[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3125, THE RADIO SPECTRUM INVENTORY ACT, AND H.R. 3019, THE
SPECTRUM RELOCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2009
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 15, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-89
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-860 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOE BARTON, Texas
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia FRED UPTON, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BART GORDON, Tennessee NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ROY BLUNT, Missouri
GENE GREEN, Texas STEVE BUYER, Indiana
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
Vice Chairman JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
LOIS CAPPS, California MARY BONO MACK, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JANE HARMAN, California LEE TERRY, Nebraska
TOM ALLEN, Maine MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
HILDA L. SOLIS, California JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
JAY INSLEE, Washington MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
JIM MATHESON, Utah
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
Islands
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts FRED UPTON, Michigan
BART GORDON, Tennessee Ranking Member
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
ANNA G. ESHOO, California NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania MARY BONO MACK, California
JAY INSLEE, Washington GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York LEE TERRY, Nebraska
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
Islands
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
PETER WELCH, Vermont
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement.................... 1
Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 3
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 4
Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan, opening statement................................. 6
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 6
Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, opening statement.................................. 7
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 9
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 9
Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 10
Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement............... 11
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 125
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 127
Witnesses
Dale Hatfield, Adjunct Professor, Interdisciplinary
Telecommunications Program, University of Colorado at Boulder.. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Steve Largent, President and Ceo, CTIA--The Wireless Association. 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Michael Calabrese, Vice President and Director, Wireless Future
Program, New America Foundation................................ 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Gordon H. Smith, President and CEO, National Association of
Broadcasters................................................... 52
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Ray O. Johnson, Ph.D., Senior Vice President and Chief Technology
Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation........................... 75
Prepared statement........................................... 77
Thomas Stroup, Chief Executive Officer, Shared Spectrum Company.. 85
Prepared statement........................................... 87
Submitted material
Letter of December 14, 2009, from Association of Old Crows to
Committee, submitted by Mr. Terry.............................. 129
H.R. 3125, THE RADIO SPECTRUM INVENTORY ACT, AND H.R. 3019, THE
SPECTRUM RELOCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2009
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology,
and the Internet,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in
Room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick
Boucher [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Boucher, Markey, Stupak,
Doyle, Inslee, Matsui, Christensen, Castor, Space, McNerney,
Dingell, Waxman (ex officio), Stearns, Upton, Shimkus, Buyer,
Bono Mack, Walden, Terry and Blackburn.
Staff present: Roger Sherman, Chief Counsel; Tim Powderly,
Counsel; Amy Levine, Counsel; Shawn Chang, Counsel; Greg Guice,
Counsel; Pat Delgado, Chief of Staff (Waxman); Sarah Fisher,
Counsel; Neil Fried, Republican Counsel; Will Carty, Republican
Professional Staff; and Garrett Golding, Republican Legislative
Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Boucher. The subcommittee will come to order.
This morning the subcommittee convenes a legislative
hearing on two measures related to the availability of the
wireless spectrum, which is essential to meeting our future
needs for mobile communications services.
The movement of personal communications to mobile services
is both dramatic and accelerating. Earlier this year it was
announced that for the first time, the number of homes having
only a cell phone and no landline service now exceeds the
number of homes having only a landline and no cellular service.
At the end of 2008, there were approximately 270 million
wireless subscribers in the Nation including an estimated 40
million active users of mobile Internet services. Daily, new
attractive and useful applications are added to wireless
services and data rates continue to increase as consumers
require faster access to mobile communications. As more and
more Americans use data-intensive smart phones and as services
like mobile video emerge, the demand for spectrum to support
these applications and devices will continue to grow
dramatically.
Today, the subcommittee continues its examination of
possible ways in which federal telecommunications policy can be
altered in order to meet these challenges with the goal of
enhancing the consumer experience and facilitating the future
growth of mobile services.
In July, I was pleased to join with Chairman Waxman, full
Committee Ranking Member Barton and Subcommittee Ranking Member
Stearns in introducing H.R. 3125, the Radio Spectrum Inventory
Act. That measure, now before the subcommittee, would direct
the NTIA and the FCC to undertake a comprehensive survey of the
Nation's spectrum and develop an inventory of each spectrum
band in the U.S. table of frequency allocations between 225
megahertz and 10 gigahertz. The inventory would include the
identity of both federal and non-federal users of spectrum and
the types of services they offer in each spectrum band as well
as the amount of use in each band on a geographic basis. When
the inventory is completed, the NTIA and the FCC would create a
Web site in order to make the information gleaned from the
inventory available to the public. They would report the
results of the inventory to the Congress and that report would
include a description of information that could not be made
publicly available for national security reasons. It would also
include a recommendation of which, if any, of the least
utilized blocks of spectrum should be reallocated for
commercial uses. The creation of the inventory is an essential
step in making available more spectrum for commercial and
wireless services and meeting the extraordinary spectrum
demands that our Nation will soon face.
I have also joined our colleagues Jay Inslee and Fred Upton
in introducing the Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act. This
measure would address an urgent need which was brought to light
after the FCC auctioned the advanced wireless spectrum, the AWS
spectrum, in 2006. While that spectrum was auctioned more than
3 years ago, the winners of the commercial licenses still do
not have full access to the spectrum because it has not been
fully cleared by the government users. The bill that we have
jointly introduced would hasten the process of clearing federal
users from spectrum that the government has reallocated for
commercial purposes. It would require the NTIA to publish the
transition plan of each federal entity to be relocated after a
spectrum auction and it would clarify the steps that federal
spectrum users must take in order to receive payment for their
relocation cost from the Spectrum Relocation Fund including a
requirement that the spectrum fully be reallocated and vacated
by the federal users within one year.
My goal is to have both the inventory legislation and the
bill speeding the reallocation of previously auctioned
government spectrum through the committee and through the House
at the earliest possible time.
I want to thank our witnesses for joining us this morning.
We look forward to your testimony and your views on the future
demand for wireless spectrum and the ways in which we can take
constructive steps in order to meet those challenges.
Mr. Boucher. That concludes my opening statement. I am
pleased now to recognize the ranking Republican member of our
subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Stearns. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. You
mentioned both of these bills and you have talked about what
they do, so we are very pleased to have this hearing. I am a
cosponsor of both of these bills, original cosponsor.
It is very clear that the United States will need
additional spectrum to meet the growing demand for wireless
broadband. In fact, we may be victims of our own success here.
The United States currently leads the world in wireless.
Wireless providers have used spectrum to provide U.S. consumers
with innovative voice and data services. The number of mobile
voice customers in the United States has surpassed the number
of wireline customers and the number of mobile broadband
customers has increased exponentially over the past several
years. As customers increase the amount of time they spend on
their mobile devices talking, e-mailing and surfing the
Internet, cell sites become constrained for capacity. As a
result, providers need more spectrum, especially in order to
increase the speed of mobile broadband services. We are facing,
in the words of the FCC chairman, a looming spectrum crisis.
For example, a voice call requires approximately 10,000
bits per second while uploading and downloading video requires
millions of bits per second. Countries will need 1.3 or
1,300,000 megahertz of spectrum dedicated for commercial use by
the year 2015, according to the International
Telecommunications Union. Yet the United States currently has
only 500 megahertz allocated and only 50 megahertz in the
auction pipeline.
So in order to increase the amount of spectrum available
for commercial mobile services, the Administration and the FCC
need to inventory the current uses of spectrum bands,
especially those below 3 gigahertz that are ideal for mobile
services. The bottom line is that we need to know who uses
which spectrum bands and the purposes for which they use such
bands. Once we have the answers to these questions, the
government needs to decide whether to reallocate spectrum for
commercial mobile users.
If the government is requiring existing spectrum users to
vacate reallocated bands, the government also needs to
establish a meaningful process for reallocating incumbent
users. The process needs to begin sooner rather than later.
Inventory reallocation and reallocation all take time and
commercial mobile demand for spectrum is increasing, as I
mentioned, exponentially.
Furthermore, one way to make more spectrum available for
commercial purposes is to use government spectrum more
efficiently and simply reallocate the spectrum saved. That was
the idea behind the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, which
was enacted in 2004. The law is designed to provide funding to
upgrade the wireless resources of government agencies while
clearing additional spectrum for commercial use while the CSEA
government frequencies identified for reallocation are
auctioned to commercial licensees and the proceeds are used to
improve the relocating agencies of wireless facilities.
Pursuant to the CSEA, the FCC held the advance wireless service
one auction in 2006. Of the $13.7 billion raised by the AWS
auction, approximately $1 billion has been spent to reallocate
the wireless operations of 12 federal agencies. The
reallocation procedures outlined in the CSEA worked well in
most cases but some problems have cropped up.
For example, T Mobile paid $4.2 billion to build a 3G
network. The Department of Defense and the Drug Enforcement
Agency are behind schedule in clearing some of the spectrum.
However, because of unforeseen costs and complexities in their
moves which have been compounded by the confidential nature of
some of the agencies' activities, problems like these have
prevented the bidders from fully realizing the benefits of
their investment in the time frames originally promised and may
discourage participation in future reallocation auctions.
H.R. 3019 will make the process more efficient. The goal is
to better coordinate reallocation so that perspective
commercial bidders have increased confidence to bid on the
cleared spectrum. This not only helps the commercial bidders
but also the reallocating agencies since they will have
increased revenue from the auction and a better planned
transition.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important
hearing. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Stearns.
The chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from
California, Mr. Waxman, is recognized for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for holding this important legislative hearing on two bills
that if adopted will create incentives for efficient spectrum
utilization and enhance our ability to develop forward-looking
spectrum policies. Ongoing developments in wireless broadband
technology along with increased consumer demand have raised
questions about the sufficiency of current spectrum allocations
for wireless communication service. Some experts estimate that
the wireless industry in the United States needs an additional
150 megahertz of spectrum to simply keep up with the explosion
in wireless data usage and to remain competitive with other
nations.
Before we can start identifying bands of spectrum that
might be made available for these new services, however, we
need to understand how existing spectrum is allocated and
utilized. In simple terms, we need better information about
spectrum usage by federal and non-federal entities.
Accordingly, in July of this year, a bipartisan group of 18
Energy and Commerce Committee members introduced H.R. 3125, the
Radio Spectrum Inventory Act. This legislation represents a
critical first step in developing a forward-looking spectrum
policy. H.R. 3125 is simply about making spectrum use and
allocation transparent. It would direct the National
Telecommunications Information Administration and the Federal
Communications Commission to develop a publicly available
inventory of users and usage in the most valuable spectrum
bands.
The bill also directs the agencies to examine whether there
is underutilized spectrum that might be reallocated for more
efficient uses. Of course, any comprehensive look at spectrum
must be sensitive to military uses and the need to protect
information about such uses. The bill therefore establishes a
procedure by which information pertaining to national security
will continue to be safeguarded. The committee will continue to
work with the Department of Defense to make sure that we are
sensitive to any concerns regarding our national defense.
I would also like to express my general support for H.R.
3019, the Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act of 2009. I
commend Representatives Inslee and Upton for introducing this
thoughtful legislation to improve the current spectrum
relocation process by increasing the flow of information and
resources as well as enhancing transparency.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I
look forward to working with you as we move these important
bills forward.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Chairman Waxman.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for
2 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
hearing.
I would say that we need to be working on D block, D block,
D block. If we can't get the D block right, how in the heck are
we going to do other allocations of other spectrums? And my
focus on the D block is, as everyone knows, being involved with
the E-911 caucus, is emergency services and communication, and
hopefully my colleague Anna will show and even Jane Harman and
we will say shame on us if we have a next disaster and we are
not ready to communicate effectively. Shame on us if we have
another 9/11. Shame on us if we have another Katrina and we
have sheriff departments not talking to firefighters, we have
firefighters not talking to the National Guard.
So I appreciate this focus, and we all understand the
importance of having an inventory but if we can't get the D
block right in a timely manner, who are we kidding ourselves?
So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, and the full committee chairman
that we would really work on the parameters to push for
appropriate and proper auction in which we get all the
benefits, we bring in additional revenue but we also develop
the revenue streams which will allow us to provide grants and
money to our first-line responders to get this one important
aspect of our homeland security issues and debates in line, and
I yield back my time.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Shimkus.
The chairman emeritus of the full Energy and Commerce
Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
convening today's hearing on H.R. 3125, the Radio Spectrum
Inventory Act, and H.R. 3019, the Spectrum Relocation
Improvement Act of 2009. These two bills, of which I am an
original cosponsor, will aid the federal Administration's
allocation of spectrum, a commodity of increasing importance,
especially given recent advances in mobile broadband services.
Like all the rest of us, I am concerned about the allocation
about the future and also about what we have done so far and
whether it has contributed to the proper use of the spectrum
for the future and for all of our people.
These two pieces of legislation are complementary to the
Federal Communications Commission's duty to present to the
Congress a national broadband plan as mandated under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. To be certain, the
success of the development of such a plan and the
implementation of its recommendations will be facilitated in no
mean degree by a clear and better understanding of the spectrum
available for use and a better and a more efficient process by
which to allocate it for commercial use. This I believe will be
accomplished in large part by enactment of the bills pending
for the committee's consideration today.
With this in mind, I welcome our witnesses and look forward
to hearing their views on the legislation before us. In
particular, I hope they will engage in a frank discussion about
the relationship between H.R. 3125, H.R. 3019 and proposals
currently circulating in the FCC to reallocate spectrum from
over-the-air television broadcasters to mobile communication
providers as a part of the national broadband plan.
Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman, and I commend
you again for this hearing and the foresight that you are
showing with it. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Chairman Dingell.
The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, is recognized for 2
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, thank you for holding a legislative hearing
on these two bills. I think that is really important in the
improvement of our process to have this oversight before we
mark it up.
I want to welcome my Senator, Gordon Smith, who has taken
over the reins at the National Association of Broadcasters. I
am still his Congressman, even if he is not now my Senator, but
we have been friends and colleagues in the legislative arena in
Oregon and here for many years and we welcome you at the NAB,
and now that I have sold our broadcast stations and you have
gone to the broadcasters, I am going to go into pea packing.
I want to point out a couple of things. First of all, I
concur with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, on the D
block issue. We need to resolve that. But I also want to point
out another issue that has come up related to public safety and
I am not sure it is going to get spoken to today, and that is
use of the band by amateur radio operators as well. As we
evaluate the value of spectrum, understand that when 9/11
happened, when Katrina happened, when other communication
systems failed and even any day when there is a hurricane or a
disaster anywhere in the world, it is frequently the amateur
radio operators who step to the fore with their own equipment
and provide the emergency communication when everything else
fails. It is hard to put a value on that unless you can put a
value on saving lives and helping our law enforcement community
and our rescue community get through really difficult times, so
they are there when needed all the time and so that needs to be
a part of what we consider.
Regarding the FCC's notice, I am very concerned about what
I am reading regarding Professor Benjamin's comments and his
paper. He is now a very top advisor to the chairman of the FCC.
I hope this committee will look at some of the things he has
had to say including how every dollar of additional cost for
broadcasters is one less dollar for profit and thus reduces the
attractiveness of over-the-air broadcasting as a business model
but regulation would attend to entrench broadcasting in place
on the spectrum. Then the regulation will not help free up
spectrum and should be avoided. In other words, he is calling
for the death of over-the-air free broadcasting, which I think
is a real abomination, and we will get into that more.
I know my time is expired, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Walden.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for two minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing. I am going to waive opening statement and
look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. We will add 2 minutes to
your questioning time for our panel of witnesses.
The gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee, is
recognized for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for holding
this hearing. We know how important this is.
In my State, as we speak, I have got hundreds if not
thousands of constituents designing these new Internet and
broadband services of the next generation. It is very important
to a lot of my neighbors, people I represent. It is important
to the country as a whole for its job creation possibilities.
President Obama has recognized broadband infrastructure
investment has tremendous job potential but we know we are
going to have to have additional allocation of spectrum for
commercial use to really reach the fruition of the tremendous
promise here. And in order to first identify that spectrum, I
want to commend Chairman Waxman for his inventory bill, which
is a first step. I am proud to be an original cosponsor and
look forward to getting that done as a first step.
But once the spectrum is identified and ready for auction,
we really have to assure that procedures are in place this time
to adequately guide the auction process. In the 2007 advance
wireless services auction, the process and reporting
requirements were insufficient to appraise the length,
complexity and size of federal relocation efforts. They also
failed to ensure a timely transition of spectrum by federal
agencies and business planning by commercial bidders. It is
this very problem that the bill that I am prime sponsoring
seeks to address.
Fundamentally, our bill will do two things. First, it
increases the amount and quality of information available to
potential bidders before an auction occurs, and second, it
expedites the flow of auction proceeds to the relocating agency
to keep the relocation process on track. I am convinced that
this more complete information about the effective federal
agency systems, the relocation cost estimates and schedules
will reduce the risk for potential bidders, will ensure timely
relocation payment and movement by federal agencies and will
ensure that the next generation of consumer-demanded services
are delivered. It will not cure the common cold. Otherwise it
sounds pretty good.
I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Upton and Chairman
Boucher, for their work on advancing this and I look forward to
moving this so that we can really fulfill the promise of our
brilliant constituents. Thank you.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Inslee.
The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
legislative hearing and I look forward to hearing our
witnesses. We have to make sure that we do this right and in
balance with the spectrum that is used in the military. I have
the pleasure of representing the 55th Wing, which is an
electronic warfare and information operation out of Offutt Air
Force Base right outside of Omaha in Bellevue, and I have a
letter from the Association of Old Crows that set out some of
the issues that we may have discussing here with the spectrum
and I would like to offer that letter into the record, Mr.
Chairman.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Boucher. Without objection.
Mr. Terry. Then last, in our committee memorandum, it
starts off with the introduction criticizing the Universal
Service Fund and calling it ineffective, and then the second
paragraph also starts off with Universal Service Fund. So
somehow Universal Service Fund is important in this discussion
and I look forward to your comments on how Universal Service
Fund affects the spectrum and your usage of it. I yield back.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Terry.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, is recognized
for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
this important hearing today. I would also like to thank
today's witnesses for being with us today.
We are here today to discuss how we can promote greater
transparency on spectrum issues for expediting the process in
which we can allocate additional spectrum in the marketplace.
According to recent estimates, there are approximately 270
million wireless subscribers in the United States but that
number is growing. According to recent reports, the current
economic recession has increased the number of consumers opting
for only cell phones over traditional landlines. There is
concern that the current allocation of spectrum for mobile
broadband services is inadequate to meet the rapidly growing
demand. In fact, the FCC recently warned of a potential
spectrum crisis that could threaten the expansion of broadband
services. While the DTV transition helped free up more
spectrum, the need for commercial spectrum capacity will only
expand as broadband continues to be delivered to more areas.
To ensure transparency and help ensure we meet demand,
Chairmen Waxman and Boucher have introduced the Radio Spectrum
Inventory Act, and Congressmen Inslee and Upton have introduced
the Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act. I am a cosponsor of
both pieces of legislation. Moving forward, spectrum
availability will be key to ensuring competition, improved
public safety, meeting growing demand for wireless services and
any proposal going forward should ensure underserved urban
communities are properly considered.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important
hearing today and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Ms. Matsui.
The gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn, is recognized
for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome the panel that is before us today. We are
delighted that you are here, and I am also delighted, Mr.
Chairman, that we are talking about legislation that actually
represents what is a balanced give and take, and that is not
something we often do in this Congress. All too often we are
talking about taking from the American taxpayer and giving to
big business, but today we are going to be talking about
raising money from big business through an equal exchange of
value for a commodity, and this represents good policy and good
government and I am pleased we are having the hearing.
As we plot a strategy on how we move forward on broadband
and how to best utilize the spectrum, I am one of many on this
committee, as you have heard, who have long advocated for an
effective and efficient inventory and assessment of what is
available and how we best use it and how we best allocate it. I
think it is important. Mr. Shimkus mentioned D block and some
of the work that needs to be done as we learn some lessons from
that approach. We know that this is a robust industry. We know
that well over 80 percent of consumers are happy with their
wireless service, according to a recent GAO study. That is
pretty good. Eighty percent of people like the product that is
there and that is available. There is ample motivation to get
as much information as possible on spectrum availability and
evaluate all of our options for relocation, so I am pleased we
are bringing many different parts of this discussion together
today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Ms. Blackburn.
The gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, is recognized
for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening
today's hearing on two bipartisan bills that are intended to
help our country make better use of our spectrum. H.R. 3125,
the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act, will provide for the
gathering of information about spectrum use to increase
transparency and help us understand exactly how the spectrum is
now utilized.
This is no small task but it is absolutely essential to
make informed decisions on allocating spectrum to meet the
ever-increasing demand for wireless broadband spectrum. It has
been reported that the U.S. allocation of spectrum compares
poorly with OECD nations and is inadequate to meet the growing
demand. We can't let that happen. We are going to do the best
we can to help industry take the lead and make our Nation lead
the world in broadband.
H.R. 3019, the Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act,
streamlines the spectrum auction process and will reduce the
time required to reallocate federal spectrum cleared for
commercial use, allowing licensees to utilize their spectrum
without unnecessary delay. As a cosponsor of both of these
bills, I recognize the importance of properly managing
available spectrum. I also understand that the sponsors of H.R.
3125 are working with the Department of Defense to ensure that
the bill also protects ongoing military uses of spectrum and I
look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this
legislation.
I thank the witnesses for taking time to share their
perspective on this legislation and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. McNerney.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, is recognized for 2
minutes. Oh, not here. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Buyer,
is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. Buyer. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my time be placed
upon questions, and I welcome my friends, Steve Largent and
Gordon Smith.
Mr. Boucher. The gentleman will have added time for
questions.
The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Christensen, is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to
also waive my opening statement and put it into the record. I
would like to welcome the witnesses, especially Senator Smith,
who I believe is here for the first time. Thank you. I yield
back.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Ms. Christensen.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, is recognized
for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much
for having this hearing.
Back in 1993, we were in a world where there were two cell
phone companies. They each charged about 50 cents a minute, and
it was analog, but in 1993 this committee moved over 200
megahertz of spectrum and we created the third, fourth, fifth
and sixth cell phone licenses. They all went digital. And by
1996, the price had dropped to under 10 cents a minute. The
first two companies had moved to digital as well and we had a
revolution that was ongoing, and it was so successful that
right now there are people sitting out here in the audience
checking their BlackBerry rather than listening to my opening
statement, and that is a tribute to what our committee made
possible. And now we are on to the next stage of this
revolution where we know that the Hulu, Google, eBay, Amazon
revolution is something that continues on. This committee
should be very proud of it. And by reallocating even more
spectrum will make it possible for the entrepreneurs, will make
it possible for these technology geniuses to once again brand a
revolution made in America. We have to stay ahead of this
curve. We have to make sure that it is something that is
American. We did that in the 1900s. We have a chance to do it
again.
I congratulate, Mr. Chairman, for your work on this issue.
It was bipartisan then. It should be bipartisan again. We are
into a wealth creation. That is what this is all about, and the
more effectively that we can think this issue through, which is
what you are doing, is the more likely that we will create the
greatest amount of wealth that will help our country become
more prosperous, and I thank you for doing that.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Markey.
The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, is recognized for
2 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Because it is impossible, Mr. Chairman, to
follow Mr. Markey, I am going to submit my statement for the
record and yield back my time. Thank you for holding the
hearing.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Ms. Castor.
The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Space, is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. Space. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome our
witnesses. I too would waive my opening.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Space.
That concludes opening statements from members of the
subcommittee, and we now welcome our panel of witnesses this
morning. We are pleased to have each of you with us today and
we very much look forward to your testimony.
Just a brief word of introduction about each of our
witnesses. Dr. Dale Hatfield is an adjunct professor with the
Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program at the University
of Colorado. Steve Largent, former Member of the House of
Representatives and former member of this committee, is the
president and chief executive officer of the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association, the Wireless
Association. Mr. Michael Calabrese is vice president and
director of the Wireless Future Program at the New America
Foundation. Former Senator Gordon Smith, we welcome to this
committee for the first time in his new role as president of
the National Association of Broadcasters, and we look forward
to a long and successful partnership with you. Dr. Ray Johnson
is the senior vice president and chief technology officer of
the Lockheed Martin Corporation, and Mr. Thomas Stroup is the
chief executive officer of Shared Spectrum Company. We welcome
each of you.
Without objection, your prepared written statement will be
made a part of the record, and we would ask that you keep your
oral summaries to approximately 5 minutes.
Mr. Hatfield, we will be happy to begin with you.
STATEMENTS OF DALE HATFIELD, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR,
INTERDISCIPLINARY TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF
COLORADO AT BOULDER; STEVE LARGENT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CTIA-THE
WIRELESS ASSOCIATION; MICHAEL CALABRESE, VICE PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR, WIRELESS FUTURE PROGRAM, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION; HON.
GORDON H. SMITH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
BROADCASTERS; RAY O. JOHNSON, PH.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION; AND
THOMAS STROUP, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SHARED SPECTRUM COMPANY
STATEMENT OF DALE HATFIELD
Mr. Hatfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Boucher,
Ranking Member Stearns and members of the subcommittee. I am
very pleased and honored to appear before you today to testify
on the topic of radio spectrum management, and in particular on
the issues raised by H.R. 3125 and by H.R. 3019.
My name is Dale Hatfield. In addition to the position that
you just mentioned, I am also the executive director of the
Silicon Flat Iron Center for Law, Technology and
Entrepreneurship at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I
should note in the past that I have engaged in independent
consulting activities including for some members that are
represented on the panel today. As I detailed in my prepared
testimony, I have other affiliations but today I am testifying
entirely on my own behalf as a private citizen.
Now, in my written testimony, I present some background on
spectrum management and then focus on five overarching themes
or points. It is those five points that I will briefly
summarize now.
First, I have been involved in spectrum management issues
for over 4 decades and it is very clear to me that we are now
at an unprecedented period of demand for access to spectrum in
the critical frequency range of roughly 300 megahertz to 3
gigahertz. This increase in demand for spectrum is propelled by
increases in the number of uses of the resource and the number
of users and the amount of bandwidth or capacity consumed per
user per use. While the exponential growth in commercial
cellular bandwidth requirements is perhaps the most visible,
there are a host of other increasing demands for spectrum in
this range as well including important ones that support public
safety, homeland security and national defense priorities.
Thus, in my opinion, the spectrum scarcity issue that the
legislation sets out to address is very real.
Second, in my written testimony I review five traditional
techniques that we have used in the past to accommodate growth
and demand for the resource: one, going higher in frequency;
two, improving the technical efficiency of spectrum
utilization; three, reallocating existing spectrum from use to
another; four, increasing the amount of spectrum sharing; and
five, reusing spectrum more intensely in the geographic
dimension. I conclude that for technical reasons, going higher
in frequency will be of limited utility in solving the current
spectrum crisis associated with wireless mobile data
applications, and that while further improvements in technical
efficiency can help, they are apt to be inadequate in solving
the problems associated with the orders of magnitude increases
in spectrum demand. That leaves relocation, increased sharing
and more intense frequency reuse at least in some services as
potential solutions, albeit ones with unique challenges of
their own.
Third, setting aside spectrum relocation for the moment, I
next focused on increasing sharing and in more intense
frequency reuse. With regard to the former, I comment favorably
on past steps that the FCC has taken to encourage voluntary
sharing of the resource through secondary markets. I go on to
conclude that a combination of increased incentives or mandates
for spectrum sharing coupled with more decentralized, more
opportunistic and more technologically sophisticated techniques
for accessing spectrum can be a significant helping in avoiding
the looming crisis. In terms of increased frequency reuse, I
first note that it is not always possible because of the nature
of some services. In other words, some services like radar
require very high power operating over long distances and
therefore you can't reuse the spectrum on a geographic basis as
easily. I also wanted to note that spectrum reuse may be
constrained by the availability of suitable antenna locations
and economic backhaul facilities.
Fourth, I comment that I am a strong supporter of
conducting the spectrum inventory called out in H.R. 3125 and
hence for the legislation itself because I am a strong believer
in that old adage, you can't manage what you don't measure. It
is that simple. I go on to conclude that a comprehensive and
ongoing inventory is necessary to support two of the most
promising of the three ways of averting a spectrum crisis, that
is, relocation and increased sharing.
Fifth, I observe that while I am a strong supporter of
conducting spectrum inventories, I also note based on many
years of experience that there are potential shortcomings
associated with a paper study, at least in some services.
Therefore, I conclude that the inventory mandated in the
proposed legislation should be augmented by selected field
measurements to gain additional information on actual usage in
those bands identified as being the most promising for
relocation or increased sharing.
That concludes my oral testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I would
be happy to respond to any questions that you or the rest of
the subcommittee might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hatfield follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.010
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Hatfield.
Mr. Largent, we will be happy to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF STEVE LARGENT
Mr. Largent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
you and the ranking member and say to all the members, hope you
have a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, hope you get there.
I want to thank you for the opportunity also to share the
wireless industry's views on the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act
and the Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act. These bills are
much needed bookends for a process that will enable additional
spectrum to be made available for the wireless broadband
initiative and other services.
Today the United States is the world leader in wireless
broadband. While having less than 7 percent of the global
wireless subscribers, the United States is home to more than 20
percent of global 3G subscribers. Our 112 million 3G
subscribers are more than any other country and more than the
third, fourth, fifth and sixth countries combined.
Additionally, the most advanced wireless devices which are
manufactured by global companies and could be launched anywhere
in the world routinely debut in the U.S. marketplace. As a pair
of former NTIA administrators recently noted, the convergence
of mobile wireless services and high-speed Internet access and
the evolution of handsets from telephones to powerful handheld
computers promises to transform the way we work, learn, deliver
health care, manage energy consumption and enhance public
safety.
The key to translating this promise into reality is access
to more spectrum. CTIA believes there is an urgent need to
identify additional spectrum that can be made available for
wireless broadband and other advanced wireless services. By
providing for a comprehensive and timely inventory of spectrum
below 10 gigahertz, enactment of H.R. 3125 would represent an
important step towards meeting rapidly accelerating demand and
maintaining U.S. leadership in the global wireless marketplace
How much spectrum do we need? The ITU projects that by
2015, developed countries will need at least 1,300 megahertz of
spectrum for commercial wireless operations. Since the United
States currently has less than 500 megahertz of spectrum
available for commercial wireless services, we have asked the
FCC to identify additional spectrum that can be reallocated to
help us meet the ITU's benchmark.
Many of our trading partners are taking steps towards this
goal and the United States needs to keep up if we are to stay
ahead. A properly constructed inventory effort is a sound place
to start. The inventory is only the first step, however. Once
the inventory is complete, policymakers must use it to
reallocate spectrum for advanced wireless services.
History demonstrates that it can take a decade or more to
reallocate spectrum for commercial use and put such spectrum in
the hands of providers of commercial mobile services, more than
a decade. Given the exploding demand for mobile broadband, we
must move more quickly than was the case with either AWS or 700
megahertz efforts. We simply can't wait until 2020 or beyond.
We recognize there will be critics of the effort to move
forward with an inventory and relocation of spectrum. They will
claim that carriers should be more efficient with the spectrum
already available, that we can build out way out of the problem
or that we have already seen an expansion in the amount of
spectrum available for commercial services through the recent
AWS and 700 megahertz auctions. There are sound reasons why the
subcommittee should dismiss these criticisms, and I have
discussed these in my written statement.
Finally, once an inventory is complete and spectrum is
identified for relocation and auction, the improvements to the
spectrum relocation process proposed by H.R. 3019 will ensure
that the relocation process works smoothly for all parties.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these matters with
the subcommittee. We look forward to working with you to ensure
that the U.S. wireless industry continues to serve as an engine
for jobs, economic growth and the American competitive
advantage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Largent follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.016
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Largent.
Mr. Calabrese.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CALABRESE
Mr. Calabrese. Good morning. First I would like to thank
the committee's leadership for taking up these two very
complementary and important pieces of legislation on a notably
bipartisan basis. A national goal of not merely affordable
broadband access but of seamless mobile connectivity anywhere
and anytime will require an enormous increase in available
spectrum capacity.
The Apple iPhone has proven to be the canary in the
proverbial spectrum coalmine. Advanced smart phones consume
hundreds of times the bandwidth of ordinary cell phones. With
sufficient spectrum, pervasive connectivity will rapidly become
integrated as well in applications for sensing networks, mobile
health monitoring, energy conservation, education and more.
This exploding demand and the continued focus on exclusive
licensing by auction has served to reinforce the conventional
wisdom that spectrum in scarce. In reality, the only scarcity
is government permission to use spectrum, that is, licensing.
Spectrum capacity itself is very abundant. Even in the most
valuable beachfront frequencies below 3 gigahertz, actual
spectrum use measurements show that the vast majority of
frequency bands are not being used in most locations and at
most times. This gross underutilization of the Nation's
spectrum resource should be an urgent concern.
Spectrum is not only an immensely valuable and publicly
owned resources but it is one that is infinitely renewable
every millisecond. That is why New America and the Broader
Public Interest Spectrum Coalition that we work with strongly
support enactment of H.R. 3125, the Radio Spectrum Inventory
Act. We agree that the more comprehensive inventory described
in the House bill is needed. A more granular and comprehensive
description of spectrum use in each market will assist
policymakers, entrepreneurs and technologists to propose new
ways to enhance both access and efficiency. We also agree it is
important to extend the inventory up to 10 gigahertz, as the
House bill provides.
Spectrum mapping would help facilitate expanded access to
broadband in at least three ways. First, by improving the
functioning of secondary markets for license transfers and
leasing; second, it will provide information on what it would
take to clear some very underutilized bands for new uses, and
third, and perhaps more important, it will reveal the far
greater number of frequency bands that can be made available
for shared access in discrete geographic areas at certain times
of the day or year or at certain altitudes or power levels. We
expect rural areas to be the most likely and immediate
beneficiaries of this mapping.
The one shortcoming of H.R. 3125, in our view, is that an
inventory of spectrum assignments should be augmented by actual
spectrum use measurements as Dale just mentioned. Measurements
and eventually a system of spectrum use monitoring can provide
a more nuanced window into how, when, where and to what extent
bands are actually in use. We realize that measurements add a
budgetary cost. Fortunately, we believe appropriated funds are
available over the next 4 years for a very robust
implementation of the inventory act. As part of the Recovery
Act, Congress appropriated $350 million for a ``comprehensive
nationwide inventory map of the Nation's existing broadband
capabilities.'' Since NTIA will award less than half the
available funding to the States for broadband mapping, Congress
could clarify that a portion of the remainder be used to
inventory the airwaves as well.
We also strongly support H.R. 3019, the Spectrum Relocation
Improvement Act. Nowhere is spectrum underutilization more
evident than in many of the bands reserved for use by the
federal government itself. While we support H.R. 3019, we also
believe the legislation should be broadened to take advantage
of a critical opportunity to free up far greater spectrum
capacity. H.R. 3019 would continue to limit eligibility for
radio system modernization to agencies actually clearing off a
set of frequencies. While only a tiny fraction of federal
spectrum could be cleared and auctioned in the near future, a
far greater number of bands could be shared more intensively by
taking advantage of advances in smart radio technologies.
Federal spectrum incumbents need the resources to take
affirmative steps to enable more intensive access and band
sharing by other users. This could be a real win-win for the
military. New and upgraded federal systems could be designed
and procured with the broader public interest and spectrum
access in mind and not only in the very limited case of a band
being cleared for auction.
I will stop there. Thank you very much, and I will be
pleased to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calabrese follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.033
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Calabrese.
Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stearns, members of
this honorable committee, it is indeed a pleasure and a
privilege for me to be before you to speak a few thoughts about
spectrum on behalf of the National Association of Broadcasters.
First, NAB believes that any inventory spectrum should be
comprehensive. Let us look at all the bands and all the
services including the federal government bands and let us view
how each service is using its existing spectrum. Second, our
national priorities should recognize the value that free over-
the-air broadcasting brings to every American. Broadcasting and
broadband are not either/or propositions, as some suggest. I
believe that is a false choice. Third, we should challenge all
services to be efficient and innovative users of spectrum.
Through our recent transition to digital, broadcasting has
become more efficient. With your help, the transition was a
resounding success and the benefits are remarkable. In a
digital world, viewers receive many new programming streams and
a wide variety of content and local news in high definition. It
would be shortsighted to stunt that growth and dampen what is
an even brighter future for broadcasting. If broadcasting is
limited or eliminated, consumer investment and expectations in
DTV receivers would be stranded. Consumers spent an estimated
$25 billion in HDTV receivers in 2009 alone. Millions of other
Americans invested time, effort and funds on converter boxes,
and the U.S. government spent $2 billion to help them with
this. The broadcasters spent an additional $10 billion to make
the transition.
For years, consumers have been promised that the digital
upgrade would usher in a new era of high-quality television
with new and more diverse programming, more channels and a host
of new services all for free and over the air. If, as some
advocate, that this all be done away with, consumers would
realize none of these benefits. Through the DTV transition,
broadcasters gave back 108 megahertz of spectrum. Broadcast
television is the first wireless service to ever substantially
reduce its spectrum use while providing an increase in
services.
Then there is mobile DTV. This year, the television
industry adopted a new mobile digital television standard,
turning on the green light for manufacturing and
implementation, and the results are nothing short of stunning.
Members of the committee, this is a mobile TV. Right now it is
playing a program from NBC. There are seven channels in the
Washington, D.C., metropolitan area that are doing this. It is
also a cell phone. And this combination of technologies is, I
believe, the future of mobile wireless communications. It is
not an exaggeration to say that you will soon be able to
receive broadcast television signals on almost any device. This
is an example. Soon your BlackBerry will be a TV. Your iPhone
could be a TV. You name it, we are on the cusp of it, and to
short-circuit it now it seems to me would be very unwise.
Broadcasting's ability--and this is very important to
understand. Broadcasting's ability to serve one to many in
small-bandwidth segments is unique among all services. At
moments of national significance or tragedy when millions of
Americans are seeking information, broadcasting is the most
efficient delivery system. With each new viewers, broadcasters'
use of spectrum becomes more efficient without any additional
burden on spectrum. By contrast, with wireless broadband, each
stream of content to every individual places an additional
strain on the wireless network, clogging up the bandwidth, and
there is more. For example, a company called Sesmi is working
with broadcasters to provide a blended broadcast/broadband
system. If you haven't seen this, Members, I urge you to do it.
That system is more affordable, high quality and an
alternative, a more affordable alternative to cable and
satellite.
A comprehensive objective examination of spectrum
allocation and usage is a worthwhile endeavor. Such an analysis
if done forthrightly and without bias will demonstrate that
broadcasters continue to be the effective custodians of our
Nation's airwaves.
Many broadcast services have not been and cannot be
efficiently replicated by broadband services. Broadcasters, for
example, help to save lives through timely coverage of natural
disasters and other emergencies, and by coordinating with local
law enforcement officials via Amber Alerts, broadcasters have
participated in the recovery of 492 abducted children.
Mr. Boucher. Mr. Smith, if you could wrap up, you are a bit
beyond your time here.
Mr. Smith. Let us not forget the concerns we all shared
during the DTV transition. We spent a lot of time to get it
right and we did it so that economically disadvantaged, the
elderly, rural and ethnic minorities are not left out with
access to critical news and information.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, if my statement is in the
record, I think it is important that when you consider highest
and best use and you put all of these public values in, the
value of broadcasting is self-evident. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.054
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
Dr. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF RAY O. JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns and
members of this subcommittee, good morning and thank you for
inviting Lockheed Martin Corporation to participate in today's
hearing on the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act. My name is Dr. Ray
Johnson and I serve as Lockheed Martin's senior vice president
and chief technology officer. My role in the corporation
provides me with a broad perspective of important spectrum
issues relevant to the discussion today. I appreciate the
opportunity to contribute and I am honored to offer input that
may help inform your consideration of these important policy
matters.
Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employees
approximately 140,000 people in all 50 States. We are
principally engaged in the research, design, development,
manufacturing, integration and sustainment of advanced
technology systems, products and services and most of these
systems and solutions depend on access to the spectrum that we
are discussing. Our customers include a broad array of agencies
both military and civil for whom we support diverse critical
security missions both at home and abroad. At any given time,
Lockheed Martin Corporation holds approximately 400 FCC
authorizations for a variety of uses including experimental
licenses that enable the testing of new technologies as well as
new applications being applied to existing technologies.
As a general matter, spectrum scarcity is not a problem
that is unique to FCC licensees. Based on our understanding,
federal government users are experiencing the same pressure as
they are required to meet increasing demands of their critical
roles and missions. Therefore, it is an important balance that
H.R. 3125 achieves by requiring an inventory of both federal
and non-federal spectrum resources to be conducted by the FCC
and the NTIA. Although through our own activities in developing
advanced systems and solutions to meet many federal government
needs, we see growth in requirements in terms of access to
bandwidth-intensive applications whether that is video
streaming from an unmanned vehicle or surveillance from a high-
altitude airship.
Lockheed Martin endorses the enactment of H.R. 3125, the
Radio Spectrum Inventory Act. We do, however, have some
concerns with the bill as it was introduced and respectfully
suggest that the bill be modified to reflect the following
issues.
First, I note that the stated purpose of H.R. 3125 is to
promote spectrum efficiency. While the bill does not explicitly
require that NTIA and FCC conduct an efficiency analysis of
spectral usage, the proposed section 119(a)(1)(E) as added by
the bill steers the agencies in that direction. However, there
is no single metric that spans all communications and non-
communications uses of the spectrum, which can be used for
point of comparison. The intensity-of-use metric is not
correlated with effectiveness or efficiency for many spectral
users. Moreover, efficiency improvements should not be equated
to the reduction in bandwidth utilized. Measuring spectrum
efficiency using as a proxy the price entities are willing to
pay for a license is also inappropriate. Many critical spectrum
users deliver tremendous value to our country most importantly
to our national and homeland security but do not directly
generate revenues.
Second, we are concerned that the bill would inadvertently
require FCC and the NTIA to disclose sensitive information that
should not be disclosed. This disclosure does not only impact
the federal government but also impacts some FCC licensees like
Lockheed Martin. We agree with the Administration's stated
concern and note that from any inventory security perspective,
it is very important to recognize that the release of
individual unclassified data points can result in sensitive
information being improperly disclosed when viewed more as an
aggregate.
Third, I would like to raise a concern to the subcommittee
regarding the possible misinterpretation of the legislation in
two ways. One is the potential inadvertent message that it
sends to our allies in the international community given the
scope of the frequencies being inventoried and the provision
requiring recommendations for relocation. The Department of
Defense and the defense industry have worked hard to achieve an
international spectrum harmonization to support allied
interoperability. The other concern is the requirement for
annual review of spectrum. This review can create an impression
of volatility and instability in spectrum allocations, thus
impacting long-term research and development, acquisition and
the deployment of new systems and solutions. Suggestions of
instability in spectrum access could result in a chilling
effect in the long-term technology investments.
Finally, we have identified a few technical issues with the
drafting of the bill that we will submit separately to the
staff.
While I am here today to address H.R. 3125, I would like to
note that we do have some concerns with H.R. 3019 as well and
we would be happy to offer a follow-up discussion with the
subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having the opportunity to
testify. H.R. 3125 is a good start and Lockheed Martin commends
you and the other cosponsors for identifying the need for
spectrum inventory and for taking the initiative to draft
legislation to address this issue. We hope that you will agree
with our suggestions to improve the bill and we look forward to
working with you and the committee staff throughout the
legislation process. I am happy to answer any questions that
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.062
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Dr. Johnson.
Mr. Stroup.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS STROUP
Mr. Stroup. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the
pending spectrum inventory and relocation bills. My testimony
this morning will focus on two main points.
First, to determine how and if spectrum resources are being
used efficiently, a spectrum inventory and spectrum database
must include data on actual spectrum utilization. Second, until
a database is compiled and analyzed, we caution against jumping
to any conclusions as to what is next for particular frequency
bands because new technology presents spectrum access
alternatives that have not existed until now.
I have been involved in the wireless industry for over 25
years. In the early 1990s, I was president of the Personal
Communications Industry Association, which helped the nascent
wireless industry win the reallocation of fixed microwave
spectrum for new personal communications services which were
the source of competition and innovation that were referenced
by Congressman Markey. Then I founded and ran a company called
Columbia Spectrum Management to facilitate and negotiate the
relocation of fixed microwave incumbents in FCS bands for the
auction winners.
Since March of this year, I have been the CEO of Shared
Spectrum Company. Shared Spectrum is a small technology company
located in Vienna, Virginia. Since the founding of the company
in 2000, Dr. Mark McHenry has been conducting spectrum
occupancy studies to document the untapped potential of many
unused frequency bands. Attached to my written testimony is a
list of our public studies to date. The video monitors in the
room are also displaying some sample results of our
measurements. These studies include measurements from New York
City, Chicago and Washington, D.C., during periods of
anticipated high radio traffic. They indicate that less than a
third of the allocated radio spectrum was being used at any
given time.
To take advantage of this empty spectrum capacity, SSC
pioneered dynamic spectrum access, or DSA, technology. DSA
takes advantage of the empty spectrum capacity by adapting to
the spectral environment and changing transmission or reception
parameters. This allows for more-efficient wireless
communications without interfering or requiring the dislocation
of legacy systems using the same bands. The company developed
DSA over the past 9 years for several military projects, and
this technology is now being implemented in several military
radio systems. We are also exploring several commercial
applications including new cost-effective rural wireless
broadband systems that can access preferred lower frequencies.
As has been pointed out throughout the hearing, the demand
for spectrum across all sectors and markets is substantially
increasing. We agree that the necessary first step in
confronting the spectrum dilemma is to conduct a comprehensive
study of the Nation's spectrum resources. We are therefore
pleased to support the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act. The bill
would provide guidance to the FCC and NTIA to work together to
create a database of spectrum allocations and assignments.
However, it is also important to supplement this data with
information regarding the actual use of the airwaves. Virtually
every service to which spectrum is allocated can show a
legitimate need for the spectrum, and most incumbents will
argue that they make effective use of their allocations. Thus,
compiling a database of spectrum assignments will be
interesting but that alone will fail to show how much or even
if the spectrum is actually being utilized.
Until such a database is compiled and available, we caution
against any presupposition as to what is next for a particular
radio band. To assume that the next step following the initial
inventory would be a traditional reallocation proceeding would
amount to a plan for years and years of fighting among
entrenched interests that have no notion or incentive to have
their existing spectrum rights diminished no matter how little
they are utilized. This is based on my personal experience
where it took 6 years for the PCS spectrum to be reallocated
and that looked like the fast track compared to more
reallocation efforts that typically have dragged for more than
10 years.
As the subcommittee moves forward, we believe that it is
also important to recognize that new technologies like DSA
enable more-efficient use of existing spectrum allocations and
can create new opportunities for sharing spectrum with the
existing services in underutilized bands. The interest in
finding additional spectrum for wireless broadband services is
more likely to be accommodated in a timely manner if a flexible
access framework is established that includes DSA-enabled
sharing with government and non-government incumbents. Such a
framework would focus on multipurposing legacy bands with
flexible overlay rights and responsibilities. Approaches that
involve repurposing certain bands and relocating incumbents
would be too difficult, too costly, too time consuming, and in
light of new technology, unnecessary.
Instead, a better policy would build upon the approach
taken when the PCS bands were made available in 1995. The
licenses that were auctioned were subject to a non-interference
requirement with the existing microwave incumbents. While most
of those licensees ultimately were relocated to new systems on
other frequencies, the advances made in DSA and cognitive radio
technology now provide the ability to coexist with legacy
systems that was not available at that time.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stroup follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.080
Mr. Boucher. Well, thank you, Mr. Stroup, and thanks to all
of our witnesses for your informative remarks here this
morning. I particularly appreciate the broad consensus that is
evident from your testimony about the need to move forward with
both of the bills that are the subject of our legislative
hearing this morning, particularly the need for an inventory of
spectrum that could be reallocated for commercial purposes. A
number of you, most recently Mr. Stroup, just mentioned the
potential of spectrum sharing as a way to accommodate new
commercial services within our spectrum constraints. Could you
talk a little bit about the state of the technology with regard
to spectrum sharing and what potential really does it hold and
what limitations does it face? And who would like to begin? Mr.
Hatfield.
Mr. Hatfield. Yes. Thank you. I think that sharing, you can
look at it in two ways. It is important to look at it in two
ways. We have always shared a lot of the existing spectrum and
we call that static sharing. For example, an antenna pointed at
a satellite and antennas pointing on the ground are pointing in
different directions and that provides sufficient isolation
that a satellite system can share with a terrestrial system,
and that static sort of sharing has been with us for quite some
time and used effectively. I think the key here is combining
the concepts that Tom talked about is that a lot of spectrum is
not being used all the time today and look at more dynamic
forms of sharing. In other words, for example, here in town
today in D.C., a particular channel might not be used by some
private microwave, something like that, and that spectrum could
be shared on a dynamic basis. So I think the key going
forward----
Mr. Boucher. So you are not talking about technology in
that example that would use the same spectrum simultaneously by
various users but simply with a phased use of a spectrum by
various users, each using it fully within that allotted time?
Mr. Hatfield. Yes, where they are using it but not all the
time, or as we can say, there may be directionality or
something that can be employed that would allow dynamic
sharing.
Mr. Boucher. Given that opportunity, talk a little bit if
you would about the state of technology development for actual
simultaneous sharing of the same spectrum.
Mr. Hatfield. I am not----
Mr. Stroup. I will be more than happy to field that one.
Mr. Boucher. All right, Mr. Stroup.
Mr. Stroup. We have tested this on multiple occasions with
members of the military and members of the public present. We
are currently porting it over to several different radio
systems. Our expectation is that those radios are going to be
ready for testing next year and deployed into the field no
later than the year 2012.
Mr. Boucher. So there is nothing commercially available
today that would enable simultaneous use of the spectrum by
multiple users but you are saying this technology is under
development and ready for testing essentially next year?
Mr. Stroup. I would suggest that it is beyond the level of
testing and is now being deployed into radio systems or being
developed into radio systems. Within the commercial sector, we
have initial licensing agreements with two different companies
to use it within the TV white spaces. Our expectation is that
upon conclusion of that rulemaking proceeding, the development
of those rules, that sometime within the next 18 months that it
will be deployed.
Mr. Boucher. Any other comments, Mr. Calabrese?
Mr. Calabrese. Yes. You know, as you have heard from three
of us, there seems to be a far greater opportunity in terms of
quantities of spectrum to open it up on a shared or
opportunistic basis, and there are a couple of important
precedents at least to build upon. You know, one, I think you
are aware is of course the military already allows shared use
of certain radar bands so, you know, thanks in part to the
jump-start broadband act that was over on the Senate side some
years ago, the military agreed to open up the 5 gigahertz band
based on the technology that uses, you know, dynamic frequency
selection. In other words, the devices sense before they
transmit, and if they don't detect anything like radar, then
they operate there and they keep checking, checking, checking
and they can get off real quick. The other even more important
technological I think precedent here to build on is the order
last year from the FCC on opening the TV white space for
unlicensed sharing because what the Commission has required is
a geolocation database so the smart devices will need to have
GPS and Internet access. They look up and they get a list of
available channels with conditions attached. And so we can
build on that database that the Commission is about to create
and add a lot of other frequencies over time that would have
conditions attached to them.
Mr. Boucher. That is very encouraging to hear. I would just
note that the first commercial application of the white space
technology is now occurring in my Congressional district.
Mr. Calabrese. Right.
Mr. Boucher. One other question, my time is expired, but I
will ask if you have any brief comments about this. Are there
shortcomings at the present time in the licensing and spectrum
management processes that are employed by both NTIA and the
FCC, and if you detect that there are any, do you have
recommendations for how those processes could be improved?
Anyone want to answer? Mr. Largent.
Mr. Largent. I would just repeat some of the problems that
have taken place in the AWS spectrum with some of our members
as being a shortcoming that I think are addressed in both of
these bills and I think are a definite step in the right
direction.
Mr. Boucher. All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else
want to briefly comment on that? Mr. Hatfield.
Mr. Hatfield. I would add that the Commission has done
things in the past to encourage a secondary market so that--one
of the problems with the existing system, it is centrally
controlled and therefore there are a lot of rigidities built
into it. The Commission to its credit has gone to the use of
secondary markets where companies and so forth can lease
spectrum, and that has not worked out quite as well as some of
us would have hoped, so I think there is possibilities to
continue to encourage the secondary market to reduce some of
the rigidities associated with trying to centrally manage the
resources.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Hatfield.
My time is expired. The gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Stearns, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Largent, one of my questions for us is, when we had the
auction and the DTV transition and we raised about $19 billion,
the bill that Mr. Barton sponsored and I was cosponsor, I think
it became the backbone of the fourth-generation wireless
service. Now, that was one approach. Now, the other approach
appears to be the stimulus package. They put in $7 billion to
provide grants, and I guess the question would be, the
auctioning of the spectrum it appears to be would be a more
efficient way to do it than just giving out the stimulus
package. You might comment on the two approaches here and which
one you think is more advisable.
Mr. Largent. Well, let me just say this. The bottom line
is, we need to have additional spectrum in the wireless space
in order to meet not only the demands but the promise, the hope
of the broadband world and so however you get to that point,
that is subject to debate and can even become partisan, but the
bottom line is, more spectrum is needed and sooner rather than
later. The fact is, the last two tranches of spectrum that were
allocated for wireless use, the AWS auction, 700 megahertz
auction, both of those auctions took over 10 years to come to
fruition. One was about 12 years, the other was 16 years to get
it to come to fruition, and our thought is, is this is really a
process that we are in the process of developing today that
should have begun years ago if it still going to take somewhere
between 12 and 16 years. So I guess the bottom line is, is that
there is different ways to get to the bottom line but the
important thing is to get to the bottom line and that is
additional spectrum for the wireless industry.
Mr. Stearns. The members of your association, are they
going to benefit from this $7 billion in the stimulus package?
I mean, I understand it is going to all go to develop the
wirelines but do your companies see it as a positive?
Mr. Largent. I would say that the majority of the money
that has been allocated is not going to the companies that are
in our association.
Mr. Stearns. You mentioned just briefly, the chairman
talked about T Mobile and then the spectrum reallocation you
sort of indicated the problem in the transition, and I
mentioned in my opening statement. I would think if we want
other commercial carriers to compete and get involved, this
would be a flag to them that if it is going to take too long
they have got this investment I think of over $4 billion. I
mean, how long can they continue to deal with that
procrastination? So I mean, you might give us some ideas on
what can be done to improve this reallocation timeframe and
perhaps what we in Congress should be aware of.
Mr. Largent. Well, actually, the second bill that we are
talking about today, 3019, actually goes to that subject, that
once the spectrum is identified, the spectrum is auctioned,
then getting the people that are on the spectrum off the
spectrum more expeditiously is really helped by this particular
bill that we are talking about today. So, you know, my hat is
off to you. I think Congress has----
Mr. Stearns. So you think that will do it?
Mr. Largent [continuing]. Gone forward, made mistakes,
recognized those mistakes and is now trying to correct them,
and that is a real positive movement.
Mr. Stearns. And you feel pretty comfortable that will
solve the problem?
Mr. Largent. No, I am not positive it solves all the
problems that are involved but it solves the problems that we
know of with the auction process that took place 2 years ago.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Hatfield, what steps can be taken to make
more efficient use of commercial and government spectrum that
is already deployed?
Mr. Hatfield. In my written statement, I go through the
list of sort of five techniques that can be used, and the two
probably that haven't been talked about as much here is, one,
more technical efficiency. It is like getting more miles per
gallon on your car. I mean, there are sort of two ways we can
improve our transportation efficiency. One is by more miles per
gallon or by carpooling, for example, and sharing that we have
talked about here is the carpool analogy but we also need to
look at ways of more efficiently using the spectrum, getting
more bits per second per hertz, as I would say in technical
terms. And there are a couple ways of doing that. One is
through compression, reducing the number of bits that have to
be sent. The other is using more efficient modulation
techniques. What scares me as an engineer is those techniques
only look like they can provide us with incremental
improvements, and I am not saying we shouldn't do it, we
absolutely should because it is crucial, and they are
happening, but the difficulty is, they are probably not going
to be adequate. So that leads us then to the need for more
sharing or reallocation.
The other way, just to complete the thought, is through
more intense reuse of the spectrum. For example, with your cell
phone, the tower may be 2 miles away and therefore you are
taking up an area with a 2-mile radius. If you shrink the cell
down, then you can reuse that same channel more and more times
in a city like D.C., so you can use the same channel several
hundred times. And so you can see the cellular carriers have
made enormous investments in more cell towers. That helps a
lot. As you can keep getting the cell smaller, of course, then
you have to get that information in the cell tower back to some
central location and that is where I believe your broadband
policy of getting fiber out there intersects with the wireless
industry because the wireless industry needs to get the
wireless data back to their central point and that requires
broadband facilities. So I think there is a real link here
between what is being done in the broadband policy and the
wireless industry.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further
questions but I thought Dr. Johnson might want to comment if he
wanted to on the same question.
Mr. Johnson. The commercial receiver standards, the
military already has these standards for radars but none of
those standards exist for commercial systems so there may be
opportunities to take advantage of some of those standards that
have been developed.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Stearns.
The gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Dingell, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I would like to welcome our panel, particularly Mr.
Largent, our former colleague and friend. Welcome back.
I have some questions. Since there are so many, I have to
do all this with yes or no's. Mr. Largent, yes or no, has CTIA
or anyone else conducted usage studies which measure actual
traffic to see if the spectrum is being used?
Mr. Largent. Are you talking about the spectrum that has
been allocated for commercial mobile wireless?
Mr. Dingell. Just have spectrum studies been completed to
tell us whether the spectrum is being used.
Mr. Largent. I am not sure I understand the question, sir.
Mr. Dingell. Has anybody made any studies to find out if
the spectrum is properly being used? CITE, FCC, anybody?
Mr. Largent. Well, what I can tell you is, that the
commercial mobile wireless spectrum that we have available to
this industry today is used more efficiently than any other
country of the world.
Mr. Dingell. I am going to take that as a no and I thank
you for that. Now, do all CTIA carriers operate at full
capacity on their allotted spectrum today?
Mr. Largent. No, sir.
Mr. Dingell. Has FCC conducted any usage studies which
examine whether the spectrum either by your members or anybody
else is being properly and adequately used with regard to that
spectrum which is assigned to them?
Mr. Largent. I am not aware of any.
Mr. Dingell. So the argument seems to be here I think that
you have enough spectrum for now but will need it 10 years from
now or at some future time. Is that correct?
Mr. Largent. We have enough spectrum for right now but we
will need spectrum before 10 years.
Mr. Dingell. And I thoroughly agree with you. Our problem
here is to see how we are going to get that spectrum
efficiently allocated, because as you will remember from your
time on this committee, we had a serious problem with regard to
the fact that the spectrum was just thrown out by the FCC and
by the government to be sold for budgetary reasons as opposed
to addressing the proper use of the spectrum.
Now, to all witnesses starting on your right and my left,
how do you view H.R. 3125 and H.R. 3019? Do you view it as
complementary to the FCC's work to develop a national broadband
plan, yes or no? Starting on your far right, if you please,
sir.
Mr. Hatfield. A simple yes or no answer? Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Largent?
Mr. Largent. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Sir?
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, very much.
Mr. Dingell. Sir?
Mr. Smith. The answer is yes but I believe it could be
expanded.
Mr. Dingell. Next witness, please, sir.
Mr. Johnson. No.
Mr. Dingell. No? And the last witness?
Mr. Stroup. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Now, if the completion of national broadband
should be delayed pending enactment of H.R. 3125 and H.R. 3019,
how long should such delay be, starting again on your far right
and my far left. How long could or should that delay be?
Mr. Hatfield. I think the requirement is so great that we
do not want to wait pending taking some of these steps pending
the inventory.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Largent.
Mr. Largent. And I would agree with that. The sooner the
better.
Mr. Dingell. Next witness, please.
Mr. Calabrese. Yes. Likewise, there are bands and things--
--
Mr. Dingell. How long should the delay be while we wait for
those studies to be completed, next witness.
Mr. Smith. Chairman Dingell, the answer is, delay is not
good but delay is frankly better if you don't have the right
information, so if you need the right information, delay may be
necessary.
Mr. Dingell. Yes, I am no special pleader for delay. My
concern is that if we do this, we do it well, and I am not
satisfied that up until this time we have been doing these
things well and I am very much troubled that we will expand
that bad history by again doing things poorly----
Mr. Johnson. We agree with that.
Mr. Dingell [continuing]. And winding up with a mess on our
hands because we have built upon a faulty edifice. Next
witness, sir.
Mr. Stroup. We would recommend moving forward with the
spectrum inventory including the actual measurements, which
will help identify bands that are particularly useful for
spectrum sharing.
Mr. Dingell. All right. Mr. Chairman, I note I am 4 seconds
over my time and I yield back with thanks to you.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Chairman Dingell.
The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank
you for this hearing. I want to thank the witnesses for your
testimony as well, all of you, and especially Dr. Johnson. I
appreciated your technical counsel on the legislation as well.
Senator Smith, I want to go to you regarding this notion
put forth by the distinguished scholar in residence at the FCC
for First Amendment and spectrum, Dr. Benjamin. In his paper,
and this is just from May of this year, he writes, ``The most
obvious desirable regulations are probably those that are pure
dead weight loss, regulations that cost broadcasters
significant amounts of money but have no impact on their
behavior. This category would include onerous record-keeping
requirements, ascertainment requirements, et cetera. These are
unlikely to have any impact on programming and thus will likely
be pure cost.'' His thesis is in this paper which I will ask
unanimous consent to put in the record called ``Roasting the
Pig to Burn Down the House: A Modest Proposal,'' is to make it
so costly on broadcasters that they surrender their spectrum,
and I find it an abomination, I find it offensive. I don't
quite understand why he is now in this position at the FCC, and
I will follow up on that. But given the fact that we just went
through a $2 billion DTV conversion and you are on the cusp of
a digital television technology that is mobile and you make the
argument in your statement about how every new subscriber to
that free over-the-air digital mobile service makes that even
more efficient because you are not adding to the stream. If we
follow Professor Benjamin's counsel or the FCC does, aren't we
just throwing that $2 billion into a paper shredder?
Mr. Smith. Congressman, yes, you are throwing $2 billion of
U.S. taxpayer money away. You are throwing away potentially
untold billions that the U.S. citizens have spent in
detrimental reliance upon the Congressional urging of the
digital transition. Suffice it to say, my phone has been
ringing off the hook ever since this gentleman's work has been
revealed. That said, I think what he does is simply try to
monetize highest and best use in pure dollar terms,
disregarding all the other public values that are served
through localism, local news, local sports, local weather.
These are things that I think, you know, particularly when it
comes to emergency information, Amber Alerts, how do you
monetize that? And I am hesitant to say it, but when it comes
to broadcasting and the broadcast airwaves, they have always
been a public option to make sure that everybody gets served,
and he seems to be suggesting that that maybe should be
yesterday.
Mr. Walden. Dr. Johnson, I raised the issue in my opening
statement about the amateur radio broadcast service, and I
failed to disclose that Mr. Ross and I are the two licensed
amateur radio operators which gives us license to be real hams
and politicians, and I am just curious as you look at the
spectrum from a technical perspective, what should amateur
radio licensees be concerned about and what threats and value
do you see in that spectrum?
Mr. Johnson. I won't be able to give you a full detailed
answer because I have not looked at that particular issue in
detail. I would support, however--and I also am a ham radio
operator.
Mr. Walden. Oh, very good.
Mr. Johnson. I would support, however, your thesis that the
ham bands have been an important backup system for the Nation's
security and I think they are also a valuable resource for
citizens who have an interest in that kind of technology, and
although there are other avenues to address those same issues
now outside of the ham bands, I think they are still important
and we would be happy to look at the technical details of the
challenges to that particular band.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Hatfield, do you have any comment on the
amateur radio band? And tell me you are a ham radio operator
too, would you?
Mr. Hatfield. You know, I think my license just expired but
the way I got into this business was starting as a ham. I think
I was 13 or 14 years old, something like that. I think the
problem that the amateur radio community has is that they do
provide a very, very vital final sort of backup communication
network that is just absolutely--it is totally decentralized so
there is nothing central that can fail, and that is really
critical. The problem is, if you tune across the band, so often
they are idle, and if somebody was really clever, maybe we
could figure out ways that we could do a little bit of sharing
there that would not diminish the amateur opportunity at all
for use in emergencies but in non-emergency times might be used
for some other vital public interest purposes as well.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is expired and I
am going to excuse myself. Mr. Buyer is going to take over for
our side. We have a classified briefing with the Secretary of
State and Secretary of Defense on Afghanistan and Pakistan that
I am going to go to. So again, I thank you for your testimony
and look forward to working with all of you and others on this
issue as we move forward in a thoughtful and constructive way
on appropriate use of spectrum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Walden.
The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Buyer, is recognized for 7
minutes. Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Buyer, if you can withhold, I need
to go in order here. The gentleman from California, Mr.
McNerney, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be
brief here.
First of all, I want to thank the panel. I found the
testimony very informative, and I didn't hear anyone say well,
no, I don't like this legislation. I think Dr. Johnson had a
little reservation about some of the definitions so I
appreciate that, and I am going to ask you in a minute to
expand on that. But first I want to say, expanding the range to
10 gigahertz, there would seem to be a disagreement between Mr.
Calabrese and Mr. Hatfield on that, and I am not sure exactly
why you would think that going up to 10 gigahertz isn't that
useful, Mr. Hatfield. Is it Dr. Hatfield or Mr. Hatfield?
Mr. Hatfield. My doctor is honorary, so----
Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, that is good enough for me. Dr.
Hatfield.
Mr. Hatfield. I think the answer is, there may be some
confusion. It is the range up to roughly 3 gigahertz that is
really critical to people like the cellular industry, so that
is the most critical. On the other hand, if some of the
services we might want to relocate could go higher, it would
still work OK if they went higher in frequency so therefore I
think you can make an argument that we ought to look all the
way up to 10 to see if there are any opportunities, for
example, that some could be reallocated from below.
Mr. McNerney. So there are physical limitations after 3,
say, line of sight and so on?
Mr. Hatfield. Yes, that is correct for mobile applications.
Now, for certain radar applications, for example, being up
there where you have line of sight, it might work perfectly
fine. So that is what I think is perhaps the basis for the
difference. I would support going up higher for that purpose
but we mustn't kid ourselves. There are technical limitations
that would prevent it from being used for certain applications.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Dr. Johnson, you did mention the idea that there is no
single metric for efficiency. Is there anyone out there that
you are aware of or that would be useful or sort of a set of
definitions?
Mr. Johnson. We think that a single definition like
intensity of use is not appropriate. We propose using a variety
of metrics that correspond to the critical parameters related
to the particular system and application that is being used.
For example, metrics for communications systems would be
different than those for radar systems.
Mr. McNerney. So are you going to supply the committee with
that information?
Mr. Johnson. We would be pleased to work with the committee
to develop those metrics, absolutely.
Mr. McNerney. I will be interested to work with the
committee on examining that metric definition.
The last thing I have is the notion that the paper
inventory isn't going to be adequate, and I didn't quite
appreciate that. You know, I come from a technical background
and I was a test engineer and a field tester, but when Mr.
Stroup showed the graphs with all those blank spaces, people
that own spectrum are going to say well, jeez, we use all of
it, we don't need to reallocate and so we are going to need to
actually do quite a bit of testing to validate, and it seems to
me like a fairly--just on the basis of what was spoken here
this morning, a fairly big task to really judge how much
spectrum is available out there. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Stroup. Yes, Congressman. We submitted some suggestions
in our written testimony as to some short-term approaches as
well as longer-term approaches. We would recommend
approximately 10 to 20 stations supplemented by mobile testing
and an overall longer period of time and a larger number
perhaps in conjunction with universities and other
organizations to be able to compile an ongoing inventory of how
the spectrum is actually being used.
Mr. McNerney. That is going to take a lot of resources, a
lot of time and a lot of money. Even what you have called a
shortcut seems like a fairly big undertaking.
Mr. Stroup. I believe that the NTIA and other
organizations, the National Science Foundation are already
compiling this information so some of it is there. Our studies
or many of our studies are already available publicly and can
be integrated into this database, so it is not as large an
undertaking as it may seem but I do agree that overall long
term there is a great deal of data that will be compiled. The
Illinois Institute of Technology is actually conducting ongoing
studies in Chicago. They have over 2 terabytes of information
that has already been collected from that location.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Calabrese.
Mr. Calabrese. I mentioned in my written statement that the
costs are really coming down for doing this so, for example,
Offcom, which is, you know, the British telecom regulator,
recently completed a nationwide drive test of their airwaves.
They mount measuring devices just on the rooftop of a national
vehicle fleet, which we could do with the Postal Service or
whatever, and then, you know, that gets downloaded over wi-fi.
There are also very inexpensive devices now to have a
monitoring network. That is being field tested in the D.C. area
fairly soon by a company. We are hoping to have one on the roof
of our building downtown.
Mr. McNerney. My time is expired. Mr. Hatfield, do you have
a very quick response?
Mr. Hatfield. Just as I say in my written testimony, I said
one of the things we can do is focus on those bands which look
the most promising, so do the measurement first on the most
promising. Second--well, why don't I just stop there.
Mr. McNerney. I guess it comes down to one of our favorite
Presidents saying ``trust and verify.'' Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. McNerney.
The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Buyer, is recognized for 7
minutes.
Mr. Buyer. Thank you.
Mr. Largent, are you familiar with this latest GAO report
that came out titled ``FCC Needs to Improve Oversight of
Wireless Phone Service''?
Mr. Largent. I have not read the entire thing but I am
aware of it.
Mr. Buyer. Are you aware of the recommendations of GAO? GAO
recommended that the FCC, number one, improve its outreach to
consumers about its complaint process, related performance
goals and measures and monitoring complaints; number two,
develop guidance on federal and State oversight roles; and
three, develop policies for communicating with States. Are you
familiar with the three recommendations?
Mr. Largent. Well, I am more familiar with the facts that
they uncovered first that was in that report that showed that
84 percent of----
Mr. Buyer. That is where I am going. You are getting ahead
of me.
Mr. Largent. Oh, sorry.
Mr. Buyer. Let us just go right there. I mean, what I am
asking is, they have these recommendations based on, and so I
want to ask you to comment about what they are based on. I
mean, my gosh, when we look at all the choices that consumers
have here going into the Christmas shopping season and the
levels of satisfaction, would you please comment on the basis
and the facts that they relied on for these recommendations?
Mr. Largent. Well, I think it is not the way I would have
written the report based upon the statistics that they found in
the study. Knowing this industry as I have for the last 6 years
and seeing the consumer complaints decline every year and the
consumer satisfaction go up every year, we feel like that that
is a movement in the right direction. Eighty-four percent
approval by our consumers is not good enough for us. We
continue to want to raise that even more but it is a heck of a
positive mark for the industry and I hope to be able to sit
before you in a year or two and be able to talk about how we
are no longer 84 percent, we are even higher today. But, you
know, I think that the report did highlight some things that
the FCC can be about that would improve their service but the
bottom line is, is that I think it is a star for the wireless
industry to show the improvement of our service for our
customers.
Mr. Buyer. Regarding your member companies when they make
strategic judgments in competition, wouldn't consumer
satisfaction be one of those important elements?
Mr. Largent. Absolutely. It is the key statistic that they
look at all the time.
Mr. Buyer. You know, I get excited when I listen to my good
friend Mr. Markey share his excitement about competition in the
marketplace, and so I would share with my good friend Mr.
Markey, when you rejoice in competition in the marketplace and
what it is bringing consumers relative to choice, do not be so
eager to get more government control if in fact the marketplace
is driving consumer satisfaction.
The other point I would like to, if I had a little
latitude, Mr. Chairman, because I am also cosponsor of this
legislation, I would like to kind of shift gears and turn to
Mr. Smith and ask a particular question, and matter of fact, it
may drive, Mr. Chairman. I think we should take a really good
look here at Comcast and NBC. So I am going to ask a question
about Comcast and NBC, Mr. Smith. I have got some concerns
about your member companies out there. I have got concerns
about consolidation in the marketplace. I have got concerns
about what type of new business model does this bring, what is
its impact and how does it drive a new model for advertising.
You held up your phone and you talked about this as a
multimedia platform. As we have a marketplace as you try to
judge into the future, it is all about individualizing of
advertising, and I can almost see if we are going to permit the
marketplace to begin to mine and profile people that pretty
soon even advertising how it is even driven not only upon a
web, you could almost have individualized advertising occurring
upon TV. So as I try to think about in the future and how a
vertical integration is this kind of deal when you have this
many eyes of Comcast and being able to control content, it
almost turns our present business model inside out, upside
down. I welcome your comments on mine.
Mr. Smith. Congressman, some of my members are for it, some
of them are very concerned about it, and I am with my friends.
Mr. Buyer. Very good, Senator.
Mr. Smith. The NAB has not taken a position on this at this
juncture. We are simply going to watch and see what kind of
conditions develop but we are very attuned to the issue and the
problems that you just cited.
Mr. Buyer. You know, the Supreme Court long ago talked
about the importance of having diversity out there among our
media, and that was back in the 1940s, with regard to ideas. I
mean, if I were one of your member companies and I am a small
company and I have a couple of NBC affiliates and maybe a CBS
affiliate, can't you relate to their concerns even about
retransmission rights and fees and what impact is that going to
have or upon others whereby is there going to be cost shifting
because of this vertical integration?
Mr. Smith. Well, obviously I am more than interested. I
answer their phone calls because, yes, they are concerned with
the very issues that you identify, but I assume that the FTC,
the FCC and the Department of Justice will look at all of these
things and propose conditions if this is to go forward at all.
And at this juncture, it is the feeling of the association that
we should allow the process to work.
Mr. Buyer. One of the concerns I have, Mr. Chairman, and
why I would encourage you to place your eyes and considerations
on this issue is defined by the silence. When there is silence
in the marketplace because of this type of deal, that tells me
that there is great concern in the marketplace and fear that if
in fact a company were to come out and come against this type
of merger, what type of repercussions in the marketplace would
in fact occur. So the fact that there is silence out there is
beginning to bother me, Mr. Smith, that a lot of your member
companies while they may confide in that phone call with you
that there is a reason that they are not coming out publicly
because they don't want to get jammed in their negotiations. Am
I close here?
Mr. Smith. Well, I think they are very interested observers
of this process and they share the concerns you have expressed.
Again, we have networks, we have affiliates. They are have most
issues in common but this is one where there needs to be an
accommodation, an understanding and a legal structure put in
place that allows both to survive.
Mr. Buyer. Mr. Chairman, I would just encourage us to put
our eyes to have a better understanding so that we can try to
see over the horizon the impact that this type of merger is
going to have on a multimedia platform and advertising model.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Buyer. Let me assure
the gentleman that our subcommittee will conduct at least one
hearing on the Comcast NBC acquisition at the appropriate time
next year. That announcement has already been made, and the
gentleman is quite right in expressing the need for us to focus
on this very carefully. It is certainly our intent to do so.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to our
witnesses for not being able to hear their testimony. I was in
with constituents and had to take a couple of other meetings.
Mr. Largent, I have a question for you. Recognizing the
challenges that Congress and the FCC will face in trying to
relocate as much spectrum as possible, are companies within the
CTIA exploring the possibility that a dynamic spectrum access
that Mr. Hatfield suggested as a possible solution?
Mr. Largent. I would say our companies are at a point where
they are exploring every opportunity, every option that is
available to them including how to utilize their own spectrum
that they currently have, use it more efficiently and look at
every other avenue that is available to them in the years ahead
to access more spectrum.
Mr. Stupak. Are any of the companies within your
organization using the dynamic spectrum access? I mean, are any
of them trying to borrow, if you will, during a peak time
surrounding system? Is that going on now?
Mr. Largent. I am sure they are looking, as I said, at
every option that is available to them.
Mr. Stupak. Mr. Smith, good to see you and thanks for being
here. Let me ask you this one. I think it is important that we
look for or search for a solution to the spectrum crisis that
preserves free over-the-air broadcasting while fostering
wireless broadband deployment. In your testimony, you cite how
the use of white space spectrum in rural America is a way to
support both of these public interest goals. Is this solution
workable in urban centers as well?
Mr. Smith. It may well be. However, we do have a concern
about interference and want to make sure that we don't degrade
other signals.
Mr. Stupak. Let me ask you this. Has NAB conducted any
studies that show how much spectrum is needed to fulfill future
business plans of mobile TV, multicasting and HD television?
Have you done some studies?
Mr. Smith. We are doing a study right now on that very
question because we understand the importance of this issue and
want to have the best information possible.
Mr. Stupak. Any idea when that study may be done?
Mr. Smith. I don't have a date but I will get that to you,
Congressman.
Mr. Stupak. OK. Thanks.
Mr. Hatfield, we talked a little bit about the spectrum
crisis. Do we only have to worry about that for the high
population centers or is this a national issue? I mean, in my
rural area, we have a lot of places where we don't have
anything, so----
Mr. Hatfield. Exactly. It is primarily a large urban area
issue, and even within that urban area there are some real
hotspots. An example would be a football stadium on Sunday
afternoon. Having said that, I think I tend to divide the
problem into two parts, and that is the urban problem and the
more rural problem, and we need these more dynamic ways to be
able to use the spectrum in the rural areas that is not needed
because of the lack of population density.
Mr. Stupak. Well, let me ask you this. Is more access to
spectrum the only issue the FCC and this committee should be
focused on or are there other efficiency gains that can be
explored with next-generation smart phones?
Mr. Hatfield. As I indicated in my written testimony, I
don't hold out an awful lot of hope for some of the traditional
solutions for the major urban areas, but there are certainly
the examples that I gave like compression and so forth that we
should be pursuing. I don't think those technical solutions
solve the problem completely.
Mr. Stupak. Well, if we start using these smart phones,
wouldn't the manufacturers sort of help alleviate some of these
problems we are going to see with trying to free up more
spectrum? Can that be a solution? Can we find it more in
manufacturing as opposed to the FCC and government?
Mr. Hatfield. I don't see how the handsets by themselves
can do an awful lot to improve with the exception of the sort
of dynamic spectrum access where the handset is smart enough
that is looking around to see what other spectrum might be
available and moving to it so we can use the intelligence in
the handset to find additional spectrum. I am not sure how
intelligence in a handset will improve the efficiency of
existing spectrum use beyond sort of incremental improvements.
Mr. Stupak. Mr. Calabrese, did you want to add something on
that?
Mr. Calabrese. Yes. You know, I talk in my written
statement about the importance of encouraging hybrid networks
because, you know, as Dale said, we are reaching the limits,
the technical efficiency limits. We are also reaching limits in
terms of how close the carriers can bring cell sites and
backhaul to the consumer so you need to shrink the cell size,
get more refuse, and one way to do that is, right now we have,
you know, pending at the FCC are rules to extend the cutter
phone device choice to wireless, and when consumers have the
choice of any device, the devices increasingly will be of a
type that they will decide on the fly what is my most
economical path, and in most cases that will be, like in a
place like this, at home, in offices and public spaces, it will
be over unlicensed spectrum into local backhaul, into consumer-
provided backhaul, and that will offload a lot of traffic from
carriers.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Stupak.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. Hatfield, you are talking here about capacity for
dynamic sharing of a spectrum so that we can make more
efficient use of currently allocated spectrum. What percentage
of our spectrum needs do you think can be satisfied just by use
of dynamic sharing?
Mr. Hatfield. I have not looked at it, candidly, in that
sort of quantitative way but I think--well, I am not going to
answer you very satisfactorily. But I think it is sufficient
enough that it would be a significant help. I don't think it
gets us all the way there.
Mr. Markey. So what you are talking about here is something
which is supplemental to what the needs are going to be in the
future but not a substitute for transfer of spectrum in order
to deal with the issue. Is that right?
Mr. Hatfield. I guess I would put it slightly different. I
think we are probably going to need to use all of these
different techniques.
Mr. Markey. Well, yes. I use polysyllabic words and you put
it in very simple English. We will have to use everything.
Do you agree with that, Mr. Largent? This reminds me a
little bit of a discussion of CAFE standards, you know,
improvement of efficiency of vehicles or appliance efficiency
where we are saying can we use new technology here to get
better efficiency out of these automobiles or out of the
appliances which we use but at the same time you also want to
do the research on all new technologies, you know, all electric
vehicles, whatever to move out of the old technologies, and
that is kind of what of we are talking about here: how do we
get the additional spectrum but also squeeze out the maximum
efficiency out of the old technology. So how do you view it,
Mr. Largent?
Mr. Largent. Well, I would say I have a chart here that I
will submit for the record and give to you if you would like to
look at it but it basically talks about how efficient different
countries utilize the spectrum available to them, and in the
United States we have 270 million consumers and we use per
megahertz 660,000 consumers per megahertz of spectrum used, and
that is the most efficient by a factor of at least two of any
other country save Mexico actually. They have 79 million users
there. But we absolutely are using our spectrum available to us
in the most efficient way possible and sometimes by a magnitude
of two.
Mr. Markey. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Your question to us about----
Mr. Markey. About this balance between squeezing
efficiencies out of the old technology as opposed to moving
over a spectrum to augment what we now have allocated so that
we can maximize the wealth-generating opportunities.
Mr. Smith. I think it is one of the miracles we have before
us is how much more efficiently we are using the spectrum now
and certainly broadcasting has invested billions to achieve
that efficiency. I do believe because we have seen the
explosion you spoke of at the beginning of the hearing,
Congressman, that there are going to be compression
technologies that will provide some of the answer here so that
we can preserve the broadband and the broadcast values that the
committee seeks to serve.
Mr. Markey. Thank you.
Dr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, Congressman, I would like to make a
couple comments. First of all, the Department of Defense, one
of our principal customers, is driven toward increasing
efficiency. We mentioned briefly in my testimony the use of
unmanned aerial systems and streaming video and the
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance needs in Iraq and
Afghanistan that are driving that efficiency as they are with
the commercial market. Lockheed Martin has developed spectrum
management tools that are being used by our customers to
increase that efficiency but I would also like to point out
that in the federal, non-federal kind of binary view of things,
it is really not that. It is not a binary view at all because
it is important to realize the Department is a major consumer
of commercial equipment and using commercial systems both
terrestrial and space so they have to balance that
accommodation between commercial and federal needs.
Mr. Markey. Mr. Stroup.
Mr. Stroup. Yes, I would emphasize that the military is
deploying dynamic spectrum access. It is being built into
several military radio systems.
Going back to the question about utilization, emphasizing
the point that you made regarding the PCS allocation
proceeding, that spectrum was encumbered by over 1,500
microwave apps which ultimately the PCS licensees received that
via auction with the understanding that they could not
interfere with them and we are recommending building on that
model, being able to utilize the technologies available today
where they may not actually have to be relocated but actually
could share the spectrum.
Mr. Markey. Yes, I think we have to be inflexible in terms
of the goal which we are trying to reach here but flexible in
terms of what the final combination looks like, but I think it
will involve obviously substantial portions of both, increased
efficiency and more spectrum as well, and we have to ensure
that we encourage both to be maximized so that we do make
ourselves as competitive as a Nation as we can looking over our
shoulders at number two and three in the world, as you said,
Steve, so we maintain this lead. So we thank you all very much.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Markey.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, is recognized
for 7 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to start by thanking all the witnesses but
especially I want to thank Dale Hatfield for his years of
dedicated public service and his assistance to policymakers and
helping people across the country to better understand the
technologies behind these issues. I never had a chance to tell
him that personally and he is here and I want him to know that,
so thank you, Mr. Hatfield.
Mr. Largent, Mr. Smith, you both talk a lot about mobile
video broadcasting, and I am curious, do you think people want
to watch a limited number of channels at a set schedule on a
device about this big or do you think they want to watch their
choice of programs when they want to watch them, and should
that consumer preference drive spectrum decisions?
Mr. Largent. Well, I would say that from my personal
experience, the older I get, the harder it is to watch
television on a handset, but, you know, we are serving closer
probably now 280 million customers in this country will
probably be the statistic at the end of this year and I would
say that there probably is consumer uptake of that particular
service as it becomes available and it is available now.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Congressman Doyle, I don't believe they should
be regarded as exclusive. I think we can do both. And I know
young people are highly interested in mobile TV and I suspect
many who don't have to wear these are as well. That said, I
think it is very important that these new inventions like Hulu
coming along are using broadcast content, it won't be many
years until your laptop will have a broadcast signal too, and
so it is not either/or. It is both.
Mr. Doyle. But it seems to me--and I agree, I think it is
young people because I couldn't watch TV on this either. But it
seems to me those same people are the ones that don't want a
set schedule. They want to watch their show when they want to
want their show, and that being the case, you know, as we talk
about where is the best place to allocate spectrum, it just--I
just saw a note here, ``I want to watch the Steelers beat the
Seahawks in real time.'' Right now the Steelers aren't beating
anyone. Eddie, were you responsible for that?
Mr. Smith. And Congressman, to that point, I hear your
point but I also hear Congressman Markey's point. I hear people
say no, I want to watch it when it is really happening and it
is just part of being the American tradition, particularly when
it comes to sports. People are very anxious to see it live in
real time.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Hatfield.
Mr. Hatfield. First of all, I want to thank you for your
kind remarks earlier but I think as an academic stepping back
from this, you have asked a very, very fundamental question. If
people want to watch content simultaneously, than that old
broadcast model is a very efficient way of doing it. If people
want to watch individual things, then the more cellularized
approach is more efficient. So here your decision or our
decision is how that balance should be made, and of course on
the broadcast side we probably have this additional public
interest benefit that may sway the decision but I think from an
engineering standpoint, that is the fundamental question, how
much of it is individual choice and what time you want to watch
it and how much of it do you want to watch simultaneously with
other people in the country.
Mr. Doyle. Does anyone else want to chime in on that? OK.
I just have one other question. Mr. Smith, in the
Pittsburgh area, roughly about 8 percent of the people in my
region get their broadcast with rabbit ears, you know, over-
the-air broadcasting, and I was just curious if you have any
numbers on how many people--yes, 8 percent watch with rabbit
ears. How many people--do you have any numbers on how many
people watch HDTV over the air with, you know, the rabbit ears
versus relying on standard def? Is there any kind of figures
like that?
Mr. Smith. I have heard the range from 8 percent to 20
percent but I think there are a couple of other factors that
are important depending on your Congressional district. For
example, Mr. Barton's district, it may go as high as 40
percent, and over the air tends to be about people who are
rural, who are poor, who are elderly, who have also invested in
the digital transition.
Mr. Doyle. Do you think they have HDTVs?
Mr. Smith. I believe the figure of $25 billion, which is an
estimate of what people have spent in the digital transition, I
think many of them do now and they really like high definition
and they don't want to see it degraded and they are beginning
to really value the multicasting so that they get a religious
channel, a weather channel, a Hispanic channel, a Korean
channel. This is the miracle that is now made possible because
we all did this and it is a very exciting future that I hate to
see clouded by ill-considered ideas that pit broadband against
broadcast. I do think in the fullness of time there will be
technologies that will provide for both.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions. I will yield back.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle.
The gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Largent, we know Americans are going to be looking at
their cell phone much more frequently and on an hourly basis. I
just wonder what suggestion you could give us on things we
could do here or FCC to promote investment in the networks that
are really going to be necessary. Just give your general
thoughts about that.
Mr. Largent. Well, number one, I would applaud what the FCC
did in November by approving the tower siting initiative. We
have been fighting this battle for a long time, giving local
jurisdiction, States the ability to object to tower siting
proposals but doing it in a timely fashion, and that goes a
long way to helping this industry provide more service to this
country, so I really applaud the FCC for their action on the
tower siting. The two bills that we are looking at today are
kind of the beginning of the process, the end of the process.
The spectrum inventory bill looks at the possible spectrum that
is out there, how it is being used and what spectrum could be
identified for higher and better use perhaps. And then your
bill comes in at the end of the process and says here is a more
orderly fashion to move the current spectrum holders to their
new spectrum and do it in a more efficient, effective way and
do it faster, so both of these bills are good bills and go a
long way to improving a process of acquiring additional
spectrum which the wireless industry is sorely going to need in
the years to come.
Mr. Inslee. I want to make sure I didn't miss anyone. I
didn't hear any good or even not-so-good constructive criticism
of our bill, and I want to make sure I hadn't missed any. Does
anyone have any suggestions on the bill I am working with Mr.
Upton on that you would suggest to improve the product? We are
always looking for good suggestions. This might be the first
hearing in American history where there isn't any constructive
criticism, so this is quite an achievement.
Mr. Calabrese, you have suggested broadening the purpose of
the spectrum relocation fund to support modernizing federal
systems and allowing for a greater degree of band sharing.
Could you give us any sense what you would be suggestive of as
far as cost and what type of approach?
Mr. Calabrese. It is very difficult to know the exact cost.
In fact, I would assume probably, you know, first of all that
the agencies that would be proposing to modernize their system
to free up spectrum for sharing that they would be in a sense
second in line. You know, there would first from that spectrum
relocation fund the priority for those agencies that needed to
migrate off a band so that it could be cleared for licensing as
we did with AWS, you know, the fundamental purpose of your
bill. But then secondarily, you know, like now we have
remaining funds and then I think they should--agencies should
be able to apply to the technical panel that you propose in the
bill setting up which would then recommend to OMB which of
those, you know, on a competitive basis which of those would
have the greatest impact in terms of freeing up spectrum for
the commercial sector or for spectrum efficiency, and it is
really a great benefit because it would make those agencies
more effective with more modern communication while also
freeing up spectrum.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Inslee.
I am going to ask unanimous consent on behalf of the
gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, to insert in the record a
letter concerning the subject matter before us of the
Electronic Warfare and Information Operations Association.
Without objection, that will be made a part of the record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Boucher. And the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Bono
Mack, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Bono Mack. I thank the Chair.
I would like to ask a question of Dr. Johnson. In your
testimony, you indicated that future government spectrum needs
will be focused on high-bandwidth uses such as video for UAVs
or high-altitude surveillance aircraft. Is that correct?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, that is correct.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Can you please provide an estimate of the
percentage of the DOD's high-bandwidth video capacity used by
UAVs and other surveillance aircraft that is currently provided
by commercial satellite systems using spectrum above 10
gigahertz?
Mr. Johnson. No, I can't provide that but we can provide
that after the hearing.
Mrs. Bono Mack. Thank you. And do you believe that most of
the future high-bandwidth video capacity for the UAVs also will
use spectrum above 10 gigahertz?
Mr. Johnson. I don't know the answer to that.
Mrs. Bono Mack. OK. Thank you. If I can get the answers in
writing after the hearing, that would be great.
At this point I would like to yield the balance of my time
to my colleague, Steve Buyer.
Mr. Buyer. Thank you very much. The question I have--and I
thank you for yielding--is about the delays in the delivery of
spectrum and its impact on delivering commercial systems. So
when you look back even back in 2006 when T Mobile paid a lot
of money out there, $4.2 billion, for spectrum, you know, we
are 5 years down range now and we still don't have systems
being delivered, and so when we lay out these timelines for the
delivery and they are not met, so I look at this legislation
before us and I am interested in your opinions if I were to
offer an amendment, and Mr. Markey talks about giving
encouragement. What about if I were to offer an amendment that
has a penalty clause so that if a government department or
agency does not deliver the relocation at the timeline that is
specified whether it is classified or unclassified, then that
department or agency is to pay interest on the monies relative
to where that spectrum is located? So you can figure out what
the economic impact would be, so if DOD says well, it is too
difficult for us to deliver the spectrum from Mobile,
Pensacola, to Jacksonville because we have our classified
issues. Well, deal with it then. Tell us what they are. You
said you could deliver on a particular date, then deal with it.
And so I am interested if I were to offer such an amendment as
an incentive, because if we ask for these companies to put
billions of dollars--you are asking for the next auction. We do
the next auction. Government takes the money and we use the
money yet aren't delivering when we said we would.
And so in the end, Mr. Smith, you talked about public
values. Public values are based upon virtues. If you are going
to have a deal, you can't have a deal without fidelity and
fidelity requires two people, and so if government is not
upholding its fidelity, then maybe we should have an
encouragement clause called a penalty clause. What are your
ideas, your thoughts, Mr. Largent?
Mr. Largent. Well, I like your thinking going into this but
I would prefer--I mean, I am just thinking about this
freewheeling right now so I wasn't prepared for the question,
but as I think about it, I think perhaps you could build
incentives for the people that are moving off the spectrum to
get off so that you give them the spectrum relocation money.
You would give them, you know, some amount of money if they are
off in a year and you give something less than that amount if
they are off in 2 years, so you give them more money to
relocate the faster they are able to relocate as opposed to the
same amount of money whenever they relocate.
Mr. Buyer. Well, we can incentivize and penalize, right?
Mr. Largent. We like incentives.
Mr. Buyer. I understand.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Congressman, NAB really doesn't have a dog in
the fight, so to say, but having said that, I applaud the way
you are thinking because I think it would have the effect of
incentivizing more interest in spectrum auctions if they knew
that there was a two-way street and they would be treated
fairly.
Mr. Buyer. Thank you. I would like to explore this idea
with not only my colleagues but with you on how we can build
this into this piece of legislation. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Stupak [presiding.] I would have to put a second degree
amendment on your amendment and we would have to punish all
Members of Congress who spend that spectrum money five times
over.
Mr. Buyer. I agree with you.
Mr. Stupak. And with that, I think we will close this happy
hearing. Thank you to all of our witnesses. Have a good holiday
and thank you for being here.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4860A.086