[Senate Hearing 116-621]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
. S. Hrg. 116-621
THE STATE OF U.S. SPECTRUM POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION AND THE INTERNET
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2020
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-820 WASHINGTON : 2023
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
ROY BLUNT, Missouri Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
John Keast, Staff Director
Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
Steven Wall, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION AND THE INTERNET
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROY BLUNT, Missouri BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska TOM UDALL, New Mexico
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MIKE LEE, Utah JON TESTER, Montana
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
TODD YOUNG, Indiana JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
RICK SCOTT, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 23, 2020.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 1
Letter dated July 23, 2020 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Brian
Schatz from Steven K. Berry, President and CEO, Competitive
Carriers Association....................................... 65
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 3
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 45
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 47
Statement of Senator Moran....................................... 49
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 52
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 53
Statement of Senator Rosen....................................... 55
Letter dated July 23, 2020 to Senator John Thune and Senator
Brian Schatz from Harold Feld, Senior Vice President,
Public Knowledge........................................... 55
Statement of Senator Lee......................................... 59
Statement of Senator Blackburn................................... 61
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 63
Witnesses
Tom Power, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, CTIA....... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
H. Mark Gibson, Director, Business Development and Spectrum
Sharing Policy, CommScope, Inc................................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Roslyn Layton, Ph.D., Visiting Researcher, Aalborg University.... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Michael Calabrese, Director, Wireless Future Project, Open
Technology Institute at New America............................ 30
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Appendix
Letter dated July 21, 2020 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from J. David Grossman, Executive Director, GPS
Innovation Alliance............................................ 71
Letter dated July 22, 2020 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Brian
Schatz from a coalition of transportation stakeholders......... 75
Letter dated July 23, 2020 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Brian
Schatz from Tim McClees, Vice President, Legislative Affairs,
Aerospace Industries Association............................... 78
Response to written question submitted to Tom Power by:
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 80
Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................ 80
Response to written questions submitted to Mark Gibson by:
Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................ 81
Response to written questions submitted to Roslyn Layton, Ph.D.
by:
Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................ 82
Response to written questions submitted to Michael Calabrese by:
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 87
Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................ 89
THE STATE OF U.S. SPECTRUM POLICY
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2020
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology,
Innovation and the Internet,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:58 a.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Wicker, Fischer,
Moran, Sullivan, Blackburn, Capito, Lee, Schatz, Klobuchar,
Blumenthal, Peters, Tester, and Rosen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. This hearing will come to order. Good
morning. Great to have everybody here today, and I will tell
you in advance that we are going to be juggling about three
votes on the floor of the Senate but we will try and figure out
a way to keep everything rolling so we can get everybody's
comments and questions in, but we are grateful to have all of
you here this morning. This morning we are going to talk about
the state of the U.S. spectrum policy. The committee has long
recognized the need for a thoughtful approach to spectrum
policy and the important role both the FCC and the NTIA have in
spectrum management. I appreciate all of you taking the time
out of your schedules to discuss this topic.
Spectrum is the lifeblood of wireless communications. Next
generation wireless networks require efficient and effective
use of low, mid, and high bands of spectrum. If we do not have
proper management of this limited resource, we simply won't
have enough of the right kinds of spectrum available. And in
the global race to deploy next generation networks and
services, we have a responsibility to furnish Americans with
the spectrum fueled 5G ecosystem that will be needed to
maintain our competitive edge. This is particularly important
for those of us in more rural parts of the country.
If inadequacy of spectrum resources makes 5G less viable,
it will be the rural areas where it no longer makes sense to
deploy next generation telecommunication services. Here in the
United States, NTIA is responsible for managing the Federal
Government spectrum use and the FCC for managing all other
uses. Both NTIA and the FCC have taken important steps to make
more spectrum available but more work must be done.
The FCC, acting in a bipartisan manner, has moved forward
with bold proposal to make thousands of megahertz of spectrum
available for license and unlicensed fixed and mobile use, and
it has proceedings under way to make even more spectrum
available. Importantly, at the end of this year, the FCC is
planning an auction to make 280 megahertz of C-band spectrum
available for commercial license use, and it is critical that
that auction goes forward without any delays. This mid-band
spectrum is key to the United States winning the race to 5G.
As more and more Americans are relying on connectivity like
Wi-Fi during the coronavirus pandemic, we must also recognize
the crucial role that unlicensed spectrum plays in the
communications landscape. Unlicensed spectrum is responsible
for transmitting a significant amount of the data on our
networks and will play a tremendous role in development of the
Internet of things. But as I mentioned before, if we do not
have proper management of spectrum, we will not have sufficient
access to the spectrum for commercial purposes. We all know the
demand for spectrum resources will continue to increase with
the development of new technologies and the demand will result
in Government agencies, businesses, and other groups competing
for these resources which is why I have always supported an all
of the above approach to make sure we efficiently use the
limited spectrum resources.
With respect to commercially licensed spectrum, in my view,
it is essential the FCC is allowed to rely on the independent,
technical, and legal expertise of its bureaus and staff, and
remain the sole expert agency to regulate non-Federal uses of
spectrum as directed by the statutory authority through the
Communications Act. The reviews of spectrum usage rights
undertaken by the FCC are rarely simple.
I appreciate Chairman Pai's efforts to make more spectrum
available for licensed and unlicensed use and the entire
Commission's focus and trust in the technical analysis of its
engineers to make spectrum decisions in the interest of our
national and economic security. Commercial spectrum usage
rights, whether through FCC issued licenses or FCC adopted
rules, provide the certainty necessary to incentivize and
enable returns on massive investments in research and
development, manufacturing, infrastructure deployment,
innovations, and applications dependent upon commercial
spectrum.
And when spectrum is made available, successful spectrum
policy must establish predictable rights for private entities
to use the airwaves from satellite to Wi-Fi and terrestrial
wireless to broadcast. Simply put, efficient and effective
spectrum management requires clear rules and recognized rights
for spectrum users. It is also essential for NTIA working with
Federal agencies through the inter-department Radio Advisory
Committee to continue to improve the efficiency of Federal
spectrum. Making the spectrum relocation fund a better resource
for studying spectrum and relocating Federal incumbents were
feasible is essential if we are to continue making Federal
spectrum available for commercial use.
Sound spectrum management policies and procedures will keep
spectrum in the pipeline and will help retain American
leadership in wireless communications. I believe we need to
make sure the interagency process when making these decisions
is transparent, and this is only going to be more important as
we work to free up additional spectrum for commercial use. We
have got a distinguished panel before us today. I look forward
to hearing your thoughts on ways to improve the spectrum
policymaking process to generate the most value for consumers.
Joining us today, we have Mr. Tom Power from CTIA, the
Wireless Association; Dr. Roslyn Layton, a visiting researcher,
Aalborg University; Mr. Mark Gibson who serves as the Director
of Business Development at CommScope; and Mr. Michael Calabrese
from New America's Open Technology Institute. He is going to be
appearing with us virtually today. I want to thank you all for
being here. I am going to turn to our Ranking Member, Senator
Schatz, for his opening remarks and he will be delivering those
remotely, virtually.
Senator Schatz.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Chairman Thune, for holding this
hearing and I want to thank our witnesses for being here to
discuss this important topic. As we enter month six of the
coronavirus pandemic, it has never been more clear how
important good spectrum policies are for the public and for the
economy.
Wireless connectivity has enabled many Americans to remain
productive and resilient during this time as historic numbers
of workers, parents, and children continue to try to work and
learn from home. America's reliance on wireless connectivity
today is just one example of why it is so important that
Government decisions on spectrum allocation are technically
sound and based on good data. Spectrum is a limited but crucial
resource necessary for cutting-edge technologies like self-
driving vehicles, telemedicine, and public safety networks.
In order for the U.S. to maintain its global leadership in
wireless innovation, U.S. spectrum policies need to support
spectrum sharing technologies that can use multiple adjacent
bands. Spectrum--excuse me, spectrum is an often discussed
issue in Congress, but the FCC ultimately has expertise and
authority to make important technical decisions on commercial
spectrum sharing and allocation. While Congress has retained
the right to create laws regarding the deployment of
communications technologies including spectrum, it has
entrusted the FCC with rulemaking authority to make data-driven
technical decisions so that our commercial spectrum is
allocated for its best and most efficient use, otherwise our
spectrum policies may fall subject to politics rather than be
rooted in sound data and engineering analysis.
As the expert technical agency, it is critical that the FCC
continues to operate in a non-biased way so that our spectrum
resources provide the most benefit to our country. However,
when making these decisions, the FCC must weigh the concerns of
incumbent users such as utilities, the military, and public
safety, and safeguard them from potential impacts of new users.
The FCC must not cripple existing vital uses of spectrum in
order to free up additional bandwidth.
The FCC must also consider the concerns of local
jurisdictions when it adopts rules for the deployment of
wireless technologies. Just as localities cannot withhold
access to rights of way in their jurisdictions, the Federal
Government should not just be allowed to steamroll localities
just so that companies can have a faster or cheaper rollout.
There needs to be a fair and reasonable balance that respects
local control and but also encourages wireless deployment. And
when discussing spectrum policies, we cannot forget the
important role unlicensed spectrum and Wi-Fi have in our
society. Unlicensed spectrum enables a variety of activities in
our country such as health care monitoring and smart farming,
it enables essential connectivity for military bases,
universities, and schools all without the burden of an
expensive data plan.
So when we think about equity in broadband adoption, it is
important to remember that unlicensed wireless technologies
have to be an integral part of our spectrum policies. Which
brings me to my final point. Today we will discuss how we can
ensure that our spectrum policies are forward looking and
support next generation 5G, connected IoT, and wireless
technology advancements. However, let's not forget that right
now, in the middle of the pandemic, tens of millions of our
fellow Americans don't have any access to broadband.
Spectrum is an asset that is owned by the American people
including those who don't have connections today. And so when
the FCC auctions off this important resource for billions of
dollars, it is only fair that those revenues are used to help
to close the digital divide in the United States. By ensuring
that spectrum auction revenues are used to help Americans, we
can ensure that the advances in wireless technology go hand-in-
hand with narrowing the digital divide and not toward creating
a new class of unconnected persons.
I am sure that today's witnesses and the organizations they
represent want to make certain that our spectrum policies
ensure that the next generation of wireless technology can be
delivered to everyone in America. I appreciate you being here
today and I look forward to the hearing. Thank you very much.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Schatz, and we will get
started with our panel. And we will start on my left and your
right with Mr. Tom Power who as, I said, is the Senior Vice
President General Counsel for CTIA, the Wireless Association.
Then proceeded to Mr. Mark Gibson, Director of Business
Development at CommScope, to Dr. Roslyn Layton, visiting
researcher at Aalborg University, and then we will hear from
Mr. Michael Calabrese remotely who is the Director of the
Wireless Future Project Open Technology Institute at New
America. So, thank you for being here and we will recognize Mr.
Power and ask if you could confine your oral remarks to 5
minutes and we will make sure that your entire testimony is a
made a part of the written record of the hearing. The first
vote is underway and we will figure out how to juggle that but
we will try and keep rolling so we can get through and give
everybody an opportunity to be heard from and hopefully to
respond to some questions. So thanks for being here. Mr. Power,
please proceed.
STATEMENT OF TOM POWER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
AND GENERAL COUNSEL, CTIA
Mr. Power. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Schatz, and
members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today and let me start by thanking the Committee and
the FCC for the leadership shown during the COVID-19 pandemic.
With your encouragement, we have been able to respond
dynamically to our customers' needs even as the situation
evolves. So thank you for the opportunity to speak today about
spectrum policy in the United States and possible improvements
that could be made. But let's stop to appreciate what we have
got including the AWS-3 auction that closed in 2015.
The FCC has auctioned more spectrum in the last 5 years
than any previous such period netting $67 billion for the U.S.
Treasury. The FCC conducted the first ever incentive auction
and the first ever high band auctions. Thanks to Chairman Pai's
5G fast plan and the oversight of Congress, we are on a pretty
good streak. We should talk about ways to make it better. But
let's acknowledge that for all its imperfections, the current
process has delivered some historic wins for the Nation. We are
all aware of how this committee's actions have already
facilitated America's fast start in the global 5G marketplace.
Last year, U.S. wireless providers were the first to employ
5G networks and are investing in a projected $275 billion,
creating 3 million jobs and adding $500 billion to GDP. These
investments and deployments will improve the lives of Americans
from South Dakota to Hawaii and throughout the country, through
access to connected hospitals, safer and more efficient smart
cities, and the life-changing applications that will grow out
of our burgeoning 5G ecosystem. The U.S. led the world in 4G,
both as the first mover in network deployments and in market
transforming innovation by rapidly deploying low band spectrum.
As the industry transitions to 5G, we need to add mid-band
spectrum to the equation as it is particularly well suited to
combine improved speed and latency with broad coverage. But
other countries have gotten ahead of us when it comes to mid
band. By year's end, our international rivals like China will
have on average five times more licensed mid band spectrum than
the U.S. The good news is that the FCC will hold two mid-band
spectrum auctions this year.
The CBRS auction is commencing today as it happens and the
C-band auction will take off in December as the Chairman
recognized. But even taking those into account, by the end of
2022, a number of other countries are expected to have licensed
nearly twice as much mid-band spectrums of 5G as the U.S. Now,
this committee deserves great credit for identifying the lower
3 gigahertz band currently used by the Defense Department to
operate radar systems as suitable for commercial use.
We applaud Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Schatz for
introducing the Spectrum Now Act which would require the
auction of 100 megahertz of that band, an auction that can't
happen soon enough. There are additional bands that can play a
critical role in boosting 5G innovation, but the lower 3
gigahertz band is the next major opportunity to expand critical
mid-band 5G capacity. Now putting a band like the lower 3 band
to work requires work among the folks at the Defense
Department, NTIA, and the FCC. So let me spend a minute
identifying some proposals to make that work flow more
efficiently. I mentioned earlier Chairman Wicker and Ranking
Member Schatz's efforts to the Spectrum Now Act which would
expand Federal agencies' use of the spectrum relocation fund to
examine ways to shrink their spectrum footprint.
We also applaud Senator Lee for introducing the Government
Spectrum Valuation Act which would give this committee and the
Administration better insight into the market value of spectrum
and to ensure its being put to its best and highest use. We
similarly wish to recognize Senator Markey's work to
incentivize agencies to move all spectrum that could otherwise
be reallocated to consumer uses.
We also strongly commend Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member
Cantwell along with the Senate Armed Services Chairman Inhofe
and Ranking Member Reed for their collaboration on the Spectrum
IT Modernization Act of 2020. We support this legislation and
its effort to make the management of Federal spectrum more
efficient.
For many years, this committee has paved the way for U.S.
leadership in wireless from the MOBILE NOW Act under the
leadership of Chairman Thune and former Ranking Member Nelson,
to the AIRWAVES Act thanks to Senator Gardner and Senator
Hassan. Now, we look forward to working with you on a new
spectrum auction pipeline for the years to come. I look forward
to discussing these issues with you this morning and thank you
again for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Power follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Power, Senior Vice President
and General Counsel, CTIA
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of CTIA and the U.S. wireless industry, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today. Let me start by expressing
our strong appreciation for the leadership exhibited by this Committee
and the FCC in responding to the COVID-19 crisis, which has highlighted
the critical role that wireless plays in keeping us connected to our
family and friends, our jobs, our schools, and our communities. Your
leadership has allowed the wireless industry to dynamically respond to
the needs of its customers, even as this situation evolves.
Your leadership will be just as critical to ensuring a strong
foundation for our Nation's 5G economy over the next decade. The
combined efforts of this Committee, Congress, the FCC, and the
Administration have facilitated a historic four years of spectrum
successes. In that time, we completed the first ever incentive auction
and, under Chairman Pai's 5G FAST Plan, we completed the first ever
high-band spectrum auctions. We now have the opportunity to build on
this foundation to make more spectrum available for 5G--particularly in
the critical mid-band.
I have served at the FCC, NTIA, the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy, and in the private sector, and I know very well
the essential role that spectrum management policies play. Indeed, the
availability of, and access to, sufficient and appropriate spectrum is
the key to reaping the full benefits of 5G--not only in terms of
economic growth, job creation, and public safety--but also by ensuring
we are able to meet unexpected and unprecedented demands when the need
arises. So today, I'd like to describe the wireless landscape in the
U.S., note the priorities we need to balance as we deploy 5G and in
mid-band spectrum, and point out some opportunities to improve the
processes government uses to identify and repurpose underutilized
spectrum.
The Current Wireless Landscape: Continuing Demand for Wireless
Services, the Importance of Investment, and the Work that
Remains
This Committee's actions have already facilitated America's fast
start in the global 5G marketplace. U.S. wireless providers gained a
first mover advantage last year when they were the first to deploy
commercial 5G networks.\1\ The U.S. wireless industry is projected to
invest $275 billion on 5G deployments, create three million jobs, and
add $500 billion to GDP. These investments will be made possible by
your leadership; the certainty you fostered has driven faster
deployment, with residents from South Dakota to Hawaii and beyond
already enjoying the benefits of 5G. And with scale, 5G will be even
more transformative--improving the lives of all Americans through
access to connected hospitals, safer and more efficient smart cities,
and the life-changing applications that will grow out of our burgeoning
5G ecosystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CTIA, 2019 Annual Survey Highlights, at 6 (June 20, 2019),
https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-Annual-Survey-
Highlights-FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unprecedented Growth in Wireless. The U.S. continues to experience
unprecedented growth in demand for wireless services, especially since
the onset of the pandemic. In 2018 alone, we saw an 82 percent increase
in mobile traffic. The increase from 2018 to 2019 was greater than the
total amount of mobile traffic on U.S. networks just four years ago.\2\
And when, in a matter of days, much of the U.S. transitioned to staying
at home, we witnessed a dramatic increase in demand for wireless
services. Almost overnight, voice traffic jumped 20-40 percent; major
providers saw a 25 percent increase in texting; data traffic grew
nearly 20 percent, with one nationwide provider reporting an increase
in mobile device hotspot usage of nearly 40 percent; and applications
that provide telehealth and web/video conferencing services saw huge
usage increases--well over 1,000 percent.\3\ U.S. wireless carriers
handled that increased demand with barely a hitch. In fact, despite
these trends, U.S. average mobile download speeds actually went up
slightly.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CTIA Blog, The Wireless Industry Responds to COVID-19 (Mar. 16,
2020), https://www.ctia.org/news/blog-wireless-industry-responds-to-
covid-19; CTIA, How Wireless Kept Americans Connected During COVID-19,
at 3 (June 23, 2020), https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/
How-Wireless-Kept-Americans-Connected-During-COVID-19-2.pdf (COVID-19
Report).
\3\ COVID-19 Report at 2-3.
\4\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Importance of Investment. U.S. wireless providers rose to this
occasion thanks to continued and massive year-over-year investments. In
2018, the wireless industry made capex investments of $24.7 billion
primarily for expanding network capacity and coverage and making
upgrades to support 5G.\5\ According to a recent NERA study, these
investments allowed the industry to meet customer demand while
simultaneously delivering better value than carriers in any of 36 other
countries studied; U.S. consumers save nearly $10 billion per year by
virtue of the superior value that U.S. wireless providers offer.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id. at 5.
\6\ NERA, U.S. Wireless Consumers Get the Most Value for their
Money (Mar. 2, 2020), https://www.ctia.org/news/report-united-states-
wireless-consumers-get-the-most-value-for-their-money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Work that Remains: The Need for Mid-band Spectrum. As
successful as we have been, the next few years will define our 5G
future. The U.S. led the world in 4G--both as the first mover in
network deployment and in market-transforming innovation. We rapidly
made available a world-leading 752 megahertz of low-band spectrum,\7\
the propagation characteristics of which allowed carriers to quickly
deploy 4G networks over large geographic areas. Today carriers have
been repurposing some of that low-band spectrum to 5G. Carriers have
also gained access to significant amounts of high-band spectrum, which
is ideal for delivering very high speeds and low latency over discrete
geographic areas. But while this progress on low- and high-band
spectrum is important, the key to ensuring U.S. leadership will be the
availability of mid-band spectrum, which sits at the 5G ``sweet spot''
offering capacity and coverage. Mid-band spectrum is perfectly suited
to deliver higher speeds and improved latency, particularly in more
rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Analysys Mason, Comparison of Total Mobile Spectrum in
Different Markets, at 1 (June 2020), https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/06/Comparison-of-Total-Mobile-Spectrum-in-Different-
Markets-Final-Report-290620.pdf (Spectrum Comparison Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a growing global consensus that mid-band spectrum should
be allocated for 5G. Unfortunately, other nations are beating us to the
punch. One study found that 13 other leading countries will have, on
average, five times more licensed mid-band spectrum than the U.S. by
the end of this year.\8\ And even after the U.S. executes on its
current mid-band plans through 2022, five countries are expected to
have allocated nearly twice that amount of mid-band spectrum by
then.\9\ As other countries work to seize the mantle of 5G leadership,
we need to rapidly employ an ``all-of-the-above'' spectrum strategy to
make as much mid-band spectrum available as possible, with a particular
emphasis on repurposing government spectrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Analysys Mason, 5G Mid-Band Spectrum Global Update, at 1 (Mar.
2020), https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/5G-mid-band-
spectrum-global-update-march-2020.pdf (Mid-Band Global Update).
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balancing Spectrum Allocation Priorities
Spectrum allocation decisions have always required that
policymakers balance competing priorities. First, we need to properly
allocate spectrum between the Federal government and the commercial
sector to reflect current national priorities. Most spectrum is
currently in the hands of the Federal government, a function of the
varied role that spectrum has long played in supporting government
missions--including national defense. But that spectrum is an
increasingly critical input to another national priority--a robust and
innovative economy that creates jobs and economic growth for all
Americans and empowers their full participation in all aspects of
American society.
Second, within the commercial sector, spectrum must be reasonably
allocated between licensed and unlicensed use. While unlicensed is
indispensable, the U.S. has become a global outlier by allocating such
a large share of commercial spectrum for unlicensed use--particularly
in mid-band. The right strategy must properly balance government and
commercial needs and licensed and unlicensed use.
Shifting the Balance to Commercial Use. The Federal government has
long been the largest spectrum user in the U.S., and out of the 5,400
megahertz of mid-band spectrum between 3.0 GHz and 8.4 GHz, DoD alone
occupies a total of 3,600 megahertz--66.67 percent. Decisions that
resulted in this allocation were based on national priorities and the
state of radio technologies from 50 years ago. Our spectrum management
decisions must reflect the new reality of ever-growing demand for
commercial wireless services and significant technological advancements
across all radio services.
As I know all too well from my time at NTIA, Federal systems
sometimes rely on decades-old technologies that are not spectrally
efficient. Without reform and proper funding, these systems could
occupy essential spectrum resources inefficiently for years to come.
But if we get our policy decisions right, a shift toward commercial use
will allow these Federal users to deploy new and more spectrally
efficient technologies that can help them better achieve their
missions--a spectrum management ``win-win.'' There is certainly
precedent: the AWS-3 auction gave the U.S. the lead in making spectrum
available for 4G while simultaneously allowing DoD to upgrade legacy
radios, the Department of Energy to transition microwave systems to
more reliable fiber, and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to upgrade to Internet Protocol-based systems.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ DoD, Releasable Information, DOD/N 1755-1780 (Rev. 4)
(Sufficient), at 37 (Aug. 20, 2019), https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/
ntia/publications/releasable_dod_n_1755-1780_rev-
4_sufficient_11_13_2019.pdf; Dept. of Energy, Releasable Information,
DOE/BPA 1755-1780 (Rev. 1) (Sufficient), at 7 (Mar. 11, 2019), https://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/releasable_doe_bpa_1755-
1780_rev-1_sufficient_11_13_2019.pdf; HUD, Releasable Information, HUD/
HUD 1755-1780 (Rev. 2) (Sufficient), at 8 (Mar. 12, 2018), https://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/releasable_hud_hud_1755-
1780_rev-2_sufficient_10_26_2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three bands represent our next ``win-win'' opportunities:
The Lower 3 GHz Band. This Committee deserves great credit for
identifying the Lower 3 GHz band (3.1-3.55 GHz), currently used by DoD
to operate high-powered radar systems and by some non-federal secondary
users, as suitable for transition to commercial use. We also applaud
Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Schatz for introducing the
Supplementing the Pipeline for Efficient Control of The Resources for
Users Making New Opportunities for Wireless (SPECTRUM NOW) Act, which
will lead to the auction of the 3.45-3.55 GHz band for commercial use.
CTIA supports the FCC's plan to prepare the Lower 3 GHz band for
expanded commercial wireless use by removing existing non-federal
secondary allocations in 3.3-3.55 GHz and relocating incumbent non-
federal operations. NTIA's recent report sought to evaluate whether
commercial and government operators can share this band, but we urge
NTIA to examine the potential to clear--rather than share--as much of
this band as possible. The Lower 3 GHz band is the next major
opportunity to expand critical mid-band 5G capacity.
Internationally, our 5G competitors have already made an average of
nearly 200 megahertz available for commercial use between 3.3 and 3.6
GHz--compared to 0 megahertz in the U.S. (albeit with the 3.5 GHz
auction underway that includes 3.55-3.6 GHz).\11\ The 3.1-3.55 GHz band
is a crucial near-term opportunity for the U.S. to make licensed mid-
band spectrum available, and if the U.S. moves quickly, it has the
opportunity to be a key benchmark band for U.S. leadership. Unlocking
this band will also allow U.S. device and network equipment
manufacturers to build to globally harmonized international
specifications, creating economies of scale and driving down the cost
of wireless equipment and services for U.S. companies and consumers.
But there is much work to do, and time is not a luxury we have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Spectrum Comparison Report at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3 GHz and 1.7 GHz bands. Two low-band opportunities will be key
to meeting Congress's requirement in the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2015
that NTIA identify and reallocate at least 30 megahertz of spectrum
below 3 GHz for commercial use.\12\ The potential for repurposing
spectrum in the 1.3 GHz band is being studied by a pioneering cross-
agency program, and could provide up to 50 megahertz--while helping the
Federal Aviation Administration and other incumbent users modernize
legacy radar and related systems. Similarly, the 1.7 GHz band could
offer 50 megahertz directly adjacent to AWS-3 spectrum, presenting
great synergies with existing wireless offerings. We all need to stay
committed to these efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-74, Sec. 1004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balancing Licensed and Unlicensed Use. Sound policy also requires
us to balance the amount of commercial spectrum available between
licensed and unlicensed use, in the mid-band in particular. With the
FCC's recent decision \13\ to commit all 1200 megahertz of the 6 GHz
band to unlicensed use, there are now 1,860 megahertz of mid-band
spectrum available for unlicensed operations. By contrast, today's 3.5
GHz auction represents the very first opportunity for carriers to
access licensed mid-band spectrum--and it is only 70 megahertz. While
thanks to the leadership of the FCC, the C-band auction in December
will make another 280 megahertz available that will bring the total
amount of licensed mid-band spectrum to only 350 megahertz.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band; Expanding Flexible Use in
Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 GHz, Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 20-51 (rel. Apr. 24, 2020).
\14\ Mid-Band Global Update at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, five leading nations in the 5G race are each expected
to bring 660 megahertz of licensed mid-band spectrum to market by 2022.
That's nearly double the licensed U.S. spectrum. A total of 350
megahertz is simply not enough licensed spectrum to stay competitive,
especially in 5G. Access to more licensed mid-band spectrum is the key
to U.S. 5G leadership.
Opportunities to Improve U.S. Spectrum Management Policies
There are also real opportunities for the U.S. to improve its
spectrum management practices as we lean into 5G.
Repurposing Federal Spectrum. The U.S. has an ever-improving track
record when it comes to creating ``win-win'' outcomes through
repurposing Federal spectrum--in large part because of the leadership
of this Committee. In 2004, Congress passed the Commercial Spectrum
Enhancement Act (``CSEA''). The CSEA created the innovative Spectrum
Relocation Fund (``SRF''), which incented agencies to relocate by
providing certainty that they would receive sufficient funding to
maintain their Federal missions. The SRF funds Federal agency efforts
to identify spectrum available for commercial use, guarantees that they
will be reimbursed for their relocation costs and, critically, then
replenishes the monies with the auction revenue made possible by the
relocation. The SRF has already transferred nearly $4.6 billion to
Federal agencies to upgrade their systems--and there has been
remarkable progress.
The 2006 AWS-1 auction was the first time the U.S. government
applied the CSEA. That auction, and a follow-on auction in 2008,
generated a total of $13.7 billion in winning bids, at a Federal
relocation cost of $1.55 billion.\15\ I am no economist, but 775
percent is a pretty solid ROI, and doesn't even include the value of
the resulting new jobs and increased GDP. And it's worth noting that
the complexity of the process did not prevent its success; this
transition required the relocation of 1,990 NTIA-issued Federal
frequency assignments from 12 Federal agencies. These incumbents ranged
from fixed microwave systems used to transmit voice and data signals to
more specialized law enforcement video and surveillance systems and
mobile aeronautical systems.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Wilbur L. Ross and Douglas W. Kinkoph, U.S. Dept. of Commerce
and NTIA, CSEA Annual Progress Report for 2019, at I-1 (June 2020),
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/
ntia_2019_csea_report_june_2020.pdf (2019 CSEA Report).
\16\ Wilbur L. Ross and Diane Rinaldo, U.S. Dept. of Commerce and
NTIA, Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (CSEA) Annual Progress Report
for 2018, at I-1 (Oct. 2019), https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
publications/3397-ntia_2018_csea_report102819final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CSEA also played a key role in the highest grossing spectrum
auction in U.S. history, the AWS-3 auction in 2015. There, the FCC
auctioned two Federal spectrum bands that contained more than 200
systems or programs that qualified for CSEA transition funding, ranging
from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration microwave
operations to DoD air combat training.\17\ All told, the AWS-3 auction
brought in $41.3 billion, with total Federal relocation costs of $5.1
billion \18\--another ROI of more than 700 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id.
\18\ 2019 CSEA Report at II-1. The total estimated relocation and
sharing costs for the 1695-1710 MHz band were $527.1 million and the
total estimated relocation and sharing costs for the 1755-1780 MHz band
were $4.576 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing the Flexibility of the SRF. Policymakers should consider
upgrading the SRF to fund Federal incumbent efforts to enhance their
spectrum efficiency. Since 2010, U.S. wireless providers have increased
their spectral efficiency 42 times--a rate that Federal users cannot
match under the current regime.\19\ While Congress made targeted SRF
modifications in 2012, 2015, and 2017 to increase the program's
flexibility by allowing it to support critical research and
development, more needs to be done to incentivize Federal agencies to
more efficiently use scarce spectrum assets. We therefore again wish to
praise Chairman Wicker's and Ranking Member Schatz's efforts through
the SPECTRUM NOW Act, as well as the leadership exhibited by Senators
Moran and Udall on this important issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ CTIA, Smarter and More Efficient: How America's Wireless
Industry Maximizes Its Spectrum, (July 2019), https://www.ctia.org/
news/wireless-providers-increased-spectrum-efficiency-by-42-times-
since-2010-new-paper-shows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Transparency and Incentives. Unlike commercial uses, the
lost opportunity costs of underutilized Federal spectrum are rarely
transparent. We therefore applaud Senator Lee for introducing the
Government Spectrum Valuation Act, which would better equip this
Committee and the Administration to determine the market value of
spectrum and to ensure it is being put to its best and highest use. We
similarly wish to recognize Senator Markey's work to incentivize
agencies to move off spectrum that could otherwise be reallocated to
consumer uses. We hope these important legislative efforts move forward
this Congress.
Enhancing the Federal Spectrum Framework. We also strongly commend
Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell, along with Senate Armed
Services Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed, for their
collaboration on the Spectrum IT Modernization Act of 2020. We support
this legislation and its effort to make the management of Federal
spectrum more efficient. It often takes well over a decade for Federal
bands to be identified, reallocated, and deployed by commercial
wireless providers. This legislation will allow NTIA, through
modernization and forward-thinking planning, to be better-positioned to
unlock win-win opportunities more expeditiously. This is certainly a
tool I wish we had when I served at NTIA, and I hope this legislation
will pass swiftly.
Increasing Industry/Government Collaboration. The feasibility of
reallocating Federal spectrum must be based on the actual operating
characteristics of Federal systems--which of course requires the
exchange of information that is often deemed classified. Collaboration
and trust between government and industry can be challenging to achieve
but yields results that benefit Federal users, the wireless industry,
and consumers alike. For example, the successful AWS-3 information
sharing process was driven through a Federal advisory committee
structure. That process, in turn, was built on the foundation laid by
AWS-1.\20\ Enhanced ``Trusted Agent'' models could facilitate the
exchange of information between Federal agencies and industry to drive
identification and analysis of Federal spectrum uses, protect sensitive
government and commercial information, and serve as an impartial
clearinghouse for stakeholders to address issues, but create the
potential for delay. Policymakers must continue to explore ways to
streamline and expedite this process to drive more efficient spectrum
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Lawrence E. Strickling and Alexander MacGillivray, AWS-3
Auction Highlights New Approach to Spectrum Policy (Jan. 29, 2015),
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/01/29/aws-3-auction-
highlights-new-approach-spectrum-policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximizing Intergovernmental Cooperation. We are pleased that
Congress continues to recognize the respective allocation of
responsibilities between the FCC, NTIA, and Federal spectrum users.
Commercial spectrum has never been--and should not be--governed by DoD
if we want the technological advances and productivity gains that are
stimulated by private sector investment. Any consideration of spectrum
sharing policy decisions, technologies, or reports involving Federal
and non-federal spectrum should be led by the FCC and/or NTIA. But as a
veteran of both agencies, I know first-hand the challenges posed by the
interagency process and shared spectrum jurisdiction. There are very
few formal structures to guide the agencies; a fairly general 2003
Memorandum of Understanding between the FCC and NTIA is the primary
guidance document. But as this hearing makes clear, spectrum policy has
only become more important over the past two decades, and the existing
processes are no longer working as effectively. Stakeholders on all
sides agree that the process that preceded the auction of the 24 GHz
band--which didn't happen until five years after the FCC identified the
band as a candidate for 5G use, and over a year after the FCC put rules
in place--was not constructive. I applaud this Committee's commitment
to identifying the appropriate structures and processes for the race to
5G and beyond. Our common national interest in sound spectrum
management underscores the importance of coordinated spectrum policy
decision-making.
Creating a Spectrum Pipeline. This Committee has always been a
leader in spectrum policy and we encourage you once again to take up
that mantle with a spectrum pipeline bill that charts the course for
our country's 5G goals. Chairman Thune and then-Ranking Member Nelson
brought us the MOBILE NOW Act, and Sens. Gardner and Hassan followed up
with the introduction of the AIRWAVES Act. We are hopeful we can work
again with this Committee on the next generation of spectrum pipeline
legislation.
* * *
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. CTIA appreciates
this Committee's leadership in promoting 5G through sound spectrum
management processes and results. We look forward to continuing to work
with all of you to advance our ability to identify and reallocate
critical mid-band spectrum that will allow us to maintain our global
leadership.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Power. now recognize Mr. Mark
Gibson.
STATEMENT OF H. MARK GIBSON, DIRECTOR,
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND SPECTRUM
SHARING POLICY, COMMSCOPE, INC.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, Chairman Thune and Ranking Member
Schatz, and members of the Subcommittee, and thank you also for
the opportunity to testify on the state of U.S. spectrum policy
today. It is truly an honor and pleasure to be here. CommScope
is a leading U.S. developer and a manufacturer of wireless
network equipment. Our products and services provide the
critical building blocks that U.S. carriers and enterprises
need to deploy and operate their next generation wireless
networks.
Our customers range from small rural wireless carriers to
large global wireless Internet service providers, from local
telecom providers to Nationwide cable companies and many other
Americans in virtually every sector of the economy. Our
customers operate in every state of the United States and
lately we have also been working with nonprofit organizations
plus our partners and employees to provide much-needed
assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, by
equipping school buses with Wi-Fi and LTE backhaul and parking
them in neighborhoods were families lack Internet access.
I would also like to note as Mr. Power suggested and
identified that today is the beginning of the CBRS auction, the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service auction of priority access
licenses. This culminates more than 8 years of challenging yet
highly productive work among many stakeholders, including our
Federal partners at the FCC and NTIA. CBRS is an example of
what has worked well in U.S. spectrum policy, while also
highlighting some areas where we can improve upon spectrum
management processes and interactions among stakeholders both
within Government and industry. One mission of CommScope is to
help make spectrum available as fast as possible for the
broadest uses as possible. We strongly believe that U.S.
leadership and wireless technology relies on quick access to
spectrum. The U.S. has long been the world leader in wireless
technologies and innovative ways to maximize the use of a
spectrum allocation.
Some of the recent innovations around dynamic spectrum
sharing have been critical in introducing new wireless
services. However, 8 years to commercialize a band like CBRS is
simply too long. While we are improving on that timeline, there
is still much work to be done. To be sure, each spectrum
allocation proceeds at its own pace. For example, while access
to the 6 gigahertz spectrum appears to be progressing rather
quickly, the lower mid-band 3100 to 3550 megahertz spectrum
will likely take longer to be available for commercial use. We
need to shorten the spectrum availability pipeline.
One significant factor that contributes to the extended
length of many of these spectrum proceedings is the reality
that because we are a leader in wireless technologies, we have
allocated almost all of the low and mid-band frequencies.
Efforts to repurpose or share those bands for next generation
services inherently involve incumbent users and discussions on
the impacts to existing services. And many of these incumbents
are also Federal spectrum users.
CommScope supports a comprehensive long-term National
spectrum policy that addresses the Nation's anticipated needs
for new allocations of licensed and unlicensed frequencies. Our
spectrum policy should also incorporate newer, dynamically
coordinated sharing regimes where feasible, building upon the
innovative approaches in CBRS and 6 gigahertz. These newer
coordinated sharing regimes should accommodate a range of
access types including quasi-licensed and quasi-unlicensed. And
they are able to rebalance how bands are allocated over time in
response to demand. This provides a complement to their
traditional allocation types and offers regulators and
policymakers a new tool in their spectrum management toolkit.
Reallocation spectrum for clearing shared-use brings up the
issue of how to work with incumbents. Our experience indicates
that a good way to address incumbent issues is to establish a
framework for collaboration among stakeholders early in the
process. Examples of successful collaboration include AWS-3,
CBRS, and the ongoing collaborations in the 3.7 and 6 gigahertz
bands.
We must leverage and strengthen these collaborations among
all spectrum stakeholders in order to maintain and extend
America's leadership in wireless technologies and services.
NTIA and DOD have highlighted the critical role of industry in
areas of national interests such as 5G services for Federal
users and modernization of the spectrum management systems.
CommScope continues to engage in these activities along with
other critical public, private collaborations such as Federal
support of next-generation Open RAN architectures, which will
help accelerate America's 5G build out.
So again, Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Schatz, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you again for holding this
hearing and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibson follows:]
Prepared Statement of H. Mark Gibson, Director, Business Development
and Spectrum Sharing Policy, CommScope, Inc.
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Schatz, Chairman Wicker, Ranking
Member Cantwell and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on the state of U.S. Spectrum Policy; it
is truly an honor and pleasure to be here today.
The timing of this hearing is particularly significant as today is
also the beginning of the long-awaited Citizens Broadband Radio Service
(CBRS) auction of Priority Access Licenses (PALs). This culminates more
than eight years of challenging, yet highly-productive work among many
stakeholders including our Federal partners, the FCC and NTIA. I think
CBRS is an example of what has worked well in U.S. spectrum policy,
while also highlighting some areas where we can improve upon the
spectrum management processes and interactions among stakeholders
within both government and industry.
Spectrum is the lifeblood that our Nation needs in order to realize
the economic and social benefits of new technologies and myriad
resulting wireless services such as the mobile cellular networks, Land
Mobile Radio, broadcast, satellite, microwave, CBRS, Wi-Fi and millions
of innovative unlicensed devices, and many more.
The U.S. has long been the world leader in wireless technologies
and innovative ways to wring every hertz out of a spectrum allocation.
Some of the recent innovations around dynamic spectrum sharing have
been critical to introducing new wireless services. We will be building
on dynamic sharing as we investigate new spectrum opportunities.
We must also look for ways to use spectrum more efficiently and to
make spectrum available more quickly. Eight years to commercialize a
band like CBRS is too long. While we are improving on that timeline,
there is still work to be done. To be sure, each spectrum allocation
proceeding moves at its own pace. For example, while access to the 6
GHz spectrum appears to be progressing rather quickly at this time, the
lower mid-band (3100-3550 MHz) will likely take longer to be available
for commercial use. We must shorten the spectrum availability
pipeline--the period from when spectrum is identified to when it is put
into service.
One significant contributing factor to the extended length of many
of these spectrum proceedings is the simple reality that because we are
a leader in wireless technologies (for both commercial and government
uses), we have allocated virtually all of the low and mid-band
frequencies. Efforts to repurpose or share those bands for next-
generation services inherently involve incumbent users and discussions
on the impacts to existing services. Many of these incumbents are
Federal spectrum users.
CommScope supports a comprehensive, long-term national spectrum
policy that addresses the Nation's anticipated needs for new
allocations of licensed and unlicensed frequencies, the time-tested
allocation types upon which we have established our existing wireless
leadership. In addition, our spectrum policy should incorporate newer,
dynamically-coordinated sharing regimes, building upon the innovative
approaches in CBRS and 6 GHz. These newer coordinated sharing regimes
should accommodate a range of access types, including ``quasi-
licensed'' and ``quasi-unlicensed,'' and are able to rebalance how
bands are allocated over time in response to demand, thus providing a
complement to the traditional allocations and offering regulators and
policymakers a new tool in their spectrum management toolkit.
Reallocating spectrum for clearing or shared use brings up the
issue of how to address incumbents. Our experience is that one of the
best ways to address incumbent issues is to establish a framework for
collaboration among stakeholders early in the process. Examples of such
successful collaboration include AWS-3, CBRS, and the recent and
ongoing collaborations in the 3.7 GHz and 6 GHz bands.
As a nation we must leverage and strengthen these collaborations
among all spectrum stakeholders in order to maintain and extend
America's leadership in wireless technologies and services. NTIA and
DoD have highlighted the critical role of industry in areas of national
interest such as 5G services for Federal users and spectrum management
systems modernization. CommScope continues to engage in these
activities, along with other critical public/private collaborations
such as Federal support for next generation Open RAN architectures
which will help accelerate America's 5G buildout.
Finally, some of the work of the Commerce Spectrum Management
Advisory Committee (CSMAC) at NTIA is worth considering. One of their
working groups will be suggesting an implementation structure and
governance model in consideration of the pending National Spectrum
Strategy.
Overview of CommScope
CommScope is a leading U.S. developer and manufacturer of wireless
network equipment. Our portfolio of products includes the critical
building blocks that U.S. carriers and enterprises need to deploy and
operationalize their next generation wireless networks--for each and
every part of those networks, including fiber infrastructure and
backhaul, macro cellular sites, outdoor small cells, in-building and
venue wireless (Wi-Fi and cellular), and spectrum management solutions.
More broadly, our company is also a key provider of broadband
solutions, ranging from innovative technologies which increase the
speed and expand the deployment of broadband networks to the customer
equipment needed to access these broadband services. Our customers
range from small rural wireless Internet service providers to large
global wireless operators; from local telecom providers to nationwide
cable operators and American companies in virtually every sector of the
economy. CommScope's customers operate in every state of the U.S.
CommScope has been, and continues to be, an active and leading
participant in numerous spectrum-related proceedings. We are active in
nearly 100 Standards Development Organizations, including 3GPP and
IEEE. CommScope was a founding member of the CBRS Alliance and fills
its Presidency. We also serve on the Board of the Wireless Innovation
Forum. CommScope was one of the first authorized CBRS Spectrum Access
System (SAS) operators and has been a TV White Space database
administrator. CommScope also has over 40 years of spectrum management
experience and expertise.
One mission of CommScope is to help make spectrum available for the
broadest uses and applications as fast as possible. Our leadership in
wireless and spectrum issues has been key in bringing new spectrum
bands online for 5G, including:
Licensed, unlicensed, and shared spectrum solutions and
services across the low/mid/high bands,
Dynamic spectrum sharing (TVWS, CBRS, 6 GHz AFC); both on
the RAN and spectrum management systems and supporting
services. For instance, CommScope is an FCC-designated SAS/ESC
administrator,
FCC-designated frequency administration for services such as
the 70/80/90 GHz service and Wireless Medical Telemetry
Service,\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CommScope is the technical partner to the American Society for
Healthcare Engineering of the American Hospital Association who are the
FCC-designated frequency coordinator for the WMTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open RAN development, standardization, and advocacy,
Close collaboration with various Federal agencies, including
the FCC, NTIA, DoD, FAA, DoE, etc. on spectrum initiatives such
as AWS-3, CBRS, 3.1-3.55 GHz, 7-8 GHz, 70/80/90 GHz, etc.
CommScope is also a charter member of the National Spectrum
Consortium.
In particular, CommScope is a demonstrated leader in Open RAN
initiatives. CommScope has contributed to standardization efforts by
the O-RAN Alliance, a consortium of mobile network operators and vendor
companies, since it was founded in February 2019 and has actively
participated in Open RAN demonstrations with other O-RAN Alliance
members. In addition, CommScope is a founding member of the Open RAN
Policy Coalition, which promotes policies that will advance Open RAN
solutions.
U.S. Leadership in Wireless Technology Relies on Quick Access to
Spectrum
In a 2015 report,\2\ CTIA indicated that it takes about 13 years to
make spectrum available to consumers. We are improving on that timeline
thanks in part to your leadership on advancing legislation such as the
MOBILE NOW Act. However, we still have much to do. It has taken eight
years to commercialize CBRS. And while 6 GHz spectrum may come online
in record time, the lower mid-band (3100-3550 MHz) will likely take
many years to be realized for commercial use. The C-Band will have
taken over six years from the time of the FCC's initial Mid-Band NOI to
the time when nationwide wireless services can be deployed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://api.ctia.org/docs/default-source/default-document-
library/072015-spectrum-timelines-white-paper.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CommScope commends Chairman Pai and the FCC for their actions under
the 5G FAST Plan to identify and accelerate new allocations of
licensed, unlicensed, and shared spectrum in the low, mid, and high
bands. Collectively, we must seek ways to decrease the time from
pipeline identification to commercial use.
We are encouraged by the Committee's leadership in the bipartisan
approval of S. 3717, the Spectrum IT Modernization Act, in the Fiscal
Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As the Nation's
demands for spectrum continue to increase rapidly and we seek
efficiencies in Federal and commercial spectrum utilization, it is
critical that the spectrum management technologies, tools, and
infrastructures of NTIA be improved and modernized. Industry relies
heavily on NTIA to perform complex engineering analyses of spectrum
usage, spectrum-sharing feasibility and signal coverage. NTIA was
invaluable in providing engineering support for AWS-3 and CBRS. We
expect that modernizing and improving the capabilities of NTIA and
other Federal agencies will improve spectrum utilization efficiencies
for all U.S. spectrum users.
The U.S. needs to expedite ongoing research, development, testing,
and evaluation to develop advanced technologies, innovative spectrum-
utilization methods, and spectrum-sharing tools and techniques that
increase spectrum access, efficiency, and effectiveness.
A comprehensive, long-term national spectrum policy should
incorporate traditionally licensed and unlicensed approaches.
We have interests, business, and customers in practically every
corner of the spectrum-scape. From traditional and non-traditional
wireless operators who use spectrum across the low, mid, and high band
ranges to provide 5G services; to enterprises and customers who rely on
Wi-Fi devices; to rural wireless Internet service providers who are
providing critical communications to rural Americans during COVID; to
utilities managing the Nation's energy supply, we are acutely aware of
the need to have flexible approaches to spectrum allocation and
assignment.
The MOBILE NOW Act is a great example of this flexibility. Calling
for 500 MHz of spectrum to be allocated to several uses including
spectrum below 6 GHz for mobile and fixed wireless broadband use and
spectrum for commercial mobile and unlicensed use, there is something
for everyone.
Similarly, the FCC's ``Mid-band Notice of Inquiry'' resulted in
rulemakings that will repurpose 1480 MHz for licensed and unlicensed
use in the 4 GHz and 6 GHz bands. This will have profound effects on
new technologies and capabilities to support America's increasing need
for broadband.
We need to work together to create flexible models for spectrum
management, including standards, incentives, and enforcement mechanisms
that promote efficient and effective spectrum use, including flexible-
use spectrum allocations or licenses, while accounting for critical
safety and security concerns.
Spectrum policy should consider and promote spectrum-sharing
approaches where appropriate.
Virtually all the spectrum in the low, mid, and high bands has some
degree of incumbent use. For example, according to the NTIA, the 3100-
3550 MHz bands contain over 330 frequency assignments.\3\ In the CBRS
band, there are over 7800 grandfathered sites licensed for use by
wireless Internet service providers and utilities, there are over 90
fixed satellite earth station sites plus an unknown number of DoD radar
locations.\4\ According to the FCC, the 6 GHz bands (5925-7125 MHz)
contain almost 47,700 assignments.\5\ In the C-Band, there are 66
satellites and over 18,000 earth stations.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NTIA Spectrum Compendium data provided in the following
segments: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/compendium/
3100.00-3300.00_01DEC15.pdf, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
publications/compendium/3300.00-3500.00_01DEC15.pdf, and https://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/compendium/3500.00-
3650.00_01DEC15.pdf.
\4\ FCC Public Access to 3650 grandfathered wireless protection
zone filings: https://opendata.fcc.gov/Wireless/ULS-3650-Locations-
Default-View/dpvg-tvcx/data FCC Public access to protected FSS Earth
Station Registrations: https://opendata.fcc.gov/Wireless/Protected-FSS-
Earth-Station-Registration-Complete-/acbv-jbb4/data;
\5\ FCC 6GHz Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 18-147, ET 18-295.
\6\ FCC C-Band Report & Order, FCC 20-22, GN 18-122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relocation is often not feasible or takes a long time and ends up
delaying the introduction of new wireless services. The recent NTIA
analyses on the feasibility of commercial wireless sharing with Federal
systems in 3100-3550 MHz bands were generally predicated on the
assumption that there would be no changes to incumbent operations.\7\
In the 6 GHz bands, relocation was not considered.\8\ And in the C-
Band, accelerated relocation will take almost four years to clear the
band for mobile use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Technical Feasibility of Sharing Federal Spectrum with Future
Commercial Operations in the 3450-3550 MHz Band'', NTIA Technical
Report 20-546, January 2020. ``Feasibility of Commercial Wireless
Services Sharing with Federal Operations in the 3100-3550 MHz Band'',
July 2020.
\8\ 6 GHz R&O at para 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharing generally obviates relocation or can be used where
relocation is not feasible. Sharing systems can be brought online
before incumbent operations can be relocated. In cases where the
incumbent situation is not complex, good, old-fashioned frequency
coordination is a proven sharing solution.
There are several new and existing spectrum-sharing technologies
that should be recalled when identifying bands to repurpose or open to
shared use. The CBRS SAS and new 6 GHz AFC are examples of spectrum-
sharing systems that will allow for deployment and operation of new
devices and services without having to relocate incumbent operations.
Spectrum policy must balance the costs, complexities and time
frames for making spectrum available on a shared or exclusive basis. We
note that sharing is not applicable in all cases and we absolutely
support exclusive licensing.
Establish frameworks for collaboration and cooperation among
stakeholders
The concept of sharing spectrum sets up a potentially adversarial
relationship between incumbents and new entrants. Incumbents might be
hesitant to work with new entrants on establishing sharing frameworks
particularly at the end of lengthy, complex, and possibly contentious
rulemakings. We have found that intentionally establishing a
collaborative framework for cooperation among all stakeholders has been
quite successful in arriving at mutually-agreeable solutions.
In 2012, NTIA used the CSMAC process to establish a collaboration
framework between commercial interests and Federal spectrum users in
the AWS-3 bands (1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1850 MHz). The plan was to
create working groups that would consider ways to facilitate the
implementation of commercial wireless broadband into erstwhile Federal
bands. The working groups produced recommendations to the CSMAC
concerning approaches to sharing, transition, and/or relocation of the
band that determined the steps that were ultimately taken and any
factors that could reduce the projected costs, or limitations or
restrictions on spectrum availability. These recommendations also
helped to inform the FCC's AWS-3 rulemaking. This AWS-3 collaboration
under CSMAC proved to be very successful in helping to craft rules with
a clearer mutual understanding of how commercial mobile systems can
coexist with a host of Federal and DoD systems.
Another direct benefit of this collaboration was the establishment
of key relationships with Federal spectrum management and policy
leaders and counterparts. Working with key individuals such as Mr. Fred
Moorefield, Deputy Chief Information Officer for Command, Control,
Communications and Computers and Information Infrastructure
Capabilities, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Chief Information
Officer and Mr. Tom Taylor, Deputy Director, EMS Operations at DoD CIO,
and many others, we were able to identify and creatively resolve issues
in close collaboration with individuals empowered to find solutions.
Industry collaboration on CBRS among all stakeholders helped
identify and address issues relatively quickly. These engagements build
upon the AWS-3 collaboration to the extent that there was good
familiarity among stakeholders, there was mutual understanding of
issues and how to collectively address them, and general willingness to
work through issues together. Again, the relationships we had
previously established with Mr. Moorefield, Mr. Taylor, and others were
critical in working through many challenging issues. The FCC concluded
in a November 2018 report to Congress on the status of CBRS that,
``[c]ollaboration among all of the stakeholders is excellent.'' \9\
CommScope agrees with that assessment and has seen that excellent
collaboration continue to this day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Federal Communications Commission, Report to Congress Pursuant
to Section 1008 of the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2015, As Amended by the
Ray Baum's Act of 2018, November 2, 2018 at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCC-endorsed multi-stakeholder group (MSG) collaboration on C-Band
and 6 GHz is relatively new, yet shows promise as a framework to
coordinate technical discussions among industry stakeholders to achieve
mutually-agreeable solutions to several difficult technical questions.
For the C-Band, there are currently four technical working groups
comprised of some of the industry's best technical experts who are
addressing potential in-band and adjacent-band coexistence and sharing
issues. For the 6 GHz band, the FCC encouraged the formation of an MSG
to study and make recommendations on how to operationalize the AFC and
address interference issues.
In order to achieve the spectral efficiency and time to market
benefits of shared-spectrum regimes and repurposing efforts,
collaboration among all stakeholders is required.
Consider CSMAC's recommendations, primarily on the National Spectrum
Strategy, when examining the respective roles of the FCC and
NTIA in spectrum management and policymaking
CSMAC has been organized since 2004 under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. CSMAC advises the Assistant Secretary for Communications
and Information at NTIA on a broad range of spectrum policy issues.
CSMAC typically functions through working groups who deliberate on
specific tasks or questions provided by the NTIA and makes
recommendations to the Assistant Secretary. CSMAC members are spectrum
policy experts from outside the Federal government. Committee members
offer expertise and perspective on reforms to enable new technologies
and services, including reforms that expedite the American public's
access to broadband services, public safety, and long-range spectrum
planning. Members are selected based on their technical background and
expertise. The current CSMAC charter was renewed in October 2019 and
expires in September 2021.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/
csmac_charter_10.1.19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2019, the Assistant Secretary provided CSMAC with the
following question that is directly related to U.S. spectrum policy:
What should be the United States implementation structure or
governance model for the National Spectrum Strategy (NSpcS)?
Consider whether the U.S. spectrum management approach is
optimized for the implementation of a 21st century national
spectrum strategy, and if not, whether there is value in
establishing a new approach or structure to accomplish this. If
there is value in a new approach or structure, what are its
characteristics? \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/
spectrum_strategy_governance_briefing
_012820.pdf.
This working group has been deliberating on this question since
October 2019. In January 2020, the working group provided a public
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
update on their deliberations:
There is general agreement among the working group that our
country's current approach for managing the use of spectrum is
no longer effectively serving the needs of the entire
stakeholder community and would benefit from reform. Moreover,
with the increased use of spectrum by all stakeholders, we
agree that issues around spectrum sharing and band adjacencies
will need to be handled with both speed and skill to ensure
that the U.S. is making the most of its critical national
resources.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/
csmac_sc1_presentation_april_22
_2020.pdf.
The deliberations of the working group are ongoing and not yet
public. However, the working group is planning to provide a full report
on their findings to the Assistant Secretary in the coming months.
Open RAN also will play a significant role in accelerating the rollout
of 5G in the U.S. by enabling 5G equipment interoperability.
In contrast to the existing ``closed'' systems where networks are
locked to a single vendor, Open RAN (O-RAN) architectures are a new
model where cellular radio networks are comprised of hardware and
software components from multiple vendors operating over ``open and
interoperable'' network interfaces. Although CommScope and other
industry stakeholders are making significant strides towards O-RAN
solutions for 5G wireless networks, ongoing standardization and
implementation research and development must still be done. Given the
critical role Open RAN can play in advancing 5G, government/industry
collaboration, including Federal funding, is needed to ensure American
leadership in O-RAN research and development efforts.
Summary
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee and thank you for your leadership in driving discussion on
U.S. spectrum policy.
U.S. spectrum policy is at the nexus of increased demand for
spectrum; advanced methods and tools for extracting the maximum use,
efficiency, and value of spectrum and a blurring of the lines between
spectrum allocations. Indeed, this is perhaps one of the most
transitional times in the history of spectrum management.
I think we all have a role in:
Assuring quick access to spectrum,
Incorporation of licensed and unlicensed approaches to
spectrum allocation,
Use of spectrum-sharing approaches where appropriate,
Ensuring collaboration and cooperation among stakeholders,
Supporting NTIA's recommendations on the National Spectrum
Strategy, and
Support of Open RAN in the rollout of 5G.
We look forward to working together to advance U.S. spectrum
policy.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Gibson. Next up is Dr.
Layton. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF ROSLYN LAYTON, Ph.D., VISITING RESEARCHER, AALBORG
UNIVERSITY
Ms. Layton. Thank you for this honor and privilege to
testify on the state of U.S. spectrum policy. The Commerce
committee has driven reforms to liberalize commercial spectrum
allocations at the FCC. These practices have become models for
countries around the world. Reforms include flexible use,
competitive bidding, spectrum repackaging, and dynamic sharing.
Without these reforms, our trillion-dollar wireless economy and
the millions of jobs it powers would not be possible. As this
committee has improved outcomes for commercial spectrum the
same can likely be done for the Government. Today, Federal
spectrum is managed by NTIA and IRAC, the latter founded in
1922. The management of Federal spectrum is essentially
unchanged for 98 years and it is time to review it. In the
1920s, free market common law property rights were alive and
well for radio spectrum.
The purpose of the 1927 Radio Act was to end free
enterprise and enshrine bureaucratic control of the airwaves.
The practical effect was to make spectrum allocation a
political decision and to reward favored constituents. By the
time Nobel Prize economist Ronald Coase wrote his seminal
articles on the FCC and IRAC, the U.S. had some 40 years of
administrative allocation. Coase laid the theoretical
foundation for the market-based spectrum management we know
today. He described how the prevailing central planning of
spectrum was wasteful and costly. He debunked the premise that
Government is needed to limit interference when the same
function can be done more effectively through pricing.
Coase's proposals were mocked in his day but experience has
proven him right. The FCC has helped some 100 spectrum auctions
and raised over $100 billion for the treasury. There are
millions of spectrum licenses today, tens of thousands of
licensees, and an ever-increasing number of uses and there is a
robust secondary market. However, this optimization only occurs
on one-third of the relevant spectrum. The rights to the other
two thirds are held by the Government and this spectrum has a
limited set of uses and users.
Spectrum is no different than any other resource. It is
subject to supply and demand, it can be packaged and priced
like any other good or service, and moreover, there is no
reason why Federal agencies which purchase their inputs from
the market should not pay for their use of spectrum. The first
best realization of Coase's recommendation is to liberalize the
underlying resource, privatize the spectrum itself. This would
entail sunsetting administrative allocation. Privatizing
Federal spectrum would be worth at least half a trillion
dollars, maybe more to the U.S. Treasury. Like the incentive
auction, proceeds from the sale of Federal spectrum could be
returned to the agencies to help them fund their equipment
upgrades.
Today we will hear about a lot of ongoing spectrum
conflicts within and between industries and Federal agencies.
This will likely continue. Even though we have liberalized
allocation within certain spectrum bands, the overall
designation of these bands is still a bureaucratic decision.
Second best would be the introduction of a pricing system for
Federal spectrum. This can be done without dismantling the
regulatory authorities. For example, FCC licenses commercial
spectrum. NTIA could do this for Federal spectrum.
Now while pricing is ideal, it may not be politically
tenable at this time, but there are ways to bring greater
discipline and accountability. Chairman Wicker and Senators
Schatz, Moran, and Udall have this in mind with the SPECTRUM
NOW Act. This bill addresses the critical lack of mid-band
spectrum for 5G with the feasibility study of Federal
efficiency relocation and sharing with commercial users.
Chairman Wicker's hearing on broadband during the pandemic
highlighted that networks performed admirably under the crisis,
but these networks are needed even more. 100 million school
children face the prospect of distance learning this fall and
yet policy struggles to allow the purchase of mid-band spectrum
rights to serve these children with 5G, the quickest and most
cost effective way to bring connectivity to all, particularly
rural areas. It is a valid policy question whether the Federal
Government requires 2500 megahertz or 3600 megahertz of
beachfront spectrum for radar navigation when we have critical
civilian needs at stake.
The record shows that, when under crisis, the military has
adjusted its uses to accommodate other uses. In any event,
Federal agencies have been reluctant to share much less
relinquish their little use frequencies. They have resisted
Congress's reasonable request for transparency. Maybe market
actors will have more success. Seven firms have signed up as
spectrum access system administrators for the 3.5 proceedings.
One or more of these firms should make a public dashboard so
that we can see for ourselves how little Federal spectrum is
used.
The Federal agencies could be graded on their spectrum
efficiency and these report cards should be part of the
Appropriations and agency authorization process. And further,
this can be helped by the Spectrum Modernization Act sponsored
by Chairman Wicker and Senators Cantwell, Inhofe, and Reed.
This bill allows for the modernizing of IT infrastructure for
Federal spectrum. Thank you, Commerce Committee, for your
leadership on this issue. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Layton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roslyn Layton, Ph.D., Visiting Researcher,
Aalborg University
Thank you, Senator Thune, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the
committee. It is an honor and a privilege to testify on the State of
U.S. Spectrum Policy. This issue which is arguably the most important
in telecom policy. I hope to highlight some key findings from the
academic field of spectrum management and policy and preliminary policy
recommendations maximize the outcomes for the American people. I am an
American and have enjoyed affiliation with Denmark's Aalborg University
since 2012 where I earned my PhD and continue my research.\1\ Our
university hosts doctoral students from around the world who wish to
make multidisciplinary and international comparisons of telecom policy.
Our university is ranked by U.S. News and World Report as 4th in the
world for its overall engineering program and 2nd for Electrical and
Electronic Engineering.\2\ In addition to my department of
Communication, Media and Information Technologies, our research and
educational domains include Antennas, Propagation and Millimeter-wave
Systems; Automation and Control; Connectivity: Wireless Communication
Networks; and Signal and Information Processing. We use ``problem-based
learning'' to examine, teach, and learn about complex, real world
problems. Spectrum management is a textbook example of a complex real-
world problem for both for the engineering and political requirements.
My comments reflect my own views.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Profile for Roslyn Mae Layton,'' Aalborg University's
Research Portal, accessed July 17, 2020, https://vbn.aau.dk/en/persons/
roslyn-mae-layton
\2\ ``Top Electrical and Electronic Engineering Schools in the
World--US News Education,'' accessed July 17, 2020, https://
www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/electrical-
electronic-engineering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aalborg University has been strengthened with public-private
partnerships for innovation and the frameworks of the country's
industrial PhD program, soon celebrating its 50th year. My
participation has been enabled by Strand Consult where I serve as
Senior Vice President. Strand Consult is an independent company
developing strategic research on critical topics in mobile
telecommunications. Its most recent report details the percentage of
Huawei and ZTE equipment in 103 European mobile operators' 4G
networks.\3\ This report is used by European governments to identify
problem areas for rip and replace efforts. Strand Consult founded China
Tech Threat to bring attention the larger issue of technological
threats from firms owned and affiliated with the Chinese government.\4\
While it is not the precise theme of this hearing, spectrum management
has geopolitical implications. Not only does China influence global
organizations where spectrum decisions are much such at the
International Telecommunication Union and various technical standards
organizations, it commands and controls its spectrum policy in a way to
align military and industrial interests to promote its national
champions in space/satellite technologies, network equipment, wireless
devices, software platforms, and emerging technologies such as smart
cities solutions, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing.
Sometimes U.S. policy appears to pit Federal and commercial interests
against each other, rather than adopt the market-based approach which
will put the U.S. on the best technological footing to challenge China
both economically and militarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Understanding the Market for 4G RAN in Europe: Share of
Chinese and Non-Chinese Vendors in 102 Mobile Networks.'' Strand
Consult. July 2020 http://www.strandreports.com/sw8772.asp
\4\ ''Our Mission.'' https://chinatechthreat.com/about-us/#Our-
Mission Accessed July 21, 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gap between the U.S. and China on mid-band spectrum has been
noted. Mid-band frequencies, also called the Goldilocks band, are
prized for their technological capabilities to send large amount of
data over long distances. China and even Canada are on track to have
some 500 MHz of mid-band spectrum deployed (and Japan with 1000 MHz),
whereas the U.S. has a scant 350 MHz. As such, S. 1986, SPECTRUM NOW
Act sponsored by Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Schatz, and Senators
Moran and Udall has critical importance. Using the Spectrum Relocation
Fund, this bill would support Federal entities operating on mid-band
spectrum to study the feasibility of increasing spectrum efficiency and
relocating federally held spectrum or sharing it with commercial users
to facilitate the deployment of 5G.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Supplementing the Pipeline for Efficient Control of The
Resources for Users Making New Opportunities for Wireless Act.'' S.
1986, SPECTRUM NOW Act, 116th Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/
116th-congress/senate-bill/1968/text
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To put the numbers into perspective, consider that the Federal
government sits on 70 percent of the so-called spectrum ``beachfront'',
some 2500 MHz, used primarily for radar and radio navigation. The
government's holdings amount to more than four times what America's
five major wireless carriers (T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Dish, and U.S.
Cellular) have in mid-band frequencies for 5G. The U.S. is in an
existential battle with China for 5G, and it trying to do it on scraps
of mid-band spectrum.
5G is the quickest way to equalize the digital divide between urban
and rural America, providing the same, if not, superior connectivity
than wireline fiber networks. While there is a promise of some more
mid-band spectrum in the future, the allocation process for these
frequencies, which by rights should be have been a quick, speedy
private transaction, was seized by political actors protecting
incumbent firms.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``A Government 5G Coup.'' Wall Street Journal. Editorial Board.
November 19, 2019. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-government-5g-coup-
11574208133
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any event, if there was a market-based process to allocate
Federal spectrum, there would be no need to quibble about the 3.7 to
4.2 MHz, as private actors would have the opportunity to buy, sell,
lease, trade, or share the most valuable swath of the airwaves. Simply
put, the Federal spectrum holders are insulated to the pain caused by
the spectrum imbalance. Policymakers have made a choice to prioritize
certain Federal (notably military) applications above civilian wants
and needs. This is not to say military applications are unimportant,
but it is a valid policy research question of whether all 2500 MHz is
best deployed for radar and radio navigation when some measure of this
spectrum could enable over 100 million school children to participate
in distance learning during the pandemic.
While no country's spectrum policy is perfect, the U.S. has driven
important successes over the last century. This Committee has been the
driving force behind the FCC reforms to liberalize the allocation of
commercial spectrum, which has become a model for telecom regulators
around the world. Reforms include a liberalized allocation process for
commercial spectrum, flexible use, competitive bidding to make rights
assignments more efficient, and tools and processes to make spectrum
use more efficient whether repacking spectrum (a result of the
broadcast incentive auction, for example) or dynamic sharing such as in
the 3.5 GHz Citizens Broadband Radio Service proceeding. As a result of
these and other efforts, the FCC has improved the access, availability,
and efficiency of commercial spectrum, without which our wireless
economy would not be possible. Over 90 commercial spectrum auctions in
the U.S. have delivered over $116 billion to the U.S. Treasury.\7\
Wireless spectrum enables the trillion-dollar wireless economy. We now
accept the premise that spectrum is a finite resource for which prices
and markets can improve their allocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``REMARKS OF FCC CHAIRMAN AJIT PAI AT THE INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION FOUNDATION.'' February 6, 2020 https://
docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-362334A1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If such reforms have improved the outcomes for commercial spectrum,
it stands to reason that similar improvements could be driven for
Federal spectrum. At the very least this would include improving access
and availability for Federal users, but more largely, better outcomes
for the American people. Presently Federal spectrum is managed the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and
more specifically, the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC),
which was founded in 1922. While commercial spectrum allocation has
been reformed, the management of Federal spectrum is essentially
unchanged for almost 100 years. It is timely and appropriate to review
it.
Leading telecom economist and former FCC chief economist Thomas
Hazlett observes, ``The FCC had no idea that mobile would become a mass
market (not a luxury niche), that handsets would become pocket (not
car) phones, that texting and data (not just voice) would become
standard, or that digital was superior to the analog standard it
mandated. And that was after vast input from scientists, management
consultants, broadcasters, Motorola, and AT&T.'' \8\ Spectrum markets
had to be liberalized before innovation and adoption took hold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Commentary: The Best Way for the FCC to Enable a 5G Future,''
Reuters, January 17, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hazlett-
5g-commentary-idUSKBN1F6253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To facilitate the buying, selling, and leasing of spectrum, the FCC
operates a Universal Licensing System (ULS). Indicative of the demand
for spectrum, has been the increased use of the system. The FCC reports
some remarkable statistics from the ULS platform, for example the
thousands of licenses holders (including individuals), the many uses of
spectrum, and the number of licenses issued annually (more than 150,000
per year for almost a decade).\9\ The FCC has responded to exploding
demand for commercial spectrum by modernizing the ULS over a multi-year
upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``FCC Licenses at a Glance.'' Accessed July 21, 2020. http://
reboot.fcc.gov/license-view/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, this Committee has already taken important steps to bring
the IT system for America's Federal users spectrum up to speed. While
some have observed that having a single system for both Federal and
commercial spectrum, there are some important differences in the law
and policy which creates some challenges to run an integrated system.
For example, some Federal uses may be classified for national security
reasons and there are not suitable for commercial viewing. On the other
hand, there are additional levels of data (e.g., precise location of
infrastructure towers), which are collected for the Federal system but
are not collected for commercial spectrum (perhaps for competitive
reasons).
In any event, there need not be a single system but make a systemic
improvement in spectrum management. Indeed, there is much that Federal
users can learn from the FCC's ULS system. I applaud Chairman Wicker
and Senators Cantwell, Inhofe, and Reed for introducing S. 3717, the
Spectrum IT Modernization Act which requires NTIA and other Federal
agencies to outline a plan for modernizing the information technology
infrastructure used for the management of Federal spectrum, to define
the parameters of interoperability, and for the Department of Defense
to report on their challenges of management and utilization.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ S. 3717, the Spectrum IT Modernization Act. 116th Congress.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3717/text
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the Federal Radio Act, it took U.S. policymakers 67 years
to try a market-based spectrum allocation for commercial spectrum, but
now it's considered a standard.\11\ We should be rushing to bring these
benefits of market based allocation to Federal spectrum holdings. But
old habits, or incumbent interests as it were, die hard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Coase, R. H. ``Comment on Thomas W. Hazlett: Assigning
Property Rights to Radio Spectrum Users: Why Did FCC License Auctions
Take 67 Years?'' The Journal of Law & Economics, vol. 41, no. S2, 1998,
pp. 577-580. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/467403. Accessed 16
July 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Coase laid the theoretical foundations for market-based
regimes and challenged the prevailing regulatory wisdom of
administrative allocation of radio frequencies. His 1959 Federal
Communications Commission \12\ exposed the fallacy of administrative
allocation which justified restricting spectrum use to limit
interference. Coase showed that same function can be performed more
efficiently through a ``price system.'' In his day, Coase's proposals
were mocked by policymakers. The first auction for spectrum rights was
delayed until 1994.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Coase, R. H. ``The Federal Communications Commission.'' The
Journal of Law & Economics, vol. 2, 1959, pp. 1-40. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/724927. Accessed 9 July 2020.
\13\ Coase, R. H. ``Comment on Thomas W. Hazlett: Assigning
Property Rights to Radio Spectrum Users: Why Did FCC License Auctions
Take 67 Years?'' The Journal of Law & Economics, vol. 41, no. S2, 1998,
pp. 577-580. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/467403. Accessed 16
July 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, however, spectrum auctions are practiced around the world
and are considered de riguer for telecom regulators and spectrum
authorities. Coase is not alive today, but his Nobel prize and the
legacy of his work (including the fact that he remains among the most
cited Nobel prize winners, in law, and in economics \14\) attest that
he was correct on pricing and radio spectrum. Hazlett, Porter and Smith
argue that Coase's work on radio spectrum is on par of that of Adam
Smith's Wealth of Nations for its bringing ``disruptive clarities to
system dynamics.'' \15\ They note that Coase dispensed with Pigou's
notions of externality and spillover, showing that central planning was
not costless. Moreover, Coase demonstrated the destructive fallacy of
assigning rights by government fiat, noting that how the airwaves were
used and who used them were not one in the same.\16\ The existence of
secondary markets prove that the creation of rights and its assignment
are separable.\17\ An additional irony and inequality is that the
Federal government is primary holder of spectrum rights, but is not the
primary user. This suggests that additional optimization is possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Landes, William M., and Sonia Lahr-Pastor. ``Measuring Coase's
Influence.'' The Journal of Law & Economics, vol. 54, no. 4, 2011, pp.
S383-S401. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/666478. Accessed 21 July
2020.
\15\ Thomas Hazlett, David Porter, and Vernon Smith, ``Radio
Spectrum and the Disruptive Clarity of Ronald Coase,'' Journal of Law
and Economics 54 (November 1, 2011), https://doi.org/10.1086/662992.
\16\ Ibid
\17\ Ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coase discussed the IRAC at length in his 1962 article.\18\ This
testimony highlights some of his observations which are still highly
relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Coase, R. H. ``The Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee.''
The Journal of Law & Economics, vol. 5, 1962, pp. 17-47. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/725004. Accessed 16 July 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``First Best'' realization of Coase's recommendation is to
liberalize the underlying resource--privatizing the spectrum itself--
not just the use and licensing regime. This would entail sunsetting
administrative allocation, also called command and control. A 1996
policy proposal suggested that the sale of Federal spectrum holdings
could generate as much as $300 billion (almost half a trillion in
today's dollars) to pay down the national debt and transition the
administrative allocation regime to privatization within a decade.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ David Colton. ``Spectrum Privatization: Removing the Barriers
to Telecommunications Competition.'' Reason Foundation, July 1, 1996.
https://reason.org/policy-study/spectrum-privatization/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, a common law property rights regime for spectrum had
already emerged before the Federal Radio Act of 1927. I review this
briefly, but as it is outside today's scope, I will describe ``Second
Best'' options, notably spectrum fees. I provide additional suggestions
for transparency, accountability, and IRAC reforms.
In recent years Congress has had success to reform Executive Branch
agencies, most recently with the Foreign Investment Risk Review
Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA) for the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the US. (CFIUS). This reform was achieved within a single
session of Congress and was overwhelmingly bipartisan. It represents
one of the most significant Congressional efforts to improve national
security by requiring that CFIUS screen foreign investment for
cybersecurity and privacy implications. Already it resulted in the
halting, if not reversal, of foreign acquisitions of MoneyGram,
PatientsLikeMe, Grindr, and StayNTouch because of concerns that that
Americans' personal data would fall into the hands of the Chinese
government. Importantly, FIRRMA requires greater accountability of
CFIUS to Congress, as it was observed that Congress' concerns about
security threats had been discounted by the Executive Branch in the
past in an effort to effect quick transactions.\20\ It is entirely
appropriate that Congress and the Commerce Committee assert greater
authority over Federal spectrum, which after all, is what the
Constitution prescribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Roslyn Layton and Robert Pittenger, ``CFIUS' Growing Power to
Protect American Security from China Tech Threats: Examining TikTok and
Lenovo'' (China Tech Threat, June 26, 2020), https://
chinatechthreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CFIUS-Paper-062420_.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common law property rights for spectrum
Spectrum markets were already working before the creation of the
1927 Federal Radio Act. The government created a solution that the
market didn't need, but it did serve to cement Federal power over the
radio spectrum and protect politically favored incumbents. Up to that
time, hundreds of radio stations flourished under common law tenets,
and a secondary market emerged with transferring rights with equipment.
Parties met annually under the auspices of the Department of Commerce
to make trades.
Thomas Hazlett details this little-known spectrum history in a
recent article, showing that a common law property rights regime was
well-established before the implementation of the Act.\21\ Hazlett
challenges the conventional view that policymakers of the day didn't
have information of how a spectrum rights market could work and
therefore opted for administrative allocation. Hazlett shows that
Senator Clarence Dill (D-WA) and the bill's supporters knew exactly
what they were doing. Moreover, Hazlett uses market data from the 1920s
to demonstrate how the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and
Radio Corporation of America (RCA) benefitted from the new regime,
which limited competitive entry into the market, secured licenses to
existing broadcasters, and ensured a stream of revenue for radio
receivers. Indeed, Hazlett observers how the term ``public interest''
was coined by private actors to protect their market position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Thomas W. Hazlett, 2020. ``The 1927 Radio Act as Pre-emption
of Common Law Property Rights,'' Review of Industrial Organization,
Springer; The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(1), pages 17-35,
February. https://ideas.repec.org/s/kap/revind.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Commerce had powers granted under the 1912
Radio Act to ``minimize interference.'' It used a common law method to
recognize first-in-time emission rights and to protect against
encroachment. Stations that strayed from their registered frequencies
were closed with the Department of Commerce's police powers. Commerce
convened an annual conference where emergent players organized. Hazlett
describes,
Commerce had designated an AM radio band, collaborating with
radio manufacturers and broadcast stations in annual Radio
Conferences that were convened by the Commerce Department from
1922 through 1925 (Benjamin 1998). Entrants that requested new
rights were assigned vacant AM channels. Where none were
available, applicants were told to strike a time-sharing
agreement with an existing licensee or to buy a station, in
which case the transmission rights would be transferred (with
the broadcasting facility) to the new owner. The chief sponsor
of the 1927 Radio Act, Sen. Clarence C. Dill (D-WA), explained
that the legal institution employed by Commerce was well known
as ``property by right of user,'' ``squatter sovereignty,'' or
``adverse possession'' (Dill 1938, p. 78). Under this regime,
over 500 radio stations were broadcasting--which created a new
mass media market--with substantial investments of private
capital. In early 1926, a trade union in Chicago, intent on
launching radio station WCFL, had the option to buy the
broadcasting rights of three different local stations,
including that of WHT, which was asking $285 000 (Godfried
1997, p. 33). In September 1926, AT&T sold its New York City
radio station, WEAF, for $1 million to the Radio Corporation of
America (RCA), of which $800,000 was for the value of spectrum
rights (Barnouw 1966, pp. 185-186).'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Two major interests sought a new regime that would grant
regulators greater discretion: On the one hand, successful commercial
stations sought to limit competitive entry. In the 1925 formation of
the National Association of Broadcasters--a trade group that
represented incumbent broadcasting stations--the industry created a
novel standard for rights assignment. ``An interesting fact,'' wrote
Senator Dill, is that the broadcasters themselves suggested the
inclusion of the words ``public interest'' in the law as a basis for
granting licenses'' (Dill 1938, p. 89). On the other hand, policy
makers--such as Hoover, Dill, and other members of Congress--desired to
assert political authority over what they recognized as an influential
new medium of public opinion. License awards were said to be mandated
as a consequence of nature, and licensing authority was then leveraged
to include administrative oversight of speech and the press; this
skirted constitutional limits that were binding elsewhere (Hazlett
1998).''
Data from the period shows that the common law regime worked such
that consumers purchased radios (which amounted to $1000 in today's
money) at a brisk pace. However, to create the needed ``chaos'' in the
airwaves which would support the bill, then Commerce Secretary Herbert
Hoover cancelled the annual conference and stopped enforcing rights.
The subsequent interference ``chaos'' that ensued was seized by the
press and policymakers as justification for the new law.
Hazlett notes that 1927 Act was decidedly against property rights.
The statute states that while it will consider the ``use'' of spectrum,
its purpose is to ``pre-empt the assertion of private property rights
in radio spectrum.'' The law further prescribes that ``No station or
license shall be granted . . . until the applicant therefore shall have
signed a waiver of any claim to the use of any particular frequency or
wave length or of the ether as against the regulatory power of the
United States because of the previous use of the same, whether by
license or otherwise.'' The 1927 Radio Act did not ``stumble'' into
administrative allocation of frequencies but sought a regime change.
The prospect of property rights in frequencies was not a foreign
concept. Indeed, a system of priority-in-use rights for radio
broadcasts was in play since the first radio station, KDKA in
Pittsburgh in 1920.
The Act launched the regime of administrative licensing or command
and control spectrum management. The government served as the clearing
house for spectrum, its proffered benefit being the control of
interference by exclusivity to protect the licensee's signals. To get a
license, the applicant would participate in a ``beauty contest'' to
show why its service did a better job to realize the ``public
interest'' than another. There was no fee based on an estimated value
of the spectrum. Such a model emphasizes the political rewards of
spectrum assignment which accrue to the licensing body and the
licensee. Moreover, it incentivizes the application to overpromise to
win the application but underdeliver once received.
Naturally, command and control offers some marginal economic
benefits (some use of the spectrum is better than none at all), but it
is not optimal. Some countries have attempted to rectify perceived
political bias through spectrum lottery, but this also fails to
rationally reflect the economic contest by competing actors for a
scarce resource. The command and control regime was further legitimized
by the 1943 Supreme Court decision NBC v. FCC asserting that there is
not enough spectrum for everyone and that there is a finite natural
limit of radio stations that can operate without interference.
Hazlett offers further history and analysis The Political Spectrum:
The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technology, from Herbert Hoover
to the Smartphone.\23\ He documents systematic deterrence of new
technology by bureaucracy. He blames not the regulators themselves,
individuals who want new technologies, but the ''administrative
apparatus'' and ''regulatory gridlock'' to access unused spectrum,
requiring potential licensee to file an application, detail the
business plan, and demonstrate the technology before it is ever tried.
Moreover, the applicant must prove that the technology will serve the
''public interest, convenience, and necessity.'' Incumbents can nix
technologies they believe to be threatening. It can take a decade or
more to bring a new technology to market. Most innovators fail, and
many pass away unrecognized, bankrupted, and demoralized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Thomas W. Hazlett, 2020. ``The 1927 Radio Act as Pre-emption
of Common Law Property Rights,'' Review of Industrial Organization,
Springer; https://ideas.repec.org/s/kap/revind.html. The Industrial
Organization Society, vol. 56(1), pages 17-35, February.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problems with Administrative Allocation
Coase critiqued IRAC or what he termed ``governmental
administrative machinery'', the ``complex process of bargaining and
accommodation,'' and the ``widespread feeling of dissatisfaction with
the way the present arrangements are working.'' \24\ He noted that IRAC
allocates too much spectrum to government departments and too little to
private users. Coase took issue with IRAC's policy of ``first come,
first served,'' calling it a system in which ``those who are first
granted the use of a radio frequency are not easily displaced by a
newcomer'' (p. 37). Coase noted that IRAC's assignments are rarely
disturbed. ``What this implies is that radio frequencies are used by
Government departments for purposes which have a relatively low value
as compared with what are the same frequencies would be worth if they
could be made available to a private user,'' says Coase. By contrast,
we can see that since the FCC adopted market-based reforms, assignments
are frequently changing as license holders trade up for better uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Coase quotes Dr. Irvin Stewart, then Chairman of the
Communications Policy Board (xx of IRAC) and was to become Director of
Telecommunications Management: ``It is a body composed of users. The
situation is one in which naturally there is a desire to accommodate
the wishes of the users who participate. There is nobody sitting in the
position of arbiter. There is nobody who can ask too many hard
questions. There is nobody who has an overriding task of requiring that
the necessity for a particular new assignment be established in light
of all the assignments that have been made in the past. . . . It is
natural for each Government department to emphasize the importance of
its role; and there isn't inherent in the situation any necessary
motivation to conserve frequencies in order that they might be
available for only-Government use. In many cases in the assignment of
frequencies, security considerations must be taken into account, and
that means that justifications for the assignments cannot be made a
matter of record. And then when you have no public record, you have
another fertile ground for suspicion'' (Hearings on Spectrum Allocation
p. 33-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coase ascribed the challenge for IRAC in part to the downsides of
central planning, observing,
The experience in the United States with the administrative
structure which has been devised to handle the allocation of
radio frequencies illustrates very vividly one of the dilemmas
of planning. The attempt to control everything from the center
is liable to lead to paralysis. The delegation of control leads
to inconsistency of action. If central control is instituted,
the necessity of referring all questions to the center involves
expense in compiling and transmitting information and delay
before decisions can be made. Nor are the decisions necessarily
better when they are made. The remoteness of the center from
the areas affected by the decision may lead to a failure to
understand the significance of the issues under consideration .
. . The division of control of the allocation of radio
frequencies between the FCC and IRAC has no doubt led to misuse
of radio frequencies. It may well have resulted in too great an
allocation of radio frequencies in total for the use of
Government departments. But there is every reason to suppose
that an attempt to avoid such misallocation by extending the
powers of the FCC to cover Government stations or by
establishing a new Board to supervise the allocation of
frequencies to Government departments (using procedures similar
to those of the FCC) or by setting up a single super Board to
control the allocation of all frequencies in the United States,
would impose additional expense and delay and would bring about
new misallocation. It is no doubt desirable to realize the
inefficiencies inherent in the present system. (p. 39)
It is interesting to note that there have been multiple attempts to
improve allocation of government spectrum, even an idea from the 1930s
that the FCC would allocate the government frequencies. ``But this move
was resisted by the Government departments, particularly the military
departments, and the final result of success reorganization was to
place the FCC, if anything, in a subordinate rather than dominant
position,'' notes Coase (p. 38). Moreover, in the realpolitik of
spectrum among Federal agencies, there are political payoffs which
never appear on the balance sheet. Spectrum can be a valuable token
when budgets and other assets are limited. As such keeping some
spectrum issues unresolved allows them to used for later trades.
The Case for Spectrum Fees
Coase thought that private and government users should pay for
spectrum. He described the simplicity and superiority of a pricing
system over administration allocation, how it eliminates waste and
misuse, and how it would deliver better outcomes in the national
interest. He described, quite plainly in 1962, that the demand for the
scarce resource of spectrum exceeds supply:
In the case of radio frequencies, as the price that is charged
at the present time is, of course, zero, it is hardly
surprising that we find a situation in which there is an excess
of demand over supply and there is need for some governmental
administrative machinery to decide who among the many claimants
shall be granted this valuable resource. Those in positions of
authority who deal with the problems of allocating the radio
spectrum act as if they were unaware that the rest of the
American economic system largely works on different principles.
(p. 42)
Coase then described why a pricing system is superior to
administrative allocation, noting that,
. . . resources are obtained by those who will pay the most for
them. Since the amount which a user will pay for a resource
reflects the value of that resource in whatever employment he
is contemplating using it, the pricing system tends to result
in that allocation of a resource between its various uses which
maximizes the value of production. If a price had to be paid
for radio frequencies, government departments would not use
them unless they felt that, by spending their money in this
way, it would serve the purposes of the department better than
by spending that money in any other way. And if the price was
made sufficiently high so as to bring the demand for radio
frequencies into equality with the supply, this would both
eliminate the need for an administrative allocation and ensure
radio frequencies were used for those governmental purposes
which justified the greatest monetary sacrifice (p. 41).
Coase understood the economics of information and observed that
government users
would be naturally reluctant to disclose information which
might result in their having to relinquish any radio
frequencies. It is one of the advantages of the pricing system
that, for its efficient working, the only person who needs to
know about how any given user would use radio frequencies is
the user himself. He has to decide how much it is worth his
while to offer for a certain radio frequency: whether he
obtains it depends on what others are willing to offer. (p. 43)
. . . The absence of a market price (which measure the value of
a frequency to another user in another use) means that a user
has little idea of when he is using a frequency ``wastefully''
and no financial inducement to find out. Obviously, a frequency
should not be used for a particular purpose if it prevents the
accomplishment of some other purpose of greater value or if the
same purpose could be achieved by the use of another resource
which would mean a smaller fall in the value of production than
the use of the frequency. It is clear that such wasteful use
must be very common with the existing system. Any user with the
existing system will not willingly surrender frequencies that
he has been allocated so long as their use (or potential use)
has a value greater than zero and this even though there may be
others to whom the frequency has higher value (p 45).
Coase described that a pricing system for spectrum would benefit
the military and the Nation. ``The introduction of a market would tend
to bring the interest of the military departments and the national
interest into a closer conformity,'' he wrote (p.44) Coase noted that
spectrum usage fees could be made available for short or long terms and
that this did not preclude the addition of other regulation.
Accessing fees on government agencies is logical and rational. Just
as agencies procure resources from the market (labor, building rental,
electricity), they should also pay for spectrum. A fee regime can be
implemented without requiring the government to divest its spectrum
ownership. Though it still requires some administration, it is an
improvement because it brings pricing discipline. Spectrum regulator
Ofcom in the United Kingdom implemented a fee regime in 2007.\25\ The
goal was to nudge agencies to return their lightly used spectrum. While
the agencies ended up requesting the funds to purchase the frequencies
outright, the regime brings greater attention and accountability to
resource management and forces the agencies to acknowledge the value of
spectrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Ofcom. ``Modifications to Spectrum Pricing.'' January 10,
2007. https://assets.publishing
.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
287994/UK_Spec
trum_Strategy_FINAL.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some might resist a fee regime for spectrum on the ground that the
U.S. military has been rendered less effective by the bureaucratic
``accountability police''.\26\ However it is not logical nor rational
that the military (or any Federal agency) acquire all of its inputs
(land, labor, weapons etc.) through a market process, but not a
problem. The bureaucratization of the military is a separate problem,
but it is no excuse to a continue the command and control regime that
diminishes the effectiveness of spectrum policy and discourages the
military from being a responsible spectrum user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Christian Browse. The Kill Chain: Defending America in the
Future of High-Tech Warfare. Hachette Books, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRAC and Reform
Conflict within and between NTIA/IRAC and FCC is not new. Over the
decades there have been a series of political struggles. This will
likely continue as long as spectrum is allocated by administrators, not
the market. Policymakers should not invest hope that there is some
magical institutional design that can resolve the conflicts. It is
natural and predictable that incumbent industrial and government
interests will use institutions to maintain the status quo and protect
their position, which appears to be the case with the proposals under
development by Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC)
for ``new'' versions of NTIA, FCC, or a unified spectrum authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ ``Report on the Presidential Memorandum on Developing a
Sustainable Spectrum Strategy for America's Future: Governance'' (CSMAC
Working Group 1, April 22, 2020), https://www.ntia.gov/files/ntia/
publications/csmac_sc1_presentation_april_22_2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, leaders have been well aware of the consequences of the
IRAC policy choice. Reflecting on his role leading the organization,
E.M. Webster described IRAC in 1945 noting,
The IRAC is unique among government agencies in that it came
into being, not as the result of action by either the executive
or legislative branches of the government, but spontaneously
through a demand of the interested government agencies . . .
These people represent their respective agencies whenever
frequencies are involved, but it should be emphasized that,
while each is acting to some extent as an individual, he is
primarily the medium of policy expression for his
organization.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ E. M. Webster, ``The Interdepartment Radio Advisory
Committee,'' in Proceedings of the IRE, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 495-499,
Aug. 1945, doi: 10.1109/JRPROC.1945.230506.
This statement dispels the view that IRAC acts collectively on
behalf of the American people. Rather it is designed to further the
interest of vested Federal agencies. Today's members include the Air
Force, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Broadcasting Board of Governors,
Federal Aviation Administration; the Postal Service, the National
Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
and the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior,
Justice, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. The FCC
is only a liaison. Observers include the Department of Defense, the
Food and Drug Administration, and the National Security Agency.
Webster recounts the debate on the need for trials on vacuum tubes
versus arc transmitters and how the government would dispose of
obsolete radio equipment from World War II (lest it continued to be
used and cause interference.) He observed how the agency spent
significant time regulating small pieces of spectrum, which in
retrospect was a waste as new technology from the private sector made
government choices obsolete. He recognized that Federal spectrum
holders needed to be more tolerant of interference and that receivers
needed to be improved.
Webster observed that the conduct of war is not for the military
alone. Many actors which need to use the spectrum when the Nation is at
war, especially domestic and international broadcasters. He noted that
the government's use of spectrum must by necessity be constrained. If
the use of spectrum is limited for government during war, it must
certainly be limited during times of peace, and it must be shared for
communications, aviation, navigation, public safety, forestry, channels
for allies, and so on. He noted how during wartime that government
users had to shuffle and relinquish rights and accept higher levels of
interference. Given limited frequencies, a set of priority use was
established. This is an important lesson for today's pandemic.
Households and business are economizing during a financial crisis.
There is no reason why the Department of Defense should not examine how
to make better use of its $800 billion budget. Indeed, pricing could
help NTIA and IRAC make better decisions and reduce internal conflict
among competing agencies.
Webster described IRAC's decision guidelines as the protocols of
priority use, freedom from harmful interference, and precedence. He
described detailed decision making at the agency which requires it to
assess many factors when making spectrum allocation including
a. Rule of law as defined by agreements and records, Executive
Orders, IRAC minutes and records, international and interagency
agreements;
b. National interest, where in consideration is given to relative
need for the frequency in question and to the degree of
utilization by the agencies involved;
c. Necessity for using radio, taking into consideration the
availability of other means of communication;
d. Expansion. Here, in the interest of planned and orderly
utilization of the radio spectrum, the Committee recognizes the
desirability of providing for normal expansion of a service
where it is shown by the applicant that expansion will occur,
and where its trend and magnitude can be estimated;
e. Geographical priority, which, as applied to mobile stations, is
construed to extend only to the geographical area specified at
the time the frequency was assigned; as applied to a fixed
station, it extends only to the geographic allocation of the
points of communication designated in the authorization;
f. Dates of assignment and first use, where other considerations are
substantially equal, establish the priority as between stations
unless by the terms of an agreement it is specifically provided
otherwise. To the end that there be most efficient utilization
of the radio spectrum, acceptance of a radio-frequency
assignment imposes definite obligations on the assignee with
respect both to equipment and to use. Some of these are
specified in treaties and laws.
Additionally, the organization was obligated to
a. To use the best and most selective radio apparatus the state of
the art and service operating requirements permit;
b. To use frequencies economically by avoiding unnecessary emissions
and conducting operations on a minimum number of frequencies;
c. To share frequencies between agencies as a recognized and
necessary expedient for the fullest utilization of the radio
spectrum.
These requirements are interesting in light of today's interagency
conflicts. For one, the pricing mechanism would eliminate much of the
``administrative machinery'' Coase described, but also, it is not
evident that Federal agencies even follow IRAC's rules. For example,
the former Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
Michael D. Griffin in the Department of Defense noted that the
military's GPS receivers will not fulfil military grade expectations
until 2035.\29\ Government agencies have made technological choices
which are not emissions-efficient, and rather than using a ``minimum''
number of frequencies, they claim to need more than they have, even
challenging private rights' holders. Moreover, the notion that agencies
need to share the scarce spectrum resources is belied by government
behavior which challenges new uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ``Department of Defense Spectrum Policy and the Impact of the
Federal Communications Commission's Ligado Decision on National
Security,'' Armed Services, May 6, 2020, https://www.armed-
services.senate.gov/hearings/20-05-06-department-of-defense-spectrum-
policy-and-the-impact-of-the-federal-communications-commissions-ligado-
decision-on-national-security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Congress has vested authority in NTIA and IRAC, there could
be an issue in the violation of the nondelegation doctrine in that
Congress has devolved too much power and function to the Executive
Branch on an issue which it is constitutionally bound to exercise
itself.\30\ Spectrum is at the heart of interstate commerce, which is
clearly an Article I responsibility, and one of critical importance to
the people of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Kelley, William K. ``Justice Scalia, the nondelegation
doctrine, and constitutional argument.'' Notre Dame L. Rev. 92 (2016):
2107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aside from public choice and rule of law questions about IRAC, its
governance today consists of some 20 Federal agencies whereas the
``public'' (purportedly consumers) is represented only by the FCC,
which does not enjoy the same standing or power as the other agencies.
IRAC's proceedings are not fully public, and it appears to be subject
only to limited Congressional oversight and judicial review (other than
the oversight of the individual member agencies). As such, most
spectrum remains under legacy rules and is unavailable to satisfy the
highest-valued demands of consumers.
It is not even clear that NTIA and IRAC are fulfilling their duty
to inform the White House of their activities. The requirement to
develop a Sustainable Spectrum Strategy is one of many requests from
the President which has not been delivered, or at least not made
public.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ ``Presidential Memorandum on Developing a Sustainable Spectrum
Strategy for America's Future,'' The White House, October 25, 2018,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-
memorandum-developing-sustainable-spectrum-strategy-americas-future/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should consider the introduction of a pricing system for
Federal users which reflects the market value of the spectrum. Failing
this, Congress should consider reforms so that the American people are
duly represented in IRAC, or at least to bring more accountability to
its decisions. The recommendations in the subsequent section begin to
address this problem. Simply put, having more spectrum in use by
private actors makes our country richer, increases gross domestic
product, and provides valuable services to consumers and producers.
Second Best Options
Transparency of spectrum use
Senator Mike Lee's (R-UT) proposed the Government Spectrum
Valuation Act which would task NTIA, the Office of Management and
Budget, and the FCC to estimate the value of relative spectrum for
licensed or unlicensed and report what is assigned and allocated to
each agency.\32\ Coase explained why government users will resist such
an effort, and unsurprisingly this common-sense bill has not moved
forward. However, such a study need not be stymied by lack of
legislative support. The National Science Foundation (NSF), for
example, could conduct the study, though without access to NTIA's
underlying information, NSF would only be able to provide estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ ``Sen. Lee Introduces Government Spectrum Valuation Act,''
Mike Lee, May 23, 2019, https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/
2019/5/sen-lee-introduces-government-spectrum-valuation-act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market actors could help bring transparency to opaque government
spectrum usage. The FCC has approved seven Spectrum Access System
Administrators (SAS) for the 3.5 GHz band.\33\ One or more of these
administrators could create a public dashboard of frequencies to show
how little Federal spectrum is used. This promises to show the
opportunity cost of leaving spectrum fallow when so many actors are
willing to use it more efficiently and pay for the right to do so. Some
350 firms have signed up to participate in the forthcoming 3.5 GHz
auction in which the FCC offers three payment tiers to access 70 MHz of
valuable but little used Federal spectrum.\34\ Given the plethora of
firms willing to pay significantly for spectrum access, the FCC should
consider implementing a similar tiered framework for the 6 GHz band,
which otherwise is a giveaway to America's richest software companies
during a time of national financial crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ ``3.5 GHz SAS Conditional Approval Public Notice,'' Federal
Communications Commission, December 21, 2016, https://www.fcc.gov/
document/35-ghz-sas-conditional-approval-public-notice.
\34\ Mike Dano, ``The Full List: Here Are the Actual Bidders in the
CBRS Auction,'' Light Reading, June 19, 2020, https://
www.lightreading.com/5g/the-full-list-here-are-the-actual-bidders-in-
the-cbrs-auction/d/d-id/761602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Cards
The Congressional Budget Office could play a role not only to
estimate the opportunity cost of little used Federal spectrum but could
issue report cards on agencies for their efficiency of spectrum use.
Spectrum stewardship could be included as part of the review criteria
for appropriations and authorization. Reports cards need not be
developed by government actors. Private and academic actors could
contribute on this instrument.
Examination of interference studies
Recent spectrum conflicts offer a valuable policy research
opportunity to test the purported claims of interference. Many agencies
have portended Y2K-like disaster scenarios from FCC decisions on
commercial spectrum.\35\ As some time has elapsed since these
proceedings and services have been deployed, it is valuable to see
whether the predictions proved true, were mitigated as the FCC
described, or never come to pass. This is also a legitimate area of
study for the FCC's Office of Economics and Analytics and NTIA's
Institute for Telecommunications Sciences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Roslyn Layton, ``GPS Interference Fears Are Today's Y2K, Says
Former UK Spectrum Director,'' Forbes, May 8, 2020, https://
www.forbes.com/sites/roslynlayton/2020/05/08/gps-interference-fears-
are-todays-y2k-says-former-uk-spectrum-director/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum policy choices have economic and national security
consequences. While market reforms have helped correct misguided
historical choices for spectrum decisions, many features of command and
control administrative allocation remain. Today, many parties are
unsatisfied. Nearly every industry and Federal agency would like more
spectrum but can't get it. Inefficient use is encouraged; new
technologies are deterred; and Americans are denied new jobs and
services in the wireless domain.
The most cited academic literature and experience shows the value
of market-based allocations of spectrum. The first best policy choice
for consumers is to privatize the spectrum itself and sunset
administrative allocation. However, the second-best policy choice of
the introduction of a market-based pricing system while regulators
remain has been a success in the commercial domain.
The template for Federal spectrum allocation is essentially
unchanged for a century. Bringing pricing discipline to Federal users
would be a quantum leap from the status quo and would improve outcomes
for Federal users and Americans. It could be implemented without having
to reboot existing agencies.
With the SPECTRUM Now Act and the Spectrum IT Modernization Act,
this Committee is taking important steps to bring Federal spectrum
allocation into the 21st century and building on proven success of
improved management and efficiency of commercial spectrum. A
feasibility study of increasing Federal spectrum efficiency and
relocating federally held spectrum and/or sharing it with commercial
users to facilitate the deployment of 5G is much needed. Similarly,
modernizing the IT infrastructure for Federal spectrum can also help to
bring transparency and improved decision-making.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to
your questions.
Sincerely,
Roslyn Layton, Ph.D.,
Visiting Researcher,
Communication, Media and Information Technologies,
Technical Faculty of IT and Design,
Department of Electronic Systems,
Aalborg University.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Dr. Layton. And last we have Mr.
Michael Calabrese who will be joining us virtually. Mr.
Calabrese, you are recognized for your statement.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CALABRESE, DIRECTOR, WIRELESS FUTURE
PROJECT, OPEN TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE AT NEW AMERICA
Mr. Calabrese. Thank you and good morning Chairman Thune,
Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the Subcommittee. The
Subcommittee's focus today on spectrum policy comes at a
critical time. The pandemic has only reinforced both high
capacity and affordable broadband connectivity are essential
for working, learning, and living well at home.
As the world goes wireless, the demand for mobile
connectivity and spectrum is surging. While this suggests that
spectrum capacity is scarce, the reality is that smart spectrum
policy can unlock an abundance of bandwidth by authorizing
dynamic spectrum sharing in a larger number of underutilized
bands. In recent years, the FCC has made enormous progress in
opening Federal and commercial bands for more intensive shared
use through policy innovations that have put the U.S. on a path
to the world's most robust 5G wireless ecosystem. A leading
example is a new citizens broadband radio service.
CBRS uses sensing and a geolocation database to coordinate
the sharing of Federal spectrum with U.S. Navy radar which
continues undisturbed. In addition, the database also
facilitates a use it or share it rule that authorizes the
temporary use of unused priority access licensed spectrum by
any other operator both now and indefinitely following the PAL
auctions that began today. This use it or share it approach
should be applied to other underutilized bands. As a default
rule, it can put vacant spectrum to use in rural, tribal, and
other underserved areas where it is needed most.
Another world leading example of the FCC's innovative
leadership is its unanimous vote in April to authorize
unlicensed use of unused spectrum across the entire 6 gigahertz
band, a total of 1200 megahertz. Chairman Pai and his
colleagues deserve enormous credit for recognizing that with
shared access to the entire 6 gigahertz band, next generation
Wi-Fi can accelerate the availability and affordability of
innovative new 5G applications and services such as telehealth
and augmented reality. Enabling gigabit fast Wi-Fi 6 will
quickly benefit all homes, businesses, and schools, including
in rural small town and less affluent areas that are unlikely
to see mobile carrier 5G build-out for many years.
Two issues remain pending on 6 gigahertz that are central
to the value of Wi-Fi 6 for consumers. One is power levels. A
modest increase is needed for indoor only use so that gigabit
fast Wi-Fi routers can continue to cover the typical home and
small business reliably and at a reasonable cost. The other is
the authorization of very low power devices such as connected
glasses and other wearables that consumers can use indoors and
outdoors unburdened by a requirement to be under the control of
the geolocation database. Because sharing and reorganizing
spectrum bands have become the new normal, it is crucial that
the FCC and NTIA cooperate more closely than ever to unlock
unused spectrum. An example is the nearly vacant 5.9 gigahertz
band allocated 20 years ago for auto safety but still idling
empty.
We strongly support the FCC's proposal to reallocate at
least the lower portion of the band for unlicensed use. The FCC
should also consider relocating auto safety applications to the
nearly vacant public safety band at 4.9 gigahertz, thereby
removing the roadblock to a contiguous Wi-Fi superhighway. As
the 5.9 and 6 gigahertz debates demonstrate, because all very
useful spectrum is occupied, the FCC faces the adamant
opposition of incumbents in every proceeding aimed at opening
up unused spectrum.
These spectrum turf wars, intentions are particularly
discouraging on the Federal side for two key reasons. First,
because the FCC is the expert agency in the best position to
evaluate competing technical studies related to the risk of
truly harmful interference. And second, the number and
intensity of recent disputes suggest a lack of effective
consultation and coordination. My written testimony suggest
four changes that can greatly improve the functioning of our
Nation's split system for governing spectrum.
And finally, the FCC or Congress should immediately extend
the tribal priority window for access to vacant 2.5 gigahertz
spectrum set to expire August 3. Thank you for inviting me to
testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calabrese follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Calabrese, Director, Wireless Future
Project, Open Technology Institute at New America
Introduction
Good morning Chairmen Wicker and Thune, Ranking Members Cantwell
and Schatz, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Michael
Calabrese. I direct the Wireless Future Project at New America's Open
Technology Institute (OTI), a nonprofit policy institute based here in
Washington, D.C. I have also served since 2009 on the Department of
Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC). My
organization develops and advocates for policies to promote universal,
faster and more affordable wireless broadband connectivity, broadband
competition, and more efficient spectrum use with a focus on expanding
unlicensed access and dynamic spectrum sharing. OTI is also a member of
the broad-based Public Interest Spectrum Coalition (PISC) that includes
national consumer, civil rights, education, rural broadband and social
justice organizations.
The Subcommittee's focus on spectrum management comes at a critical
time. The pandemic has highlighted how vital it is for every household
to have an affordable fixed broadband connection, as well as the
higher-capacity Wi-Fi needed to distribute that connectivity to the
workers, students and others sharing those connections. At the same
time, the Nation is beginning a transition to 5G mobile networks and a
broader, complementary 5G wireless ecosystem that will include millions
of high-capacity and customized networks deployed by individual
business firms and households to meet their particular needs at a lower
cost.
As the world goes wireless, the demand for wireless connectivity
and spectrum continues to increase rapidly. Cisco's annual report on
Internet usage projects that mobile data traffic in North America will
continue to grow at a compound annual growth rate exceeding 36 percent
through 2022.\1\ Wi-Fi data consumption on mobile devices is growing at
an even faster 45 percent annual rate.\2\ The demand for spectrum
capacity will grow further as the Internet of Things (IoT) emerges and
machine-to-machine (M2M) data transfers require more and more capacity.
Cisco estimates that as M2M applications develop and grow--through
operations including ``smart meters, video surveillance, healthcare
monitoring, transportation, and package or asset tracking.'' \3\ By
2023, M2M connections are expected to represent 50 percent of all
devices and connections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cisco also projects a global annual compound growth rate of 46
percent. ``Cisco Visual Networking Index (VNI): Global and Americas/
EMEAR Mobile Data Traffic Forecast, 2017-2022,'' Cisco Knowledge
Network Session, at 9 (March 2019). Available: https://www.cisco.com/c/
dam/m/en_us/network-intelligence/service-provider/digital-
transformation/knowledge-network-webinars/pdfs/190320-mobility-ckn.pdf.
\2\ Id. at 104.
\3\ Cisco Annual Internet Report (2018-2023), Cisco Systems Inc.
(March 2020). Available: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/
collateral/executive-perspectives/annual-internet-report/white-paper-
c11-741490.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This surging demand and several contentious FCC proceedings to
allocate more spectrum for 5G has created an impression that spectrum
is scarce. It is true that the low- and mid-band spectrum most valuable
for wide-area mobile services has become more and more difficult to
clear and repurpose for exclusive licensing, as we saw recently with
the protracted debate over clearing and auctioning unused C-band
spectrum. However, contrary to assumptions of scarcity, smart and
forward-looking spectrum policy can unlock an abundance of wireless
bandwidth in a larger number of underutilized bands through dynamic
spectrum sharing.
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) forecast this new reality in 2012, concluding that a new
paradigm can ``unlock the data-carrying capacity of spectrum in an
unprecedented way.'' \4\ The PCAST report concluded: ``The essential
element of this new Federal spectrum architecture is that the norm for
spectrum use should be sharing, not exclusivity.'' \5\ This ``new
normal,'' as the PCAST report saw it, is a reason the FCC, NTIA and
Federal users need to collaborate more than ever to unlock unused
spectrum capacity in more frequency bands. Their close cooperation is
needed to support the Nation's progress in deploying mobile 5G
services, high-capacity fixed wireless connections, and next generation
Wi-Fi 6 networks that all together will consume exponentially more data
over the years ahead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Report to the President Realizing the Full Potential of
Government-Held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth, President's Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology (July 2012), at 11. Available:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/
ostp/pcast_spec
trum_report_final_july_20_2012.pdf.
\5\ Id. at vi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCC's World-Leading Innovation in Spectrum Sharing
In recent years the FCC has made enormous progress in unleashing
underutilized spectrum in occupied bands for both licensed and
unlicensed use. Both Federal and commercial bands have been opened for
more intensive shared use through policy innovations that have put the
U.S. on a path to the world's most robust 5G wireless ecosystem. A
leading example is the new Citizens Broadband Radio Service, which
began commercial operations earlier this year.
CBRS is doubly innovative as a framework that can be tailored to
additional occupied but underutilized bands to unlock low-cost
capacity. CBRS authorizes both licensed and opportunistic (lightly-
licensed) access to unused spectrum in the 3550-3700 MHz band long used
for U.S. Navy radar systems. The CBRS rules authorize the certification
of multiple frequency coordination systems--called Spectrum Access
Systems (SAS)--to govern a dynamic framework for spectrum sharing among
a three-tier hierarchy of users: incumbent licensees (primarily U.S.
Navy radar), Priority Access Licenses (PALs), and opportunistic
(effectively unlicensed) General Authorized Access (GAA) users.
Multiple, competing SASs are responsible for ensuring incumbent
services are fully protected from harmful interference and that PAL
operators are protected from each other and from GAA users.
In addition, the rules for CBRS include a use-it-or-share-it
provision that authorize any operator to coordinate access to unused
PAL spectrum on an opportunistic basis--both now and indefinitely
following the PAL auctions that began today. The automated frequency
coordinator (SAS) ensures that opportunistic GAA use of unused PAL
spectrum in a local area will not interfere with the priority access
licensee. The SAS database thereby facilitates--on an automated basis
at low cost--intensive spectrum sharing that both protects U.S. Navy
systems and ensures that all the spectrum in the 3.5 GHz band is
available for use. In short, spectrum not actually being used by the
U.S. Navy or by the post-auction PAL licensee is available to enhance
the capacity of other operators on an opportunistic, use-it-or-share-it
basis. One sign of the band's success is that tens of thousands of CBRS
base stations have been deployed since the band opened up just a few
months ago, pre-auction and despite the pandemic.
Another world-leading example of the FCC's innovative leadership in
spectrum policy is the Commission's unanimous vote in April to
authorize unlicensed use of unused spectrum capacity across the entire
6 GHz band--a total of 1,200 megahertz that begins just above the
portion of the 5 GHz band most used today for Wi-Fi, but which is
increasingly congested. Chairman Pai and his colleagues deserve
enormous credit for recognizing that with access to the 6 GHz band,
next generation Wi-Fi 6 can almost immediately support 5G-quality
applications and services in any home, business, school or library that
has access to a high-capacity fixed broadband connection. With access
to the 6 GHz band, Wi-Fi 6 will accelerate mobile 5G services both by
providing complementary offload capacity indoors and by facilitating
early adoption of 5G-quality applications, such as augmented and
virtual reality.
Indoor-only use is authorized across all 1,200 megahertz at a low
power level that the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology
determined will not cause harmful interference to band incumbents. This
decision will both secure U.S. dominance in Wi-Fi and fuel innovation
in augmented reality and other applications. While Europe is far along
in authorizing the lower portion of the band for indoor-only use, the
FCC's experience with spectrum sharing coordinated by geolocation
databases led it to ``go big'' and authorize standard-power operations
outdoors in 850 megahertz of the band where incumbent point-to-point
links can be protected by an Automated Frequency Coordination (AFC)
system. This will prove hugely beneficial to rural, tribal, small town,
and other less-densely populated areas that may not see true 5G mobile
carrier services for many years.
OTI believes that a general authorization for opportunistic access
on a use-it-or-share-it basis should be a central piece of any effort
aimed at expanding spectrum access for small and non-traditional ISPs
in rural, tribal and other underserved areas, as well as for enterprise
and institutional use. A version of the CBRS framework should be
tailored to promote more efficient and intensive use of both Federal
and commercially licensed bands with substantial unused capacity.
Opportunistic access policed by an automated AFC database could empower
a wide variety of small and alternative providers to use fallow
spectrum in local areas to provide high-speed broadband and other
services, while retaining the licensee's right to exclusive use of that
spectrum whenever the carrier commences service. Unleashing
opportunistic, shared access to fallow spectrum creates a general
incentive for licensees to build out services more quickly, or to make
greater efforts to partition or lease their spectrum. This will reduce
spectrum warehousing and increase access to operators ready to deploy,
but who lack spectrum access in a local area.
Reforming the Governance of Spectrum
Not surprisingly, the FCC's efforts to open underutilized bands for
sharing and to reallocate bands to facilitate emerging services,
particularly mobile 5G, has met with stiff resistance from incumbent
users. Whether incumbents are commercial licensees or Federal agencies,
they inevitably resist on the grounds that authorizing new or more
efficient use of a band will create an unacceptable risk of harmful
interference. Because every valuable band of frequencies is occupied by
some set of incumbents, the FCC now faces the obstacle of rampant
NIMBYism in virtually every proceeding aimed at opening the spectrum
capacity needed to facilitate new technologies and services. On the
commercial side, we see this in the 6 GHz band, where incumbent
licensees are mounting or threatening litigation. And we see it on the
Federal side as agencies oppose FCC proposals and even seek to overturn
or undermine final orders through legislation.
These spectrum ``turf wars'' and tensions are particularly
discouraging on the Federal side for two key reasons:
First, and most importantly, the FCC is the expert agency in the
best position to evaluate competing technical studies related to the
risk of truly harmful interference. The FCC has accumulated
unparalleled engineering expertise in wireless technologies. All
decisions follow not only public notice and comment, but also a
separate consultation process with NTIA and any impacted Federal
agency. It's also crucial that the FCC determine and follow consistent
definitions and standards concerning what is or isn't an unacceptable
risk of harmful interference. In my experience, which covers nearly two
decades of spectrum proceedings, the FCC and its Office of Engineering
and Technology are objective, thorough and, if anything, decidedly on
the conservative side when it comes to minimizing the risk of
interference or disruption to incumbents, particularly Federal users.
Deference to the FCC as the expert agency should be beyond dispute
concerning non-federal bands in particular, since Congress gave the FCC
exclusive jurisdiction over commercial spectrum decisions.
Second, the number and intensity of recent disputes between Federal
agencies and the FCC suggest a lack of effective consultation and
coordination. I'm not in a position to know where the process is
breaking down, although it seems likely that the combination of a very
activist FCC and the lack of a coherent Federal spectrum policy
mediated by White House oversight has proven to be a toxic combination.
As I explain further below, because the NTIA is primarily an advocate
for Federal spectrum users, and the FCC is focused primarily on
promoting private industry and the economy, in our split system of
spectrum governance it is imperative that White House officials play a
guiding and mediating role in defining the balance that best serves the
broader national interest.
Spectrum ``turf wars'' and conflicts between the FCC and incumbent
users of spectrum, both private licensees and Federal users, are likely
to worsen as sharing or consolidating long-occupied bands becomes the
``new normal.'' On the Federal side, this has created a recognition
that our split system for spectrum allocation will require reform. Last
fall NTIA asked the CSMAC, on which I've served since 2009, to study
whether a new approach or structure for spectrum governance would
better optimize U.S. spectrum management ``for the implementation of a
21st century national spectrum strategy.'' After discussions that
involved most members, the Working Group reported at CSMAC's January
public meeting that:
There is general agreement among [CSMAC] members that the
United States' current approach for managing the use of
spectrum is no longer effectively serving the needs of the
entire stakeholder community and would benefit from reform.
Moreover, with the increased use of spectrum by all
stakeholders, we agree that issues around allocations,
spectrum-sharing and band adjacencies will need to be handled
with both speed and skill to ensure that the U.S. is making the
most of its critical national resources.
The divided responsibility for spectrum governance might ultimately
be an issue only this Committee can resolve, since the origins are
statutory. Long before the FCC's creation, the Radio Act of 1912
provided that certain frequencies belong exclusively to the government
as a matter of national security. A decade later, the Inter-
Departmental Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) was established as a
coordinating body for Federal departments and agencies with an interest
in radio communications. The Radio Act of 1927, followed by the
Communications Act of 1934, formalized the dual structure, giving the
FCC exclusive authority to license non-governmental spectrum, but
exempting radio operations owned by the Federal Government.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 151. See GAO,
Information on Management and Use of the Radio Frequency Spectrum--A
Little-Understood Resource, B-159895 (1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At its April public meeting, the CSMAC Working Group previewed a
range of options for alternative spectrum governance models. One
general option is to integrate all authority over spectrum allocation
into one existing agency or the other, creating a ``new'' FCC or a
``new'' NTIA. Another general option is to create a new independent
agency to assume this role, either as a ``full service spectrum
agency'' that assumes all spectrum-related functions, or possibly as a
more limited ``spectrum resource agency'' that assumes responsibility
for all ``top-level spectrum governance and policy decisions'' while
leaving implementation to the FCC and NTIA. A final category described
more incremental changes, including, most notably, updating and
enhancing the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NTIA
and the FCC, signed in 2003, to expedite and strengthen coordination
and decision-making.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal
Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration.'' Available: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/DOC-230835A2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CSMAC's work on this topic is ongoing. A more detailed report
on these alternatives will be discussed at the July 30 public meeting,
so I will not venture an opinion now. However, I do believe a few
changes can and should be made that do not require legislation:
First, the White House needs to drive and finalize a National
Spectrum Strategy that outlines a coherent set of priorities and
strategies that can help shape a consensus among the FCC, NTIA, and
Federal users represented on the IRAC. As President Trump set forth in
his 2017 Presidential Memorandum, ``the Nation requires a balanced,
forward-looking, flexible, and sustainable approach to spectrum
management.'' \8\ Building on the PCAST recommendations, President
Obama set his administration on a new path that favored unlocking
exclusive but underutilized Federal bands, such as the 3.5 GHz band
where CBRS now operates, but the current path and plan are not clearly
in sight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ White House, ``Presidential Memorandum on Developing a
Sustainable Spectrum Strategy for America's Future,'' 25 October 2018.
Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/
presidential-memorandum-developing-sustainable-spectrum-strategy-
americas-future/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the current MOU that governs coordination on spectrum
matters between the NTIA and FCC should be updated and enhanced. As the
CSMAC Working Group reported at its April public meeting, the 15-day
coordination period for routine items leaves gaps and potential discord
on non-routine items. The group suggested that for ``non-routine FCC
items, [the MOU should] create an agreed escalation process and include
specific time frames for resolution.'' The two agencies should strive
to agree on a common set of metrics and methodologies to determine when
a band is underutilized and, critically, to predict potentially harmful
interference. A joint test bed and annual joint workshop could
``explore novel spectrum sharing, management techniques, and
approaches.'' The MOU should also provide for an annual report to
Congress that describes the agencies' ``joint spectrum planning
activities, future spectrum requirements, spectrum allocation actions
necessary to accommodate those uses,'' including any significant areas
of disagreement.
Third, the coordination and consultation process itself needs to be
more transparent to stakeholders. It is typically not clear outside the
FCC and NTIA to what degree there are concerns about a proposed policy
or what technical information is being exchanged. As part of this, the
MOU should require that Federal agencies--or NTIA on their behalf--
monitor and file comments and technical studies in the FCC's notice and
comment docket in a timely manner (in redacted form, if necessary). Too
often Federal agency concerns come to light at the 11th hour, after the
FCC and the private sector have finished building a public record.
While these early filings should not replace the requirement for
consultation with NTIA after the FCC evaluates the record and reaches a
tentative conclusion, it does ensure that agencies, industry and other
stakeholders are not blindsided by last-minute objections never fully
or publicly documented.
Fourth, and most importantly, the Executive Office of the President
needs to engage directly in guiding and mediating disputes that arise
when the FCC and NTIA cannot reach a consensus. As noted above, while
both the FCC and NTIA are to a significant degree `captured' by their
role as advocates for the private sector and Federal spectrum users,
respectively, the right combination of officials in the White House
should be in the best position to discern the overall national
interest. The ``Spectrum Management Team'' recommended in the PCAST
Report is an example.\9\ Only the EOP has the clout to enforce a
government-wide strategic direction and to push back against individual
departments or agencies that diverge. A deeper engagement in spectrum
policy by at least OSTP and NEC can also assist the FCC at critical
times when it faces opposition to proposals for spectrum sharing (e.g.,
6 GHz) or consolidation and clearing (e.g., C-band) from powerful
incumbent licensees in commercial bands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The PCAST Report made a specific recommendation along these
lines. See PCAST Report at ix (``Specifically, we recommend that the
White House Chief Technology Officer (CTO), with equivalent level
representatives from the National Security Staff (NSS), the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and National Economic Council (NEC)
formalize a Spectrum Management Team (SMT) to work with the NTIA to
carry out the President's directive.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Generation Wi-Fi: Accelerating Affordable 5G Services for All
Americans
The 5.9 and 6 GHz proceedings pending at the FCC exemplify both the
promise and peril of the current imperative to share or reallocate
spectrum to advance America's 5G future. Unlicensed spectrum is what
ultimately makes both mobile and fixed broadband service more
available, fast and affordable to consumers and businesses nationwide.
Far more unlicensed spectrum is needed to distribute a gigabit or more
of bandwidth to all the users and devices in our Nation's homes,
offices, schools and other venues. But because every band of very
useful spectrum is occupied by one or more incumbent uses, adding even
a very low power ``underlay'' of unlicensed use on vacant portions of
underutilized bands--such as the 6 GHz band--entails overcoming the
inevitable opposition of incumbent users and their NIMBY claims of
imminent disruption. Our public interest coalition believes that
Chairman Pai and his colleagues displayed both remarkable vision and
care in crafting balanced and innovative proposals for 5.9 and 6 GHz
that will ultimately fuel not only the world's most robust 5G wireless
ecosystem, but one that is more available and affordable in rural,
small town and low-income areas across the entire nation.
Wi-Fi is the workhorse of the Internet because low-cost, off-the-
shelf routers and devices easily and affordably offer access to
unlicensed spectrum that provides high-capacity connectivity in homes,
at work, at school, in libraries, restaurants, retailers, and virtually
every public place. The vast majority of data consumed on smartphones
and other mobile devices flows over Wi-Fi networks, never touching
mobile carrier spectrum or infrastructure. The share of data traffic
offloaded via Wi-Fi is expected to increase sharply as mobile
technology upgrades from 4G to 5G, since high-bandwidth applications
are typically used at home, work and other indoor locations. Cisco
projects that 76 percent of all data traffic on smartphone and other
mobile devices will be offloaded onto Wi-Fi in North America by
2022.\10\ The U.S. alone will have an estimated 77 million Wi-Fi
hotspots by then.\11\ Providers acknowledge Wi-Fi's central role. For
example, Verizon's Executive VP and Consumer Group CEO told an investor
conference in January that between 70 percent and 75 percent of mobile
device data traffic is offloaded onto Wi-Fi.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Cisco 2019 VNI Report at 104.
\11\ Id. at 111.
\12\ Verizon, Citi 2020 Global TMT West Conference, Webcast (Jan.
7, 2020). Available: https://www.verizon.com/about/investors/citi-2020-
global-tmt-west-conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 GHz Band: Unlicensed Sharing Across 1200 MHz Will Benefit All
Americans
Unlicensed Access 1200 contiguous megahertz at 6 GHz--from 5925 to
7125 MHz--is the fuel necessary to power gigabit-fast and affordable
Wi-Fi 6 and other unlicensed innovations of greatest benefit to
consumers and the overall economy. Consumer and digital inclusion
advocates strongly supported the FCC's decision to authorize low-power
and indoor-only use of unlicensed devices across all four band segments
(a total of 1200 megahertz). We likewise supported the FCC's proposal
to allow outdoor unlicensed operations at a higher (``standard'') power
in two band segments that total 850 megahertz subject to registration
and recurring authorization by an Automated Frequency Coordination
(AFC) system.
While consumer and digital inclusion advocates celebrated he FCC's
April Order, the still-pending Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
addresses two critical shortcomings that threaten to diminish the value
of Wi-Fi 6 for the vast majority of Americans at home and at work.
First, the enormous consumer benefits of authorizing low-power,
indoor-only (``LPI'') devices across the entire 6 GHz band will be
undermined if the power levels are restricted to a level below what's
needed to protect high-power fixed links outdoors. The maximum power
adopted in April (5 dBm/MHz power spectral density) might be justified
as a ``compromise'' with powerful incumbents, but in practice it makes
Wi-Fi routers far more costly, complex, and less useful for the average
household or small business. In the context of the current pandemic,
because Wi-Fi 6 routers and devices can come to market as soon as the
end of this year, OTI believes it is critical that consumers and
businesses have the indoor coverage they need to function reliably and
affordably. The Commission should not pull the technical rug out from
under ordinary consumers, schools, and small businesses unless the
engineering evidence in the record clearly establishes that LPI at up
to 8 dBm/MHz PSD will measurably and substantially increase the risk of
harmful interference to incumbent users. As the Commission acknowledged
in its April Order, reliable engineering studies in the record show
that this modest power increase is extremely unlikely to cause actual
harmful interference to any band incumbents.
Second, to its credit the FCC recognizes in the FNPRM that Wi-Fi 6
and other unlicensed technologies will not deliver the potential
benefits of new applications, such as augmented and virtual reality,
without authorizing an additional class of Very Low Power (VLP)
devices. OTI and PISC strongly support the Commission's proposal to
authorize VLP devices to operate both indoors and outdoors across the
band's entire 1200 megahertz unburdened by any requirement to be under
the control of an Automated Frequency Control (``AFC'') system. It is
crucial that the Commission authorize VLP devices to operate at power
levels up to 14 dBm EIRP, which is the minimum power level needed to
achieve the enormous potential consumer and economic benefits of VLP,
while also fully protecting band incumbents from harmful interference.
The Vacant 5.9 GHz Band is a Roadblock to a Potential Wi-Fi
Superhighway
OTI strongly supports the Commission's pending proposal to
reallocate at least 45 megahertz of the virtually unused 5.9 GHz band
for unlicensed use. The 5.9 GHz band lies directly between the upper
portion of the 5 GHz band, currently the most heavily-used Wi-Fi
spectrum, and the 6 GHz band that will soon become the go-to band for
next generation Wi-Fi 6. As Commissioner Mike O'Rielly so aptly put it,
the 5.9 GHz band is ``the missing link between the 5 GHz and 6 GHz
bands.'' Reallocating the 5.9 GHz band for unlicensed use would create
an immensely productive Wi-Fi Superhighway, enabling contiguous
channels of multi-gigabit-fast connectivity in every home and business.
Contiguous wide channels of unlicensed spectrum with mid-band
propagation is essential for accelerating the next-generation of 5G-
capable Wi-Fi services nationwide, including for fixed wireless
broadband in rural areas.
Back in 1999, the FCC allocated this 75 megahertz (5850 to 5925
MHz) for auto safety signaling using a specific technology called
Dedicated Short-Range Communications (``DSRC''). For two decades the
band has gone almost completely unused, making the 5.9 GHz band a
telling experiment in market forces and innovation. Wi-Fi also emerged
in 1999. Over that time, unlicensed innovation and Wi-Fi use has
surged, saturating both the 2.4 GHz band and two segments of the 5 GHz
band with intensive spectrum re-use that generates hundreds of billions
of dollars annually in consumer surplus.\13\ The `car band,' meanwhile,
sits idling and empty. The band is so empty that the FCC recently
authorized more than 100 rural wireless Internet providers (WISPs) to
use it to enhance the capacity of fixed wireless networks in rural
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Diana Gehlhaus Carew, et al., ``The Potential Economic
Value of Unlicensed Spectrum in the 5.9 GHz Frequency Band,'' RAND
Corporation (2018). Available: https://www.rand.org/news/press/2018/11/
29.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently the auto and mobile industries are developing Cellular
V2X as an alternative to DSRC. Since C-V2X is in its infancy and is
likely to thrive, if at all, as an application on general purpose
mobile 5G networks, OTI believes it would be a ``win-win'' for
consumers to relocate V2X safety signaling. We believe Congress should
urge the FCC and DOT to work together to explore all alternatives,
including whether an alternative band, such as the nearly vacant 4.9
GHz public safety band, could be equally or more useful for vehicle
safety applications that are integrated with 5G mobile networks. We
recently released a paper making the case for relocating at least the
future Cellular V2X safety applications to 4.9 GHz, or to another
dedicated band that is not wedged between what will be the two most
intensively used Wi-Fi bands.\14\ The Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, a
high-tech industry coalition, recently made a similar proposal.\15\
Consumers will benefit most if the allocations for both auto safety and
next generation Wi-Fi are optimized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Michael Calabrese and Amir Nasr, ``The 5.9 GHz Band: Removing
the Roadblock to Gigabit Wi-Fi,'' Open Technology Institute at New
America (July 2020). Available: https://d1y8sb
8igg2f8e.cloudfront.net/documents/The_5.9_GHz_Band_.pdf.
\15\ Ex Parte Filing of the Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, Amendment of
Part 90 of the Commission's Rules, WP Docket No. 07-100, ET Docket No.
19-138 (June 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lower 3 GHz band: Expedite Shared Access to Unused Military Radar
Spectrum
As requested by Congress, earlier this month NTIA released a report
on the military radar bands at 3100-3550 MHz that ``focuses on creating
opportunities for commercial use by sharing rather than by clearing the
spectrum'' and ``under the assumption of no changes in incumbent
operations.'' The report concludes that ``the 3450-3550 MHz portion of
this band is a good candidate for potential spectrum sharing'' and that
``ultimately some sharing of spectrum below 3450 MHz may be possible as
well.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Feasibility of Commercial
Wireless Services Sharing with Federal Operations in the 3100-3550 MHz
Band, at 1 (July 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTI encourages this Committee to examine whether the 3 GHz spectrum
immediately below the CBRS band--and currently used extensively for
Department of Defense radar systems--could, like the 3550-3650 MHz
band, be opened for dynamic sharing under the control of a Spectrum
Access System (SAS) and as an expansion of CBRS. Like the grossly
underutilized 3.5 GHz band, there is every indication that the 3300-
3550 MHz band can be successfully shared with military radar systems
that currently occupy the band.
The NTIA's separate technical report on the 3450-3550 MHz sub-band
found that a dynamic, time-based sharing mechanism ``present[s] a
potentially attractive approach to both protecting Federal systems and
providing viable commercial operations.'' \17\ Such a dynamic sharing
arrangement could be enabled by having Federal incumbents dynamically
inform a SAS when and where they are operating rather than having
Spectrum Access Systems rely on spectrum sensing systems, which can be
problematic for a number of reasons. Conversely, NTIA's technical
report concluded that the static geographic- and/or frequency-based
approaches more conducive to exclusive, very wide-area licensing is
problematic. Such a static sharing approach would ``result in
significant restrictions on commercial services, in terms of emitter
power limits and exclusion zones, making sufficient access for viable
commercial applications unlikely.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Edward Drocella, Robert Sole, Nickolas LaSorte, Technical
Feasibility of Sharing Federal Spectrum with Future Commercial
Operations in the 3450-3550 MHz Band, NTIA Technical Report 20-546, at
ix (rel. Jan. 2020).
\18\ Id. at ix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2012 PCAST report concluded that often the ``clearing and
reallocation of Federal spectrum is not a sustainable basis for
spectrum policy due to the high cost, lengthy time to implement, and
disruption to the Federal mission.'' DoD's Defense Innovation Board
(DIB) report last year similarly concluded that within a reasonable
time frame, dynamic sharing would be far more feasible and acceptable
from the military's perspective.\19\ OTI fully agrees with the DIB. The
report's co-authors wrote separately that clearing DoD spectrum for
exclusive-use licensing is ``impractical'' given the need to find and
clear substitute bands for military radar.\20\ Even if possible, the
delay would be self-defeating if the goal is to win a global race to
5G. OTI agrees that shared access can open the 3450-3550 MHz band for
5G-quality networks years sooner by leveraging the coordination
capabilities of FCC-certified SAS databases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Defense Innovation Board, The 5G Ecosystem: Risks and
Opportunities for DoD, Recommendation #1, at 28 (April 2019). Available
at https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/04/2002109654/-1/-1/0/
DIB_5G_STUDY_04.04.19.PDF.
\20\ Milo Medin and Gilman Louie, ``Clearing the Air on 5G,'' Texas
National Security Review (March 13, 2020). Available at https://
warontherocks.com/2020/03/clearing-the-air-on-5g/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 12 GHz Band can Provide Shared Spectrum for 5G and Rural Broadband
The 12 GHz Band provides an opportunity to adopt a sharing
framework that greatly expands the availability of spectrum for both
fixed and mobile broadband deployments with mid-band propagation
characteristics significantly better than the millimeter wave bands at
24 GHz and beyond. By adding the 12 GHz Band to the Commission's 5G
FAST Plan, the FCC can make an additional 500 megahertz of contiguous
spectrum available for two-way fixed and mobile 5G wireless broadband
services, while protecting incumbent satellite uses (including
satellite broadband) from harmful interference. This will promote
competition, innovation and improve services to underserved
communities.
OTI, as well as the Competitive Carriers Association, INCOMPAS and
other parties have urged the FCC to launch a NPRM to consider the
petition filed four years ago by DISH and other terrestrial licensees
in the 12 GHz band who are currently restricted to one-way and very
low-power transmissions under outdated rules. Although OTI and most
consumer advocates opposed the merger of Sprint and T-Mobile, now that
there are only three national mobile broadband providers it is
imperative that the FCC ensure that DISH has access to sufficient
spectrum to compete aggressively with the incumbent providers. In doing
so, we also have urged the FCC to protect the operations of Space-X and
other potential satellite broadband competitors that have co-primary
rights in the 12 GHz band.
In addition, OTI, Public Knowledge and other public interest groups
have urged the FCC to seek comment on the authorization of coordinated,
shared use of the band for high-capacity fixed wireless services on an
opportunistic unlicensed or licensed-by-rule basis. Authorizing
coordinated access to vacant 12 GHz spectrum on a secondary basis would
be particularly beneficial for rural, tribal and other underserved
communities.
If the FCC grants terrestrial MVDDS licensees more flexible use
rights, the shared nature of the band makes it likely that power limits
will be lower than in bands that mobile operators will rely upon for
wide-area 5G coverage. As a result, mobile 5G deployments are likely to
be limited for years to urban, inner-suburban and other higher-traffic
areas where an investment in greater capacity justifies the cost.
Rather than leave as much as 500 megahertz in the band fallow in
underserved rural and other less-densely-populated areas, the
Commission--and this Subcommittee--should consider a ``use it or share
it'' approach that allows at least secondary, coordinated access for
fixed broadband uses.
Unused C-band Spectrum Can Spur Rural Wireless Broadband
OTI and multiple public interest, high-tech and rural broadband
provider coalitions supported two proposals that would put all 500
megahertz of today's grossly underutilized C-band to work to fuel
America's 5G future and to close the rural broadband divide. First, we
strongly supported the FCC's pivot late last year to a public auction
for 280 megahertz in the lower portion of C-band. Although OTI and our
broader Public Interest Spectrum Coalition continue to oppose the $9.7
billion giveaway to foreign satellite companies adopted by the FCC as
unlawful and unnecessary, we do believe that consolidating fixed
satellite services and reallocating 280 megahertz for public auction
will hasten a more widespread deployment of mobile 5G services.
In addition, those same rural broadband, high-tech and public
interest coalitions supported a proposal to authorize coordinated,
shared access to unused spectrum across the entire C-band to the extent
it would not cause harmful interference to registered earth stations or
to future licensed mobile services. A study by wireless engineers at
Virginia Tech showed that even after incumbent earth stations are
consolidated into the upper 200 megahertz of the band, every megahertz
could be used in roughly 80 percent of the U.S. to provide gigabit-fast
fixed wireless broadband service to more than 80 million Americans,
mostly in rural and underserved areas.\21\ By requiring rural ISPs and
other operators to rely on an automated coordination system, the FCC
can fully protect earth stations (and thereby TV and radio consumers)
in the same way that FCC-certified Spectrum Access Systems are now
protecting the U.S. Navy and satellite earth stations in the
immediately adjacent 3550-3700 MHz band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Monica Alleven,''Google, WISPA Tout Results of Study on
Sharing in C-band,'' Fierce Wireless (July 2, 2019). Available: https:/
/www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/google-wispa-tout-results-study-
sharing-c-band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, although the FCC included this proposal in its
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, it did not adopt it. We believe that any
Congressional action on C-band should require the FCC to authorize
coordinated, shared access to unused spectrum across the entire band to
the extent it does not cause harmful interference to registered earth
stations or to future licensed mobile services. Spectrum itself is
public infrastructure that can be used to help close the digital
divide. OTI strongly supports the SMART Act, which would minimize the
unnecessary pay-off to band incumbents and designate a substantial
share of auction proceeds for a Digital Divide Trust Fund. We urge the
leadership of this Committee to prioritize a compromise that both
earmarks proceeds to promote broadband access in rural, tribal, low-
income and other underserved areas and also requires the FCC to
authorize coordinated, shared access to unused spectrum across the
entire 500 megahertz conditioned on protecting the primary licensees
from harmful interference.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our views with the
Committee on these critical spectrum management issues and proceedings.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Calabrese. We will jump right
into questions and I would like to start by getting to the
subject of interagency spectrum process. Despite Congress
delegating authority over Federal spectrum management to NTIA,
there have been cases where other Federal agencies have
questioned NTIA's decisions and authority.
Along those same lines, NTIA is supposed to speak for the
entire Executive Branch on Federal spectrum issues yet there
have been multiple examples of Federal agencies communicating
directly with the FCC rather than collectively through NTIA.
And I will just open this up to anybody who wants to comment,
do you all believe that the interagency spectrum process as
designed by Congress is working effectively as it was intended?
Mr. Power. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the structure
is right. We have had some stumbles the last couple of years as
you referenced. I think what is needed is just greater
collaboration between NTIA and FCC at all levels. And
certainly, we have seen some turnover at the top of NTIA which
probably hasn't helped. There are a lot of good people at NTIA
and they are doing a good job, but I think in terms of
consistent representation of the agencies and consistent
collaboration with the FCC, some stability there would be of
assistance.
But more importantly I think it is just a commitment to
getting, the smart folks in the room, getting all the engineers
in the room to tackle these issues and to have a shared vision
of what we are really trying to achieve as between NTIA and the
FCC, OMB usually has a view on this stuff, help from OSTP or
NEC in the White House, and just a continued, sustained, and
collaborative effort to get to our common goals.
Senator Thune. Yes. Mr. Gibson.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, Chairman Thune, for the question. It
is an interesting question. You basically quoted from a from a
memo from the Chairman Pallone of the Energy and Commerce
Committee on the House side to the GAO to conduct an
investigation of some of these concerns and issues. And at the
end, the Committee asked GAO to look into several things. So I
don't think we feel that the problem process is broken. It may
be suffering from growing pains.
The process, as Dr. Layton said, is between 94 and 86 years
old depending upon when you think it started. If you take the
Communications Act of 1934, it is 86 years old and a lot has
happened since then. Quite a bit has happened since then. And
so the phase we are in now, the age where now is an age where
there is a lot more shared-use. And so we wonder whether the
process might lend itself to revisiting that in the context of
more shared spectrum use.
Senator Thune. Dr. Layton.
Ms. Layton. Well, again, thank you for the question and of
course this hearing, Senator Thune, and your leadership to look
at this issue. What was created with the 1927 Radio Act, that
is what we have today and it is acting as what was intended at
the time which was to make spectrum as a political decision. So
I think we get what was put in place then and if you also read
the minutes of IRAC over the years, there have always been
disputes.
We forget about them now, but they have always been going
on amongst the agencies, between the FCC, with the other
Federal departments. It is nothing new. What I would encourage
and I encourage this committee, I think there could be more
Congressional oversight of this particular function. This
committee does a lot of work to oversee the FCC. I think it
could do more work to oversee NTIA and IRAC, and I encourage
you to look at that.
Senator Thune. OK. Mr. Calabrese, anything to add before we
move on? OK, I will direct this question to Dr. Layton. In your
testimony you state that, and I quote, ``5G is the quickest way
to equalize the digital divide between urban and rural
America.'' How can we improve the Federal spectrum allocation
process to provide more equitable benefits to Americans and
should the process be more transparent?
Ms. Layton. So what I think you can see, if you look at the
FCC's spectrum, the ULS, the Universal Licensing System, is
that what a market-based system does is it allows more
participation in the spectrum: this number of licenses, the
number of users, the number of uses. It is tremendous. With
regard to 5G, because the overall decision around which bands
are to be used is still an administrative decision, the
industries, who are going to be disrupted by 5G, want to hijack
the political process to slow the rollout of 5G.
I find it very unfortunate. People suffer today because 5G
has been delayed by at least 2 years. We can look at what's
going on with C-band for example. Nevertheless, I think
Chairman Pai, the FCC Commissioner O'Reilly, Commissioner Carr,
they have been very forthright to continue to push for 5G of
course and with the help of this committee. It is extremely
important. All of America wants to have the next generation
networks. They all need it today, school children, health,
telemedicine. We know that through the pandemic.
For a longer term, I hope that we would look at bringing
pricing to this picture. That is something that is missing. I
know it is not something in this particular term, but a medium
to long-term plan should include pricing for Federal spectrum.
That would reduce the squabbling significantly.
Senator Thune. I am going to run and vote and return.
Senator Schatz I think is available. Senator Wicker is up. The
Chairman--we will yield to the Chairman of the Full Committee
for questions.
The Chairman. I think we had told Senator Schatz he could
be next so if he is available----
Senator Schatz. I am available but I defer to you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, then if I might, let me ask, and start
with Mr. Power, about mid-band spectrum. As I understand it, if
you could--and bear in mind we have a variety of knowledge
levels among the viewers today and it is surprising how many
people listen to our hearings--give us if you can a little bit
of a primer on the advantages of mid band versus high band
spectrum and also versus low band spectrum. And then, am I
correct in my data that we really rank fifth in the world in
mid band spectrum allocation?
Mr. Power. Thank you, Chairman Wicker. So when we think
about spectrum, we do divide it into these three categories:
low-band, mid-band, high-band. Low band is what 4G was built on
very successfully. It has the advantage of great coverage over
miles. It is not as great at the amount of capacity, the amount
of data you can carry. High band spectrum is just the opposite.
It contains a lot of capacity, very low latency, but the
distance it travels isn't as great.
Mid band is as my friend, Dr. Layton, said in her
testimony, is the goldilocks because it combines elements of
both. You get good capacity, but you get good coverage too. And
that is why it is so important. And to your point, we are
behind there. We have zero spectrum in the critical mid band
spectrum license today. The CBRS license or auction that is
commencing today will give us 70 megahertz of that and start to
catch up but other countries are multiples ahead of that.
The Chairman. Why are we so far behind?
Mr. Power. Well, I think Chairman Pai deserves credit. In
his 5G fast plan, he identified low, mid, and high. I think the
high band was kind of the most accessible in the fastest amount
of time. The mid band spectrum, as we talked about, has been
encumbered by other uses. And so we are doing the best we can
on that. But I think that is why the high band came first and
the high band has great benefits for us too.
The Chairman. Dr. Layton or Mr. Gibson, you want to weigh
in?
Ms. Layton. OK. So what I would say, if you look at other
countries that they don't have the military in this band or
there is a lot less military. So we have the military taking
precedence. That is one part of it. And you know, when we
allocated these things however many decades ago, no one
realized that there would be such a thing as 5G. So that is
part of the importance of having market-based mechanisms
because we can trade up all the time.
The Chairman. What are we not anticipating today in 2020?
Ms. Layton. Well, I would say our biggest blind spot is
China and that is and you know this. You are deep into the
security world and those challenges. To me it is not just the
issue of the spectrum deployment, it is the whole ecosystem.
Whereas China, in their command-and-control spectrum policy,
they align all the national champions. They get the right
spectrum, the national champions, and then they want to have
all those things together. Now, they don't have the market-
based system the way we do, but they are organizing themselves
in that way to be able to roll out to the rest of the world.
Now, I want to compliment my friend Mr. Power who has
talked about, we don't have to be China to beat China. What I
think where we have held ourselves back is we have not let the
market play the role that it should because it would quickly
resolve these discrepancies and the best would come forward. So
in the medium term, we are satisfying--we are doing it in a
suboptimal way, but we would move much faster and more quickly
if we would allow the market to work.
The Chairman. Mr. Gibson.
Mr. Gibson. Chairman Wicker, that is a wonderful question.
I would add one thing that my panelist may not have added is
that we are probably leaders in the world in sharing spectrum.
And so while I am not exactly sure of the motivations behind
being fifth. You know, it is certainly a place you don't want
to be but I think we have been leaders in sharing. As you heard
in Mr. Calabrese's testimony about Citizens Broadband Radio
Service and the applications of the brand new spectrum access
systems. And in the 6 gigahertz band, we are embarking upon a
sharing regime where we are going to be using something
similar. So I think we have led the world in the ability to
find ways to share spectrum without having to disrupt
incumbents by relocating them.
Sharing spectrum is something that starts off difficult but
ends up working overtime and you can see for example in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service the way we have been able to
find ways to share with the existing incumbents, primarily the
radar systems, is by deploying sensor networks. So that is a
facile--well I wouldn't say it facile, but it is a way that we
have established to share spectrum with systems that are radar
systems that are very difficult to share with.
So, I think we've been able to apply United States,
American ingenuity and technology to find ways to put spectrum
to probably more efficient use and sharing. And so we think
that is probably something to think about going forward.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Schatz.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question
for Mr. Calabrese and Mr. Powers about 5G. And you know,
working with Senator Thune, Senator Wicker, Senator Cantwell,
we are all trying to make sure that the United States is as
successful as possible with 5G, but I just want to have a
little bit of straight talk here. If there is not a business
case for broadband connectivity in rural areas right now
without subsidy, in what world do we think 5G pencils out in
rural areas without subsidy? Mr. Calabrese.
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, Senator. That is absolutely right. It
is an important concern that actually we have a, you know, as
we are seeing in that context of the pandemic, we have a
horrible digital divide currently in a 4G world and there is
the risk that as we go to 5G, that that divide just gets even
wider. That it leaves some people in less densely populated
areas and low income neighborhoods even further behind.
There is no question, I mean that, you know, Wall Street
analysts, the recent GAO report that while indicated that the
5G has its promised right with gigabit throughput, a very low
latency, connecting hundreds of devices--we don't have that yet
but when we do, it is so expensive to deploy that it will only
be deployed in the initial years in urban areas, maybe inner
suburban, other high traffic venues, but it won't be out there
in small towns and rural areas at all. And that is where Wi-Fi,
the next generation of Wi-Fi is so critical because thanks to
the FCC's recent order allowing shared access to the 6
gigahertz band, this new generation of Wi-Fi can deliver the
same services.
The same--in fact, it can accelerate American leadership in
5G applications and services, gigabit fast, low latency,
coordinating many devices, higher quality, but to every home,
business, school, library that has a fast, fixed broadband
connection. It just puts it over the air. It gets that gigabit
distributed to every user in range.
Senator Schatz. Mr. Power.
Mr. Power. Thank you. Senator. Without a doubt we need to
see the benefits of 5G pushed out throughout the country. We
are glad to see that 5G, as it currently exists, covers about
two-thirds of the population today. Going forward, we do face
the challenge of communities that are just not economically
viable to serve. There is no disputing that. We are glad to see
Chairman Pai moving ahead with his 5G fund which would allocate
about $9 billion to help meet that challenge but we will look
to that kind of support, I think, to make this work, and
especially in the short term, as we have seen since COVID,
there are so many Americans now who do need a safety net just
in the short term and then in the long term as well.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, and I will stay with you, Mr.
Power. Let's talk a little bit about broadband mapping. How can
the FCC and NTIA coordinate their broadband mapping efforts so
that the funding is better targeted to people who remain
unconnected. How do we get these maps to not just be more
accurate but to inform some pretty expensive decisions that are
pending?
Mr. Power. Well, this has, obviously as you know Senator,
been the challenge as of late. Congress acted with the help of
this committee with the Broadband Data Act which the FCC has
now implemented to set the parameters that will guide how these
maps are collected.
It is a challenge, particular in the wireless side, given
the physics of wireless technology with the signal when you get
to the edge of the cell, but we are committed to working with
this committee, with the FCC to make those maps as accurate as
possible to make sure that the money that we are subsidizing is
targeted to the communities most in need.
Senator Schatz. OK, thank you very much. Mr. Calabrese, my
final question. I think you will agree that the FCC is
currently using flawed or incomplete maps and they are about to
award $16 billion, about 80 percent of the funds available
through the rural digital opportunity fund for build-out in
unserved areas, and I am trying to wrap my mind around why we
would deploy almost all of the money in this fund before we
actually know exactly where it is best spent and I am wondering
if you can comment on that.
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, Senator. I totally agree. I believe
Commissioner Rosenworcel put it best when she is in her dissent
to the RDOF order. You know, which said--she said we need
mapping before money and data before deployment. And that is
right. This is most--the lion share of the universal service
funding is being committed for a 10-year period when for
example U.S. Telecom and others in a mapping pilot found that
38 percent of homes in rural--homes and businesses in rural
areas that the FCC had as covered in fact did not have
broadband connectivity. And then in addition we are locked----
Senator Schatz. Could you say that one more time for the
listening public? I think it is a really important fact.
Mr. Calabrese. Right. Well that--just as one indicator of
how flawed the mapping data is we have now U.S. Telecom and its
partners in a pilot mapping pilot found that 38 percent of the
homes and businesses that the FCC had as covered in rural areas
in fact, you know, did not have broadband service. And so we
are now in the process of blocking all those homes and
businesses out of the Federal subsidy program for the next 10
years by dispensing all this money in a rush and doing it at
speeds that are substandard, 25, 3 megabits per second up and
down. That is just woefully inadequate for the future. And then
it allows data caps. There is all kinds of problems with the
RDOF program.
Senator Schatz. Yes. You know, my time is up, but I will
just make one final comment on this. I know we have bipartisan
agreement about the flawed nature of the maps, but the FCC
itself has become so polarized and partisanized under this
Chairman that it is very difficult for Members on the other
side of the aisle to be overtly critical of the actions of this
Commission because it is seen as somehow a proxy for being
critical of the President of the United States.
But the fact of the matter is these maps are garbage and we
are about to deploy money, and as you said, lock almost 40
percent of rural Americans out of having any access to subsidy
which means for the next decade they are not going to get
broadband that they are entitled to because the Commissioner
wants to push it out and the Congress is unwilling to put the
pressure on the Commission to do the right thing. Thank you
very much.
The Chairman. Senator Tester. We understand there are some
technical difficulties. Can you hear us and are you ready to
go?
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. I can hear you and I appreciate that, Mr.
Chairman. If I am allowed to go next, I would love to do that.
The Chairman. You are next and you are recognized, sir.
Senator Tester. You are a gentleman and a scholar and I do
not have a good clock in front of you so you could just gavel
me down when time, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You are looking a little pale today, John.
Senator Tester. Yes, well a little fuzzy you might say. So,
Mr. Calabrese, I want to continue on with you if I might and
that is that in my neck of the woods, which is pretty damn
rural, spectrum issues don't mean a whole lot to folks. What
really means a lot to folks is when they pick up their cell
phone and it either works or it doesn't work.
And I will tell you that where I am at, I will probably be
liberal by saying 50 percent of the time the cell phone works,
50 percent of the time it doesn't. And it changes depending on
how you hold your mouth or what direction--so what policy
changes, what spectrum policy changes can we do, if any, to
help close the digital divide to bring wireless coverage into
rural areas? And this is for you, Mike.
Mr. Calabrese. OK. Right. So one of course is you know, I
have mentioned a big increase in unlicensed spectrum. And you
know what we all think about and what I emphasized was, you
know, indoor use for these new bandwidth hungry apps, you know,
distributing that gigabit around the school or the home. But it
is also very important in rural areas. All the, you know, more
than 1,500 small wireless ISPs, almost all in rural areas, rely
on unlicensed spectrum for high capacity fixed wireless, point-
to-multipoint. It is about one-fifth to one-tenth the cost of
springing fiber and so we can get broadband connectivity out in
these rural areas much more quickly, but they rely on
unlicensed spectrum. They need more capacity.
So this is--the 6 gigahertz is going to make a huge
difference there. Second, there is lots of other underutilized
spectrum that is not being used in particularly rural areas. So
a whole big coalition of us, rural providers, high-tech
consumer groups proposed that the Commission in the C-band
allow use of a coordinated sharing of the vacant C-band
spectrum in rural areas, again, for this high-capacity fixed
wireless.
And the Commission put it in its proposed rulemaking but
did not act on it. And there are other bands, the 12 gigahertz
band is another one where if the FCC moves forward with an
NPRM, it can include a provision for coordinated sharing. And
finally, I mentioned the Senators Schatz and Kennedy and
others, the smart app and Chairman Thune has his own version of
this, that would require auction, you know, take a share of the
auction revenue and put it in a digital divide trust fund so
that it could be--so that we could have more funding available
to close the gap in these areas.
So--excuse me about the buzzer. So let's carry on then.
What percentage of the spectrum from the auction proceeds
should we devote to rural communication build out?
Mr. Calabrese. Right, so, you know, with all respect to
Chairman Thune I would say significantly more than 10 percent.
Chairman Thune was on the right track, I believe, in making it
about broader than just the C-band option. He said, you know,
the proceeds from auctions over the next two years until the
end of the FCC's auction authority period. So I think Congress
should be looking at extending the auction authority and taking
a share much larger than 10 percent of all auction revenue.
You know, that is how we--that is how we ceded First Net
for example, auction revenue the incentive auction and
elsewhere. So yes, I think definitely what we need to do is the
monies being paid in these auctions to cover the more
profitable, big urban and suburban areas, we need to recycle
that money in the industry to cover the low income and
particularly rural areas.
Senator Tester. Do you have any sort of figure in that
you'd be comfortable in pulling out as far as what should be
dedicated to--and by the way, I don't think Chairman Thune
would feel upset with that. He lives in a rural State. I think
that he is the kind of guy that would love to see more money go
into rural America.
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, I would hope so. Well, you know, I
certainly think at least 50 percent but you know really it is--
you know, we see in the current crisis it is such a pressing
problem. I mean broadband is a new electricity. And so whatever
we need. Whatever it takes.
Senator Tester. OK. Appreciate that perspective, Michael.
Tom Power, I want to ask you the same question. What, do you
think, what percentage of spectrum auction funds should be we
devote for rural communications roll out? Mr. Tom Power.
Mr. Power. Thank, Senator. I don't have a number at hand.
You know, we certainly defer to you and the members of the
Committee in Congress to figure out the best use of these
proceeds. It is, as I said, essential if we are going to get
out to these economically unviable areas. The industry, you
know, invests $25 billion a year as it is, but as you have
experienced and as we all have when we are out in rural areas,
we need some help from the subsidy system.
And I will say having addressed this 10, 11 years ago when
I was at NTIA under the Recovery Act, we found that there
were--one of the secrets to success was the local organizations
coming together to, you know, the bank, the school, the Mayor,
and looking for the resources and then collaborating with the
Government here in Washington to make it happen. And that is
what--we just need to double down on those efforts.
Senator Tester. Well, I appreciate both of your comments on
this. I can tell you that I live in an area where there isn't a
lot of people and I can tell you the number of times I wanted
to throw this thing through the wall is far more than I got
fingers and I got less fingers than Wicker--and that is still a
lot. It is because it is incredibly frustrating to try to do
business when you are in the middle of town telling somebody
what kind of part you need for your combine and the damn phone
quits working.
And it happens more often than it doesn't. And so I really
appreciate you guys' input and I really think that the revenue
and doing our best to be able to try to meet the needs, as you
guys presented them. So I always want to thank you very, very
much. Thank you, Chairman Wicker.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Chairman Thune, I stand corrected.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. Sorry.
Senator Tester. Sorry about that. That was----
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. No, but yes, I can hear your frustration and
I am glad you are spending time on a combine. It actually
probably feels like you are accomplishing something when you
are sitting on a combine.
Senator Tester. That is true.
Senator Thune. Next up is Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very, very much, Mr.
Chairman, and I want to talk a little bit about Lifeline, about
connectivity which for America should be a matter of bipartisan
essential work. As you well know after Hurricane Katrina, the
FCC took sweeping action to make sure that anybody affected by
that disaster was connected. Within 1 month the FCC dedicated
more than $200 million to fund connectivity efforts and very
aggressively opened up Lifeline and E-Rate programs to new
carriers and subscribers.
What I have been hearing in Connecticut and from my
colleagues all over the country is that distance learning,
efforts of unemployed to connect to jobs, all are hampered by
the lack of connectivity. And I held a round table in Hartford
with educators, our superintendent of schools, Mayor, parents,
community groups, all of them crying out for more connectivity.
We need a bold plan and leadership. Senator Wyden and I
introduced the Emergency Broadband Connections Act along with
24 colleagues.
I led a letter with 26 of my Senate colleagues writing to
Congressional leadership calling for $1 billion right away for
Lifeline. I would hope and presume that all the members of this
panel agree that Lifeline needs more funding during this
crisis. Let me get from each of you an estimate of how much you
think ought to be allotted to this program? Beginning with you,
Mr. Power.
Mr. Power. Thank you, Senator. Yes, well, we are very happy
to be supportive of Senator Markey's bill. That is our getting
$4 billion to augment the E-Rate program and we have also been
discussing with members our program which is similar to your
proposal. But you are absolutely right. I was happy to be a
part of the original implementation of E-Rate twenty years ago
and our members certainly support Senator Markey and your
efforts to bolster Lifeline.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. I will just go down the
panel.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, Senator Blumenthal, thank you for the
question. I don't necessarily have the expertise to comment on
how much but I suggest that based on your testimony it should
be more. I haven't personally experienced, I don't live
necessarily in a deep rural area, but I get my Internet through
a wireless Internet service provider and while I have the means
to pay for it, it is not cheap.
And the situation I have is my local, the local cable
company is just as unwilling unless I spend something like
$10,000 throwing cable out my way. So I certainly have a
feeling and our company, you know, certainly have a feeling we,
again as I said in my testimony, have really been trying to
support rural broadband in the pandemic with some creative
approaches with setting up access points and LTE backhaul. So
we think that, I would defer to Mr. Power and others that have
expertise in the amount, but I think I would agree it could be
more.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Ms. Layton.
Ms. Layton. Senator, thank you for your commitment to the
people of Connecticut. I think Lifeline actually needs to have
major reform. I don't think that the model is working. What I
would advocate, however, would be the participation of the
Internet content providers, notably the video providers who
provide 80 percent of the data that goes across the network.
They are not participating today in the process. They make a
lot of money. They are getting the benefits of users using the
networks and they should be part of the funding.
Senator Blumenthal. And our last panelist, Mr. Calabrese.
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, Senator. Yes, my organization like the
broader public interest community supports these bills, the
Accessible Affordable Broadband Act, I believe it is called,
and you know in the Senate HR2, in the House, which provide I
believe somewhat more than $8 billion in emergency broadband
relief, essentially a Lifeline supplement, you know, for the
duration of the crisis.
And, you know that is certainly needed now along with, you
know, what as Tom mentioned Senator Markey's proposal that I
believe is also in that same bill for E-rate. You know, we need
both of those and another $4 billion for E-rate. And I would
also mention that we should be including both for now and for
the long run more flexibility for E-rate so that school
districts can decide for themselves the best use of these
funds, the most cost-effective way to connect students at home.
Senator Blumenthal. I agree completely on e-rate. I am a
strong supporter of the Senator Markey's bill. We have these
combined efforts. I am hopeful that the measure that my
Republican colleagues will announce shortly for the next corona
virus relief package will include a necessary and robust
commitment to broadband, whether it is through Lifeline, E-rate
or any of the other programs that connect carriers and
subscribers. And yes, there may be a need for reform but right
now in all areas, not just rural areas, but all areas, there is
a lack of connectivity which leads to the homework gap and the
digital divide. So I feel strongly we need to move forward.
Thank you very much to all the panelists.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Moran.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thank you
to our panelists for being here and being present maybe is a
better way of saying that. Let me direct this question to Mr.
Power. In my role on this committee, but also is the
Appropriations Chairman for CJS, I oversee the formal dispute
resolution process stemming from U.S. interagency spectrum
policy decisionmaking. It is my understanding that the FCC is
the Federal agency with authority for managing all non-Federal
Government spectrum while NTIA manages and assign spectrum
holdings for the Federal agencies. Is that a fair assessment of
the circumstance?
Mr. Power. That is right, Senator.
Senator Moran. Is there an existing formal process for
agencies like the FCC and NTIA to resolve disputes revolving
around spectrum policy determinations?
Mr. Power. There is a memo of understanding between them. I
don't think it is particularly detailed. I think it is more of
an informal relationship that helps solve those problems.
Senator Moran. Are these differences, when in determining
U.S. input into international standard setting versus a general
domestic spectrum determination, is there a difference?
Mr. Power. Yes. So, you know on the international stage is
the international telecommunication union, which is a subset of
the U.N. that helps harmonize spectrum decisions worldwide. And
so the State Department steps in to be the U.S. representative
there and works within NTIA and the FCC to develop the U.S.
position, and with industry, to develop the U.S. positions in
advance of those international conferences.
Senator Moran. So in the case of a dispute between NTIA and
FCC, theoretical dispute, who reigns? Is there a third party
that then steps in?
Mr. Power. It is on the international context, it is the
State Department that leads and is the convener of that
mediation process and ultimately makes the decision when it is
on the international stage.
Senator Moran. Outside of the international setting, who is
the dispute resolution authority between the NTIA and the FCC?
Mr. Power. It is a shared responsibility, Senator. I think
it can work well. I think it has worked well. We have obviously
seen some challenges in the last couple of years, but I think
greater collaboration and getting the engineers, the folks who
know this stuff, in the room together and focused on the
issues, I think that is the best way----
Senator Moran. Do Federal agencies file comments? Do they
provide testimony in front of the FCC on these kind of issues?
Mr. Power.--it happens. You know, I am an alum of NTIA and
our role, we thought, was to coordinate the agencies and have
NTIA and the Administration speak with one voice to the FCC. I
think the FCC needs to hear from one voice in a coordinated
fashion, but there are exceptions to the rule.
Senator Moran. Dr. Layton, is there a consequence to
economic valuation of spectrum if an agency involved in these
dispute resolution process tries to affect the policy changes
outside that process? Does it set a precedent for future
spectrum policies?
Ms. Layton. Yes.
Senator Moran. Any further thoughts on that topic?
Ms. Layton. Well, we know the saying you give them an inch
they take a yard. So I mean if you can get away with
something----
Senator Moran. That is--thank you for putting it in a way
that I understand.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Layton. Obviously, I think pricing would bring a lot
of--reduce the level of politics but failing that, I would
encourage the Committee to look at the carrots and sticks that
it has at its disposal. We talked about things today, the
dashboards for the Federal use, report cards to grade the
Federal agencies on how well they are using the spectrum, and I
would also like my fellow people in the policy community, we
can also do more work to look at the past disputes, test them,
and see were the concerns actually realized. There is a lot of
fights about interference, so we need to do more ex-post
analyses. Every agency will come forth with a Y2K-like scenario
that never comes to pass and we need to hold them accountable.
Senator Moran. My assumption is that uncertainty and time
delays causes spectrum to have less value or less interest in
those who want to bid. Let me again ask Mr. Power, the 600
megahertz incentive auction and the broadcaster repack, I think
that probably was a pretty good model. Congress demonstrated
strong support for ensuring a smooth and safe transition by
appropriating additional funds under their RAY BAUM's Act which
I led with Senator Schatz.
And your wireless carrier members were also proactive in
supporting the reallocation of broadcasters technically and
financially. While there are still some broadcast stations that
need to finalize their transition to a permanent channel, the
effort has largely been a success to date. As such, can you
walk us through some of the lessons that private industry and
the FCC learned or maybe should have learned from the incentive
auction and how those lessons can be applied in the future?
Mr. Power. It has been a success. I think one of the great
lessons from that is the confidence that Chairman Thune and
others have expressed in the FCC as being the agency with the
experts that can manage these processes. There were a lot of
naysayers before that auction and particular with respect to
the repacking process. It has proven to be quite successful and
kudos to the FCC for that.
Senator Moran. I found myself, Mr. Chairman, looking at the
screen instead of the witnesses. I am sorry. I have been to
football games in which I only look at the Jumbotron now, but
it is nice to have you here in person and by virtual presence.
Thank you.
Senator Thune. And when you look at your screen, you see
yourself.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. Just as a quick follow-up, we are going to
go to Senator Rosen next, but to Senator Moran's question on
disputes. As policymakers are there areas in the process that
we ought to consider changing in that dispute resolution
process between commercial and Federal spectrum?
Ms. Layton. Can you ask the question one more time?
Senator Thune. Well, he talked about the FCC and NTIA
disputes, how those are resolved, and one deals with commercial
loan, another deals with Federal spectrum. And I guess the
question is, are there things that we ought to be doing as
policymakers to change that process so that there is less
confusion and less conflict?
Mr. Power. I know from the industry side, one of the
challenges we face is understanding how the Federal systems
work and information sharing so that we can work around their
systems and figure out how best to relocate or otherwise
accommodate their systems. Oftentimes agencies are reluctant to
share information with us and sometimes with good reason given
some security concerns. But, if we could enhance the
transparency of what is underlying the Federal systems and
there are challenges, that could help.
Mr. Gibson. And I would add to that too that two things,
one is that I think so many refer to MOU that talks about how
the interactions between the two agencies work. And while that
may not be the purview of the Committee, it is 17 years old, so
it might be worthwhile to go back and maybe put a process in
place that that MOU is reviewed almost by design more
frequently so that it is updated. And the other thing is I
think the IRAC process as Mr. Power alluded to and Mr. Moran
alluded to as well, is a little arcane and murky as well.
And we participated in it quite frequently in the work we
do in some of the cross-boundary coordination between
commercial and Federal systems. So those are probably two areas
that could, as I said in my testimony, merit some revisiting
and renewing.
Senator Thune. I said----
Mr. Calabrese. If I can, Senator----
Senator Thune. Mr. Calabrese.
Mr. Calabrese. I mentioned in my testimony several ways to
improve that process and I believe it does begin as we have
heard with updating the Memorandum of Understanding. Right now,
it is very vague. It provides for a 15-day consultation period
which is obviously too short and late. In reality, that does
begin much earlier, but it needs to be more specific. There
needs to be a specific process for escalating disagreement. So
you begin with the engineers but it needs to go all the way up.
And perhaps the most important thing here is there needs to
be a guiding and mediating effort at the White House level, a
spectrum management team, for example, that was recommended by
the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technologies
in their report back in 2012 so that when these escalates, you
have officials who are in the best position to distill what is
the broader public interest on these disputes.
And finally the agencies need to be filing data in the FCC
proceedings while they were actually happening instead of
waiting until after the FCC has come to a tentative conclusion
and then at the last minute raising objections and even then
often being unwilling to provide engineering data.
Senator Thune. OK. Great, thank you. And I said Senator
Rosen is up next. Actually Senator Klobuchar is back. She was
here earlier and she is up next.
Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. I have returned
remotely, but it was great to hear all your testimony in person
and thanks for holding this hearing Senator Thune and Senator
Schatz. I know that there have been some questions from Senator
Tester and others about rural areas and as Co-Chair of the
Senate Broadband Caucus, I am very focused on this. We have got
42 million Americans lacking access to broadband. We have a
real opportunity right now.
Senator Cramer and I have a bipartisan bill to work with
our rural providers and we also have a bill that I am leading
that has actually passed the House that Representative Clyburn
has to invest in broadband. Maybe when I go over this, anything
you haven't said yet about this Mr. Calabrese, but funding that
should be used to expand broadband access in unserved or
underserved communities.
In your testimony, you note that C-band spectrum is grossly
underutilized and could be used to deploy more rural broadband.
Could you talk about what more can be done as soon as possible
given what we are seeing with the pandemic?
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, so thank you, Senator. I noted earlier
in case you didn't hear it that, you know, that Open Technology
Institute and the broad public interest communities supports
your accessible, affordable legislation, of course, the
Emergency Broadband Funding, additional E-rate funding, and so
on, specifically on rural what you mentioned about spectrum.
Spectrum is a public resource owned by the people and what we
need to think about is not just universal service subsidies,
you know, money from taxpayers, but also spectrum as
infrastructure.
I mentioned earlier there to Senator Tester that there are,
for example, as you know, more than 1,500 small, mostly small
wireless Internet service providers in rural areas primarily,
but also all kinds of other providers increasingly use fixed
wireless to reach these areas at much lower cost than fiber.
And what they rely on primarily is unlicensed spectrum.
And so the 6 gigahertz Order the Commission adopted in
April is critical to that by really expanding the bandwidth,
but even beyond that what we need to do is identify these
underutilized bands such as C-band, 12 gigahertz, and so on,
and allow coordinated shared access where that spectrum is
vacant.
Senator Klobuchar. Yes. I see Senator Fischer remotely
there and she and I actually got something signed into law in
2018 on this and I just cannot emphasize how much to my
colleagues we need to do something. One last quick question on
911. I do a lot of work in that area with law enforcement and
the need for upgrades with 911 in light of our whole new system
was set up of course before everyone had cell phones and
everyone could send pictures of burning buildings to fire
department so that they know what the floor plan is before they
go in and risk their lives. Can you speak to how funding from
spectrum of options can support the deployment of 911?
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, you know, I believe that what we should
be doing for that purpose for rural broadband for adoption in
low-income areas is actually capturing the share of auction
revenue and dedicating it to a digital divide trust fund that
can be used for a number of purposes including that one. And so
we have supported the Smart Act, for example, with Senator
Schatz and others introduced, you know, that would take C-band
auction revenue and I deal with you larger share of it
including by reducing the incentive payments and put it to that
use and others.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. One last question. You can take this
or maybe one of our other witnesses and that is, underserved
communities, which of course includes minority communities as
rural areas, but it also includes tribes and they have been hit
particularly hard by the pandemic and they need equitable
access to spectrum.
In May, Senator Heinrich and 16 of us sent a letter urging
the FCC to extend the rural tribal priority window period for
tribes to complete their applications for spectrum for wireless
broadband increase for mobile coverage. Could you or any of the
other witnesses talk about why it is important to support this
extension period to help tribes access unused spectrum?
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, I can. I mentioned at the end of my
opening Statement that the tribal priority window closes on
August 3, and because of the crisis, the tribal areas have not
had time to really--have not had the opportunity to make the
assessment in the application. And so that definitely needs to
be extended. This is for the 2.5 gigahertz spectrum which
schools have license for educational broadcast spectrum.
So before there is an option of what remains, we need to
give tribal, rural tribal areas a fair opportunity to apply for
that spectrum because really they need--their coverage is
terrible and they need a lower cost way to build out wireless.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you very much. And
thank you to the rest of the witnesses.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Senator
Fischer is up next. Also joins us virtually.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
having this important hearing today. Achieving more efficient
use of our Federal spectrum is critical. While recognizing the
continued importance of exclusive licensing, we must keep in
mind certain spectrum bands that are mission critical and
Federal users who cannot vacate a specific band entirely.
Our spectrum policies need to be adaptable to accommodate
these circumstances. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service has
been a major step forward for spectrum sharing system on this
front given the significant partnership among the FCC, the
NTIA, DOD, and commercial entities. Mr. Gibson, in terms of the
broader implications on U.S. spectrum policy, what do you
believe worked particularly well in developing the CBRS
framework?
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, Senator Fischer. That is a very good
question. I would say that probably the thing that worked best
was collaboration among stakeholders. We went into this and
actually we had some experience from AWS-3, which was probably
preceded CBRS by about at least 5 years.
And again, that was thanks to the leadership of NTIA and
FCC where we got together between commercial users and Federal
users and got to know each other, and we weren't so scary and
we were able to work things out into AWS-3. So we took that
experience into CBRS, and thanks to the leadership of people
like Fred Moorefield and Tom Taylor and others in the
Department of Defense, we were able to get together and hash
through a lot of very complex issues and it was ongoing.
So I would say probably the major thing that we were able
to work through that is successful for CBRS is the ability to
collect to collaborate among the Federal users. And we think it
sets up a framework going forward. Thank you.
Senator Fischer. If I could follow up with you, thinking of
the technologies that have really evolved to support spectrum
sharing and new device operations without having to move
incumbents, what other examples do you feel are the most
promising on this front?
Mr. Gibson. Thank you. I would say the next thing in the
pipeline is the automatic frequency coordinating aspect in 6
gigahertz. That band, and I think you have heard some folks
allude to it today, was just reallocated for unlicensed use but
there are still about 50,000 microwave systems that operate in
those bands that use about four hundred and some odd thousand
frequencies.
So the automated frequency coordinating system is a way to
allow unlicensed operation around the microwave system so they
don't cause interference. And it is built on CBRS and some
other things that we have worked on in spectrum sharing
paradigms. And so we think that that is sort of a good
evolution of how we can take spectrum sharing sort of into the
21st century.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Mr. Calabrese, as you noted in
your testimony, the demand for spectrum capacity will grow as
the Internet of Things continues to develop. Estimates predict
there will be over 125 billion devices that will be connected
to the Internet by 2030.
And as we all know, we are going to need a robust portfolio
of licensed and unlicensed spectrum to support industrial and
commercial IoT to develop deployment. Given the private LTE
capabilities enabled by the CBRS, how will this create added
resources for IoT connectivity, particularly with the spotted
coverage in buildings for IoT devices?
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, actually that was one of the great
innovations of CBRS was the notion that our policy for the
licensed spectrum previously had been mostly about wide area
coverage for cell phones and mobile broadband for consumers,
but, as IoT emerges, what is increasingly important is giving
building owners, factories, ports, schools, campuses, direct
access to the airwaves so that they can connect their own
networks and customize their own networks or hire third-party
integrators to do so.
So CBRS is part of that effort, I believe, conscious effort
by the FCC and now other countries following us, the UK,
Germany, to make spectrum, low power spectrum like this
available directly to users, enterprise users on a local basis.
And so they can choose by doing, you know, something like
private LTE on CBRS or now, thanks to the FCC's order on April,
there is so much more unlicensed capacity, very high capacity
unlicensed that can be used in 6 gigahertz for the same
purpose. So this is really going to spur innovation in IoT and
private networks.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Fischer. Next up joining
us also remotely is Senator Rosen.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member
Schatz, all the witnesses for being here today. I would like to
build upon Senator Klobuchar's question on the tribal window
extension.
And so I would like to submit for the record a letter from
the National Congress of American Indians, the American Library
Association, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, and
relevant stakeholders requesting that the FCC extend the 2.5
gigahertz rural tribal priority window deadline.
With tribes dealing with the impact of the current virus
pandemic, extending this window gives tribes such as the Duck
Valley Indian Colony and Pyramid Lake tribes time and
opportunity to access unused spectrum to connect to the
internet. We will send that over to you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thune. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
July 23, 2020
Senator John Thune,
United States Senate SD-511,
Washington, DC.
Senator Brian Schatz,
722 Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Re: Extending the 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority Window
Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Schatz,
Attached please find a letter signed by 48 organizations including
Tribal organizations, broadband providers, digital inclusion advocates,
and others supporting broadband access for all, in support of the
Motion to extend the deadline for the 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority
Window, filed by the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI),
Southern California Tribal Chairmen's Association (SCTCA), AMERIND Risk
Management, and Public Knowledge. The Motion supported by these nearly
50 organizations asks the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
extend the deadline for eligible federally-recognized Tribes to file
applications for 5G spectrum licenses on Tribal lands.
At the moment, the Tribal Priority Window is scheduled to close on
August 3, 2020. Unfortunately, because of the pandemic, hundreds of
eligible Tribes will not be able to meet this deadline. Unless the FCC
acts to extend the deadline, more than 80 percent of eligible Tribes
will be foreclosed from applying for this one-time opportunity to
receive critical spectrum licenses necessary for providing broadband
services to Native American reservations, Alaskan Native villages, and
Native Hawaiian communities.
As you are both aware, Native American communities have suffered
terribly as a result of the pandemic. It would be cruel for eligible
Tribes to lose this unique opportunity to receive spectrum licenses
that will enable them to provide broadband to their people. As Chairman
Pallone observed at the recent hearing on the impact of COVID-19 on
Native Americans, ``Tribes deserve better.''
We therefore ask you to include this letter in the record of this
morning's hearing, ``The State of U.S. Spectrum Policy.'' We also ask
that you and your colleagues support the request of NCAI, SCTCA, and
nearly 50 other organizations to extend the deadline of the 2.5 GHz
Rural Tribal Priority Window to February 1, 2021. This will give
hundreds of federally-recognized Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and
Native Hawaiians a genuine opportunity to provide 5G broadband for
themselves, and to exercise sovereignty over their digital future.
Sincerely,
/x/ Harold Feld,
Senior Vice President,
Public Knowledge.
______
July 23, 2020
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, DC.
Re: Rural Tribal Priority Window, Transforming the 2.5 GHz
Band, WT Docket 18-120
Dear Secretary Dortch,
The undersigned groups write to express support for the National
Congress of American Indians, et al., in urging the Federal
Communications Commission to adopt an ``Emergency Motion for Stay of
the 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority Window.'' Doing so would extend the
application deadline for 182 days due to the significant impact the
COVID-19 crisis has had on American Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian
communities, and Alaska Native villages across the Nation.
As the Federal Communications Commission itself has declared,
broadband is needed ``for every facet of daily life.'' However, less
than half of housing units on rural Tribal lands have access to
broadband. In order to ensure ``meaningful access'' to communications
services for underserved Tribes, the FCC created the Rural Tribal
Priority Window, which allows Tribes to apply for free spectrum in the
2.5 GHz band in order to deploy wireless broadband on their lands.
Unfortunately, approximately 80 percent of eligible Tribes will not be
able to take advantage of this spectrum unless the FCC extends the
deadline.
Despite the promise of this opportunity for Tribal communities,
Tribes have faced significant hurdles to finishing their applications
on time due to the COVID-19 crisis. Many Tribes lack the expertise to
navigate the FCC application process and the vast majority of
application workshops intended to help them were cancelled, as were
other forms of in-person outreach. An informal review by MuralNet
estimates that 20 percent of applications already submitted will need
to be amended or are missing necessary filings. This is particularly
troubling as the FCC has made it clear the agency will not allow any
major application amendments after the deadline, essentially
eliminating a Tribe's opportunity to correct any mistakes.
Moreover, the global pandemic has delayed work on the applications
and Tribal decision-making because many people have been incapacitated
by the COVID-19 virus. Those able to work must generally do so from
home--often without the very broadband access the application is meant
to provide. We cannot expect Tribes to complete work that requires
broadband when they don't have broadband.
By refusing to extend the Rural Tribal Priority Window, the FCC
will prevent the vast majority of eligible Tribes from accessing this
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity--due to circumstances wholly outside of
Tribal control. The FCC will also fail to achieve its own policy goals
of promoting Tribal connectivity. Extending the 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal
Priority Window is one small way the FCC can fulfill its commitment to
Tribes. Doing so is the first step to addressing the inequities of this
underserved population, giving Tribes, Native Hawaiian communities, and
Alaska Native villages an actual chance to secure broadband access for
their communities.
Sincerely,
Access Humboldt Access Now
Advocates for Indigenous California Language Survival
Alliance for California Traditional Arts
AMERIND Critical Infrastructure
AMERIND Risk
Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC)
Benton Institute for Broadband & Society*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ These comments reflect the institutional view of the Benton
Institute for Broadband & Society, and, unless obvious from the text,
is not intended to reflect the views of its individual officers,
directors, or advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Center for Rural Policy
Center for Rural Strategies
Common Cause
Common Sense
Community Informatics Lab at Simmons University
Department of Public Transformation
Environmental Defense Fund
Fight for the Future
First Nations Development Institute
Free Press
Friends of Buckingham
Global Force for Healing
Heart of the Rockies Initiative
INCOMPAS
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Internet Society
Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.
Long Beach Gray Panthers
Media Alliance
Merit Network, Inc.
Mobile Beacon
National Digital Inclusion Alliance
National Hispanic Media Coalition
Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA)
Native Public Media
New America's Open Technology Institute
New Mexico Public Education Department
NTEN
Public Knowledge
Reis Foundation
San Gabriel Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition
TechSoup
The National Tribal Telecommunications Association
Tiwahe Foundation
United Church of Christ, OC Inc.
United Methodist Church
Voqual
Washington State University (WSU) Extension
X-Lab
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I would like to speak now, my
question on the lack of a national 5G strategy. You know, I
represent the great State of Nevada and so whether it is the
self-driving cars that ride along the Las Vegas strip, the
drones that are taking flight over the City of Reno, we host
the largest technology show in the world. Of course in Las
Vegas as well. Nevada, we are at the forefront of innovation.
And in order to continue that momentum, bring about
advancements in transportation, healthcare, and communications,
we need a national 5G strategy just like we know we need a
national coronavirus pandemic strategy. But with its low
latency and high bandwidth, 5G has the power to transform our
national economy and Nevada's economy at a time when we really
need it.
Just as 4G ushered in smartphones, 5G will make what we
consider futuristic, autonomous vehicles, advanced robotics,
remote surgeries a reality. The transition from 4 to 5G will
require close coordination and cooperation among Federal
agencies tasked with managing our national airwaves, but there
has been recent disagreements between Federal agencies and how
to proceed on key spectrum decisions and they have left some to
question why we lack a unified voice or vision on this issue.
So to everyone on the panel, what benefits would such a
strategy provide and why is having a national strategy rather
than 51 state strategies important? So let's begin with Mr.
Calabrese and we can go down line to Mr. Power, Mr. Gibson, and
Dr. Layton, please.
Mr. Calabrese. OK. Thank you, Senator. That is a very, very
important question. So we you know, I would say first that the
FCC has a 5G spectrum strategy. If you want to get the 5G fast
plan, which is basically about pushing out as much spectrum as
possible, mid band and high band for both licensed and
unlicensed, but you are correct that beyond the FCC's spectrum
strategy for 5G, there is no National 5G policy or strategy
that really is looking at, OK, how are we going to get it?
You know, make sure it is available everywhere for what is
most important, and also to resolve some of these conflicts
between the FCC and different agencies. And one suggestion I
have is that really we need--the White House, at the White
House level we need to engage. Leadership needs to engage much
more directly first putting out a strategy with clear
priorities so that all the Federal agencies are going in the
same direction and then there needs to be some type of spectrum
management team in the Executive Office of the President that
resolves these disputes and make sure that they are following a
broader National strategy and National interest.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. Mr. Power, would you like to
briefly make a comment how 50-state overarching strategy could
help us be more effective here?
Mr. Power. Certainly. Thank you, Senator. We certainly need
this to be handled at the Federal level. That is the role of
the FCC when it comes to deploying commercial spectrum and
there are a myriad reasons for that but a big one, of course,
is that the Federal Government sits on a lot of the spectrum,
most of the spectrum, and we need to work with the Defense
Department and the other agencies to free that up.
And this committee has done so much historically to ensure
the rollout of spectrum. We are going to have the auction
starting today, another auction in December, and then there is
one more auction scheduled for 2024. But beyond that we don't
have a pipeline and this committee could do a great service to
the Nation to help with 5G deployment by helping to develop a
longer-term spectrum pipeline for the advancement of 5G.
Senator Rosen. I believe I just about ran out of time. So I
thank you for your comments. I will submit questions for the
record. I just want to be sure that the U.S. doesn't lose
ground in the race to 5G. That is really going to hurt us going
forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Rosen. And now virtually
is Senator Blackburn on. Senator Blackburn. If not, I believe
Senator Capito is ready to ask questions.
Senator Capito.
[No response.]
Senator Thune. All right, Senator Lee.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really glad that
we are having this hearing. I am also very glad that the FCC is
working to conduct auctions on the C-band and CBRS for 5G
networks. This is a good thing. Mr. Power, is our commercial
spectrum pipeline nearing depletion, and can we really afford
to wait to identify new bands?
Mr. Power. It is nearing depletion and now is the time to
act, Senator. Agree.
Senator Lee. I couldn't agree more. We can't afford to
wait. Dr. Layton, the Federal Government owns a lot of spectrum
and doesn't necessarily operate everything efficiently. The
Federal Government is known for many things, efficiency isn't
always one of them. And it is understandable. This is a biggest
organization that exists on planet Earth. Can we win our 5G
race with China if we refuse to include Federal agency bands in
our analysis of our Nation's spectrum inventory as we assess
that inventory?
Ms. Layton. No.
Senator Lee. We can't do it. It can't be done without
evaluating that. So we will lose to China if we don't do that.
Ms. Layton. Yes.
Senator Lee. OK. Thank you. I appreciate that. Do you agree
that the opportunity cost data would help us identify bands
that have inefficiencies in them and that this could help us
replenish our spectrum pipeline?
Ms. Layton. Yes, and I applaud the bill that you have put
forth to get at this information. I think it is critical.
Senator Lee. Thank you. I appreciate that. The bill that
she is referring to of course is my bill, the Government
Spectrum Evaluation Act, to help us identify the true
opportunity costs that are associated with sitting on that and
not doing other things with it. It is not the case, it can
never be assumed to be the case that the Federal Government is
omnipotent and omniscient, that it knows everything it is
supposed to do including with broadband. Given how much
beachfront property the Government owns, we shouldn't be
insulating the Government from that kind of evaluation. Mr.
Power, do you agree with Dr. Layton's assessment?
Mr. Power. I certainly do and I think one of the other
advantages of your Act, Senator, is that it could provide
incentives to the agencies. Because the way the spectrum
relocation fund works is when they give up spectrum, some of
that revenue can go back to the agencies to upgrade their
systems. And members of this committee are working on improving
that process as well. And so I think with the agencies
themselves are educated as to the value of their spectrum, they
may actually wake up and see some opportunities.
Senator Lee. That is a fantastic point. I am glad you
raised that. Dr. Layton, do you agree that insulating Federal
spectrum bands from analysis, in addition to causing other
problems in the commercial space, it also probably causes
greater inefficiencies and it precludes other opportunities
within the Federal bands?
Ms. Layton. That is absolutely the case. I think that
because the various agencies have not been operating with the
same market restraints, that they haven't made the best
decisions in their own technology. They are incentivized to
make inefficient decisions.
Senator Lee. So all of these things considered, can we
afford to wait 10 years to make spectrum decisions?
Ms. Layton. No.
Senator Lee. And does waiting longer, sort of, indicate
that we have got a broken decisionmaking process?
Ms. Layton. Yes. I mean, there should be ways to make the
agencies feel the pain of the opportunity cost.
Senator Lee. Dr. Layton, in your testimony you discuss
common law property rights related to spectrum and to the
emergence of the secondary market. Do you have any
recommendations for how Congress could reform our current
spectrum secondary market and push an allocation process that
is more market-based?
Ms. Layton. So, you know, obviously I would like the full
privatization, but failing that, to look at a pricing regime.
The United Kingdom started pricing for Federal agencies in 2007
where they actually would require police, different Government
agencies pay for the rights that they use. So that has been
started in some places. It creates accountability and
respecting, using the resources better. So what has worked in
the FCC, I think it could also work for Federal spectrum.
Senator Lee. And the costs of not doing that would be what?
Ms. Layton. Well, I mean if anyone believes that 4G has
mattered to the United States, what would our world--what would
America be like if we didn't have 4G? So I think it could be
catastrophic. We are assuming the future of our Nation will be
built upon wireless technologies. So we should be all in on
doing this.
Senator Lee. Right. And finally, the jump from 4G to 5G is
not just the incremental step that the number would represent,
right? Isn't it almost the difference between pong on the
original video game consoles?
Ms. Layton. Right. It is a stepwise function. What we are
talking about is industrial applications not just being able
to, you know, get all of your information through the air, all
of your video content, but we are talking about entire new
industries, right, where we put the, you know, the energy
industry online, we put all of the cities online, we put all of
our education and health, reinvent all of our industries. So
that is what we mean with 5G and it shouldn't be stopping with
5G. I mean we should be going to 6G and so on.
Senator Lee. But to get there we have got to have spectrum.
To have spectrum, we have got to evaluate what we have got. And
to do that, we have got to review Federal allocations.
Ms. Layton. And we need your bill.
Senator Lee. Thank you very much. I appreciate you saying
that and it is good to have the Chairman and the Whip here to
hear that. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. Well played, the Senator from Utah.
Senator--I am going to give--Senator Blackburn, are you there?
Senator Blackburn.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Blackburn. Yes. Yes, I am here.
Senator Thune. All right. Senator Blackburn, you are up.
Senator Blackburn. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate so much that we are having this today and to our
witnesses, I want to say thank you so much for being here to
talk about spectrum policy. And in our office, we talked a
little bit about how appropriate it is that we are having this
hearing today as the bidding begins on the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service auctioning off priority access licenses to
support our 5G infrastructure.
And of course, I appreciate hearing the comments about
that. And we all know and appreciate that this CBRS auction is
a little bit different of a template than our previous efforts.
And I am going to be watching this very closely to see if we
can determine if this is the right model that we need to be
following. And one thing I will say, having done a virtual town
hall meeting with Johnson County, Tennessee this morning is
that the pandemic and the need to utilize telehealth and then
as children are going back to school, the fact that systems
have to have both a policy for remote learning and well as in
class learning and shared time learning, they have got to have
that in place and we have really seen via the pandemic the
digital divide.
And the fact that we still have Tennessee communities that
are completely without access to high-speed internet. And our--
they are not even able to--they are still on dial-up or they
have nothing at all. And in this County I talked to this
morning, 58.6 percent of the households have a subscription.
They have taken the service and of course it is available to
more but still we are looking at lagging and we have to speed
up these efforts as we look at and as the developed world looks
at 5G spectrum assignment.
So I would like to hear from each of you very quickly. If
you just comment on the potential deployment delays or economic
implications of the U.S. going our own way with spectrum
allocation rather than assigning similar mid band spectrum as
our international partners for next-generation mobile
broadband? And so just start down the dais there.
Mr. Power. Thank you, Senator. You know, I can't help but
notice, as today is the opening of the CBRS auction, it is also
opening day of Major League Baseball and they are playing under
different rules and we don't know how it is going to go. And I
think the same is true of the CBRS auction. Our members are
participating. We are going to jump in with both feet, but it
is untested and it is not what the rest of the world is doing
with this band of spectrum.
And among other things, it limits the power levels of the
wireless carriers to about one-seventh of the power that they
are used to using in nother bands. And when we talk about
trying to build out past the urban areas into the suburban and
into the rural areas, that presents a challenge. But we are we
participating in it.
We are hopeful that it does bring some successes but it
does make us, sort of, the outlier in terms of mid-band and how
this committee can really help is to restart the spectrum
pipeline that Senator Lee was talking about because with this
auction in the C-band auction in December, we will be just
about at the end. So we will be happy to work with you and the
other members of the Committee to develop the next pipeline to
get us through the next few years.
Mr. Gibson. And thank you, Senator Blackburn. This is Mr.
Gibson. I think the question is profound, but I think there are
more people that are going to be bidding in this auction than
have ever been to an auction before. So that is 271 people. So
the likelihood of putting spectrum in the hands of a lot of
people are going to put it to use is high here, which is not to
say that spectrum changes will follow in auctions, but they are
going to be, at the end of the day, some twenty some thousand
licenses that will be let.
And so while that may be an outlier on the international
stage, the United States, you know is different in some regards
and it is important to you know, again have, you know, real
connectivity based on what we have been hearing. And you know,
we see lots of opportunity in the auction on a countywide
basis. Obviously, we have interests in the spectrum access
system that we are going to be developing to support that so we
don't see any issues.
Senator Blackburn. OK.
Ms. Layton. I will be quick, Senator Blackburn. And just to
thank you for all your leadership. You are such a champion on
5G and so many digital tech policy issues. I am concerned we
are too little too late. I mean as Mr. Gibson pointed out, 8
years to get 70 megahertz for CBRS is too long. It is not
enough. Even the power levels. It is a question about what we
can do. All the same, I am delighted. I think it is symbolic.
It is important tons of people will learn a lot from it, but we
need a lot more. We have to just add another two zeros to
everything we are doing. We are dancing around Federal
holdings. We have to take the bull by the horns, and you have
been such a champion about that. Thank you.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you. Mr. Calabrese.
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, I would just note that as far as you
know 3 gigahertz, this 3 gigahertz spectrum as well as a
spectrum just below it, we are just simply in a very different
situation in other countries because this is military radar
spectrum and the judgment--I am not sure if it was correct but
the judgment was that it would be too expensive and take too
long for the Navy, for example, to replace its radar systems
and move to a different band if another band could be found.
And so the FCC really made the best of it in an incredibly
productive way by, although it is lower power, the spectrum
will be available to many new parties, you know, who will be
coming in to do private LTE and more localized networks and
innovation. So in fact now Europe is copying us in this respect
of making spectrum on a more localized basis, small licenses
available to more parties directly.
Senator Blackburn. Well, I think we all can agree and my
time has expired, but I think we can all agree whether we are
talking about remote learning or telehealth or transactional
lifestyle, remote working, or we are talking about great power
competition, we have to get spectrum policy right and we have
to get the deployment right and we want to be able to keep the
standard setting with us and not have the Chinese take the lead
in this. So it is imperative that we do this right. I
appreciate each of you sharing your knowledge with us today.
Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Blackburn.
Senator Wicker.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I had an Opening Statement
prepared and I ask that it be inserted into this morning's
record at the appropriate time following other opening
statements.
Senator Thune. Without objection.
[The information referred to was not available at time of
printing.]
The Chairman. Now, let me ask, follow up on something that
Senator Schatz mentioned and I will begin with you, Mr.
Calabrese, but I want all of the panelists to weigh in on this.
It was mentioned that Commissioner Rosenworcel in a previous
hearing had decried the inaccuracy of maps with regard to the
RDOF. Now, it is my understanding that there are a number of
criteria in place to make sure that RDOF funds go only to
locations where there is no service at all.
So help me out on this. Our complaint with the maps
actually has been that they tended to overstate the coverage
and say there was indeed adequate coverage where in fact there
is none. Mr. Calabrese, there is no question that the RDOF
funds will go where there is no coverage. And second, you are
not suggesting or is anybody suggesting that we postpone the
RDOF in order to get the maps absolutely right across the
country? The complaint I have had is that RDOF is not happening
soon enough.
If we could move it earlier than October, people would like
for us to do that. So are you suggesting in your answer to
Senator Schatz's question that the RDOF should be postponed
until we get the maps completely right? And are you suggesting
that RDOF money is going to go where there is already coverage?
Mr. Calabrese. Right. Thank you, Senator. No, I am not
suggesting that it should be postponed entirely although it
should be phased so that a larger share of the total money
available over the next 10 years can be distributed with the
knowledge of all the areas that are unserved. So you are
correct that in this first round, roughly $16 billion out of
the $20 billion over the next 10 years will be prioritized
unserved areas.
But as I mentioned earlier, industry mapping pilots have
found that on the order of 38 percent of homes and businesses
that the FCC marked as covered, do not have coverage and so
they won't be considered. And really we need to be considering
all the unserved areas before we give out the lion's share of
the funds. So, certainly they should go ahead with the first
two or three years? worth of funding but if Congress can move
quickly to fund better mapping, that a year from now we could
be distributing the remainder.
The Chairman. Well, I think everyone in Congress and on
this committee would be in favor of coming up with additional
funds because the $16 billion is not going to be nearly enough.
But do members of the panel wish to comment? And Dr. Layton,
you have your hand up.
Ms. Layton. First, I want to thank you. You have worked so
hard on this issue to get at what to do about mapping. So thank
you for that first of all. I would just say that good data can
frequently cost money, but we should also recall, in 2010 I
remember NTIA had something on the order of $100 billion to
make a national broadband map. That money ran out and 2014.
The map wasn't updated. So some notion that this has been a
perennial problem and I am pleased to see that presently under
Chairman Pai, we have at least seen industry to try to come
forward through U.S. Telecom to try to find a long-term
solution.
I know they are still working through that. So it is just
to say, it is a challenge, but I think you are correct to
describe that this committee is trying to resolve it.
The Chairman. Other people want to jump in on that? Should
we postpone the RDOF or should we go ahead with the RDOF as it
is currently constituted and authorized?
Mr. Power. Yes, folks without broadband need broadband and
their COVID environment has exacerbated those challenges so we
need to get moving.
Mr. Gibson. And I would agree. We shouldn't let the perfect
be the enemy of the adequate. So I would say get going.
The Chairman. Let's get started as soon as we can in this
build on that. Mr. Calabrese, let me ask you, you have on page
14 of your written testimony, you mention OTI as we as the
Competitive Carriers Association, and INCOMPASS and other
parties have urged FCC to launch a rulemaking to consider a
petition filed four years by that Dish and other terrestrial
licensees in the 12 gigahertz band. Why is this important and
could you elaborate about why you wanted to include that in
your testimony?
Mr. Calabrese. Thank you, Senator. Yes, we filed, as you
said, along with many other parties in support for the
Commission to move forward based on a petition filed 4 years
ago by Dish and others who won terrestrial licenses at an
auction, but they are very limited. They are one way and an
extremely low power. They are looking for flexible use right
since this is 500 continuous megahertz of spectrum that
although it is up to 12 gigahertz, is much, much better
propagation than the high band spectrum that begins at 24
gigahertz roughly.
So this is great 5G spectrum, potentially, and so we think
the FCC should launch to open a Notice of Rulemaking and not
necessarily have, you know a set outcome, but here build a
record because there are other considerations here including
the fact that some of the small satellite constellation, SpaceX
in particular, has rights and is beginning to use this band.
And we also proposed that this will be great for rural
areas because since even flexible use rights will probably need
to be at a lower power and it will be used primarily at least
initially more in urban areas, that the Commission should also
allow rural broadband providers to coordinate shared use of
this spectrum in less densely populated areas to enhance fixed
wireless broadband offerings.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. And Mr. Chairman, thank
you for indulging me on the time. I think this has been a
particularly informative subcommittee hearing so thank you,
sir.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Wicker. I am going to,
without objection, insert a letter from the Competitive
Carriers Association into the hearing record as well and we
will wrap it here in just a couple of minutes.
[The information referred to follows:]
Competitive Carriers Association
July 23, 2020, Washington, DC
Hon. John Thune,
Chairman,
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation,
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the
Internet,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Brian Schatz,
Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation,
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the
Internet,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Schatz:
Competitive Carriers Association (``CCA'') \1\ thanks the
Subcommittee for holding today's hearing on ``The State of U.S.
Spectrum Policy'' and respectfully requests that this letter be
included in the hearing record. Clear and consistent spectrum
management policies drive significant economic activity and support an
ever-growing array of wireless services. As today's hearing reviews the
role of the Federal Communication Commission (``FCC'') in spectrum
management, CCA strongly supports continued direction from Congress
that the FCC remains the agency of jurisdiction in commercial spectrum
policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CCA is the Nation's leading association for competitive
wireless providers and stakeholders across the United States. Members
range from small, rural carriers serving fewer than 5,000 customers to
regional and nationwide providers serving millions of customers, as
well as vendors and suppliers that provide products and services
throughout the wireless communications ecosystem. Visit
www.ccamobile.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For wireless technologies to benefit all consumers across the U.S.,
regardless of where they live, work, or travel, it is imperative that
the Federal government work together to provide commercial access to
low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum. These finite resources are key
ingredients to fueling innovation and satisfying the ever-surging
demand for mobile data and will be even more important as carriers work
to deliver the connectivity promised by 5G networks. As our Nation's
airwaves grow increasingly crowded, commercial spectrum policies must
remain based on science and nonpolitical, and the FCC has been
effective at developing and implementing these policies precisely
because it has been driven by science rather than politics.
FCC leadership on commercial spectrum management has greatly
benefited our Nation. Not only does the United States lead the world in
wireless services, but FCC-led spectrum auctions have generated over
$120,000,000,000 in net winning bids, to the benefit of taxpayers.
Continued success from future spectrum auctions depends on the bidders'
trust that they can put licenses won at auction to use based on the
service rules and underlying spectrum management policies established
by the FCC. Trust in FCC analysis is also critical to meeting the
policy goals to use spectrum ``as efficiently and effectively as
possible to help meet our economic, national security, science, safety,
and other Federal mission goals now and in the future,'' as outlined in
the 2018 Presidential Memorandum on Developing a Sustainable Spectrum
Strategy for America's Future.
Any attempt to encroach on Congressionally-mandated FCC authority
regarding commercial spectrum management, or to insert other Executive
Branch Departments into the independent agency's process, prevents the
FCC from utilizing its technical and engineering expertise in reaching
decisions and would set a dangerous precedent. Further, the Committee
on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, as well as this Subcommittee,
must remain the appropriate committee of jurisdiction with authority
over the FCC.
American consumers benefit from digital opportunities and wireless
services that result from clear, effective commercial spectrum
management from the FCC. CCA commends ongoing leadership from this
Subcommittee, and the full Committee, to support these opportunities
and provide oversight for such a crucial American resource.
Sincerely,
Steven K. Berry,
President and CEO,
Competitive Carriers Association.
Senator Thune. I just have a couple of last questions to
ask but thank you all.
You have been very indulgent with your time. But as you can
tell, a lot of interest in the subject and I think we have
aired out a lot of good issues today. Mr. Power, in your
testimony you mentioned that increasing the flexibility of the
spectrum relocation fund would help spectrum efficiency. Can
you elaborate on what potential changes we should consider to
the SRF?
Mr. Power. Certainly, Senator, Mr. Chairman. I think the
spectrum relocation fund is obviously very well-intended and
has worked to an extent to incentivize agencies to free up
spectrum because then the portion of the proceeds of the
auction comes back to them. I do think, from talking to some
folks at the agencies, they almost see it as sort of status quo
that they do the work to relocate their bands and then they get
paid and then they are just back where they started from after
doing a lot of work, and in their views, perhaps taking some
risk.
So I think if we can add to those incentives and make sure
that they can use that money to do upgrades to systems and
perhaps a little more flexibility in terms of planning. And so
that the revenues aren't necessarily tied specifically to a
particular auction or a particular band, that they can widen
their lens a bit and get more of that revenue to become more
efficient overall because that is what will ultimately lead to
freeing up spectrum for commercial use.
Senator Thune. And this has been covered pretty well, but I
think it would be worth it just for purposes of kind of getting
it--having it on the record. But just maybe you can answer
this, you all can answer this, what happens if the United
States does not make enough mid band spectrum available for
commercial 5G services, and can United States have a vibrant 5G
ecosystem without enough mid band commercial spectrum?
Mr. Power. I would say what is at stake, we can learn from
by looking back at 4G. The U.S. led the world in 4G and it
meant not just spectrum availability and all the uses of
spectrum that we derived from that, but it also created the app
economy. That is a U.S. centric ecosystem. The two major
operating systems for wireless devices. Those are U.S.
dominated industries. It becomes this ecosystem that feeds and
grows upon itself and that is the opportunity we have in 5G and
that is the opportunity we have with mid band spectrum in
particular.
Right now as Chairman Pai and the FCC kick off the CBRS
auction and now the C-band auction in December, those are two
good moves, but we need this lower 3 gigahertz band spectrum,
and we really need the help of the Administration, the Defense
Department and this committee to get that band freed up to the
greatest extent possible to then start catching up. Even with
the auctions we have in place, we would not have caught up to
China and many of the other countries. So that lower 3
gigahertz band is really important.
Ms. Layton. To piggyback on that and certainly I agree with
what Mr. Power said. I would add that spectrum is almost--it is
less important than the service development. If you look at 4G,
the industries who profited were not necessarily the people who
invested. So who really benefited from 4G was the device makers
and the software systems, the apps, the platforms. And so
similarly with 5G we don't even know yet to some extent will be
these new industries that will come in the future.
But to me, what is a really the critical issue is that what
5G will enable in Quantum Computing and Robotics and Artificial
Intelligence and so forth. We don't have the patents for those
things today. And this is where China and other countries where
it is a reset, right? It is a reset.
There is not a particular advantage that we bring now and
we need to put all the assets that we have as quickly as
possible if we even want a chance at those next generation of
things. So I don't think we can overstate how important this is
today and thank you again for having this hearing.
Mr. Gibson. And I would just add that one major aspect of
the lower mid band is that it has now become The sweet spot.
You know, in the time because of technology, the lower band,
the 600 megahertz and below was sweet spot, but technology has
caught up to the point where the 3 gigahertz band, the 3100 to
3550 is a beautiful band for coverage.
So we have heard a lot today about rural coverage. You
really can't effectuate rural coverage much with millimeter
wave or the really high band stuff. It just is not meant for
that. So we really think that that lower mid band is just a
really good sweet spot for the band. And again, 5G helps give
us international competitiveness so we really need to keep
pushing that.
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, I would add that, yes, we very much
support more spectrum, more mid-band spectrum for both licensed
and unlicensed that is critical in thinking of a broader 5G
wireless ecosystem that we have sufficient amount of both
licensed and unlicensed in the mid band spectrum for the mobile
carriers networks. The more spectrum they have, presumably, the
more capacity and the lower the prices for consumers.
So that is a good thing. But I would just note that in the
spirit of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, in
the 3 gigahertz spectrum below CBRS, which is also military
radar spectrum today, we really need to press for a clear,
technical answer in a sense or budgetary answer perhaps about
how much of that can be cleared, if any, and then we should
move to share the rest by extending the CBRS framework because
that can be done rapidly and we can be having, you know,
additional auctions for PAL licenses and additional general
authorized access as well. So that may be the fastest way to
make it available and for a wider variety of users as well.
Senator Thune. All right, just perhaps last question. How
do we account for spectrum needs which cannot be made public
like those that affect our national security interests?
Ms. Layton. So well, first of all, I don't think National
Security is a static issue, and frequently, you know, some
parties want to say well it is National Security, end of
discussion and there is quite a bit of debate about what
National Security is. And I think Mr. Power, in his testimony
he described well I attempted to as well that our economy is a
National Security issue, being able to compete with the next
generation technologies is a National Security issue.
The military, our adversaries will use next generation
technologies to power their weapons. So we won't be able to
compete as a military without the right networks and spectrum
and so forth. I would recommend a great new book by Christian
Brose called The Kill Chain, which is a critique of our
military today that they have been incentivized to maybe not
make the best technological decisions. They are bought in two
platforms for example.
Our adversaries are looking at the different modes of
warfare. They may be smarter about how they use spectrum. But
in any case, it would simply say that we can't stop our
conversation about moving forward for spectrum for an excuse of
National Security. It is part of realizing the right spectrum
policy. And of course, we want to have a powerful military,
they need to have their capabilities, but they also have to be
smart about how they use resources.
This is not a new concept. This was going on in World War
II. There was a discussion around the broadcasters had to be
able to use the spectrum the military wanted. It was important
to have broadcasting to the American people during World War
II. So this notion that somehow the military will always win
and there are other uses is not there. There has always been
this question, because we have an administrative allocation,
about how do we balance the uses.
Mr. Gibson. I would add to that that we had some experience
in the past with a collaboration in DOD type discussions. When
we were talking about this, we were able to sign non-disclosure
agreements with the DOD and thereby we were able to share
information. It was not necessarily classified. It was for
official use only but it began to kind of give us a thinking
that there is a way through collaborative process, allowing
commercial interest to get involved with discussions on
spectrum usage and we were able to actually make some very
critical decisions that made the auction happen on time for
AWS-3. So there is a framework, in fact, within the commerce
spectrum management advisory committee.
Shortly after that, we tried to study, a way that we could
institutionalize a method whereby, through some aspects,
through the Federal Advisory Committee Act or something,
whereby commercial interest could help in these discussions.
That never saw the light of day, but the fact that we were able
to get NDAs in place and have these discussions with technical
experts and spectrum experts on both sides of the discussion
was, I think we called the trusted agent approach.
So I would suggest that that be looked into in more detail
and considered because we think that many of us still hold
clearances from work we have done before and those clearances,
we have gone through the vetting process. So it is possible to
put that in place and allow us to continue to collaborate.
Mr. Power. Mr. Chairman, in the last 10 years, the wireless
carriers have become 42 times more efficient in their delivery
of data. That is to say for every megahertz allocated to them,
they are now carrying 42 times the amount of data as they did
10 years ago. And they have invested hundreds of billions of
dollars to achieve that and they do it because of the
opportunity cost visited upon them by having owned the
spectrum.
I doubt there is anyone who can tell us what the efficiency
gains, if any, there have been on the Federal side because they
don't face those challenges, they don't face those incentives,
they don't face those costs. So I think greater transparency
into that issue and finding areas where they might be able to
increase that efficiency because I suspect there are
opportunities there.
I think Senator Lee's bill would help us start to identify
them. And then helping and working with the agencies who get
the proceeds from these auctions to achieve those greater
efficiencies. That is a win-win for everybody.
Senator Thune. Well, I couldn't agree more. I just think
that we have to figure this out and you know, the stakes are so
high and our competitors are not having to delay and sit around
dealing with the bureaucratic obstacles that we are having to
deal with here.
And I thank you for your advocacy. And I hope you will
continue to be loud, strong voices on how important it is to
figure these solutions out that enable us to get more of that
critical spectrum available for 5G because I just think that
the cost of not winning that race or at least not being
competitive in that race are incredibly high for our country on
many levels. So thanks for your testimony today.
We will keep the hearing record open for a couple of weeks
and during that time Senators are going to be asked to submit
any questions for the record. And when you receive those
questions, if you could submit your written answers to the
Committee as soon as possible. They will be included in the
permanent record and we would greatly appreciate the timeliness
of your response.
So thank you for being here today. And with that, we will
adjourn this hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
GPS Innovation Alliance
July 21, 2020
Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:
The GPS Innovation Alliance (``GPSIA'') thanks the U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (``Committee'') for
its continued work overseeing the Federal Communications Commission
(``FCC'' or ``Commission''), including at the Committee's June 24, 2020
hearing.\1\ During the hearing, FCC Chairman Pai and the other
Commissioners discussed, among other things, the Ligado Order, which
granted applications submitted by Ligado Networks LLC (``Ligado'') to
modify its Mobile Satellite Service authorizations to be able to deploy
a nationwide terrestrial wireless network in so-called ``L-Band''
spectrum.\2\ While the GPSIA appreciates the Chairman and
Commissioners' comments on efforts to expand the deployment of
broadband services, we believe certain statements made in response to
questions asked by Committee members require additional clarification.
The GPSIA therefore submits this letter to correct the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission Before
the Senate Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transp., 106th Cong. (2020)
(``FCC Oversight Hearing'').
\2\ See LightSquared Technical Working Group Report, et al., Order
and Authorization, 35 FCC Rcd 3772 (2020) (``Ligado Order''). The L-
band frequency bands covered by the Ligado Order are 1526-1536 MHz,
1627.5-1637.5 MHz, and 1646.5-1656.5 MHz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1 dB Standard is the Appropriate Metric to Guard Against Harmful
Interference to GPS Navigation and Timing Services
Chairman Pai testified that the FCC has ``never embraced'' the 1 dB
standard and that the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (``NTIA'') itself has rejected that standard.\3\
Chairman Pai further stated that utilizing the 1 dB standard would
``wipe out wireless communications as we know it.'' Both statements are
inaccurate, and they highlight the fundamental flaws in the Ligado
Order--the Commission's failure to adequately consider the unique
characteristics of Global Positioning System (``GPS'') devices, timing
and navigation devices that are fundamentally different from
communications devices, and to adopt an interference standard that is
appropriate for GPS. Since GPS is different, adopting an appropriate
interference standard for GPS does not mean the FCC would be required
to extend that same standard to communications systems. The FCC can,
and should, adopt interference standards that are appropriate for each
individual service and has done so in the past. Its failure to do so
here threatens the 900 million GPS receivers in use in the United
States\4\ and the critical activities and systems that depend on them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FCC Oversight Hearing (statement of Chairman Pai); see also
Letter from the Honorable Ajit Pai, Chairman, FCC, to the Honorable
Chris Coons, Mike Lee, Edward J. Markey, Ron Johnson, Brian Schatz,
John Thune, and Mark Warner at 4 (dated June 12, 2020). The 1 dB
standard measures whether a new service causes a 1 dB degradation in a
receiver's Carrier-to-Noise Power Density Ratio (``C/N0'')
or a 25 percent increase in the noise floor. See, e.g., Letter from J.
David Grossman, Executive Director, GPS Innovation Alliance, to Marlene
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, IB Docket Nos. 11-109 and 12-340, at 2
(filed Dec. 20, 2019) (``GPSIA Dec. 2019 Ex Parte Letter'').
\4\ See National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing
Advisory Board, Twenty-Fourth Meeting, at 14 (Nov. 2019), https://
www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/meetings/2019-11/minutes.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the FCC has, in fact, utilized the 1 dB standard, including
in cases involving GPS.\5\ We note that just two months prior to the
adoption of the Ligado decision, the Commission applied the 1 dB
standard in order to protect C-band earth stations from terrestrial
broadband operations in the adjacent band.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, e.g., Revision of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules
Regarding Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 3857, 12, 14 (2003) (utilizing the 1 dB standard
when the FCC established emission levels for ultra-wideband
transmission systems); Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's
Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television, Television
Translator, and Television Booster Stations and to Amend Rules for
Digital Class A Television Stations, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd
19331, 230 (2004) (using the 1 dB standard to establish rules to
limit the emissions of low-power television stations into the spectrum
band used by GPS); Allocations and Service Rules for the 71-76 GHz, 81-
86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz Bands, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd
4889, 23 (2005) (modifying the interference protection criteria for
existing digital and analog facilities by adopting a 1 dB standard).
\6\ See Expanding Flexible Use in the 3.7-4.2 GHz Band, Report and
Order, Order Proposing Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343, 366-89 (2020)
(``C-Band Order''); id. 382 (``We find that a protection criteria of
I/N = -6 dB is appropriate for TT&C links, as we did for the FSS earth
stations described above. The 3.7 GHz Service licensee must ensure that
the aggregated power from its operations will meet an I/N of -6 dB as
received by the TT&C earth station.''); id. 388 (``To protect TT&C
earth stations from adjacent channel interference due to out-of-band
emissions, we set the same interference protection criteria of -6 dB I/
N ratio.''). An interference-to-noise (``I/N'') ratio of -6 dB is
equivalent to a 1 dB rise in the noise floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the FCC has previously distinguished, as it did not do
here, between different types of services, adopting an interference
standard that is appropriate based on the circumstances. For example,
in repurposing ``H Block'' spectrum for mobile communications services,
the Commission adopted a less restrictive 3 dB standard to protect
mobile communications systems. But in doing so, the Commission
acknowledged that the ``1 dB desensitization is most commonly used as
an interference protection criterion for noise-limited receiver
systems.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services H Block--
Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz
Bands, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 9483, 144 (2013). In that same
decision, the FCC also referenced an Interference Protection Criteria
Technical Report released by NTIA on the 1 dB standard, demonstrating
that both the FCC and NTIA have relied on or utilized the 1 dB
standard. See id. 144, n.440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPS receivers are precisely the type of ``noise-limited receiver
systems'' that the Commission recognized that the 1 dB standard should
be used to protect. As the FCC has explained, ``noise limited'' systems
and services include receivers that are expected to continue to operate
even when they receive very weak signals and are limited by the
presence of radiofrequency noise that is expected to be present at the
same level as the desired signal.\8\ A 1 dB adverse change, which
represents a 25 percent increase in noise, is a sizable impact on such
systems. Unlike typical wireless communications systems, which operate
at high power relative to satellite signals and operate above the noise
floor, wide bandwidth, spread spectrum GPS signals are below the
thermal noise floor when they are received.\9\ Indeed, GPS satellites
transmit with no more power than a 50-watt light bulb, and signals
arrive on earth with a power of less than a millionth of a billionth of
a watt.\10\ Therefore, GPS receivers are inherently vulnerable to high-
powered transmissions in closely adjacent spectrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Technical Standards for Determining Eligibility for
Satellite-Delivered Network Signals Pursuant to the Satellite Home
Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act, Notice of Inquiry, 20 FCC Rcd
9349, 6 n.19 (2005); FCC White Paper, The Public Safety Nationwide
Interoperable Broadband Network: A New Model for Capacity, Performance
and Cost, at 15 & n.23 (June 2010), https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/
docs/releases/DOC-298799A1.pdf (noting that cellular networks are
generally ``interference limited rather than noise limited'' and that
noise-limited networks are ``inherently more vulnerable to
interference, including adjacent-channel interference, than commercial
networks'').
\9\ See GPSIA Dec. 2019 Ex Parte Letter at 2; Phillip W. Ward, John
W. Betz, and Christopher J. Hegarty, Understanding GPS Principles and
Practice 247 (Elliot D. Kaplan and Christopher J. Hegarty eds. Artech
House, 2d ed. 2006).
\10\ See Comments of GPS Innovation Alliance, Docket No. 181130999-
8999-01, at 4 (filed Jan. 22, 2019) (``GPSIA NTIA Spectrum Management
Plan Comments''); see also, e.g., Tim Bartlett, Threats to GPS from
Land-Based Signal Boosters, Power and MotorYacht (Sept. 19, 2017),
https://www.powerandmotoryacht.com/electronics/understanding-impact-
threats-gps-land-based-signal-boosters (``GPS signals come from solar-
powered 50-Watt transmitters 12,000 miles out in space.''); Sebastian
Anthony, Think GPS is Cool? IPS Will Blow Your Mind, ExtremeTech (Apr.
24, 2012, 12:52 PM), http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/126843-think-
gps-is-cool-ips-willblow-your-mind (``Detecting a GPS signal on Earth
is comparable to detecting the light from a 25-watt bulb from 10,000
miles.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is why, while GPS receivers are designed to withstand
adjacent-band transmissions that are substantially stronger than GPS
signals, they can be ``overloaded'' by high-powered mobile broadband
transmissions in adjacent frequencies.\11\ Even lower power mobile
telephone networks operating in adjacent spectrum will be a billion
times stronger than a GPS signal when a GPS receiver is in close
proximity (e.g., 100 meters). Given the ubiquity of GPS devices in the
United States, high-powered operations in adjacent spectrum are likely
to seriously degrade and/or disrupt the operation of GPS devices on an
ongoing basis. For these reasons, continued adherence to the 1 dB
standard is critical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Letter from Russell H. Fox, Counsel for Trimble Navigation
Limited, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, IB Docket Nos. 11-109
and 12-340, Attachment at 3 (filed June 19, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The consequences of disruption to GPS receivers and the devices and
systems in which they are embedded are also fundamentally different
from the consequences of interference to communications devices. Mobile
phone users can observe the results of interference in dropped calls or
poor call quality. In contrast, the disruption or degradation to the
accuracy and integrity of a GPS receiver is not readily detectable by
the end user, producing an inaccurate readout of position or time,
which can have untold consequences. The device or system will continue
to operate with a degraded position or timing output, but will perform
worse as a result.\12\ In extreme cases of interference, when a GPS
receiver ``loses lock'' on available GPS satellites altogether, the
user is left with no means of determining location until the
interference is abated--another potentially catastrophic outcome when
GPS is relied upon for critical life-saving services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See GPSIA NTIA Spectrum Management Plan Comments at 7-8;
Letter from M. Anne Swanson, Counsel to Garmin, to Ms. Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, IB Docket Nos. 11-109 and 12-340, at Attachment
2 at 4-5 (filed Oct. 27, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless operators have technology and expertise to monitor
operations and design their networks to minimize interference to
wireless operators in adjacent spectrum. Wireless systems can also take
advantage of adaptive power control, forward error correction, retry
capability, and other systems that allow mobile devices and the network
to dynamically adjust to reduce the impact of interference. It is
therefore appropriate to adopt more permissive standards of what
constitutes harmful interference protection for communications systems,
as the FCC did when it adopted a 3 dB standard for the H Block.
Because interference to positioning, navigation, and timing
(``PNT'') services, as opposed to communication services, creates
different kinds of risks, the Commission's rules, like those of the
International Telecommunications Union, defines interference to each
differently. In particular, the Commission's rules define harmful
interference as that ``which endangers the functioning of a
radionavigation service or of other safety services or [which]
seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a
radiocommunication service operating in accordance with Radio
Regulations.'' \13\ The Ligado Order mistakenly applies the
Commission's own ``seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly
interrupts'' standard for radiocommunications to GPS--a radionavigation
service. A 1 dB standard serves as the appropriate level to protect GPS
receivers against severe impact to performance and guard against
harmful interference. The international standard metric for protecting
the functioning of a radionavigation service and guarding against it
from being endangered is the 1 dB standard,\14\ and it should have been
employed in the Ligado Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 2.1(c); see also ITU Radio Regulations
Sec. 1.169; Reply to Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration of
Trimble, IB Docket Nos. 11-109 and 12-340, at 5 (filed June 8, 2020)
(explaining that the definition of harmful interference is also
different for communications and navigation systems).
\14\ See Background Paper on Use of a 1-dB Decrease in C/
N0 as GPS Interference Protection Criterion, United States
Air Force, at 2-4 (2017), https://www.gps.gov/spectrum/ABC/1dB-
background-paper.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference in standards is critical. The Commission's rules and
ITU Radio Regulations are specifically written to ensure that a pilot,
farmer, boat owner, or first responder is not required to demonstrate
after the fact, once the harm has already occurred, that the operation
of his or her GPS-dependent device has been ``seriously degraded'' or
``repeatedly interrupted.'' The FCC should have determined whether
Ligado's operations ``endanger[] the functioning'' of GPS devices, and
the Commission's failure to do this was a fundamental error that
requires correction.
Ligado's Spectrum Does Nothing to Advance U.S. Leadership in the Race
to 5G
When asked if Ligado's spectrum is necessary to win the race to 5G,
Chairman Pai responded by listing other bands to which the FCC faced
resistance in the process of converting them to full mobile wireless
use.\15\ He claimed that if the Commission had listened to all those
objections, there would be no 5G spectrum. Chairman Pai seems to be
suggesting that all objections to converting spectrum to 5G are equally
invalid. His statements do not account for different spectrum band
characteristics and, because of how they are used, their
vulnerabilities to interference. The distinction between communications
and navigation systems discussed above should have required a different
evaluative approach alongside the laudable goal of pursuing 5G
deployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ FCC Oversight Hearing (statement of Chairman Pai).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, Chairman Pai did not say that L-Band spectrum is necessary
to win the race to 5G. Indeed, nothing about L-Band spectrum makes it
even relevant--let alone critical--to winning the race to 5G. As
Senator Duckworth correctly pointed out, until the Ligado Order, the
FCC did not consider this spectrum to be 5G-suitable.\16\ And the 5G
FAST Plan introduced by Chairman Pai includes no mention of the L-Band
as being necessary or relevant to winning the 5G race or maintaining
U.S. leadership on 5G.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ FCC Oversight Hearing (questions of Sen. Tammy Duckworth).
\17\ See 5G FAST Plan, FCC, https://www.fcc.gov/5G (aiming to free
up another 2.75 gigahertz of spectrum in the 26 GHz and 42 GHz bands
and over 800 megahertz of mid-band spectrum for 5G services, but making
no mention of L-band spectrum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is not surprising. First, Ligado's spectrum is merely a sliver
of spectrum. As compared to the large contiguous swaths of spectrum the
FCC has made available to support 5G services,\18\ Ligado's network
would operate only on spectrum blocks of 10 non-contiguous megahertz--
well below what is needed for 5G. Second, Ligado's spectrum is not
internationally harmonized. Neither Europe, China, or Japan, nor any
other major country has identified the L-Band for 5G. As GSMA has
emphasized, international harmonization is important to ``make the best
possible mobile services available for everyone and everything.'' \19\
Third, Ligado's proposed network would only be able to offer limited
Internet of Things (``IoT'') services. Specifically, Ligado proposes to
provide an Industrial IoT service, primarily delivered over custom
private networks to specific geographic areas for limited vehicular and
utility operations. Not only is this not a 5G service offering, but
similar services are already being provided by wireless service
providers on an ancillary basis, often using the guard band of spectrum
otherwise used for wireless broadband.\20\ Ligado's service is simply
not a 5G service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See, e.g., C-Band Order 3-4 (making 280 megahertz of
spectrum in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band available); Amendment of the
Commission's Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-
3650 MHz Band, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 3959, 1 (2015) (opening 150 megahertz in the
3550-3700 MHz band for commercial use); Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24
GHz For Mobile Radio Services, Fifth Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 2556,
1 (2019) (making ``available millimeter wave (mmW) spectrum, at or
above 24 GHz, for fifth-generation (5G) wireless, Internet of Things,
and other advanced spectrum-based services'').
\19\ Luciana Camargos, WRC-19 Strikes a Good Balance, Sets Stage
for mmWave 5G, GSMA (Nov. 25, 2019), https://www.gsma.com/spectrum/wrc-
19-strikes-good-balance-sets-stage-for-mm
wave-5g/
#: :text=Striking%20a%20balance%20between%20enabling,and%2040%20GHz%20fo
r%
20IMT.
\20\ See, e.g., The first Nationwide Narrowband Network Designed
for IoT Devices, T-Mobile, https://www.t-mobile.com/business/coverage
(last visited July 8, 2020) (``Our NB-IoT network operates on a
dedicated guard band of existing networks, so it can efficiently carry
data without competing against other network traffic.''); Kendra
Chamberlain, Verizon Lights Up Nationwide NB-IoT Network,
FierceWireless (May 14, 2019), https://www.fiercewireless.com/iot/
verizon-lights-up-nb-iot-network-across-country; Sue Marek, AT&T Will
Launch Nationwide NB-IoT Network in 2019, SDX Central (June 20, 2018),
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/att-will-launch-nationwide-nb-
iot-network-in-2019/2018/06/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * *
The GPSIA thanks the Committee for its interest in this matter.
Should you or other Committee members have any questions regarding the
foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
J. David Grossman,
Executive Director,
GPS Innovation Alliance.
______
July 22, 2020
Hon. John Thune,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the
Internet,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Brian Schatz,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the
Internet,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Schatz:
As a coalition of transportation industry stakeholders comprised of
state, city, and county departments of transportation, public
transportation, automakers, vehicle suppliers, trucking, transportation
safety groups, law enforcement, first responders, auto insurers, bus
associations, infrastructure equipment suppliers, bicyclists, and
pedestrians, among others that care deeply about transportation safety,
we write to express significant concern with efforts underway at the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reallocate spectrum in the
5.9 GHz band away from transportation safety. Reducing the amount of
spectrum available to Reducing the amount of spectrum available to
Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) technology undermines our shared interest
in reducing the number of traffic fatalities and injuries that occur
each year on U.S. roadways, improving motor vehicle safety, and
improving the operational performance of roadways by reducing
congestion across the transportation system. Such a decision would also
harm U.S. global competitiveness with respect to next-generation
automotive safety technologies. We ask you to use the Committee's
authority over the FCC to direct the Commission to reconsider the
approach in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that reallocates
spectrum within the 5.9 GHz band for unlicensed uses.
As you know, the 5.9 GHz spectrum band is currently reserved for
intelligent transportation systems. Commonly referred to as V2X
technologies, these systems allow vehicles to communicate with other
vehicles, infrastructure, law enforcement, and bicycle and pedestrian
road users to avoid crashes, enhance safety, improve transportation
efficiency, and reduce air pollution. The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) predicts that the safety applications
enabled by V2X technologies could eliminate or mitigate the severity of
up to 80 percent of non-impaired crashes, significantly reducing the
nearly 37,000 lives lost and three million injuries that occur on U.S.
roadways each year.\1\ In addition, 70 percent of crashes involving
commercial trucks could be mitigated by V2X technologies according the
NHTSA. V2X technologies will provide real economic savings as well by
significantly reducing the more than $800 billion in annual costs
associated with crashes on American roads.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Press Release:
Proposed rule would mandate vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication on
light vehicles. Dec. 13, 2016. Available at: https://one.nhtsa.gov/
About-NHTSA/PressReleases/ci.nhtsa_v2v_proposed_rule_12132016
.print.
\2\ Comments of U.S. Department of Transportation, ET Docket No.
19-138, at 8 (filed Mar. 13, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, these technologies are uniquely capable of reducing
traffic congestion through prioritized traffic signal timing, truck
platooning, and crash reduction, reducing travel time and delays for
commuters and commerce alike, delays that cost the Nation more than
$166 billion annually according to the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT).\3\ V2X pedestrian detection systems will better
protect vulnerable road users, which encompasses a broad set of road
users--people walking, children being pushed in strollers, people using
wheelchairs or other mobility devices, passengers embarking and
disembarking buses and trains, and people riding bicycles and scooters.
Preserving the spectrum for V2X would provide greater benefit for the
American people than reallocating the spectrum for unlicensed devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Comments of U.S. Department of Transportation, ET Docket No.
19-138, at 8 (filed Mar. 13, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDOT and public and private sector transportation stakeholders
have worked together to bring this technology to the U.S. market.
Billions of dollars--including at least $2 billion in public funding
from federal, state, and local governments--have been invested in the
development and deployment of V2X technology.\4\ The result of U.S.
innovation and investment in V2X is now shown through existing and
planned deployments around the country. At least 30 states--from
Michigan to Pennsylvania to Ohio to Florida--have invested in building
out intelligent infrastructure using V2X technology. Two of the
country's largest automakers, General Motors and Ford Motor Company,
have deployed or announced plans to deploy these technologies in
vehicles in the U.S. market, and, recently, the Alliance for Automotive
Innovation announced a commitment to deploy at least five million V2X
devices in vehicles and roadway infrastructure over the next five
years.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ How Connected Vehicles Work, U.S. Department of Transportation.
(Feb. 27, 2020). Available at https://www.transportation.gov/research-
and-technology/how-connected-vehicles-work.
\5\ Letter from John Bozella, President and CEO of the Alliance for
Automotive Innovation, to the Honorable Elaine Chao, Secretary of
Transportation, and the Honorable Ajit Pai, Chairman of the FCC (April
23, 2020). Available at: https://www.autosinnovate.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/04/Ext.-Comm.-Letter-2020-5.9-GHz-Build-OutCommitment-
Letter-April-23-2020-ID-1567.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even as automakers and infrastructure owners and operators move
forward with deploying these technologies, V2X innovation continues. In
recent years, we have seen the development of new applications and
novel use cases that will further advance transportation safety,
particularly related to advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and
automated vehicles (AVs). V2X technologies enable applications that
cannot be performed by un-connected AVs, such as communicating with
vehicles that are out of line-of-sight, providing road hazard warnings
from roadside infrastructure, and allowing AVs to coordinate actions
rather than making decisions individually. V2X complements AV sensors
by providing information that is more precise, over longer ranges, and
in non-line-of-sight conditions.
Unfortunately, since 2013, the FCC has been threatening to
repurpose spectrum away from these cutting-edge transportation safety
technologies and has now released a NPRM to reduce the spectrum that is
available to V2X technologies.\6\ The FCC's proposed rule would
reallocate the majority of the 5.9 GHz band away from transportation
safety. Numerous technical assessments related to the FCC's proposal,
including preliminary assessments released by USDOT, show that out-of-
channel interference from unlicensed devices operating in adjacent
bands would be likely to make the spectrum reserved for transportation
safety communications unusable for such purposes.\7\ This interference
would delay or block safety-critical messages where split-second action
is required to avert a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In the Matter of Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band, ET Docket No.
19-138, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 19-129 (2019).
\7\ USDOT Preliminary Technical Assessment (Dec. 6, 2019).
Available at: https://www.tran
sportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/research-and-technology/360181/
oobe-energy-59-safety
band-final-120619.pdf. Comments of Ford Motor Company, ET Docket No.
19-138, at 9 (Mar. 9, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States has led the world in creating V2X technologies
and in developing the standards that enable and support V2X
technologies. The FCC's proposal would cede American leadership as
countries around the world are building out their V2X networks. There
is no doubt that, if implemented, the NPRM would undercut the public
and private investments that have been made in the United States,
stifle further innovation, and challenge American global
competitiveness. This approach is in direct conflict with efforts
underway in other parts of the world. At precisely the same time that
other countries are reiterating their commitment to V2X technologies
and, in many cases, looking to increase the amount of spectrum that is
available to support V2X technologies, the FCC is poised to take action
that would all but ensure that these technologies would not realize
their full potential in the United States.
The comments and reply comments submitted to the FCC in response to
the NPRM overwhelmingly opposed repurposing spectrum away from
transportation safety. In fact, more than 85 percent of the commenters
opposed the FCC's proposal, including state and city departments of
transportation, automakers, vehicle suppliers, technology companies,
law enforcement, first responders, safety advocates, engineers,
telecommunications companies, the drone industry, and many others.
These groups asked the FCC to heed the warnings of USDOT that this plan
would not allow sufficient spectrum for V2X to function, threatening
the significant safety benefits this technology provides.
We are representative of a broad and diverse group of stakeholders
that strongly support preserving the 5.9 GHz safety spectrum band for
transportation safety. We ask you to use the Committee's authority over
the FCC to direct the Commission to reconsider the approach in the NPRM
that reallocates spectrum within the 5.9 GHz band for unlicensed uses.
Use of your authority at this critical juncture could save thousands of
American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars each year. We look
forward to working with you to ensure that the safety, economic,
congestion mitigation, environmental, and efficiency benefits that V2X
technologies can provide are realized in the United States.
Sincerely,
Intelligent Transportation Society of America
Alliance for Automotive Innovation
Amateur Radio Emergency Data Network
America Walks
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
American Automobile Association
American Bus Association
American Council of Engineering Companies
American Council of Engineering Companies of Arizona
American Highway Users Alliance
American Paramedic Association
American Public Transportation Association
American Motorcyclist Association
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Traffic Safety Services Association
American Trucking Associations
Arizona Society of Professional Engineers
Center for Auto Safety
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
Consumer Reports
Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions, Inc.
Governors Highway Safety Association
Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Institute of Transportation Engineers
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA)
League of American Bicyclists
Maryland Asphalt Association
Mid-West Truckers Association
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
NAFA Fleet Management Association
National Association of City Transportation Officials
National Association of State EMS Officials
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
National Federation of the Blind
National Rural Letter Carriers' Association
National Safety Council
National School Transportation Association
National Sheriffs' Association
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association
Potters Industries
RV Industry Association
SAE International
State Farm
The Paramedic Foundation
Tire Industry Association
Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
United Motorcoach Association
Volvo Group North America
cc:
The Honorable Roger Wicker, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation (R-MS)
The Honorable Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
The Honorable Roy Blunt (R-MO)
The Honorable Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
The Honorable Deb Fischer (R-NE)
The Honorable Cory Gardner (R-CO)
The Honorable Ron Johnson (R-WI)
The Honorable Mike Lee (R-UT)
The Honorable Jerry Moran (R-KS)
The Honorable Rick Scott (R-FL)
The Honorable Dan Sullivan (R-AK)
The Honorable Todd Young (R-IN)
The Honorable Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation (D-WA)
The Honorable Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
The Honorable Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
The Honorable Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
The Honorable Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
The Honorable Ed Markey (D-MA)
The Honorable Gary Peters (D-MI)
The Honorable Jacky Rosen (D-NV)
The Honorable Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ)
The Honorable Jon Tester (D-MT)
The Honorable Tom Udall (D-NM)
______
Aerospace Industries Association
July 23, 2020
Hon. John Thune,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology,
Subcommittee on Communications, Innovation and the Internet,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Brian Schatz,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology,
Subcommittee on Communications, Innovation and the Internet,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Schatz,
On behalf of over 300 leading aerospace and defense (A&D)
manufacturers and suppliers, the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA)
is pleased to file this statement for the record in response to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation's Subcommittee
on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet's hearing,
``The State of U.S. Spectrum Policy.'' We thank the Committee for
holding this important hearing and for its leadership on issues
affecting the aerospace and defense (A&D) industry, including spectrum
policy.
For more than 100 years, our members have been on the cutting edge
of innovation and are leading the development of emerging technologies
that will revolutionize the way in which goods and people are moved,
services are performed, and people connect.
Spectrum is the life blood of our industry and enables virtually
everything that our members design, manufacture, operate, and launch.
For that reason, our industry represents some of the largest users of
the FCC's experimental licensing regimes which is one of the critical
enablers to U.S. technology development and leadership. As these
products move from development to reality, access to spectrum becomes
critical.
That access comes through ensuring continuity of existing
allocations for harmonized equipment designs as well as meeting the
need for additional spectrum for new capabilities, such as urban air
mobility, through efficient and timely rulemaking processes. This
process is critical to the success of the A&D industry and our Nation's
economy. However, it is not optimized for the current and future
economy and advancing U.S. global leadership across all sectors of our
economy.
In 1934, Congress established the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) as an independent federal agency to manage our nation's non-
federal spectrum allocations.\1\ This was followed by the establishment
of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) in 1978 which serves as the president's principal adviser on
spectrum policies and is viewed as the voice of Federal spectrum
stakeholders.\2\ For many years, these two agencies have worked
together to help enable spectrum access for all stakeholders through a
formal memorandum of understanding (MOU), last updated in 2007, and
other processes. One such process is the Interdepartment Radio Advisory
Committee (IRAC) which allows for the Federal government agencies,
including the FCC, to directly weigh in with the NTIA on their spectrum
priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, Communications Act of 1934
\2\ See, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/book-page/national-
telecommunications-and-information-ad
ministration#: :text=The%20NTIA%20of%20the%20U.S.,102538%2C%20106%20Stat
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This structure has, in part, led to the U.S. being the leader in
wireless communications technologies like 4G LTE, as well as enabling
other sectors of the economy, like the A&D industry, to thrive.
However, the bifurcated structure has also enabled a system that is not
optimized for today's spectrum sharing economy and where spectrum
dependence is regularly an administration priority. Spectrum is a
scarce resource that is only becoming more congested, which requires
the FCC and Government to look at creating new allocations, repurposing
existing bands, or, more importantly, developing new sharing
arrangements to continue the U.S. technology leadership, beyond 5G and
next generation A&D capabilities.
Today's spectrum realities also highlight the difficulties with our
Nation's spectrum governance structure. As we look to enable greater
spectrum sharing, we must develop creative sharing solutions that
enable growth and innovation by both existing and new users of
spectrum.
This evolution toward sharing presents an opportunity to look at
how to optimize spectrum management to better enable sharing amongst
all stakeholders--commercial industries and federal/state/local users.
Fortunately, there is a recognition of the need to ask questions about
U.S. spectrum policy, as evidence by this hearing. Discussion is also
underway in the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee
(CSMAC), which serves as a formal advisory body to the Assistant
Secretary for Communications and Information at NTIA on spectrum
issues,\3\ which will soon publish a report titled, ``Report on the
Presidential Memorandum on Developing a Sustainable Spectrum Strategy
for America's Future: Governance.'' \4\ This report sought to answer a
similar question as the hearing today-is U.S. spectrum management
optimized for the implementation of a 21st century national spectrum
strategy? \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac
\4\ See, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/
csmac_sc1_presentation_april_22_20
20.pdf--this was a presentation of a draft report.
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The group's preliminary finding was that ``our country's current
approach for managing the use of spectrum is no longer effectively
serving the needs of the managing the use of spectrum is no longer
effectively serving the needs of the entire stakeholder community and
would benefit from reform.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ iBid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The need to optimize the spectrum governance model is further
evident in the increasing and visible fractures in our decades-old
bifurcated model--where statutory priorities differ between our two
regulators, and unilateral decision-making authority exists in one. It
will be important to ensure that a future spectrum governance model is
designed to address all U.S. priorities, particularly as we seek to
increase spectrum efficiency for all users through true spectrum
sharing. Issues with the current process were evident in recent FCC
decisions such as 24 GHz, C Band, 5.9 GHz, and Ligado.
U.S. global leadership depends upon the system being optimized and
incorporating the full suite of economic and security interests into
the decisions on spectrum governance. We no longer have the long-
enjoyed luxury of exclusive spectrum lanes, let alone users. For
example, future Advanced Air Mobility technologies like Unmanned
Aircraft Systems and Urban Air Mobility platforms will, in some cases,
need additional spectrum to safely operate with the required
reliability and safety that aviation demands, particularly when we
consider either passengers or large cargo delivery capabilities. While
unlicensed spectrum or mobile wireless are options for platforms at low
altitudes in urban/suburban areas, it will not serve the myriad of use
cases that will enable the billions of dollars and tens of thousands of
jobs that these technologies will provide.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, AIA Petition For Rulemaking in the 5030-5091 MHz Spectrum
Band, Filed February 2018; https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10209988018431/
AIA%20Petition%20for%20Rulemaking%20on
%20UAS%202018-02-08%20FILED.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This hearing today presents the first legislative opportunity to
take a fresh look at the future of our Nation's spectrum governance
model. AIA believes that this opportunity is long overdue and
encourages the Subcommittee to take the next step of engaging with the
broader industry stakeholder community that depends on access to
spectrum. We would encourage a survey among the broader industry
stakeholder community for their views on the importance of and ideas
for future spectrum governance. It is critical that we take a step back
and go beyond the traditional entities whose businesses are directly
regulated by the FCC.
We look forward to working with this Committee and all relevant
spectrum stakeholders as this conversation continues and leads to a
system that enables the U.S. to remain the global leader in all sectors
of the spectrum economy.
Sincerely,
Tim McClees,
Vice President, Legislative Affairs,
Aerospace Industries Association.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Tom Power
Question. You mentioned in your testimony the need to increase
collaboration between industry and the Federal government to identify
sections of spectrum currently in use by the government that could be
reallocated. You also mentioned a process by which this transfer of
information could happen securely, to protect sensitive government
information. Please describe the process by which industry and the
government could securely work together to identify spectrum for
reallocation, especially the steps taken to prevent sensitive
government information from being exposed.
Answer. Collaboration and information-sharing between government
agencies and the private sector can be extremely beneficial to both
sides, particularly as the government seeks to share its spectrum with
commercial networks, or relocate government systems from one band to
another. To assist in these efforts, the private sector subject matter
experts (SMEs) require information about Federal systems and
operations, much of which is classified. Yet there is no program
designed to grant security clearances to qualified private sector SMEs
for the purpose of sharing classified information about government
spectrum operations. One model that the Department of Defense and other
agencies might consider is the Department of Homeland Security's
Private Sector Clearance Program for Critical Infrastructure. Under
this program, DHS oversees a rigorous vetting process to grant security
clearances to qualified representatives from the private sector, for
the purpose of enhancing public-private collaboration when it comes to
identifying and mitigating risks to critical infrastructure. A similar
program dedicated to granting clearances to private sector spectrum
SMEs--if well managed--could accelerate the deployment of commercial
wireless networks while ensuring the robustness and security of
government systems and operations.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to
Tom Power
Question 1. The physics associated with the 12 GHz band present
some interesting opportunities for expanding mid-band mobile broadband
services in our 5G infrastructure. Compared to CBRS or C-band, this
frequency appears to have some additional rain fade; however, the data
rates should be comparably excellent. Furthermore, there are fewer
hurdles to bring this band into the mobile broadband market. Can you
comment on the overall benefits the 12 GHz band can bring to the
wireless market?
Answer. CTIA shares your focus on the need for the U.S. to allocate
more spectrum for licensed wireless terrestrial use. Although the U.S.
will be auctioning 350 MHz of mid-band spectrum this year alone, other
nations remain ahead in the deployment of critical spectrum resources.
The 12 GHz band could thus be an extremely valuable component in the
buildout of 5G networks and beyond. The 12 GHz band offers an
attractive mix of high capacity, capable of transmitting large amounts
of data at high speeds similar to high-band spectrum, while also having
some better geographic range than spectrum above 20 GHz. Operators have
been hard at work deploying 5G in high band spectrum at 28 GHz, 37-30
GHz, and other frequencies taking into account rain fade
considerations. Allocating a portion of the 12 GHz band to mobile
broadband would require accommodation of the incumbent licensed users
of the band. Those incumbents include providers of satellite television
services who count numerous rural residents among their subscribers.
CTIA is working with members in an effort to develop a consensus
approach to a potential 12 GHz auction, putting that band to its
highest and best use while also generating billions of dollars in
auction revenues.
Question 2. The next several years will be transformative for the
U.S. for 5G infrastructure, with the CBRS auction currently ongoing and
the C-band auction scheduled for December. An intriguing approach to
how this network could be defined is by using the Open Radio Access
Network (ORAN) specification, which is garnering attention in foreign
markets but has been slow to be adopted in the US. Can each of you
comment on the implications of whiteboxing our global 5G
infrastructure? What are the economic implications if the U.S. doesn't
adopt the ORAN specification in its mobile broadband infrastructure?
Answer. CTIA supports efforts to increase U.S. competitiveness in
the wireless networking space, and Open RAN can play an important role
in that regard. The addition of open interfaces to network components
will provide carriers with added flexibility in the design of their
network architecture, while promoting greater competition among
infrastructure vendors, and potentially reducing total cost of
ownership. The introduction and scaling of Open RAN solutions will take
time, given the complexity of wireless networks; however, the U.S. is
well positioned to take advantage of the emergence of Open RAN, with
its potential to contribute significantly to U.S. job creation and
economic productivity.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to
Mark Gibson
Question 1. The physics associated with the 12 GHz band present
some interesting opportunities for expanding mid-band mobile broadband
services in our 5G infrastructure. Compared to CBRS or C-band, this
frequency appears to have some additional rain fade; however, the data
rates should be comparably excellent. Furthermore, there are fewer
hurdles to bring this band into the mobile broadband market. Can you
comment on the overall benefits the 12 GHz band can bring to the
wireless market?
Answer. The 12 GHz band presents interesting wireless
opportunities. Currently allocated for the Multichannel Video
Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) and Direct Broadcast Service
(DBS), the band presents 500 MHz of spectrum that could be used for 5G.
The physics of the band mean that due to propagation loss, signals will
travel about a quarter less as far as the CBRS or C-band. However,
signals will travel about twice as far as the lowest of the millimeter
wave bands. That puts the band in a good place to be used for general
mobile broadband services. Data rates would be related to the size of
the channels, but with 500 MHz of spectrum available, channels could be
sufficiently wide to support high-speed data.
The band is used by several licensees in the MVDDS and DBS, so
sharing must be considered. Since the band is the subject of a
rulemaking request at the FCC (RM-11768), it would make sense for the
FCC to conduct a rulemaking to study the whether the band can be used
for mobile broadband (either 5G or a subsequent technology) and any
related comments on sharing. CommScope would make the observation that
typically bandwidth requirements increase for each successive
generation of mobile broadband service. Policymakers and regulators
should consider increasing bandwidth requirements versus the amount of
spectrum available in the allocation to accommodate the number of
expected licensees.
Question 2. The next several years will be transformative for the
U.S. for 5G infrastructure, with the CBRS auction currently ongoing and
the C-band auction scheduled for December. An intriguing approach to
how this network could be defined is by using the Open Radio Access
Network (ORAN) specification, which is garnering attention in foreign
markets but has been slow to be adopted in the U.S. Can each of you
comment on the implications of whiteboxing our global 5G
infrastructure? What are the economic implications if the U.S. doesn't
adopt the ORAN specification in its mobile broadband infrastructure?
Answer. This is a very important question in regard to U.S.
leadership and competitiveness in next generation wireless technologies
and networks.
CommScope is closely following two initiatives--(1) mobile network
function virtualization (i.e., VRAN, ``whiteboxing'', etc..) and (2)
Open Radio Access Network standardization (e.g., Open RAN, O-RAN,
etc..).
Mobile network function virtualization will leverage advancements
in software abstraction of formerly hardware functions, computing
power, and cloud systems to transform proprietary hardware in the
mobile network core and RAN into software components running on
commodity computing platforms (typically based on x86 processor
technology). This follows the broader technology trend of the
virtualization and `cloudification' of many functions that were
formerly handled by vendor proprietary hardware, as evidenced in the
storage, web serving, and enterprise networking sectors.
Open RAN is an initiative to standardize the communications
interfaces between the various components in the Radio Access Network
over existing commoditized technologies such as fiber, ethernet, and
TCP/IP. Historically, mobile networks have been deployed using
compatible radio network equipment from a single vendor as a ``closed''
proprietary solution, making it virtually impossible to `mix and match'
components from various vendors. Because Open RAN implements
standardized interfaces that are truly open and interoperable, and
components can be tested and certified to comply with those interfaces,
it breaks this vendor lock in, enabling innovation, creating a more
competitive market, and accelerating deployments. Similarly to mobile
network function virtualization, O-RAN follows the broader industry
trend to standardize communications services (e.g., IBM's Systems
Network Architecture [SNA], voice, video, etc. . .) over globally
common interfaces.
CommScope is a leader in the Open RAN ecosystem through our
internal research and development activities and our external
participation in standardization efforts via groups like the O-RAN
Alliance and advocacy organizations like the Open RAN Policy Coalition.
The United States has long been the global leader in network
function virtualization and `democratizing' proprietary interfaces by
implementing open standards over common interfaces. In fact, the U.S.
led all of the historical examples of virtualization and open
interfaces listed above. Given this, it would be logical and natural
for the U.S. to lead as these macro industry trends are applied to the
mobile industry in the areas of VRAN and O-RAN. CommScope supports the
various government initiatives and legislative proposals to allocate
Federal funds for Open RAN research and development and that would
encourage Federal agencies to foster the deployment of open and
interoperable 5G networks in their various pilot programs and
procurement guidelines. This type of government support would
accelerate domestic development, helping to secure future U.S.
leadership in these key technology fields.
While none of the leading incumbent mobile equipment vendors are
U.S. companies, O-RAN enables the possibility of building the overall
mobile network from a combination of companies, many being U.S. firms.
Rather than having a monolithic solution from a foreign vendor as was
done in the past, standardization plus virtualization enables a litany
of U.S. companies to work in both competition and collaboration to
provide a more dynamic, faster, and best-in-breed network to support
all of America's Mobile Telecommunications needs.
In terms of the economic impacts, both VRAN and O-RAN seek to lower
the costs for mobile network operators by transforming proprietary
components and communications services and allowing them to run on
common computing platforms and network technologies. O-RAN also allows
for network operators to `mix and match' RAN components from various
vendors, creating a more competitive market for each aspect of the RAN.
American operators would be at a competitive disadvantage if they were
not able to access and leverage VRAN and O-RAN developments.
Fortunately, U.S. mobile operators are helping lead much of the
industry activity and we believe they fully intend to realize the
economic benefits of VRAN and O-RAN.
For more details on CommScope's leadership and position on Open
RAN, please see our filing in response to NTIA's Request for Public
Comment on The National Strategy to Secure 5G Implementation Plan.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to
Roslyn Layton, Ph.D.
Please note that these answers reflect my personal views and should
not necessarily be construed as the opinion of any organization with
which I am affiliated.
Question 1. The physics associated with the 12 GHz band present
some interesting opportunities for expanding mid-band mobile broadband
services in our 5G infrastructure. Compared to CBRS or C-band, this
frequency appears to have some additional rain fade; however, the data
rates should be comparably excellent. Furthermore, there are fewer
hurdles to bring this band into the mobile broadband market. Can you
comment on the overall benefits the 12 GHz band can bring to the
wireless market?
Answer. The effort to find more spectrum for 5G is commendable. The
hearing and my written testimony detailed the problems of
administrative allocation of spectrum. There was a consensus among
panelists that many Federal agencies are reluctant to make efficient
use of frequencies for which they do not pay, to share them with other
parties with more valuable uses, or even to disclose how they use the
spectrum. All these problems can be attributed to the lack of pricing
for Federal spectrum.
To avoid the problems of administrative allocation noted in the
hearing, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should make any
new spectrum available in the 12 GHz on a licensed basis with
competitive bidding. It should avoid unlicensed use of the band.
Unlicensed spectrum regimes offer little means to allocate the spectrum
rationally among users, introduce security risk and vulnerabilities
into networks, and provide no means to recover the spectrum. Two
articles are attached to this response which describe these issues.
Aside from the limitations of the 12 GHz band for terrestrial 5G
service (notably rain fade and limited ability to deliver long distance
coverage), the band could ostensibly support more coverage in cities.
In general, having more spectrum for 5G would support greater
deployment of services, market entry by firms, increased specialization
by firms, and increased value for consumers. While the 12 GHz
opportunity is promising, it should not detract form the more important
goal of enabling greater spectrum in lower parts of the mid-band with
frequencies which offers a better mix of physical properties for 5G.
Nor should the 12 GHz effort delay Congress from its critical task to
improve accountability from Federal spectrum holders.
Question 2. The next several years will be transformative for the
U.S. for 5G infrastructure, with the CBRS auction currently ongoing and
the C-band auction scheduled for December. An intriguing approach to
how this network could be defined is by using the Open Radio Access
Network (ORAN) specification, which is garnering attention in foreign
markets but has been slow to be adopted in the U.S. Can each of you
comment on the implications of whiteboxing our global 5G
infrastructure? What are the economic implications if the U.S. doesn't
adopt the ORAN specification in its mobile broadband infrastructure?
Answer. Thank you for the exciting question. As a starting point,
it is important for such inquiries to be technology neutral. Ideally
the telecommunications industry should choose the technology that best
serves their needs and objectives. I don't fear that the U.S. won't be
part of the ORAN development. Indeed, it is American companies that are
driving much of ORAN's development.\1\ My assessment of ORAN is based
on 5G commercial development, and the fact that U.S. operators have
been among the first to launch 5G. Given the hype around ORAN, it is
wise to take a step back and take a critical view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consider the representation at the upcoming event ``Forum on 5G
Open Radio Access Networks'' to be held by the Federal Communications
Commission on September 14, 2020. https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/
events/forum-5g-virtual-radio-access-networks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding ORAN must account for the product lifecycle: idea,
concept, development, and implementation. It's a long process from
conceiving the idea of ORAN to turning it into a marketable product/
service which is then implemented on tens of thousands of mobile sites
serving millions of customers. Moreover, U.S. carriers must maintain a
high standard of coverage and operability to satisfy their customers.
Similarly, mobile operators place great demands on their equipment
suppliers. Just as NASA has a set of software quality requirements to
send people into space, mobile operators have requirements and
standards for software. Mobile subscribers expect their mobile phones
to function in the same way every time, just life turning on the faucet
or flicking the light switch.
Some refer to ORAN as a substitute for native 3GPP solutions.
However ORAN is not a substitute for 3GPP. ORAN is dependent on 3GPP
and the patents that are the foundation of 5G.\2\ ORAN will likely
coexist with native 3GPP RAN which today serves more than 8 billion
mobile subscribers globally. To date, there have been 92 5G networks
launched in the world.\3\ All of these are built on native 3GPP RAN;
none are built on ORAN. The first operator to deploy ORAN will likely
be Japan's Rakuten,\4\ a virtual greenfield operator which is not
comparable to NTT Dokomo, the country's leading mobile provider. As
such, native RAN solutions still have significant value and should not
be dismissed. Indeed, the prevailing market for 3GPP is staggering.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ About 3GPP. Accessed August 23, 2020. https://www.3gpp.org/
about-3gpp/about-3gpp
\3\ Global Mobile Suppliers Association. Accessed August 23, 2020.
https://gsacom.com/
\4\ Press release. ``Rakuten Mobile and NEC Begin Production of
Open RAN 5G Radio Equipment''. March 24, 2020. https://www.nec.com/en/
press/202003/global_20200324_02.html
\5\ See report by Statista ``A Mobile Connected World.''https://
www.statista.com/study/74670/a-mobile-connected-world/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the first mover nations in 5G, including the US, are in the
same position regarding 3GPP. The U.S. and South Korea lead in 5G in
part because they use proven 3GPP solutions deployed for hundreds of
millions, if not billions, of mobile subscribers. It is best to
question U.S. mobile operators as to when ORAN is expected to be
viable.
Network security is important. Thankfully the U.S. restricts Huawei
and related malicious Chinese in-formation technology equipment. As
such, the U.S. has flexibility to experiment with ORAN solutions while
maintaining security. However, deploying ORAN in Europe could be
disastrous because many Huawei elements remain in mobile networks.\6\
As such the benefits of ORAN will be undermined by Huawei products and
services which will be able to infiltrate the network through ORAN's
open inter-faces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Strand Consult. July 2020. ``Understanding the Market for 4G
RAN in Europe: Share of Chinese and Non-Chinese Vendors in 102 Mobile
Networks.'' http://strandreports.com/sw8772.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first order of business is to rid the world's networks of
malicious Chinese equipment. Only then should operators start
experimenting with ORAN. Otherwise, combining ORAN with Huawei, ZTE, or
other Chinese network products could increase risk and vulnerabilities.
ORAN is not by inherently more secure that native 3GPP, nor is open
source technology more secure than proprietary technology. Indeed, ORAN
will require additional security measures that are not addressed fully
by 3GPP SA3 security standards, since ORAN introduces additional open
interfaces and functions (such as LLS, SMO, near Real Time RIC, etc.)
that are not part of the 3GPP standard. Moreover, the ORAN Alliance
only recently formed a security task force, within O-RAN WG1
(Architecture) to address the new associated security risks with
ORAN.\7\ This means that security issues will take some time to
address. Combining open source RAN with Chinese equipment poses a
serious security risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Matt Kapko. ``Integration Woes Throw Monkey Wrench Into
Open RAN.'' SDX Central. July 13, 2020. https://www.sdxcentral.com/
articles/news/integration-woes-throw-monkey-wrench-into-open-ran/2020/
06/ and Arielle Waldman. ``Supply chain attack hits 26 open source
projects on GitHub.'' Search Security. May 28, 2020. https://
searchsecurity.techtarget.com/news/252483808/Supply-chain-attack-hits-
26-open-source-projects-on-GitHub Note valuable free report linked to
the article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Articles for the Record
The U.S. Restricts Huawei In 5G, But Wi-Fi Is Up For Grabs
By Roslyn Layton, Senior Contributor, Forbes, April 23, 2020
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roslynlayton/2020/04/23/the-us-restricts-
huawei-in-5g-but-wi-fi-is-up-for-grabs/#26915d83551e
The U.S. and other countries restrict Huawei in 5G (even providing
funding to ``rip and replace'' the equipment), but this does not stop
the company from deploying in Wi-Fi networks. Once a device is deployed
in Wi-Fi, it can't be forcibly recalled for security reasons. Huawei
touts its role in Wi-Fi 6, considered the future-proofing strategy for
the Wi-Fi industry. The Austin-based Wi-Fi Alliance recently honored
top tier member Huawei for its leadership in the Wi-Fi
CERTIFIEDTM program, allowing its products to be embossed
with the Wi-Fi CERTIFIEDTM seal. The advocacy group recently
congratulated Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai for
the April 23 vote to designate 1200 MHz of the 6 GHz band for
unlicensed use, quintupling the spectrum for technologies such as Wi-
Fi. The Wi-Fi Alliance did not respond to a request for comment.
Unlicensed spectrum is celebrated for being free and open to
anyone, and the Wi-Fi industry plans to deploy hundreds of millions of
connected devices in the 6 GHz band. However, providers of critical
infrastructure services in public safety, communications, rail,
electric, gas, water, and wastewater are not enthused; they operate
some 100,000 fixed service links in the band, over which the
forthcoming Wi-Fi devices would be deployed. Failing to forestall the
FCC's proposal which they say threatens the safety of their networks,
they urged the FCC to adopt greater controls to mitigate interference,
as regulating power levels for transmission is insufficient to protect
existing networks. For example, many homes have backyards that border a
railroad, and the signal for their Wi-Fi router, even at low power, can
be observed outside. This means that a device need not have a security
vulnerability to threaten critical infrastructure, to say nothing of
deliberate security vulnerabilities.
The FCC may have denied China Mobile license to operate in the U.S.
for national security concerns, but its daughter company China Mobile
Group Device Co. can access U.S. networks through America's standards
organizations and its Wi-Fi networks. Indeed China's influence of
international standards organizations to circumvent national security
policy is well established area of policy research.
Among the 800 members of the Wi-Fi Alliance are many firms owned
and affiliated with the Chinese government and listed in the U.S.
National Vulnerabilities Database, restricting their use in the Federal
government. These member firms include Wi-Fi Alliance honoree Lenovo,
world's leading maker of laptops, ZTE Corporation (network equipment),
Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (surveillance cameras),
Lexmark (printers), and TCL Corporation (smart TVs). My report Stealing
from the States: China's Power Play in IT Contracts documents how such
companies have evaded rules against their deployment in U.S. Federal
networks to embed themselves at the state level, home to treasure
troves of sensitive data for elections, financial reports, and personal
information but which have fewer security controls.
The bipartisan sanction of Huawei by Congress, the Department of
Commerce, the FCC and other agencies may have stopped Huawei from
Federal networks and 5G, but it doesn't necessarily stop Huawei in
state government, private companies, and Wi-Fi networks. Indeed, many
vulnerable technologies proliferate where there are not explicit
restrictions. Moreover, Federal bans do not stop Chinese government-
owned companies from playing important roles in U.S. standard setting
and IT advocacy organizations. Following placement on the Entity List,
Huawei was ejected but then quickly rein-stated as a member at the Wi-
Fi Alliance, IEEE, SD Association, and JEDEC. Some claim there is no
choice but to accept Chinese government owned vendors in standards
groups, but China's endgame is clear: It has long been architecting an
alternative version of the Internet which does not include American
technology nor any pretense of coexistence.
While the value of Wi-Fi is undisputed, the FCC's proposal would
give restricted Chinese firms free rein to a wide swath of spectrum
overlaying critical infrastructure for utilities, transportation and
public safety. Moreover, the U.S. is behind on licensing mid-band
spectrum where malicious vendors and de-vices can be excluded. China
has some 500 MHz of mid-band spectrum in play for 5G, the U.S. hasn't
even concluded its mid-band 5G auctions, itself a national security
issue raised by two dozen security and defense experts. If we don't
want Huawei in 5G, it shouldn't be in Wi-Fi either.
______
FCC Should Use Its New Tools to Make Wi-Fi Safer
The FCC should step up security by restricting risky vendors on
unlicensed Wi-Fi spectrum and make more licensed spectrum available for
5G wireless communications.
By Roslyn Layton and David Witkowski. Above Ground Level. August 2020
https://magazine.aglmediagroup.com/fcc-should-use-its-new-tools-make-
wifi-safer
The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has shown that broadband
networks are essential. People have used wireless networks to work,
learn and obtain health care services. However, they face greater
security risks when accessing enterprise applications and sensitive
data with unsecured networks and devices, as may be the case when they
are working at home.
The most common cyberattacks--data breaches, phishing and hacking--
are driven primarily by organized crime and state-sponsored actors for
financial and espionage reasons. Cyber attackers are looking for
valuable personal and financial information, intellectual property and
proprietary product information, corporate account information about
key employees and customers, and corporate network access. Individuals
having endured extensive isolation during the pandemic are further
vulnerable to phishing and social engineering attacks together with
hacking when they increasingly multitask on a mobile device connected
to Wi-Fi, a usable but architecturally unsecured network.
In the past year, the FCC adopted significant national security
policy, including a prohibition of using Universal Service Funds to
purchase equipment or services from companies posing threats to
communications networks or supply chains. This move was designed in
part to restrict Huawei and ZTE from 5G networks, which already have
better security because of a superior architecture. The FCC has not
stated a similar plan for Wi-Fi, even though Wi-Fi is teeming with
vulnerable vendors, and Huawei itself touts its leadership role in Wi-
Fi 6. Now armed with a super-charged presidential executive order to
deny and revoke licenses and applications from risky vendors, the FCC
should use its authority to make Wi-Fi safer.
Why 5G Has Better Security Than Wi-Fi
Wi-Fi is ideal for local-area networks and enterprise deployments
in office buildings. 4G LTE and 5G NR, on the other hand, are suited to
wide-area networks and infrastructure deployments that require
connection management to ensure reliability and predictably for
millions of users at once. These differences reflect the economic
choices inherent in licensed and unlicensed spectrum. 5G providers,
having spent billions of dollars to purchase the right to transmit data
across the airwaves, steward the resource wisely and safely to ensure a
good experience for their customers. Unlicensed spectrum, free and open
to anyone, has few incentives to be stewarded well. As such, those who
value security, pay for it.
Where other users are known, security is less important, and
devices can manage their own connections. Users accessing an open, no-
password-required Wi-Fi access point take enormous risks. As Wi-Fi
access points grow, it is prudent to adopt rigid security protocols
where the network manages the device connection. A connection-oriented
or connection-managed protocol (WiMAX, 4G LTE, 5G NR) requires that an
end-to-end data link between the sending node and receiver node be
established both before and while data is transferred.
Connection-managed protocols have better reliability,
predictability and security because the encryption key exchange is end-
to-end and must be completed before data is transferred. In a
connection-less protocol, like Wi-Fi, data is sent from the sending
node to the network without requiring an end-to-end link. Users can
employ security technologies to protect data from being lost, misrouted
or intercepted, but many threats are managed more efficiently at higher
levels in the network. Although forthcoming Wi-Fi 6 equipment offers
better security, it will take time for every Wi-Fi router to be
upgraded, leaving Wi-Fi users at risk in the meantime. With 5G,
however, users have built-in advanced security, regardless of the
device.
Connection-managed wireless networks such as 4G/5G allow mobility,
moving quickly across a large space while keeping a secure, consistent
connection. This mobility is provided by a hand-off system that shifts
the connection to the best possible tower or site. On unlicensed,
connectionless systems, the client will remain attached to the access
point until the connection is so poor that it fails. Although some
solutions try to make Wi-Fi better, they typically require upfront
investment, which can add cost to the proffered free-and-open business
model.
4G/5G offers patented features to ensure a high-quality experience:
centralized authentication (intelligence in the device ensures network
authentication), network rules for security of data transmission;
protocols to avoid congestion, spectrum/channel steering, and resource
allocation management. 5G security is not perfect--attacks using
cellular site equipment (either repurposed or deliberately built to
allow state-sponsored surveillance) could harm subscribers, but hacking
the firmware of a consumer-grade Wi-Fi access point is a lot easier--
and far less expensive--than constructing a cellular site.
Restricting Risky Vendors Can Improve Wi-Fi
Although improving the architecture of Wi-Fi is difficult, Wi-Fi
security can be immediately improved by restricting risky vendors and
equipment from networks. The FCC has been dogged about restricting
malicious Chinese government-owned technology on 5G. Consumers deserve
the same security on Wi-Fi, and the FCC should hold Wi-Fi providers to
the same standards as required on 5G.
Historically, any device could use unlicensed networks, provided it
complied with the FCC's regulated power levels, a certification that
comes with the FCC sticker on the back of the device. However, the new
``Team Telecom'' order allows the FCC to deny or revoke device
applications for security reasons.
U.S. policy has clamped down on Huawei for good reason, but it is
hardly the only Chinese government-owned technology firm to worry
about. American Wi-Fi networks and standards organizations are teeming
with such companies, including Lenovo, Panda Electronics, Skyworth,
SVA, TCL, Xiaomi, BOE, Changhong, Haier, Hisense, Konka and DJI. The
security threats of backdoors and viruses from devices from these
companies are considerable. Moreover, they all operate under China's
draconian Internet and espionage laws that assert China's sovereignty
over the Internet and its authority to collect any data on any Chinese-
made device anywhere in the world. These companies are restricted on
Federal government networks, but their equipment presents the same
vulnerabilities on commercial networks and on state government
networks, where they are currently unrestricted.
Mid-band Spectrum Improves 5G Security
By opening the 6-GHz band, the FCC quintupled the spectrum for
unlicensed technologies: some 1200 megahertz will be available for Wi-
Fi. Not only does the FCC need to step up security by restricting risky
vendors on unlicensed spectrum, it needs to make more licensed spectrum
available for 5G, a more secure technology than Wi-Fi. China has some
500 megahertz of mid-band spectrum in use today and has deployed some
160,000 5G base-stations in 50 cities. The United States must wait
until December for an auction of 250 megahertz and yet another year
thereafter to repack the spectrum, a slow pace which is itself a
national security concern. As COVID-19 has shown, we needed networks
yesterday. At the least, the FCC has more tools to use to improve
security and should use them to make Wi-Fi safer.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Michael Calabrese
Question 1. The FCC took significant action in designating 1200
megahertz for unlicensed use in the 6 gigahertz band this spring. How
do you expect this development to impact at-home connectivity
opportunities in rural communities, especially as it relates to
telehealth needs?
Answer. Senator Moran, thank you for your timely question. My
organization and our entire Public Interest Spectrum Coalition (PISC)
expect the FCC's world-leading decision in April to authorize
unlicensed use across the entire 6 GHz band to yield perhaps its
greatest benefits in rural communities, including for telehealth.
Rural, small town, Tribal and historically marginalized communities are
most likely to find themselves on the losing side of the digital
divide. We expect the next generation of Wi-Fi--Wi-Fi 6--to be as big a
leap forward in affordable connectivity as mobile 5G networks will be
compared to 4G. Thanks to the wide, contiguous channels of unlicensed
spectrum the FCC made available in the 6 GHz band, Wi-Fi 6 will
accelerate the availability and affordability of 5G-quality
applications and services in rural communities that will not have
access to mobile carrier 5G for many, many years.
Unlicensed access to 1200 megahertz at 6 GHz will have a
disproportionately positive impact on rural communities and telehealth
for several reasons:
First, while 5G networks may not reach rural, small town or even
many exurban communities for many years, smaller and local providers of
high-capacity fixed wireless broadband that rely primarily on
unlicensed and coordinated sharing of unused spectrum capacity can more
rapidly extend high-capacity and more affordable fixed broadband access
to these underserved areas. More mid-band unlicensed (at 5.9 and 6 GHz)
and shared spectrum (the new Citizens Broadband Radio Service) will
serve as the public infrastructure that enables high-capacity broadband
in less densely-populated areas. The 850 megahertz in the 6 GHz band
that will be accessible to WISPs and other providers at full (standard)
Wi-Fi power limits allows for as many as five gigabit-fast, 160-
megahertz channels of capacity for outdoor use. Capital costs to deploy
fixed point-to-multipoint (P2MP) wireless connections using this
unlicensed spectrum are a fraction--about one-seventh the cost--of
fiber and are still able to provide high-throughput broadband
service.\1\ Fixed wireless service relying on unlicensed spectrum is
also far more cost-effective per gigabyte for this purpose than mobile
networks relying on more limited licensed spectrum. In addition,
anywhere a high-capacity fixed service is available, Wi-Fi 6 can
provide the same consumer benefits as licensed 5G and more affordably.
This means more homes and small businesses will be connected for
telehealth and other services at far higher speeds and more affordably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See The Carmel Group, Ready for Takeoff: Broadband Wireless
Access Providers Prepare to Soar with Fixed Wireless, at 12, Fig. 6
(2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, all 1200 megahertz of the 6 GHz band are available for use
indoors at a lower power level and without the additional cost or
complexity of being controlled by an Automated Frequency Control (AFC)
system, as standard power outdoor Wi-Fi must be. (The AFCs required for
outdoor use of 6 GHz are geolocation databases that operate very much
like the TV White Space databases do today.) Indoors, all 1200
megahertz will be fully available, enabling multi-gigabit throughput on
Wi-Fi routers that will have access to seven channels as wide as 160-
megahertz. Wi-Fi is the workhorse of the Internet because low-cost,
off-the-shelf routers and devices can easily and affordably offer
access to unlicensed spectrum that provides high-capacity connectivity
in homes, at work, at school, in libraries, retailers and healthcare
facility. With access to 6 GHz, all of the bandwidth that a home can
access on its fixed broadband service (whether wireline or wireless)
can be distributed and useful to every device, including health care
monitors and sensors that could be using a variety of unlicensed
technologies.
Third, Wi-Fi plays an increasingly important role in connecting
healthcare, education, manufacturing, technologies. Hospitals, clinics
and doctors will increasingly be able to rely on telehealth as both
they and their patients acquire affordable, high-capacity wireless
connectivity. More broadly, IoT and other high-capacity, local-area
networks--most of which will be indoors and connect everything--are
likely to make unlicensed spectrum an even more critical part of a
truly robust 5G ecosystem. Hospitals are a perfect example of
congested, high traffic, constantly changing environments that would
benefit from Wi-Fi 6. As more smart devices are adopted at hospitals
and the use of data analysis in healthcare grows, the need for large,
contiguous bands of unlicensed spectrum for indoor use is absolutely
vital. Farms and ranches will also have far more capacity for smart
agriculture and related productivity gains. Any farm, campus or
enterprise will be able to customize a very high-capacity Wi-Fi 6
network to meet its needs without relying on a 5G mobile carrier
service that might not even be available.
Overall, this new unlicensed capacity will make telehealth
applications and services far faster, more reliable and more
affordable.
Question 2. Your testimony described OTI's support for flexible use
rights issued to Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service
(MVDDS) licensees in the 12 gigahertz band. Can you describe to this
Subcommittee how this suggested policy change would benefit rural
communities through increased broadband connectivity while protecting
incumbent operations?
Answer. The 12 GHz Band provides an opportunity to adopt a sharing
framework in this valuable but underutilized band that greatly expands
the availability of spectrum for both fixed and mobile broadband
deployments with mid-band propagation characteristics significantly
better than the millimeter wave bands at 24 GHz and beyond.
Specifically, my organization and many other parties support
consideration of the proposal made in a petition for rulemaking filed
by the MVDDS Coalition.\2\ Given this Commission's commitment to
opening additional mid-band spectrum for 5G services, including low-
power unlicensed uses for Wi-Fi 6, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
consider the best way to achieve more intensive and efficient use of
this 500 megahertz at 12.2-12.7 GHz is in the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition for Rulemaking to Permit MVDDS
Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band for Two-Way Mobile Broadband Service, RM-
11768 (filed Apr. 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to considering two-way and more flexible use rights for
MVDDS licensees, the NPRM should request comment on the authorization
of coordinated, shared use of the band for high-capacity fixed wireless
services on an unlicensed or secondary basis. Opening access to unused
12 GHz spectrum can provide spectrum-as-infrastructure to fixed
wireless ISPs and other broadband network providers in underserved
rural, tribal and less densely populated communities. Coordinated
sharing of unused portions of the 12 GHz band could be particularly
beneficial for rural, tribal and other underserved communities. A
recent study by BroadbandNow Research found that 42 million Americans
lack access to wireline or fixed wireless broadband, nearly 13 percent
of the population, with a disproportionate share in rural and small
town communities.\3\ Surveys by the Pew Research Center found that only
63 percent of rural Americans said they having broadband at home,
compared to 79 percent of suburban Americans and 75 percent of
Americans living in urban areas.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ John Busby et al., ``FCC Reports Broadband Unavailable to 21.3
Million Americans, BroadbandNow Study Indicates 42 Million Do Not Have
Access,'' BroadbandNow Research (Feb. 3, 2020), https://
broadbandnow.com/research/fcc-underestimates-unserved-by-50-percent.
\4\ Andrew Perrin, ``Digital gap between rural and nonrural America
persists,'' Pew Research Center (May 31, 2019), https://
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/31/digital-gap-between-rural-and-
nonrural-america-persists/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These less-densely-populated areas tend to have lower rates of
broadband adoption due to the high costs for both backhaul and last
mile buildout. This makes fixed wireless access, both P2P and P2MP,
particularly potent in narrowing the connectivity gap. Rural
communities will especially benefit from the higher capacity throughput
that wireless ISPs could potentially offer with local access to this
spectrum. As the current COVID-19 crisis has made painfully clear,
adequate and affordable broadband access has become critical for
accessing education, healthcare, government services and the modern
workplace.
A use-it-or-share-it opportunity at 12 GHz will help expand
affordable broadband services in rural, tribal and other communities
where there is a limited economic incentive for a national or regional
carrier to offer service, but still a real economic need for the
community. Rather than leave as much as 500 megahertz in the band
fallow in underserved rural and other less-densely-populated areas, the
Commission should consider a ``use it or share it'' approach that
allows at least secondary, coordinated access for fixed broadband uses
(both point-to-point and point-to-multipoint). Conceptually, this
approach is similar to the Commission's very recent and successful
authorization of coordinated access to unused spectrum in the lower 45
megahertz of the 5.9 GHz band in the face of the Covid crisis.\5\
Wireless Internet service providers (WISPs) are making coordinated,
secondary use of the spectrum to boost the capacity of their fixed
wireless deployments that rely on the adjacent unlicensed spectrum band
(U-NII-3) to make affordable broadband service available in mostly
rural, small town and historically underserved areas.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See FCC Press Release, ``5.9 GHz Band Boosts Consumer Internet
Access During Covid-19 Pandemic,'' May 4, 2020. Available at: https://
docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-364138A1.pdf
\6\ Claude Aiken, ``FCC 5.9 GHz STA Helps WISPs Serve Through
COVID-19 Pandemic,'' Claude's Blog, Wireless Internet Service Providers
Association (WISPA), available at http://wispa.org/
news_manager.php?page=21979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A coordinated sharing process at 12 GHz could operate very much
like the new Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS), which authorizes
secondary and temporary access to the licensed portion of the band (70
megahertz) in any local area where post-auction Priority Access
licensees have not yet deployed or commenced service. By similarly
relying on a coordination database, this proven approach can ensure
that unused spectrum is put to use in rural and other hard-to-serve
areas without any risk of interference or any negative impact
whatsoever on the primary licensees.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to
Michael Calabrese
Question 1. The physics associated with the 12 GHz band present
some interesting opportunities for expanding mid-band mobile broadband
services in our 5G infrastructure. Compared to CBRS or C-band, this
frequency appears to have some additional rain fade; however, the data
rates should be comparably excellent. Furthermore, there are fewer
hurdles to bring this band into the mobile broadband market. Can you
comment on the overall benefits the 12 GHz band can bring to the
wireless market?
Answer. Senator Blackburn, thank you for your question and for
recognizing the tremendous potential for expanded use of the 12 GHz
band. As I noted in my response to Senator Moran's question concerning
the potential benefits of the 12 GHz band to rural communities (above),
my organization and many other parties support consideration of the
proposal made in a petition for rulemaking filed by the MVDDS
Coalition.\7\ By adding the 12 GHz Band to the FCC's 5G FAST Plan, the
Commission can make an additional 500 megahertz of contiguous spectrum
available for two-way fixed and mobile 5G wireless broadband services,
while protecting incumbent satellite uses (including satellite
broadband) from harmful interference. This will promote competition,
innovation and improve services to underserved communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition for Rulemaking to Permit MVDDS
Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band for Two-Way Mobile Broadband Service, RM-
11768 (filed Apr. 26, 2016). See also Letter of Competitive Carrier
Association, INCOMPAS, et al. to Chairman Ajit Pai, RM-11768 (filed May
26, 2020); Letter of the Dynamic Spectrum Coalition to Chairman Ajit
Pai, RM-11768 (filed August 21, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Commission adopted the current MVDDS rules in 2000,\8\
long before smartphones or online video services, we lived in a very
different world. At that time, DBS was a fast-growing service and
spectrum sharing based on interference mitigation technologies did not
exist. Today, DBS is rapidly losing customers, while broadband
satellite providers using a different technology from DBS are poised to
enter the market. Fixed wireless using both licensed and unlicensed
spectrum has become an important component in closing the rural digital
divide. And competition in the mobile wireless sector has gone from
highly competitive in 2000 to highly concentrated in 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Permit
Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial
Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency Range, First Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 16 FCC Rcd 4096 (2000) (``MVDDS
First R&O''); Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to
Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and
Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band with Frequency Range, Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614 (2002)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 12 GHz Band provides an opportunity to adopt a sharing
framework that greatly expands the availability of spectrum for both
fixed and mobile broadband deployments with mid-band propagation
characteristics significantly better than the millimeter wave bands at
24 GHz and beyond. As we told the FCC in a May letter joined by the
Competitive Carriers Association and other diverse stakeholders, ``if
two-way, 5G wireless broadband services were allowed, initial use cases
would include fixed broadband, mobile 5G services to handsets and
street-level Internet of Things opportunities.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Letter of Competitive Carrier Association, et al. to
Chairman Ajit Pai, RM-11768 (filed May 26, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More flexible spectrum use rights for existing licensees can also
promote competition in mobile broadband. As a consequence of the T-
Mobile acquisition of Sprint, American consumers are now limited to a
choice of three national carriers. As a consequence, it is imperative
that the Commission ensure that DISH has access to sufficient spectrum
to compete aggressively with the incumbent providers. More flexible use
rules for MVDDS licensees will enhance DISH's chances of success. We
believe maximizing the number of potential 5G providers through a 12
GHz rulemaking offer the best chance for rural Americans to benefit
from more broadband access and competition.
Question 2. The next several years will be transformative for the
U.S. for 5G infrastructure, with the CBRS auction currently ongoing and
the C-band auction scheduled for December. An intriguing approach to
how this network could be defined is by using the Open Radio Access
Network (ORAN) specification, which is garnering attention in foreign
markets but has been slow to be adopted in the US. Can each of you
comment on the implications of whiteboxing our global 5G
infrastructure? What are the economic implications if the U.S. doesn't
adopt the ORAN specification in its mobile broadband infrastructure?
Answer. Senator Blackburn, thank you for your question about an
Open RAN specification. I cannot answer in detail, since I haven't
researched or focused on this important issue. My organization, the
Open Technology Institute, generally supports open and interoperable
technology platforms, which we believe promote innovation, competition
and ultimately lower prices for consumers. ORAN has the potential
`break the RAN stack' and thereby stimulate new competition. Opening
the stack to competing vendors, including American companies, can spur
competition and downward pricing pressure for the various components of
5G network infrastructure. Virtualized RAN deployments can
substantially reduce the capital and operating costs of 5G networks,
yet the RAN ecosystem remains closed and dominated by non-American
companies using proprietary interfaces.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., ``Leveraging O-RAN to Stimulate U.S. Investment and
Leadership in Wireless Technology,'' DISH, white paper (March 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the U.S. does not adopt an ORAN specification, these market
entrants and U.S. companies will continue to be blocked by foreign-
based companies that are able to force mobile network providers to
purchase integrated 5G network infrastructure based on proprietary
interfaces. Without an ORAN specification, a few large and foreign-
based wireless infrastructure providers will have tremendous market
power and dominate the market. This would likely result in higher
prices and less innovation compared to a market premised on open and
interoperable components. The absence of an ORAN specification could
have security implications as well, particularly if the pressures of
limited choice and competition pushes network providers into a reliance
on infrastructure sold by companies that are not free from state
influence and control.