USING SPECTRUM TO ADVANCE PUBLIC SAFETY, 

PROMOTE BROADBAND, CREATE JOBS, AND 

REDUCE THE DEFICIT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 12, 2011 

Serial No. 112–36 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

USING SPECTRUM TO ADVANCE PUBLIC SAFETY, PROMOTE BROADBAND, CREATE JOBS, 

AND REDUCE THE DEFICIT 

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

67–523 PDF 2011

USING SPECTRUM TO ADVANCE PUBLIC SAFETY, 

PROMOTE BROADBAND, CREATE JOBS, AND 

REDUCE THE DEFICIT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 12, 2011 

Serial No. 112–36 

( 

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 

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 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

(II)

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

LEE TERRY, 

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 

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 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

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

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

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

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 8 

WITNESSES

Slade Gorton, Former U.S. Senator, Member of the 9/11 Commission ............... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 327 

Charles Dowd, Deputy Chief and Commanding Officer, Communications Division, New York Police Department ..................................................................... 17 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 330 

Coleman D. Bazelon, Principal, The Brattle Group .............................................. 243 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 245 

Mary N. Dillon, President and Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Cellular ............... 249 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 251 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 335 

Robert Good, Chief Engineer, WGAL–TV .............................................................. 264 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 266 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 337 

Julius P. Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission ..................................................................................... 279 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 281 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 347 

Peter Pitsch, Executive Director of Communications Policy and Associate 

General Counsel, Intel Corporation .................................................................... 288 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 290 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 364 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter of April 6, 2011, from Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research 

to President Barack Obama, submitted by Mr. Markey ................................... 321 

Four studies submitted by Mr. Dowd .................................................................... 23 

(1) 

USING SPECTRUM TO ADVANCE PUBLIC 

SAFETY, PROMOTE BROADBAND, CREATE 

JOBS, AND REDUCE THE DEFICIT 

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m., in room 

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

Present: Representatives Walden, Terry, Shimkus, Blackburn, 

Bilbray, Bass, Gingrey, Scalise, Latta, Guthrie, Kinzinger, Upton 

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

Staff Present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Michael Beckerman, Deputy Staff Director; Andy Duberstein, 

Special Assistant to Chairman Upton; Neil Fried, Chief Counsel, 

C&T; Debbee Keller, Press Secretary; Carly McWilliams, Legislative Clerk; Jeff Mortier, Professional Staff Member; David Redl, 

Counsel, Telecom; Roger Sherman, Minority Chief Counsel; Shawn 

Chang, Minority Counsel; Jeff Cohen, Minority Counsel; Sarah 

Fisher, Minority Policy Analyst; and Pat Delgado, Chief of Staff for 

Mr. Waxman. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. We are going to call to order the Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology and open our hearing on ‘‘Spectrum to Advance Public Safety, Promote Broadband, Create Jobs, 

and Reduce the Deficit.’’ 

We are here this afternoon for a broad overview on how spectrum 

can help expand broadband availability, advance public safety, help 

broadcasters further innovate, create jobs, and reduce the deficit. 

Spectrum is a critical input for broadcast television, wireless voice 

and broadband services, and public-safety communications. As a 

former radio broadcaster and licensed ham radio operator, spectrum is a medium with which I am somewhat familiar. These critical uses of spectrum have shaped the way Americans live, work, 

and stay connected to their families and the world. 

None of the services we enjoy today would be possible without 

the hard work of the FCC and the NTIA, who manage the commercial and governmental spectrum assets of the American people. The 

2 

FCC’s commercial-licensing process has evolved over time from lotteries—literally ping-pong balls in a machine like a Mega Millions 

drawing—to the so-called ‘‘beauty contests’’ of competitive hearings. 

The FCC has used a number of tools over the years to determine 

who would receive licenses and for what purposes. 

But, in 1993, Congress found a way that not only put spectrum 

to better use but raises money for taxpayers in the process. 

Spurred in part by Nobel Prize-winning work of Dr. Ronald Coase 

and ‘‘A Beautiful Mind’’’s Dr. John Nash, the Congress to the bold 

step of reducing the government’s role and letting the market decide through government auctions how spectrum should be allocated for commercial wireless services. 

Since the FCC began auctions of spectrum for commercial mobile 

radio services, they have been a resounding success, producing a vibrantly competitive and innovative wireless industry and generating more than $50 billion for the Treasury. 

In the last major spectrum auction, which covered the spectrum 

vacated as part of the DTV transition, Congress allocated 24 megahertz of spectrum for public safety, provided $1 billion for publicsafety equipment, and raised nearly $20 billion through auction of 

spectrum for commercial wireless services. That auction is largely 

responsible for the 4G wireless broadband services coming on line 

today. 

Today, we will begin discussing how we will get the next wave 

of spectrum deployed. There is growing consensus we need between 

an additional 100 megahertz and 300 megahertz in the short term, 

say, 5 to 10 years, to meet the exploding consumer and economic 

demand for wireless broadband. Given the staggering growth in 

smartphone sales, App Store sales, and demand for streaming 

video content, it is no surprise that the FCC’s National Broadband 

Plan and the President of the United States are calling for an additional 500 megahertz of spectrum to be allocated for wireless 

broadband use in the next 5 years. 

There are a variety of options that could be used in combination 

to start addressing this need. There are bands of spectrum that are 

already close to ripe for auction. For example, spectrum in the Advanced Wireless Services band is currently clear. If paired with 

other spectrums, such as some currently held by government users, 

that spectrum could be auctioned in the near future. 

This raises a related issue. The Federal Government is a major 

tenant on Federal spectrum. There may be opportunities to make 

government use more efficient, clear some spectrum for commercial 

purposes, and use some of the auction proceeds to pay for the cost 

of relocating the government and improving agency communications facilities. The Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act is designed to do some of that, but that act could potentially, itself, use 

some enhancing to make the government clearing process smoother. 

There is also the 700 megahertz D block, 10 megahertz of spectrum that was designated for commercial use in the DTV transition. This spectrum is separate from the 24 megahertz already 

cleared for public safety in the DTV legislation based on recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. 

3 

Some advocate allocating the D block to public safety, as well. 

Others say it should be auctioned to meet our growing commercial 

wireless needs and that funding, not spectrum, is the key to creating the nationwide interoperable public-safety broadband network that we all seek. Indeed, the auction approach was the central plank of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan. That approach 

enjoyed bipartisan support last Congress in this committee, and I 

look forward to examining this issue again. 

While we are on the topic of D block, I want to thank Senator 

Gorton and Deputy Chief Dowd for being here today. I think I can 

speak for all of us when I say we thank you for your commitment 

to public safety and look forward to a vibrant discussion of the 

communications needs of America’s first responders. 

Another potential tool is incentive auctions, in which current 

FCC licensees can volunteer to relinquish some or all of their spectrum in exchange for a portion of auction proceeds. This can 

present a win-win-win situation for participating licensees, auction 

bidders, and the U.S. Treasury. 

While broadcast television spectrum holds great potential as a 

candidate for voluntary incentive auctions, it is by no means the 

only option. There are many other spectrum licensees who may be 

willing to participate in incentive auctions. So I look forward to a 

robust discussion of how incentive auctions could be applied to licensees of all sorts as an economic tool to maximize the value of 

spectrum to existing licensees, potential bidders, and the Treasury. 

While there have been a lot of discussions about innovation in 

the wireless communications space, innovation is not limited to 

that industry alone. America’s broadcasters continue to work to 

bring innovative services to over-the-air television viewers. But the 

broadcasting rules in Title III of the Communications Act are a 

relic to an era that could not have imagined the technological 

changes that we have seen in the communications sector. 

Could incentive auction legislation help provide capital for broadcasters to explore new-generation services such as mobile DTV and 

broadband-like broadcast services? Could that legislation help strip 

regulatory obstacles that are hindering broadcasters’ continuing efforts to innovate and bring novel services to the U.S. TV airwaves? 

Innovation should be encouraged to flourish in every part of the 

spectrum marketplace. 

So I thank all of our witnesses for their participation today, and 

I look forward to their testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

We’re here today for a broad overview on how spectrum can help expand 

broadband availability, advance public safety, help broadcasters further innovate, 

create jobs, and reduce the deficit. Spectrum is a critical input for broadcast television, wireless voice and broadband services, and public safety communications. As 

a former radio broadcaster and licensed HAM radio operator, spectrum is a medium 

with which I am somewhat familiar. These critical uses of spectrum have shaped 

the way Americans live, work, and stay connected to their families and the world. 

None of the services we enjoy today would be possible without the hard work of 

the FCC and the NTIA to manage the commercial and government spectrum assets 

of the American people. The FCC’s commercial licensing process has evolved over 

time. From lotteries—literally ping pong balls in a machine like a Mega Millions 

drawing—to the so-called ‘‘beauty contests’’ of comparative hearings, the FCC has 

4 

used a number of tools over the years to determine who would receive licenses and 

for what purposes. But in 1993, Congress found a way that not only puts spectrum 

to better use but raises money for taxpayers in the process. Spurred in part by 

Nobel prize-winning work of Dr. Ronald Coase and ‘‘A Beautiful Mind’s’’ Dr. John 

Nash, the Congress took the bold step of reducing the government’s role and letting 

the market decide through government auctions how spectrum should be allocated 

for commercial wireless services. 

Since the FCC began auctions of spectrum for commercial mobile radio services 

they have been a resounding success, producing a vibrantly competitive and innovative wireless industry and generating more than $50 billion dollars for the Treasury. 

In the last major spectrum auction—which covered the spectrum vacated as part of 

the DTV transition—Congress allocated 24 MHz of spectrum for public safety, provided $1 billion for public safety equipment, and raised nearly $20 billion dollars 

through auction of spectrum for commercial wireless services. That auction is largely responsible for the 4G wireless broadband services coming online today. 

Today we begin discussing how we will get the next wave of spectrum deployed. 

There is growing consensus we need between an additional 100 MHz and 300 MHz 

in the short term- say 5 to 10 years-to meet the exploding consumer and economic 

demand for wireless broadband. Given the staggering growth in smartphone sales, 

app store sales, and demand for streaming video content, it is no surprise that the 

FCC’s National Broadband Plan and the President of the United States are calling 

for an additional 500 MHz of spectrum to be allocated for wireless broadband use 

in the next five years. There are a variety of options that could be used in combination to start addressing this need. 

There are bands of spectrum that are already close to ripe for auction. For example, spectrum in the Advanced Wireless Services band is currently clear. If paired 

with other spectrum, such as some currently held by government users, that spectrum could be auctioned in the near future. 

This raises a related issue. The federal government is a major tenant on federal 

spectrum. There may be opportunities to make government use more efficient, clear 

some spectrum for commercial purposes, and use some of the auction proceeds to 

pay the cost of relocating the government and improving agency communications facilities. The Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act is designed to do some of that, 

but the Act could potentially itself use some enhancing to make the government 

clearing process smoother. 

There is also the 700 MHz D block: 10 MHz of spectrum that was designated for 

commercial use in the DTV transition. This spectrum is separate from the 24 MHz 

already cleared for public safety in the DTV legislation, based on recommendations 

of the 9/11 Commission. Some advocate allocating the D Block to public safety, as 

well. Others say it should be auctioned to meet our growing commercial wireless 

needs, and that funding-not spectrum-is the key to creating the nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network we all seek. Indeed, the auction approach 

was a central plank of the FCC’s national broadband plan. That approach enjoyed 

bipartisan support last Congress in this Committee. I look forward to examining 

this issue again. 

While we are on the topic of the D block, I want to thank Senator Gorton and 

Deputy Chief Dowd for being here today. I think I can speak for all of us when I 

say we thank you for your commitment to public safety and look forward to a vibrant discussion of the communications needs of America’s first responders. 

Another potential tool is ‘‘incentive auctions,’’ in which current FCC licensees can 

volunteer to relinquish some or all of their spectrum in exchange for a portion of 

auction proceeds. This can present a win-win-win situation for participating licensees, auction bidders, and the U.S. Treasury. While broadcast television spectrum 

holds great potential as a candidate for voluntary incentive auctions, it is by no 

means the only option. There are many other spectrum licensees who may be willing 

to participate in incentive auctions. I look forward to a robust discussion of how incentive auctions could be applied to licensees of all sorts as an economic tool to 

maximize the value of spectrum to existing licensees, potential bidders, and the 

Treasury. 

While there has been a lot of discussion about innovation in the wireless communications space, innovation isn’t limited to that industry. America’s broadcasters 

continue to work to bring innovative services to over the air television viewers. But 

the broadcasting rules in Title III of the Communications Act are a relic of an era 

that could not have imagined the technological changes that we have seen in the 

communications sector. Could incentive auction legislation help provide additional 

capital for broadcasters to explore next generation services, such as mobile DTV and 

broadband-like broadcast services? Could that legislation help strip regulatory obstacles that are hindering broadcasters’ continuing efforts to innovate and bring 

5 

novel services to the U.S. TV airwaves? Innovation should be encouraged to flourish 

in every part of the spectrum marketplace. 

I thank the witnesses for their participation today, and look forward to their testimony. 

# # # 

Mr. WALDEN. 

With that, I would now recognize the ranking member of the full 

committee, Mr. Waxman, for an opening statement. 

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

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

From the start of this Congress, we have had a contentious, partisan divide over efforts to overturn the FCC’s open Internet order. 

This kind of partisanship is unusual for this subcommittee, so I 

look forward to returning to bipartisan efforts to address the numerous communications and technology issues that require our urgent attention. 

Spectrum policy is a good place to start. Smart spectrum policy 

can help improve public safety, promote broadband, create jobs, 

and reduce the deficit. These aren’t easy goals to achieve because 

the spectrum policy issues are complicated, but if we work together, I believe we can succeed. 

One essential task is to provide public safety with a nationwide 

interoperable broadband network. There are different views on the 

best way forward. Some want the FCC to auction the D block to 

a wireless provider and encourage collaboration between the winning bidder and public safety. The FCC’s broadband plan recommended this approach, and in the last Congress, bipartisan staff 

circulated a discussion draft that proposed to implement a number 

of the FCC’s recommendations. 

Others want Congress to reallocate the D block to public safety. 

This approach is favored by public-safety leaders and President 

Obama and has bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. 

Both approaches have promise. 

With the 10th anniversary of 9/11 fast approaching, we need to 

settle on a path forward and work cooperatively together to ensure 

that public safety has what it needs to deploy an interoperable 

broadband network nationally. And I will work with my colleagues 

in the House and in the Senate to find the best solution. 

Second, we need to determine the best way to implement incentive auctions. I believe incentive auctions are an innovative proposal for using underutilized spectrum to advance public safety, 

promote broadband, and create jobs. 

As noted by 112 economists who wrote to the President in support of incentive auctions last week, quote, ‘‘Incentive auctions can 

facilitate the repurposing of spectrum from inefficient uses to more 

valuable uses while minimizing transaction costs incurred. Giving 

the FCC the authority to implement incentive auctions, with flexibility to design appropriate rules, would increase social welfare,’’ 

end quote. 

6 

I recognize some are concerned about whether we can ensure 

that voluntary actually means voluntary. I am confident we can 

find a way to avoid unfairly disadvantaging broadcasters in this 

process, and I appreciate the broadcasters’ willingness to work with 

us to figure this out. 

And, finally, we need to examine Federal uses of spectrum resources. The administration deserves credit for directing NTIA and 

FCC to identify and make available 500 megahertz of spectrum 

over the next 10 years. 

I am glad we are having this important hearing so we can begin 

our work on these important issues. I look forward to what our witnesses will have to say. 

And I want to yield the balance of my time to Mr. Barrow. 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Today, we begin the important conversation of how best to use 

spectrum to serve our national interests. Wireless technologies relying on spectrum have become essential to economic growth. And 

because of the growth in demand for spectrum, we face a spectrum 

crunch in the next decade. We have to find ways to free up spectrum to meet that demand. 

I look forward to discussing incentive auctions with today’s panel 

and how these auctions can be used to free up spectrum and reduce 

our national debt. 

I have introduced a bill, H.R. 911, that authorizes a comprehensive spectrum inventory on how spectrum is being used and gives 

financial incentives for licensees who relinquish spectrum they are 

not making good use of. 

I understand the FCC is making progress on a spectrum inventory, and I commend them for their efforts. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this committee 

to address our spectrum goals. 

And I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. 

With that, I yield back to Mr. Waxman the balance of my time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I yield back my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back his time. 

Now I would recognize the chairman of the full committee, the 

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As the title of this hearing indicates, spectrum policy can help 

meet several of our committee’s goals: promoting broadband, advancing the communications needs of our public-safety officials, 

creating jobs, and also reducing the Federal deficit. Today, we 

begin that discussion to maximize our spectrum resources. 

One thing that we will consider is the spectrum allocated in the 

Federal Government and whether those spectrum bands can be 

better allocated at both the government and commercial sectors. 

There is already legislation designed to help relocate government 

users and provide them with better communications resources to be 

paid for with auction proceeds from spectrum that they clear. And 

there may also be ways to make that legislation work better. 

7 

There is the 700 megahertz D block, 10 megahertz of spectrum 

that Congress specifically allocated for commercial use in the DTV 

legislation. That legislation also gave the public safety a completely 

separate 24 megahertz block of spectrum to create an interoperable 

broadband network. And an amendment that I offered added a billion dollars for the purchase of interoperable equipment. For a 

number of reasons, the D block remains unauctioned and unused 

today. 

The question now is how best to create the interoperable 

broadband communications network recommended by the 9/11 

Commission. Today, we will discuss auctioning the D block as required by current law and as this committee and the FCC favored 

last Congress, on a bipartisan basis, as compared to recent proposals for reallocating the spectrum to public safety. I look forward 

to that discussion. 

We are also going to discuss incentive auctions as a way to 

present a win-win-win for existing licensees, potential licensees, 

and the U.S. Treasury. Such auctions would allow the FCC to 

share the proceeds from the auction of spectrum that current licensees voluntarily return. 

The work we begin today on spectrum issues can help us extend 

the reach of broadband, meet the needs of public safety, create jobs, 

reduce the deficit, and allow the economics of the spectrum market 

to permit innovation to flourish across all spectrum-based services. 

I thank our witnesses, the members of this committee, and, particularly, my good old friend, Slade Gorton. I know we had lots of 

battles in years past in his days in the Senate. 

I yield to the vice chair of the subcommittee, Lee Terry. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

As the title of this hearing indicates, spectrum policy can help meet several of our 

committee’s goals: promoting broadband, advancing the communications needs of 

public safety officials, creating jobs, and reducing the federal deficit. Today we begin 

a discussion of ways to maximize our spectrum resources. 

One thing we will consider is the spectrum allocated to the federal government 

and whether those spectrum bands can be better allocated to both the government 

and commercial sectors. There is already legislation designed to help relocate government users and provide them with better communications resources, to be paid 

for with auction proceeds from spectrum they clear. And, there may be ways to 

make that legislation work even better. 

There is the 700 MHz D block—ten megahertz of spectrum that Congress specifically allocated for commercial use in the DTV legislation. That legislation also gave 

public safety a completely separate 24 MHz block of spectrum to create an interoperable broadband network, and an amendment I offered added $1 billion for the 

purchase of interoperable equipment. For a number of reasons, the D-block remains 

unauctioned—and unused—today. 

The question now is how best to create the interoperable broadband communications network recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Today, we will discuss auctioning the D-block, as required by current law and as this committee and the FCC 

favored last Congress on a bipartisan basis, as compared to recent proposals for reallocating the spectrum to public safety. I look forward to that continued discussion. 

Today we will also discuss ‘‘incentive auctions’’ as a way to present a win-winwin for existing licensees, potential licensees, and the U.S. Treasury. Such auctions 

would allow the FCC to share the proceeds from the auction of spectrum that current licensees voluntarily return. 

The work we begin today on spectrum issues can help us extend the reach of 

broadband, meet the needs of public safety, create jobs, reduce the deficit, and allow 

the economics of the spectrum market to permit innovation to flourish across all 

8 

spectrum-based services. I thank the witnesses for being here today and look forward to their testimony. 

# # # 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Full Committee Chair and Mr. Walden. 

I welcome our witnesses and thank you for testifying and your 

answers later. It will help us develop a well-balanced spectrum policy. 

Any spectrum policy that this committee establishes will play a 

critical role in bringing interoperable broadband communications to 

public safety, advancing our exponentially growing appetite for 

wireless broadband, and, most importantly, reducing our deficit. 

I look forward to hearing our witnesses flesh out what the true 

definition of ‘‘voluntary’’ means. I also look forward to learning 

more about repacking and some of the concerns associated with relocation. 

I also welcome testimony from our witnesses today on the details 

pertaining to an interoperable public-safety network. Is more spectrum really needed or are efficiencies needed? Should proceeds 

from an auction be used to help construct a nationwide network or 

does public safety currently have what it needs to go interoperable? 

Those are many questions. I look forward to receiving answers. 

I thank the distinguished chairman and yield back my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back his time. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from 

112 economists in support of the incentives auction authority for 

the FCC. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection. 

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

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank you. 

We have moved very quickly from the day when the chairman of 

AT&T, in 1981, thought 1 million people would have cell phones by 

the year 2000 to the day where we have spectrum being at the core 

of the debate that we have in our country for economic growth and 

for public safety. 

In 1993, I was the chair of the subcommittee. We were able to 

move over 200 megahertz of spectrum, which created the third, 

fourth, fifth, and sixth cell phone licenses. The first two were analog and charged 50 cents a minute. If you had a brick that you 

were carrying around, something the size of a brick, you were 

using it. But, by 1996, we all had a cell phone in our pocket because the four new companies all went digital, dropped their prices 

to under 10 cents a minute, and that is the year you all put cell 

phones in your pocket for the first time. 

And we are very proud of that on this committee, and it just 

changed everything. Although, let me be honest with you: The two 

9 

incumbents, whose names are well-known, weren’t happy with that 

decision. 

We have the same kind of choices that we have to make today. 

And I think the Obama administration’s national wireless initiative 

to make available high-speed wireless services to at least 98 percent of Americans is a tremendously important undertaking. It will 

spur innovation, create nationwide interoperable wireless services 

for public safety, while reducing the national deficit by approximately $10 billion. 

Spectrum is the oxygen of the wireless ecosystem, so we have to 

find more spectrum. We have to manage that which we have better, but we also have to find more because of all of the tremendous 

opportunities which it presents. 

And we have to free up TV white space spectrum to enable new 

technologies like Super Wi-Fi and make new innovative Super WiFi devices available soon. But the broadcasters should do that on 

a voluntary basis. We have to have a formula here which ensures 

that that happens. 

But at the end of the day, public safety has to be at the core of 

this. There were two planes that were hijacked in Boston with 150 

people from my district and the surrounding districts that flew into 

the World Trade Center. There was a communications failure on 

that day. We have to make sure that our public-safety first responders never face another day like they did on 9/11. We have to 

make sure they have the spectrum they need in order to respond. 

I served on the Homeland Security Committee for 6 years working on this issue because I saw what happened and I saw what the 

casualties were in my own life and in the lives of tens of thousands, millions of others. So we have to be able to accomplish this, 

to take care of public safety while ensuring that we see the economic growth that we want. 

And for the remaining 2 minutes, I yield to the gentlelady from 

California, Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Markey, for yielding to me. 

I would also like to thank the witnesses for joining us today. 

There are approximately 270 million wireless subscribers in the 

United States, and that number is growing. President Obama recently identified the need for increased spectrum in the market. 

The FCC has said our Nation will soon face a spectrum crisis. 

There are some estimates that, by 2014, the demand for spectrum 

will exceed supply. 

It is our job to remain focused on getting the spectrum out there, 

and we should move as quickly as possible. The FCC should have 

the flexibility to structure and conduct incentive auctions that will 

truly maximize the economic and social value of the spectrum. 

On the issue of public safety, we must provide public safety with 

interoperable capabilities they need and deserve to protect our Nation during challenging times. As we approach the 10th anniversary of the tragic events of September 11th, it is not acceptable 

that our Nation does not have a public-safety communications system with a nationwide level of interoperability in place. 

While we will debate the merits of how to fund and construct a 

nationwide public-safety system, we can all agree that we must 

find a path that provides the funding required to build an interVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:51 Nov 01, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-36 041211\112-36 CHRIS
10 

operable system that fulfills the needs and security of our publicsafety goals. We must also do so in a fiscally responsible manner. 

It will not be easy, but we must get there. 

I also believe that spectrum should be preserved for the advancement of technologies, including smart grid and health IT capabilities. 

I thank you very much for being here. 

And I yield back the balance of my time to Mr. Markey, who may 

want to use 12 seconds. 

Mr. MARKEY. And that would just be to say that we welcome you, 

Senator Gorton. 

As you all know, he wound up on the west coast, but Gorton’s 

of Gloucester is where it originated. So we still have, I think, a lot 

of things in common that we can work on. And thank you for your 

service to our country. 

Mr. WALDEN. And, with that, I welcome Senator Gorton and your 

testimony. Thank you for coming today. We appreciate your service 

on the 9/11 Commission and in the United States Senate, and we 

look forward to your counsel. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENTS OF THE HON. SLADE GORTON, FORMER U.S. 

SENATOR, MEMBER OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION; DEPUTY 

CHIEF CHARLES DOWD, COMMANDING OFFICER, COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION, NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

COLEMAN D. BAZELON, PRINCIPAL, THE BRATTLE GROUP; 

MARY N. DILLON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. CELLULAR; ROBERT GOOD, CHIEF ENGINEER, 

WGAL–TV; JULIAS P. KNAPP, CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; PETER PITSCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS POLICY AND ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, 

INTEL CORPORATION 

STATEMENT OF SLADE GORTON 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. Chairman, one minor annoyance of being on 

your side of the dais for some 18 years was to listen to people read 

testimony that I had already read and that added very little to the 

debate. So I will spare you that and hope that you have or will 

read my written testimony and simply make a handful of points. 

And the first of those points is that the nature of this debate has 

changed profoundly, I believe, just in the course of the last few 

months. You all are more aware than I am—and I am plenty 

aware—of the debates that have taken place in this House and the 

Senate over the course of the last 3 or 4 weeks and continue, and 

the blood, sweat, and tears that has gone into a continuing appropriation designed to save some $38 billion. 

Well, Mr. Chairman, the demand that the D block be turned over 

for free to public safety would automatically reduce that saving by 

roughly 10 percent, just the gift of the spectrum itself. To provide 

the amount of money that local governments think that they need 

actually to exploit that would very likely take that whole $38 billion and would require a continuing subsidy. 

Mr. Chairman, I submit to you, even from this side of the table, 

that is not going to happen. You are not in this Congress, or I 

11 

think for several Congresses to come, going to start a major new 

Federal program of subsidization for this particular purpose. I just 

don’t believe that that is in the cards. That is the first point I want 

to make. 

The second is that the auction of the D block itself will not only 

bring money into the Treasury, which you can use for one or two 

things—as I looked through the testimony here, some talk about 

reducing the deficit, some talk about using that money to help subsidize the public-safety mission. Obviously, it can’t be used for 

both. But the overall economic impacts of that auction will be far 

greater in the investment that the private sector will make in 

using the D block spectrum itself. That will be a major investment 

in better communications in the country. It will meet at least some 

of the demand, which is huge. 

Congressman Markey, I think, talked about that, thousand cell 

phones. Even 2 or 3 years ago, we could not have imagined the demand for private spectrum that exists in the country today. It will 

provide better communications for the people of the United States. 

It will provide jobs. It will provide tax receipts, of course. And the 

money almost certainly will be better used than it would be if it 

went through various government agencies for technologies that 

are often outmoded by the time the governmental process gets 

them contracted for. 

But that does bring us to the other very real need, and that is 

the need for public-safety agencies and entities. Several of you have 

mentioned the fact that the 9/11 Commission, on which I served, 

as one of its recommendations recommended additional spectrum 

for public-safety entities. That is true. 

And a year after the 9/11 Commission was formally dissolved, we 

got back together again and had the gall, I guess, to give the Congress a report card on how well it had done. I may say that Congress probably adopted more of our commission’s recommendations 

than any other such commission in my lifetime. Nevertheless, at 

that point, after the first round in 2004, Congress got an F on that 

score, on new spectrum. But on the second round of 9/11 legislation, that grade went up to a C. Now, that may not be a great 

grade by any stretch of the imagination, but we were hard graders, 

and there weren’t many elements that got C grades from us at all. 

So the recommendation that the 9/11 Commission made for additional spectrum has essentially been carried out by Congress. That 

doesn’t settle the question completely by any stretch of the imagination, but it allows me to be here testifying, as I am, for a much 

more dynamic solution. And that solution is to go forward with 

those auctions and allow it primarily, but not exclusively, to the 

Federal Communications Commission to see to it that that auction 

and those private sales benefit our public-safety agencies as well. 

And on that score, without going into the technicalities, I am 

convinced that they not only can do it but that it will provide additional spectrum and additional equipment for public-safety entities 

across the country much more rapidly than will the dead-end street 

of a huge new Federal program, which, very bluntly, Congress is 

not going to fund in any event. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gorton follows:] 

12 


67523.001
13 


67523.002
14 


67523.003
15 


67523.004
16 


67523.005
17 

Mr. WALDEN. Senator, thank you very much for your testimony, 

both prepared and your oral. Thank you very much. 

We are going to go now to Deputy Chief Charles Dowd, Commanding Officer, Communications Division, New York Police Department. 

Deputy Chief Dowd, thank you for being with us. Thanks for 

your service to the people of New York and to America. And on 9/ 

11, we were all New Yorkers. And I welcome your testimony today. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES DOWD 

Mr. DOWD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Markey. It 

is a pleasure to be here again. 

Unlike the Senator, who is far more experienced at this, I am 

going to read my testimony. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Let me 

begin by expressing gratitude to Representatives Peter King and 

Bennie Thompson for their bipartisan effort that has resulted in 

the introduction of H.R. 607, the ‘‘Broadband for First Responders 

Act of 2011,’’ and, as well, to Senator Jay Rockefeller introducing 

Senate bill, S. 28, the ‘‘Public Safety and Wireless Innovation Act.’’ 

Due to their efforts and the cosponsors on both bills, we are closer than ever to providing our Nation’s first responders with a tool 

they desperately need: a nationwide, mission-critical broadband 

network dedicated to public safety. We are also grateful for the 

President’s support on this vital issue. However, we are missing 

one essential element to accomplishing this goal. We need the support of the members of this subcommittee to get this legislation 

passed. 

I come to Washington today not only on behalf of the New York 

City Police Department but as the representative of every publicsafety organization and agency in the country and the over 32,000 

law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical chiefs whose agencies and lifesaving operations will benefit enormously from this 

technology. We consider it essential to the future of our mission. 

The need to reallocate the D block spectrum to public safety is a 

view shared by agencies large and small, urban and rural, across 

the country. 

Like virtually all public-safety organizations, the New York City 

Police Department relies principally on two-way voice radios to 

communicate. This technology is extremely limited. It cannot exchange electronic data or video. We have made some progress in 

radio interoperability since the 9/11 attacks, but disparate spectrum and aging technologies prevent first responders from attaining truly nationwide, seamless, interoperable communications. 

Broadband on 700 band spectrum would allow us to be seamlessly 

interoperable on all levels: local, State, and, very importantly to 

this issue, Federal. 

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly recently testified that a 16-yearold teenager has more communications capability on a smartphone 

than a police officer or firefighter with their portable radio. I hope 

the members of this subcommittee consider that fact and agree 

that this situation cannot continue. Inaction on D block’s reallocation risks not only the public’s safety but also the lives of those 

whose job it is to protect them. 

18 

Two weeks ago, the co-chairs of the President’s 9/11 Commission, 

Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, testified before Congress about first-responder needs. Their testimony in part 

was, and I quote, ‘‘The inability of first responders to communicate 

with each other was a critical failure on 9/11 that led to needless 

loss of life. We support the immediate reallocation of the D block 

spectrum to public safety. We must not approach these urgent matters at a leisurely pace. We don’t know when the next attack or disaster will strike. Further delay is intolerable.’’ 

A number of recent studies, some of which I would like to submit 

for the record—there are four of them—have proven the need for 

public safety to have a 20 megahertz block of spectrum for a 

broadband network. New York City issued a white paper based on 

throughput analysis of its current NYCWiN network that identified 

the need for more than 10 megahertz. A report commissioned by 

the Government of Canada for public safety indicated spectrum 

need would exceed 20 megahertz in the long term. A study by the 

Phoenix Center in Washington found that assigning the D block to 

public safety provides at least $3.4 billion more in social benefits 

as opposed to an auction. And, lastly, several papers by Mr. Andrew Seybold, a nationally recognized expert, concluded that 10 

megahertz is not enough. 

[The information appears immediately following Mr. Dowd’s prepared statement.] 

Mr. DOWD. For some time now, we in public safety have stated 

we want to be as spectrally efficient as possible. We know that the 

flexibility of broadband technology allows for potential use of the 

network by other governmental agencies, public utilities, as well as 

public-private partnerships that could bring broadband technology 

to the public in underserved rural areas. 

The efficiencies of such a network would dramatically reduce operating costs for local and State governments, while maintaining 

the public-safety mission-critical nature of the network. We have 

agreed to use commercial technology that will allow us to take advantage of the economies of scale. 

We are also prepared to work with the FCC to study the feasibility of returning currently held public-safety spectrum if sufficient broadband spectrum is allocated to us. We understand the 

current fiscal realities, but the need for the network, coupled with 

the cost savings, means we simply cannot afford not to build it. 

Some have made the argument that reallocation is not necessary 

because public-safety communications can use commercial networks. You should know that every major public-safety organization in the country has explicitly rejected this option as unworkable. Our experience with commercial networks and especially the 

failures that sometimes occur, like on 9/11 and during Hurricane 

Katrina, tell us these networks are definitely not interchangeable 

with dedicated public-safety networks. There are fundamental differences in the architecture that go to the heart of public-safety 

communications. Simply put, commercial networks are not designed for the crisis demand that first responders will inevitably 

put on them. 

A dedicated public-safety network would enable the NYPD to 

fully leverage the powerful technology that we use in the NYPD’s 

19 

Real Time Crime Center. This state-of-the-art facility is a massive 

database containing billions of public and classified records. We 

have made these databases searchable with the latest smartware. 

Twenty-four hours a day, detectives call from investigations in the 

field, looking to follow up on various leads they have obtained: a 

partial license plate, a seemingly untraceable cell number, a nickname, or even a tattoo. They conduct instant searches, sometimes 

that would previously take us days. 

Now we are looking to put this technology in the hands of thousands of officers on patrol. An officer operating in this network 

could be sent highly detailed information about a location to which 

he or she is responding, even before those officers arrive. They will 

be able to know who resides there, whether or not the police have 

been there before and why, if any of the occupants has an outstanding warrant, prior arrest, an order of protection, or a firearms 

license. They will be able to take electronic fingerprints at the 

scene and compare those records instantaneously with State and 

city records. 

There are other examples here, but, in the interest of time, I am 

going to skip ahead and just say, right now these capabilities simply don’t exist, and they don’t exist because we need Congress to 

reallocate the D block and provide the necessary funding to public 

safety to build this hardened mission-critical network. 

With the 10th anniversary of 9/11 rapidly approaching, we urge 

the Congress in the strongest possible terms to pass the above legislation and send it expeditiously to the President for his signature. 

The City of New York Police Department looks forward to the day 

when public-safety users can share a nationwide network that supports voice, video, and data on an integrated wireless network. For 

the sake of the security of cities and towns all across the country, 

we sincerely hope we see that day before a new attack or disaster. 

Thank you for the opportunity. I will answer any questions that 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dowd follows:] 

20 


67523.006
21 


67523.007
22 


67523.008
23 


67523.009
24 


67523.010
25 


67523.011
26 


67523.012
27 


67523.013
28 


67523.014
29 


67523.015
30 


67523.016
31 


67523.017
32 


67523.018
33 


67523.019
34 


67523.020
35 


67523.021
36 


67523.022
37 


67523.023
38 


67523.024
39 


67523.025
40 


67523.026
41 


67523.027
42 


67523.028
43 


67523.029
44 


67523.030
45 


67523.031
46 


67523.032
47 


67523.033
48 


67523.034
49 


67523.035
50 


67523.036
51 


67523.037
52 


67523.038
53 


67523.039
54 


67523.040
55 


67523.041
56 


67523.042
57 


67523.043
58 


67523.044
59 


67523.045
60 


67523.046
61 


67523.047
62 


67523.048
63 


67523.049
64 


67523.050
65 


67523.051
66 


67523.052
67 


67523.053
68 


67523.054
69 


67523.055
70 


67523.056
71 


67523.057
72 


67523.058
73 


67523.059
74 


67523.060
75 


67523.061
76 


67523.062
77 


67523.063
78 


67523.064
79 


67523.065
80 


67523.066
81 


67523.067
82 


67523.068
83 


67523.069
84 


67523.070
85 


67523.071
86 


67523.072
87 


67523.073
88 


67523.074
89 


67523.075
90 


67523.076
91 


67523.077
92 


67523.078
93 


67523.079
94 


67523.080
95 


67523.081
96 


67523.082
97 


67523.083
98 


67523.084
99 


67523.085
100 


67523.086
101 


67523.087
102 


67523.088
103 


67523.089
104 


67523.090
105 


67523.091
106 


67523.092
107 


67523.093
108 


67523.094
109 


67523.095
110 


67523.096
111 


67523.097
112 


67523.098
113 


67523.099
114 


67523.100
115 


67523.101
116 


67523.102
117 


67523.103
118 


67523.104
119 


67523.105
120 


67523.106
121 


67523.107
122 


67523.108
123 


67523.109
124 


67523.110
125 


67523.111
126 


67523.112
127 


67523.113
128 


67523.114
129 


67523.115
130 


67523.116
131 


67523.117
132 


67523.118
133 


67523.119
134 


67523.120
135 


67523.121
136 


67523.122
137 


67523.123
138 


67523.124
139 


67523.125
140 


67523.126
141 


67523.127
142 


67523.128
143 


67523.129
144 


67523.130
145 


67523.131
146 


67523.132
147 


67523.133
148 


67523.134
149 


67523.135
150 


67523.136
151 


67523.137
152 


67523.138
153 


67523.139
154 


67523.140
155 


67523.141
156 


67523.142
157 


67523.143
158 


67523.144
159 


67523.145
160 


67523.146
161 


67523.147
162 


67523.148
163 


67523.149
164 


67523.150
165 


67523.151
166 


67523.152
167 


67523.153
168 


67523.154
169 


67523.155
170 


67523.156
171 


67523.157
172 


67523.158
173 


67523.159
174 


67523.160
175 


67523.161
176 


67523.162
177 


67523.163
178 


67523.164
179 


67523.165
180 


67523.166
181 


67523.167
182 


67523.168
183 


67523.169
184 


67523.170
185 


67523.171
186 


67523.172
187 


67523.173
188 


67523.174
189 


67523.175
190 


67523.176
191 


67523.177
192 


67523.178
193 


67523.179
194 


67523.180
195 


67523.181
196 


67523.182
197 


67523.183
198 


67523.184
199 


67523.185
200 


67523.186
201 


67523.187
202 


67523.188
203 


67523.189
204 


67523.190
205 


67523.191
206 


67523.192
207 


67523.193
208 


67523.194
209 


67523.195
210 


67523.196
211 


67523.197
212 


67523.198
213 


67523.199
214 


67523.200
215 


67523.201
216 


67523.202
217 


67523.203
218 


67523.204
219 


67523.205
220 


67523.206
221 


67523.207
222 


67523.208
223 


67523.209
224 


67523.210
225 


67523.211
226 


67523.212
227 


67523.213
228 


67523.214
229 


67523.215
230 


67523.216
231 


67523.217
232 


67523.218
233 


67523.219
234 


67523.220
235 


67523.221
236 


67523.222
237 


67523.223
238 


67523.224
239 


67523.225
240 


67523.226
241 


67523.227
242 


67523.228
243 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Chief. 

Now I would like to welcome for his testimony Dr. Coleman D. 

Bazelon with The Brattle Group. 

We welcome you, and thank you for being here today. 

STATEMENT OF COLEMAN D. BAZELON 

Mr. BAZELON. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Congressman Markey, members of the committee. It is an honor to speak here today. 

This committee is considering an important issue of spectrum 

policy that will have profound impacts on the development of wireless broadband. I am sure everyone is familiar with the projections 

of demand for wireless broadband, including forecasts of wireless 

data demand virtually doubling every year for the next few years. 

Industry capacity will struggle to keep up. 

Rising demand will be met, in part, by rapidly building out spectrum acquired at auction—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Doctor, could I just ask you to move that microphone a little bit closer? We are having a little trouble hearing. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BAZELON. Is that better? 

Mr. WALDEN. Much better. 

Mr. BAZELON. Thank you. 

Carriers will also use other techniques to increase effective capacity, such as Wi-Fi offloading, off-peak transmission and on-device storage, and innovative pricing schemes aimed at reducing 

peak usage. 

Nevertheless, if future demand for wireless broadband services is 

to be met and those services are to remain affordable, it is clear 

that new allocations of spectrum will be needed. Absent those additional allocations, much of the potential benefits of mobile 

broadband to consumers and the economy will be lost. 

Exactly how much more radio spectrum is needed for wireless 

broadband is uncertain. Given the uncertainty, policymakers 

should apply a principle of spectrum reallocation. Based on current 

allocations, if a higher-valued use exists, spectrum should be reallocated from the lower-valued use to the higher-valued use. 

Our economy benefits when resources are moved to higher-valued uses. Other bands of spectrum should be examined with this 

principle of spectrum reallocation in mind. As long as there are financial gains and additional consumer welfare to be had from reallocating more spectrum, further reallocation should take place. 

This principle of spectrum reallocation has been applied to the 

television band twice before. First, the initial cellular allocations 

were from the upper reaches of the UHF band originally allocated 

to TV broadcasters. Then, as a result of the digital television transition, the 700 megahertz band was reallocated to wireless 

broadband and public-safety uses. 

Or perhaps I should say, the principle of spectrum reallocation 

has almost been applied twice to the TV band. The D block remains 

unassigned. There seems to be three options: assign the D block to 

public safety, auction it for wireless broadband uses with publicsafety obligations, or auction it without public-safety obligations. 

I have testified before and reiterate today my belief that auctioning the D block unencumbered with any public-safety obligaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:51 Nov 01, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-36 041211\112-36 CHRIS
244 

tions would be best. Last summer, I told this committee that I estimated a well-structured auction of the D block would raise between 

$3 billion and $4 billion, and I believe that to still be true. 

The loss in value from public-safety obligations on private licensees or the relatively small amount of cost savings to public safety 

from an additional 10 megahertz of spectrum suggests that an 

unencumbered auction would put the D block to its highest-valued 

uses. 

There is an option to apply the principle of spectrum reallocation 

to the TV bands again through the use of incentive auctions. One 

of the key advantages of incentive auctions is that they are designed with the principle of spectrum reallocation in mind. That is, 

by design, they will not reallocate spectrum from a higher-valued 

use to a lower-valued use. 

My colleague, Charles Jackson, and I are working on a detailed 

analysis of what an incentive auction of the television bands might 

produce. This research was sponsored by the High Tech Spectrum 

Coalition, but today I am testifying on my own behalf. I want to 

provide the committee with a few highlights of our preliminary 

findings. 

An incentive auction could clear 120 megahertz of spectrum that 

could be reallocated to wireless broadband uses. Broadcasters that 

do not participate in the auction or whose bids are not accepted in 

the auction will not have any diminution in their service areas. At 

a minimum, 4 full-powered broadcasters would remain in every 

top-30 market, serving the same households they do today, although probably more than 4 existing stations would continue 

broadcasting by moving to VHF channels, co-broadcasting with 

other broadcasters, or adjusting their service areas. 

Payments to broadcasters in the incentive auction would probably not be more than about $15 billion and likely would be much 

less. Expected revenues from auctioning 120 megahertz of spectrum would likely exceed $35 billion. So an incentive auction would 

be expected to raise at least $20 billion for deficit reduction or for 

other priorities Congress may have, such as funding a public-safety 

network. 

Finally, in closing, I would like to remind the committee that the 

real beneficiaries of spectrum reallocations are consumers. Broader 

access to higher-bandwidth wireless networks at lower cost is the 

real benefit of applying the principle of spectrum reallocation. The 

benefits to consumers are generally estimated to be 10 to 20 times 

auction receipts. Consequently, the cost of inaction in reallocating 

these valuable spectrum bands is very high. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bazelon follows:] 

245 


67523.229
246 


67523.230
247 


67523.231
248 


67523.232
249 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you for your testimony. 

We will now turn to Ms. Mary N. Dillon, the President and Chief 

Executive Officer of U.S. Cellular. 

We are delighted to have you here before the subcommittee this 

afternoon. Thank you, and look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MARY N. DILLON 

Ms. DILLON. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Congressman Markey, and the rest of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here 

today. 

As you know, throughout its very brief history the wireless industry has provided consumers and businesses with an ever-evolving array of innovations—first, of course, voice communications, 

and now broadband. In fact, wireless has become an essential service for most Americans today. The growth in demand for mobile 

services in recent years has been absolutely dramatic, and it really 

shows no signs of abating. We must ensure that wireless networks 

are able to continue to meet America’s growing needs for access to 

information and communication. 

Today’s hearing on spectrum raises several important issues currently facing the wireless industry, and they also have broader implications for the Nation’s economy and safety. And those issues 

are: first, the critical need for additional spectrum to meet growing 

consumer demand for mobile services; secondly, the need to provide 

an interoperable, nationwide public-safety communications network; and, third, the need for rules that maximize the efficient use 

of that spectrum going forward. 

Of these topics, the most important is the increasing demand for 

mobile services and the need to make more spectrum available. 

There is widespread agreement among carriers, the high-tech industry, the FCC that we are, in fact, facing a severe spectrum 

shortage in the next few years. 

My written testimony contains additional facts, but it is very intuitive and I think we can all appreciate how increasing consumer 

demand for high-tech devices and the services they provide are 

placing enormous strain on networks and, in turn, creating critical 

need for more spectrum. 

For example, smartphones and tablets are the fastest-growing 

segments of wireless, and they drive 24 and 122 times more data 

usage than traditional handsets alone, respectively. So it is really 

no wonder that data traffic has tripled in 2010 for the third year 

in a row. 

There is also widespread public support for freeing additional 

spectrum for mobile uses, as demonstrated in a recent nationwide 

survey that we conducted where we saw that nearly 60 percent of 

Americans support making more spectrum available to wireless 

carriers. 

As the leader of a company that consistently gains awards for 

our high-quality network and our overall consumer satisfaction, I 

am very concerned about the consequences to consumers of severe 

network congestion, where video would freeze and calls would drop 

and surfing the Web could become very slow. In addition, potential 

innovation in areas such as health care and education would suffer 

as well. 

250 

So, remember, of course, it will take years following the passage 

of legislation before auctions are complete, spectrum is cleared, and 

services are deployed. So that is why time is of the essence and 

why Congress really should act now. So what should you do? 

First, the most efficient way to meet this rise in demand is to 

give the FCC the authority to conduct incentive auctions for whatever underutilized broadcaster spectrum exists. And the most effective way to maximize the value of is licensed spectrum is to structure auctions in small blocks rather than in large mega regions or 

national slots so that U.S. Cellular and other small carriers, in fact 

as many companies as possible, have a fair opportunity to bid and 

to be successful. More participants will mean more money for the 

Treasury and more competition in the marketplace. 

Second, we must determine how to provide public-safety agencies 

with a network that meets their needs. And we believe there are 

three policy principles that should govern that decision. First, a national, interoperable broadband network should be deployed quickly. Second, there should be an opportunity to expand competitive 

broadband services and also serve the needs of public safety. And, 

third, the first two policy considerations must ensure that there is 

an efficient use of the spectrum as well as taxpayer dollars. 

Now, U.S. Cellular has previously supported the concept of a regional public-private partnership model and the FCC’s broadband 

plan to recommend a commercial auction of the D block. So, while 

we do see ways where the transfer of spectrum to public safety 

might work, we continue to believe that an arrangement where 

commercial operators conduct and operate the network at their expense and then work in partnership with regional public-safety 

agencies to ensure it meets their needs represents a unique and fiscally sound solution. 

And, third, we need to update the rules that govern the use of 

spectrum with regard to interoperability and ubiquitous availability of mobile services. In order to maximize consumer benefits, 

auctions should be structured to guarantee that services deployed 

over newly available spectrum are capable of being used with maximum efficiency. Legislation should mandate that carriers be required to deploy network services that are interoperable across the 

industry. For example, wireless carriers should not be able to deploy 4G handsets that only work in a limited subset of the 700 

megahertz spectrum, as is happening today. Without interoperability, consumers and public safety will not be able to seamlessly 

travel and have access to the data services that they need on other 

networks or take their devices to other carriers if they should 

choose to switch. 

And, lastly, I would ask that any consideration of broadband deployment not lose sight of the needs of people living in rural communities, who deserve access to the same kind of mobile voice and 

data communications that consumers in urban areas enjoy. While 

it is not the central focus of this hearing, as you consider reforming 

USF, remember there are still rural areas today where calls drop, 

access is very limited, and dead zones are quite common in the 

community. 

So thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dillon follows:] 

251 


67523.233
252 


67523.234
253 


67523.235
254 


67523.236
255 


67523.237
256 


67523.238
257 


67523.239
258 


67523.240
259 


67523.241
260 


67523.242
261 


67523.243
262 


67523.244
263 


67523.245
264 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you for your testimony. 

We are going to go now to Mr. Bob Good, who is the Chief Engineer of WGAL–TV in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Good, thank you for being here. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GOOD 

Mr. GOOD. Good afternoon, Chairman Walden, Congressman 

Markey, and members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Bob Good, and I am assistant general manager, director of operations, and chief engineer of WGAL–TV in Lancaster, 

Pennsylvania. I am testifying on behalf of Hearst Television, Incorporated, which owns and operates 29 television stations across the 

country, including WGAL–TV. 

Less than 2 years ago, during the DTV transition, billions were 

spent upgrading facilities, purchasing converter boxes for viewers, 

educating viewers of the impending switch. In the process, the FCC 

repacked the television band and local broadcasters gave back 108 

megahertz of spectrum, freeing up space for public safety and new 

commercial wireless services. From over-the-air HD signals to new 

multicast channels, broadcasters across the Nation are providing a 

more diverse and richer viewing experience. 

Free over-the-air local broadcast television is not only the Nation’s most watched and trusted platform for local news, virtually 

every local station, including mine, works hand-in-hand with first 

responders to provide public-safety information in time of local 

emergencies. 

Local broadcast television is relied upon by 99 percent of the 

American people. In fact, some 43 million Americans depend exclusively on free over-the-air broadcasts as their only source of television. Many of these viewers are impoverished, elderly, live in 

rural areas, and/or are members of an ethnic minority. These are 

our viewers and your constituents, and it is essential that Congress 

not leave them behind in the consideration of spectrum reallocation. 

I am an engineer, and I am here to offer an overview of WGAL– 

TV’s transition experience and a real-world perspective on some of 

the technical issues that would accompany another repacking of existing broadcast spectrum. 

The FCC staff and wireless industry propose to remove 20 of the 

current 37 channels in the UHF broadcast band. This would be a 

reduction of more than 50 percent of existing UHF broadcast channels. The consequences of that proposal, if implemented, would be 

staggering. The relocation of channels is not a simple matter of 

flipping a switch. The substitution of one channel in one market 

will create a domino effect across the entire country. One channel 

change in Chicago, for example, would require a channel change in 

Kalamazoo, which would require changes in Lansing, and in turn 

affecting Detroit, and so on and so forth. 

The Lancaster market is bounded by five other television markets, including Philadelphia and D.C. After the repacking following 

the DTV transition, our station was initially authorized to transmit 

at a low power level to protect other stations from interference. 

That created significant gaps in our over-the-air coverage, and 

265 

many of our longstanding viewers lost WGAL. Even some cable 

systems, with their tall towers and high-gain antennas, lost overthe-air access to our signal. That prevented them from retransmitting our station to their subscribers. 

Within days of the transition, we received thousands of viewer 

complaints, and we still do. Today, we still haven’t reached a point 

where our station’s coverage replicates our pre-DTV service area. 

We are not sure, frankly, if it ever will. 

We have petitioned the FCC for several power increases, and we 

have plans to install six new translator stations at a collective cost 

of at least another $1.5 million. That is on top of the $2.5 million 

we already spent on the DTV transition. Local viewers have also 

incurred additional costs by having to buy new home antennas to 

receive our VHF digital signal. 

Unfortunately, this new repacking proposal has the potential to 

be more difficult. This time around, any repacking process would 

start with fewer alternative channels to assign to stations and the 

likelihood of greater interference for more closely packed channels. 

Also, due to the FCC’s white spaces decision, we will have to contend with thousands of new unlicensed devices that have been authorized to operate in television bands. 

Additionally, during the DTV transition, we had the luxury of operating two channels simultaneously, one analog and one digital. 

This time broadcasters would have to make a flash cut, because additional channel capacity no longer exists. That means that the 

viewers will not have adequate time to prepare for another repacking. The level of service disruption to your constituents could be 

unprecedented. 

Broadcasters take their public stewardship commitment seriously, and we look forward to expanding and enhancing the important service our industry provides to you and your constituents. We 

will continue to work with the committee to strike an appropriate 

balance in achieving the Nation’s overall communications policy 

goals. 

Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you might 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Good follows:] 

266 


67523.246
267 


67523.247
268 


67523.248
269 


67523.249
270 


67523.250
271 


67523.251
272 


67523.252
273 


67523.253
274 


67523.254
275 


67523.255
276 


67523.256
277 


67523.257
278 


67523.258
279 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Good. We appreciate your being 

here today. 

Now we would like to go to Mr. Julius Knapp, the Chief, Office 

of Engineering and Technology at the Federal Communications 

Commission. 

We welcome you here and look forward to your testimony, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JULIUS P. KNAPP 

Mr. KNAPP. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Walden, Congressman Markey, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate 

the opportunity to speak to you today. 

Mobile broadband holds great promise for economic growth, for 

creating jobs, for improvements to our quality of life, and for our 

global competitiveness. However, the explosion in demand for mobile broadband services is putting a strain on the limited supply of 

spectrum available for mobile broadband. 

As you have heard, today’s smartphones consume 24 times as 

much data as traditional cell phones, and the recently introduced 

tablets consume about 120 times more spectrum. Analysts have 

projected that there will be a 35 to 60 times increase in mobile 

broadband traffic over the next 5 years. 

All we need to do to verify these projections firsthand is look in 

the palm of our hands at our wireless devices and how we use 

them. We check our e-mails, monitor the news and weather, get directions, watch sporting events and other programs that stream 

live to our phones. 

Only a fraction of wireless users have these capabilities today, 

but the number is rapidly increasing. My little 3-year-old granddaughter doesn’t yet know how to spell but she sure knows how to 

work the iPhone. 

While we must continue to drive efficient use of spectrum, improvements in efficiency are not going to be enough. We will be facing a spectrum crunch in which demand for spectrum will exceed 

the supply by the year 2014 unless we promptly take action to 

make more spectrum available. 

To address these challenges and seize the opportunities of mobile, the FCC is moving forward aggressively with a comprehensive 

mobile broadband agenda. Over the past year, the Commission has 

taken actions to open up additional spectrum for wireless 

broadband, including opening up spectrum in the 2.3 gigahertz 

band for mobile use and providing greater flexibility to offer terrestrial service in the mobile satellite spectrum. We have also freed 

TV white spaces spectrum, the most significant amount of unlicensed spectrum that we have made available in 25 years, to enable new technologies like Super Wi-Fi. 

For more than a year, the Commission has conducted and we 

have now completed a baseline spectrum inventory. We have developed two tools, LicenseView and the Spectrum Dashboard, that are 

online and provide unprecedented transparency into the use of 

spectrum. 

Our baseline spectrum inventory, together with our extensive 

prior work on spectrum, has allowed us to determine that the best 

opportunities for providing access to suitable spectrum for wireless 

280 

broadband services lie in the TV broadcast bands and the mobile 

satellite service bands. 

Nearly 20 years ago, Congress authorized and the FCC implemented a breakthrough, market-driven policy to better allocate this 

scarce resource: spectrum auctions. The idea was the right one at 

the right time, and, since 1993, spectrum auctions have not only 

raised more than $50 billion for the Treasury but have also generated hundreds of billions of dollars in private investment and 

productivity gains and enabled new competition that has dramatically lowered prices for consumers and accelerated the pace of innovation, which, in turn, has helped grow our economy. 

Voluntary incentive auctions are the next tool for bringing market-based mechanisms to bear on spectrum allocation. Under this 

proposal, Congress would grant the FCC the authority to run twosided, voluntary spectrum auctions in which current licensees 

would voluntarily contribute spectrum and would, in return, receive a portion of the proceeds from the auction. 

Last week, 112 of the Nation’s leading economists from across 

the ideological spectrum released a letter they had signed endorsing incentive auctions. The economists who signed this letter include Nobel and Nemmers Prize winners, former members of both 

Republican and Democratic administrations, and FCC chief economists who served under chairmen of both parties. 

We recognize that some are concerned that voluntary incentive 

auctions will come at the expense of TV broadcasting. To the contrary, we believe that voluntary incentive auctions can be conducted in a manner that encourages a healthy and robust broadcasting industry. 

While realignment of broadcast stations will be necessary to ensure efficient use of the spectrum freed up from an incentive auction, our proposal seeks to limit the number of stations that would 

need to switch frequencies as part of the realignment process. For 

those that do, we would work to limit any loss of service to overthe-air television viewers and would fully reimburse the broadcasters for any costs associated with relocating. 

No stations would be required to move from the UHF band to the 

VHF band unless they freely chose to do so in exchange for a share 

of the auction proceeds. And, finally, because digital technology allows stations to use virtual channel numbers, even if a station’s actual channel number changes through realignment, it can continue 

to have the former channel number display on television screens 

and set-top boxes. 

In closing, let me suggest that voluntary incentive auctions are 

the right idea at the right time. I thank you for your attention. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Knapp, thank you. Thank you for your good 

work and thank you for testifying today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knapp follows:] 

281 


67523.259
282 


67523.260
283 


67523.261
284 


67523.262
285 


67523.263
286 


67523.264
287 


67523.265
288 

Mr. WALDEN. Now we would like to go to Peter K. Pitsch, the Executive Director of Communications Policy and associate general 

counsel of Intel. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF PETER PITSCH 

Mr. PITSCH. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Walden, Congressman Markey, members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure 

to testify before this committee on this issue of whether or not to 

grant legislative authority to the FCC to conduct incentive auctions. 

Intel strongly supports passage of such legislation this year. 

Intel, along with Alcatel-Lucent, Apple, Cisco, Ericsson, Nokia, 

Qualcomm and Research In Motion, formed the high tech spectrum 

coalition to advocate specifically for passage of this legislation. 

Today I want to make three points. First, the U.S. is facing a severe mobile broadband spectrum shortfall. Second, voluntary incentive auctions would help address this problem. Third, incentive 

auctions can prudently be implemented on the broadcasting spectrum now. 

First, as many already noted, including Julius Knapp, longtime 

friend, United States faces a severe global broadband spectrum 

shortage. In the interest of time, suffice it to say I strongly concur, 

would only add that it is important to recognize that the FCC’s 

command and control administrative process for reallocating spectrum does not work well. Furthermore, the low hanging spectrum 

band suitable for mobile use already have been reallocated. 

Incentive auctions can break this logjam which brings me to my 

second point: Voluntary incentive auctions would help address our 

Nation’s spectrum shortfall in a way that is beneficial to incumbents and to new users, to taxpayers and society. The voluntary 

nature of the process would ensure that incumbents who choose to 

sell and mobile broadband operators who choose to buy spectrum 

both would be better off. Also, taxpayers will benefit because incentive auctions, by reducing transactions problems and the holdout 

problems, can produce valuable cleared spectrum. 

Much of the revenue raised from the spectrum would go to the 

U.S. Treasury. For instance my fellow panelist, Coleman Bazelon 

and his colleague, Chuck Jackson, in an analysis underway for the 

high tech spectrum coalition estimate that those benefits might 

well exceed $20 billion. But most importantly, and the reason why 

I am here today, is that the gains, the long-term gains to consumers and society for lower prices, more minutes, less congestion 

were valuable services dwarf the gains to the broadband operators, 

the broadcasters or the taxpayers. Economists Hazlett and Munoz 

estimate conservatively that the benefits to consumers would be on 

the order of 10 times the private gains and the taxpayers effects. 

The net gains to consumers could easily be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. 

Lastly, the U.S. policy leadership in this sector could create a 

global competitive advantage, fostering American jobs and innovation. Conversely, if our broadband networks become more congested, if prices go up, then the creation of innovative services will 

be stymied and American workers and consumers will be denied 

valuable jobs and services. 

289 

Finally to, my third big point, incentive auctions can be used 

prudently to reallocate TV spectrum, a full 120 megahertz of TV 

broadcasting spectrum now. 

In the interest of time, I will just summarize a few points, but 

hopefully in the Q&A session, we can get into the objections that 

have been made. My contention is that they are either wrong or 

misplaced. Over-the-air broadcasting will remain available. Broadcasters whose channels are repacked could, should, and would be 

fully compensated. They would be kept whole. I would add, however, that the repacking process was never intended to be, itself, 

made voluntary, and that if we were to make the repacking process 

voluntary we would give holdout power to the broadcasters who are 

on these clear bands of contiguous spectrum. Either they wouldn’t 

exercise their holdout power collectively and we wouldn’t get the 

spectrum, or there would be virtually no money leftover for the taxpayer. 

So in sum, Intel strongly urges the members of this subcommittee and Congress to act this year to give the FCC broad authority to conduct voluntary incentive auctions. Such legislation 

represents one of the most important opportunities to free up much 

needed additional spectrum for mobile broadband. The benefits to 

U.S. consumers, taxpayers, and American society would be enormous. Thank you. 

[the prepared statement of Mr. Pitsch follows:] 

290 


67523.266
291 


67523.267
292 


67523.268
293 


67523.269
294 


67523.270
295 


67523.271
296 


67523.272
297 


67523.273
298 


67523.274
299 


67523.275
300 


67523.276
301 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Pitsch, thank you. We appreciate the testimony 

of all of our witnesses today. We will move into our questions, and 

as you can see, we have a good turn out of our members and look 

forward to your answers. 

Mr. Pitsch, let me go right back to you, because you suggest we 

should auction or give the FCC authority to do an auction right 

away. Do you support, then, the FCC following through on the auction authority they have today on the D Block? 

Mr. PITSCH. Chairman Walden, Intel doesn’t have a position 

on—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Why? 

Mr. PITSCH [continuing]. Public safety. 

Mr. WALDEN. Just wondered. Never mind, you don’t have to answer that. Dr. Bazelon, let me go to you. The question I have, your 

testimony and your evaluation of the value of the auction, one of 

the issues that has come up in recent days—and I hear from everybody on every side of all these issues, let me assure you, and that 

is a good thing—is that with the potential proposed merger of 

AT&T and T–Mobile that you might not have as many entrants 

into an auction. Do you find that plausible, possible and just knowing that merger—do you see that as having an affect on the value 

of an auction? 

Mr. BAZELON. So let me begin by saying that I am here representing my own views solely. The broad spectrum value is longterm supply and demand forces in this industry. And I don’t believe 

that the pending merger changes any of those fundamental demands for spectrum were supply of spectrum. So I don’t suspect 

that it will have any long-term effect on the value of spectrum. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right, thank you. 

Deputy Chief Dowd, Congress now allocated 24 megahertz of 

spectrum for public safety use in the DTV legislation 6 years ago, 

which I supported. In your testimony, you say that 2-way voice is, 

and I quote, ‘‘an extremely limited service that fails to meet the 

modern needs of public safety,’’ correct? 

Mr. DOWD. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. And so, I am curious then, why do you think public 

safety community, including NYPD, chose to use more than half of 

the allocated spectrum to expand that very legacy voice service? 

Mr. DOWD. Well, the issue there is that, you know, that was done 

a number of years ago, when the potential of broadband and its 

ability to transform how public safety does its business had not yet 

been fully realized. So there were a couple of things going on there. 

Number 1, you had a mandate from the FCC for folks to 

narrowband their radio systems and that they had dedicated that 

spectrum for that purpose. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

Mr. DOWD. The issue there is that you have over 30 States that 

are building out on that spectrum because a lot of them, kind of 

like led into this and were end of life on their existing systems and 

therefore, needed to build out on that spectrum. You know, if we 

had a preference—if voice on broadband were ready for public safety prime time, we would prefer to put that spectrum into a 

broadband capability. But the reality is, it is out and it is necessary 

right now for narrowband. 

302 

Mr. WALDEN. So when the technology comes in the full view and 

availability, do you see then a migration over to voice on—— 

Mr. DOWD. Yes, our—— 

Mr. WALDEN. That would free up a lot of spectrum, probably half 

of what you are using today. 

Mr. DOWD. Well, it has the potential to free up a lot of spectrum 

in other areas too. And that is one of our main arguments for the 

D Block is that if you had sufficient spectrum to do all of your communications capability, voice data, video, all of those things in 

broadband, then that would potentially, in the long term, free up 

spectrum that public safety has now to return to the FCC and also 

potentially to free up that 700 narrowband spectrum, again, the 

long term. But the problem with trying to use that spectrum now 

for broadband purposes is simply the fact that it is necessary for 

narrowband. 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, and obviously we are not going to get anything down in the very short term here, so when we get it done, 

we want to get it done right for the long-term and make sure we 

only invest in this correctly and appropriately going forward and 

efficiently. 

Senator Gorton, maybe I can turn to you, and Chief Dowd, you 

may want to comment on this. Because we have heard public safety 

wants to run its own networks, there is no—I don’t think have you 

any argument with that context. However, in my own State of Oregon, the Oregon wireless interoperability networks ballooned in 

costs to over $150 million and failed to meet its benchmarks. 

We know in San Francisco Bay Web is currently under investigation for apparently some alleged improprieties. So we are trying to 

figure out how we make sure we have an interoperable network 

that you can rely on, your men and women can rely on, and taxpayers can rely on. So maybe, Senator Gorton, what safeguards are 

in place to ensure public safety gets that capacity in the time of 

crisis? And could public safety benefit from a public private partnership as recommended by some? 

Mr. GORTON. The answer to that question is overwhelmingly in 

the affirmative, Mr. Chairman. It would probably happen quicker, 

and almost certainly happen at less expense, your experience in 

Oregon is, by no means, unique. On a related but independent matter, remember how much money the FBI has spent on computerization, billions and billions of dollars wasted because the holdover 

metal structure for contracting for these things is so slow that the 

technology is well beyond them by the time that they have implemented a certain system, and I think that Chief Dowd’s answer to 

your last question illustrates that. By the time they get something 

up and operating, something else is better that is out there. 

I just have to come back to my principal point, however. Unless you feel that there is an extra 25 to $50 billion out there somewhere, not only to reallocate the spectrum, but to help governments 

that don’t have any money to do it themselves, to do it through a 

Federal subsidy. And unless you feel that that is worth giving up 

at least an equal private investment in spectrum that can be used 

right now with all its jobs, this is an almost irrelevant argument. 

I don’t think that money is there. I don’t think your appropriations 

committees are going to come up that at any time in the immediate 

303 

future, so a public-private partnership is going to be best for both 

side sides of the—— 

Mr. WALDEN. I am a minute and 40 over my time. So I will yield 

now and to turn to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Mr. Knapp, 

how much of a spectrum that we need do you think we can garner 

just from a more efficient use of the spectrum that we already 

have? 

Mr. KNAPP. We are going to need to continue to apply efficient 

techniques. 

Mr. MARKEY. A significant percentage? 

Mr. KNAPP. A fair percentage, it is hard to put a number on it. 

Mr. MARKEY. More than 10 percent? 

Mr. KNAPP. More than 10 percent, it is an ongoing process. 

Mr. MARKEY. More than 10 percent, less than 50 percent. 

Mr. KNAPP. Ten percent, less than 50 percent, probably somewhere in there. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK, good. And so we can get a big chunk of this 

problem solved just by ensuring that there is more efficient use of 

the spectrum. And as you have to work under the Communications 

Act of 1934, you have certain public interest principals you have 

to abide by, huh? 

Mr. KNAPP. Of course. 

Mr. MARKEY. In putting this together. And a lot of that goes to 

public safety, but also ensuring that there is spectrum out there so 

that we have further economic growth in our country as well? 

Mr. KNAPP. Of course. 

Mr. MARKEY. That is your job, your division that you are responsible for? 

Mr. KNAPP. With others, yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Now, Mr. Good, you seem to be saying 

that the broadcasters can go along, as long as it is voluntary, and 

as long as is there a no interference. And if we can meet those two 

criteria, and you are going to be very tough as an engineer in ensuring that those criteria are met that the broadcasters are openminded in the reallocation of spectrum if they are compensated and 

interference is not created for other stations that are along that 

same perspective, is that correct? 

Mr. GOOD. Well, yes, voluntary but as long as the broadcasters 

are held harmless. 

Mr. MARKEY. That is what I am saying. And by ‘‘held harmless,’’ 

you mean that they are compensated and that—— 

Mr. GOOD. Coverage areas are the same and they are back exactly where they were as far as coverage and the quantity of viewers they can get their signal. 

Mr. MARKEY. And you think that can worked out as long as everyone is open-minded and engineers of common sense and goodwill from all sides are able to get together and agree upon those 

principles? 

Mr. GOOD. That tends to bring us to repacking. 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes. 

Mr. GOOD. And I am not confident that we can achieve that type 

of coverage in that scenario. 

304 

Mr. MARKEY. Now, obviously, the broadcasters are a big part of 

our safety response capacity, because people turn to radio, people 

turn to television to get their information, so we want to make sure 

that those local broadcasters are there. 

So, Chief, if we come over to you, in terms of the approach which 

the public safety community is bringing to these issues, just so it 

can be reduced down to a simple kind of set of principals that you 

are bringing here to the process. The public safety community 

wants a specifically allocated part of this spectrum just getting 

over to the public safety community so that they can make sure 

that there is a specifically dedicated network construction that has 

voice, video, data so that what happened on 9/11 does not reoccur; 

is that correct? 

Mr. DOWD. That is correct. 

Mr. MARKEY. And is there a way in your mind of reconciling that 

goal with other interests that other people who testified here today 

have in terms of the economic goals that are also here and testifying and of interest to the country as well? 

Mr. DOWD. Well, certainly. In our view, in public safety, we have 

gone to great lengths over the last couple of years to consolidate 

on this issue. And let me point out that that is probably a historic 

consolidation of public safety support this. Here on the right, you 

see a chart that I brought, it indicates two organizations, the Public Safety Alliance on the right, which represents every public safety organization and many other governmental agencies that support our position. And on the left is what is referred to as the Connect Public Safety Now Coalition. The good and distinguished Senator represents them here today according to his written testimony. 

I have to point out though, however, that there is no one in public 

safety that supports that position. 

Mr. MARKEY. I see. 

Mr. DOWD. As far as the flexibility and reconciling these issues, 

you know, we can certainly do that. We are looking to do public private partnerships, but we don’t want to put the cart in front of the 

horse. We want to make sure that public safety gets the mission 

critical—— 

Mr. MARKEY. My time is going to run out. Are you having conversations with the group that Senator Gorton represents, are 

there any conversations going on? Chief, answer that and—— 

Mr. DOWD. Well, there is not too many people to have conversation with. 

Mr. MARKEY. Ah. 

Mr. DOWD. You know, there are a couple of major commercial entities that are a part of that. But again, to stress it, you know, listen, the Senator is a man of high integrity and I know that his position is a sincere one. But quite frankly, we question the credentials of this coalition. 

Mr. MARKEY. Senator, you deserve an opportunity to respond to 

your question. 

Mr. GORTON. Well, of course, if your position is that you want to 

get something free and get it subsidized, you are all going to join 

in on that, it is an easy position to take. Give it to us and then 

give us all the money that is necessary to carry it out. That doesn’t 

305 

answer the question, and of course, they would prefer that to any 

kind of public private partnership. 

The question is, are you going to give it away? Are you going to 

come up with a huge new Federal program? Are you going to subsidize it? I don’t think you are. And I think once you announce a 

position like that, I imagine that the work back and forth, the consultations between the private sector that wants to buy this spectrum and the public spectrum will be constructive and will be successful. 

Mr. MARKEY. I just want to say, Chief, on a bipartisan basis, I 

just want to say that public safety is our highest priority throughout this entire process, I hope you know that. 

Mr. DOWD. If I may comment on that, and again, having heard 

testimony and questions before this committee before the characterization that public safety wants something for free, I mean, why 

do we want it? We want it because we know we need it to protect 

the people of this country. So I am puzzled as to what the expectation is should public safety pay for the spectrum? Because if public 

safety pays for it, guess where the money comes from? From the 

taxpayers, so I don’t understand the logic of that comment. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you for your service, sir. 

Mr. WALDEN. Move on to Mr. Terry for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Staying somewhat on 

that theme. One of the accusations is not the right term, but information is that not all of the spectrum currently assigned public 

safety is even being used now. So Senator Gorton and Deputy Chief 

Dowd, once again, thank you for your service and your willingness 

to come down here. We should have an office for you. 

And Mr. Knapp, if you could answer or retort or put into perspective that statement that public safety isn’t using all of the spectrum that they are assigned now. Senator, are you aware if there 

is squatting occurring now on public safety spectrum? 

Mr. GORTON. I can’t claim to be an expert on that subject. I don’t 

believe it is, but I don’t believe it is because they are squatting, I 

believe it is almost certainly because they don’t have the money to 

do it. 

Mr. TERRY. Chief? 

Mr. DOWD. I am not sure what spectrum you are referring to. 

But again, in my prepared comments, one of the things that we are 

saying to you, and we would love the opportunity—we know there 

are a lot of new members on this committee and this is a new issue 

for them, and there are a lot of things they have to address, but 

we want to engage you in detail on this. 

One of the things public safety is suggesting is that if we get 

enough spectrum in this new and future technology to do all our 

capabilities within that spectrum, within that broadband capability, that there will be opportunities to return other spectrums, 

like the spectrum that the NYPD uses now, UHFT band for land 

mobile radio system. Over time, if we have the capability to do everything in the broadband network that would be fully interoperable, which we can’t on UFT band, then certainly, why wouldn’t we 

want to return that spectrum? And your question as to what spectrum we may be squatting on, I am not sure what spectrum you 

are referring to. 

306 

Mr. TERRY. All right. Mr. Knapp, can you clarify? 

Mr. KNAPP. Sure. Public safety operates in multiple different frequency bands. 

Mr. TERRY. 800. 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes, part of what is where we are with the interoperability issue. I would venture that the spectrum is generally used 

by public safety. The one band that comes into focus is 700, and 

the narrow band channels we know are not used everywhere in the 

country and we have initiated a public notice to try to gather more 

information to get a better handle on how much it is being used. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. 

Then Senator Gorton, going back to you and your testimony, and 

Mr. Markey has already helped frame this, but you talk about a 

public and private partnership that technology is available to assure that public safety communications can have priority access on 

commercial 700 megahertz network. Didn’t we try that once and 

there were no bidders? 

Mr. GORTON. I think your FCC witness is better able to answer 

that. But the answer to that question is yes. There were no bidders 

when those requirements were so onerous as to not worth it, that 

did not make it worth it to bid. However since then, we have financed the study by the chief technology—former chief technology 

office of—office of Motorola, who I do believe has come up with a 

system under which the spectrum would be valuable to the private 

sector and would have an automatic override in case of public service—public safety necessity. We don’t—— 

Mr. TERRY. I don’t, Senator. I want to interrupt, so I can get Ms. 

Dillon, because she is part of this discussion too. 

Is there technology today that would incent you or other wireless 

carriers to bid on this knowing that, at some point, public safety 

can come in and say we want it? 

Ms. DILLON. Yes, well, we have proposed that on a regional basis, 

a public partnership private model works. And potentially, it is one 

of the reasons that it didn’t work in the last auction, it was on a 

nationwide basis. So for us, we believe that carriers of our size and 

smaller, there is two reasons why we believe this sort of—— 

Mr. TERRY. So if we break it down into regions or smaller—— 

Ms. DILLON. Yes. And we have incentive to then work on a region-wide basis. If we were granted a license today in western 

Iowa, our priority would be to build that out, and certainly we 

would work with public safety to meet their needs as well. 

Mr. WALDEN. I might just put this in perspective, some data I 

had seen. Public safety has 97 megahertz of spectrum allocated to 

it with about 2 million users. And by comparison, although they 

are different missions, Verizon has 115 megahertz of spectrum with 

91 million users. So it really gets down to, in terms of spectrum, 

there is a wide variation on who uses what and for what purpose. 

I would turn now, I believe Mr. Barrow was here when the gavel 

fell, but Mr. Dingell is also here. I don’t know how you all want 

to—— 

Mr. BARROW. Mr. Dingell has been kind enough to allow me to 

go first, but I would like to defer my turn, but not waive my time 

to questions to Ms. Matsui as the presiding ranking member, if 

that is OK with the Chairman. 

307 

Mr. WALDEN. I am happy if you all are happy, that is all we are 

here for. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Barrow, and thank you, Mr. Walden. We all know that the cost of constructing a nationwide public 

safety system will be substantial. This question is to Senator Gorton, and also the Chief. Aside from whether the deeplog is reallocated to public safety and added to the public safety existing 700 

megahertz broadband spectrum, how do we ensure that the speech 

front spectrum is built out in the most efficient manner achieving 

interoperability while keeping the prices within reach given the 

Federal and State budget crisis? 

Mr. GORTON. Well, I think you can assure that best by an auction system in which those users who think that the spectrum is 

worth most are willing to bid most, and have such conditions on 

them that allow their use in emergencies by the public sector. I 

think history indicates a formal straight-out allocation set by Congress or by someone else is not likely to result in that degree of 

efficiency. The chairman referred to the fact that we began the incentive auctions, or auctions, back in the 1990s, I was on the Senate Commerce Committee at the time. 

Ms. MATSUI. Right. 

Mr. GORTON. I think the history of dealing with spectrum in that 

fashion has proved itself time and time again. 

Ms. MATSUI. I know the chief differs. Chief? 

Mr. DOWD. Well, again, you know, as I said in my prepared comments, I made the statement that public safety based on its years 

of experience in dealing with commercial networks, knows that we 

cannot rely on public networks as a backup during mission critical 

and critical times. We know that those systems fail. So the notion 

or the suggestion that we would use those networks at those points 

is just an unworkable model. And the other problem is, that there 

would be an expectation that we would have to pay it for that service, and when we say ‘‘pay,’’ that is the taxpayers that has to pay. 

Ms. MATSUI. That is right. Now, it is my understanding that public safety has an assigned spectrum and provided with Federal 

funding before to achieve interoperability. I know there is been 

some successes but we still haven’t achieved full interoperability 

especially on a Nationwide basis. What needs to be different this 

time so that we don’t repeat history, Chief? 

Mr. DOWD. Again, the issue there is why we are not interoperable is that a long history of issuing public safety spectrum in a 

patchwork fashion. So on a nationwide basis, you have public safety all over the spectrum map, so to speak. The only way you are 

going to fix that successfully is if you dedicate enough spectrum in 

the new technology so that we can be seamlessly interoperable 

across the country, and also give us the flexibility to utilize that 

spectrum for other purposes in government, public utilities and potentially, in public private partnerships. We have no objection to 

that. 

Ms. MATSUI. I see the Senator is disagreeing, but I have a followup question to that. Go ahead, a quick comment there. 

Mr. GORTON. Ms. Matsui, are you going to pay for it? The Chief 

says, well, gosh, if we have to buy it, the taxpayers have to pay 

for it. Well, you represent the taxpayers too, all of those taxpayers. 

308 

The real question is, how much are the taxpayers going to pay, less 

if there is huge private investment in it, clearly very much less. 

And who is going to provide a more efficient use, almost certainly, 

history shows the private sector will do so. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. All right, I have an additional question here. 

How do you envision a plan for how the development and deployment of public safety broadband network would be managed, would 

there be a Federal entity to oversee it? Who should possess ultimate responsibility and accountability for ensuring achieving of nationwide interoperability, Chief? 

Mr. DOWD. Yes, the answer is that there would have to be some 

sort of entity created by the Federal Government to have oversight 

of this effort in order to coordinate it, to ensure interoperability 

and consistency in the use of the spectrum and other issues that 

have to be addressed. That being said, each regional area, each locality has its own unique public safety concerns, and the network 

of networks would have to have the flexibility so public safety could 

do their job locally while still being interoperable with everybody 

else. 

Ms. MATSUI. Senator, would you think there would be another 

entity here? 

Mr. GORTON. I think the Chief made my case. Works for another 

Federal agency. If you think that is a good idea, go do it. 

Ms. MATSUI. I want Ms. Dillon to get involved. 

Mr. DOWD. I apologize. I didn’t suggest that there should be another Federal entity. I suggested that there should be an entity created to oversee this. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Ms. Dillon, do you have any additional 

thoughts about that? 

Ms. DILLON. The question? 

Ms. MATSUI. About whether there should be another entity, a 

Federal entity to oversee it or any other entity? 

Ms. DILLON. I think there are probably lots of options, the PSSP, 

it could be on a statewide or a Federal basis, but we do believe that 

the notion of working on a local basis on the 700 megahertz spectrum with compatible technology around the country, but manage 

and operate on a local basis would make sense. 

Ms. MATSUI. I see my time is gone, thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Ms. Matsui. We will go now to Mr. 

Shimkus for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I knew that the spectrum is a big broad area, but I knew it would come down to D 

Block and additional 10 megahertz. And I will try to move away 

from that for a few minutes too, but it is something I have dealt 

with because I authored the first 911 Wireline bill, I chair the E– 

911 caucus, now the Nextgen Communication caucus. And I have 

been very involved in the use of new technology to help first-line 

responders. I am a little bit—no one wants to have this fight, 

Chief. We all want to get there. 

You mentioned in Hurricane Katrina. Didn’t the public safety 

network fail, and it was a commercial wireless that was able to 

help the communications? 

Mr. DOWD. The fact that it may have failed doesn’t justify 

the—— 

309 

Mr. SHIMKUS. No, I am just making a point. And I think also we 

have broadcasters here, wasn’t the public broadcasters during 

Katrina who helped get back on the air to help inform the public, 

wasn’t that correct, Mr. Good? 

Mr. GOOD. The Hearst Company has a station in New Orleans, 

and that is WDSU, and that station was on the air through the 

event and a great expense and effort to do, but it was there and 

present. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that is really, even when we go to the broadcasters, which is also very important debate that we have, and 

their spectrum is their responsibility to be able to provide real-time 

information. With all the new gadgets, it is still amazing that more 

people are getting information over the radio band on their car— 

instead of satellite, instead of all this stuff. They are still getting 

more information for free over the air, which we forget about a lot 

of times, and their public safety responsibilities. 

Senator Gorton and Chief Dowd, Mr. Knapp, how are the public 

safety waivers progressing and what can we learn from these waivers that help us on these broader questions? You know what I am 

referring to is the original 10 megahertz that you all have. 

Mr. GORTON. I am going to have to defer that answer to someone 

else. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, maybe Chief can help us out. Chief? 

Mr. DOWD. Well, I can only speak for New York City, and quite 

frankly, we are engaged with a number of vendors to do pilot 

projects on that spectrum in order to understand better—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So how long have you had this block? 

Mr. DOWD. Since they were granted, that was last year sometime. Was it June? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So nothing other than Research, nothing has 

moved forward yet? 

Mr. DOWD. Well, no. Other than, again, planning. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I know that takes a long time. It is bureaucracy, 

it is government. Mr. Knapp. 

Mr. KNAPP. The waivers you are talking about, I think, were 

granted in May of 2010, it takes a bit of time to get them up and 

running. I can provide for the record an update to the status of all 

of those. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. And going back to, Ms. Dillon mentioned a regional approach. Those of us in rural, small town America are kind of worried that if this goes to the public safety folks, 

that regional small town, poor areas will get left out because it will 

focus around the major metropolitan areas. Now that is important 

if you are from the major metropolitan area. But Senator Gorton, 

can you talk to me, and Chief Dowd and Ms. Dillon, on the regional 

aspect? Would a regional approach solve some of my concerns? 

Ms. DILLON. That is our contention that certainly there is room 

for a lot of players to play here in terms of both providing for public 

safety, maximum efficient use of available spectrum, which is not 

going to be solved simply by engineering alone. There was a question asked earlier, if it was only engineering, we wouldn’t need to 

look to spend more money on spectrum. But we do believe that 

there are many ways we can look at smaller regional areas and 

make sure that all parts of the country are considered. And we beVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:51 Nov 01, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00317 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-36 041211\112-36 CHRIS
310 

lieve that if it went only on a national basis that it would, in fact, 

be the urban areas built out first, which makes sense from an economy of scale perspective. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I want to finish up. So Chief, do you have 

anything on the regional approach? I only have 12 seconds. 

Mr. DOWD. OK. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, let me go to Mr. Knapp. Just so we just talk 

about the spectrum as a whole. If the FCC is correct, and mobile 

demand is poised out to its capacity in the future, what are the 

consequences for consumers? 

Mr. KNAPP. Dropped calls, slow data rates, services that don’t 

work very well. And as the carriers are likely to respond, with setting higher prices for consumptions, consumer prices go up. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Typical economics 101 supply and demand, I would say, right? 

Mr. KNAPP. Correct. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. I want to add on to your 

notion of everybody being involved in Hurricane Katrina. Don’t forget the ham radio operators, too. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Who, who? 

Mr. WALDEN. The amateur radio operators. 

Let’s go now Mr. Dingell from Michigan, the esteemed former 

chairman of the committee for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank my good 

friend from Georgia for your kindness to me. 

Mr. Knapp, these questions to you, I would appreciate a yes or 

no answer. And it may be that at some future time you want to 

come back with some further answers with regard to this and we 

will see when that comes. Mr. Knapp, I believe you were involved 

in drafting the spectrum provisions to the national broadband plan, 

yes or no? 

Mr. KNAPP. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Knapp, it has been reported that those who 

drafted the proposal contained in the NPB failed to take into account the channel reservations of the Canadians which we are 

bound to honor by treaty. Were the Canadian channel reservations 

taken into account in the proposals that I have mentioned, yes or 

no? 

Mr. KNAPP. No, and the report acknowledges that. 

Mr. DINGELL. That is going to cause some problems, isn’t it? 

Mr. KNAPP. And as we have done further work, we are doing just 

that, we are taking into account the Canadians and we are talking 

to the Canadians. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Knapp, let’s turn to a market with which 

I am familiar, namely Detroit. Detroit is the tenth largest market 

in the country, it has 14 stations licensed in the Detroit DMA, is 

that your understanding? 

Mr. KNAPP. That is correct. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Knapp, the MBP recommends relocating 

120 megahertz from the broadcast television to the wireless 

broadband access. I understand that if the Canadian channel reservations that were taken into account, there would not be any 

available channels for any of Detroit’s 14 stations; is that correct? 

311 

Mr. KNAPP. No, I don’t believe that will be correct. 

Mr. DINGELL. I am sorry? 

Mr. KNAPP. No. I don’t believe that will be correct. 

Mr. DINGELL. It is not correct, OK. We will come back to that because I think it merits further consideration. Put it another way, 

if less than 120 megahertz were reallocated and even one Detroit 

station were to be relocated, would there be a channel available for 

that station, yes or no? 

Mr. KNAPP. I would just preface that we will have to go through 

the process, but yes, we are confident that there will be. 

Mr. DINGELL. I am hearing two answers. On one hand, I am 

hearing you tell me that it is not correct, that there would be no 

channels available to the 14 Detroit stations. And then I am hearing some doubt in your remark. What is the truth of this matter? 

Why is it that—why is it I am hearing these things, and why is 

it you can’t give me firm, full assurances that you have taken already into consideration with regard to my city the availability of 

channels? What is the answer to that? 

Mr. KNAPP. Because the repacking will depend on which stations 

decide to participate in the incentive auction and we don’t know 

which those will be. 

Mr. DINGELL. So that information is not, at this time, available 

to us, we are forced to speculate what will be the consequences of 

that, is that right? 

Mr. KNAPP. Of course, it will depend on which stations participate. 

Mr. DINGELL. I must assume we have two borders, the Canadian 

border and Mexican border. I must assume that the Canadian 

channels are going to create, a, perhaps, a common problems 

stretching all the way from the Maine coast through Vermont, 

Rochester, Buffalo and onto Detroit stretching and then on west to 

where the Senator comes from, am I right? 

Mr. KNAPP. Those areas would be taken into account in the repacking and negotiations with Canada. 

Mr. DINGELL. Do we have assurances that that is so or is that 

just your pious hope and expectation? 

Mr. KNAPP. I believe that we can do that. We won’t know until 

we have completed—— 

Mr. DINGELL. So we don’t know. 

Now, Mr. Knapp, finally on a related note, you state in your written testimony no stations would be required to move from the UHF 

band to the VHF band unless they freely chose to do so in exchange 

for a share of the auction proceeds. Does the Commissioner believe 

that the broadcaster would receive a portion a voluntary incentive 

auctions proceeds only if the broadcaster agrees to move from the 

UHF band to the VHF band, yes or no? 

Mr. KNAPP. Only if they—yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. So. 

Mr. KNAPP. If they stayed where they were, there would be no 

change. 

Mr. DINGELL. It looks to me here a little like we are buying a 

pig in the poke, where the commissions come up here and they are 

going to do all the wonderful things and we don’t know exactly 

what they are going to do. 

312 

Now just one last question: Do you have statutory authority to 

do this. Do you have to have statutory authority? 

Mr. KNAPP. We would need statutory authority for incentive auctions. 

Mr. DINGELL. So when are we going to get the precise character 

of what it is you are doing so that we can know what it is that we 

are voting for or against? 

Mr. KNAPP. What we are seeking is the authority to conduct the 

incentive auctions, it would be voluntary. Once we conducted the 

auction and saw who was going to participate and worked with the 

stakeholders, that is when we would know the final plan. 

Mr. DINGELL. Am I to assume that this same problem is going 

to plague us on the Mexican border? 

Mr. KNAPP. We also will need to negotiate with Mexico. 

Mr. DINGELL. You have comforted me but little. Thank you for 

your kindness. 

Mr. WALDEN. And you are not the first witness to achieve that 

high praise. 

Mr. KNAPP. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. We go now to Mr. Latta for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, I thank the chairman and I thank our witnesses for being here today, it is very, very important subject, and 

as you can tell from the questions from the members. 

Ms. Dillon, if I could kind of go back to what Mr. Terry and also 

Mr. Shimkus were talking about again, talking about the small, 

the auctioning in the small area of blocks, and also providing for 

other smaller, not mega-region type folks to be buying into the 

spectrum. Could you define what a smaller carrier would be? 

Ms. DILLON. What a smaller carrier could be? 

Mr. LATTA. Right. 

Ms. DILLON. I would suppose anybody who is operating on a less 

than national basis, like ourselves and there is many others that 

are smaller than us. And so back to the question of auctions, in 

fact, I think history would show that when the auction—when the 

spectrum is auctioned on a less than national basis, more money 

can be raised. There are more participants in the room. So there 

was a question earlier about AT&T and T–Mobile, if that deal goes 

through it underscores even more so the opportunity and the need 

to have less than national swaths here for the auction because 

there will, in fact, be more bidders in the room and more bidding 

means—raises the prices and more money for the Treasury. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me at least follow up on that if I may. Again, if 

you are a smaller carrier, will you be able to come to the table with 

as much money? 

Ms. DILLON. Well, it is all relative. We are not going to buy on 

a national basis because it is not relevant for our business but we 

have spectrum before and we would be interested in bidding on 

more, and I am sure other carriers would as well. It is really the 

life blood of our business. And we see the need for spectrum in 

spite of a tremendous amount of efforts around engineering and innovation, which we are really proud of as an industry. There is a 

need for more spectrum as well. So for any carrier to continue to 

compete, we need more spectrum. 

313 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. Mr. Good, if I could go back and ask you 

a question with the incentive auctions being approved, what cost 

would you anticipate the broadcasters would incur? 

Mr. GOOD. That is a question that is totally unknown at this 

point. I can’t answer that. I would have to have a crystal ball. I 

can tell that you our company doesn’t plan to take advantage of 

that. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Thank you. And Mr. Pitsch, how would you see 

that by freeing up additional spectrum how that helped manufacturing in America because, you know, I come from a manufacturing 

area of the country, and how would you see that spectrum freeing 

up helping manufacturing? 

Mr. PITSCH. Well, as Mr. Knapp has pointed out, given the burgeoning demand for mobile data, if we don’t get more capacity, 

more spectrum, prices are going to have to go up, congestion will 

increase, new services won’t be available. So I would contend, and 

I think the members of our coalition will contend that if we get the 

type of spectrum freed up that the FCC, the administration, lots 

of folks have recognized as needed, then we are going to enable 

new services and create jobs, it is going to be mean lower prices 

and this important part of our information infrastructure is going 

to be more robust. 

So I can’t give you a precise number. Frankly, I am fairly distrustful of these fancy-dancy econometric models. But I think the 

basic insight of Congressman Shimkus is fairly right, is economics 

101. If we get more capacity, we are going to have lower prices, less 

congestion, more minutes, and that is going to be good for American consumers and workers. 

Mr. LATTA. Could you define new services? 

Mr. PITSCH. Well, I think many of the video rich applications 

that consumers are using on Smartphones, the tens of thousands 

of apps could be considered new services. I think we are only limited by the fertility of the imagination of the American people here. 

If we look at all of the trends from my company in the silicon area, 

the semiconductor area, to compression technologies, and storage 

technologies, and the digital technologies, the 4G technologies in 

the wireless area, if we marry all of those improvements, there is 

an enormous opportunity for growth and innovation. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. We turn now to the gentleman, Mr. Barrow. 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the Chairman. Ms. Dillon touched on some 

of the practical considerations and in actually conducting a voluntary incentive auction regime, so I want to explore that just a 

little bit. 

You know old Aesop, that old fable spinner told a bunch of fables. 

One of them he titled the Fable of the Dog in the Manger. This is 

the story of the dog that made his bed in a manger of hay. He 

couldn’t eat the hay, but he would snap and snarl at animals that 

could whenever they would come by. And the moral of the fable is 

folks often begrudge others what they can’t use themselves or won’t 

use themselves. That is a negative characteristic of human nature 

in some folks. I think it could actually describe a practical real 

world problem if folks end up, through no motive of their own, begrudging folks what they can’t use. And so you can imagine lots of 

314 

license holders with enough money to get a license, but not enough 

money to be able to develop it. You can find folks scattered to hell 

and gone who have got licenses all over the place, but the buyers 

and sellers aren’t together. It seems to me that bringing folks together who have the spectrum but would rather have the money, 

together with folks who have the money would rather have the 

spectrum is something we can all agree on, and it is something we 

would all want to get behind some way or another. 

But Ms. Dillon touched on some of the practical considerations 

in talking about that you can’t do this on a dime, creating this 

marketplace and market opportunity is going to entail some consideration and some practical consideration. So Ms. Dillon, based on 

your experience at U.S. Cellular, have you all ever acquired any of 

your licenses in an auction format? 

Ms. DILLON. Have we all—I am sorry—— 

Mr. BARROW. Have you acquired any of your licensing authority 

as the result of an auction format? Have you gotten any of what 

you have to use through the auction process. 

Ms. DILLON. Yes, we have. 

Mr. BARROW. How long, based on your experience, if have you 

had any idea, how long did it take between the time that the spectrum was identified as being available on the one hand, and the 

time of the resulting auction on the other, how much—— 

Ms. DILLON. Honestly, I would probably need to get back to you 

with our specific experience, because our last auction, or purchase 

to spectrum predated my time at U.S. Cellular, but it is my understanding that it is not a fast process. The process of making it 

available, conducting an auction, clearly spectrum and then deploying services is probably a multi-month, multi-year process. 

Mr. BARROW. I imagine the next phase, the time we actually buy 

the spectrum and of course auction you can actually deploy services 

is going to take a far greater period of time. Based on your experience, what kind of time are we talking about there? Because we 

talked earlier in testimony about the fact the crunch times coming 

in 2014 which is right around the corner. Generally speaking, give 

us some idea of how long it would take between the time someone 

acquires a broadband spectrum through an auction an the time 

they can actually deploy services over what they bought? 

Ms. DILLON. Yes, it is my understanding that it is probably a 

multi month, 18-month to 2-years process. But I would like to come 

back with specific examples from our experience. I think more importantly the point is and that is why there is urgency, the spectrum crunch is on us now, and there is engineers around this industry very hard at work driving efficiencies, deploying LTE fourth 

generation networks to drive more efficiency, and to handle the demand, but we believe that the need is now to start that process because it is time consuming. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Ma’am. We have got some dogs out 

there sitting on a bed of hay and they want to sell it to the other 

animals. We ought to encourage that as much as we possibly can. 

Thank you very much, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Barrow. At the price of hay—well, 

anyway. We are going to go to Mr. Bass now for 5 minutes. 

315 

Mr. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Gorton, welcome 

back, fellow Dartmouth alumnus. This is my first hearing on spectrum policy. When I left the Congress 4 years ago, we were completing the debate on DTV, whole new set of issues. Now we heard 

about the imperative that we move forward on this; we reviewed, 

I think, adequately, the debate that exists between public safety 

and the rest of the telecommunications economy. 

Senator, can you expand a little bit on your testimony regarding 

the timing advantages of public private partnership resulting in 

public safety having access to the 700 megahertz spectrum now? 

Mr. GORTON. Well, I think all of history has shown that the private sector has actually built out the spectrum that it received 

much more rapidly than the public sector has done. The chairman 

that started this hearing, what, I think four goals of the hearing: 

Reducing the deficit, increasing investment, adding needed spectrum, jobs and public safety. The only way, the only possible way 

of reaching all of those goals with what is at issue here is to go 

through a public auction procedure. The capital to exploit that will 

be available, no one is going to bid on it unless they are going to 

use it, and use it fairly properly. And that I think inevitably is 

going to lead to a public private partnership because the public 

safety community will then want that to happen. 

I am convinced that, in fact, it will happen. If, on the other hand, 

this is, the spectrum is given away, it isn’t going to be used until 

the money is available from the taxpayers at one point or another, 

in multi billions of dollars to do so. And in this economic situation, 

that is going to take a long, long time. 

Mr. BASS. I think you testified as to the cost. You thought the cost might be something in the vicinity of $50 billion, can you 

elaborate on that? 

Mr. GORTON. That would be the upper end of the estimates we have, but first, you lose the 3 or $4 billion from not having the auctions, and again, that is going to cost somewhere between $25 and 

$50 billion, or maybe more, to build it out. And bluntly, that is all 

going to be taxpayers money. If it is bid for, the money comes in 

and goes against the deficit, and the buildout is private sector. 

Mr. BASS. Mr. Pitsch basically defined his ideas giving the FCC 

authority to conduct voluntary incentive auctions as quickly as possible. We know that Chief Dowd, what his position is. Do others of 

you have different variations on this issue as to what the appropriate legislative remedy is, or course of action is for the issue before us, the spectrum? Anybody have any further comments? If not, 

it looks like we have got it nailed. I will yield back to the chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK, I guess we are ready to go to a vote. I now 

recognize the gentlewoman from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn, for 5. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of 

you for your patience. I think it is so evident here today that there 

is such a demand and a request for spectrum. I had someone in my 

office earlier today for a meeting, and we were talking a little bit 

about the spectrum, as you would well imagine, and the need for 

it and the need for broadband expansion because of the estimation 

that within the next few years, we are going to have not a billion 

but a trillion devices that are going to be connected to the 

broadband. 

316 

And when you look at all of the help IT, just take my district 

there in Nashville and Memphis, and up to the Kentucky line. Look 

at that swath, I would like to say it is a creative community, a lot 

of entrepreneurs, a lot of people that are inventing and innovating. 

And you look at the auto engineering, and you look at the digital 

music labels and distribution systems and the entertainment distribution systems and you look at the health infomatics and health 

IT components and all that we are doing. It is no wonder that pretty soon you are going to hit that trillion number. That means we 

are going have to have more access; you certainly can see how this 

debate is going to tee up and everybody wants a little bit more 

room on the spectrum. 

Mr. Bazelon, I want to come to you and talk a little bit about the 

mobile DTV. Last year about this time, in May, we will forever be 

known as the May floods in Tennessee. And 47 of our counties 

ended up as federally-declared disaster areas. Well, WSMV in 

Nashville broadcast in mobile DTV, and we had a lot of constituents that kept up with what was happening through those floods 

through that format. And let’s just say if there were to be spectrum 

relocation and some of this was to be relocated so that companies 

like Cellular South or Ms. Dillon’s U.S. Cellular could get on there 

and access some of that spectrum. Would my constituents in Tennessee have difficulty pulling in that mobile DTV band? 

Mr. BAZELON. It would be impossible to say the specifics of what 

would happen in your district. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. What would your estimation be, your best 

guess? 

Mr. BAZELON. I think the answer to your question is that there 

will be more available bandwidth to your constituents from having 

reallocated television spectrum. You are quite right that on the 

other side of the mobile television broadcasting, there may or may 

not be less of that, depending on what the choices the broadcasters 

in your district make are, but the clear point is that any value they 

place on that service, any value that is placed on that service can 

be compensated for in an auction. And as my principle spectrum 

reallocation suggests that the spectrum shouldn’t be reallocated if 

it is, in fact, more valuable for that service, and the auction is 

there to help discover the answer to that question. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Mr. Good. 

Mr. GOOD. Well, my company is involved in mobile TV, and it 

certainly has the ability to provide a lot of public service, as you 

described. People can see what is happening. And I just question, 

you know, we talk about mobile wide band. Why can’t television be 

considered part of the solution rather than a problem that has to 

be set aside? It can provide that service, and it still continues to 

provide the public service to—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Let me interrupt you. I did have a question for 

you because when we hear a lot about relocating spectrum, and you 

know, saying, well, it could weaken this or it could weaken our coverage for that, and you have a TV station there. 

Let me ask you this: As you transferred your signal from analog 

over into the DTV and going into the DTV transition, did any of 

your viewers ever have trouble pulling your signal down? Was 

there a problem with them doing it? And what percentage of yours 

317 

can no longer receive your broadcast today, or has there been any 

diminishment of your market area? 

Mr. GOOD. The conversion from analog to digital has been a very 

difficult situation for my station, sure. We initially went from channel 8 analog to channel 58 digital. That channel was out of bands. 

So eventually, it ended the process. Bands are repacked. We have 

to go back to channel 8, went back to channel 8 digital. In the 

meantime, because of the repacking, other stations have been 

dropped in close to us. We operate on channel 8. There was another 

channel 8 dropped in in Brunswick, New Jersey. Channel 9 was 

dropped into Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. All those things impact on 

the power levels you are able to broadcast with. 

We went from 110 kilowatts to 5.4 in the digital world. We have 

gone back to the FCC through consultants and attorneys and have 

gradually worked up in steps to 32.2 kilowatts. That still falls 

short. We still have complaints from viewers. We had thousands of 

complaints initially. We still get complaints. We have one cable system that despite their best efforts—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. But you are using the mobile DTV? 

Mr. GOOD. At that point, we were not. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. But you are now? 

Mr. GOOD. There are stations within my company that are. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Pitsch, did you have something you want 

to add? I am over my time and I need to yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Go ahead. 

Mr. PITSCH. Thank you. Just very briefly to make two points. 

It is important to separate the vacating sharing process from the 

repacking process, and the decision to vacate or share or move to 

a VHF band, that is only going to occur if the parties to the transaction both agree that the new use is going to be higher value. 

That is what it means because it is voluntary. 

I think Mr. Good is quite correct to be concerned about repacking 

costs. I think we have to address those. I think Congress should 

make clear that they are kept whole, but just very briefly, the new 

spectrum would likely be worth $35 billion. The money to the 

Treasury would likely be $20 billion. Even if we doubled our own 

estimate and met the numbers in Mr. Good’s testimony, we are 

talking $2 billion. So I think this problem, if it is put in the proper 

context, shouldn’t cause or derail this important reform. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for your courtesy. 

Mr. WALDEN. Indeed, and before I go to Mr. Scalise, I am going 

to ask unanimous consent to put in the record a statement of the 

National Association of Broadcasters. I believe it has been cleared 

with the minority. Without objection, so ordered. 

And now, I would turn to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 

Scalise, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the first of 

what I guess would be a few hearings on this important issue. 

I know right after Hurricane Katrina, we experienced with Chief 

Dowd, I know you and some of your colleagues experienced in New 

York after September 11, and that was that you literally had first 

responders cut off from the ability to communicate. I know it was 

said by some that we went from the Jetsons to the Flintstones in 

318 

a matter of moments, where literally you could not communicate, 

towers were knocked down, power was off, and it literally sent us 

back, it seemed like, to the stone ages in terms of communication 

and being able to get that vital information sent from local responders on the ground to others, and I know personally when I 

would go into the city in those first few days after trying to deal 

with issues, that is how I learned to text message because you 

couldn’t use your cell phone but yet a text message could get 

through. And I think I burnt out a couple of phones just trying to 

get text messages to people because that was the only way you 

could get communications, and obviously, that is not a situation 

that we should have to deal with. 

And 4 years after September 11, we were still in that position, 

and here yet another 6 years later, we are still, it seems like, in 

that position. And so I think that challenge we face, as the FCC 

faces, is how we finally build an interoperable network. 

I know you addressed some of this earlier in your questions, but 

as we look at the cost of building that out, the spectrum that would 

be used to build that out, as you look at the money that would be 

generated from an incentive auction to supply some of that money, 

have you addressed that yet of how those could play hand-in-hand, 

Chief Dowd? 

Mr. DOWD. Sir, let me be clear. Some of the numbers that are 

being thrown around here today are grossly overinflated. Those are 

estimates of how much it would cost if you were building a public 

safety network from the ground up. That is not the case. We already have existing infrastructure that can be leveraged. There are 

other infrastructure that can be leveraged. We have talked about 

public and private partnerships, public utilities. So the cost is more 

likely going to be in the $10 billion range rather than the idea of 

$25 or $50 billion. It is simply not going to be that expensive. 

So, again, looking at how we move forward in this, clearly what 

has become evident from many independent studies that have been 

done is that 10 megahertz of spectrum is simply not going to be 

enough for public safety. I have four studies right here, and of 

course, I would like to enter them for the record if that is permissible. 

Mr. WALDEN. Absolutely. With your testimony, without objection. 

Mr. DOWD. That indicates that 10 megahertz of spectrum for 

public safety is simply not enough. So, as we move forward on this 

effort, again, we want to engage in the maximum flexibility to leverage the network, the public safety network, in order to ensure 

that we are as efficient as possible while still being able to accomplish the primary mission, which is mission-critical public safety 

capability. But that doesn’t mean we don’t want to use that network or allow for, for example, with smaller cellular companies 

around the country to make partnerships with public safety in 

those regions where it is appropriate to utilize that spectrum. 

The problem here is, again, we understand the fiscal realities of 

this, but the fact of the matter is we simply cannot, in today’s environment and the threats that this country faces, not have enough 

spectrum to do the job. It is like suggesting that the Navy, when 

they are building an aircraft carrier because of a lack of funding 

319 

should sell half the steel from the buildout of the aircraft carrier 

so that it can be funded. 

You simply to need to have the resources you need to have, and 

the finite resource here is spectrum, and again, I point to the studies. These are real studies, real evidence of the use of public safety 

in broadband that indicates that 10 megahertz of spectrum is simply not going to be enough to do the job. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. Mr. Knapp, I don’t know if you want 

to respond to that as well as—just really quickly if you can respond 

because my clock is running here. I am almost out. Do you want 

to—— 

Mr. KNAPP. Well, it is more than just the technical problem, and 

most of the disagreements about exactly how much spectrum is 

going to be needed centered on projections of the use and concerns 

about when there is an emergency and there is a crisis, that is 

when the demand blooms. 

Mr. SCALISE. The broadcasters and the wireless carriers are saying that they are using their spectrum efficiently. I don’t know if 

you want to comment on whether one technology is more efficient 

than the other or just address that. 

Mr. KNAPP. Well, the different technologies have different applications, and we like to think we are driving all of them to efficiency. 

On the wireless side, there have been tremendous advances 

through cellularization, smaller and smaller cells. At the cellular 

show, I saw a number of vendors that are introducing even more 

efficient techniques. So this is something we at the Commission are 

continuing to encourage and drive. 

Mr. SCALISE. And final question, when you talked to—I am not 

sure what your process has been, but if you do, as you go forward 

with a voluntary incentive auction, the assumption would be that 

there would be willing participants who would volunteer to participate in that auction, and Mr. Good has said he wouldn’t want to 

be involved in something like that. But have you talked to other 

stations? How do y’all poll to determine what kind of interest there 

would be to see if you could generate the $35 billion or so that have 

been discussed? 

Mr. KNAPP. It clearly would be voluntary. The chief of our media 

bureau, Bill Lake and his staff, have been talking to literally hundreds of broadcasters. They conducted seminars, Webinars, about 

it where we have had about 500 different participants, so we know 

there is interest. 

Mr. SCALISE. So they have expressed interest? Some have expressed interest? 

Mr. KNAPP. Absolutely. At the end of the day, it will be up to 

them individually once they see the plan and what they might get 

in return for them to make those decisions. 

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

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentlemen for his questions. I want to 

thank each of the witnesses for your testimony today and for your 

very candid and forthright answers to our questions. Our record 

will remain open for 10 days if other members of the subcommittee 

who either were here today or could not be here today have quesVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:51 Nov 01, 2011 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00327 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-36 041211\112-36 CHRIS
320 

tions, they could submit to you. I would appreciate your responses 

in writing to that. 

We will have additional hearings on this issue. We want to make 

sure that our brave men and women who protect us and defend us 

have the equipment they need and a communication system that 

works wherever they are in our country. We want to make sure the 

taxpayers are protected as well, and so we have a lot of issues we 

are going to flesh out here. That is why we are going to have several hearings. I want to make sure members of the subcommittee 

have every opportunity to get their questions answered and learn 

as much as they can about a very complex issue. 

We hope to only go through this once in terms of allocating this 

spectrum, and so we want to make sure we get it right. And so we 

are going to take our time. We are going to do that. We will have 

additional hearings. We will announce that schedule along the way 

here, probably not today. 

And with that, I again thank you all for participating, and with 

that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

321 


67523.277
322 


67523.278
323 


67523.279
324 


67523.280
325 


67523.281
326 


67523.282
327 


67523.283
328 


67523.284
329 


67523.285
330 


67523.286
331 


67523.287
332 


67523.288
333 


67523.289
334 


67523.290
335 


67523.291
336 


67523.292
337 


67523.293
338 


67523.294
339 


67523.295
340 


67523.296
341 


67523.297
342 


67523.298
343 


67523.299
344 


67523.300
345 


67523.301
346 


67523.302
347 


67523.303
348 


67523.304
349 


67523.305
350 


67523.306
351 


67523.307
352 


67523.308
353 


67523.309
354 


67523.310
355 


67523.311
356 


67523.312
357 


67523.313
358 


67523.314
359 


67523.315
360 


67523.316
361 


67523.317
362 


67523.318
363 


67523.319
364 


67523.320
365 


67523.321
366 


67523.322
367 


67523.323
368 

Æ 


67523.324