    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                THE ROLE OF RECEIVERS IN A SPECTRUM SCARCE WORLD

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 29, 2012

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-183

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                     ______

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    85-744                     WASHINGTON : 2014
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    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, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        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                 Chairman Emeritus
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    MARY BONO MACK, California           FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    MIKE ROGERS, Michigan                ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina   GENE GREEN, Texas
      Vice Chairman                      DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma              LOIS CAPPS, California
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
    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
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            Islands
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    PETE OLSON, Texas
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia

                                     7_____

                 Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

                              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
                                     Chairman
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  ANNA G. ESHOO, California
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    CLIFF STEARNS, Florida               EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    MARY BONO MACK, California           DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    MIKE ROGERS, Michigan                JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
    BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California             Islands
    CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire       EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    PHIL GINGREY, Georgia                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois                 officio)
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)        officio)

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................     5
    Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Nebraska, opening statement....................................     6
    Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Florida, opening statement..................................     6

                                   Witnesses

    Ronald T. Repasi, Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and
      Technology, Federal Communications Commission..................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    56
    Pierre de Vries, Senior Adjunct Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center
      for Law, Technology, and Entrepreneurship, University of
      Colorado at Boulder............................................    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    17
    Brian Markwalter, Senior Vice President, Research and Standards,
      Consumer Electronics Association...............................    30
        Prepared statement...........................................    32

                THE ROLE OF RECEIVERS IN A SPECTRUM SCARCE WORLD

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2012

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:58 a.m., in
    room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg
    Walden (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Walden, Terry, Stearns,
    Blackburn, Gingrey, Latta, Guthrie, Eshoo, Markey, Barrow, and
    Christensen.
        Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of
    Coalitions; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Neil
    Fried, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Debbee
    Keller, Press Secretary; Andrew Powaleny, Deputy Press
    Secretary; David Redl, Counsel, Communications and Technology;
    Charlotte Savercool, Executive Assistant; Roger Sherman,
    Democratic Chief Counsel; Shawn Chang, Democratic Senior
    Counsel; David Strickland, Democratic FCC Detailee; Margaret
    McCarthy, Democratic Professional Staff Member; and Kara Van
    Stralen, Democratic Special Assistant.
        Mr. Walden. We will call to order the Subcommittee on
    Communications and Technology and our hearing on ``The Role of
    Receivers in a Spectrum Scarce World.'' First of all, I want to
    thank our witnesses not only for your extraordinary testimony--
    we appreciate it; I have read through it--but also for your
    patience and that of our visitors here today as well.
        As you know, we are all in our organizational phases in the
    Congress and we are giving courtesy to my colleagues on the
    other side because they were having an organizational meeting
    today. And we appreciate their breaking loose so we could get
    this going even though we are a little delayed. So it is what
    it is. Thank you. I will start with some opening comments and
    then recognize my friend and colleague from California.

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

        Good fences make good neighbors. Where I come from in
    Oregon, we know that is the case whether it is crowded city
    blocks or sprawling ranches. In many places in my district, the
    ranches stretch for miles, and running out of space isn't a
    problem. But in our digital world--in Oregon and around the
    country--we are running out of room. Demand for spectrum is far
    outpacing supply, and we need to figure out how to use this
    room we have as efficiently as possible. In short, how do we
    create good, strong fences to make sure everyone stays within
    their spectrum bands so spectrum can be used as efficiently as
    possible?
        Now, why is this important? Simple. Spectrum equals jobs.
    Telecommunications is the most vibrant and innovative sector in
    America. Spectrum is the fuel that it runs on, but there is a
    limit to our supply. As our subcommittee continues its work to
    free up more spectrum, we are also focused on maximizing the
    use of the existing spectrum. We have taken a forward-looking
    approach--authorizing first-of-its-kind incentive auctions and
    taking a look at making government spectrum use more efficient
    and more available.
        This hearing focuses on receivers and how interference
    issues can impact our ability to roll out new broadband
    services. While the controversy surrounding LightSquared and
    GPS is one example, we have seen similar debates involving a
    would-be broadband provider called M2Z networks. We have seen
    it in satellite radio; we have seen it in unlicensed and white-
    space devices. So that this issue is starting to recur more
    frequently raises an important question: What engineering
    techniques and smart strategies are available to fit more
    mobile services in a crowded spectrum environment without
    having to carve out larger and larger guard bands--big,
    inefficient moats--to avoid interference? And how can we do so
    without unreasonably increasing the costs of services and
    devices?
        Now, the Federal Communications Commission has
    traditionally tried to combat interference by regulating
    wireless transmitters and placing wireless services of a
    similar type in neighboring bands--like a city planner placing
    schools next to other schools and factories next to other
    factories. While that has generally been successful in the
    past, fitting additional users into existing spectrum is
    becoming more difficult with the accelerating rise of the new
    wireless technologies and services.
        Recently, both the FCC and the President's Council of
    Advisors on Science and Technology have taken a fresh look at
    the way we manage interference and suggested that we need to
    begin examining receiver performance to maximize our spectrum
    resources. This is in part because receivers are developed to
    meet current technological needs, not to anticipate a changing
    spectrum environment. They are built for the technology world
    of today or even a few years ago, which, as we know, will look
    very different in just a few more years. Again, we need to be
    prepared.
        As a result, the FCC is increasingly either rejecting new
    users to protect existing ones or turning to guard bands--bands
    of restricted-use spectrum to physically separate the two
    licensed uses. Sometimes these guard bands are like digging a
    big, wide moat between neighbors when a simple fence will do.
    Neither rejecting new users, nor ordering large guard bands, is
    ideal if we intend to remain the world's most innovative
    wireless community and economy.
        Today's witnesses include electrical engineers and a
    physicist with expertise in radio engineering. So I look
    forward to your guidance on how receiver performance strategies
    in devices as different as televisions, Smartphones, and GPS
    systems impact our ability to put spectrum to its best use. I
    am also looking forward to your thoughts on how to strike a
    balance so we can accommodate new innovations in wireless
    technology without forcing manufacturers to waste time and
    money over-engineering receivers for unworkable future uses.
    Remember: spectrum equals jobs, and we must make sure it
    continues to remain a job-creation engine into the future. We
    must ensure that our policies promote continued growth and
    innovation in this sector without endangering our Nation's
    communications, commerce, and security.
        We are also looking forward to the full report from the
    Government Accountability Office as we requested in our
    spectrum legislation, which is now law, as they look at this
    issue as well.
        So, gentlemen, thank you for being here. I now would
    recognize the gentlelady from California.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.001

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

        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my thanks to all of
    my Republican colleagues for your patience, as well as that of
    the witnesses and everyone that has come to this hearing today
    as the Democrats held their reorganizational caucus. And I had
    no idea that it would take the amount of time that it did,
    especially with unanimous nominations, but the speeches went on
    and on. So thank you again for your patience.
        Mr. Chairman, harmful interference between adjacent
    spectrum bands is becoming the new spectrum crisis. As time in
    which demand for mobile broadband continues to skyrocket,
    ensuring that every megahertz of spectrum is used efficiently
    is as important as our ongoing effort to free up new spectrum
    bands. And our subcommittee I think has worked very, very hard
    on this certainly with the instruction of witnesses, our
    terrific staffs, and others as well.
        What happened to LightSquared, a promising company with
    plans to inject new competition into the wireless broadband
    market, is disappointing. But unfortunately, that ship has
    sailed. What is just as unfortunate is that this isn't the
    first time in which an incumbent has raised the problem of
    receiver overload. Similar interference issues arose between
    cellular and public safety radio systems, as well as between
    satellite digital radio systems and proposed terrestrial data
    services.
        These are tough issues. Consumers want their Smartphones
    and tablets to provide fast, reliable broadband service, but no
    one wants more expensive devices, a potential outcome of
    setting standards on receiver performance. If we successfully
    reconcile these competing goals, I believe consumers win, new
    entrants will have greater certainty before investing billions
    of dollars, and a thriving consumer electronics industry will
    not be unduly burdened.
        Like most members of this subcommittee, I am not an
    engineer and I don't have the technical expertise to answer
    questions such as how much interference is tolerable, what the
    cost of imposing standards are on receiver performance, and if
    such standards were imposed, how many megahertz of unused guard
    bands could be repurposed for mobile broadband? Recognizing the
    importance of spectrum efficiency, we included a GAO study of
    receiver performance in the bipartisan spectrum bill, which was
    signed into law earlier this year. The results of this study,
    the work of the FCC's Technological Advisory Council (the TAC)
    along with the experts testifying before our committee today
    will guide us as we tackle these challenging questions and
    determine whether new legislation and FCC rulemaking or
    advancement in technology or a blend of these things--I don't
    know--are the appropriate path forward.
        So thank you again, the patience of our witnesses. You got
    to stay longer in Washington. Oh, joy, is right. But we really
    appreciate your being here to be instructive to us. We thank
    you for your important work that you have done and what you
    will continue to do to promote spectrum efficiency.
        And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walden. I thank the gentlelady for her opening
    statement and comments and now I turn to the vice chair of the
    subcommittee, Mr. Terry.

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

        Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    important hearing on receivers. I can tell you that many in
    Nebraska are very upset that wide receiver Kenny Bell was not
    named All-Big Ten and have demanded a hearing for which I
    appreciate you calling.
        Seriously, though, we have before us a policy that is
    especially difficult to solve. As recent disputes over
    interference clearly illustrate that the center of these
    conflicts is the question of who bears the cost of mitigating
    interference, the incumbent or the newcomer? This transaction
    cost is a big obstacle to efficient spectrum use. And the
    efficiency of spectrum use is so vital because spectrum is the
    lifeblood of the wide variety of wireless services that see
    ever-increasing demand. Spectrum, like valuable land, cannot
    lie fallow or else our economy really bears the cost.
        The problem before us requires us to look closely at the
    costs involved with mitigating interference. I am very
    interested in hearing our witnesses' ideas about how best to
    handle these costs. If the FCC has a role here, what should it
    be? Whatever the answer is, I understand that our task is to
    ensure that the licensees are able to utilize their inputs
    effectively, but we must also avoid the trap of imposing
    inordinate costs on a single type of licensee or hampering
    innovative uses of spectrum.
        I look forward to working with all of my colleagues and
    look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
        Yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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

        Mr. Stearns. I thank my distinguished colleague from
    Nebraska and I welcome this hearing.
        And this hearing is an important follow-up from the hearing
    of my Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee that I chair
    that was held in September and that examined the FCC's role in
    the LightSquared network. As we discussed during that hearing,
    LightSquared's billion-dollar investment has simply been put in
    jeopardy due to an overload interference issue that is caused
    by faulty receivers and GPS devices. I warned then that we must
    not let poor receiver standards result in more interference
    issues down the road. Therefore, I am very pleased that this
    subcommittee is closely examining the issue and beginning an
    important discussion in how we can address receivers going
    forward. It is extremely important.
        I agree with the witnesses today that we should be wary of
    government mandates that would govern receiver designs.
    However, I do believe that more must be done to ensure maximum
    use of our spectrum.
        So I look forward to their approaches and I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Latta or Mr. Guthrie, any comments before we go on?
    Seeing none, the time is yielded back.
        Is there a request for time on your side, Dr. Christensen?
        It doesn't appear we have any other Members seeking
    recognition at this time. So now we will move right----
        Mr. Terry. Note this date in history.
        Mr. Walden. They have waited long enough. So let's start
    with Mr. Repasi. Thank you for being here from the Federal
    Communications Commission. We appreciate your testimony and
    look forward to your comments. And just kind of pull that mike
    close, make sure it is on, and then we will avoid any receiver
    or transmitter interference with your comments.

        STATEMENTS OF RONALD T. REPASI, DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE OF
    ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
       PIERRE DE VRIES, SENIOR ADJUNCT FELLOW, SILICON FLATIRONS
    CENTER FOR LAW, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, UNIVERSITY OF
        COLORADO AT BOULDER; AND BRIAN MARKWALTER, SENIOR VICE
        PRESIDENT, RESEARCH AND STANDARDS, CONSUMER ELECTRONICS
                              ASSOCIATION

                     STATEMENT OF RONALD T. REPASI

        Mr. Repasi. Good afternoon, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member
    Eshoo, and members of the Communications and Technology
    Subcommittee.
        My name is Ron Repasi and I am deputy chief of the FCC's
    Office of Engineering and Technology. OET is the Commission's
    primary resource for engineering expertise and provides
    technical support to the chairman, commissioners, and the FCC's
    Bureaus and Offices.
        I appreciate your bipartisan interest in receiver standards
    and for this opportunity to testify concerning the role of
    receivers in enabling spectrum to be used for new and
    innovative communication services. I am pleased to report that
    the FCC's efforts to explore the issue in a comprehensive way
    that includes stakeholders and technical experts in both the
    Federal and private sectors.
        There is no question that, without concerted action, the
    demand for mobile broadband spectrum would quickly outpace the
    available supply. The Commission has and continues to take
    numerous steps to meet this demand, including reallocating
    spectrum, fostering advanced spectrum sharing techniques, and
    promoting improvement in efficient spectrum use.
        The Commission's spectrum management efforts have focused
    primarily on transmitters by establishing limitations on power
    and noise that they may generate outside their designated
    frequency bands while the performance of receivers has
    generally been left to the marketplace. Receivers are expected
    to operate within the same parameters as their associated
    transmitters. That is not always the case because sometimes
    receivers pick up energy outside of the spectrum provided for
    their service.
        Receiver performance is becoming increasingly important as
    a limiting factor as we move to repurpose spectrum and pack
    more services closer together. The continuing challenge for the
    Commission will be to maximize the amount of usable spectrum
    for cost-effective deployment of new communication services
    while sufficiently protecting incumbent receivers. If receiver
    technology remains static or is unable to keep pace with the
    rapid evolution of transmission technologies, the challenges
    before the Commission will increase dramatically.
        In 2003, the Commission initiated a Notice of Inquiry to
    consider incorporating receiver interference protection
    standards into spectrum policy on a broader basis. The
    proceeding was terminated in 2007 but the Commission found that
    nothing precludes it from evaluating the issues raised by
    parties in the context of other proceedings that are frequency
    band or service specific.
        Over the past several years, receiver performance issues
    have arisen in certain band-specific instances as a conflict
    between legacy stakeholders and new entrants. The Commission is
    proactively addressing the issue of receiver performance and
    its impact on spectrum access for new services. Earlier this
    year, Chairman Genachowski initiated a review of spectrum
    efficiency and receiver standards with a two-day workshop at
    FCC headquarters, featuring a broad range of experts and
    stakeholders, including licensees, equipment manufacturers and
    consumers. Chairman Genachowski has also tasked the
    Commission's Technological Advisory Council to study the issue
    of receiver performance, and OET Chief Julius Knapp has been
    working with the TAC as it develops its recommendations. The
    TAC plans to finalize its recommendations at this upcoming
    December 10 meeting and then submit to the Commission those
    recommendations for consideration.
        Commission staff participated as well in various technical
    groups organized by private sector entities and to discuss
    ideas about how to address receiver spectrum issues. Staff also
    met with filter and electronic component suppliers to discuss
    technology developments that hold promise for improving the
    interference rejection capabilities of receivers. These efforts
    by the Commission to gain a broader perspective on receiver
    performance have been conducted in tandem with OET's
    cooperation with GAO as it carries out the Job Creation Act
    requirements to the study receiver performance and spectrum
    efficiency. We look forward to the GAO report and consulting
    with Congress as we consider what next steps may be appropriate
    following release of the report.
        Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify here
    today. We look forward to working with you and your staff to
    forge solutions to future engineering challenges. And I would
    be happy to answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Repasi follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.007

        Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Repasi. We appreciate
    the good work of you and your staff and Julius Knapp down at
    the FCC. We have called upon your or Julius before for your
    engineering answers, and we appreciate all that you do down
    there.
        We are going to go now to Mr. Pierre de Vries, Senior
    Adjunct Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center, University of
    Colorado, Boulder. Mr. de Vries, thank you for being here. I
    appreciate your testimony and look forward to you offering it
    orally.

                      STATEMENT OF PIERRE DE VRIES

        Mr. de Vries. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member
    Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure and an
    honor to be here today.
        Yes, I am the physicist. My name is Pierre de Vries. I have
    been involved in spectrum issues for about a decade and spent
    the last 4 years focusing on the issue that is the subject of
    this hearing today.
        I laid out my testimony under four headings, and I would
    like to just summarize the key points: first, the ``spectrum
    crunch.'' The spectrum crunch that matters is the need to
    squeeze in evermore services into increasingly crowded
    spectrum, and that requires the ability to improve receivers
    and radio systems in general to tolerate interference in
    adjacent bands if they are in a given band. In this regard, I
    would like to compliment and commend you, Mr. Chairman and the
    committee, for your hard work on the incentive auction
    legislation. That was a vital step in extracting maximum value
    from this very scarce spectrum.
        The FCC can also play its part, I believe, by drawing
    boundary lines more clearly. That is by clarifying both the
    rights that radio services have to be protected from harm and
    their responsibilities to tolerate reasonable interference.
        Second, yes, receiver performance is key. Receivers in one
    band or in fact more accurately the receivers and the
    transmitters together as a system in that band--receivers that
    cannot tolerate reasonable levels of interference in an
    adjacent band unfairly impose costs on others and they reap the
    benefits themselves--for example, cheaper equipment. So far, as
    we have heard, the FCC has handled such interference almost
    entirely by placing the burden on the neighbor--for example, by
    reducing their transmit power sometimes to zero, effectively
    precluding the introduction of valuable new services. However,
    the receiving system operator also needs to bear some
    responsibility, but it needs to know what that responsibility
    is.
        So third, I believe we can go a long way towards solving
    this problem by using harm claim thresholds, also known as
    interference protection limits or interference limits, and that
    is the proposal I am putting to you today. Harm claim
    thresholds state the interference levels in adjacent
    frequencies that a service needs to tolerate without being able
    to bring a harmful interference claim. No FCC-mandated receiver
    specifications or standards are required. Harm claim thresholds
    let manufacturers and operators figure out the best way to deal
    with interference--for example, by deploying suitable
    receivers.
        Now, there may well be a few cases where harm claim
    thresholds won't be sufficient and additional measures, perhaps
    even mandated standards, may be unavoidable in a few cases, but
    they should be a last resort.
        Finally, Congress and this committee in particular can play
    a decisive role by continuing to focus attention on this issue
    as you are doing by making clear that the FCC can use
    approaches that don't mandate receiver standards like the one I
    have mentioned and by funding the FCC to commission the
    engineering studies that are necessary to inform smart
    regulatory frameworks.
        So Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. Thank you
    again for inviting me today. I would be very happy to respond
    to any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. de Vries follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.020

        Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. de Vries. We appreciate that. I
    was hoping you would give us your neighbor/tent analogy. I
    thought that really put it in perfectly understandable terms.
        We will go now to Mr. Markwalter, who is the senior vice
    president, Research and Standards, at the Consumer Electronics
    Association. Mr. Markwalter, we appreciate your testimony and
    look forward to your comments.

                     STATEMENT OF BRIAN MARKWALTER

        Mr. Markwalter. Thank you. Subcommittee Chairman Walden,
    Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee, on
    behalf of the Consumer Electronics Association, thank you for
    the opportunity to testify at today's hearing on ``The Role of
    Receivers in a Spectrum Scarce World.'' My name is Brian
    Markwalter and I am senior vice president of Research and
    Standards at CEA.
        CEA's more than 2,000 member companies include almost all
    the world's leading consumer electronics manufacturers and
    hundreds of small business. CEA and its members have a vital
    interest and an important role to play in ensuring the most
    effective and efficient use of spectrum.
        As we continue to examine how to make the most efficient
    use of our Nation's spectrum, CEA believes that spectrum
    management must include an approach that examines the
    interaction between transmitters and receivers. This approach
    need not cause a shift from command-and-control spectrum
    management to command-and-control device regulation. The
    pillars of spectrum policy in a world of overcrowded airwaves
    must include better information about receivers in the field
    and their ability to tolerate interference, certainty on
    possible new allocations so that businesses and Federal
    spectrum users may make informed design and investment
    decisions, and primary reliance on stakeholders to find the
    cost and performance boundary between adjacent systems.
        Equipment manufacturers and wireless service provides have
    a strong self-interest in developing and deploying devices that
    are resistant to forms of interference and to create as little
    interference as possible. Service providers require that their
    receivers meet very stringent design specifications to ensure
    non-interference.
        Licensed mobile devices must meet applicable standards
    bodies' requirements prior to use by wireless provides. The two
    primary examples are the standards created by the Third
    Generation Partnership Projects. Industry has developed these
    standards to ensure the items such as reference sensitivity
    levels, receiver input levels, adjacent channel selectivity,
    and blocking characteristics are standardized and controlled.
        Digital TV receivers provide another example of effective
    response by industry stakeholders to document the RF
    environment and the associated tradeoffs made by receivers to
    operate in the wide range of expected signal levels. The
    standard in this case ATSC Recommended Practice A/74. CEA
    believes that A/74 serves as a good starting point for the
    industry-to-industry dialogue as needed to complete incentive
    auctions and introduce new mobile broadband services as the
    upper adjacent neighbor to the TV band.
        The debate over efficient use of spectrum has moved beyond
    knee-jerk reactions and entered a thoughtful, solutions-
    oriented discussion in venues like the FCC's Technological
    Advisory Council. The early calls for government mandates on
    device design have faded as stakeholders have come to
    understand that such approaches are not the best solution we
    have to spectrum crowding. We look forward to a broader review
    of the soon-to-be-released TAC report.
        As we work to mitigate interference between the services
    and receivers in adjacent bands, CEA offers the following
    principles to guide policymakers and industry:
        First, reduce uncertainty. The ultimate goal of spectrum
    management should be to make the interference environment more
    transparent so that designers have all the information needed
    to deliver cost-effective products that allow more efficient
    use of adjacent bands.
        Second, use voluntary performance principles and industry
    standards, not device mandates. Instead of adopting static
    regulations governing receiver design, we believe the FCC
    should allow industry to develop standards responsive to
    planned allocations.
        Third, collect information. The FCC should continue to
    carefully inventory what services are operating in each band
    and work with industry and government users to understand the
    types of receivers deployed and their interference immunity
    characteristics.
        Fourth, case-by-case analysis. Any regulatory action
    regarding spectrum allocations and receiver performance should
    be narrowly tailored to allow technological advancement. These
    principles are explained in more detail in my written
    testimony.
        To conclude, CEA is encouraged by the numerous fresh ideas
    on spectrum policy and the concerted effort to free up spectrum
    for much-needed commercial use. We believe that the right
    regulatory approach to spectrum management leverages
    stakeholders' deep understanding of their system capabilities
    and price points in response to any government-articulated
    plans for future allocations.
        I would be happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Markwalter follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.026

        Mr. Walden. Mr. Markwalter, thank you for your very
    thoughtful testimony. We appreciate your being here today as
    well.
        I will lead off with the questions and I will start with
    you just as you were giving your testimony and certainly, Mr.
    de Vries. What did you think of Mr. de Vries' proposal for our
    consideration regarding the harm claim threshold notion of how
    you might--I won't say regulate in this space--but provide
    guidance in this space? Is that something CEA would be
    interested in? Is that something you see as workable?
        Mr. Markwalter. Yes, well, we are definitely interested.
    And we should confess we are both on the TAC and so we are both
    working this issue very carefully, the interference limits
    approach. There are a lot of details to be worked out yet.
        Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
        Mr. Markwalter. What is very appealing about the approach
    is it allows the problem to be stated and doesn't go directly
    to the solution. So as Pierre, described, it sets up the
    environment and allows----
        Mr. Walden. A framework.
        Mr. Markwalter. A framework.
        Mr. Walden. Yes.
        Mr. Markwalter. And, you know, leaves in the hand of the
    users to build equipment to meet those needs rather than going
    directly to solutions by dictating specific device performance.
    There are some complicated issues yet to be worked out about
    how you would, you know, establish the limits--
        Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
        Mr. Markwalter [continuing]. To begin with in different use
    cases but--
        Mr. Walden. I appreciate that and I want to encourage the
    TAC and its work and you two, since you are here in public and
    not back in your TAC world, to continue because while trying to
    break loose spectrum is one of the most enjoyable tasks we have
    here on the subcommittee. It is simple and easy and there is
    never any--well, there is a limit what we can do. And so we are
    going to be looking at all these efficiencies.
        Mr. de Vries, the growing need to place varied wireless
    services in neighboring spectrum bands has prompted the FCC to
    increasingly rely on guard bands, and that is something that I
    really want to drill in a bit here. How efficient a solution is
    that? One of my underlying questions I guess is how much guard
    band, how much spectrum lies fallow because we have this
    problem between transmitter and receiver? Can you kind of
    address that piece of this? And does anybody know how much that
    is? That is not calculated, I assume.
        Mr. de Vries. Mr. Chairman, I think the answer to it is how
    long is an elastic band? It depends on how hard you pull it. To
    go back to the levels analogy, so let's say I have got a
    receiver in this band--
        Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
        Mr. de Vries. If I set the level of the maximum
    interference that it can tolerate very low, that is effectively
    a guard band.
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. de Vries. Right? If I set it very high, it is not. And
    choosing exactly where--
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. de Vries [continuing]. One chooses that level
    influences how much you free up.
        Mr. Walden. Got it.
        Mr. de Vries. And so that decision, which the way we are
    thinking on the TAC probably--the discussion starts amongst
    engineers in a multi-stakeholder space--may end up at the FCC.
    But where that number is set influences how much more we can
    squeeze in.
        Mr. Walden. Right. OK. Well, you know, in my background I
    was in the radio broadcast business 22 years and a licensed
    amateur radio operator and so I played a little in this. And
    you know, we had to limit our transmission, can have this
    exposure and, you know, we all argued about how sloppy the
    front ends are on AM receivers, you know, and all the
    interference you get from power lines and everything else. And
    so it just has always struck me that there is ability to
    improve in that side of the equation. So I appreciate that.
        Let me go to Mr. de Vries. In the license context there is
    a licensee on the hook at the FCC that has an ongoing
    relationship with both the subscriber and the manufacturer.
        Mr. de Vries. Um-hum.
        Mr. Walden. The licensee can try to get a solution deployed
    in the marketplace, but when there is no licensee, as was the
    case with the GPS device problems in the LightSquared case, it
    is a lot harder to identify and help the individually impacted
    customers. So what do you think the remedy is in such cases
    short of prohibiting or limited the proposed new service? Do we
    need to treat these situations differently from the licensed
    ones? Do we need to be particularly careful where and how we
    deploy such devices?
        Mr. de Vries. I think one definitely needs to pay
    additional care to these cases for exactly the reasons that you
    state. I think that there are a variety of possible solutions
    on offer, and the ones that are chosen depends on one's
    assessment of the risk. So the simplest solution is to say we
    will set the harm claim thresholds and we will assume that it
    is a well run industry with a lot of consensus and they will
    come up with industry standards and they will sort it out.
        On the other hand, if one has less appetite for risk, you
    could say we are going to require manufacturers to self-
    certify, not have the government tell them how to build their
    devices, but say it is going to work. And then thirdly, and
    that is the last resort that may be necessary for there to be
    mandated standards for particular kind of devices.
        Mr. Walden. OK. My time has expired. Before I turn over to
    my ranking member and friend from California I just want to say
    publicly that the chairman of the FCC was very helpful to me
    during the LightSquared GPS issue by making Julius available
    for a closed-door meeting of engineers from both sides. The
    poor legal folks and lobbyists were, you know, apoplectic on
    the sidelines but we tried to drill down in this space: is
    there an engineering solution here? Are there notch filers? Are
    there other things you can do in this space? So I appreciated
    his willingness to let us do that.
        I turn now to my friend from California.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you again to the witnesses not only again for
    your patience but your excellent testimony, too. It is on a
    very important subject.
        Before I begin with the questions, I would just like to
    ask--and you don't have to do it now--but in the majority's
    memo for today's hearing it states that the PCAST report
    recommended the establishment of minimum technical standards
    for receivers, and I would just like to know where in the
    report it says that? We don't find it, and as we are talking
    about whether there should be or shouldn't be and how much, I
    think that it is important to have that clear. So it is in the
    memo but we don't find it in the PCAST report. But you can get
    that to us?
        Mr. Walden. Yes, I didn't----
        Ms. Eshoo. Yes, afterward. All right?
        Mr. Walden. We will be happy to find it.
        Ms. Eshoo. But I think it is a semi-important point.
        To Mr. de Vries, you have been an advisor, you know, to
    PCAST, to the President's Council of Advisors in Science and
    Technology. Can you describe how government users would benefit
    from establishing objective criteria for harmful interference
    conditions? And just be as brief as you can because I want to
    get through the panel.
        Mr. de Vries. Um-hum. I think government users would
    benefit by there being clearer criteria for what counts as
    harm, which means they would be able to engineer their systems
    to be more interference-tolerant, jamming-tolerant.
        Ms. Eshoo. And by putting in place what you just described,
    does this require technological advances? Are there costs to
    it? And how open would the defense community be to it do you
    think, I mean in your estimation, because that is really the
    largest nut to crack I think.
        Mr. de Vries. The setting of the threshold is just a
    number. And the engineering that is required is left to
    industry.
        Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
        Mr. de Vries. I can't speak for the DOD. I would observe I
    think that one of the benefits of having clearer fences is that
    it makes sharing or coexistence more feasible, which means that
    it is less necessary perhaps to relocate and clear.
        Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
        Mr. de Vries. They may find that attractive.
        Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum. Thank you.
        Mr. Repasi, thank you again for your fine work and for
    being here. We have heard today that in reallocating spectrum,
    the FCC should consider an inventory of services and receivers
    that are operating in adjacent bands. Does the FCC do this
    today? And if not, from an engineering perspective, would this
    information help you to better anticipate potential concerns
    with harmful interference?
        Mr. Repasi. Thank you. Currently, the FCC does not collect
    an inventory of receives that are in adjacent bands. We rely
    on----
        Ms. Eshoo. How do you know?
        Mr. Repasi. We rely on the information that is supplied in
    the course of our rulemakings. Manufacturers who have concerns
    about interference, whether it is on a band or overload
    interference, will supply technical information to support
    their arguments on what their threshold----
        Ms. Eshoo. I mean, wouldn't it be in the interest of
    whomever is the applicant to bring forward what is advantageous
    to their case and then you rely on that?
        Mr. Repasi. That is correct. The earliest possible
    opportunity, of course, would be when the Commission issues a
    proposal for a new rule, whether it----
        Ms. Eshoo. I think that is a little squishy, don't you?
        Mr. Repasi. Well, that is the first opportunity.
        Ms. Eshoo. Well, I mean you may not want to say yes to
    that, squishy, but I mean, you know, in this town people
    obviously are going to advance and I think it is human nature
    to advance the best case possible, to advance your case. But if
    the information you are using is just that, it could be biased
    and that is what I am concerned about. But maybe I am off on
    the wrong track on this.
        Mr. Repasi. But that information would go into what
    proposals we present and we seek comment on those. And if there
    were assumptions that we made that are challenged by the
    public, we take that information into account. And usually,
    supporting technical material is supplied in our record to
    support the challenge to our assumptions.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Markwalter, thank you again for what you do. You
    suggested in your testimony that equipment manufacturers have a
    strong self-interest in developing and deploying products that
    create as little interference as possible. I agree, but is this
    a problem that has been many years in the making? I mean to
    help expedite a long-term solution, would you support the FCC
    reopening the formal proceeding on the matter? Does it need
    that?
        Mr. Markwalter. So I think given the time that has passed
    and the amount of work that is even currently underway----
        Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
        Mr. Markwalter. I would recommend we wait for the TAC
    report to come out and see----
        Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
        Mr. Markwalter [continuing]. What work is teed up for the
    TAC next year, because I think the interference limits, this
    notion of clarifying rights and expectations is being addressed
    pretty thoroughly.
        Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
        Mr. Markwalter. So I would leave it at that. I think there
    is plenty of work----
        Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
        Mr. Markwalter [continuing]. For the industry yet to do in
    that environment.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you. That is most helpful. Thank you to
    each witness.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walden. You are welcome.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, the
    very able vice chair of the Subcommittee on Communications and
    Technology, Mr. Terry.
        Mr. Terry. Well stated, just like I wrote it.
        Thank you, Mr. Walden, for your able leadership over the
    last 2 years. And certainly the receiver issue is one that you
    have mentioned many, many times and I am glad we have this
    hearing.
        I am intrigued, Mr. de Vries, about this harm claim
    threshold standard. It is almost a libertarian type of view in
    how to resolve this issue. I have to work in examples, so the
    first issue that I have is how do we resolve the incumbent
    receiver? And so using the GPS versus LightSquared issue, using
    the harm claim threshold, tell me how that would require or
    force GPS receivers to upgrade to be able to better filter out
    the delete over interference?
        Mr. de Vries. The way I anticipate this might work is when
    you start, you are going to have a lot of devices out there. We
    are beginning a transition. So the thresholds would be set very
    low. So I am the GPS receiver, very low interference threshold
    so that all the existing receivers are protected. That may be
    so low that no service can be deployed. The FCC might then say
    or industry might agree that 10 years from now it goes up to
    here at which point these receivers have 10 years to build
    filters to accommodate this increased signal.
        Mr. Terry. All right. That is interesting. How would they
    know how to predict what type of interference or level of
    interference could occur in 10 years? So in a sense would the
    FCC have to come back and say, hey, there is this new standard?
    So now we are getting back to the standards issue. So is that
    the way it would work? Because right now, these GPS folks can
    just say we don't have any reason to move.
        Mr. de Vries. I am so glad you asked that question, sir,
    because I wasn't clear. So the harm claim threshold doesn't
    attempt to describe the actual interference environment.
        Mr. Terry. All right.
        Mr. de Vries. It simply says if the interference is below
    this number, you cannot claim harm.
        Mr. Terry. OK.
        Mr. de Vries. If it is above the number, then you can. So
    the FCC does not get into the business of trying to predict
    what the environment will be.
        Mr. Terry. But just where the threshold would be, the harm
    threshold----
        Mr. de Vries. Yes.
        Mr. Terry [continuing]. Would still be set by the FCC?
        Now, Mr. Repasi, add a layer then on the involvement in
    this plan of the FCC. How long would it take for the FCC to
    establish a harm claim threshold and what would be the
    processes to get there?
        Mr. Repasi. Thank you. Well, as we know, currently, the TAC
    is debating on how to flesh out this approach and provide
    formal recommendations to the Commission. We also have the GAO
    that is reviewing spectrum efficiency standards, and that
    report is due by February of next year. We, of course, would
    have to take the recommendations from the TAC and then the
    recommendations----
        Mr. Terry. Well, for further questions let's just assume
    that TAC recommended an approach like the harm claim threshold.
        Mr. Repasi. Right. It would come down to where we would
    apply it first. If it is applied in a specific case, we would
    have to determine who the neighbors are before we could
    adjudicate whether the harm claim threshold is sufficient to
    protect the existing services, let alone services that are----
        Mr. Terry. So it would still have to be done on a per-
    device level?
        Mr. Repasi. I think it would still have to be on a case-
    specific, band-specific basis, yes.
        Mr. Terry. OK.
        Mr. Repasi. Because the interference to a receiver that is
    looking into space for example, may be a much lower threshold
    than for a receiver that is communicating with a broadband
    advanced wireless system.
        Mr. Terry. Some of the earlier discussions amongst us is
    that the FCC preferred more of a standards-based. I would
    assume the thinking would be that on a standards-based, then it
    is clear; everyone knows what they have to manufacture to or
    engineer up to. Any thoughts that you could share with us? Is
    that where the FCC is? Are they waiting for the report to come
    out?
        Mr. Repasi. I think we are waiting for the report to come
    out. We want to make sure we have all the facts in line before
    we come out with a specific proposal on how to implement some
    of the recommendations, including from the GAO. So I think we
    are a little bit of a wait mode. But nonetheless, we want to be
    sure that we don't curb innovation. We did have that 2003 NOI
    that we released. We got a lot of good comments from the
    industry. Some of the comments still remain today. The
    sentiment still remains the same. And there was concern
    expressed in the record there that standards could equate to
    curbing innovation, and we want to be careful not to be in a
    position to stop innovation.
        Mr. Terry. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. Walden. The gentleman's time is expired.
        Turn to our friend from the Virgin Islands, Dr.
    Christensen.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And again thank you for your patience with us today.
        I guess I would ask this question to the panel but
    beginning with Mr. Repasi because I know you are familiar with
    NTIA's work in the role of receivers in managing spectrum for
    Federal users. Do you or any of the other panelists think that
    there are lessons that we can learn from NTIA's approach to
    setting Federal receiver standards?
        Mr. Repasi. Thank you. Yes, I believe you are referring to
    the NTIA study document that was produced in the 2003 time
    frame as well, and they listed several types of standards for
    the fixed and mobile systems that were operating through a
    range of spectrum. That of course is helpful to know where
    things are on the Federal side as far as where they operate and
    what their thresholds are for interference so that when we do
    get into looking at new uses of spectrum that involve Federal
    users, we at least know what the starting point is.
        Mrs. Christensen. Any other comments from anyone else? So I
    will just go on to another question.
        Mr. de Vries. The one thing that I learned from that report
    was how complicated receiver specifications become and how
    service-specific they are and that they intend to imbed
    assumptions about how things work today into requirements that
    then live on perhaps for life.
        Mrs. Christensen. And as things change and new innovation.
        Just if you wanted to comment.
        Mr. Markwalter. Thank you. And I agree with that. It is a
    good reference point but a Federal user is both user and
    procurer, you know, manages everything about it. In a
    commercial case, the allocations are done by the FCC but
    equipment may be purchased by a licensee or may be done
    independently. So there are a lot of parts at work that doesn't
    map over from Federal use to commercial use.
        Mrs. Christensen. And Mr. Markwalter, what tools do you
    think are currently available to the FCC to incentivize and
    improve receiver standards?
        Mr. Markwalter. Yes, so I know we are all kind of falling
    back on the TAC report. I think there are some good things that
    will be documented in the TAC report. The FCC right now, you
    know, clearly can articulate the emissions side. It is less
    clear what the authority is on regulating receivers. And, you
    know, as we have said, we probably need to see what the exact
    tools are being proposed before we decide whether that is the
    right amount of authority or not. And then as the previous
    cases show, they have the ability to go in and work with users
    in adjacent bands and figure things out, but the evidence I see
    is that the best case is when the adjacent users, even if they
    are in conflict because the problems are typically so technical
    and so case-specific, if they can bring a solution to the FCC,
    that seems to be the best outcome.
        Mrs. Christensen. OK. So that was my next question which I
    was going to pose to Mr. de Vries. What role do you think
    manufacturers of receiver devices should play in setting
    performance levels or defining a reasonable level of
    interference?
        Mr. de Vries. I think manufacturers do that as part of
    their business. The discussion about what a good receiver is is
    a negotiation between the provider and their customer and that
    that is what happens when industry sets standards or when
    purchasers like the Federal Government do it.
        Mrs. Christensen. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield
    back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Walden. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
        I think we have each got a few other questions to ask.
        I am going to throw one out that is just slightly outside
    of what we came here to talk about but it plays into it a bit,
    and that has to do with the notion of efficient use of spectrum
    as opposed to just interference use. But do you all look at
    things like how much spectrum there might be or more usage
    capability if you have, for example, interoperable devices in
    the cell phone world? Does LTE and that sort of thing, does
    that begin to merge all that in when you are looking at total
    number of users versus total amount of spectrum? I mean do you
    all get into those discussions?
        Mr. de Vries?
        Mr. de Vries. Chairman, I grin because I have great
    difficulty with the concept efficient use of spectrum.
        Mr. Walden. OK.
        Mr. de Vries. I don't know what it means. To me maybe
    because I am a geek, efficiency is a ratio. It is what you get
    out for what you put in.
        Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
        Mr. de Vries. The number of frequencies that you put in is
    not the only input.
        Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
        Mr. de Vries. There are things like investment costs----
        Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
        Mr. de Vries [continuing]. Infrastructure costs, deployment
    costs, and I think what I try to focus on is how do we maximize
    the value of radio services.
        Mr. Walden. OK.
        Mr. de Vries. And in fact that is somewhat of a change from
    what we have traditionally done, which is how do we minimize
    interference if we need to maximize value?
        Mr. Walden. All right. Now, bring that down from your
    physicist level. You know, we work better with pictures----
        Mr. de Vries. Yes.
        Mr. Walden [continuing]. And small words. So tell me what
    that means for us as policymakers. I mean, from your perch,
    from your big-brained perspective, what is it we can do in this
    space? I mean we all talk about crisis and spectrum. There is
    spectrum out there right now. I think this is a down-the-road
    spectrum crisis and hopefully technology eclipses that. But
    what is it that we should be looking at that we are not?
        Mr. de Vries. I think the first thing I would say is that
    you have to keep all our noses to the grindstone.
        Mr. Walden. That is what we are here for.
        Mr. de Vries. As you have said, it is a long-term problem
    and everybody's tendency is to punt and not deal with the long-
    term ones because there are lots of short-term hard problems.
        Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
        Mr. Markey. It is not just us, sorry, that likes to punt
    things.
        Mr. Walden. So what should we be looking at specifically?
        Mr. de Vries. What I, of course, would be saying is two
    things: one, to focus on encouraging the FCC to set these clear
    boundaries--
        Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
        Mr. de Vries [continuing]. Because I have ended up thinking
    about interference limits as the minimal effective step that we
    need to take to make progress on this problem.
        Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
        Mr. de Vries. And I think part of that is to, if you can,
    remove any uncertainty that the FCC has the ability to do that
    because there have been doubts about FCC authority regarding
    receiver standards. These are not receiver standards;
    therefore, they should be able to move ahead.
        Mr. Walden. OK. Mr. Markwalter, do you have some comments
    along these lines?
        Mr. Markwalter. I don't think I have much to add. There are
    some people who are looking at the question of the complexity
    of band plans, especially for cell phones--
        Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
        Mr. Markwalter [continuing]. Which is sort of related to
    what you are talking about. One of the things that inhibits
    phones that can be used across a lot of different carriers and
    a lot of different bands is the fact that, you know, as we find
    more spectrum, it is not all together--
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. Markwalter [continuing]. Anymore. It is scattered
    around. And so there is a separate part of the TAC working on
    that issue as--
        Mr. Walden. Sort of----
        Mr. Markwalter [continuing]. It is sort of an unrelated
    problem.
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. Markwalter. You know, we conjecture that, you know,
    there is a time in the future where technology gets better and
    better where receivers can be more agile so--
        Mr. Walden. Um-hum. So you can skip across the bands and
    still----
        Mr. Markwalter. Correct. And we are clearly not there yet--
        Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
        Mr. Markwalter [continuing]. And we are having some
    discussion about how accurately we could project when that
    would happen. And really what you would like to do is have
    receivers that are cost-effective that can be agile in the
    future; then, you have got a shot at changing allocations.
        Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you.
        Once again, I am going to turn to Ms. Eshoo.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be as brief as
    possible. I just have three quick questions to ask Mr. Repasi
    and yes or no will do.
        I would like to ask you to address the question that has
    been raised about the need for guard bands if receiver filters
    can dramatically improve spectral efficiency. Do you think
    based on today's filter technology that guard bands can be
    eliminated as an interference mitigating solution? Yes or no?
    No.
        Mr. Walden. Turn on your mike.
        Mr. Repasi. I am sorry. No, I don't think they can be
    eliminated in all cases when you have two adjacent services.
        Ms. Eshoo. Are you seeing any leaps in improvement of
    filter technology for public broadband services?
        Mr. Repasi. Seeing leaps, no; seeing improvements, yes.
    Filter technology is improving. As I mentioned in my testimony,
    we have met several times with equipment manufacturers and
    component designers, and at the component level, there are
    improvements being made mainly because of the demand for more
    broadband services. The demands are being placed on the
    component designers to come up with better filters that are
    sharper and able to better deal with interference issues
    because they have got the spectrum congestion issues.
        Ms. Eshoo. So in the foreseeable future we still need guard
    bands to separate mobile broadband services from adjacent
    services like over-the-air broadcast television?
        Mr. Repasi. Yes. With current technology, even in the PCS
    world where they are going to 4G deployments with LTE----
        Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
        Mr. Repasi [continuing]. Remember, you have downlinks in
    one band and uplinks in another----
        Ms. Eshoo. Uplinks in the others, um-hum.
        Mr. Repasi [continuing]. With frequency division duplex
    technology----
        Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
        Mr. Repasi [continuing]. Where there is a duplexer spacing
    in between the two out of necessity because the up- or downlink
    channel could interfere with the lower uplink channel if there
    is not sufficient----
        Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
        Mr. Repasi [continuing]. Separation between the two. That
    is the equivalent of a guard band.
        Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
        Mr. Repasi. And this is with the state-of-the-art
    technology as it is now.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you.
        Gentleman from Nebraska?
        Mr. Terry. Thank you. Mine is to the consumer electronic,
    Mr. Markwalter. So let's take the again GPS/LightSquared
    interference issue. And now the FCC is threatening or
    developing their harm threshold saying that now GPS devices
    have to have a higher level of being able to filter out the
    interference. What does that mean to the consumer electronics
    manufacturers who are making the GPS? What would be the burdens
    on them and what would be the potential cost to them to now
    develop the filters to meet this harm threshold?
        Mr. Markwalter. Sure. I think the industry and one of the
    things we have talked about a lot and I have included in my
    testimony is how important it is to have the industry directly
    involved in that. And in my mind, ideally, you want the
    industry to try to develop those numbers, to recognize the
    problem and try to develop those numbers because it is very
    hard as an outsider to understand the cost and performance
    impact.
        GPS in particular isn't a communication system as everybody
    has talked about. You know, it is a positioning system so it
    has different behaviors in how it is trying to pick up signals,
    so I won't even hazard to guess what the cost impact would be.
    And the truth is it depends on where you set the level. And so
    that is going to take some dialogue about, you know, how much
    impact do you want to have on this type of positioning system
    to in the future be able to get new use of the adjacent band.
        Mr. Terry. All right. And it still comes back to that. It
    is almost a device and some specific for the FCC would have
    different thresholds particularly on different devices, Mr. de
    Vries?
        Mr. de Vries. I don't think that would be appropriate. That
    actually to me would be a receiver specification. So if you
    build this device, you have got to do this. I believe that it
    is appropriate to set the harm claim threshold for a service.
    And so, for example, in a service like GPS, you could have a
    certain level for terrestrial operations. You might have
    another level, a different value, for aviation. But many more
    permutations like that and we get too----
        Mr. Terry. Right. That makes more sense to me. All right.
    Still, it means that incumbents would have a new standard put
    on them or threshold of harm that was different than perhaps
    when the manufacturers put the product out, whatever it would
    be. So they would have to redevelop technology for the next
    generation of device. All right. I wish I can come up with more
    questions but that did add some context and clarification. So
    thank you.
        Mr. Walden. The interesting thing in that is it is kind of
    what we all go through with updating computers and software.
        Ms. Eshoo. Absolutely.
        Mr. Walden. You know, I tried to download a little app on
    my older iPhone and the new app won't load on the old iPhone.
        Ms. Eshoo. Right. Right.
        Mr. Walden. I mean it just is the march of technology.
        Mr. Terry. That is a discussion some of us lay people were
    having in our office. What does it take? Is this simply writing
    new code or is the device going to have to have physical filter
    device chips in it? What does it take?
        Mr. Walden. I will let the engineer----
        Mr. Terry. Do we have an engineer here?
        Mr. Markwalter. So this also relates kind of to the other
    questions to me. I think most of what we are talking about here
    is a hardware question, what the engineers would call the RF
    front end, the radio part of the equipment. And so we are
    talking about things like filters for the most part. This other
    group that, you know, we are looking at these potential for
    future agile radios. What we hope to get to is where there is
    less of that sort of fixed, you know, these components that
    can't move; they are highly specifically designed to more of
    this, you know, digitally with processors and algorithms, you
    know, software as you talked about, but we are not there yet
    for very many things. Most of it is still much more cost-
    effective, performance is a lot higher, and the battery life is
    a lot better to separate out the RF front end.
        Mr. Walden. OK.
        Mr. Markwalter. So for now it is hardware.
        Mr. Walden. Mr. Gingrey, do you have any questions for our
    witnesses or comments you would like to make? We have a
    transmitter issue here.
        Mr. Gingrey. Yes, I----
        Mr. Walden. You might want to slip to the other microphone.
        Mr. Gingrey. Is it working?
        Mr. Walden. No.
        Ms. Eshoo. No.
        Mr. Gingrey. All right. I will move.
        Mr. Walden. I think you may have to move up to this level,
    which you have sought to do for some time.
        Ms. Eshoo. He can sit next to me.
        Mr. Gingrey. I am making progress.
        Mr. Walden. Watch the seniority grow, right there, before
    our very eyes.
        Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman? All right. We are live. Mr.
    Chairman, thank you for calling today's hearing on another
    issue within the realm of spectrum, and of course, that is the
    receivers.
        And I also want to thank the panel, these technical experts
    in providing the subcommittee with their perspective on this
    important issue. In my brief time this morning I will get right
    to my questions. And let me start with you, Mr. Markwalter.
        Based on your testimony, you voiced support for industry
    standards as opposed to FCC mandates when it comes to the
    interfering subordinates. Would FCC standards undermine what is
    already in place, and if so, how?
        Mr. Markwalter. Well, in some cases we already have very
    good industry standards in place, so I guess if the FCC did
    something on top of that, I would argue that it would undermine
    it because it would in effect overrule what maybe industry has
    already done. So when I talked about the cell phone industry
    has very robust standards and, you know, a very strong test
    regime to make sure products meet it. So overlaying mandates on
    top of that probably would have a bad effect. And, you know,
    what we would like to see is industry working on these
    voluntary standards because we think they understand their use
    cases better and what can be tolerated in terms of cost and
    efficiency and then figure out where there is regulation
    necessary or not from that point.
        Mr. Gingrey. Mr. de Vries, do you have a comment on that?
        Mr. de Vries. So I would actually echo that because the
    standards that industry set reflect what their best practices
    are. Very often--and Mr. Repasi can correct me--but the FCC
    does sometimes incorporate reference to industry standards in
    its rules deferring to industry. The difficult issue that the
    harm claim threshold and interference limit approach is trying
    to address is not one industry trying to referee interference
    from Verizon to AT&T to T-Mobile but from cellular to broadcast
    things, say, or vice versa. And typically, what we have seen is
    that broadcasters don't often read the cellular standards and
    the cellular guys don't read the broadcasting standards. That
    is an outstanding problem.
        Mr. Gingrey. Well, let me then move to Mr. Repasi and shift
    a few questions for you in your important position as part of
    FCC. Can you clarify for us whether the FCC currently has the
    authority to impose receiver standards?
        Mr. Repasi. Thank you. I am here to offer engineering and
    technical expertise. I am not in a position to offer a legal
    opinion on the Commission's authority but I can say that the
    approaches that are being considered within the TAC are
    certainly within our ability from a technical perspective to
    implement the approaches that are being highlighted in that
    process.
        Mr. Gingrey. Yes, I was going to ask. I think maybe you
    just answered the question. I was going to ask you if this was
    a situation where we in Congress would need to act to grant FCC
    the necessary authority but you have kind of taken a pass on
    that in regard to your level of expertise. Personally, I think
    that it is unclear as to what authority the FCC has in this
    arena. Hypothetically speaking, and not to indicate support for
    further regulation, but does the Commission currently even have
    the resources to set technical standards for this wide variety
    of receivers out there? And would Congress need to authorize
    and appropriate new funding for this purpose under the FCC?
        Mr. Repasi. Thank you. Yes, we do have the technical
    expertise to deal with the recommendations that come out of the
    TAC. Again, I think we have the expertise to implement those.
    As far as funding goes, we are in a position now where we would
    have to factor in any budgeting into the next fiscal year
    budget and we would have to address it when we deal with our
    budget issues for the following year as far funding new
    programs at the agency.
        Mr. Gingrey. Yes, well, of course as I am sure you all have
    talked about in your testimony, there are untold number of
    receiver devices out there for hundreds of different purposes,
    and we see them all parts of society. So therefore, how would
    you anticipate receiver regulations even being implemented? I
    mean is this something that can be done and how costly would it
    be? How much more funding would be necessary for the FCC to
    take on this challenge?
        Mr. Repasi. I don't have a specific cost estimate or even a
    ballpark that I could offer up, but as far as the approach, I
    would imagine if we apply the approach in several frequency
    bands, it could be voluminous at first trying to manage the
    different type of receiver specifications. As Mr. de Vries had
    mentioned, broadcasters are not participating in 3GPP. 3GPP
    participants aren't participating in the broadcast standard
    development. So it is going to be new, I think, across
    different industry sectors on understanding the underpinnings
    of each of the standards. So I think there is a hurdle there
    and it will take some time to get that level of understanding
    among the different industry sectors.
        And then as far as incorporation by reference to some of
    the standards, we are very familiar with 802.11 from IEEE. We
    are very familiar with the 3GPP standards. So again within the
    Commission we have the expertise. We know the underpinnings of
    those standards, so maybe it is less of a hurdle for us to deal
    with it.
        Mr. Gingrey. Well, thank you very much. I thank all three
    of you.
        And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Walden. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
        I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
        Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
        We are about to enter a brave new world where tens of
    thousands of domestic drones consume an increasing share of
    spectrum and crowd into already congested bands. The FAA
    Modernization and Reform Act passed in February requires the
    Federal Government to fully integrate government commercial and
    recreational drones into U.S. airspace by October of 2015.
    There could be as many as 30,000 drones in the sky above the
    United States by 2020. Drones can carry surveillance equipment
    including video cameras, infrared thermal imagers, radar, and
    wireless network detectors. Drones may gather information, take
    measurements, snap photos, use GPS and communicate all this
    information back to its operators. All this requires spectrum
    and raises a number of questions about whether this
    dramatically expanded use of drones will cause interference
    problems.
        But we must also ensure that as drones take flight in
    domestic airspace, they don't take off without privacy
    protections for those along their flight path. Drones shouldn't
    interfere with our privacy and they also shouldn't interfere
    with other devices using neighboring spectrum.
        Mr. Repasi, what steps is the FCC taking to ensure
    potential interference problems are addressed as thousands of
    drones will soon fill our skies? Has the FCC staff met with FAA
    staff to address what receivers are necessary on drones to
    ensure interference is minimized? And what are you doing to
    protect privacy?
        Mr. Repasi. Thank you. As far as interference concerns with
    respect to drones, it is a case of interference scenario just
    like any other where you have radio communications equipment,
    whether it is used for video or whether it is used for
    controlling the aircraft. We have tradeoffs that we have to
    make with respect to the allocation, whether it is in an
    aeronautical band and who the neighbors are so we can deal with
    power levels and emissions to make sure that interference is
    not caused to those drones.
        As far as working with the FAA, we stand ready to work with
    the FAA to discuss these issues. In fact we have a team of
    folks who deal with the FAA regularly on the Interdepartment
    Radio Advisory Committee where not just the FAA but other
    Federal agencies who are interested in the use of drones
    participate and discuss technical issues that we deal with from
    an interagency perspective.
        And I must say from a privacy perspective, I haven't been
    involved in privacy issues with respect to the Commission's
    work, but I would be more than happy to go back to the
    appropriate bureau and have somebody contact you directly to
    answer your questions.
        Mr. Markey. Well, today, Mr. Barton and I are releasing the
    FAA's response to our inquiry asking how the agency plans to
    ensure that the privacy of Americans will be protected as the
    agency permits the large expansion and use of drones in
    domestic airspace. What is clear from the FAA's response is
    that they have little interest in establishing privacy
    protections, public transparency into its current and future
    licensing process. The FAA is wrong. The FAA is dead wrong on
    this issue in terms of ensuring that privacy is protected.
        These 21st century eyes in the sky shouldn't become spies
    in the skies preying on the private lives of Americans all
    across our country, 30,000 drones without insurance that the
    information gathered is not compromised.
        All three of you, hopefully, would support legislation that
    establishes privacy rules of the sky that ensure private
    information on Americans is protected before drones are
    licensed. So the question that I have for each of you is do you
    think drone operators should have to disclose what data they
    collect, how long data is retained, and whether information is
    provided or sold to third parties? Does the public have a right
    to know where and when these drones will be flying over their
    backyards gathering information about their families? Mr. de
    Vries?
        Mr. de Vries. Sir, I am afraid I have no expertise.
        Mr. Markey. That is fine. Mr. Markwalter?
        Mr. Markwalter. The same. I am not familiar with the issue.
        Mr. Markey. OK. Well, I will tell you who the experts are--
    your ordinary families. And as new technologies take off, they
    have to be accompanied by the human values which have animated
    civilization for 5,000 years and the protection of the sanctity
    of a family its privacy. What it does, where it goes is still
    central to the identity of us as a species. And I think it is
    important for this committee to play a role in ensuring it is
    built into this new technology.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walden. The gentleman's time is expired.
        I turn now to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns.
        Mr. Stearns. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Markwalter, you stated in your testimony that an
    inventory of what services and receivers are operating in each
    band as an area of spectrum policy that needs more attention.
    And so I agree with you and have long called for various
    spectrum inventories to be conducted. Do you think there is a
    role for Congress here that there should be legislation that
    would apply to help bring this spectrum inventory to fruition?
        Mr. Markwalter. I think at this point we should see what
    the TAC tees up for next year because I think this question of
    the dearth of information on what is out there is going to
    become critical, and so we may see some work in that area. So I
    think we can wait for a couple more reports to come out and
    then address the issue of whether legislation is needed to push
    it.
        Mr. Stearns. And what time next year will this be?
        Mr. Markwalter. So presumably the TAC would lay out its
    work agenda early in the year. We have had quarterly meetings
    in the past. I would think within the first quarter of next
    year we would have both the GAO report and know what the TAC
    plans on working on.
        Mr. Stearns. Mr. de Vries, as you explained your testimony,
    ``wireless systems in one band that cannot tolerate reasonable
    signal levels in an adjacent band unfairly imposed cost on
    others, notably the operators in those adjacent bands, while
    reaping the benefits themselves, for example, by using cheaper
    receivers.'' You know, I think this is what exactly happened in
    LightSquared or the GPS case. As you stated, not only is this
    unfair, but it also prevents the addition of new wireless
    services that could foster innovation, improve public safety,
    and obviously create jobs. What do you believe either Congress
    or possibly the FCC, their role to prevent this situation from
    occurring again?
        Mr. de Vries. I believe the important role that the FCC can
    play is to foster the definition of these harm claim
    thresholds.
        Mr. Stearns. OK.
        Mr. de Vries. And they can do that by fostering a multi-
    stakeholder process, bring parties from different industries,
    different services together, and then if necessary, to take
    steps to actually put those values into the rules.
        Mr. Stearns. Anyone else have a suggestion here? Mr.
    Markwalter?
        Mr. Markwalter. Yes, well, I agree. And as I mentioned
    earlier, we work on the TAC so you will probably get more
    alignment on our views than misalignment. I think we are sort
    of behind in the curve in all aspects. So none of our tools are
    in place to help us get in front of the problem and that is
    what we are trying to get to, a point where we can establish
    what we are trying to do with spectrum rather than build and
    then figure out we got a problem after the fact. So we really
    need to get some of these tools in place and unwind the problem
    a little bit. It is just not going to be solved overnight.
        Mr. Stearns. Mr. Repasi, you stated in your testimony that
    better awareness and coordination between entities in adjacent
    bands would go far in solving some of the receiver problems we
    have seen occur recently. What do you think the FCC's role is?
    Could they facilitate this process?
        Mr. Repasi. Yes, I think our rulemaking processes are open
    and transparent. We again make proposals based on assumptions.
    We expect that the folks who have an equity or stake in the use
    of that spectrum will come into our rulemaking process and
    challenge our assumptions, if there are concerns about
    interference, it would be brought up as early as possible in
    the process so that we could deal with those interference
    concerns before we go to final rule.
        Mr. Stearns. Any other folks on the panel have any other
    suggestions in how the FCC could facilitate this process? No?
        All right, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back the balance of time.
        The Chair recognizes the future vice chair of the full
    committee, Mrs. Blackburn.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you all for being here and for the hearing.
        I have just got a couple of questions and I know you all
    are ready to depart this room. And we are going to have votes
    in a couple of minutes.
        Mr. Repasi, if I could come to you first. And I want to
    thank you all for submitting your written testimony in a timely
    manner. That is always helpful.
        You suggested in your testimony that the FCC clarify what a
    license-holder's rights are in a band of spectrum, incentivize
    receiver manufacturers to respect those rights, and enforce
    those rights when one licensee in an adjacent band doesn't play
    by the rules. So this policy framework if you will really
    strikes me as looking at three goals. And I want to see if you
    agree with this: number one is recognition of a licensee's
    rights in a given band of spectrum with clear rules of the road
    to ensure that licensees respect other licensees' valuable
    property rights; and number two, promotion of new entrance to
    the wireless marketplace because they would have regulatory
    clarity from the onset; and number three, accomplishment of the
    aforementioned goals without stifling innovation in the
    wireless marketplace by imposing potentially crippling device
    or guard band mandates. So recognizing that the Commission's
    Technical Advisory Committee plans to give us a report on
    December 10 that could address these issues, I would like to
    ask what your professional and technical opinion is on how you
    would instruct the Commission to structure the rules of the
    road and to provide the clarity and the guidance on respecting
    property rights.
        It is to you, sir.
        Mr. Repasi. Thank you. We are, as you are aware, awaiting
    the recommendations for the TAC but are also awaiting the
    recommendations of the GAO. They are mandated by the Job Act to
    have their report by February of next year. We would need to
    take that information, those facts into account in a general
    process where we have input from the public who could be
    affected by whatever rules we would propose to set up to give
    them clarity, to identify what the environment would look like.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Yes, sir. But I am asking what your advice
    to them would be. What would your professional advice be?
        Mr. Repasi. I am sorry. To the Commission or to the public?
        Mrs. Blackburn. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Repasi. To the Commission? Well, clarity is good.
    Clarity allows certainty. Certainty leads to investment.
    Investment leads to competition and innovation, which is
    important for this mobile wireless economy. So certainly in any
    technical tradeoffs that would weigh into the policies that
    would be presented before the Commission, the technical issues
    are one of several things. You have got the legal and economic
    issues as well, but certainly the technical issues are very
    important from that perspective.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Yes, specificity and clarity in a timely
    manner is a good thing. So I appreciated your testimony.
        Mr. Markwalter?
        Mr. Markwalter. Yes?
        Mrs. Blackburn. In your testimony you wrote, ``the early
    calls for government mandates on device design have faded as
    stakeholders have come together to understand that such
    approaches are not the best solution we have to spectrum
    crowding.'' Now, I was pleased to read that because as anybody
    who has sat through these hearings has heard from me, I like
    seeing industry set best practices and guidelines and standards
    and come up with those rules of the road if you will. So in
    your view, what is the current status of the various private
    industry stakeholder proposals to address receiver standards?
    And do you think they are making progress in a voluntary self-
    regulation working framework? And is there anything out there,
    any kind of uncertainty or lack of clarity that is preventing
    the industry from making progress toward meeting the balance
    between flexible use and greater efficiency?
        Mr. Markwalter. OK. Thank you. So I think industry--and I
    don't know if you are aware or not--CEA is one of those
    standard-setting organizations. In fact, our standards are
    incorporated by reference for closed-captioning for example. So
    because I am close to it, I guess I see the industry is always
    working on it. Where it might not be sufficient is the enter-
    industry relationships as we have mentioned a couple of times
    here today where we are trying to put two users next to each
    other like cell phones and broadcasters and to get those
    industries talking. That level of dialogue needs to be
    increased. I think to the extent we have a shortcoming it is in
    that area.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
        Mr. Walden. OK.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Anybody want to add anything further to
    that on the progress or lack thereof? OK.
        Yield back.
        Mr. Walden. Gentlelady yields back her time.
        I want to thank our witnesses for your testimony, your
    guidance, your counsel, your good work at TAC. I want to thank
    the FCC for your work in this area. Know that we care a lot
    about it and we are going to continue to be involved in it. And
    we will look forward to the report from TAC. We will look
    forward to the GAO report in February as well.
        The record will stay open for 10 days for further comments
    and questions or maybe some back to all of you, which would
    help us in our work.
        So again, thank you for your patience this morning as we
    got going and thank you for your comments and your testimony.
        With that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.030