[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE LIGHTSQUARED NETWORK: AN INVESTIGATION OF THE FCC'S ROLE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 21, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-180
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-420 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 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
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
Chairman
LEE TERRY, Nebraska DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina Ranking Member
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas KATHY CASTOR, Florida
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California GENE GREEN, Texas
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana Islands
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
JOE BARTON, Texas officio)
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, opening statement.............................. 9
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, opening statement................................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Witnesses
Julius P. Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology,
Federal Communications Commission.............................. 15
Prepared statement \1\
Mindel De La Torre, Chief, International Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission...................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Submitted Material
Chart, dated March 2012, ``Selected VHF and UHF Frequency
Bands,'' Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal
Communications Commission, submitted by Ms. DeGette............ 45
Subcommittee exhibition binder, submitted by Mr. Stearns......... 48
----------
\1\ Mr. Knapp and Ms. De La Torre submitted a joint statement for
the record.
THE LIGHTSQUARED NETWORK: AN INVESTIGATION OF THE FCC'S ROLE
----------
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:33 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Stearns, Burgess,
Blackburn, Bilbray, Griffith, and DeGette.
Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of
Coalitions; Karen Christian, Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight
and Investigations; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary;
Neil Fried, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Kirby
Howard, Legislative Clerk; Brian McCullough, Senior
Professional Staff Member, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade;
David Redl, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Alan
Slobodin, Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight and Investigations;
John Stone, Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Daniel
Tyrrell, Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Alvin Banks,
Democratic Investigator; Tiffany Benjamin, Democratic
Investigative Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Shawn
Chang, Democratic Counsel; Brian Cohen, Democratic
Investigations Staff Director and Senior Policy Advisor; Kiren
Gopal, Democratic Counsel; Roger Sherman, Democratic Chief
Counsel.
Mr. Stearns. Good morning, everybody. And let me start the
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee this morning. And I
have my start with an opening statement.
But I would say because the House is having some early
votes this morning, I ask unanimous consent that the written
opening statements of all the members be introduced into the
record.
Without objection, the documents will be entered into the
record.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
My colleagues, today, after 8 months of investigation, the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will examine the
Federal Communications Commission's decision and orders
relating to LightSquared and the Commission's efforts to build
a wireless mobile broadband network.
The controversy regarding LightSquared and its efforts to
build a national wireless broadband network revolves around a
piece of spectrum called the L-band. This band of spectrum has
historically been reserved for satellite services. In 2003, in
order to encourage more efficient use of the band, the FCC
issued an order permitting mobile satellite service providers
to integrate an ancillary terrestrial component or land-based
component into these networks as long as they met certain
requirements.
Since that time, LightSquared and its predecessors have
been involved in multiple proceedings before the FCC involving
the development of its terrestrial component. During these
proceedings, LightSquared reached agreement with GPS companies
about ``out of band emissions'' that may result from its
terrestrial-base stations and invested approximately $4 billion
in its network. In March 2010, the FCC approved the transfer of
SkyTerra's L-band licenses to LightSquared, enabling the
company to deploy a nationwide broadband network. This transfer
was conditioned on LightSquared meeting an aggressive build-out
schedule and agreeing not to provide service to the Nation's
two largest wireless carriers.
In January 2011, the FCC granted a conditional waiver
allowing LightSquared's customer to access its network using
devices only capable of receiving terrestrial signals. The
waiver was conditioned on LightSquared resolving an overload
interference issue raised by the GPS community. These
interference issues were a different technical concern from
out-of-band emission problems that had been raised by the GPS
community in a prior proceeding.
A Technical Working Group was formed to examine the
overload interference issues affecting GPS receivers. NTIA
later charged PNT ExCom with validating the testing. In
February, NTIA concluded that LightSquared's system would cause
unacceptable interference to GPS. Only 1 day later, the FCC
moved to revoke its conditional approval of LightSquared's plan
to build a 4G wireless broadband network leaving the company
and spectrum holdings in regulatory limbo.
That is where we stand today. LightSquared, a company that
committed billions of dollars and years of time in developing
its network, has filed for bankruptcy. Its 40 megahertz of
spectrum is left unused at a time when demand for wireless
service and broadband is exploding. We have convened this
hearing today to determine whether this could have been
prevented.
This hearing also raises important implications for
spectrum policy going forward. Regulatory uncertainty at the
FCC will deter new innovative ideas and competition in the
mobile space. Moreover, it is not sound spectrum policy to
allow 40 megahertz of spectrum to sit fallow, while at the same
time seek to relocate broadcasters and Federal users off of
spectrum holdings to free up more space for wireless use.
So I look forward to the testimony of our two witnesses
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stearns follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.006
Mr. Stearns. And I recognize the ranking member, Ms.
DeGette, for an opening statement.
Just a moment. I think we are going to just take 5 on this
side and 5 on your side.
So I will go to Dr. Burgess.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Burgess. I thank the Chairman for yielding.
I thank the witnesses for being here today. I am grateful
we are having a hearing. I know my constituents appreciate it.
So the expansion of the 4G cellular networks to a portion
of radio spectrum traditionally reserved for mobile satellite
communications would improve mobile satellite communications
and benefit U.S. consumers needing more brandwidth for
communication.
But somehow somewhere along the way things went off track.
The FCC obviously has the obligation to be the caretaker of the
electromagnetic spectrum. The question is raised, did they do
their job? A decision to grant LightSquared the conditional
waiver order on January 26, 2011, does seem to be ill advised.
The period for public comment before the granting of the
conditional waiver order was brief, and whether it was
intentional or unintentional, it was placed in the middle of
the holiday season the year before. Requests for an extension
of the period for comment were not honored and a decision was
made in haste over the objections of the United States Air
Force and the GPS industry itself.
Benjamin Franklin said, haste makes waste. In the operating
room, we have a saying, go slowly, I am in a hurry. This time
it seems that haste was in fact the enemy of good decision
making. The FCC attempted to address the concerns in the
formation of a government and industry working group, but the
solutions have not proved up to the task. I hope today's
testimony will shed light on these events.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the recognition. I yield
back.
Mr. Stearns. I now recognize the ranking member, Ms.
DeGette.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I really want to thank you for having this hearing today on
LightSquared and expanding access to broadband, which we all
agree is a key driver of economic growth for our Nation.
This administration has taken unprecedented steps to
accelerate deployment of wired and wireless broadband networks,
and the FCC has been a key partner in that effort.
Mr. Chairman, as you said, the policy issues today are
important, and LightSquared and the GPS dispute deserve our
scrutiny. Several other House committees have already looked at
this issue over the last 2 years, and so, as the committee with
primary jurisdiction, I wish we had looked at it sooner, but I
am glad we are going to hear from the FCC witnesses today.
These are experts who are widely respected for their knowledge
and expertise, and I know we can learn a lot from them.
Mr. Chairman, in a lot of ways, the FCC was put in a no-win
position. This was a difficult decision for them, and no matter
what the agency did, someone was going to end up being very
unhappy. And I don't know about you, but I certainly don't have
the technical expertise and detailed knowledge to be in a
position to second guess the FCC's decisions in this, but I do
think we can look carefully at the FCC's decision-making
process.
And I think the committee's investigation has revealed a
regulatory review process working as it should. LightSquared
was licensed to use spectrum to provide communication service.
Over the years, LightSquared sought approval from the FCC to
move ahead with its plans, and at every step of the way, the
FCC solicited and received public comment on the committee's
proposals.
Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, LightSquared
received approvals from the FCC to create and modify its
business plans to build a network.
During the approval process, public safety concerns with
GPS receivers were brought to the FCC's attention. The FCC
warned LightSquared of these concerns and only gave a
conditional approval to the company to move ahead. Then they
set up a process to let technical experts determine if these
concerns were meritorious. The FCC made the decision to retract
LightSquared's waiver only after the experts found that ``there
is no practical way to mitigate the potential interference.''
The FCC took the responsible steps that one would expect in
order to address this problem.
FCC clearly told LightSquared that it would have to solve
interference problems before it was allowed to move forward
with its plan. FCC set up a technical working group to explore
problems and made sure that all stakeholders were represented.
When experts concluded that there were continued risks from
deployment of the LightSquared network, the FCC took
preventative action to ensure public safety.
As of today, LightSquared has offered alternatives to move
ahead, and I hope they work, by the way. And the FCC remains
open to exploring viable solutions.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is not Congress' role to make these
kinds of detailed technical decisions. I don't have the
expertise to do so, and nobody else on the committee does. That
is why Congress gave the authority to the FCC in the first
place.
I would be concerned, of course, if the FCC made a
politically-motivated decision or was swayed by political
process, but I don't think anybody here thinks that that was
the case in this situation. Instead, we have the FCC weighing
the pros and cons and making a very difficult decision based on
the advice of the technical experts.
I appreciate our witnesses being here, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to take just one minute of personal privilege.
This might be the last hearing that we have in this Congress in
the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, and I just want
to say on a personal note how much I have enjoyed serving as
ranking member with you, Mr. Chairman. We haven't always had
calm and sedate hearings in this subcommittee, but we have
always had respectful discourse, and we have always had debates
and investigations that have attempted to shed the light on
things.
And I have said, probably you have heard me say every
single hearing we have had, I have been on this subcommittee
for 16 years, and I have enjoyed serving with all of my
chairmen. This chairman is no exception. I know I can speak for
the entire side of my aisle in wishing you God speed and all
success in whatever you decide to do in the future, Mr.
Chairman.
And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.009
Mr. Stearns. Well, I thank my colleague. And she and I both
know how much we have enjoyed our friendship here. And it is
beyond just the hearing. And we have talked to each other on
the floor many times, and we were friends even before I was
chairman of this committee.
So I appreciate your salute and felicitations, and I
appreciate our friendship after I am gone, too.
With that, let's recognize the two witnesses here. We have
Ms. De La Torre, who serves as Chief of the International
Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission. She previously
served as Deputy Chief of the Telecommunication Division of the
International Bureau. She was president of Telecommunication
Management Company in Washington, DC. And she has a B.A. from
Vanderbilt and a doctor's from the University of Texas.
We have Mr. Julius Knapp. He is Chief of the FCC's Office
of Engineering and Technology. He became Chief in 2006, having
previously served as Deputy Chief since 2002. He has a
bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from the City
College of New York.
STATEMENTS OF JULIUS P. KNAPP, CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, AND MINDEL DE LA
TORRE, CHIEF, INTERNATIONAL BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Mr. Stearns. At this point, let me swear each of you in
here. As you know, the testimony you are about to give is
subject to Title 18, Section 1001, of the United States Code.
While holding a hearing--when holding an investigative hearing,
this committee has the practice of taking testimony under oath.
Do you have any objection to testifying under oath?
The Chair then advises you that, under the Rules of the
House and the rules of the committee, you are entitled to be
advised by counsel.
Do you desire to be advised by counsel at this time?
In that case, would you please rise and raise your right
hand, and I will swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Stearns. We now welcome your opening 5-minute
testimony. Start with you, Ms. De La Torre. OK. Mr. Knapp, go
ahead.
STATEMENT OF JULIUS P. KNAPP
Mr. Knapp. Good morning Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member
DeGette and members of the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee. My name is Julius Knapp and I am the Chief of the
Federal Communications Commission's Office of Engineering and
Technology where I have served for 38 years. OET is the
commission's primary----
Mr. Stearns. Would you just pull the mic a little closer?
Mr. Knapp. 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 this opportunity to join my colleague, Mindel De La
Torre, chief of the International Bureau in appearing before
you today. My portion of the testimony will focus on the FCC's
role in evaluating and attempting to resolve spectrum
interference issues in connection with the mobile satellite
service in the L-band.
Ms. De La Torre will address the process in historical
context relating to granting Ancillary Terrestrial Component,
or ATC, authority to mobile satellite or MSS providers. At the
commission, we are focused on ensuring that businesses and
consumers are able to take full advantage of the economic
opportunity presented by underutilized spectrum but only when
consistent with public health and safety. In its decade-long
proceeding to remove regulatory barriers and align the service
rules for the L-band with the rapid evolution of mobile
communications technologies and markets, the commission
considered a unique proposal that had the prospect of
attracting new investment, increasing competition, bringing
additional broadband service to rural and hard-to-reach regions
and creating thousands of jobs.
This proposal was the direct result of proceedings designed
to ensure that MSS spectrum would be utilized to its full
potential. As with any proceeding before the commission that
has a potential for spectrum interference with nearby spectrum
users, the FCC relies on licensees and stakeholders to raise
any relevant interference concerns. During the decade preceding
the LightSquared November 2010 waiver request, the GPS industry
had numerous opportunities to inform the commission of the
receiver overload issue. Despite participating extensively
throughout these proceedings and raising other interference
issues that were ultimately resolved, it did not do so.
The FCC would have investigated any potential interference
issues as soon as they were raised and attempted to resolve
them. Nevertheless, once GPS receiver manufacturers and service
providers ultimately informed the commission of the potential
for interference to legacy devices, the commission halted the
licensees' proposed commercial service.
To be clear, in November 2010, the GPS industry was not
complaining about signals from LightSquared signals falling
into the GPS band; they were instead notifying us that GPS
receivers would pick up signals far into the neighboring band.
In responding to those GPS concerns, the commission acted
responsibly under its 70-year memorandum of understanding with
the Department of Commerce to protect national security and
public safety, while simultaneously attempting to find a
solution to the GPS receiver overload issue. The commission's
goals and proceedings such as these are to foster cooperative
engineering solutions to what sometimes seemed to be impossible
problems. We worked equally with all of the interested
entities, including NTIA, the Department of Defense, other
Federal agencies and the GPS Industry Council to assess
LightSquared's proposal and to encourage the parties to work
together to resolve this matter. This process has been fact-
based, transparent and in accordance with the commission's
established policies and procedures.
Now, as I have mentioned in this instance the interference
is caused by GPS receivers picking up signals outside of the
GPS band. The commission relies on receiver manufacturers and
service providers to report potential interference issues
because they are in the best position to understand the
parameters and limitations of their own equipment. The
commission does not possess the technical specifications for
the hundreds of different types of GPS devices utilized by
commercial users, government contractors and government
entities.
Moreover, since the FCC does not regulate GPS devices we
are not prepared to test such devices or determine their
capabilities and interference issues. Manufacturers and service
providers have the relevant information, and they also have the
incentive to notify the commission of the potential for
receiver overload, so as to avoid problems with their services
and products. The lack of technical data provided in response
to earlier commission proceedings prevented us from addressing
that issue until well after permission had been granted in 2003
for MSS providers to use the L-band for terrestrial service.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you
and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you.
Ms. De La Torre.
STATEMENT OF MINDEL DE LA TORRE
Ms. De La Torre. Good morning, Chairman Stearns and Ranking
Member DeGette and members of the Oversight----
Mr. Stearns. You might have to pull the mic just a little
closer, too, if you don't mind.
Ms. De La Torre. Good morning.
My name is Mindel De La Torre, as we have said, and I am
Chief of the International Bureau at the FCC. I am pleased to
have this opportunity to follow my esteemed colleague Julius
Knapp in providing you the background and context related to
the FCC's process in the MSS ATC L-band matter.
I have been Chief of the International Bureau since October
2009, where I oversee the Bureau's functions with regard to
licensing of international and domestic satellites,
international long distance, international broadcast stations
and submarine cables, as well as the FCC's participation in
bilateral and multilateral efforts.
I previously worked at both the NTIA and the FCC, and I
appreciate the two distinct roles that these agencies play in
ensuring adequate spectrum for America's consumers and
governmental entities. As my colleague mentioned, the
commission is focused on lifting regulatory barriers and
ensuring economic growth.
The MSS ATC L-band proposal, filed with the International
Bureau in March 2009, represented such an opportunity. However,
when we were informed that there was a potential for receiver
overload interference from the GPS community, we took action to
ensure that these essential U.S. services, government services
as well as commercial activities, would not be disrupted. The
detailed summary in my written statement and the attached
appendix outline the commission's 10-year history in the MSS
proceeding.
The commission has consistently, across the tenures of
three chairmen, worked to promote terrestrial use of MSS
spectrum. This history further shows that the commission acted
in accordance with established procedures and allowed multiple
opportunities for public participation. Also, the commission
staff exercised delegated authority only where consistent with
commission rules and provided at least 48 hours advanced notice
to individual commissioners to inquire about these decisions.
The proceedings relevant to this hearing began in 2001,
when LightSquared's predecessor in interest, Mobile Satellite
Ventures, MSV, along with ICO Global, petitioned the commission
to allow for the addition of an ancillary terrestrial
component, ATC, to integrate terrestrial services with their
mobile satellite services. These parties argued to the public
that the public would benefit from the terrestrial component
because it would enhance coverage in areas where reliable
satellite service was challenging. In 2003, the commission
approved rules to permit MSS licensees to operate up to 1,725
base stations, and in 2005, this limitation was lifted to
provide mobile service to areas where satellite signals are
degraded or blocked, specifically urban areas and inside of
buildings.
The U.S. GPS Industry Council filed the petition for
reconsideration of the out-of-band emission rules noting, that
the rules failed to adopt emission limits specified in the 2002
agreement. USGIC noted that the limits were necessary to
protect against potential deployment of tens of thousands of
cell towers and millions of mobile devices. The receiver
overload issue, however, was not raised in this proceeding.
Over the course of the next 8 years, the commission engaged
in several actions designed to foster MSS ATC deployment. The
record shows that the GPS industry consistently failed through
several proceedings to specifically notify the FCC of receiver
overload problems or concerns until briefly referencing the
issue in comments related to the July 2010 MSS Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry and then again in
response to the November 2010 waiver request.
In the interim, the commission provided MSS ATC authority,
set power limits and other operating parameters, as well as
acted on the transfer applications ultimately leading to
LightSquared's status as a licensee. On January 26, 2011, the
International Bureau responded to the concerns raised by the
GPS industry and other parties by preventing LightSquared from
deploying commercial service in the L-band until it resolved
concerns about harmful interference. The Bureau did so through
a conditional waiver order that also directed LightSquared to
organize and participate in a GPS Interference Technical
Working Group, in which all interested parties worked directly
with LightSquared to resolve the interference concerns. The
Technical Working Group included more than 120 participants,
including representatives from the Department of Defense and
other Federal agencies, as well as the GPS community and
various telecommunications companies and, of course,
LightSquared itself.
On June 30, 2011, LightSquared filed a final report of the
Technical Working Group with the commission. And based on these
results, LightSquared recognized that in its proposed use of
part of its spectrum, what we call the upper 10 megahertz band,
would result in GPS receiver overload. LightSquared offered an
alternative proposal to operate only in the lower 10 megahertz
band and to coordinate and share the cost of underwriting a
workable solution for GPS legacy precision measurement devices
that were at risk of overload.
The FCC released a Technical Working Group's report as well
as LightSquared's alternative proposal for public comment in
June 2011 and subsequently required further testing. On
February 14, 2012, the commission received a letter----
Mr. Stearns. If you could just sum up.
Ms. De La Torre. OK. And so the commission staff is
currently reviewing the extensive record developed in response
to the public notice. Currently, LightSquared still cannot
deploy its service commercially because of the unresolved
receiver overload interference issue. And this concludes my
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knapp and Ms. De La Torre
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.021
Mr. Stearns. Thank you.
And I will start with my questions.
And Ms. De La Torre, I am going to ask you a question. If
possible, you could just answer yes or no. In an August 4,
2011, email, marked as Exhibit 1 in your binder, you made an
analogy that a LightSquared GPS situation determining
interference, the interference dispute on the highway, where
LightSquared is operating--and this is what you indicated--is
operating in the left lane and GPS is operating in the middle
lane; you state that GPS ``has been driving in the left lane
with impunity, but now that it looks like the left lane might
actually have traffic in it, the GPS community is yelling
bloody murder.'' Is that true? Is that what you wrote?
Ms. De La Torre. I did write that.
Mr. Stearns. Each operator has responsibility to stay in
its lane, using your analogy. Is that correct?
Ms. De La Torre. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. And when one operator veers into the adjacent
lane, is it the responsibility of that operator to correct its
course, or is it the role of the FCC to patrol the highway,
briefly?
Ms. De La Torre. Really what was happening here was that--
--
Mr. Stearns. Isn't the responsibility of the operator to
correct its course, yes or no?
Ms. De La Torre. That is a difficult question. That is the
question that is before us.
Mr. Stearns. Yes or no.
Ms. DeGette. Can't you let her answer it?
Mr. Stearns. No. I am asking for a yes or no. Do the best
of your ability?
Ms. De La Torre. Well, I think that they do have a duty to
respond.
Mr. Stearns. OK. I am going to take that as a yes.
Does GPS companies have a duty to design receivers that
filter out signals in adjacent bands, yes or no?
Ms. De La Torre. I will let Mr. Knapp, who is the engineer,
answer that question.
Mr. Stearns. Well, you can answer, too. Based upon your
email, I would say your answer would be yes; they have a duty
to design receivers that filter out signals in adjacent bands,
is that correct? Say yes.
Ms. De La Torre. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. OK.
Mr. Knapp, I am ready for you now. You state in your
testimony, some GPS legacy equipment effectively treats the GPS
spectrum and the L-band spectrum as one band, is that true?
Mr. Knapp. That is true.
Mr. Stearns. Since the problem appears to be GPS devices
and not LightSquared's emission, what does this mean for the
future of the L-band?
Mr. Knapp. So the difficult issue we have is all of the
millions of legacy devices that are out there relied on for
things like public safety and so forth, and there is no easy
way to fix many of them. So we absolutely do need to be
thinking about what we do going forward, and we are doing just
that.
Mr. Stearns. If GPS does not make changes to its wide
front-end receiver devices, do you envision a scenario where
anyone can operate in the L-band in the future?
Mr. Knapp. I think what we are trying to do----
Mr. Stearns. If they do nothing is the L-band available?
Mr. Knapp. Well, for the high power equipment that has been
proposed, the issue of the upper 10 is problematic; the lower
10, I think, is still subject to our open proceeding.
Mr. Stearns. But wouldn't you say, based upon what I just
said, that this L-band is going to be in jeopardy if there is
not some type of effort by GPS to make changes to its front-end
receiver? Isn't that true?
Mr. Knapp. What we need to do----
Mr. Stearns. Yes or no.
Mr. Knapp. It would be yes.
Mr. Stearns. OK, yes.
Ms. De La Torre, one day after receiving LightSquared's
updated business plan and request for a waiver of the
integrated services rule on November 18, 2010, the FCC placed
the request on public notice providing a 10-day period for
initial comments. How many days does the FCC normally provide
for comments after issuing a public notice for an ATC
modification request?
Ms. De La Torre. Anywhere from 7 to 21 days.
Mr. Stearns. Was the expedited comment period relating to
the FCC's March 2010 order requiring that LightSquared follow
an aggressive build-out schedule for its network?
Ms. De La Torre. Well, they had--the proceeding, as I
mentioned, has been going on since 2001, so there was a lot of
documents in the record, so we put it out for public notice.
Mr. Stearns. Did anyone request an extension of the comment
period, and if so, who and was the request granted?
Ms. De La Torre. Yes, there was a request for extension,
and we did grant that extension. We granted the extension for 3
days.
Mr. Stearns. Did the parties requesting an extension have a
chance to actually file their comments in the proceedings?
Ms. De La Torre. Yes, they did.
Mr. Stearns. There are many concerns I have with the
process, but the greatest concern that I have is that your
agency, acting only on one day after the NTIA sent their
comments to the FCC, rushed through a public notice that would
put LightSquared in regulatory limbo with no alternative in
sight. Can you explain to me why the FCC did not first look to
alternatives, short of proposing to suspend the company's
licenses?
Ms. De La Torre. What we wanted to do is we wanted to get
public comment as much as we possibly could on this important
report that we had gotten from NTIA and the letter from NTIA.
We wanted to get as much comment as we possibly could, so we
put it out as soon as we could.
Mr. Stearns. But acting only one day after NTIA sent their
commitment to the FCC, it seems like you rushed it.
Ms. De La Torre. I don't know that we rushed it, but we
were definitely--we wanted to get as much information as we
possibly could.
Mr. Stearns. I am anxious for the FCC to reach a conclusion
on this matter and continue to hope a solution can be found.
When do you plan to wrap up your review of your February public
notice?
Mr. Knapp. So we don't have a specific target. It is a
complex issue and LightSquared has put some new ideas on the
table, and we think everything is worth considering at this
point.
Mr. Stearns. All right. My time is expired.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. De La Torre, I just want to clarify your answers to the
previous questions. This memo, this August 4, 2011, memo,
Exhibit 1, that the chairman was referring to, I think it would
be fair to say that what happened here was that the spectrum
was allocated in a certain way, so that the GPS had a certain
portion of the spectrum, correct?
Ms. De La Torre. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. DeGette. And LightSquared had been approved
conditionally for portions of the spectrum that were adjacent
to the GPS portions, correct?
Ms. De La Torre. Yes. Dating back to 2004.
Ms. DeGette. Yes. And after the conditional approval, the
GPS community came forward belatedly and told the FCC that they
were concerned because they were actually going into portions
of the spectrum that LightSquared had been conditionally
approved to use, is that correct?
Ms. De La Torre. There had been an order that had been--the
transfer of control order from SkyTerra to Harbingerhad been
issued the year before in March 2010. And with that order,
there was another accompanying order that modified the license.
And so that had happened earlier in the year.
Ms. DeGette. But you were frustrated when you wrote this
memo because the GPS folks were supposed to stay, as you said,
in their lane, but they consistently went over into the other
lanes that had been conditionally authorized for others, right?
Yes or no would work with this one.
Ms. De La Torre. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
But you also recognized in this memo, and the part that the
chairman didn't refer to, that the problem here is that GPS--
and I want to ask you about this, too, Mr. Knapp, because there
had been some glancing references to it--but this GPS wave
length is very important, security wise, is that right?
Mr. Knapp. Absolutely.
Ms. DeGette. So, Mr. Knapp, in your testimony, you said
that there are concerns about national security and safety with
GPS, is that right?
Mr. Knapp. Of course.
Ms. DeGette. And Ms. De La Torre, at the end of your memo,
you say, ``this is a very complicated issue and tough choices
will need to be made and may in fact change the established
rules of the road, but how many times do we have to reiterate
we will not endanger one person on an airplane, one soldier,
one voter or one driver who relies on your GPS service.'' Is
that what you said in the memo?
Ms. De La Torre. Yes, I did.
Ms. DeGette. And that is because, even though it is
irritating that maybe GPS is not staying in their lane, if you
literally hold them to that and there is some problem with this
GPS, then it could affect national security communications or
transportation, like airplane communications, is that correct?
Ms. De La Torre. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Knapp.
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. OK. So I can see why you would be frustrated,
because poor LightSquared, you know, they got this conditional
approval, and through no fault of their own, the GPS is going
over into their lane. And I think that is why your review
process is still open, because you are still trying to find a
solution to it; is that correct Ms. De La Torre?
Ms. De La Torre. Yes, absolutely.
Ms. DeGette. And so here is my question: I know that
LightSquared has come forward with some other proposals to use
different parts of the spectrum and so on. Are you considering
those other proposals right now?
Ms. De La Torre. Yes. As Mr. Knapp said, yes, we are
currently considering them.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Knapp.
Mr. Knapp. If I may, I should add that several of those
proposals include spectrum that is used by the Federal
Government, so the Federal side, NTIA, would have the lead in
determining whether those are viable.
Ms. DeGette. In order to make that determination, do you
need congressional action?
Mr. Knapp. No. At this juncture, I can't project whether
that would be necessary or not, but certainly we would come
back if that seemed to make sense.
Ms. DeGette. OK. So it is not like, and either one of you
can answer this, it is not really like the FCC is trying to
arbitrarily sabotage this investment that LightSquared has
made, which is substantial, correct?
Mr. Knapp. Absolutely not.
Ms. DeGette. And in fact, you are still trying to find a
solution, is that right?
Mr. Knapp. That is right.
Ms. DeGette. OK. I don't have any more questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. You have got one second left. Do you want to
ask him, is there a solution?
Ms. DeGette. You can ask him.
Mr. Stearns. I will take your one second. Is there a
solution?
Mr. Knapp. There are ideas worth considering.
Mr. Stearns. So the answer to the question is, yes, there
is a solution.
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. OK. Thank you.
With that, I recognize Dr. Burgess for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now, Mr. Knapp, you said ``worth considering'' twice, so it
is intriguing. This is an enormously complex issue made even
more complex. By now I have got mental images of double wides
and winding mountain roads. But I think that is really what the
committee is asking is about a solution and a solution where
both parties can actually come away with something, neither
party is harmed to the extent that they can be kept from harm,
and we don't tread upon the rights of other people who have
reasonable uses for spectrum that already exists; is that a
fair statement?
Mr. Knapp. That is a fair statement.
Mr. Burgess. Well, then, in the things that you have----
Mr. Stearns. Dr. Burgess, can you just pull your mic up a
little bit, just so it is easy to hear you. We are waiting on
every word you say, so we have got to hear it.
Mr. Burgess. Well, in that context of having things that
are worth considering, surely you have some solutions that you
have been pushing back and forth between yourselves at the FCC.
Is there any of those that you are willing to share with the
committee this morning?
Mr. Knapp. Not specifically. I will say that it is not only
this immediate issue, but we also think long term about the
implications for use of the spectrum because of the spectrum
crunch and the importance of getting every ounce of benefit out
of all of the spectrum that we possibly can.
Mr. Burgess. And we certainly bump up against this from
time to time in this committee because of the fact that the
spectrum is a valuable asset owned by the People of the United
States. The government is in a cash crunch, so sometimes, we
actually go to spectrum as a solution.
Let me just ask a couple process questions of both of you,
and I referenced this in my opening statement, the comment
period before the issuance of the conditional waiver. It does
seem to be condensed, especially when you are dealing with an
issue of this complexity. Is that a fair observation for me to
make? And bear in mind I am just a simply country doctor; I am
not an engineer. So it seems like you drop it before
Thanksgiving or between Thanksgiving and Christmas. It looks
like Harry Reid's health care bill to me. That is not a time
where a lot of people are paying attention.
Mr. Knapp. If you view this in the broader context of the
long history of the proceeding, we had a commission rulemaking
proceeding that set out the policies that were to apply here.
What the staff was doing was just implementing those policies.
There already was provisions for a substantial terrestrial
network. And if you look at what action was actually taken, we
took the very tough step of saying that the system could not be
operated commercially until this issue was resolved. And we put
in place a process to understand the scope of the problem and
try to find a way to get solutions to it. So although the
specific timeframe of the action may have appeared in isolation
as short, what we were doing was moving as quickly as we could
through the process to find an answer.
Mr. Burgess. And yet some of the principals involved, the
GPS industry, the Air Force, did seem to feel that there was
inadequate time, did they not? Did they not express that to
you?
Mr. Knapp. So what we did in the action, they had asked
that we needed time for further tests, so the process we put in
place did just that. And we made sure that those parties were
all engaged, and they were engaged heavily in the process of
conducting the tests and examining solutions.
Mr. Burgess. But then there was an extension granted, is
that correct?
Mr. Knapp. There was an extension of time for the comments.
Mr. Burgess. For the comments.
Mr. Knapp. Yes, absolutely. And it was all considered, and
it resulted in the action that the agency took.
Mr. Burgess. And refresh my memory, how long was the
extension of the comment period?
Ms. De La Torre. It was 3 days.
Mr. Burgess. Again, I am just a simple outside observer.
For an issue of this complexity, did the parties who complained
about the length of the comment period, were they mollified by
a 3-day extension.
Ms. De La Torre. Well, they did in fact file comments in
the proceeding, and they came in and they had various meetings
with us during that time. So there was plenty of time for them
to meet and to give us their views on the proceeding.
Mr. Burgess. Well, just as an outside observer across the
street, 3 days doesn't seem like a lot of time for an issue of
this complexity. I appreciate the fact it had been worked on
for a long time and a lot of people had much more working
knowledge on this than I do, but it does seem condensed. What
did they relate to you when you said, OK, you got 3 more days?
Did they say, this is great, that is all we needed?
Ms. De La Torre. Well, what I recall is that they in fact
did file within that period. And then they had plenty of time
to come in before the waiver order was issued in January. So
they had many weeks to come in. They took advantage of that
time. We heard their concerns. In fact, as Mr. Knapp said, the
action that we took, took direct consideration of what they had
raised with us. And we basically stopped LightSquared from
going forward with commercial deployment of its system until
the interference concerns were resolved. Now, we did not
resolve those.
Mr. Burgess. Can I stop you here for a second? I know my
time is up. But it seems like the interference questions
haven't been resolved even at this stage. Am I understanding
that correctly?
Ms. De La Torre. You are. And that is one reason why
getting the process started as soon as possible was really
important. We wanted to get that started and get all the
parties together.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the indulgence.
Mr. Stearns. And the gentlelady from--oh, Mr. Bilbray was
here.
I think Mr. Bilbray is next for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, let me first clarify; I have got a personal
stake in this. Any one of us that go off into the ocean with
our families offshore know how important the GPS is, not just
for aircraft, not just for finding our way around streets, but
basically getting home and making sure you don't run into some
rocks.
On the flip side, if I may say to the ranking member, just
as much as the GPS is essential, there are thousands of people
offshore every day that would have a huge safety factor if they
could pull up their iPhone and from 200 miles offshore to be
able to call for emergency services. So this has a safety issue
going from both ways.
But I think this is a much bigger issue than just GPS or a
new access into the LightSquared. And if I could say to the
ranking member, we need to recognize that this is setting the
message across the country and around the world of exactly how
the Federal Government is going to handle the situation. And if
we do not straighten this out, the alternative is for us to
have an intransigent locked-in system that says, nope, we won't
allow anyone to move outside any arbitrary lines we make
because once you cross those lines, we know we can't get you
back. And I will give you an example, an analogy: This is like
somebody using a passing lane or going into the other lane to
pass. We do that all over this country. But once you start
allowing people to claim a right for using a right of way that
was not set aside for them, the only alternative is to
eventually for the government to put up regulatory jersey walls
to where that option is no longer available in the future. Even
though no one is using that lane 99 percent of the time because
we won't enforce it when somebody wants to use the lane, we
have got to block it off, and that asset is not going to be
used with flexibility. We are going to become intransigent at
bureaucratic lines. So I think that we have got to recognize
this issue was very strongly setting an example to the next
group that bids on something, are we going to apply it and be
flexible and thus when the time comes, are we going to
implement it, or are we going to create the barriers. Isn't
this a situation of squatting and squatters' rights, and how do
we tell anybody when they do bids, that there is not going to
be a squatter sitting on their spectrum if we don't straighten
this thing out and make it clear to everybody that the Federal
Government will make you whole and will not allow squatting to
supersede the due process that we set aside? How do we avoid
that?
Mr. Knapp. Well, first of all, as we conduct our processes,
they are open, and it is incumbent on all the parties to
participate in that. This situation has been, in my 38 years at
the FCC, an anomaly. Almost invariably, the parties come in and
explain----
Mr. Bilbray. OK. When the parties explain this--let me
interrupt one second. When they talk about interference, are
you saying, wait a minute, is there interference, or is there--
does the--is it harmful interference? There is one thing to
have static with GPS. There is something else to be blocking
the GPS. Isn't it true that the, quote-unquote, interference
may not be harmful interference that would block the item. It
may give some difficulty but still won't be able to block the
service; the service still gets through with GPS. Isn't that
true?
Mr. Knapp. This is one of the issues that has been raised,
and it is one of the core issues that the commission routinely
has to address in deciding whether interference is harmful or
not. We also have to take into account, when we are dealing
with public safety services or defense, a much higher threshold
for ensuring against problems.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. There is the problem. We are now creating
the issue of that we will go so far because we think it is a
public safety issue, and once you name that, if somebody that
has run police departments and sheriff departments, the
question is, does that become now the excuse to use that lane
all the time, even without a red light running, even though it
is not a code three, because we are public safety, we get to
drive in the left lane all the time, without having to show
that there was reasonable application here? And that is what I
am concerned about. And let me tell you something, as someone
has run police departments, that happens all the time, you
know. But we don't sit there and continue to allow it just
because somebody claims it. They need to prove it. And that is
that harmful interference. When will you get that clarified,
and what is your obligation to make sure that we make this
whole so this Congress and future Congresses don't have to
start building jersey walls and blocking off all kinds of great
flexible opportunities because we have seen what happened with
LightSquared, so we are not going to allow any flexibility in
the future? How do we maintain that flexibility?
Mr. Knapp. So this issue I think has given greater focus to
receivers and the issue of staying in your lane. And we
conducted a workshop at the commission on addressing receiver
standards going forward. Just this past March, we have tasked
our Technological Advisory Committee, which includes experts
across industry, to make recommendations on how we can deal
with these kinds of issues in the future as we are making
spectrum allocation, so we are working on it.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, what he just told me is, now, they are going
to be harder and put up a jersey--basically block it off, that
flexibility to avoid this problem. That is exactly what I want
to avoid, and that is why we should be working to straighten
this out so they don't have to start putting up those jersey
walls, and we maintain our flexibility. I think both sides want
that.
I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman for his insight.
And the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you.
And Mr. Chairman, I do want to take a moment and just thank
you for your leadership. You are going to be missed. We are all
going to miss you and appreciate the leadership and guidance
you have given this committee on so many issues.
To our witnesses, we are going to have votes called in just
a few minutes, and I want everyone to have the opportunity to
get through their questions. I want to talk with you
specifically about your February 10th memo, or it is an email
from February 10th, and the March 26, 2010, order dealing with
preventing SkyTerra from making its ATC spectrum available to
AT&T and Verizon.
So let's start, Ms. De La Torre, with you with that
February 10th email from Joel Rabinovitz. You are on that
email, correct? You are a recipient of that? It is Exhibit 9 in
your binder.
Ms. De La Torre. Yes, I was aware of that.
Mrs. Blackburn. Would you please speak into the microphone?
Ms. De La Torre. Yes, I am on that email, but I wasn't
participating in the email as far as sending, responding to it.
I am on it, though.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. But you read in there that, and I am
quoting from the email, the condition is that Harbinger not
sell to Verizon and AT&T. So is this email consistent with your
thoughts regarding the purposes of the conditions?
Ms. De La Torre. Thank you, Congresswoman.
In fact, where we ended up was not where the email started
actually. We ended up--there was a loophole in the FCC's sort
of framework for secondary markets of spectrum. And terrestrial
systems at the time could use secondary markets, and they could
lease their spectrum, but MSS operators could not. And so one
of the reasons that we had wanted to put this condition in on
AT&T and Verizon, it didn't prohibit them from actually gaining
access to that spectrum, but it said that the FCC needed to be
notified of that. And I think that that just basically filled
in a gap in our rules that we then actually changed the rules
later in the following year, in April 2011, to apply it to the
mobile satellite service as well. So AT&T and Verizon, just to
be clear, were not prevented from actually accessing that
spectrum; they just had to give notification of that.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Well, let me ask you this then. Do you
think it should be common practice for the FCC to impose
conditions like this when it really--so that it affects the
rights of nonparties to a proceeding? Should that be common
practice of the FCC? Should they move forward in that vein?
Ms. De La Torre. I have been at the commission for 3 years,
and during that time, in most of the transactions that we have
worked on, we have conditions that are applied. And they are
specific to the particular transaction, and I think that is
what we did here as well.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Let's talk about Globalstar for a
second. I have got a couple of questions I wanted to ask about
that. On June 30, 2010, the FCC granted Globalstar an extension
of its deadline to come into compliance with the ATC gating
criteria until August 2nd of 2010. Despite the fact that the
FCC granted Global Star's 30-day extension the RUS suspended
Open Range's future loan advances on July 14, 2010, and
threatened to suspend its remaining funds unless it found an
alternative spectrum partner. So, during this period, were
there any conversations between the FCC and RUS or the FCC and
the White House discussing the possibility that LightSquared
could serve as an alternative spectrum partner to Open Range?
Ms. De La Torre. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I was not a party to any of those conversations. If they
were held, I was not a party to them.
Mrs. Blackburn. Were you aware that there were any?
Mr. Knapp, do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Knapp. I just wanted to add that neither was I.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. You were not a party to them or you
were not aware that they were taking place?
Mr. Knapp. I was not aware that they were taking place.
Ms. De La Torre. Either one.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you.
My time is expired. I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentlelady.
And the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me echo the comments of my colleagues on how much I,
particularly as a freshman, have appreciated your leadership,
and I have learned a great deal from you, and I am kind of
hopeful we will have some more hearings. But in the event that
we don't, let me add my comments to those of my colleagues and
how greatly I appreciate your leadership. Thank you.
That being said, if I might ask, how does the FCC define
harmful interference? And let me do some subparts on that. Is
the level of harmful interference specific to each GPS device,
or is there a particular industry standard that defines whether
interference is harmful? Is any interference harmful? Who makes
the decision at what level it is harmful? Is that the FCC or is
that the GPS device manufacturer or user? And is the design of
the receiver relevant to the determination of harmful
interference? And be happy to repeat the subparts if you need
me to. But the base question is, how do you determine harmful
interference, and who makes those decisions?
Mr. Knapp. First, I would be more than happy to provide the
precise language of the definition in the commission's rules.
It is consistent with the international definition. It
generally, in lay terms, is, it is subjective. It talks about
repeated disruption of a service, particularly in the context
of safety and navigation services as well. So the definition
itself gives deference to the importance of protecting safety
services.
In the case of GPS, there are multiple kinds of receivers.
So, in some instances, there are industry standards. So, for
example, for the GPS chips that are used in cell phones for 911
location, there are industry standards that are in place. As
commented, I think in the letter that we received forwarding
the test results from NTIA, there is no accepted standard for
general navigation equipment. There is a standard for
aeronautical, and so I will stop there. So, in some cases,
there are standards and others not, and the criteria for
determining what is helpful is not always consistent. Is there
a question I missed?
Mr. Griffith. Yes. How is the filter designed relevant to
that----
Mr. Knapp. Filter design comes into play usually at the
intersection between two adjacent bands. So it is not unusual
to have some play, some flexibility, between the services right
at the borders. And normally, those problems are solved between
the parties themselves. We have to look at the overall
characteristics of the equipment and the service and what it is
capable of doing in making decisions like this as to what is
harmful or not.
Mr. Griffith. And this is one that has always got to bother
you, and for centuries, the law has tried to figure out on
different items how to make this work. But the FCC has relied
on the fact that no party raised the overload interference
issue until late 2010 to account for its late consideration by
the FCC. And I have to ask, what standards of timeliness does
the FCC have? I mean, oftentimes, if you don't raise an
objection in other areas of the law, you lose them, and whether
it is the statute of limitations or the theory of latches, you
have a timeliness issue. So what is the FCC's rule on that?
Mr. Knapp. So we are governed by the public interest
standard. And in this case, although it is a very difficult
situation, we cannot put at risk things like air safety or
defense or 911 systems and so forth. So we have to be very
careful when we evaluate those kinds of situations.
Mr. Griffith. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at
this time and yield back.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman. I think what we are
going to do is I am going to have a second round, and the
ranking member has a very short question, too, and then we will
adjourn the committee.
So my question is to Mr. Knapp. Obviously, a company has
lost $4 billion, a huge amount of money. The technology they
had was a game changer. The whole thing has been scuttled. And
so what we are trying to do now is understand what solutions
are available.
So, Mr. Knapp, the Technical Working Group and the PNT
ExCom both conducted interference testing on multiple types of
GPS devices. Is that correct, yes or no?
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. How many different types of GPS receivers did
the Technical Working Group test, actually test.
Mr. Knapp. They tested a pretty significant number of each
different type. So for cell phones, for example, and for the
personal navigation devices, I believe it was well over 75 or
so.
Mr. Stearns. Seventy-five, OK. How many different types of
GPS receivers did the PNT ExCom test?
Mr. Knapp. As broad categories, I believe there were six or
seven different categories.
Mr. Stearns. In the Technical Working Group testing, what
types of GPS devices were deemed susceptible to harmful
overload interference?
Mr. Knapp. So the report from NTIA commented that the cell
phones--well, for any device if they get close enough, you can
have interference, but the cell phones appeared to be OK. That
there was concern that 75 percent of the--and I am just
reciting what the report said--75 percent of what are called
the general navigation devices. In the case of aeronautical,
the judgment was against an industry standard.
Mr. Stearns. Were there certain types of GPS receivers that
did not receive harmful interference from LightSquared's
signal, yes or no?
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. What standard was used to determine harmful
interference in the Technical Working Group's testing?
Mr. Knapp. So there were different standards for each of
the different working groups. In the case of cell phones, they
used the worldwide standards developed by a group called the 3G
PP, which is Third Generation Partnership. There were no
standards for general navigation. They used a standard for the
aeronautical equipment based on the radio technical.
Mr. Stearns. What is the FCC's responsibility to oversee
the working group?
Mr. Knapp. So, in this case, we did what we often do; we
brought all of the parties together through this process with
the----
Mr. Stearns. So you are a facilitator and not much more?
You are not an investigator, oversight or an enforcer----
Mr. Knapp. Part of the rationale here is we want to be
careful not to steer the work of the group, because in the end
we may have to make a decision and assess its work.
Mr. Stearns. I understand.
Who provided the devices for the Technical Working Group
testing?
Mr. Knapp. That came from the working group itself, which
was co-chaired by the GPS industry and LightSquared.
Mr. Stearns. In the PNT ExCom testing, what types of
receivers were deemed susceptible to harmful overload
interference?
Mr. Knapp. So, just to be clear, there was a first round of
testing. And in the second round, all that was looked at was
cell phones and general navigation devices and then a
particular class of aeronautical equipment that was used for
mapping terrain.
Mr. Stearns. I think I have asked this before, but certain
types of GPS receivers, weren't some of them--did not receive
harmful interference from LightSquared? Isn't it true some of
them did not, isn't that true?
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. Would you say there are a lot of receivers
that did not receive it, or was it significant, would you say
significant?
Mr. Knapp. So it varied across the categories. And one of
the categories that was particularly not covered in the second
round was called high-precision equipment. And that is some of
the equipment that is designed actually to operate across both
bands together.
Mr. Stearns. If harmful interference was not observed in a
particular category of GPS devices, does that mean a potential
solution might exist for that category?
Mr. Knapp. Well, for the equipment that didn't experience
harmful interference, yes, there is a solution for that
category.
Mr. Stearns. In your mind's eye, can this problem be
solved?
Mr. Knapp. I think the----
Mr. Stearns. Just yes or no.
Mr. Knapp. I can't answer yes or no because just as when we
went into this, until you work through the problems, you don't
know the answer.
Mr. Stearns. Well, describe what your solution would be?
Mr. Knapp. I can't describe what my solution would be. I
know that there are ideas that are on the table that we are
considering.
Mr. Stearns. And do you endorse any of those ideas?
Mr. Knapp. No, we have an open proceeding. It would
prejudice the outcome for me to endorse one or the other.
Mr. Stearns. Well, as an electrical engineer, don't you
think this could be solved?
Mr. Knapp. As an electrical engineer, we always strive to
solve the problem, but there is no certainty that you are going
to.
Mr. Stearns. You got to pass the exam. It is either yes or
not. All right. Well, as I say, you know, I am just--I think
all of us are a little frustrated with this huge possible
innovation leap here in the loss of this company. So, anyway,
my time is expired.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to
ask unanimous consent to put the spectrum chart into the
record, which I had shared with your staff.
Mr. Stearns. By unanimous consent, it will be made part of
the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.023
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
I also understand that you are going to put the exhibit
notebook into the record, subject to some redactions that will
be agreed upon by staff.
Mr. Stearns. That is correct.
Ms. DeGette. I would just ask unanimous consent that we put
Ms. De La Torre's memo Exhibit 1 in the exhibit book in without
redaction.
Mr. Stearns. Unanimous consent, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much.
I just want to say I don't have any questions, you will be
happy to know. But I just want to say that this entire hearing
really highlights the urgency of the work that the Select
Working Group that Chairman Upton put together and which I was
privileged to serve, a subcommittee--select subcommittee of
this full committee, because as we look more and more at the
use of spectrum and as we look at increasing demands on our
spectrum, we are really going to have to figure out how we
balance really important legitimate commercial needs, like in
this situation with LightSquared, with GPS and other security
needs and so on. And I think that that work that the select
working group has been doing throughout the spring, summer, and
fall has real urgency, and I am sure that the FCC would agree
with that.
And Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working in the next
session of Congress on both sides of the aisle to start to
figure out what we do with some of these issues. Because,
unfortunately, I think it was Mr. Knapp who said that in his
30-plus years at the agency, he hasn't seen a situation like
this. But I think everybody would agree if we can't start to
think about what we are doing with our spectrum, we are going
to see more and more situations and more and more demands
bumping up against each other.
I see both of our witnesses nodding their heads yes.
So thank you for having this hearing, and I look forward to
continuing to work with you.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentlelady.
I thank the witnesses for their testimony this morning.
In conclusion, I would like to thank all the members for
staying here. I remind members they have 10 business days to
submit questions for the record.
And I ask the witnesses to all agree to promptly respond to
these questions.
And with that, this is my last hearing as a Member of
Congress, and I just want to thank the members on both sides
for their participation and, more importantly, the staff. The
staff has done a great job throughout my tenure as chairman of
the Oversight Committee, and I appreciate all their hard work.
[Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86420.102