[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LIFTOFF: UNLEASHING INNOVATION IN SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 8, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-8
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-838 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
Chair
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio Ranking Member
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky ANNA G. ESHOO, California
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KATHY CASTOR, Florida
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
TIM WALBERG, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama RAUL RUIZ, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida SCOTT H. PETERS, California
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
GREG PENCE, Indiana ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota, Vice LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
Chair DARREN SOTO, Florida
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia KIM SCHRIER, Washington
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
KAT CAMMACK, Florida
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
------
Professional Staff
NATE HODSON, Staff Director
SARAH BURKE, Deputy Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
Chairman
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DORIS O. MATSUI, California
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Ranking Member
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia, YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
Vice Chair MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida DARREN SOTO, Florida
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania TONY CARDENAS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
KAT CAMMACK, Florida officio)
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
(ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Witnesses
William R. Richardson, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Federal
Communications Commission...................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Answers to submitted questions............................... 222
Charles Glass, Chief, International Spectrum Policy Division,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
Department of Commerce......................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Answers to submitted questions............................... 225
Whitney Q. Lohmeyer, Ph.D., Professor of Engineering, Olin
College of Engineering......................................... 77
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Answers to submitted questions............................... 227
Peter Davidson, Vice President of Global Government Affairs &
Policy, Intelsat............................................... 90
Prepared statement........................................... 92
Answers to submitted questions............................... 228
David Goldman, Senior Director, Satellite Policy, SpaceX......... 99
Prepared statement........................................... 101
Answers to submitted questions............................... 231
Danielle Pineres, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs &
Compliance, Planet Labs........................................ 112
Prepared statement........................................... 114
Answers to submitted questions............................... 237
Legislation
H.R. ___, the Secure Space Act of 2023........................... 162
H.R. ___, the Launch Communications Act.......................... 165
Discussion Draft, the Satellite And Telecommunications
Streamlining Act............................................... 170
Discussion Draft, the Precision Agriculture Satellite
Connectivity Act............................................... 196
Discussion Draft, the Advanced, Local Emergency Response
Telecommunications Parity Act.................................. 199
Submitted Material
Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
Letter of February 8, 2023, from The 5G for 12 GHz Coalition to
Mrs. Rodgers, et al............................................ 209
Petition for Rulemaking Before the Federal Communications
Commission, Olin Satellite + Spectrum Technology & Policy
Group, November 9, 202260211...................................
LIFTOFF: UNLEASHING INNOVATION IN SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2023
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in
room 2232, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert E. Latta
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Latta, Bilirakis, Walberg,
Carter, Dunn, Curtis, Joyce, Weber, Allen, Balderson, Fulcher,
Pfluger, Harshbarger, Cammack, Obernolte, Rodgers (ex officio),
Matsui (subcommittee ranking member), Clarke, Veasey, Soto,
Eshoo, Cardenas, Craig, Fletcher, Dingell, Kuster, Kelly, and
Pallone (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Johnson and Schrier.
Staff present: Sarah Burke, Deputy Staff Director; Michael
Cameron, Professional Staff Member, Consumer Protection and
Commerce; Nate Hodson, Staff Director; Tara Hupman, Chief
Counsel; Noah Jackson, Clerk, Communications and Technology;
John Lin, Senior Counsel, Communications and Technology; Sean
Kelly, Press Secretary; Peter Kielty, General Counsel; Emily
King, Member Services Director; Tim Kurth, Chief Counsel,
Consumer Protection and Commerce; Giulia Leganski, Professional
Staff Member, Communications and Technology; Kate O'Connor,
Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Michael Taggart,
Policy Director; Evan Viau, Professional Staff Member,
Communications and Technology; Jennifer Epperson, Minority
Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Waverly Gordon,
Minority Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel; Tiffany
Guarascio, Minority Staff Director; Dan Miller, Minority
Professional Staff Member; Elysa Montfort, Minority Press
Secretary; Joe Orlando, Minority Senior Policy Analyst; Greg
Pugh, Minority Staff Assistant; Caroline Rinker, Minority Press
Assistant; Michael Scurato, Minority FCC Detailee; and Johanna
Thomas, Minority Counsel.
Mr. Latta. Good morning, and I'd like to call the
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology to order. And the
Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Thank you to our witnesses for agreeing to appear in person
to provide your expertise on five pieces of bipartisan
legislation and discussion drafts that aim to promote U.S.
leadership in satellite communications technology. Last week,
the subcommittee held a hearing to discuss the state of the
satellite marketplace in the United States. That hearing
provided insight into the challenges and opportunities in the
rapidly changing satellite marketplace.
Today, we will hear from a different slate of witnesses
representing a wide range of the satellite industry and how the
legislative text being considered would impact the current
regulatory landscape. The five pieces of legislation include
the gentlelady from Washington, the chair of the full
committee, and the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking
member, their Satellite and Telecommunications Streaming Act.
This legislation would codify a statutory framework and
streamline the Federal Communication Commission's satellite
licensing process by clarifying what information the FCC should
consider in an application and put shot clocks on how much time
the FCC has to complete its review and grant a license.
Next, we will discuss the Secure Space Act led by the
ranking member, the gentleman from New Jersey, and the
gentlelady from Washington, the full committee chair, which
would prohibit the FCC from granting authorization for a
satellite service to operate in the United States if such
satellite service poses a national security risk. This bill--
bipartisan work on this committee to secure our Nation's
communications networks in the ground by now looking to secure
our services in space.
Next we will have the gentleman from Ohio and the
gentlelady from Washington's ALERT Parity Act, which would
establish a process for the FCC to ensure that satellite
technology can be used to ensure access to wireless and
emergency alerts and 911 service remain uninterrupted during
times of emergency. Then we will have the gentlemen from--both
from Florida--legislation on the Launch Communications Act,
which would help streamline the process for approving access to
wireless frequencies or commercial space launches and
reentries. Many times, the process requires approval by both
the FCC and the National Communications and Information
Telecommunications and Information Administration, which would
result in delay. This legislation would help improve that
process.
And last but not least, we will discuss the Precision
Agriculture Satellite Connectivity Act, which is led by myself
and the gentlelady from Illinois. This legislation will require
the FCC to look at its current satellite rules to determine if
rule changes can be made to promote precision agriculture.
Despite the billions of dollars that have been made
available for broadband deployment over the last 2 years, it is
clear that traveling in my district that too many Americans
still lack access to the internet. Republicans have long called
for technology neutrality and next-generation satellite network
provide broadband speeds and latency that rivals other forms of
broadband service. Farmers and ranchers across America
increasingly rely on technology, improved efficiency and yields
by also minimizing cost.
In the 21st century, that technology must be connected to
the internet for its benefits to be totally realized.
Gathering, processing, ensuring data in real time can help
farmers and ranchers make better decisions. While many farmers
and ranchers have made progress getting access to fixed and
wireless terrestrial networks over time, we heard at our
hearing last week that satellite technology played a key role.
In some cases, satellite technology can connect directly to
equipment or sensors in the field, and in other cases satellite
technology provides back-hall to wireless towers nearby.
I am excited to be considering these five pieces of
bipartisan legislation today, and thank you again to our
witness being with us today and look forward to the discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. At this time the Chair now recognizes the
subcommittee ranking member from California for 5 minutes for
an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
witnesses for being here today. I am glad that we are building
on the progress of our first hearing with another bipartisan
discussion today. The bills before us hold the potential to
boost innovation, cut the red tape, and increase security in
the satellite ecosystem. Having the perspective of both
government agencies and industry standards will give us a
holistic perspective. It will help inform these bills as they
move through the committee process.
As both the FCC and Congress move forward on updates for
the satellite licensing process, hearings like this will give
us a chance to harmonize these efforts. It is important that
this committee and the FCC are working hand-in-glove to advance
complementary rather than conflicting policies.
The five bills before us today are bipartisan and cover a
wide swath of issues crucial to the satellite marketplace.
Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers' and Ranking Member Pallone's
SAT Streamlining Act would modernize an often onerous licensing
and market access process at the FCC. Specifically, the bill
would require a reasonable shot clock that would create a more
responsive process at the FCC. It would also require the FCC to
issue rules to promote tech-neutral rules of the road in space.
While this is still a discussion draft, I look forward to
working toward a consensus bipartisan introduction. As ongoing
feedback with the FCC and industry is considered, I know we're
on the right track.
And as I mentioned at last week's hearing, I'm glad to see
progress on the Secure Space Act. As an original cosponsor of
the rip-and-replace bill, I know this is a national security
and economic imperative. The FCC has been doing great work
keeping the covered entity list current, and I'm excited to
have an opportunity to discuss that work.
We also have legislation on today's agenda that would make
changes to the way some emergency alerts are handled. As a
member of the California delegation, I know the stakes for this
information is literally life and death. During emergencies
like wildfires, these alerts need to be accurate and timely, no
exceptions. It's important to get policy in this space right,
and I'm looking forward to additional conversations on this
bill.
We're also going to discuss the LAUNCHES Act from
Representatives Soto and Dunn. As it stands now, companies
looking to conduct a commercial space launch must navigate a
complex process of overlapping Federal interests seeking access
to spectrum. And rather than coordinating multiple launches at
once, this process can only be done on an individual basis,
causing delays. The LAUNCHES Act would require the FCC to
continue its work streamlining this process. This would create
more predictability for both Federal and private organizations.
And finally, we have a chance to discuss the Precision
Agriculture Satellite Connectivity Act from Chairman Latta and
Congresswoman Kelly, which would require the FCC to report to
Congress on opportunities to update its satellite rules to
promote precision agriculture. My new district is home to a
rich tradition of agriculture with family farms that have been
passed down through generations. These small communities are
desperate for connectivity and modern farming tools to stay
prosperous.
On the government side, the FCC and NTIA are already taking
crucial steps to advance U.S. leadership. I'd like to note that
in January 2021, I urged then-President-elect Biden to develop
a unified process to spectrum management and to consider
updating the memorandum of understanding between the FCC and
NTIA. Thanks to the hard work of the two agencies before us
today, that suggestion has come to fruition. I'm excited to
hear more about how that new MOU can support better
coordination on satellite regulations. We have a lot to
discuss, and I'm eager to get started.
With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back,
and at this time the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Washington, the chair of the full committee, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we will discuss solutions to unleash innovation in the
satellite communications marketplace. Last week, we heard from
witnesses about how satellite systems will play a role in
closing the digital divide, how they will connect Americans in
times of disaster and emergencies, and how they will enable the
technologies of the future to beat China. Technologies like
precision agriculture, which is valuable for farmers in Eastern
Washington working to improve their yields and lower their
costs. Streamlining the Federal regulations to enable
technology that helps put food on the table is why efforts like
the Satellite and Telecommunications Streamlining Act are so
important.
We also heard from witnesses about the threat that China
and others pose to our economic and national security if we do
not take action. These hearings could not be more timely. With
the Chinese Communist Party illegally launching a balloon over
the continental United States and spying on American assets and
citizens, this experience was a frightening reminder of the
need to secure our networks from the Chinese Communist Party,
both networks on the ground and satellite communications. China
will stop at nothing to undermine American values, steal
American data and use that information to advance its
authoritarian agenda around the world. We cannot let that
happen.
I'm pleased to have the witnesses before us who can speak
to the five bipartisan bills we're considering to encourage
investment, innovation and competition in the satellite
communications industry to solidify America's dominance in this
sector. Last Congress, I introduced with--with then the
chairman, Frank Pallone, the Satellite and Telecommunications
Streamlining Act. Today we are considering that language as a
discussion draft as we continue to work with industry and
government stakeholders to make sure that we get it right. This
is the first major legislative effort since 2000 to update our
laws and regulations related to how satellite systems are
licensed in the United States.
This legislation would reform the Federal Communications
Commission's process to grant satellite licenses, establish a
statutory framework that directs the FCC to act swiftly to
approve satellite license applications, and incentivize
operators to be responsible stewards of space and spectrum in
the global marketplace.
We heard repeatedly at last week's hearing about the need
for our government to move quickly to stay relevant. In order
for U.S. companies to compete globally, they must move first.
They must be incentivized to design their systems to better
serve the unconnected, whether in America or in developing
countries that the Chinese Communist Party seeks to dominate. I
thank Ranking Member Pallone for working with me on this
legislation.
We are also reviewing Ranking Member Pallone's Secure Space
Act, a bill that I'm proud to colead. This bill builds on
Energy and Commerce Committee's leadership to make sure
untrusted equipment and software is removed from American
communications networks.
In 2020, President Trump signed the Secure and Trusted
Communications Network Act, which prohibits Federal subsidies
from being used for untrusted equipment and authorizes a grant
program at the FCC for carriers to remove that equipment from
their networks. The grant program is short by 3 billion, and we
are working with our colleagues across Congress to fund that
shortfall as soon as possible.
With Chinese flying reconnaissance balloons over our land,
the timing could not be more urgent. Additionally, last year
Congress passed the Secure Equipment Act to close a loophole
that allowed vulnerable equipment to remain in our networks
regardless of whether it was federally funded or not.
The Secure Space Act would expand this work by applying
similar requirements to our satellite communications
technologies. By prohibiting the FCC from granting
authorization for satellite services that pose a national
security risk, we will not allow risky businesses to serve the
United States.
Now is the time to act, to plow the hard ground necessary
to legislate. I'm pleased to see Members across the
subcommittee working in a bipartisan manner to lead on
solutions to solve some of our toughest challenges, including
how America can lead and win the future with satellite
technologies that improve people's lives. I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. And at
this time, the Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the
full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Latta. I'm going to sound
like Chairwoman Rodgers with my opening statement today, so
please forgive me, but I think it just shows that we are very
bipartisan in addressing the next frontier of the commercial
space industry. And the stakes could not be higher for the
American satellite marketplace. Just this last week, we
witnessed the Chinese Government's balloon flying high above
American airspace. This incident demonstrated the urgency for
us to explore every method possible to protect our Nation from
these and other aerial threats and prevent our foreign
adversaries from using our skies for their surveillance
missions. And satellites have a role to play in achieving these
objectives. And the legislation we are discussing today would
help ensure that our satellite marketplace remains competitive,
nimble, and protected from untrusted actors.
Today's legislation will also allow satellites to play a
greater role in helping first responders in the public when
natural disasters and other emergencies strike. Better earth
imaging will also help us monitor and track some of the most
urgent global issues like the worsening climate crisis.
So first I appreciate that we're considering H.R. 675, the
Secure Space Act, bipartisan legislation that I reintroduced
with Chairwoman Rodgers last week. This bill would extend the
Secure and Trusted Communications Network Act Framework to the
U.S. licensing of nongeostationary orbit satellites to protect
the public from untrusted entities and foreign adversaries. As
innovations flourish, we must protect the satellite marketplace
and its role in the supply chain from threats by nontrusted
actors. We can't risk our satellite networks facing the same
challenges as our other communications networks here and
globally.
We'll also be discussing the Satellite and
Telecommunications Streamlining Act, a bipartisan discussion
draft that Chairwoman Rodgers and I introduced last year. The
legislation would streamline the satellite licensing process at
the FCC for certain satellite applications. This bill would
strengthen the competitiveness of the United States satellite
industry, which is imperative, given other countries, including
our foreign adversaries, are making aggressive moves to
dominate the industry.
There is no question that the U.S. must remain a market
leader in this sector. Failure to do so risks our Nation
falling behind our counterparts across the globe, including
China, in producing cutting-edge consumer innovations and
fortifying our public safety and national security
capabilities.
We're also considering H.R. 682, the Launch Communications
Act, a bipartisan bill reintroduced last week by
Representatives Soto and Dunn. This bill would enhance the
ability of entities to launch rockets from the U.S. by
streamlining the FCC's process for authorizing access to
spectrums for commercial space launches and space reentries. It
would also encourage continued competitiveness and growth in
the American commercial space industry.
Then we have the Precision Agriculture Satellite
Connectivity Act, a bipartisan discussion draft from
Subcommittee Chair Latta and Representative Kelly. That would
encourage advancement in the innovation of precision
agriculture. This bill requires the FCC to review its rules
related to certain satellite services to develop
recommendations to promote precision agriculture and report
these findings to Congress.
And finally, there's the Advanced, Local Emergency Response
Telecommunications, or ALERT, Parity Act. This is, again, a
bipartisan discussion draft from Representatives Johnson and
Schrier that will also--that would also introduce--or they
introduced last Congress. And it would allow satellite
communication providers to access spectrum in temporary
situations so that local customers can retain access to 911 and
other lifesaving services where service is not available. This
could be in circumstances where the area is remote, where the
area is experiencing certain outages caused by natural
disasters. And with this bill, Americans would not have to
worry about being able to reach first responders and loved ones
in an emergency.
So every bill or discussion draft we are considering today
is bipartisan, and we look forward to hearing feedback from
these witnesses and other stakeholders.
I'm determined to continue working with Chairwoman Rodgers
and Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Matsui, and other members of
the committee so that we can make sure the United States leads
the rest of the world in the satellite communications industry.
And time is certainly of the essence.
So I welcome our panelists, look forward to hearing from
them. It's also nice to see that a familiar face will be before
us today, David Goldman, but I don't see David. Where is he? Is
he here? No? He is not here yet. He served as the subcommittee
Democratic chief counsel for 7 years, and I thank him in
advance for being here, when he arrives.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. We'll give--we'll let him know he had a glowing
report, very accurate. But the gentleman yields back, and we
have now concluded with the Member opening statements.
The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, all Members' opening statements will be made
part of the record. We'd also like to again thank our witnesses
for being with us today to testify before the subcommittee.
Today's witnesses will have 5 minutes to provide an opening
statement, which will be followed by a round of questions from
the Members. At the conclusion of the first panel, the
subcommittee will briefly recess so we can prepare for the
second panel of witnesses. The second panel will begin promptly
thereafter.
Our first witness panel for today's hearing will include
Mr. Bill Richardson, the deputy associate general counsel for
agenda review for the Federal Communications Commission, and
Mr. Charles Glass, chief of the International Spectrum Policy
Division of the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration.
And just to mention--again, familiarize everyone with the
lights. You have 5 minutes. It will be green. At 1 minute, you
will have yellow. And then time is up, is it red, so finish up
your statement at that time. We appreciate it.
I also want to make mention: You will see Members on both
sides going up and out of here today because we also have two
committees, Oversight and Health, meeting together downstairs.
And so we'll have two--these two hearings running at the same
time, so I apologize for people having to get up and down, but
we have that going on today.
And so with that, Mr. Richardson, you are recognized for 5
minutes for your opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM R. RICHARDSON, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE GENERAL
COUNSEL, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; AND CHARLES GLASS,
CHIEF, INTERNATIONAL SPECTRUM POLICY DIVISION, NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. RICHARDSON
Mr. Richardson. Chairman Latta and Ranking Member Matsui,
Vice Chairman Carter, Chair McMorris Rodgers, Ranking Member
Pallone, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to be here with you today. Your consideration of
these five bills will address a number of critical issues
facing the Commission and a rapidly expanding satellite
industry, and we welcome the opportunity to work closely with
you in these efforts.
The Commission's role in the licensing and regulation of
satellite communications systems began over 60 years ago,
including the launch of the first communications satellite to
orbit the Earth. As you heard last week, there is widespread
recognition that the satellite licensing process today needs
updating in light of the growing number and complexity of
satellite applications and the increased potential of the
satellite sector for broadband coverage, emergency services,
and U.S. competitiveness in a global marketplace.
Acknowledging the work of Chair McMorris Rodgers and
Ranking Member Pallone, FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel has agreed
that the new Space Age needs new rules. The Commission has
already taken a number of steps in recent years to modernize
this process. To start, it has increased by 38 percent the size
of its satellite staff to help speed up its work. Another
critical action the Commission has recently taken is an
initiative to modernize the FCC by establishing a Space Bureau,
which is designed to prioritize attention to the growing needs
of the satellite industry.
In addressing these bills, I would note that the FCC has
provided technical assistance on several of them, and we
welcome the opportunity to continue to engage with your offices
in that process.
First, the Secure Space Act of 2022. This bill would bar
the Commission from granting licenses or market access
petitions for nongeostationary orbit satellite systems held or
controlled by certain entities. It is similar in concept, as
you've heard, to the Secure Equipment Act of 2021, which barred
the Commission from issuing equipment authorizations of certain
equipment that would pose an unacceptable risk to the national
security of the United States or security and safety of United
States persons. In implementing this bill, we would expect to
draw heavily on the experience we had in implementing that
legislation last November.
Second, the SAT Streamlining Act of 2022. In considering
this bill last week, industry witnesses recognized the need to
balance concerns that incumbent satellite and terrestrial
licensees may have about potential interference from new
entrants with a need to support growth of and competition in
this rapidly changing industry in three ways: streamline
processes, adequate availability of spectrum, and effective
processes for sharing spectrum where, as is increasingly the
case, exclusive spectrum is no longer available. As I note in
my written testimony, the Commission has taken or is actively
considering steps that align with many of these goals,
including through pending rulemakings.
Third, the Launch Communications Act would focus not on
satellite service but on the spectrum needed for launch and
reentry of satellites. In 2021, recognizing that need in the
face of an expanding commercial space launch industry, the
Commission completed action to allocate the 2200 to 2290
megahertz band for this purpose on a secondary basis. At that
time, it also proposed licensing and service rules for use of
this band and sought comment on use of additional bands for
these purposes, including some of those referred to in this
bill. We welcome the Launch Communications Act's support for
this proceeding.
Finally, the other two bills in draft that you are
considering today would direct the FCC to address important
priorities as well, promoting precision agriculture through
satellite delivery in consultation with the existing task force
established by the Commission and USDA and facilitating service
to areas that are unserved by terrestrial providers or
temporarily unserved because of natural disasters or power
outages.
Thank you for inviting me to participate in today's
hearing, and I look forward to assisting the subcommittee in
considering these bills. I'd be happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Richardson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
Mr. Glass, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES GLASS
Mr. Glass. Good morning, Chairman Latta, Chairwoman
Rodgers, Ranking Member Pallone, Ranking Member Matsui, and
members of the subcommittee. On behalf of Assistant Secretary
Alan Davidson, thank you for the opportunity to testify about
the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration's work on satellite issues.
My name is Charles Glass. I serve as the chief of the
International Spectrum Policy Division in NTIA's Office of
Spectrum Management and have been in this role for the last 8
years. NTIA has several responsibilities with respect to how
to--our Nation utilizes spectrum resources, including those
used by space-based systems such as satellites.
First, NTIA is the principal advisor to the President on
telecommunication issues, including those involving
radiofrequency spectrum. Second, we directly manage the use of
spectrum by Federal agencies, as I will describe more fully
momentarily. In addition, NTIA maintains a research and testing
lab, the Institute for Telecommunications Sciences in Boulder,
Colorado, which provides critical theoretical and real-world
knowledge on spectrum engineering.
NTIA is, of course, part of the Department of Commerce. So
we strive to ensure that spectrum resources are maximized for
the growth and vitality of our Nation's economy. One of the
Department's key strategic goals is to advance U.S. leadership
in the global commercial space industry. Several other parts of
the Department are also actively engaged in this effort.
NTIA, through the Department of Commerce, works to ensure
that sufficient spectrum is accessible for U.S. companies to
pioneer and lead in their global space-based industries. As
NTIA is well aware, space is one of the areas where a strong,
mutually beneficial relationship exists between the Federal
Government and American industry. NTIA works with the Federal
agencies to ensure that their vital mission supporting national
security, weather forecasting, space exploration, radio
astronomy and a host of other important Federal equities are
fully supported and protected while balancing the need for
increased spectrum access for commercial activities.
For satellite systems, this is accomplished through
domestic efforts in concert with the FCC in its rulemaking and
licensing efforts, which are coordinated with NTIA under a
memorandum of understanding between our agencies.
Internationally, NTIA leads, files and coordinates Federal
satellite authorizations and registrations while working with
the FCC to ensure maximum access to spectrum for commercial
activities. NTIA is also committed to protecting critical
infrastructure, including satellites, from malignant actors
that pose a threat to our security.
Now for an overview of our spectrum management operations.
For Federal systems, OSM has a process for reviewing and
certifying the spectrum supportability for our proposed system.
We also have a separate but related process for assigning
specific frequencies to each Federal system.
As a result of these efforts, we process roughly 200
certifications for Federal agencies every year and make nearly
100,000 frequency assignments to the agencies. NTIA also is
responsible for coordinating Federal satellite filings
internationally to ensure protection of our existing satellite
systems.
The international filing process is conducted in
coordination with the FCC, which transmits all satellite
filings to the International Telecommunication Union. NTIA also
leads international delegations in bilateral discussions with
foreign administrations for coordination of our Federal
satellite systems with new foreign satellite systems. The ITU
publishes a quarterly report of satellite systems being
registered, and NTIA works with the Federal agencies to
identify any foreign systems with which coordination will be
required.
We have an equally important role in connection with the
coordination of nonfederal systems that either share spectrum
with Federal systems or operate using nearby frequencies. Our
goal in these cases is to balance protecting critical Federal
operations, promoting spectrum efficiency, and supporting
commercial development.
OSM coordinates either directly with the FCC or, at times,
with the system proponents themselves. We also work closely
with the FCC through our longstanding interagency processes.
Notably, NTIA and FCC recently agreed to an update of the MOU
that is enhancing our coordination in a number of important
ways.
NTIA has an important role in preparing for each World
Radiocommunications Conference, which takes place typically
every 4 years. NTIA coordinates and reconciles Federal views
and proposals with the FCC and the U.S. Department of State to
ultimately develop U.S. views and proposals that account for
all U.S. spectrum stakeholders.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look
forward to answering any questions you may have regarding
NTIA's work on satellite matters.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glass follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. And thank you very much, Mr. Glass, for your
testimony today. And we will now move into the question-and-
answers portion of the hearing. I will begin the questioning
and recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Richardson, the FCC has led the Precision Agriculture
Connectivity Task Force for nearly 5 years. While this task
force has included some discussion about satellite technology,
most of this recommendation do not address the role satellites
can play in providing broadband or Earth observation services.
Does the FCC have any plans to reexamine its rules governing
satellite services to see if there are any changes that could
promote precision agriculture?
Mr. Richardson. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
Precision agriculture is recognized, I think, by the Commission
as a way that satellites technology can contribute in the
future to improving the work of farmers and ranchers. The task
force that you are referring to is one that has recently issued
four working group reports. And these working groups, appointed
by the Commission and the USDA, have included a broad range of
experts from the satellite industry as well.
These are interim reports. They are--my understanding is
that they are on the way to being developed into a final
report, which the FCC will be looking at in terms of
recommendations for any changes to our rules that could
facilitate use of satellite to deliver precision agriculture.
Mr. Latta. I just want to make sure. Is there a timeline
that you are looking at trying to have those reports in by?
Mr. Richardson. I am not sure when the Commission is
expected to act on that, but I could check back.
Mr. Latta. I appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. Richardson,
when processing rounds were first established by the FCC 20
years ago, there was no way to predict there would be the
number of systems authorized and launched today. However, the
processing round system stipulates that after a lead
application is put on public notice, other prospective
satellite operators only have a limited window to submit an
application. But I appreciate the Commission's efforts to
reorganize its international bureau into a--into a Space Bureau
of Office of International Affairs.
Do you agree that the process around framework takes too
long regardless of the staff resources?
Mr. Richardson. The question of revisiting the Commission's
processes is an excellent one, and it's one the Commission has
teed up in a pending rulemaking, several pending rulemakings,
actually. These processing issues are something that commenters
are due to be filing with the Commission, their recommendations
for change, March 3rd for comments, April 3rd for reply
comments. And we are looking forward to getting their ideas
about the processing round and other issues that we flag for
comment.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. And not to be picking on you a little
more, but the ALERT Parity Act on today's hearing would require
the FCC to issue rules that establish a process for satellite
operators to provide wireless emergency alerts and 911 service
using terrestrial spectrum. The Warren Act provides the FCC
authority to ensure that the provision of these lifesaving
services are technically feasible and reliable.
While I recognize that the current secondary market has
produced many partnerships, has the FCC evaluated what changes,
if any, under law would be needed to ensure that the WEA alerts
and 911 service provided by satellite operators receive the
same treatment as----
Mr. Richardson. I think the ALERT Parity Act is--recognizes
the importance of using satellite where feasible to fill in the
gaps, if you will, for critical 911 and alert services. As you
know, section 1 of the Communications Act identifies as one of
the key priorities for the Commission the promotion of public
safety.
We have, as you say, been--recently received applications
for some very interesting partnerships to provide services
between satellite and terrestrial that essentially broken down
some of the stovepipes, if you will, that we've had in the
past. And these are being looked at by our technical experts,
our public safety experts and our licensing experts to see what
kinds of issues they may pose.
And I think those are directly relevant to the same issues
that you're looking at in this bill. I think that it is an
intriguing new way to promote these emergency services in areas
that don't currently have them, which is a very important
priority.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. And I will yield back the
balance of my time and recognize the gentlelady from
California, the ranking member, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As an original
cosponsor of the rip-and-replace bill, which required the FCC
to establish the covered list, I'm glad to see these
restrictions being implemented in other industries. However,
for this list to have teeth, it's imperative that the FCC
constantly be evaluated and updated. Mr. Richardson, can you
describe the FCC's process for updating the covered list and
how to keep it current in rapidly evolving satellite
marketplace?
Mr. Richardson. Thank you for the question. This is
something we've been looking at with our Federal partners. And
to step back, it's important to stress that, under the Secure
Networks Act, the determinations of whether particular services
by particular entities pose an unacceptable risk to national
security and therefore get put on the covered list come from
other Federal agencies and--or under the National Defense
Authorization Act passed by Congress.
So what we first do is we look to what the Federal agencies
have done. If they have put a covered service on the list, then
we have a process through public notice system to implement
that covered list----
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. Two years ago, I wrote then-
President-elect Biden, urging him to develop an administration
spectrum strategy that is persistent, concerted, and effective.
Mr. Glass, can you describe the NTIA's role in--spectrum
management generally and the implications in--for the satellite
ecosystem.
Mr. Glass. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Matsui.
Coordination of individual applications typically is not time-
consuming and is handled through precoordination per NTIA's MOU
with the FCC. The cases that take most time for technical
analysis involve either exceptions to the existing rules or
actual rulemakings where new rules are being created or old
rules are being modified. In those cases, it can take
additional time for all stakeholders, including NTIA and
Federal agencies, that have important equities to agree on the
data and the methodology for analyzing the impact of proposed
FCC actions.
Once FCC publishes notice of its proposed actions, at that
point in the process such issues generally are addressed
through the FCC's public proceeding, and NTIA may submit
information to the FCC for the record on behalf of the
Executive branch. Beyond that, in terms of any policy
implications, I'm not in a position to comment, but our staff
can follow up with your staff as required.
Ms. Matsui. Certainly will. Thank you very much. NTIA is
responsible for coordinating the Federal Government's
participation in the International Telecommunications Union's
World Radiocommunication Conferences. With WRC 23 coming up
later this year, we have an excellent opportunity to continue
U.S. leadership. Mr. Glass, what steps is NTIA taking to
prepare, and what are the implications for U.S. leadership in
the international satellite ecosystem at the WRC?
Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. NTIA is working
closely with the FCC and State Department as well as the
Federal agencies and commercial stakeholders to prepare for WRC
23. On the Federal side, which NTIA manages, Federal agencies
have proposed a number of proposals, and NTIA is working to get
those reconciled as U.S. proposals. At the same time, the FCC
is running its process with nonfederal stakeholders. And we
coordinate that effort very carefully to ensure that we have
strong U.S. proposals going forward to the WRC.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you. The FCC has several proceedings
before it with implications for the satellite ecosystem,
including the 12 gigahertz proceeding. The docket on this
proceeding shows that there is much for the FCC to consider,
and I hope it will continue to follow the science as it
considers feedback. Mr. Richardson, I know it is difficult to
discuss an open proceeding, but can you provide a brief update
on the timeline here?
Mr. Richardson. I went--I would like, if I could, to get
back to you on the timeline for that. I can say that the
question of harmful interference between terrestrial and
satellite, which is the key issue in that proceeding, as in
many FCC proceedings, is one that, as you indicate, has
generated very complex technical engineering studies on both
sides. And the Commission technical experts are working their
way through the competing analyses there, and we are working as
fast as we can on that.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Keep me updated. Thank you very much, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair will informally pass on the ranking member of the
full committee until he returns from downstairs. We will now
recognize the gentleman from Florida's 12th District for 5
minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it
very much. Last week, I chaired a hearing in the Subcommittee
on Innovation, Data and Commerce on the threats we face if
China was to lead on emerging technologies. I'd like to
continue that discussion, if I may. Mr. Richardson, have
Chinese-based NGSOs applied for U.S. market access, and are
there different review processes in place for foreign-based
operators, especially for those countries that are adversaries,
as opposed to U.S.-based businesses?
Mr. Richardson. These are very good lquestions. I can say
that we have not received any market access requests from
Chinese NGSOs if that is--that is your question. A few years
ago, a U.S. company did request approval for Earth station
support to a Chinese-owned company. Those applications were
never granted and were ultimately withdrawn last year.
In terms of market access and national security issues, the
Commission has the ability on its own motion to refer
applications for market access through Earth station
applications to the Executive branch group of the committee
formally known as Team Telecom for its expert views and
recommendations on key national security law enforcement, trade
policy, and foreign policy issues. And we generally take our
lead from those on their recommendations.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. I have another question for you.
As you know, we are in the process of removing Chinese
equipment from our terrestrial networks through rip-and-
replace. But we cannot renew the Huawei debacle. I'm sure you
agree. Once the satellite is launched, there is no retrofit.
During the--does the FCC review the origin of satellite parts
from China or other adversaries when approving or denying an
application for NGSO? So in other words, you can speak to other
adversaries as well, including Russia, of course.
If not, does the FCC have the authority to either include
that factor in their review or ban component parts from
companies that are deemed national security threats?
Mr. Richardson. I will begin by talking about the issue of
component parts, which the Commission has looked at in the
context of its implementation last year of the Secure Equipment
Act that's been discussed this morning. This is a complex
question that the Commission teed up in a notice of proposed
rulemaking some time ago about whether the Commission can and
should regulate equipment with respect to component parts. And
it ended up seeking further comment on that last November, so
we are looking at the comments to see when they come in about
the practical impact of that, how we would identify component
parts, how we would assess their threat to national security.
But again, I would circle back to our general authority
would extend these parts, but we would look in the context of
applications to our friends in the Federal--our Federal
partners to get their expert guidance on the extent of the
threat to national security, these component parts.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Anybody like my time? I'll yield
back.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. The gentleman yields back the
balance of his time, and the Chair will informally pass on the
ranking member of the full committee's questions until he
returns from downstairs. But we'll now recognize the gentleman
from Texas' 33rd District for 5 minutes.
Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Richardson, I wanted to ask you. The Satellite and
Telecommunications Streamlining Act would stream on FCC's
satellite licensing process for satellite applications. I
understand and support the need to streamline this process. The
FCC, the satellite industries, and consumers could certainly
all benefit.
How would this bill specifically ensure that any changes
made to the satellite components of a renewing applicant are
brought quickly to the attention of the Satellite Division's
staff in order to speed up that work?
Mr. Richardson. I think the--first I should say that this
is a great question that the Commission itself has been looking
into in its own rulemaking sort of in parallel with this bill
as to how we can simplify our application process, avoid the
back-and-forth with the applicant that sometimes creates
delays, and how we can establish a regulatory certainty for
applicants by making clearer what the requirements would be in
terms of performance criteria, for example. That's one of the
issues that we are addressing in our rulemaking and is also
addressed in this bill.
If we can establish the ground rules, if you will, going
forward for applicants, it will be easier and more expeditious
for them to proceed with--for us to proceed with processing the
applications.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much. The subcommittee also
recognizes the need for output spectrum, given the increased
deployment of satellites that provide critical services to
Americans. As new technologies are developed and deployed on
the field, what additional best practices should Congress
consider that would facilitate the FCC's Satellite Division's
ability to adjust constant changes happening in the satellite
industry?
Mr. Richardson. I think we at the Commission recognize, as
we have over the years, that we always have to keep up with
very dynamic changes in our industries that we regulate. And
satellite today is one of the biggest and best examples of
that. I think we have proceeded, as I said, to increase our
staff to develop--that are develop--that are working on these
applications. And we are very excited to be implementing a
reorganization to have a Space Bureau that's devoted to the
needs of the satellite industry so that we can address those
needs more expeditiously.
Mr. Veasey. What is the FCC doing specifically to, you
know, attract young engineers, people that have come out of
college, particularly if they go into the private sector and
they make more money? What are you guys doing to make the job
more attractive to them working in the satellite----
Mr. Richardson. That is a very good question. I'm not
directly involved in that. I'd be happy to get back to you with
what we are doing to do that, but I think there was a
Washington Post article today generally by Max Stier of the
Partnership for Public Service who is talk--who identifies this
as a broader issue for the Federal Government in terms of
increasing the attractiveness of the Federal workforce for
younger people coming out of school.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much. Mr. Glass, the bills under
consideration today align with the updated memorandum of
understanding on radiofrequency spectrum--between the FCC and
the NTIA. Do you feel that they--that there is coordination
there?
Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. Yes. We do believe
that we have a robust process for coordination under the
memorandum of understanding. We had a target to--for
improvements and additions to that MOU. We reaffirm and
emphasize the respective roles of the FCC and NTIA as the
agencies responsible for managing spectrum use in the United
States.
It ensures improved and effective communications between
the agencies. It emphasizes importance of evidence-based
spectrum policymaking, engineering collaboration and reliance
on data analyses and engineering best practices. It promotes
effective long-range planning at the agency principal and staff
levels. It enhances processes for coordination of proposed
spectrum actions. It commits to best efforts to identify
potential issues as early as possible, and it articulates an
isolation path between the agencies where necessary.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
the balance of his time. The Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from Washington, the chair of the full committee,
for 5 minutes. Thank you.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Richardson, I--
just before I begin my questions, I notice in your testimony
that your testimony is, quote, ``limited to providing an
overview of the ... state of the law and Commission
proceedings'' and to, quote, ``technical drafting assistance,
but not to opine on any possible or proposed policy or
legislative changes.'' However, your testimony also states mine
and Ranking Member Pallone's SAT Streamlining Act is, quote,
``designed to inform the continuing efforts of the
Commission.'' Do you consider opining on the purpose of goals
of legislation in your testimony is--to be technical drafting
assistance?
Mr. Richardson. We are happy to provide technical drafting
assistance and to work with the committee, subcommittee, in
developing the bill, and my point was to try to demonstrate
that we at the Commission are engaged in a similar initiative
and have--are looking forward to ideas from industry and the
public about how to do that in our proceeding and would like to
work with you to make sure that you're aware of those
recommendations and that input as well.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Because I do want to get to the state of
play as it relates to the Commission proceedings. In other
words, the United States Supreme Court decision last fall, EPA
v. West Virginia, the Court cautioned that major agency actions
must be rooted in clear statutory direction, that as the
complexity of these licensing applications increases, so does
the likelihood that the FCC's actions could be challenged in
court. Would having a specific grant of statutory authority
help the FCC defend its actions in court on satellite rules?
Mr. Richardson. It's a very topical question for many
agencies. I think, in our case, I would say always from an
Office of General Counsel perspective, the more authority that
Congress grants us, specific or general, the better. But as
I've said in my testimony, it was about 80 years ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court made clear in the NBC case that, with respect to
title III of the Communications Act--that is managing radio
spectrum--the Commission has very broad authority for the
reasons very relevant to this proceeding, that, quote,
``dynamic nature'' of the industries that we regulate.
So we believe that we have adequate authority under title
III to regulate and license satellite transmission of
radiocommunications. But we, as I say, always welcome
additional authority.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. And I'll just also quote from the EPA
decision just within the--all the Members here. It says,
``Something more than a merely plausible textual basis for the
agency actions necessary,'' the agency instead must point to,
quote, ``clear congressional authorization''--it's going to be
ongoing discussion.
As you know, my Satellite and Telecommunication
Streamlining Act would establish a statutory framework,
providing the FCC direction on satellite licensing. And while
it's important to act quickly on applications, it's also
necessary to balance speed with providing a stable spectrum
environment that encourages investment. This legislation would
establish performance objectives and make it clear to
applicants that--what information needs to be submitted with an
application in order to make the timely decision.
Giving--given the FCC's December proposed rule on statutory
application processing, do you think such regulatory framework
would help speed up the satellite licensing process?
Mr. Richardson. That's a very good question, and I think
that we are hopeful that with the recommendations we get, we
can finalize some processes that make it clearer what is
required in the original application to avoid, as I said
earlier, the sometimes back-and-forth with the applicant that
chews up time. And if we can establish regulatory certainty
around the ground rules for performance criteria, which is
something that your bill specifically calls for our rulemaking
to do, I think that would be very, very helpful and----
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Very quickly here at the end, the
World Radiocommunications Conference takes place later this
year. Certainly this is going to impact satellite operators.
Would both of you speak briefly to what the administration's
priorities are on the agenda?
Mr. Richardson. I would like, Madam Chair, if I could, to
take that back. I'm not really prepared to----
Mrs. Rodgers. OK.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. To answer that one.
[The information follows:]
Chair McMorris Rodgers
What are the Administration's priorities at the WRC?
As participants on the United States delegation to the upcoming
WRC, the FCC is supportive of the ITU's core mission of
promoting connectivity, broadband access, and fostering a
flexible international regulatory framework for an evolving
telecommunications ecosystem.
Since the WRC-23 agenda was defined at the previous WRC in
2019, FCC staff has been engaged in the four-year ITU
preparatory study cycle for WRC-23, fostering opportunities for
new satellite and terrestrial operations, participating in
sharing studies to ensure compatibility of various spectrum
access technologies.
Domestically, the FCC collaborates with the public and private
sector to develop priorities in line with the FCC's own
domestic initiatives. The FCC also collaborates with our
partners at the federal level to ensure that the access to new
spectrum bands considers vital U.S. interests in science,
safety and national security.
The FCC's engagement to WRC-23 is focused on three core themes:
(1) promoting and harmonizing FCC's recent domestic actions,
(2) supporting the emerging space economy and (3) establishing
strategies to meet the increasing demands for next generation
wireless technologies. Below, we identify some important WRC-23
agenda items that fall into these themes.
One key item for the FCC is an agenda item (AI 1.2) to
identify additional mid-band spectrum for International Mobile
Telecommunications (IMT) mobile 5G use on a primary basis. This
agenda item covers the following frequency bands: 3,300-3,400
MHz, 3,600-3,800 MHz, 6,425-7,025 MHz, 7,025-7.125 MHz and
10.0-10.5 GHz. The FCC is working to ensure the actions on
these bands are consistent with domestic priorities and
decisions. For example, in the 6,425-7,025 MHz band, we are
working to make sure there is no change to the Radio
Regulations that could undermine unlicensed use of the
spectrum.
The FCC is also supportive of an agenda item (AI 1.19)
that is considering a new primary allocation in the space-to-
Earth to the Fixed-Satellite-Service in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band
in the region in which the Unites States is included. Last
year, the FCC adopted rules for this type of operation. The
allocation will allow satellite operators additional spectrum
for broadband services.
Another key agenda item is one which would identify
frequency bands for earth stations in motion or ESIMs that are
communicating with non-geostationary orbit satellites (NGSO)
(AI 1.16). The frequency bands that are currently under study
are: bands 17.7-18.6 GHz, 18.8-19.3 GHz and 19.7-20.2 GHz
(space-to-Earth) and 27.5-29.1 GHz and 29.5-30 GHz (Earth-to-
space). ESIMs will provide broadband connectivity via satellite
to aircraft and ships.
Another key agenda item for the FCC is one that seeks
to create a regulatory framework to permit the operation of
space-to-space links between satellites, or inter-satellite-
links, in specific frequency bands (AI 1.17). Creating a
defined regulatory framework, including a spectrum allocation
for this service, would allow for innovation and efficiency as
some satellite operators are looking at the use of spectrum and
optical resources to relay data back to earth using
geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) and NGSO satellites in
space rather than using earth stations, reducing cost and
enhancing efficiency.
Another important priority for the FCC is an agenda
item (AI 7) that has studied possible changes to certain
satellite regulatory provisions involving the coordination and
notification of satellite networks currently in the ITU Radio
Regulations. These include certain milestone and "bring into
use" dates.
Another key agenda item is associated with regulatory
actions to support the modernization of the Global Maritime
Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) (AI 1.11). GMDSS is a world-
wide maritime safety and distress systems used by vessels and
coast station to respond to distress calls at sea. The key
issue on this item is the inclusion of new satellite networks
into the GMDSS, in this case a new Chinese satellite (Beidou).
There are many regulatory and technical concerns with allowing
the Chinese entry into the GMDSS. There are also other broader
policy concerns from the perspective of security by allowing a
Chinese satellite to interoperate in the GMDSS.
Mrs. Rodgers. Mr. Glass?
Mr. Glass. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I'm also not in a
position to comment on that, but our staff can work with your
staff to describe that. Thank you.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Thank you both for being there. I
yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Florida's Ninth District for
5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman, and appreciate both your
support, our ranking member's and of course my fellow
Floridian, Dr. Dunn, on this great bill we're hearing today,
the LAUNCH Communications Act. From our back yard in Kissimmee,
back in Central Florida, we had quite the display of rockets
coming up. It's something that makes our region very special,
being the district right next to Cape Canaveral. And we have
seen full view of the busiest space --in the world over there
with NASA recently launching Artemis, SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin,
and so many more on making sure we continue to be the top
nation in space flight in the world.
2022, we saw 57 orbital clasms rockets, a record. But wait,
2023 is no slouch either. Eighty-seven launches set for this
year, another record. And who knows? We might see a hundred by
2024 on--and FCC licenses for each of these launches is--it's a
cumbersome bureaucracy. It's one that has been there because
there hasn't been enough direction by Congress.
We know we need to cut the red tape to boost space
innovation. And I appreciate the FCC's efforts on moving
forward in response to us filing this bill now 3 years--3 terms
in a row, efforts to utilize the 2200 to 2290 band of spectrum
is a good promise. I know our witnesses have talked about that
already. The LAUNCH Communications Act will ensure that they
finish the job and have statutory framework to ensure that it
can't go back and forth based upon who is on the FCC. We need
to secure spectrum specifically and permanently for
spaceflight.
Mr. Richardson, thank you for being there. Can you speak
more about the Commission's role in facilitating the launch of
satellites and of commercial space launches as we continue to
increase--what actions do you think the Commission can continue
to build upon or take from regulatory approach that will create
more certainty for a lot of these launches?
Mr. Richardson. Well, thank you for your focus on this
important question. I think we are recognizing that with the
growth of the satellite industry comes a growth of the
satellite launch industry, which is also, as you say, from your
own back yard, very visible. I think the things that we can do
in addition to having allocated that additional spectrum is
to--and we very much appreciate your interest in that
proceeding in bringing it to close. The things we can do, I
think, are one, we've asked questions about are there other
bands that we might be able to also use for this purpose. And
the second is finalizing our proposals for service and
licensing rules for this so that we have the system in place to
take advantage of the new allocations.
In the past, my understanding has been that this has been
somewhat cumbersome because we had to go through a so-called
special temporary authorization or STA process because there
was no spectrum allocated for this purpose. And so we're on our
way toward a new regulatory environment, and again, appreciate
your interest in that proceeding.
Mr. Soto. I believe we are nearing 2 years now. Also this
rulemaking and effort at the FCC--is that a long-time or is
that sort of par for the course? How would you describe the
progress we've made so far?
Mr. Richardson. Well, I've been practicing before the
Commission and now at the Commission for over 40 years. And I
think there is a wide variety of timeframes for Commission
proceedings. But I think we understand the priority that needs
to be placed on this proceeding.
Mr. Soto. Well, we appreciate the FCC being responsive even
to our efforts as we are still working on passing this bill
into law. The--can you talk a little bit about what happens
when you miss a launch window because you can't get a license
in time, and the effects it could have on America's space
competitiveness?
Mr. Richardson. I'd like to take that back if I could. I am
not familiar with the situation that you posed.
Mr. Soto. Well, allow me to, for the edification of the
committee, discuss with them a little bit. You know, if you
don't get that license on time or we have various weather
obstacles that prevent launches, you are constantly having to
apply again and again and again. It could be over three to four
to five attempts in the--in the midst of one effort to launch a
rocket. So we really want to make sure this is nimble, because
weather can be unpredictable. The FCC licensing should be more
so. Thank you for your testimony, and Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Carter [presiding]. The gentleman yields. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
witnesses for being here.
Mr. Glass, as part of the administration's national
spectrum strategy or otherwise, is the NTIA considering the
needs of commercial space operators to access spectrum, and are
there ways NTIA can accelerate access to spectrum for
commercial launches, especially whenever agency approval is
required?
Mr. Glass. Thank you, Congressman. With respect to our
efforts, we coordinate very carefully with the FCC. But your
question gets into policy issues that I'm not able to comment
on. So if you like, our staff can get back with your staff to
fully explore that.
Mr. Walberg. I'd appreciate that. Only ask questions that
we hope we can get an answer for. So, Mr. Richardson, the SAT
Streaming Act would establish shot clocks, so to speak, for the
FCC to grant or deny certain applications, modifications, or
renewals. If enacted, the SAT Streamlining Act, would the FCC
be able to meet these timeframes? And if not, why not?
Mr. Richardson. That again is a question that the
Commission has teed up in its rulemaking that's in parallel
with these bills asking for industry and the public to comment
on the nature of the shot clocks and the time periods. So
that's under review, and we don't have the comments yet from
various perspectives of industry and the public for what the
appropriate time period would be.
I think another point I'd like to raise about the shot
clocks--and I--is in my written testimony, is that the way the
FCC processes applications--and this is not unique to
satellite--is that we first have a time period for accepting
for filing the applications, which then sets the time clock for
comments. And then the question about the second shot clock is,
how long after we get the comments do we need to have to act?
And I just wanted to make a point that shot clocks
generally would be best framed, I think, from the point of view
of acceptance for filing in terms of--rather than from when it
comes in the door. One of the things we are trying to do is
identify ways to streamline the process so it's clearer what
needs to be in the application when it comes in the door, and
that's one of the problems.
But I just wanted to focus on that acceptance-for-filing
piece as an important part of the puzzle.
Mr. Walberg. Well, I appreciate that. I think our--some of
our biggest concerns that come through our local offices--and I
can only imagine we're talking about the rapid expansion of
satellites and telecommunications that it is frustrating to
have the goal in mind, and the bureaucracy holds it up. So I
certainly get what you are saying about making sure that we
know how to approach the application. But timeliness is
extremely important.
Mr. Richardson. We completely agree with that, and we are
looking to expedite this process, as I mentioned, not just
through these rulemakings that, again, have much in common with
this bill. But also, we've increased the staff for processing
these applications. And NGSO applications are often technically
very complex. We've got more staff, 38 percent more staff, in
the Satellite Division to handle them now. And we have, as I
said, focused our priority on this emerging satellite industry
and its importance by creating a bureau that's designed to
focus on their needs. We hear what you are saying.
Mr. Walberg. I wish you all good speed.
Mr. Richardson. Thank you.
Mr. Walberg. Coming from Michigan, we like speed. Let me--
let me follow up that. Can you describe the differences in the
roles of International Telecommunications Union and the FCC in
regulating satellite communication systems?
Mr. Richardson. My focus has been on FCC regulations. So I
will be happy to take back the question about the ITU. But
basically the FCC rules for satellite, which is obviously a
global service in many respects, have to be consistent with the
rules of the ITU. And so applicants generally need both an ITU
and an FCC authorization. But the ITU piece, I'm not personally
involved in, and I'd be happy to give you more information
about that piece.
Mr. Walberg. I appreciate that. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Carter. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Cardenas, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate
this opportunity. The chairman looks more like a pharmacist
right now. Are those bags full? Anyway--during last week's
Communication and Technology Subcommittee hearing, also on the
subject of satellites, we heard from stakeholders on important
positive roles satellites play in our everyday lives, and it
affects all of our lives.
And in the United States of America, I think we are
fortunate as Americans that we are probably touched more by
satellite in our country than most countries around the world
because we are more developed and we have an economy that
depends so much on it. Today we continue discussing the
importance of ensuring we have a rigorous process in place to
maintain U.S. leadership and satellite communication
technologies and to promote competition in American satellite
marketplace.
Mr. Richardson, how will the FCC's Space Bureau and the
legislation we are considering today promote a competitive and
innovative satellite marketplace?
Mr. Richardson. I think the focus of both is to identify
ways that we can promote deployment of satellites in this
country and make us more competitive in that global
marketplace.
Mr. Cardenas. And how is the FCC collaborating with other
agencies to help improve harmonization in space policy matters?
Mr. Richardson. By ``harmonization,'' do you mean
internationally or--well, that is something that is part of the
work process, I think, to make sure that our allocations and
international allocations sync up. And we are very delighted
that the ITU's new Secretary General, someone with a long
experience in this field at the ITU and, previous to that,
working at NTIA. So we look forward to that coordination.
Mr. Cardenas. So when it comes to the United States, how
would you describe our position when it comes to satellites
past, present, and going forward when it comes to being a
leader and/or collaborator internationally?
Mr. Richardson. Well, we very much believe that the United
States should lead the way in satellite global marketplace.
Mr. Cardenas. Are we seeing that way at the moment?
Mr. Richardson. We have some very strong competitors.
Mr. Cardenas. Who would that be?
Mr. Richardson. Well, a number of them, you heard from last
week, and some more and I think you are going to be hearing
from this week right after this panel, but--and there's a
variety of segments in the satellite industry that are
described in the communications marketplace report that I cited
in my written testimony, which has a lot of information about
who these players are and what their market share is and things
like that. So I would commend that to you as an excellent
summary but would happy--be happy to answer any other questions
you might have about where we stack up, if you will, if that's
your question, in the global marketplace.
Mr. Cardenas. Because it's my understanding that the
projections are that--about 5,500 satellites in space. And as
soon as 2030, it might be past 55,000 or more potentially.
Mr. Richardson. Yes. I think that's a direct result of the
tremendous success of the NGSO satellites, which require many,
many more satellites than the GSO systems. And that's where I
gather there is a projected boom. And that's one of the many
challenges for regulators in terms of addressing the higher
volume that we can expect and have seen in the last few years.
Mr. Cardenas. So what role would Congress have to play when
it comes to keeping up with that pace? Would you need to see a
much more complex staffing regimen within the FCC in order to
keep up with that pace?
Mr. Richardson. Well, we have increased our staffing
already by 38 percent.
Mr. Cardenas. So you don't need any more help? You have all
the staff----
Mr. Richardson. I would never say that.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. You better not!
Mr. Richardson. And I think you heard last--I think you
heard last week from industry witnesses about the staffing
question, both numbers and expertise.
Mr. Cardenas. Yes.
Mr. Richardson. It's a very--it's a very complicated--
particularly engineering satellite is very complicated.
Mr. Cardenas. And how does it--how does it feel right now
when it comes to having domestic staff training and potential
experts coming into possibly being future staffers at the FCC
with the right expertise when it comes to organically people
who grew up here who went to college here, et cetera?
Mr. Richardson. Again, I would like to take that back with
the--to give you an answer from the people who are focused more
on the--on the recruitment angle. I think that's your question.
Mr. Cardenas. I'd love to hear from them. Thank you so
much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Latta [presiding]. Thank you. The gentleman yields
back. And this time, the Chair recognizes the vice chair of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia's First District for 5
minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank both of you
for being here. We appreciate it. This is extremely important
and very educational for those of us who are not quite as up as
other people are on this particular subject. You know, I think
that all of us would agree on both sides of the aisle that
regulations and red tape are hindering innovation and, a lot of
times, inhibit our global competitiveness.
So we have to be very careful about that. And there is
probably no better example than the satellite marketplace.
While we watch our adversaries like China and Russia, we have
got to ensure that the Federal Government is not holding
innovators back. I truly believe and have always said that the
greatest innovators in the world are right here in the United
States of America, and I believe that. But we've got to help
them.
And one way we can help them is not to hold them back and
to get out of their way. So I want to thank the chairman for
bringing this important topic to our attention because it is
important. I want to start with you, Mr. Richardson, and ask
you. Tell me about processing rounds. What is that system? When
was it implemented, and what was --why was it implemented? What
was the need for that?
Mr. Richardson. That's a good question about processing
rounds because that's a focus of much of the commentary on this
streamlining of the process. For GSO satellites, as I recall,
the Commission established a first-come, first-served system
for NGSO satellites or NGSO-like satellites. It uses a
processing round. And if you are in the same processing round,
you have the same priority. If you are not in the same
processing round, you have secondary priority.
Mr. Carter. When was that set up? Was that years ago, or
was that just recent?
Mr. Richardson. It's not recent. I would have to--I would
like to get back to you on the exact date for that. There is
a--there was a proceeding that established the processing
rounds. I'm happy to give you that information.
Mr. Carter. Does it still function today like it was
intended to originally? Do you know?
Mr. Richardson. Well, one of the questions I think that's
been teed up in Commission proceedings is whether, in light of
the differences within GSO and the rapid changes in the
industry, should we revisit the way we conduct our processing,
including processing rounds.
Mr. Carter. OK. Let me ask you this: Do you feel like the
workforce at the Commission is well equipped to handle the
volume and the complexities of applications?
Mr. Richardson. That was the subject of last week's
hearing, that I think the industry felt that we needed more
support. And I think I'm not authorized to ask you for
additional support, so I won't do that.
Mr. Carter. And I understand that and--but let me tell you
I'm not interested in throwing money at it. Tell me how we can
make it more efficient.
Mr. Richardson. Well, I think there were good points made
last week about, as you say, the complexity of satellite
engineering, which is a key part of the processing. And, as you
know, there are disputes between incumbents and new entrants
about whether there is potential interference and how they
share spectrum. We are trying to develop rules around that to
make that a clearer process that has regulatory certainty
attached to it.
But it does need experts. And I certainly recognize the
point that the more difficult it is to attract skilled experts
to replace the ones that are moving, you know, toward
retirement, the better it is for us.
Mr. Carter. OK. Mr. Glass, let me ask you: Can you explain
the procedures in place to measure interference and protect
Federal systems when commercial users need access to spectrum
for launches?
Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. Yes. At NTIA, we
coordinate very carefully with the Federal agencies through our
interagency process to make sure that we understand what their
issues are with any potential interference. We coordinate,
then, with the FCC to make sure that we as the U.S. make a
smart decision going forward that ensures efficiency and would
allow us to maximize the use by spectrum operators.
Mr. Carter. How do you resolve disputes?
Mr. Glass. We have a dispute resolution process that is in
our new MOU that would allow us to address any issues there.
Mr. Carter. OK. I will stay with you, Mr. Glass. Last year,
the FCC and NTIA established a Spectrum Coordination
Initiative. Has this initiative improved issues related to
spectrum sharing?
Mr. Glass. I think that was worked into our memorandum of
understanding with the FCC, and it has improved our
coordination with them. And I think that it will continue to
allow us to improve the process.
Mr. Carter. Do you agree with that, Mr. Glass? Or excuse
me. Mr. Richardson.
Mr. Richardson. Yes, I would. I think that the--under the
MOU, we've made increasing efforts to coordinate better with
NTIA and its Federal agencies.
Mr. Carter. OK, good. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas' Seventh District for
5 minutes.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairman Latta and
Ranking Member Matsui for organizing today's hearing so that we
can continue on last week's important discussion on satellites.
And, as I noted in my questions last week, there are so many
areas of importance for our communities that we are talking
about here and such great potential.
I want to follow up on the questions that Mr. Carter was
just asking and Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers asked a little bit
earlier about some of the challenges and the changing
environment and the growing workload associated with the
current satellite licensing demands. But I know that the SAT
Streamlining Act includes a number of proposals to amend the
Communications Act to better reflect those changes. So could
you just elaborate, Mr. Richardson, a little bit on the reforms
that are included in the bill in addition to some of the
staffing issues that we've been talking about and some of the
retention issues?
Can you just talk about any of the other reforms that are
included in the bill that you think would have a positive
impact at the FCC?
Mr. Richardson. It's a very good question, the details of
the bill and how they might relate to our pending rulemaking,
which tracks it in many respects. I think the key issues that
the bill identifies are the need to have a rulemaking to
clarify what the performance criteria are for satellites so
that applicants know what to expect. It has a process for
expediting on applications for minor modifications that
shouldn't take a whole lot of time. I think it would allow us
to establish a process that would avoid the back-and-forth
about parts of the application if the applicant maybe didn't
realize they needed to be put in there, but we can be clearer
about what's required. And it--I think those are the key
things. But there are issues, for example, like letting those
in the satellite industry know what are the ground rules for
sharing, what are the ground rules for harmful interference,
which, in my experience, I'm not an engineer, but I know it's--
it's a very, very complicated question, particularly in the
satellite field.
And what we've done is we've proposed in this rulemaking
some very specific proposed alternatives for people to comment
on about how to measure interference. And again, once we get
those ground rules squared away, the hope is that the
application process, again, with the--coupled with the priority
of additional staffing and in a new bureau that's focused
directly on this, we'll be able to address the challenge.
But I have to say that it is a--it is a--everyone
recognizes that the volume of these applications and the
numbers of satellites up there are increasing very, very
dramatically.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you very much for that. With the
time I have left, I want to switch gears a little bit with a
question for both of you to touch on something that we haven't
touched on as much today at this hearing, but I know in prior
Congresses we've touched on the Science, Space and Technology
Committee a little bit. And it's important to our discussion
here as well. So Mr. Richardson and Mr. Glass, could you both
just talk a little bit about how the FCC and NTIA can do more
to help improve space sustainability and reduce orbital debris
in lower orbit.
Mr. Richardson. I'm----
Mrs. Fletcher. Should I start with Mr. Glass?
Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. With respect to
orbital debris, that gets outside of the spectrum issues that
I'm able to answer. However, we would be more than glad to get
back with your staff with that answer.
Mrs. Fletcher. OK. Thanks.
Mr. Richardson. From the FCC's perspective, we have another
proceeding that's been pending, asking questions about how to
resolve some of the questions about orbital debris. We did,
last year, address one specific aspect of it, which is the
amount of time that it--after a mission is over that a
satellite needs to be decommissioned, deorbited. And that is a
significant issue because I think there are now 4,800 or more
satellites up there. And the industry, I think, agrees that
this is a potential issue for collisions, avoidance
maneuverability, explosions. And so what we've done is we have
established a rule that requires that for--orbiting satellites
of 5 years.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much for that. I see that I've
gone over my time, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield
back.
Mr. Latta. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Florida's Second District for 5
minutes.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Closing the
digital divide is encouraging innovation in satellite
communications, outstanding priority for me personally and for
this committee. Satellite operators can help provide broadband
across the country and, in fact, around the world. The ability
to maintain internet access during and after natural disasters
is also vitally important as we discovered after Hurricane
Michael in my home district.
And so I want to thank the chairman for organizing this
hearing and highlight the bipartisan legislation we are
discussing today. This is also--one of the bills is also a
LAUNCH Communications Act, which I reintroduced with my
esteemed colleague from Florida, Darren Soto. The LAUNCH
Communications Act streamlines some of the bureaucratic
elements of the launch process, making it easier for private
companies to obtain authorizations for temporary use of
necessary spectrum. And I look forward to working with
Congressman Soto and members of the committee to get this bill
passed this session. We need to ensure that the regulatory
processes, in fact, support innovation and don't hamper that or
get in the way.
Mr. Richardson, the FCC's policies guiding the licensing
process for the special temporary authorizations were designed
decades ago. Do you think they still meet the needs of a U.S.
commercial launch market where we're launching, on average, two
times a week?
Mr. Richardson. It's a very good question. I think that
this bill brings needed focus to the changes in the satellite
launch industry. As the satellite industry has grown, the
satellite launch needs have grown. We need--we need to do
better. And I think we began that with that allocation of
additional spectrum to permit applications that avoid the
special temporary authority.
Mr. Dunn. Obviously, we'd like to standardize the process
so everybody knows what they're going to be using ahead of
time. And this, by the way, is what, you know, the various
launch companies--satellite veterans, what they will ask of us
is to come in and get involved here.
So 2013, the FCC began proceedings to reallocate spectrum
specifically for launches, commercial launches, and create a
streamlined process, a whole process here. So I understand the
NTIA--you said you support this effort on requiring the FCC, I
believe, earlier today. So this goal, however, remains pending.
It is 10 years later. Wouldn't it be beneficial to get these
things through?
Mr. Richardson. We have a proceeding designed to do that,
to establish the service rules and the licensing rules now that
we have the spectrum, so that's the next step.
Mr. Dunn. Yes. Mr. Glass, you previously confirmed your
NTIA support for these processes. Can you comment on how
bundling licenses might be beneficial, if you think it would be
beneficial. So that's the launch, the unorbited, and the
decommissioned spectrum.
Mr. Glass. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
Unfortunately, that's outside my area of expertise
specifically. I'm more oriented on the process with respect to
registration, coordination, et cetera, of satellites. I had--
can, however, make sure that we get back to your staff with an
answer.
Mr. Dunn. So I actually--maybe Mr. Richardson can answer
that question. Bundling of licenses for spectrum. So for the
whole--I mean, the launch, the orbit--on-orbit missions and
decommissioning.
Mr. Richardson. If I understand your question, it's about
improving and accelerating the process for granting
applications.
Mr. Dunn. You bundle the license. You give out all of those
license all at once. You don't have to go back and ask for
another license to--different license to communicate with a
satellite and another one to deorbit it.
Mr. Richardson. I don't know whether that's raised under
our proposals or not. Could I get back to you on----
Mr. Dunn. Yes, so, you know, that's--as we've talked about
streamlining here today, this seems like an obvious way to
streamline that process, give everybody some surity.
With that, I yield back my time. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of
the full committee, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Latta. I appreciate having
the FCC and NTIA here to provide feedback on these bipartisan
bills. With respect to the Secure Space Act, I'm interested in
hearing more about how we can ensure that space infrastructure
doesn't create the same national security vulnerabilities to
our U.S. communications like we've seen out of some of our
other infrastructure and networks. So let me ask Mr.
Richardson: How would the Secure Space Act ensure the security
of U.S. satellite marketplace?
Mr. Richardson. Thank you for the question. This is an area
where we have first looked at use of universal service funding
and protected that against the rip-and-replace program I'm
referring to. And then we--last year, we completed proceeding
pursuant to Congress' mandate to deal with equipment
authorizations. And this bill would focus on satellite--NGSO
satellites is the way it's drafted, as I understand it. And I
think we would apply much the same regime, which requires a
finding that a service is a specific kind of communications
equipment or service.
And then a determination by a designated Executive branch
agency that the production or provision of that service is--
poses unacceptable risk to the national security of the United
States or U.S. persons. And then, under this bill, the
Commission, much like the secure networks, the Secure Equipment
Act Bill--Act, would put these on a covered list and bar us
from granting applications to those persons or their
affiliates.
Mr. Pallone. So, I mean, the Commission's authority to
oversee and regulate communication systems of all types is
clear. But the SAT Streamlining Act aims to enshrine that
authority more explicitly in the--can you just explain maybe
better the value in codifying the FCC authority over the
satellite market as the discussion draft proposes?
Mr. Richardson. It's a good question about the law in this
area. I think it would--as I've said in my written testimony,
it's well established under title III of the Communications Act
of 1934--really the Radio Act of 1927--that with respect to
radio spectrum management the Commission has a plenary rule in
making sure that those who are licensed serve the public
interest. So we think we have established authority, but it's
always helpful to have a confirmation and additional statute of
the direction you think we should be going.
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Glass, I'm pleased to see the progress
being made by NTIA to reclaim its role in coordinating Federal
spectrum users and to restore order to spectrum management
operations. But what does NTIA's coordination with the FCC look
like with respect to the satellite industry?
Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. That is handled
through our--the revision of our MOU we--that we have with the
FCC. And it allows us to promote effective long-range planning
at the agency, principal, and staff levels to make sure that we
maximize access to spectrum for satellite operators. We
coordinate very carefully on the special temporary
authorizations, quite often directly with the operators in
precoordination to allow us to be able to facilitate that
process as quickly as possible.
Mr. Pallone. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
the balance of his time, and at this time the Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Utah's Third District for 5 minutes.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses.
Mr. Glass, I'd like to highlight some of your efforts and the
efforts of others internationally on the international spectrum
policy. Particularly, I understand after 5 years of Chinese
leadership, the ITU, we've been successful in getting our
candidate in General--Secretary General Doreen Bogden-Martin--I
think I pronounced that correctly--who was competing against a
former Russian candidate, right, who worked for Huawei, clearly
very important to the U.S. interest.
And I find this very interesting. I worked--I had a bill
called the TAIPEI Act that passed on 2020, and its whole point
was to make sure that Taiwan was relevant in these
international organizations, and it really--the point of the
bill was to do exactly what you've done here, is to make sure
we have good leadership overseas. So can you tell us a little
bit about your work there and why this is so important for the
United States.
Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. So the election of
our candidate as the new Secretary General of the ITU was a
huge step in our continuing leadership. The U.S. should strive
to continue to fill leadership roles throughout the
radiocommunication sector of the ITU, which is responsible for
satellite registration and coordination, and we should continue
to lead in the development of agenda items at WRCs and sharing
studies for those agenda items to ensure long-term U.S.
leadership for satellite communications technology.
The U.S. has a long history of leading on satellite issues,
and I believe we'll continue to be on the forefront of needed
changes for satellite regulations and adoption of technologies
in the ITU.
Mr. Curtis. Can you give us a sense why this matters? If we
don't do this, what could go wrong? If we are not leading
internationally, tell us why this matters.
Mr. Glass. Leadership in any technology is always
important, but you are getting into policy areas that are
beyond my purview to comment on, so we can get back with you
with a more thorough answer.
Mr. Curtis. OK. That's fine. And you mentioned this briefly
in your remarks, but besides the selection, what would you like
to see the United States do to exert influence internationally?
Mr. Glass. As I said, Congressman, I think that we need to
continue to fill leadership roles throughout the
radiocommunication sector of the ITU and to make sure that we
are leading and putting forward advanced technologies into WRC
agenda items and to continue our leadership in those studies.
Mr. Curtis. Well, thank you to both of you. More just a
comment, and that is just how critically important your success
in my--is in my district has some specific geographic
challenges, and satellite offers some solutions for it. And we
are all hampered by--it's been discussed quite at length today
updated government regulations and bureaucracies. And we feel
that deeply in our district, so I'd like to thank you for your
work and wish you all success. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield my
time.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
the balance of his time. At this time, the Chair recognizes the
gentlelady from New York for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank our
ranking member for convening today's hearing, and I thank our
witnesses for joining us today. Advances in satellite
communication technology represent another major step towards
bridging the digital divide and unleashing the full potential
of our Nation, from connecting those in hard-to-reach rural and
Tribal lands serving as a backstop for access in emergency
services like 911 and providing a secure communications channel
for those fighting oppressive regimes around the world. The
satellite industry is already playing a critical role at home
and abroad.
As the pace of advancement continues and satellite
operators and wireless carriers begin pairing up to integrate
their networks and eliminate coverage gaps, we need to ensure
that Congress establishes a regulatory landscape conducive to
fostering these kinds of innovations while balancing the
spectrum needs of the Federal Government. We also need to
ensure that the FCC can keep up with the pace of licensing
applications it is receiving both today and into the future.
So my first question is directed to both of our panelists.
The FCC recently announced its adoption of Chairwoman
Rosenworcel's plan to establish a new Space Bureau. How can
this new bureau other--and other recent FCC action related to
satellite licensing work to foster further innovation and keep
us competitive globally? And let's start with you, Mr.
Richardson.
Mr. Richardson. Thank you for the question. We are very
excited to have this proposed reorganization, which is subject
to approval by the appropriators. But I think the key is not
only the increased staffing that we've already had, the 38
percent that I mentioned before, but also the focus of this new
bureau will be devoted to the satellite industry because we
recognize that this is an extremely important industry. Its
importance is growing for all of the reasons that you
identified.
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Glass?
Mr. Glass. Thank you. So our coordination with the FCC is
handled through our memorandum of understanding. I don't think
that will be directly impacted by the new bureau, but we, of
course, look forward to working with them and continuing our
close collaboration.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. Mr. Richardson, there seems to be a
widespred agreement that updating the FCC satellite licensing
process is necessary for increased global broadband coverage.
Considering that the Satellite and Technologic--excuse me--
Telecommunications Streamlining Act will codify the FCC's
authority to grant licenses for GSO and NGSO satellite
services, could you tell us how this authority would expedite
broadband coverage in the U.S., and what kind of resources or
support you think would be necessary for the FCC to carry out
the mandates of this bill effectively?
Mr. Richardson. It's a very good question about a very
important challenge. I think that the Commission and the
authors of this bill are proceeding in tandem to try to
identify ways that we can simplify the application process and
expedite it that way to establish regulatory certainty about
the kinds of policies that we'll be governing, the processing
of the applications. And then we do recognize that, as the
number of these applications increases, particularly we're
talking about NGSO applications. We need to be positioned to be
able to field those on a prompt basis. And I think that the
witnesses last week identified the need for our capabilities to
be such that we can do that both on in terms of how many
engineers and others we have but also the experience needed to
handle these things.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. I've only got seconds left, so I'm
going to yield back and thank you very much, gentlemen, for
your expertise.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back,
and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania's
13th District for 5 minutes.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Latta, and Ranking Member
Matsui for hosting today's hearings. And thank you for the
witnesses. Mr. Richardson, as we have seen this past week,
adversaries continue to test the resolve and grit of the United
States. You mentioned in your testimony that the Secure Space
Act would prevent certain covered equipment which includes
Huawei and ZTE from being granted licenses or market assets
petitions from non-geostationary orbit. Can you talk more about
some of the work that the Commission is doing to prevent our
adversaries from gaining a foothold in this critical
infrastructure?
Mr. Richardson. It's a very topical question and a----
Mr. Joyce. Indeed.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. Very important one. I think
the Commission has been devoted in a number of different ways
to identifying national security threats to our communications
infrastructure. One is--and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding
your question, but began with a rip-and-replace program and
moved, directed by Congress, in the Secure Equipment Act to bar
Huawei and others from being authorized to use the Commission
process to permit the distribution of their equipment of
certain kinds in the United States.
We have also recently taken action to revoke international
common carrier authorizations from three Chinese Government-
owned companies. And we have, in all of these efforts--and if
this bill were enacted in this area with satellite, we would be
working very closely with our Federal partners, the expert
national security agencies, which provide us with
recommendations and advice about the nature of the threats and
how it relates to the particular equipment involved.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Glass, can you talk more about how
intergovernmental coordination can create a friendlier
regulatory environment for the satellite industry?
Mr. Glass. Thank you very much for that question. Yes. We
endeavor always to work in a collegial manner with our partners
both at the FCC and in the private industry to ensure that we
maximize the access to the spectrum while at the same time
making sure that we take care of concerns with the Federal
agencies in our interagency coordination process. We believe
that this is a robust process and allows us to work in a very
efficient manner with them.
Mr. Joyce. How can Congress better assist with encouraging
more intergovernmental coordination between NGIA and the FCC
for nongovernment use of Federal spectrum bands?
Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question, but that gets into
policy areas I'm not able to comment on. But my staff can get
back with your staff to answer that.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Richardson,
would you feel comfortable in commenting on that?
Mr. Richardson. I think I would just say that the revised
MOU, I think, is a demonstration of the fact that the FCC and
NTIA recognize the importance of working well together. And
from my perspective, it's been working very well.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you both. Mr. Glass, I would appreciate
the followup answer to that question. And Mr. Chairman, I yield
the remainder of my time.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the
Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California's 18th
District for 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Sixteenth District.
Mr. Latta. I'm sorry.
Ms. Eshoo. Think of Sweet 16.
Mr. Latta. Sixteen. Well, there you go. Sweet 16. I'll
remember that now.
Ms. Eshoo. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
legislative hearing, and thank you to the witnesses. Mr.
Richardson, during last week's hearing of this subcommittee, we
heard a lot from industry about the delays in various
applications by satellite companies. Some of the bills we are
considering today are trying to address those concerns.
You mentioned in your written testimony that the FCC
recognizes the new space-age needs of the new rules and that
it's taken a number of steps to modernize its processes
regarding satellites. What are those steps that FCC is taking,
and how are they actually going to modernize the process?
And as a followup, does the FCC need any new authorities to
help modernize the process?
Mr. Richardson. Thank you for the question. I was----
Ms. Eshoo. You're welcome.
Mr. Richardson. I was quoting from the chairwoman about the
new space-age needs, new rules, which is a demonstration, I
think, that the Commission unanimously recognizes that we are
in a new era with satellite, particularly NGSO satellites. And
we need to look at ways to streamline things. So we very much
appreciate the efforts of this subcommittee.
Ms. Eshoo. But what are the steps?
Mr. Richardson. The steps would be----
Ms. Eshoo. I know the rest.
Mr. Richardson. OK.
Ms. Eshoo. I know the rest, but what are the steps?
Mr. Richardson. The steps would be to simplify the
application process so that we don't have miscommunication with
the applicant about what the FCC needs, establish the ground
rules for things like how to measure interference, how to
permit sharing, because in many of these bands there isn't
exclusive spectrum. They all need to share it. These are things
that the Commission has teed up for industry and public
comment, so we are--we need to address those.
Ms. Eshoo. I think we're going to--at this subcommittee,
need to track that because it's important. Otherwise, it sounds
good on paper but doesn't really effectuate where we--on land
and what we want to accomplish.
In your written testimony, you pointed out that the Secure
Space Act does not include a specific grant of rulemaking
authority to the FCC to implement it. Now, the FCC recently
adopted rules regarding my Secure Equipment Act, which
prevented the FCC from issuing licenses to telecommunication
companies that pose a national security risk to our country,
like Huawei and CTE. We are obviously not very fond--how
important is that rulemaking authority to the success of the
policy, and what can the FCC do or not do if you don't have it?
Mr. Richardson. I'm glad you asked that question. I think
that I want to emphasize that we don't--as I think I've
indicated before, we don't--we have broad authority already
under title III of the Communications Act. It's a matter of an
administrative convenience, I think, if we had rulemaking
authority as we did under the Secure Equipment Act. It's not
necessary.
Ms. Eshoo. So you have what you need?
Mr. Richardson. We do.
Ms. Eshoo. Good. Excellent. You've mentioned the MOU
several times since I came into the hearing room. What exactly
is in it? What's new that's in it?
Mr. Glass. Thank you. So with the existing success of the
MOU, the framework was targeted for improvements and additions.
It reaffirms and emphasizes respective roles of the FCC and
NTIA as the agencies responsible for managing spectrum in the
U.S.
Ms. Eshoo. Sir, I don't know what you are talking about.
You need to break it down into something that's understandable.
You are reading something, but it doesn't make sense to me.
Mr. Glass. I----
Ms. Eshoo. What's new that's in it?
Mr. Glass. We have improved processes for coordination to
allow us to better communicate with the FCC and----
Ms. Eshoo. But what is that? What does that mean?
Mr. Glass. I will have to get back with your staff on an
answer for that.
Ms. Eshoo. But is it speaking a better language? I mean,
what is it? We are all for getting along with each other, but
this is something that--it seems to me it's something beyond
what you just said. At least I hope it is, because that
doesn't--that kind of sounds like--law. I don't know. I don't
understand it. Maybe others do. I don't.
Mr. Richardson. One thing I think----
Ms. Eshoo. Maybe the MOU is important.
Mr. Richardson. We agree. I think one thing, as I recall,
that it does is it focuses on making sure that each party has
adequate time to review the proposals for use of spectrum by
the other party.
Ms. Eshoo. Can you get back to me on this----
Mr. Richardson. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Here? Thank you. Yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas' 14th for 5
minutes.
Mr. Weber. Think of it as sweet 14. Anyway--two can play
that game.
Mr. Latta. You are making fun of me.
Mr. Weber. Oh, no, no. It's all--it's all good. It's all
good. Texas is the sweet spot of the United States, if you all
can't tell that I'm a Texan.
Mr. Glass, I want to go to you. In your description of your
all's roles, you have, one, you're a principal advisor to the
POTUS, the President of the United States, number two, you
manage Federal frequency of spectrum, and you have a key goal,
and that is to advance U.S. leadership. Witnessing the recent
balloon foray across United States of America and things of
that nature, it really brings up an interesting question to me.
You manage the spectrum. FCC manages the spectrum. Is that
right, Mr. Richardson?
Mr. Richardson. For nonfederal users.
Mr. Weber. For nonfederal users. And that's exactly my
point here, is that you talk about things. There is an--
actually a table here, and you all probably don't know the
frequency numbers about VHF being 30 to 300 megahertz and the
UHF being 300 to a thousand megahertz. Are you all that
technical about it?
Mr. Glass. I understand that.
Mr. Weber. You understand that?
Mr. Richardson. Yes.
Mr. Weber. OK. Well, what megahertz would you rather apply
for? I'm just messing with you. That's OK. The point I'm making
is this. But you have the International Telecommunication Union
which we--you say we discussed our guy elected to. But you've
got bad actors out there. You've got China, and you've got a
whole bunch of them that would rather do things and radio--
against our best interests. In radio frequencies, power wattage
means a lot when you're--when you're broadcasting your signals.
You all follow me? The amount of wattage that you use. What
is to prevent China from overbroadcasting us in wattage on any
of these frequencies? Mr. Glass, I'll start with you.
Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. Unfortunately, you
are getting into policy issues with respect to that that I'm
unable to comment on, and we would have to get back with you on
an answer on that.
Mr. Weber. Is you all's--you manage Federal agency
spectrum, so surely a Federal agency that would be in harm's
way where a foreign country could overpower their frequency--
surely that would fall within your purview?
Mr. Glass. We have a process for identifying and trying to
address interference both domestically and internationally.
That process is very detailed, and that is something that we
could get back with you on.
Mr. Weber. Is that something that's handled by the No Such
Agency, NSA?
Mr. Glass. I would not know to be able to answer that
question.
Mr. Weber. OK. Mr. Richardson, you----
Mr. Richardson. With respect to commercial spectrum, there
is a staff at the FCC that monitors use of frequencies. I mean,
broadcasting, for example, they couldn't make it from China to
here. It wouldn't--it wouldn't work. You are talking about
satellite?
Mr. Weber. Well, it depends on the positioning of the
satellite.
Mr. Richardson. Yes. You are talking about satellite.
Mr. Weber. Correct.
Mr. Richardson. That--we monitor the use of spectrum in the
United States and obviously do----
Mr. Weber. So let me----
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. Refer to some of these other--
those other agencies you mentioned.
Mr. Weber. If I can interrupt. Company ABC
Telecommunications, whoever that is, suddenly somebody is
dispossessing their signal so that they can no longer use that
signal because they are overriding them with the higher wattage
available to displace that signal. Do they come to you, or do
they come to Mr. Glass?
Mr. Richardson. Well, I can give you an example when I was
in private practice. We had a problem in the Los Angeles--our
client, ABC, was being overrun by a station from Mexico. We
came to the FCC and they addressed the problem with their
Mexican counterparts.
Mr. Weber. And so Mexican is a friendly--Mexico is a
friendly country. So that would fly in that instance. It
probably wouldn't fly to an unfriendly nation?
Mr. Richardson. I don't know that that situation has ever
occurred, but I----
Mr. Weber. It's going to occur. You are going to have our
enemies try to displace our capability of satellite signals.
Mr. Richardson. I think if I could get back to you on the
ways that we might address that problem----
Mr. Weber. If you don't mind, that would be great. I'll
just reserve that. You all get--reach back out to our office.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
of his time, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia's 12th District for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. You got that correct. Thank you, Chair Latta.
Thank our witnesses for being here today. Yes. This is a
critical time in our Nation's communication systems, a lot of
high-tech advancements that we--that we talked about today. You
know, Congress is trying to keep up with innovation across all
areas of technology. Of course, you know, China is--you know,
we are in constant competition there and for Federal agencies
like the ones before us today have got to be nimble enough to
address the multitude of needs. And we certainly have our work
cut out for us in Congress. That's where I've been so pleased
with the rate at which the committee has begun its work here
over this past 3 weeks. Energy and Commerce Committee
participated in six hearings, two roundtables, six briefings
and one markup, with another markup scheduled for tomorrow. So
we are--we are out of the gate very quickly. And that's why the
American people send us here.
Mr. Richardson, let's talk about the Secure Space Act. Does
your agency ever receive applications from the types of
entities which this bill has jurisdiction over?
Mr. Richardson. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Allen. OK. And----
Mr. Richardson. Oh, you are talking about satellite
applications?
Mr. Allen. Yes.
Mr. Richardson. Yes. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Allen. And what would be the impact if one of those
applications was somehow prohibited?
Mr. Richardson. Well, I guess the question the bill
addresses is the potential threat to national security from
having equipment of that type in a position to communicate over
U.S. territory. And that would be a problem that I think, as is
currently the case, these kinds of applications would be ones
that--for satellite services, just like for international
common carrier services or cable landing licenses, all of these
kinds of applications, we would be in a position to refer them
under our established policy since 1977--1997, excuse me--to
refer them to Team Telecom for their recommendations about
national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade
policy concerns. And we have--the example I mentioned before of
Chinese Government-owned international 214 applications for
common carrier service in the United States, which were
revoked, the--our Federal partners provided key recommendations
on those.
Mr. Allen. Good. Thank you. This is a question for both of
you. Obviously, I'm in a--well, a big part of my district is
rural. And of course we had issues with both broadband. Of
course, we use a lot of that in agriculture. And what
initiatives do you see that we need to implement to make sure
that we get satellite coverage, what we need as far as
technology to rural areas in this country?
Mr. Richardson. Well, I can start. I think the draft bill
on precision agriculture is an important indication of the
importance of satellite to addressing those particular needs of
farmers and ranchers. And as I mentioned earlier, we have
commissioned together with USDA a task force that has come up
with some recommendations for how to make use of spectrum,
including satellite, in deploying for these precision
agriculture purposes.
And that's one. I think the other is the promise of
satellite broadband to cover areas that it makes no economic
sense for terrestrial folks to cover. And then the other very
intriguing idea of one of the other bills is, can we use
satellite to fill in in areas where, because of disasters or
other reasons, whether in rural areas or not, we need a better
ability to communicate with 911 or send out emergency alerts.
And that's a very interesting combination of terrestrial and
satellite, if you will.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Glass, I apologize. I'm out of time, so I
have to yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's 12th District
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my fellow Ohioan.
Thank you both for being here today. And I'd like to first go
with Mr. Richardson. Satellites and cellular presents a great
opportunity to fill in coverage gaps across the Nation. In
rural Ohio, in Appalachia specifically, these coverage gaps are
more pronounced and have a profound impact on the ability of my
constituents to connect with their friends, family, and
coworkers.
My question: Mr. Richardson, can you briefly explain the
process satellite companies need to go through to receive
authorization from the FCC to use satellite technologies to
provide cellular services?
Mr. Richardson. By ``cellular services,'' you mean fill=in
service where----
Mr. Balderson. Yes.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. Where there is no cellular
terrestrial service?
Mr. Balderson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Richardson. This is something that, as I said, is a new
concept that our technical experts are looking at in the
context of a couple of applications that have been filed to do
just this. And they do raise some technical issues about the
way those could be coordinated, and we are looking at that
right now.
Mr. Balderson. OK. You mentioned in your testimony that the
Commission has already taken several steps to modernize the
application approval process. Can you elaborate on that and
expand on what the SAT Streamlining Act would do to complement
those efforts?
Mr. Richardson. Sure. That's a good question. And I--when I
said we have taken several steps, the Commission takes steps
first by issuing notices of proposed rulemaking because the law
requires that. And the purpose of that is to make sure that we
are informed by the industry and members of the interested
public about what the right steps would be. So we've teed up
steps that are very similar to the steps in this bill. They are
how can we make the application forms simpler? Can we do that
by establishing ground rules for what kinds of measures we take
for harmful interference and sharing of spectrum? Can we
address other issues or we'll agree is an example of them that,
right now, applicants receive their grants of applications
conditioned on the outcome of orbital debris proceedings.
So those are the steps, I think, that would help. And
again, we agreed with the subcommittee's draft bill that these
are things that would help promote more expedited satellite
service, and that's why we're--we launched these various
rulemakings to kind of bring them home to do that kind of
thing.
Mr. Balderson. OK.
Mr. Richardson. I should say, too, that--I think I said in
my written testimony this is--when I was in private practice, I
loved getting my applications granted as quickly as possible.
And the Commission generally helped me out with that. But the
process for public participation is one that ensures that we
balance the need for expedition with ensuring that our main
mission--one of our main missions that we don't pose any
harmful interference to other licensees or potential licensees.
And so we have to balance those two together.
Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you. My last question: What
technical considerations, be it spectrum or usage of other
issues, does the Commission consider when deciding whether to
authorize satellite to cellular service, and would it be
helpful for Congress to spell out what technical considerations
the Commission should be considering?
Mr. Richardson. I think this comes up in the ALERT Parity
Bill before you. And I believe that it would make sense for our
technical experts in the public safety field--because this
deals with 911 and EAS in the engineering field because of the
potential, you know, coordination needs and in the licensing
field because the question is, you know, how do you issue
licenses to do this--that they would be happy to give you some
technical assistance in some of the issues that these new forms
of--these partnerships, you know, pose.
Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
of his time. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas'
11th District for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank
the witnesses for being here to discuss some of these. I know a
lot of questions have been asked. And there's, you know, a lot
of details discussed. I kind of want to go more broadly. And
I'll open it up to both of you here.
When it comes to the policies that we have, how we are
competing with, let's say, China? Let's call this, I think,
what it is. And the policies we have on issuing the appropriate
permits and licenses to do--you know, my district, we've got a
lot of agriculture. Very interested in the precision
agriculture when it comes to the cotton industry, being able to
utilize technology that exists, you know, whether it's the
planting or the fertilization or any of the other--any of the
other new things that are going to be available.
But also more broadly, when it comes to national security
issues that we have of communications and how we get through
this process at the speed of relevancy, what are the major
hang-ups for speed of relevancy right now? We'll just--if you
guys can give me a minute each, and then we can go to the next
question.
Mr. Richardson. OK. What I think on the precision
agriculture, the work of our task force is referred to in the
bill, and we appreciate the support for bringing that to
closure. I think it was one of the comments we heard earlier.
On the national security issues, I think we do need to maintain
our position in the global economy with our satellite industry
to make sure that it's as streamlined as possible. And that's
what we are working to do.
Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Glass?
Mr. Glass. So we work very carefully through our
coordination process to ensure we continue our leadership and
development of advanced technologies. But beyond that, I think
your question gets into policy issues that I'm unable to
answer, and we would have to get back with you----
Mr. Pfluger. I mean, do you have an opinion on----
Mr. Glass. I do not have an opinion.
Mr. Pfluger. You know, let's consider a couple of things.
And let me just, you know, open back up. I mean, where in the
energy space when it comes to production of energy do we need
to be focused, and do we need to be looking at these
capabilities to enhance the production, to enhance, you know,
the overall efficiencies?
I mean, where can we go in the energy industry to use
satellite technology to help, you know, whether it's
accomplishing all the goals that we went to accomplish with
taking care of our Earth and making sure that we have efficient
energy specifically in the Permian Basin for the production of
oil and gas. Can you talk to that?
Mr. Glass. Thank you. That, unfortunately, is outside my
area of expertise, so I would be unable to give you an answer
today. But, however, our staff can get back with you on an
answer.
Mr. Richardson. I think you are identifying one of the
important potential uses of satellite, which is to cover broad
swaths of territory in identifying things that the energy
industry can use. I think there are specific kinds of licenses
that have been issued by the FCC for that purpose, and I'd be
happy to get back to you about the uses of the satellite
spectrum to facilitate the work in the industry.
Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Glass, let's talk about the nonfederal use
of spectrum bands. You know, we are talking about the
increasing leadership in the private sector, the dual-use
technologies. Do you believe NTIA and other Federal agencies
need to enhance their relationships with the private sector?
Mr. Glass. Thank you very much for that question. We are
always striving to enhance our communication and our ability to
coordinate with both the FCC and private industry to increase
efficiencies and to be able to maximize spectrum use by
commercial sector.
Mr. Pfluger. Do you think we are doing enough?
Mr. Glass. I----
Mr. Pfluger. Are we operating at the speed of relevancy on
those relationships with the private sector?
Mr. Glass. Thank you for that. We are always striving to
improve because there is always room for improvement.
Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Richardson, any thoughts on that?
Mr. Richardson. On the ability of the private industry to
work with the Federal Government agencies, is that--is that----
Mr. Pfluger. That's right.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. The question? I--obviously,
the FCC promotes those relationships. And I would concur that I
think we have done a pretty good job of making sure that
Federal Government users and commercial users can meet eye to
eye.
Mr. Pfluger. OK. We have some questions we'll submit
afterwards, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the
Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida's Third
District for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our two
witnesses for this first panel for appearing before--I'll just
follow up on my colleague from the great State of Texas, his
commentary about striving to improve. Mr. Glass, you said we
are, quote, ``always striving to improve.'' By what metrics are
you tracking that type of progress?
Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. I am not aware of
specific metrics for tracking that. We are, however, through
our MOU with the FCC constantly looking to improve our
processes and communication, improving our processes in being
able to facilitate access to spectrum by the commercial sector.
And that is done in the MOU that we currently have by setting
specific timelines for communication of all parties so that we
can streamline that process.
Mrs. Cammack. So without specific metrics, the only
tangible way that you can measure progress is by communication
timelines?
Mr. Glass. I am unaware of any specific metrics. There may
be--and we can get back to your office with that answer.
Mrs. Cammack. OK. That would be very, very helpful.
Mr. Richardson, how should changes like the improvements in
the Streaming Act be developed to ensure that the FCC can
maintain a flexible position not only to address the issues
that are within the licensing space today but also those in the
future without impeding innovation within the industry? And I'm
sure you have some personal expertise that you can speak to
before your time here--FCC.
Mr. Richardson. Well, I think the history of regulation at
the FCC, if you follow a timeline, has been to be increasingly
aware and addressing the question of is--when is regulation
needed, and when is it not needed? I think that's something
that's always at the forefront and people may have
disagreements about.
Mrs. Cammack. Not in Washington!
Mr. Richardson. Right. But I think the Commission is well-
attuned, again, through its rulemaking processes because it
hears a lot about this from all sides about how much regulation
is too much and how much is too little.
Mrs. Cammack. So in your personal capacity as someone who
worked to help expedite applications et cetera----
Mr. Richardson. Oh.
Mrs. Cammack [continuing]. What regulatory burdens are at
this point in time unnecessary that we in this body should
address to potentially take off the books.
Mr. Richardson. I can't identify particular regulations. I
think one of the things that we've been working on with respect
to satellite applications and this bill also addresses is, are
there ways that we can simplify our forms. From my experience
example is, when I first started private practice in 1977--I'm
ashamed to say it was a long time ago--we had renewal
applications that were like this. [Indicates thick document.]
And they were reduced to a postcard.
And that was in broadcasting. It was a little different.
This is more complicated. So the technical showings,
engineering showings for satellite applications on Schedule S,
I think it is, are more fulsome. But one of the things we
strive for is sort of a can we simplify them so that we--the
processors can say, ``Yes, got that, yes, got that,'' you know,
and move on down. And that's one of the goals of this
rulemaking.
Mrs. Cammack. Do you think that the current legislation
addresses ways that the FCC and satellite companies can
coordinate on the technological advancements that are being
made? Is there an element that we need to address that can help
facilitate those changes in rapidly changing environments?
Mr. Richardson. Well, it does. This legislation does
address those, as do our rulemaking proposals, because they try
to hit all of the subjects as well. In other words, how do we
make the application simpler, avoid confusion? How do we
establish ground rules in advance for interference and sharing?
How does the processing round system work? These are things
that both these bills address and the FCC addresses. And we
are--this is a rulemaking that just went out in December. So
the comments from industry and the public on how best to do
this are due--comments March 3rd, reply comments April 3rd. So
we are looking forward to seeing whether we can get
recommendations and suggestions that we can finalize into new
rules for the new space age, you know?
Mrs. Cammack. I appreciate it. My time is expired. I yield,
Mr. Chair.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired,
and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's
23rd District for 5 minutes.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to both our
witnesses. I have enjoyed the hearing. Mr. Richardson, you had
highlighted in your testimony you need to develop effective
processes for the sharing of spectrum. And you mentioned that
it's particularly important that the satellite spectrum that is
not dedicated to one user that is intended to be shared with
new, different users. I know that you've had some experience in
your career with the question of what constitutes harmful
interference and how that can be mitigated. Can you talk a bit
more about that?
Mr. Richardson. Yes. It's a very good question that has
eluded me for many years as to what--because the challenge
about harmful interference is it depends on the context.
Depends on what spectrum you are using, how far away it is
geographically, how far away it is in spectrum terms. Is it
adjacent? Is it cochannel? That kind of thing. And the path--
and in satellite, I am not an engineer, so all I know is it's
extremely complicated, and I always relied on the engineering
professionals to sign the applications.
So I'm a little bit at loss to talk about the nature of
harmful interference. But we have a definition in our rules of
harmful interference. And it's--I think, one of the benefits of
this pending rulemaking is that it lays out there in the
satellite context specific alternative ways of measuring it.
And we haven't decided which is the best way. We are seeking
comment on that. But it's an effort, I think, to get to your
question, which is what exactly is harmful interference in this
particular context.
Mr. Obernolte. Sure. So--and I know you mentioned to
Congressman Carter in his question that you were developing
guidelines on the issue. Let me ask a followup question about
that. With this interesting situation there, the established
companies are developing more and more sophisticated methods of
eliminating interference. So this creates a reverse incentive
when we sit down at the negotiating table to figure out what
interference is considered harmful that the new entrants, the
lack of this more sophisticated technology might have a
different standard for what constitutes harmful interference, a
lower standard than the companies that do have better
technology for limiting interference.
So how can we level the playing field when we are dealing
with such complicated issues as that?
Mr. Richardson. I would like, if I can, to ask our
engineers about that question and get back to you.
Mr. Obernolte. OK. But you understand the point, though,
right? It's--when a company says, ``You are interfering with
me'' and the other company says, ``Well, your technology just
isn't good enough. You should be able to eliminate that
interference,'' you know, that's a tough issue for the
government to deal with.
Mr. Richardson. Right. It's a good question. I would like
to get back to you on----
Mr. Obernolte. OK.
Mr. Richardson [continuing]. On that.
Mr. Obernolte. We look----
Mr. Richardson. Yes.
Mr. Obernolte [continuing]. Forward to that. Mr. Glass, I
know that the NTIA has done some work on this, and we have a
laboratory for telecommunication science in Boulder that
actually is dedicated to, among other things, measuring
interfering and not identifying what exactly constitutes
harmful interference. Can you talk a little bit about the
virtual laboratory and where NTIA is on that subject?
Mr. Glass. Thank you very much for that question. Yes. We
do believe that it's important to address that issue up front
rather than after the fact. So we have processes in place
specifically through our memorandum of understanding with the
FCC, which now emphasizes the importance of evidence-based
spectrum policymaking, the engineering collaboration to go
behind and make sure that we are addressing the systems which
have a reliance on data, the analyses and the engineering best
practices to make sure that we address any potential
interference before it occurs.
Mr. Obernolte. Yes. It would be interesting, actually, to
go down and take a tour of that lab. I'm sure I'd be interested
in--scare up some other participants here. So NTIA has the
often conflicting goals of, at the same time, trying to protect
spectrum from the people who paid for access to it. And then
also the mission of encouraging competition in the sector when
the spectrum is shared, can you talk a little bit about how
those two ideas are intentioned and how the NTIA navigates
promoting those two--those two conflicting goals
simultaneously?
Mr. Glass. Thank you. I'm not sure that the two goals are
conflicting. We work to make sure that we maximize efficiency
of the Federal use. We work very carefully with the FCC and
industry to maximize their access to that spectrum. We are
currently working on an enduring pipeline to enable spectrum
access for commercial systems. And it is good best practices to
make sure that that efficiency enables us to operate in an
environment where there is no interference.
Mr. Obernolte. How do you navigate the international
complexities of the--I mean, obviously we're just one country,
and although we try to be the leader in this space, we have to
convince other countries to adopt our way of thinking. Can you
talk about the way that that task is--complicates--those rules?
Mr. Glass. Well, it gets back to having U.S. leadership on
satellite systems in--internationally. And as long as we
maintain that, we are able to follow the standard practices of
registration coordination in bringing into use of satellites,
which would put us in a priority position to other players and
enable them to coordinate with us rather than us coordinating
with them on such use.
Mr. Obernolte. Sure. And what are the things that might--
that might jeopardize our leadership in this space?
Mr. Glass. I would not be able to comment specifically on
that issue. That's something I would have to get back to your
office on.
Mr. Obernolte. I look forward to it. Thank you very much to
both of you. I would yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's Sixth District for 5
minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I really
appreciate the opportunity to waive on today to talk about this
really very important issue. I'm proud to be sponsoring the
ALERT Parity Act with my colleague Kim Schrier. As you've
heard, this bill would require the FCC to issue rules within 18
months of enactment to establish an application process granted
and in seeking to provide wireless emergency alerts to 911
service in unserved areas. I have got a lot of those unserved
areas. It also requires the FCC to establish service rules
whereby providers of emergency connectivity service may access
spectrum held by a licensee so long as it does not cause
interference to the licensee.
And we just heard from my colleague, Mr. Obernolte, that
interference is a--is a really problematic thing too. We have
got to get to the bottom of that. But first and foremost,
enabling 911 calls and texts and emergency alerts in remote and
unserved areas is not only common sense. It's a lifesaving
necessity.
Every person deserves access to emergency assistance,
period, no matter where they live in the United States. As you
know, this bill is very narrow in scope. It would only enable
emergency service providers to connect to individuals' phones
where there is no cellular service, either due to an outage or
because there is not a mobile carrier providing service in that
area. To many of us, it's frustrating if we lose cell service
temporarily. It's unfathomable for the many to understand that
there remains in America remote areas that still lack reliable
cellular service, as there is now technology that will enable
distressed Ohioans in rural Appalachia lacking mobile cell
service to reach emergency assistance. I believe we have a
responsibility to make it happen to ensure American innovation
can serve our communities that are otherwise not connected.
Thank you, Chairman Latta, for including my discussion draft in
today's legislative hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for
your insight on all these very important satellite
communications bills.
So Mr. Richardson, I'm going to go to you first. As I
mentioned, one of the intended requirements in my legislation,
the ALERT Parity Act, is that emergency service providers may
only use spectrum if it does not cause interference for your
licensee of that spectrum--for the licensee of that spectrum.
In your opinion, what kind of coordination will be required to
ensure noninterference?
Mr. Richardson. That's a very good question, and I think I
should start out by saying that the Commission very much shares
your goal of ensuring that everybody everywhere has access to
911 emergency alerts, that kind of thing. I think that--and
that--and that satellite can be a major contributor to this. To
respond to your question about coordination and interference,
these are some questions that our engineers are looking at now
with respect to some specific proposals that we have. But I
should note that the proposals we have right now----
Mr. Johnson. Well, I'm a computer scientist myself, and it
seems to me that this is a matter of the engineers that are
overseeing the various technologies sit around the table. They
are probably the right ones to figure this out among the
different agencies and among the different licensees and users.
Mr. Richardson. Right. Generally, the FCC, in terms of
frequency coordination, very much relies on the different users
to try to coordinate their use of spectrum. And one way that
that's being done in this set of applications we have before us
now is through a kind of partnership between one terrestrial
and one--so that they are working in tandem with each other.
Mr. Johnson. The point I was trying to make there is
probably not political appointees and bureaucrats that are
sitting around the table that don't understand the technology
that need to coordinate and collaborate on the interference
issue.
Let me ask you another question: Does the FCC have the
personnel and technical resources necessary to handle an
increase in satellite licenses?
Mr. Richardson. We have recently increased by 38 percent
the staff. I think we can always do better with more staff. I'm
not here to--I'm not here--authorized to ask you for that, so--
--
Mr. Johnson. In some cases, more is always better, but I
don't--I don't know that that's the case in the government
work. So----
Mr. Richardson. Well, one of the----
Mr. Johnson. Yes or no? Do you have enough people to handle
increased licenses or not?
Mr. Richardson. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Johnson. Can you get it back to----
Mr. Richardson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Richardson. Could I--could I just----
Mr. Johnson. I yield back. Thanks for having us. It's up to
the chairman if he'll indulge.
Mr. Latta. Go right ahead, please.
Mr. Richardson. Thank you. I just wanted to ask--answer one
thing which was--which referred to last week and by some of the
questions this week. It's not just a matter of how many, but
the expertise of the satellite engineers is very important.
Mr. Johnson. Oh, absolutely. Yes. Thank you. I yield back,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
of the time. Well, seeing no other Members wishing to ask
questions of this panel, again, I want to thank our witnesses
for being with us today. Without objection, the committee--
subcommittee will now briefly recess to switch out the latest
panels, for the second panel. So the subcommittee will stand in
recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Latta. The Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology will come to order, and again, I'd like to first
thank all of our witnesses for being with us today, and again,
I just want to explain we have two subcommittees jointly
meeting downstairs, and some Members will be coming back up
again here in a very short period of time. But I really
appreciate you all coming up today to testify and for your
patience on the second panel.
And as we've heard from before that we have--you each have
5 minutes for questions--or for your opening statement, which
will then be followed by questions. And so our second witness
panel for today's hearing will include Mr. Dave Goldman, senior
director of satellite policy at SpaceX; Mr. Peter Davidson,
vice president of global government affairs and policy at
Intelsat; Ms. Whitney Lohmeyer, professor of engineering at
Olin College of engineering; Ms. Danielle Pineres, vice
president of regulatory affairs and compliance at Planet Labs.
And at this time, Mr. Goldman, you are recognized for 5
minutes. And again--but before--I'll just explain the lights
again. You'll see that it will be green. One minute, it goes
yellow. And then it will start flashing red at 5 minutes.
So Ms. Lohmeyer, you are recognized for 5 minutes, and
thanks again for your testimony.
STATEMENTS OF WHITNEY Q. LOHMEYER, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF
ENGINEERING, OLIN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING; PETER DAVIDSON, VICE
PRESIDENT OF GLOBAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS & POLICY, INTELSAT;
DAVID GOLDMAN, SENIOR DIRECTOR, SATELLITE POLICY, SPACEX; AND
DANIELLE PINERES, VICE PRESIDENT OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS &
COMPLIANCE, PLANET LABS
STATEMENT OF WHITNEY O. LOHMEYER, Ph.D.
Dr. Lohmeyer. Thank you, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member
Matsui, and distinguished members of the committee. I am
Whitney Lohmeyer, and I hope that sharing my experiences in the
satellite industry will help Congress better define clear rules
and policies for spectrum. I hope that these rules will also
foster innovation, maintain U.S. leadership, and safeguard the
people in this Nation.
While pursuing my Ph.D. at MIT, I was hired as one first
Web--I was hired as one of One Web's first employees. I served
on the U.S. delegation to the ITU's World Radio Conference in
2015. I traveled to Shanghai to coordinate our spectrum with
Chinese operators, and I coauthored One Web's U.S. market
access application, which initiated the first FCC processing
round of the last 6 or 7 years.
Later, I joined the faculty at Olin College, where I direct
Olin Satellite and Spectrum Technology and Policy Group, OSSTP,
and I am a PI on NSF's $25 million Spectrum Act's research
center. In a consulting hat, I have drafted and managed eight
full Part 25 FCC commercial licenses and also more than 10
experimental licenses.
The FCC adopted processing rounds in 2003 to authorize
systems more efficiently. Today's FCC inherited this framework
that unfortunately incentivizes or can incentivize systems to
file prematurely and to overfile.
So an operator can modify its authorization as long as the
interference environment is not increased from what it
initially proposed. Operators are starting to file for every
orbit that they could conceive of launching in order to ensure
flexibility with the intent to decrease the number of
satellites down the road. This has resulted in applications of
thousands of satellites per network that are challenging for
the Commission to validate and impossible--nearly impossible,
I'd say--to assess interference.
My research group, OSSTP, found that it took an average of
2 years for the FCC to authorize first processing round
applicants, which increased to 3 years in the second round. In
the May 2020 round, less than a third have received
authorization. And in this last round, all remain under review.
When a round is initiated, applicants have 4 months to file,
creating a scramble, especially for those who have not fully
defined their systems. They are unable to submit full, complete
orbital debris or interference showings, which leads to back-
and-forth inquiries at the FCC and delays authorization. OSSTP
petitioned the FCC, which aligned with the SAT Streaming Act
we're talking about today to mandate a 1-year shot clock for
NGSO applications, which would offer regulatory certainty,
particularly given the Commission's milestones in surety bond
requirements.
Systems have to launch and operate half of their
constellation within 6 years of grant and their full
constellation within 9. They are also required to post a $5
million surety bond within 30 days of grant. This is
particularly challenging for companies like startups, and they
are struggling to plan for the financial and technical
buildouts of their system.
A mandated shot clock would provide clarity and reduce
perceived risks for investors. And applicants could, of course,
seek waivers should 1 year not be appropriate. NGSOs also
include services beyond FSS and MSS which may first come to
mind. These services offer weather monitoring and Earth
imaging, navigation and orbit--in-orbit servicing. They can be
critical in times of emergency as well as in natural disasters
and can be deployed for precision farming. And another
important stakeholder is launch vehicle suppliers, who have
established an impressive weekly launch cadence. All of these
stakeholders have spectrum needs and need a seat at the table
when we consider the regulations at hand. I applaud the FCC
under Chairwoman Rosenworcel for establishing the Space Bureau,
and I hope that Congress will provide the SEC with adequate
resources, including funding to expeditiously and support--
expeditiously grant--I'm sorry--expeditiously support this new
bureau.
The increasingly long wait times for authorizations and the
lack of clarity in the licensing process is concerning to our
vibrant investor community and is causing our talented
ecosystem of entrepreneurs that our Nation has intentionally
grown to consider filing and operating overseas. This wave of
investment in energy and the satellite sector is awe inspiring,
and we must ensure the SEC is not a bottleneck in this historic
period of time. It's encouraging to see the committee's
attention on our complicated and dynamic industry, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lohmeyer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your testimony, and Mr.
Davidson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PETER DAVIDSON
Mr. Davidson. Great. Well, Chairman Latta and Ranking
Member Matsui, thank you so much. And other distinguished
members of the committee here today. Mr. Joyce. Thank you so
much for inviting me to testify here today. I want to start by
applauding the subcommittee for focusing the first two hearings
of this Congress on the space sector. These are timely hearings
reflecting the urgency of rationalizing the legal and
regulatory frameworks given the blazing speed of technological
development in the space industry.
I am proud to be testifying before this subcommittee today
representing a company that's played a pivotal role in the
space industry for over five decades. Our rich history starts
with President John F. Kennedy signing the 1962 Communication
Satellite Act creating Intelsat. In 1965, we launched the Early
Bird Satellite, the first commercial satellite in the world.
And we broadcast Neil Young--Neil Young, we did broadcast the
Beatles--and we broadcast Neil Armstrong walking on the moon.
And then more recently, in 2020 we completed the first in-
orbit successful life extension of a satellite. Intelsat has
led innovation in the space industry and has been a good
steward of the space environment for over 50 years, and we
continue to be at the forefront of satellite technology today.
So part of our responsibility as an industry leader is to
promote investment in innovation while ensuring space
sustainability. While about 4,000 satellites have been launched
in the last 10 years, there are estimates that almost quadruple
that number will be launched in the next decade. And I think we
even heard higher numbers today to that.
So it's--so threading the needle between investment,
innovation, and space sustainability is perhaps the most
critical task facing U.S. and international policymakers today.
Intelsat applauds the Energy and Commerce Committee members and
the staff for initiating policy discussions on streamlining the
FCC application process, equitable access to spectrum,
advancing space sustainability, and ensuring rural connectivity
and emergency communications. And in particular, we support the
SAT Act goals of modernizing the processing round system,
expediting the FCC application process, addressing
sustainability by incorporating specific orbital debris
measures, and setting clear guidelines for technical
compatibility among the various satellite systems.
These changes will promote competition and innovation in
space. As the SAT Act moves through the legislative process,
Intelsat believe it's important to ensure that the legislation
will encourage industrywide competition, investment in
innovation and not put a finger on the scale for any one
business model. We believe all the orbits will be
increasingly--be working together in integrated networks to
deliver products and services, so U.S. and international
policies should support the health of all orbits. We also
support the implementation of information-sharing guidelines
among stakeholders as an important aspect of space
sustainability in an increasingly crowded environment.
While it is not directly addressed in the bills being
considered today, you heard last week about the importance of
spectrum to the satellite industry. Spectrum is the foundation
of the space economy. The continued erosion of spectrum
allocated to satellite services will significantly impede the
ability of the U.S. to lead in this sector. We need to reverse
this trend.
Advances in information technology and communications
continue to spur economic growth around the world, but they
also highlight a growing access disparity between the haves and
the have-nots. As many of you have seen in your districts,
there is a significant divide between well-connected urban
centers and off-the-grid rural areas. Satellite is the only
technology today that can provide truly global coverage.
At Intelsat, our 56 satellites cover 99 percent of the
Earth's populated regions. If we are going to connect consumers
in hard-to-reach areas, we need to adopt smart regulatory
policies and streamline access for satellite operators,
allocate spectrum efficiently, and manage space resources
wisely.
I have addressed Intelsat's support for the goals of the
other four bills in written testimony, and I look forward to
discussing these in the question-and-answer segment. But in
conclusion, I'd like to reiterate four point Number one,
continued access to spectrum with regulatory certainty is the
cornerstone for a vibrant U.S. space economy. Number two, space
sustainability is fundamental to ensuring the continued growth
of the space economy. Number three, maximizing the efficient
use of spectrum in space can only be achieved through a
regulatory framework that requires transparency and
information-sharing among industry operators. And number four,
satellites are an excellent solution for broadband connectivity
in hard-to-serve areas and in disaster preparedness and
response.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Goldman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID GOLDMAN
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member
Matsui, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today about the importance of
maintaining U.S. leadership in satellite communications
technology. My name is David Goldman, and on behalf of my
11,000 colleagues at SpaceX, I want to thank the subcommittee
for its focus on modernizing and improving the regulatory
system for satellite authorizations.
I am the senior director for satellite policy at SpaceX. In
this role, I serve as the lead for regulatory matters at
SpaceX's global--for global--SpaceX's global satellite
constellation. But prior to joining SpaceX, I had the great
honor of serving as chief counsel for this subcommittee under
Ranking Member Pallone.
Being back in this hearing room reminds me of all the
bipartisan bills this subcommittee passed while I was here that
helped ensure that more Americans are connected. I'm excited to
be here once again to work with the subcommittee on another
collection of important bipartisan bills. We are here at a
critical moment in the global race to provide high-speed
internet with low-Earth-orbit satellite networks. Doing so is
needed to ensure continued U.S. leadership in space technology
and telecommunications more broadly.
As the world's leading launch provider, SpaceX is proud to
build, launch, and operate all of our space systems in the
United States. In 2016, SpaceX filed at the FCC to become a
U.S. operator of a global low-Earth-orbit satellite
constellation that we had yet to name.
Since then, Starlink Generations 1 and 2 have been licensed
and SpaceX has launched nearly 4,000 satellites to orbit
providing high-speed, low-latency internet to every corner of
the world. To get Starlink to orbit, we now launch our Falcon 9
rocket, on average, every 4 days in unmatched flight cadence.
Just a few short years since being licensed, SpaceX has
launched one of the largest infrastructure projects in space.
We now provide high-speed internet access to more than a
million households, with thousands more added every week. We
serve those in urban, suburban, rural and Tribal communities,
most of whom have never had access to broadband before.
Starlink has also demonstrated high value when terrestrial
services are disrupted, either by natural disaster or conflict.
And Starlink's capability to support emergency communications
will only be enhanced with our direct-to-cell service, which
will save lives by eliminating cell dead zones.
That SpaceX has moved rapidly is not incidental. SpaceX
must move fast to stay ahead of foreign competition. To
maintain America's lead, the Commission's processes must not
create drag on U.S. technology innovation, business viability,
and the deployment of critical services to consumers.
Unfortunately, the current FCC has inherited a regulatory
regime designed for a previous era. I want to highlight four
key areas. First, processing timelines at the FCC are
unacceptably long, resulting in multiyear delays for
application approval. Importantly, the Commissioners have
recognized on a bipartisan basis the need for reform. This
reform is crucial. U.S.-authorized systems are at a critical
risk of being outpaced by foreign licensed competitors. For
example, review of Starlink's Gen 2 application took nearly 3
years. This process must be more expedient.
And forcing clear, reasonable timelines will not result in
less thorough regulatory review. Rather, doing so will remove
the current incentive for foreign licensed operators and
latecomers to game the system by endlessly filing frivolous
comments in a deliberate effort to overwhelm, mislead, and
ultimately delay hard-working FCC staff.
Second, FCC regulations must be explicitly grounded in
statutory authority. Otherwise, applicants are left to guess at
what requirements and conditions will be imposed, creating
considerable regulatory uncertainty for U.S. licensees.
Third, Congress and the FCC should reward systems that are
designed to be spectrally efficient and share spectrum. Too
often, the current approach rewards inefficient systems
designed with yesterday's technology. At the same time,
essential spectrum authorized for shared satellite use like the
12 gigahertz band must continue to be available and protected
from harmful interference.
Finally, the U.S. must end its approach of providing
preferential regulatory treatment to foreign licensed systems.
As it stands, the FCC imposes one set of stringent rules on
U.S.-authorized systems like SpaceX's Starlink and then
altogether different, far less burdensome set of rules on
foreign licensed systems that seek U.S. market access.
As a matter of public policy, this is upside down. The SAT
Act and the other bills address--that we are considering today
address many of these challenges head on. With its 1-year
deadline for action, the SAT Act would add much-needed
certainty for satellite licensing and improve U.S.
competitiveness.
The LAUNCH Communications Act will result in more efficient
handling of launch spectrum approvals. The Secure Satellite Act
will protect U.S. telecommunications technology against foreign
competitors like China.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I welcome
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. Pineres, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DANIELLE PINERES
Ms. Pineres. Thank you, Chairman Latta. Thank you, Chairman
Latta, Ranking Member Matsui, and members of the subcommittee.
I am honored to appear before you today to discuss how Earth
observation data from space can help governments and commercial
companies make better decisions for life on Earth and how
streamlining licensing requirements, preserving access to
spectrum, and protecting the low-Earth-orbit operating
environment can support space operators.
The commercial remote-sensing community is vibrant,
innovative, and growing and provides data and analytics tools
used by scientists, researchers, companies, communities,
Federal agencies, and individuals to empower better data-
informed decisions. As Congress and relevant Federal agencies
collaborate on steps to enable continued growth and innovation
in the commercial space sector, Planet recommends consideration
of technology-neutral policies that enable innovation across a
diverse range of space actors. The continued importance of
spectrum to support satellite capabilities and the need for a
timely and responsive licensing regime that keeps pace with
technology development.
Planet is an integrated aerospace remote sensing and data
analytics company whose mission is to image Earth's landmass
every day in order to make global change visible, accessible,
and actionable. Planet designs, builds, and operates the
largest constellation of Earth-observing satellites in human
history, imaging with multiple spectral bands and delivering
this data within operational decision-making processes for
thousands of users across sectors.
At Planet, we believe you can't fix what you can't see.
Planet is able to line-scan the Earth and image the entirety of
Earth's landmass every day at 3.7-meter resolution using our
Dove satellite constellation of approximately 180 small sats
that are about the size of a loaf of bread. Additionally,
Planet's sky sat fleet of 21 satellites can be tasked to image
specific portion--specific points on Earth and enables Planet
to deliver 50-centimeter resolution images to customers.
Planet also leverages machine learning to transform imagery
into information feeds that detect objects and track change,
providing customers with deeper insights on planet imagery.
Planet has a daily reported history of the planet everywhere
for the past 6 years and adds new imagery on a daily basis.
This growing data set offers rich historical context across the
globe as well as deep imagery stacks for application
development and machine-learning-based analytics. Planet's data
sets complement government-operated space and ground-based
sensors and dramatically improve the spatial, temporal, and
spectral resolution available to decision makers and scientists
for monitoring real-time changes in wildfire spread in
California to recording daily changes in Arctic ice to better
understanding crop production and food security around the
world. Planet and its commercial satellite imagery are
empowering governments, companies, and individuals with the
daily data they need to address the challenges they face.
I'd like to discuss today just a few examples of how Planet
data has an impact here on Earth. Agricultural customers use
Planet imagery in their farm management platforms, allowing
farmers to make more informed decisions around ideal investment
in seed and crop protection products, when to plant, water, and
harvest and scout monitoring to identify underperforming crops
early in a season.
Satellite imagery provides the near-daily coverage
necessary to conduct crop yield analysis, land-use change, and
monitor additional impacts to farms. Norway's International
Climate and Forest Initiative, or NICFI, is a pioneering
program to stop global deforestation. It uses Planet data
across all tropical developing countries between 30 degrees
north and 30 degrees south in latitude to support the
prevention of deforestation and help save the world's tropical
forests.
The NASA Harvest, Food Security, and Agriculture Program
utilizes Planet data to benefit global food security,
agriculture, and human and environmental resiliency. They are
using Planet data to monitor Ukraine's farmland, which is known
as the world's breadbasket, to enable better understanding of
the impacts to global food supply resulting from the Russian
invasion of Ukraine. Finally, the California Forest Observatory
is a data-driven forest-monitoring system that leverages Planet
satellite data and artificial intelligence to map drivers of
wildfire behavior across California, including vegetation
fuels, weather, topography, and infrastructure.
This provides communities and decision makers the data that
they need to invest in mitigation and prevention to keep
communities safer. In order for Planet to continue delivering
these insights to our customers and to facilitate continued
innovation and U.S. leadership in the commercial space sector,
we need to work together as industry and government to protect
the operational environment for satellites so we can preserve
access to space for future generations.
We also need reliable access to spectrum to communicate
with and operate our satellites and ensure that we can download
the more than 30 terabytes of data that we collect every day.
And we need targeted changes to existing regulatory and
licensing frameworks to streamline the approvals necessary to
operate in space. We ask that the committee continue its
efforts to streamline licensing requirements, preserve access
to satellite spectrum, and protect the LEO operating
environment to support space operators.
Planet appreciates the invitation to testify today and the
subcommittee's attention on these important issues. And I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pineres follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. And thank you very much for your testimony
today, and I thank all the witnesses. And now we'll move into
the questions-and-answers portion of the panel. I'll begin the
questioning, I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Goldman, low-Earth-orbit systems like Starlink have the
potential to offer broadband speeds that can unlock numerous
opportunities for rural America. Would you discuss some of the
benefits, including the impact they could have, especially on
agriculture, here in the United States?
Mr. Goldman. Yes. Thank you very much for the question. I
really appreciate it. I think one of the really exciting things
about these new next-generation satellite systems like Starlink
is they have the potential to bring urban-quality broadband
speeds to rural areas. And you can bring--so you are bringing
service not only to places where you are connecting them for
the first time, but they are actually getting high-quality
broadband at the same time, that they are not getting a second-
tier internet. You don't have to compromise just because you
are living in a rural area.
And so I think one of the values of your--of the
legislation that the committee is considering is that what
you're doing is facilitating the deployment of these
constellations that brings the speed and brings these vital
connections to rural areas. And you ask about precision
agriculture. One of the hardest things--even assuming that
everything is working right, one of the--it's most of--our
government's programs for broadband right now are about
households and not necessarily about getting to the last acre
of farmland. It's--you are looking at densities of population
and not saying we need connectivity in places where there's not
necessarily people but we have important crops or other things
that we are growing.
And so I think one of the things that we can--we can do is,
by using satellite technology, you can bring these kinds of
speeds to be able to do these vital services out to every
corner of the farm.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. And Ms. Lohmeyer, the FCC's
current structure of licensing satellite systems from
processing rounds seems to have its pros and cons. As someone
who has filed applications with the FCC for low-Earth orbit
satellite systems, what challenges do processing rounds present
to companies that want to enter the marketplace today or for
existing satellite operators that want to make innovative
upgrades for their systems?
Dr. Lohmeyer. So the existing challenges really--oh,
thanks. The existing challenges come down to timing, market
entry and how that impacts competition. So for entrants, those
who are applying, like I mentioned, the processing round can
force the filer to prematurely submit an authorization. And
given what I will say is the fortunate fact that the FCC does
have a thorough and diligent stance on orbital debris rules and
orbital debris showings that can delay the authorization
process.
For those who are incumbents who are either already
authorized or operational, they have uncertainty when it comes
to protections and interference risk from later round filers.
And I will say the FCC has initiated proceedings on NGO sort of
sharings looking at this, the impact, effectively, of early
rounds versus later rounds and stressed, too, that what we need
are rules that balance these expectations of our incumbents,
which are investment-backed, with the needs of incentivizing
for innovation and competition.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. Ms. Pineres, Planet is a different
type of satellite operator than SpaceX in that it provides
Earth observation sensing capabilities. Would you please
briefly explain how Planet's services are used by farmers and
ranchers? And sorry, only about a minute left.
Ms. Pineres. Sir, I'd be delighted. So agricultural
customers--agricultural customers use Planet imagery in their
farm management platforms, allowing farmers to make more
informed decisions. Variable rate applications optimize input
and water-use efficiency to reduce overfertilization while
boosting yields. Sustainable agriculture monitoring, including
crop rotation, conservation tillage and cover cropping--I
actually grew up on a farm myself in Idaho. But farming today
is a very high-tech business. And actionable satellite data to
promote precision ag fits right in with this vision for the
future of farming.
Also say it's important that Planet data we offered into
the farm management platforms that farmers are already using,
understanding that not everyone is a geospatial analysis
expert. So we are really trying to meet our customers where
they are in terms of bringing them actionable satellite data.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, and my time is just
about to expire, but I have a couple more questions that I will
submit to you all and for feedback on them.
At this time, my time has expired, and I yield to the
gentlelady from California, the ranking member of the
subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman. Satellite systems are capable of
providing service globally regardless of where they are
licensed. That means companies can get access to the U.S.
market through foreign regulatory body rather than through the
FCC. Asymmetry in the requirements for operators seeking FCC
license versus market access and space system and significant
consequence for U.S. international leadership.
Mr. Goldman, I asked this question at the last hearing, but
it's worth reiterating now. Yes or no, do you believe our
licensing and market access requirements should incentivize
U.S. operations whenever possible?
Mr. Goldman. Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Matsui. Chairwoman Rosenworcel is doing what she can
with the resources she has to keep the FCC responsive to the
needs of the satellite marketplace. However, it's clear that
with the increase in satellite applications and potential
expand--potential expand the scope proposed in these bills, the
agency needs more resources to keep up. Mr. Davidson, do you
have concerns U.S. leadership and increased spending--if we
don't provide a commensurate increase in resources to the FCC?
Mr. Davidson. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that
question. I think absolutely. And I think what you heard last
week and what you heard in the earlier panel today was kind of
a unanimous endorsement of what you just said, that with the
advances in technology today, things are becoming much more
sophisticated, not just the quantity of resources but the
quality of the resources that are there. And I think the
chairwoman has recognized that and in the additions that she's
made there.
But I think with the pace of technology and now, with--if
this legislation passes, you are going to have a broader
mission given to the FCC. So absolutely they will need more
resources to accomplish this.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. As more system operators begin to
share congested spectrum bands, it will be increasingly
important that satellites are spectrally efficient to allow
more effective use of limited resource. Mr. Goldman, can you
describe the measures that can be used to measure spectral
efficiency, and how can we incentivize improvements in
efficiency?
Mr. Goldman. Yes. Thank you very much for the question.
We--this is exactly--this is exactly the point. And Professor
Lohmeyer was mentioning earlier that the processing round
systems at the FCC actually can somehow--can sometimes actually
disincentivize building efficient systems. Unlike--this
subcommittee deals with terrestrial licenses where people get
exclusive rights to certain bands. On satellite, it's
completely different. Everyone has to share. And that actually
can create this incentive to build the least efficient system,
because it allows you to box out your competitors.
And so what I think the Satellite Streamlining Act does is
it recognizes this, and it encourages--tells the FCC to look
into encouraging efficiency. SpaceX has actually petitioned the
FCC asking for them to pick this up exactly and start building
in metrics such as how much speed are you--are you providing
per square mile on the ground per person. How much speed are
you providing, trying to drive an incentive towards--that you
actually are rewarded for having a more efficient system as
opposed to being right--right now, the current system actually
rewards you for being inefficient.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you. I am interested in the deal that
SpaceX has struck with T-Mobile, which would permit T-Mobile
customers with off-the-shelf devices to receive Starlink
signals from the outer range of the usual T-Mobile network
coverage. This is exciting, and I know that other companies are
trying to offer similar services.
Mr. Goldman, how is SpaceX overcoming the challenges of
sharing spectrum with wireless licenses? And what role do you
see for satellite to supplement terrestrial networks?
Mr. Goldman. Yes, great. That's a great question. So the
model that we are using is we actually--we--as you mentioned,
we have a deal with T-Mobile. So we--we are actually working
with the terrestrial operators rather than seeing them as the
adversary and trying to battle against them. We are trying to
work with them and see them as partners. And so we actually
have a deal where we are going to be using T-Mobile spectrum
with their permission. And essentially our satellites will
operate like wireless towers in space.
So as you mentioned, just a phone off the shelf when you
are in a dead zone will be able to connect with the satellites.
Ms. Matsui. OK. I'm using my time here. So, anyway, I--I
really do. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields the balance of
her time, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Florida's 12th District for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. In
a global market for NGSO systems, if the U.S. regulatory burden
for approvals and launches are too burdensome, a company could
theoretically launch elsewhere and retroactively apply for
market access. This would equate to other countries benefiting
from satellite technologies while we sit in a regulatory
quagmire. Mr. Goldman, question for you. In your written
testimony, you stated the U.S. approval timeline is, on
average, 2\1/2\ years. How does the U.S. regulatory burdens for
satellite approvals compare to foreign countries', and have you
launched outside of the United States or at least considered it
due to more friendly regulatory environments?
Mr. Goldman. Thank you so much for the question. So I guess
to start out with, we are--SpaceX is proudly a U.S. company. We
build, launch and operate all of our systems within the United
States, and we are completely licensed within the United
States. But that's actually why--specifically why we are so
concerned about making sure that the U.S. regulatory process
keeps up with the innovation because it is true, as Ranking
Member Matsui was mentioning, the nature of satellites is that
you can license anywhere in the world and still be able to
operate in the lucrative U.S. market.
And we have seen that. We have seen that happening. More
and more satellite operators go and license overseas and then
come back. And they basically escape U.S. oversight of their
operations but still are able to take advantage of the U.S.
market. So I think we think that one of the key--the key steps
to take that's addressed in the Satellite Streamlining Act is
if you can shorten the timeline to be able to do these
approvals. The other thing that the U.S. does that no one else
does is it's completely transparent. So it is actually--to
answer your question about does anyone else take this long, it
is hard to know because other countries kind of do it behind
closed doors and in the U.S. you can see it.
I can tell you our--we are now operating in 46 countries,
59 total markets. We have not run into those problems in other
places when we are operating in other countries. So I think the
Satellite Streamlining Act would do a great deal to try to
bring back and incentivize people back to licensing in the
United States again.
Mr. Bilirakis. Sounds good. Ms. Lohmeyer, do you have
anything to add? I know you had some testimony with regard to
this issue.
Dr. Lohmeyer. In particular, folks filing administrations
overseas and then obtaining market access here?
Mr. Bilirakis. Correct.
Dr. Lohmeyer. I think I would primarily just echo what Mr.
Goldman said. The primary reasons folks go overseas is the
perceived onerous nation--onerous nature of the FCC's process,
like we described, the public nature as well. And I think as
the FCC also conducts complete overview of the technical and
legal narratives that are required to be submitted before
submitting the ITU filing, which establishes international
priority, whereas other nations have a less diligent process.
There's pros and cons to that, so----
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Thank you. Next question is for Mr.
Goldman. You also discuss in your written testimony the
Starlink capabilities that allow for a satellite to provide
services to areas devastated by natural disaster. I've seen
hurricanes, being from the State of Florida, from time to time
leave residents stranded both physically and from outside
communication. How long does it take to reposition a satellite
to provide coverage to a disaster zone, and how do you complete
that task without disrupting service to other populations? I
specifically recall, Representative Dean, that that happened,
absolutely. Representative Dunn. Yes. I guess that was
Hurricane Michael, right?
Mr. Dunn. Yes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. So if you could answer that question, I
appreciate it very much.
Mr. Goldman. No. I appreciate that. And I actually--I
myself, I grew up in Tampa, so I saw hurricanes and saw exactly
what they did. We actually--last year, we started working with
State of Florida government. And when hurricanes came in last
year during hurricane season, we were able to deploy basically
overnight. We don't need any additional ground infrastructure
to be able to bring in our service. And our satellites are
everywhere already. They are already spread. We don't have to
move the satellites.
So essentially, as soon as we get the call, we can move in
with our equipment and be able to bring service to people
immediately, which is what we did last year during this--during
the hurricane season.
Mr. Davidson. Could I add just one thought to that,
Congressman? That is, for example, in Tonga, we were the first
into Tonga when the disaster happened there last year. So we
are able to set up our--carry a backpack with our satellite
equipment on it on a commercial plane, land in Tonga. We were
there for a week or two before anybody else could come and set
up comms there. So satellite, as David is saying, is a very
nimble way to get into those areas quickly. And you can
preposition equipment so that, you know, areas that are prone
to disasters can have that equipment ready to go.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. I yield back the balance of my
time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. The gentleman yields back. The
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's 29th
District for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Chairman Latta and
Ranking Member Matsui, for having this very, very important
hearing. For decades, satellites have been used for GPS
communications and remote sensing. In 2022, the GAO found that
there are almost 5,500 active satellites in orbit. And one
estimate predicts that they may launch an additional 58,000
satellites by 2030. Satellite technologies provide more
opportunities to advance critical research in health,
agriculture, energy, and more. Ms. Pineres (sic), in your
testimony, you mention the work that Planet does to capture
daily images of Earth to show how the planet is changing and to
help us make better decisions.
In California, we are experiencing more extreme weather,
hotter temperatures, longer and more severe drought, worsening
wildfires, and dangerous flash flooding. We are not just seeing
this in California, but we are seeing this all over the country
and all over the world.
How does Planet's satellite imagery reveal drought
indicators and aid in drought response across the world?
Ms. Pineres. Thank you for the question. Measuring the
impact of drought is critical for evaluating its severity and
monitoring its change in identifying vulnerable areas. Planet's
data allows users to record, process, and analyze water
resources and land cover changes on the ground over time at a
high spatial and temporal resolution. Planet's analytics
products called planetary variables include a soil moisture
content variable, which can measure the volume of water
contained in soil at a 5-centimeter depth. And these products
pair Planet's daily data with other public data sets to provide
actionable insights.
And I would just add, too, that in response to questions
regarding, you know, other types of extreme weather, hurricanes
and disaster response, Planet's data can also provide kind of
critical situational awareness in those--at those times for
building damage assessment and also for evacuation paths.
Mr. Cardenas. And on how--could you elaborate on how access
to sufficient wireless spectrum is critical to the work and
data that you provide?
Ms. Pineres. Yes. Thank you for the question. We rely on
wireless spectrum in order to communicate with our satellites,
to command the satellites, and, critically, to download the
more than 30 terabytes of data that we--that we downlink every
day. So wireless spectrum is critical for our operations, for
the work that we do and to provide data to our customers. We
are also really interested in new types of spectrum
technologies, for instance, intersatellite links that can
connect satellites in space to speak to each other.
One of the challenges in the Earth observation sector is we
operate a little bit differently than other satellite
operators. We only communicate when we're within view of a
ground station. So it limits our downlinking opportunities by
how many ground stations we have. So intersatellite links can
provide both better reactivity in terms of sending commands to
the satellite about where to image and also better downlinking
capabilities to get images faster to customers, particularly in
disaster situations.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. I'm just amazed at the projection
of numbers: 5,500 satellites today to possibly an additional
58,000 or more in the very near future. Are we going to be
sending up bumper cars instead of satellites or a combination
thereof? How fast are the satellites moving, and does
congestion concern anybody?
Mr. Davidson. Yes. Congressman, I addressed in my opening
statement this exact issue. So I think it's the health of the
orbits and particularly the LEO orbit that could limit the
ability for, you know, innovative new products to be launched.
So it's going to be a crowded environment.
So part of the licensing process needs to be an
understanding of where this--where these new satellites are
being deployed, how they are managed, how they--how we can
understand where they are. Are operators communicating with
each other? In the GEO orbit, it's a very, I would say,
collegial orbit. All the operators talk with each other. When
something happens, we help each other out. So it's--you know,
there is a lot of information sharing. The LEO orbit, as you
mentioned, is going to become very crowded.
So what I refer to as the bucket of space sustainability
issues, so tracking, disclosure, you know, transparency,
maneuverability of can you move your satellites around an
orbital debris, managing orbital debris, all part of the space
sustainability bucket that's going to be critical for the
future of the industry.
Mr. Cardenas. Yes, please.
Dr. Lohmeyer. The inclusion of technologies like standard
fixtures on board satellites are incredibly important as well
as in-orbit servicing. One Web, back in 2015 was even--or 20,
yes, 2015 was even working on creating some of these devices.
Mr. Cardenas. But people can launch satellites anywhere on
Earth. They bring the capability. They get the information, you
know, from somebody's lands. Is the United States the standard
bearer, or who is the standard bearer today, and who should
we--who should be the standard bearer going forward?
Dr. Lohmeyer. I think the United States is definitely a
leader in these technologies with NASA and FCC as well as
private sector.
Mr. Davidson. And I would also just note that the U.S. has
a huge market. It's a huge addressable commercial market. So
people who want to do business here need to comply with our--
with the standards of the United States.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
expired and yields back. The Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from Washington, the chair of the full Committee of
Energy and Commerce, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Goldman, I want
to start with you and just thank you for testifying on behalf
of SpaceX and your effort--your efforts to offer rules,
satellite connectivity and provide launch services to other
companies. At our hearing last week, we heard a lot about the
importance of spectrum and spectrum access for satellite
services. My SAT Streamlining Act would provide direction to
the FCC on how to incentivize satellite operators to reduce
spectrum efficiently. As we are considering ways to streamline
and clarify the FCC's rules to encourage upgrades and new
interest into the marketplace, what principles should we
consider when trying to strike the right balance in providing
adequate protection from interference and also encouraging
innovation?
Mr. Goldman. Thank you so much for the question, and thank
you for having us today. I think you are putting your finger
exactly on the biggest issue that we have in satellite right
now is how do we, in a shared spectrum environment--how do we
give enough certainty to licensees that when you get your
license--these systems cost tens of billions of dollars to
build--how do you get--how do you have enough certainty that
your license is going to--is going to actually mean something
to you going forward while you spend these billions of dollars?
At the same time, because it's a shared environment, you
don't want to cut off having new entrants enter. And so how do
you do both things at the same time, which is a very, very
difficult balance. And I compliment you and your staff for
taking this on in the--in the SAT Streamlining bill, of trying
to strike that balance. It really is--I think that you're--you
are addressing it correctly, which is you are thinking exactly
about the--how do you make sure that these licenses will
continue to have value at the same time that you're encouraging
the efficiencies and encouraging people to build in the
technology that does cost more to be able to share the spectrum
better.
So I think that's the key, and I think that's exactly what
your bill is getting at.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Mr. Davidson, Intelsat is also
accompanied with storied American history, starting over 50
years ago in the government-owned system. Today you are at the
forefront of innovation and working to integrate multiple
orbits and multiple spectrum bands into one integrated system.
This discussion draft would grandfather certain systems' use of
spectrum as the FCC sets out the new roadmap for spectrum use
going forward. Would you also address the balance on the need
to streamline the process or protecting billions of dollars in
investment made by satellite operators under the current rules?
Mr. Davidson. Great question, and I would concur with David
in his assessment of this threading the needle. I think this
really is the critical issue your committee and policymakers
are going to have to address, which is dealing with the fact
that there is a lot of investment up there in space right now
and that there were--there was commitments made of billions of
dollars.
The same time, we want to encourage innovation and
investment and new entrants. So really, finding that--you know,
threading the needle in that regard is going to--is going to
really be critical. I'm not going to necessarily draw a line on
the grandfathering where you should or should not do that. I
would just say, from a principal perspective, you've got to
find the right balance between protecting investment and
encouraging new investment. And I would say the spectral
efficiency, we are in complete agreement on that as well. There
are old systems that need to be phased out that are, you know,
potentially nearing end of life that are extremely inefficient
systems. And we are building cutting-edge efficiencies into all
of our--we have--we have many new satellites in product--in
production right now.
Our software-defined satellites are going to be the most
efficient satellites that GEO has ever produced.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Ms. Lohmeyer, you are an aerospace engineer with years of
experience advising satellite operators as NGSO systems are
getting larger and more satellites are launched into orbit. It
will be important that these systems are designed with
flexibility to maneuver and deorbit safely. What role should
the FCC have to ensure satellite systems' license will be good
stewards in space?
Dr. Lohmeyer. The FCC should serve as the authority on the
front end to make sure that these operators are good stewards,
require compliance using NASA's debris assessment software
tool. It should also continue to regulate and codify rules that
are built from NASA's standards and interface with NASA--
comply, if you will--with ODMSP in a holistic, not piecemeal
approach, so not a single reg but look at the scenario as a
whole and then interface with agencies, NASA and Office of
Space Commerce more--more closely to coordinate those different
efforts. Thank you.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The
gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In our last panel, we
talked a lot about my back yard in Kissimmee, where we get to
see the full magnificence of America's busiest spaceport, the
world's busiest spaceport in Cape Canaveral with NASA, SpaceX,
ULA, Blue Origin, and more, and the increasing number of
launches, 57 in 2022. We have, 2023, 87, which is set to be
another record. But I think a lot of people don't realize how
many of those are from SpaceX: 31 in 2021, 61 in 2022. They are
reusable, economically efficient.
So, Mr. Goldman, first, thanks for your company's
commitment to Central Florida. I guess my first question is how
many--how many launches do you have on tap for 2023?
Mr. Goldman. I think we have roughly about 100 on the
manifest. Right now, we are going about every 4 days so far
this year.
Mr. Soto. So that's a lot of flights. So how helpful would
the LAUNCH Communications Act be in increasing and helping your
busy launch schedule by streamlining FCC licenses?
Mr. Goldman. Oh. Thank you so much for that question, and
thank you for that legislation. It really is putting its finger
on a very, very important issue. As you know, the authorization
process for commercial launches was built a long time ago. In
fact, it was not built. It just kind of happened. And so we
now--right now, for every single launch, we have to go to the
FCC to get special temporary authority for every single launch,
sometimes multiple authorities for a 41 launch, depending on
what's going on.
The process at the FCC, there isn't much of one. It's--you
go to the FCC. You fill out their form, they reach out to NTIA,
they reach out to the other agencies. And then it all is kind
of manual and then comes back. When you are launching every
four days--and that's just us, this process is just--it's on
the verge of breaking. And so I think your bill recognizes that
and puts in effective measures to try to address this and be
able to make sure that the Space Coast remains the Space Coast
going forward.
Mr. Soto. And we appreciate Dr. Dunn's help on this in a
good bipartisan bill. Central Florida has a lot of advantages
in space flight. We are closer to the equator--the fuel. We
have the Atlantic in front of you just in case something goes
wrong. And the talent there--but the weather is not always
cooperative, right? So you want to give the committee a sense
of how often you may have to go to one to two to three launch
windows just in the--one of these flights?
Mr. Goldman. Oh, it happens all the time. And especially
when you start getting into hurricane season and things get
very, very unpredictable. It really kind of depends on the
launch. Some of our launches, when we are launching our
Starlink satellites, we have a lot more flexibility. But when
you are launching astronauts, everything needs to be absolutely
perfect.
And so you really need to have that certainty. And, again,
as your bill recognizes, you can't always just keep going back
and forth with the government and asking, ``Is this time OK?''
``Is this time OK?'' ``Is this time OK?'' You need to be able
to coordinate more in real time to make sure that, especially
these life-carrying missions are secure, that they are
predictable, and that we have everything in place before the
launch goes.
Mr. Soto. So when we see a schedule of 87 launches for 2023
for the Cape, you could have a real pileup, right, of launches
running into each other datewise if you have bad weather for an
extended period of time. So how would--how would that figure
into why it's so critical that we get this right?
Mr. Goldman. Yes, absolutely. Again, it's going back and
forth with the government agencies. It just becomes--at some
point, you hit the breaking point. It just becomes not viable.
And you will--you are going to start having launches that get
delayed not because there is anything wrong with the launch,
but the paperwork hasn't been processed in time.
And so what your--what your bill does is it clears out that
problem, and it makes sure that when the launch is ready to go,
when the technology is ready to go, that we can go.
Mr. Soto. As we look to American space dominance and see
the Chinese increasing their space launches and Russians being
not only our partners but our main competition on these, how
important is it for us to maintain our space dominance to
really get everything just right so we can beat a schedule?
Mr. Goldman. Oh, it's absolutely critical. As you
recognize, there is--foreign powers around the world are--they
are looking at the United States with envy. They recognize the
United States has taken the lead in space. And you are seeing a
lot of state-backed actors who are trying to build competitors
to what the U.S. has. And what we need to do is make sure that
our regulatory systems keeps us in the lead.
Mr. Soto. Thank you so much. Committee, this is something
our Nation is getting right, but we do have work to do to keep
our place as the world's dominant space power. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan's Fifth District for
5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
panel.
Ms. Pineres, precision agriculture has revolutionized food
production all across the Nation, really all across the world.
But I'm worried that farmers in rural Southern Michigan, my
district, won't be able to harness this technology due to lack
of connection. This is something different than simply
broadband in their homes. What are the benefits that satellites
could have on precision agriculture, and more specifically, has
the FCC taken a comprehensive look at what rules may need to be
updated to advance the use of satellite technology for this
purpose?
Ms. Pineres. Thank you very much for the question. So, as I
mentioned in my prior testimony, Planet's data is--it can be
very important in sort of a different approach to precision
agriculture than the broadband connectivity that Starlink
provides. So it's--what we're providing is the imagery that can
be downloaded into existing farm management platforms to help
farmers visualize the crops, what kind of--how the crops are
developing, whether they need more fertilizer, whether they
need more water. And we are--Planet's satellites deliver the
kind of daily cadence that farmers need in order to be able to
monitor precision agriculture needs over time.
To your question about the Commission, Congress created not
so long ago--or instructed the FCC to create a precision
agriculture task force that would look at broadband
connectivity for precision agriculture. That statute, however,
doesn't really acknowledge the importance of Earth observation
data for precision agriculture. And so we welcome the Precision
Ag Act under consideration here today. And, you know, I think
that's one way--it references Earth observation satellite data.
So that's one way we can work with the FCC to sort of expand
what the Precision Ag Task Force is working on to look not just
to broadband connectivity but also the role that Earth
observation can play.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Ms. Lohmeyer, your testimony, you
discussed how applicants only have a brief window for designing
a system and filling--and filing with the FCC to join a process
and round. What incentive does that provide for satellite
operators to design efficient or responsible systems?
Dr. Lohmeyer. So it's important to note that not all
systems are in this kind of scramble that I describe. There are
lead applicants as well as those that follow. And so there are
numerous operators who have the time to methodically think out
and plan and design, procure manufacturers. And so that fits
nicely with the regulatory process.
Mr. Walberg. And then Mr. Goldman, in SpaceX's experience,
how has the processing round framework affected your ability to
compete against international competitors like China?
Mr. Goldman. It's been a strain, to be totally frank.
It's--the processing rounds work for what they are. But foreign
competitors don't have the same regulatory burdens that you do
when you are going through the FCC's process. I think one of
the main issues has been just delays in approvals when it can
take multiple years before you are approved. Again, state-
backed competitors are not--not facing those same kinds of
delays. And it makes it difficult for the U.S. to maintain its
lead when it continuously has to go through these delayed
processes.
Mr. Walberg. Well, thank you for your testimony. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas' Seventh District for
5 minutes.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Chairman Latta. Thanks again to
both you and Ranking Member Matsui for organizing today's
hearings into two very informative panels, and I really want to
focus on this panel on a followup on what we were discussing in
our hearing last week as well, just about the great potential
to deliver emergency communications before, during, and after
emergencies and natural disasters. This is something we are
unfortunately all too familiar with in my home in Houston, and
so we have been very focused on ways to improve communication
both from government to residents and also between agencies and
between first responders.
And so I want to direct my first question to Ms. Lohmeyer.
Specifically, can you talk about some of the specific
challenges that both governments and industry are facing when
it comes to implementing and providing emergency communications
using satellites?
Dr. Lohmeyer. Sure. So efficient licensing frameworks like
we've been mentioning----
Mrs. Fletcher. Mm-hmm.
Dr. Lohmeyer [continuing]. That enable multiple different
types of services to be deployed, subsidies to overcome the
cost of user terminals and the service. And I say ``subsidies''
because, when I think of emergency services, I think of kind of
two different types, if you will. There is the always on, like
911, medics, fire.
Mrs. Fletcher. Mm-hmm.
Dr. Lohmeyer. And then there is triaging these natural
disasters, like FEMA come to mind.
And I think clearer rules for that first type and then even
sort of lessons learned from past experiences where we have had
scenarios like in 2017 in Puerto Rico. The hurricanes came in,
and one anecdote that we often don't share is, in that time,
Project Loon, a Google initiative to use high-altitude
platforms, was quickly licensed to deploy services. The
cellular infrastructure wasn't in place due to the hurricane,
and so those balloons actually backhauled over O3b satellite
network. So satellites not only provide these two that I
mentioned. We also provide--or two being the direct-to-device
and broadband. But they also serve a kind of multitiered
infrastructure as well.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, and it's interesting the way you
described it because I--when I'm thinking about this, I'm
thinking about those moments when your existing infrastructure
has stopped working and satellites coming in and being able to
help fill the gap like the description--like the scenario you
described in Puerto Rico. And I think that that is something
that we have seen, is what happens when what you are usually
relying on fails.
Certainly with satellite technology, there is a lot that
people are usually losing when it comes to satellite technology
as well, so I don't mean to suggest that that's not the case.
But certainly we have some hard infrastructure that we use in
our emergency communications and that we have unfortunately
seen go out time and again. And it's in those moments of true
crisis where, if there is a quickly dispatchable, deployable
technology that can fill that gap, I think it's incredibly
important. So I'd love to continue that conversation in this
committee obviously throughout this Congress.
I also want to touch on--on kind of a related issue, but
this bill that Representatives Johnson and Schrier have
introduced, the ALERT Parity Act, to require the FCC to
establish a process for satellite to provide these emergency
services and create rules for that temporary spectrum use. And
I think it will go a long way towards some of the things that
we've been talking about and some of the challenges that we've
seen.
But I think one of the--one of the questions from this
morning, especially, is sort of focusing on the FEC--FCC
portion of the process that's outlined in the bill. How else
can Congress work? What else can we do here to ensure that the
satellite technology is available to bolster these
communications and maybe--Mr. Davidson, you look like you might
have an answer, something you want to say so--first.
Mr. Davidson. Well, I thank you, and thanks for the
question. I just--I just add very quickly that I think the
whole ecosystem, so everything we are talking about here today,
contributes to the satellite industry's ability to make--to
respond to these disasters. So all the stuff that we are
talking about--I mean, we truly are the first responders. We
are able to go in. I mentioned, I think, before you came in
that we can fly commercial to a site with a--with a backpack
with the satellite equipment in it.
We can be up and, you know, transponding information before
anybody else. So in disasters, oftentimes, terrestrial networks
go out. So we really are the ones that can get there, and then
we transition to other networks. So I would say the health of
the whole system, including spectrum and kind of regulatory
efficiency would help in the disaster context as well.
Mrs. Fletcher. Great. Thank you for that perspective, Mr.
Goldman, anything to add?
Mr. Goldman. Yes. I actually completely agree with the
answers that came before me. So, as Mr. Davidson said, you are
looking at a collection of really important, critical bills
that really are going to be super helpful. We are able to roll
out our equipment basically overnight. We can reposition it and
be there before the event if we know that it's coming. And we
are able to--in the past couple of years, the Starlink system
has been able to help in wildfires in California and Germany.
We were able to help in Tonga, as Mr. Davidson--and so you
are able to deploy this stuff immediately and bring basically
urban-quality broadband to a natural disaster immediately and
connect people. And as Professor Lohmeyer--it's not just for
the satellite connectivity. You can also be backhauled for
mobile phones as well.
Mrs. Fletcher. OK. Well, thank you so much. I see that I
once again used up my 5 minutes, because this is really
interesting. So I thank all of you for your time, your
testimony today. And I thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for
recognizing me and holding this hearing, and I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia's First
District, the vice chair of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank each of you for
being here. This obviously is extremely important, as you all
know. And it is important in our country. It is important in
our world. This is the future right here. I mean, the global
satellite marketplace is estimated to be worth $40 billion by
2030. And, you know, we had approximately 4,000 satellites had
been launched in the last--in the last 10 years. And the next
10 years, that number is expected to quadruple. And, you know,
it's just overwhelming what's happening here. So we all
understand that.
I want to ask you--I'll start with you, Mister--I'll start
with Mr. Goldman. Tell me how, just very briefly and
succinctly, how can we balance efficiency with safety and
sustainability as we legislate? Tell me what we can do.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you so much for the question.
Fortunately, I think the bills that you have in front of you
are striking a very good balance on doing that. Your point is
exactly right. In order to be able to have a robust competitive
market, everybody has to be efficient. And so, by identifying
that and putting that at the forefront and saying that
everybody needs to use their resources, whether it's the
spectrum resources or the--or orbits, your resources in space,
making sure that you are as efficient as you possibly can is
the only way that we are going to be able to continue this
going and reach those numbers that you were talking about for
the economy.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Davidson, your opinion?
Mr. Davidson. Yes. So I agree with that, and I would say
also that there need to be some requirements in terms of
transparency. So as you are applying for a license, you have to
be--your satellite should be trackable. We need to know where
they are. We need to know what the relationship with others are
going to be. We need to know what the interference levels are
going to be. And this can all happen prelicensing. And then we
can also look at the issue of maneuverability. Do we need to be
able to move satellites around in orbit to avoid interference
or take other measures?
So these are all things that can be looked at the very
beginning of the process. And it need not be bureaucratic or
slow as long as you have the right number of engineers and
scientists kind of looking at how these are going to interact
with each other.
Mr. Carter. OK. Fair enough.
Ms. Pineres. Could I jump in just on the maneuverability
piece?
Mr. Carter. Yes, sure. Go ahead.
Ms. Pineres. Thank you very much. On maneuverability, I
just wanted to add that the importance of a technology-neutral
approach to maneuverability. So in other words, when Congress
is looking at new statutory language instructing the FCC on new
orbital debris policies, allowing for companies to innovate
their way to maneuverability, so mandate the desired outcome
and let people innovate to get there versus mandating a
specific requirement for propulsion or other kind of specific--
technology-specific requirement.
I would also add just on the point of transparency I think,
in addition to everything that happens at the Commission prior
to launch, I think it is incredibly important for space
operators in the LEO environment to be communicating with each
other to avoid conjunctions. We--as Planet published our
ephemeris data, which tells where our satellites are and where
they are going, operators like SpaceX do as well. But not
everybody does that. And I think Congress can play an important
role, policymakers can play an important role in encouraging
industry to come to standards and best practices around sharing
that kind of information.
Mr. Carter. Well, thank you for that. Thank you for using
the word ``encouraging'' as opposed to ``mandate.'' First
start--I don't like that word but--and I couldn't agree with
you more about innovation. We want to encourage innovation. And
sometimes the best way we can do that is to get out of the way
so--well, let me switch gears real quick. I represent a lot of
South Georgia. You know, we like to say in Georgia there are
two Georgias. There is Atlanta and everywhere else. Well, I
represent everywhere else. We got a broadband problem,
particularly in South Georgia and particularly with reliable
broadband connectivity.
And just tell me about regulatory barriers that exist or do
you feel like may exist at FCC and NTIA. Have they--have they
added to the current digital divide that we--that we see how--
that is due to the--due to the licensing of a satellite system,
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. Thank you for the question. Yes. You know,
Starlink, our broadband system, is built specifically to bring
broadband to everywhere else. So we appreciate that. Yes.
Unfortunately, the FCC right now is saddled with old rules that
were developed decades ago, frankly. And----
Mr. Carter. We just had them on the first panel, and, you
know, that is something we were asking about.
Mr. Goldman. Yes. And I think that the Commissioners, the
current crop of Commissioners have all mentioned it, have all
talked about the importance of updating the rules. And we
really do appreciate kind of on a bipartisan basis they have
been recognizing that. But it really does need----
Mr. Carter. Are they doing it? I mean, recognizing and
doing is two different things.
Mr. Goldman. I--they have a number of rulemakings that they
are working on right now that hopefully will get us there soon.
Mr. Carter. Nice way of saying no. I'm sorry. I'm running
out of time. Go ahead and finish up.
Mr. Goldman. No. I'm sorry. That's----
Mr. Carter. All right. All right. Well, I am out of time.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Latta. The gentlemen's time has expired. He yields
back, and the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Illinois' Second District for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ranking Member,
and--excuse my voice--to the witnesses. My district, Illinois'
Second Congressional District, has a strong rural sector, with
close to 2,000 farms that serve as the economic backbone of the
district and, quite frankly, agriculture in the State of
Illinois. Many of these farmers and producers have felt the
squeeze of the pandemic's economic impacts and supply chain
challenges. Nevertheless, these farmers and producers in the
Second District have maintained productivity, generating corn,
soybeans, wheat that continue feeding our families, fueling our
cars, and help raising our livestock.
Our farmers are vital to Illinois' economy. And when I go
home to my district, I regularly hear about the measures
farmers want us to take in Congress to support them, notably
the need for us to pass solutions to combat surging input costs
and help learn from and implement successes from conservation
practices.
So because of that, I was excited to hear a little at last
week's hearing about how satellite services could benefit our
farmers, particularly how the application for satellite
services would allow farmers to utilize GPS to control tractors
and other farm equipment and utilize sensors to determine if
additional water or fertilizer is needed for any crops.
For these reasons, I was proud to partner with Chair Latta
in introducing the Precision Agriculture Satellite Connectivity
Act, which I'm not going to go into as I'm sure you did
already. But when you are last, a lot of your questions have
been asked already. But I wanted to ask about last September,
the White House hosted for the first time in 50 years a
conference on hunger and nutrition and health. Part of the
purpose of the conference was to accelerate progress and drive
significant change in hunger, improve nutrition, and close the
disparities around them.
Ms. Pineres, will you provide more background on Planet's
work with NASA Harvest food security and agricultural programs
and in particular, how your data enables a better understanding
of the impact of certain world events on global food supplies?
Ms. Pineres. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. So
NASA Harvest is leveraging Planet's data or daily Planet scope
imagery, which our Dove satellites produce, and combining it
with other environmental, economic, and social science impact
data to see what crops were growing and what crops were not
growing on a field-by-field level across Ukraine. And that
resulted in an August 2022 outlook that actually predicted more
crops had been harvested and planted along both the Russian-
occupied and Ukrainian-held territories than previously
expected. And so, by monitoring agricultural fields for change,
researchers can determine what stage a crop is in from space
without having to go field-by-field for crop estimates.
Planet and NASA Harvest actually recently announced a new
partnership last month that will build on this work regarding
Ukraine and then scale it to conduct regional and global
assessments. And that solution will be offered to national
governments, multilateral institutions, NGOs, and other
interested parties around the world.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much. Thank you to the witnesses.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentlelady yields
back. At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida's Second District for 5 minutes.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So great panel.
Thank you all for being here. Mr. Goldman, in your opening
remarks, you--in your written statement, you highlighted some
of the ways that the foreign competitors are able to game the
system and get approved--to slow our companies down. These two
separate standards seem so un-American to me. I wonder, is the
FCC inadvertently giving an upper hand to foreign competition?
Is this something that is built into the deck, or do we have to
write a statute in law that says level the playing field? That
just doesn't--it seems a lot----
Mr. Goldman. Thank you so much for the question. The FCC
doesn't need a statute to be able to level the playing field.
And to just back up and clarify what I was talking about, the--
for--satellites are inherently global, which means that you can
apply for a license anywhere in the world. Everybody wants to
then operate in the United States because we have the best
market. And so--but what the FCC's rules are currently are
that, if you are licensed overseas, for the most part, they are
going to trust that you are--the country that licensed you
already kind of looked at the--how safe your system is, how--
whether it's going to be protecting space or not. And so, for
the most part, they are saying they are not going to apply the
FCC's rules to those systems.
The problem is, is the U.S. is actually the most forward-
leaning, has the strongest rules in the world for orbital
debris. So for saying that, you are essentially--what you are
doing is encouraging systems to leave the United States, go
license elsewhere, and come back. And so we have actually
petitioned, asking for the FCC to fix that. And I think the
legislation you have in front of you will also do that as well.
Mr. Dunn. Excellent. So we heard a lot about how satellite
broadband can help the digital divide--rural broadband and
whatnot. The Federal Government--tens of billions of dollars--
grants for rural broadband and whatnot. But to our dismay, it
tends to not be tech-neutral, so technology-neutral. They tend
to sort of feed the fire on that. What programs are there
that--well, satellites are eligible for to help the rural
broadband, and what would you like to be part--and then I'm
going to ask you to answer the same question, Mr. Davidson.
Mr. Goldman. Yes. That's a really good point. I know when
the--when Congress passed the infrastructure law last year, it
specifically called out that these programs should be
technology-neutral. Unfortunately, NTIA, when they went to
implement it, put in a very strong preference for fiber, as you
recognize. I--we were disappointed in that. We think that it
should be more performance-based metrics. If you are able to
get certain speeds, if you are able to get certain latencies,
the consumer doesn't care how it got there. They just want the
service to be there.
And so we are hopeful that these programs going forward
will be more technology-neutral. We are working with NTIA. We
are talking to them. We are also talking to the States to see
if there's any ways that we can work with them.
Mr. Dunn. I would love it if you'd share some--yes. That's
good with the States too. But I'd love it if you'd share with
us words--the wording of that kind of statute that we might
pass in this committee at another time. So keep us on--on speed
dial.
Mr. Davidson. Yes, Congressman. So I agree with that. I
agree with that statement, and there are--I don't know how many
of these programs are out there, and they all have different
standards. So it is very difficult to know what you are going
to qualify for in the Rural Utilities Service, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture is even, I think, more fiber-centric
than some of the FCC and NTIA programs. So it is kind of
interesting. You have an agricultural department that has the
most restrictive.
Mr. Dunn. Yes.
Mr. Davidson. You know, it is--and you are not--listen, you
are not going to build fiber to a tractor anytime soon. So
satellite is a great alternative, and yet it is disqualified
from many of the programs.
Mr. Dunn. And it is worth reminding ourselves that some of
these comm competitors that we have overseas are actually
government-backed programs. We are competing against----
Mr. Goldman. That's exactly right.
Mr. Dunn [continuing]. Nation states, not just--Mr.
Chairman, I will yield back. Thank you very much.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we can all
agree that we recognize connectivity continues to be a serious
issue throughout rural areas. I represent Pennsylvania's 13th
Congressional District, which is a large agricultural district
spanning from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, out to Somerset County.
Nearly 800,000 Pennsylvanians go without fast, reliable
broadband, including almost a half a million of them living in
rural communities. Now, we must work together to bridge that
digital divide. And that's why you must take an all-of-the-
above approach when ensuring those in rural areas have the same
connection, the same speeds as those in Philadelphia and
Pittsburgh.
Ms. Lohmeyer, can you talk more on how reforming FCC
licensing requirements will better connect my constituents in
rural Pennsylvania?
Dr. Lohmeyer. In general, I think as we lean towards more
and strive towards more efficient licensing rules with clear
regulations, we are going to be able to deploy systems more
rapidly.
Mr. Joyce. And with that rapid deployment, do you see that
we see a fair share of that going into the rural, underserved
areas?
Dr. Lohmeyer. Satellites uniquely positioned to cover
ubiquitously. And so there is not actually benefit or, if you
will, to focus on the cities where they are densely populated.
So it is actually an ideal location for satellites to prove out
that there is a business case. And----
Mr. Joyce. And we look forward to that being proven out in
the rural areas.
Ms. Pineres, following up on my previous question about the
importance of rural connectivity, you mentioned in your
testimony how farmers are making more informed decisions based
on the imagery from Planet. Can you talk about the work that
the FCC's Precision Agriculture Task Force has done in the
satellite space and realizing that food security is national
security? Can you talk about how the Precision Agriculture
Satellite Connectivity Act will benefit farmers in
congressional districts like mine which have a large rural
agricultural component?
Ms. Pineres. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. As I
mentioned in my--in my prior testimony, the underlying statute
that formed the FCC's Precision Agriculture Task Force actually
does not--focuses just on broadband and does not really look at
Earth observation and the importance of imagery, of satellite
imagery like Planet's and the importance that it can bring to
farmers in rural and remote areas.
So I welcome the Precision Agriculture Act. I think the
fact that it references Earth observation imagery is very
helpful. I think we'd be glad to work with the committee on
some other language potentially to change the underlying
statute so that the sort of mandate of the task force is broad
enough to include not just broadband but also the kind of
imagery that we think can make a real difference for farmers.
Mr. Joyce. And I think that is important that this gives us
that opportunity to, as you say, make that real difference for
farmers.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield the rest of my time.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas' 14th
District for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lohmeyer,
understanding you have a background as an aeronautical
engineer, the SAT Satellite Streamlining Act would require the
FCC to issue technology-neutral, objective, and measurable
performance objectives for space--and orbital debris. Given
your experience providing technical advice to satellite
companies, I have got really two questions. It is, how should
the FCC's rules look to incentivize satellite operators to be
good stewards of space? And the second part of that is, how do
we compare that to other countries? Are we going to be in this
alone, or are we going to be subject to being disadvantaged by
those rules? What say you?
Dr. Lohmeyer. So the first question, how do we incentivize
our operators to be good stewards of space? I actually, from my
time at One Web and from working with the operators, feel that
they are on board with these rules. They want America to lead
in this place and maintain the position as an example
internationally.
We even have companies coming out, startups with
investments that are geared towards the sustainability
initiatives. And if you will repeat your second question for
me----
Mr. Weber. Well, it's going to be--let's stay on the first
one just----
Dr. Lohmeyer. Sure.
Mr. Weber [continuing]. A minute. So the SAT Streamlining
Act you are saying really is not needed--pretty good actor in
taking care of the debris. But if you follow that up with--how
about the other countries, the other licensed satellitees, if
that is the right term. Are they going to be just as good at
cleaning things up and their debris?
Dr. Lohmeyer. I have not seen as diligent measures
internationally.
Mr. Weber. Are there other countries that you are aware
of--this might be a question for some of you all too--that have
those kinds of requirements from a--maintaining a satellite
that's basically free of debris or doesn't cause debris? Are
you aware of any?
Mr. Davidson. Well, Congressman, I just add that I think
one of the key questions here is--is the U.S. market too. So
that's why I think we can provide an example for the rest of
the world whether--a lot of this stuff is international. I
think if you want to do business in the United States, which
everyone is going to want to do, you have to meet those
standards. Then I think the rest of the world will, you know,
follow along and try to do that. So, you know, listen, they
have to be smart. It has to be smart regulation. It shouldn't
be overregulation. But it should address the issues that will
keep particularly the LEO orbit, you know, sustainable for the
next, you know, next generations.
Mr. Weber. Well, Congress never overregulates.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. Yes. So I agree with Mr. Davidson. So the main
idea here is that the U.S. is the market that everybody wants
to operate in. What the Satellite Streamlining Act does that's
really smart is it does two things, is it extends the U.S.
orbital debris rules to anyone who wants to operate here, but
it also has features in it that--that bring--once--it
encourages people to come back, which there is potential for
expedited processing if you are a U.S. licensee.
So you are doing two things at once: You are taking away
the incentive to move out of the United States while you are
actually creating an incentive to come back. And so I think
that's why I think the Satellite Streamlining Act actually
strikes a really nice balance to be able to address these
things without overregulating.
Mr. Weber. Let me change gears real quick. Mr. Goldman, you
said earlier that the least efficient satellite companies are
able to box out their competitors.
Mr. Goldman. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Weber. OK. And what would incentivize them not to have
the least efficient system because they can box out their
competitors?
Mr. Goldman. I think if you started creating incentives and
rewards within the regulation for having--we have the
regulations anyway. If we have them where they benefit you for
building in--for investing in more efficient technology that's
better at sharing, then you can create the kind of current race
to the bottom. You can turn that into a race to the top by
rewarding people for doing the right thing.
Mr. Weber. OK. And then Mr. Davidson, you said that
applying for a license, your satellite needs to be trackable.
Is that to say that the satellite is already launched? Are you
talking about it needs to be--have a tracking----
Mr. Davidson. No. In terms of your--when you are applying
for a license to operate that these are some of the
requirements you should have to satisfy. So you should be able
to demonstrate where your satellite is going to go, that you
are--you know, you are transparent in terms of the information,
what the interference likelihoods are. All that should be done
upfront. And that--it can--the standards can be set out very
clearly, and you either qualify or you don't qualify to be
given a license.
Mr. Weber. OK. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
of his time, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia's 12th District for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chair Latta. And I said in my opening
statement before the first panel of witnesses that our
committee needs to make it our highest priority to work to meet
the needs of our private partners. I come to Congress from the
business world, although I grew up on a tractor.
And the last time that I operated a tractor, I planted a
row of peanuts 16 inches over from where the farmer had planted
them last year, and I didn't touch--he said, ``Don't touch a
thing.''
And so with that, Ms. Pineres, obviously, you all are
involved in agriculture. That has evolved over the years. And
you can kind of cover a little bit of that. But what do you see
in the future? I mean, obviously farming continues. I mean, we
are--we are satisfying 115 percent of our food needs with less
than 2 percent of the population right now. But where do you
see this thing going?
Ms. Pineres. Thank you. Thank you for the question. It is
really exciting to see farming go high-tech, as you said, and I
think Planet's imagery can play an important role in that. As I
mentioned in my prior testimony, the ability for farmers to
really access farm-level data and have that cadence be near-
daily so they can see change in their crops over time and help
decide--help them make important decisions about, you know, how
much inputs they are going to need in terms of fertilizer,
water, I think that's really important.
I'd also say, in addition to kind of visual imagery, I had
mentioned earlier that Planet also offers a planetary variable
for soil moisture content which enables farmers to see how much
water is in the soil and help make decisions about water usage
as well.
So I think, you know, I hope that we will see a future that
Planet can play a role in a future where, you know, we are able
to do more with less, less inputs, less land, and feed more
people.
Mr. Allen. Well, farming is the largest industry in my
district and the largest in our State, and we don't have much
dry land farming anymore. It is, like I said, very precise. And
you mentioned the moisture content of the soil and just putting
just enough water. They also plant the seed with fertilizer
already in it. And so it is pretty amazing.
The Starlink and--or Mr. Goldman and Mr. Davidson, do
Starlink--and tell us to provide a service to farmers and
ranchers, and what role does satellite technology have to play
in supporting precision agriculture technologies?
Mr. Goldman. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question.
And as Mr. Davidson said, you know, we are not--we are not
expecting to see fiber to the tractor anytime soon. So
satellite is the solution. I can tell you, for Starlink, we
have high-performing antennas that are essentially flat. And
you can actually put it on a tractor and be able to get high-
speed broadband all the way to a tractor anywhere to the last
acre on the field.
And so we are currently--so first of all, we have farmers
who are customers who are using these services already. But we
are also working with a lot of farm equipment manufacturers and
trying to think of new ways and new--new innovative ideas to be
able to integrate high-speed broadband into the equipment that
is being used already.
Mr. Davidson. And Congressman, we have a slightly different
business model at Intelsat than Starlink does. We have multi-
orbit, multilayer with a 5G core. So that means we utilize
partnerships, and we have our GEO satellites. And we have MEO
and LEO partners that we integrate into the network. And we
have the largest infrastructure in--terrestrial infrastructure
of any satellite operator as well. So all of this stuff is--
operates through from end to end 5G compatibility. So we are
doing many of the same things that Starlink is with a slightly
different business model that delivers that, you know--well,
sometimes different services, sometimes similar services and
working again with equipment manufacturers and farmers to
provide the service.
So the future is very bright for this. And I think, as long
as government provides the right foundation, you are going to
see more progress in this area.
Mr. Allen. Well, food supply is going to be an
international need, and certainly we need to continue to look
at every way we can produce food, because we are going to be
doing a lot for the rest of the world.
I only have just 24 seconds but--and you can submit this to
me. I just--we learned there's a lot of satellites up there and
we know that technology like in these things is changing by the
hour. I mean, do some of those satellites need to come down,
and we need to put new ones up there? And you can just submit
that in writing rather than take committee time. I would just
like to know what is the program on recycling all the stuff up
there and using the best, latest technology.
With that, Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. The gentleman yields back. And
at this time, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Utah
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, our
witnesses. Thank you for this hearing. I want to go in a little
different direction and talk about technology that it feels
like we are just in the very beginning of, using satellite
technology to monitor specific sources of carbon emissions. It
feels like this is in its infancy, but it might be a good tool
particularly overseas and narrowed down source emissions, I
understand, within a square mile, which would be very helpful.
There are some hurdles. For example, there are issues with
visibility through cloud cover. But potential for this
technology is immense.
Danielle, I'm trying to pronounce your last name.
Ms. Pineres. Pineres.
Mr. Curtis. Pineres. OK. Thank you. Satellite technology
could be used to ensure closed societies like Russia and China
are being transparent about their emissions. Can't this
technology be used to ensure China is giving reliable data on
their emissions and uncover possible accidents that are harmful
to the environment?
Ms. Pineres. Thank you very much for the question. Planet
is actually working to understand methane emissions. And we
have plans for a new groundbreaking hyperspectral satellite
constellation called Tanager. And we expect to begin launching
this year. Our hyperspectral mission is designed to support the
identification of methane emissions at the facility scale, so
at a very small scale, along with a myriad of other
applications that can improve life on Earth spanning across
areas such as biodiversity, water quality, et cetera.
So we are actually undertaking this hyperspectral mission
as part of the Carbon Mapper Coalition, which is a public-
private partnership with a broad-based coalition of industry
and nonprofit organizations. So we are really looking forward
to seeing how this hyperspectral data can complement the other
satellite imagery that Planet uses but really hoping that it
will be a game changer in terms of ability to identify
emissions to allow governments to--governments and companies to
keep tabs both on their own emissions, others' emissions, and
there would be a lot more transparency around emissions and
accidents going forward.
Mr. Curtis. And keeping people accountable. I am told most
of the satellites with these capabilities are government-owned.
But is this technology useful in the private sector? Do you
think we will see this grow?
Ms. Pineres. We do believe it is useful in the private
sector. As I mentioned, we do have plans to launch a
hyperspectral constellation. And so I guess we'll see. But I
think Planet certainly sees value in hyperspectral data,
particularly for these climate change emissions-monitoring-type
applications.
Mr. Curtis. I'm aware of one company that is using it for
mining industry gas and oil, better track methane. Are there
challenges that we should be aware of in Congress with getting
these capabilities licensed?
Ms. Pineres. Thank you very much for the question. You
know, I think one thing that is interesting about Planet and
our--we have slightly different licensing needs than are--than
are faced by others on the panel. For instance, we are--we are
typically exempted from the processing round requirements
because of the Earth observation, the Earth exploration
satellite service spectrum that we use. We share our spectrum
in a different way.
But nevertheless, you know, we really appreciate the
committee's work on the SAT Streamlining Act and the focus on
ensuring a transparent and timely licensing process that will
enable us to continue to get our satellites authorized and have
those authorizations in place to permit our business to go
forward.
Mr. Curtis. I have no doubt that China is also very
interested in this technology. What do we need to do to stay
ahead of them, and how do we--how do we make sure that we
dominate in this technology?
Ms. Pineres. Yes. What a great question. There is--as
you've heard from across the panel today, the U.S. is a leader
in terms of regulation but also behind, right? We are doing
great on orbital debris and sort of leading the way on that.
But in order to have effective orbital debris policy, it can't
just be the United States. We need to be working with others
globally to try to make sure that everyone around the world is
abiding by these orbital debris rules.
I think in addition, we--in addition to FCC regulation, we
also face Earth observation regulation specific to our
industry. And so we really appreciate NOAA, our regulator,
streamlining the rules back in 2020 for Earth observation
satellites and look forward to continuing to work with them to
try to make some additional changes to try to make sure that
the U.S. remains the world leader in this technology.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you. I didn't mean to neglect the other
three. Twenty seconds left if any of you have any comments on
these issues.
Good. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'll yield my time. Thank
you.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back,
and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's 12th
District for 5 minutes.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Green or Mr.
Allen just left, but I wanted to acknowledge and thank you all
for being here, give my shout-out to former colleague of ours
Bob Gibbs, Congressman Gibbs, who is a Starlink customer. And I
had to hear all about it for 2 weeks, about how great it was.
And he installed it himself, so he is quite accomplished.
But on his farm, it is very useful. And it has been a
saving grace for him and his wife and his grandchildren. And I
have had numerous folks from the congressional district, Kyla
who works with our--Farm Bureau and just the successes that
they've had.
So thank you, Starlink, Mr. Goodman. And I will direct my
questions predominantly to you today. So SpaceX recently
announced a partnership with T-Mobile that would pair
Starlink's satellite with T-Mobile's wireless network.
During the first panel, I discussed the importance of
filling in the coverage gaps that hurt my constituents in rural
and Appalachia Ohio. Excuse me. This innovation from the
private sector sounds like a promising start, but we must
ensure it's not thwarted by unnecessary red tape before it has
a chance.
Mr. Goodman, what regulatory barriers have you run into
while seeking authorization from the FCC to provide satellite-
to-cellular services?
Mr. Goldman. Thank you so much for the question and for the
kind words. Really do appreciate it. And so to just back up one
step, we do have a deal with T-Mobile where we are going to be
using their licensed spectrum. And essentially our satellites
will look like a wireless tower to a phone. So when you don't--
when you are in a dead spot, when you are--when you can't--when
your phone can't see a normal cell tower, it will see our
satellites as though it is a tower and be able to fill in those
gaps.
At this point, I am happy to say we have not run into any
significant regulatory problems. But it is--it is in the early
time on this. We actually just had to refile an application for
this yesterday. So we are--we are early in the process. I do
expect where regulations struggle is when you have something
that doesn't fit neatly into any of the boxes that they are
used to. And this is--this is one of those things. Regulators
are not used to seeing--they are not used to seeing someone
asking to use satellites in cellular spectrum.
So we are going to have to work closely with the FCC to try
to figure out how to smooth things out. So far, we have gotten
very positive feedback from the FCC and the staff, but it is
going to be a regulatory challenge.
Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you. To follow up with that, how
will the SAT Streamlining Act and the ALERT Parity Act make
that process easier for you and other companies that may wish
to provide cell--satellite-to-cellular service?
Mr. Goldman. Well--sorry. That's a mouthful. One of the
great things about the Satellite Streamlining Act is it gives
us certainty that, when we apply for a license, we know we have
some idea of when we are going to get it. Right now, we have
no--we put in an application, we have no idea when it is going
to come out. It is really hard to build technology when you
have no idea when you are going to be able to start using it.
So it really adds to that certainty, which is absolutely
necessary.
On the ALERT Parity Act, it is a really interesting idea
that we would really love to be able to work with you on. One
of the things that it does that is a novel concept is that, in
the event of an emergency, it allows you to be able to use
other spectrum that is not already being used to be able to
provide lifesaving services. And our equipment that we are
going to be using with the T-Mobile service actually can access
other spectrum bands. For example, there is mobile satellite
spectrum that is not actually being heavily used right now.
And so one possibility is that under that--this act is that
we might be able to access some of that spectrum in event of an
emergency.
Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you very much. My last question is
Professor Lohmeyer. Thank you for being here, Professor. In
your testimony, you touched on the SpaceX and the T-Mobile
partnership. Can you outline some of the technical concerns
that this partnership would need to address to move forward
with deployment?
Dr. Lohmeyer. Well, one thing that was coming to mind when
you were just speaking was just this history since I have been
involved. In 2015 at the World Radio Conference, U.S.
delegation was prioritizing terrestrial spectrum allocations.
And we've seen at the FCC seaband--107, right? The shift from
terrestrial allocations and targeting satellites--satellite
frequencies for terrestrial use. Now we are in this paradigm
where--shift where satellite services are looking at
terrestrial frequencies for use.
And so going back to things that we needed, prioritizing
satellite at the international and national level and the
regulatory frameworks for those spectrum allocations.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
witnesses, for being here today. Mr. Goldman, I represent a
very rural district in East Tennessee, and there's a lot of
areas where laying fiber for traditional broadband is just
difficult. What is the status of Starlink's deployment, and
what speeds do Starlink service currently offer?
And I read where you have the Starlink project that will be
expanded in Wise County, Virginia, which is, you know, the
district next to me in Southwest Virginia that are going to be
serving students. And I saw in Eastern Kentucky where you have
expanded the program that's connecting residents to telehealth,
which is going to be--telehealth is here to stay, and we are
going to be able to utilize that for those residents. So what
is the status of the Starlink's deployment?
Mr. Goldman. Yes. Thank you so much for that question. And
those are the kinds of projects that have been the most
exciting things that we are working on. So I really appreciate
highlighting those. And, right, in Wise County we were able to
work with the county, and we initially--we started with 40
units that we--of our user terminals to be able to connect
people in Wise County. And the program went so well that we've
been expanding it since then. And it really has been a great
success because what we were able to do is bring high-speed
broadband to people who just didn't have--not even like they
had slow options. They had no options.
Mrs. Harshbarger. No options.
Mr. Goldman. No--and so it really has been very fulfilling
and exciting to see. As you mentioned, Western Kentucky, we
have similar ones. The good news is that our system is
everywhere already. We are seeing, on average, about 100-
megabit speeds. So it's about what you--anyone would need for
kind of residential use. We have enterprise services that can
go faster than that. We've even seen kind of burst speeds that
are at, like, 350 megabits where you can actually get even
much, much higher. So--and so we are available anywhere at this
point.
We do have areas where we are essentially oversubscribed in
some areas. And so we have a little bit of a wait list. What we
are--we are continuing to launch. We are launching every 4 days
to put up more satellites. And that will give us more capacity
to be able to put more people on the network, even in places
where we are a little bit congested right now.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes. In addition to high-speed internet,
it is my understanding that the LEO systems like Starlink can
provide important complementary services or add-on capabilities
for terrestrial networks as well. And I saw last year that
SpaceX announced a direct-to-sale service, which is supposed to
end the dead zones in a lot of distressed counties too for
mobile service. Could you provide an update on the buildout of
that system and talk a little bit about what Starlink is or
will be able to offer to assist with other communication
challenges beyond the high-speed LEO internet?
Mr. Goldman. Yes. Thank you for the question. This is
another one that we are really excited about. We just submitted
a new application for that, actually, yesterday for that
service. We are hoping to start launching those satellites,
assuming FCC approval is coming this year. We are hoping to be
able to start launching those antennas on our satellites as
soon as this year. We are working with T-Mobile for a very
rapid rollout of that once we have approval. It works with your
standard phones already. So as soon as we are able to start
launching enough satellites to have service, your phones will
already be able to do it.
And, yes, I--to full disclosure, this isn't going to be a
5G service, but it will allow you to text and have emergency
alerts and things like that. And hopefully at some point we
will have voice and kind of low-speed data too.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, that is pretty sweet. I have got a
little bit of time left. You know, I am reading about the
Secure Space Act. And, you know, other countries are moving
forward with significant investment in LEO systems. And I read
here where China is aggressively--of course we know they are
pursuing a satellite constellation, which is StarNet. But the
statement that you have says while the U.S. has blocked the
installation or use of Chinese hardware telecommunications
network domestically due to security concerns, many nations
have few options when it comes to telecommunications
infrastructure and must rely on whoever can provide that for
them. They won't--matter if they are going to spy on them or
whatever.
Are you aware of any countries who are using
telecommunications from adversarial nations to the U.S.?
Mr. Goldman. Well, we have seen this on the terrestrial
side already, where we have seen what has happened is I think
Congresswoman Eshoo was mentioned earlier with Huawei and ZTE.
What they have been able to do is work with countries around
the world that have no other options and bring low-cost options
and get there before kind of U.S. manufacturers or anyone else
would be able to deploy the equipment.
In space so far--so far, the U.S. is ahead. But we are
watching over our shoulder that foreign actors--it's not just
that it's foreign actors and it's foreign powers, it's they
have state-backed systems so they will be able to--they will
have resources that just no private actor is going to have. And
so the only way that the U.S. is going to keep its lead is that
we continue to innovate as quickly as possible and that the
regulatory burdens don't slow us down.
Mrs. Harshbarger. That is a big deal. We have got to get on
it. Thank you for that, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Texas' 11th District for 5
minutes.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses
for being here. I know it has been a long day, but we
appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about these issues
and really hone in on some things.
I will start with Ms. Pineres. We talked a lot about the
impact on satellite technology on precision agriculture. And
I'm just kind of wondering, you know, there has been a lot of
answers today already. So without being redundant, I mentioned
this in the first panel that the district I represent has a lot
of cotton. And, you know, it is very helpful to have the
understanding of not just the soil but where the precision
location of the seed is. And can you just kind of talk to me
about some of the emerging technologies and where this is
headed and what we should be looking at?
Ms. Pineres. Yes. Thank you very much for the question. So
I mentioned that satellite imagery can be used for precision
agriculture in order to monitor soil, moisture content in order
to allow farmers to see on--on sort of a crop--a field-by-field
basis on a daily basis what the crop health is looking like and
where they might need more inputs to get the right output at
the end of the day. And so we--we continue to offer that to
farmers to try to meet them where they are. You know, they are
not geospatial experts. So we offer our satellite data within
the farm management platforms that farmers use today.
In addition, you know, just to move to a slightly different
area, we also have a contract with NASA. And I talked about
NASA Harvest earlier, but we also have a contract with NASA
where researchers that are funded by any U.S. Federal civilian
agency or the National Science Foundation, including their
contractors and grantees, have access to our data. So I think
there is something on the order of 2,000 research papers that
are out there on a wide variety of topics. Could be
agriculture, it could be climate change, you know, Arctic
monitoring, lots of different areas.
And so I think the continued availability of our data for
scientific research can also lend itself to better agriculture
applications in the future.
Mr. Pfluger. How many farmers are you seeing? I mean,
percentage increase. And we don't even know this. And anybody--
welcome to answer this, but I mean what's the increase that
we've seen over the last 10 years, say, in applications for
agriculture used by producers?
Ms. Pineres. That's a great question, one I would have to
get back to you on in terms of uptake on our data. But I would
be happy to follow up.
Mr. Pfluger. Any risk when it comes to cybersecurity for
agriculture?
Ms. Pineres. That is a great question. We haven't talked
about cybersecurity much yet on the panel today. I think all
satellite operators are very conscious of cybersecurity risk.
And so we all take measures to protect our networks.
Mr. Pfluger. OK. I'll go with Ms. Lohmeyer on the next one.
Just, you know, from your experience, what is keeping you up at
night when it comes to the action process of authorizing and
getting, you know, the--is government acting at the speed of
relevancy? Are we able to get the appropriate licenses and
authorizations, and is that process moving fast enough to keep
up with technology?
Dr. Lohmeyer. So your first point, what is keeping me up at
night when I work on these applications and just to shed light
on what the experience is like. So we have got NTA wanting to
file. They collect. And they collect data on their systems.
They perform interference analyses. And then they have got this
package that they submit into the system. That is the IBFS on
the international bureau side; if it is an experimental
license, it is the ELS. And they are different, and they are
database driven.
And it is almost this kind of period of time where you are
about to submit, there is relief after you submit, and then
there is a waiting game. You wait until the FCC comes back with
inquiries. And it is just in this black box. But I think we
talked about earlier the system could be improved upon if there
was more of a means for communicating with the FCC
automatically. So say you submit a document and it just uploads
to a website. But maybe there's additional features that could
allow you to know the status of that document. Maybe there's
questions. Maybe it is just accepted after review.
The same thing applies for coordination, which pertains to
your relevancy question as we interact with international
players. So the coordination process is such that sometimes you
are sitting on other sides of the table from an operator. But
it is actually the administration, so the FCC in the U.S. or
Ofcom in the U.K., that arrange or organize these sorts of
exchanges. And so you submit letters to the FCC, which then
forward the letters to Ofcom or which other nation has a
cofrequency use. And that admin submits letters to its
operators.
So some way to really automate this process and reduce the
waiting time would address relevancy.
Mr. Pfluger. I am out of time, but I will submit a question
on whether or not that hampers our competition----
Dr. Lohmeyer. Thank you.
Mr. Pfluger [continuing]. With other countries in the
world.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back,
and the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for our
witnesses for hanging in there, your endurance. It is a very
important topic. But I recognize that a lot of this is
technical. Basically, at this point, all of my questions have
been asked that I had prepared. So we are just going to free-
ball it here. So all the witnesses--this is to you, but since I
only have 4 minutes and 38 seconds, please keep your answers
brief.
In the first panel, Mr. Glass from NTIA, he was speaking
about coordination efforts. We are talking Commerce Department
and the FCC. And I was looking back on my notes, and one thing
that he had mentioned was, quote, they ``were always striving
to improve.'' When I asked him to follow up on that about what
does that mean exactly--because, you know, bureaucrats, they
say that, right? What does that mean? What metric do you
measure to--when you talk about improvements?
And he said that they don't have any. So speaking from the
private side, the industry side, what would be an acceptable
metric, a system by which they can measure a tangible level of
improvement that increases transparency for industry
efficiencies within a system so that we can keep moving forward
on this and gives the public, quite frankly, confidence that
things are moving forward? And we can just go right down the
line.
Ms. Pineres. Thank you very much for the question. I want
to think about metrics. It is a really important issue, and I
wouldn't want to just come up with one off the top of my head.
So let us circle back with you on any specific metrics. But I
will say I think in terms of outputs that we see from the
private-sector side and things that have been useful, the NTA,
FCC MOU, the renegotiation of that, you know, we are seeing and
hearing about increased communication between the FCC and NTIA.
And we think that is really critical.
I would say also, as we are talking about satellite
streamlining and ways to make coordination--ease the burdens of
coordination, make things easier, I think early communication
by the FCC to NTA of satellite applications could be very
useful. Most of the satellite applications need to be
coordinated with Federal operators. And so I think that looking
at how early the FCC is sharing those applications at NTA may
be one measure we could take a look at.
Mrs. Cammack. OK. Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. Yes. Thank you for the question. I think
looking at speeds--speed of decision making is critical. It
is--when I was listening to the panel this morning, there was a
lot of talk about the MOU and the increased coordination. And
absolutely. This spectrum is shared not just with commercial
interests but also with Federal interests and absolutely needs
to be coordinated with everyone who is there.
But the more people you add into coordination process, the
more everything slows down. And so I think making sure there is
a counterbalance that as we more--add more parties to the
coordination discussion, we are looking at longer and longer
timelines. And so being able to make sure that we keep the
pressure going the other way as well, that these coordination
discussions are thorough and they are complete, but they are
also done in a timely way.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you.
Mr. Davidson. I would just add--I don't know if this is a
metric or not, but it--if you look at orbital debris, kind of
the regulation of orbital debris----
Mrs. Cammack. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Davidson [continuing]. I don't know. There's maybe five
agencies, maybe more than five, that are involved in some
aspect of that. And the jurisdictional, you know, kind of land
grabs on that--in that topic are not efficient. And so there
should be some--I don't know whether it is coordination or
clarification of who is in charge of what in the U.S.
Government I think would be very useful to have.
Mrs. Cammack. I like that.
Dr. Lohmeyer. And I would just like to share that the FCC
has, in fact, recently required an NTIA data form for its
filers, especially experimental licenses, which effectively
documents the technical parameters, power, modulation schemes,
to assess interference into its network, which is a step above
what was required in the past, which usually looked like a
series of emails back and forth to Air Force, NOAA, and NASA,
which was kind of a guessing game of who you needed to include
as well, so----
Mrs. Cammack. OK. Thank you. I'm running short on time. So
I am going to ask two questions be submitted for the record,
one dealing with specific regulations that you would love to
see taken off the books; second, since this is a committee on
innovation in this space, some of the workforce challenges that
you all are seeing in trends and how we can address on the
front end.
But I am going to give my last 30 seconds to you, Mr.
Goldman. My district--emergency departments and first
responders are having to invest upwards of $15 million per
county--and I represent 12--in building out an updated
emergency communication system. Can you touch on the work that
SpaceX is doing in addressing those first responder
communications and where that might be a good alternative?
Mr. Goldman. Yes. We don't need the same sort of ground
infrastructure to be built out. We are already there. We
already have coverage. So you don't need to do that initial
huge--we have kind of already done the huge investment upfront.
And we can, just with the deployment of user equipment, we can
come in, and we are already actually working with a lot of
first responders in Florida to do that. And I am happy to work
with your office to see what we can do specifically in your
district.
Mrs. Cammack. Excellent. We are 3 minutes--seconds over.
Mr. Latta. OK.
Mrs. Cammack. I yield.
Mr. Latta. Amazing. The gentlelady's time has expired, and
the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Idaho for 5
minutes.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, am going to
deviate here right at the end of the hearing from the--a little
bit. But what has been on my mind throughout this discussion
has been the issue of security and dependability and things
that pop into my mind that could disrupt service: malfunction,
cyber attack, some kind of breach, obsolescence, some kind of
collision. Knowing what you do about the technology and the
circumstances it is operating within, what is our greatest
vulnerability to security and dependability? And I will start
with Ms. Lohmeyer.
Dr. Lohmeyer. Tough question. I think I would like to get
back to you on the record.
Mr. Fulcher. And please do that. And I am just going to ask
Mr. Davidson: security, dependability--what is our biggest
fear? What should we worry about? What should our--keeps us
awake at night?
Mr. Davidson. Yes. So, first of all, I invite you to come
out to our network operations center in Tysons Corner here in
Virginia--it is just about a 16-minute drive from the Capitol--
so you can watch yourself. We are flying the satellites from
that office there, and you can kind of see what is going on and
in that--in that setting. So some of our engineers will be able
to tell you about kind of what their biggest fears are.
I do think that--I think cybersecurity is something we
should be very concerned about. I mean, we have our subsidiary,
IGC, does a lot of work with U.S. national security agencies
and intelligence agencies. And so we build that into our
network. So we feel like they are extremely secure. But there
are a lot of operators around the world that don't have that
kind of security with--you know, built into their systems. And
as, you know, Mr. Goldman had mentioned before, you know, there
aren't always the incentives to build state-of-the-art whether
it be spectral efficiency or security into your equipment. So I
think there are a lot of vulnerabilities in the cyber
throughout the world. Not everyone is up to the same standards
as the folks on this panel.
Mr. Fulcher. And if there is a problem, it's not like we
can go get a technician and a man and go work on it.
Mr. Davidson. Well, these satellites are up there for, you
know, 20 years or so. And so we have to build them--you know,
again, we spend billions of dollars. We just launched--launched
or are launching--and SpaceX launches most of our satellites.
So we, you know, spend billions of dollars building and
launching these satellites. And so we design them very well,
but that is not necessarily the standard that is held by
everyone.
Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Goldman, speak to security and
dependability, if you would, please.
Mr. Goldman. Yes. Thank you so much for the question. Yes.
We have teams of people who think about this all the time. I
think that they would be very upset with me if I gave too much
in a public setting, but we are happy to talk to you offline
about a number of those.
But let me just--a little bit of what we do to address some
of these issues. It is all--our entire system is built end-to-
end in the United States. So we manufacture our satellites in
Washington. We manufacture our user equipment in California. We
launch out of Florida. Everything--everything is built in the
United States. I think one of the bills you actually have in
front of you that is being considered at this hearing, this
Secure Space Act----
Mr. Fulcher. Yes.
Mr. Goldman [continuing]. Actually is a very smart bill to
be getting ahead of this issue early. I was mentioning earlier
we saw what happened on the terrestrial side when we didn't get
ahead of that early and we saw equipment getting built into the
networks that essentially built backdoors into the systems. We
can't do that in space. There is no rip-and-replace in space.
And so it is the fact that the--that the committee is getting
ahead of this now, I think, is actually really a positive sign
and I think will be very helpful into the future.
Mr. Fulcher. And you say if cyber would be towards the top,
cyber attack?
Mr. Goldman. Absolutely. And at least for us, we have--our
system is encrypted end-to-end. We can't--we can't even see in
ourselves. From the time that it touches our network to the
time it leaves, it is completely encrypted.
Mr. Fulcher. OK. Thank you. Ms. Pineres, we have got 1
minute left.
Ms. Pineres. Thank you for the question. I would just say I
think, although our satellites face multiple threats, I think
one of the beauties of some of the constellations that you are
seeing in low-Earth orbit, NGSO constellations like Planet's,
for instance, are Dove satellites. We have approximately 180 up
in space today, and we are launching new ones regularly with
SpaceX, actually. And so I think having--if just--if something
happens to just one satellite, we have the redundancy in space
to be able to continue to take the imagery that our customers
rely on. So I think thinking about security not just in terms
of cybersecurity risk or dazzling of satellites but also
thinking about how constellations are designed to provide that
kind of redundancy is very helpful.
Mr. Fulcher. Great. Thank you. Mr. Davidson, I intend on
taking you up on that offer.
Mr. Davidson. Absolutely. I will send you an invite.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you.
Mr. Fulcher. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Ohio for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and once again,
thanks for allowing me to weigh on to talk about these really
important issues.
Mr. Davidson, let me get right to it with you. As you noted
in your testimony, Intelsat has been supporting emergency
communications and natural disasters all over the world,
although Intelsat has primarily been a geostationary Earth
orbit provider. In your view, what type of coordination or best
practices should the FCC consider including for the rulemaking
required in the ALERT Parity Act enabling the provision of
emergency connectivity in remote areas?
Mr. Davidson. So, Congressman, thank you for the question.
I recently just concluded a stint as the chair of the Crisis
Connectivity Center. It is part of a World Food Program
coordination for all world disaster. So what happens is whether
it is terrestrial providers or satellite providers get together
and figure out how to get in quickly. And, you know, oftentimes
satellite is the first one to be able to get in there. So it is
a really critical first responder. So your question is a really
good one.
So we use our own spectrum rights that we already have when
we go into areas for disaster response. So we kind of self-
provision both the equipment and the use of the spectrum. So I
don't know that I'm the best one to be able to advise for
people who don't have that--the spectrum or the equipment, what
they need, so I may defer to another panelist to answer
specifically that question. But I think the intent of your--of
the legislation is excellent. And I think focusing on the needs
of--you know, these things pop up, you can't always plan for
them. And so putting the things in place in advance, which your
legislation does, I think is a good--is great policy.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Goldman, as I mentioned last week to
Amazon about Project Kuiper, I am very excited about the
possibilities of LEO satellite broadband and the integral role
that it would play in bridging the urban-rural digital divide.
I have actually had the opportunity to set up Starlink at your
office here in DC. And I saw for myself how easy it was to set
up and even did a speed test. I have got a staff member back in
Ohio that is--that is using the system to connect her entire
farm, loves it. While Starlink is available in some areas in
Ohio, I know there are many more in our rural Appalachian
district who are eagerly waiting for Starlink to become
available in their communities.
How many additional satellites does SpaceX intend to launch
in order to meet the great demand across the United States and
globally while maintaining the promised speeds and latency for
existing customers? Will you need more than the 4,408
satellites authorized by the FCC?
Mr. Goldman. Yes. Thanks for the question. Yes. The FCC
actually just authorized us last month, 2 months ago, for our
new Gen 2 System, which is another 7,500 satellites initially.
And those actually will be more capable satellites. We have
already started launching into the--into those orbits that is
already going to start adding new capacity to the network. And
so we are going to be launching more and more capable
satellites.
And we continue to innovate. It is just like innovation on
the ground: You just keep doing it, you don't stop, and so the
system should become more and more capable over time, and we
should be able to make sure that we are really excited about
the amount of demand that we see in your district, and we are
excited to be able to get all those people who want the service
to be able to get on as quickly as possible.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Continuing with you, Mr. Goldman, have
there been any important takeaways for SpaceX from your
experience providing vital internet service in Ukraine?
Mr. Goldman. In Ukraine? Oh, yes. That is something I
personally am very proud of that we were able to do. And
basically the Ukrainian Government asked us to step in and help
when the Russian--Russia invaded. And within 48 hours, we had
service. And we are providing service to--we are continuing to
provide service to Ukrainians across the country.
Important lessons, that is a good question. I don't know.
We have been learning a lot through the entire process. That is
obviously a very contentious area to be providing service. What
we have seen is efforts to try to jam the system, so we have
had to learn how to be able to avoid jamming. It has definitely
taught us a lot of lessons on how to make the system more
resilient and more redundant.
Mr. Johnson. Well, maybe you don't want to answer this
here, but just a follow-on: Are you talking to DoD and any of
our special operations folks? I mean, that is a pretty compact
system to be able to take anywhere.
Mr. Goldman. Yes, we are, and I am happy to talk to you
offline about that as well.
Mr. Johnson. OK, great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and seeing
no further Members here to ask questions, I--again, I want to
thank our witnesses for being with us today. You can tell----
Mr. Goldman. Thank you.
Mr. Latta [continuing]. From the questions for last--when
you started--last couple hours has been a lot of--a lot of
interest. You know, a couple things that I always--I listen to
and I always say is that this subcommittee, this committee, we
look over the horizon 5 to 10 years, and so we always have to
have your input and make sure that we are getting the right
laws in the books and then followed by the right regulations.
Another thing is that we always see, the government or any
agency picking winners and losers out there, because usually it
is going to be the losers. So we want the best that can be out
there for everyone.
So I ask unanimous consent to insert--documents included on
the staff hearing documents list. Without objection, that will
be ordered. And without objection, so ordered.
Pursuant to committee rules, I remind Members that they
have 10 business days to submit questions for the record, and I
ask that witnesses respond to the questions promptly. Members
should submit their questions by the close of business on
February the 23rd.
And without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]