[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPECTRUM USE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 6, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-69
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-242 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
MARY BONO MACK, California BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
GREG WALDEN, Oregon ANNA G. ESHOO, California
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan GENE GREEN, Texas
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
Vice Chairman LOIS CAPPS, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JAY INSLEE, Washington
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JOHN BARROW, Georgia
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
PETE OLSON, Texas
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
(ii)
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
LEE TERRY, ANNA G. ESHOO, California
Vice Chairman EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois DORIS O. MATSUI, California
MARY BONO MACK, California JOHN BARROW, Georgia
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California Islands
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois officio
JOE BARTON, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 3
Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nebraska, opening statement.................................... 5
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 6
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 47
Witnesses
Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications
and Administration, United States Department of Defense........ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 12
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPECTRUM USE
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Walden, Terry, Stearns, Shimkus,
Blackburn, Bass, Gingrey, Scalise, Latta, Guthrie, Matsui,
Barrow, and Waxman (ex officio).
Staff Present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of
Coalitions; Neil Fried, Chief Counsel, Communications and
Technology; Debbee Keller, Press Secretary; Carly McWilliams,
Legislative Clerk; Jeff Mortier, Professional Staff Member;
David Redl, Counsel, Telecom; Nicholas Degan, FCC Detailee;
Stephen Cha, Minority Senior Professional Staff; Jeff Cohen,
Minority FCC Detailee; Sarah Fisher, Minority Policy Analyst;
and Roger Sherman, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and
Technology.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. We are going to call to order the Subcommittee
on Communications and Technology.
To date we have held three hearings on how good spectrum
policy can promote wireless broadband, spur economic
development, create jobs, and generate significant revenue for
the American taxpayer. Today's hearing addresses one of the
hardest pieces of this spectrum puzzle: how to more efficiently
use government spectrum and free additional resources to meet
consumers' growing wireless broadband needs.
Now, this is not a new challenge for NTIA, the Nation's
Federal Government spectrum coordinator. The spectrum in the
AWS-1 band, the spectrum used by T-Mobile and others to provide
high-speed wireless broadband services, was government spectrum
as recently as 2007. Relocating the government users and uses
in that spectrum and making it available for commercial
operation has been a Herculean task, but one that raised $13
billion for the U.S. Treasury and furthered U.S. leadership in
the wireless broadband space.
Looking toward the future, the NTIA has already undertaken
the first steps to make additional spectrum available for
commercial use. In its 5- and 10-year plans, the NTIA has
identified a number of government spectrum users and uses that
hold the potential for relocation or greater spectral
efficiencies.
I thank the Assistant Secretary Strickling and his staff at
the NTIA for taking these important first steps to bringing
additional spectrum resources to the market.
Among the many bands that the NTIA is examining, perhaps
the most anticipated is the spectrum from 1755 to 1780
megahertz. This spectrum, currently used for a myriad of
government systems, has long been targeted for its potential as
a commercial band.
Now, this band is immediately adjacent to the existing
commercial wireless broadband operations, and is also in use
for this purpose abroad. Reassignment of this spectrum,
domestically, for commercial services would bring international
harmonization and economies of scale to the challenging task of
expanding wireless broadband speed and availability.
The spectrum in 1755 to 1780 megahertz, however, is by no
means the magic bullet to solving the spectrum challenges that
this country does face. The FCC's National Broadband Plan and
the administration have both set ambitious goals for making 500
megahertz of additional spectrum available for commercial
services. The NTIA has the extremely difficult task of
maximizing government spectrum efficiency, sharing, and use to
do its part in meeting this goal.
The NTIA is going to have to ask some hard questions of
government spectrum users: Is your spectrum use required or
could the goal be accomplished using commercial systems?
Can your agency's use be combined with other government
uses?
Could your agency's uses be more efficiently accomplished
with less spectrum?
Could your agency use be moved to other less commercially
desirable spectrum without sacrificing utilities?
These questions and others will form the basis for the more
robust and agile Federal spectrum use that will in turn create
the commercial opportunities to fuel wireless broadband
innovation, job creation, and revenues for deficit reduction.
I thank the Assistant Secretary for his testimony today.
Look forward to a lively discussion of these issues.
I would tell my counterparts on the committee, the
Assistant Secretary has a very good flow chart he is going to
put up, so we are going to actually extend him a longer opening
time for his testimony so that he can work through this slide
presentation that he and his staff have put together.
With that, I would turn now to the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Matsui, who is filling in for Ms. Eshoo today
as our ranking subcommittee member. Ms. Matsui, we welcome your
comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
To date we have held three hearings on how good spectrum
policy can promote wireless broadband, spur economic growth,
create jobs, and generate significant revenue for the American
taxpayer. Today's hearing addresses one of the hardest pieces
of the spectrum puzzle: how to more efficiently use government
spectrum and free additional resources to meet consumers'
growing wireless broadband needs.
This is not a new challenge for the NTIA, the nation's
federal government spectrum coordinator. The spectrum in the
AWS-1 band-the spectrum used by T-Mobile and others to provide
high-speed wireless broadband services-was government spectrum
as recently as 2007. Relocating the government users and uses
in that spectrum and making it available for commercial
operation has been a Herculean task, but one that raised $13
billion for the U.S. Treasury and furthered U.S. leadership in
the wireless broadband space.
Looking toward the future, the NTIA has already undertaken
the first steps to making additional spectrum available for
commercial use. In its 5- and 10-year plans, the NTIA has
identified a number of government spectrum users and uses that
hold the potential for relocation or greater spectral
efficiencies. I thank Assistant Secretary Strickling and his
staff at the NTIA for taking these important first steps to
bringing additional spectrum resources to market.
Among the many bands that the NTIA is examining, perhaps
the most anticipated is the spectrum from 1755-1780 MHz. This
spectrum, currently used for myriad government systems, has
long been targeted for its potential as a commercial band. This
band is immediately adjacent to existing commercial wireless
broadband operations and is also in use for this purpose
abroad. Reassignment of this spectrum domestically for
commercial services would bring international harmonization and
economies of scale to the challenging task of expanding
wireless broadband speed and availability.
The spectrum in 1755-1780 MHz, however, is by no means the
magic bullet to solving the spectrum challenges this country
faces. The FCC's National Broadband Plan and the Administration
have both set ambitious goals for making 500 MHz of additional
spectrum available for commercial services. The NTIA has the
extremely difficult task of maximizing government spectrum
efficiency, sharing, and use to do its part in meeting this
goal. The NTIA is going to have to ask some hard questions of
government spectrum users: Is your spectrum use required or
could the goal be accomplished using commercial systems? Can
your agency's use be combined with other government uses? Could
your agency's uses be more efficiently accomplished in less
spectrum? Could your agency's use be moved to other, less
commercially desirable spectrum without sacrificing utility?
These questions and others will form the basis for the more
robust and agile Federal spectrum use that will in turn create
the commercial opportunities to fuel wireless broadband
innovation, job creation, and revenues for deficit reduction. I
thank the Assistant Secretary for his testimony today and I
look forward to a lively discussion of these issues.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing. And I would like to also thank Administrator
Strickling for being with us here today.
According to estimates, there are over 300 million wireless
subscribers in the United States. That number is growing as the
current economic and social climate have an increasing number
of consumers opting for only cell phones over traditional land
lines. As we all know, there is real concern over the current
allocation of spectrum in the marketplace. There are some
estimates that by 2014 the demand for spectrum will exceed
supply.
It is our job to remain focused on getting the spectrum out
there, and we should move as quickly as possible. We all agree
that we should repurpose Federal spectrum for commercial use.
In our search for additional spectrum, government spectrum is a
valuable critical resource. The administration deserves credit
for realizing the importance of allocating additional spectrum
in the marketplace to meet future demand.
I also commend NTIA Administrator Strickling and his agency
for taking this task very seriously. When we finally get to
repurposing specific bands and auctioning, I believe we will
need to do so in a way that allows the government to clear
important users in a timely, transparent, and feasible manner.
In my opinion, the best approach is to ensure that agencies
have adequate resources and notice to undertake the substantial
task which will oversee highly valuable spectrum. But once we
provide those resources, we need to assure commercial bidders
that they will get access to spectrum they purchase in a timely
and predictable fashion.
In regards to auctioning, the FCC should have the
flexibility to structure and conduct incentive auctions that
will truly maximize the economic and social values of the
spectrum.
I also believe that comprehensive spectrum policy moving
forward should offer our innovators and entrepreneurs an
opportunity to be creative and have a forum to develop advanced
technologies and applications. To help spur greater innovation,
I am working on spectrum legislation that supports and further
advances American leadership and existing unlicensed
technologies.
It is important that we continue to promote policies that
lead to greater innovation in the ever-evolving
telecommunications and technology sectors. As we know,
technology changes rapidly. What is new today may not be new
tomorrow and may be obsolete by next week. Having enough
spectrum in the marketplace will offer American innovators an
opportunity to continue to explore and create new products and
ideas.
I also believe that spectrum should be preserved for the
advancement of technologies, including Smart Grid and health IT
capabilities. Moving forward, spectrum availability will be key
to ensuring competition, improved public safety, spur
innovation, and meet growing demand for wireless services.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important
hearing today. And I yield the balance of my time to Mr.
Barrow.
Mr. Barrow. I thank the gentlelady.
Today we hold our fourth hearing on spectrum policy and the
vital role it plays in our economy. Over the past decade,
technologies relying on spectrum have put so much demand on the
limited spectrum that is currently available that we face a
spectrum crunch in the next decade, unless we act soon. Today I
look forward to discussing ways that we can make more spectrum
available for commercial purposes.
As part of this effort, I recently introduced H.R. 911, the
Spectrum Inventory and Auction Act, which would help avoid the
looming spectrum crunch by arranging for a comprehensive
spectrum inventory and voluntary auction of spectrum licenses.
I look forward to hearing your testimony, Administrator
Strickling, and working with you and this committee to address
our spectrum goals.
I thank the ranking member for the time, and I yield back.
Mr. Walden. Does the gentlelady yield back the remainder of
her minute?
Ms. Matsui. I yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back the remainder of her
time. I turn now to the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr.
Terry.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today. I share the goal set forth in the National
Broadband Plan of finding all government spectrum that is
currently being used inefficiently and reallocating it for
commercial use.
I believe that we may need to revisit the Commercial
Spectrum Enhancement Act in order to update it to allow for
better communication sharing, quicker relocations, additional
public disclosure, and easier sharing of spectrum between the
government incumbent and the commercial licensee during
relocations.
Additionally, as the purpose of this hearing is to examine
how government is best utilizing wireless spectrum, I would
like to specifically address how the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is doing so, particularly in the area of flood
management and prevention. This is a topic of great importance
to me, especially now as my district and many other communities
up and down the Missouri River are literally under siege by
devastating floodwaters.
My office has found that recently the Corps determined that
it could give up significant portions of the wireless spectrum
it was utilizing for these purposes, due to increases in
efficiency and technology advancements. This a great step in
the right direction and is to be commended.
I wonder, however, if we can achieve a win-win, both with
regard to increased reliability and spectrum efficiency by
further examining our flood monitoring systems and ensuring the
best, most reliable, and most efficient technology is being
deployed.
And I look forward to your testimony, Mr. Strickling.
And who would like to----
Mr. Walden. Mr. Stearns, I think.
Mr. Terry. Mr. Stearns, I yield to you.
Mr. Stearns. I thank our distinguished colleague. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing.
Spectrum use in this country is very important. I think it
is important to realize that while incentive auctions can
potentially free up a large chunk of spectrum, there are other
spectrum holders to examine as we consider legislation to
address the looming spectrum crisis. One such holder is the
Federal Government itself, obviously. The government has a
variety of spectrum holds, and while some of this is necessary
for national security, I think much of it could be used more
effectively. So I look forward to learning from our witnesses
today about government spectrum sharing and the time frame for
making available already freed-up government spectrum to
commercial users.
I also look forward to examining and working with the
committee on the spectrum legislation that I understand will be
available shortly, and continue to believe that this issue can
be a win-win for all parties involved.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. Does anyone else seek recognition on Mr.
Terry's time? Mrs. Blackburn.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do want to
welcome our witness, and just very briefly say we are looking
forward to what you have to say. We are all concerned about the
availability of commercial spectrum or spectrum for the
innovation and the use in that space.
As I have over the past week met with so many innovators
that call Tennessee, and middle Tennessee specifically, home.
We hear this. We are innovating, we are creating. Will the
spectrum be there to allow us to push these new innovations
forward?
So thank you for being here, and yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman
yields back.
Let's turn now to the ranking member of the full committee,
Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In our previous hearings on the subject, two things have
become clear. First, there is a strong bipartisan consensus
that we need to find additional spectrum for wireless
broadband. And second, there is bipartisan support for creating
a nationwide broadband network for public safety.
One topic we have not had an opportunity to explore yet is
the role of Federal spectrum in achieving these goals. And
today we will examine Federal spectrum use and whether there
are opportunities to reallocate Federal spectrum for commercial
purposes. I am hopeful that we will be able to use this hearing
and the excellent testimony we have heard in all of our
hearings as the basis for consensus spectrum legislation.
I would like to welcome Assistant Secretary Lawrence
Strickling back to the Energy and Commerce Committee as the
Administrator of NTIA, the agency tasked with managing Federal
spectrum assignments. Mr. Strickling will play a critical role
in maximizing the efficient and effective Federal use of
spectrum. Under his leadership, the NTIA is leading the
administration's effort to identify and reallocate spectrum to
meet our dramatically increasing demands for wireless
broadband. This is a huge project, and NTIA's dedicated
professionals deserve enormous credit for accomplishing what
they have to date.
Although Federal spectrum has a great potential to help us
address our growing broadband needs, we must utilize a balanced
approach in getting there. Companies that bid on Federal
spectrum for commercial purposes need to know when they will
have access to this critical and expensive resource. The
reallocation of Federal spectrum must be transparent, timely,
and certain so companies can bid accordingly. If we provide the
proper mix of transparency and certainty, the amount companies
are willing to pay will increase and the taxpayers will
benefit.
We also need to consider new ways to put Federal spectrum
towards commercial use. Using technology to allow for spectrum
sharing deserves careful and immediate consideration.
At the same time, we need to remember that Federal spectrum
is currently being utilized for important purposes involving
national security, public safety, and important agency
operations. We cannot expect agencies and users to simply turn
off a switch and turn over their spectrum. We need to provide
adequate resources and time to make complicated and expensive
reallocation efforts successful.
I look forward to hearing from Mr. Strickling and learning
more about the administration's spectrum initiative, challenges
with reallocating Federal users, and how we can balance the
need for more information about Federal spectrum use with our
national security concerns.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Strickling. And thank you Mr.
Chairman. I yield back the time.
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentleman from California. And for
our members who joined us a bit into the hearing, Mr.
Strickling is going to be allocated 10 minutes for his
statement today. He has a slide presentation, I think some of
you have as well, that he would like to walk through. And I
thought it would be beneficial for the subcommittee to extend a
little longer time to him as he is our only witness today.
So, Mr. Strickling, we are delighted to have you here. We
appreciate the work you are doing. We look forward to your
testimony and to the answers to your questions. So please go
ahead, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAWRENCE E. STRICKLING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE
Mr. Strickling. Thank you, Chairman Walden, and in
particular thank you for the consideration of giving me some
extra time for my opening remarks.
I also want to thank Vice Chairman Terry, Congresswoman
Matsui, Ranking Member Waxman, and all the members of the
committee for attending this hearing today regarding the use of
spectrum by Federal Government agencies.
I am pleased to join you today to describe NTIA's ongoing
and critical work in managing Federal agency use of spectrum
and to update you on our efforts to identify and reallocate
spectrum to meet the Nation's rapidly growing demand for
commercial wireless broadband service.
Through his National Wireless Initiative, President Obama
has set forth a bold vision for spurring innovation, expanding
economic growth and job creation, and preserving America's
global technology leadership. For NTIA, a critical component of
the National Wireless Initiative is the President's directive
to us last June to work with the FCC to identify and make
available AN additional 500 megahertz of spectrum for fixed and
mobile broadband use over the next 10 years. This effort will
double the amount of spectrum available for commercial wireless
broadband.
As directed by the President, NTIA released two reports
last year. The first was our 10-year plan and timetable,
identifying 2,200 megahertz of spectrum for evaluation, and
detailing the process we and the FCC would follow to evaluate
these bands for possible reallocation to commercial broadband
service.
In addition, we released a fast-track evaluation report on
four bands of spectrum that we evaluated to determine if any of
those bands could be reallocated for commercial use while
leaving the existing Federal agency operations in place. By
doing so, we would be able to make this spectrum available
within 5 years.
We concluded that 115 megahertz of spectrum in two bands
could be reallocated within 5 years while accommodating the
existing Federal agency uses, which were NOAA weather
satellites and Department of Defense radar systems.
In our work, both to manage Federal agency spectrum use on
a day-to-day basis, as well as to look for 500 megahertz of
spectrum to reallocate to commercial service, we face a number
of challenges.
First, compared to commercial services, Federal agencies do
not have a lot of spectrum in the prime bands between 225
megahertz and 3.7 gigahertz. In that range, Federal agencies
have exclusive use of only about 18 percent of that spectrum as
compared to commercial and non-Federal users who control 30
percent of this spectrum on an exclusive basis. The remaining
51 percent is shared between Federal and non-Federal users.
Second, Federal agencies use this spectrum assigned to them
to perform critical missions assigned to them by Congress.
These missions can range from the NOAA weather satellites, to
FAA air traffic control systems, to Department of Defense drone
missions. And when a Federal agency needs spectrum to perform
one of its missions, we only assign the agency the minimum
amount of spectrum it needs, and only within the geographic
area within which it needs the spectrum. In virtually no case
do we provide an agency exclusive use of an entire band of
spectrum. With 60 agencies holding around 244,000 individual
frequency assignments, Federal agencies must share spectrum
with each other, and in many cases with commercial users.
Third, the variety and complexity of spectrum uses by
Federal agencies complicates our day-to-day assignment
processes, as well as challenges us when we evaluate a band for
reallocation. Federal spectrum management is much more
complicated than in the commercial world.
Generally, any particular commercial band is devoted to a
uniform set of commercial users providing similar services,
using comparable systems and technology. In the case of
cellular and similar land mobile radio services, the commercial
operator typically has the exclusive right to use a given
frequency within a geographic area, and this general uniformity
among commercial providers makes it easier to design and
implement efficiency enhancements.
The Federal Government, on the other hand, operates a
variety of systems within a specific band that may have little
in common from a technological perspective. A single Federal
band, for example, could include operations as diverse and
technologically unrelated as high power radars, satellite
communications, drone operations, and covert law enforcement
surveillance operations.
To illustrate these points, I would like to go through a
slide presentation we have prepared for today's hearing. And I
think you have copies of it on your desks. This presentation is
based on the studies we are currently performing on the 1755 to
1850 megahertz frequency to determine if any or all of that
spectrum can be reallocated to commercial wireless broadband
service. We began this study in January, and expect to complete
the detailed evaluation by September 30 of this year.
Over 20 Federal agencies operate in this band, utilizing
over 3,300 individual frequency assignments.
Before we get to the specifics of that band, I would like
to start with the slide up here on the screen relating to the
commercial use of spectrum. What this shows is how the FCC has
divided up the United States into cellular market areas.
Now, if we could go to the next slide. When the FCC
conducts an auction of spectrum, it can offer spectrum in
geographic areas as small as those individual cellular market
areas, or, as shown here, in the case of the AWS-1 auction, it
can combine the cellular market areas into larger regions for
bidding.
In the case of the 90 megahertz auctioned by the FCC for
AWS-1 the FCC organized the spectrum into 6 blocks, 20
megahertz at the cellular market area level, 30 megahertz at
the level of basic economic areas, roughly the size of a State,
or a little smaller, and 40 megahertz at a regional level such
as depicted here. Within each of these regions the winning
bidder has exclusive control of the spectrum. It decides what
technology to deploy and how to build out its system, and it
does not have to share its spectrum on a primary basis with
anyone else.
So let's now segue to the Federal agency use of the 1755 to
1850 band. Most of the 3,300 assignments in this band are for
point-to-point fixed microwave licenses, which we have depicted
here on this first chart. Agencies such as the Departments of
Energy, Homeland Security and the FAA use these links to
transmit data supporting such operations as energy grid
control, border monitoring and air traffic control. While these
users are the most numerous, they are also the easiest to
relocate as technology does exist today to establish these
links in other spectrum bands.
But as I go to the next slide, we will overlay on the fixed
microwave licenses, military bases where training is conducted
with mobile tactical radios which use spectrum in this band.
These radios are the military version of mobile, point-to-
point, and cellular systems. And over the last several years,
the Department of Defense has had to increase the number of
training locations in order to provide for training of National
Guard and Reserve units prior to their deployment to
Afghanistan, Iraq and other locations.
Next slide.
Here we overlay military satellites operated by the
Department of Defense. In particular, what we see here are the
Earth stations that use frequency in this band to control these
satellites. Due to the high power of these systems, these Earth
stations impact the spectrum within the yellow shaded areas of
the map.
Remember that satellites generally have a useful life of
over 20 years, so once a satellite is launched, there is no
opportunity to change out its radio. And what that means is
that as long as the satellite is in active use, there will need
to be ground stations from the East Coast to the West Coast, as
the satellite passes over the country, to control the
operations of the satellite.
And as we did with the NOAA weather satellites we evaluated
in the fast track report, we can carve out exclusion zones
around these Earth stations in which no commercial service
would be allowed.
But it doesn't end there. And if we go to the next slide,
this overlays training sites for bomb squads working with
robots controlled through wireless technology. And keep in mind
that while the agencies train at the locations depicted on this
map--and I am checking the color, I guess they are in black on
the map--in fact, they must be able to deploy this equipment
anywhere in the country without radio interference.
The next slide shows the Department of Defense operations
regarding training on the use of precision guided munitions.
The large diameter of the circles showing the spectrum use is
due to the fact that these munitions are delivered from
tactical aircraft flying at high altitude, and the radio
spectrum is impacted from the aircraft to the horizon.
Therefore, the higher the aircraft operates, the larger the
impact on spectrum use on the ground.
The next slide, we now overlay spectrum use by the
Department of Defense for air combat training systems. These
systems communicate data on pilot and aircraft performance to
evaluators who can provide immediate feedback to pilots at the
completion of their training runs. The transmission devices are
installed on most tactical aircraft. And as with the previous
slide on precision guided munitions, the area of impact is
determined according to the high altitude at which these planes
operate.
Turning to the next slide, a number of agencies are now
flying unmanned aerial vehicles or drones in this band. Much of
this use is for military training but, increasingly, other
agencies are utilizing drones for border security and disaster
relief. These orange circles reflect where training is
conducted today, but with the expanding use of drones, they
could be deployed anywhere in the country.
Next slide.
The Department of Defense develops and tests missile and
aircraft technology. To support that effort, researchers must
download large amounts of data from airborne devices during
testing. This data is critical to monitor performance and to
analyze malfunctions. And again, these systems operate at high
altitudes and can impact communications over very long
distances, as shown in the light blue circles.
And finally, the last side.
Many law enforcement agencies conduct surveillance
operations in this band. These operations produce data and
video that could be critical evidence in court but, just as
important, we need these links to monitor and safeguard
undercover agents that may be in harm's way. These systems
operate throughout the country, whenever and wherever needed.
Accordingly, we have shaded the entire country gray, although
given all the other uses in the band, you can only see the gray
shading up there in the northern Midwest.
So that concludes the slide presentation. And, Mr.
Chairman, I would respectfully request that the slide deck be
inserted into the record of this hearing.
Mr. Walden. Absolutely. Without objection.
Mr. Strickling. And I hope these slides give you a flavor
for the challenge we face at NTIA to manage Federal agency
spectrum assignments and to evaluate various frequencies for
possible reallocation.
And let me close my opening remarks with some suggestions
for possible legislation in this area, particularly dealing
with the relocation of Federal operations.
Before we can recommend reallocation of any spectrum to
commercial wireless broadband service, we first need to
determine the cost of relocating Federal systems or modifying
them to allow sharing with commercial users. We then need to
compare that cost to the expected revenue from any auction of
that spectrum to make sure that the auction revenues exceed the
costs of reallocation.
We must also determine to what new spectrum the Federal
agencies can relocate their operations, and determine whether
there is space in those bands to accommodate these operations
once they are moved. But even after we have completed that
analysis and have recommended reallocation of a band, we face
the practical problem of the agencies actually relocating their
operations in a reasonable time frame.
The single most important step that Congress can take to
facilitate the reallocation of spectrum is to provide the
Federal agencies the resources and flexibility they need to
plan for and undertake relocation and sharing activities.
Specifically, agencies need resources for upfront planning,
prior to holding an auction, to determine costs and determine
the timeline for relocation. The current Commercial Spectrum
Enhancement Act only allows for reimbursement of agency
expenses to relocate after an auction has concluded.
Additionally, the CSEA should be amended to allow for
reimbursement of agency expenses undertaken to facilitate
sharing of spectrum with commercial entities.
And finally, as I hope my presentation made clear, given
the diverse uses of spectrum by Federal agencies, we need
flexibility in terms of setting schedules for relocation that
take into account the particular technology and resource needs
of each agency. With your support, we will meet the President's
goal of reallocating 500 megahertz to meet the growing needs
for commercial wireless broadband service.
Thank you, members of the committee. I look forward to
working with you on these important issues. And I now would be
happy to answer your questions.
Mr. Walden. Well, thank you very much, Secretary. We
appreciate your comprehensive testimony and your good work and
counsel in this area.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickling follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Nobody doubts that these systems are critical.
The question is, can they be relocated? So just from a
technical standpoint, can you relocate and open up this band?
Mr. Strickling. We choose this band because there is
technology available for these systems that can be utilized in
other bands. Nonetheless, it is not an easy process to do so.
So, for example, the satellites, those satellites, we can't
move them. And as a practical matter, we can't move the Earth
stations. But we can operate, going forward, in an environment
where we build exclusion zones or craft exclusion zones around
those ground stations so that there will be no commercial
operations taking place in those areas.
Unfortunately, as you can tell from the slide on the Earth
stations, there are some very population-dense areas in which
some of these Earth stations are located, including the
Washington metropolitan area. So that reduces the overall
attractiveness of a band if you have to carve out some of these
areas to protect the satellite operations.
Our expectation is, though, that for the bulk of these
operations, should we choose to recommend--and we have not made
a decision to recommend this yet because the studies are
continuing--that we could get the operations out of this band
within the 10 years, other than the satellites.
Mr. Walden. All right. And then you talked about some of
the changes you think need to occur in the Commercial Spectrum
Enhancement Act, including dealing with agency expenses and
all, to do the relocation. Did the President's budget include
any money for that effort?
Mr. Strickling. I believe it is included. The money for
that would come out of the proceeds of the auctions that would
take place, so the proposal from the administration for
incentive auctions would generate a certain amount of revenue,
a portion of which would be used to fund the agencies for the
relocation efforts.
Mr. Walden. And when you talked about the time frame in the
1755 to 1780 megahertz spectrum available for commercial
services, was that that 10-year window you were talking about?
Mr. Strickling. Well, we will make a recommendation on that
band at the end of September of this year. If the
recommendation is to reallocate a portion of that band--and let
me also say that we are looking at the full 95 megahertz from
1755 to 1850. Industry has indicated a particular interest in
1755 to 1780, which would be 25 megahertz. We are looking at 95
because the problem this country faces is bigger than what is
going to be solved by doing 25 megahertz. So we are looking at
the whole band to figure out what portion, if any, of it could
be reallocated. And, again, the idea would be that, but for the
satellites and perhaps some other systems, that as we continue
to learn about them, would be made available within 10 years.
Mr. Walden. Of the 115 megahertz that NTIA identifies as
fast-track spectrum, only 15 megahertz is below the 3-gig
threshold. Now many in the industry, I am told, believe that
spectrum 3-gig is poorly suited for providing mobile wireless
broadband services. How does the identification of this
spectrum help meet the President's goal of finding spectrum for
wireless broadband?
Mr. Strickling. Well, first off, what you stated is an
accurate statement of today's market conditions. However, even
in the band that we are talking about, 3550 to 3650, that band
is used for WIMAX in other parts of the world, including
Europe. So there is technology being developed to work in that
band.
But we have a long time horizon here. We are looking at 10
years. And what may be less attractive to industry today may
well be very attractive to it in 10 years. And more
importantly, by identifying this spectrum and, in effect,
putting it in the bank, it sends signals to the manufacturing
community and others to perhaps be thinking about developing
the technology that would work in that band.
Mr. Walden. And that leads to another point which is, how
do we send the right signals to government agencies to free up
spectrum that they could either use more efficiently or don't
really need?
Now some countries have sort of levied a fee, I guess, on
government spectrum. I am not advocating that. But I guess the
question is, if you've got it, who wants to give it up? And yet
there is this big need. Have you thought that through on how we
can incent?
Mr. Strickling. Well, first off, I would take issue with
the idea that there is a lot of spectrum in the hands of
Federal agencies that they use inefficiently. Again, because of
the nature of what I just showed you, an agency comes to us
with a very specific request to use spectrum in a given
location at a given frequency. Now, the actual bandwidth they
take would be dictated by the equipment that they intend to use
to perform their mission. And certainly, there could be
advances in the efficiency of that equipment over time. But
then agencies have to have the resources to be able to pay for
those technology upgrades to be able to use the spectrum more
efficiently.
But in general, because of the way in which we assign
spectrum--and you can see how we have piled use upon use on top
of each other in order to cram all these uses in--there are not
a lot of opportunities for agencies to do what you suggest.
More importantly, these agencies only get individual
assignments. We never give them an entire band to work within.
So the idea that they have gotten more spectrum than they need,
so that they could find an opportunity to be more efficient
with it, really doesn't make sense in this context; whereas, it
might if we had been assigning full bands for exclusive use by
some of these agencies.
Mr. Walden. I thank you for your answers. I will turn now
to the gentlelady from California for questions.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Strickling, I want to ask you a few questions about the
Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act of 2009 that passed out of
this committee on a bipartisan basis last Congress. I
understand that the administration has several concerns about
the bill. As the committee evaluates the spectrum legislation
that would direct the FCC to auction several Federal and non-
Federal spectrum bands, it is critical that we do what we can
to assure greater transparency and speed in the relocation
process. By helping bidders understand when they will have
access to available spectrum, we hope we can create incentives
for wireless broadband providers to participate in such
auctions and increase the value of the spectrum being sold.
I know the administration had had concerns with an across-
the-board deadline for transition planning and relocation. What
would you recommend to help provide greater certainty for
entities purchasing the spectrum that the relocation process
would be timely and efficient?
Mr. Strickling. I think the single most important thing
that could be done is what I mentioned in my testimony. The
agencies need adequate, upfront planning resources and
personnel.
When we did the relocation under AWS-1, which took over--
well, it started back in 2007 and it is continuing to this day,
although 81 percent of the Federal systems have been relocated
as of now and the agencies are pretty much on schedule. But we
went back to industry in a notice of inquiry in 2009 and asked
them for their evaluation of how the relocation had done. And
the one thing that just emerges time and time again in the
industry comments is that the agencies didn't have the best
timetable for moving. They didn't have the best information for
what it would cost.
This is entirely a resource issue because the agencies
didn't, you know, have to do this. In addition to the missions
that Congress has given them to perform, this isn't part of
their day-to-day direct work. They are now being told, in
addition to what it is we want you to do in terms of law
enforcement--protecting the country--we now also need you to
create a work stream to figure out how you are going to get out
of this band, how you are going to move into a different band,
all with no degradation in the performance of the mission that
they actually are organized to perform. This is hard work and
it is hard for agencies to do without adequate resources. So,
more than anything else, giving agencies the resources they
need would be what we need to improve relocation in the future.
Ms. Matsui. So those would be part of the incentives that
you have addressed earlier on, as far as upfront planning of
resources and adequate time for relocation?
Mr. Strickling. Yes.
Ms. Matsui. Things of that nature.
Mr. Strickling. Yes.
Ms. Matsui. OK. As you know, S. 911 would require several
bands of spectrum currently allocated for Federal use to be
auctioned by 2014. That legislation looks at spectrum between
1755 to 1850 megahertz, and leaves 15 megahertz of contiguous
Federal spectrum in the 1675 to 1710 megahertz band, and the
100 megahertz between 3550 to 3650 megahertz. Can you comment
on whether you support the auctioning of these bands?
Mr. Strickling. Certainly, we have already recommended the
reallocation of 1695 to 1710 and 3550 to 3650. Those were the
products of our fast track report last year. It is now in the
hands of the FCC to determine when and how best to auction
those.
As the Chairman noted in his comments, 3550 to 3650 is not
a band that industry is breaking down the door to get ahold of,
so it may not make sense to auction that spectrum right now. I
think for 1695 to 1710, the FCC is looking to determine what
other spectrum it might pair it with in an auction. And I think
they are also interested in seeing the results of our analysis
of 1755 to 1850 before making a final decision on what to do
with that band.
With respect to the big band, 1755 to 1850, we are still in
the middle of analyzing that band, and it would be premature
for me to say today whether we think all or any portion of this
can and should be reallocated and auctioned.
Ms. Matsui. So for those bands identified, are there ways
to identify and estimate the costs associated with relocating
incumbent Federal users?
Mr. Strickling. That is very much part of the process we
are engaged in right now to get those estimates from the
agencies that are in that band.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Mr. Strickling, I want to quickly ask you
this. You mentioned in your testimony, GAO recently released a
report on NTIA spectrum management functions and oversight. How
difficult is it for NTIA to coordinate Federal spectrum use and
oversee how each agency and department is utilizing its
spectrum resources?
Mr. Strickling. Well, we have a very skilled and dedicated
set of public servants in our Office of Spectrum Management,
and we do the best we can with the resources we have. So we
feel we can perform our current mission. But I hasten to add
that we don't do this by ourselves. Federal spectrum management
involves the active engagement of every Federal agency that
uses spectrum. I mean, we are not at NTIA in a position to
design radar systems or to second-guess the Department of
Justice as to what kind of covert law enforcement gear it needs
to use on its undercover agents. So we have to depend on the
agencies to do quality work and have the resources themselves
to use the most state-of-the-art technology that they can use.
And I think the GAO report in its proper context should be
read to be a call for resources, not just for NTIA but for all
of the agencies that are employed in this effort to have the
resources they need to do this work as best we can.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, thank you, Mr. Strickling. I see my
time is overrun.
Mr. Walden. I turn to the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.
Terry, for questions.
Mr. Terry. Now, in your testimony or questions with Mr.
Walden, Chairman Walden, you mentioned that you didn't think
that any government agencies were using the spectrum
inefficiently. But we are trying to figure out ways that we can
get them to be more efficient, maybe new technologies that are
coming out, just maybe a different plan of how to use this.
Can you run through some of the discussions, or how you are
working with these government agencies to try and adapt to more
modern technology so we can free up technologies?
Mr. Strickling. That is a difficult question. First off, I
will say that our rules require that before an agency come to
us and ask for an assignment of Federal spectrum, they have to
exhaust efforts to use commercial spectrum. So as a result, the
total amount of Federal spectrum assigned to land mobile radio
is less than 30 megahertz, because if a Federal agency needs to
use cellular phones, they generally buy commercial. And that is
one of our rules. So that is one way that we can minimize
Federal spectrum use is by requiring agencies to use commercial
when they can. And that is in our rules.
The question of are they using the most modern technology,
it is really a tough issue for each of these agencies as they
have to balance all of their agency imperatives against the
cost of upgrading a particular equipment against being able to
perform some other part of their mission. We can't second-guess
them on that. We would not refuse a Federal agency a spectrum
assignment saying, well, you are not using this piece of
equipment over here that is more efficient, if they say to us,
well, we can't afford that right now. We have to go with what
we have got.
There has also been a reluctance within the administration
to provide for upgrades of technology to some of the agencies.
So for example, we have talked about the AWS relocation from
1710 to 1755. Well, some of those operations were moved out of
that band into 1755 to 1850. So we are now looking again at the
same systems in the evaluation we are doing now that were
targeted and ticketed for relocation as part of the review that
was done several years ago for AWS-1.
Had some of those agencies had the opportunity to upgrade
to different kind of technology, a digital technology and a
totally different band, we wouldn't be having to go through
this again. But some agencies were restricted in terms of what
technology they could acquire when they relocated, and so we
are now having to look at them a second time within 10 years
because of that.
Mr. Terry. And I think you raise an interesting point
regarding how the agencies can keep up with technologies. And
so I guess it begs the question of, are you aware of maybe any
White House initiative or just overall initiative of working
with these individual agencies--Defense Department is a big
user, as your map showed--to start thinking ahead of how we can
use it, these newer technologies now, instead of missing the
boat and then being stuck with the older technologies which is,
frankly, inherent to government anyway. But is anyone out there
on the executive side, the agency side, saying hey, we need to
do a holistic big-picture look at how we use this spectrum and
how we have actually a management plan to upgrade and move more
people or use it more efficiently?
Mr. Strickling. All right. Yes is the answer to your
question.
Mr. Terry. Who is doing it?
Mr. Strickling. I am sorry?
Mr. Terry. Who is in charge of that? Is that yours or is
it--since it has so much of the Defense Department in there,
who is doing it?
Mr. Strickling. Well, I think the current thinking on it is
being driven out the Office of Science and Technology Policy at
the White House. And as part of the National Wireless
Initiative I think some provisions were suggested about
creating some dollars that could be used to do research and
perhaps even be used as grants to other agencies to allow them
to do some of this cutting-edge research on new wireless
technologies.
The Department of Defense has over 600 people, employees
and contractors, in their Joint Spectrum Center, and they do
spend time working on these issues. Other agencies aren't as
fortunate, and they are smaller users of the spectrum and have
less ability to conduct research of their own. They are really
dependent on what the industry provides for them.
Mr. Terry. Last question, real quick. Any lessons from T-
Mobile spectrum relocation in the AWS? You have 1 second.
Mr. Strickling. The relocation of AWS--with permission, I
will run past your time. We actually think the relocation of
AWS-1 worked pretty well in terms of agencies living up to the
commitments they made at the time of the auction. I have
already pointed out that perhaps with better--with more
resources, they might have had better estimates.
But where the problems arose with T-Mobile was over the
early entry provisions, which were voluntary negotiations
between T-Mobile and certain of the agencies, to see if they
might be able to get out of their band in certain locations
sooner than they had committed to as part of the official
auction process. And yes, there were issues where T-Mobile felt
that agencies weren't moving as fast as their business
imperative would like. But again, these were all voluntary
discussions between the company and the agency.
We intervened where we could to help things along because,
again, we all have an interest in seeing more of this spectrum
used for commercial purposes. But it still came down to what
ability the agencies had to get out faster than they said they
were going to.
Mr. Walden. I now turn to the gentleman, Mr. Barrow, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Barrow. I thank the chairman.
Administrator Strickling, you talked earlier about
requiring government users to make--to avail themselves of
commercial facilities when available, and I can certainly see
the utility of that from both points of view.
Some commercial wireless servers are willing to share
spectrum with government users on a nonexclusive basis. And
yet, I gather some government agencies are kind of reluctant to
move away from a system of exclusive allocation and control of
certain spectrum to some sort of a shared-use type of regime.
What is your view, do you have any idea of the potential of
something like this, a system where at least for some parts of
our spectrum, the commercial user got dibs on the spectrum when
the government users don't need it; when the government user
needs it, they get dibs on the same spectrum? Is there any kind
of way--what do you see as the potential for something like
that?
Mr. Strickling. Well, it has to develop. I mean, we are
running out of options of taking bands, clearing them totally,
and making them available exclusively for commercial providers.
And actually the reluctance to do sharing, we see much more on
the commercial side in terms of the willingness of commercial
providers to share with the existing government uses. It is
more that than the other way around, that somehow the Federal
users are reluctant to share. I mean, again, Federal users will
become customers of the commercial providers when they offer
services that meet their needs. So we have to be devoted to
finding more ways where the commercial and the government
operations can coexist in the same band.
These exclusion zones we talked about for the satellite
systems is one example of that. In the 3550 to 3650 range,
there the commercial use, once it develops, will have to
coexist with Naval radar systems. And these systems are very
powerful. If a ship is along the coast line and turns those
radar systems on, they will blow out whatever commercial
service might be, you know, on the land side of that system.
And so we, again, carve out exclusion zones to accommodate the
possibility that the radars might be in use anywhere along the
coast line, even though we know that at any given point in
time, few if any areas will be impacted by these radar systems.
But this is all part of the overall spectrum management, that
we have to be engaged in finding these opportunities for
coexistence.
Mr. Barrow. I certainly understand the commercial users'
reluctance to give up and to share use of what has been
allocated to them. But with regard to the flip side, the part
that has been allocated to government use, are you aware of any
reluctance on the part of government users to share spectrum
where that can be done with deference to the priority of use
for the government users?
Mr. Strickling. I am not aware of it. But again, it assumes
that the Federal users' assignment contains extra spectrum that
they could share with someone else. That is not our philosophy
as we assign spectrum for use. So the situation hasn't really
presented itself in real life yet.
Mr. Barrow. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back his time. I recognize
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Strickling, in your opening statement I think you
indicated that you need additional funding for spectrum
planning and for reallocation management; is that true?
Mr. Strickling. I am suggesting that this is what the
Federal agencies need, yes, if we want to improve the process
by which we do these.
Mr. Stearns. The answer is yes or no. You are saying the
NTIA needs more funding; isn't that true?
Mr. Strickling. I have not said the NTIA needs more
funding, although I will say that, given some of the
legislation that is out there that would impose new
responsibilities on us, yes, we would need additional resources
to perform additional tasks beyond what we are doing today.
Mr. Stearns. We looked at the President's 2012 budget and I
didn't see any new funding request there, so if you needed it,
I am just curious why you didn't----
Mr. Strickling. At the time that budget was prepared, these
new tasks hadn't been identified to us that are currently in
some of the legislation that are pending.
Mr. Stearns. You note in your written testimony that the
President proposed doubling in the next 10 years the amount of
spectrum available for commercial use. How many, how much
megahertz can we expect to come from this repurposed Federal
spectrum?
Mr. Strickling. Of the 500 megahertz, the FCC had indicated
it could deliver roughly 280 to 300 megahertz, and so that
would assume, then, that the Federal side would provide at
least 200 megahertz, and that is the assumption we have been
working on.
Mr. Stearns. One of the things that--the last time we in
this country did government spectrum allocation and asked users
to vacate bands that were reallocated for commercial use, I
think the auction was by the FCC in 2006; is that correct?
Mr. Strickling. The AWS auction was about $13 billion to
$14 billion, yes.
Mr. Stearns. But isn't it true that even today we are still
trying to get people to relocate out of the spectrum? I mean,
hasn't this taken an inordinate amount of time to accomplish
that?
Mr. Strickling. As I indicated earlier, I think 81 percent
of the agencies have relocated. All the agencies that said they
would relocate within 3 years have relocated.
Mr. Stearns. I mean, what you are talking about is
something--the auction was in 2006, and I think they started in
2007; yet here we are this amount of time later and you are
still talking about reallocation of people out of the spectrum.
Isn't that true?
Mr. Strickling. In certain bands, that is correct.
Mr. Stearns. Why has it taken too long, and what have you
learned from that that could assure the American public that
when you reallocate again, that people actually leave?
Mr. Strickling. Well, people are leaving on the schedules
they committed to at the time of the auction, and in fact, we
have tried to be pretty tough on the agencies. Last year, I had
three agencies ask for extensions of time beyond the deadlines
they had committed to, and we rejected those requests. Now, we
did suggest to the agency that if they could work out an
accommodation with the licensee, that that would be oK with us,
and that, in fact, is what the those agencies did.
But in some of these cases, we are talking about a
relocation of a point-to-point microwave that isn't interfering
with, wouldn't interfere with the commercial entity if it
started service or it could be in an area that the commercial
entity hasn't started to build out in yet. There is plenty of
AWS spectrum that the licensees have not started to build out
yet.
Mr. Stearns. So you think you have learned so that it would
not be this slow again?
Mr. Strickling. I guess I am taking some issue with the----
Mr. Stearns. An amount of time.
Mr. Strickling. It is on schedule. It is on the schedule
the agencies committed to.
Mr. Stearns. OK. Here is my last question if I can get it
out here.
While you state in your testimony that NTIA does not have
the expertise in the multitude of agency missions to direct how
agencies should utilize spectrum to meet their needs, it seems
to me that the government agencies lack incentives to use
spectrum as efficiently as possible, and what has NTIA done to
address this issue?
Mr. Strickling. Well, that goes to the question I had
earlier. First and foremost, we require agencies to buy
commercial where they can because if they are developing radio
systems for particular missions, it is correct that we don't
second-guess that.
I have no ability to determine that the radio systems that
control an unmanned aerial drone are properly sized or scaled
to perform the function that the Department of Defense has
decided it needs that particular drone to perform. We have to
accept that on face value, and that is true I think for a whole
variety of these systems that are being designed and developed
to allow agencies to perform their missions.
Mr. Walden. I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. I will hold for my comments.
Mr. Walden. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Tennessee,
Ms. Blackburn.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank
you for being here, Mr. Secretary.
Let me ask you just a little bit. I want to go back. You
talked a little bit about the cost-benefit analysis and making
certain that agencies have the resources to undertake these
issues. I want to highlight one item with you that I think some
of our colleagues may kind of share this concern.
I recall a hearing about 6 years ago where I asked one of
our agencies why they had not moved to a template for managing
their financial resources in a timely manner, and the response
to me was, well, they didn't have a timeline because they knew
they had a continuing appropriation. And I think that this
highlights quite succinctly what we see as a resistance from
some spectrum managers in the government to get with the
program and to get this done.
We know we are facing a spectrum shortage in the commercial
market. We know that by the end of the decade, there are going
to be 1 trillion devices that are attached to the broadband.
Now, if we are going to create jobs and if we are going to keep
the focus on jobs and if we are going to see a resurgence in
the technology area and if we are going to continue to be the
exceptional innovators, it means people have got to get with
the program, and that as you are able to pack that broadband
down and you are able to layer and use that spectrum, we want
to know that, first of all, they are doing that efficiently and
that you-all have some benchmarks and requirements.
Do you have stated benchmarks and requirements for them?
What is your plan specifically on where they are to use
commercial product, not just in cell phones but in other areas?
What are you giving them? What are you doing to deal with some
of the Federal agency managers that are resistant and are
kicking the can down the road?
You know, people get tired with Congress kicking the can
down the road when it comes to dealing with the debt, and we
are looking at spectrum that can be auctioned to help with
that. We are also looking at putting this spectrum in the
marketplace to create jobs and products that you need, whether
it is in financial services or whether it is in health IT,
whether it is in entertainment. I have talked to innovators in
all of these areas, and what we want to know is that you are
serious about this and not saying, well, we have got a
continuing appropriation.
And you know, Federal Government doesn't create jobs;
private sector does. We know that. We want to know that you all
appreciate that and that you have got a plan that you are
making requirements and that you have a timeline. So can you
articulate that?
Mr. Strickling. Yes, ma'am, I think you are making some
very good points.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you.
Mr. Strickling. First and foremost, let me say that our
search for 500 MHz is probably as important an undertaking as
any in terms of dealing with the imperatives that you described
in your question.
Mrs. Blackburn. Do you think you can go above the 500 MHz?
Mr. Strickling. I think it is too soon to tell that. We
have a candidate list between us and the FCC of 2,200 MHz of
spectrum to----
Mrs. Blackburn. In total?
Mr. Strickling. In total, to look at, which includes some
bands that are currently possibly underutilized on the
commercial side, because if we are going to demand efficiency,
I think both we and the FCC agree it should be demanded from
both government users and----
Mrs. Blackburn. And I agree with that.
Mr. Strickling. --commercial users. Beyond that, on this
issue of kicking the can down the road, one recommendation the
GAO did make to us that we are moving to implement is this
question of the 5-year review. Once an agency gets an
assignment, they don't have it in perpetuity. It has to be
reviewed----
Mrs. Blackburn. If I can just make a comment on that, and I
appreciate that they have got a 5-year review, but you know,
when you are looking at the life cycle of a technology product
in the marketplace, you have got 18 months. And so the
exponential growth of this is enormous, and I think that what
we need to know is that they are not slow walking because they
have got 5 years. They need to pick the pace up because things
change about every 18 months, and I know, sir, that you
appreciate that.
Mr. Strickling. Yes. And keep in mind that while what you
are saying is true of the commercial world, many of these
Federal systems do have long lives. I mean, as I mentioned, the
satellites have got life spans of 20 to 25 years that have to
be taken into account, but in any event, you are making some
very good points and we are taking those in into account as we
look to improve the process by which we conduct these periodic
reviews of assignments.
Mrs. Blackburn. Excellent. Thank you. Yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back. I turn to the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Strickling,
welcome back. It is good to have you here, and I did appreciate
your testimony.
If done right, you believe, as we believe, that
reallocation is really a win-win for both the government and
for the economy and for the communications sector; would that
be fair to say?
Mr. Strickling. We need to get to that point. I will tell
you my impression from Federal agencies is they haven't quite
yet seen what the win is for them, but I think that some of the
suggestions that we have made for improving the CSEA in terms
of allowing some upgrade in technology by Federal agencies
would go a long way toward making it a true----
Mr. Shimkus. And I guess that is what the whole crux of the
hearing is, how do we instead of being the big hammer, how do
we work with the agencies, how do we move them into the
commercial use when that is a very credible opportunity and
option, except for if it is national security or stuff? That is
clearly why we are having the hearing is, how do we get them
moved because the great thing I have said numerous times about
this subcommittee is that this is where jobs are created, and
as Marsha Blackburn said, if we have a spectrum crunch, we lose
this opportunity to really take advantage at a time in this
country when we need to be creating jobs.
So I have always focused on, in my analysis of looking at
the FCC, as--and ties to Lee Terry's question is, who is
managing the whole thing when you have got satellite, cellular,
microwave, bits and pieces. I think the FCC is a stovepipe. I
don't think there is one entity looking how this all merges
together and then you get stuff like this.
I think process equals policy, and I think we have, because
of the way we are organized, questionable process because of
being stovepiped in sectors and not over--it is an editorial
opinion, but it is one that I think that is why I am a erase,
get the white board, erase the organizational structure and
rewrite it based upon a new technological age. We can't balance
the Federal budget, so I can't expect us to do that, but I do
think that is where the debate needs to be, and you guys need
to help intervene in how do we do this.
I heard your comments on T-Mobile, I think the flip side
would be they were trying to incentivize or release the
spectrum, but the goalpost kept moving. So if there is more
money given to an agency to help them move and then you don't
see movement, then it kind of stems to that point of how do
we--I mean, how do we get them to do it without a big hammer?
Mr. Strickling. Well, first off, I am not sure what your
comment about goalpost moving was.
Mr. Shimkus. I would say that money was offered--asked by
some agencies, maybe companies stepped forward to do that, and
then the timelines aren't met.
Mr. Strickling. Actually, T-Mobile would have loved to have
been able to have contributed dollars to help agencies move,
and it is not allowed under the law.
Mr. Shimkus. That is an issue of, why not? I mean, if we
are trying to reform the system and they are willing to come
front to help them do that, then why not?
Mr. Strickling. I think that would be a great question for
the committee to take a look at.
Mr. Shimkus. That would be a policy----
Mr. Strickling. It is a much broader policy issue than just
spectrum. It comes to the whole question of businesses making
gifts to government and the circumstances under which that
would----
Mr. Shimkus. And I have a military background, so I
appreciate especially our men and women in uniform and making
sure they have a legitimate use in communication and all the
new gears, but if we can marry the two, I think we would both
win, which I think was the opening part of my comment.
Let me just end on this. You propose, in essence, some
lengthy time frames for reallocating government encumbered
operations but you also state that you can accommodate requests
for additional government users in as few as 9 days. And the
question would be, why can't NTIA accomplish the moves in
shorter time frames? Is it availability of equipment or what is
the holdup?
Mr. Strickling. Right. So the 9 days is when we get a
request to assign spectrum to an agency. Presumably that agency
already has the equipment it needs. It is simply seeking an
authorization to install equipment in a particular geographic
location.
Mr. Shimkus. And I guess I say we shouldn't--I mean, you
are assuming and I have learned a long time that maybe we
shouldn't assume; maybe we ought to know if they have the
equipment to be able to use if you can grant that in 9 days.
Mr. Strickling. Now, when they need to move, when we are
talking about taking all of the microwave circuits that all of
these agencies have and moving them out of 1755 to 1850, now we
are talking about an acquisition by all of these agencies of
new equipment and, in effect, going in and taking out the old
equipment, installing new equipment.
In some cases, these circuits are in very inaccessible
locations. All told, we have tens of thousands of these
circuits overall in our assignment database. I think we have
roughly between one and 2000 in the 1755 to 1850 band, and so
it is question of resources and time, and that is just for the
microwave, which was one of the pictures I used in my slide
deck.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. And I think a good example of that is DTV
conversion and how long that took and how complicated that was
is another example.
Mr. Strickling. And if I could point out, even when the
commercial side tries to relocate, they don't do it very
quickly themselves. I mean, we have just been through with
Sprint/Nextel was involved in roughly 2 GHz, getting electronic
news organization to move. That was a process that started I
think back in 2006, 2007, and it is still not done.
Mr. Shimkus. But they lose market share. They lose stock
price. If they don't move, there is a big hammer on them.
Mr. Walden. Different incentive process.
Now, look to the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass,
for his time.
Mr. Bass. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for having this
hearing. I apologize for being a little late today. I will pass
on questions at this time.
Mr. Walden. Then I would turn to the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, for five.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the
hearing.
Mr. Strickling, appreciate you coming here, too.
The fast-track evaluation report had recommended a total of
115 MHz be made available for commercial use within 5 years.
Can you kind of expand upon if there are any measurable goals,
any kind of concrete things that y'all have put in place to
achieve that?
Mr. Strickling. Well, yes. We believe that that spectrum
can be reallocated at commercial use within 5 years. It is,
though, up to the FCC to make that happen. We have sent--I
think in January this year we sent a formal request to the FCC
to proceed with that reallocation. They will have to conduct a
proceeding to lay out the terms of how that spectrum will be
made available. They will have to conduct whatever auction
would be undertaken should they choose to auction it, and so
that is really out of our control at this point.
Mr. Scalise. So from NTIA's perspective, there is nothing
else that y'all can do to see that that is met? It is up to the
FCC at this point; there is nothing else measurable that you
can do?
Mr. Strickling. They have the authority. We will support
them in any way we can, but yes, it is theirs now.
Mr. Scalise. OK. Thanks. In your testimony, you talk about
the GAO report that had been critical of some of the agency's
spectrum management plan as it relates to at least NTIA and how
it is going about things, and you talk in there about some of
the things that you think need to be done to improve. I guess
if an agency could just tell you that they still need their
spectrum, then that is good enough, that is all you can go buy,
and it seems like you are indicating there should be a higher
bar that an agency has to prove that it still needs that
spectrum, as opposed to saying they just want it. And we all
see how Federal agencies, nature of the beast, once they get
something, whether it is a budget request or something else,
when you try to chop it away, they say they can't do without
it, and all of the sudden, you take something away, and they
manage to do with what they have.
And so if about agency tells you and you are managing their
plan but that you might have some limitations, if they tell
you, well, I still need that, right now is it that all that you
can go by is their attestation that that is something they need
as opposed to maybe requiring a higher bar to prove that they
still need it because in some cases, maybe they have got it and
they just don't want to let it go and they could let it go if
there was some higher requirements. If you can kind of touch on
the GAO criticism and then your response, it seems like you
were indicating some policy changes that could be made to
improve that.
Mr. Strickling. Yes. The GAO suggested that we should
perhaps consider requiring, you know, sworn to statements from
the agency either requesting a new assignment or seeking to
continue an existing assignment and directed us to--or
suggested we should consult with the agencies that form the
IRAC with us to manage all of this spectrum. We are in the
process of doing just that to determine which of their
recommendations make sense to implement and how quickly we can
implement them.
I will say that it is in the incentive of an agency to give
us accurate information, because when the next agency comes in
line and is interested in using spectrum and the same band and
roughly the same location, it is very important that the first
agency not suffer interference from that second use. So,
because of the need to protect against interference between
agencies, I think every agency has a pretty strong incentive to
give us accurate information.
Nonetheless, the recommendations from the GAO seemed useful
to us, and we are working with the other agencies to go forward
and implement certain of them.
Mr. Scalise. OK. And I am going to get your take, as you
look at all Federal agencies' use of spectrum, there is a lot
of review right now by the FCC and others regarding
LightSquared and how these issues with some of the other users
of the spectrum near theirs can possibly be worked out. Is it
something that is reconcilable from your view as it relates to
Federal agencies? Especially, is this something that you see a
reconcilable solution short of some kind of major sort of
interference with FCC and how are you working with them on
that?
Mr. Strickling. With respect to the LightSquared situation,
the FCC in its waiver order from last January or February
indicated it would only move forward and allow LightSquared to
commence commercial operations after consulting with us and
after reviewing a wealth of testing that has been conducted
over the last several months. Those testing reports are just
coming in now. My folks are in the process of evaluating those
to determine at what point LightSquared might be allowed to go
into commercial operation and under what condition.
I think the one conclusion everyone, including
LightSquared, has reached so far is that their original
operational plan is not going to be one that they can pursue
because of the interference it will cause to GPS receivers, and
we are in the process now of evaluating the test data to
determine what are the options for a different form of
operation by LightSquared.
Mr. Scalise. Do you know when you will have those
recommendations?
Mr. Strickling. Do I know when we will have those
recommendations? The FCC has put the test reports it has
received out for public comment. I am not sure what the close
date is for that. Our people, my experts, are looking at the
data now. We will certainly want to inform our conclusions from
whatever public comment there is on that. So I think we are
still a month or two away.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I have. I
yield back.
Mr. Terry [presiding]. Thank you.
The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate
it.
And Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being with us
today.
I think that in listening to the questions from my
colleagues on the committee, I think you are also hearing the
same thing, that we are all very, very interested in this topic
and especially when it comes to the question as to creating
more jobs. And we all see what broadband can do and if we get
these things out to market faster, and we have to make sure
that, you know, bands are going where they are going to be
going.
On the second page of your testimony, if I can just start
there, you state that, ``First, valuable spectrum that is
currently underutilized will be freed up through voluntary
incentive auctions,'' and I have got legislation out there to
do just that. But one of the things in talking with folks in
the private sector that we all want to make sure that they are
fairly compensated if someone does give up that spectrum, and
sometimes, they fear, you know, if they do, there might be a
little strong-arm tactics sometimes out there--that it is truly
voluntary, and I was wondering if you could touch on that
voluntary incentive auctions as you see them.
Mr. Strickling. I think along the lines that you suggested,
the administration position is that these auctions, that the
FCC does need this authority to conduct incentive actions and
that they would be voluntary auctions.
Mr. Latta. And let me also go on with this, and I know that
Mrs. Blackburn brought this up about, especially on the private
sector side, and also, I believe it was Mr. Stearns that also
had a line of questions about how long it is going to take you
to take that freed-up spectrum and get it out so that the
private sector can be utilizing it.
You know, the cost to private industry that I am worried
about--I know that other Members are worried about--is that if
we are going to have this, how much time do we have to get this
out to market, so you are not creating something today that--my
greatest fear is when I buy a new computer at home, I never
look in the paper to see what these things are on sale for
because usually the week after I buy it, they are 50 percent
off. And I think the same thing is happening in technology out
there, that things move so quickly. And again, if you could
just elaborate a little bit more how we can assure business out
there that we can get this spectrum to them, so they can
utilize it, so they can, you know, get it developed with, you
know,--I don't care if it is the laptops or you name it, that
or as in your testimony, you list the different areas that
folks would be using, smartphones, tablets and laptops, but we
want to make sure they can be developing it today knowing that
within 18 or 20 months, it could be out there.
Mr. Strickling. It is a very good question. The first thing
I would refer you to is the AWS-1 auction that was conducted
back in 2007, I believe. A lot of that spectrum still has not
been built out by the people who bought it at auction, even
though they have the full ability to do so. So we are taking a
long time horizon at this. We can see the growing demand. We
can see that there is going to be a continuing need for more
spectrum.
Our spectrum that we are identifying now, again, some of it
can be made available within 5 years. Our overall target is
that whatever we recommend needs to be made available within 10
years. We think that that gives it a good progression for
industry to see where the additional spectrum is going to be
coming from to meet their needs, but keep in mind that there is
a lot of underutilized commercial spectrum out there right now.
Mr. Latta. And with my time remaining, I want to ask you
this, especially with the WiFi technology as it is becoming
more popular and being embedded in more and more devices. WiFi
is also considered technology that service providers are
turning to in an effort to try to offload data traffic from
their crowded networks. You know, what plan does the Federal
Government have right now, if any, to evaluate whether more
spectrum can be made available, especially for WiFi at the 5
GHz range?
Mr. Strickling. The 5 GHz range is an interesting band to
talk about because that is a band in which the WiFi is sharing
spectrum with radar systems, including Federal Aviation
Administration wind sheer radars. When that sharing was
approved, the manufacturers of the WiFi equipment were given
radar characteristics, you know, that the FAA was using to
ensure that their equipment would not interfere with these
radar systems. In fact, we have found instances where that is
happening, where there is interference, and when you are
dealing with wind sheer radars, you don't want to get into a
situation where something might happen to disable those
systems. They are very important to the safety of human life in
terms of the planes that could be affected by wind sheer. So we
are learning a lot about sharing as a result of this.
For example, the FAA now would like to modernize its radar
systems so they will now have different characteristics that
will affect those WiFi sets in a different way than the
original designs. Yet how do you get the WiFi industry to go in
and modify its designs to accommodate an upgrade in the
modernization that our FAA feels is necessary to take, again,
to protect human life in airplanes?
So we are dealing with a whole variety of these issues and
trying to learn from them because this is the wave of the
future. We are going to have to find more and more of these
opportunities where the commercial use can coexist with the
government use, and we have to find ways to minimize and
prevent harmful interference from taking place.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expire and I yield back.
Mr. Stearns [presiding]. Thank you. Well, we have another--
Charlie, have you thought of a question?
All right. Well, that concludes--that was your last chance
to keep Mr. Strickling here for 5 more minutes. So then that
concludes all of the questioning, Mr. Strickling.
Thank you for being up here. It has been a very informative
hearing. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:24 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Today's hearing is the latest in a series on how good
spectrum policy can expand wireless broadband, promote an
interoperable public safety broadband network, create needed
jobs, and reduce the deficit. This hearing will focus on the
use of spectrum by the federal government.
The U.S. Government is the largest single user of spectrum
in the country. Everything from RADAR systems to remote
environmental sensors are examples of government wireless
spectrum use. The questions for us today are ``how can we
ensure that the government uses spectrum in the most efficient
way possible and what spectrum can be cleared for reassignment
and auction to commercial uses?''
I applaud Assistant Secretary Strickling and his staff at
the NTIA for beginning this difficult task and identifying
spectrum for potential reassignment in its 5- and 10-year
spectrum plans. This is a good start to the process, and I look
forward to working together with the NTIA and my friends on the
other side of the aisle as we explore opportunities to make the
most of the spectrum. Spectrum policy can play a critical role
in creating jobs and reducing the deficit; reassigning spectrum
from government uses to the commercial sector is a tough but
critical step in this process. I thank Assistant Secretary
Strickling for his testimony today and look forward to hearing
his approach to the challenges and opportunities of spectrum
reassignment.