similar to the impact of the FCC’s initial spectrum 

auctions in 1994. 

Let me summarize my main points. The incentive auction is an 

essential innovation that will provide broad benefits to TV broadcasters, mobile operators, public safety, taxpayers and, most importantly, the vast majority of Americans. The incentive auction will 

create jobs and stimulate long-term growth for the economy. 

The incentive auction is complex. Its design is best left to experts. The FCC has an outstanding record of innovation in the auction arena and requires only limited guidance from Congress. On 

the basic objectives and principles, it would be a mistake for Congress to prevent the FCC from adopting the best auction design by 

mandating auction details and other restrictions in enabling legislation. There are such mistakes in the draft legislation, which I 

note in my written testimony. All of these problematic mandates 

are easily fixed by omitting the auction details and keeping the 

focus on basic principles. 

It is important to understand that not all constraints are bad. 

For example, restrictions that promote competition in the auction 

improve both revenues and efficiency. 

Given the FCC’s outstanding record in designing and implementing auctions, the legislation should provide the FCC with 

broad auction authority, focused on basic objectives and principles. 

To me, there are two key objectives, transparency and economic efficiency. What is needed is a statement of these objectives. Including specific details is apt to do more harm than good. 

I urge Congress to adopt streamlined legislation for incentive 

auctions as soon as possible. Only then can the full benefits of the 

communications revolution be realized. The time to act is now. 

Then the FCC can accelerate its work on designing and implementing an innovative auction approach to put the radio spectrum 

to its best use. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you for your testimony. We appreciate that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cramton follows:] 

25 


73418.011
26 


73418.012
27 


73418.013
28 


73418.014
29 

Mr. WALDEN. We are going to turn now to the Honorable Gordon 

Smith, president and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters. Senator, we are delighted to have you back before the committee. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Eshoo, 

members of the subcommittee. My name is Gordon Smith. I am 

president and CEO of the NAB. Thank you for inviting me here 

today to discuss your draft spectrum legislation and in particular 

the voluntary incentive auction provisions. 

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you at the outset that the NAB is 

heartened that this discussion draft recognizes the need for a balance in raising revenues for the Treasury, in making spectrum 

available for wireless broadband, and in protecting television viewers and broadcasters through the process of voluntary incentive 

auctions. 

Of course, intrinsic in the word ‘‘voluntary’’ is the notion that you 

will not be penalized for not participating. Ensuring incentive auctions are voluntary is of paramount importance to the NAB. So 

first and foremost, let me tell you that broadcasters appreciate the 

inclusion of the concept of truly voluntary incentive auctions in 

your draft. 

While participation in an auction is voluntary, the subsequent repacking of broadcast stations to new channels following the auction 

is not voluntary. Based on the spectrum goal set by the FCC in the 

National Broadband Plan, a total of 672 full-power stations, including commercial and noncommercial stations across the United 

States, would be forced onto a new channel. That is nearly 40 percent of all TV stations in America. Contrast that with 174 stations 

that were cleared from the spectrum during the DTV transition. I 

know my phones lit up in my Senate office just with that. Imagine 

the 672. 

Clearly this new round of repacking would result in significant 

disruption and confusion for our viewers and your constituents, 

who recently went through that DTV transition. For this reason we 

have focused on four elements that NAB believes must be included 

in any voluntary incentive auction to protect both television viewers and broadcasters. 

We ask that broadcasters be given the same opportunity as other 

industries to innovate with our spectrum, which means preventing 

the FCC from involuntarily moving stations from the U to the V 

band. Your legislation does that. 

We ask that legislation provide certainty to broadcasting and 

that those investing in broadcasting by requiring or permitting one 

auction so that this doesn’t happen year in, Congress after Congress, year in and year out. Your proposal achieves that, Mr. 

Chairman. 

We ask for reimbursement for station costs associated with relocating broadcast stations, and your legislation does that as well. 

But we may ask your indulgence for a slight adjustment in the language to achieve the goal of holding harmless those who did not 

participate in the auction. 

30 

Finally and most importantly, we ask that legislation preserve 

viewer access to over-the-air signals by replicating existing station 

service areas and covered populations. We also want to ensure that 

signals reach cable and satellite head-ins that rely on over-the-air 

delivery so that viewers continue to receive their broadcast channels. To this point, we believe the bill’s language could use a little 

bit of enhancement, because as drafted, the FCC is required to 

make reasonable efforts to preserve viewer access to over-the-air. 

I underscore the importance of having access to broadcast channels when we see weather seasons like we are currently having, 

when tornadoes are literally ripping through communities. While 

public safety is the first responder, broadcasting is the first informer. And so as you help one, our brethren and sisters and first 

responders, don’t hurt the first informers. We are partners in public safety. So we ask that. We thank you for that. 

And then to this point, and frankly to the professor’s point, of 

highest and best use, what is the value of a soul when a tornado 

is ripping through his or her community; when their only access is 

not this, it is their television set or their radio? Broadcasters is the 

one thing that stays up and on the air, and which can literally be 

the difference of life and death and getting the information to the 

first responders. That is what I think highest and best use must 

include, not just purely an economic supply-and-demand calculation. 

For this reason, we prefer language that directs the FCC to preserve viewer access to stations to the maximum extent possible. I 

don’t think that is unreasonable, given the stakes. Because the 

broadcasters have the benefit of experience in the repacking process used during the DTV transition, we ask that the final bill include a requirement that the FCC utilize the same protection criteria, the same protection criteria used in the final table of allotments for digital television service. 

Before I conclude, let me take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to 

thank Chairman Emeritus Dingell and Congressman Green for 

their work in also putting together a strong bill that protects viewers and broadcasters through the incentive auction process, as well 

as Ranking Members Waxman and Eshoo for their spectrum bill 

released just yesterday. We appreciate the fine work of all on both 

sides of the aisle trying to get this balance right. And this is a most 

important issue. It does involve economics. It involves life and 

death as well. 

And so I would like to introduce into the record two letters, one 

from America’s 50 State broadcaster associations to the House 

leadership, a second letter from the 4 network-affiliated associations to House leadership. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection, they will be entered into the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

31 


73418.015
32 


73418.016
33 


73418.017
34 


73418.018
35 


73418.019
36 


73418.020
37 


73418.021
38 


73418.022
39 


73418.023
40 


73418.024
41 


73418.025
42 


73418.026
43 


73418.027
44 


73418.028
45 


73418.029
46 


73418.030
47 


73418.031
48 


73418.032
49 


73418.033
50 


73418.034
51 


73418.035
52 


73418.036
53 


73418.037
54 


73418.038
55 


73418.039
56 

Mr. WALDEN. We turn now to Mr. Christopher GuttmanMcCabe—sorry. Oh, I guess I did. We will turn now to Mr. Michael 

Calabrese, senior research fellow, Open Technology Initiative, of 

the New America Foundation. We welcome your comments here, 

sir. And please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. CALABRESE 

Mr. CALABRESE. Good morning, Chairman Walden, Ranking 

Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Michael Calabrese, director of the Wireless Future Project at the New 

America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative here in Washington. I am testifying on behalf of the Wireless Innovation Alliance, a coalition of both large and startup high-tech firms, rural, 

wireless ISPs, and consumer and public interest groups. 

Most of the debate about incentive auction authority, as we have 

heard today, has focused on protecting local broadcasters, promoting public safety and auctioning licenses to wireless carriers. 

But another critical public interest should be safeguarded as well, 

unlicensed use of the TV white space channels. 

It is essential that any incentive auction authority give the FCC 

the ability and obligation to preserve substantial access to unlicensed spectrum in every local TV market. Under the FCC order 

adopted unanimously in 2008, after years of study, WiFi-type devices are allowed to operate on an unlicensed basis on unused DTV 

channels, provided that the devices have GPS and periodically 

check an online database to find out what channels can be used 

without risking interference with DTV reception. 

Investment and trial deployments of a wide range of innovative 

devices and services is well under way. My testimony describes a 

half dozen successful white space trials; for example, a smart city 

deployment in Wilmington, North Carolina; a smart grid deployment in California’s Sierra Mountains; a rural broadband deployment in Claudville, Virginia; a public safety and tribal lands deployment in northern California, and so on. 

While the voluntary incentive auctions in the discussion draft 

strike a reasonable balance, we have very serious concerns with 

section 104, which for the first time would require auctions for unlicensed spectrum. Under section 104, the FCC could make spectrum available for unlicensed use only through an auction where 

the highest bidders, rather than the expert agency, determine 

whether the service rules for a particular band in a particular area 

will be exclusively licensed or unlicensed. 

Requiring auctions for unlicensed spectrum is unstudied, untested, unworkable and virtually certain to ensure that no new unlicensed spectrum is actually allocated. It will effectively preclude 

the FCC from repacking the TV band in a manner that maintains 

access to unlicensed channels for super-WiFi services that industry 

is in the process of deploying. 

If this provision had been in place before WiFi and before the 

FCC designated the 2.4 gigahertz band for unlicensed use, America’s invention of today’s multibillion-dollar WiFi industry would 

never have occurred. If this bill had been law then, today there 

would not be more than 2,000 wireless ISPs using unlicensed spectrum to bring broadband Internet service to 2 million Americans 

57 

living in rural, remote and small-town areas. If this bill had been 

law, today consumers would not be saving roughly $15 billion per 

year because WiFi allows multiple users at home and work to 

share a single wired line. WiFi would not be offloading 20 to 30 

percent of the mobile data traffic from smart phones and tablets, 

helping to ease the spectrum crunch. AT&T Wireless would not 

have 24,000 WiFi hotspots to help its customers get faster and free 

broadband access in public places. The three largest cable companies would not have combined to blanket New York City with WiFi; 

and universities, hospitals, libraries and other public spaces would 

not be hotspots, helping millions get Internet access cheaply, easily 

and without wires. 

The auction model mandated in the draft bill is also unworkable 

and seems more likely to decrease Federal revenue than to increase 

it. Putting service rules up for auction creates tremendous uncertainty about how much of a band will end up licensed or unlicensed. This undermines the revenue-raising potential of the auctions and could lower the score that CBO could put on what would 

be an unpredictably contingent set of auctions. 

Unlicensed spectrum is something fundamentally different from 

licensed. A license gives a company exclusive use at high power 

and protection from interference. Unlicensed bands are open to 

anyone at very low power, with no protection from interference. 

Even the FCC economists who outlined the draft’s proposed 

mechanism 3 years ago identified a series of problems that make 

this idea unworkable in the real world. The primary one is the free 

rider problem. Because unlicensed spectrum is a public good available to anyone, even the largest companies that rely on unlicensed 

have an incentive to hold back and let others pay the government. 

These noncarrier firms say they would not even bid. They are not 

in that business. They are only indirect beneficiaries, just as trucking companies are with respect to interstate highways. 

To conclude, I will just say that the U.S. economy and consumers 

will continue to benefit most from a balanced and complementary 

mix of licensed and unlicensed spectrum. Unlicensed technologies 

pioneered here in America are increasingly so complementary and 

critical to the wireless ecosystem that Congress can best optimize 

the TV band spectrum for broadband, for job creation and innovation by ensuring continued unlicensed access to substantial 

amounts of TV white space spectrum in every local market and nationwide. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you for your comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calabrese follows:] 

58 


73418.040
59 


73418.041
60 


73418.042
61 


73418.043
62 


73418.044
63 


73418.045
64 


73418.046
65 


73418.047
66 


73418.048
67 


73418.049
68 


73418.050
69 


73418.051
70 


73418.052
71 


73418.053
72 


73418.054
73 


73418.055
74 


73418.056
75 


73418.057
76 


73418.058
77 


73418.059
78 


73418.060
79 


73418.061
80 


73418.062
81 


73418.063
82 


73418.064
83 


73418.065
84 


73418.066
85 

Mr. WALDEN. And we will now move to Mr. Christopher 

Guttman-McCabe, who is vice president for regulatory affairs, 

CTIA—The Wireless Association. We look forward to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN–MCCABE 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Thank you. And good morning, Mr. 

Chairman, and Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of CTIA, thank you for the chance to speak 

to you this morning about the discussion drafts released this week. 

CTIA believes that this process represents a positive step towards 

addressing the looming spectrum crisis and ensuring that America’s wireless industry remains the world’s leader in wireless 

broadband. 

I will not belabor the urgent need to make additional spectrum 

available. You have seen the studies and heard our analysis, which 

has been echoed by many others in the wireless and high-tech industries, academia and government. The subcommittee records 

show that the commercial demand for spectrum is real and pressing, and we are pleased that you are responding. We look forward 

to supporting you in this effort, which can help us maintain U.S. 

leadership in this critical industry and stimulate the sort of innovation, economic growth and job creation that our country so desperately needs. 

As we read the drafts, we are pleased that they begin the process 

of addressing the spectrum demand targets below 3 gigahertz articulated in the National Broadband Plan. 

We fully support authorizing the FCC to conduct incentive auctions to facilitate the repurposing of bands currently used for 

broadcast television and other services. The outstanding propagation characteristics associated with the broadcast bands in particular make them ideal for licensed wireless broadband services, 

and as such would be highly valued by bidders in an auction. 

We also strongly support efforts to make the frequencies between 

1755 and 1780 megahertz available for commercial use, and to pair 

that with a band of frequencies between 2155 and 2180 megahertz. 

A symmetrical pairing of those bands represents the ideal use of 

this spectrum. We are concerned, however, with any provisions in 

legislation that do not require that pairing or that may backload 

the introduction of spectrum identified. Failure to make 1755 to 

1780 available or other 3-subgigahertz bands available in the near 

term will exacerbate the spectrum crisis and encourage consequences that policymakers may find suboptimal. 

Providing for spectrum to become available at more predictable 

intervals will promote certainty, maximize the benefit to the government, and ensure that the U.S. keeps pace with our international trading partners. 

We also are concerned about the potential for NTIA to shared 

use of government spectrum. While the sharing approach is clearly 

an NTIA priority, CTIA’s carrier members consider cleared licensed 

spectrum that is internationally harmonized and in sufficient block 

sizes to support mobile broadband applications to be the gold 

standard. 

86 

As a general matter, CTIA believes strongly that auction valuations and, in fact, certainty for bidders will be enhanced by adoption of provisions that limit the ability to condition licenses. Flexible use, unencumbered fungible licenses will drive not only the 

greatest level of return, but also the greatest level of participation 

in the auction. The 700-megahertz C-block experience demonstrates 

clearly that the imposition of regulatory encumbrances not only reduces competition at auction, but also the revenue derived from 

that auction. 

CTIA also strongly supports efforts to address infrastructure 

issues beyond spectrum. Helping to provide a path to building the 

tower and antenna infrastructure necessary to make use of that 

spectrum is extremely important. 

We also support steps to provide for cost-based fees for accessing 

easements and rights-of-way on Federal land, as well as a streamlined access and process to property owned by the Federal Government. 

Finally, we urge the subcommittee to include in any bill it moves 

on this subject additional language that makes improvements to 

the spectrum relocation process created by the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act. Adoption of the template included in the 

Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act will significantly improve 

the process of relocating government users. 

We believe that addressing these issues will enhance the ability 

of wireless providers to access additional spectrum, invest in new 

networks, create jobs and stimulate the economy. We also believe 

these changes will have a positive impact on the score associated 

with the legislation. 

In closing, let me reiterate a point I made to you when I testified 

last month, that making spectrum available will pay dividends not 

just for the wireless industry, but also for the broader American 

economy. Auction revenues, substantial as they may be, are only 

part of the equation. Bringing spectrum to market will require investment, both in infrastructure and in jobs, two things our economy can’t get enough of at this time. Additionally, the more rapid 

deployment of high-speed wireless broadband services will encourage innovation and productivity not just in the telecom sector, but 

across the economy. We have seen this in the areas of smart grid, 

mobile education, mHealth, intelligent transportation and more. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. We anticipate providing specific editorial suggestions to the subcommittee in 

the coming days, and we look forward to working with you to move 

forward with this effort. I look forward to your questions. Thank 

you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Guttman-McCabe, thank you for being here. 

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

87 


73418.067
88 


73418.068
89 


73418.069
90 


73418.070
91 


73418.071
92 


73418.072
93 


73418.073
94 

Mr. WALDEN. I want to thank all of our witnesses for your testimony. And I would just like to note based on something I read this 

morning about the hiring that is taking place since our draft came 

out to deal with the unlicensed spectrum piece in the lobby community, we are already creating jobs—— 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Agreed. 

Mr. WALDEN [continuing]. In the private sector. Discussion drafts 

can have an effect. 

I want to start with you, Mr. Guttman-McCabe. First of all, I 

have got a series of questions, and I am really looking for a yes or 

no. And this is not a trick. Has the demand for wireless broadband 

lessened in the last year? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. No. 

Mr. WALDEN. Has the amount of spectrum available for commercial use increased? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. No. 

Mr. WALDEN. Has the amount of spectrum available to public 

safety decreased? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. No. 

Mr. WALDEN. Nothing has changed. Why would we deviate from 

the consensus last year that the best way to accomplish our public 

safety and spectrum goals is to auction the D-block and use the 

auction proceeds to help fund the public safety network? I can ask 

that rhetorically. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. I request—— 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. I appreciate it, sir. 

Mr. WALDEN. I request unanimous consent to enter the following 

into the record, the following documents all endorsing the FCC’s 

conclusion the National Broadband Plan, that is 24 megahertz, the 

DTV transition legislation already cleared for first responders is 

enough, and we should auction the D-block. To wit, a March 2010 

FCC blog post from former 9/11 Commission Chair Thomas Kean 

and Vice Chair Lee Hamilton; and a January 2011 editorial by 

former 9/11 Commissioner Slade Gorton. Without objection, they 

will be entered into the record. 

[The information follows:] 

95 


73418.074
96 


73418.075
97 


73418.076
98 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Guttman-McCabe, I want to ask you another 

question. Chief Moore referenced in his testimony the need to act, 

which we concur with. I have been chairman of this subcommittee 

for about 6 1⁄2 months now or so, and I think we have had four 

hearings, a legislative hearing. We have got working documents. 

We get it. And I am trying to do my best to move this forward in 

an open, transparent and participatory way so we can get it right, 

because it is more than just public safety, as you can well appreciate, we are dealing with. 

In Mr. Moore’s testimony, he urges us to act as if a 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina event had happened just yesterday and fulfill the 

last recommendation of the 9/11 Commission by allocating the Dblock. Could you speak to what happened with the public safety 

network during 9/11 versus—and I am going to ask Senator Smith 

this, too—broadcasters during Katrina and the public safety network as it relates to what happened in the cellular network world? 

What worked and what didn’t? 

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

I think this is an area where, too often, people misinterpret what 

happened on September 11th or what happened in Katrina. 

On September 11th, the wireless networks processed more calls 

than they had ever done, 1,400 percent higher above their highest 

previous busy time. So they processed calls at an unprecedented 

rate. 

In Katrina—and I was in Gulfport and Biloxi the following day. 

The day after I had the ability to travel down there with some folks 

from the Federal Communications Commission. We gave out 40,000 

handsets to first responders and others that were down there. So 

the networks were working. 

Mr. WALDEN. Did the public safety network stay up? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. To some extent yes, and to some extent 

no. 

Mr. WALDEN. Did your networks stay up? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Our networks did stay up and were 

pieced back together. Again, that happened in Katrina, and it has 

happened since then. They are somewhat self-healing networks, 

and there is the ability for carriers to share spectrum and to share 

towers, mutual aid agreements, and those were in place and 

worked very quickly. 

Mr. WALDEN. So you were able to have a public-private partnership here to help public safety and help others in that event. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Senator Smith, do you want to comment on the role 

of broadcasters, briefly? 

Mr. SMITH. Clearly, the wireless broadband signal is one-to-one. 

It is an important piece of the telecommunications world. The 

uniqueness of the broadcast signal is one to everyone in an area. 

A recent example of the power of broadcasting over broadband in 

an emergency was seen in Alabama, where, according to their Governor, had it not been for live television and radio, the death toll 

would not have been 250, it would have been many multiples of 

that. The first thing that went down was broadband. The thing 

that stayed constant was broadcast. The world of the future must 

include them both. 

99 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Guttman-McCabe, didn’t the network neutrality and public safety conditions on the C and D blocks in the 

’08 auction of the 700 meg band reduce the proceeds by billions of 

dollars and drive smaller wireless carriers out of the market? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. And wouldn’t prohibiting restrictive license conditions, as our staff draft does on the Republican side, be both good 

for spectrum policy and U.S. taxpayers? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

And just a quick—the C-block license, which was encumbered, 

went for $4.7 billion; and it was 22 megahertz, which is a very 

large license. The immediately adjacent D-block, which was 

unencumbered and half the size, went for $9 billion. So a license 

half the size went for twice the price. 

Mr. WALDEN. My time has expired. I am going to turn now to 

my colleague and friend from California, the ranking member of 

the subcommittee, Ms. Eshoo, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank all of the witnesses. I think each one of you, 

whether I agree or disagree with some parts of what you said, really have offered excellent testimony today and are helping us move 

forward with this. 

To Chief Moore, thank you again for your service to San Jose, 

California, and the broader Bay area community. I don’t represent 

the City of San Jose, but your leadership is felt throughout the Bay 

area. 

Chief, there have been some recent high-profile disputes involving public safety broadband communications projects, which you 

are very well aware of. One problem that resonates is a failing of 

local governance to either preclude such disputes from occurring in 

the first place or to quickly resolve problems that arise. 

In the Democratic draft, you are familiar with what we have 

placed in that draft relative to governance. Are you confident that 

the newly created Public Safety Broadband Corporation will be 

able to maintain national level standards for interoperability? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, Congresswoman. And I must say it is rare that 

you are going to hear a State, local, either public safety or the mayors and nationally the cities, say we want more governance from 

the Federal Government. It is very rare indeed. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes. Exactly. Be careful what you ask for, or wish 

for. 

Mr. MOORE. Given what we have experienced over the years, 

particularly with respect to interoperable communications, it became clear to all of us in the last 2 years that there needs to be 

some level of national presence in respect to governance to make 

sure that interoperability standards are set and are met before 

large—literally billions of dollars are spent. Otherwise, we are 

going to see a patchwork like we have seen in the past, and everybody is comfortable with that. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

To Professor Cramton, thank you for your excellent, excellent 

work, all that you have done, all that you have published. It is 

really quite stunning, the work that you have done. So I haven’t 

100 

read all of it. I have read some of it, and I am glad that you are 

devoted to this in your professional life. 

As we all know, the wireless industry is moving toward using 

LTE for 4–G communication throughout the 700 megahertz band. 

As an expert economist—and that you are—what are the specific 

economic benefits of device interoperability across the spectrum— 

as quickly as you can. 

Mr. CRAMTON. So the main thing is competition. To get auctions 

to work, we need competition. And in fact that was the problem 

with the price disparities in the 700. 

Now, to get markets to work, we need competition, and that is 

a challenge in network industries where there is enormous fixed 

costs of building networks. What interoperability does is it fosters 

competition by creating a more level playing field. 

What we have seen in the 700 megahertz auction is, when the 

auction was conducted, the bidders all expected interoperability, 

because that is the way it was in all the prior auctions. In this auction—and so nobody thought that there needed to be a requirement 

of interoperability. It was just assumed that it would be there. In 

this auction, after the auction, one of the large winners, AT&T, lobbied and created a new band, band 17, that excludes the A-block 

winners. There is a band 12 that includes both the A-block and the 

D-block, and what happened was AT&T decided to build devices 

that were just specific to the spectrum that it won, and Verizon did 

the same thing. 

This is problematic because it basically makes the spectrum won 

by the A-block winners worthless. They can’t get equipment because of the enormous economies of scale in the building of equipment. So that is the big problem. 

Ms. ESHOO. Do you think that the majority’s discussion draft allows enough flexibility for the FCC to conduct an efficient incentive 

auction? 

Mr. CRAMTON. I think there are a number of clauses that need 

to be eliminated that are restrictions that get in the way of an efficient auction. The reality is that this is an extremely complicated 

auction and no one, not even the best experts, knows right at this 

instance how all the questions should be resolved. 

So it is very important for the legislation to focus on the broad 

principles and I would say only address these broad principles 

given the outstanding track record that the FCC has with respect 

to its auction program. And especially I know, on the incentive auctions, they have actually been working hard for the last couple of 

years, you know, getting ready for this, and they are actually all 

set to engage the experts and really make this work. But we can’t 

have things stand in the way. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

I have other questions that I would like to ask, but I am out of 

time, so I will submit them in writing. But I want to thank those 

that I didn’t get to ask questions of for your excellent testimony. 

Mr. WALDEN. We will probably all have those going forward, depending upon our time today. 

Mr. Shimkus for five. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

101 

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you for putting a panel 

that all agrees—they all agree there is something they don’t like. 

I was back in the back room with staff, and it is a great panel. 

The spectrum is a great asset. We all need to use it effectively. 

There is just obviously a divergence into what that is. So I applaud 

you all and the testimony. 

Just before I go into my question, our national debt is really the 

threat, and that is really what is encumbering all our discussions 

here in Washington right now. I mean, we are doing all our other 

work. And the reality is our budget consists of Medicare, Medicaid, 

Social Security, interest on the debt, and discretionary budget. And 

if we don’t address the entitlement programs, regardless of what 

we do, they are going to consume all the discretionary budget. In 

fact, we could take away the discretionary budget and we are still 

going to have a debt threat in this country. 

So that is just a plain economic fact of the challenges that we are 

facing. That is kind of rolling into this debate. We have to understand, if we want money to go to public safety, if we don’t control 

the debt, there is not going to be additional money. 

I am a big Fire Act grant guy. It has been great for rural America and my small communities. So that is why I think this might 

be part of it, if and when we get to a vote on some solution to this. 

But I do appreciate all of the panel, because it is very enlightening. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to enter 

into the record the FCC Office of Plans and Policy Working Paper 

Number 43 on unlicensed auctions. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

102 


73418.077
103 


73418.078
104 


73418.079
105 


73418.080
106 


73418.081
107 


73418.082
108 


73418.083
109 


73418.084
110 


73418.085
111 


73418.086
112 


73418.087
113 


73418.088
114 


73418.089
115 


73418.090
116 


73418.091
117 


73418.092
118 


73418.093
119 


73418.094
120 


73418.095
121 


73418.096
122 


73418.097
123 


73418.098
124 


73418.099
125 


73418.100
126 


73418.101
127 


73418.102
128 


73418.103
129 


73418.104
130 


73418.105
131 


73418.106
132 


73418.107
133 

Mr. SHIMKUS. While I do that—my question will go to Mr. 

Guttman-McCabe—what do you think of the unlicensed provisions 

in the Republican staff draft which are based upon the document 

I just entered in the record? 

If a coalition advocating unlicensed use cannot outbid a single 

wireless carrier for a particular band or spectrum, doesn’t that suggest the particular spectrum is more useful for licensed services? 

If the particular spectrum is better suited to unlicensed use, as in 

Mr. Calabrese’s—your opening statement kind of addressed this— 

wouldn’t the people who support that be able to pull enough capital 

to free that up? And this goes into my opening comment. The debt 

is the threat, and isn’t spectrum too valuable to give away for free, 

especially in this economy? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Thank you, Congressman. 

This is an extraordinarily difficult question and issue. At CTIA, 

we believe unlicensed needs to be part of the solution. It currently 

is part of the solution, and we look at it. Yet if I take off my CTIA 

hat and I put on my economist hat, which is what I was for half 

a dozen years before I went to law school, I recognize the conflict 

of societal good being auctioned on one hand and being given away 

on another hand. 

And I think that issue is further complicated when you look at 

incentive auctions and that the incentive auction and the prices 

that are brought from those auctions, from the licensed bidders, 

would be used to clear spectrum that would then be given to other 

companies. So it becomes incredibly complicated once you begin, 

from an economics, perspective to look at that. 

I think we need to at least consider what other mechanisms are 

out there, recognizing—obviously, absolutely recognizing the importance of unlicensed. So we are looking at the discussion draft from 

the chairman. But it is a complicated issue. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It is. And I am pretty intrigued by it, because I 

do think you get the benefits of both. You do get the free use to 

be able to go in places where it is not there but at a return. 

I am going to end, because my time is fastly ending here, and 

just again highlight to my friends in public safety that one of the 

things that Congresswoman Eshoo and I are trying to do is understand that, as we go to new technologies, there is going to be a cost, 

and I would submit that what Anna and I are doing is to make 

sure we have the ability to help you get there. 

Now, where Anna and I disagree is that I think we do that by 

auctioning and getting money, with your friends behind you. We 

have had these discussions before. And that is where we really 

want to get to, is the financial considerations. 

With that, I yield back my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman. 

Obviously, putting this unlicensed spectrum issue in the bill 

brings it to the floor, and we can have this debate and discussion 

and find out what the best course of action is. 

I turn now to the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 

5 minutes. 

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

Mr. Moore, I was taken by surprise by one of the statements you 

made. It caught my attention. You said that, if passed into law as 

134 

currently written, the Republican draft would leave public safety 

worse off than it is today. That is alarming. Because our primary 

goal is to address the difficult problem of making an interoperable 

nationwide broadband national communications network a reality, 

and the last thing any Member wants is to make things worse. 

Can you explain this concern in more detail? How would the Republican discussion draft make things worse than it is today for 

public safety? 

Mr. MOORE. Certainly, Congressman. Thank you, Congressman. 

I thought I was beyond the day that I could surprise any member 

of Congress, but I appreciate that. 

It is not my intention to alarm anybody with the statement other 

than to say a couple of things. 

Number one, as the proposed majority draft reads, it talks about 

suspending any future 700 narrow band deployments. There are a 

number of jurisdictions around this country, their existing land mobile radio systems are end-of-life today, and they need to be refreshed, and they are in the process of doing that. 

We cannot basically stop those processes now. That would be the 

equivalent of saying to large swaths of our country, we can’t protect 

you. That is not going to happen. I just can’t see that. And I don’t 

think that is the intent of the draft. So, again, without much discussion with the membership to talk about that, I think we would 

find ourselves in a difficult spot. 

We also do believe that auctioning the D-block will make us less 

safe. Now, current law does say that. We acknowledge that. But we 

believe definitely if we move forward and stop all deployments— 

planned deployments of 700 in the narrow band in the short term, 

it will make America less safe. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you have any specific thoughts about how the 

draft might be modified to address your concern? 

Mr. MOORE. I think there are a couple of things. Obviously, reallocate the D-block to public safety, which would be extremely 

helpful, and we would be grateful. 

Mr. WAXMAN. That comment did not take me by surprise. 

Mr. MOORE. But, also, the notion that the current 700 systems 

that exist today and those that are in the pipeline are critical to 

keeping us safe today. And the reality is it may be 10 years, 12 

years down the line that we may be able to migrate some of those 

to broadband, but that is not today, and that is not in the near 

term. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Dr. Cramton, in your testimony you emphasize 

that Congress should focus on basic principles in enacting legislation to authorize incentive auctions. You say the easiest mistake 

Congress can make is to prevent the FCC from adopting the best 

auction design by including auction details and other restrictions 

in the enabling legislation. This is consistent with what we have 

heard from other economists that have testified before this subcommittee and was the central message in the 112 economists’ letter sent to President Obama. 

How do you balance your suggestion with broadcaster concerns 

about the structure and shape of the auction? You want Congress 

to list principles, but the broadcasters want specific protections. Do 

135 

you think there is a middle ground we can all agree on and do either of the discussion drafts get there? 

Mr. CRAMTON. Well, I hope there is a middle ground, but I do 

think that you have to be very careful in thinking about all these 

issues. There are a lot of things that interact in the auction design, 

so I do think that there are—in addition to the broad principles, 

one could introduce in the legislation assurances—basic features 

that assure the major stakeholders that they will be treated fairly. 

So that can be done. 

A lot of it are intricate details, such as one thing that really protects people in an auction are bid deposits to make the bids binding 

commitments. That is very important in an auction. That sort of 

detail is clearly left for—the setting of bid deposits is left set by the 

expert. However, the provision for these kinds of instruments to be 

put in place in the final rule is I think the sort of thing that the 

stakeholders are looking for. And that can be done. It is a delicate 

business. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me ask one of the stakeholders. Senator Smith, 

how do you respond? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, Mr. Chairman, it just really is important to us 

that, as you balance the public safety component, that the first informers not lose their business model. What that means is the contours. And if the FCC is unfettered and able to move contours as 

they will, you are affecting 40 percent of the TV stations across this 

country. There will be blackouts. There will be people left out. 

We think if you can protect our contours, there will still be those 

who volunteer, there will be spectrum available, but you won’t 

damage in a permanent way an industry that many Americans, a 

rising number of Americans but particularly disadvantaged Americans, economically disadvantaged Americans, will not be denied 

free over-the-air television. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, who was here when 

the gavel fell, apparently, Mr. Latta, for five. 

I would just tell our members, too, that they anticipate votes on 

the House floor sometime to be called between 10:45 and 11:00 and 

that we would not walk off the floor until 1:30, which makes it 

really unlikely we would resume this hearing. So to the extent we 

can move through the questions, that is the latest news. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman; and again thanks for 

our panel for being with us today. 

I am a true believer in the incentive auctions, especially within 

the bill. I have a piece of legislation out there to auction on the 

spectrum. 

But I do find it interesting, especially in Senator Smith’s opening 

remarks, I think everyone out there, when you have to say ‘‘truly 

voluntary’’—and I put that in quotation marks—I think there is 

some mistrust for some reason around Washington that things that 

are voluntary aren’t truly voluntary. That is why I think it is very, 

very important that we make sure that it is truly voluntary and 

we don’t have to put those quotation marks around what we want 

to do around this place. 

136 

If I could, moving right along, on page 3, Mr. Cramton, of your 

testimony, you cite that there are three good features of the draft 

legislation that are worth mentioning; and you go on to say that 

the draft does not impose restrictions on which broadcasters can 

participate in the auction. Restrictions of this form would destroy 

competition in the reverse auction among broadcasters. 

Can you expound a bit upon how the reverse auction work will 

work under the incentive auctions provided under the bill? 

Mr. CRAMTON. Sure. Essentially, it is a two-sided auction, so we 

need competition on both sides. One important aspect of the competition is on the supply side, from the broadcasters. 

So you come to a market like Washington, D.C. There is lots of 

different over-the-air broadcasters in Washington, D.C. They are 

put a simple question: You can stay on the air as is; you can turn 

over, say, half your spectrum, share with another; or you can completely shut down your over-the-air business. Now, we need to have 

competition among those broadcasters in order to get a competitive 

price for the willingness to relinquish spectrum. Otherwise, they 

could exercise market power. 

We need the same thing on the demand side coming from the operators. This is why the competition and things like interoperability are really important. Because, right now, the industry has 

been moving towards a duopoly on the demand side, with the two 

dominant carriers commanding over 90 percent of the earnings in 

the industry right now. The small players, the regional players, 

and the smaller national players play a very important role in creating the competition that creates the auction revenues on the demand side. 

Now, if we have got the competition on both sides of the auction, 

what that does is creates an enormous amount of value for the taxpayer and for society at large. So that is the goal, and that is why 

you have to be very careful with any provisions that you introduce, 

make sure that the provision is pro-competitive, rather than otherwise. Sometimes these things are subtle. 

Mr. LATTA. Again, how do you think this is going to affect the 

revenue that the auction might produce? And, again, what is your 

estimate for what that might bring in? 

Mr. CRAMTON. Well, I can tell you that the demand is exploding 

on the demand side. So this is a few years off. It would take 2 

years—even if you pass legislation today, it would take probably 2 

years to line everything up and make it happen. By then, there is 

going to be much, much more demand than there is now as people 

discover the wonderful, amazing things that these phones can do. 

And as a result—and it is not just phones. It is tablets, everything. 

So, as a result, I am quite confident that it will command a very 

high price. That is what we are seeing in auctions around the 

world for the 4–G spectrum. I have been involved in many of the 

auctions in Europe and continue to be involved in those, and other 

countries are talking about them now as well. And the amounts the 

bidders are putting on the table, even in countries much, much 

smaller than the United States, are in billions. 

So I have to believe that this spectrum is going to be worth—if 

there is competition on both the supply side and the demand side, 

it is going to be worth tens of billions and possibly much, much 

137 

more. That is very important, especially given the debt problems 

that we are facing in our economy right now. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

I turn now to Ms. Matsui from California for five. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I would also like to 

thank the witnesses for being here today. 

I strongly support preserving unlicensed spectrum for American 

innovators, and an auction I believe will put American innovators 

and American innovation at a competitive disadvantage. I recently 

introduced legislation that will allocate additional spectrum at 5 

gigahertz to spur innovation and support the growing demand for 

Wi-Fi in this country. I thank the Ranking Members Waxman and 

Eshoo for including this proposal in their draft, and I look forward 

to working in a bipartisan manner on this moving forward. 

Mr. Guttman-McCabe, if the 5 gigahertz spectrum identified by 

the Republican draft were made available for auction, do you think 

there would be more than one wireless carrier bidding on it and 

how much revenue do you think auctioning this spectrum would 

generate? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Congresswoman, I think when you look 

at spectrum above 5 gigahertz, our carrier licensees wouldn’t likely 

participate, because it is outside the sweet spot for mobility. So getting it up above 3 gigahertz is something that puts it sort of outside the technology scope right now. 

The upside is it could be used for unlicensed, which, as I said 

earlier, is and will be part of the solution to moving data through 

our networks. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Mr. Calabrese, what would the impact of American innovation be if the unlicensed spectrum were to be auctioned 

off? 

Mr. CALABRESE. As I mentioned earlier, I think it would be really 

a terrible blow when you look at all the things we have done with 

Wi-Fi, which nobody expected. When this was allocated for unlicensed, it was known as the junk band, because it was just for toys 

and baby monitors and things where the transaction costs were too 

high to have people go and get a license or buy a subscription. 

Then Wi-Fi grew up, and now we have—what is rolling out now is 

super Wi-Fi on the TV white space channels. 

There is already talk—Ericsson, for example, has estimated that 

the Internet of things will be 50 billion devices by the end of the 

decade, almost all of that unlicensed. So there is just going to be 

tremendous innovation fueled that we can’t afford to sacrifice. 

I wish Mr. Shimkus were still here, because one response I 

would have to his point—and I think it was made otherwise—well, 

gee, shouldn’t we collect some money from companies that use unlicensed spectrum in creative ways? Of course, almost every workplace, every home, every business is using unlicensed spectrum, 

and that would be difficult. 

But even the ones that are most innovative at using it, if you are 

going to do that, don’t do it at the front end in a one-time auction, 

because—for all the reasons in my testimony, the free rider problem, et cetera, that is not going to work. I mean, if you really need 

138 

money that badly, you can always put a device certification fee. 

There could be 20 cents on every chip or device that is certified for 

unlicensed. There are billions of them out there. But an auction is 

the worst idea. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. 

On the idea of governance, there is billions of dollars at stake in 

public funding and the safety of life and property at sake, and I 

think there is a wide agreement that governance is the absolute 

key to the success of the public safety broadband network. So there 

must be a national governance standard that ensures the primary 

goal of achieving a nationwide level of interoperability for the Nation’s first responders who are exercising the fiscal responsibility 

and technical and operational expertise demanded of this national 

asset. 

Mr. Moore, as an initial matter, please explain why you believe 

a national governance model is key to the success of this network 

and also why you might believe that our governance model might 

be better, and it is modeled on the S. 911. And I will say right up 

front, I don’t believe that the Republican draft provides the right 

type of governance for a project of this scope, complexity, and national importance. 

I will let you answer the question. 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

We do believe that a national governance piece is critical to making sure that this is deployed on a nationwide level. 

I will say this, though, that our vision would be, from a public 

safety standpoint and from the State and local government, is 

there needs to be local control and input into that governance. That 

has got to be a key piece. Hence, the number of seats on that particular board needs to be there so that we have the requisite input. 

But the truth of the matter is when you are talking tens of billions of dollars and you are talking about making sure that standards are set on a nationwide level, you do need that nationwide 

presence, and we do believe, based on our experience locally, the 

model that is in the Democratic draft bill is what we would support. And the same thing, it mirrors S. 911. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Tennessee, 

who will be I think our last questioner, because they called the 

votes. There are 18 of them. We will go to Mrs. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I promise that I will give you all the opportunity to submit in 

writing any further detail in the questions, but I do want to get a 

couple of things out here. 

Mr. Guttman-McCabe, to you first. The draft doesn’t call for any 

delineated timeline in these auctions except to say within 10 years 

and then within 5 years. As we go through this discussion draft, 

do you think we need more clarity, should there be more delineation, and how will it help the market? And do you think that if we 

were to more clearly delineate the schedule, would it have a positive or negative effect on the Treasury? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

I think the clearer you can be, the better. To the extent that you 

are recognizing and trying to derive benefits to the budget and 

139 

scoring, we understand that. But front loading this rather than 

back loading it will be better. Having a timeframe laid out as to 

when spectrum will come to market will be better. It will help our 

carriers, who will have to spend billions. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Let me interrupt you there, because I know 

there may be a couple of other questions that want to come in. 

Dr. Cramton, I want to bring you in on this discussion. The 

Upton-Walden draft precludes the FCC from imposing conditions. 

Waxman-Eshoo does not. I want to hear from each of you about 

what you think conditions will do to these auctions. 

We have had all these net-neutrality discussions. Professor 

Cramton, I have to tell you, it looks like you were against it before 

you were for it, or for it before you were against it. I have got your 

July ’07 and your February ’11 paper, and you take both sides of 

the issue when it comes to net neutrality and how you think it 

would affect the auction. So I think a little bit of clarification—do 

you still think that net neutrality conditions will increase revenues 

received from the auctions? That is what you laid out in your ’07 

paper. So you have been on both sides of that issue. 

Mr. Guttman-McCabe, I want to hear from you about the conditions and what you think. So very briefly. 

Mr. CRAMTON. Very briefly, respectfully, I haven’t been on both 

sides of the issue. Net neutrality, I have actually tried to stay away 

from that. In fact, the C-block in ’07, the issue was not net neutrality. It was open access. And I was a big fan of open access at 

the time, and the bidders were big fans of open access at the time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK, let me then interrupt you and ask you to 

submit in writing some clarification. If you want to go back and 

look at these two papers and then provide us some clarity, I think 

that might help in informing the record. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Dr. Cramton has mentioned numerous 

times—and I agree completely—about the need to drive competition in the bidding, and we fully support that. We are concerned 

that adding encumbrances will do the exact opposite. 

Dr. Cramton suggested that the bidders like the open access requirement. The reality is there were two bidders on that license. 

If you go immediately next door to the other license, there were 50, 

60, 70 bidders. A bigger license with an encumbrance went for half 

the price. 

The most stark illustration is Los Angeles without the encumbrance—Los Angeles without the encumbrance sold for significantly more than the entire West Coast with the encumbrance, and 

the West Coast license was twice as big. So the non-encumbered license drew multiple competing bids. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Senator Smith, I just can’t get let you go without asking you a question today. You mentioned the DTB chip, and 

I think it was last month at a hearing that one of your broadcasters raised a similar issue. So is NAB seeking a technology mandate that all mobile phones carry a mobile DTB chip? 

Mr. SMITH. No, we are not seeking a mandate. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. You are not seeking a mandate. I thank you 

for the clarification. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back her time. 

140 

I turn now to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Dingell, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, you are most courteous; and I 

thank you. 

To Senator Smith, these will be yes or no questions. 

Is it your understanding that the Federal Communication Commission’s national broadband plan recommends reallocating the 

120 megahertz of broadcast television frequencies for wireless 

broadband access? Yes or no? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, again, Senator, it is also true that the NAB 

has expressed grave reservations about granting the Commission 

unfettered authority to reclaim this much spectrum for fear of unfair treatment to broadcasters, is that correct? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, is it your understanding—well, let me say 

this. Detroit is the 10th-largest broadcast market in the country. 

It has 14 stations licensed in its DMA. Now, is it your understanding that if the Canadian channel reservations are taken into 

account and the FCC moves ahead with its goal of reallocating the 

120 megahertz of broadcast spectrum, there will be no channels 

available for any of Detroit’s 14 stations? Yes or no? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Senator, so you are telling me that, absent 

stringent protection for broadcasters and explicit limitations on the 

FCC to conduct incentive auctions, my people in Detroit won’t be 

able to get free over-the-air broadcasting? 

Mr. SMITH. Not just your people, Congressman, on the northern 

tier but also those members on the southern tier, similar treaties 

with Mexico. 

Mr. DINGELL. Every border city has the potential of having that 

problem. 

Mr. SMITH. Of having no broadcast television. 

Mr. DINGELL. And that would also potentially include things like 

Cuba? 

Mr. SMITH. Absolutely. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, it is also true that American DMAs along the 

Canadian and Mexican border will suffer similar reductions. We 

have already addressed that, and you agreed. 

Now, I have asked the FCC for all of these answers to the questions I have raised and haven’t gotten a satisfactory answer. Absent compelling national security related concern, have you heard 

of a Federal agency not answering a congressional request for information? Yes or no. 

Mr. SMITH. Congressman, in 12 years in the U.S. Senate, they 

always answered; and the House of Representatives is an equal 

body to the United States Senate. 

Mr. DINGELL. I am going to try and see that they are pounded 

about the head and shoulders until they come forward with these 

answers. 

Now, do you think my skepticism about granting the Commission 

limitless authority to conduct incentive actions is justifiable? 

141 

Mr. SMITH. Well, we are for incentive auctions. We believe there 

are reasonable protections to preserve broadcast as we promote 

broadband—— 

Mr. DINGELL. Remember, my time is running. 

Mr. SMITH. If we don’t do that, America will regret; and your 

phones will light up as few things do when you affect people’s TVs. 

Mr. DINGELL. This is a question about NAB support. Does the 

NAB support explicitly prohibiting the FCC from involuntarily reclaiming spectrum from broadcasters as well as from revoking their 

licenses or otherwise penalizing them for not taking part in the 

auctions? Yes or no. 

Mr. SMITH. We support prohibiting that kind of action. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Senator, furthermore, does NAB believe that 

FCC’s incentive auction authority should be structured with clear 

limitations on its ability to repack and co-locate signals as well as 

an explicit mandate to protect broadcast contours? Yes or no. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Senator, does NAB believe that broadcasters, 

both directly and indirectly affected by incentive auctions, should 

be fully compensated for their expenses relative to such auctions? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, these questions to Chief Moore. 

Mr., I have got to get a yes or no out of you, because I have 51 

seconds. 

Now, I have a simple question for you with respect to public safety. You have had many years of experience protecting and serving 

the public. Is relocating the D-block free of charge to the public 

safety the best way to ensure our country’s first responders can do 

their jobs most effectively and save lives? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I have 25 seconds to yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. Nobody has mastered that better than 

you. 

I have a number of things to enter into the record. Before I do 

that, though, we will have questions from other committee members who were otherwise detained in other committees. We would 

really appreciate a very rapid turnaround, because we actually 

value your response as we go through this process. So, to the extent we make questions available—and I know Mr. Bass had 

some—we would like a quick turn. 

We thank you for your testimony, by the way, and your answers 

to our questions. 

I will enter into the record unanimous consent statements from 

the High Tech Spectrum Coalition, which represents the major 

high-tech companies; the National Association of Broadcasters; 

CTIA–The Wireless Association; Verizon and AT&T statements 

lauding the majority’s discussion draft. We always like to put those 

in the record. To enter into the record letters from Tech America, 

the National Association of Manufacturers, the Information Technology Industry Council and the Telecommunications Industry Association, as well as quotes from the FCC filings of Qualcomm, Motorola, and LG opposing a mandate on the manufacture of 700 

megahertz wireless devices, and an FCC working paper from June 

142 

2010 that finds 10 megahertz provides more than the regional required capacity for day-to-day communications for public safety. 

Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

143 


73418.108
144 


73418.109
145 


73418.110
146 


73418.111
147 


73418.112
148 


73418.113
149 


73418.114
150 


73418.115
151 


73418.116
152 


73418.117
153 


73418.118
154 


73418.119
155 


73418.120
156 


73418.121
157 


73418.122
158 


73418.123
159 


73418.124
160 


73418.125
161 


73418.126
162 


73418.127
163 


73418.128
164 


73418.129
165 


73418.130
166 


73418.131
167 


73418.132
168 


73418.133
169 


73418.134
170 


73418.135
171 


73418.136
172 


73418.137
173 


73418.138
174 


73418.139
175 


73418.140
176 


73418.141
177 


73418.142
178 


73418.143
179 


73418.144
180 


73418.145
181 


73418.146
182 


73418.147
183 


73418.148
184 


73418.149
185 


73418.150
186 


73418.151
187 


73418.152
188 


73418.153
189 


73418.154
190 


73418.155
191 


73418.156
192 


73418.157
193 

Mr. WALDEN. Actually, let’s go into the work session now, and we 

will move on through. 

We appreciate all your testimony and comments. We will continue to work on these drafts in a quest to find a bipartisan solution for our public safety friends and for all Americans. 

With that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

194 


73418.158
195 


73418.159
196 


73418.160
197 


73418.161
198 


73418.162
199 


73418.163
200 


73418.164
201 


73418.165
202 


73418.166
203 


73418.167
204 


73418.168
205 


73418.169
206 


73418.170
207 


73418.171
208 


73418.172
209 


73418.173
210 


73418.174
211 


73418.175
212 


73418.176
213 


73418.177
214 


73418.178
215 


73418.179
216 


73418.180
217 


73418.181
218 


73418.182
219 


73418.183
220 


73418.184
221 


73418.185
222 


73418.246
223 


73418.247
224 


73418.186
225 


73418.187
226 


73418.188
227 


73418.189
228 


73418.190
229 


73418.191
230 


73418.192
231 


73418.193
232 


73418.194
233 


73418.195
234 


73418.196
235 


73418.197
236 


73418.198
237 


73418.199
238 


73418.200
239 


73418.201
240 


73418.202
241 


73418.203
242 


73418.204
243 


73418.205
244 


73418.206
245 


73418.207
246 


73418.208
247 


73418.209
248 


73418.210
249 


73418.211
250 


73418.212
251 


73418.213
252 


73418.214
253 


73418.215
254 


73418.216
255 


73418.217
256 


73418.218
257 


73418.219
258 


73418.220
259 


73418.221
260 


73418.222
261 


73418.223
262 


73418.224
263 


73418.225
264 


73418.226
265 


73418.227
266 


73418.228
267 


73418.229
268 


73418.230
269 


73418.231
270 


73418.232
271 


73418.233
272 


73418.234
273 


73418.235
274 


73418.236
275 


73418.237
276 


73418.238
277 


73418.239
278 


73418.240
279 


73418.241
280 


73418.242
281 


73418.243
282 


73418.244
283 

Æ 


73418.245