Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum Management
Published: 2002-09-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The radiofrequency spectrum is the medium that enables wireless communications of all kinds, such as mobile phone and paging services, radio and television broadcasting, radar, and satellite-based services. As new spectrum-dependent technologies are developed and deployed, the demand for this limited resource has escalated among both government and private sector users. Meeting these needs domestically is the responsibility of the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for federal government users and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for all other users. The current legal framework for domestic spectrum management evolved as a compromise over the questions of who should determine how spectrum is allocated among competing users and what standard should be applied in making this determination. Current methods for allocating spectrum face difficulties, and FCC and NTIA's efforts are not guided by a national spectrum strategy. Since nearly all of the usable radio spectrum has been allocated already, accommodating more services and users generally involves redefining current radiofrequency allocations. One method used by FCC and NTIA is to increase the amount of spectrum that is designated for shared use, so that additional types of services or users may be placed within a particular frequency allocation. Another method, called band-clearing, involves relocating a service or user from one area spectrum to another in order to make room for a new service or user. The challenges the United States faces in preparing for World Radiocommunication Conferences, where decisions are made regarding the global and regional allocation of spectrum, have raised questions about the adequacy of the United States' current preparatory process. Under the current structure, FCC and NTIA develop positions on agenda items through separate processes that involve the users of the spectrum they manage. NTIA has several oversight activities to encourage accountability and efficient use of the spectrum by federal agencies, but federal officials stated that the effectiveness of these activities is hindered by staffing and resource shortages. Specifically, NTIA has directed federal agencies to use only as much spectrum as they need and has established frequency assignment and review processes that place primary responsibility for promoting efficiency in the hands of the agencies. As an accountability measure, NTIA requires that agencies justify their initial need for a frequency assignment and periodically review their continued need for the assignment, generally every 5 years.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The radiofrequency spectrum is the medium that enables wireless  communications of all kinds, such as mobile phone and paging services,  radio and television broadcasting, radar, and satellite-based services. As  new spectrum-dependent technologies are developed and deployed, the  demand for this limited resource has escalated among both government  and private sector users. Meeting these needs domestically is the  responsibility of the Department of Commerce’s National  Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for federal  government users and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for  all other users. One of these agencies’ most important tasks is to decide  how to allocate (apportion) the spectrum among the different types of  wireless services and users—a task that is increasingly difficult as the  spectrum becomes more crowded and competition for radiofrequencies  intensifies. A further complication is that domestic management and use of  the spectrum and its commercial development are greatly affected by  international agreements on spectrum use. Our ability to promote our  strategic and economic interests internationally has become more difficult  as countries vie with the United States for leadership in the multibillion  dollar global telecommunications marketplace. As a result of these  developments, debate has been intensifying about whether our current  approach to spectrum management is adequate to meet the challenges of  the wireless age.
As the Congress begins to debate whether fundamental reforms are needed  in spectrum management, you asked us to provide an overview of the  development of the legal and regulatory framework for spectrum  management at the federal level and assess key issues associated with  spectrum management at federal agencies. As agreed, we focused on the  following issues: (1) the evolution of the current legal and regulatory  framework for domestic spectrum management; (2) the current methods  for allocating spectrum domestically and planning for its use; (3) the  adequacy of the current U.S. preparatory process for the World  Radiocommunication Conferences, at which decisions are made on how to  allocate spectrum internationally; and (4) the activities used to increase  accountability and encourage the efficient use of spectrum by federal  agencies.
In addition to these issues, you requested that we review how the current  rules and regulations governing spectrum holders affect the rollout of new  technologies and services and the level of competition in markets that use  spectrum. Work on this issue is ongoing and will result in a separate report  early in 2003, which will also include a discussion of approaches to  spectrum management in other countries, such as the use of incentives for  efficient spectrum use.
To address the four issues covered in this report, we reviewed major  legislative and regulatory developments in spectrum management over the  past century, along with relevant agency manuals, policies, and regulations.  We interviewed officials responsible for spectrum management at FCC,  NTIA, and the Department of State. We also interviewed representatives  from the commercial wireless industry. To gain an understanding of how  the federal government uses and manages spectrum, we reviewed relevant  documents and interviewed officials from the following seven agencies that  are major users of this resource: the Department of Energy, the Department  of the Interior, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard, the  Department of Justice, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and  the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We conducted our  review from July 2001 through July 2002 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: To a large degree, spectrum management policies flow from the technical  characteristics of the radio spectrum. Although the radio spectrum spans  the range from 3 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz, 90 percent of its use is  concentrated in the 1 percent below 3.1 gigahertz. The crowding in this  region has occurred because these frequencies have properties that are  well suited for many important wireless technologies, such as mobile  phones, radio and television broadcasting, numerous satellite  communication systems, radars, and aeronautical telemetry systems.
The process known as spectrum allocation has been adopted, both  domestically and internationally, as a means of apportioning frequencies  among various types of wireless services and users to prevent radio  interference. Interference occurs when two or more radio signals interact  in a manner that disrupts the transmission and reception of messages.  Spectrum allocation involves segmenting the radio spectrum into bands of  frequencies that are designated for use by particular types of radio services  or classes of users, such as broadcast television and satellites. Over the  years, the United States has designated hundreds of frequency bands for  numerous types of wireless services. Within these bands, government,  commercial, scientific, and amateur users receive specific frequency  assignments or licenses for their wireless operations. The equipment they  use is designed to operate on these frequencies. Appendix I provides an  overview of how the major frequency ranges of the spectrum are currently  used.
During the last 50 years, developments in wireless technology have  increased the number of usable frequencies, reduced the potential for  interference, and improved the efficiency of transmission through various  techniques, such as reducing the amount of spectrum needed to send  information. In June 2002, for example, FCC initiated a proceeding to  promote the commercial development of several undeveloped bands in the  upper region of the spectrum where new uses for these bands are  becoming practical due to technological developments. Nevertheless, the  demand for frequencies by both government and the private sector remains  high as new technologies that use spectrum are developed and used. An  example of this is the unexpectedly rapid growth of mobile phone use in  the United States. Subscribers of mobile phone service jumped from 16  million in 1994 to an estimated 137 million in 2002, greatly exceeding even  the wireless industry’s original projections.
section_title: Concern Over Concentrating Authority Led to Divided Structure for Spectrum Management
paragraphs: Our nation’s approach to spectrum management evolved in response to  technical developments, legislation, court decisions, and policy initiatives.    The legal and regulatory framework in place today for allocating radio  spectrum among federal and nonfederal users emerged from a compromise  over two fundamental policy questions: (1) whether spectrum decisions  should be made by a single government official or shared among several  decision makers; and (2) whether all nonfederal government users should  operate radio services without qualification, or if a standard should be used  to license these operators. The resulting structure—dividing spectrum  management between the President and an independent regulatory body— reflects both the President’s responsibility for national defense and the  fulfillment of federal agencies’ missions, and the U.S. government’s  longstanding encouragement and recognition of private sector investment  in developing and deploying commercial radio and other communications  services.
The need for government regulation of the radiofrequency spectrum  became apparent at the beginning of the twentieth century with the  application of wireless communications to maritime safety. In 1904,  President Theodore Roosevelt adopted a recommendation of an  interagency board and placed all government coastal radio facilities under  the U.S. Navy’s control.   The first federal statute to establish a structure for  spectrum management was the Radio Act of 1912, which was enacted in  part to rationalize the burgeoning use of the radio spectrum. The Act  required users of the radio spectrum to obtain a license, and it consolidated  licensing authority with the Secretary of Commerce. Commerce’s practice  was to grant licenses for particular frequencies on a first-come, first-served  basis.
This approach proved to be deficient, however, when the burgeoning  growth of radio communications in the late 1910s and 1920s led to  radiofrequency interference problems. The courts determined that the  Secretary of Commerce lacked the authority under the 1912 Act to alleviate  these problems by using licensing as a means of controlling radio station  operations or by designating frequencies for uses or issuing licenses of  limited duration.
In recognition of such limitations, deliberations began in the 1920s to  devise a new framework for radio spectrum management. Although there  was general agreement that licensing should entail more than a registration  process, there was debate about designation of the licensing authority and  the standard that should govern the issuance of licenses.   This debate went  on over several years as the Department of Commerce convened four radio  conferences (1922–25) attended by manufacturers, broadcasters, civilian  and military government users, and other stakeholders to make  recommendations addressing overcrowding of the airwaves. For example,  at the first national radio conference in 1922, a bill was drafted that was  subsequently introduced in the House of Representatives, that would have  placed the issuance of licenses under the absolute discretion of the  Secretary of Commerce. Subsequent bills introduced in the House and  Senate in 1925 took differing approaches to licensing authority. The House  bill would have vested licensing authority with the Secretary of Commerce  with licensing appeals going to a commission, while the Senate bill would  have placed all licensing functions in an independent commission from the  start.
The Radio Act of 1927 reflected a compromise on a spectrum management  framework. In order to allay concerns about vesting all licensing authority  in the hands of one person (specifically, the Secretary of Commerce) the  new Act reserved the authority to assign frequencies for all federal  government radio operators to the President and created the Federal Radio  Commission (FRC) to license nonfederal government operators.   Under  the Act, the FRC was granted licensing authority for one year to resolve  interference problems, after which it was to become an appellate body to  address disputes with the Secretary of Commerce, who was to assume  licensing duties. Composed of five members from five different regions of  the country, FRC was empowered to assign frequencies, establish coverage  areas, and establish the power and location of transmitters under its  licensing authority. Further, the Act delineated that a radio operation  proposed by a nonfederal license applicant must meet a standard of “the  public interest, convenience, and necessity,” and that a license conveyed no  ownership in radio channels nor created any right beyond the terms of the  license.
The FRC’s one-year authority over licensing was extended several times by  the Congress because the commission needed more time to deal with  interference problems. As these problems persisted, the FRC’s authority  was extended for an indefinite term pending new legislation. By 1930, it  was becoming evident that the licensing task was too complex to be  conferred permanently on the Department of Commerce, which was  perceived as being already overburdened with other issues. New legislation  was enacted in the form of the landmark Communications Act of 1934.  Under this Act, the FRC was abolished and its authorities transferred to the  new Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which brought together  the regulation of telephone, telegraph, and radio services under one  independent regulatory agency. The 1934 Act, however, also retained the  authority of the President to assign spectrum to and manage federal  government radio operations. For over 75 years, this division in  responsibilities has remained the essential feature of U.S. spectrum  management, unlike many other countries that chose to concentrate  spectrum management within one government entity.
The President’s authority for managing federal spectrum has been lodged in  various parts of the government since the 1934 Act. However, a source of  advice and support on federal government spectrum use during these  changes has been IRAC, composed of representatives from federal  agencies that use the most spectrum. IRAC was formed in 1922 when  Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover drew attention to the need for  cooperative action in solving problems arising from the federal  government’s interest in radio use. He invited interested government  departments to designate representatives for a special government radio  committee. The committee recommended the establishment of a  permanent interdepartmental committee. As a result, the  Interdepartment Advisory Committee on Governmental Radio  Broadcasting (later renamed IRAC) was formed. Over the ensuing decades,  IRAC, whose existence and actions were affirmed by the President in 1927,  has continued to advise whomever has been responsible for exercising the  authority of the President to assign frequencies to the federal government.  Currently, IRAC assists NTIA in assigning frequencies to federal agencies  and developing policies, programs, procedures, and technical criteria for  the allocation, management, and use of the spectrum. Figure 1 shows  IRAC’s present membership, which includes FCC in a nonvoting liaison  capacity.
Over the past 75 years, since the 1927 Act formed our divided structure of  spectrum management, there is historical evidence of cooperation and  coordination in managing federal and nonfederal spectrum to promote its  effective use. For example, FCC and IRAC agreed in 1940 to give each other  notice of proposed actions that might cause interference or other problems  for their respective constituencies. Further, FCC has participated in IRAC  meetings, and NTIA frequently provides comments in FCC proceedings  that affect federal radio operations. As will be discussed later, FCC and  NTIA also work together with the Department of State to formulate a  unified U.S. position on issues at international meetings that coordinate  spectrum use regionally and globally.
However, as demand for this limited resource increases, particularly with  the continuing emergence of new commercial wireless technologies, NTIA  and FCC face serious challenges in trying to meet the growth in the needs  of their respective incumbent users, while accommodating the needs of  new users. As FCC has noted, the basic problem is that demand for  spectrum is outstripping the supply.
section_title: Methods for Allocating Spectrum Face Difficulties and Are Not Guided by a Coordinated National Plan
paragraphs: Since nearly all of the usable radio spectrum has been allocated already,  accommodating more services and users often involves redefining  spectrum allocations. The current divided U.S. spectrum management  structure has methods for allocating spectrum for new uses and users of  wireless services, but these methods have occasionally resulted in lengthy  negotiations between FCC and NTIA. Several, including Congress, have  suggested that coordinated planning could help identify and resolve some  allocation difficulties. FCC and NTIA have not yet implemented long- standing congressional directives to conduct joint, national spectrum  planning although they have conducted independent planning efforts and  have recently taken steps to improve coordination.
subsections: section_title: Spectrum Is Allocated through Sharing and Band- clearing
paragraphs: One method to accommodate more services and users is spectrum  “sharing,” which enables more than one user to transmit radio signals on  the same frequency band. In a shared allocation, a distinction is made as to  which user has “primary” or priority use of a frequency and which user has  “secondary” status, meaning that it must defer to the primary user. Users  may also be designated as “co-primary,” in which the first operator to  obtain authority to use the spectrum has priority to use the frequency over  another primary operator. As shown in figure 2, more than half of the  spectrum from 9 kHz to 3.1 GHz is shared between federal and nonfederal  users. NTIA must ensure that the status assigned to users in shared  spectrum (primary/secondary or co-primary) meets users’ needs, and that  users abide by rules applicable to their designated status.
Another method to accommodate new users and technologies is “band- clearing,” or reclassifying a band of spectrum from one set of radio services  and users to another, which requires moving previously authorized users to  a different band. Band-clearing decisions affecting only nonfederal or only  federal users are managed within FCC or NTIA, respectively, albeit  sometimes with difficulty. However, band-clearing decisions that involve  radio services of both types of users pose a greater challenge. Specifically,  they require coordination between FCC and NTIA to ensure that moving  existing users to a new frequency band is technically feasible and meets  their radio operation needs. In addition, such moves often involve costs to  the existing user of the band, who may need to modify or replace existing  equipment to operate on new frequencies.
The need for spectrum reallocation can originate from many different  sources, including the results of international decisions on spectrum use or  requests from industry or federal users. Also, the Congress has in the past  mandated the reallocation of spectrum from federal to nonfederal use.  Once any needed research has been conducted and both FCC and NTIA  agree on the proposed reallocation, FCC issues a “Notice of Proposed  Rulemaking” to obtain public comments on the proposed allocation  change. After the comment period, FCC publishes a Report and Order that  directs any changes that will be made to the frequency allocation table.  Spectrum users who disagree with the Report and Order may petition FCC  for a change that could result in an amended decision. Figure 3 depicts the  primary steps in the process by which the reallocation of a frequency band  from a federal to nonfederal government designation would occur if no  court challenges arise.
While many such band-clearing decisions have been made throughout radio  history, these negotiations can be protracted and contentious. A hotly  debated issue today is how to accommodate “third-generation” wireless  services, which enable handheld communication devices to provide both  voice and high-speed data.   In October 2000, President Clinton directed  that a plan be developed to select spectrum for third-generation services,  but this attempt was unsuccessful. A new task force was established. In  July 2002 the Department of Commerce in conjunction with FCC, the  Department of Defense (DOD), and other federal agencies released its  study that concluded that 90 MHz of spectrum could be allocated for third- generation services without disrupting communication services critical to  national security. This 90 MHz of spectrum could be available for third- generation services no later than December 2008 and would come from  both federal and nonfederal bands.
FCC told us that the relationship between FCC and NTIA on spectrum  management became more structured since the Congress became active in  the 1990s in directing the reallocation of spectrum from federal to  nonfederal government use. For example, the Omnibus Budget  Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66, Aug. 10, 1993) directed the  reallocation of not less that 200 MHz of spectrum from federal to private  sector use. NTIA was directed to identify frequency bands that could be  reallocated; use specific criteria in making recommendations for their  reallocation; issue a preliminary report upon which public comment on  proposed reallocations would be solicited; obtain analyses and comment  from FCC; and transfer frequency bands within specified time frames. The  Act also required FCC to gradually allocate and assign these frequencies  over the course of 10 years. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33,  Aug. 5, 1997) imposed a stricter deadline for NTIA to identify frequency  bands for reallocation and required FCC to reallocate, auction, and assign  licenses by September 2002 for an additional 20 MHz of spectrum.
section_title: Various Options for Facilitating Reallocations Have Been Raised
paragraphs: To deal with the protracted nature of some spectrum reallocation  decisions, some officials we interviewed have suggested establishing a  third party—such as an outside panel or commission, an office within the  White House, or an interagency group—to arbitrate or mediate differences  between FCC and NTIA. For example, the United Kingdom has a formal  standing committee, co-chaired by officials from the Radiocommunications  Agency and the Ministry of Defense, that has authority to resolve  contentious spectrum issues. FCC officials noted, however, that an  arbitration function would go to the core of the responsibilities currently  entrusted to FCC and NTIA in making allocation decisions. Moreover, it is  not clear how such a function would be set up or the extent to which the  President, who retains spectrum management authority for government  users and national defense, would allow this authority to be placed in the  hands of an arbitrator.   FCC officials maintain that the handful of issues  involving inherently difficult reallocation choices attracts attention and  leads to what, in their view, is a mistaken assumption that the current  reallocation process is broken. They noted that FCC and NTIA have  coordinated successfully on over 50 spectrum-related rulemakings in the  past year alone.
Mechanisms for ensuring that incumbent users receive comparable  spectrum and are reimbursed for the cost of relocating are also being  developed or proposed. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal  Year 2000 specified a number of conditions that have to be met if  spectrum in which DOD is the primary user is surrendered. The Act  requires NTIA, in consultation with FCC, to identify and make available to  DOD for its primary use, if necessary, an alternate band(s) of frequency as  replacement(s) for the band(s) surrendered. Further, if such band(s) of  frequency are to be surrendered, the Secretaries of Defense and  Commerce, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must jointly  certify to relevant congressional committees that such alternative band(s)  provide comparable technical characteristics to restore essential military  capability. Under the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act  for Fiscal Year 1999, federal agencies are authorized to accept  compensation payments when they relocate or modify their frequency use  to accommodate nonfederal users of spectrum. The Act directs NTIA and  FCC to develop procedures for the implementation of the relocation  provisions. NTIA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding these  provisions in January 2001 and a final rule in June 2002. Under this rule,  federal agencies would prepare an estimate of their relocation costs. This  figure would be provided to potential bidders at future auctions. FCC has  stated that the Commission will adopt any additional rules or procedures  necessary to supplement NTIA’s reimbursement procedures. Under current  law, however, federal agencies would be unable to expend these payments  without additional congressional action. In July 2002, the Department of  Commerce sent to the congressional leadership a draft bill to amend the  Communications Act of 1934 to create a Spectrum Relocation Fund to  revise the procedures under which federal entities are paid for relocating  from spectrum frequencies reallocated for auction to commercial entities.  According to NTIA, this fund would benefit both the agencies, by providing  greater certainty in recovering their relocation costs, and the private sector,  by providing greater certainty on the ultimate price of the licenses they  obtain at auction. However, it would be important for the Congress to  establish up front what controls it wants to maintain over such a fund. For  example, would the Office of Management and Budget control when and  how much an agency received in reimbursement or would the Congress  maintain control by requiring an agency to obtain an appropriation?
section_title: FCC and NTIA Have Not Yet Implemented Congressional Planning Directives
paragraphs: Several U.S. spectrum experts said that one means of improving the  spectrum allocation process is to develop coordinated, national spectrum  planning and policies that better anticipate future needs and put more  predictability into spectrum decision-making. The Congress called for  coordinated spectrum planning in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act  of 1993, which required NTIA and FCC to conduct joint spectrum planning  sessions. Subsequently, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2000  included a requirement for FCC and NTIA to review and assess the  progress toward implementing a national spectrum plan. Even before  these congressional directives, NTIA itself, in a 1991 report, recommended  that NTIA and FCC seek to institute a coordinated, strategic, long-range  planning process. The output of this process would be a formal joint  FCC/NTIA plan that would be periodically updated, with goals, policies,  and specific actions to provide for future spectrum requirements and  improved spectrum management. The Defense Science Board similarly  concluded in November 2000 that the United States lacks a mechanism to  formulate a national spectrum policy that balances traditional national  security uses of the spectrum with new commercial uses of the spectrum.  According to NTIA, the United States Table of Frequency Allocations,  which documents the spectrum allocations for over 40 radio services, along  with existing spectrum management processes, constitutes a basic U.S.  strategic spectrum plan, which covers all cases of spectrum use. However,  as we pointed out in an earlier report, the national allocation table reflects  only the current landscape of spectrum use and does not provide a  framework to guide spectrum decisions for the future.
FCC and NTIA have each undertaken planning efforts, but they are focused  largely on issues involving their separate constituencies and, as such, do  not fulfill the requirements of the congressional directives. For example,  FCC conducts spectrum planning for nonfederal government use through  two staff committees and uses public forums, en banc hearings, advisory  committees, and other methods to gather and provide information for its  spectrum planning. NTIA’s spectrum planning has resulted in several  spectrum planning documents over the last 20 years, including the  September 2000 Federal Long-Range Spectrum Plan that identified current  and future federal spectrum uses, along with any unsupported spectrum  requirements. In addition, NTIA established the Strategic Spectrum  Planning program in 1992, through which it produced several additional  reports on spectrum planning, dealing with land mobile spectrum planning  options, radio astronomy spectrum planning options, and federal radar  spectrum requirements.
Interaction between the two agencies also takes place on an ongoing basis.  For example, FCC has liaison status on IRAC and its subcommittees, which  provides it with an avenue for commenting on federal government issues.  NTIA, for its part, provides comments on FCC proceedings on issues that  could affect federal users. In addition, both agencies (along with industry)  are involved in preparing the United States’ unified position for World  Radiocommunication Conferences (WRCs). One FCC official called the  consensus-building involved in this preparatory process as being the  closest thing the United States has to a national spectrum strategy.  However, FCC and NTIA officials acknowledged that these interactions  have not fulfilled the congressional mandate for coordinated national  spectrum planning. FCC and NTIA officials stated that a key problem in  developing a strategy for national spectrum planning is the inherent  difficulty of trying to predict future trends in the fast-developing area of  wireless services. For example, FCC officials noted that both FCC and  wireless industry forecasts greatly underestimated the huge growth of  mobile phone service during the 1990s. On the other hand, emerging  wireless technologies that appear promising may not develop as planned,  resulting in underutilization of spectrum that has been set aside for them.
The Chairman of FCC and the Administrator of NTIA recently commented  on the need for coordinated planning, and the agencies are currently  engaged in efforts that could provide a basis for improved planning. For  example, in early 2002, FCC announced the creation of a Spectrum Policy  Task Force to explore how spectrum can be put to the highest and best use  in a timely manner. In July 2002, FCC received comments in response to a  public notice issued for the Task Force on several spectrum management  and use issues including market-oriented allocation and assignment  policies, interference protection, spectral efficiency, public safety  communications, and international coordination. In August 2002, the  Spectrum Policy Task Force held four public workshops addressing  spectrum policy issues. Participants included representatives from  academia, industry, and government. The Task Force intends to report to  the Commission by October 2002.
For its part, NTIA hosted a spectrum summit in early April 2002 that  included participants from FCC, NTIA, and federal agency and industry  representatives. The summit included several sessions to explore ways to  improve the management of the spectrum through planning and  technological innovations. In addition, NTIA’s 2003 budget request includes  over $1 million in funding to develop a plan to review and improve its  overall performance of spectrum management duties. In June 2002, NTIA  officials stated that FCC and NTIA had recently adopted a “One Spectrum  Team” approach to improve interagency communication and take a more  proactive approach to spectrum management. It remains to be seen  whether a well-coordinated and clearly defined national spectrum strategy  emerges from these efforts.
section_title: Issues Have Emerged Regarding the Adequacy of U.S. Preparations for World Radiocommunication Conferences
paragraphs: As noted earlier, the management of our domestic spectrum has been tied  to international agreements on spectrum use at regional and global levels.  Domestic spectrum allocations are generally consistent with international  allocations negotiated and agreed to by members of the International  Telecommunication Union (ITU) at WRCs. Decisions reached at these  conferences can have far-reaching implications for the direction and  growth of the multibillion dollar wireless communications industry in this  country and abroad. Key officials raised questions about the adequacy of  the current U.S. preparatory process, in particular the use of separate  processes by FCC and NTIA to develop U.S. positions, and the short tenure  of the head of the U.S. delegation to the conferences.
subsections: section_title: WRCs Are Increasing in Size, Frequency, and Substance
paragraphs: The emergence of new radio applications with international ramifications,  such as broadcasting, radio navigation, and satellite-based services, has  increased the need for international agreements to prevent cross-border  signal interference and maximize the benefits of spectrum in meeting  global needs, such as air traffic control. At the same time, the number of  participating nations in international radio conferences has risen  dramatically—from 9 nations in the first conference held in 1903, to 65  nations in 1932, to 148 nations in 2000—along with the frequency of  conferences (now held every 2 to 3 years), and the number of agenda items  negotiated at each conference (e.g., 11 in 1979; 34 in 2000). There has also  been a movement toward regional alignment at WRCs. Because decisions  on agenda items are made by vote of the participating countries—with one  vote per country—uniform or block voting by groups of nations has  emerged, as areas such as the European Union seek to advance regional  positions.
section_title: Timely Preparation for the WRC Is a Key Challenge for the United States
paragraphs: The Department of State coordinates and mediates the development of the  U.S. position for each WRC and leads the U.S. delegation at the conference  through an ambassador named by the President. We found strong  agreement among those we interviewed that it is important for the United  States to develop its position in advance of the conference in order to have  time to meet with other nations to gain international support for our  positions. U.S. positions on WRC agenda items are developed largely  through separate processes by FCC and NTIA with the involvement of their  respective constituencies. To obtain input from nonfederal users, FCC  convenes a WRC advisory committee composed of representatives of  various radio interests (e.g., commercial, broadcast, private, and public  safety users) and solicits comments through a public notice in the Federal  Register. NTIA and federal government users also participate in FCC’s  preparatory process.
To obtain the views of federal spectrum users, IRAC meets to provide NTIA  with input on WRC agenda items. Although IRAC’s WRC preparatory  meetings are closed to the private sector due to national security concerns,  nonfederal government users may make presentations to IRAC to convey  their views on WRC agenda items. In addition, the Department of State  solicits input from its International Telecommunication Advisory  Committee (ITAC), made up of representatives of government, scientific,  and industrial organizations involved in the telecommunications sector.    Any differences of opinion between FCC and NTIA on agenda items must  ultimately be reconciled into a unified U.S. position. In cases where  differences persist, the ambassador who leads the U.S. delegation to the  conference acts as a mediator to achieve consensus on a unified U.S.  position.
The Department of State ultimately transmits the U.S. position on WRC  agenda items to the regional organization of which the United States is a  member—the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (CITEL),  which convenes prior to a WRC to build regional consensus on conference  agenda items. The department also transmits the U.S. position to ITU,  which sponsors the conference. Figure 4 depicts the relationship among  the domestic players and these two international organizations in preparing  the U.S. position for the WRCs.
section_title: Some Experts Have Raised Questions about Adequacy of Current Procedures
paragraphs: We obtained conflicting views on the effectiveness of the U.S. preparatory  process for WRCs. Department of State and FCC officials told us that the  work of FCC and NTIA with their respective constituencies and with each  other in preparation for a conference leads to U.S. positions on WRC  agenda items that are thoroughly scrutinized, well reasoned, and generally  supported among federal and nonfederal parties. In contrast, some industry  officials told us that the NTIA process does not allow the private sector  adequate involvement in the development of U.S. positions for the WRC.  Also, some federal and industry officials said that, because each agency  develops its positions through separate processes, it takes too long to meld  the two toward the end of the preparatory period. For example, in the past,  the U.S. position on some items has remained unresolved until the eve of  the conference, leaving the United States with little time to build  preconference support for them. The former U.S. Ambassador to the 2000  WRC recommended merging the separate FCC and NTIA preparatory  groups to get an earlier start at working with industry and government  users to reach a consensus on U.S. positions regarding WRC agenda  items. However, NTIA said that the separate processes are needed  because much of the government side of spectrum policy and use is  classified and because NTIA and FCC are responsible for separate groups  of constituents. In June 2002, FCC, NTIA, and Department of State officials  stated they believed coordination in developing U.S. positions was  improving and that most of the 2003 WRC agenda items were close to  resolution.
There has been long-standing concern about the length of tenure of the  individual who is designated head of the U.S. delegation. The President— under his authority to confer the personal rank of ambassador on an  individual in connection with a special mission of a temporary nature—has  selected an ambassador to head the U.S. delegation to each WRC for a time  period not exceeding 6 months. This authority allows the conferral of the  personal rank of ambassador to be made without confirmation by the  Senate, subject to appropriate notification. The former U.S. Ambassador to  the 2000 WRC said that ambassador status is generally believed to confer a  high level of support from the administration, helps to achieve consensus  in finalizing U.S. positions, and enhances our negotiating posture with  other countries. However, the former U.S. Ambassador also said that the  brief tenure of the appointment leaves little time for an ambassador to get  up to speed on the issues, solidify U.S. positions, form a delegation, and  undertake preconference meetings with heads of other delegations to  promote U.S. positions. In addition, the Ambassador said there is concern  about the lack of continuity in leadership from one conference to the next,  in contrast to other nations that are led by high-level government officials  who serve longer terms and may represent their nations at multiple  conferences. FCC and NTIA officials stated that longer-term leaders of  national delegations are perceived by other participants as being more able  to develop relationships with their counterparts from other nations, and  that this helps them to negotiate and build regional and international  support for their positions. Similar observations were made by the Office of  Technology Assessment as far back as 1991, but no consensus has  emerged to resolve this issue.
Department of State officials said previous administrations have identified  the person who was to become the ambassador early so that they could  involve that person in conference planning prior to the start of the 6-month  term. For example, the 2000 WRC Ambassador knew she would be chosen  for the position and was given a temporary telecommunications policy  position in the White House 4 months prior to her official selection. This  position provided additional time for her to learn the issues and observe  WRC preparatory meetings, but she could not lead the meetings until her  formal selection about 5 months before the conference. Department  officials said that the current administration is also planning to identify the  2003 WRC Ambassador several months before the official selection. Other  suggestions for dealing with this issue that have been raised include  establishing a telecommunications policy office in the White House, whose  head would also be responsible for leading the delegation; extending the  length of an ambassador’s appointment through a Senate confirmation  process; and creating an upper-level career position within the Department  of State to provide continuity from one conference to the next and organize  WRC preparations.
section_title: Federal Officials Said that FCC Has Been Slow to Implement All WRC Agreements Domestically
paragraphs: Officials at the Department of State said that, after a WRC concludes,  countries need to implement the agreements reached at the conference— known as the Final Acts. The officials said that NTIA, FCC, and the  Department of State share responsibility for implementing the Final Acts in  the United States. NTIA and FCC develop an implementation manual that  includes all of the necessary changes in U.S. allocations, regulations, and  rules. FCC must then implement the changes through its rule-making  process. Meanwhile, the Department of State prepares a Memorandum of  Law to transmit to the Senate along with the Final Acts of the WRC for  ratification.
Officials from NTIA, FCC, and Department of State said that the United  States has faced timeliness challenges in implementing the Final Acts over  the last 10 years. In July 2002, NTIA officials stated that federal agencies  are concerned that WRC allocation decisions of interest to the private  sector are often dealt with quickly, while those primarily of interest to the  federal government go without action. For example, at the 1997 WRC, the  United States sought and gained a primary allocation of spectrum from  5250 MHz to 5350 MHz for an earth exploration satellite service. NTIA  officials stated that FCC has still not formally considered their request for a  national primary allocation for this service.   In addition, one agency said  that it had not gained access to two channels designated for its use by the  1997 WRC due to the slowness of the FCC rule-making process. Officials  from another agency said that FCC’s table of allocations is out of date  because it does not reflect some of the government-specific allocation  changes made at WRCs over the last 10 years. The officials said that this  has led others to seek allocations on some of these bands.
FCC officials told us that some changes to the U.S. allocation table  resulting from the WRCs had not been made because FCC had a shortage of  engineering staff required to make the changes. For this reason, they said  that FCC had to prioritize WRC allocation decisions and defer those  changes that they believed had the least impact on spectrum use.   These  officials added, however, that additional staff recently hired by FCC has  allowed FCC to complete the work needed to update the allocation table,  and FCC plans to initiate the necessary rulemaking actions in the near  future. In addition, the FCC officials stated that they are unaware of any  impact the delays have had on planned federal systems.
section_title: Federal Officials Said Activities to Encourage Efficient Federal Spectrum Use Are Hindered by Staffing and Resource Problems
paragraphs: NTIA is required to promote the efficient and cost-effective use of the  federal spectrum that it manages—over 270,000 frequency assignments as  of June 24, 2002—“to the maximum extent feasible.” Accordingly, as  accountability measures, NTIA has directed federal agencies to use only as  much spectrum as they need and has established several processes and  activities to encourage efficient spectrum use. However, NTIA does not  have assurances that these processes and activities are effective. NTIA and  federal agency officials said that key challenges include a shortage of staff  with appropriate expertise to support spectrum management activities, as  well as staffing and resource problems in implementing spectrum-efficient  technologies.
subsections: section_title: NTIA Depends on Federal Agencies to Determine Their Spectrum Needs
paragraphs: NTIA authorizes federal agency use of the spectrum through its frequency  assignment process. Before submitting a frequency assignment application,  an agency must justify to NTIA that the frequency assignment will fulfill an  established mission need and that other means of communication, such as  commercial services, are not appropriate or available. Agencies generally  rely on mission staff to identify and justify the need for a frequency  assignment and to complete the engineering and technical specifications  for the application. Once an application is submitted, it goes through an  NTIA review and a 15-day IRAC peer review process. NTIA staff members  said they examine assignment applications to ensure that they comply with  technical rules, while IRAC members said they primarily look to see  whether the assignment could cause interference with other users. If no  one at NTIA or IRAC objects, the assignment is automatically approved and  added to the Government Master File. The requester can then begin  operating on the assigned frequency. Figure 5 illustrates the frequency  assignment process.
NTIA officials said they are not in a position to independently assess the  justification for each frequency request, not only because this would  require a detailed understanding of an agency’s operational needs, but also  because of the high volume of assignment action requests that require  attention. On average, NTIA processes between 7,000 and 10,000  assignment action requests—applications, modifications, or deletions— from agencies each month.
To help agencies prepare frequency assignment applications, as well as to  help NTIA staff review them, NTIA has implemented a computer-based  tool, called Spectrum XXI, to automate the application process. Spectrum  XXI is designed to help agencies in a number of ways. For example,  Spectrum XXI allows for status tracking and editing of applications. In  addition, Spectrum XXI helps in assigning users to the most heavily used  channels first, rather than less heavily used ones, in order to minimize the  amount of spectrum space used. NTIA officials stated that they are  continuing to modify Spectrum XXI to improve the efficiency of the  selection of frequencies by new users. One spectrum manager we  interviewed stated that Spectrum XXI has greatly reduced the amount of  time and work involved in applying for a frequency assignment. However,  four of the seven agencies we reviewed were not using this tool for various  reasons. For example, spectrum managers from two agencies said that  their own spectrum management programs better fit their needs.
section_title: Some Agencies Are Not Completing Mandatory Spectrum Reviews, While NTIA Monitoring Activities Have Decreased
paragraphs: NTIA’s Frequency Assignment Review Program generally requires all  federal users of spectrum to review their frequency assignments every 5  years. The purpose of the reviews is to determine if the frequency  assignments are still essential to meeting the agencies’ missions, justified  correctly, not redundant to other assignments, and up to date. Federal  spectrum users are expected to modify or delete frequency assignments as  needed based on the results of these reviews. NTIA said that it may delete  assignments that have not been reviewed in more than 10 years.
Using its database of federal agencies’ frequency assignments, NTIA is to  track assignments that are due for review and provide a listing to the  respective agencies. NTIA is notified that an agency has completed an  assignment review when the agency requests a modification to the  database that contains the frequency assignments. These modifications  may simply be requesting a change to the date on which the assignment  was last reviewed or may indicate technical and operational changes made  since the last review.   NTIA forwards modification requests to IRAC  members for their review. If no member objects to the modification, the  user can continue to operate on the frequency assignment for another 5  years.
NTIA has implemented additional requirements for reviews that are  significantly overdue—meaning the federal agency has not reviewed the  frequency assignment in over 10 years. Every 6 months, NTIA provides  IRAC with a list of these overdue assignments for a case-by-case review  and recommendation on whether to retain or delete the assignment.   NTIA  officials said this method of notification works very well in getting the  reviews done because federal users recognize that it is easier to review  existing assignments than it is to lose the frequency authorizations and  start the process over. NTIA does not maintain any information on the  number of assignments that have been deleted for noncompliance with the  review program.
According to NTIA officials, the Frequency Assignment Review Program  “weeds out” assignments that are no longer being used so that they can be  returned for use by others. We found, however, that the program relies  mainly on self-reported agency information that receives no independent  verification by NTIA. Comments by spectrum managers at the seven  agencies we reviewed raise concerns about how well these reviews are  being carried out. Officials from these agencies told us that they attempt to  use spectrum as efficiently as possible, but five of them acknowledged that  they are not completing the 5-year reviews in a timely or in-depth way. For  example, a spectrum manager for a major agency division said that over  1,000 of its frequency assignments have not been reviewed in 10 years or  more. According to agency officials, problems with performing timely  assignment reviews are occurring due to shortages in qualified staff to  complete the reviews and because completing the reviews is a lower  priority compared to other agency work. For example, a spectrum manager  at one agency noted that all field staff responsible for helping with the  5-year reviews had been eliminated, which impaired the timeliness and  quality of the reviews.
Another spectrum manager stated that his agency’s central spectrum  management staff had operated a comprehensive program of oversight, on- sight inspections, field staff training, and planning until 8 of their 10 full- time positions were eliminated. This official said that he could not ensure  all spectrum assignments are being used as authorized. The spectrum  manager at another agency said that he was sure that the agency was not  using all of its frequency assignments, but he added that conducting a  comprehensive review would be time consuming and of limited benefit.  The spectrum manager located at an agency’s field office stated that some  frequency assignments connected to a single system critical to mission  functions had been deleted by NTIA because the agency did not have the  staff or time to complete the assignment reviews. This manager stated the  agency continued to use these frequencies while staff struggled to find the  time to reapply for them.
Aside from the assignment review process, NTIA had established  additional programs for overseeing how federal agencies were using their  spectrum, but these programs have been scaled back or discontinued. One  component of NTIA’s Spectrum Measurement Program used van-mounted  monitoring equipment by NTIA staff to verify that federal agencies were  using assigned frequencies in different geographic locations in accordance  with applicable technical regulations. Although NTIA officials recently  stated that this program was an invaluable monitoring tool, the van- mounted verification has been discontinued due to a lack of agency  resources. Another effort that is no longer active is NTIA’s Spectrum  Management Survey Program, established in 1965, which included on-site  visits by NTIA staff to determine whether federal agencies’ transmitters  were being used as authorized, to educate field staff on NTIA requirements,  and to improve spectrum management. NTIA said that although this  program helped to correct frequency assignment information and provided  for an exchange of information, the program is not currently operating  because of increased workloads and a shortage of staff.
The issue of reported spectrum staffing shortages at federal agencies has  broader ramifications for the general management of spectrum that go  beyond the frequency review and monitoring programs. In January 2002,  NTIA officials told us that its Office of Spectrum Management was facing  serious staffing problems. Specifically, the office had 21 vacancies out of a  total of 122 positions. In addition, over 40 percent of the current staff will  be eligible for retirement by 2006. NTIA officials said that agencies such  as FCC and the Department of State have recently had a number of  openings for technical positions at higher salary levels then NTIA currently  offers. As a result, their Office of Spectrum Management has lost staff to  these agencies. In addition, two other agencies we reviewed have  conducted staffing needs assessments that indicate that their current levels  of staff are inadequate. First, an internal analysis conducted by the Coast  Guard Maritime Radio and Spectrum Management Division showed an  immediate need for six additional field staff members and at least one  additional headquarters staff to assist with spectrum management. Second,  a June 2002 study sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) reviewed  the resources and management structure of the 12 IRAC member federal  agencies that hold more than 1000 frequency assignments. Although the  study’s analysis focused on agencies with large numbers of assignments,  the complete study includes a description of all 20 IRAC agencies’  spectrum management organizational structures, reporting chains, and  resource allocations, among other spectrum management issues. It  concluded that federal and contract staffing for DOE’s spectrum  management was inadequate when compared to that of other agencies,  particularly with regard to planning, homeland security, and spectrum-use  initiatives.
Although the loss of qualified staff and the need to recruit new staff has  been a source of concern for the agencies, no concerted effort has been  made to define the federal government’s needs in this area or develop a  strategy for addressing it. NTIA officials mentioned that they had been  working with the Office of Personnel Management to consider establishing  a federal job series for spectrum management in order to help attract and  retain these specialists. However, they said the effort appears to have lost  momentum.
Addressing these perceived human capital issues may help increase  accountability. However, even if these problems were addressed, it is  unclear that this type of oversight management approach in itself would  ensure the efficient use of federal spectrum. NTIA and FCC officials have  said that incentives that encourage the efficient use of spectrum by federal  users could help further increase the efficiency of the federal government’s  use of spectrum.
section_title: Some Technical Research and Initiatives to Promote Efficient Spectrum Use Face Implementation Challenges
paragraphs: NTIA stated that it has conducted technical research and introduced a  number of additional initiatives to promote the efficient use of federal  spectrum, but some of these efforts face challenges related to  measurement, resources, equipment, and costs. For example, NTIA’s  Institute for Telecommunication Science (ITS), established in 1977,  operates the primary telecommunications research laboratory in the  United States involved in the development and application of radio wave  propagation measurements, studies, and prediction models. ITS provides  the tools, analysis, and data that enable studies of spectrum use, efficiency,  coverage, and interference analysis. ITS has participated in antenna studies  that may result in a substantial increase in the “carrying capacity” of a radio  system (or piece of spectrum) by providing multiple beams to  independently link to different users on the same channel. In addition, ITS  has been assisting the public safety community in increasing spectrum  efficiency by examining and implementing system improvements to  support increased voice and data traffic. Working with IRAC, NTIA also  strives to establish standards that are equal to or better than private sector  standards at aiding in the conservation of spectrum. For example, NTIA  officials have noted that federal radar standards are among the tightest  radar spectrum standards in the world and are currently under review for  further refinements.
NTIA officials said that, when applicable, NTIA uses the definition of  spectrum efficiency described by ITU, namely the ratio of communications  achieved to the spectrum space used, which has practical value for many  types of commercial communications systems. The specific technical  measurement may take different forms, depending on the system. For  example, the spectrum efficiency of a commercial wireless system might  be measured in terms of subscribers served per megahertz of spectrum  used per square kilometer of service area. NTIA officials cautioned,  however, that many or most of the systems used by the federal government,  including radars, navigation, military tactical, and scientific systems, do not  fall within the scope of this type of measure of spectrum efficiency and that  no effective measure for spectrum efficiency has been identified for these  latter types of systems.
Implementing more spectrum-efficient technologies at federal agencies can  be challenging. For example, around 1990, NTIA began exploring the use of  “narrowbanding” because of concerns over its ability to continue to meet  federal agencies’ land mobile communications needs. Narrowbanding is a  technique for reducing the amount of spectrum (bandwidth) needed to  transmit a radio signal, thereby freeing up spectrum to meet future growth.  In 1992, the Congress directed NTIA to adopt and implement a plan for  federal agencies with existing mobile radio systems to use more spectrum- efficient technologies. With the approval of IRAC, NTIA required all  federal agencies to upgrade their existing land-based mobile systems so as  to reduce the bandwidth needed per channel from 25 kHz to 12.5 kHz. NTIA  set deadlines for the narrowbanding requirement, which is to be completed  in two stages by 2008.
All federal agencies need to meet the narrowbanding requirement in order  to prevent harmful interference. NTIA officials stated that any agency not  meeting the narrowbanding requirements would be responsible for  eliminating the harmful interference. NTIA officials also stated that no  acceptable justifications for not adopting narrowbanding have been  proposed or developed. Spectrum managers from the seven agencies we  reviewed presented a mixed picture about their ability to meet this  deadline. While some believed that they were on track, others stated that  they were either having difficulty meeting the deadlines or would not meet  the deadlines at all. The Chief Information Officer in one agency compared  the requirement to an unfunded mandate; he said the agency had not been  provided with the financial resources needed to make system design  changes, buy new equipment, and maintain current equipment until the  transition was finalized. He stated that his office could not compete with  other agency priorities for funding. Officials at other agencies stated that  shortages in qualified staff were affecting their ability to meet the  narrowbanding deadlines. For example, they said additional staff are  needed to design systems using the smaller amount of bandwidth and to  find and request the needed frequencies. Finally, several officials stated  that the commercial sector would be unable to provide them all the  narrowbanding equipment and support needed to continue their operations  even if the money was available. On June 26, 2002, NTIA requested that  federal agencies provide the status of their compliance with the  narrowbanding requirements.
Another example of problems in implementing spectrum-efficient  technologies involves a technique known as trunking. Trunking systems  conserve spectrum by enabling users to share a common set of voice radio  channels rather than have their own dedicated channels that may not be  heavily used at all times. NTIA sponsored a pilot trunking program for  federal agencies in the early 1990s that included six cities. According to  NTIA, some agencies resisted the program because, although spectrum  could be conserved, the agencies found that it was more costly to  participate in trunking than it was to use their own channels. In addition,  some agencies said the trunking systems did not meet their mission  needs. In 1993, NTIA insisted that the contracted system be used unless a  waiver had been approved for an economic and/or technical exemption.
NTIA noted that the program has only been successful in Washington, D.C.,  where agency demand for frequency assignments, and therefore spectrum  congestion, is extremely high.
section_title: Unclear Whether Spectrum Management Fees Provide an Incentive for Efficient Spectrum Use
paragraphs: NTIA told us that the congressionally-mandated spectrum management  fees agencies pay help promote spectrum efficiency by providing federal  users with an incentive to return frequency assignments that they no longer  need. These fees are designed to recover part of the costs of NTIA’s  spectrum management function. The fees began in 1996 and amounted to  about $50 per frequency assignment in 2001. NTIA decided to base the fee  on the number of assignments authorized per agency instead of the amount  of spectrum used per agency because the number of assignments better  reflects the amount of work NTIA must do for each agency. Moreover,  NTIA stated that this fee structure provides a wider distribution of cost to  the agencies. For example, basing the fee on the amount of bandwidth used  would have resulted in the Air Force paying the majority of the fees  because of the large amount of spectrum used by the radar systems they  operate.
Although NTIA officials said that spectrum fees provide an incentive for  agencies to relinquish assignments, it is not clear how much this promotes  efficient use of spectrum. Officials from two agencies said that the financial  costs were not high enough to cause them to decrease the number of  frequency assignments they retained. Specifically, officials from one of the  agencies said that the amount of money paid in spectrum fees was a small  share of the money needed to operate a radio system. In addition, agencies  may be able to reduce assignments without returning spectrum. For  example, a spectrum manager for a federal agency said that the spectrum  fee has caused the agency to reduce redundant assignments, but that it has  not affected the efficiency of the agency’s spectrum use because the agency  did not return any spectrum to NTIA as a result of reducing its assignments.
Other countries are moving toward using payment mechanisms for  government spectrum users that are specifically designed to encourage  efficiency, rather than to recover the cost of managing the spectrum. Both  Canada and the United Kingdom are reviewing their administrative fee  structures at this time with the intent of encouraging spectrum efficiency.  Our work on this issue is ongoing and will be addressed in our report that  will be completed in early 2003.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The divided structure of U.S. spectrum management, coupled with the  increasing difficulty of accommodating new services and users, has  heightened the importance of coordinated national spectrum planning.  Although FCC and NTIA have recently taken steps to better coordinate  spectrum management, it is unclear whether these steps will result in a  national spectrum strategy. The absence of such a strategy may make it  more difficult for FCC and NTIA to avoid contentious, protracted  negotiations when providing for future spectrum requirements.
Similarly, the United States’ ability to promote its strategic and economic  interests at WRCs has become increasingly important and difficult as  spectrum has grown more congested and countries vie for advantage in the  multibillion dollar global telecommunications marketplace. The ongoing  debate about the effectiveness of the United States’ preparatory process for  WRCs has raised concerns that the U.S. delegation may not be in the best  position to promote U.S. positions as effectively as possible. While the  Department of State, FCC, and NTIA maintain that they have improved  preparations for the 2003 WRC through better coordination, key issues  remain unresolved, including the use of separate processes by FCC and  NTIA to develop U.S. positions and the short tenure of the head of the  delegation.
Because of the large number of federal frequency assignments, NTIA’s  processes for promoting the efficient use of federal spectrum are heavily  dependent on the federal agencies that use the spectrum.   However, some  federal agencies are not conducting comprehensive reviews of their  frequency assignments. Compounding this problem is NTIA’s  discontinuation of two spectrum-monitoring programs that helped promote  accountability by verifying that federal agencies were using their spectrum  assignments as specified. Federal agencies and NTIA primarily attributed  the lack of comprehensive reviews and the discontinuation of NTIA  monitoring programs to staffing and resource issues. The result of these  limitations is that the federal government does not have the information  necessary to assure that federal agencies are using only as much spectrum  as needed to fulfill their mission requirements. Moreover, even if additional  resources became available to enable agencies to conduct reviews to  determine how effectively they are using spectrum available to them, it is  unclear if this alone could ensure the efficient use of hundreds of  thousands of federal spectrum assignments. Other countries are moving  toward using incentives such as payment mechanisms for government  spectrum users to encourage conservation of spectrum. In follow-on work,  we will be looking at the types of incentives that are being employed to  encourage both government and nongovernment users to conserve  spectrum.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: In order to improve U.S. spectrum management, we are making the  following recommendations:  The Secretary of Commerce and the Chairman of FCC should establish  and carry out formal, joint planning activities to develop a clearly  defined national spectrum strategy to guide domestic and international  spectrum management decision making. The results of these planning  activities should be reported to the appropriate congressional  committees.
Following the 2003 WRC, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of  Commerce, and the Chairman of the Federal Communications  Commission should jointly review the adequacy of the process used to  develop and promote the U.S. position, including the separate processes  used by FCC and NTIA, and the short tenure of the head of delegation,  and prepare a report containing any needed recommendations for  making improvements. The report should be provided to the appropriate  congressional committees.
To strengthen the management and accountability of the federal  government’s use of spectrum, the Secretary of Commerce should direct  NTIA, assisted by IRAC and the Office of Personnel Management, to  analyze the human capital needs of federal agencies for spectrum  management and develop a strategy for addressing any identified  shortcomings. This analysis should be linked to near-term and long-term  human capital issues that may be identified as part of the development  of a national spectrum strategy.
The Secretary of Commerce should develop a strategy for enhancing its  oversight of federal agencies’ use of spectrum, such as revitalizing its  former monitoring programs, and define the Department of Commerce’s  human capital needs for carrying out this strategy.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to FCC, the Department of Commerce,  and the Department of State for a review and comment. They were in  general agreement with our recommendations. FCC said that both it and  the Department of Commerce have initiated processes to review and  improve spectrum management. FCC also said that it would be beneficial  for the Department of State, Department of Commerce, and FCC to further  review the U.S. preparatory process following the 2003 WRC. FCC also  offered some technical comments that we incorporated into the report  where appropriate. FCC’s written comments appear in appendix III.
The Department of Commerce said it is time for the United States to take a  broad look at the organizational structures and processes the United States  has built both nationally and internationally to manage and plan spectrum  use. The Department of Commerce also said that NTIA and FCC participate  together in spectrum planning activities, as evidenced by NTIA’s Spectrum  Summit in April 2002 and FCC’s spectrum policy workshops, but that  spectrum planning and interagency coordination could be improved. With  regard to WRCs, the Department of Commerce agreed that the Department  of State, FCC, and NTIA should jointly review the adequacy of the  preparation process following the 2003 WRC. The Department of  Commerce also said that it would review its human capital needs and  current resources in spectrum management and develop a strategy for  addressing any shortcomings. The Department will also encourage other  agencies that are members of IRAC to conduct a similar analysis. The  Department also offered some technical comments that we incorporated  into the report where appropriate. The Department of Commerce’s written  comments appear in appendix IV.
The Department of State said that it would consult with the Department of  Commerce and FCC after the conclusion of the 2003 WRC, and it offered a  technical comment that we incorporated into the report. The Department  of State’s written comments appear in appendix V.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees. We are also sending this report to the Secretary of State, the  Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and the Secretary  of Commerce. We also will make copies available to others upon request. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me on (202) 512-2834 or at guerrerop@gao.gov. Individuals making  key contributions to this report include Dennis Amari, Karin Bolwahnn,  Keith Cunningham, John Finedore, Rahul Gupta, Peter Ruedel, Terri  Russell, Tanya Tarr, Dr. Hai Tran, Mindi Weisenbloom, and Alwynne Wilbur.
section_title: Major Parts of the Radiofrequency Spectrum and Their Uses
paragraphs: Different parts of the radiofrequency spectrum have different technical  characteristics that make them better-suited for some types of  communications than others. For example, the most technically suitable  spectrum for mobile communications is below 3 gigahertz because this part  of the spectrum provides the best match for spectrum propagation  characteristics (such as distance, capacity, and reliability) required for  mobile communications. The major parts and uses of the spectrum are as  follows:  The lower frequency waves (including very low frequency , low  frequency , and medium frequency ) are located from 3  kilohertz (kHz) to 3 megahertz (MHz). They tend to travel along the  ground and penetrate water and solid objects. Uses include submarine  communication and AM radio.
High frequency (HF) waves are located from 3 MHz to 30 MHz. They  travel along the ground and into the sky where they are reflected back to  earth by the ionosphere. By using this reflection to extend range,  devices in the HF bands can transmit over long distances on relatively  low power. Amateur Radio (Ham), Citizens Band Radio Service (CB),  military tactical radio, and maritime communications are found in this  frequency range.
Very high frequency (VHF) waves are located from 30 MHz to 300 MHz.
They follow the ground less and will pass through the ionosphere, which  makes satellite communication possible. To operate in the VHF range,  transmitters require less power but larger antennas relative to higher  frequencies. Broadcast television, FM radio, federal government, public  safety, and private mobile radio services are some of the applications  that operate in this frequency range.
Ultrahigh frequency (UHF) waves are located from 300 MHz to 3  gigahertz (GHz). The combination of smaller antenna and lower power  requirements for device operation make this frequency range ideal for  many wireless telecommunication applications. Broadcast television,  first and second-generation mobile telephones, satellites (such as the  global positioning system  and commercial satellites), federal and  nonfederal radio systems, and numerous military applications—like the  Ballistic Missile Early Warning System—operate in UHF bands.
Superhigh frequency (SHF) waves are located from 3 GHz to 30 GHz,  and extremely high frequency (EHF) waves are located from 30 GHz to  300 GHz. These waves require more power to operate and are affected  by rain and clouds, especially at the higher frequencies.   Numerous  military and commercial satellites, aeronautical radio altimeters, radars  (such as Terminal Doppler Weather Radar), and fixed microwave links  occupy these frequency bands.   Some of the highest bands are allocated  for certain uses but remain unused due to cost and technical constraints  of using those frequencies.
section_title: Timeline of Spectrum Management
paragraphs: Numerous legislative, regulatory, legal, and policy decisions and actions  have shaped the United States’ management and use of the radiofrequency  spectrum. This appendix provides supplemental information and major  milestones in the development of the divided structure for domestic  spectrum management and on international conferences on global  spectrum issues. Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9 throughout this appendix illustrate  the interplay of wireless technological advances with key international and  domestic policy events.
Radio Signal Transmission—Guglielmo Marconi became the first person  to succeed in sending a message in telegraphic code over a distance of 1 1/4  miles using electricity without wires.
subsections: section_title: Early 1900s
paragraphs: Ships at Sea—Radio’s most important initial use was at sea where it  reduced the isolation of ships during emergencies. By 1904, according to a  report of the President’s Board on Wireless Telegraphy, there were 24 radio- equipped naval ships and 10 more planned; 20 naval coastal stations had  been established, and equipment for 10 more had been ordered; 6 stations  were operated by the U.S. Army; 2 stations were operated by the Weather  Bureau; 5 private companies were operating coastal stations (one serving  the Pacific coast); and a total of 200 additional stations on shore or at sea  had been planned.
First International Conference—The First International Radio  Telegraphic Conference was held in Berlin, Germany, with the governments  of Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Russia, Spain,  and the United States represented. The conference drafted a protocol to  address the exchange of messages from coastal stations with ships  regardless of the system of radiotelegraphy used. The protocol served as  the basis for the first agreement on the use of radiotelegraphy, which  occurred in 1906.
Roosevelt’s Interdepartmental Board—At the recommendation of the  Secretary of Navy, President Theodore Roosevelt appointed an  Interdepartmental Board of Wireless Telegraphy to consider “the entire  position of wireless telegraphy in the service of the National Government.”  Among matters addressed by the Board were the control of interference  between radiotelegraph stations in general and nonduplication of coastal  stations by government departments. The Board recommended that all  government coastal radio facilities be placed under control of the Navy,  and that all private stations be licensed by the Department of Commerce  and Labor.
First International Convention—A second International  Radiotelegraphy Conference was convened in Berlin, Germany, with 28  countries represented. The conference adopted a convention that followed  closely the protocol of the first conference. The main provisions of the  convention were: requiring that messages by all coastal stations and ships  be accepted regardless of the system used; establishing priority for distress  calls from ships; and creating a bureau to gather and distribute information  about the radiotelegraphy systems and coastal station installations in each  country. The convention also addressed tariffs for international radio  communications and regulations prescribing specific wavelengths from  which commercial entities were excluded. Technical and operational  standards for radio communications in the form of “Service Regulations”  were included in an appendix. A precursor to the International Table of  Allocations, the regulations distinguished two service categories (1)  “general public service” with an exclusive allocation of the 187-500 kHz  band; and (2) “long-range or other services” which could be assigned to  other frequencies.
Wireless Ship Act—The first instance of U.S. government regulation of  radio technology and services, this act required any U.S. or foreign  oceangoing ship with 50 or more passengers to be equipped with an  operator of and an apparatus for radio communications equipment. The  Department of Commerce and Labor was designated to provide for its  execution.
Wireless Ship Act Amended—Three months after the sinking of the  Titanic, Congress quickly passed amendments to the Wireless Ship Act of  1910. Among the amendments to the law were requirements that ships  carry an auxiliary power supply capable of enabling radio apparatus to be  operated continuously for at least 4 hours at a minimum range of 100 miles,  day or night; that ships carry two or more persons skilled in the use of radio  apparatus; and that ships traversing the Great Lakes comply with  provisions of the Act.
Radio Act of 1912—The Radio Act of 1912 was the first domestic statute  that addressed spectrum allocation. It was enacted, in part, to comply with  obligations under the international convention of 1906. The Act required  every operator of radio to obtain a license from the Secretary of Commerce  and Labor. (When the Department of Labor was separately established in  1913, these powers were retained by the Department of Commerce.) Any  person that operated any apparatus for radio communication without a  license was guilty of a misdemeanor, and the offending apparatus was  subject to forfeiture. Licenses were subject to detailed regulations  contained in the Act itself, with certain additional and supplementary  regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Commerce. The Act also  provided for the protection of federal government radio operations and  gave the President special authority over radio communications in  emergencies.
Third International Conference—Although the United States was a  signatory to the 1906 international convention, the U.S. Senate did not  ratify the treaty until after its adhering members withdrew an invitation to  the United States to attend the third international conference scheduled for  June 1912 in London, England. Soon thereafter, and only 2 months before  the start of the conference, the Senate ratified the 1906 convention  resulting in a renewed invitation to the United States to attend the London  conference.
In light of the sinking of the Titanic earlier that year, the use of  radiotelegraphy for safety of ships at sea dominated this conference. The  resulting convention was ratified in the United States by the Senate in 1913.
Legislation on Radio Operations Considered by Congress—In the late  1910s, legislation was considered by Congress to maintain government  control of all radio stations and prohibit the construction of any new  commercial stations. An alternative to government control was proposed— the establishment of a privately-controlled company operating as a  government-authorized monopoly. These proposals were advocated in  response to Great Britain’s dominance in wireline communications and the  pursuit of dominance by British nationals in radio communications. While  neither proposal was adopted in the United States, in 1920 Congress did act  on a recommendation of the Navy to authorize the use of naval stations for  a temporary 2-year period for the transmission and reception of private  commercial messages at locations that lacked adequate commercial  facilities. This authority was extended again in 1922 and 1925 and,  ultimately, made permanent by an act of Congress in 1927.
Devising a New International Union—Representatives of the Allied  nations of World War I met in Washington, D.C., to create a new  international union and simplify communications by bringing all methods  of electrical transmission, as far as practicable, under the same rules. A  convention and regulations were drafted setting forth basic international  institutional features for telecommunications. Although a consensus was  not reached, provisions of these documents were used at the next  international radiotelegraph conference held in 1927 and, ultimately, served  as the basic structure of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU),  which was established in 1932.
Introduction of Commercial Radio—Westinghouse, one of the leading  radio manufacturers, devised a means of selling more radios by offering  radio programming. Dr. Frank Conrad, who had played records over the  airwaves for his friends, was asked by Westinghouse to establish a station  in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that would regularly transmit programming.  The Department of Commerce licensed the station to operate on 833.3 kHz  and awarded it the call letters KDKA. On the night of November 2, 1920,  KDKA made what is claimed to be the nation’s first commercial radio  broadcast. The commercial radio business grew quickly; within 4 years,  there were nearly 600 commercial radio stations licensed in the United  States.
Public Safety Use of Land Mobile Radio—Among the first known  experimental uses of land mobile radio was by the Police Department of  Detroit, Michigan, for emergency dispatch in patrol cars. The Detroit Police  Department implemented a police dispatch system using a frequency band  near 2 MHz. This service proved to be so successful that the channels  allocated in the band were soon used to their full capacity. Police and  emergency services’ communications needs are said to have been critical  to the development of mobile radio telephone services.
First National Annual Radio Conference—Because radio interference  had become so chaotic, with the rise of radio broadcasting and the  limitations of the Radio Act of 1912, Secretary of Commerce Herbert  Hoover convened a conference of manufacturers, broadcasters, amateur  radio representatives, and civilian and military government radio  communications personnel to study the problem and make  recommendations to alleviate the overcrowding of the radio waves. Three  subsequent conferences were held in each of the following years.
Legislation was introduced to implement various recommendations of the  national radio conferences throughout this period. There was disagreement  as to whether the Secretary of Commerce or a new commission should be  given regulatory authority over spectrum use. However, it was not until  1927 that a compromise was reached on a framework for the management  of radiofrequency spectrum by the federal government.
Formation of IRAC—To enable the most effective use of spectrum by  government, the Interdepartment Advisory Committee on Governmental  Radio Broadcasting (later renamed the Interdepartment Radio Advisory  Committee, or IRAC) was formed. The 1922 national radio conference  awakened several of the federal government departments to the need for  cooperative action in solving problems arising from the federal  government’s interest in radio use. Secretary Hoover invited interested  government departments to designate representatives for a special  government radio committee. When they met, the committee  recommended that a permanent interdepartment committee be formed.  The committee agreed that its scope should extend beyond broadcasting  and should be advisory to the Secretary of Commerce in all matters of  government radio regulation.
Legal Decisions on the Secretary’s Powers under the 1912 Act— Several key court decisions and opinions of the Attorney General regarding  the power of the Secretary of Commerce were made following enactment  of the Radio Act of 1912. For example:  In 1912, the Attorney General stated in an opinion to the Secretary of  Commerce and Labor that the Secretary did not have discretion in the  matter of granting or refusing radio licenses and was not given general  regulative powers under the Radio Act of 1912.
In Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., Inc., 286 F. 1003 (D.C. Cir., 1923), the  Secretary of Commerce was denied authority to use his discretion to  refuse a radio license on the grounds that he “had been unable to  ascertain a wave length for use by Plaintiff, which would not interfere  with government and private stations.” The court pointed out that the  Radio Act of 1912 necessarily contemplated interference between  stations, that the Secretary had no discretion to refuse the license, and  that the issuance of licenses was a ministerial act.
The court held in U.S. v. Zenith Radio Corporation, 12 F.2d 614  (N.D.Ill., 1926), that the Secretary of Commerce had no power to make  regulations additional to those found in the Radio Act and that it was, at  best, ambiguous on whether the Secretary could impose a limitation on  the hours of operation of a radio licensee.
In Carmichael v. Anderson, 14 F.2d 166 (W.D.Mo. 1926), the court held  that while the Secretary of Commerce had the right to grant licenses  with restrictions agreed upon by multiple applicants—such as time  sharing by two radio operators using the same frequency—the Secretary  may have no right to impose restrictions other than those contained in  the Radio Act of 1912.
In the case Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station, Inc., (Cir.
Ct., Cook County, Ill. 1926) reprinted in 68 Cong. Rec. 216–219 (1926),  the court held that the novelty of broadcasting did not prevent an  established station from asserting a right to be free from interference  and the destruction of its operations by a newcomer. In the court’s view,  the “priority of time”—obtaining a license first—created a superior  right.
In 1926, the Acting Attorney General issued an opinion stating that a  broadcasting station could not operate under the Act without a license,  but the Secretary had no discretion to refuse a license upon a proper  application. Moreover, the Secretary had no power to designate the  frequency within the broadcast band at which a broadcasting station  might operate, nor to prescribe the hours of operation, to limit the  power of stations, or to issue licenses of limited duration.
Radio Act of 1927—The Radio Act of 1912 proved to be totally inadequate  in coping with the spectrum of the rapidly growing radio broadcasting  industry. Further, Congress had become concerned with other issues  related to spectrum use, such as vested rights in the spectrum, the basis or  criteria for granting licenses, and the potential monopoly in radio  equipment manufacturing. Five years in the making, the Radio Act of 1927  was enacted with two key provisions: the creation of a new government  commission to manage nongovernment spectrum use, and the adoption of  the “public interest, convenience, and necessity” standard for licensing.
Concerns about placing all regulatory authority for radio licensing in one  individual, such as the Secretary of Commerce, led to the adoption of a  compromise—the creation of the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), a five- member independent regulatory agency with licensing authority for  nongovernment stations for a period of one year. After 1 year, as originally  enacted, licensing authority would revert back to the Secretary of  Commerce and the FRC would serve as an appellate body. Among the  responsibilities assigned to the FRC were the following: issuing station  licenses, classifying radio stations, assigning frequencies, describing types  of service, preventing interference, establishing power and location of  transmitters, and establishing coverage areas. The Act reserved to the  President authority over all government radio stations. The “public interest,  convenience, and necessity” standard was not defined in the Act.
First International Table of Frequencies—Representatives from  nations around the world met in Washington, D.C. for the third  international radiotelegraphy conference, agreeing to many of the  proposals discussed at the 1920 Washington meeting. The conference  agreed to a request made at the 1925 Paris Telegraph Conference to  consider the unification of the radiotelegraph and telegraph conventions  into a single international instrument. In addition, the conference resulted  in agreement on the first International Table of Frequency Allocations. The  following services were given exclusive or shared use of various frequency  bands between 10 kHz and 40 MHz: (1) fixed, (2) mobile, (3) maritime  mobile, (4) broadcasting radio beacon, (5) air mobile, and (6) amateur. The  conference also created the International Radio Consultative Committee  for purposes of studying technical and related radio communications  questions.
International Telecommunication Union Formed—Unification of the  international radiotelegraph and telegraph conventions was accomplished  in Madrid, Spain, thus forming a single international treaty for both wireline  and wireless communications, and a single international treaty  organization known as the ITU.
The use of radio for both aeronautical mobile communications and  broadcasting had increased substantially in the late 1920s, and allocations  had to be identified for them in the frequency allocation table. Because of  the nature of propagation characteristics of the contested frequencies, low  and medium bands were divided into a European region and “other  regions.”
Enactment of the Communications Act of 1934—At the request of  President Franklin Roosevelt, an interdepartmental committee was  established in 1933 by the Secretary of Commerce to study the problem of  how to regulate communications. Reporting to the President the following  year, the Committee recommended that all regulation over  communications—both radio and common carrier—be vested in a single  agency. With the committee report, President Roosevelt sent a letter to  Congress recommending the creation of the Federal Communications  Commission (FCC), transferring authorities of the Federal Radio  Commission and (as pertaining to communications) the Interstate  Commerce Commission, affecting services that “rely on wires, cables, or  radio as a medium of transmission.” Legislation embodying the  recommendation was passed by Congress and signed into law by President  Roosevelt on June 19, 1934.
Title III of the Act, governing the provision of radio services, is intended to  “maintain control…over all the channels of radio transmission,” and  provide for the use—but not ownership—of channels of the radio- frequency spectrum through licenses of limited duration. Among the key  authorities granted to FCC in Title III of the Act are to: make reasonable  regulations governing the interference potential of radio-frequency  emitting devices; classify radio stations; prescribe the nature of services in  each class of licensed stations; assign frequency bands to various classes of  stations and assign frequencies for each individual station; make  regulations to prevent interference between stations; study new uses of  radio and provide for experimental use of frequencies; and suspend  licenses for violations of the Act. Title III also includes provisions  addressing broadcasting.
Like the Radio Act of 1927, the Communications Act of 1934 required the  commission to use the “public interest, convenience, and necessity”  standard for granting licenses. In order to satisfy the standard, FCC was  authorized to grant applications and make “such distribution of licenses,  frequencies, hours of operation, and of power among the several States and  communities as to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of  radio service to each of the same.”
Defense Communications Board Formed—President Roosevelt issued  an executive order creating the Defense Communications Board (renamed  the Board of War Communications) to coordinate the relationship of all  branches of communication to the national defense. The Board was  composed of: the Chairman of FCC, who served as Chairman; the Chief  Signal Officer of the U.S. Army; the Director of Naval Communications; the  Assistant Secretary of State, Division of International Communications;  and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Coast Guard. During a war  involving the United States, IRAC was to serve as a committee of the board  in an advisory capacity.
IRAC-FCC Agree to Interference Notice—IRAC and FCC agreed to  cooperate in giving each other notice of all proposed actions that would  tend to cause interference to radio stations managed by the other.
Three Regions Formed for International Allocations—At the first  post-World War II international radio conference held in Atlantic City, New  Jersey, extensive changes were made to the International Table of  Frequency Allocations reflecting the advances in radio technology, such as  radar and similar radio-determination systems, made during World War II.  In addition, new services contending for allocations produced further  fragmentation of the table and a new arrangement for spectrum  allocations. The new arrangement subdivided the world into three  regions—Europe, U.S.S.R., and Africa in region 1; North and South America  comprising region 2; and Asia, Australia, and Oceania in region 3.
Communications Policy Board Established—By executive order issued  by President Truman, the President’s Communications Policy Board was  established to study and make recommendations on the policies and  practices that should be followed by the federal government in the field of  telecommunications to meet the broad requirements of the public interest.  The decision to appoint the Board stemmed in part from the inability of  existing organizations to resolve competing requirements of FCC on behalf  of nongovernment users and government agencies for the use of high  frequencies.
In a report to the President, the Board recommended that either a single  adviser, or a three-person board, carry out the following duties:  plan and execute the authority of the President to assign frequencies to   exercise control over the nation’s telecommunications facilities during a  national emergency or war;  stimulate and correlate the formulation of plans and policies to ensure  maximum contribution of telecommunications to the national interest  and maximum effectiveness of U.S. participation in international  negotiations;  stimulate research on problems in telecommunications;  establish and monitor a system of initial justification and continued use  of frequencies by government agencies; and  supervise, in cooperation with FCC, the division of spectrum space  between federal government and nonfederal government users.
President Truman Appoints Telecommunications Adviser— Approving a recommendation of the President’s Communications Policy  Board, President Truman issued an executive order establishing the  Telecommunications Adviser within the Executive Office of the President  to carry out the duties prescribed by the Board.
IRAC Reorganizes and FCC’s Role Becomes Liaison—IRAC was  reconstituted with a permanent Chairman designated by the  Telecommunications Adviser to the President and was charged with the  additional responsibilities of formulating and recommending policies,  plans, and actions in connection with the management and usage of radio  frequencies by the U.S. government.  FCC withdrew as a regular member of  IRAC and in lieu thereof designated a liaison representative to work jointly  with IRAC in the solution of mutual problems.
Position of Adviser to the President Abolished—President  Eisenhower accepted the resignation of the Telecommunications Adviser  to the President and issued an executive order abolishing the position and  transferring the functions to the Director of the Office of Defense  Mobilization.
IRAC Establishes Assignment Principles—IRAC established principles  for the assignment and use of radio frequencies by government agencies,  including assurances that requests are justified and assignments are used  by the agencies and not stored for future use.
International Allocation for Satellite Service Adopted—At the World  Administrative Radio Conference, held in Geneva, Switzerland, the  assembled nations revised the International Table of Frequency Allocations  to accommodate use of higher radio frequencies. A brand new radio service  was defined that would eventually bring about a new era of international  conferences and issues—the satellite radiocommunication service. The  next international radiocommunication conference would not be held for  another 20 years.
Communications Act Amendments of 1960—Congress added new  sections to the Communications Act of 1934 addressing comparative  hearings held by FCC to determine licensing. The new sections were added  following the decision in U.S. v. Storer Broadcasting, 351 U.S. 192 (1955).  In Storer, the Court held that a hearing is not required under Sec. 309 of the  Act in cases where undisputed facts show that the granting of an  application would contravene the Commission’s perception of the “public  interest.” In the opinion of the court, Congress did not likely intend FCC to  “waste time on applications that do not state a valid basis for a hearing.”  The Act was revised to provide FCC with broad discretion to avoid  hearings on petitions to deny a license application unless a substantial and  material question of fact is presented.
Communications Satellite Act of 1962—This act provided for U.S.  participation in a global commercial communications satellite system by  the Communications Satellite Corporation under government regulation.  The principal task of the corporation was to plan, establish, and operate the  system in cooperation with other nations to furnish, for hire, satellite relay  of international and interstate telephone and telegraph services, including  television. The U.S. portion of the system was subject to the same  regulatory controls by FCC as were other communications common  carriers.
Director of Telecommunications Management Position  Established—President Kennedy issued an executive order establishing  the position of Director of Telecommunications Management. The  authority of the President to assign, amend, modify or revoke frequency  assignments to government agencies was delegated to the Director.
IRAC Approves Spectrum Management Manual—IRAC approved, as a  working document, a draft “Manual of Regulations and Procedures for  Frequency Management.” After approval by the Director of  Telecommunications Management, copies were distributed to all  government users of radio, and it became the guideline for daily use.
Report on Telecommunications Science and the Federal  Government Released—The report, Electromagnetic Spectrum  Utilization—The Silent Crisis, prepared by the Telecommunication  Science Panel of the Commerce Technical Advisory Board, Department of  Commerce, suggested the appearance of a strong basis for the separate  management of government and nongovernment radio spectrum use. The  separation is rooted mainly in the direct responsibility of the President for  national defense, the report states, and the missions of the federal  agencies; whereas the administration of nongovernment  telecommunications in the national interest requires processes that provide  adequate public representation of economic and political forces.
Periodic Review of Government Assignments—IRAC approved a  policy for the periodic review of government frequency assignments on a 5- year cycle. The procedure would serve to eliminate unused assignments,  update remaining assignments, and make the master file of government  assignments much more useful in engineering new assignments.
President’s Task Force on Communications Policy Issues Report— Neither the President nor any executive branch agency had access to “a  source of coordinated and comprehensive policy advice,” concluded the  President’s Task Force on Communications Policy in its report to President  Johnson. As a result, the executive branch had difficulty presenting a  coherent and consistent position on problems. To address these problems,  the Task Force recommended the establishment of an executive agency to  pursue long-term strategy and coordination, to formulate policy, and to  serve other executive departments and agencies as a resource center for  communications expertise.
Office of Telecommunications Policy Created—Congress approved a  plan proposed by President Nixon to transfer various telecommunications  and functions of the President to a new Office of Telecommunications  Policy. The new office would be responsible for developing plans, policies,  and programs with respect to telecommunications that will promote the  public interest; support national security; sustain and contribute to the full  development of the economy and world trade; strengthen the position and  serve the best interests of the United States in negotiating with foreign  nations; and promote the effective and innovative use of  telecommunications technology, resources, and services. In addition, the  President delegated to the new office his authority over assignments to  federal radio stations and directed the Secretary of Commerce to support  the new office’s spectrum management responsibilities with analysis,  engineering, and administrative assistance.
NTIA Formed—President Carter issued an executive order to abolish the  Office of Telecommunications Policy and establish an Assistant Secretary  for Communications and Information, transferring the functions of the  Office of Telecommunications Policy to the Department of Commerce. A  departmental order was issued shortly thereafter forming the National  Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
First World Radio Conference in 20 Years—The first general World  Administrative Radio Conference (WARC) held in 20 years was convened  for 10 weeks in Geneva, Switzerland. The most significant results of  WARC 1979 included revisions to many technical and operational standards  for radio, particularly the International Table of Frequency Allocations, and  the scheduling of a series of specialized conferences for the next decade.  The table of allocations was expanded upward and modifications were  made in various frequency bands to reflect increased use of satellite  radiocommunications.
FCC Establishes Cellular Duopoly—FCC concluded that the public  interest would be best served with two competing cellular systems in each  geographic area. Each geographic market was divided in such a way as to  allow the local exchange service (typically, one for the Bell Operating  Companies) and a nonwireline applicant to provide service.
AT&T Divestiture Consent Decree—AT&T and the Department of  Justice entered into a consent decree that required divestiture of the local  Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) from AT&T. In addition, the decree  required that the BOCs provide equal access to long distance and  information service providers to their networks for interconnection, and it  prohibited the BOCs from providing long distance service, information  services, and telecommunications equipment manufacturing. The BOCs  retained their mobile services subsidiaries in 1984 after divestiture.
Congress Authorizes Department of State Communications Policy  Office—Congress passed the Department of State Authorization Act for  Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985, codifying into law and providing for the  presidential appointment of a Coordinator for International  Communications and Information Policy within the U.S. Department of  State. The position had been established by the Department of State 2 years earlier and had made the incumbent responsible to the  Undersecretary of State for Security Assistance, Science, and Technology.  The Coordinator acquired a rank equivalent to an Assistant Secretary of  State and the personal rank of Ambassador in 1983 and became head of a  new Bureau of International Communications and Information Policy in  1985. In 1994, the bureau was incorporated into the Bureau of Economic  and Business Affairs, and legislation was passed that no longer required  presidential appointment of the Coordinator position, reassigning it to the  Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs.
NTIA Created Office of International Affairs—Primary responsibility  for international telecommunications, which had been handled within  NTIA by the Office of Spectrum Management, was transferred to the newly  created Office of International Affairs.
Communications and Information Policy Bureau at Department of  State—The Coordinator for Communications and Information Policy,  Department of State, became the head of a new bureau—the Bureau of  International Communications and Information Policy.
FCC International Office Established—FCC created the Office of  International Communications to coordinate international activities and  policy development for spectrum and other telecommunications matters.  This action was taken, in part, to prepare for the World Administrative  Radio Conference in 1992 and to establish a focal point at FCC for  international matters.
NTIA Organization Act Passed—Fourteen years after NTIA was formed,  Congress enacted the Telecommunications Authorization Act of 1992,  codifying into law the existence and authority of NTIA as an executive  branch agency principally responsible for advising the President on  telecommunications and information policies.
Two-Year Intervals Established for WRCs—Delegates to the 1992 ITU  Plenipotentiary Conference, held in Geneva, Switzerland, adopted a  resolution to convene World Radiocommunications Conferences (WRCs)  every 2 years.
Competitive Biding for Spectrum Licenses Authorized by Law—Title  VI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 included several  provisions addressing spectrum management as follows:  The Act amended the National Telecommunications and Information  Administration Organization Act to direct NTIA to identify and  recommend the reallocation of a minimum of 200 MHz of spectrum used  by the federal government to nonfederal government users.
The Communications Act of 1934 was amended to authorize the use of  competitive bidding (auctions) by FCC for certain spectrum licenses.  FCC was also authorized to make available frequencies reallocated from  federal to nonfederal government use.
The Act amended the Communications Act of 1934 to specify that all  mobile radio service providers (public and private) be treated under a  comprehensive and consistent regulatory framework. The Act created  the new statutory category of commercial (CMRS) and private (PMRS)  mobile radio services. As provided earlier, the statute requires all CMRS  providers to be treated as common carriers, whereas PMRS providers  are exempt from common carrier regulation. However, the new  provisions expressly preempted the states from entry or rate regulation  of both CMRS and PMRS; authorized FCC to forbear from regulating  CMRS where it deemed regulation unnecessary to ensure just,  reasonable, and nondiscriminatory practices; and granted wireless  carriers new rights to interconnect with wireline carriers.
FCC International Bureau Created—FCC established an International  Bureau to consolidate FCC’s various international activities. This change  was made to reflect the increasingly global nature of the communications  marketplace as well as the concern that international communications  policy needed to be better coordinated within FCC, with industry, with  other government agencies, and with other countries.
Public Safety Spectrum Report Issued—By congressional directive,  FCC and NTIA established a Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee in  1995 to provide advice and recommendations on specific wireless  communications requirements of public safety agencies through 2010. In  the final report issued in September 1996, the Advisory Committee  concluded that additional public safety spectrum was needed, that  spectrum must be used more efficiently, and interoperability standards  must be established to meet current and future needs of public safety  users. In addition, the committee proposed  immediate identification of 2.5 MHz of spectrum for interoperability  from new or existing allocations;  allocation in the short term of 25 MHz for public safety purposes, up to  an additional 70 MHz to support increased use of data, imagery, and  video by the year 2010, and the use of unused spectrum in the 746-806  MHz band (television channels 60-69), as well as TV channels below 512  MHz;  more flexible licensing policies to encourage the use of spectrally  efficient approaches while remaining technologically neutral;  more sharing and joint use of spectrum and policies to streamline  cooperative use of federal and nonfederal spectrum;  the use of commercial services for public safety provided that essential  requirements of coverage, priority access and system restoration,  security, and reliability are met;  a continuing consultative process to permit the public safety  community, FCC, and NTIA to adjust to new requirements and  opportunities; and  identification of alternative methods of funding future public safety  communications systems.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996—The Telecommunications Act  was intended to “provide for a pro-competitive, deregulatory national  policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment  of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and  services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to  competition.”
NTIA Authorized to Collect Fees from Government Agencies— Included in a provision for additional fiscal year 1996 funding for NTIA, the  Secretary of Commerce was authorized to charge fees to federal agencies  for spectrum management, analysis, operations, and related services, and  to retain and use as offsetting collections funds transferred for all costs  incurred in telecommunications research, engineering, and related  activities by the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences of NTIA.
Congress Passes Balanced Budget Act of 1997—The Balanced Budget  Act of 1997 amended FCC’s spectrum auction authority by requiring that  FCC award mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses using  competitive bidding procedures (not including licenses for public safety  radio, digital television, and existing terrestrial broadcast licenses). Among  the various other provisions in the Act addressing spectrum, NTIA was  directed to reallocate another 20 MHz below 3 GHz for commercial uses,  and the Act authorized private parties that win spectrum licenses  encumbered by federal entities to reimburse the federal entities for the  costs of relocation if the private parties seek to expedite the spectrum  transfer.
Defense Authorization Act Revises Spectrum Relocation  Reimbursement Policy—Under the Strom Thurmond National Defense  Authorization Act, any government entity using this spectrum band that  proposes to relocate is directed to notify NTIA of the marginal costs  anticipated to be incurred in relocation or modification necessary to  accommodate prospective nongovernment licensees. NTIA is directed to  notify FCC of such costs before an auction of the spectrum, and FCC must  notify potential bidders prior to the auction of the estimated relocation or  modification costs based on the geographic area covered by the proposed  licenses. Any new licensee benefiting from a government station relocation  must compensate the government entity in advance for relocation or  modification costs.
FCC Issues Principles for Spectrum Reallocation to Encourage  Development of Telecommunications Technologies—FCC issued a  policy statement setting forth guiding principles for the Commission’s  future spectrum management activities. The principles are designed to  respond to increasing demand for spectrum, promote competition, and  encourage the development of emerging telecommunications technologies.   The principles are to serve as a guidepost for the reallocation of  approximately 200 MHz of spectrum to enable a broad range of new radio  communication services, such as expanded wireless services, advanced  mobile services, new spectrum-efficient private land mobile systems, and  medical telemetry systems.
Spectrum Planning Directive in Defense Authorization Act—The  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, contained the  following requirements addressing spectrum management:    The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary and  in coordination with the Chairman of FCC, was directed to convene an  interagency review and assessment of (1) the progress made in  implementation of national spectrum planning; (2) the reallocation of  federal government spectrum to nonfederal use, and (3) the implications  for such reallocations to the affected federal executive agencies.
The Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the heads of the  affected federal agencies and the Chairman of FCC, was directed to  submit a report to the President; the Senate Committee on Armed  Services; the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and  Transportation; the House Committee on Armed Services; the House  Committee on Energy and Commerce; and the House Committee on  Science providing the results of the review and assessment not later  than October 1, 2000.
If, in order to make available for other use a band of frequencies of  which it is a primary user, the Department of Defense was required to  surrender use of such band of frequencies only after (1) NTIA, in  consultation with FCC, identifies and makes available an alternative  band or bands of frequencies as a replacement for the band to be  surrendered; and (2) the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of  Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff jointly certify to  the House Committees on Armed Services and Commerce that such an  alternative band provides comparable technical characteristics to  restore essential military capability that will be lost as a result of the  surrendered bands.
Eight MHz, previously designated for transfer from federal to nonfederal  use, was reclaimed for exclusive federal government use on a primary  basis by the Department of Defense.
NTIA issued a report, Assessment of Electromagnetic Spectrum  Reallocation, in response to these provisions in January 2001.
Federal Long-Range Spectrum Plan Issued by NTIA—NTIA issued a  report providing for long-range planning of radiofrequency spectrum use by  the federal government. The report states that the national objectives for  the use of the radio spectrum are to make effective, efficient, and prudent  use of the spectrum in the best interest of the nation, with care to conserve  it for uses where other means of communication are not available or  feasible. The report also states that the government shall, in general,  encourage the development and regulate the use of radio and wire  communications subject to its control so as to meet the needs of national  security; safety of life and property; international relations; and the  business, social, educational, and political life of the nation. 3G Allocations Dominate WRC-2000—At the 2000 World  Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-2000), spectrum and regulatory  issues related to advanced mobile communications, including third- generation services, were discussed and three bands identified for its use  (806-960 MHz, 1710-1885 MHz, and 2500-2690 MHz). The United States  agreed that it would study these bands domestically, but did not commit to  providing additional spectrum for third-generation systems.
Congress Passes the ORBIT Act—The Open-market Reorganization for  the Betterment of International Telecommunications (the “ORBIT” Act)  became law in March 2000 to promote a “fully competitive global market  for satellite communication services for the benefit of consumers and  providers of satellite services and equipment.” The Act prohibits FCC from  assigning orbital locations or spectrum licenses to international or global  satellite communications services through the use of auctions. Further, the  Act directs the President to oppose the use of auctions of satellite spectrum  bands in international forums.
Executive Memorandum Issued on Advanced Mobile  Communications Systems—President Clinton issued a memorandum  stating the need to select radio frequency spectrum for future mobile,  voice, high-speed data, and Internet-accessible wireless capacity. The  memorandum established the guiding principles for executive agencies to  use in selecting spectrum that could be made available for third-generation  (3G) wireless systems and strongly encouraged independent federal  agencies to follow the same principle in any actions they take related to the  development of 3G systems. The memorandum directed the Secretary of  Commerce to work cooperatively with FCC (1) to develop a plan to select  spectrum for 3G systems by October 20, 2000, and (2) to issue by November  15, 2000, an interim report on the current spectrum use and potential for  reallocation or sharing of the bands identified at the WRC-2000 that could  be used for 3G systems. These actions were seen as enabling FCC to  identify spectrum for 3G systems by July 2001 and auction licenses by  September 2002.
Interference Avoidance for Defense and Public Safety Users—In the  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, the Secretary of  Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of  Commerce, was directed to conduct an engineering study to identify (1)  any portion of the 138-144 MHz band that the Department of Defense can  share, in various geographic regions, with public safety radio services; (2)  any measures required to prevent harmful interference between  Department of Defense systems and the public safety systems proposed for  operation on those frequencies; and (3) a reasonable schedule for  implementation of such sharing of frequencies. The Secretary of  Commerce and the Chairman of FCC were to jointly submit a report to  Congress on alternative frequencies available for use by public safety  systems by January 1, 2002. NTIA issued a report, Alternative Frequencies  For Use by Public Safety Systems, in December 2001, and a companion  report was issued by FCC.
Domestic Developments on Spectrum for 3G Systems—FCC issued a  final report on the use of the 2500-2690 MHz band for advanced mobile  communications systems, including 3G systems. NTIA also issued a final  report on the 1710-1755 MHz federal government band and the 1755-1850  MHz band. FCC Chairman Michael Powell and Secretary of Commerce  Donald Evans exchanged letters in which they agreed to postpone the July  2001 deadline for FCC to identify spectrum for 3G systems. Secretary  Evans informed Chairman Powell that he had directed the then-Acting  Administrator of NTIA to work with FCC to develop a new plan for the  selection of 3G spectrum to be executed as quickly as possible.
NTIA Hosts Two-Day Spectrum Summit—NTIA hosted a summit in  Washington, D.C., on April 4-5, 2002, to help identify the best solutions to  challenges posed by management of the nation's airwaves. The purpose of  the spectrum summit was to explore new ideas to develop and implement  spectrum policy and management approaches that will make more efficient  use of the spectrum; provide spectrum for new technologies; and improve  the effectiveness of domestic and international spectrum management  processes. The first day featured industry and government spectrum users,  economists, analysts, and technologists; the second day was devoted to  working sessions focused on commercial, international, and federal  government perspectives.
FCC Chairman Forms Spectrum Policy Task Force—The formation of  a Spectrum Policy Task Force was announced by FCC Chairman for  purposes of assisting the Commission in identifying and evaluating changes  in spectrum policy that will increase the public benefits derived from the  use of radio spectrum. Composed of senior staff from various offices and  bureaus of FCC, the Spectrum Policy Task Force issued a public notice on  June 6, 2002, soliciting comment on various aspects of spectrum policy,  including: market-oriented allocation and assignment policies, interference  protection, spectral efficiency, public safety communications, and  international issues. In August 2002, the Spectrum Policy Task Force held  four public workshops in order to provide additional public input to the  Task Force’s review. The topics included experimental licenses and  unlicensed spectrum, interference protection, spectrum efficiency, and  spectrum rights and responsibilities. Participants in these workshops  included representatives from academia, industry, and government. The  Task Force is tentatively scheduled to issue a report to the Commission by  October 2002.
Study on Viability of Accommodating 3G Systems Concluded—NTIA  released findings of an assessment performed by NTIA, FCC’s 3G Working  Group, the Department of Defense, and other members of the Intra- Government 3G Planning Group on the viability of accommodating  advanced mobile wireless (3G) systems in the 1710-1770 MHz and 2110- 2170 MHz bands. The study concluded that 90 MHz of this spectrum can be  allocated for 3G services to meet increasing demand for new services  without disrupting communications systems critical to national security.
section_title: Comments from the Federal Communications Commission
section_title: Comments from the Department of Commerce
section_title: Comments from the Department of State
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to  support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve  the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American  people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and  policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help  Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s  commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,  integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs