[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SPECTRUM NEEDS FOR OBSERVATIONS
IN EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 20, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-26
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-184 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina VACANCY
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin VACANCY
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
C O N T E N T S
July 20, 2021
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
Mr. Andrew Von Ah, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues,
Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 19
Mr. David Lubar, Senior Project Leader, Civil Systems Group, The
Aerospace Corporation
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 32
Dr. Jordan Gerth, Honorary Fellow, Space Science and Engineering
Center, University of Wisconsin--Madison
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 42
Mr. Bill Mahoney, NCAR Associate Director and Director of the
Research Applications Laboratory (RAL) at the National Center
for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), in Boulder, Colorado
Oral Statement............................................... 52
Written Statement............................................ 54
Ms. Jennifer Manner, Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs,
EchoStar Corporation/Hughes Network Systems LLC
Oral Statement............................................... 66
Written Statement............................................ 68
Discussion....................................................... 75
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Andrew Von Ah, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues,
Government Accountability Office............................... 112
Mr. David Lubar, Senior Project Leader, Civil Systems Group, The
Aerospace Corporation.......................................... 120
Dr. Jordan Gerth, Honorary Fellow, Space Science and Engineering
Center, University of Wisconsin--Madison....................... 133
Mr. Bill Mahoney, NCAR Associate Director and Director of the
Research Applications Laboratory (RAL) at the National Center
for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), in Boulder, Colorado.......... 136
Ms. Jennifer Manner, Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs,
EchoStar Corporation/Hughes Network Systems LLC................ 137
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letters submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives
GPS Innovation Alliance...................................... 140
American Weather and Climate Industry Association............ 144
American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society,
and National Weather Association........................... 147
Letter submitted by Iridium Communications Inc................... 149
Letter submitted by the Aerospace Industries Association......... 152
Letter submitted by the IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Society........................................................ 154
SPECTRUM NEEDS FOR OBSERVATIONS
IN EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCES
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2021
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom,
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. The hearing will come to order, and
without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
any time. Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note
that today the Committee is meeting both in person and
virtually. I want to announce a couple of reminders to the
Members about the conduct of this hearing. First, Members and
staff who are attending in person, and are unvaccinated against
COVID-19, must stay masked throughout the hearing. Unvaccinated
Members may remove their masks only during the questioning
under the five-minute rule. Members who are attending virtually
should keep their video feed on as long as they are present in
the hearing. Members are responsible for their own microphones.
Please also keep your microphones muted until you are speaking.
And finally, if Members have documents they wish to submit for
the record, please e-mail them to the Committee Clerk, whose e-
mail address was circulated prior to the hearing. I have a
letter here from GPS Innovation Alliance to be entered into the
hearing record, and without objection, so ordered.
Good morning, and thank you to our witnesses for joining
us today. We rely on the radio frequency spectrum in countless
ways every day. We use it for GPS (Global Positioning System),
communicating with friends and family, scientific research,
weather forecasting, and much more. But spectrum is a finite
resource, and as more technologies are developed and deployed,
like 5G, the demand for spectrum continues to increase. One
might think of the radio frequency spectrum as similar to a
trendy neighborhood that is attracting a lot of new people. As
more residents seek to move in, you might rezone the size of
the lots to make them smaller, and convert some parking spaces
for bike lanes. You might have to install some new traffic
lights. The longtime tenants understandably want to maintain
their way of life, but they will inevitably have to make some
adjustments. And if a noisy new tenant moves in, it's a problem
for the house next door. It is analogous to the situations that
have arisen due to increasing demands on the radiofrequency
spectrum. This Committee recognizes the importance of 5G
development, and supports advancing the technology, but we must
be thoughtful about how we proceed. We must ensure that as we
deploy 5G and other new technologies, we do not threaten
critical Earth and space science observations.
Meteorologists have expressed concern for years about
increased demand and usage of spectrum. They understand the
importance of protecting access to spectrum bands needed for
scientific observation. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) and NASA (National Aeronautics and Space
Administration) raised serious concerns to both the Committee
and the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) about the
potential for critical satellite data loss as a result of
interference from the 24 gigahertz band. In fact, former Acting
NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs stated before the Committee that
the proposed spectrum auction for 24 gigahertz would result in
a degraded forecast skill by as much as 30 percent. Therefore,
Ranking Member Lucas and I requested that FEC--FCC delay the
auction until the concerns were addressed. Unfortunately, the
FCC proceeded with the auction of 24 gigahertz with minimal
limits on out-of-band emissions. Thankfully, the United States
is party to an international treaty on spectrum use. Other
nations advocated for a more stringent emissions limit at the
World Radio Conference (WRC) in December 2019. The concerns of
the science community should be partially addressed when the
FCC conforms its emission limits with the international
standards.
But we're only in a better place for weather observation
because of the advocacy of other Nations. The United States
spectrum management process failed our Nation's forecasters,
astronomers, and climate scientists. Ranking Member Lucas and I
requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
conduct a report on how these concerns were considered and
addressed during the 24 gigahertz auction process. The report
was released yesterday. It makes clear that a number of Federal
agencies have a lot of work to do to improve this process. I
know the United States has what it takes to fix this. If we can
establish a more coordinated, whole-of-government approach to
spectrum management, we can enable U.S. telecommunications
leadership and protect important Earth and space science
observations. The Committee will be asking for accountability
from both Federal science agencies and the FCC as well--as we
all learn to live in a more crowded spectrum neighborhood.
I am pleased we are joined by Mr. Von Ah of the Government
Accountability Office, who can shed more light on their report.
And our other witnesses can speak to the importance of
protecting spectrum for existing Federal science applications.
They will also help us consider strategies to better address
these very legitimate concerns. Finally, I also want to thank
Ranking Member Lucas for his staff for working arm-in-arm with
me and my staff on the topic.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good morning and thank you to our witnesses for joining us
today.
We rely on the radio frequency spectrum in countless ways
every day. We use it for GPS, communicating with friends and
family, scientific research, weather forecasting, and much
more. But spectrum is a finite resource. And as more
technologies are developed and deployed--like 5G--the demand
for spectrum continues to increase.
One might think of the radiofrequency spectrum as similar
to a trendy neighborhood that is attracting a lot of new
people. As more residents seek to move in, you might rezone the
size of the lots to make them smaller, and convert some parking
spaces for bike lanes. You might have to install some new
traffic lights. The longtime tenants understandably want to
maintain their way of life, but they will inevitably have to
make some adjustments. And if a noisy new tenant moves in, it's
a problem for the house next door. It's analogous to the
situations that have arisen due to increasing demands on the
radiofrequency spectrum.
This Committee recognizes the importance of 5G development
and supports advancing the technology. But we must be
thoughtful about how we proceed. We must ensure that as we
deploy 5G and other new technologies, we do not threaten
critical earth and space science observations.
Meteorologists have expressed concern for years about
increased demand and usage of spectrum. They understand the
importance of protecting access to spectrum bands needed for
scientific observation. NOAA and NASA raised serious concerns
to both this Committee and the FCC about the potential for
critical satellite data loss as a result of interference from
the 24 gigahertz band. In fact, former Acting NOAA
Administrator Neil Jacobs stated before this Committee that the
proposed spectrum auction for 24 GHz would result in a degraded
forecast skill by as much as 30 percent.
Therefore, Ranking Member Lucas and I requested that FCC
delay the auction until the concerns were addressed.
Unfortunately, the FCC proceeded with the auction of 24 GHz
with minimal limits on out-of-band emissions.
Thankfully, the United States is party to an international
treaty on spectrum use. Other nations advocated for a more
stringent emissions limit at the World Radio Conference in
December 2019. The concerns of the science community should be
partially addressed when the FCC conforms its emissions limits
with the international standard. But we're only in a better
place for weather observations because of the advocacy of other
nations. The United States spectrum management process failed
our nation's forecasters, astronomers, and climate scientists.
Ranking Member Lucas and I requested that the Government
Accountability Office conduct a report on how these concerns
were considered and addressed during the 24 GHz auction
process. The report was released yesterday. It makes clear that
a number of federal agencies have a lot of work to do to
improve the process.
I know the United States has what it takes to fix this. If
we can establish a more coordinated, whole-of-government
approach to spectrum management, we can enable U.S.
telecommunications leadership and protect important earth and
space science observations. This Committee will be asking for
accountability from both federal science agencies and the FCC
as we all learn to live in a more crowded spectrum
neighborhood.
I am pleased we are joined by Mr. Von Ah of the Government
Accountability Office, who can shed more light on their report.
And our other witnesses can speak to the importance of
protecting spectrum for existing federal science applications.
They will also help us consider strategies to better address
these very legitimate concerns.
Finally, I also want to thank Ranking Member Lucas and his
staff for working arm-in-arm with me and my staff on this
topic. I now yield to him for his opening statement.
Chairwoman Johnson. I now will recognize Mr. Lucas for his
opening statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you for holding a hearing on this
important subject, Chairwoman Johnson. Spectrum allocation may
not always receive front page news coverage, but it affects our
lives daily. We use the spectrum for everything from
transmitting cell phone signals, to broadcasting radio
stations, to monitoring weather patterns. The farmers who use
GPS to engage in precision agriculture rely on clear spectrum
frequencies. Scientists use data from orbiting satellites to
forecast severe weather events that rely on the spectrum also,
and in the future rural Americans may receive faster, more
reliable broadband internet thanks to orbiting satellite
constellations using the spectrum.
Today's hearing is timely, as it comes a day after the
Government Accounting Office released a report, requested by
this Committee, evaluating the interagency process for
allocating spectrum when there are different interests at play.
The report makes it clear that the existing process is flawed,
and highlights a number of instances in which coordination fell
apart. We can't afford to have this happen again. At our
request for this, GAO evaluation was prompted by a continuous
process leading up to the 2019 spectrum auction, which was
intended to help spur the development of new 5G cellular
technology infrastructure. All of this came before the 2019
World Radio Communication Conference, where the U.S. was
negotiating updated spectrum allocation regulations and
coordination with countries around the world.
Ahead of the auction, the weather community raised
significant concerns about the potential loss of forecasting
data due to the spillover from adjoining spectrum bands which
would be used for 5G. This Committee heard testimony from
Federal agencies such as NASA and NOAA about the potential
negative effects of this auction. The acting Administrator of
NOAA told us that our forecasting accuracy could be degraded by
as much as 30 percent. That could have dangerous consequences
for families and businesses, and our ability to protect lives
and property in severe weather.
As I said at the time, we all support the deployment of
5G. Advanced wireless communications offers many economic
development opportunities for our constituents, and helps us
remain competitive with China. With the growth of remote work
and education since the pandemic, having reliable and fast
connectivity is even more important now than ever. But spectrum
allocation decisions cannot be about choosing connectivity over
forecasting. We have a responsibility to seek a balance between
the needs of the Federal users and non-commercial users of
spectrum for commercial users of spectrum.
That's why the release of this GAO report is important. It
identified a number of flaws and gaps in the processes for
resolving interagency disagreements over spectrum allocation,
as well as incidents in which agencies failed to coordinate
effectively. The report also offers 11 recommendations for
Executive action, which will result in an improved process in
the future. It is critical that the Science Committee work with
the other Committees of jurisdiction to ensure that the
agencies address these recommendations. All stakeholders, from
Federal agencies to private companies, need a spectrum
allocation process that is fair, transparent, and provides
certainty for decisionmaking, particularly as we negotiate
internationally over spectrum issues. Regulatory instability is
bad for business, and can be especially lethal to satellites if
regulations are not internationally harmonized, since satellite
signals do not stop at borders.
It is important that we note that the issues surrounding
the spectrum allocation process in 2019 were not the first time
spectrum allocations have been the source of controversy, and
will certainly not be the last time either. Indeed, the
importance of spectrum allocation will continue to grow as face
increased utilization of 5G devices and the Internet of Things.
This is a challenging topic, and one which will require
multiple Federal agencies working together to modernize
existing processes, and multiple congressional Committees
working in tandem, to ensure that we address these issues in
the most effective manner, both nationally and internationally.
That being said, I'm confident we can find a path forward.
I want to thank our panel of witnesses for appearing
before us today. They represent a variety of experts on
spectrum issues who can speak to how the Federal interagency
process is intended to work, and how it has worked previously,
and ways Federal agencies and Congress can work to improve the
process moving forward. With that, Madam Chair, I thank you,
and I very much appreciate all of our work together, and I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Thank you for holding a hearing on this important topic,
Chairwoman Johnson.
Spectrum allocation may not always receive front-page news
coverage, but it affects our lives daily. We use the spectrum
for everything from transmitting cellphone signals, to
broadcasting radio stations, to monitoring weather patterns.
Farmers who use GPS to engage in precision agriculture rely on
clear spectrum frequencies. Scientists use data from orbiting
satellites to forecast severe weather events rely on spectrum.
And in the future, rural Americans might receive faster and
more reliable broadband internet thanks to orbiting satellite
constellations using the spectrum.
Today's hearing is timely, as it comes a day after the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report,
requested by this committee, evaluating the interagency process
for allocating spectrum when there are different interests at
play. The report makes it clear that the existing process is
flawed and highlights a number of instances in which
coordination fell apart. We can't afford to have this happen
again.
Our request for this GAO evaluation was prompted by the
contentious process leading up to the 2019 domestic spectrum
auction, which was intended to help spur the deployment of new
5G cellular technology infrastructure. All of this came before
the 2019 World Radiocommunication Conference, where the U.S.
was negotiating updated spectrum allocation regulations and
coordination with countries around the world.
Ahead of the auction, the weather community raised
significant concerns about the potential loss of forecasting
data due to the spillover from adjoining spectrum bands which
would be used for 5G. This committee heard testimony from
federal agencies such as NASA and NOAA about the potential
negative effects of this auction. The Acting Administrator of
NOAA told us that our forecast accuracy could be degraded by as
much as 30 percent. That could have dangerous consequences for
families and businesses, and for our ability to protect lives
and property in severe weather.
As I said at the time, we all support the deployment of 5G.
Advanced wireless communications offers many economic
development opportunities for our constituents, and helps us
remain competitive with China. With the growth of remote work
and education since the pandemic, having reliable and fast
connectivity is even more important now than ever. But spectrum
allocation decisions cannot be about choosing connectivity over
forecasting. We have a responsibility to seek a balance between
the needs of federal users and non-commercial users of spectrum
with commercial users of spectrum.
That is why the release of this GAO report is important. It
identified a number of flaws and gaps in the processes for
resolving interagency disagreements over spectrum allocation,
as well as incidents in which agencies failed to coordinate
effectively. The report also offers 11 recommendations for
executive action which would result in an improved process in
the future. It is critical that the Science Committee work with
the other Committees of jurisdiction to ensure the agencies
address these recommendations.
All stakeholders, from federal agencies to private
companies, need a spectrum allocation process that is fair,
transparent, and provides certainty for decision making,
particularly as we negotiate internationally over spectrum
issues. Regulatory instability is bad for business and can be
especially lethal to satellites if regulations are not
internationally harmonized since satellite signals do not stop
at borders.
It is important that we note that the issues surrounding
the spectrum allocation process in 2019 were not the first time
spectrum allocations have been the source of controversy, and
will certainly not be the last time, either. Indeed, the
importance of spectrum allocation will continue to grow as we
face increased utilization of 5G devices and the Internet of
Things.
This is a challenging topic and one which will require
multiple federal agencies working together to modernize
existing processes and multiple Congressional committees
working in tandem to ensure that we address these issues in the
most effective manner, both nationally and internationally.
That being said, I am confident we can find a path forward.
I want to thank our panel of witnesses for appearing before
us today. They represent a variety of experts on spectrum
issues who can speak to how the federal interagency process is
intended to work, how it has worked previously, and ways
federal agencies and Congress can work to improve the process
moving forward.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. If there are
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point. Now we'll
introduce the witnesses.
Our first witness is Mr. Andrew Von Ah. Mr. Von Ah is a
Director in the Government Accountability Office, the GAO's
Physical Infrastructure team. He oversees a portfolio including
the management and regulation of spectrum, deployment of
broadband infrastructure, and emergency communications. He
previously served as Acting Director of GAO's Defense
Capabilities Management team, and Assistant Director for
Physical Infrastructure. While at the GAO, his scope of work
has included aviation, telecommunication, and surface
transportation issues.
The next witness is Mr. David Lubar. Mr. Lubar is a Senior
Project Leader in the Civil Systems Group at The Aerospace
Corporation. He advises on spectrum for the Program Offices of
the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), and the Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) System-R Series. He
also delivers all aspects of spectrum support for space
systems, with an emphasis on environmental satellite systems.
Our third witness is Dr. Jordan Gerth. Mr. Gerth is an
Honorary Fellow for the Space Science and Engineering Center at
the University of Wisconsin at Madison. I will note that Dr.
Gerth also serves as a physical scientist for the National
Weather Service (NWS) under NOAA. However, his service began
subsequent to the 23.8 gigahertz controversy in spring of 2019.
He is appearing today in his capacity as a leading researcher
on spectrum needs for atmospheric science, and not as a
representative of the agency. I encourage Members to address
their questions accordingly. His research focuses on the
transition of meteorological observations, particularly remote
sensing, into operational weather forecasting. He is currently
developing the NWS requirements, and a mission concept for the
next generation of geostationary weather satellites under the
GeoXO Program.
After Dr. Gerth is Mr. Bill Mahoney. Mr. Mahoney is
Director of the Research Applications Laboratory at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). He has led the
weather-related R&D (research and development) programs for
NCAR for more than 35 years on topics including aviation,
intelligent forecasting--forecast systems, wildfire behavior
prediction, and renewable energy. His experience includes
scientific research, facilitating inter-laboratory science,
technology commercialization, promoting diversity and
inclusion, and supporting transdisciplinary sciences.
Our final witness is Ms. Jennifer Manner. Ms. Manner is a
Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs of the EchoStar
Corporation/Hughes Network Systems LLC, where her portfolio
includes spectrum management, new technology, and market
access. Previously she was a senior counsel to FCC Commissioner
Kathleen Abernathy, with responsibility for wireless,
international, and new technology issues. She has served on the
Federal Advisory Committee for Communications Spectrum
Management and World Radio Communications. She has also
published several books on telecommunications issues, and on
spectrum specifically.
As our witnesses should know, you will have five minutes
for your spoken testimony, and your written testimony will be
included in the record for the hearing. When you have completed
your spoken testimony, we will begin questions, and each Member
will have five minutes to question the panel. We'll start with
Mr. Von Ah.
TESTIMONY OF MR. ANDREW VON AH,
DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Von Ah. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
Members of the Committee, I'm pleased to be here today as you
examine the Federal spectrum management process. Regulating and
managing the diverse uses of spectrum are complex and
challenging tasks. They involve accommodating the growing needs
of emerging technologies, protecting existing uses from harmful
interference, and balancing the concerns of various spectrum
users, all with the goal of promoting the most efficient and
effective use of the spectrum resource in the public interest.
The recent FCC proceeding known as Spectrum Frontiers revealed
these challenges, leading to Federal agencies having
disagreements about how to protect instruments on weather
satellites from interference from 5G wireless signals in the 24
gigahertz spectrum band. Leading in 5G and leading in weather
forecasting are both important national goals, with billions of
dollars of potential benefits associated with them.
The disagreements came to light during the U.S.'s
preparatory work for the 2019 World Radio Conference, where
FCC, NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information
Administration), NOAA, and NASA did not agree on which U.S.
studies and positions to present internationally. This created
challenges for the U.S.'s ability to present a unified position
or an agreed-upon technical basis for the conclusions the U.S.
ultimately supported. My statement today is based on our report
released yesterday, which examined the extent to which the
Federal agencies followed leading practices and collaborating
on potential interference effects on weather forecasting, and
how agencies conduct and review technical studies that could
predict and model the extent of interference.
With respect to collaboration, we found that the
mechanisms used by the agencies do not fully reflect key
collaboration practices. For example, two key documents, the
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FCC and NTIA, and the
General Guidance Document that guides technical and other
preparatory work for international proceedings, have no defined
and agreed-upon processes for resolving matters when agencies
cannot do so. Indeed, it was because these mechanisms broke
down with respect to reaching consensus that the U.S. could not
present a position with an agreed-upon technical basis.
Notably, the MOU and the General Guidance Document have not
been updated in almost 20 years, despite growing demand on
spectrum resources.
Further, during the FCC proceeding, both internal
processes and clear expectations were lacking for how and when
NOAA and NASA were to participate and raise interference
concerns. For example, FCC requested comments on actions it was
considering related to the 24 gigahertz spectrum band as early
as 2014, but NOAA and NASA did not submit comments until
several years later. By the time the two agencies had provided
comments, FCC had already decided to take action. Thus, the
agencies missed opportunities to ensure that FCC received and
considered their input. With regard to the agencies work on
technical interference studies, in this case NOAA and NASA
prepared studies for the 2019 conference following the guidance
and standards developed by international parties. Although FCC
was a party to the international groups that developed these
guidelines and standards, FCC later disputed those ultimately
used by NOAA and NASA in the design and preparation of their
studies. Without agreed-upon procedures to conduct and review
the studies, or clear steps on how to resolve the lack of
consensus, the agencies were unable to move forward. As a
result, the U.S. did not submit its studies on certain key
issues to the final technical meeting, resulting in some
stakeholders questioning whether the corresponding U.S.
positions were technically rooted.
In our report we made recommendations to FCC, NTIA, and to
NOAA to address these gaps. Specifically, we made five
recommendations to both FCC and NTIA. First, to establish
processes for making decisions on spectrum management
activities that involve other agencies, particularly when
consensus cannot be reached. Second, to clarify and further
identify shared goals for spectrum management activities.
Third, to update the FCC/NTIA MOU to address the identified
gaps, and to continually monitor and update this agreement.
Fourth, to request that State initiate a review of the General
Guidance Document, and in consultation with other relevant
participants, and to continually monitor and update this
document. And lastly, to establish procedures to help guide the
design of spectrum sharing and potential interference studies.
Additionally, we recommended that NOAA clarify and document its
processes for identifying and raising concerns about potential
interference to NOAA satellite instruments. We would note that
NASA, during the course of our review, did just that.
The agencies all agreed to work collaboratively to
implement these recommendations, which we believe will at least
create a framework where disagreements can be resolved based on
agreed-upon technical findings. Madam Chairwoman, this
concludes my prepared remarks. I'd be happy to answer any
questions you or other Members of the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Von Ah follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. We'll now hear
from Mr. Lubar.
TESTIMONY OF MR. DAVID LUBAR,
SENIOR PROJECT LEADER, CIVIL SYSTEMS GROUP,
THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION
Mr. Lubar. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member
Lucas, and Members of the Committee for this hearing. Thank you
for the opportunity to contribute today. It is an honor to be
asked to testify on an issue that brings together two areas
that have been central to my technical work over the last 35
years, the scientific use of passive sensed data from space for
environmental applications, and the spectrum management aspects
of space systems. I work for The Aerospace Corporation on
spectrum management as it relates to meteorological satellites
and space systems. For those who may be unfamiliar with
Aerospace, we are a non-profit that was established by the U.S.
Congress in 1960 to provide independent and objective technical
advice to military, intelligence, and civil space programs. As
a federally chartered non-profit, our only motivation is to
help the U.S. achieve success in its space missions.
My 35 years of spectrum experience includes two major
environmental satellite programs for NOAA, one of which is the
Joint Polar Satellite System, or JPSS. JPSS has a sounder
instrument, specifically a microwave radiometer, which performs
passive measurements worldwide in 22 passive frequency bands,
including the 23.8 gigahertz spectrum. This sensor is essential
to the timeliness and accuracy of weather predictions around
the world, because making passive measurements of subtle
atmospheric conditions from space requires listening very
carefully for natural phenomena against a background of human-
created electromagnetic energy from our billions of radios. I
have become very familiar with the International
Telecommunications Union, or ITU's, study process, and have
closely monitored the study reports and discussions through the
ITU that resulted in the 24 gigahertz spectrum emission limits
in 2019.
Today I want to make three main technical points to the
Committee. First, that the same regulatory protection limits
cannot be applied to a space-based passive sensor and a
smartphone or other communications receiver. Their operation
and sensitivities are vastly different because passive weather
sensors are measuring the very subtle noise floor. Most
communication engineers consider the noise floor unusable, and
would not be concerned with emissions at or below that level.
Second, that moderate levels of contamination caused by radio
frequency interference created by neighboring services are
harder to identify, and hence more damaging than the very high
or very low levels. And third, that there is no mitigation for
such contamination of weather sensors. The best one could do is
identify the contamination and avoid propagating that data into
supercomputers and weather models.
I also want to make the overarching point that scientific
input into the spectrum regulatory process is essential for
successful and informed outcomes. Communication receivers, such
as those in our smartphones or in our ground stations, rely on
an active transmitted signal originating from an antenna to
carry our voice or videos, but space-based passive sensors are
very different technologies that do not have the same
functionality or protection requirements. Unlike communication
receivers, these satellite microwave radiometers are extremely
sensitive power measurement devices for detecting energy
emissions. One analogy about the sensitivity of space-based
passive measurements: It's like trying to hear a whisper in San
Francisco while standing 500 miles away in San Diego. Please
cue up the slide.
[Slide.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Passive measurement instruments seek to measure the minute
natural variations in the noise floor. What is the noise floor?
Well, this is a complex technical subject. The term ``noise''
refers to unwanted electrical signals that are always present
in electrical systems. The primary natural source of noise in
radio systems that cannot be eliminated is caused by the
thermal motion of electrons. Space-based radiometers use the
radio spectrum noise floor to measure the weak emissions of the
atmosphere. From these data, temperature, water vapor, and
other values may be determined. You may take down the slide.
In closing, I would like to highlight that the scientific
input into the spectrum regulatory process is essential. For
example, in the future, the FCC may consider service rules for
terrestrial services adjacent to passive bands, such as the 50
gigahertz passive bands used to determine atmospheric
temperatures. The passive measurements in that band are
critical contributors to weather models. I'm heartened that
this hearing is being held to examine these issues, and I would
like to thank the Committee for this opportunity to testify. I
look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lubar follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Gerth?
TESTIMONY OF DR. JORDAN GERTH, HONORARY FELLOW,
SPACE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING CENTER,
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN--MADISON
Dr. Gerth. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing,
and thank you for the invitation to testify today. You
implicitly recognize the importance of radio frequencies for
Earth and space science applications. My testimony today will
focus particularly on the criticality of protecting the clarity
of Earth-emitted radio frequencies to maintain the quality and
public confidence in weather warnings and forecasts, and the
need for transparent processes to facilitate that objective.
While visible or infrared satellite imagery as shown on
the evening weather report partially contributes to the quality
of weather forecast, the most valuable frequencies are
microwaves, particularly those between 20 and 200 gigahertz. It
likely comes as a surprise to many that the Earth's atmosphere
emits microwaves, but they are naturally occurring, and not
harmful to us. Improvements in numerical weather prediction
performance over the past 20 years can be attributed to
satellite observations, especially microwave sensing of water
vapor, such as at 23.8 gigahertz and other frequencies. Today
approximately 15 to 30 percent of the assimilated observations
are from passive microwave sensing.
If there is no observation of a portion of the atmosphere
because of 5G signal interference there, it cannot be the basis
for a weather analysis, and global and local forecasts may
suffer alike, leading to a loss of lead time for storms. Using
an--using a 5G inflated observation could lead to a worse
forecast, unless numerical weather models are configured to use
microwave observations, with a decreased confidence in their
quality, a mitigation that would have far-reaching
complications for weather forecasts beyond where there is
interference.
As part of the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation
Act of 2017, NOAA is required to conduct an Observing System
Simulation Experiment, or OSSE, before buying or leasing a new
weather satellite. This directive could be expanded,
potentially using spectrum auction revenues. NOAA, NASA, and
other government agencies that operate satellites for
environmental sensing should regularly audit the use of
spectrum and recent peer reviewed studies from Federal and
federally supported scientists to reflect the application and
value of each radio frequency sensed.
In light of the GAO findings and recommendations, I am
left wondering what recourse NOAA or NASA has if the FCC and/or
the Department of State does not allay their raised concerns
about shared spectrum rulemaking proposals. Chairwoman Johnson
and Ranking Member Lucas were rightfully concerned about the
potential for radio--for weather forecast degradation, and
calling for the GAO to investigate the governmental processes
that have led us to this point. Yet, as a scientist, it is
discomforting that the FCC can conduct rulemaking without
studies that could have an impact on another agency to
accomplish its congressionally directed mission. This Committee
should consider whether oversight or involvement from the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, Federal advisory
committees, or other mechanisms that, at a minimum, conduct and
make publicly available all relevant scientific studies prior
to a rulemaking decision may facilitate a process with more
integrity for all stakeholders.
Despite the importance of maintaining the accuracy of
weather forecasts, the weather enterprise is not a competitor
of the telecommunications industry, and we should not
characterize this issue as one of us versus them. The
telecommunications industry is an essential partner in
delivering urgent weather messages to Americans. I truly
believe that with a better understanding of how satellite
sensors collect weather information, and how those observations
improve weather forecasts, that industry partners can work with
us to deploy equipment outside of pre-existing bands for Earth
sensing.
In our national conversations about 5G we are forward-
looking into how technology will evolve the economy, expand
opportunities, connect Americans, and improve society. We
should apply the same mindset to weather prediction and
satellite observations. The United States has been a leader in
weather satellite observations that now extends back 60 years,
a history that began in Wisconsin, the birthplace of satellite
meteorology. We should continue our national leadership in
demonstrating stewardship of our spectrum resources for science
applications, and particularly weather sensing.
Thank you for holding this hearing, and allowing me to
explain the science that underlies the importance of passive
microwave sensing for weather forecasting, and how processes
that require scientific input can benefit from increased
transparency. I appreciate your support in increasing
confidence in our Nation's weather warnings and forecasts, and
maximizing the value of the United States' investment in
weather sensing from space. I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gerth follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Mahoney?
TESTIMONY OF MR. BILL MAHONEY,
NCAR ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND DIRECTOR
OF THE RESEARCH APPLICATIONS LABORATORY (RAL)
AT THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC
RESEARCH (NCAR), IN BOULDER, COLORADO
Mr. Mahoney. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. My name is William Mahoney, and I currently
serve as an Associate Director of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research. The National Center for Atmospheric
Research is a federally funded research and development center
of the National Science Foundation (NSF), and it is operated by
the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, which is a
non-profit consortium of more than 120 North American colleges
and universities focused on research and training in Earth
system sciences. I've also had the privilege of previously
serving at--as the Commissioner of the American Meteorological
Society's Commission on the Weather, Water, and Climate
Enterprise, which is charged with addressing the needs and
concerns of the public, private, and academic sectors of the
United States weather, water, and climate enterprise.
The Nation's economy and the public demand accurate
weather information. Remote observations of the Earth that
utilize radio frequency channels, such as those operating in
the atmospheric absorption bands, provide critical data sets
required for weather prediction and the provision of warnings
to save lives and protect property. Protecting the Nation's
ability to provide high quality operational weather data and
accurate weather forecasts requires limiting interference in
the passive microwave spectrum bands adjoining 24, 50, and 90
gigahertz. The 24 gigahertz band is the only spectral band with
high sensitivity to water vapor and low sensitivity to clouds,
and it contributes to multi-spectral analysis of the physical
characteristics of the Earth's surface, such as sea ice, snow,
soil moisture, and vegetation state, which are also required
for weather prediction. This unique spectral band is of very
high importance to operational weather prediction, and is
critically important for providing advanced warning of
hazardous weather events. The laws of physics dictate these
passive frequency bands. They're a gift of nature, and
therefore there is no alternative other than protection.
This is why the public, private, and academic sectors of
the meteorological community are deeply concerned over
increasing encroachment on weather-related radio frequency
bands, and are urging the FCC and other bodies to recognize the
need for adequate protection and mitigation efforts against the
loss and shared use of this critical spectrum for observing the
Earth's system. This threat is coming during a period when our
country is facing significant increases in billion-dollar
weather disaster events. Earth observations are required for
weather forecasting, studies of climate change, for
transportation, renewable energy, agricultural and food
security, wildfire management, drought prediction, supply chain
management, homeland security and defense, and many more uses.
More than 90 percent of the Earth's observations used for
weather modeling originate from satellites. A significant
fraction of the improved forecast skill over the last 30 years
is due to remote sensing of temperature and water vapor.
Preliminary studies have indicated that the proliferation
of terrestrial 5G systems using 24 gigahertz frequencies will
make remotely sensed atmospheric data less accurate, or even
unusable, unless 5G is rigorously implemented in a manner that
protects the adjacent Earth exploration satellite service
spectrum. At a time of increasing weather hazard vulnerability
due to climate change and demographic shifts, it's an
imperative that critical Earth observations be protected from
interference. Investments in observational sensitivity studies
must be done to fully flesh out the scope of the impacts. We
knew forecast skill will be reduced overall, but we need to
know more about the impacts in forecast skill for specific
phenomena such as tornadoes, floods, derechos, droughts,
hurricane track and intensity, wildfire risk, and others. The
concerns of the weather enterprise and Earth sciences community
need to be heard, and taken seriously, as the impact of
contaminated or lost Earth observing data could be catastrophic
for weather prediction, and those that rely on accurate
warnings and advisories.
Before I conclude, I would like to thank you for advancing
H.R. 2225, the NSF for the Future Act, through passage in the
House. This is an important piece of legislation at an
important time for this country. Thank you again for your
leadership, and for giving me the opportunity to testify before
this Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mahoney follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you so very much. Our next
witness is Ms. Manner.
TESTIMONY OF MS. JENNIFER MANNER,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS,
ECHOSTAR CORPORATION/HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS LLC
Ms. Manner. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, as
Committee Members, thank you for inviting me today. My name is
Jennifer Manner, and I'm the Senior Vice President for
Regulatory Affairs at EchoStar Corporation and Hughes Network
Systems. It is my honor to discuss spectrum management during
this momentous time in our telecommunications history. However,
for the U.S. to continue its leadership, it must make
appropriate reforms in its domestic and international spectrum
management process. This is critical to private companies, such
as EchoStar/Hughes, a global leader in broadband and narrowband
satellite services, as well as U.S. Government users.
I was a member of the Commerce Department's FACA (Federal
Advisory Committee Act) on spectrum management called the CSMAC
(Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee). The CSMAC
prepared a report that recognized that the U.S. spectrum
management approach does not effectively serve the needs of the
stakeholder community, and would benefit from reform. We made
three categories of recommendations. One, standing up a new
agency, unifying U.S. spectrum management decisionmaking, two,
repurposing either of the existing spectrum management agencies
with broader jurisdiction over spectrum governance, and three,
reforms that could stand on their own. Legislation is required
for either of the first two options, but option three's
proposals can be enacted without legislation, and primarily
focused on revising the NTIA/FS--FCC MOU on spectrum
coordination.
Specifically, we recommended, first, increasing meetings
of the agency's principles and staff to improve communications
and planning. Two, having definitive notice periods for
coordinating items. Three, including coordination on World
Radio Communications Conferences, or WORCs, and international
standards issues. Four, establishing an inter-agency working
group on spectrum initiatives and spectrum planning. Five,
holding annually a public workshop on spectrum research and
coordination. And six, that the agencies should work together
to gather increased information on spectrum demands, spectrum
utilization, and sharing mechanisms. I would also personally
make the following recommendations: increase the technical
staff at the FCC and NTIA, and, two, take a broader and more
balanced approach to spectrum management considering both the
public interest, as determined by the FCC, and the national
interest standard, determined by executive branch agencies.
Turning to the international side, there is a more severe
shortage of technical agency staff at the FCC, NTIA, and the
State Department. State Department, the policy lead
internationally, has traditionally served the role of
decisionmaker if the FCC and NTIA disagree on a U.S. position
for a meeting at the ITU, the U.N.'s organization for telecom
and spectrum. This is an important role because State has a
sense of the broad issues incumbent in the national interests,
but State cannot mediate on a technical issue if it lacks
engineering expertise. If the U.S. is to lead in these
international settings, Congress should consider increasing
appropriations for full time engineer employees, and travel
budgets for all agencies with staff attending ITU meetings.
When I attended my first WORC in 1995, U.S. leadership at
the ITU was clear. However, other countries have gained
influence in an increasingly competitive global
telecommunications market. The U.S. must up its game to be
successful by taking the following actions. One, develop a
balanced approach to international spectrum management issues,
especially at the WORC. The FCC, NTIA, and the State Department
must coordinate on U.S. positions, with private sector input as
appropriate. This will enable more effective operation of the
U.S. ITU delegations, ensure greater success internationally of
the U.S. Two, agency decisionmaking must be based on the public
and national interests and achieve the balance of commercial
and governmental interests that has made the U.S. the world
leader in telecom. Three, train technical agency staff with the
diplomatic skills to lead U.S. delegations to international
meetings and act as issue spokespeople to facilitate U.S.
leadership and success at the ITU.
In closing, as you consider next steps, I urge you to
consider the recommendations of CSMAC and those I proposed.
Currently the U.S. approach results in favoring 5G terrestrial
technology over other commercial services and critical Federal
users. The recommendations I discussed today will greatly
assist the spectrum management process. To lead in the spectrum
arena, the U.S., in the international and domestic process,
must be driven by a more collaborative interagency process that
starts with agreed goals and spectrum sharing metrics. U.S.
positions should seek outcomes consistent with a balanced
national interest. Finally, there is a need for periodic review
of spectrum governance more than once every 100 years. Thank
you, Madam Chair, for the invitation to testify before the
Committee today, and I look forward to the Committee's
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Manner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. At this point we
will begin our first round of questions. The Chair recognizes
herself for five minutes. I have two letters to be entered into
the hearing record. One is from the American Weather and
Climate Industry Association, the trade association for weather
professionals. The other is a joint message from the American
Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society, and
the National Weather Association. These groups are dedicated to
ensuring the protection of environmental satellites, and other
weather observation technologies. And, without objection, so
ordered.
Many science stakeholders have pointed out that, for the
24 gigahertz process, it is difficult to even get to the table,
to even become aware of what was at stake, because the 24
gigahertz proceedings was folded into a much larger Spectrum
Frontier proposal, which covered many other bands. Even the
lawyers need lawyers to help them understand exactly what is
going on in some of these mega proceedings. Mr. Mahoney, do you
believe that most weather and climate scientists who depend on
the 23.6 GHz bands have the understanding of the FCC public
comment process, and how best to weigh in on these proceedings?
Mr. Mahoney. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. Unfortunately,
no, I don't think the scientific community is well aware of the
details of these proceedings. Most scientists do keep track of
their data sources and their technical specifications, or
quality metrics and availability, and the scientific community
also tracks research and development activities when
anticipating new data sets, but the FCC process is very complex
and confusing for the scientific community, and most scientists
do not have the resources available to them, or advocates for
such a process. So I think it's very clear that the scientific
community needs to be engaged, particularly when Earth system
science observational data sets that are critical for research
and operations are threatened, and that new engagement
mechanisms need to be developed.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Do you feel that the FCC
could do more meaningful outreach to the scientific community
about the proceedings that directly impact the science
community, and what specifically should FCC do?
Mr. Mahoney. Well, I strongly believe that the FCC should
be much more proactive in engaging the scientific community
when considering the sharing of spectrum for Earth science
related matters. The FCC should really develop mechanisms to
notify and educate the scientific community by working with
Federal agencies and their stakeholders, university
representatives, not-for-profits, and scientific associations,
some of them which you just mentioned in the letters that were
submitted. A lot more agencies depend on Earth system data than
just NASA and NOAA. Other agencies need to be at the table,
including DOD (Department of Defense), the USGS (United States
Geological Survey), the USDA (United States Department of
Agriculture), Department of Interior, National Science
Foundation, and DOE (Department of Energy), just to name a few.
And then there's the other parts of the scientific
community, including, as you mentioned earlier, the American
Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, AAAS
(American Association for the Advancement of Science), National
Academy of Sciences. There's the American Weather and Climate
Industry Association, National Weather Association, University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Association of American
Universities. I can go on. But the number of dependents on
Earth system observations is very, very large, and they
absolutely need to be more involved in understanding and being
actively--actively participating in the FCC proceedings.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Ms. Manner, or any other
witness who would like to weigh in, while I understand that the
FCC does have a specific function to do outreach to the
American Indian community, should there be a function to do
targeted outreach to the scientific community?
Ms. Manner. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, for your
question. I think that's a very good proposal. It is not
currently within the mandate of the FCC. They right now work
through the IRAC (Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee) and
NTIA. But I think in situations like this it would be an
appropriate role for the FCC, if they have the staffing, and
are able to do that. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Any other witness who would
like to comment?
Dr. Gerth. Chairwoman Johnson, I would just note that I
believe that there is an opportunity for the telecommunications
industry, as they go before the FCC, to do that coordination
with the academic community ahead of time. I think that
creating a good, strong dialog starts with conversations early
on in the process, and that's when industry is considering the
prospective use. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. NOAA has a growing focus on
enduring equity in weather information across the U.S., and
this is important for the urban areas, where numerous billion-
dollar extreme weather disasters have threatened cities like
Houston, New York in recent years, and these events have
outsized impact of communities of color. Dr. Gerth, would you
like to comment on that? Since 5G deployment will be the most
concentrated in urban areas, does that mean that interference
with passive sensors would negatively impact urban forecasts
more acutely?
Dr. Gerth. Chairwoman Johnson, thank you for that
question. There's many, many Americans that live along
America's coasts and in urban areas, and it's certainly not
lost on me, during the heat waves of this summer, how many
Americans are struggling in urban areas, potentially without
air conditioning and accommodations as such. It's very
difficult to know for certain exactly how 5G interference would
lead to changes in predictability for different parts of the
United States, and that's something that we certainly want to
study. It is true, however, though that observations over land
are generally more powerful in advancing numerical weather
simulations of storms that may be over the ocean, moving toward
land, and helping with evacuations and forecasts of--preceding
those prospective landfalls. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. I now recognize
Mr. Lucas.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would note to the
witnesses that many of the questions we ask in these hearings
come at the--similar points from different directions, and
that's our effort to build a case to drive the decisionmaking
process. So first, Mr. Mahoney, in your testimony you state
that weather data from satellites is the key reason for better
weather model predictions, and these improvements have saved
lives, protected property, whether from tornadoes, or
hurricanes, or other severe weather, and its important drought
predictions. And coming from Oklahoma, where we deal with
virtually almost all of those issues, I am very appreciative of
that. In your view--if you could expand even more, in your
view, how can science and this critical national asset better
inform spectrum allocation policy?
Mr. Mahoney. Well, you're correct in noting that severe
weather is of great concern to a large part of the United
States. The United States has more severe weather in its
midsection than almost any other continent. The data--
temperature and water vapor data from the passive spectrum is
absolutely critical for severe weather prediction. Those data
are assimilated into numerical weather prediction models, and
the sensitivity of the data, especially at 24 gigahertz, toward
water vapor near the surface, where that frequency can see
through the clouds, provides atmospheric sounding information
that can make or break a forecast from being clear all day to
having absolutely severe thunderstorms, and even tornadoes. So
the loss of the temporal and spatial resolution of the data
that are provided from these remotely sent satellite systems
really will degrade severe weather prediction in many cases.
Of course, there are days when it's very dry and very
stable, and the sensitivity of the forecast is not as high for
these type of data sets on many days, especially in the spring
and summer period. Data from these remote sensed units at 24
gigahertz is absolutely critical for the forecast.
Mr. Lucas. Continuing with you, Mr. Mahoney, how can the
allocation process adopt a do no harm posture, which is your
words, that requires evidence these commercial activities do
not disrupt critical weather and Earth observations? Do no
harm.
Mr. Mahoney. Well, until we really have a mechanism in
place, and the resources in place, to do substantial studies,
observation sensitivity experiments, in which we can look at
the impact of interference at different levels with different
configurations of the 5G network, it's going to be hard to
pinpoint exactly what the forecast impact is going to be on any
particular extreme weather phenomena. So what needs to occur is
first do no harm until we have a much better idea of what the
impacts could be, and how much interference may be tolerated,
if any.
So at this point most of the studies that have been done
have been pretty broad data denial experiments, or simplified
interference experiments, and their results have been
generalized to the general forecasting process, but a lot more
needs to be done to really understand the specific impact of
interference on very particular forecasts for severe weather.
Mr. Lucas. Mr. Lubar, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, farmers who use GPS to engage in precision
agriculture rely on clear spectrum frequencies. We continue to
see concerns that some of these commercial telecom services may
be too powerful for GPS to be received accurately. In your
opinion, would a degraded GPS signal for farming lead to a
reduction in crop productivity, and, along that line, are there
ways to mitigate this interference?
Mr. Lubar. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. The
GPS issue, and the interference in frequencies associated with
that, as well as associated with the weather community, have
been discussed for quite some time. Yes, I believe that there
have been a great number of studies of concern that those GPS
receivers could be impacted, especially in applications of
precision farming, as well as in space. I think the weather
community, though, has a different aspect to it, something in
addition to the licensing that was done in April of 2020. That
was only 75 percent of the spectrum that the requester desired,
and one portion of that would impact the dissemination of
weather, water, and wildfire sensors that are necessary, as
well as dissemination and rebroadcast of some of the energy
that Dr. Gerth talked about.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My time has expired.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair Johnson and Ranking Member
Lucas, for holding this important hearing, and thank you to the
witnesses for joining us today. The world around us is evolving
at a rapid pace. The deployment of 5G technology and next
generation wireless service is undoubtedly going to change the
way we live. This is an exciting prospect, but to build the
interconnected world of the future, large swaths of spectrum
will be required. As we have heard from our witnesses today,
radio frequencies such as the 23.8 gigahertz band used for
Earth and space science applications are vitally important not
just for scientists and Federal agencies, but for the
protection of the public and our Nation's economy. We know the
damages of climate change are severe, and that they are costly.
If we were to lose this critical spectrum for observing the
Earth system, the ability to understand our climate, and
predict increasingly prevalent and devastating natural
disasters would be tragically diminished.
So, Mr. Mahoney, you emphasized in your testimony that
virtually every sector of the U.S. economy is weather
sensitive, and that any degradation of Earth observation data
will have significant negative financial and safety impacts.
Can you explain how protecting spectrum for Earth observing
satellites has broad economic implications for everyday
Americans, for our businesses, and our governments at all
levels?
Mr. Mahoney. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I
think there's underappreciation within our society of the
dependency on weather prediction information that's used by
individuals every day to decide very simple things, from what
to wear, how to send your kids off to school, whether or not to
take a trip, but there are major industries, such as aviation,
that depend on, you know, very accurate weather forecasts to
avoid wind shear, and turbulence, and icing. Ground de-icing,
snowstorms, the routing of aircraft around the country is
highly dependent on wind speeds and temperature so that the
aircraft will only need to tanker, or hold enough fuel, to get
from point to point and have enough reserves. The subtleties in
the forecast for certain ceiling invisibility, for example, at
airports will determine whether an airport can operate at full
capacity or partial capacity, or whether aircraft have to be
sent to other airports if severe weather is likely. So very
subtle decisions for the aviation industry are made every day,
resulting in tens of millions of dollars of efficiencies and
safety.
You look at agriculture, where growing degree days,
measurement for crop models, all kind of tie into decisions
regarding seed selection, and harvesting time, and pest
control, and the application of fertilizers as such. Weather
information in very, very fine detail is utilized to optimize
those operations. Renewable energy is extremely sensitive to
weather. Wind energy requires information for wind shear, and
turbulence, and wind speed very close to the ground. Solar
energy requires information on clouds, and aerosols, and
humidity to determine how much solar radiation is going to be
converted to solar energy. I can go on and on, but the number
of industries that are dependent on weather are in the tens of
billions of dollars, and 3.4 percent of the U.S. GDP (gross
domestic product) is sensitive to weather.
And a lot of weather decisions are made when just
fractions of a degree are at stake, so remote sensing of the
Earth and--at the temporal and spatial scales that we get from
these passive remote satellite systems is absolutely critical.
We need to see the entire Earth to make accurate weather
predictions.
Mr. Tonko. All right. Thank you for that. And, Dr. Gerth,
perhaps you can--other than economic impacts, perhaps you could
tell us about the ways in which spectrum interference would
hamper our ability to prepare for and respond to climate
change?
Dr. Gerth. Yeah. Thank you so much for that question,
Representative Tonko. We need a very long record of the
atmosphere at multiple levels. So we're not just talking about
the surface, we're talking about the full depth of the
atmosphere, even above where the planes fly, to understand how
our climate is changing, and where the climate is changing the
most. Microwave is very important in that sense because
microwaves can traverse through the clouds, so we can get a
whole of atmosphere approach when we use microwave data.
Microwave observations are now about 40 years old. We've had
satellites dating back into the 1970's, so continuing that
without interference is critical to assessing how our climate
is changing, and where it is changing the fastest. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. And with that, Madam
Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Posey?
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Johnson, for
holding this hearing. A question to all the witnesses, you
know, we were discussing the redress options for government
agencies that they have if their missions are disrupted by FCC
action, but what about the private sector? What options exist
for the private sector if their businesses, farms, or ranches,
or whatever, are hurt--result of spectrum interference?
Mr. Lubar. Congressman Posey, thank you for that question.
The private sector would have to appreciate the spectrum role
in what was impacting their particular use of the weather
information, and would have to appreciate that the Federal
Communications had some kind of a public process. That might be
a stretch too far for the average user to tie those events
together. Perhaps an oversimplification, but, you know, the FCC
process is somewhat like someone placing technical information
on a sign on a given street corner for a particular period of
time, and you have to be astute enough to understand where the
street corner is, and be watching for that information, or pay
someone to do so. For the average individual, that's a very
difficult thing.
Mr. Von Ah. Representative Posey, this is Andrew from GAO.
I--one of the recourses that the--they would have would be to
go through the FCC. Of course, it would depend on whether it
was licensed or unlicensed spectrum that was at issue here, if
they had a particular license and it was being interfered with.
That's FCC's job, is to try to ensure that the--these license
holders don't interfere with one another. But to Mr. Lubar's
point, if it's sort of, you know, unlicensed spectrum being
used, they would have to sort of understand exactly where that
interference might be coming from, which might be quite
difficult for them to do.
Ms. Manner. Representative, just to add in, the other
thing is there is a lot of effort between commercial entities
to try and resolve interference, so if we know we're getting
interference, and we can trace where it's coming to, we'll work
directly with the interferer, so there's areas, you know, for
sophisticated users, licensees in particular, where you don't
have to go to the FCC. You're oftentimes able to work that out
between the two licensees.
Mr. Mahoney. And if I might add in the--one example of
poor communication with the private sector was the 1675/1680
band, and that's--that affects the downlink of data from the
GOES satellite station. All of the focus was on ensuring that
the NOAA ground stations were protected with blackout zones,
however, the private sector has receivers all over the country
in which they utilize the direct data receipt to minimize any
delays in providing services and warnings, and they were almost
completely left out of the discussion on solutions, and that
can't take place going forward.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. In the letter that Chairwoman
Johnson entered into the record, the GPS Innovation Alliance
states that ``GPS is vital to national and economic security,
and relied upon by numerous industries, including aviation,
agriculture, automotive, construction, electricity, finance,
public safety, and transportation.'' The Alliance concludes
that, through a truly shared decisionmaking process, no single
agency would have exclusive authority over the spectrum matters
where both commercial and Federal users were both involved at
the same time. Does the FCC's authorization of the deployment
of a nationwide 5G terrestrial wireless network demonstrate
that the process needs reform, and could 5G networks in certain
spectrum bands make our GPS system less accurate? Anyone care
to pick up on that?
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Weber? Oops,
sorry. Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking
Member Lucas, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us
today. We just had a record-breaking heatwave across the
Pacific Northwest just last month, and it was one of the
deadliest natural disasters in Oregon, and my heart goes out to
the families of the 116 Oregonians who lost their lives, and
many more in the region. And as temperatures surged to
unprecedented triple digits, emergency managers and first
responders, they needed accurate and reliable weather data.
Unfortunately, though, the--extreme weather events like the
dangerous heat dome and the early wildfires across our State
right now are only expected to become more frequent and more
intense because of the climate crisis, so accurate weather
forecasting will continue to be essential, especially for our
frontline communities.
Dr. Gerth, I appreciate your testimony. You acknowledged
the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act, which I
was pleased to co-lead with Ranking Member Lucas. As we crafted
the bill, we focused on several issues that you highlighted
today, including the importance of telecommunications industry
partnering with weather enterprise to deliver informative,
accurate messages to our communities. So there is a requirement
in the weather bill for Observing System Simulation Experiments
in connection with buying or leasing a new satellite, and you
suggest expanding those provisions, and having NOAA and NASA
regularly audit the use of spectrum, so how would this help to
integrate the best available science into our decisionmaking on
the spectrum issue?
Dr. Gerth. Yeah, thank you so much for that question,
Representative, and yes, I am watching what's going on in
Oregon this summer as well, and my heart's go out to Oregonians
that have been affected by the heat and the fires out there.
With regards to the Weather Act, and expanding the directive to
conduct more observing system experiments, the key thing there
is the FCC timelines. These Notices of Proposed Rulemaking come
up very quickly, and it is far, far shorter than the time it
takes to conduct quality peer reviewed science. So--since the
23.8 gigahertz issue has come onto the scene, we're just now
starting to get some of that peer reviewed literature out of
the academic community to kind of inform what the impact would
be, and we have a lot more work to do in that.
So by having NOAA and NASA be proactive, and really doing
an audit of all of their spectrum holdings, if you will,
spectrum uses, every five years or so, there will always be a
relatively recent study that can be pulled off, and in--our
private sector telecommunications industry can review that, and
see what the risks are. And also we'll be able to know, from
doing that, what pieces of the spectrum are more valuable than
others. There's 22 bands in the ATMS, the Advanced Technology
Microwave Sounder, that NOAA currently operates. We know that
all those bands are valuable, but some of them are particularly
valuable compared to others, and that's what we need to be very
aware of, and by--NOAA, as their modeling systems are upgraded,
by continuing to present the industry with that knowledge, can
really assure that we have a baseline for decisionmaking moving
forward.
Ms. Bonamici. Sure. Thank you so much, Dr. Gerth. And, Mr.
Mahoney, in your testimony you acknowledge the challenges with
interference in the specific radio frequencies just below 24
gigahertz, where substitution is not possible just because of
the laws of physics. So what further research and development
is needed to help address that interference, as well as
interference of other frequencies, and what lessons can we
learn from the challenges around 24 gigahertz, and how can we
proactively apply those lessons to other spectrum bands?
Mr. Mahoney. Well, Doctor--thank you very much for the
question, and Dr. Gerth just mentioned a bit about the type of
studies that need to be done, and the timelines for those
studies. The way data are assimilated into models makes it a
challenge to do global reforecasts. There's--there are a lot of
resources that are required, and a lot of sensitivity studies,
as I mentioned earlier, focused on specific phenomena. It's
easier to do studies, although it still takes sufficient time
and computing resources, to look at the general impacts of
interference on a--on the general forecast, getting the weather
patterns globally generally right, but to really focus in and
do data denial experiments or sensitivity experiments focused
on individual extreme phenomena will take even more time.
The data assimilation process is a bit complicated, and
one thing we need to know up front in doing these type of
sensitivity experiments is exactly what assumptions to make
about the 5G network. You know, what--how many towers, what is
their geographical distribution, what are the power levels, et
cetera, and it's very challenging to get the initial state
correct for a capability that has yet to be deployed.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Thank you very much. I see my time
has expired. I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Well, let me tell you up front, I need about 10
minutes, but--so I'll try to cut it short. Let me start with
you, Mr. Von Ah. You said in your remarks, and I was trying to
listen to all the alphabet soup agencies, NOAA, NASA, FCC, NIST
(National Institute of Standards and Technology), they didn't
agree. There was no mechanism to come to an agreement, and
somebody said I think we had to review it--we reviewed it every
100 years. My question to you, Mr. Von Ah, is shouldn't
Congress be that mechanism? And, of course, very biased here,
shouldn't the Science Committee have a lot of input in that?
Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for that question, Representative
Weber. Yes, certainly the NTIA/FCC MOU has not been updated in
over 20 years, nor has the General Guidance Document that
guided the preparatory work for the World Radio Conference.
This is certainly something that would be within Congress's
purview, to direct the agencies to update that memorandum, or
to make changes to it, and we've made recommendations to the
agencies to do so. So, you know--and certainly where, you know,
there are competing priorities for spectrum, the administration
and Congress are the places where those decisions get made.
Mr. Weber. Well, thank you. And I would argue that
national defense is the No. 1 purview of Congress, per the
Constitution. We want to keep Americans safe, and with enemies
threatening to weaponize space, that our space capabilities
should be first and foremost, so I guess I'll go to a second
question and leave it open for the panel. Well, Ms. Manner,
we'll ask you this. Decisions at the FCC, is it your opinion
that they bias terrestrial communication services over space-
based or satellite communications?
Ms. Manner. Thank you for the question. As I noted in my
testimony, at this point in time, on spectrum issues, we do
find a bias based on economic rationale, as opposed to other
rationale, and I'll give you an example. I think the millimeter
wave bands is a very good example. Chairwoman Rosenworcel from
the FCC the other day just said, with regard to the millimeter
wave bands, that if the 5G industry just had to rely on those
bands, we would have a bigger digital divide than we do today.
One of the other frequency bands that was at issue during
the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding was a very important band to
the commercial industry, 27.5 to 28.35 gigahertz, where the
satellite industry operates their Gateway Earth stations. The
FCC severely curtailed our use, despite a very, very heavy
turnout on us explaining that we needed this harmonized
spectrum. And yet, you know, just the other day we heard from
the FCC Chairwoman that perhaps the spectrum isn't as important
to 5G. It's in the same proceeding as the 24 gigahertz. So,
yes, I have been seeing a bias on that. Thank you.
Mr. Weber. Well, I would--thank you for that. I would say,
look, we need to have a lot of those agencies come together,
and--whether it's overseen by a Committee put together--a task
force of the Science Committee--we need the Department of
Defense. Obviously we need space folks involved, we need
transportation people involved, because there's a move to, as
you all know, use some of the bandwidth for traffic signals,
and stuff of that nature.
But let me jump up here real quick, as some of you may or
may not know, I've been around a long time. I had my first cell
phone in 1984. It was a huge thing, mounted in my truck in the
air conditioning business. GSM (Global System for Mobile
Communications) or CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) were
the two types of cell phone signals that I remember, and I
guess they're still prevalent today? Do you all know that?
Anyone know that for a fact?
Ms. Manner. They are being replaced over time, so not
today so much. We're looking at LTE (Long-Term Evolution), and
then the 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project) standards
going forward.
Mr. Weber. So if we got those together--I've often thought
this, because, you know, you can never buy a cell phone and it
transport from one carrier--one provider to the other, which I
thought was by design, quite frankly. But nonetheless, if we
got all of those carrier signals together, would that save
bandwidth?
Ms. Manner. I think it's two different issues. That's
really a standards issue, so I think the good news is that 3G--
we now are working through a single standards organization,
3GPP primarily, to develop 5G and beyond standards, and it's
becoming a more technology neutral approach. But because of the
great needs of spectrum, or the claims of spectrum,
unfortunately, that's where we're having demand issues. So it's
not a standard issue today, I think it's a spectrum needs issue
and a spectrum assignment allocation issue. Thank you.
Mr. Weber. OK. Well, thank you for that. I'm going to
yield back, Madam Chairman. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Ms. Ross.
Ms. Ross. Needed to unmute. Thank you very much, Madam
Chairwoman, and thank you for having this very important and
timely hearing, and thanks to the panelists for joining us. I'm
from North Carolina, and we have kind of both ends of this
conversation going on. So we have sea levels that have risen
more than a foot on the coasts in the span of 70 years, and we
have extreme weather events frequently because of hurricanes,
and other things that come up. As a matter of fact, we're now
considered winter peaking because of the effects of ice storms
on our energy levels. And I'm deeply concerned about climate
change, and want to safeguard our climate scientists' ability
to conduct their important research without interference.
My district also includes North Carolina State University,
which is one of the Nation's largest mechanical and aerospace
engineering departments, and is conducting groundbreaking
research on the convergence of 5G technology and autonomous
drones. And just last week the Triangle Area, where I'm from,
received an Innovation Zone designation from the FCC intended
to spur the development and integration of 5G network
technologies and open radio access networks. So, suffice it to
say, this topic is extremely important to the constituents,
researchers, and universities in my district in North Carolina.
And my first question is for Dr. Gerth and Mr. Mahoney.
It's become a given in the discussions on Capitol Hill, and in
the business community, that the value of deploying 5G to the
economy is very high. But I'm concerned that we haven't been
able to quantify and value weather forecasting to save lives
and property. So how can valuations of weather forecasting be
better considered and balanced in the spectrum regulatory
process?
Dr. Gerth. Yeah, thank you so much for that question,
Representative Ross. I think there's several ways to do it, one
of which is to look at how predictability of weather phenomena
changes over time. So, for example, let's take hurricanes. Over
time we've been able to use--and I'm just talking about the
last 15 years or so--use weather satellites to really reduce
what's called the cone of uncertainty, where the center of the
storm is going to go, where the highest impacts are going to
be. We can then take that information from our numerical models
and then estimate what the costs of evacuating an area would
be, because we know that evacuations have significant costs,
and by that advanced warning, we can then give an actual value
to the data that's coming from the satellites and how it's
improving the weather forecast.
So I certainly think that with NOAA routinely conducting
studies about the value of the spectrum that's used on the
weather satellites, and how the models are evolving, and their
skill, we can really make a very concise case about exactly how
much, in terms of taxpayer resources, are being saved by having
those capabilities in this country. Thank you.
Ms. Ross. Mr. Mahoney, if you have something briefly to
add that'd be great, but I do have a question for Ms. Manner I
want to get in in the next minute.
Mr. Mahoney. Very--I'll just say very briefly the American
Meteorological Society has done, and is working on, studies to
really understand the impacts of weather, water, and climate
prediction to the U.S. economy. And, as I mentioned earlier in
my testimony, the U.S. economy's sensitive to weather
variability, in the tune of about $600 billion. But more----
Ms. Ross. Thank you.
Mr. Mahoney [continuing]. Needs to be done.
Ms. Ross. Thank you. We need to get that into the
conversation. For Ms. Manner, in your testimony you state that
the FCC allocates spectrum according to public interest, rather
than national interest, a decision that sometimes values the
short term needs of the public over solving long term systemic
issues. What can Congress do to ensure that agencies like the
FCC consider national interests on things like climate and
weather forecasting when they do their work?
Ms. Manner. So--thank you. So the public interest is
actually the standard in the Communications Act of 1934, so to
change that for the FCC would require a legislative change. But
I do think through the improved coordination under the MOU,
which is something, you know, we're urging, and I think is very
important, as well as the international process, which is where
a lot of the issues that we've had come up on things like 24
gigahertz, if you can have an agency like the State Department
act as the arbiter, they could take into account the broader
national interest, which we do think is important. You know--
thank you for the question.
Ms. Ross. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. Is it my turn? Thank you, Madam Chair, and
Ranking Member Lucas, and I appreciate all the witnesses being
here today, and having your expertise to share with us some of
the direction that we might take. So I think this is an
important hearing. I guess I'm going to start with Mr. Lubar.
You know, we have a finite resource in the amount of
spectrum that we have, in my observation, and--yet we're adding
more and more wireless applications, and they come online, so
we're going to need to allocate more spectrum to serve these
applications, because that need is only going to grow. So, from
your perspective, and your knowledge and experience, what are
some of the technologies or strategies that either currently
exist, or could be developed, to mitigate the demand for
spectrum and solve the interference concerns that we're
currently discussing?
Mr. Lubar. Thank you, Congressman Baird. That is a
certainly complex question. If we focus on this particular
problem of interference into the passive bands, the real
important issue is to be able to identify that these bands are
being contaminated, and there really are only two methods, in
my opinion, to do that. That--you could place some type of a
scientific package on the satellite gathering the data, and
that device would identify the interference contamination, do
some significant computation on the spacecraft, and flag that
data so that it doesn't contaminate the downstream weather
process. But I think in addition to that, you need to survey
the RF (remote frequency) environment, you know, around these
passive bands. It's a very, very difficult thing to make those
kind of measurements, and the real complexity involved is if
signals are of such a low level that the contaminate the data,
but they don't contaminate enough that you could tell. That's a
very dangerous situation, because then that data could be
incorporated into the weather models and tools.
Mr. Baird. Well, thank you for that. and I--if I might
continue on in that same vein, do you think that commercial
radio spectrum mapping satellites, such as the Hawkeye 360,
could they be used to detect interference and improve the
weather dating model?
Mr. Lubar. The Hawkeye 360 system, which I'm familiar
with, is limited to particular bands and particular
applications. It would not include the bands in the so-called
high band that we're talking about in this gigahertz range, and
certainly not in the design they have. It is a very useful
system, though, for determining ADS--B (Automatic Dependent
Surveillance--Broadcast) and other type signals in bands below
that.
Mr. Baird. Well, thank you, appreciate your input and
insight. Ms. Manner, the--I'm going to move to you. The FCC
Chairwoman, Jessica Rosenworcel, recently stated that it was a
mistake to focus on the millimeter wave spectrum band for 5G
auctions, which include the 24G--the gigahertz. She would like
the FCC to pivot to mid-band spectrum, which many regard as the
sweet spot for connectivity, and the key to access in rural
areas. And, since I come from a rural area, that's extremely
important to me, so I would just appreciate your perspective on
the millimeter wave spectrum versus the mid-range.
Ms. Manner. Certainly, and thank you for the question. So
I would say that the millimeter wave spectrum--you know, as I
mentioned just earlier, I--we fought very hard against it
being--limiting the use of commercial satellite because we, of
course, do provide service to rural areas like your district,
you know, whether it's our system, or SpaceX, or One Web, you
know, choose your favorite viasat--choose your favorite
satellite system. And it has very poor propagation
characteristics, for the most part, for commercial
communications, because it's very high up, so the mid-band
certainly has better propagation characteristics for
terrestrial services, so that does allow, you know, broader
communications, wider bandwidth, so it certainly can help.
You know, I'm still of the view that there are certain
places in this country where it's just not going to be
economical to serve terrestrially, and you're going to have to
rely on satellite, and I think the good news is--on that is,
with systems like ours, and others who are having higher
frequency bands--higher frequency--I'm sorry, who are having
higher speeds and lower latency I think you're going to see
better service, but there has to be spectrum to enable
satellite--commercial satellite operators as well as
terrestrial. So thank you for the question.
Mr. Baird. Well, thank you very much for that response,
and I really appreciate the optimism about maybe we could solve
some of these rural remote area problems. And so, with that, I
yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Wild.
Ms. Wild. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this very timely
hearing on some critical questions facing the rollout of 5G,
and the new technologies, and the implications they may have
for our scientific and research communities and enterprises.
The FCC auctioned the 24 gigahertz band in May 2019 under a
certain set of rules, and then in December that year the World
Radio Conference parties agreed to apply more restrictive
emission limits across the globe. The FCC has a comment period
open now on the rulemaking that would conform the U.S. rules to
the ones we agreed to with foreign governments, but the U.S.
goes to the World Radio Conferences and negotiates with other
governments because we are a signatory to the Constitution of
the International Telecommunication Union. And as we all have
talked about, and we know, weather is a global phenomenon. It
does not stop at the border.
So, Ms. Manner, with that prelude, and anyone else who
cares to respond, are you aware of any instances of when the
FCC did not follow the ITU spectrum regulations that had a
global impact? And, as more 5G hardware gets deployed, what is
being done now to monitor interference in the 24 gigahertz
band?
Ms. Manner. So thank you for the question. I could
certainly focus on the first part. I'm not aware of an answer
to the second. I'm not an expert on 24. But I am not personally
aware, but what the FCC did with 24 gigahertz is they actually
did not follow the global requirements. They've chosen as a
country, which is something we're allowed to do, to take a
different approach. And as long as it doesn't cause
interference to other countries' communications it's allowed,
but there's a bigger repercussion, and that's the lack of the
ability to harmonize. And the fact these services are going to
be impacted in the United States, just like we've seen with
other satellite services--our own, when I was talking about 28
gigahertz, that's of concern.
So you do have the interference potential, of course,
because we are doing something differently, but you also have a
broader issue, which is you're not able to take advantage of
the global or regional nature of satellite systems, and that's
a growing concern, and something that we're seeing neglected by
the FCC in its decisionmaking time and time again. Thank you.
Mr. Lubar. Congresswoman, I could add to that, if you
would----
Ms. Wild. Please.
Mr. Lubar. I believe that the 24 gigahertz, and the other
bands in this region, certainly, as we've heard, are
contributing to a global model for weather, and the way weather
information is sensed, all the satellites and the various
nations share that, under the terms of the World Meteorological
Organization. And so contamination to this band not only
affects our weather, but it affects the weather that other
countries gather information, and, conversely, as we use their
data, it's also potentially contaminated. And so I think that
you have to look at that case in the overall picture of--it is
a larger problem.
I agree with Ms. Manner that, you know, an administration
is allowed to do what they can to vary from the ITU rules as
long as it doesn't impact another administration that is
following those rules, but in the--in this particular case, the
Europeans, for example, they took the ITU limits, and they
decided to enforce the split level of requirement that the
rules said would get more stringent in 2027, September 2027,
and move it up to January 2024. Now, I mean, I'm not, you know,
going to comment one way or the other on whether I think that
was something that the industry could comply with, but the fact
now that you would have one standard in Europe, where all the
satellites, American and foreign, are gathering that
information, as well as a different standard, then, in the
Americas, or at least in the United States, you have to ask
yourself what will that do to the information in that four year
period?
Ms. Wild. Thank you. And, Mr. Lubar, as long as I have
you, to what extent do Earth observing satellites use--
approaches on orbit to mitigate radio interference before the
data are sent down to the ground, and is there anything being
done that can improve the capabilities as part of addressing
radio interference?
Mr. Lubar. Thank you for that question. As I alluded to
earlier, you know, on this passive band contamination, there
really is no way to detect it unless you have a device in
space. The ideal way, anyway, to detect it is to add a device
in space to the operational satellites. Now, there is no
funding at the moment for a system that has been preliminary
designed on the Joint Polar Satellite System, and I think time
is of the essence to provide that funding to ensure that they
make it in time for the upcoming launches. So that's one way,
but that only flags the data, and then, of course, there's
money and resources needed to take that flag and do something
with it on the ground.
Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Lubar. I'm out of time, and I
yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Ranking
Member Lucas, for pulling this together, a very important
conversation. I've got a couple top level questions, and then
some technical questions that I'd like to get to, so if we can
make the answers short, that would be idea. Does anyone on this
panel know where the $2 billion of proceeds from the auctions
go to? Does it go directly to the Treasury, and then not
reinvested into either techniques or characterization efforts
that some of you have outlined?
Mr. Von Ah. Yeah, Representative Garcia, I can answer
that. It does go to the Treasury, to keep it short.
Mr. Garcia. OK. So we don't get any sort of cut of that,
or any, you know, rake on the take there from the options that
actually feeds back into helping you guys manage the challenges
here at all, from what you can tell?
Mr. Von Ah. No, sir.
Mr. Garcia. OK. I would submit that that's a weakness, and
probably something that we as a team should look at and how to
improve on. From a technical perspective, I think, Mr. Gerth,
you mentioned ATMS on JPSS-1. I believe it's the same system
that's going up on JPSS-2 next September launch. That, as you
mentioned, is a 22-channel system. First--the first channel is
right at 23.8 gigahertz, which is obviously in the heart of the
envelope for what we're talking about here. Have we
characterized the impact of some of the noise or jamming
effects that the auction has had on channel one of ATMS yet on
JPSS-1?
Dr. Gerth. Not to my knowledge, because, as has been
previously mentioned, the FCC is still finalizing the rules for
adjacent interference.
Mr. Garcia. How long would it be before we start seeing
that feedback, and can start characterizing the impact? Is it a
year, 5 years, or just a couple months?
Dr. Gerth. I don't have a good idea of how long that would
take. It would probably depend on how quickly the networks are
rolled out.
Mr. Garcia. OK. I would submit that this is a second
weakness. I think this same ATMS system, still passive with 22
channels, is designed for JPSS-3 as well, so I think as, you
know, as we look at these we've got to look at how do we evolve
these technologies and make them a little more agile on the
ground before they get up into space. And I would also suggest
that working with some of the defense labs, the classified
programs, on electronic protection techniques, and
incorporating that into some of these space systems is
absolutely critical as well. That can be done and imported, I
think, at an unclassified level once it's done, and just turn
it into a black box. But there's labs like NRL (Naval Research
Laboratory), Sandia that are working interesting solutions to a
lot of these noise level floors that you're talking about.
And then, Mr. Mahoney, this is a technical question as
well. The--you know, why passive? Why not use L-band, which is
typically used for clear air turbulence, or S-band, or X-band,
which are also good for weather? I know C-band's an optimal
range as well, right, the 4 to 8 gigahertz. Why--you know, help
me out. I'm an RF guy, but I was an X-band kind of guy in a
prior life. Why the passive side of this at this frequency
range versus an active, you know, X-band or C-band? Why K-band,
and why passive?
Mr. Mahoney. Well, I'll--I'm not able to answer your
question directly in terms of some of the alternatives. I can
only speak to the uniqueness of the passive bands, and the fact
that they're these distinct bands that are able to be observed
where the temperature and humidity soundings can be made just
by moving the frequency off the center point for these passive
bands, and so you can get a sounding of the atmosphere, which
is absolutely critical for weather forecasting.
Moving into other bands may not have--you'll be outside of
the passive bands, or the bands you can actually see the
atmosphere, and it may be more transparent than necessary to
receive the data back at the quality you need. It may be better
for Jordan to respond to the details of the different
frequencies.
Mr. Garcia. Yeah, Jordan, I'll defer to you here for the
last----
Dr. Gerth. OK. Thank you. Yeah, I would just note that,
again, we're talking about the collection of very specific
atmospheric data, and that is--where we can collect that is
driven by the physics of the molecules. So there are other
bands out there. For example, water--for water vapor sensing,
which is a key input for our numerical models, and there has to
be an existing allocation there. It's not like the weather
community can go say, well, there's water vapor observations
over here, but if--it's almost certainly already allocated for
some other use.
Mr. Garcia. Yeah. Yeah, private space.
Dr. Gerth. So we have to be very----
Mr. Garcia. Yeah.
Dr. Gerth. Yeah.
Mr. Garcia. OK. Thank you. And just in the last couple
seconds, I will say I don't think we as a nation should be
cooperating with China on our space endeavors, either on the
commercial or defense side, but I will say we do need some sort
of nexus in coordinating efforts in terms of bandwidth
allocation and this RF spectrum management question. Otherwise
these guys are just going to come into our neighborhoods, the
Chairwoman eloquently described, and wreak havoc on us. I yield
back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Stansbury.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking
Member, for convening today's important panel. I think it's
been said already, but I'll repeat, you know, from the heat
waves in the Northwest to the large-scale fires and drought
across the West, including in my home State of New Mexico,
climate change is already impacting communities across the
United States. We can see these impacts in increased frequency
of extreme weather events and their disproportionate impacts to
our communities, including, of course, property damage, and the
tragic, and preventable, loss of life. We need accurate weather
forecasting and effective data gathering to predict these
weather events, and plan for, and respond for--respond to the
impacts of climate change.
As we continue to invest in new technologies, including
those that require the use of these spectrum bands, and work to
increase their accessibility, we cannot risk putting our
communities in danger by overcrowding or opening spectrum bands
that negatively impact our ability to forecast weather and
other data collection. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue examining how
to improve Federal coordination with the spectrum auction
process, and better involve our scientific, governmental, and
community stakeholders in the process and conversation. And,
Madam Chairwoman, my question is actually for Mr. Mahoney, and
possibly Mr. Lubar.
We've heard today that interference in the 23.6 gigahertz
band could threaten data sources we need for day-to-day weather
forecasting, Earth observing systems, and understanding and
making predictions on long term climate train--trends.
Communities across the U.S., including in New Mexico, are
experiencing significant impacts, especially from climate
change and our water systems, including reductions in snowpack
and runoff, and increasingly irregular precipitation patterns.
The climatic regimes of our infrastructure and management
systems are rapidly changing, which is why we need high-
fidelity, real time monitoring systems and tools to manage our
precious waters, to respond to extreme climate events, and to
keep our communities safe. The health, and well-being, and
resilience of our communities depend on it.
So we've heard today a lot about the impacts to weather
forecasting, but I'd like to ask Mr. Mahoney in particular,
could you please speak to some of the other specific Earth
observing systems that are managed and utilized by the USGS,
NOAA, USDA, and others that are critical for planning and
responding to climate impacts to our communities?
Mr. Mahoney. Thank you, Representative, for the question.
There are many dozens of satellites that are in space that are
utilizing spectrum. Not all of them in the same channel,
obviously, but some of them are focused on--like Landsat, on
visible imagery and multi-spectral channels that provide
information for sea surface temperatures. They provide
information for winds over the ocean. There are observations of
soil moisture, soil temperature, vegetation state. All of these
are important for understanding the land surface itself, and to
characterize it in looking for changes in the land surface, as
well as this is all--these are all ingredients for weather
forecasting.
A lot of times people think that just predicting the
weather involves just the atmosphere, but the fluxes between
land surface, the water surfaces, the cryosphere, and the
atmosphere are absolutely critical, so actually the forecast
process utilizes this--many, many of the data sets created from
these multi-spectral channels across a lot of geosynchronous,
as well as polar orbiting satellites. So there are different
frequencies that are used for these different areas. The 18.6
passive band, for example, is for sea surface wind speed and
direction. The 23.8, as we've been talking about, is the water
vapor channel. 36.5 is looking at tropical cyclone modeling and
sea surface wind speed and direction, and we have the 50 to 60
gigahertz bands looking at vertical temperature profiles, and
then a large number of visible channels as well. It's all part
of the data collection, analysis, assimilation, and prediction
process.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Mahoney. So I just want to
emphasize--to say that what we're talking about here has broad
and sweeping implications for all of our communities and their
well-being, from our farmers' ability to utilize water and grow
crops, to put food on the table for our communities, to our
ability to bring fresh water to our communities across the
West, so it's critical that we address this issue. And with
that, Madam Chair, I yield back, and am grateful for this
hearing. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Feenstra.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, and Ranking
Member Lucas, for this hearing, and the request for the GAO
report on frequency spectrum management. I also want to thank
our witnesses for your testimony, and sharing your extensive
research.
Mr. Mahoney, in your written testimony you note the
impacts of what spectrum interference and weather accuracy can
have on the agricultural community. Similarly, I am currently
drafting legislation trying to find technological solutions to
weather radar blockages and ghost echoes. Getting accurate
weather information can save both lives and livelihoods, and--
of those in my district. We saw several tornadoes last week in
Iowa which were quite tragic.
In 2019 a report sponsored by NIST suggested that we have
lost the ability to rely on GPS due to an outage. It would cost
our economy about a billion dollars a day if this happens.
However, in Section Five of the report, it noted that an outage
during the springtime planting season could increase losses
closer to $1.5 billion a day. Can you elaborate on the reasons
for the difference between the two figures, and can you
elaborate on all the ways farmers and ranchers can utilize GPS
in their operations, and how they could be impacted by spectrum
interference bleeding over from these other frequencies? Thank
you.
Mr. Mahoney. Thank you, Representative, for the question.
I can't comment specifically on the financial differences, but
I certainly can comment on the utilization of weather
information and land surface information for precision
agriculture. Certainly the invention of the GPS for navigation
has provided farm machinery a lot more of an ability to
identify exactly where, you know, on the land surface, and a
lot of the sensing technologies has allowed farmers to
understand what the chemical content is of their soil, the
moisture content, the temperature. It's--information from
remote sensing on where the pests are, and what the vegetation
state is. Interference in any of those data sets is going to
impact farming significantly.
You mentioned the radars. Doppler weather radar in the S-
band, the NEXRAD (Next-Generation Radar) network. There are
other weather radars that are operated as C-band and X-band.
Interference at any of those bands is going to impact the
ability not only to see the storms in real time, but to
assimilate the storm data in the weather prediction process.
Contaminating the data sets that are fundamental ingredients of
the weather prediction process is going to affect millions and
millions of stakeholders, and agriculture is very sensitive to
severe weather, as well as day to day weather, in terms of
temperature, humidity, wind speed, and land surface conditions,
and so it's paramount that the spectrum be protected, and those
data sets of a high quality for those purposes.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you for those comments, Mr. Mahoney. I
do have a follow-up comment. Could the use of spectrum in
weather forecasting be used as a tool to supplement incomplete
or lost radar data, and how would Iowa farmers be adversely
affected by the potential or diminished weather forecasts due
to spectrum interferences?
Mr. Mahoney. There are satellites that are essentially
radars in space that can help fill in gaps where a terrestrial
radar system may see interference, but they are often polar
orbiting, and their return period is pretty long, and--the
NEXRAD system, for example, operates where it collects an
entire volume of the atmosphere about every 10 or 12 minutes.
So I think it would be very hard to have a radar--a satellite-
based radar system with the fidelity of a ground-based radar
system replace or fill in the gaps from interference.
The passive channels are primarily focused on water vapor
and temperature, and not specifically on hydrometeors or
precipitation particles, and the severe weather events
themselves. So I would--there are some methodologies that could
be used to fill in some of the gaps, kind of the radar by radar
basis, but using satellite assets to try to do that I think
would be challenging.
Mr. Feenstra. Yeah. I would agree. Thank you----
Mr. Lubar. If I may add to that, Congressman? There are
some interim measures from geostationary orbit combining two of
the current sensors that can somewhat backfill for that case. I
know in the instance where the radar in Puerto Rico was
completely destroyed by a tornado--I'm sorry, by a hurricane
that those alternate methods were helpful to the local weather
forecast office.
Mr. Feenstra. Very good accounts. Thank you so much, and
thank you, and I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Sherrill.
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Von Ah, you
discussed the report GAO recently published on spectrum
management and agency collaboration, and in your report you
discussed how impacted Federal agencies had multiple
opportunities to comment through the IRAC and declined to do
so, and one of your recommendations is that NOAA actually
establish written procedures to deal with spectrum sharing
issues, which they lacked at the time. What steps can Congress
take to ensure Federal agencies are properly engaging in the
spectrum management process so that decisions that are years in
the making don't catch folks seemingly unaware?
Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for that question, Representative
Sherrill. Yeah, indeed I--there were numerous opportunities
where NOAA and NASA could've raised concerns through the IRAC,
through NTIA, and, in fact, NTIA's job is to represent Federal
agencies' views and perspectives within--you know, in FCC
proceedings. At the time NOAA decided not to do so because they
didn't feel that they had the technical basis with which to
challenge what was happening in the FCC proceeding.
Also partly what, you know, our recommendation to NOAA was
really for them to get some of their internal processes in
order in order to--and, as I think was alluded to earlier in
this hearing, it's--there's a lot going on. There's a lot of
timeframes that you've got to meet. There's--you know, the FCC
proceeding may open. It's very complicated. They give you a
short window to comment. And so it really does require an
agency to have some ability to track that regulatory
proceeding. And NASA recognized this during the course of our
audit, and actually did, you know, institute those kinds of
internal procedures. And so we think those internal procedures
are important, and I think it's important for the Committee to
ensure that NOAA and NASA agencies--that, you know, you have a
jurisdiction over, you know, do implement those kinds of
recommendations so that they're ready when the time comes.
Ms. Sherrill. And do you have any more recommendations for
that, either formal or informal, that you didn't include in the
report that could help prevent this kind of incident from
happening in the future?
Mr. Von Ah. Well, nothing that we didn't put in the
report, I'll put it that way.
Ms. Manner. Congresswoman----
Ms. Sherrill. OK.
Ms. Manner [continuing]. The----
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you. Yeah?
Ms. Manner. Can I make a suggestion as well, please?
Ms. Sherrill. Please. Please.
Ms. Manner. So, you know, we studied this pretty
intensively at the CSMAC, and then I've been involved in the
process both on the government and the private--you know,
government side as well. I think there needs to be more staff
to be able to support these efforts, technical staff. I think
every agency involved is very short on staffing, and the
ability at the ITU--to travel to the ITU and actively
participate in meetings. That's one thing.
But the other thing too is there really needs to be
increased communications and improved communications between
NTIA and the FCC not just at the principles level, but also at
the staff level. And if you look at the CSMAC report, a number
of recommendations we focused on were things to improve that,
including doing some research together, you know, developing
propagation models that could be used, automated sharing
mechanism analysis, and so forth. So I really think having
increased collaboration is good. I mean, at one point we even
recommended that perhaps you put people in the same office
building, if people are going back to work, or you do details
to one another's agencies. And I think anything to increase
communications will help over the long term, so thank you.
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Lubar. I have to agree.
Ms. Sherrill. And then----
Mr. Lubar. I'm sorry, I'd have to agree, just that the
domestic process--they're very skilled professionals, as you
mentioned, but you do have to ask the question, if the
scientists had been aware of this problem, or if there was a
scientific input available into the regulatory process, would
they have flagged this earlier, and perhaps gotten their
agencies to respond?
Ms. Sherrill. And then--thank you very much. I just want
to move on, I have 1 minute. Ms. Manner, compared to other
nations, whether they're allies, like South Korea, or
adversaries, like China, the U.S. Government provides
relatively little R&D support around spectrum use and
telecommunications in general. It's really different from other
sectors, like energy, where we have the massive research
functions of the Department of Energy, or health, where we have
the National Institutes of Health. So should the Federal R&D
enterprise be doing more, or does spectrum and telecom research
need to stay more with the private sector?
Ms. Manner. Thank you for question. I think both. My
industry, the commercial satellite industry, wouldn't be around
if it wasn't for the NASA research efforts. Must be in the
1980's already--the ACSS system, the Advanced Communications
Satellite Systems, that really form the basis for everything
you're seeing today, from our systems--our Jupiter system, to
Starlink, to whatever. It was all--back then. But I also think
having the government actively involved in spectrum research is
critical, and that's why both at the CSMAC and individually I
would urge that we do advance the agencies for looking at
things like modeling based on updated technologies, spectrum
sharing analysis, so I think on both sides it would be helpful.
Thank you for the question.
Ms. Sherrill. Thanks to all our witnesses. I have more
questions, but I'm going to have to submit them to the record.
Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. LaTurner.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My question is
for Ms. Manner. The FCC Chairwoman recently stated that it was
a mistake to focus on the millimeter wave spectrum band for 5G
auctions, and this was touched on a little bit earlier, but I'm
wondering if you could go into a little more depth. 5G
utilizes, you know, 600 megahertz to 39 gigahertz. In your
opinion, are we making a mistake auctioning off the 24
gigahertz spectrum specifically, since we have such practical
applications for it?
Ms. Manner. Thank you for the question. I can't speak
specifically to 24 gigahertz because I have--I don't have a lot
of experience in it, but I would say overall, for the
millimeter wave, I do think that the FCC's analysis on any of
the bands--and it actually went up to 50 gigahertz, the
proceeding--did not accurately or adequately examine or include
in the analysis the impacts on commercial industries, like the
satellite industry, as well as scientific industries, and that
goes back to the balance issue that I talked about earlier.
There needs to be a broader analysis that includes more than
short term economic gains, which is often the case with 5G, and
there needs to be a broader decisionmaking. And I think by have
the MOU improved, I think you can start to get there. But, yes,
I did have concerns about the proceeding, as someone who was
actively involved in that proceeding.
Mr. LaTurner. Well, I'll allow anybody to comment on this,
if--and I don't know the answer, but if--obviously the mid-band
is useful for commercial applications, and clearly above 24
gigahertz is useful, why then are we--why is it necessary to
auction off the 24 gigahertz? Can any of the--any of you
comment on that?
Mr. Lubar. Congressman LaTurner, I can. Thank you for that
question. Obviously growth in dissemination of this information
at so-called 5G high-band frequencies plays an important role
in the overall process. But besides 24 gigahertz, one of the
most critical passive bands lies in the 50 gigahertz region,
and upwards nearer 60, and that's where atmospheric
temperatures are determined by these satellites. All these
bands are used interactively. There really isn't a separate
application for one versus the other, but the 50 gigahertz band
would be extremely crucial, extremely crucial, if it
encountered interference. And there are services allocated
right up to the edge that currently do not have service rules
applied to the FCC, but the approvals are already there.
Mr. LaTurner. Well, let's stick with you, Mr. Lubar. Talk
specifically, if you can, about the vulnerability that the U.S.
military or scientific satellites could face from spectrum
interference from an attack from a foreign entity.
Mr. Lubar. Well, that's a bit of a different question,
because----
Mr. LaTurner. It's a wholly different question. I'm
switching gears a little bit.
Mr. Lubar. Yes, sir. It would depend on certainly the type
of functionality on one of those given satellites, whether
you're impeding a communication systems by actively jamming it,
whether you were intentionally or unintentionally causing
interference to something like we're talking about here in
passive situations. It might be a little more difficult to
implement that as ground-based interference from a foreign
entity. But I think that, you know, the road map of spectrum
allocations is intentionally designed to try to protect, for
people that are following the road map, from causing those kind
of issues.
Mr. LaTurner. I appreciate that. And, Mr. Von Ah, in the
research that you've done about the process, is there any light
you can shed on the question that I asked--that I started out
asking Ms. Manner, in terms of why the focus on the 24
gigahertz, or what the breakdown potentially is?
Mr. Von Ah. Absolutely, Representative LaTurner. So, you
know, as the--we--as 5G has--you know, sort of the promise of
5G is, you know, more capacity, particularly in, you know,
where there are, you know, heavy uses, a lot of population,
these higher bands can carry more data, so they're desirable
from that aspect. They require, you know, a lot more antennas,
a lot more, you know, radios and so on that are, you know,
within a very small area, which is what we're talking about
here, which is what creates some of that potential interference
to these passive bands. But that's the reason that they're
looking for those higher wavelengths, those higher bands of
spectrum, because of the higher data that it can carry.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield
back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Foster.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess, as this
Committee's physicist in residence, and maybe the only Member
of Congress who actually used to be able to calculate thermal
emission spectra, I'd just like to emphasize the real
advantages for the government of having active researchers in
their employment, if for no other reason simply having high
quality technical advice available to government when decisions
have to be made. And I have a technical question here for, I
guess, Mr. Lubar, Dr. Gerth, or really anyone who wants to
answer.
It's--first off, how local spatially are the measurements
that are being made here, and how bad is the contamination?
Like, does one HAMSAT or one base station tower have the
ability to puke up all of North America, or just the local
county, or a few blocks around the piece of equipment, when you
look at the resolution you're going for--spatial resolution?
Mr. Lubar. Congressman Foster, let me take that, and I
might pass the gauntlet to Dr. Gerth afterwards. You have to
understand that these passive measurements are power
measurements made over a physical area, so no, I don't think
you could tell that one transmitter, or one series of
transmitters, were contributing to the problem. The real issue
is it's not a communication's signal. It's not detecting what's
individually occurring from the transmissions from a 5G system,
OK? It's measuring the power, if you will, really the
fluctuation, as we showed at the beginning in the noise floors.
It's a very minute measurement, because, you know, you're
trying to pick up the natural emissions of the atmosphere. And
so you might get it over a very wide angle. It's going to be
different whether the sensor's pointed straight down at nadir,
or the type of sensor that scans, to some extent, where as it
moves off to one side or the other covers an area measured in
kilometers. It also dwells about 20 times faster than a 5G
signal so, you know, you'd see a continuous change in----
Mr. Foster. Well, yeah. So along those lines, it--there--
it seems like there may be a path--a class of compromises
available here, where you essentially have 24 gigahertz quiet
time, where, you know, the cell phone systems would agree that
for a few milliseconds every minute, or something like that,
they would just shut down and be quiet, let the scientists do
their thing, and then start talking at 24 gigahertz again. I
can't imagine those sort of discussions haven't taken place. Do
they work, technically, from the scientific point of view and
the cell phone performance point of view, and what are the
tradeoffs there? From a policy point of view it has a huge
advantage that you can then adjust the policy of the amount of
quiet time, and the length of the quiet time after the
equipment has been deployed. And so what is the--what's the
technical status of that sort of----
Mr. Lubar. Well, sir, yes, that is a feasible process, but
you have to go back and look at how many of the non-polar
satellite sensors are in space. Because it wouldn't help to
just turn off if it was possible when a sensor was in view,
say, for an American satellite from NOAA. You'd have to also do
it for all the other satellites that are taking data in this
band, because everybody uses the data from all of those
satellites. So it could get to be, you know, somewhat more
intrusive. You'd have to have the knowledge of the satellite
paths----
Mr. Foster. Well, we have pretty good software engineers
in this country for----
Mr. Lubar. [Inaudible].
Mr. Foster [continuing]. Be able to handle things like
that. You know, the information exists, and things can be
planned ahead of time. And I was just wondering, in terms of
the scientific capability to making that measurement, if you
had an agreement that we're going to now shut down for the next
few milliseconds all the cell phone equipment in Miami, and
then anyone who happens to be focusing on Miami would just
understand that this is the sweet time to make a measurement.
That's why I was asking about the geographic selectivity of the
antennas that are pointed down.
And is this--you know, this is something, obviously, that
has to be heavily negotiated, and something where I think the
government has to do a better job of doing that kind of
negotiation. So, you know, are there serious attempts to design
such systems?
Mr. Lubar. Sir, I'm not aware of it. I think it would be--
there are more elements involved in this. I think Dr. Gerth
could make a few quick comments about it.
Mr. Foster. Yeah.
Dr. Gerth. Yeah. If I can, Representative, I would just
note that, for the ATMS sensor, the pixel that's being sensed
is somewhere between 10 and 50 kilometers. That partially
depends on the frequency that's being sensed, and its distance
from the satellite subpoint. Mr. Lubar made the good point that
the satellites are moving, and there's lots, and there may be
more satellites in the future. Comparatively, for the emission
at 24 gigahertz, that probably would cover on the order of
about a football field, so it would really depend on how many
different transmitters are within that pixel.
Mr. Foster. Um-hum. OK. Well, if you could think about
that, or--and send me some information? And just in my last
few--as a proud graduated of the University of Wisconsin--
Madison, is Ed Eloranta still shooting Lidar systems off the
top of the engineering building there?
Dr. Gerth. Yes, he is. There's a great green glow coming
out of the building on some evenings.
Mr. Foster. OK, great. Well, say hi to Ed. And yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Obernolte.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to
our witnesses. This hearing has been really fascinating. I want
to ask a big picture question because--I mean, obviously we've
been talking about the process, and how it broke down, and how
we didn't get discourse between the various user communities
here, but I want to talk about the bigger issue of how we make
decisions as a government as to which uses to prioritize for
different pieces of spectrum.
And I know in Dr. Gerth's testimony he was careful to say
it's not us versus them, and I understand that these user
communities are not necessarily fighting against each other,
but from a governance standpoint it is, you know, one group
versus the other because we make these decisions about which
group gets the spectrum and which don't. So Mr. Mahoney, I
know, said there's no alternative other than protection for
this particular use, but this isn't the only use, right?
There's other basic science that relies on other pieces of the
spectrum. So I'm just wondering, you know, how we can balance
these different needs? And I'd like to start with Ms. Manner,
because you said in your testimony something I thought was very
interesting, about the need for balancing our national
interests. So, in your opinion, how would--how should we come
up with a policy that balances the needs of basic science
against the needs of commercial uses for spectrum?
Ms. Manner. So--and I do want to say that commercial
interest isn't always against scientists, so--as a commercial
operator, oftentimes we're in the same--you know, we're working
together, and they--we may even be using the same systems. So I
think there has to be a broader view. You know, there's just
some certain facts--at the end of the day, a lot of this is
driven by economics. The wireless industry is very strong, and
very powerful, and, of course, there's an important need for 5G
in the country. We want to be the leader in 5G.
But I think when the FCC looks at this--and there's two
different issues, there's the domestic and the international
side--is can we expand the range of areas that we look to? And
that's why I pointed out that the FCC has a narrower standard,
the public interest standard, than executive branch agencies,
which often have a national interest standard. So I think
having those two come together--and we did look at more--I
would say the CSMAC looked at more than just revising the FCC/
NTIA MOU. We also looked at the structure of the government.
One of the unique things about the U.S. spectrum management
process is we have a different agency that handles government
allocations from one that handles commercial. I can't tell you
I've made up my mind what the right approach is, but I do think
looking at that, as well as what we're talking about here with
the MOU, would be an important part of what I think Congress
should be doing, is--and we haven't looked at this in 100
years, and that's why I brought up the 100 years. So I don't
have the perfect answer, but I think there are ways to improve
things.
Mr. Obernolte. Yeah. Thank you. I completely agree with
you. And, like you, I don't think that pure economics is the
right approach. Congresswoman Ross asked a related question, in
which the discussion revolved around--trying to figure out the
value of predictive weather science, you know, economically,
which, you know, I think ignores the need to do basic science.
But, you know, I agree that something needs to be done there.
And, you know, a related question for Mr. Von Ah. So in
your testimony you were talking about the need for agreeing on
processes when we have parties and agencies that can't reach
consensus. Do you believe that Congress needs to set guidelines
in that case? And, if so, what should those guidelines entail,
and who should determine them?
Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for that question. So at this point
we don't necessarily think that Congress needs to step in. You
know, we think that the agencies, within their authorities, can
figure out the protocols and processes needed to come to
decisions and make sure that all perspectives are being
adequately considered. So within the MOU that FCC and NTIA have
within the General Guidance Document that State is sort of the
gatekeeper of, there are ways that you can sort of develop
those protocols. It could be something as simple as, well, if
we disagree, who's the next in line that we talk to, and then--
and when--and that--at--the corresponding person in the other
agency, and so on and so on, until you come to some sort of
resolution. Or, if you don't, what is the--you know, what is
the--sort of the ultimate decisionmaker there? So we think that
there are things that could be done within the agencies'
authority.
Ms. Manner. Can I add one piece, Congressman? Thank you.
So I would say the international process is somewhat different
because you have the State Department involved, and I've been
on WRC delegation since 1995, and I've seen this evolve to
where State Department was a mediator in the few times,
including over government versus commercial spectrum uses, as
opposed to now, where you just don't have State Department
playing that role. So I know this is inconsistent with the GAO
report, but, based on my experience, I really do think you have
to have the State Department back into that role as a mediator
for the WRC process because of their really broad view,
including the international view, that they take where NTIA and
the FCC, of course, are domestic agencies. But you have to
staff the State Department appropriately, and right now I do
not believe they have appropriate staffing to play that role.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Bowman.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Mahoney, thank you
for your testimony. You emphasized that remotely sensed weather
data is crucial for integrating more wind and solar into the
grid. Can you say more about the implications of the green
energy transition for this discussion, as we quickly ramp up
wind and solar to reach 100 percent renewable electricity? What
does this say about the need to protect, prioritize, or even
expand our Federal spectrum assets for gathering Earth system
data?
Mr. Mahoney. Thank you for the question, Representative.
Wind and--variable generation energy like wind and solar are
extremely sensitive to the weather and weather prediction.
What--the utilities in the United States and around the world
have always been challenged with integrating variable
generation resources into a grid when they've been
traditionally used to running generators at very precise levels
to match the demand for power generation.
So early on, when wind and solar were first being added to
the grid at very small levels, the variations and the lack of
predictability of those resources was not a very big deal. I
mean, it really didn't affect the overall load very much
because it was such a small fraction of the overall generation.
But now, in various parts of the country, solar is, you know,
heading toward 10 percent generation or more. You've got wind
energy on some days over 50 or 60 percent of the power
generation, and if the utilities cannot predict ahead of time
when those resources are going to come, they may not be able to
meet the demand. And so having very precise predictions of wind
speed then converted--and turbulence and wind shear then
converted to power output for wind energy is extremely critical
to manage the load, and to balance the load, in these utility
networks.
Same for solar. It's very sensitive to aerosols, it's very
sensitive to haze, and certainly clouds and precipitation. And
those are very challenging scientific problems to really
understand exactly when the clouds are going to pass by. Having
the remotely sensed data, the passive channel data, available
to the weather forecasting process significantly increases our
ability to predict the wet processes in the atmosphere, which
are very important for solar generation. So as we work with the
Department of Energy and the utilities, we're seeing larger
demands on forecast precision for atmospheric variables really
important for renewable energy generation.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Mahoney. Dr. Gerth, can you--
thank you for your testimony as well. Would you like to comment
on this?
Dr. Gerth. I think, Mr. Mahoney, you summarized it very,
very well. It--the predictability of weather is helpful for
utilities to manage their demand in multiple areas. I know
particularly in the Pacific Northwest there's a lot of reliance
on hydroelectric, and some of that has to enter the grid
because they have to control the river flows. So prediction of
when they will--when certain types of renewable energy sources
will be most beneficial to the utilities is a--is very
important to know, and I think, in the context of this
discussion, microwave data is one of the leaders in the
predictability of weather phenomena to help them in the 12 hour
to four day period. Thank you.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you. Mr. Von Ah, the National Institute
of Standards and Technology operates a national spectrum test
network called NASCTN (National Advanced Spectrum and
Communications Test Network) in conjunction NTIA, NOAA, and
NASA, and other agencies. I understand this test network wasn't
operational during the 24 gigahertz saga. What do you believe
should be the role of Federal spectrum test networks in the
spectrum regulatory process?
Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for that question, Representative
Bowman. So we think they can play an important role, certainly,
as we reported in our report, that there was sort of a lack of
agreed-upon procedures and approaches, and agreed-upon methods
and parameters for how to conduct the studies at issue of the--
for the 24 gigahertz band. And so organizations like NIST, the
National Academy of Sciences, and others can be--can play an
important role as sort of a third party arbiter, if you will,
to help those agencies understand those parameters and how they
should be used.
So our recommendation was really for the agencies to kind
of come to an agreement about what kind of approach to use. We
didn't necessarily recommend that they use a third party, but
they could certainly have that kind of benefit.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Babin.
Mr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much, Madam Chair,
and I want to thank our witnesses as well. On September the
8th, 2011 this Committee held a hearing on LightSquared's,
which is now Ligado's, proposal to operate in the spectrum
adjacent to the GPS signal. Federal science agencies were
unanimous in their opposition to this proposal, and cited
significant impacts to lives, property, the economy, and
national security. Despite the agencies' assessments, the NTIA
prevented the agencies from transparently communicating these
impacts. In fact, this Committee had to hold a hearing and call
each agency to testify to get them to communicate the risks.
More recently, the Committee heard of similar risks to our
Nation's weather prediction capabilities caused by the FCC's 24
gigahertz auction. Once again, the agencies' impact assessments
were prevented from seeing the light of day. This compelled the
Chairwoman and Ranking Member to call for the GAO report that
was released yesterday. The GAO's report reinforces the lack of
transparency that this Committee has encountered. As we seek to
open up more spectrum to enable the 5G economy, would it be
beneficial for individual agencies to communicate their impact
assessments directly to the FCC through the public docket, as
well as the existing process where they submit their
assessments to the NTIA for a whole of government policy on FCC
decisions?
I understand the importance of coordinating Federal
positions, but as we've seen in the past, this process can be
used to muzzle potential impact assessments. This Committee has
a history of leveraging transparency and peer review. Would the
Nation's spectrum management process benefit from these
principles as well? Mr. Von Ah, I meant to mention your name at
the beginning. This is a question for you. Thank you.
Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for that question, Congressman. So,
yes, there are--you know, the way that this is supposed to work
is through the NTIA Committee, through the IRAC and NTIA as--in
its role as--to represent Federal agencies' equities before
FCC, you know, during--in FCC proceedings. That said, there are
several examples where Federal agencies have submitted comments
directly to FCC proceedings outside of the NTIA process, and we
currently have some more kind of looking more closely at that,
but--the reasoning behind it being that they felt they needed
to emphasize the importance of their point of view and their
perspective.
When it comes to sort of the studies here at issue, I
mean, we certainly think as a--as GAO, we tend to believe in
transparency, and we believe that, you know, FCC should have
all the relevant information before it before it makes
decisions. In this case, of course, I would mention that these
studies are sort of first of their kind studies that were being
conducted, so we also, as GAO, appreciate accuracy and
reliability in these studies, so--and that they're, you know,
vetted through all affected parties, which is sort of where the
IRAC is supposed to play its role. In this case we really think
it was--you know, the coordination between NTIA and FCC, the
use of the IRAC Committee, the use of just their, you know,
everyday sort of ability to coordinate that really didn't bring
these issues up, didn't really delve into these issues enough,
and that's sort of where it broke down.
Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you. And, Mr. Lubar, there is
considerable debate between Federal agencies regarding what the
best emission limit for companies operating in the 24.25 to the
24.45 band, the band which is adjacent to the 24 gigahertz
spectrum restricted for Earth science and radio astronomy
observations. NASA and NOAA argue that a minus 20 decibel watt
emission limit would cause significant degradation of weather
data, and forecasting accuracy, and call for a minus 52.4
decibel watt limit. However, international treaties currently
set the standard at minus 33 decibel watt. What do you believe
is the best emissions limit?
Mr. Lubar. Thank you, Congressman Babin, for that
question. The ITU process in this case was a multi-year
function, where administrations and interested parties supplied
information to a technical working group, where they received
information about the prospective systems from experts.Minus
50,minus 40, there were a number of inputs in the initial parts
of the proceeding up to the preparatory meetings in February of
2019. With the U.S., the only one in putting--20 decibel watts.
I don't know the strategy of what happened there, but I would
like to point out that minus 20 decibel watts, and the
requirement in the FCC rules, in Part 30, Section 30.203, are
the same identical number, minus 13 decibel milliwatts. So
there are some questions about how that number was derived.
Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you. And it looks like I'm out of
time, Madam Chair, so I will yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Ms. Stevens.
Ms. Stevens. Right. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you
to our panelists for today's hearing. Dr. Gerth, I understand
you're from the Midwest, and I'm not sure how much you have
heard about the rain that has been pouring down in Southeastern
Michigan this summer, and how desperately so many Michiganders
just want it to stop, particularly as many households in
Southeastern Michigan are now flooding for the second time.
However, if we really can't make the rain stop, as you know, we
sure want to know about how much downpour is expected so that
we can prepare. In addition to NASA's role in developing
weather satellites operated by NOAA, NASA's own platforms, for
example, the Global Precipitation Measurement Mission Microwave
Imager, or GMI, rely on the 24 gigahertz water vapor band for
basic Earth and climate science measurements. So, Dr. Gerth,
how does spectrum interference affect NASA's basic science
research with instruments such as GMI?
Dr. Gerth. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman
Stevens, and yes, I do appreciate the diversity of the weather
in the Midwest, and how quickly it changes, and the effects of
all of that. Broadly speaking about the value of weather
satellites, there's really two roles, one of which is a--to
look at longer term climate, and to understand the physical
processes of the atmosphere. So we want to know, as scientists,
the actual trigger mechanisms for what's called precipitation
efficiency, for example. So we know there's water vapor in the
atmosphere. We talked a lot about water vapor in 23.8, but
that's not necessarily water in the ground, and so that water
vapor has to be condensed into a thunderstorm, and then rained
out, and then that's the impact.
So NASA's missions is often looking at how do we conduct
basic science to understand that process? We transition over to
NOAA, it's about making those forecasts in real time, so taking
what we learned from the NASA mission and using the NOAA
missions to routinely update the weather prediction models, and
then issue the warnings and forecasts that are needed to save
lives and make the public aware.
Ms. Stevens. Yeah. Thank you. And, Mr. Von Ah, the impacts
to weather forecasts due to interference to 24 gigahertz are
clearly a significant concern that's been talked about a couple
different times today. And I understand that there are other
spectral bands that these passive instruments rely upon, as
well as what the FCC might be looking at to auction next. So,
as a Congresswoman from Michigan, I'm certainly focused on--
concerned about our roads and our basic infrastructure, and
that is why I'm also concerned about the FCC's decision to
reallocate the 5.9 gigahertz band, which will pose serious
risks to our transportation safety long term as we look for
innovative ways to utilize technology to make our roads safer.
So, Mr. Von Ah, is your sense that the United States
spectrum management process are currently better structured
than they were in 2019 to avoid another 24 gigahertz type saga
in the future, and how can we improve this process to better
results?
Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for that question, Representative
Stevens. So I don't think we would've made recommendations if
we thought it was particularly better than it was in 2019, so,
no, we do think that there are some areas for improvement for
the agencies to better coordinate. We've tried to look into
those in the report, in terms of having, you know, the ability
to agree upon an approach for study, whether harmful
interference does come up, and an approach for the agencies to
better coordinate earlier on, and to be able to identify areas
of disagreement and ways to resolve that disagreement. So we're
looking for changes to the documents and protocols that guide
the agency coordination.
Of course, I mean, I would just mention, you know, the way
that we've set up spectrum management here in this country is--
sort of leads to sort of necessarily having some needed
coordination, right? And will have sort of questions over
whether this use or that use is the best use, right? So
strengthening these--the ability of these agencies to
coordinate earlier on, particularly where there are a lot of
competing interests, is sort of critically important to be able
to avoid issues like we saw in 24 gigahertz. I would also just
mention quickly, we have some ongoing work on 5.9 gigahertz
band as well that we should be issuing sometime early next
year.
Ms. Stevens. Excellent. With that, I yield back. Thank
you, Madam Chair, and thank you, witnesses.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Casten.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all our
witnesses. Mr. Lubar and Dr. Gerth, I'd like to direct my
questions to you, and I want to get your responses specifically
to some comments that former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said about
the auction off of the above 24 gigahertz spectrum. He
specifically said that, ``The Federal Government and private
sector have deployed nearly 40,000 high-powered fixed microwave
links in the 21.2 to 23.6 gigahertz band, immediately below and
actually adjacent to the 23.6 to 24 gigahertz passive band, at
the same emission limit the FCC adopted for 5G operations. No
interference has ever been reported.'' The FCC repeated that
argument in a lot of public filings and in oral communications
with Members of Congress.
Now, obviously we're talking here about that satellite and
weather observation band in the 23.8 range, where we have--but
in the band just below, that Mr. Pai was referencing, we have
point to point microwave links. So, Mr. Lubar and Dr. Gerth,
I'd like to get both of your answers, and I have five
questions. The first four are short, and then I'd like you just
to sort of give me your feedback, so hopefully--if we could
just be short on the first four, I would appreciate it. No. 1,
do point to point microwave links in the lower frequency band,
so below that band, tend to be noisy enough, and are enough--
are there enough of them to cause impact to measurements in the
passive band, where the weather satellites are watching?
Mr. Lubar. Congressman, thank you for the question. The
point to point microwave links wouldn't have the same density
as a 5G system. Yes, it is somewhat possible that, when you
compute all the apportionments of energy that might cause
interference they might factor into the equation, but no, I
mean, I think in general they're not anywhere near the type of
violator that you would find in a----
Mr. Casten. OK.
Mr. Lubar [continuing]. System like----
Mr. Casten. So no? And I'm sorry to be short, but I want
to get through these quickly. So no----
Mr. Lubar. No.
Mr. Casten [continuing]. There. Dr. Gerth, do you agree?
Dr. Gerth. I agree.
Mr. Casten. OK. Are the telecom activity that are being
deployed in the higher frequency band inherently noisier than
the point to point lower microwave lengths?
Mr. Lubar. Congressman, it's a matter of what type of
signal bounces upward. The signal in 5G isn't pointed that way,
but they can bounce off the ground, or the building, or the
terrain, and eventually be seen by the passive sensor.
Mr. Casten. So is it--so, I'm sorry, is that a yes or a
no? You----
Mr. Lubar. [Inaudible].
Mr. Casten. Are they noisier at the higher end?
Mr. Lubar. It's a yes. It's a yes.
Mr. Casten. OK. Dr. Gerth?
Dr. Gerth. Yes, I agree. Yes, I agree.
Mr. Casten. OK. Mr. Pai also noted that 40,000 devices,
sounds like a big number, were deployed in the lower frequency
band. How does that compare to the number of devices that will
be deployed in the higher frequency band?
Mr. Lubar. I would think it's a much smaller number. I
mean, for a 5G installation you would require a particularly
high density, and as buildout occurs, 40,000 would be a small
number. It also would depend on what you could see
simultaneously at one point in time in one of these satellite
sensors.
Mr. Casten. When you say smaller, are we talking factor of
two, factor of 10, factor of 100, or can you speculate?
Mr. Lubar. I don't know, sir, without----
Mr. Casten. OK.
Mr. Lubar [continuing]. May have to submit something for
the record.
Mr. Casten. OK. Dr. Gerth, on that one?
Dr. Gerth. Yeah, I agree with Dr. Lubar--or with Mr. Lubar
on that.
Mr. Casten. OK. So these 40,000 devices in the lower
frequency band were individually licensed, while the larger
number of devices in the higher frequency band will not be.
Will that make it harder or easier to mitigate potential
interference from them in the passive band, the fact that
they're not individually licensed?
Mr. Lubar. Well, sir, you're not going to see interference
from an individual sensor. As I said, these power--these
radiometers are measuring power over a large volume, so it's
a--it's the conglomerate contribution of all of them to cause
the problem.
Mr. Casten. OK. Dr. Gerth?
Dr. Gerth. It's going to be much harder if they're not
licensed. We--the only way to mitigate, or--really shouldn't
even say mitigate--to eliminate interference is to know who is
causing the interference in the first place. And if that is not
known, then how are we going to do that?
Mr. Casten. OK. So now to my larger question--I have 40
seconds left--given all this, do you think that the FCC's
comparison of the below band, the above band, was a
scientifically robust apples to apples comparison, and do you
find that to be a good faith argument on the part of Mr. Pai?
Mr. Lubar. I'm not going to comment one way or the other
on whether I think Mr. Pai made a good faith argument, but I do
think that--no, I don't think they're equivalent, just because,
as I said, the density and, you know, when you think of a
microwave link, it's essentially like a flashlight beam being
pointed parallel to the surface of the Earth. Not all of its
energy has the same opportunity to bounce upward as a moving
signal on the Earth.
Mr. Casten. Dr. Gerth, any final comments?
Dr. Gerth. It's a watermelons to grapes argument.
Mr. Casten. Well said. Thank you very much, and I yield
back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Madam Chair. And as I guess one of
the token lawyers on the Science Committee, my question--and I
don't want to embarrass the Coloradans on the panel, but I have
a very simple science question, and I might embarrass the
staff, but--I serve on several committees. One of them is the
Financial Services Committee, where we're dealing with nano
trading, that we don't want some entity to get ahead of
everybody else in the trading and get some advantage. So my
question is--there's a basic assumption here that the spectrum
is a finite resource. So can somebody tell me why that is so?
Can't we--in listening to everybody, there's the K-band, and
the S-band, and the T-band, and--I'm not a ham operator or
scientist, but why can't we just keep cutting thinner slices to
have this, and is it the fact that the slices are so thin,
that's why we have interference? So just a basic science
question.
Mr. Lubar. Congressman Perlmutter, first I'll say
greetings to a fellow Coloradan. Yes, sir, the spectrum is such
that we can't make any more of it. It is a finite amount. The
nice thing about spectrum is, if you stop using it, you can
immediately re-use it for something else. But it's already been
cut and parsed by the way it is allocated, and so the simple
decisions on spectrum sharing I think have already been made. I
think that's really the crux of the matter.
Mr. Perlmutter. So we couldn't keep slicing it thinner?
We've already cut it up already?
Ms. Manner. Can I----
Mr. Lubar. No, sir.
Ms. Manner. Can I add to that too? I'm sorry.
Mr. Perlmutter. Yes----
Mr. Lubar. Please.
Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. Please.
Ms. Manner. So we can--so the allocations can change.
That's what we do at the ITU, and that's what the FCC does in
its rulemakings. It's the keeper of the allocation table. So we
can change them, we can make more efficient use. We also have
new technologies which come on which enable more efficient use
of the spectrum. So, for instance, from satellite we went
from--to spot beams, which increases efficiency. We also have
sharing metrics. So there are ways to increase the efficiency
of the use, but it's still a finite resource, and there is a
fair amount of spectrum that, even though it's allocated and
assigned to users, is not being used today. You know, there's
analyses out there that certain industries have large portions
of their spectrum that they're not putting to use today, so
there's no policemen to make sure that it's being used
efficiently, so----
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. So, from a policy standpoint,
we could ask to reallocate some of this that's not being used,
is that what you're saying, Ms. Manner?
Ms. Manner. Yeah. It has ramifications because people are
licensed and so forth, but yes, theoretically you could.
Mr. Perlmutter. OK. So I guess another kind of science
question that I have, if what we're concerned about is
interference, and that it bleeds from one band to another band,
I mean, technologically--similar to Dr. Foster's question,
where he's saying, well, you know, everybody go quiet for a
second so that the scientists can do their work, or for a
millisecond, or a nanosecond. I mean, are there other
technologies that are helping us clear this interference, is--
or is that sort of impenetrable too? And I'd ask Mr. Lubar, Mr.
Mahoney, I mean, what are we doing technologically to protect
these scientific endeavors that we have?
Mr. Lubar. Congressman, thank you for that question. As I
mentioned earlier, one of the ways you can do it is to survey
the RF environment, and just understand that--for the passive
bands that contamination is occurring. Now, I happen to have
something here that might be useful. As you know, Colorado has
a lot of resources, both in atmospheric sciences and space, and
I mentioned that an RF survey of the environment would be
useful.
This happens to be a fully functional full-sized
radiometer that could fly on a small satellite, and it would
detect and help identify if there were some issues in several
of these bands. Obviously it can be flown on a small satellite
fairly quickly. You're talking a device here that was built,
actually, in Colorado, at one of our small companies, Boulder
Environmental Sciences and Technology. I'd say a device like
this is something about a half a million dollars to a quarter
million dollar range, and I'd say a system to fly it would
probably be in the few million of dollar range to operate.
And so it--the real issue with the passive interference is
you don't know today if it's occurring, and you need to
understand whether you have that contamination, and whether
it's getting into the data.
Mr. Perlmutter. And something like that would help us
figure out the passive interference?
Mr. Lubar. This, along with what we suggested prior, to
actually mount something on the satellite system of interest,
right on the ATMS sensor, or next door to it.
Mr. Perlmutter. OK. Thank you. And I appreciate--Mr.
Mahoney, didn't get a chance to ask you any questions, but I'm
glad we have two Coloradans on this panel. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. I'd like to
address the first concern to Ms. Manner. The--he--I loved your
testimony, but it--you started with the really good point that
we're virtually the only country that had both this bifurcated
process, the FCC and NTIA, and then talked about the three
categories, the unified agency, and then proposal to repurpose,
and then the workarounds. And then we spent the rest of the
time talking about the workarounds. Why don't we just merge
them? What are the political battles to put it into one that
manages this, rather than having to, like, put people in the
same building and insist they talk to each other?
Ms. Manner. So thank you, Congressman, for this question,
and at the CSMAC this was--you'll notice, if you go to the
CSMAC's report, we didn't have a recommendation on that issue
because there are concerns. Some people--and it's really a
question of where do you put it, and how do you weigh the
equities? So one nice thing, as a commercial operator is, the
FCC does understand, you know, purposes is on the commercial
side, and public safety, and the government side is NTIA, so
there is--do you really want--will you be able to balance the
equities if you're in a single agency? It's a good question.
So, you know, the question is whose jurisdiction? Is it an
executive branch agency? There is something nice about having
an independent regulatory agency that's not subject to
political will, and I go back to a colleague of mine who
remembers back in the day where, you know, you don't want
someone's friend calling and asking for a political favor for a
license, so you're trying to insulate from political will. So
that would be one argument in favor of an independent
commission. The executive branch, of course, has a broader
mission in terms of, you know, national security and so forth.
So it's a question. It's a very hard question, but we certainly
could do that.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. Toward--this--for Mr. Von
Ah and Dr. Gerth, one thing we learned from the 24 gigahertz is
that there's no obligation on the part of the NTIA or the
administration to make spectrum interference studies conducted
by a Federal agency available to the public. So this community,
and the stakeholder community, were aware for months that NOAA
and NASA had prepared a study that suggests significant harmful
interference would result from the FCC's proposed emission
limits, but it wasn't made public by the FCC in their docket,
nor by NTIA, and nobody in Congress laid eyes on them until
very late in the process. Meanwhile, the study results from
industry stakeholders seeking a slice of the 24 gigahertz were
publicly posted by the FCC. Note that the NOAA and NASA studies
were not deliberative policy documents, but technical analysis
performed by agency engineers.
So, Mr. Von Ah, as a general matter, would GAO tell us
that more transparency is helpful or hurtful in trying to reach
a more harmonious, whole of government approach to spectrum
management?
Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for that question, Representative
Beyer. I mean, absolutely GAO would be sort of the side of
transparency here, as well as the side of accuracy and
reliability of studies. I mean, one of the things that you're--
with--that is at issue here is how the process works, and it
works differently for the Federal agencies than it would for a
private company. So the Federal agencies are--you know, when
they're doing these studies in preparation for the WRC, they're
working under the--sort of the authority, so to speak, of the
General Guidance Document, which sort of outlines different
roles and responsibilities. That's where--and there's technical
committees that they're doing these studies for, whereas a
private company can simply just submit something to the record
in the FCC proceeding. Why and where, or when NTIA and the
agency should have submitted something to the FCC proceeding is
another question, but they decided they didn't have the
technical basis to do so.
Mr. Beyer. Well, that sounded--to me that sounded like a
tee-ball question, so thank you for hitting out of the park.
Dr. Gerth, you're an atmospheric scientist by training. What
would the scientific process say we should know about making
technical scientific studies available so they can be evaluated
by anyone who wants to pick them up? How upset are you that you
couldn't see these studies?
Dr. Gerth. I was very upset about it, to be honest with
you. Scientific process really dictates that any work that's
conducted be made available to the community. And perhaps then
it is open to criticism from the scientific community, but I
consider that to be a good thing. And we certainly don't want
preliminary work necessarily disseminated, however, to have a
full and open record, it's really just a matter of scientific
integrity, and I think NOAA and NASA really need to separate
decisions from inputs, and scientific work is an input to a
decisionmaking process. Thank you.
Mr. Beyer. And I assume this is also scientific work paid
for by the taxpayer?
Dr. Gerth. Absolutely. In most cases it is, yes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. Madam Chairman, I yield
back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
hearing, and I want to thank all of the witnesses for being
here today for this really important conversation. You know,
for most of us we don't think about or talk about spectrum on a
daily basis, but we all certainly use it in our everyday
activity. Our phones, these computers that we're speaking
through, televisions, everyday uses rely, obviously, on this
critical asset. But as we discussed today, spectrum is not just
for consumer use. Critical scientific observation relies on
access as well, and--so I'm curious, with these size
limitations that have been discussed, or some of the questions
that come around capacity, I'm anxious to get thoughts on how
we ensure that our scientific agencies have uninterrupted
access to spectrum needed to perform their vital work?
As the last few months have demonstrated, with extreme
temperatures, parts of the country facing drought, wildfires,
and then, as Congresswoman Stevens from Michigan, my colleague
from Michigan, mentioned, serious flooding, the work of our
climate scientists and meteorologists is critical for the well-
being of our planet. But climate science depends on cooperation
between agencies. Not just between agencies in one government,
but between countries. And I understand that we rely not only
on both NASA and NOAA satellites for this essential
information, for this data, but also on satellite measurements
from our international partners. And I say this because my
district borders Canada. Not on land, but our--we border Canada
on--in my district in the middle of Lake Huron. The Great Lakes
are a shared resource between our two countries, and both
actively monitor conditions.
And so, if I could address this to Dr. Gerth, how--if you
could address how, if at all, do the spectrum issues that we
were discussing during the course of this hearing today--how do
those issues impact our collaboration with international
partners, such as Canada, in weather and Earth science, in the
collection of that data, and in the utilization of that
necessary information? Dr. Gerth?
Dr. Gerth. Thank you so much for that question, and it
does touch on a very good point that we should make, is that
many international--the United States uses many international
satellite missions to contribute to the climate record and for
weather monitoring, particularly satellites in Europe. If you
look at the spectrum environment, if Canada were to pursue a
completely different policy from the United States, and one
country would have interference in a certain band where we're
trying to measure the weather and the other wouldn't--you know,
the weather doesn't stop halfway through Lake Huron, as I think
most Michiganders probably know, so we have to be very careful
to make sure that the U.S. is leading from a position that
protects all of the Americas. And, quite frankly, if we're
going to push the frontiers of weather forecasting to 10 days,
to 14 days, we really need to have good observations not only
with Canada, but also over Asia, Oceania, and so forth, so very
good question. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you. I wonder if any of the other
panelists have thoughts on this particular question?
Mr. Mahoney. If I might add, maybe going back a little bit
to the previous discussion, where we have NOAA in particular
doing studies that aren't communicated more broadly to the
scientific community, many of our Federal agencies have
millions and millions--hundreds of millions of users of their
data, and so I'm often concerned that if the agencies are
worried about spectrum, they may be too focused on their own
mission, but not the rest of the enterprise that utilizes the
data flowing out of those agencies. We need to ensure that
their voices are heard also in these discussions, how there----
Mr. Lubar. I would----
Mr. Mahoney [continuing]. Some private sector weather
companies that are serving up weather products to over a
billion people a day.
Mr. Lubar. I would just add quickly, Congressman, that
there are communication systems in Canada, as well as the
modeling that Canada does itself with this data. It is
certainly possible to have interference across the boundaries
for critical things that the Canadians derive from joint U.S.
and Canadian systems, such as water and fire sensors.
Mr. Kildee. All right. Well, I--first of all, thank you
all for your testimony at today's hearing. We really appreciate
the work you do. Madam Chair, I appreciate your holding this
hearing, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, and I believe
that concludes our questions. But, before we bring the hearing
to a close, I want to thank all of our witnesses for testifying
before the Committee today. The record will remain open for two
weeks for additional statements from the Members, and for any
additional questions the Committee may ask the witnesses. The
witnesses are now excused, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]