[Senate Hearing 118-725]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-725
SPECTRUM AND NATIONAL SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 21, 2024
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-847 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota TED CRUZ, Texas, Ranking
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
GARY PETERS, Michigan DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin JERRY MORAN, Kansas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada TED BUDD, North Carolina
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado J. D. VANCE, Ohio
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
PETER WELCH, Vermont Virginia
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
Lila Harper Helms, Staff Director
Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
Jonathan Hale, General Counsel
Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
Nicole Christus, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Liam McKenna, General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 21, 2024................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................ 2
Statement of Senator Welch....................................... 31
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 32
Statement of Senator Capito...................................... 34
Statement of Senator Rosen....................................... 36
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 38
Letter dated March 6, 2024 to Hon. Mike Johnson, Hon. Charles
E. Schumer, Hon. Hakeem Jeffries and Hon. Mitch McConnell
from Tim Donovan, President and CEO, Competitive Carriers
Association................................................ 38
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 42
Statement of Senator Blackburn................................... 43
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 45
Letter dated March 19, 2024 to Hon. Maria Cantwell and Hon.
Ted Cruz from Mel Maier, Spokesman, Public Safety Next
Generation 9-1-1 Coalition................................. 45
Statement of Senator Vance....................................... 48
Statement of Senator Hickenlooper................................ 50
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 52
Statement of Senator Lummis...................................... 54
Statement of Senator Lujan....................................... 57
Letter dated March 21, 2024 to Hon. Maria Cantwell and Hon.
Ted Cruz from: Access Humboldt, American Association of
People with Disabilities, American Association for Public
Broadband, American Library Association, The Benton
Institute for Broadband & Society, Center for Rural
Strategies, Common Cause, Common Sense, Connected Nation,
Demand Progress, EducationSuperHighway, Fight for the
Future, Free Press Action, The Greenlining Institute,
Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Mississippi Broadband
Association, National Consumer Law Center, National Digital
Inclusion Alliance (NDIA), National Disability Rights
Network (NDRN), Native Public Media, NETWORK Lobby for
Catholic Social Justice, Open Technology Institute, Public
Knowledge, Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband (SHLB)
Coalition, United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry.. 59
Statement of Senator Schmitt..................................... 61
Witnesses
Professor Monisha Ghosh, Department of Electrical Engineering,
University of Notre Dame; Policy Outreach Director, SpectrumX;
Research Professor (Adjunct), University of Chicago; Joint
Appointment, Argonne National Laboratory....................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Mary Brown, Executive Director, WifiForward...................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Clete D. Johnson, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and
International Studies; Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Diane Rinaldo, Executive Director, Open Ran Policy Coalition..... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for
the Economic of the Internet, Hudson Institute................. 22
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Monisha Ghosh by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 63
Hon. Kyrsten Sinema.......................................... 64
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........................................... 66
Hon. John Hickenlooper....................................... 67
Hon. Raphael Warnock......................................... 68
Hon. Ted Cruz................................................ 69
Response to written questions submitted to Mary L. Brown by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 70
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........................................... 71
Hon. John Hickenlooper....................................... 72
Hon. Ted Cruz................................................ 73
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 74
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 75
Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................ 76
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito.................................... 77
Response to written questions submitted to Clete D. Johnson by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 78
Hon. Kyrsten Sinema.......................................... 79
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........................................... 81
Hon. John Hickenlooper....................................... 82
Hon. Raphael Warnock......................................... 83
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 83
Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................ 85
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito.................................... 86
Response to written questions submitted to Diane Rinaldo by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 86
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........................................... 87
Hon. John Hickenlooper....................................... 87
Hon. Raphael Warnock......................................... 88
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 88
Response to written questions submitted to Harold Furchtgott-Roth
by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 89
Hon. Kyrsten Sinema.......................................... 89
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........................................... 91
Hon. John Hickenlooper....................................... 91
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 92
Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................ 93
SPECTRUM AND NATIONAL SECURITY
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria
Cantwell, Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cantwell [presiding], Klobuchar, Markey,
Peters, Baldwin, Tester, Rosen, Lujan, Hickenlooper, Warnock,
Welch, Cruz, Thune, Wicker, Fischer, Sullivan, Blackburn,
Young, Budd, Schmitt, Vance, Capito, and Lummis.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
The Chair. Good morning. The Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation will come to order.
This morning we are having the hearing on spectrum and
national security, and appreciate the witnesses being here
today. Today's hearing will focus on the interrelationship of
these two critical factors, spectrum auction authority and
national security, and getting a plan to move forward.
Foreign adversaries' access to Americans' data is a real
and growing concern, and we must act to shut the door to
protect Americans. But we are seeing this conversation around
applications and devices, and we need to consider the national
security of communications networks themselves.
So really appreciate our witnesses being here on that
point. The network relies on spectrum, whether it is cell
phones in our pockets, connected devices in our homes, critical
defense systems in our military, radar, satellites for
aviation, weather infrastructure spectrum, all essential
components of a modern communication system.
Spectrum is a finite resource, which means policymakers
must ensure and manage it effectively to the benefits of all
Americans. And last year, after 30 years of consensus that
auctions were a key part of spectrum management, the FCC's
spectrum authority expired for the first time.
We want to renew that. We want to look at today and discuss
the outer bands, you know, the 12 and 37 AWS and what we can do
to make sure spectrum is made available now to continue to
increase capacity, expand the opportunities for new technology
and IoT, and leverage the opportunities for areas that aren't
covered today to grow our economy of the future.
We must also ensure that spectrum is managed, and our
national security colleagues who have been in a very active
debate with us over these issues, that we are expanding this
capacity for innovation. The private sector and the defense
sector both need to advance. They need to advance successfully,
and the United States must be the leader in spectrum technology
and security.
We have seen firsthand the threats of our foreign
adversaries that they pose to the domestic communication
network. For example, the presence of unsecure equipment for
Huawei and ZTE and our key domestic military installations
impacted our communities. Rural providers across the nation,
including my home state, are having to replace unsecure
equipment costing billions of dollars.
And as development begins on next generation wireless
networks, it is critical the United States take a unified
approach and continue to have the best spectrum policies in the
world. It is clear that spectrum policy has often been the
subject of interagency disputes, and that too, with the IO--
with the report that was published by NTIA and DOD on dynamic
spectrum sharing, moved the discussion to a new level, but more
needs to be done.
A domestic approach to spectrum management built on
collaboration will allow the United States to continue to lead
on the international front. The FCC, NTIA, and NASA, DOD, and
others must work together to ensure that we continue to work
openly and collectively.
Spectrum management must also embrace innovation like ORAN,
open ORAN, which we will hear more about today, which will
allow telecom providers to use secure competitive networks.
And innovation must expand spectrum access, with
technologies like the dynamic spectrum sharing--harness the
opportunities. Other collective spectrum management and
technology innovation--I believe we can create a true pipeline.
That is what we really want to do. We want to get what we can
get now, get it in place, and continue to grow the
opportunities.
A sustainable, responsible vision will allow us to move
forward on both our private sector and our DOD missions. For
this to happen, we must restore the FCC's auction authority and
our strategy should include approaches on unlicensed and
licensed spectrum.
Today's hearing is about the national security element of
that, and clearly once we address that, hopefully we will get
our colleagues to focus on how to make these priorities a
reality and create that kind of pipeline that will allow us to
deal with some of our necessary issues for us to grow this
security for the future.
So, with that, I will turn to the Ranking Member, Senator
Cruz, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Madam Chair, for convening this
hearing about spectrum policy and national security. It
couldn't come at a more critical time. Spectrum auction
authority has been lapsed for more than a year.
The Biden Administration has no concrete plans for getting
spectrum into the marketplace. And all the while, the mid-band
spectrum gap between the United States and China continues to
grow.
This is a problem not just for our Nation's wireless
companies and their consumers, but for our national security.
For too long, our leaders have been--have treated national
security and wireless innovation as mutually exclusive.
That is deeply shortsighted. If we want national security,
we need wireless innovation. If we want American companies and
trusted vendors to prevail against our adversaries, we need to
lead on spectrum.
Or to put it another way, if the United States does not
dominate in next generation wireless networks and technology,
we will become dependent on our adversaries and compromise our
national security.
To remain the world leader on 5G and beyond, we need a true
mid-band spectrum pipeline. That is why last week, in
partnership with Senators Thune and Blackburn, I introduced the
Spectrum Pipeline Act.
This legislation is vital for the United States to stay
ahead of our adversaries and to advance strong economic growth.
It requires the Administration to identify at least 2,500 MHz
of prime mid-band spectrum to be reallocated for commercial use
and creates shot clocks for the FCC to expeditiously auction at
least half of that amount for 5G and 6G.
Importantly, this bill is focused on getting the policy
right at the outset, rather than allocating our Nation's
spectrum policy to be dictated by where we should spend auction
proceeds. And it incentivizes agencies to use their spectrum
more efficiently. I have long believed that we need to change
the incentive structure to help bring Federal incumbents to the
table.
By removing a key obstacle in current law, our bill allows
agencies to use spectrum proceeds to replace affected equipment
with even better state-of-the-art equipment. This will create a
win-win for consumers and Federal agencies.
Our bill also takes in all of the above approach. In
addition to the wide area, full power spectrum that is critical
to 5G dominance, it maintains our leadership in Wi-Fi too. With
its low barriers to entry and freedom from regulation, Wi-Fi is
a quintessentially American success story, which is why the
bill requires the FCC to make available at least 125 MHz for
the unlicensed services before any auction occurs.
In the same vein, the bill requires the FCC to allocate
more than 1,000 MHz for licensed or unlicensed services.
Speaking of an all of the above approach, today, in partnership
with Senator Rosen, I introduced the Satellite and
Telecommunications Streamlining Act.
We must promote American innovation on all fronts, and that
includes maintaining U.S. leadership in next generation
satellite technologies. While I am committed to innovative,
tech neutral policies, I would urge my colleagues to be wary of
rent seeking attempts by incumbent operators to block
competition.
Fostering competition and lowering barriers to entry means
less Federal control of the airwaves and greater opportunities
for economic growth. I implore my colleagues and stakeholders,
do not fight to maintain the status quo.
Similarly, I am disappointed that the majority chose at the
last minute to add testimony from one side of the telecom
industry, but not the perspective of competitors. We should be
allowing lawmakers to hear from all sides on this issue.
We need to work together and develop a harmonized, clear
position, and that is what the Spectrum Pipeline Act brings to
the table. Unfortunately, the contrast between our bill and the
Biden Administration's dilatory, ambiguous approach couldn't be
starker. Put simply, spectrum simply is not a priority for the
Biden Administration.
We offer a concrete timeline for freeing up spectrum, while
the Administration's national spectrum strategy offers
perpetual studies, bureaucratic dithering, and no action to
free up a single Megahertz.
We offer certainty, while they second-guess decisions and
unlawfully withhold legitimately obtained spectrum from
regulated entities. We saw this most jarringly in the 2023
World Radio Communication Conference, when the U.S. delegation
couldn't get its act together.
We were stuck playing defense as China led the world in
promoting Huawei's control of foreign telecom networks or take
FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel's decision to hold T-Mobile's 2.5
GHz licenses hostage for more than a year. While I am glad that
Congress was able to step in and clean up the FCC's mess, her
inaction will reverberate for years to come.
In addition to depriving millions of consumers of 5G
connectivity for more than a year, the Chairwoman undermined
confidence in the integrity of FCC auctions and spectrum
property rights. We must reverse course. The Spectrum Pipeline
Act provides certainty rather than ambiguity.
It promotes competition, not barriers to entry. And most of
all, it creates a strong, harmonized position that ensures
America leads the world on wireless technology and doesn't fall
behind our adversaries.
I look forward to the hearings from today's witnesses and
working with my colleagues so that we can finally get our
country's spectrum policy back on track.
The Chair. Thank you, Senator Cruz. We will now turn to the
witnesses, and we will start with you, Dr. Ghosh. Thank you so
much for being here.
I love that you are an electrical engineer. We definitely
need more women electrical engineers, so thank you so much for
your leadership at Notre Dame.
STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR MONISHA GHOSH, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL
ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME; POLICY OUTREACH
DIRECTOR, SPECTRUMX; RESEARCH PROFESSOR (ADJUNCT), UNIVERSITY
OF CHICAGO; JOINT APPOINTMENT, ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Ghosh. Thank you very much. Good morning, and I am
happy to testify today. Thank you for the opportunity. As you
said, I am a Professor of Electrical Engineering at the
University of Notre Dame.
I am also the Policy Outreach Director for Spectrum X,
which is the NSF funded center for spectrum innovation. I also
took two leaves of absence to serve in Government at the NSF
and as the CTO of the FCC.
I continue to be actively engaged with both industry and
Government in various capacities, and I hope to offer a
balanced perspective. The opinions expressed in this testimony
are my own and do not necessarily reflect the position of any
of the institutions with which I am affiliated.
So, spectrum policy that enhances U.S. national security is
one that satisfies the current and growing future spectrum
needs, not wants, of the commercial wireless sector, science,
and mission critical Federal applications. The U.S. leads by
using exclusively licensed, shared, and unlicensed mechanisms
as appropriate, depending on the use case.
Leadership in 5G and 6G, which is already under discussion,
extends beyond just making more exclusively licensed spectrum
available. 5G and 6G can also be deployed and shared in
unlicensed bands, where they are more likely to serve
innovative use cases beyond just mobile broadband.
Our leadership and security depend on us developing those
innovations before others do, making spectrum easily available,
for example, by using the licensed--unlicensed or shared
license model is crucial for this innovation to happen here.
Verticals such as factory automation, remote oilfield
monitoring, precision agriculture, community networks to serve
the underserved, and improved indoor coverage are just some of
the emerging applications that are crucial for our economic and
national security.
However, these are not well-served today by either cellular
or Wi-Fi and are increasingly moving to the shared spectrum
CBRS framework for affordable deployments.
CBRS uses something called Dynamic Spectrum Sharing, or
DSS, which refers to two or more different types of users, for
example, Federal radar and cellular networks, overlapping their
operations in frequency, time, and space, where one user is the
incumbent and has priority.
DSS may require systems to share information with each
other, employ databases, or sensing to ensure that the primary
user can continue to operate in the band without harmful
interference. It is becoming increasingly clear that DSS will
be an integral component of all future systems requiring access
to spectrum.
This is true of the U.S. and internationally. Spectrum is
getting congested everywhere in the world and the physics of
propagation remain the same. The innovative three tier sharing
adopted by the U.S. and CBRS has demonstrated conclusively that
spectrum can be shared successfully between mission critical
applications such as Navy radar and commercial applications.
At the same time, access to the spectrum using General
Authorized Access, or GAA, has allowed the innovations
mentioned earlier to develop. However, DSS needs to be more
scalable and truly dynamic to address the protection needs of
different types of incumbents in other bands.
Furthermore, 6G needs to be sharing native, that is
incorporate spectrum sharing mechanisms by design to coexist
with incumbent service providers, as stated by the white House
in its recent 6G statement.
Advanced approaches for DSS that leverage technologies such
as smart antennas need to be evaluated. Sensing, too, is a
fundamental technology that enables DSS. However, the separate
sensing network deployed for CBRS cannot protect incumbents
that are geographically more distributed than Navy radars.
We need to consider alternatives such as cooperative
distributed sensing approaches that perhaps leverage the dense
footprint of base stations and devices themselves. Improved
receivers and accurate definitions of harmful interference can
also lead to better spectrum sharing, as described in FCC's
recent policy statement.
Long term spectrum R&D is essential for the sustained
development and testing of DSS approaches in real world
environments to prove their robustness in protecting incumbents
in various bands.
NTIA's all of Government approach to the National Spectrum
Strategy and implementation plan is a necessary first step. I
urge this committee to consider ways that this long term R&D
into DSS can be adequately and sustainably funded in industry,
academia, and Government.
Finally, all of this requires that the FCC's auction
authority is restored. Even shared spectrum can be auctioned.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my views and I welcome
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ghosh follows.]
Prepared Statement of Professor Monisha Ghosh, Department of Electrical
Engineering, University of Notre Dame; Policy Outreach Director,
SpectrumX; Research Professor (Adjunct), University of Chicago; Joint
Appointment, Argonne National Laboratory
Good morning Chairwoman Cantwell and members of the Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the extremely timely
and important topic of spectrum policy and technologies and their
impact on national security.
Introduction
My name is Monisha Ghosh, and I believe that I can offer a broad
and balanced perspective on the matters before this Committee, given my
years of experience working in the wireless industry, government
research and regulatory organizations, and academia.
To summarize my professional background, I am currently a Professor
of Electrical Engineering at the University of Notre Dame. I came to
academia in 2015 when I joined the University of Chicago after 24 years
working in industry on wireless research and development, at Philips
Research, Bell Labs and Interdigital, including contributing to the TV
White Spaces (TVWS), an early Dynamic Spectrum Sharing (DSS) effort
where we demonstrated the first cognitive radio that operated in the
TVWS while protecting incumbents. I took two recent leaves of absence
from academia to serve in government: 2017-2019, as a Program Manager
in the Computer and Network Systems (CNS) division of the Computer and
Information Science and Engineering (CISE) directorate at the National
Science Foundation (NSF), where I helped manage NSF's research programs
in spectrum and wireless and started the first program to study the
applications of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML)
in wireless networks, and January 2020 to June 2021 as the Chief
Technology Officer (CTO) at the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), where I worked primarily on helping craft the rules for
unlicensed access in the 6 GHz band and a pilot project with the U.S.
Postal Service (USPS), as directed by Congress, to examine the
feasibility of automatically gathering broadband coverage data using
apps on smartphones mounted in postal vehicles.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND
TRANSPORTATION OF THE SENATE AND THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/
files/report-congress-usps-broad
band-data-collection-feasibility-05242021.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I continue to be actively engaged with both industry and government
as an academic. I have co-chaired the FCC's Technological Advisory
Council's (TAC) working group on Advanced Spectrum Sharing since 2022,
where we deliberate on technologies for advanced spectrum sharing. I am
also an active member of industry's NextG Alliance, developing
standards for 6G and beyond, and participated in the National Spectrum
Consortium's (NSC) Partnering to Advance Trusted and Holistic Spectrum
Solutions (PATHSS) Task Group which partnered with the Department of
Defense (DoD) to explore efficient sharing solutions in 3.1-3.45 GHz.
In addition, I am the Policy Outreach Director for SpectrumX,\2\
NSF's Center for Spectrum Innovation, led by the Wireless Institute\3\
in the College of Engineering at the University of Notre Dame.
SpectrumX was initiated in September 2021 with a five-year $25M NSF
grant that brings together 56 researchers and staff from 30
universities and a number of Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) with
broad expertise spanning radio technologies, wireless terrestrial and
satellite networks, scientific uses of spectrum and economic
considerations related to spectrum allocations. A Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) is in place among the NSF, FCC, and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to ensure that
the research undertaken in SpectrumX, and the NSF Spectrum Innovation
Initiative more broadly, can directly impact spectrum issues of
importance to the Nation. In addition to research, major focus areas of
the Center are broadening participation in spectrum research and
developing a workforce that can continue to expand U.S. leadership in
spectrum policy and wireless technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ SpectrumX: https://www.spectrumx.org/
\3\ Wireless Institute at Notre Dame: https://wireless.nd.edu/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this testimony are my own and
do not necessarily reflect the positions of the various organizations
with which I am affiliated.
Summary of testimony
I will focus my remarks today on the following three areas:
(1) Spectrum Policy that enhances U.S. National Security. National
security is ensured by leadership in spectrum policy and
relevant technologies, not only in the commercial wireless
sector but also in science (e.g., weather forecasting and
radioastronomy) and mission-critical Federal applications. The
spectrum needs of all these applications are growing, and the
U.S should continue to lead by ensuring that policies and
technologies that allow spectrum to be sustainably allocated to
all uses are explored: exclusive licensing, shared usage and
unlicensed, according to current and future spectrum needs, not
wants. The use-cases that will be deployed should be carefully
considered when spectrum is allocated under different licensing
regimes: determining the right mix will deliver the appropriate
policy that continues to ensure leadership.
(2) Dynamic Spectrum Sharing (DSS), or Dynamic Spectrum Access (DSA)
refers to two or more different types of users, e.g.,
television and unlicensed wireless devices or Federal radar and
cellular networks operating over the same frequencies at the
same time and in the same geographical area. Usually, a primary
user, or incumbent, has priority in the band, unlike unlicensed
bands where all users are treated as co-equals. DSS may require
systems to share information with each other, employ databases
or sensing to ensure that the primary user is protected from
harmful interference. It is becoming increasingly clear that
DSS will be an integral component of all future systems
requiring access to spectrum. This is true in the U.S. and
internationally: spectrum is getting congested everywhere in
the world since the physics of propagation remains the same.
The innovative 3-tier sharing adopted by the U.S. in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) has demonstrated
conclusively that spectrum can be shared successfully between
mission-critical applications such as Navy radar and commercial
applications. The CBRS framework, by making easily available
spectrum under GAA (General Authorized Access), has also
spurred innovative use cases that are not well served by either
Wi-Fi or operator-deployed cellular networks. However, we need
to develop sharing technology further to be more scalable and
truly dynamic to address the protection needs of different
types of incumbents. In addition to creating spectrum policy to
support DSS, the next generation of cellular technology, 6G,
that is already under discussion worldwide, needs to be
``sharing native,'' i.e., ``incorporate spectrum sharing
mechanisms by design to coexist with incumbent service
providers'' \4\ as stated by the White House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ White House Joint Statement Endorsing Principle For 6G: Secure,
Open and Resilient by Design, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
statements-releases/2024/02/26/joint-statement-endorsing-principles-
for-6g-secure-open-and-resilient-by-design/
(3) Long term spectrum research and development is essential for the
U.S. to continue leading the world in delivering innovative
spectrum policies and technologies. The NTIA recently released
the National Spectrum Strategy (NSS) \5\ and the Implementation
Plan,\6\ thoughtfully written documents laying out a
collaborative agenda that includes industry, government and
academia for addressing immediate spectrum challenges as well
as developing long-term planning, research and development
(R&D), and education and workforce development (EWD). Many of
the outcomes listed in the plan detail how the NSF through its
spectrum initiatives, including SpectrumX, can address the
needs of data collection, experimentation and testbeds, and
developing educational activities. In order for such R&D
efforts to impact policy in the near term and to be
transformative in the long term, adequate funding needs to be
prioritized for collaborative efforts between industry,
academia and government to continue to grow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ NTIA National Spectrum Strategy, https://www.ntia.gov/sites/
default/files/publications/national_spectrum_strategy_final.pdf
\6\ NTIA National Spectrum Strategy Implementation Plan, https://
www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/publications/national-spectrum-
strategy-implementation-plan.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed testimony
(1) Spectrum Policy that Enhances National Security
The U.S. has long led the world in innovative spectrum policies
from allocating spectrum for unlicensed services in the
eighties, to developing auction mechanisms in the nineties and
now exploring sharing mechanisms in the new century. These
innovations have spurred economic vitality not just in the
U.S., but worldwide. Although commercial wireless expansion is
extremely important, we also need to ensure that services that
are critical to our Nation's security continue to have priority
access to the spectrum that is indispensable to their
operations and mission, such as radars (land, sea and airborne)
for defense, weather, and aviation; dedicated terrestrial,
ground-to-air, and ground-to-space communication links;
position, navigation, and timing systems including GPS;
environmental remote sensing satellites; and radio telescopes.
Furthermore, commercial wireless use cases are growing beyond
conventional mobile broadband and Wi-Fi to include verticals
such as factory automation, remote oil-field monitoring,
precision agriculture, community networks to serve the
underserved and to provide improved indoor coverage; these
emerging applications are not well served today by either Wi-Fi
or cellular and are increasingly moving to the shared spectrum
framework available in the CBRS band for affordable
deployments.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ OnGo Alliance Use Cases for CBRS, https://ongoalliance.org/
ongo-solutions/
High-power, exclusively licensed spectrum will continue to be the
backbone for delivery of wide-area mobile broadband coverage
outdoors, while Wi-Fi will continue to utilize the unlicensed
bands for indoor use and short-range outdoor use. However, true
sharing, where systems occupy the same spectrum in time and
space, is extremely challenging when, for example, megawatt
airborne radars and high-power outdoor base stations operating
at hundreds of kilowatts need to coexist. On the other hand,
sharing may be easier with low/medium power systems deployed
indoors or at lower heights. It is widely recognized that 80
percent of all data either originates or terminates indoors,\8\
which further accentuates the need to improve indoor
connectivity. Leveraging the natural RF isolation provided by
buildings, especially newer energy-efficient buildings with
low-E glass, can lead to spectrum sharing where the same
spectrum that is used by high-power outdoor incumbents can be
reused by indoor systems. This is similar to 6 GHz unlicensed
usage in the U.S., but the model can be extended to shared
licensed use as well. In fact, the neutral-host model deployed
using CBRS indoors accomplishes this today\9\ and China, too,
has allocated the 3.3-3.4 GHz band for shared indoor use.\10\
However, as detailed in my comments presented at the NTIA's
listening session in April 2023, the amount of shared spectrum
available today, 150 MHz, is far lower than the total mid-band
spectrum allocated for exclusively licensed use ( 600 MHz) and
unlicensed spectrum ( 1900 MHz) \11\ and may not be enough to
fully support the many innovative use-cases that are being
developed. Our European allies have recognized the value of
low/medium power shared licensing and are expanding usage by
400 MHz in 3.8-4.2 MHz.\12\ It should be noted though that
these allocations do not leverage DSS, which can further
improve spectrum utilization by sharing spectrum with primary
as well as secondary users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A 5G America's Whitepaper on Energy Efficiency and
Sustainability in Mobile Communications Networks, December 2023,
https://www.5gamericas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Energy-
Efficiency-and-Sustainability-in-Mobile-Communications-Networks-WP.pdf
\9\ 5 Bars Indoor For Everyone--The Power of CBRS and Neutral Hosts
in Wireless Networks, https://ongoalliance.org/5-bars-indoor-for-
everyonethe-power-of-cbrs-and-neutral-hosts-in-wireless-networks/
\10\ China Issues 5G Spectrum Licenses For Indoor Coverage,
February 2020, https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/5g/china-issues-5g-
spectrum-licences-for-indoor-coverage/
\11\ Comments of Professor Ghosh at the NTIA Listening, April 17
2023, https://ntia.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ghosh.pdf
\12\ Ofcom, Evolution of the Shared Access Licence Framework, Call
For Inputs, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/data/assets/pdf_file/0032/255965/
call-for-inputs-evolution-of-shared-access.pdf
(2) Dynamic Spectrum Sharing (DSS) needs to consider both co-and
adjacent-channel interference concerns of incumbents. There is
no one-size-fits all solution to these potential interference
scenarios. Sound spectrum policy should be based on fundamental
technical analyses, measurements and testing which includes all
stakeholders, such as the Federal agencies (e.g., FCC and NTIA)
and spectrum stakeholders (commercial wireless, DoD,
scientists). Most of the current spectrum allocations that
share between incumbent services and new entrants (e.g.,
Television White Spaces (TVWS), 6 GHz and CBRS) employ some
variants of a spectrum-use database to assign channels so that
the incumbent is protected. These methods rely on predicted
propagation and interference based on models, and often do not
take into account many of the details of the systems that will
coexist in the band. Interference protection contours are thus
often set to satisfy worst-case interference scenarios which
may have a low probability of occurrence resulting in
overprotection and spectrum-underutilization. Database-mediated
sharing is a proven technique for a number of frequency bands,
but may not be suitable for all situations since this method is
inherently less dynamic and does not react in a timely fashion
to actual propagation and interference conditions. The FCC TAC
in 2022 published a whitepaper on lessons learnt from CBRS \13\
that summarizes how future centralized spectrum management
systems based on databases could be improved and become more
dynamic. The Advanced Spectrum Sharing Working group will
continue addressing DSS under the new FCC TAC charter.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Recommendations to the FCC Based on Lessons Learned from CBRS,
FCC TAC, December 2022, https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/
recommendations_to_the_federal_communications
_commission_based_on_lessons_learned_from_cbrs.pdf
\14\ FCC 2024-2025 Working Groups Charter, https://www.fcc.gov/
sites/default/files/2024
%20TAC%20WG%20Charters.pdf
More advanced technical approaches for DSS can be developed that
leverage specific characteristics. For example, modern wireless
systems, both cellular and Wi-Fi, use smart antenna array
systems that tailor the transmitted energy optimally in 3-
dimensional space towards intended users. The same systems
could also be adapted to steer energy away from incumbent
systems. Such approaches require changes in 6G and beyond
standards to be ``sharing native'', i.e., designed from the
very beginning to operate in shared frequency bands with
incumbents instead of solely in licensed or unlicensed bands
where deployed systems utilize standards that do not account
for incumbent use: an exception is Dynamic Frequency Selection
(DFS) in Wi-Fi bands with incumbent Federal radars. Sensing is
an integral technology that enables DSS, however, the separate
sensing network deployed for CBRS cannot protect incumbents
that are geographically more distributed than Navy radars: we
need to develop distributed sensing approaches that leverage
the dense footprint of base-stations and devices to develop
cooperative sensing approaches to detect incumbents. Improved
receivers and accurate definitions of ``harmful interference''
can also lead to better spectrum sharing as described in FCC's
recent policy statement.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Policy Statement, Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum through
Improved Receiver Interference Immunity Performance, https://
docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-27A1.pdf
(3) Long term spectrum research and development is essential for
sustained development and testing of DSS approaches in real-
world environments to prove their robustness in protecting
incumbents in various bands. The 7.125-8.4 GHz band has a very
different mix of incumbent users compared to 3.1-3.45 GHz and
may require different approaches. The NSS Implementation Plan
lays out very concrete steps to address these issues, but the
longest-term deliverable is set for November 2027. DSS R&D
efforts will most definitely need to continue beyond this.
While the 3.1-3.45 GHz has been studied for a few years within
PATHSS, the 7.125-8.4 GHz band requires in-depth analysis into
incumbent use, propagation mechanisms and possible use-cases. I
urge this Committee to consider ways that this long-term R&D
into DSS can be adequately and sustainably funded in industry,
academia and government. Furthermore, as demands on spectrum
from all users continue to grow, new bands will need to be
continually evaluated for sharing and perhaps new sharing
modalities developed.
Concluding Remarks
The U.S. leads the world today in innovations in spectrum policy
that have delivered wireless applications that impact all aspects of
our life, from broadband connectivity to national security and
scientific breakthroughs. This leadership must continue to ensure that
all options are evaluated to create a sustainable spectrum strategy for
every system that requires access to spectrum. Dynamic Spectrum Sharing
is a key technological innovation that was conceived of and first
implemented in the U.S.; however, we must continue the innovations to
ensure that both policies and technologies lead to the development of a
truly sharing-native wireless ecosystem that continues to serve all
needs.
I thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on this very
important topic and welcome any questions.
The Chair. Thank you so much. We will now turn to Ms.
Brown. Welcome. Thank you so much for being here. I am sure you
will introduce herself a little more detailed but thank you so
much for your leadership at Wi-Fi Forward.
STATEMENT OF MARY L. BROWN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
WIFIFORWARD
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Cruz,
and members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify
today. I serve as Executive Director of Wi-Fi Forward and have
over 30 years of experience helping foster U.S. leadership in
Wi-Fi technologies.
Thank you for holding this national security hearing that
enables us to consider how Wi-Fi technologies play an important
role in our national defense and safety. I will focus on just
three dimensions of that topic.
First, how the U.S. Wi-Fi industry has been battling
Chinese interests that would obstruct Wi-Fi growth globally.
Second, how Wi-Fi provides communications resilience and
redundancy.
Third, the hidden strength of Wi-Fi, its ability to coexist
in the same set of spectrum frequency used by others, including
Federal and military users, without causing harmful
interference, thereby fueling economic growth and technology
innovation without relocating Federal systems.
Wi-Fi has been in the center ring, fighting against China's
global spectrum priorities. The Chinese Communist Party has
prioritized influencing spectrum allocation decisions
worldwide, both to maximize Huawei and ZTE's global influence
and power, and to undercut U.S. leadership.
In 2020, the FCC led the world to open the 6 Gigahertz band
for unlicensed Wi-Fi. But as countries move to follow our lead,
China advanced its own agenda, seeking to make 6 Gigahertz a
band for exclusive license mobile use in dozens of proceedings
around the world.
Later in 2023, at the World Radio Conference, China
aggressively worked to dismantle the U.S. led momentum for
unlicensed spectrum, urging a global plan to advantage Chinese
government sponsored companies by allowing only exclusive
licensed mobile networks in the upper half of the 6 Gigahertz
band.
Thanks to U.S. leadership, China's attempts largely failed.
Post WRC, U.S. companies can and will continue to engage
country by country to encourage harmonized unlicensed use,
which benefits the U.S.
That said, we already see that China has simply changed
venues. Its vigorous campaign for Huawei and ZTE positioned as
the fight against Wi-Fi continues. We therefore appreciate this
committee's focus on how spectrum policy advances U.S. national
security and economic interests, both at home and abroad.
Second, Wi-Fi enables the public to reliably connect and
communicate in places such as their homes, businesses, and
schools. When a major cell phone carrier recently experienced a
widespread network outage, it notably advised its customers to
use Wi-Fi communications until cellular service could be
restored.
Consumers connected to Wi-Fi barely noticed any disruption
and were able to access a number of Wi-Fi voice and messaging
applications to communicate during the outage, all because Wi-
Fi networks are ubiquitous where people live and work.
And these Wi-Fi networks are resilient by design due to the
tremendous investments Wi-Fi providers and developers have made
to keep pace with consumers' growing demands for the
technology. In fact, the vast majority of data we consume each
day is delivered via Wi-Fi.
For at least one mobile provider, 87 percent of its
customer smartphone traffic is carried over Wi-Fi. Network
outages also occur when natural disasters strike, making
redundant Wi-Fi and other networks important to ensuring
connectivity.
For example, operators frequently open their Wi-Fi networks
to any and all users in the wake of natural disasters such as
the recent wildfires in Maui and Hurricane Ida in 2021. Third,
and finally, the coexistence capabilities of Wi-Fi are a U.S.
national security strength.
Coexistence means more spectrum can be provided for
commercial use without resource consuming reallocation of
Federal systems that support critical national security
missions.
Whether in the 5 Gigahertz band for Wi-Fi or for CBRS in a
band used by Navy radars, we have seen the U.S. Government able
to commercialize valuable spectrum resources and unleash
economic growth and innovation without incurring exorbitant
costs to displace and relocate critical Federal incumbents like
DOD, NASA, and NOAA, among others.
Wi-Fi technology is a bedrock of our Nation's connectivity
here at home and is pivotal to our national security and global
competitiveness. Thank you for the opportunity to share this
information with you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows.]
Prepared Statement of Mary L. Brown, Executive Director, WifiForward
Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Cruz and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I serve as the
Executive Director of WifiForward, and have over 30 years of experience
helping foster U.S. leadership in Wi-Fi technologies.
Thank you for holding this national security hearing that enables
us to consider how Wi-Fi technologies play an important role in our
national defense and safety. I will focus on just three dimensions of
that topic. First, how the U.S. Wi-Fi industry has been battling
Chinese interests that would obstruct Wi-Fi growth globally. Second,
how Wi-Fi provides communications resilience and redundancy. Third, the
hidden strength of Wi-Fi--its ability to coexist in the same set of
spectrum frequencies used by others, including Federal and military
users, without causing harmful interference, thereby fueling economic
growth and technology innovation without relocating Federal systems.
Wi-Fi has been in the center ring fighting against China's global
spectrum priorities. The Chinese Communist Party has prioritized
influencing spectrum allocation decisions worldwide--both to maximize
Huawei's and ZTE's global influence and power, and to undercut U.S.
leadership.
In 2020, the FCC led the world to open the 6 GHz band for
unlicensed Wi-Fi. But as countries moved to follow our lead China
advanced its own agenda seeking to make 6 GHz a band for exclusive,
licensed mobile use in dozens of proceedings around the world.
Late in 2023, at the World Radio Conference, China aggressively
worked to dismantle the U.S.-led momentum for unlicensed spectrum,
urging a global plan to advantage Chinese government-sponsored
companies by allowing only exclusive, licensed mobile networks in the
upper half of the 6 GHz band. Thanks to U.S. leadership, China's
attempts largely failed.
Post-WRC, U.S. companies can and will continue to engage country by
country to encourage harmonized unlicensed use, which benefits the U.S.
That said, we already see that China has simply changed venues--its
vigorous campaign for Huawei and ZTE, positioned as a fight against Wi-
Fi, continues. We therefore appreciate this Committee's focus on how
spectrum policy advances U.S. national security and economic interests
both at home and abroad.
Second, Wi-Fi enables the public to reliably connect and
communicate in places such as their homes, businesses and schools. When
a major cell phone carrier recently experienced a widespread network
outage, it notably advised its customers to use Wi-Fi communications
until cellular service could be restored. Consumers connected to Wi-Fi
barely noticed any disruption, and were able to access a number of Wi-
Fi voice and messaging applications to communicate during the outage,
all because Wi-Fi networks are ubiquitous where people live and work.
And, these WiFi networks are resilient by design due to the tremendous
investments Wi-Fi providers and developers have made to keep pace with
consumers' growing demands for the technology. In fact, the vast
majority of data that we consume each day is delivered via Wi-Fi. For
at least one mobile provider, 87 percent of its customers' smartphone
traffic is carried over Wi-Fi.
Network outages also occur when natural disasters strike, making
redundant Wi-Fi and other networks important to ensuring connectivity.
For example, operators frequently open their Wi-Fi networks to any and
all users in the wake of natural disasters, such as the recent
wildfires in Maui and Hurricane Ida in 2021.
Third, the coexistence capabilities of Wi-Fi are a U.S. national
security strength. Coexistence means more spectrum can be provided for
commercial use without resource-consuming relocation of Federal systems
that support critical national security missions. Whether in the 5 GHz
band for Wi-Fi, or for CBRS in a band used by Navy radars, we have seen
the U.S. Government able to commercialize valuable Federal spectrum
resources, and unleash economic growth and innovation, without
incurring exorbitant costs to displace and relocate critical Federal
incumbents, like DOD, NASA, or NOAA, among others.
Wi-Fi technology is a bedrock of our Nation's connectivity here at
home and is pivotal to our national security and global
competitiveness. Thank you for the opportunity to share this
information with you, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair. Thank you so much, Ms. Brown. Mr. Johnson, it is
a reappearance, right? You have been here before.
Mr. Johnson. I have been here before as a staffer.
The Chair. OK. So, well thank you so much for coming back.
I appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF CLETE D. JOHNSON, SENIOR FELLOW,
CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES;
PARTNER, WILKINSON BARKER KNAUER, LLP
Mr. Johnson. Thank you so much. Madam Chair, Senator Cruz,
Senators, as a former Army officer, former Senate Intelligence
Committee and adjunct Senate Commerce Committee staffer, FCC
and Commerce staffer, let me just say it is a distinct honor to
be here in this room, because this committee in this room,
which is the birthplace of the cybersecurity framework, it
played such a crucial role in the bipartisan push for
Government, industry collaboration in tech--on tech security.
Now we need to apply those principles to spectrum policy.
This is critical to the security of the U.S. and our allies,
because future networks will be developed either by us or by
autocracies, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. It is that
simple and our security as a market democracy is at stake.
We need to leverage spectrum for our principles, dynamism,
innovation, freedom, not surveillance, control, and oppression
too. So, to secure our core national interests, we have to
maximize all spectrum uses from weapons and defense systems to
licensed and unlicensed commercial networks.
This will be hard--we are pretty good at technical
achievements, particularly at the intersection of military and
commercial capabilities. Spectrum availability is an
optimization challenge, not a scarcity problem. Radio waves are
a critical resource, so we can either argue about scarcity or
we can work together to optimize.
Our security depends on this choice. Spectrum allocation is
a national security issue because supply chains derive from
spectrum bands. That is one reason why we are spending billions
of dollars to Rip and Replace Huawei and ZTE gear, because they
were often the only suppliers of radios for the spectrum that
some small carriers used. We can't let that happen again.
But we are falling behind in two areas. First,
globalization, global harmonization of spectrum bands creates
global scale, and companies designing for large global market
have significant advantages over those designing for a smaller
market. The more that our spectrum bands are harmonized with
allies in global markets, the more scale trusted suppliers have
for secure equipment.
We need the world's tech discourse to take place in our
spectrum bands, the frequency languages that we speak, but we
are in danger of giving away that position to China and its
untrusted suppliers. Particularly in licensed mid-band spectrum
where China leads us by two and a half times.
For scale and power, China wants to design equipment that
speaks the most common frequency language, so they are taking
our role as the leader of globally harmonized spectrum. If we
are--and we are beginning--we are becoming a spectrum island
largely outside of harmonized bands.
If this continues, U.S. technology will be a U.S. only
dialect with limited influence and global scale. Huawei and ZTE
and others would gain advantages across critical use cases,
from 5G infrastructure, to connected vehicles, to advanced
manufacturing.
Rip and Replace restrictions can be helpful, but they are
costly and insufficient. We have to be able to compete with
China at the same scale in the first place, and harmonized
spectrum is indispensable to that.
Second, capacity. We need enough spectrum capacity to
innovate and manufacture, but today we are anemic in licensed
wide area coverage, which will soon run out of capacity unless
we act urgently. Local unlicensed connectivity, like Wi-Fi in a
home or office, is like the capillaries of the wireless
ecosystem, nourishing local applications and network functions.
As Senator Cruz and Mary have both said, our wireless
capillaries are robust and healthy. We have far more unlicensed
spectrum than China or any other country, which is one of the
reasons Wi-Fi is such a resounding American success story.
But our arteries, the licensed wide area coverage providing
mobile connectivity across our vast continent, are already near
capacity, with nothing coming in the spectrum pipeline. Here we
have gone from world leader to drastically trailing China and
it is getting worse.
Make no mistake, this is a national security crisis, and it
is a platform for China to shape the world's networks for its
own autocratic interests. And also, battlefields of the future
will be shaped by commercial spectrum availability.
For operational warfighting reasons, it is crucial that
future network and tech like AI, cyber operations, battlefield
communications are developed by us, not China. So, in
conclusion, we need to act urgently to optimize our spectrum
use so that America can lead in all areas of the wireless
environment.
This begins with restoring the FCC's authority to auction
spectrum. The lapse in this authority severely damages U.S.
security every day it lapses. We need to restore auction
authority so that spectrum studies become a pipeline for
concrete advances in capacity and auctions for mid-band
spectrum.
This will benefit all parties. The only loser in a zero sum
game is U.S. national security. We need our best commercial and
Government engineers to find opportunities to optimize. So,
with that, I would love to take your questions and expand on
these important points, but this is--we have a moment we need
to seize here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Clete D. Johnson, Senior Fellow, Center for
Strategic and International Studies; Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer,
LLP
Spectrum and National Security
Chairwoman Cantwell, Senator Cruz, Members of the Committee, thank
you for allowing me to share my perspective on spectrum and national
security.
It is a special honor to be here today, as this Committee--and this
very room, the birthplace of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework--have
played such an important role in developing U.S. cybersecurity and
network security policy. The bipartisan consensus that has shaped this
policy over the past two decades, advancing the principles of
technology innovation and dynamism and government-industry
collaboration, in many ways began here.
With your leadership, we now have the opportunity to apply these
principles to U.S. spectrum policy. This is absolutely crucial to the
security of the United States and our allies, because spectrum policy
is key to the future of the networks and applications on which our
societies operate. Those networks and applications will be developed
either by us, with the free market principles this Committee has long
espoused, or by the deepening autocratic alliance of China, Russia,
Iran, and North Korea.
It is that simple. The security of the United States as a free
market democracy hangs in the balance. Fortunately, successive
Administrations and Congresses have taken meaningful actions to address
this threat, and now we have the opportunity to leverage spectrum
policy in favor of our principles--dynamism, innovation, and freedom
rather than surveillance, control, and oppression. This will require
maximizing all critical uses of spectrum, from weapons and defense
systems to commercial 5G and next generation wireless networks,
including both local wireless connectivity and wide area coverage.
To secure our core national interests, we have to lead the world in
all of these areas, and we can. However, right now we are in danger of
falling far behind China in mid-band licensed spectrum that can support
wide area coverage, which is critical to bringing mobile services and
technologies to every part of the country. This is a grave threat to
the security of our network infrastructure.
Addressing this severe licensed spectrum shortage while also
maintaining our present world-leading position in defense systems and
local wireless connectivity will be difficult. But as this Committee
well knows, the United States is quite capable of accomplishing
difficult technical achievements, particularly at the intersection of
military capabilities and commercial strength. One example in the
spectrum arena that I saw first-hand as an Army logistics officer in
the late 1990s: The Department of Defense partnered with large industry
players to develop and scale the RFID tag system for real-time global
tracking of supply shipments, thereby revolutionizing supply chains and
inventory management. This example is one of many reasons the United
States leads the world in both military force projection capabilities
and commercial dynamism.
We need to apply that type of solutions-oriented action to spectrum
policy as well. As one astute colleague put it, spectrum availability
is ``an optimization challenge, not a scarcity problem.'' The invisible
radio waves that make up the radiofrequency spectrum are a critical
natural resource, and we can either argue over their scarcity or work
together to optimize their use. Our economic and national security
depends on making the right choice.
Why Does Spectrum Matter for Network Security?
There is a direct relationship between the availability of spectrum
and the ability of manufacturers and innovators to enhance and expand
the state of wireless technologies. Spectrum is the lifeblood of the
wireless ecosystem, serving as a core component of the technology
landscape and the mutually interrelated technology development
processes. This relationship is not perfectly linear or sequential, but
to be clear, our security interests depend directly on spectrum
availability.
Wireless research and development, technology design, standards and
intellectual property, and thus hardware, software, and the
applications they enable--that is, the wireless network supply chain
and capabilities--are specific to particular spectrum bands. If we view
Huawei, ZTE, TikTok, and other China-based ``national champions'' as a
threat, then we must view commercial 5G spectrum availability in the
United States as an antidote to that threat.
In the future, we may achieve the technological ability to obviate
the connection between particular spectrum bands and technology design
and development, but that is not the present reality. That is one
reason why we have had to expend billions of dollars (and still
counting!) to ``rip and replace'' Huawei and ZTE gear, as those China-
backed companies were the only suppliers that built radios for the
spectrum bands on which many of our small carriers operated. We should
never let that happen again.
It is a national security imperative to make commercial spectrum
available for 5G and future-generation wireless technologies to secure
the U.S. position as the leader in trusted network technologies as
autocrats seek to take the lead. China's aggressive strategy to
dominate technology in general, and 5G and future-generation networks
and applications in particular, underscores the significant impacts
that spectrum access and technology processes have on the security of
the wireless supply chain and the applications the network enables.
There are two elements of this spectrum environment that are
becoming security setbacks for the United States: (1) global
harmonization and scale, and (2) U.S. capacity.
First, global harmonization and scale. The specific spectral
frequencies available to commercial operators are indispensable to the
ability of a trusted and commercially viable equipment market to
develop in a harmonized environment. Wireless antennas, radios, and
other network components are typically designed to operate under a
band-specific framework. While future technology developments in
chipsets, software, and artificial intelligence may enable wireless
radios and equipment to operate without regard to spectrum-specific
design, the ability of network equipment to speak different frequency
``languages'' is not likely to be achieved in the immediate near term.
This further underlines the need for trusted and harmonized frequency
availability, and for leadership by the United States and our allies.
Global harmonization of spectrum bands creates global scale for
technology development, and developers that are designing for a large
global market have significant tangible and intangible advantages over
those that are designing for a smaller market bespoke user or use. The
more that U.S. spectrum uses are harmonized with our allies and global
markets, the more scale trusted suppliers have for secure technology
development. In short, we need the world's technology discourse to take
place in the spectrum bands in which we operate--the frequency
``languages'' that we speak--but we are in danger of giving away that
position to China and its untrusted suppliers.
China knows that this starts with leading in the availability of
licensed mid-band spectrum for wide-area coverage; today, it leads the
U.S. by 2.5 times in access to these frequencies. For scale and market
positioning purposes, China wants its developers to design equipment
that speaks the frequency language most broadly spoken in the mid-band
environment, putting it on a trajectory toward adopting or even leading
globally harmonized spectrum. Meanwhile, the United States is becoming
a mid-band spectrum island that operates largely outside of core
globally harmonized spectrum bands; if this trajectory continues, the
U.S. technology ecosystem will operate within a U.S.-only spectrum
``dialect'' that lacks influence and global scale.
The result of this dichotomy is that China-based national champions
like Huawei and ZTE would gain enormous advantages across a variety of
critical use cases and architectures. Connected vehicles are a prime
example. The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS) is currently examining the state of this marketplace to determine
the threat landscape for foreign adversary influence over integral
communications technologies and services associated with such vehicles.
BIS is proposing a rule to govern transactions that might otherwise
enable untrusted China-based suppliers to become embedded in this
technology. Targeted restrictions can indeed be valuable, but as we
have seen in the ``rip-and-replace'' setting, they are both costly and
insufficient. It is necessary that U.S. and allied technology
developers can compete with China-based developers at the same capacity
and harmonized scale in the first place. The availability of harmonized
spectrum is indispensable to that imperative.
Critically, the risks of autocratic leadership in essential
wireless supply chain elements extends to Federal and military uses of
commercial systems as well. As Deputy National Security Advisor Anne
Neuberger has highlighted, the security considerations that exist in a
purely commercial setting are also central to the future battlefield.
The technology ecosystem in which our warfighters will wage the battles
of the future will be shaped by commercial spectrum availability for
current and future generations of wireless. For operational warfighting
reasons, it is crucial that future technology, standards, hardware,
software, and applications--including AI, cyber operations, and
battlefield communications--are developed by U.S. and allied companies
with sufficient spectrum harmonization and scale to lead the world.
Second, U.S. capacity. As NTIA recently highlighted in its National
Spectrum Strategy Implementation Plan, ``U.S. leadership in next-
generation technologies and services requires greater spectrum access
for both the private and public sectors in the near- and medium-term.''
Indeed, it is essential that U.S. wireless companies have the spectrum
resources they need to work alongside like-minded nations to innovate
and manufacture advanced wireless technologies and their components--
including chipsets, software, radios, and more--for use in both the
commercial and Federal sectors. Today, however, the United States is
anemic regarding this critical network input for licensed wide area
coverage, which will run out of capacity in the coming years unless we
act with urgency to address the shortage.
Consider local wireless connectivity (for instance, WiFi in a
building or home or office campus) as the ``capillaries'' of the
wireless ecosystem, drawing on broadband service to nourish local
applications and network functions. Our wireless capillaries are robust
and healthy; the United States has far more unlicensed spectrum
allocated than China or any other country, which is one of many reasons
that WiFi is a resounding American success story. But the ``arteries''
of our wireless ecosystem--the licensed wide area coverage that
provides mobile connectivity broadly across our vast continent--are
already near capacity, with no further expansions presently in the
spectrum pipeline. We have gone from leading the world on this metric
to drastically trailing China and a dozen peer countries, and that
deficit is expected to grow substantially in the next decade.
The existing disparity between U.S. licensed mid-band spectrum
allocations as compared to the rest of the world is a major national
security challenge, as it has created a platform for China to shape the
near-term and future technology environment in its own strategic
interest. China is ensuring that its mid-band arteries have plenty of
capacity, while our 5G and next-generation mid-band wireless ecosystem
is limited today and soon to reach its limits, putting a corollary
structural bound on the ability of the U.S. to lead in these technology
developments. This problem broadens the threat landscape throughout the
global network technology supply chain, further highlighting the
imperative of ensuring there are sufficient licensed spectrum
allocations available to support U.S. innovations in wireless.
Addressing the Risks of the U.S. Spectrum Shortage
We must act urgently to optimize spectrum use so that the United
States can lead in all key areas of the wireless environment. This
optimization process should be organized to benefit all parties, so
everyone comes to the table transparently and with an eye to mutual
benefit and advancing the interests of the United States, rather than a
zero-sum game with distinct losers and winners. The real loser in this
zero-sum approach is U.S. national security.
This obviously must begin with restoring the FCC's statutory
authority to auction spectrum. The ongoing lapse in this authority
severely damages U.S. leadership, and thus U.S. security, every
additional day it lasts. We need urgent action to restore auction
authority in such a way that the studies of the bands identified in
NTIA's Implementation Plan are not just academic, but instead lead to
concrete advances in spectrum capacity and auctions for necessary
licensed mid-band spectrum.
With this authority in place, stakeholders should work together
collaboratively and with urgency to make spectrum optimization a
reality, particularly in the bands identified for study in NTIA's
Implementation Plan. Again, this process is not a zero-sum game; it
should and will create mutual benefits. Federal agencies, including the
Department of Defense, can maintain and in many cases upgrade or
otherwise advance their vital operations, while commercial providers
can build out innovative 5G networks nationwide to drive U.S.
technological leadership worldwide.
Government and industry should collaborate on initiatives to
maximize spectrum use in any given band. Most immediately, we must
advance presently viable spectrum sharing regimes; when fully clearing
a spectrum band for new uses is not practical, coordinated sharing
through proven methods can be a solution. Government and industry
should collaborate to advance ``static'' sharing, in which parties
benefit from predictable spectrum access by coordinating their use over
geography, time, or frequency. These sharing methods provide
coordinated access and certainty, and technological developments are
increasing the precision of these sharing methods. We should focus
immediately on these proven models of sharing to advance our national
interest in maintaining 5G leadership globally.
In parallel over the long term, we should also seek breakthroughs
in ``dynamic'' spectrum sharing--in which each party's use of
frequencies changes dynamically according to real-time needs--to
overcome existing practical impediments to real-world implementation.
Such breakthroughs will likely take years to become practically and
economically viable at scale, and U.S. global leadership and
collaboration with allies will be required to address the need for
global harmonization and scale sufficient to support diverse and
competitive trusted suppliers in such a sharing environment. Absent
strategic leadership, bespoke U.S.-only sharing frameworks could mean
we deploy more slowly than other countries that simply implement
globally harmonized, standardized frameworks, and the custom sharing
solutions would be so circumstance-specific that they would have no
global market.
In conclusion, U.S. spectrum leadership is directly pertinent to a
secure supply chain and application ecosystem, and thus to our core
national security interests. We must not walk away from globally
harmonized bands and cede the supply chain to China. Rather, we must
undertake immediate steps to maintain U.S. leadership in spectrum
policy to secure the technology future.
This will require recognizing that spectrum policy is not a fight
between commercial interests and national security. That binary frame
is a false and dangerous dichotomy in the twenty-first century, when
U.S. national security derives from economic strength and technological
innovation as much as traditional sources of power.
I look forward to your questions.
The Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Ms. Rinaldo,
thank you for being here to talk about Open RAN and what
advantages that would give the U.S. on technology. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DIANE RINALDO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
OPEN RAN POLICY COALITION
Ms. Rinaldo. Well, wonderful. Thank you to Chairman
Cantwell, Senator Cruz, and members of this Committee. My name
is Diane Rinaldo, and I am the Executive Director of the Open
RAN Policy Coalition.
On behalf of the Coalition, I am grateful for this
opportunity to discuss the transformational role of open and
interoperable solutions, particularly as we navigate the
implementation of 5G technology and prepare for 6G and beyond.
My goal today is to paint a picture of American innovation,
regained opportunity, and economic alternatives, but none of
this could happen without the lifeblood of our industry, the
spectrum.
Put simply, we cannot deploy more Open RAN and reap its
benefits unless we have a sufficient amount of licensed
spectrum which powers the G's and Open RAN. Right now, we do
not, and this committee can play a central role in addressing
that shortfall.
Founded in 2020, the Open RAN Policy Coalition promotes
policies to drive the adoption of Open RAN. Our coalition
represents a diverse group of communication and technology
companies unified under a common goal, dismantling
technological and market barriers to cultivate a competitive,
secure, and resilient wireless market. Since launching the
Coalition, Open RAN has seen tremendous growth with more than
100 global deployments, including the world's largest right
here in the U.S. with Dish Wireless.
ORAN has achieved its initial goal of providing additional
vendor choice for mobile operators. However, our story is far
from complete, and more work must be done. Today, most of the
work from the Coalition is focused on international efforts.
As developing nations look to deploy 5G, Open RAN is a
viable and desirable option, offering a cost effective and
adaptable solution. And while our education mission at the
Coalition is incredibly important to bring heightened awareness
to international partners, Coalition members are eager to
benefit from deployments here in the U.S.
Unfortunately, additional movement in the U.S. has been
handicapped due to the expiration of spectrum auction
authority. With no new bands in the pipeline for future
deployments, Open RAN has limited opportunities to grow.
Furthermore, the FCC's Rip and Replace program is stalled due
to lack of funding.
The passage of the Secure Equipment Act in 2021 deemed
Huawei and ZTE a national security threat, yet it still litters
our networks. Huawei continues to service U.S. network
functions, including software updates in rural communities. If
additional funding is not forthcoming, we must develop a Plan
B.
Open RAN was a nascent concept when the FCC catalog was
drafted three years ago. With the deployment of more than 100
networks around the world, Open RAN is now a viable option and
our Nation's rural carriers deserve more choice.
The Coalition also continues to have productive
conversations with the Department of Defense, specifically the
future G and 5G cross-functional teams offices. DOD's use of
commercially viable and available products stimulates the
ecosystem while leveraging the best that industry has to offer.
Most recently the Naval Air Station at Whidbey Island
issued a contract to build a standalone 5G network. This
project includes seven coalition--several coalition members
including Dish Wireless, Cisco, JMA Wireless, and Intel.
These partnerships build trust and are crucial and are
crucial to the security and resiliency of our DOD networks.
Last December, The Wall Street Journal wrote an article that
Huawei expects 9 percent growth, with their Chairman claiming
that they are back to business as usual.
I know this article gave a lot of people heartburn. I am
here today to tell you that we are your good news story.
Coalition members over the past year, Nvidia up 262 percent,
AMD up 115 percent, Broadcom up 100 percent, Microsoft up 50--
excuse me, 63 percent. Dish has deployed the world's largest
global network, covering 73 percent of Americans. AT&T has made
a $14 billion investment in Open RAN.
Newcomers JMA Wireless, Cohere Technologies, and DeepSig
are paving the way on private networks, spectral efficiencies
in AI. There are 127, excuse me, companies participating in the
Open RAN ecosystem from 21 different countries. The continued
success is not a given. I implore this committee to reauthorize
spectrum authority.
That will give us the indispensable resource that we need
to compete. The geopolitical battle for secured networks will
not be won between governments but through market forces. Give
us the tools we need to win at 3GPP.
We hold the strategic advantage. The wind is at our back.
It is time to hit the gas and not the brake. Thank you so much
and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rinaldo follows.]
Prepared Statement of Diane Rinaldo, Executive Director,
Open RAN Policy Coalition
Chairwoman Cantwell, Senator Cruz, and Members of the Committee, my
name is Diane Rinaldo, and I am the Executive Director of the Open RAN
Policy Coalition. On behalf of the Coalition, I am grateful for this
opportunity to discuss the transformational role of open and
interoperable solutions in Radio Access Networks (what is commonly
known as `Open RAN'), particularly as we navigate the implementation of
5G technology and prepare for 6G and beyond.
My goal today is to paint a picture of American innovation,
regained opportunity, and economic alternatives, but none of this could
happen without the lifeblood of our business, spectrum. Put simply, we
cannot deploy more Open RAN and reap its supply chain security benefits
unless we have a sufficient amount of licensed spectrum--the Gs and
Open RAN run on licensed--in the pipeline. Right now, we do not, and
this Committee can play a central role in addressing that shortfall.
Launch of the Coalition
Founded in 2020, the Open RAN Policy Coalition promotes policies to
drive the adoption of open and interoperable solutions in RAN. Our
coalition represents a diverse group of communication and technology
companies unified under a common goal: dismantling technological and
market barriers to cultivate a competitive, secure, and resilient
wireless market. Our members include carriers, vendors, cybersecurity
and cloud service providers, innovators, startups, and established
technology companies, all committed to the collective health of the
competitive and diverse mobile ecosystem. This initiative transcends
technological advancement; it represents a strategic shift towards
fostering innovation, stimulating competition, and broadening the
supply chain for next-generation wireless technologies, including 5G.
The deployment of advanced mobile networks like 5G is at a pivotal
moment, not only for technology policy but for economic security and
global connectivity. Open RAN is at the heart of this transformation,
influencing how we approach economic and security challenges. A robust
and diverse supply chain is critical, and international cooperation on
wireless technology is now more vital than ever.
Since launching the Coalition, Open RAN has seen tremendous growth,
with more than 100 global deployments. It has achieved its initial goal
of providing additional vendor choice for mobile operations; however,
our story is far from complete, and more work must be done.
Global Challenges
The undeniable truth is that we face global challenges in
maintaining our competitive edge. The Chinese Communist Party's Belt
and Road initiative and Digital Silk Road, with more than 150
participating countries, is a CCP strategic security initiative based
on prioritized networking deployments. Beijing's ``national champions''
such as Huawei and ZTE are competing against U.S. and other free
market-based companies at a significant advantage, enjoying the full
financial backing of the Chinese Communist Party and with the strategic
intent of creating vendor lock-in. While Open RAN reduces costs in
hardware and software and creates the possibility of breaking vendor
lock-in, these heavy foreign investments tip the scales more than those
cost savings can ever compete with.
My experiences in various roles, including on the House
Intelligence Committee and as the head of the NTIA, have highlighted
the persistent issue of developing nations' financial constraints,
which make them susceptible to predatory moves by malign actors, such
as the CCP. To close that funding gap, we must simplify and expedite
the processes for our companies to compete effectively on what is an
artificially uneven playing field. Globally harmonized spectrum for
trusted suppliers provides one important element to do just that.
The Coalition's global engagement spans over 80 countries,
promoting open and interoperable telecommunications standards. This
presence not only enhances connectivity and economic growth but also
strengthens international relations. The Coalition's efforts in
bridging the digital divide in underserved regions exemplifies our
commitment to global leadership and technological advancement. We work
with governments around the world at each stage of adoption. Regardless
of the starting point, our work will drive governments upwards on the
adoption curve, catalyzing private sector activity.
Today, among its many engagements, the Coalition is focused on
working with the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and was tasked in
September 2021 by its four members--Australia, Japan, India, and the
United States--work toward synchronizing allied Open RAN development
efforts. Since our first project, we have expanded that mission to
include other important and like-minded countries. In 2024, we are
expanding further to include support of the new Global Coalition on
Telecommunications (GCOT), which includes the United Kingdom, Canada,
Australia, Japan, and the United States, which will become the broadest
governmental coalition to date.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.ntia.gov/press-release/2023/statement-assistant-
secretary-davidson-global-coalition-telecommunications
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The journey of the Open RAN movement is a testament to innovation
and opportunity based on robust competition in diverse markets.
Conceptually and technically, this is the opposite of the CCP's command
and control approach to supporting its ``national champions.'' To
maintain momentum, we must adopt a holistic approach to countering
global market distortions and developing competitive parity for U.S.
and allied vendors. The Coalition seeks not to reinvent the wheel but
to ease the path forward, ensuring the continued evolution and success
of the telecommunications industry.
Where we are today:
Today, most of the Coalition's work has been focused on
international efforts. As developing nations look to deploy 5G, Open
RAN is a viable and desirable option, offering a cost-effective and
adaptable solution. And while our education mission at the Coalition is
incredibly important to bring heightened awareness to international
partners, Coalition members are eager to deploy in the United States.
Unfortunately, additional movement in the U.S. has been handicapped due
to the expiration of spectrum auction authority. With no new bands in
the pipeline for future deployments, Open RAN has limited opportunities
to grow further in the United States.
Furthermore, the FCC's ``Rip and Replace'' program is stalled due
to a lack of funding. The passage of the Secure Equipment Act in 2021
deemed Huawei and ZTE a national security threat, yet it still litters
our networks. Huawei continues to service U.S. network functions,
including software updates in rural communities. If additional funding
is not forthcoming, we must develop a Plan B. Open RAN was a nascent
concept when the FCC catalog was drafted three years ago; with the
deployment of more than 100 networks, Open RAN is now a viable option
and our Nation's rural carriers deserve more options.
The Coalition continues to have productive conversations with the
Department of Defense, specifically the Future G and 5G Cross-
Functional Teams offices. DoD's use of commercially viable and
available products stimulates the ecosystem while leveraging the best
industry has to offer. Most recently, the Naval Air Station at Whidbey
Island issued a contract to build a standalone 5G network. This project
includes several members, including DISH Wireless, Cisco, JMA Wireless,
and Intel. These partnerships build trust and are crucial to the
security and resiliency of networks.
The Good News Story
Last December, the Wall Street Journal wrote that Huawei Expects 9
percent Revenue Growth, with their Chairman claiming they are back to
``business as usual.'' I know this article gave a lot of people
heartburn.
I'm here today to tell you we are your good news story. Coalition
members over the past year:
Nvidia 262 percent
AMD 115 percent
Broadcom 100 percent
Microsoft 63 percent
DISH deployed the world's largest Open RAN to date
AT&T invested $14 billion dollar in Open RAN
Newcomers JMA Wireless, Cohere Technologies, and DeepSig are
leading in private networks, spectral efficiencies, and
artificial intelligence
127 companies in 21 countries are now participating in the
Open RAN ecosystem
Continued success is not a given. I implore this Committee to
reauthorize spectrum auction authority that will give us the
indispensable resource that we need to compete. The geopolitical battle
for secure networks will not be won between governments; it can only be
won by market forces. Give us the tools we need to win at 3GPP. We hold
the strategic advantage, but we can't do this without you.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair. Thank you so much. Thank you for being here. Dr.
Furchtgott-Roth, am I saying that correctly? No. Tell me the
pronunciation.
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. Furchtgott-Roth.
The Chair. Furchtgott-Roth. Furchtgott-Roth, thank you so
much for being here.
I appreciate your testimony, particularly this fine point
about Huawei's global network sales that continue today and how
that really is leading some countries to continue to have--
espionage hostile countries, if you will, or terrorist groups
are a threat against us.
So, thank you for that in your testimony. Look forward to
hearing the rest of it.
STATEMENT OF HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH,
SENIOR FELLOW AND DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR THE
ECONOMIC OF THE INTERNET, HUDSON INSTITUTE
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Cruz,
members of the Senate Commerce Committee, thank you for
inviting me here today.
Today's hearing is about the relationship between Federal
spectrum policy and American national security. Some viewers
view the two as a zero sum game. I disagree. I see the two as
complementary. Attending to national security concerns protects
commercial interests in spectrum, and robust commercial
development to spectrum promotes American national security.
For much of the past century, America has been the global
leader in enabling new and innovative wireless services.
Communications lawyers and policy practitioners such as those
of us in this room call this spectrum policy.
Most Americans are unfamiliar with the concept. They simply
know that their smartphones and other wireless devices work,
and they trust that our Government can keep us safe from new
wireless military technologies, such as the types of drones
that are currently being used in Ukraine.
Sadly, American leadership in wireless technologies is now
challenged not just from competitors abroad, but also from
paralyzed domestic policy. The unthinkable has happened. The
FCC's legal authority to hold auctions has lapsed.
No new bands of Federal spectrum to transfer to the
commercial sector are to be found, and coordination between the
various Branches of Government on spectrum policy is absent.
The end result? American leadership in international spectrum
coordination wanes.
Our global competitors speed ahead. American consumers are
left behind. And our Nation's ability to be nimble in the midst
of new forms of wireless warfare is potentially compromised.
Let me tell you a secret, the greatest undeveloped natural
resource in the world is spectrum. The country that harnesses
it will control the 21st century. U.S. spectrum just a few
decades--U.S. commercial spectrum just a few decades ago was
worth about $10 billion. Today, it is worth more than $1
trillion.
Decades from now, our children will look back and laugh at
the wireless technology of 2024. Technology will advance with
or without new legislation. The Congress can--Congress cannot
legislate technological change or economic growth.
The Congress can make new technology and economic growth
more likely by unleashing the extraordinary power of human
resources, of the greatest scientists in the world, of the
greatest engineers of the world, the greatest entrepreneurs in
the world, and of the American consumer.
The Cold War was won with stronger personal liberty and
with the unrivaled economic power of the United States. And
that is likely to be one of the great national security
advantages that we will have in the 21st century if we, in
fact, can unleash economic growth. There are four key steps
Congress can take. More spectrum is transferred from Federal to
non-Federal users.
Much, if not most, of that spectrum used is for different
commercial applications. All of the above, but including
particularly full powered licensed applications, the most
valuable form of spectrum today.
Vital national security interest is not compromised, and
substantial improvements in spectrum policy rights--and
spectrum property rights, allowing more flexible use, less
costly contract and lease arrangements, and improved
enforcement against interference. The Spectrum Pipeline Act of
2024 addresses the first three points. It is an excellent
start.
It would benefit American consumers enormously. They may
not know what spectrum is or what policy is, but they will know
when more competitors offer better and lower cost wireless
services. The time to act is now. Be bold. Be decisive, not
just for today, but for the rest of the 21st century. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Furchtgott-Roth follows.]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow and
Director, Center for the Economic of the Internet, Hudson Institute
Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Cruz, and Members of the Senate
Commerce Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you
today.
Today's hearing is about the relationship between Federal spectrum
policy and American national security. Some observers view national
security concerns involving spectrum and commercial interests in
spectrum as a zero-sum game: focusing on one of these priorities is to
detriment the other. I disagree. I see the two as complementary:
attending to national security concerns protects commercial interests
in spectrum and robust commercial development of spectrum promotes
American national security.
For much of the past century, America has been the global leader in
enabling new and innovative wireless services. Communications lawyers
and policy practitioners call this spectrum policy. Most Americans are
unfamiliar with the concept; they simply know that their smartphones
and other mobile devices work. And they trust that our government can
keep us safe from new wireless military technologies, such as the types
of drones that are currently being used in the wars in Ukraine and in
Gaza.
American consumer electronic devices work because American policy
decisions enable them to work. From competitive auctions for FCC
licenses; to the development of unlicensed applications like Wi-Fi and
Bluetooth; to the competitive market for private wireless providers; to
new forms of wireless communications like 3G, 4G LTE, and now 5G; and
to innovative new satellite services, America has led. Meanwhile, the
rest of the world has followed.
Sadly, American leadership in wireless technologies is now
challenged not just from competitors abroad, but also from paralyzed
domestic policy. The unthinkable has happened: the FCC's legal
authority to hold auctions has lapsed; no new bands of Federal spectrum
to transfer to the commercial sector for licensed or unlicensed
purposes are to be found; and coordination between the various branches
of government on spectrum policy is absent. The end result?
American leadership in international spectrum coordination wanes.
Our global competitors speed ahead. American consumers are left behind.
And our Nation's ability to be nimble in the midst of new forms of
wireless warfare is potentially compromised.
Today I will compare the success of America's historical spectrum
policy with today's comparatively weak spectrum policy and discuss the
hazards this presents for American national security. I will also
discuss the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2024, a bill that will move
America in the right direction on spectrum policy, as well as best
practices for spectrum policy going forward.
I. Qualifications
I am Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for the Economics of
the Internet at the Hudson Institute. I am also president of an
economic consulting firm, Furchtgott-Roth Economic Enterprises.
Additionally, I am an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School, where I
teach communications law, as well as at the University of Baltimore Law
School, where I teach law and economics.
From 1997 to 2001, I served as a Commissioner of the Federal
Communications Commission, having been nominated by President Clinton
and confirmed unanimously by the Senate. Previously, I was chief
economist of the House Commerce Committee where, among other
responsibilities, I worked on legislation that became the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. After I left the FCC, I served for
eight years on the Spectrum Advisory Committee to the Department of
Commerce.
I have in the past also served the Federal government on national
security topics. I served on a Federal advisory committee on
telecommunications for the National Security Agency. I was a research
analyst at the Center for the Naval Analyses, a think tank for the
Navy. Early in my career, I was an analyst in the National Security
Division of the Congressional Budget Office and an intern in the
National Security Division of the Office of Management and Budget. I
received a Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University and an S.B. in
economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
I have authored or coauthored four books and hundreds of reports
and articles, many related to spectrum and national security. Together
with my Hudson colleague Kirk Arner, I am currently writing a textbook
on communications law informed with an economic perspective.
II. 19th Century Spectrum Policy
Early development of spectrum in the middle and late 19th century
was heavily focused on military applications. The U.S. Army helped
develop overland wireless telegraphy, and the U.S. Navy in particular
developed wireless telegraphy for communications between ships as well
as between ships and land. At international conferences on spectrum in
the late 19th and early 20th century, military interests in spectrum
policy largely dominated the position of the U.S. government.
For a century and half, the U.S. military has helped train
generations of wireless engineers and technicians, as well as developed
and adopted countless new wireless technologies. During that time,
American wireless military technologies have been at least comparable
to, and often better than, those of our adversaries.
III. 1934-2009: American Leadership in Commercial Wireless Technology
and Spectrum Policy
For the 75 years between 1934 and 2009, the United States was
unquestionably at the forefront of commercial spectrum policy due to
its focus on private interests and competing commercial services rather
than purely government ownership, which was a position that dominated
in most other countries. U.S. commercial spectrum policy was heavy-
handed and far from perfect during much of this period, but it
nevertheless tended to be more market-oriented than those of other
countries. The end result was to the benefit of the United States and
the entire world.
To that end, one of the most successful economic policies in the
last few decades has been the use of competitive auctions to transfer
spectrum from Federal use to private use. In 1927, the Federal
government claimed exclusive right to all wireless spectrum. Between
1934 and 1994, the FCC would take small blocks of wireless spectrum and
assign new licenses to political friends or to lottery winners who
could game the system. Such assignments, today referred to as ``beauty
pageants,'' took years, and the results do not make for a good civics
lesson.
Around 1960, Ronald Coase, a future economics Nobel Laureate,
proposed assigning FCC licenses through an auction. At the time,
Professor Coase was denounced as a crackpot by politicians, but over
time, Coase's wisdom emerged. In 1994, Congress granted the FCC
temporary auction authority.
Over the next 30 years, large swaths of Federal spectrum have
efficiently been transferred to commercial licensees. And until the
past few years, Congress has routinely extended temporary auction
authority every few years.
While the U.S. Treasury has collected hundreds of billions of
dollars in auction receipts, the far bigger winner has been the
American consumer who today enjoys wireless devices and networks, the
existence of which would have been impossible under 1994 spectrum
allocations. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and nearly
every country in the world has imitated American spectrum auction
policy in subsequent years. Wireless services and the devices and
software enabled by them, fostered in the United States, have done as
much if not more than any other technology in human history to lift
individuals out of poverty and provide opportunities for prosperity
that would have otherwise been unimaginable.
American spectrum policy innovations existed beyond just auction
authority. These include private broadcasting; commercial space
services; competitive commercial mobile wireless services, including
Generations 1.0 through 4.0 of mobile wireless broadband and
accompanying innovative handset markets; Part 15 unlicensed spectrum
and associated applications; and spectrum license secondary markets.
During this period, American national security was not adversely
affected by spectrum policy. If anything, our national security was
enhanced by a vibrant private sector of wireless technologies that
helped develop and complement wireless military technologies. Competing
demands for spectrum were rarely in conflict.
The end result of better spectrum policy was a profoundly
successful U.S. commercial wireless industry. By my estimates, wireless
services were a substantial engine for economic growth in the United
States between 1990 and 2010. New wireless services spawned the
creation and development of countless businesses in the United States.
Some are the largest in the world; others are small businesses. As with
any competitive market, some have succeeded and some have failed. But
all competed to develop new technologies and new wireless services.
American consumers benefitted too. By my estimate, the consumer
welfare value of commercial spectrum in the United States easily
exceeds $10 trillion. Most of that value has been generated in the past
35 years.
Success in America generated imitation abroad. Other countries
consciously emulated U.S. spectrum policy, creating independent
regulatory agencies, allowing unlicensed devices, commencing spectrum
auctions, and allowing competing commercial providers of wireless
services. Even countries that remained avowedly ``communist'' all
became implicitly ``capitalist'' with their embrace of commercial
wireless competition. Other countries not only imitated the American
commercial structure; they also uncharacteristically deferred to
America in international fora such as the International
Telecommunications Union and other technical standards-setting bodies.
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery. But in economics,
imitation of a competitive market structure is a victory not to flatter
America, but to benefit people around the world--particularly the
poorest of the poor. Between 1987 and 2020, little more than a single
generation, roughly a third of the world's population escaped the
lowest form of subsistence to a higher rung on the income ladder. And
more than 2 billion people today have a higher standard of living than
their parents, likely the greatest leap in human welfare in history. I
attribute much of that improvement to the development of commercial
wireless technologies. Commercial wireless technologies are novel in
their ability to reach rich and poor alike. They affect the lives of
everyone but particularly those whose hope is most fragile.
IV. The Last 15 Years of Spectrum Policy: America Loses its Edge
Over roughly the last 15 years, the United States has lost its edge
in spectrum policy. Partly, other countries have caught up. And partly,
America has stumbled. There are several reasons why.
First, because most other countries began allocating spectrum many
decades after the United States, these countries have the advantage of
not having vestiges of spectrum allocations that made technological
sense decades ago but no longer make sense today. America is not so
lucky.
Second, American spectrum policy has not been particularly
innovative over the past 15 years. Of course, record amounts of
spectrum have been transferred from the Federal government to the FCC
for auction. Additionally, new bands of spectrum have been reserved for
unlicensed users. But the structure, and arguably the scale, of these
developments were largely foreseeable in 2009. Worse yet, in the past
few years, the Executive Branch has chosen not to make additional bands
of Federal spectrum available for transfer to the FCC. The process of
how these decisions are made is remarkably opaque. Yet the end result
remains: today, there is no pipeline of Federal spectrum to transfer
for commercial development.
Third, FCC spectrum-related decisions are slow, costly, and
cumbersome. This often prevents spectrum from being available to
entities that can most efficiently use it. This result is not
necessarily different from the pre-2009 period, but it diminishes
American competitiveness. The exact property rights for the use of
spectrum by both licensed and unlicensed spectrum are not well-defined,
and where defined, they are not predictably enforced. Routine license
transfer approvals can be delayed with little explanation or reason.
Non-routine license transfers are even more complicated, sometimes
requiring concessions unrelated to the licenses at issue. Sharing and
leasing arrangements are slightly easier than before, but they are not
as common as they should be in efficient spectrum markets. Interference
within band and across bands is all too common, with slow enforcement
mechanisms. The concept of an efficient spectrum market in which
spectrum is put to its highest valued use will remain elusive until
property rights are better defined; contract and lease rights are
predictably and expeditiously executed at minimal costs; and
protections from interference are predictably, expeditiously, and
costlessly enforced. In the absence of efficient spectrum markets,
interested parties are left to plead with government officials for
special consideration; this differs little from a command-and-control
economy or the ``beauty pageants'' of a pre-auction FCC.
Fourth, no country has yet developed truly efficient spectrum
markets, and the efficiency of spectrum markets in the United States,
limited as it is, may yet be better than spectrum markets in other
countries--but not all. Some countries, such as Korea, have strong
executive administrations that can make expeditious decisions without
the years of haggling that characterize American spectrum policy.
Fifth, in the past 10 years in particular, public disagreements
between Federal users--in particular, DoD users--on the one hand and
commercial users on the other have emerged in several bands, including
the L-Band, 3 GHz, C-Band, and 12 GHz. Other countries with militaries
less focused on the wide array of technologies deployed by the U.S.
have had fewer conflicts between government and private users.
Sixth, FCC spectrum auction authority, for the first time, ended
for an extended period of time. Shockingly, most countries in the world
likely have governments with authority to auction spectrum--except the
United States. Also, recommendations from NTIA to the FCC on not
reallocating certain spectrum that would interfere with national
security-sensitive Federal users were for the first time ignored. In an
unseemly display, cabinet officials as private citizens have made
public statements contradicting the positions of their agencies with
regard to national security recommendations. And rather than coordinate
exclusively through NTIA, some Federal agencies in recent years
communicate independently with the FCC. Consequently, rather than hear
a single voice from the administration, the FCC sometimes hears
multiple voices, not all with the same message.
Seventh, China complicated American spectrum policy 15 years ago by
publicly proclaiming its intention to dominate 5G technology as a
matter of official government policy. Over the past 120 years, many
centrally-planned economies have announced ``5-year plans'' and other
ambitions to develop and to dominate various technologies. All have
failed miserably, with China's efforts in 5G as a notable exception.
Finally, the Federal government does not have the means to assess
the value of its spectrum holdings. No one knows how much they are
worth. Could a private company approach the government and offer a
large sum for a band of spectrum in a specific location either on a
purchase or lease basis? No. By comparison, private parties can lease
Federal land for grazing or other purposes, but not spectrum.
Conversely, could a Federal agency approach a private company and offer
a large sum for a band of spectrum in a specific location, either on a
purchase or lease basis? No. We are very far from an efficient
allocation of either Federal or non-federal spectrum.
Perhaps the most visible manifestation of today's weak American
spectrum policy can be seen in the success of Huawei's global network
equipment sales. Despite widespread concerns in the intelligence
communities of many countries, many of America's closest allies have
approved the purchase of Huawei and ZTE network equipment. Substantial
evidence has been accumulated demonstrating surreptitious information
collection by China and other adversaries via Huawei and ZTE network
equipment. Part of the concern is espionage by hostile countries, and
part of the concern is sabotage not only by nation states but also by
terrorist groups sophisticated enough to hack into relatively unsecure
Huawei and ZTE equipment. Not only do these decisions enhance the
finances of Huawei and ZTE, but they also undermine the national
security of the United States and our allies.
Perhaps even worse, the standing of the United States in
international fora has fallen. The United States is more isolated at
the ITU and American companies are less successful in international
standards-setting bodies today than they were in previous years.
In recent weeks, Americans have seen the harmful effects of
wireless technologies controlled by our adversaries, including
technologically unsophisticated ones. Attacks likely enhanced with
wireless technologies killed American service members in the Middle
East.
Hostile drones frequently attack American ships in the Red Sea and
the Gulf of Aden. When a wireless network suffers an outage in the
United States, sabotage by our adversaries is immediately feared.
Wireless networks have become frequent avenues for espionage and
potentially for sabotage.
V. Administration and Congressional Efforts to Fix Spectrum Policy
Spectrum policy has never been a partisan issue, and therefore
efforts to correct American spectrum policy should be bipartisan. Both
the Biden administration and Congress recognize the weakness of
American spectrum policy today. The administration has over the past
several months introduced a ``National Spectrum Strategy'' that calls
for a review of several bands of Federal spectrum that might be
transferred to the FCC for reallocation to the commercial sector,
including licensed spectrum. The National Spectrum Strategy is a good
start, but the proposed timelines to complete studies for the review of
various bands of spectrum--for which countless studies have previously
been completed--are much too delayed. And crucially, while the Strategy
calls for the studying of various bands for potential future use, it
does not request the near-term teeing up a single speck of spectrum for
Federal auction.
Several bills have been introduced in Congress to remedy American
spectrum policy, but I would like to recommend one in particular
introduced by Senator Cruz together with Senator Thune and Senator
Blackburn: the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2024.
VI. The Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2024
This bill contains much-needed statutory language that would repair
a recently broken system. Here are a few examples:
Extending auction authority: The Act would extend auction
authority generally for five years and for several more years
for identifiable bands of spectrum. Of course, one day,
Congress ought to extend it permanently.
Identifying Federal spectrum to transfer to the FCC: For the
first time in decades, no Federal spectrum is scheduled to
transfer to the FCC and the private sector. The Act would
require the Department of Commerce to identify 1250 megahertz
of spectrum to transfer to the FCC within 2 years, and 2500
megahertz of vital mid-band Federal spectrum to be transferred
within 5 years. These are large amounts of spectrum, but they
are consistent with the administration's National Spectrum
Strategy.
Setting timelines for auctions: No major FCC spectrum
auctions are currently scheduled. The Act, by comparison, sets
an expeditious, tangible schedule for auctions of mid-band
spectrum. These will be important steps to get more licensed
spectrum for commercial use.
Enhancing unlicensed services: Unlicensed services like Wi-
Fi work in tandem with licensed services such as 4G LTE and 5G
mobile broadband. The Act would require the FCC to identify at
least 125 megahertz for unlicensed spectrum.
Avoiding earmarks for spectrum auction receipts: The Act
does not earmark FCC spectrum auction receipts to fund specific
pet programs. Such earmarks distort spectrum policy and
conflate it with other policy objectives. Instead, receipts
would, under current law, go to the U.S. Treasury, a small but
much needed boost to reduce a Federal debt of $35 trillion--and
growing.
Brevity and narrowness: The Act is efficiently brief and
does not delve into extraneous concerns.
VII. Spectrum Policy Going Forward
The Spectrum Pipeline Act is an important, but not final, step for
spectrum policy going forward. The 21st century is, and will continue
to be, the wireless century. Today, we look back at wireless
technologies of just a decade or two ago, and we recognize how
primitive those technologies are today. A few decades from now, our
children will look back at the wireless technologies of today and
similarly think of how primitive they were.
One cannot know the specifics of future technologies, but there is
no doubt that new wireless technologies have yet to be imagined. We can
take the steps necessary today to create a hospitable environment for
those new technologies. At its foundation, this involves an environment
based on market mechanisms: clear property rights for spectrum; clear
contract rights for spectrum; and clear tort remedies for interference
with spectrum.
Coase's Theorem, as it has come to be known, posited that absent
transaction costs, negotiations between private parties over privately
owned assets results in the assets being put to their highest-value and
most economically efficient use. Under these market conditions,
according to Coase and common sense, spectrum will be put to its best
and highest-value use. These are policy criteria that cannot be easily
legislated. America needs policy leaders who will strive to allow
efficient market principles, not command-and-control decisions, to
direct Federal spectrum policy.
Our national security will be enhanced if the greatest advances in
wireless technology are once again in the United States and if
countries around the world once again look to the United States for
leadership in spectrum policy. We need more spectrum in the commercial
sector, spectrum that can be put to higher valued uses. The Spectrum
Pipeline Act of 2024 is an excellent start.
Our adversaries will take the opposite approach. They will seek to
control new wireless technologies with better centralized planning and
more government control. As long as we remain committed to efficient
market solutions, their efforts will fail.
The Chair. Thank you very much to all the witnesses. I
think you did a great job at setting the stage for the need,
the urgent need for the United States to lead in what will be
the technology--communication technology of the future, and
certainly laid out some of our immediate challenges as it
relates to China.
I wanted to start with you, Dr. Ghosh, you mentioned this.
Well, everybody is on one note very crisply, solve the Rip and
Replace problem. So, thank you for that and we are trying.
Definitely want to try to further our efforts there
aggressively.
And I think it is you, Mr. Johnson, who talked about--no,
Ms. Rinaldo--I mean, I am definitely in support of a, what I
would call a technology NATO. You know, the countries that you
mentioned, Australia, Japan, India, the United States working
collectively on setting the standard for technology.
You know, you can't have government backdoors. You can't
have these kinds of violations. And we say to the rest of the
world community, these are the standards by which you buy
technology. I think that would be very helpful today. So,
definitely supportive. But this notion of continued R&D.
Listen, we all wish we could have moved forward a year ago,
but not all our colleagues were on board with that, and they
were successful at convincing some not to move forward. But,
your notion of continued R&D investment, how do we achieve
that?
How do we achieve what you are talking about as it relates
to really catapulting the U.S. into continued leadership
position here?
Dr. Ghosh. Thank you for that question. So, the National
Science Foundation is the lead research agency for the country,
and, they have done a fabulous job of funding most of the R&D
that has happened.
In the recent past, we have had other agencies like NTIA
also come in with research funding to help the--grow this
ecosystem of spectrum research, as well as things like ORAN. I
really think when we look at advancing R&D, it shouldn't be off
in a silo by itself.
The better we integrate academia with industry, with
Government, to tackle the really important problems facing us
today in this world of communications, the more effect that
research funding will have.
The Spectrum X, the research center that I am a part of,
which is led by the University of Notre Dame, is an excellent
example of one way that we can go about getting this research
funding out. It is a nationwide center.
It has about 47 and growing number of universities. It is a
way to educate the next generation, the workforce needs. We
have heard from a lot of the agencies that the spectrum
workforce is aging, and we need the next generation to be
educated in all of the various aspects, starting from the
engineering and technical, to the policy aspects.
The Chair. And what do you do, because I want to ask Mr.
Johnson a question. So quickly, what do you do about the
national security element? Do we figure out how to get more
collaborative dialog with people who have national security
clearances? You know, how do we solve that problem?
Dr. Ghosh. I think that--I mean, I have a security
clearance. A lot of academics at Notre Dame do. We are involved
in, you know, DARPA projects, DOD projects. I think getting
those connections done better would definitely help take what
is happening in the research labs and getting them into the
hands of the military, of the science agencies, of even
commercial industry.
The Chair. Mr. Johnson, your artery analogy is so apt. And
so, what is it that you think that we need to do now that would
help unleash that? Even though we have had this, you know,
report on dynamic spectrum sharing, is there some artery
unclogging that we could do today?
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. And the great thing is that I
think all Senators and Representatives, all of the leaders of
Article--of the Article I branch know that we need a pipeline.
And that is--it needs to be concrete. It needs to provide a
pipeline of additional commercial spectrum, with the screaming
need being the wide area coverage where we are two and a half
times behind China.
The Chair. And how important is that to get started now?
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely crucial. Every day we are falling
behind. So, we need a statute to make that happen.
The Chair. Thank you. Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Johnson let's
follow up on what you were just saying. You stated in your
testimony that, ``we are in danger of falling far behind China
in mid-band licensed spectrum that can support wide area
coverage.''
I very much agree, and I am worried that this gap will have
repercussions beyond 5G and 6G and will harm our leadership in
the industries built on top of wireless networks, from advanced
manufacturing to AI, to next generation app development.
Mr. Johnson, in your judgment, why is legislation like the
Spectrum Pipeline Act, with defined timelines for auctions, so
critical to preventing our adversaries from overtaking U.S.
wireless leadership?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Senator. We have a national
spectrum strategy. We have an implementation plan. We have
studies. What we need is a pipeline. All of those things lead
to a pipeline, but we can't get to a pipeline without a
statute.
And so, we need a statute that gives the FCC the authority
that it has had--it had for 30 years until a year ago, and so
that they can--so we can have a new pipeline, particularly for
where we are so far behind in the wide area coverage licensed
mid-band.
Senator Cruz. And expand on that for a moment. Why is
licensed wide area, full power coverage such a critical part of
America's spectrum pipeline?
Mr. Johnson. I would say for two reasons. One negative--one
is it is the only part of our ecosystem where we are behind. We
have the best weapons and defense systems in the world. As Mary
articulated, we have the best unlicensed and Wi-Fi capabilities
in the world.
We are falling--we presently have the best network
infrastructure in the world, but we are in danger of falling
behind. And it is that network infrastructure that will be a
crucial component of the future 5G infrastructure.
That is what is built by Huawei and ZTE and others. So, we
have to secure that as is evidenced by the Rip and Replace
need. So, we have to secure the infrastructure and that is
where the arteries, so to speak, come into play.
Senator Cruz. Thank you. Dr. Furchtgott-Roth, you are a
well-respected economist and a former FCC Commissioner. I have
to say, I am concerned by your assessment of the paralyzed
state of our domestic spectrum policy. Do we need more studies
and deliberation, or do we need real action to restore our
wireless leadership?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. Senator, we need action. We don't need
more studies. We don't need more committees or bureaucracies.
We need action.
Senator Cruz. And speaking as an economist, how important
are strong property rights in promoting an efficient spectrum
marketplace? If licenses are shared either with Federal users
or among commercial users, how would that limit the ability of
licenses to maximize their spectrum resources?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. Property rights are extraordinarily
important for efficient markets and for economic growth. There
can be property rights in all different types of spectrum, and
different usage arrangements, but we need to clarify those.
And the Nation that leads in defining better property
rights in spectrum is the nation, I believe, that will dominate
the 21st century.
Senator Cruz. Thank you. Ms. Rinaldo, you have stressed the
importance of a spectrum pipeline to broaden the supply chain
for next generation wireless networks. Putting on your hat as
the former acting head of NTIA, can pipeline legislation and
incentives for agencies to move out of certain bands help to
break the bureaucratic logjam in getting licensed spectrum into
the marketplace?
Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely. I think that is the one thing that
we have consistently seen across the board. Money is not a
motivating factor for the agency, so we need to re-imagine
incentives that are going to allow them to move in and upgrade
their technologies.
Senator Cruz. And in your judgment, how will the Spectrum
Pipeline Act of 2024 open the door for U.S. manufacturers like
Mavenir, a homegrown Texas company, Nvidia, and Broadcom to
compete against Huawei and ZTE, and to encourage foreign
companies to manufacture more equipment in the U.S., as Samsung
has done recently in Texas.
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes, it might sound cliche, but first movers'
advantage, and we have seen that already, especially in your
backyard at Telecom Corridor in Dallas with Fujitsu, who moved
their networking business here about 2 years ago.
Senator Cruz. And Ms. Brown, I also believe the United
States needs to maintain its leadership in Wi-Fi, which is why
the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2024 requires the FCC to allocate
at least 125 MHz for unlicensed use, and potentially up to
1,250 MHz. How would the unlicensed allocation and the Spectrum
Pipeline Act help us counter Huawei and ZTE's influence abroad?
Ms. Brown. Well, first of all, thank you for that part of
your bill. That would be an extremely helpful addition to the
unlicensed portfolio, particularly if we can position it
contiguous to the existing 6 Gigahertz band for which there are
already standards and for which we could ship equipment
tomorrow.
So, that would be a tremendous show of American leadership
as the world continues to look at this part of the spectrum. If
we learned anything from the World Radio Conference, if we
stick together as a country, we can get done what we need to
get done. And that would be a great asset to the Wi-Fi
community.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
The Chair. Senator Welch.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT
Senator Welch. Thank you very much. Madam Chair and Ranking
Member, I want to thank you for this hearing. And I want to
thank the witnesses too.
I am new to this committee, but this has been extremely
informative, and I really appreciate getting the context and
how urgent it is that we resolve these problems so that we do
have the best situation in the world. I am going to take my
opportunity to talk about something a little bit different
because it is so urgent and that is the Affordable Connectivity
Program.
It is about to expire, and that is really literally at the
other end of what we are discussing now. It is for lower income
folks around the country to be able to connect to the internet.
In this Congress, bipartisan support, we have done an enormous
amount, especially as a result of COVID where there was a
recognition that being on the internet, having access to that
was really critical for the well-being of our--all of our
families, where folks, couldn't go to school unless they had
the internet. They couldn't get a doctor's point without the
internet.
And we have built out the internet, but that--it is no good
if you can't afford to get on it. If you are that family who
makes $15,000 a year, has two kids, and you are trying to
figure out how you can pay your bills and afford food.
So, the Affordable Connectivity Program is $30 bucks a
month help to these families all around the country, millions.
In Vermont, it is like 25,000 families and it is expiring. And
one of the big challenges we have--because there is broad
support for the program.
It affects all of our communities, whether we are in a red
state or a blue state. And it is evidenced by the bipartisan
support we have for the efforts to do it. Ben Ray Lujan has
been doing an immense amount of work on that. But we have many
colleagues on this committee, Senators Vance and Rosen, Senator
Cramer, have been very supportive.
And one of the challenges is how are we going to pay, it is
about $7 billion, in order to keep that going. So, Madam Chair,
I have mentioned this to you, I know others have, and I know
there is enormous demands. Whenever there is any money that may
be available, the spectrum auction is one of the sources that
may possibly be able to allow us to continue this program.
But it really, really is urgent. And along the way, as we
are reconsidering how to do it and keep it going, if there is
reforms that make it more efficient, deal with improvements. I
know, Senator Capito, you have mentioned some concerns that you
have had.
And Senator Wicker, I know you have as well. Let's do it.
You know, let's make it better. Let's make it more efficient.
But the bottom line, I think, is that we really have to
continue the Affordable Connectivity Program.
Otherwise, folks who are, fairly dependent on their 30
bucks in order to maintain connectivity are going to fall off.
And surveys have indicated they really will. And will they get
back on? Probably not. So, this is a real setback for kids and
especially in rural America, and families in rural America that
are absolutely the same as the rest of us.
They need access to the internet, just like folks in rural
America needed access to electricity back in the 30s. And we
made a decision that it was worth it socially, for the benefit
of our country, to electrify America. We have made that same
decision here, but we have got to keep it affordable.
So, Madam Chair, thank you for your indulgence in letting
me make my case to fund the Affordable Connectivity Program.
Thank you. I yield back.
The Chair. Well heard. Well heard. Senator Wicker.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much. Let's see, so much
talent and brainpower at the table. Where to start? Back a few
years ago, we passed a bill called the Beat China to 5G Act.
Led to the successful auction of 3.45 to 3.55 Gigahertz band.
This auction required DOD to compress its systems--let's go
to you, Mr. Johnson. You may have even been with us then. To
compress its systems into the lower part of the 3 Gigahertz
band.
Now, NTIA is studying whether we should do that again. Is
this an option? It is--will compression work again as an option
for DOD and other incumbent Federal users? If not, what is the
way forward there?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Senator, and thanks for your
leadership on that bill and so many other of these bipartisan
initiatives. I think that is a great example because it shows
we can do this. We are actually better than any----
Senator Wicker. Can we do it again?
Mr. Johnson. We can do it, and we can do it again. And the
better that we get at doing it is, as Mr. Furchtgott-Roth and
Monisha have said, the better we get at doing it, the stronger
we will be and the stronger we will be in the 21st century.
Senator Wicker. OK. Who disagrees with that? Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown. I think when we look at new bands today, we need
to evaluate them from three perspectives.
Senator Wicker. Oh, OK. Well, let's see, I have only got a
moment or two. But you fundamentally don't agree with----
Ms. Brown. Right.
Senator Wicker.--and I think Dr. Ghosh, you don't either.
OK, would you supplement your answers for the record so that I
can proceed?
Ms. Brown. We will.
Senator Wicker. Let me ask you this, Dr. Furchtgott-Roth
about proposed Biden Administration policies. Digital
discrimination rules. Will that make it more costly for
broadband providers to connect unserved and underserved
Americans that Senator Welch is concerned about?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. Senator, depends on how they are
implemented. But there is a great risk that the rules will make
it more costly for providers to provide broadband services to
all----
Senator Wicker. What might the rules contain that we need
to avoid?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. I wouldn't want to prejudge what the
Commission will come up with, but if they impose any
requirements that lead to greater costs of service, those costs
will be shared by all Americans.
Senator Wicker. And the Biden FCC, predictably, has begun
laying the groundwork to reinstate 1930s regulations. What
about that?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. I assume you may be referring to
network neutrality----
Senator Wicker. I don't like net neutrality because I think
it is a misnomer.
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. It sounds like a Swiss railway
company, but yes I don't like the term either. But I don't
think Title 2 should apply to----
Senator Wicker. How would that affect investment?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. Very negatively.
Senator Wicker. When the ox was in the ditch here in the
United States during COVID, we didn't have the so-called net
neutrality, as compared to Europe. Europe kind of shut down,
didn't they?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. That is right. They----
Senator Wicker. We didn't have--we really didn't really
have a problem, did we?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. No, sir, we did not.
Senator Wicker. The talk is we did not distinguish
ourselves as a country at the World Radio Communications
Conference in December, and we kept relying on other countries
and asking them what they thought. Have you heard that?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. Yes, sir.
Senator Wicker. Do you agree with that?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. Yes.
Senator Wicker. Well, does that give you concern?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. I have been concerned about the
stature of the United States internationally, in international
conferences, and in standard setting bodies for more than a
decade now.
Senator Wicker. OK. And then we you know, we have talked
about Rip and Replace and these Chinese companies, but Chinese
equipment remains in the networks of small rural providers and
there is no auction authority. Is this a matter of concern?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator Wicker. And is it just a matter of not funding the
Rip and Replace?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. No, it is all of the above. That is--
there is a lot of work to be done.
Senator Wicker. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
The Chair. Thank you, Senator Wicker. Senator Capito.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank all of you
for being here today. Professor Ghosh, did I say your name
correctly? Yes. Thank you. West Virginia needs--I am from West
Virginia.
We need more connectivity. But to close that digital
divide, I have been technology neutral because we have a lot of
mountains. Not every technology works in our state. And fixed
wireless has shown some promise.
So how do you see the role of fixed wireless after future
auctions playing out in the rural areas?
Dr. Ghosh. Thank you for that question. I think that rural
connectivity is about more than just spectrum. It is about
having deployments.
So, you can have all the spectrum in the world, but if base
stations are not deployed, you are not going to get coverage.
And there are--we have done a lot of work with rural areas
in Illinois where we have the same problem, where farms are not
connected.
So, I think we have to be more creative in getting rural
and isolated communities connected. CBRS is actually proving to
be a great alternative to doing that at, shared spectrum. But,
if you have a satellite back----
Senator Capito. Could you say, what is that, CB----
Dr. Ghosh. CBRS. That is the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service.
Senator Capito. OK.
Dr. Ghosh. That is shared spectrum 3.55 to 3.7 Gigahertz.
It is shared with Navy radar, but the U.S. has led and coming
up with a system of sharing that is very effective.
Senator Capito. Would that be affected by an auction?
Dr. Ghosh. It has already been auctioned. So that band is
already available.
Senator Capito. OK. That is already on, OK.
Dr. Ghosh. It is already available. There are three ways
that you can get to it. You can either have bought licenses at
the auction that happened in 2021, I believe. Or you can also
use it like an unlicensed--in an unlicensed mode called General
Authorized Access, which gives you all of the benefits of
having paid for auction.
And the real benefits that you get with CBRS as compared to
either Wi-Fi or cellular is it is a frequency band that
propagates very far, much further than Wi-Fi does. And in terms
of cellular, it--you don't have to pay to access that spectrum.
So, this is working very well. Many communities, even in,
South Bend, we have a deployment with CBRS, was deployed by the
City of South Bend to serve its lower income students. It is
not an underserved area.
There are other options, but you know, talking about the
ACP and looking for ways to get it more affordable, CBRS is
offering that option for communities to take control of their
connectivity needs.
Senator Capito. OK. Ms. Brown, we have a--the national
radio quiet zone is in West Virginia.
And, we have half of that, but it restricts transmissions
to allow for--so that it allows for advanced scientific
research and other sensitive technology operates without
interference. And we are--a very remote part of our state, but
we are running into problems here is it also conflicts with the
9-1-1 service and the ability to deliver service.
So, when you have a conflict like that, how in those
sensitive areas can we continue to work so that you can you do
the innovation that you need to do on the--in the quiet zone
area, but you can still serve your citizens on the 9-1-1? Does
anybody have an answer for that?
Ms. Brown. That is a difficult question when you have quiet
zones.
And that requires a lot of technical analysis to look at,
are there wireless signals that could be propagated at low
power, at a low level in order to deliver the 9-1-1 technology
that you need while not interfering with the radio astronomy.
Radio astronomy also has a number of bands available to it.
And it may be that you have to ascertain which of those bands
is going to be best if you are concerned about having 9-1-1
connectivity at that facility.
Senator Capito. OK.
Ms. Brown. It is an engineering problem, yes.
Senator Capito. Yes, well, I mean, I am thinking about the
folks out in Pocahontas County where this is located.
They are going to need some technical expertise. Obviously,
the state can help, but this has been a chronic issue out
there. So, I am going to ask just a general question.
I don't have all that much time left, like 35 seconds, but
if a regular citizen is sitting here listening about, we are
going to auction spectrum, what does that mean to them? So, who
wants to take that? We will give it to one person. Yes.
Ms. Rinaldo. So, I think when you bring additional spectrum
online, it is going to improve the user's experience. What we
have seen across the networks is that we are at capacity. And
so, if we are able to bring more spectrum, you are going to be
able to get stronger, faster, more resilient signal.
Senator Capito. So, what I think of somebody who maybe is
in an unserved and underserved area who has gotten--who has
been promised and hopefully through the IIJA we are going to be
able to deliver this, I think what they hear is we are going to
improve all of the things that have already been improved upon
and you are still going to be left behind.
Ms. Rinaldo. You know, no, it is absolutely, it is
incumbent upon us to articulate how we can get more coverage
out to our rural communities and that is a big part of this as
well. And we are exactly where the spectrum bands are coming
into play. And then the carriers are able to build out in your
area.
Senator Capito. All right. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you. Senator Rosen. Hold on a second, we
have a sound issue with you.
Senator Rosen. OK.
The Chair. There you go.
Senator Rosen. Can you hear me now?
The Chair. Yes, we can.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Rosen. Oh, perfect. Well, I was just thanking you,
and thanking you for holding this really important hearing
because all of the spectrum issues, it really makes a huge
difference. And last week, I was proud to lead 33 Senators in
calling on Congressional leadership to fully fund both the
FCC's Rip and Replace program and the Affordable Connectivity
Program. In 2020, Congress created a Rip and Replace program,
which requires companies to remove untrusted, untrusted network
equipment.
While critical to our national security, the program has
only been funded at 40 percent, so this is forcing our small
and our rural providers to eliminate coverage, absolutely just
eliminate across our networks. In Nevada, one company stated,
they are going to have to reduce service to about 26,000 mi\2\
as a result.
And this is cutting off wireless access and emergency
services to Nevadans in rural areas. And likewise, the ACP
program has been pivotal for helping close that digital divide,
and nearly 9 percent of Nevadans use this benefit to lower
their cost of Internet bill each month. But without additional
funding, this program is going to lapse by the end of April.
So, I recognize that reauthorizing the FCC spectrum
authority, auction authority opens up a lot of revenue, which
could be used for funding these vital programs and others, and
I remain committed to working across the aisle to find a path
forward for both Rip and Replace and ACP to ensure that our
networks remain secure, and that Nevadans can get coverage.
And so, with Rip and Replace, we have seen the real world
impacts of failing to lead in innovation and provide
meaningful, innovative alternatives for untrusted foreign
equipment. The U.S. has made progress, some progress in
removing high risk Chinese equipment like Huawei and ZTE.
But we must lead the way--we have to also lead the way in
offering alternatives. And so, Professor Ghosh, how can U.S.
spectrum policy contribute to growing an ecosystem that
provides meaningful alternatives to untrusted network equipment
manufacturers?
Dr. Ghosh. Thank you for that question.
As I have said before, I think by having well-thought-out,
rounded spectrum policy that is not exclusively focused on
exclusively licensed spectrum but also looks at other ways of
getting spectrum into the hands of people so they can manage
their own connectivity better is absolutely crucial.
So, especially when we are looking at the spectrum
congestion that we face, especially in the mid-bands, it is
absolutely essential that we do this better than we are doing
it now. Just having more spectrum does not equate to better
connectivity if the actual infrastructure is not deployed.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. And I appreciate that.
And I am going to ask Mr. Johnson, you know, if we don't
have a clear and unified domestic spectrum policy, as you are
hearing about spectrum congestion and somehow some of these
things are being used, is there a risk that the U.S. becomes a
spectrum island?
And what does that mean for our national security if we
don't have a good policy that addresses some of these issues
going forward?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Senator. I think what it means,
specifically, if we are--if the United States is a spectrum
island, we and our, the global technology ecosystem will be
surrounded by Chinese technology.
So, if we think Huawei and ZTE and TikTok and other Chinese
national champions are a problem, and I certainly do, then if
we are an island, we will be surrounded by that problem.
And in that case, I don't think there--I am concerned, as a
former Army officer, that there are no weapons systems or
defense systems that can secure our national interests in that
setting.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. I am
going to move now to talk about Open RAN, which is one of the
ways that U.S. is leading by advancing a new--a new
communications framework through, like I said, Open RAN.
After launching the first 5G Open RAN network in Las Vegas
in 2021, Dish has expanded their network to over 70 percent of
the country. And so, I was very proud to support the CHIPS and
Science Act, which included $1.5 billion for the Wireless
Innovation Fund, which just announced funding for an Open RAN
lab to talk about this new innovation, things we have to do, to
allow carriers to test their equipment on the Open RAN network.
So, Ms. Rinaldo, what more can Congress do to support the
Open RAN model and other types of wireless innovation?
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you, Senator. There is so much that
still can be done. Encourage NTIA to disperse the additional
$1.4 billion that they have. It needs to go out in the next two
to three years. International assistance programs haven't
worked for the telecom industry.
We need to take the tools that we have and make them work
better for us. We are dealing with Chinese Communist Party
market distortions around the world. So how can we take the XM
Bank, the DFC, make it more usable for our industry?
I would also say to the Senators, as you travel and talk to
your counterparts around the world, ask them where they are in
the build, who they are using in their networks. I think the
additional education and inattention really does make a global
difference.
And then, just we have had a great working relationship
with Congress, with the Administration, so it is good to have
everyone on the same page on this one. And it has made a
tremendous difference in the last 4 years in bringing Open RAN
from just a concept to over 100 global deployments.
Senator Rosen. Well, thank you for that. I have some
questions for the record. I know my time is up. I am very
interested in discussing the dynamic spectrum sharing and will
be submitting that for the record. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you. Senator Fischer.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and also thanks to
our Ranking Member for holding this hearing today. The defense
of U.S. networks is critical as foreign threats grow,
particularly those in China. For this reason, removing high
risk Chinese equipment from our communication networks should
be paramount to this committee's work.
Congress cannot simply watch as networks go dark. My
bipartisan bill, the Defend Our Networks Act, would tackle this
problem head on. This program shortfall needs our attention,
and it needs it now. To that end, I would like to enter into
the record this letter from impacted carriers.
The Chair. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Competitive Carriers Association
March 6, 2024
Hon. Mike Johnson, Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Speaker of the House, Minority Leader,
U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC. Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, Minority Leader,
U.S. Senate, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC. Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson, Majority Leader Schumer, Minority Leader
Jeffries, and Minority Leader McConnell:
In 2020, Congress took steps to address a growing threat to our
national security: telecommunications equipment and services that pose
a national security risk to the United States. Congress created the
Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program
(Program) at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to fund the
removal of such equipment and services, including equipment produced by
Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese companies, and its replacement with
equipment and services from trusted vendors.\1\ To date, Congress has
provided less than 40 percent of the approved cost estimates needed to
fulfill this national security mandate. The Program cannot succeed
until Congress funds the $3.08 billion shortfall\2\ so that Program
participants can complete their projects and eliminate this threat,
while also ensuring that American consumers and businesses can continue
to access communications services, including 9-1-1 and emergency
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019,
Pub. L. No. 116-124, 134 Stat. 158 (2020), https://www.congress.gov/
116/plaws/publ124/PLAW-116publ124.pdf.
\2\ See Letter from Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, Federal
Communications Commission, ``Update to Members of Congress Regarding
the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program''
(May 3, 2023), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-3932
06A1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The situation is dire. Due to the lack of full funding, many
Program participants, especially in Western states, are forced to
decide where to remove covered equipment but not replace it,
eliminating service available today both to their subscribers as well
to anyone that roams into their network coverage. Due to lack of
Program funding and challenges providing service in sparsely populated
areas with extremely tight margins, carriers, including those that are
the only wireless provider serving much of their market, will go out of
business altogether. This critical work cannot be completed with only
forty cents on the dollar, and costs incurred to date are reaching or
surpassing the funding currently available.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Katie DiRico, Rip & Replace Data Understates Participants
Incurred Spending Costs, SUMMIT RIDGE GROUP (Feb. 16, 2024), https://
summitridgegroup.com/rip-replace-data-understates-participants-
incurred-spending-costs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real-world impacts and consequences will result from a lack of full
funding for the Program:
A Program participant will be forced to reduce its coverage
area by over 67 percent (over 31,000 square miles) in Arizona
and nearly 64 percent (over 26,000 square miles) in Nevada. The
impacted areas include key military and national security
installations. That same carrier would have a nearly 90 percent
reduction in service in Utah.
A Program participant in New Mexico will lose 70.2 percent
of its current coverage area (over 19,000 square miles) leaving
customers unserved absent immediate funding.
A Program participant in Colorado will be forced to reduce
its coverage area by 73.8 percent (13,766 square miles) absent
full funding.
A Program participant in Wyoming will be forced to reduce
coverage by over 80 percent (nearly 4,000 square miles).
A Program participant in Montana will be forced to reduce
service by over 62 percent (over 1,500 square miles).
A Program participant that serves the Navajo Nation will
likely reduce coverage in that area by 20-40 percent, in
certain areas eliminating the only service available to
communities highly dependent on the Affordable Connectivity
Program.
A Program participant covering 122,000 square miles in the
Rocky Mountains is deciding what portions of its network to
terminate because of the funding failure. Absent additional
funding, its coverage area will be reduced by over 70,000
square miles, eliminating the only coverage roamers have
available. This coverage area includes 40 military
installations, 32 of which are in areas that will not retain
service without full funding, including a strategic missile
base. Absent full funding, only 91 healthcare facilities out of
456 will remain covered, and only 415 schools or other
educational facilities out of 1,897 will be able to retain
coverage. Over half of this provider's approximately 40,000
subscribers will be affected, as well as the 13-14 million
roamers that use the network each year.
A Program participant in Western states that connects
approximately 20 million annual roaming customers, in addition
to its own customers, would see service degraded or lost.
A Program participant serving a large rural area in the
upper plains cannot transition to 5G because it does not have
full funding to remove untrusted equipment. The network, and
the communities it serves, will degrade over time and the area
will go from served to unserved.
Another Program participant in the South faces financial
obligations beyond its prorated Program funding and faces dire
implications in the absence of full funding even if they do not
rip and replace.
These examples are just some of the negative outcomes facing
Americans across the country. To be clear, this issue does not only
affect impacted carriers' own subscribers. Tens of millions of
customers from nationwide wireless networks roam onto these networks
while travelling to and through impacted areas and will have their
connectivity and access to emergency services and 9-1-1 reduced as
well.
Failure to act immediately will be catastrophic for large swaths of
the country. Millions of Americans, particularly in rural areas and on
Tribal Lands, could lose basic connectivity. It also means that
untrusted equipment remains in service, including some near military
bases, airports, and other areas of strategic importance. Every day
that passes increases the risk of catastrophic network failures as this
untrusted equipment remains in networks and cannot be maintained.\4\
Carriers participating in the Program take national security and
network security seriously, and they are working diligently to remove
all equipment determined to pose a security threat, but they need
Congress to provide adequate funding to complete this work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Protecting Against National Security Threats to the
Communications Supply Chain through FCC Programs, Report and Order,
Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 19-121 (rel. Nov.
26, 2019) (prohibiting use of Universal Service Funds for maintenance
of untrusted equipment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Program is a national security mandate created by Congress;
success demands Congress provides adequate funding. While the United
States has taken a leadership role internationally on the risks of
untrusted communications equipment and services from companies
connected to the Chinese government, work remains to eliminate that
risk in our own heartland. Congress must immediately prioritize this
national security emergency and fully fund the Secure and Trusted
Communications Networks Reimbursement Program.
Sincerely,
Tim Donovan,
President & CEO.
cc:
The Honorable Maria Cantwell, Chair, Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation
The Honorable Ted Cruz, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation
The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Chair, House Committee on Energy
& Commerce
The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member, House Committee on
Energy & Commerce
The Honorable Mike Gallagher, Chair, House Select Committee on the
Chinese Communist Party
The Honorable Raja Krishnamoorthi, Ranking Member, House Select
Committee on the Chinese Communist Party
Senator Fischer. Looking at our Nation's management of
spectrum, we all know that we must be efficient and innovative.
This is true for Federal agencies and for non-Federal entities
that use spectrum.
Economically, we face a global race for leadership and
technologies these airwaves fuel. But boosting spectrum
efficiency cannot come at the cost of harming systems our
Department of Defense depends on to keep this country safe.
Vital missile defense radar systems operate in Alaska and
in Hawaii using the same key mid-band spectrum that many
corporations seek to obtain. We cannot deter or defeat China if
our radar systems cannot reliably detect, identify, and track
an ICBM missile or other incoming threat.
And while this committee often hears about China's
ambitions to dominate certain global industries, we must not
forget China's focus on expanding and modernizing their
military forces.
For example, the breathtaking expansion of their nuclear
triad. If we--it would be very reckless to sacrifice current
and future military capabilities solely for economic gain, and
we should not continue to see DOD only as the pot of spectrum
gold at the end of the rainbow. I am also a senior member on
the Armed Services Committee.
We are hearing today far from our INDOPACOM Combatant
Commander, as well as our Commander on the Korean Peninsula,
both in classified and unclassified briefings. The information
presented to SAS today only serves to reinforce my commitment
to the duty, the first duty of Congress, and continuing to be
sure our military has what it needs in regard to spectrum to
protect this Nation.
The Administration's new National Spectrum Strategy and
Implementation Plan further highlight the disjointed
communications on spectrum management. Throughout drafting,
DOD's work and feedback were heavily omitted and outright
rejected.
The study that NTIA, our Federal spectrum coordinator, co-
led with DOD on critical lower 3 spectrum continues to be
dismissed by this Administration. That study still hasn't been
released publicly to inform this discussion we are having.
Senators King, Hirono, and I wrote a letter to the
Administration about these concerns over a month ago.
We still haven't heard back, and I can't say that I am
surprised by that. Dr. Ghosh, DOD has stated that it would
undermine our national defense if we displaced its systems,
especially those in the lower 3 band.
We also know that spectrum sharing systems today use the
same trusted 5G supply chain as exclusive spectrum systems,
supporting the same supply chain. When dealing with DOD
spectrum, can American innovations in spectrum sharing help
resolve these intense fights over moving systems to clear
bands?
Dr. Ghosh. Thank you very much for that question.
Absolutely, and we have proof of that. CBRS is already doing
that. There has been, as far as I am aware, no documented
evidence of interference to any Navy radar from commercial
deployments since CBRS.
The way we have done that in CBRS is to move away from the
high power exclusively licensing option and investigate low to
medium power, perhaps indoors sharing options. I will point out
that even China has said that the 3.3 to 3.4 Gigahertz band is
for shared indoor use.
I don't know whether they have military operations in that
band, but clearly the rest of the world is also looking at
different ways of using spectrum so that you can layer on more
than one application in the same band.
So dynamic spectrum sharing at low, medium, perhaps indoor
power is a great way to protect the DOD, not having them leave
the band, but add on other services on top of it.
Senator Fischer. In your briefings, have you had detailed
explanations from DOD on current systems that many are
classified--on current systems and the effect it would have on
them? Radars, F-35s?
Dr. Ghosh. Yes, yes. I was actually participated in the
Path SS effort between NTIA and DOD, the one that you just
referred to. I think that collaboration worked exceedingly
well. There was academia in the room. There was industry, the
Government agencies.
I agree with you, it would be nice to see the public report
come out of the work that went into doing that. But we are
continuing some of those efforts within academia. We are still
engaged in looking at how 5G can coexist at different power
levels with DOD operations.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you. Senator Peters is next. And then,
Senator Blackburn, I have seen her on the remote a couple of
times, but she would be after that. So, if you are ready.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. I am ready.
The Chair. If not, we will go to Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Ms.
Ghosh, one use of spectrum that I have long advocated for is
transportation safety technology, like a cellular vehicle to
everything technology.
This type of technology helps connect vehicles to each
other, to other road users as well as infrastructure. It
dramatically could improve safety and efficiency, as you well
know. The applications include collision avoidance, school bus
safety, first responder signal priority, and the list goes on.
My question for you is, as you know, these technologies are
reserved in the 5.9 GHz band. And in 2020, the FCC acted to
reduce the amount of spectrum available in that band for these
applications.
So, from your perspective, what are the particular
challenges or opportunities created by reserving 30 MHz of
spectrum for the transportation safety technologies? And
second, what are the strategies we can use to ensure that we
are maximizing safety applications in this band, in the future?
Dr. Ghosh. Thank you for that question. I was at the FCC,
actually, when that decision to remove 30 MHz was made. So, I
think one of the things I would like to point out is that the
ideas, band had been allocated for 20 years prior to 2020. It
was in late 1999.
I think that band was allocated for ITS and there has been
very little deployments. So, I think now that we have C-V2X,
which is a newer way to do this, I agree that it would be good
to have 75, but 30 is also a sizable portion of spectrum. I
think what we need to have is deployments.
The thing with vehicular communications is that you need a
critical mass of vehicles out there. If I am the only car on
the highway that has this technology, you have nobody to talk
to.
So, we need that infrastructure, if you are going to do
vehicle to infrastructure, we need a critical mass of vehicles,
so you can do vehicle to vehicle, and that needs to get started
as soon as possible. I think 20 years has been a long wait for
this technology to really come into play.
Senator Peters. But the question is, it is coming into
play. So, it is, you are seeing especially as we move toward
autonomous vehicles. It is a big aspect of that.
So, the technology may not have been developed for a while,
but then right when we are actually developing it all and we
know there are going to be major increases over safety, to try
to take spectrum away so someone can download a movie quicker--
I think I would rather save people's lives in automobiles.
And let's think about where that technology is today and
where it is going. Not think about, well, they didn't develop
this 20 years ago. You can say that about airplanes. Hey, we
reserved things for airplanes, but they weren't developed till
the Wright brothers did it.
You know, that is not the way to look at it. So, I would
hope we are looking at the future.
Dr. Ghosh. I agree. And I think, I will be--you know, there
are concerns about interference from adjacent bands into C-V2X,
and all of those are concerns that we need to study more.
Senator Peters. Right. Absolutely need to do that, but
hopefully safety is always number one, not quicker videos. Mr.
Johnson, I have appreciated the testimony that you gave today
on the threat posed to our national security by Chinese
telecommunications firms like Huawei and ZTE.
And I agree that we must actively address this threat,
which is why I strongly support shortfalls in the--to fund
those shortfalls in the Rip and Replace funds that rural
broadband needs for these networks. Northern Michigan
University, for example, provides broadband service to over
16,000 households in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and has been
facing a $27 million shortfall in Rip and Replace of their
Huawei systems since 2021.
This is not just a national security issue. It is a rural
broadband access issue, which is critical. So, if you could
speak to coverage and quality issues that rural broadband
networks face that are reliant on Huawei and ZTE equipment. And
if they don't receive the funding and are unable to upgrade,
what is that going to mean for them?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Senator. I speak as a rural
American citizen, live in rural Northeast Georgia, so it is
personal to me and my family. This is the easy part, frankly,
that we have to--we know where the gear is, we know how much it
costs, and we just need to get rid of it.
And I think that the harder part is if we let China lead on
spectrum, all of the connected vehicles and autonomous
vehicles, and essentially any mobile technology that we have
has the danger of being produced by China for autocratic means,
that will be something that we can't rip and replace.
So, this part is the easy part, and we have to do it. Those
16,000 people need to be able to make 9-1-1 calls.
Senator Peters. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
The Chair. Thank you. Senator Blackburn.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Blackburn. Thank each of you for being there this
morning. Ms. Rinaldo, I want to come to you first. Spectrum is
a scarce resource, and I appreciate that you all are here
talking about it this morning. I have long called for an
inventory of spectrum assets that the Federal Government is
holding.
And I know when you were the Acting NTIA Administrator,
that you asked the Federal agencies to review their frequency
assignment and to quantify their spectrum utilization. And the
goal was to ultimately estimate the extent to which each system
used its assigned spectrum.
Make certain we didn't have spectrum squatting. So, talk a
little bit about how these assessments might help us as we look
to more efficiently use our scarce spectrum resources,
particularly as we are drafting spectrum pipeline legislation?
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you, Senator. Yes, so incredibly
important to have a better understanding of who is doing what
and where. And while I sent that in 2019, it needs to be done
every couple of years. I think as part of us moving forward, we
need to ensure that our process is in place. And so, things
like this are done periodically without being directed to do
so.
Senator Blackburn. Great. One of the things that I have put
some work in, Senator Warner and I introduced the Promoting
U.S. Leadership and Standards Act, which improves, would
improve our Nation's ability to advance its agenda at meetings,
particularly, meetings around emerging technologies, and would
help bolster our leadership on the global stage.
And I was disappointed with how we were represented at the
World Radio Conference and the lack of leadership that was
there. And the U.S. at the last minute was forced to change
personnel, wrestle with domestic policy disputes, and proceed
with unclear objectives.
In other countries, especially our adversaries, do not
conduct themselves in this way. They are organized and they
dominate on the world stage. As a result, countries like China,
Iran, Russia are leading these discussions. Huawei had a
significant presence at WRC 2023, and they were one of the
loudest voices represented there.
So, Mr. Johnson, you said in your written testimony that
the U.S. is a, and I am quoting you, ``mid-band licensed
spectrum island that operates largely outside of core, globally
harmonized spectrum bands.''
So, what impact does this have on U.S. leadership in mid-
band spectrum, and how does it affect our economic and our
security interest?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Senator. And I think our economic
and security interests are identical. They are completely
aligned. What it does is it undercuts, the long standing U.S.
leadership that has characterized almost all of, post-World War
II history, including in spectrum and, and we are in danger of
losing it.
And China knows they have a--they have a strategy, a plan,
and they are taking action. And that is why, I think the number
I heard was there were 45 Huawei representatives in Dubai, not
to mention all the other China based representatives.
They know where the future lies and they know where they
are ahead and we are behind, and we need to--if we just let
this happen, we will be seeding the future of the technology
supply chain to China, which will have drastic impacts.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you for that. Mr. Furchtgott-Roth,
you will weigh in on this? What do you see as the impact? How
do we fix it?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. Senator, your bill with Senator Warner
is very important. These international fora, both through the
ITU and through standard setting bodies are extraordinarily
important. And, you are right, the United States, frankly for
many years, has not taken these as seriously as we should.
In part, it is that decades ago, certainly the 1990s--1980s
and 1990s, the United States was offered a great deal of
deference because we were the undisputed world leader in a lot
of these technologies.
We no longer are. We don't get the deference. And we need
to restore America to a position of strength in which other
countries looked to us for leadership.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you very much, Senator
Cantwell, Chair, and thank you for allowing, some of us to have
this capability to do this by video as well. I have 100 things
this morning, so I appreciate it.
An estimated 240 million calls, as you all know, are made
to 9-1-1 centers annually, yet there is still outdated
technology for 9-1-1 centers. For example, in many places, it
doesn't even still support text messages, which is pretty
outrageous in this day and age.
As co-chair of the Senate Generation 9-1-1 Caucus--Next
Generation Caucus, I lead legislation with Senator Cortez Masto
to modernize our 9-1-1 systems. Professor Ghosh, do you support
using spectrum auction proceeds to modernize our 9-1-1
infrastructure?
Dr. Ghosh. Yes, absolutely. The 9-1-1 infrastructure needs
all the financial support it can get.
Senator Klobuchar. And I want to enter in the record a
letter to Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member Cruz from a number
of organizations supporting public safety that support this
position. If I could, Chair.
The Chair. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
March 19, 2024
Hon. Maria Cantwell, Hon. Ted Cruz,
Chair, Senate Committee on Commerce, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on
Science, and Transportation. Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member Cruz:
On behalf of the Public Safety Next Generation 9-1-1 Coalition, we
respectfully submit this letter for the record concerning the
imperative of modernizing our Nation's 50+ year-old 9-1-1
infrastructure to Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1). As you consider the
national security implications of spectrum policy at the hearing
entitled ``Spectrum and National Security,'' we highlight the national
security imperative of NG9-1-1 and opportunity to fund NG9-1-1 with
spectrum auction revenue.
Our coalition was honored to collaborate in a bipartisan fashion
with the House and Senate, as well as industry stakeholders, to draft
legislation that would create an NG9-1-1 grant program. This
legislation would provide the funding needed to deploy NG9-1-1 in a
fully interoperable, comprehensive, secure, innovative, and reliable
manner throughout urban and rural areas, ensuring no community is left
behind.
In late 2022, the NG9-1-1 bill was included in a legislative
package that would have directed the revenue from spectrum auctions
managed by the Federal Communications Commission to fund NG9-1-1
implementation. That approach received strong bipartisan and bicameral
support and nearly passed into law. More recently, the NG9-1-1
legislation was included in H.R. 3565 (the Spectrum Auction
Reauthorization Act), which passed the House Energy and Commerce
Committee with unanimous support last year.
Federal support for NG9-1-1 remains an urgent need. The
cyberthreats are outpacing our public safety agencies' defenses. Every
day that passes means 9-1-1 professionals and emergency responders lack
the advanced communications tools and cybersecurity resources they need
to best protect life and property. NG9-1-1 will begin saving lives in
our communities the moment it is deployed.
Achieving NG9-1-1 as soon as possible is a national security
imperative, for the following reasons:
1. Enhanced Response to Disasters and National-level Threats
During natural disasters or terrorist attacks, time is of the
essence and critical decisions need to be made with the best
information available. The current 9-1-1 system is limited to voice
calls and basic text messages, preventing citizens from sharing
multimedia content and other information that could provide real-time
actionable intelligence to emergency responders. Upgrading 9-1-1
systems to allow for the exchange of data, photos, and videos will
provide local, state, and national officials with improved situational
awareness, resulting in faster and more effective responses and better
outcomes for the public and first responders.
2. Protection Against Cyberattacks, Including State-Sponsored
Attacks
The current 9-1-1 system already suffers cyberattacks, which
disrupt emergency response capabilities and put lives at risk. In most
cases, a single 9-1-1 emergency communications center serves numerous
responding agencies. Thus, an attack on a 9-1-1 center has a cascading
effect on multiple emergency response chains, making it a prime target
for cybercriminals and state-sponsored attacks. NG9-1-1 requires a
modern cybersecurity architecture that provides end-to-end IP-based
intrusion detection and prevention capabilities. Federal funding is
needed to implement this upgrade on a national scale and ensure that
emergency services are available when they are needed most.
3. Support for National Defense Efforts
The 9-1-1 system is an important part of the Nation's defense
infrastructure. In the event of a national emergency or attack, the
first line of defense is 9-1-1. Multiple civilian and defense agencies
and departments would be involved in the response effort. The
capabilities of a fully implemented NG9-1-1 network would be vital to
improving coordination and ensuring clear, secure, and resilient
communications capabilities for national security and defense.
We look forward to continuing to work with you and the committee to
finish the job and enact this needed legislation.
Respectfully,
Mel Maier,
Spokesman,
Public Safety Next Generation 9-1-1 Coalition
Coalition Members:
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International
Fraternal Order of Police
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Major Cities Chiefs Association
Major County Sheriffs of America
Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association
National Association of State EMS Officials
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
National Sheriffs' Association
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Let we continue on this vain.
Professor Ghosh, about how to use technology in a better way so
it serves everyone. One of those issues is bringing broadband
to every corner of the State. And we know to do that and of the
country, you need to get accurate maps.
Not just to know where the coverage is still needed, but to
make sure that no one's overstating their coverage. I led an
effort back in 2020 to improve the accuracy of the FCC
broadband availability maps.
We have seen some improvements, but there is more to do.
Professor, I understand you worked on broadband mapping during
your time at the FCC and led a pilot project to retrofit postal
service vehicles and garbage trucks to door to door and test
maps which I love the idea of actually testing what we see on
paper or on the internet. How effective have these pilots been?
Dr. Ghosh. Thank you very much. I--that was one of the most
fun things I have done at the FCC. So, while at the FCC, we did
the postal vehicles. And then when I came to the University of
Notre Dame, we did the same thing with garbage trucks.
This is a very easy, actually, way of collecting network
coverage information without going out of your way to do drive
tests like a lot of operators do. We are doing a very similar
thing within Spectrum X.
Our center, which we call broadband map us, is a project
where we have involved students and we have given them phones
that they then go out and collect data for on the phone.
So today we have very easy ways to collect signal strength
information from our phones, and they are doing very innovative
things like mapping--you know, sort of correlating the network
coverage with the socioeconomics of the places that they are
collecting the data in.
So, I think there are many inventive ways we can do this.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. And I just think just having
that accountability and knowing that we are checking on things
can lead to more accurate outcomes, because no one wants to be
found that they actually weren't telling the truth of the
coverage.
Mr. Johnson, you note in your testimony, changing topics,
that foreign companies were the only suppliers that built
radios for the spectrum bands where many small carriers
operate. Can you discuss how coordinating spectrum use with our
allies can help ensure carriers have competitive options when
buying equipment?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Senator. Yes, ma'am, the basic
answer is that if we have harmonized spectrum bands, we have
global scale, and that means that our trusted suppliers have a
scaled market to design to and to sell to.
Often and I think in most cases in this arena, design and
development start with spectrum band, with the spectrum band.
It goes all the way down to the chips and the software. So, it
is literally the beginning of the technology development.
Certainly, Huawei and ZTE know that which is I think
probably why they designed those radios for those sort of
bespoke smaller spectrum bands.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Along the lines of competition, Ms.
Rinaldo, prior to Open RAN, there were only a handful of
telecommunications equipment vendors serving wireless network
operators.
Can you explain how these Open RAN vendors are bringing
more competition to the market and helping lower costs for
network deployment?
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. So, there are 127 companies participating
from 21 different countries around the world. And what we have
seen that--why Open RAN has been so successful is that because
we give companies and countries something to run to, as opposed
to run away from.
Senator Klobuchar. Well said.
Ms. Rinaldo. When I was at NTI--I am sorry?
Senator Klobuchar. I said, well said.
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you. So, just when I was at NTIA, we
would go around the world, people didn't want to go to Huawei,
but they just didn't see any alternative. So, I think that is
why there has been such a huge interest in Open RAN not only
here in the U.S., but globally.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you very much.
Appreciate it. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
The Chair. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Next is, Senator
Vance, if he is ready. If not, I am sure Senator Lummis would
be.
STATEMENT OF HON. J. D. VANCE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO
Senator Vance. I appreciate it. Thanks to the Chair for
hosting this hearing. And I think, like a lot of my colleagues
here, you know, I am relatively new to the spectrum issue, and
I am just trying to understand everything.
And, you know, obviously sort of the one of the big debates
in the spectrum question is sort of, well, you know, the DOD
wants this mid-band spectrum. It is obviously very valuable.
And you also have a lot of commercial users who want it too.
And so, I am sort of mindful of Cruz--Senator Cruz's and
Thune's efforts on this. But I maybe just want to ask each of
you for kind of your perspective on this and how you think
about the balancing of factors that we are thinking of.
And, you know, I will just go down the line, if I can and,
you know, maybe try to answer relatively briefly because I am
just curious in everybody's sort of perspective on this. But
like, you know, imagine you are a Senator for a day, and you
are trying to figure out how to balance the national security
implications of mid-band spectrum with the commercial concerns.
Like, how would you guys do it? And how do you think about
sort of these tradeoffs? That is a relatively open ended
question, but by design. So, maybe we will just start with, and
I am terribly--I am going to butcher his name, but Dr.
Furchtgott-Roth.
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. That was very good, Senator.
Senator Vance. Well, OK. Great. It is the best thing I will
do all day.
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. I would--I think you hit it on--hit
the nail when you said balance. And I think it is a question of
balance and certainly want to take national security interests
into--we want to take this, balance those against the
incredible commercial value in the spectrum.
And I would like to see a study that kind of sort of goes
maybe 25 MHz, by 25 MHz, by 25 MHz, and sort of say, if you
took off 25 MHz, how much would that cost DOD, if you took a 50
MHz, how much would it cost DOD, and come up with some numbers
and figure it out from there.
Senator Vance. OK. That is helpful. Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown. Thank you for the question. I think we have to
now start evaluating Federal spectrum from three perspectives.
One, could it be compressed? Could it be--could Federal
spectrum be compressed, or could those systems be cleared?
Two, could they be shared with commercial users, as we have
done in CBRS, the very successful CBRS model? And three, should
we consider putting unlicensed technologies in as an underlay
and could that be a successful model? Unless we have the
information for all three, we can't make an informed decision.
Senator Vance. OK. Thank you, Ms. Brown. Ms. Ghosh.
Dr. Ghosh. I think we should look at our needs, not another
country's. China is four times our population. And if they have
more spectrum, it doesn't mean that we need more spectrum.
We need to look at what our defense needs are, what our
consumer needs are, and what our science needs are. We often
forget that we need spectrum for things like weather satellites
as well. And I agree with Mary's assessment, we should look at
all options before we decide that one is the best.
Senator Vance. OK. Thank you. And Ms. Rinaldo.
Ms. Rinaldo. I would say that none of us want to degrade
the capabilities of our defense. I was at the House
Intelligence Committee, and I worked on these issues. I have a
tremendous respect for what our armed service are doing.
What we are discussing is there a possibility to move, and
not only move, but to increase capabilities. And I think that
is why it is so important to relook at how we incentivize the
agencies that--could we give them increased technologies with
funding from the Spectrum Relocation Fund?
I also think we need to remove the personalities and the
emotion from this conversation and have it be data driven.
Senator Vance. Just want to follow up on that. I mean, how
much of the debate is a scientific debate about, you know, what
happens when you move 25 MHz this direction or that direction,
and how much of this is, we understand the scientific
implications, we are just sort of having a turf war over
interest from there. Maybe, Mr. Johnson, I will give you that
one.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Senator. And I will answer as a
former Army logistics officer, I have spent my entire career at
the intersection of national security and commercial security.
Senator Vance. Sure.
Mr. Johnson. And I think in this case, it is the same.
These interests are the same. And so, I would borrow a lot of
the--sort of the ideas that have been said by my four fellow
panelists and just add that I would shift the whole posture.
I actually don't think it is about tradeoffs. I think it is
about optimizing. And if we look at how do we make the best use
of the available spectrum, that is a different discussion from
who is taking from whom. If we do that, the best in the world,
which we can and we have, I think we can do it better.
But this mix that Mary talked about and some of the
advances that Harold and Monisha discussed, we can lead the
world and it will benefit our defense systems and it will
benefit our commercial security, all of which benefits U.S.
national security.
Senator Vance. Sure. And I am sure my staff and I will
follow up just to try to better understand some of these
answers in detail. But I appreciate your time and appreciate
you being here today. Thanks.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Vance. Senator Hickenlooper.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HICKENLOOPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to
all of you for being here today. I think this is almost like
the, you know, the 1927 Yankees. I am not sure we have had this
much horsepower at one table since I have been here.
There is a lot of talk these days about, TikTok and
ByteDance, but I want to come back again to the issues around
Rip and Replace. And I think that it is worth discussing from
all perspectives.
You go back to 2020, when Congress authorized the FCC to
financially reimburse rural wireless carriers for the costs of
ripping and replacing network equipment that have been made by
Huawei and other companies that posed a national security
threat.
The program currently faces a $3 billion funding shortfall,
as we have heard. Small carriers are bearing the financial
burden of repairing their networks and disposing of their
equipment without being reimbursed, as was promised.
In Colorado, this is a big risk. Some reports indicate a
wireless carrier in Colorado could soon be forced to reduce its
coverage by 70 percent without full reimbursement for the
program. That is nearly 13,000 mi\2\.
Simply put, small wireless carriers across the country
serving rural communities are at risk of shutting down parts of
their network in places where they are, in many cases, most
needed. And Colorado is not alone.
We have our little heat map that demonstrates that the lack
of funding is affecting states across the country. And it is
not just a threat to national security. It is a threat to our
goal of bridging the digital divide, maintaining access to
telehealth, and public safety.
So, I guess I would ask each of you, and just go down and
start with Dr. Ghosh, do you believe closing the gap in Rip and
Replace funding is critical to both national security and
public interest?
Dr. Ghosh. Yes.
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes.
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. Yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. Really nothing better than rhetorical
questions where you are sort of guiding. Switching a little bit
back to Open RAN, which I think again is a fascinating but
critical issue.
Ms. Rinaldo, thank you for your testimony today and all
your work on this. Open radio access networks really can
revolutionize how we build communications networks, how
successfully we can interoperate. Is that a real word?
Ms. Rinaldo. Exactly.
Senator Hickenlooper. Make them more interoperable, and it
allows us to build networks with components that are from
trusted U.S. vendors. Not ZTE, not Huawei, not any of the
companies from our rivals.
In Colorado, we have Dish. They have taken a lead and
developed the first, I think the largest standalone Open RAN 5G
wireless network, and they are launching service now across the
country.
Ms. Rinaldo, how can we accelerate Open RAN adoption and
lower barriers to the entry of new vendors in the Open RAN
ecosystem?
Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you, Senator. And thank you for your
leadership at ITS. Absolutely, Dish has been a leader on Open
RAN.
And I think how we get additional operators to participate
in the Open RAN ecosystem is Spectrum Auction Authority. The
more spectrum that we can auction, the more bands we are
bringing online, the more opportunities for Open RAN. I would
also say that standards is such a critical part of this
conversation.
We need to incentivize companies to go to standards. We
need to ensure that we are working beforehand. That we have,
again, right, this talk about the chaos--that we have a good,
unified position as we enter in these standards body. So, I
would also say that's incredibly important.
And then just NTIA, encourage them to get the additional
funding out the door as soon as possible. If we are going to
bring Open RAN to scale, we need that money to be out the next
two to three years.
Senator Hickenlooper. Absolutely. And I think that sense of
urgency is something that we haven't seen--we haven't seen the
level of urgency that I think we would all agree we need. Dr.
Ghosh, let me ask you, you know, we lead the world in private
R&D, you know, investments in terms of telecommunications.
We get top flight researchers from around the world. Also,
entrepreneurs from around the world that come here to set up
businesses and do their research. But we actually have all that
talent, you know, right here already in many cases.
And American companies are developing these exciting new,
you know, the dynamic spectrum sharing abilities to maximize
our range that we have. I think that is--it should be another
priority to make efficient use of these--of this potential, and
these efficiency gains could be critical in reducing energy
consumption, meeting climate goals, we can go down the list.
So, how can this DSS, this dynamic sharing, dynamic
spectrum sharing, help us achieve more energy efficient
networks?
Dr. Ghosh. Thank you for that. I think there are two ways
that DSS can really help in reducing the footprint of ICT, as
it is called, which is growing. So 5G was supposed to be more
energy efficient than 4G, and it turns out that the total
energy expenditure of 5G is actually growing. The--one of the
key ways the DSS dynamic spectrum sharing can help is by
sharing spectrum with the Federal users, but at a much lower
power.
So, to get into this building from a base station outside,
you have got to overcome about 20DB, which is 100 times of
signal loss. If instead of that, you could have a dynamic--a
CBRS kind of shared network deployed in the building that your
phone connected to, you would have just reduced the amount of
power you transmit.
So, I think, you know, keeping that goal. It is a goal of a
lot of the next generation, standardization activities, and I
hope to see that we will make progress on that.
Senator Hickenlooper. Right. And I feel--I am out of time,
but Ms. Brown and Mr. Johnson, I will submit my questions for
you into the record. But I appreciate all of you taking the
time--taking the time to come and testify.
The Chair. Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me just start by
saying that spectrum decisions are often driven by the amount
of proceeds that a particular bill might raise rather than
policy, which concerns me.
When I authored MOBILE NOW and in working with Ranking
Member Cruz on this Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2024, I have
always focused on getting the policy right, not on how much
money the bill would raise.
And so, I would just ask each of the panelists and a simple
yes or no, should spectrum policy be driven by the dollar sign
certain legislation could raise? Dr. Ghosh.
Dr. Ghosh. No, it should be for the user's capabilities.
Ms. Brown. No.
Mr. Johnson. No for security.
Ms. Rinaldo. No.
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. No. All the proceeds should go to the
U.S. Treasury.
Senator Thune. So, Mr. Furchtgott-Roth, could you elaborate
on the specific harms that allowing spending priorities to
dictate spectrum policy?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. Yes, Senator. The important thing
about spectrum policy that we have been discussing today is to
get spectrum from the Federal Government to the private sector,
or to protect spectrum that is in the Federal user.
But the auctions are all about getting spectrum to
commercial users as quickly and expeditiously as possible. And
the spectrum policy shouldn't be focused on how much we can get
to some specific activity. I think Congress does that through
the Appropriations Committee. And that should be the way it
should operate.
If you think about it, today, we have--approaching a $36
trillion deficit. If you could find $100 billion a day, $100
billion a day, you could not pay off the Federal debt in a
year. We just have this massive debt. How are we going to close
it?
Senator Thune. Well, let me just--that is a subject that I
am interested in but probably not for this conversation. But in
my view, the United States needs to make more mid-band spectrum
available both for commercial licensed and unlicensed uses to
maintain our global competitiveness.
It is clear to me that the Biden Administration is not
taking our mid-band spectrum deficit seriously, while China and
our rivals are freeing up this crucial spectrum. The
President's national spectrum strategy commits to freeing up
zero Megahertz of spectrum, not a single Megahertz.
Mr. Furchtgott-Roth, is there any urgency that you see from
this Administration to make more spectrum available for
commercial use? And then just as a follow up to that, how
important is it then for Congress to act to provide a real
spectrum implementation plan?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. Senator, I think the two can work
together. I think there are some positive elements in the Biden
Administration spectrum policy. But it--the timelines are much
too broad.
They need to be tightened up and there needs to be some
identification of spectrum that is going to be in the pipeline
by a date certain.
And that is why I think that the bill you have co-sponsored
on the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2024 has--it is an excellent
bill and moves everything in the right direction.
Senator Thune. Ms. Brown, I was supportive of and pushed
the Pai FCC to make the 6 Gigahertz band available for
unlicensed use. This order fulfilled an important mandate of
the MOBILE NOW Act, which recognized rural both licensed and
unlicensed spectrum play in the communications landscape.
During the most recent World Radio Communications
Conference, it was reported that China and Huawei are working
against the United States to reverse the progress made on 6
Gigahertz. Could you elaborate on how this played out and how
moving forward--or I should say, and moving forward, what steps
should the United States take to ensure we are leading the
world in wireless advancements?
Ms. Brown. Well, thank you, and thank you for all your
support of unlicensed through the years, including the most
recent Spectrum Pipeline Act and your discussion of advanced
Wi-Fi. China has been opposing U.S. industry efforts to open
the upper 6 Gigahertz band from the day the FCC made its
decision in April 2020.
We have encountered Huawei and Chinese interest in every
country, in every proceeding that has looked at the 6 Gigahertz
case. That culminated in November and December of this past
year WRC, where China attempted a spectrum grab. They tried to
use the WRC decisionmaking process to basically tell the world,
you will not use the upper part of the 6 Gigahertz band for
unlicensed.
You will not even have that discussion. You will only use
it for exclusive licensed mobile use. That is not what
happened. Thanks to U.S. leadership at the conference, we ended
up with a resolution whereby the countries of the world could
decide for themselves based on their own strategic objectives
what they wanted to do with the upper 6 Gigahertz band.
And that means that U.S. industry can continue to go
country by country to try to influence national regulation and
come up with a harmonized approach to the 6 Gigahertz band.
Going forward, we are going to need help from the
Administration.
And we work very closely with the trade organizations
within the USG to try to use those levers to help us as we go
around the world.
Senator Thune. Well, thank you all very much. And I would
just argue, Madam Chair, that it is time to reload the
pipeline, and I think you all have testified to that today and
how important that is for--on so many levels.
So, I hope we can get moving on legislation that would
bring some certainty and clarity to the issue. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you, Senator Thune. Senator Lummis.
STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Lummis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank
my colleague from Colorado who has allowed me to use his map to
illustrate the issue of Rip and Replace----
The Chair. Senator Lummis, I wanted collaboration so much
and I am glad we have it.
Senator Lummis. You definitely have it on Rip and Replace.
This is a huge problem for the three States in brown, Nebraska,
Wyoming, and Colorado.
Because the Congress only provided enough money to cover 40
percent of the costs of eliminating the Chinese made equipment
from their networks, and the three states that are the most at
risk, are the three in brown, including my own. [Map
displayed.]
So, one wireless provider in my state is deciding now what
parts of their network they will need to shut down soon. I
mean, really soon because they don't have the funds to replace
the equipment that Congress ordered them to remove.
So, this provider covers 122,000 mi\2\ of land. It contains
450 health care facilities, 1,900 schools, 40 military
installations, and a significant part of that includes segments
of Interstate 80.
Now I-80 runs, of course, from coast to coast. It runs
through Central Nebraska and Southern Wyoming. The area of
coverage that is going to get lost is this area of coverage,
and it covers a large part of Interstate 80, so all of those
truckers--and it is a huge commercial trucking route across our
country, and they are going to lose coverage.
And so, if we have spectrum, great. But if there is nobody
to access the spectrum on the ground, what good is it? So, for
Wyoming, and of course, my colleagues in Nebraska and Colorado,
this is a huge risk. And time is running out. They are going to
shrink their coverage because of the huge geographic area that
they need to coverage.
So, I definitely share the goal of identifying additional
spectrum for the rollout of 5G and 6G, but truly, it won't be
much use if no wireless providers are around to use it because
Rip and Replace was inadequately funded.
So, I want to make an urgent call, along with my colleagues
from Nebraska and Wyoming, and a couple other States, even the
ones in the more orangy, the deeper orange, are in tremendous
risk of losing coverage. So, and we have funding sources. There
is two bills that have funding sources.
One is, Senator Fischer's from Nebraska, and she is using
extra COVID money. Senator Daines has another source of funding
to fully pay for this Rip and Replace. But the fact that it
hasn't been done and it has put these providers at a place
where they are just going to have to cut coverage.
And it has been a long time since you could drive down
Interstate 80, and just all of a sudden drop the call for
extended mileage, before you can pick it back up. And this is
critical because our blizzards are epic, and trucks are left by
the roadside in a moment's notice when a blizzard hits.
And this is dangerous to allow Rip and Replace to be
underfunded. I urgently make the pitch to fund Rip and Replace,
not only for my state, but every other state that did not
benefit from the funding that was inadequately provided for Rip
and Replace. So, off my soapbox for a few minutes.
I would like to ask a question about Open RAN. Ms. Rinaldo,
could you tell me how these advancements in Open RAN contribute
to making connectivity more affordable and accessible for rural
communities?
Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely. And I 100 percent agree, we need
to rip Huawei out and have a strong supply chain to ensure this
doesn't happen again. So, I think that some of the great
benefits of Open RAN is the competition. 127 players in the
ecosystem is going to help bring prices down.
We are also moving to virtualization in software defined
networks, which is going to shrink our footprint and keep
things in check. I think bringing AI into the ecosystem is
going to help with spectrum efficiency. After you have your
radio equipment in place, energy is the next largest cost that
the carriers face.
So, if you are able to do sensing capabilities, will also
help bring down costs. And then just innovation. It is going to
allow for updates to occur much easier and much simpler, so you
don't have to wait for the next 10 year life cycle to occur.
So, I think there is a lot of excitement, and it is well
deserved.
Senator Lummis. Thank you. And Madam Chairman, I know I am
out of time, but I may want to submit some additional questions
for the record, particularly with regard to Open RAN and
concerns that Rip and Replace causes rationing, the remaining
parts that they need to repair equipment.
And as I said, we are only one bad snowstorm away from the
network going down. Hey, thank you all. This has been a
wonderful panel. Appreciate you all. Thanks, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Senator Lummis, do you have a number associated
with your region on Rip and Replace? Do you know?
Senator Lummis. Yes. These three brown states, the
unreimbursed costs are greater than $200 million. Now, on the
more orange states, the more vibrant orange, it is between $100
million and $200 million.
And there is a number of those as well. And then those that
are the more pastel orange, between $10 million and $100
million. So, I think it is what, about $3 billion to fund the
whole shebang? And everybody should--they were required to rip
it out.
And to not fund the replacement for these small rural
providers just puts them out of business.
The Chair. Well, how does this affect your technology
development? You know, part of CHIPS and Science with the
EPSCoR legislation was trying to unfold more places because you
can't just do all the technology in very expensive places, so
we want to unfold more technology. So, how does that affect
your ability to attract some of these technology companies with
your additional EPSCoR funding?
Senator Lummis. Yes, you can--as you can imagine, it is
absolutely huge. Now, we have dark fiber that was put across
Southern Wyoming, kind of along the I-80 corridor some years
ago. Some of it is still dark simply because the technology
needs to be built to utilize that capability. But again,
without Rip and Replace, we are struggling to provide the
important components of a fully integrated system. I want to
add one more thing, since you have been so kind to ask this
question. In Cheyenne, there is kind of a lead development of
standards in the architecture. It is a really promising
innovation that can help lower costs for deploying wireless
networks. And it is Open RAN Center for Integration and
Deployment. But the problem is many of these networks were
built with Huawei and ZTE equipment using legacy radio access
network architectures. So, providers in my state have been
unable to replace their Huawei and ZTE equipment because of the
delays in funding Rip and Replace. So, now they are rationing
the remaining parts they need to repair their equipment, and
they tell me that it is just constantly at rip--at risk. It is
what we used to call, you know, you are baling wire things
together and it is really problematic. Thanks for asking.
The Chair. Well, thank you. I don't know if Ms. Rinaldo,
you want to add anything? We are waiting for a couple of
colleagues.
I mean, I have other questions, but we are waiting for
Senator Schmitt and Lujan to join us momentarily. So, but did
you have a comment on that, on this legacy network? My concern
here is that, you know, we are talking about these big issues.
I loved the optimization repositioning by Mr. Johnson because
that is truly what we are talking about. We are talking about
how do we optimize?
And sure, you can be a top down Government like China and
dictate things. It doesn't mean it is the right thing. Clearly,
interoperability is the key, and us figuring that out and then
leading on it and in articulation internationally also the key.
It is challenging to go to various places and explain to
them why they might have bought something that is not going to
be the standard of the future, because no one is going to let a
government backdoor be the standard of the future. It is
unfortunate that that has been someone's international policy
to try to go and deploy that.
But nonetheless, I do think that collaboration is the key,
because that is what we have to do to get the implementation of
the next generation technology. We have to collaborate. And as
you can see, this is a subject where not everybody has wanted
to collaborate. So, I am glad--I am glad we are getting some
collaboration this morning.
But did you want to say anything about this legacy network,
from a geographic perspective, of what that does to put people
behind? Because I think that is really what my two colleagues
from the Central West were describing.
And I think of them as two powerhouses. We have some
investors from our state that are trying to build next
generation modular reactors in Wyoming. And obviously, Boulder
is already an epicenter of next generation energy technology.
What does that do to put a region behind if they are
sitting there with a legacy technology squarely not dealt with?
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. So, I would say I worked at the House
Intelligence Committee for the authors of the Huawei Report. We
have been studying this since 2012 and it just confounds me
that it has taking this long to see movement in this space.
But it just shows how important it is for Government to
collaborate with industry and to be able to pass that
information. And my old boss, the one that wrote the report,
said he had his first briefing and realized that this needs to
get out in the public sector, hence they wrote the classified
and the unclassified.
Through Open RAN, I would say that there has been a lot of
change. There has been a lot of information sharing to the
public sector since then, so we need to make sure that
continues going forward to collaborate. We are all in this
together. So again, I think----
The Chair. How far does it put a region behind if it still
is one of these regions that has a legacy problem? I mean, are
people just going to say, I am going to go somewhere else? And
here we are trying to expand more development in more places.
There is a lot of innovation to take place in the United
States of America, and I personally believe you got to have a
few things like airports, but you certainly also have to have
networks that are free of any kind of government backdoors.
Ms. Rinaldo. No, absolutely, right and connectivity is the
base of the entire foundation of our economic ecosystem. If we
can't get that right, then we struggle having other things fall
in place, like the airports, our transportation networks. So,
it is critical that we do this. We do it right.
The Chair. So, do you think people are looking at those
regions now and raising questions?
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes, absolutely.
The Chair. Interesting. OK, Senator Lujan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Chair Cantwell, and thank you for
convening this important hearing today. As we know, Congress
faces many challenges in telecom, and I am worried that we
don't have the tools needed to face all the challenges in front
of us.
The House just sent the Senate legislation to address
foreign ownership and interference in social media. Section 230
and its liability waiver are under intense scrutiny. Our
communications networks and online platforms remain vulnerable
to nearly daily privacy violations.
The Universal Service Fund is facing unprecedented legal
challenges, and at the end of April, the Affordable
Connectivity Program will run out of money. The CHIPS and
Science Act remains underfunded. Wireless providers face a
mandate to remove Chinese manufactured equipment from cell
towers and replace it with secure, trusted hardware. And
Congress has so far failed to agree on national spectrum
policy.
One common factor of all of these, besides that they all
fall under the jurisdiction of this committee and the
communications subcommittee, one common factor is these are all
highly technical problems.
I am worried that the Legislative Branch underinvested in
the tools and institutions that we need to address these
challenges. Congress, and the Senate, and this committee have a
duty to explore the evidence and establish facts. So, I am
grateful that this committee and our chair are exercising its
jurisdiction to explore this complex problem. But for over a
year, we have continued to disagree on the facts.
When it comes to certain spectrum bands, NTIA and the FCC
often say one thing, and other agencies, or staff within the
agency come to the Hill and say something else. Debate is
essential, but different Federal agencies even disagree on what
is technically feasible, and it is simply unacceptable.
So, to the panel, my question is this, yes or no, should
Congress pass legislation that improves interagency
coordination such that the Executive Branch has a unified voice
when it comes to spectrum policy? Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely, Senator. And not to--there is. It
can't be a Pollyanna. There will always be turf wars. There
will always be disagreements.
But if we don't--if we are not able to come to a unified
position, then the United States will fall behind specifically
China. And that, if we do that, the future is China's. So, it
starts with having a unified U.S. position, and we can do this.
We have done it before, we need to do it again.
Senator Lujan. Sounds like a resounding yes. Ms. Rinaldo.
Ms. Rinaldo. Yes, absolutely. And I would love to work with
you on that.
Senator Lujan. Dr. Ghosh.
Dr. Ghosh. Yes, absolutely. Fact based is what we should be
going after.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown. Yes. We--absolutely need a transparent process
where all stakeholder voices get heard. And more than that,
even more than one decision, we need finality in that decision,
as we have seen before. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. Dr. Furchtgott-Roth
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. Yes, Senator. And my understanding is
actually under current law, NTIA actually has this
responsibility. And somehow, anything you can do to reinforce
that so that the Administration speaks with one voice and not
alternate voices.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Dr. Furchtgott-Roth, in
your testimony, you stated that the United States was
unquestionably at the forefront of commercial spectrum policy.
In 1993, Congress gave the FCC authority to auction spectrum.
Other countries emulated us, establishing independent
regulatory agencies, allowing unlicensed devices, commencing
spectrum auctions, and promoting competition in wireless
services.
In your history as a Congressional staffer, a former FCC
Commissioner, and in your work and research since then, has
spectrum ever been a partisan issue?
Dr. Furchtgott-Roth. No, Senator. It hasn't been and it
never should be.
Senator Lujan. I agree with that, and we can retake our
leadership position. To do so, we must lead the world in
developing the next generation of not only spectrum technology,
but spectrum policy.
So, I am hopeful that Congress can find agreement in
getting the job done here. Dr. Ghosh, I believe the United
States can lead the world in developing technology and policy
for dynamic spectrum sharing. In my subcommittee hearing last
Congress, we focused on the lessons learned from the CBRS band.
Now, Dr. Ghosh, as you said in your testimony, CBRS
demonstrated conclusively that spectrum can be shared
successfully between mission critical applications, such as
Navy radar, and commercial applications.
Should the Federal Government not only enact policy but
also invest resources in the development of dynamic spectrum
policy?
Dr. Ghosh. Absolutely, yes. And I think when we are talking
about dynamic spectrum sharing, all systems that are going to
be sharing should be designed from day one to operate robustly
in a shared spectrum environment. So that includes both Federal
systems, as well as commercial systems.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. And Madam Chair, I would
like to ask unanimous consent to submit into the record a
letter signed by 25 organizations that are writing to renew the
Federal Communications Commission's auction authority and use
$7 billion of the projected revenue to fund the Affordable
Connectivity Program.
The Chair. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
March 21, 2024
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Chairwoman,
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Ted Cruz,
Ranking Member,
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Cantwell and Ranking Member Cruz,
The undersigned 25 organizations write to urge you to act
expeditiously to renew the Federal Communications Commission's auction
authority and use $7 billion of the projected revenue to fund the
Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP.) The ACP serves as a critical
lifeline for millions of low-income households in America, ensuring
that families across the country can afford access to the high-speed
Internet necessary to participate in today's society. Unfortunately,
the Federal Communications Commission projects that the program will
run out of funds in little over a month. Without this funding, tens of
millions of people will either struggle to maintain access to the
Internet or lose access entirely. We will revert to a situation where
children must do their homework in McDonald's parking lots, where job
seekers cannot look for work opportunities, and where the sick and
elderly will lose access to critical telehealth services. Congress can
prevent these outcomes and continue our progress towards affordable,
universal Internet access by renewing the FCC's spectrum auction
authority.
The ACP targets the affordability component of the digital divide
by offering a monthly Internet discount to qualifying low-income
households, households in high-cost areas, and households on tribal
lands. While the program was created in response to the unique
conditions posed by COVID-19, enrollment has continued to grow in the
years following the pandemic--from 1.5 million households enrolled in
May of 2021 to its current size of 23 million households.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ACP and EBB Enrollment and Claims Tracker. The Universal
Service Administrative Company. Accessed March 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the program's enduring popularity indicates, Americans'
increasing connectivity needs were not transitory, they are the new
normal--and Americans' use of the Internet and perspectives about the
Internet have evolved accordingly. An October 2023 Consumer Reports
study revealed that the percentage of people who rely on the Internet
seven days a week increased by ten percentage points--from 75 percent
to 85 percent--from February 2021 to October 2023. The same survey
found that 78 percent of Americans believe the Internet is as important
as other basic household utilities.\2\ It is critical that Congress
continues to acknowledge what is already evident to the majority of
Americans: Internet access is essential and generates real, material
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ American Experiences Survey Report. Consumer Reports. November
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In opening the doors to myriad commercial, professional, and social
opportunities, the ACP allows communities that are traditionally left
behind to share in the economic and communal benefits of our digital
world. Almost half of the ACP's 23 million enrollees are over the age
of 50.\3\ For many seniors living on a fixed income, losing the ACP
means returning to a world of hard choices; such as the choice between
Internet access and prescription medications, other utilities, or food.
Equally importantly, the ACP allows demographics with mobility
challenges, including elderly and disabled populations, a meaningful
avenue for social inclusion. The ACP's capacity to build community also
extends beyond interpersonal isolation and counters historic forms of
exclusion. One in four enrolled households are Black, and another one
in four households are Hispanic and Latino--populations which are
historically disproportionately likely to lack home broadband
connectivity.\4\ And for the over 300,000 ACP-enrolled households who
reside on tribal lands, where broadband bills frequently exceed $120 a
month, these dollars are a necessary measure to ensure that tribal
communities share in America's prosperity.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ACP Enrollment and Claims Tracker (Enrollment by Age).
Universal Service Administrative Company. Accessed March 2024.
\4\ Home Broadband Adoption, Computer Ownership vary by Race,
Ethnicity in the U.S. Pew Research. July 2021.
\5\ The Cost of Connectivity in the Navajo Nation. The Open
Technology Institute. October 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the interconnected nature of the internet, the ACP offers a
host of direct and indirect social and economic benefits. Research
analysis from the Benton Institute has shown that for every dollar of
ACP subsidy, there are nearly two dollars in financial returns to those
using the program, including gains in professional productivity and
opportunities as well as time saved from access to online commerce.\6\
This research is corroborated by the FCC's surveys, which indicate that
nearly 50 percent of ACP subscribers use their service to apply for
jobs or to work, shoring up local labor markets.\7\ These opportunities
translate to real financial returns--households using a discounted
Internet offer see average annual income boosts of about $2,200. This
dynamic not only matters within the microcosm of a household, but
within the broader economic landscape of the broadband industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Affordable Connectivity Program Creates Benefits that Far
Outweigh the Program's Costs. The Benton Institute. March 2024.
\7\ ACP Consumer Survey. The Federal Communications Commission.
February 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The $42.5 billion dollars deployed through the Broadband Equity,
Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program mark another critical investment
in underserved broadband communities--in particular, rural and tribal
communities. However, we will struggle to unlock the full potential of
those benefits without an ACP-backed user base. The BEAD and ACP funds
were designed to approach the digital divide in a complementary
fashion, by building out the supply of broadband infrastructure and a
corresponding, stable base of subsidized demand so carriers can operate
in that area economically. Therefore, to lose investment in one half of
this equation is to jeopardize the gains in the other--and conversely,
when we invest in broadband, we create ripple effects of prosperity
felt by the broader community.
One year out from the lapse of the FCC's auction authority,
Congress has a unique opportunity to advance our national spectrum
goals while simultaneously generating sufficient revenue to support the
connectivity needs of millions of Americans. We urge you to take swift
action to protect these gains in connectivity by passing legislation to
renew the FCC's auction authority and fund the ACP. In doing so, we can
realize the ambitions of our infrastructure investments, close the
digital divide, and ensure that every American has access to the
social, economic, and professional benefits connectivity has to offer.
Sincerely,
Access Humboldt
American Association of People with Disabilities
American Association for Public Broadband
American Library Association
The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society
Center for Rural Strategies
Common Cause
Common Sense
Connected Nation
Demand Progress
EducationSuperHighway
Fight for the Future
Free Press Action
The Greenlining Institute
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Mississippi Broadband Association
National Consumer Law Center
National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA)
National Disability Rights Network (NDRN)
Native Public Media
NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice
Open Technology Institute
Public Knowledge
Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition
United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry
Senator Lujan. I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you so much, Senator Lujan, for your
leadership here and for your hearings and sharing various
focuses on this issue to bring more light into how we can
collaborate. Senator Schmitt.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC SCHMITT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Madam Chair. Over the last
three years, the U.S. has ceded leadership both domestically
and internationally as it relates to spectrum management and 5G
innovation.
The responsibility for this deviation from America's
supremacy almost exclusively lies at the feet of the current
President and this Administration for the lack of focus,
attention, or direction on these critical issues.
We have seen almost zero action from the Biden White House
in heading off China, whether it is in Rip and Replace and
addressing the presence of Chinese telecom companies such as
Huawei and ZTE in our networks, freeing up more spectrum for
commercial use, or asserting leadership abroad in international
forums like the World Radio Conference or on spectrum
standards. The list goes on and on and on.
But what is clear is this Administration's effort to
address the China threat and assert U.S. spectrum leadership
has fallen flat on its face. Instead, this White House has
prioritized injecting woke politics into our Nation's
telecommunications policies. Some examples include the Commerce
Department coercing Internet providers to combat climate
change, or prioritizing hiring past criminals as a condition
for Federal broadband program funding.
Additionally, we have seen them engage in Government power
grab antics like Internet rate regulation in combating so-
called ``digital discrimination practices.'' None of these
actions address the urgent and critical issues of network
security, spectrum leadership, and our strategic competition
with China.
This current Administration's initiatives stand in stark
contrast with the proactive leadership of President Trump.
Under the Trump Administration, the FCC released record amounts
of spectrum for licensed 5G use and thousands of Megahertz for
unlicensed use.
Thanks to that--to the Trump Administration, America went
from standing still to leading the globe in 5G innovation.
Additionally, President Trump took the China threat head on by
working with Congress to pass the Secure and Trusted Networks
Act, taking important actions to protect our networks from
Huawei and ZTE and asserting U.S. leadership in international
forums to secure 5G networks.
Late last year, President Biden released his long awaited
national spectrum strategy. While some--while many were
expecting a strategy that lays out a timeline for making
specific spectrum bands available for a variety of licensed,
shared, or unlicensed commercial use, Biden's strategy did none
of that.
Instead, the current Administration strategy, and I use
that term loosely, failed to make a single Megahertz or
spectrum available. Let's be clear, this failure of strategy by
the Biden Administration puts our Nation further behind the
eight ball as China continues to push forward with 5G
innovation.
There are plenty of proposals offered here in Congress,
including my Launch Communications Act to help modernize our
Nation's spectrum policies and strengthen America's efforts
domestically, abroad, and in space. While many will differ over
how to best position our Nation spectrum strategy, it is
important that any approach maximizes America's innovation and
promotes the diverse supplier base of our Internet ecosystem.
However, thanks to the Biden Administration, our Nation has
a strategy of stagnation at a time when technological
leadership is more crucial than ever. America is not just
falling behind, it is faltering as a direct consequence of this
Administration's tactics, while China is nearing the final turn
of the race on 5G.
We cannot allow that to happen, and I remain committed to
working with members of this committee to ensure our Nation
does not fall behind. Madam chair, I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you, Senator Schmitt. I think that
concludes our hearing for today, at least for members who are
planning on making it over.
So, I want to thank again our witnesses for this
illumination about really how much you actually agree on moving
forward on some policies, and how much these efforts to
optimize, and integrate, and collaborate mean something for our
future. So, hopefully we can demonstrate that and do that.
You will have--Senators will have until the end of business
on Thursday, April 4 to submit questions for the record, and we
will have to the end of business on April 18 to submit your
responses for our committee record.
So, thank you again, and we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Monisha Ghosh
Smart Spectrum Policy
We have seen firsthand how a fractured domestic approach to
spectrum management threatens domestic and national security. The
former Administration's hands-off policies resulted in interagency
disputes.
We can avoid this by creating a unified approach to domestic
spectrum policy, where agencies with critical missions such as the FAA
and DoD work together with NTIA--cooperatively--on spectrum. The Biden
Administration's framework outlined in the Presidential Memorandum on
Modernizing United States Spectrum Policy does this.
We are at our best when we work together. Facilitating a
collaborative approach to domestic spectrum policy will ensure a
unified front on the world stage. A smart approach to spectrum will
allow the U.S. to lead on international policies and advance our
national security interests.
Question 1. Dr. Ghosh, how in your view have the interagency
spectrum disputes of the past harmed national security, and why is it
so important to restore order to the process?
Answer. Interagency spectrum disagreements should be addressed in a
scientific manner based on analysis and data. Airing such disputes
publicly in the media detracts from the authority of all involved
agencies and projects to the international community that the U.S. has
internal divisions that are not being resolved in a fair and balanced
manner: this reduces our credibility and can endanger national security
by inadvertently signaling weaknesses in our policies. It is thus
extremely important to restore order to the process so that possible
spectrum disputes are addressed well ahead of any allocations that may
be controversial. The process laid out in the National Spectrum
Strategy and Implementation Plan sets the right tone in managing
sometimes contentious spectrum differences. In order to meet the
spectrum needs of all applications, commercial Federal and scientific,
it is also important that the relevant agencies are open and
transparent about their actual spectrum uses and needs. Spectrum
hoarding by any entity does not benefit society since it results in
spectrum inefficiencies and hurts innovation by limiting access to
spectrum.
Timely resolution of potential interference issues when new
allocations are being considered, either co-channel or adjacent
channel, requires research to be done well in advance of potential
changes in spectrum allocations. Since stakeholders will naturally be
biased towards their applications, there needs to be independent
evaluation of potential interference scenarios. Here, the academic
research community can play a critical role. For example, the National
Science Foundation funded my research in 6 GHz which was based on
unbiased measurements and presented to the FCC \1\ as an independent
analysis of the probability of interference to incumbent fixed
microwave links. With adequate funding, SpectrumX \2\ and other
academics with the required expertise can work alongside the spectrum
regulatory agencies, NTIA and FCC, in critically evaluating potential
interference scenarios before any allocation decisions are made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ex-parte submission on 6 GHz measurements to FCC OET Docket 18-
295, Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band, July 21, 2023, https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/107211592305290/1
\2\ SpectrumX, an NSF Spectrum Innovation Center, https://
www.spectrumx.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to
Monisha Ghosh
Question 1. What have been the key shortcomings of previous
spectrum policy determinations, and how have commercial entities both
failed and succeeded in the past to effectively take into account the
need for national security access and use of the spectrum?
Answer. In my opinion, while past spectrum policy determinations
could have proceeded more efficiently, there have not been any major
shortcomings. Admittedly, the 5G/altimeter issue in the C-band and the
5G/weather-radar issue at 24 GHz should have been better handled, and
could have been, with more in-depth, unbiased research in advance of
the spectrum allocations. Both new commercial entrants and incumbent,
perhaps federal, users will tend to protect their needs and advocate
for their stakeholders, and hence there is an urgent need for more
unbiased and fair studies of possible interference before new
allocations are made. Here is where increased funding for unbiased
academic research can help the agencies, NTIA and FCC, in their task.
In most cases, protection of national security needs has been front
and center when new spectrum has been allocated, such as the CBRS band
where Navy radars have been protected by a sensing and database
approach that has, as far as we know, never caused interference to the
Federal incumbent. In 3.45-3.55 GHz, industry worked with NTIA and FCC
to protect areas of the country where critical Federal operations
needed to continue. In order to develop these techniques however, all
sides need to be open and transparent, to the extent possible, about
actual spectrum use and need.
Question 2. Are there adequate policies and procedures in place as
we modernize and optimize our spectrum use and infrastructure to
balance future national defense needs of and access to spectrum with
the commercial and scientific stakeholders?
a. If not, what needs to be added?
Answer. As mentioned above, in my opinion, there needs to be more
thorough, unbiased research studies into optimizing spectrum use
between defense, commercial and scientific needs. Today, there is not
enough information about actual use to perform these studies in a
timely fashion. It can be challenging, since many Federal uses are
classified, but we need to have a process to address this. The National
Spectrum Strategy and Implementation Plan suggests some possible
approaches, but more can be done, especially by leveraging the
expertise that resides in academia.
b. Recognizing that future technological development may be
difficult to anticipate, do those policies and procedures account for
access and use of the spectrum by the Department of Defense (DoD) in
the future as they respond to developments of spectrum use by our
adversaries, which may be within spectrum bands the DoD no longer has
access to?
Answer. Spectrum use and allocations are changing, worldwide, with
every country facing similar challenges as the U.S. in balancing the
needs of federal, commercial and scientific uses. The U.S. leads the
world today in the use of Dynamic Spectrum Sharing (DSS) technologies,
such as those used in CBRS, 6 GHz and TV White Spaces. These were all
innovations that were conceived of and implemented domestically and
maturing and growing DSS is the only way that one can build systems for
uncertain spectrum environments of the future. ALL future wireless
systems, commercial, Federal and even scientific, need to be
``frequency agile'', a core requirement of DSS, i.e., be able to
respond to interference and move operations to other frequency bands.
This capability will ensure that DoD will always have access to the
bands they operate in now because these will not be taken away, since
bands are shared: Navy radars always have priority access in CBRS even
though the band is shared by commercial users. AI and ML techniques for
detecting interference and managing spectrum in a dynamic manner have
been studied in academia for a few years now and our spectrum policy
should seek ways of accelerating this research so that they can be
applied to future spectrum challenges. By not moving fast, we leave the
door open for other nations, including adversaries, to wrest the lead
we have today in developing DSS. As pointed out in the Joint White
House Statement \3\, ``6G technologies that use spectrum efficiently
and incorporate spectrum sharing mechanisms by design to coexist with
incumbent service providers'' should be a goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Joint Statement Endorsing Principles for 6G, https://
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/02/26/joint-
statement-endorsing-principles-for-6g-secure-open-and-resilient-by-
design/
c. What do we need to consider in spectrum optimization to account
for the agility certain adversaries have in spectrum allocation and
their ability to prioritize their own security considerations over
commercial interests?
Answer. As explained above, we need to leverage advanced spectrum
management technologies to keep our lead in the federal, commercial and
scientific applications that depend on spectrum, all of which
contribute to national security. In my opinion, long term research
funding is required to accomplish these goals, in collaboration with
academia, industry and government agencies. Spectrum can be shared
quite effectively amongst various stakeholders by designing suitable
strategies. For example, with the increase in commercial requirements
for wireless communications indoors (e.g., factory automation), one can
reuse spectrum that is used by incumbents outdoors, using lower power
indoors. This is the sharing mechanism used in the 6 GHz band with
outdoor fixed links and could be reused in other Federal bands such as
7-8 GHz, without requiring the Federal incumbents to discontinue
operations in the band. High power, exclusively licensed spectrum as
used in cellular deployments today do not serve the needs of indoor
wireless very well, especially at these frequencies. Extending the
sharing model pioneered in CBRS to newer bands should be pursued.
d. What is the feedback you have received from the DoD and other
national security stakeholders on the Dynamic Spectrum Sharing concept
referenced in testimony to optimize spectrum use?
Answer. My limited interactions with the DoD lead me to believe
that they are open to sharing if their priority status is maintained
and exposure to harmful interference is limited. I believe these
objectives can be met, but we have to be more innovative on how we
accomplish this. True sharing, i.e., DoD and commercial use coexisting
in the same spectrum, over the same geography and at the same time, is
extremely difficult if the commercial use requires high-power, outdoor
operation from base-stations installed on tall towers, which is the
case for a mobile cellular network. However, if we consider other
deployment scenarios, such as medium-power, lower-height, small-cell
deployments, or indoor deployments, true sharing may be possible. I
believe that prior investigations into the 3.1-3.45 GHz band, for
instance, did not fully evaluate all these alternatives. I hope that
future investigations will do so since there are many ways of meeting
the connectivity needs of homes and businesses other than high powered
cellular systems.
Question 3. Again, recognizing that we can never fully anticipate
what areas of the spectrum our adversaries may be utilizing or
researching for their own weapons systems development, is it possible
to identify certain geographic areas within the Nation to exclude from
the sale of exclusive access of the spectrum in order to preserve DoD
access and flexibility in testing and training within such limited
geographic area(s)?
a. Would such an area for test and evaluation be of value to the
commercial and scientific stakeholders as well? If so, how?
Answer. Yes, I believe that selective geographic areas for
exclusive access can be preserved for test and evaluation by the DoD,
similar to the National Radio Quiet Zone at Greenbank \4\ for
radioastronomy. However, since our adversaries could be using spectrum
bands that we do not know about, I believe that DoD systems should be
built to withstand interference in any band and detect adversaries in
any band. Dynamic Spectrum Sharing (DSS) can allow both DoD and
commercial systems to be built with this resilience: this also
increases spectrum efficiency without compromising performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Radio Quiet Zone, Greenbank Observatory, https://
greenbankobservatory.org/about/national-radio-quiet-zone/
b. Would there be any anticipated concerns from commercial or
scientific stakeholders that you are aware of?
Answer. Reserving certain geographical areas for DoD test and
evaluation may be of concern to commercial and scientific stakeholders
if these areas were significantly large or affected the deployment or
capability of the commercial and scientific uses. If located in remote
areas, then there should be minimal concerns.
Question 4. The U.S. Army's Buffalo Soldier Electronic Testing and
Training Range at Fort Huachuca, Arizona currently serves as a
technical demonstration platform that is critical to the DoD by
enabling research and development, driving technological advancement,
bolstering national security, informing effective policies, and
advancing scientific discovery.
a. As part of the National Spectrum Strategy and the need to
develop a national testbed for dynamic spectrum sharing (DSS), is it
possible to co-locate the DSS testbed with the Buffalo Soldier
Electronic Testing and Training Range at Fort Huachuca and the Western
Regional Range Complex concept in general to enable DoD, Federal
agencies, and national policymakers to work cooperatively with
industry, researchers, and academia to objectively identify
optimization opportunities and examine new technologies?
Answer. If Fort Huachuca meets the conditions needed by the DSS
testbed as described in the National Spectrum Strategy Implementation
plan, then it is certainly possible to locate it there. A DSS testbed
needs an incumbent and the new entrant to be both available at the
test-site. For example, a 3.1-3.45 GHz DSS testbed would require a 5G
network (at that frequency) and the airborne radars that are the
incumbents to be deployed along with the sharing mechanism. Industry,
government and academia could collaboratively develop such a testbed
with adequate funding to deploy the required elements.
b. Would co-locating these activities reduce or eliminate
duplication of other efforts and synchronize other relevant research
and engineering activities already under way across the government with
respect to AI/ML, zero-trust networks, data-source management, autonomy
and autonomous systems, and advanced radar technologies?
Answer. Without specific knowledge of the activities already
underway elsewhere across the government, I cannot determine if
duplication will be reduced or eliminated. The intent of the
implementation plan is to test and evaluate DSS in various scenarios.
According to the Implementation Plan, ``A National DSS Testbed will be
created for dynamic sharing technology, consisting of a federated
network of sites providing complementary capabilities.'' \5\ Fort
Huachuca could offer an outdoor sharing environment whereas other sites
could offer a different sharing environment, for example indoor
commercial systems sharing spectrum with airborne radars in 3.1-3.45
GHz. It is important to have a diversity of testing environments to
ensure that DSS is robust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The National Spectrum Strategy Implementation Plan, https://
www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/publications/national-spectrum-
strategy-implementation-plan.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Monisha Ghosh
Emerging Mid-Band Radar Spectrum Sharing (EMBRSS) Feasibility
Assessment Report
As I said in-person in the hearing, the United States can retake
our leadership position on spectrum. To do so, we must lead the world
in developing the next generation of not only spectrum technology, but
spectrum policy. The U.S. Depart of Defense recently released an
unclassified version of the Emerging Mid-Band Radar Spectrum Sharing
(EMBRSS) Feasibility Assessment Report as required by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The assessment found ``a
[Dynamic Spectrum Management System] DSMS, that evolves the CBRS
framework in the 3550-3700 MHz band, with advanced interference
mitigation features which can address the needs of all systems,
including the unique needs of airborne systems, provides a feasible
path forward for spectrum sharing between the Federal and commercial
systems in the 3100-3450 MHz band [emphasis added]'' (Page 220; U.S.
Department of Defense, EMBRSS Feasibility Assessment Report; released
September 2023, unclassified report released April 3, 2024).
Question 1. Now that the EMBRSS Report is public, does it provide a
roadmap for future public and private investment into the regulations
and technology necessary to open up spectrum availability through
dynamic spectrum sharing? If it does not provide a roadmap, what other
steps are necessary?
Answer. Yes, it does. The EMBRSS Report encouraged investigating
dynamic spectrum sharing as a solution for the 3.1-3.45 GHz band. In my
opinion, this is the correct way forward. However, future
investigations should include all types of sharing, not just with high-
power exclusively licensed uses, but also, for example, with medium-
power uses, like in CBRS and indoor deployments that leverage the
national isolation provided by buildings. The shared spectrum model
established in CBRS has not only protected incumbent DoD services (Navy
radars) but also resulted in a multitude of innovative applications \6\
that are not well served by either high-power exclusive licensed
spectrum (cellular) or low-power unlicensed (Wi-Fi): these include
community networks to serve underserved areas, factory automation and
remote oil-field monitoring \7\. However, the CBRS model needs to be
enhanced to accommodate the different types of incumbents in 3.1-3.45
GHz and the collaborative process announced by the National Spectrum
Consortium (NSC) on April 9, 2024 \8\ will bring together academia,
industry and government to develop appropriate solutions. In order to
be successful in developing unique dynamic spectrum sharing mechanisms,
this process needs collaboration from all stakeholders as well as a
neutral evaluation which academia can provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Bridging the Digital Divide in South Bend, https://www.nd.edu/
stories/bridging-the-digital-divide/
\7\ Celona Case Studies in oil-refinery monitoring, industrial
control etc., https://www.celona.io
/case-studies
\8\ National Spectrum Consortium Re-Launches PATHSS to Develop New
Spectrum Solutions, https://www.nationalspectrumconsortium.org/news-
detail/national-spectrum-consortium-re-launches-pathss
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to
Monisha Ghosh
Spectrum Relocation Fund
The Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF) has been effective in providing
compensation for Federal agencies who are willing to share or
reallocate their spectrum for non-federal purposes. However, the
current statute limits reimbursements for agencies to modify their
systems to adapt to a sharing or reallocation arrangement only up to a
``comparable capability''.
Question 1. Do you agree the ``comparable capability'' threshold
under the current Spectrum Relocation Fund statute is limiting? What
effect do you believe proposals would have by amending this threshold
to allow for reimbursements, subject to review by the Technical Panel
(including the Office of Management and Budget) to support ``enhanced
capability'' or achieve a ``state of the art''?
Answer. In my opinion, incumbent systems are often decades old, and
it would definitely improve spectrum efficiency if the SRF could be
used to upgrade these systems to state-of-the-art, to include spectrum
sharing functionalities that most likely did not exist when these
systems were developed. Additionally, any systems being designed today
for future use should also incorporate frequency agility and the
``hooks'' to enable spectrum sharing in the future, and, if
appropriate, SRF should enable such capability.
Under 47 U.S.C. 923(j), the Spectrum Relocation Fund establishes a
preference that ``NTIA shall give priority to options involving
reallocation of the band for exclusive non-federal use.'' Spectrum
bands that are not occupied by a Federal agency are becoming
increasingly scarce, which increases the necessity to finding
coexistence regimes that protect Federal missions and also foster
innovation in non-federal, commercial applications.
Question 2. Do you believe these provisions establishing an SRF
preference for exclusive non-federal users should be modernized to
better reflect the current spectrum environment? Why or why not?
Answer. Yes, I believe that all types of allocations should be
considered, not just exclusive use. The current spectrum environment,
and use cases, have changed considerably from when there were only two
types of connectivity options available: cellular or Wi-Fi. Most
wireless data usage has moved indoors \9\: these use cases can be
better served by private 5G cellular networks deployed over shared
spectrum using lower power than exclusively licensed spectrum, like we
see today in the CBRS band using neutral hosts \10\. There will always
be a need for high-power, exclusive spectrum to provide ubiquitous
connectivity outdoors, however we need to evaluate the bandwidth needs
of such spectrum versus shared spectrum. Today, there is only 150 MHz
of shared spectrum compared to almost 2 GHz of unlicensed spectrum and
600 MHz of exclusively licensed spectrum. In my opinion, it is less
disruptive to Federal operations if a Federal band were to be shared
with a non-federal system (like in CBRS) compared to exclusive use
which would require clearing of the band. Moreover, low-cost access to
shared spectrum leads to more innovations \11\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Energy Efficiency and Sustainability in Mobile Communications
Networks, Dec 2023, https://www.5gamericas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/
12/Energy-Efficiency-and-Sustainability-in-Mobile-Communications-
Networks-WP.pdf
\10\ Celona in-building private network solution, https://uploads-
ssl.webflow.com/5e3277d251fd
9e4b90615367/65fceae399a036b3da883885_28490%20Celona%20-%20T-
mobile%20Infographic%
2007.pdf
\11\ OnGo Alliance Use Cases for CBRS, https://ongoalliance.org/
ongo-solutions/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Raphael Warnock to
Monisha Ghosh
Spectrum Authority
Extending the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) spectrum
authority could enable greater funding for a variety of Federal
programs, including the Affordable Connectivity Program.\12\ The
Affordable Connectivity Program has helped over 700,000 Georgia
families access the internet \13\ and is expected to run out of funding
in April 2024.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Nicol Turner Lee and Jack Malamud, Reinstating the FCC's
auction authority could save the Affordable Connectivity Program,
Brookings Institution (Aug. 31, 2023), https://www.brookings.edu/
articles/reinstating-the-fccs-auction-authority-could-save-the-
affordable-connectivity-program.
\13\ See ACP Enrollment and Claims Tracker, Universal Service
Administrative Company, https://www.usac.org/about/affordable-
connectivity-program/acp-enrollment-and-claims-tracker.
\14\ See Affordable Connectivity Program, Federal Communications
Commission (Mar. 20, 2024), https://www.fcc.gov/acp.
Question 1. How do programs such as the Affordable Connectivity
Program promote connectivity for low-income, rural, and tribal
communities?
Answer. Programs such as the ACP enable all Americans access to
broadband at speeds that are essential for many of the web applications
that are commonly used today. This is especially true for many
underserved communities in low-income regions. In South Bend, the ACP
was instrumental in connecting 10,000 households to the internet: these
households now face disruption in their service as the ACP ends.
National Spectrum Strategy
In March 2024, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) released the National Spectrum Strategy (NSS)
Implementation Plan.\15\ A major goal of the NSS is to train a spectrum
workforce with the necessary skills to innovate across current and
emerging technologies and meet the needs of an evolving wireless
environment.\16\ To achieve this goal, NTIA outlined strategic outcomes
to attract, train, and grow the current and next-generation spectrum
workforce, such as developing a National Spectrum Workforce Plan and
directing Federal agencies to proactively recruit talent at Minority-
Serving Institutions (MSIs) and Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Alan Davidson, National Spectrum Strategy Implementation Plan,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (Mar. 12,
2024), https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/publications/national-
spectrum-strategy-implementation-plan.pdf.
\16\ Id at 22.
\17\ Id at 22-23.
Question 1. What barriers currently exist for colleges and
universities with respect to training the future spectrum workforce?
Answer. A future spectrum workforce needs to be well educated on a
variety of topics, ranging from a fundamental understanding of the
physics of propagation and knowledge of wireless systems to the latest
AI/ML techniques that can be employed in Dynamic Spectrum Sharing and
policy aspects. The technical expertise in these areas is usually
spread across different departments such as Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science, and spectrum policy issues usually reside in Law,
Economics and Public Policy Schools, making it extremely challenging to
train students to develop a well-rounded appreciation of the issues.
Hence, there is a need to develop curricula that specifically addresses
the skill set required for understanding how spectrum should be managed
optimally, which is lacking in most universities today.
Question 2. What steps can Congress take to ensure that HBCUs and
MSIs are prepared to train the next generation spectrum workforce, and
how do they address any unique barriers that HBCUs and MSIs face?
Answer. The National Science Foundation funded SpectrumX as the
Nation's first Spectrum Innovation Institute. One of the primary goals
is to develop spectrum training, starting from increasing awareness in
K-12 \18\, with a specific emphasis on broadening participation to
include students and faculty from HBCUs and MSIs to engage in the
research activities which are focused on many areas of spectrum:
spectrum measurements, developing coexistence and sharing methods,
building spectrum testbeds and impacting spectrum policy. There are
about 14 such institutions affiliated with SpectrumX, with more being
invited to join. SpectrumX is working closely with the NTIA in these
efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ SpectrumX Education and Workforce Development, https://
www.spectrumx.org/research-and-education/education/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress can ensure that such initiatives continue to receive
steady funding since such efforts take decades to mature, while NSF
funding is usually limited to 5 years.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Cruz to
Monisha Ghosh
Citizens Broadband Radio Service
In response to a question from Sen. Capito during the hearing, you
stated that Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) is proving to be
``a great alternative to [getting rural and isolated communities
connected].'' You went on to say, ``[CBRS is] shared spectrum but if
you have a satellite backhaul . . .'' but were unable to complete the
thought.
Question 1. Please complete your thought.
Answer. Often, lack of connectivity in rural areas is due to a lack
of backhaul. In such cases, one can provide connectivity using
satellite backhaul and a CBRS private network for local access. Such
solutions are only possible if the spectrum needed for local access is
made available for use with low barriers to entry. Wide-area
connectivity, especially outdoors, cannot be delivered efficiently over
unlicensed spectrum using Wi-Fi, and hence the only option in remote
and rural areas that are unserved by cellular carriers using
exclusively licensed spectrum, is private networks over shared
spectrum, such as CBRS, along with satellite backhaul if fiber or
microwave backhaul are not available. Here are some example of real
deployments where satellite is used as a backhaul with local access
provided over CBRS:
Celona on Starlink Satellite Internet: https://
docs.celona.io/en/articles/593
6816-celona-on-starlink-satellite-internet
CBRS and Starlink, Private LTE in the wild, https://
markhoutz.com/2022/07/19/cbrs-and-starlink-private-lte-in-the-
wild/
Other applications that are enabled by such deployments include
Precision Agriculture: most farms are hundreds of acres, and it is not
cost effective to provide cellular connectivity at a level that is
required for high-data rate applications. With the satellite + CBRS
approach, one can deploy connectivity when and where it is needed: many
precision agriculture applications are seasonal, for example, robots
used in sowing in spring, or robots used in undercover crop planting in
late fall and winter. Here are some links that may be helpful:
Connecting Farms With Private Networks, OnGO Alliance,
https://ongoalliance
.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Connecting-Farms-with-Private-
Networks_
IG_Final.pdf
Report form the FCC's Task Force on Precision Agriculture,
November 2023, https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/2023-
Report-FCC-Precision-Ag-Task-Force.pdf
Question 2. Would it be faster to deploy and/or less expensive to
use CBRS sharing and satellite backhaul than to install a satellite
dish at each user's residence and connect them to the Internet that
way? If so, how?
Answer. This would depend on many factors, primarily, the number of
households needing connectivity and their proximity to each other. Far
flung users in remote areas would be better served by individual
satellite connections, but for other use cases, such as connectivity to
schools and community centers, it may be more economical to have a
single satellite backhaul with distribution over a 4G or 5G network
deployed in the CBRS spectrum. While not using satellite backhaul,
since fiber was available, the City of South Bend, in collaboration
with the University of Notre Dame, deployed a CBRS network to serve
hundreds of low-income households with free internet, and many other
school districts around the country are deploying similar networks.
Once again, low barrier to entry in terms of access to spectrum on a
shared basis permits these types of innovative uses of 5G networks
deployed in CBRS spectrum. However, the current availability of such
spectrum, only 150 MHz, may not be enough to meet the growing needs of
private networks which are being used for applications such as remote
oil-field monitoring, warehouse connectivity and factory automation.
Bridging the Digital Divide in South Bend, https://
www.nd.edu/stories/bridging-the-digital-divide/
Kansas City and South Bend Utilize CBRS to Build Affordable
Wireless Broadband Networks, https://www.kcdigitaldrive.org/
article/kansas-city-and-south-bend-indiana-utilize-cbrs-to-
build-affordable-wireless-broadband-networks/
Celona Case Studies in oil-refinery monitoring, industrial
control etc., https://www.celona.io/case-studies
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Mary L. Brown
Smart Spectrum Policy
We have seen firsthand how a fractured domestic approach to
spectrum management threatens domestic and national security. The
former Administration's hands-off policies resulted in interagency
disputes.
We can avoid this by creating a unified approach to domestic
spectrum policy, where agencies with critical missions such as the FAA
and DoD work together with NTIA--cooperatively--on spectrum. The Biden
Administration's framework outlined in the Presidential Memorandum on
Modernizing United States Spectrum Policy does this.
We are at our best when we work together. Facilitating a
collaborative approach to domestic spectrum policy will ensure a
unified front on the world stage. A smart approach to spectrum will
allow the U.S. to lead on international policies and advance our
national security interests.
Question 1. How in your view have the interagency spectrum disputes
of the past harmed national security, and why is it so important to
restore order to the process?
Answer. Interagency disputes over spectrum matters are not new.
However, recent disputes have not been resolved through an orderly
interagency process. The resulting disorganization has illustrated the
challenges to the process of reaching consensus and making final
decisions in an era where spectrum stakeholders feel empowered to
challenge the notion that the public can rely on what has been decided.
This is true not only in the interagency process, but also by
commercial stakeholders--particularly those publicly (and
unfortunately) calling on the FCC to make changes to the established
decision to allocate the 6 GHz band for unlicensed services.
To our adversaries keeping tabs on these fights and observing
decisional disarray, it undermines U.S. spectrum leadership and calls
into question our government's commitment to its global spectrum
partners.
Restoring order requires leadership. The Federal Communications
Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration--on behalf of the entire Executive Branch--are tasked
with working to create optimal spectrum outcomes. Unfortunately, the
era of easy spectrum leadership is over. In order to continue to lead
and to ensure the U.S. position as the most innovative spectrum market
in the world, agencies must accept two new realities:
First, the old playbook of ``clear and auction'' isn't going to be
the path of the future. As with nearly all technology matters, the path
to continued innovation is rarely ``just keep doing what you're
doing.'' Iterative, challenging, innovative technologies have been
developed and deployed and represent an innovative and sensible best
path forward for the U.S. to make even greater use of spectrum for all
stakeholders.
Second, agencies must participate in and embrace a comprehensive
and inclusive process where a wide range of commercial industry and
public interest opinions can be discussed along with Federal views.
Each stakeholder agency in the process plays an important role--whether
it's to articulate its mission parameters or to reconcile
Administration positions--and accept that once an Administration has
done the hard work of making sure that a wide range of stakeholders'
views are heard and reconciled through the Executive Branch process,
that the matter is decided. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
signed by the FCC and NTIA on spectrum matters ensures that
conversations begin as early as possible to avoid conflicts between
those two agencies and is a good start. Other Federal agencies should
be held to the same standard--pay attention and engage early through
the NTIA.
However, the work does not end there. Foundational to a healthy
dialogue is the willingness to admit another's expertise and a
concomitant willingness to learn or to trust those willing to learn on
their behalf. We should not expect agencies to be experts in
technologies they do not design, but openness to learning and new ways
of thinking--such as the Dynamic Spectrum Sharing ideas being explored
by the Defense Department--need to be recognized for setting the right
tone as all of us look toward a more crowded, and less siloed, Table of
Allocations.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Mary L. Brown
Wi-Fi Benefit to Internet Service Providers
Ms. Brown, in past spectrum debates different parties often come to
the Hill with competing proposals. That has especially true in debates
over spectrum pipelines, where the wireless industry argues for more
spectrum to be made available through auction for exclusive use, and
device manufactures argue for more Wi-Fi. That dynamic has changed
recently, where today you can see wireless and wireline providers
offloading traffic on to Wi-Fi.
Question 1. How do you see Wi-Fi's relationship with different
players in the ecosystem, whether it be mobile network operators,
satellite providers, telecommunications companies, cable providers, or
fixed wireless Internet service providers?
Answer. As the ``Swiss Army knife'' of wireless, Wi-Fi plays a
critical and multi-faceted role in the wireless ecosystem. At its core,
Wi-Fi provides ubiquitous connectivity in our homes, businesses,
schools, and anchor institutions serving as our key connection to the
internet. Thanks to Wi-Fi, broadband connections to the home and
business are maximized and made available to a wide swath of devices
and users at any premises served by broadband. For the bulk of
consumers, Wi-Fi is the internet. However, Wi-Fi's benefits are not
limited to just broadband networks. Wi-Fi can be used to build and/or
supplement a Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP) network, by
carrying traffic to rural homes and then distributing the traffic to
devices inside the home. It is a complement to mobile networks,
offloading traffic that would otherwise use mobile infrastructure
(e.g., cell towers and fiber backhaul). One mobile operator states that
the amount of smartphone mobile traffic offloaded to broadband is as
high as 87 percent--the lion's share of device traffic. That's good for
mobile operators who do not need to manage extreme demand spikes, and
good for consumers who care little about how a device connects, only
that it does.
Wi-Fi is used at the edge of every broadband connection--whether
that connection is based on fiber, cable technology (DOCSIS),
satellite, or even fixed 5G. Any broadband connection to your home or
business ends in Wi-Fi because it is Wi-Fi that delivers traffic to and
from your devices. Moreover, the number of devices with Wi-Fi
connectivity (also called ``smart'' devices) just keeps growing in
number and by category--the Wi-Fi Alliance reports 19.5 billion Wi-Fi
devices in the global marketplace consisting of 80,000 unique products
at last count. From this perspective, Wi-Fi reaches deeply into the
consumer technology sector providing connectivity to appliances of all
types, plumbing, security, hearing and electrical, athletic equipment,
home health devices, and more.
Emerging Mid-Band Radar Spectrum Sharing (EMBRSS) Feasibility
Assessment Report
As I said in-person in the hearing, the United States can retake
our leadership position on spectrum. To do so, we must lead the world
in developing the next generation of not only spectrum technology, but
spectrum policy. The U.S. Depart of Defense recently released an
unclassified version of the Emerging Mid-Band Radar Spectrum Sharing
(EMBRSS) Feasibility Assessment Report as required by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The assessment found ``a
[Dynamic Spectrum Management System] DSMS, that evolves the CBRS
framework in the 3550-3700 MHz band, with advanced interference
mitigation features which can address the needs of all systems,
including the unique needs of airborne systems, provides a feasible
path forward for spectrum sharing between the Federal and commercial
systems in the 3100-3450 MHz band [emphasis added]'' (Page 220; U.S.
Department of Defense, EMBRSS Feasibility Assessment Report; released
September 2023, unclassified report released April 3, 2024).
Question 1. Now that the EMBRSS Report is public, does it provide a
roadmap for future public and private investment into the regulations
and technology necessary to open up spectrum availability through
dynamic spectrum sharing? If it does not provide a roadmap, what other
steps are necessary?
Answer. The EMBRSS roadmap is quite clear: develop an evolved
implementation of Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) sharing
approach that meets a set of conditions spelled out in the document,
and then test it to make certain it works.
The conditions are straightforward: DoD's systems are and must
continue to be treated as ``primary'' in the band for regulatory
purposes; the band must be preemptable for national security purposes;
development of new capability and equipment must address informational,
operational and cyber security dimensions; the band needs to be open
for testing and experimentation by defense vendors; the band must
accommodate evolving Federal usage, including new and expanded systems;
and the band must be operationalized with established interference
safeguards. Two non-technical needs must also be addressed--(1) the
Federal government needs to be exempted from liability for damages to
commercial systems (2) Federal resource requirements must be addressed
to allow this activity to be developed. None of this is surprising or
unreasonable.
U.S. industry interests that have been involved in the CBRS band
have responded quite positively to the release of the redacted EMBRSS
report and look forward to collaborating with DoD as the conversation
toward Dynamic Spectrum Sharing in lower 3 GHz continues. NTIA's
activities around its National Spectrum Strategy should not slow down
the work that needs to be done to commercialize the lower 3 GHz
spectrum but instead build upon (and not ignore) the significant work
already accomplished in the EMBRSS report. We look forward to working
with NTIA to quickly advance the interests of Federal and commercial
users in this spectrum.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to
Mary L. Brown
Spectrum Relocation Fund
The Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF) has been effective in providing
compensation for Federal agencies who are willing to share or
reallocate their spectrum for non-federal purposes. However, the
current statute limits reimbursements for agencies to modify their
systems to adapt to a sharing or reallocation arrangement only up to a
``comparable capability''.
Question 1. Do you agree the ``comparable capability'' threshold
under the current Spectrum Relocation Fund statute is limiting? What
effect do you believe proposals would have by amending this threshold
to allow for reimbursements, subject to review by the Technical Panel
(including the Office of Management and Budget) to support ``enhanced
capability'' or achieve a ``state of the art''?
Answer. Enhanced capabilities should be available to Federal
procurement. Viewed from a commercial perspective, there is no radio
systems manager who--confronted with a need to replace a radio system--
would choose to source one of ``comparable capability.'' Developments
in radio science are simply moving too fast. At a high level, Federal
spectrum-based systems (including transmitters and receivers) should be
evaluated as follows:--(1) does the system satisfy its mission and
purpose; and (2) does the system promote spectral efficiency within the
band of operation and adjacent to it, as well as demonstrate cost
effectiveness measured over the system lifecycle.
Under 47 U.S.C. 923(j), the Spectrum Relocation Fund establishes a
preference that ``NTIA shall give priority to options involving
reallocation of the band for exclusive non-federal use.'' Spectrum
bands that are not occupied by a Federal agency are becoming
increasingly scarce, which increases the necessity to finding
coexistence regimes that protect Federal missions and also foster
innovation in non-federal, commercial applications.
Question 2. Do you believe these provisions establishing an SRF
preference for exclusive non-federal users should be modernized to
better reflect the current spectrum environment? Why or why not?
Answer. Yes. Today the United States is in a leadership position on
sharing and unlicensed spectrum and our Federal law should reflect that
leadership by placing sharing and unlicensed technologies at least on
equal footing with legacy exclusive use models.
This provision of the Spectrum Relocation Fund, to prioritize the
SRF for exclusive non-federal use, was adopted in 2012, and today has
become obsolete and needs to be updated to reflect today's wireless
ecosystem. First, in the past 12 years since this language was adopted,
we have generated valuable knowledge about sharing and coexistence--not
just the development of technological capability, but actual market-
based proof that sharing spectrum supports real business cases.
Statutory language needs to reflect this reality.
Here are just a few examples of developments since this language
became law:
In 2015, the FCC released its ground-breaking service rules
for the CBRS band, calling out how tiers of users with
different sets of spectrum rights would utilize the band.
The WINNForum begins that same year to develop a standards-
based approach to layering database-driven sharing on mobile
networks and technologies. New versions of its standards
continue to be updated and released.
The ``On-Go Alliance'' forms to promote use of the CBRS band
in 2017.
In 2018, the FCC released its auction approach and emissions
limits on end devices.
January 2020: FCC authorizes full use of the CBRS band with
six Spectrum Access System (SAS) providers.
Auctions for CBRS PALS licenses net $4.6 billion in revenue
in 2020 and more than 200 auction winners.
In April 2020, the FCC releases rules for the operation of
Automated Frequency Control (AFC) systems for 6 GHz, kicking
off a substantial industry effort to develop and test the
database systems.
The NTIA releases its review in May 2023 of CBRS band
performance in the 2021-23 timeframe, finding surprisingly fast
uptake against a backdrop of no interference issues:
CBRS deployments grew at a steady rate with a mean
quarterly increase of 12.0 percent and a total increase of
121 percent over the 21-month analysis period.
On January 1, 2023, there were 128,351 active CBSDs in
DPA-impacted counties with a total population of
232,348,897 residents.
The number of CBSDs with Priority Access License (PAL)
grants grew consistently with a mean increase of 17 percent
per quarter, but General Authorized Access (GAA) CBSDs
dominated deployments. On January 1, 2023, four out of five
active CBSDs were GAA-only, 85 percent of the active grants
were GAA, and two-thirds of active CBSDs with a PAL grant
had at least one active GAA grant.
More than 70 percent of all active CBSDs were deployed
in rural census blocks on January 1,2023.
February 2024 inaugurates the first commercial AFC systems
for Wi-Fi in the 6 GHz band, when the FCC authorizes seven such
providers. This enables Wi-Fi to be used at ``standard power''
levels because the databases prohibit Wi-Fi transmissions near
microwave link.
April 2024 the Department of Defense convenes a process to
evaluate the development of Dynamic Spectrum Sharing with its
spectrum-based systems.
These achievements are unprecedented and give the United States
options that other countries do not have. Given that there is a desire
to add new and varied uses to mid-band-spectrum, we should ensure that
NTIA's processes can take full advantage of the technological
capabilities that we have been working on for decades. 47 U.S.C. 923(j)
needs to be updated and revised to give NTIA this needed flexibility to
pursue sharing and unlicensed spectrum models.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Cruz to
Mary L. Brown
Unlicensed Spectrum
America has the best unlicensed and Wi-Fi capabilities in the
world. As Americans continue to use Wi-Fi more and more each year, it
is essential that we have a plan in place to protect U.S. leadership
and preserve our competitive advantage over China.
Question 1. How could S.3909, the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2024,
promote Wi-Fi technology?
Answer. I would encourage reconsideration of the balance of
spectrum set forth in the bill. Given the importance of Wi-Fi to
consumers and our economy, unlicensed spectrum should be given greater
emphasis in any spectrum pipeline legislation. As currently set forth
in the legislation, exclusive high-power spectrum is guaranteed 10
times the amount of spectrum as compared to unlicensed spectrum. This
imbalance does not reflect how consumers use spectrum on a daily basis
or the spectrum needs of the future, as Wi-Fi is projected to handle
more and more data traffic every year.
Moreover, the provision that identifies 125 MHz of new unlicensed
spectrum is a beneficial first step, assuming the additional spectrum
is the 7125-7250 MHz band as it is contiguous to existing unlicensed
spectrum and already part of the Wi-Fi 7 specification. Contiguous
spectrum provides the needed bandwidth to complete the 6 GHz channel
plan for Wi-Fi, addressing the need for a stranded 320 MHz channel left
incomplete by the FCC's 2020 decision (due to jurisdictional limits
above 7125 MHz). Channel diversity in dense Wi-Fi deployments, Wi-Fi
demand growth, and new types of devices (e.g., AR/VR) will exhaust the
available channels in 6 GHz, and 7125-7250 MHz helps alleviate that.
However, to be clear, 125 MHz of additional unlicensed spectrum will
not be sufficient to satisfy the exponentially growing needs and
demands of Wi-Fi into the future so the bill should be adjusted to
devote substantially more spectrum to unlicensed uses.
Question 2. Are further steps needed to ensure Wi-Fi's continued
success and prevent our adversaries from dominating foreign telecom
markets?
Answer. Yes. Understanding the unqualified success of Wi-Fi is the
first step in understanding how to keep it successful. The U.S.-led Wi-
Fi equipment industry historically is one that is characterized by
large volumes--volumes that are multiple times those of licensed mobile
technology. In 2023, the Wi-Fi industry shipped around the world 3.8
billion chipsets--a number that continues to grow each year. In
addition, application and device manufacturers design their products
utilizing the latest Wi-Fi capabilities and spectrum availability,
further compounding the U.S. vested interest and investment in global
Wi-Fi.
In order to ensure this market remains healthy, the U.S.-led Wi-Fi
industry needs help and support from all branches of the U.S.
government to convince countries to follow the U.S. lead on 6 GHz and
unlicensed spectrum more generally. While we have worked closely with
the current Administration over the past four years, including before
and during the recent World Radio Conference, our industry continues to
need senior engagement from the Commerce and State Departments, and the
White House, if we are to continue the success of Wi-Fi into the
future. While company officials are out in the world talking about Wi-
Fi spectrum every day, other countries need to hear that the U.S.
government recognizes the necessity and value of Wi-Fi and unlicensed
spectrum. In sharp contrast, China has made its support of the China-
dominated 5G equipment industry a priority for their senior foreign
policy and commercial officers on behalf of its domestic manufacturers.
We need to do the same for Wi-Fi which remains a vital link to the
Internet for so many Americans.
Moreover, it is critical that we continue to pursue a spectrum
pipeline for unlicensed spectrum given that as much as 87 percent of
mobile traffic is offloaded onto Wi-Fi. As mentioned above, your bill
has the potential to complete a fourth Wi-Fi 7 channel in the 7125-7250
MHz band. Unfortunately, that additional unlicensed spectrum will not
be sufficient. As broadband pipes into the home get bigger and bigger,
Wi-Fi 7 will need multiple 320 MHz channels to ensure Wi-Fi does not
become the bottleneck to gigabit broadband speeds for consumers. We
encourage you to consider directing the FCC to prioritize opening up a
reasonable balance of licensed and unlicensed spectrum in a way that
recognizes the full wireless ecosystem.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Mary L. Brown
Question. In your written testimony, you provide critical detail on
how the People's Republic of China sought to undermine U.S. policy
preferences at the World Radio Conference, particularly regarding
supporting Wi-Fi technology. Simply put, why does China oppose Wi-Fi?
Answer. China acts in its self-interest. Unlike the United States,
China is characterized by centrally controlled broadband infrastructure
and connectivity, limited and controlled ``competition,'' highly
regulated content, a larger population concentrated in large cities,
and an approach to security that emphasizes centralized governmental
control, surveillance, and adherence to Communist Party beliefs. Once
China has settled on an approach to a spectrum band that meets its
domestic needs, it then turns its attention to the rest of world and
attempts to impose its domestic vision on global economies and
political structures in order to provide market opportunities to
Chinese vendors.
Mobile networks operated by Chinese providers or supplied with
Chinese equipment can be used more easily to facilitate surveillance.
In contrast with Wi-Fi, a user could roam through multiple networks in
the course of a day--home, coffee shop, work, restaurant, grocery
store, etc.--without being tracked by a central network operator.
Limiting the availability of Wi-Fi in China encourages a consumer to
utilize the licensed mobile network.
Further, the intellectual property of Wi-Fi is very different than
that of mobile technology--as a result, Wi-Fi is far less expensive to
manufacture. Wi-Fi intellectual property is largely U.S.-based and is
made available on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms that enable
Wi-Fi to be offered as a lower-cost networking alternative. As China
seeks to continue to resuscitate Huawei and its other tightly
controlled mobile network equipment vendors revenue matters, and
Chinese vendors can make more money selling licensed mobile technology
based on outsized licensing terms favoring the vendor.
In addition, mobile network technology is often sold ``as a
service'' or with corresponding service packages. This means that a
network equipment sale to a network operator is not a one-time sale,
but rather generates recurring revenue and opportunities to continue to
make changes to the equipment's software. While the same can be said
about enterprise Wi-Fi, Wi-Fi services are much less expensive as
described above.
For the few mobile network vendors still in business outside of
China, lining up behind China's Huawei and ZTE in a global campaign for
spectrum becomes a low-cost way to open potential future markets. China
encourages European vendors in this effort because it gives its
spectrum campaigns an ``international'' imprimatur. This is exactly
what is happening in the global fight (still ongoing) over the upper 6
GHz band as U.S. interests attempt to get the full 6 GHz band opened
for Wi-Fi and China opposes.
If China proves successful, the U.S. loses. First, at a global
level spectrum becomes de facto labelled ``for mobile network operators
only'' whether those economies and populations need it for mobile or
not. As a blunt comparison, the 5G needs of China's 4+ billion
population are very different than the 6.8 million who live in
Paraguay. But China's goal in Paraguay is to take spectrum that could
used for Wi-Fi today off the table permanently. By convincing foreign
governments to block out spectrum for the future benefit of Chinese
mobile equipment vendors, China prevents that spectrum from being used
beneficially today. Across Africa in 2023, China convinced virtually
all countries that the upper 6 GHz band should be set aside for ``5G''
even though no operator in Africa was ready to build ``5G'' in the
upper 6 GHz band, and few were building ``5G'' in any band. The sad
reality is that it is doubtful that this spectrum will be used for
decades, if ever, unless China builds these countries a ``free''
network comprised of Chinese equipment of dubious security. Wi-Fi,
which could have immediately been deployed on the continent to benefit
Africa's growing fixed and satellite broadband networks, has been
locked out of more than half the spectrum in the 6 GHz band. While the
final chapter on 6 GHz in Africa has not been written, and countries
could still choose unlicensed, the continent's unified call at the WRC
for a ``mobile network only'' approach is troubling.
For those foreign markets that decide to open the upper 6 GHz band
to mobile network operator use, Huawei and ZTE will step forward as the
``low-cost'' option, given the subsidies they enjoy from the Chinese
government. And once Chinese vendors are successful in winning the
bids, the network technology that they will use is Chinese--with the
same capabilities that China uses to track its own population.
Moreover, because many foreign economies are mobile-centric, China has
unique control over foreign governments, as China can control the
operational status of its core network. Indeed, in many economies that
lack adequately trained personnel, it is Chinese nationals who actually
operate mobile networks in these countries. U.S. corporate interests
operating in these countries, as well as U.S. citizens living or
traveling there, are at risk when roaming on Chinese-built networks.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Mary L. Brown
U.S. Technological Leadership
China is attempting to influence spectrum allocations worldwide,
including most recently at the World Radio Conference where they
challenged the U.S. position on the 6GHz band, which the U.S. has
allocated for unlicensed use.
I understand that, on the surface, these efforts represent attempts
to boost Huawei and ZTE internationally.
Question . What are some specific national and economic security
implications of China challenging U.S. wireless policies, and how can
the U.S. combat China's behavior?
Answer. The first and most important tenant of understanding the
national security impact of China on global spectrum policy is that
China acts in its own self-interest. Unlike the United States, China is
characterized by centrally controlled broadband infrastructure and
connectivity, limited and controlled ``competition,'' highly regulated
content, larger population concentrated in large cities, and an
approach to security that emphasizes governmental control,
surveillance, and adherence to Communist Party beliefs. Once China has
settled on an approach to a spectrum band that meets its domestic
needs, it then turns its attention to the rest of world and attempts to
impose its domestic vision on global economies and political structures
in order to provide market opportunities to Chinese vendors.
For the few mobile network vendors still in business outside of
China, lining up behind China's Huawei and ZTE in a global campaign for
spectrum becomes a low-cost way to open potential future markets. China
encourages European equipment vendors in this effort because it gives
its spectrum campaigns an ``international'' imprimatur. This kind of
China campaign is exactly what is happening in the global fight (still
ongoing) over upper 6 GHz as U.S. interests attempted to get the full 6
GHz band opened for Wi-Fi.
If China proves successful, the U.S. loses. First, at a global
level spectrum becomes de facto labelled ``for mobile network operators
only'' whether those economies and populations need it for mobile or
not. As a blunt comparison, the 5G needs of China's 4+ billion
population are very different than the 6.8 million who live in
Paraguay. But China's goal in Paraguay is to take spectrum that could
used for Wi-Fi today off the table permanently. By convincing foreign
governments to block out spectrum for the future benefit of Chinese
mobile equipment vendors, China prevents that spectrum from being used
beneficially today. Across Africa in 2023, China convinced virtually
all countries that the upper 6 GHz band should be set aside for ``5G''
even though no operator in Africa was ready to build ``5G'' in the
upper 6 GHz band, and few were building ``5G'' in any band. The sad
reality is that it is doubtful that this spectrum will be used for
decades, if ever, unless China builds these countries a ``free''
network comprised of Chinese equipment of dubious security. Wi-Fi,
which could have immediately been deployed on the continent to benefit
Africa's growing fixed and satellite broadband networks, has been
locked out of more than half the spectrum in the 6 GHz band. While the
final chapter on 6 GHz in Africa has not been written, and countries
could still choose unlicensed, the continent's unified call at the WRC
for a ``mobile network only'' approach is troubling.
For those foreign markets that decide to open the upper 6 GHz band
to mobile network operator use, Huawei and ZTE will step forward as the
``low-cost'' option, given the subsidies they enjoy from the Chinese
government. And once Chinese vendors are successful in winning the
bids, the network technology that they will use is Chinese--with the
same capabilities that China uses to track its own population.
Moreover, because many foreign economies are mobile-centric, China has
unique control over foreign governments, as China can control the
operational status of its core network. Indeed, in many economies that
lack adequately trained personnel, it is Chinese nationals who actually
operate mobile networks in these countries. U.S. corporate interests
operating in these countries, as well as U.S. citizens living or
traveling there, are at risk when roaming on Chinese-built networks.
Finally, if within our domestic policy-making process U.S.
policymakers simply ``follow'' China's lead on spectrum allocations in
the name of ``harmonization,'' our country will lose. The 7 GHz band
throws this problem into stark relief. China wants the 7 GHz band for
mobile networks. The United States and its NATO allies use this band
heavily for defense systems. By accepting China's will in this band,
our country would need to disrupt our own defense systems, and likely
disrupt the defense systems on which NATO relies. Yet the U.S. has the
opportunity to enable further unlicensed Wi-Fi in the 7 GHz band that
can coexist with our DoD and other agencies' incumbent uses, given Wi-
Fi's significantly lower power levels and indoor use. This would
prevent any significant disruptions to the United States and NATO
allies' defense systems.
Combatting China's strategy requires U.S. leadership. The U.S.
needs to make spectrum decisions that are in its strategic interests,
including with one eye on our allies' interests, and champion those.
Moreover, the U.S. vision should include spectrum sharing and
unlicensed coexistence capabilities that have been developed in the
United States over the past 20 years, of which Wi-Fi and CBRS are
examples. The U.S. cannot let China set the spectrum agenda here in the
U.S. or globally.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to
Mary L. Brown
At the World Radiocommunications Conference last year, China and
Huawei were almost successful in rallying other countries to identify
the 6GHz band for licensed use. This could have stranded the billions
of dollars invested in engineering and manufacturing 6 GHz WiFi devices
for the global market. This also would have given Huawei a significant
advantage in the market as they are the only company building licensed
wireless equipment for 6 GHz. Despite our lack of preparedness, the
U.S. delegation was able to block these attempts. However, I am
concerned this may be the new normal in international venues.
Question. Do you expect China to try something like this again, and
what can the United States do to be better prepared in the future to
pushback and deter similar China actions?
Answer. Given our experiences at the WRC-19 and the WRC-23, it is
clear that China's priorities for spectrum allocations support its
commercial and foreign policy goals to the disadvantage of ours. China
plans its work at the WRC years in advance of the conference--first
working with individual countries, then sub-regional groups, and
finally regional organizations, to drive its preferred approach.
Moreover, China did not hesitate to escalate discussions to very senior
government officials not involved in spectrum policymaking, but who
understood Chinese investment in their national economy, in order to
secure a favorable outcome. For example, the U.S. industry successfully
cultivated the support of regulators in a number of African countries
on identifying the upper 6 GHz band for unlicensed, only to see those
same regulators silenced in subregional and regional meetings, or even
changing their view to support licensed mobile, once China's Huawei had
the opportunity to demand a different result from a Minister or the
President's office.
For the U.S. to blunt the impact of China's willingness to
``purchase'' their way to policy wins, we need to rely on the United
States' strongest asset: technology leadership. The U.S. opened the 6
GHz band to Wi-Fi in 2020 and therefore had a leadership position in
discussing this band with countries around the world. This decision
also served to unite the U.S. delegation early in the WRC process. That
enabled all parts of the Executive Branch, together with the FCC, to
convey one consistent message for 6 GHz to foreign countries--keep the
band open for unlicensed use on the ITU stage, and domestically, open
the band to unlicensed use. The U.S. view prevailed.
We already know China intends to pursue a similar plan to ensure
that the 7 GHz band is made available for Huawei and ZTE. China was
able to get the WRC to agree to evaluate the 7 GHz band for exclusive
high powered mobile use, knowing that in the U.S. and NATO countries,
there will need to be significant disruptions to national security
systems if the U.S. and Europe follow China's approach. The band is
better utilized for unlicensed in the United States, because Wi-Fi can
coexist without disruption to defense systems. In our view, the
question the U.S. needs to ask and answer is this: ``What is the best
use for this spectrum in the United States?'' and not ``how do we
follow the ambitions of China?''
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to
Mary L. Brown
Uncertainty about future spectrum access can inhibit new technology
development and can have broad downstream impacts far beyond
communications networks. The Biden Administration has acknowledged that
spectrum access is essential for the next generation of aviation,
identifying the 5030-5091 MHz band to support command non-payload
communications (CNPC) in the National Spectrum Strategy. However, the
Implementation Plan envisions a study of this band, which does not need
to be reallocated, that will not be complete until 2026. Meanwhile,
billions of dollars in new capital investment is flowing into the
development of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Advanced Air
Mobility (AAM), which the Administration has also identified as a
national competitive priority.
Question. Can you please discuss the economic and commensurate
safety and security risks that uncertainty and unpredictability about
access to this band creates for the development of the necessary
technologies, networks, and services to provide CNPC to UAS and AAM
operations?
Answer. From the text of the NTIA Implementation Plan, it appears
that NTIA is projecting that it will take one year from the start of
creating a working group to the completion of its analysis for CNPC in
the 5030-5091 MHz band. Once the NTIA-led analysis is done in 2026, the
FCC will likely need to conduct a rulemaking to implement the
resolution in its rules, which is likely to take additional months or
up to a year. The FCC does appear to be advancing on its interim goal
of allowing some sharing of the band by UAS and AAM, although the
initial operations would appear to be less than what a more fulsome
sharing mechanism would allow. The FCC has announced it is circulating
a Report and Order for adoption that will address first a manual form
of sharing, and then one that will allow temporary assignments using
dynamic frequency management systems.
With that as factual predicate, there are a couple of generic
observations that can be made about this band, but that apply to all
the specific bands of interest. First, if NTIA is to be the vehicle to
spark Federal consensus on use of Federal spectrum, then NTIA's
capacity to engage in negotiation and technical investigation becomes
determinative of the timeline for decision. NTIA should be encouraged
to leverage work that has already been completed to speed its
consideration of bands to make them available as soon as practicable.
For example, the EMBRSS report should be the starting point for further
action on the lower 3 GHz band. Second, in general, Federal
policymakers should strive to open a new band using rules that will
remain in place as a baseline. While FCC rules for commercial equipment
can and do evolve, the threat of significant future changes in a band's
operational requirements tends to stifle capital investment, especially
when a band is new. For example, today, Wi-Fi equipment is technically
capable of operating up to 7250 MHz and is standardized to do so.
Chipset capability exists that could permit its operation up to 7625
MHz. But Wi-Fi developers do not know whether to invest because the
NTIA analysis will not be completed until the end of 2026 due to the
decision to consider the full 7125-8400 MHz band as a single issue. As
in the case of UAS and AAM, this delay creates an opportunity cost, and
because it is Wi-Fi, the opportunity cost directly impacts consumers.
Finally, there is not yet clarity on what happens when the NTIA process
runs its course, and it is time to hand off a resolution to the FCC.
The FCC has independent requirements under its statute and the
Administrative Procedure Act to examine issues. Policymakers should be
looking now for ways to ensure the FCC process does not become yet
another opportunity for parties to erect years-long obstacles to much-
needed spectrum reform.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Clete D. Johnson
Smart Spectrum Policy
We have seen firsthand how a fractured domestic approach to
spectrum management threatens domestic and national security. The
former Administration's hands-off policies resulted in interagency
disputes.
We can avoid this by creating a unified approach to domestic
spectrum policy, where agencies with critical missions such as the FAA
and DoD work together with NTIA--cooperatively--on spectrum. The Biden
Administration's framework outlined in the Presidential Memorandum on
Modernizing United States Spectrum Policy does this.
We are at our best when we work together. Facilitating a
collaborative approach to domestic spectrum policy will ensure a
unified front on the world stage. A smart approach to spectrum will
allow the U.S. to lead on international policies and advance our
national security interests.
Question 1. How in your view have the interagency spectrum disputes
of the past harmed national security, and why is it so important to
restore order to the process?
Answer. The United States needs coherent government processes for
reallocation to ensure that spectrum is used to best advance U.S.
economic and national security interests. It is important for the U.S.
government's two spectrum regulators--the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) for commercial spectrum and NTIA for Federal
spectrum--to be the ultimate decisionmakers, and NTIA should serve as
the central agency to represent Federal government interests. When
different government agencies are not on the same page, deployment can
be delayed, government and private resources can be unnecessarily
spent, and allocation decisions that impact U.S. economic and national
security can be hindered.
As the Federal government's halting process in C-band showed, a
fragmented process can cause confusion and delay the deployment of 5G
services. The C-band auction raised record numbers, with wireless
providers collectively paying over $80 billion for licenses. However,
divides within the Federal government--including approval from the FCC
and NTIA but questions about safety issues from the Federal Aviation
Administration--delayed the launch of 5G. The Interdepartment Radio
Advisory Committee (IRAC), composed of representatives from Federal
agencies with spectrum interests that help NTIA manage Federal use of
spectrum, is an essential tool to develop a coherent and unified
government spectrum policy. The IRAC plays an important role in
advising NTIA of government interests and distributing information
across affected agencies in the context of FCC proceedings on
commercial use of spectrum. These interagency processes are critical to
U.S. leadership in 5G. After years of engagement across the agencies
and their regulated industries, wireless companies are now expected to
operate with temporary and minimal restrictions while the aviation
industry addresses its concerns regarding older aircraft equipment.
Still, these delays reinforce the importance of NTIA serving as the
voice of the Executive Branch in its recommendations to the FCC on
commercial spectrum. The Presidential Memorandum on Modernizing United
States Spectrum Policy provides a solid framework to make this happen.
More generally, stakeholders should work together collaboratively
to make spectrum reallocation work. In a wireless world, spectrum
allocations need to have room to take advantage of technological
innovations. Reallocation can be a win-win when incumbent users are
provided the resources to succeed, and new users are provided the
certainty and spectrum necessary for technological innovation and to
implement new uses. The process should not be rigid, as every
reallocation, band, and system is different. Reallocation can be guided
and organized to benefit all parties, so long as all parties come to
the table transparently and with an eye to mutual benefit and advancing
the interests of the United States, rather than a zero-sum game with
distinct losers and winners.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to
Clete D. Johnson
Question 1. What have been the key shortcomings of previous
spectrum policy determinations, and how have commercial entities both
failed and succeeded in the past to effectively take into account the
need for national security access and use of the spectrum?
Answer. As the Federal government's halting process in C-band
showed, a fragmented process can cause confusion and delay the
deployment of 5G services. The C-band auction raised record numbers,
with wireless providers collectively paying over $80 billion for
licenses. However, divides within the Federal government--including
approval from the FCC and NTIA but questions about safety issues from
the Federal Aviation Administration--delayed the launch of 5G. The
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), composed of
representatives from Federal agencies with spectrum interests that help
NTIA manage Federal use of spectrum, is an essential tool to develop a
coherent and unified government spectrum policy. The IRAC plays an
important role in advising NTIA of government interests and
distributing information across affected agencies in the context of FCC
proceedings on commercial use of spectrum. These interagency processes
are critical to U.S. leadership in 5G. After years of engagement across
the agencies and their regulated industries, wireless companies are now
expected to operate with temporary and minimal restrictions while the
aviation industry addresses its concerns regarding older aircraft
equipment. Still, these delays reinforce the importance of NTIA serving
as the voice of the Executive Branch in its recommendations to the FCC
on commercial spectrum. The Presidential Memorandum on Modernizing
United States Spectrum Policy provides a solid framework to make this
happen.
More generally, stakeholders should work together collaboratively
to make spectrum reallocation work. In a wireless world, spectrum
allocations need to have room to take advantage of technological
innovations. Reallocation can be a win-win when incumbent users are
provided the resources to succeed, and new users are provided the
certainty and spectrum necessary for technological innovation and to
implement new uses. The process should not be rigid, as every
reallocation, band, and system is different. Reallocation can be guided
and organized to benefit all parties, so long as all parties come to
the table transparently and with an eye to mutual benefit and advancing
the interests of the United States, rather than a zero-sum game with
distinct losers and winners.
Question 2. Are there adequate policies and procedures in place as
we modernize and optimize our spectrum use and infrastructure to
balance future national defense needs of and access to spectrum with
the commercial and scientific stakeholders?
a. If not, what needs to be added?
b. Recognizing that future technological development may be
difficult to anticipate, do those policies and procedures account for
access and use of the spectrum by the Department of Defense (DoD) in
the future as they respond to developments of spectrum use by our
adversaries, which may be within spectrum bands the DoD no longer has
access to?
c. What do we need to consider in spectrum optimization to account
for the agility certain adversaries have in spectrum allocation and
their ability to prioritize their own security considerations over
commercial interests?
d. What is the feedback you have received from the DoD and other
national security stakeholders on the Dynamic Spectrum Sharing concept
referenced in testimony to optimize spectrum use?
Answer. As I said in my testimony, I believe government and
industry should collaborate on initiatives to maximize spectrum use in
any given band. Most immediately, we must advance presently viable
spectrum sharing regimes; when fully clearing a spectrum band for new
uses is not practical, coordinated sharing through proven methods can
be a solution. Government and industry should collaborate to advance
``static'' sharing, in which parties benefit from predictable spectrum
access by coordinating their use over geography, time, or frequency.
These sharing methods provide coordinated access and certainty, and
technological developments are increasing the precision of these
sharing methods. We should focus immediately on these proven models of
sharing to advance our national interest in maintaining 5G leadership
globally.
In parallel over the long term, we should also seek breakthroughs
in ``dynamic'' spectrum sharing--in which each party's use of
frequencies changes dynamically according to real-time needs--to
overcome existing practical impediments to real-world implementation.
Such breakthroughs will likely take years to become practically and
economically viable at scale, and U.S. global leadership and
collaboration with allies will be required to address the need for
global harmonization and scale sufficient to support diverse and
competitive trusted suppliers in such a sharing environment. Absent
strategic leadership, bespoke U.S.-only sharing frameworks could mean
we deploy more slowly than other countries that simply implement
globally harmonized, standardized frameworks, and the custom sharing
solutions would be so circumstance-specific that they would have no
global market.
Question 3. Again, recognizing that we can never fully anticipate
what areas of the spectrum our adversaries may be utilizing or
researching for their own weapons systems development, is it possible
to identify certain geographic areas within the Nation to exclude from
the sale of exclusive access of the spectrum in order to preserve DoD
access and flexibility in testing and training within such limited
geographic area(s)?
a. Would such an area for test and evaluation be of value to the
commercial and scientific stakeholders as well? If so, how?
b. Would there be any anticipated concerns from commercial or
scientific stakeholders that you are aware of?
Answer. As noted above, geographic spectrum sharing is one of the
presently viable spectrum sharing regimes that we should seek to
advance. When fully clearing a spectrum band for new uses is not
practical, coordinated sharing through proven methods can be a
solution. Government and industry should collaborate to advance
``static'' sharing, in which parties benefit from predictable spectrum
access by coordinating their use over geography, time, or frequency.
These sharing methods provide coordinated access and certainty, and
technological developments are increasing the precision of these
sharing methods. We should focus immediately on these proven models of
sharing to advance our national interest in maintaining 5G leadership
globally.
Question 4. The U.S. Army's Buffalo Soldier Electronic Testing and
Training Range at Fort Huachuca, Arizona currently serves as a
technical demonstration platform that is critical to the DoD by
enabling research and development, driving technological advancement,
bolstering national security, informing effective policies, and
advancing scientific discovery.
a. As part of the National Spectrum Strategy and the need to
develop a national testbed for dynamic spectrum sharing (DSS), is it
possible to co-locate the DSS testbed with the Buffalo Soldier
Electronic Testing and Training Range at Fort Huachuca and the Western
Regional Range Complex concept in general to enable DoD, Federal
agencies, and national policymakers to work cooperatively with
industry, researchers, and academia to objectively identify
optimization opportunities and examine new technologies?
b. Would co-locating these activities reduce or eliminate
duplication of other efforts and synchronize other relevant research
and engineering activities already under way across the government with
respect to AI/ML, zero-trust networks, data-source management, autonomy
and autonomous systems, and advanced radar technologies?
Answer. As a former Army officer, I am familiar with the excellent
capabilities at Fort Huachuca and am eager to learn more about the
Buffalo Solder Electronic Testing and Training Range.
As discussed above, I believe government and industry should
collaborate on initiatives to maximize spectrum use in any given band.
Most immediately, we must advance presently viable spectrum sharing
regimes; when fully clearing a spectrum band for new uses is not
practical, coordinated sharing through proven methods can be a
solution. Government and industry should collaborate to advance
``static'' sharing, in which parties benefit from predictable spectrum
access by coordinating their use over geography, time, or frequency.
These sharing methods provide coordinated access and certainty, and
technological developments are increasing the precision of these
sharing methods. We should focus immediately on these proven models of
sharing to advance our national interest in maintaining 5G leadership
globally.
In parallel over the long term, we should also seek breakthroughs
in ``dynamic'' spectrum sharing--in which each party's use of
frequencies changes dynamically according to real-time needs--to
overcome existing practical impediments to real-world implementation.
Such breakthroughs will likely take years to become practically and
economically viable at scale, and U.S. global leadership and
collaboration with allies will be required to address the need for
global harmonization and scale sufficient to support diverse and
competitive trusted suppliers in such a sharing environment. Absent
strategic leadership, bespoke U.S.-only sharing frameworks could mean
we deploy more slowly than other countries that simply implement
globally harmonized, standardized frameworks, and the custom sharing
solutions would be so circumstance-specific that they would have no
global market.
The Department of Defense--including the activities at Fort
Huachuca--can and should play an important role in these initiatives.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Clete D. Johnson
Emerging Mid-Band Radar Spectrum Sharing (EMBRSS) Feasibility
Assessment Report
As I said in-person in the hearing, the United States can retake
our leadership position on spectrum. To do so, we must lead the world
in developing the next generation of not only spectrum technology, but
spectrum policy. The U.S. Depart of Defense recently released an
unclassified version of the Emerging Mid-Band Radar Spectrum Sharing
(EMBRSS) Feasibility Assessment Report as required by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The assessment found ``a
[Dynamic Spectrum Management System] DSMS, that evolves the CBRS
framework in the 3550-3700 MHz band, with advanced interference
mitigation features which can address the needs of all systems,
including the unique needs of airborne systems, provides a feasible
path forward for spectrum sharing between the Federal and commercial
systems in the 3100-3450 MHz band [emphasis added]'' (Page 220; U.S.
Department of Defense, EMBRSS Feasibility Assessment Report; released
September 2023, unclassified report released April 3, 2024).
Question 1. Now that the EMBRSS Report is public, does it provide a
roadmap for future public and private investment into the regulations
and technology necessary to open up spectrum availability through
dynamic spectrum sharing? If it does not provide a roadmap, what other
steps are necessary?
Answer. The EMBRSS report was an important first step in exploring
new commercial uses of mid-band spectrum, as it identified many of the
present challenges in doing so. I expect that the further study of
these bands will provide additional insights into possibilities in the
future. As I said in my testimony, I believe that government and
industry should collaborate on initiatives to maximize spectrum use in
any given band. Most immediately, we must advance presently viable
spectrum sharing regimes; when fully clearing a spectrum band for new
uses is not practical, coordinated sharing through proven methods can
be a solution. Government and industry should collaborate to advance
``static'' sharing, in which parties benefit from predictable spectrum
access by coordinating their use over geography, time, or frequency.
These sharing methods provide coordinated access and certainty, and
technological developments are increasing the precision of these
sharing methods. We should focus immediately on these proven models of
sharing to advance our national interest in maintaining 5G leadership
globally.
In parallel over the long term, we should also seek breakthroughs
in ``dynamic'' spectrum sharing--in which each party's use of
frequencies changes dynamically according to real-time needs--to
overcome existing practical impediments to real-world implementation.
Such breakthroughs will likely take years to become practically and
economically viable at scale, and U.S. global leadership and
collaboration with allies will be required to address the need for
global harmonization and scale sufficient to support diverse and
competitive trusted suppliers in such a sharing environment. Absent
strategic leadership, bespoke U.S.-only sharing frameworks could mean
we deploy more slowly than other countries that simply implement
globally harmonized, standardized frameworks, and the custom sharing
solutions would be so circumstance-specific that they would have no
global market.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to
Clete D. Johnson
Spectrum Relocation Fund
The Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF) has been effective in providing
compensation for Federal agencies who are willing to share or
reallocate their spectrum for non-federal purposes. However, the
current statute limits reimbursements for agencies to modify their
systems to adapt to a sharing or reallocation arrangement only up to a
``comparable capability''.
Question 1. Do you agree the ``comparable capability'' threshold
under the current Spectrum Relocation Fund statute is limiting? What
effect do you believe proposals would have by amending this threshold
to allow for reimbursements, subject to review by the Technical Panel
(including the Office of Management and Budget) to support ``enhanced
capability'' or achieve a ``state of the art''?
Answer. Congress should increase incentives for reallocating
spectrum. Congress should build upon the precedent of the CSEA of 2003
that created the SRF and grant new authorities for the Federal
government to compensate users for modernization and reallocation. New
legislation can improve the SRF process. The SRF was intended to
reimburse Federal agencies' expenses--including those for R&D,
engineering studies, and economic analyses--for relocating from or
sharing certain bands. Creating new incentives that could allow
agencies to be appropriately reimbursed at higher rates would provide
stronger incentives for government users currently located in valuable
bands for 5G to update their equipment and move to other appropriate
frequencies. Likewise, the SRF should not be restricted to provide for
comparable systems. Instead, agencies should have clear incentives to
use SRF funds to improve capabilities by upgrading equipment rather
than simply replacing existing equipment with comparable capabilities.
Under 47 U.S.C. 923(j), the Spectrum Relocation Fund establishes a
preference that ``NTIA shall give priority to options involving
reallocation of the band for exclusive non-federal use.'' Spectrum
bands that are not occupied by a Federal agency are becoming
increasingly scarce, which increases the necessity to finding
coexistence regimes that protect Federal missions and also foster
innovation in non-federal, commercial applications.
Question 2. Do you believe these provisions establishing an SRF
preference for exclusive non-federal users should be modernized to
better reflect the current spectrum environment? Why or why not?
Answer. I believe the preference for exclusive non-federal use is
appropriate and even necessary, particularly for mid-band spectrum that
is ideal for 5G services, because commercial mid-band is the area in
which we are in grave danger of falling behind China. I believe that
closing this commercial mid-band spectrum gap is absolutely crucial to
the security of the United States and our allies, because spectrum
policy is key to the future of the networks and applications on which
our societies operate. Those networks and applications will be
developed either by us, with the free market principles this Committee
has long espoused, or by the deepening autocratic alliance of China,
Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
The security of the United States as a free market democracy hangs
in the balance. Fortunately, successive Administrations and Congresses
have taken meaningful actions to address this threat, and now we have
the opportunity to leverage spectrum policy in favor of our
principles--dynamism, innovation, and freedom rather than surveillance,
control, and oppression.
This will require maximizing all critical uses of spectrum, from
weapons and defense systems to commercial 5G and next generation
wireless networks, including both local wireless connectivity and wide
area coverage. To secure our core national interests, we have to lead
the world in all of these areas, and we can. However, right now we are
in danger of falling far behind China in mid-band licensed spectrum
that can support wide area coverage, which is critical to bringing
mobile services and technologies to every part of the country. This is
a grave threat to the security of our network infrastructure.
Addressing this severe licensed spectrum shortage while also
maintaining our present world-leading position in defense systems and
local wireless connectivity will be difficult. But as this Committee
well knows, the United States is quite capable of accomplishing
difficult technical achievements, particularly at the intersection of
military capabilities and commercial strength.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Raphael Warnock to
Clete D. Johnson
Rip and Replace
The Rip and Replace Program is a critical national security program
that reimburses smaller communications services providers for replacing
equipment purchased from Chinese telecommunications companies.\1\
However, insufficient program funding and logistical difficulties
replacing equipment force many rural providers to choose between using
unsafe technology and maintaining service.\2\ Without adequate Rip and
Replace funding, efforts to increase broadband availability in
underserved areas will be negatively impacted as rural carriers
struggle to provide safe service.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement
Program, Federal Communications Commission (Feb. 27, 2024), https://
www.fcc.gov/supplychain/reimbursement.
\2\ See Cecilia Kang, `Rip and Replace': The Tech Cold War Is
Upending Wireless Carriers, New York Times (May 9, 2023), https://
www.nytimes.com/2023/05/09/technology/cellular-china-us-zte-
huawei.html.
\3\ Quinn Nghiem, Lack of Lip and Replace Funding Could Spell
Trouble for BEAD Progress, Event Hears, Broadband Breakfast (Aug. 2,
2023), https://broadbandbreakfast.com/lack-of-rip-and-replace-funding-
could-spell-trouble-for-bead-progress-event-hears.
Question 1. How does the Rip and Replace Program promote American
national security interests?
Answer. Replacing Covered List equipment with trusted supplier
equipment is a basic step that we need to complete for network security
in the United States. Given China's intelligence capabilities, Covered
List equipment and services from suppliers like Huawei and ZTE are
inherently not secure, and their security risks are difficult or even
impossible to mitigate. It is imperative that we complete the task of
replacing this equipment with trusted supplier equipment.
Question 2. How would more Federal funding for the Rip and Replace
Program promote connectivity in rural and underserved areas?
Answer. Simply put, the connectivity that rural and underserved
communities deserve is secure, reliable connectivity. Reimbursed
replacement of Covered List equipment for the network operators that
serve these communities will provide this necessary secure, reliable
connectivity.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Clete D. Johnson
Spectrum Research
The University of Kansas, along with partners including Wichita
State University, is conducting research into improving data security
over 5G hardware that is potentially compromised.
Question 1. As our Nation addresses increased vulnerabilities that
come from the proliferation of advanced wireless technology in major
segments of our economy--including transportation, manufacturing and
critical infrastructure--what are your opinions on the importance of
funding research directed at maintaining national security?
Answer. I commend the University of Kansas and Wichita State for
their partnership in this important area of research and development.
Basic academic research is indispensable to finding security solutions
for future networks.
Question 2. Particularly related to national security and defense,
what do you see are top areas of spectrum-related research that we are
pursuing or should be prioritized?
Answer. Sharing of spectrum may be increasingly necessary as the
next generation of telecommunications emerges, 6G, which will require
even more spectrum resources and is already in development, including
in China. The government and industry should collaborate on two
initiatives to maximize spectrum use in any given band. The first
should examine how to advance spectrum sharing regimes; when clearing a
spectrum band for commercial use is not practical, coordinated sharing
through proven methods can be a solution. Government and industry
should collaborate to advance ``static'' sharing, in which each party
is restricted to using the shared spectrum in specific geographic
locations. These sharing methods provide coordinated access and
certainty, and technological developments are increasing the precision
of this geographic spectrum sharing. Such sharing of spectrum may be
increasingly necessary as the next generation of telecommunications,
6G, emerges, which will require even more spectrum resources and is
already in development, including in China.
Over the long term, testing and experimentation on ``dynamic''
spectrum sharing--in which each party's use of frequencies changes
dynamically according to real-time needs--may eventually overcome
existing practical impediments to real-world implementation (e.g.,
complexity, uncertainty, and coverage limits) that prevent deployment
of promising 5G use cases like autonomous transportation and telehealth
applications. The ongoing CBRS experiment has shown the difficulties
with dynamic sharing arrangements. For now, sharing initiatives to
promote 5G should focus on further advances of static geographic
sharing mechanisms that provide proven benefits.
The second collaborative initiative should support R&D efforts to
advance spectral efficiency for the benefit of both commercial and
government networks. Improving spectral efficiency involves finding
technical solutions to increase the amount of data that can be
transmitted reliably over given spectrum. As FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel
has said, improving the efficiency of receivers is one possibility to
maximize spectrum use. As demonstrated through the delays in C-band due
to Federal Aviation Administration concerns about outdated altimeters
in aircraft, this evaluation of receiver performance should be done
well ahead of a reallocation transition. This should involve not only
finding technological improvements for spectral efficiency, but also
establishing mechanisms for implementation in existing networks to take
advantage of newfound efficiencies.
Finally, policymakers should create a formal mechanism to take
advantage of advances in spectral efficiency and sharing into Federal
procurement processes. Demand for spectrum will increase significantly
in the next decade and creating a formal method for incorporating
modern technology to improve spectral efficiency and spectrum sharing
would help maximize the capacity of spectrum employed by all users,
both Federal and commercial.
Unmanned Aerial Systems
Uncertainty about future spectrum access can inhibit new technology
development and can have broad downstream impacts far beyond
communications networks. The Administration has acknowledged that
spectrum access is essential for the next generation of aviation,
identifying the 5030-5091 MHz band to support command non-payload
communications (CNPC) in the National Spectrum Strategy (NSS). CNPC is
fundamental to the safe operation of remotely operated aircraft,
including Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Advanced Air Mobility
(AAM). The NSS Implementation Plan envisions a study of this band--
which is already allocated for non-federal aviation services--that will
not be complete until 2026.
Question. Can you please discuss the economic and commensurate
safety and security risks that uncertainty regarding access to this
band creates for the development of the necessary technologies,
networks, and services to provide CNPC to future UAS and AAM
operations?
Answer. In all areas of spectrum policy and planning, certainty is
indispensable necessary for coherent technology processes, from
research and development to testing to deployment. This is especially
true in emerging technology deployments that have a public safety
considerations, such as UAS and AAM. The expedited study of this band
is crucial.
NTIA Appropriations/Spectrum Policy Leadership
As the ranking member on the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, which
has jurisdiction over NTIA, I've watched these recent debates around
spectrum with great interest. As we know, the NTIA Administrator, by
law, is the President's principal advisor on all telecommunications
issues. NTIA also houses the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences
(ITS), a world-leading lab that can run robust tests and make unbiased
findings.
But over the last few years, other agencies have taken a larger
role in spectrum policy.
Question. How can Congress ensure our national security while
maintaining NTIA's role as the Federal government's spectrum policy
lead?
Answer. The United States needs coherent government processes for
reallocation to ensure that spectrum is used to best advance U.S.
economic and national security interests. It is important for the U.S.
government's two spectrum regulators--the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) for commercial spectrum and NTIA for Federal
spectrum--to be the ultimate decisionmakers, and NTIA should serve as
the central agency to represent Federal government interests. When
different government agencies are not on the same page, deployment can
be delayed, government and private resources can be unnecessarily
spent, and allocation decisions that impact U.S. economic and national
security can be hindered.
As the Federal government's halting process in C-band showed, a
fragmented process can cause confusion and delay the deployment of 5G
services. The C-band auction raised record numbers, with wireless
providers collectively paying over $80 billion for licenses. However,
divides within the Federal government--including approval from the FCC
and NTIA but questions about safety issues from the Federal Aviation
Administration--delayed the launch of 5G. The Interdepartment Radio
Advisory Committee (IRAC), composed of representatives from Federal
agencies with spectrum interests that help NTIA manage Federal use of
spectrum, is an essential tool to develop a coherent and unified
government spectrum policy. The IRAC plays an important role in
advising NTIA of government interests and distributing information
across affected agencies in the context of FCC proceedings on
commercial use of spectrum. These interagency processes are critical to
U.S. leadership in 5G. After years of engagement across the agencies
and their regulated industries, wireless companies are now expected to
operate with temporary and minimal restrictions while the aviation
industry addresses its concerns regarding older aircraft equipment.
Still, these delays reinforce the importance of NTIA serving as the
voice of the Executive Branch in its recommendations to the FCC on
commercial spectrum. The Presidential Memorandum on Modernizing United
States Spectrum Policy provides a solid framework to make this happen.
More generally, stakeholders should work together collaboratively
to make spectrum reallocation work. In a wireless world, spectrum
allocations need to have room to take advantage of technological
innovations. Reallocation can be a win-win when incumbent users are
provided the resources to succeed, and new users are provided the
certainty and spectrum necessary for technological innovation and to
implement new uses. The process should not be rigid, as every
reallocation, band, and system is different. Reallocation can be guided
and organized to benefit all parties, so long as all parties come to
the table transparently and with an eye to mutual benefit and advancing
the interests of the United States, rather than a zero-sum game with
distinct losers and winners.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to
Clete D. Johnson
At the World Radiocommunications Conference last year, China and
Huawei were almost successful in rallying other countries to identify
the 6GHz band for licensed use. This could have stranded the billions
of dollars invested in engineering and manufacturing 6 GHz WiFi devices
for the global market. This also would have given Huawei a significant
advantage in the market as they are the only company building licensed
wireless equipment for 6 GHz. Despite our lack of preparedness, the
U.S. delegation was able to block these attempts. However, I am
concerned this may be the new normal in international venues.
Question. Do you expect China to try something like this again, and
what can the United States do to be better prepared in the future to
pushback and deter similar China actions?
Answer. Yes, I fully expect China to continue to seek to press its
advantage in every spectrum policy arena, particularly for mid-band
spectrum that is ideal for 5G services. China has a strategy to
dominate the future of technology, and its spectrum strategy derives
from that.
Commercial mid-band is the area in which we are in grave danger of
falling behind China. I believe that closing this commercial mid-band
spectrum gap is absolutely crucial to the security of the United States
and our allies, because spectrum policy is key to the future of the
networks and applications on which our societies operate. Those
networks and applications will be developed either by us, with the free
market principles this Committee has long espoused, or by the deepening
autocratic alliance of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
The security of the United States as a free market democracy hangs
in the balance. Fortunately, successive Administrations and Congresses
have taken meaningful actions to address this threat, and now we have
the opportunity to leverage spectrum policy in favor of our
principles--dynamism, innovation, and freedom rather than surveillance,
control, and oppression.
This will require maximizing all critical uses of spectrum, from
weapons and defense systems to commercial 5G and next generation
wireless networks, including both local wireless connectivity and wide
area coverage. To secure our core national interests, we have to lead
the world in all of these areas, and we can. However, right now we are
in danger of falling far behind China in mid-band licensed spectrum
that can support wide area coverage, which is critical to bringing
mobile services and technologies to every part of the country. This is
a grave threat to the security of our network infrastructure.
Addressing this severe licensed spectrum shortage while also
maintaining our present world-leading position in defense systems and
local wireless connectivity will be difficult. But as this Committee
well knows, the United States is quite capable of accomplishing
difficult technical achievements, particularly at the intersection of
military capabilities and commercial strength.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to
Clete D. Johnson
Question. What actions should the FCC take to ensure spectrum is
available to help expand new technologies that can assist in
emergencies, like small drone delivery of medical supplies and
groceries?
Answer. This is a compelling example of the valuable technological
breakthroughs that can happen with additional spectrum available for
commercial uses, and another reason that it is a national security
imperative to free up more spectrum for commercial uses--particularly
for mid-band spectrum that is ideal for 5G services, because commercial
mid-band is the area in which we are in grave danger of falling behind
China. I believe that closing this commercial mid-band spectrum gap is
absolutely crucial to the security of the United States and our allies,
because spectrum policy is key to the future of the networks and
applications on which our societies operate. Those networks and
applications--including the emergency services referenced in the
question--will be developed either by us, with the free market
principles this Committee has long espoused, or by the deepening
autocratic alliance of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
The security of the United States as a free market democracy hangs
in the balance. Fortunately, successive Administrations and Congresses
have taken meaningful actions to address this threat, and now we have
the opportunity to leverage spectrum policy in favor of our
principles--dynamism, innovation, and freedom rather than surveillance,
control, and oppression.
This will require maximizing all critical uses of spectrum, from
weapons and defense systems to commercial 5G and next generation
wireless networks, including both local wireless connectivity and wide
area coverage. To secure our core national interests, we have to lead
the world in all of these areas, and we can. However, right now we are
in danger of falling far behind China in mid-band licensed spectrum
that can support wide area coverage, which is critical to bringing
mobile services and technologies to every part of the country. This is
a grave threat to the security of our network infrastructure.
Addressing this severe licensed spectrum shortage while also
maintaining our present world-leading position in defense systems and
local wireless connectivity will be difficult. But as this Committee
well knows, the United States is quite capable of accomplishing
difficult technical achievements, particularly at the intersection of
military capabilities and commercial strength.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Diane Rinaldo
Smart Spectrum Policy
We have seen firsthand how a fractured domestic approach to
spectrum management threatens domestic and national security. The
former Administration's hands-off policies resulted in interagency
disputes.
We can avoid this by creating a unified approach to domestic
spectrum policy, where agencies with critical missions such as the FAA
and DoD work together with NTIA--cooperatively--on spectrum. The Biden
Administration's framework outlined in the Presidential Memorandum on
Modernizing United States Spectrum Policy does this.
We are at our best when we work together. Facilitating a
collaborative approach to domestic spectrum policy will ensure a
unified front on the world stage. A smart approach to spectrum will
allow the U.S. to lead on international policies and advance our
national security interests.
Question 1. Ms. Rinaldo, how in your view have the interagency
spectrum disputes of the past harmed national security, and why is it
so important to restore order to the process?
Answer. Continued turf disputes have created havoc in the IRAC
process, resulting in some agencies working outside it. Updating the
Spectrum Relocation Fund allows for more dynamic uses and potential
upgrades of capabilities, thereby encouraging agencies to find common
ground.
Spectrum Auction Authority and National Security
Back when the wireless industry had access to new commercial
spectrum, wireless providers would need to upgrade their networks with
technology compatible with that new spectrum. Sometimes, that meant
making small changes to existing network equipment; other times, it
even meant transitioning to new equipment entirely.
The network upgrades that followed new spectrum allocations
presented an opportunity for new companies to enter the market.
But new entrants no longer have this opportunity, as the FCC's
spectrum auction authority expired over a year ago. There's no new
spectrum to access.
And that's too bad, because new entrants like those using Open RAN
are a secure alternative to Huawei and ZTE that are important to
national security.
Question 1. Ms. Rinaldo, why is having FCC auction authority
restored as soon as possible so important to the development and
adoption of Open RAN-based network elements?
Answer. Providing more spectrum gives Open RAN greater
opportunities to be deployed here in the United States. The deployment
of Open RAN will lead to scale, thereby helping bring down costs and
encourage developing nations to move away from untrusted vendors.
Question 2. How does the development and adoption of Open RAN-based
network elements support national security and serve to counter the
threats of Huawei and ZTE?
Answer. Open RAN gives countries and mobile operators something to
run to. 127 vendors are currently participating in the Open RAN
ecosystem, leading to advancements in innovation, a decrease in costs,
and more opportunities for homegrown companies to take form.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Diane Rinaldo
Emerging Mid-Band Radar Spectrum Sharing (EMBRSS) Feasibility
Assessment Report
As I said in-person in the hearing, the United States can retake
our leadership position on spectrum. To do so, we must lead the world
in developing the next generation of not only spectrum technology, but
spectrum policy. The U.S. Depart of Defense recently released an
unclassified version of the Emerging Mid-Band Radar Spectrum Sharing
(EMBRSS) Feasibility Assessment Report as required by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The assessment found ``a
[Dynamic Spectrum Management System] DSMS, that evolves the CBRS
framework in the 3550-3700 MHz band, with advanced interference
mitigation features which can address the needs of all systems,
including the unique needs of airborne systems, provides a feasible
path forward for spectrum sharing between the Federal and commercial
systems in the 3100-3450 MHz band [emphasis added]'' (Page 220; U.S.
Department of Defense, EMBRSS Feasibility Assessment Report; released
September 2023, unclassified report released April 3, 2024).
Question 1. Now that the EMBRSS Report is public, does it provide a
roadmap for future public and private investment into the regulations
and technology necessary to open up spectrum availability through
dynamic spectrum sharing? If it does not provide a roadmap, what other
steps are necessary?
Answer. Earlier this month, DoD announced they would be
participating alongside NTIA and industry to study dynamic spectrum
sharing and fund prototypes to bring it to life. I was pleased to
participate at the event and the Open RAN Policy Coalition members are
eager to work alongside DoD, NTIA and other agencies to achieve these
goals.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to
Diane Rinaldo
Spectrum Relocation Fund
The Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF) has been effective in providing
compensation for Federal agencies who are willing to share or
reallocate their spectrum for non-federal purposes. However, the
current statute limits reimbursements for agencies to modify their
systems to adapt to a sharing or reallocation arrangement only up to a
``comparable capability''.
Question 1. Do you agree the ``comparable capability'' threshold
under the current Spectrum Relocation Fund statute is limiting? What
effect do you believe proposals would have by amending this threshold
to allow for reimbursements, subject to review by the Technical Panel
(including the Office of Management and Budget) to support ``enhanced
capability'' or achieve a ``state of the art''?
Answer. The SRF should be updated to accommodate Federal users and
better serve their mission. By allowing agencies to increase
capabilities, you are creating a positive incentive for relocation.
Under 47 U.S.C. 923(j), the Spectrum Relocation Fund establishes a
preference that ``NTIA shall give priority to options involving
reallocation of the band for exclusive non-federal use.'' Spectrum
bands that are not occupied by a Federal agency are becoming
increasingly scarce, which increases the necessity to finding
coexistence regimes that protect Federal missions and also foster
innovation in non-federal, commercial applications.
Question 2. Do you believe these provisions establishing an SRF
preference for exclusive non-federal users should be modernized to
better reflect the current spectrum environment? Why or why not?
Answer. Decisions should be data-driven based on capacity
constraints and needs.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Raphael Warnock to
Diane Rinaldo
Rip and Replace
The Rip and Replace Program is a critical national security program
that reimburses smaller communications services providers for replacing
equipment purchased from Chinese telecommunications companies.\1\
However, insufficient program funding and logistical difficulties
replacing equipment force many rural providers to choose between using
unsafe technology and maintaining service.\2\ Without adequate Rip and
Replace funding, efforts to increase broadband availability in
underserved areas will be negatively impacted as rural carriers
struggle to provide safe service.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement
Program, Federal Communications Commission (Feb. 27, 2024), https://
www.fcc.gov/supplychain/reimbursement.
\2\ See Cecilia Kang, `Rip and Replace': The Tech Cold War Is
Upending Wireless Carriers, New York Times (May 9, 2023), https://
www.nytimes.com/2023/05/09/technology/cellular-china-us-zte-
huawei.html.
\3\ Quinn Nghiem, Lack of Lip and Replace Funding Could Spell
Trouble for BEAD Progress, Event Hears, Broadband Breakfast (Aug. 2,
2023), https://broadbandbreakfast.com/lack-of-rip-and-replace-funding-
could-spell-trouble-for-bead-progress-event-hears.
Question 1. How does the Rip and Replace Program promote American
national security interests?
Answer. The United States has long known that it would be unwise to
have a foreign adversary in our telecommunication networks. By ripping
out Huawei and ZTE and replacing them with trusted networking, we are
sending signals to our global partners of the severity of the situation
and the need to extricate the threat.
Question 2. How would more Federal funding for the Rip and Replace
Program promote connectivity in rural and underserved areas?
Answer. Rip and replace is an opportunity to eliminate a national
security threat and help improve connectivity in rural and remote
areas. Operators should be allowed to use the funding to update their
network to 5G; it is the best use of taxpayer dollars and improves
connectivity for rural citizens.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Diane Rinaldo
NTIA Appropriations/Spectrum Policy Leadership
As the ranking member on the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, which
has jurisdiction over NTIA, I've watched these recent debates around
spectrum with great interest. As we know, the NTIA Administrator, by
law, is the President's principal advisor on all telecommunications
issues. NTIA also houses the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences
(ITS), a world-leading lab that can run robust tests and make unbiased
findings.
But over the last few years, other agencies have taken a larger
role in spectrum policy.
Question. How can Congress ensure our national security while
maintaining NTIA's role as the Federal government's spectrum policy
lead?
Answer. As the former acting Administrator of NTIA, I believe there
is a false narrative that the Administrator and the dedicated men and
women at NTIA do not prioritize the country's national security; but I
do agree that Congress plays an important role ensuring the process
runs more smoothly, and agencies abide by the process.
Suggestions on how to strengthen the process:
1) Properly fund NTIA's ITS lab. The United States should have a
world-class telecommunications lab that can work closely with
the Federal Communications Commission to adjudicate potential
concerns of interference.
2) Require and give NTIA the tools to become more data-centric.
3) Upgrade the NTIA Administrator to Under Secretary--titles matter
in the U.S. government.
4) Create shot clocks to force timely decision-making.
5) Update the Spectrum Relocation Fund to offer greater incentives.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Harold Furchtgott-Roth
Smart Spectrum Policy
We have seen firsthand how a fractured domestic approach to
spectrum management threatens domestic and national security. The
former Administration's hands-off policies resulted in interagency
disputes.
We can avoid this by creating a unified approach to domestic
spectrum policy, where agencies with critical missions such as the FAA
and DoD work together with NTIA--cooperatively--on spectrum. The Biden
Administration's framework outlined in the Presidential Memorandum on
Modernizing United States Spectrum Policy does this.
We are at our best when we work together. Facilitating a
collaborative approach to domestic spectrum policy will ensure a
unified front on the world stage. A smart approach to spectrum will
allow the U.S. to lead on international policies and advance our
national security interests.
Question 1. How in your view have the interagency spectrum disputes
of the past harmed national security, and why is it so important to
restore order to the process?
Answer. NTIA has maintained the role of coordinating various
Administrations' spectrum policy for decades. The FCC makes many
spectrum decisions that do not adversely affect NTIA's spectrum
decisions, and vice versa. On a few spectrum decisions, there has been
a lack of coordination. NTIA is responsible for coordinating Federal
spectrum, and the FCC is responsible for coordinating non-federal
spectrum. The FCC makes decisions based on a public record--one usually
devoid of classified information. Occasionally, FCC decisions may
affect national security, and improved mechanisms should be in place to
better coordinate FCC decisions with those national security concerns.
It is important that government decisions affecting spectrum not
endanger national security.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to
Harold Furchtgott-Roth
Question 1. What have been the key shortcomings of previous
spectrum policy determinations, and how have commercial entities both
failed and succeeded in the past to effectively take into account the
need for national security access and use of the spectrum?
Answer. Please see my answer above to Senator Cantwell's question.
It is the responsibility of the Federal government, not commercial
entities, to consider national security concerns and propose
corresponding policies.
Question 2. Are there adequate policies and procedures in place as
we modernize and optimize our spectrum use and infrastructure to
balance future national defense needs of and access to spectrum with
the commercial and scientific stakeholders?
Answer. Please see my answer above to Senator Cantwell's question.
a. If not, what needs to be added?
Answer. Again, please see my answer above to Senator Cantwell's
question.
b. Recognizing that future technological development may be
difficult to anticipate, do those policies and procedures account for
access and use of the spectrum by the Department of Defense (DoD) in
the future as they respond to developments of spectrum use by our
adversaries, which may be within spectrum bands the DoD no longer has
access to?
Answer. DoD develops systems that may use specific bands of
spectrum for specific purposes. This question focuses on whether DoD
can respond if an adversary develops a weapons system that uses a
specific band of spectrum that has been allocated for non-federal use
in the United States. This is an important question for electronic
warfare and countermeasures that DoD might be able to use against a
hostile weapon system.
In such a scenario, the development, testing, and training of
countermeasures to a hostile weapon system should still be possible at
a military facility that is distant from commercial uses in that band.
The actual use of those countermeasures would only occur during a major
conflict or war; this would be a time when DoD already has emergency
authority over spectrum.
c. What do we need to consider in spectrum optimization to account
for the agility certain adversaries have in spectrum allocation and
their ability to prioritize their own security considerations over
commercial interests?
Answer. Each nation has its own spectrum priorities and policies.
Some prioritize national security more than the United States; some
prioritize it less. At least one of our global adversaries, China,
tends to allocate more spectrum for commercial purposes than the United
States does.
d. What is the feedback you have received from the DoD and other
national security stakeholders on the Dynamic Spectrum Sharing concept
referenced in testimony to optimize spectrum use?
Answer. I have not communicated directly with DoD about Dynamic
Spectrum Sharing.
Question 3. Again, recognizing that we can never fully anticipate
what areas of the spectrum our adversaries may be utilizing or
researching for their own weapons systems development, is it possible
to identify certain geographic areas within the Nation to exclude from
the sale of exclusive access of the spectrum in order to preserve DoD
access and flexibility in testing and training within such limited
geographic area(s)?
Answer. Yes; that should be possible. The FCC has a long history of
issuing and auctioning off spectrum licenses tied specifically to
limited geographic territories. Moreover, certain military reservations
in the western United States should be remote enough from commercial
activities to allow for development and testing and evaluation of
weapons systems.
a. Would such an area for test and evaluation be of value to the
commercial and scientific stakeholders as well? If so, how?
Answer. Possibly. However, that is a question better directed to
commercial entities and scientific researchers.
b. Would there be any anticipated concerns from commercial or
scientific stakeholders that you are aware of?
Answer. Again, that is a question better directed to commercial
entities and scientific researchers.
Question 4. The U.S. Army's Buffalo Soldier Electronic Testing and
Training Range at Fort Huachuca, Arizona currently serves as a
technical demonstration platform that is critical to the DoD by
enabling research and development, driving technological advancement,
bolstering national security, informing effective policies, and
advancing scientific discovery.
a. As part of the National Spectrum Strategy and the need to
develop a national testbed for dynamic spectrum sharing (DSS), is it
possible to co-locate the DSS testbed with the Buffalo Soldier
Electronic Testing and Training Range at Fort Huachuca and the Western
Regional Range Complex concept in general to enable DoD, Federal
agencies, and national policymakers to work cooperatively with
industry, researchers, and academia to objectively identify
optimization opportunities and examine new technologies?
Answer. This is a question about specific programs, and it is
better directed to the individuals responsible for those programs.
b. Would co-locating these activities reduce or eliminate
duplication of other efforts and synchronize other relevant research
and engineering activities already under way across the government with
respect to AI/ML, zero-trust networks, data-source management, autonomy
and autonomous systems, and advanced radar technologies?
Answer. Again, this is a question better directed to the
individuals responsible for those programs.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Harold Furchtgott-Roth
Emerging Mid-Band Radar Spectrum Sharing (EMBRSS) Feasibility
Assessment Report
As I said in-person in the hearing, the United States can retake
our leadership position on spectrum. To do so, we must lead the world
in developing the next generation of not only spectrum technology, but
spectrum policy. The U.S. Depart of Defense recently released an
unclassified version of the Emerging Mid-Band Radar Spectrum Sharing
(EMBRSS) Feasibility Assessment Report as required by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The assessment found ``a
[Dynamic Spectrum Management System] DSMS, that evolves the CBRS
framework in the 3550-3700 MHz band, with advanced interference
mitigation features which can address the needs of all systems,
including the unique needs of airborne systems, provides a feasible
path forward for spectrum sharing between the Federal and commercial
systems in the 3100-3450 MHz band [emphasis added]'' (Page 220; U.S.
Department of Defense, EMBRSS Feasibility Assessment Report; released
September 2023, unclassified report released April 3, 2024).
Question 1. Now that the EMBRSS Report is public, does it provide a
roadmap for future public and private investment into the regulations
and technology necessary to open up spectrum availability through
dynamic spectrum sharing? If it does not provide a roadmap, what other
steps are necessary?
Answer. There are several possible options for managing all or part
of the lower 3 GHz band. Dynamic spectrum sharing is one possibility;
there are also others. Assuming that Congress does not reallocate the
lower 3 GHz band by statute, decisions about whether and how to
transfer part or all of the lower 3 GHz band to non-federal use will be
made by the Administration, including NTIA and DoD. Those decisions by
the Administration will be informed by many considerations, including
the possibility of using technologies such as Dynamic Spectrum Sharing.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to
Harold Furchtgott-Roth
Spectrum Relocation Fund
The Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF) has been effective in providing
compensation for Federal agencies who are willing to share or
reallocate their spectrum for non-federal purposes. However, the
current statute limits reimbursements for agencies to modify their
systems to adapt to a sharing or reallocation arrangement only up to a
``comparable capability''.
Question 1. Do you agree the ``comparable capability'' threshold
under the current Spectrum Relocation Fund statute is limiting? What
effect do you believe proposals would have by amending this threshold
to allow for reimbursements, subject to review by the Technical Panel
(including the Office of Management and Budget) to support ``enhanced
capability'' or achieve a ``state of the art''?
Answer. I agree that, for purposes of the Spectrum Relocation Fund,
allowing for reimbursement of ``enhanced capability'' would be an
improvement over ``comparable capability.'' However, I am not convinced
that this improvement alone will lead to an efficient allocation of
Federal spectrum. Federal agencies will continue to see little benefit
in making spectrum available to transfer to, or to share with, non-
federal use.
Under 47 U.S.C. 923(j), the Spectrum Relocation Fund establishes a
preference that ``NTIA shall give priority to options involving
reallocation of the band for exclusive non-federal use.'' Spectrum
bands that are not occupied by a Federal agency are becoming
increasingly scarce, which increases the necessity to finding
coexistence regimes that protect Federal missions and also foster
innovation in non-federal, commercial applications.
Question 2. Do you believe these provisions establishing an SRF
preference for exclusive non-federal users should be modernized to
better reflect the current spectrum environment? Why or why not?
Answer. Yes, insofar as the Spectrum Relocation Fund can and should
apply to instances of sharing as well as complete transfer to non-
federal use.
However, the limitations of the Spectrum Relocation Fund are only
part of the overall inefficiencies associated with the allocation and
use of Federal spectrum. We have no overall valuation of Federal
spectrum resources. We also lack an assessment for each agency's use of
spectrum, as well as pricing mechanisms that would enable agencies to
increase or to decrease their use of an extraordinarily valuable and
scarce resource: Federal spectrum.
Federal spectrum likely has a market value of trillions of dollars.
Its efficient use benefits America; its inefficient use is a loss of a
valuable resource that cannot be recovered. The Federal government
monitors and quantifies a Federal agency's use of Federal dollars, of
Federal personnel, of the environment effects of the agency's
activities, and of other uses of Federal assets. In each instance,
agencies have quantifiable budgets that must be met. But there is no
Federal budget for Federal spectrum, no incentive to use less of it, no
mechanism to obtain more as needed, and no basis to improve the
efficient use of spectrum.
Therefore, the Spectrum Relocation Fund can and should be improved,
but it is only a partial solution to a much larger problem.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Harold Furchtgott-Roth
Spectrum Research
The University of Kansas, along with partners including Wichita
State University, is conducting research into improving data security
over 5G hardware that is potentially compromised.
Question 1. As our Nation addresses increased vulnerabilities that
come from the proliferation of advanced wireless technology in major
segments of our economy--including transportation, manufacturing and
critical infrastructure--what are your opinions on the importance of
funding research directed at maintaining national security?
Answer. National security is a public good that would not
ordinarily attract private funding. It is important for the Federal
government to support national security, including research for
national security as described above. Of course, much private
investment and research can be--and is--used subsequently for national
defense purposes.
Question 2. Particularly related to national security and defense,
what do you see are top areas of spectrum-related research that we are
pursuing or should be prioritized?
Answer. Government-funded research should focus on areas that are
not otherwise addressed by private research. One area of spectrum
research that requires substantial government attention is spectrum
used both to support our military drones and to deter hostile drone
warfare. Electronic warfare and the coordinated use of spectrum are
increasingly important as drone attacks have become a primary form of
warfare in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Unmanned Aerial Systems
Uncertainty about future spectrum access can inhibit new technology
development and can have broad downstream impacts far beyond
communications networks. The Administration has acknowledged that
spectrum access is essential for the next generation of aviation,
identifying the 5030-5091 MHz band to support command non-payload
communications (CNPC) in the National Spectrum Strategy (NSS). CNPC is
fundamental to the safe operation of remotely operated aircraft,
including Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Advanced Air Mobility
(AAM). The NSS Implementation Plan envisions a study of this band--
which is already allocated for non-federal aviation services--that will
not be complete until 2026.
Question 1. Can you please discuss the economic and commensurate
safety and security risks that uncertainty regarding access to this
band creates for the development of the necessary technologies,
networks, and services to provide CNPC to future UAS and AAM
operations?
Answer. Please see my answer above concerning areas of spectrum
research. Of course, there are economic, safety, and security risks
associated with delayed research for spectrum associated with unmanned
aerial systems. The Administration's timelines for NSS are much too
slow.
The discussion here is correct, but it focuses narrowly on the use
of spectrum to support our unmanned military aerial systems. Just as
important is the need to develop countermeasures based on spectrum to
defeat hostile unmanned aerial systems. The Ukraine War has been
punctuated by a series of drone attacks by both sides against targets
with little or no electronic defenses.
NTIA Appropriations/Spectrum Policy Leadership
As the ranking member on the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, which
has jurisdiction over NTIA, I've watched these recent debates around
spectrum with great interest. As we know, the NTIA Administrator, by
law, is the President's principal advisor on all telecommunications
issues. NTIA also houses the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences
(ITS), a world-leading lab that can run robust tests and make unbiased
findings.
But over the last few years, other agencies have taken a larger
role in spectrum policy.
Question 1. How can Congress ensure our national security while
maintaining NTIA's role as the Federal government's spectrum policy
lead?
Answer. The Spectrum Pipeline Act is a good starting point.
Spectrum policy in the United States is disjointed, with NTIA
responsible for Federal spectrum and the FCC responsible for non-
federal (primarily commercial) spectrum. Coordination between the FCC
and NTIA has waxed and waned over the years. We need both forms of
spectrum policy.
Spectrum is worth trillions of dollars and is one of the least
developed assets in America. A generation from now, Americans will look
back at our primitive use spectrum today in amazement. Commercial
spectrum should be allowed to develop to the benefit of American
consumers with clear property rights and with only those rules attached
that are necessary to protect those property rights. But spectrum is
also vital for non-commercial applications, including aviation safety,
meteorology, space research, navigation, national security, and
countless other Federal uses. Congress should balance the Federal and
non-federal interests in spectrum and hold both the FCC and NTIA
accountable.
U.S. Technological Leadership
China is attempting to influence spectrum allocations worldwide,
including most recently at the World Radio Conference where they
challenged the U.S. position on the 6GHz band, which the U.S. has
allocated for unlicensed use.
Question 1. What is your assessment of U.S. leadership in
international wireless standards, and what can Congress do to ensure
China is not effective in diminishing U.S. wireless technology
positions internationally?
Answer. International standards-setting bodies are important, and
the governments of many other countries spend far more resources trying
to influence these bodies than the American government spends. However,
there is a delicate balance to consider. On the one hand, it would be
unseemly for the Federal government to invest substantial taxpayer
resources trying to influence these bodies in a blatant form of rent-
seeking. Additionally, we have never been terribly accomplished at
government-funded efforts to influence international fora. But on the
other hand, other countries have effectively done precisely this.
We should, of course, be better organized for ITU conferences than
we have been in recent years. But American government leadership can
only go so far. America and American consumers--and consumers around
the world--have the best outcomes at these international fora when
America leads with better ideas, rather than with more taxpayer funds
or arm-twisting.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to
Harold Furchtgott-Roth
Senators Cruz, Thune, and I introduced the Spectrum Pipeline Act,
which would reauthorize the FCC's spectrum auction authority, modernize
the Spectrum Relocation Fund, and establish a pipeline to make 2,500
MHz of spectrum available for commercial use.
Question 1. In your written statement, you highlighted the
contribution of wireless services to the creation and development of
countless U.S. businesses, estimating that the consumer welfare value
of commercial spectrum in the U.S. exceeds $10 trillion. That's a
tremendous number. Could you expand upon this and explain how the
Spectrum Pipeline Act's emphasis on additional licensed spectrum would
contribute to consumer welfare? What would be the consequences of
foregoing this opportunity?
Answer. Writing in 2015, Coleman Bazelon and Giulia McHenry
estimated that 645 MHz of licensed mobile wireless spectrum in 2015 was
worth approximately $500 billion.\1\ Bazelon and McHenry also estimated
that the net present value of consumer welfare associated with licensed
mobile wireless spectrum was from 10 to 20 times the market value:
between $5 trillion and $10 trillion.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Coleman Bazelon and Giulia McHenry, Mobile Broadband Spectrum:
A Vital Resource for the American Economy, The Brattle Group (May 11,
2015), https://www.brattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/
7801_mobile_broadband_spectrum_-_a_valuable_resource_for_the_american_
economy_bazelon_mchenry_051115.pdf at 1.
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substantially more licensed spectrum has entered the U.S. inventory
since 2015, including returned broadcast spectrum, 3.45 GHz, CBRS, and
3.7 GHz. In 2022, the FCC estimated that there were 1,123 megahertz of
licensed mobile wireless spectrum below 4 GHz \3\ and 4,950 megahertz
of millimeter-wave licensed fixed and mobile spectrum at higher
frequencies.\4\ The FCC is considering transferring more spectrum for
licensed use. Even assuming, unrealistically, no increase in the value
of mobile wireless spectrum on a price per MHz pop basis, the amount of
licensed spectrum below 4 GHz increased by 74 percent from 645 MHz to
1,123 GHz. Moreover, the population of the United States increased by
about 5 percent between 2015 and 2022. Even assuming the price per MHz
pop remained constant ($0.775 = $500 billion 645 MHz/population), the
increase in licensed spectrum below 4 GHz and the increase in
population means that the value of licensed spectrum below 4 GHz in
2022 would have been $914 billion.\5\ Adding even a small value per MHz
pop for the 4,950 MHz of millimeter wave results in a total value of
licensed spectrum well above $1 trillion. Using the same ratios from
Bazelon and McHenry for the net present value of consumer welfare for
licensed spectrum results in values well above $10 trillion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Communications Marketplace Report, 37 FCC Rcd 15514, (rel. Jan.
4, 2023), https://www.fcc
.gov/document/2022-communications-marketplace-report at 84, Figure
II.B.9.
\4\ Id. at 85, Figure II.B.10.
\5\ $914 billion = ($600 billion*1123)/(645 billion*1.05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is likely an underestimate of the value of licensed mobile
wireless spectrum because many transactions for mobile wireless
spectrum below 4 GHz since 2015 occurred at a value above $0.775 per
MHz pop. These transactions include the returned broadcast spectrum
auction, the 3.45 GHz auction, and the 3.7 GHz auction. An overall
blended average of mobile wireless services of $1 or $1.25 per MHz pop
for spectrum below 4 GHz in the early 2020s is not unrealistic.
Moreover, American consumers enjoy substantial value from other
commercial uses of spectrum outside of mobile wireless applications,
including broadcasting, CBRS, unlicensed applications, and specialized
services such as navigation and aeronautics. Consequently, today, the
total value of commercial spectrum in the United States below 4 GHz is
almost certainly in the many trillions of dollars, with the value of
commercial spectrum above 4 GHz being a substantial sum as well. The
consumer welfare of such commercial applications well exceeds $10
trillion.
The Spectrum Pipeline Act would instruct NTIA to identify and to
transfer to the FCC substantial spectrum resources from the Federal
sector by a date certain. Much of this spectrum would be applied to
commercial uses, further enhancing consumer welfare in the United
States.
At the World Radiocommunications Conference last year, China and
Huawei were almost successful in rallying other countries to identify
the 6 GHz band for licensed use. This could have stranded the billions
of dollars invested in engineering and manufacturing 6 GHz WiFi devices
for the global market. This also would have given Huawei a significant
advantage in the market as they are the only company building licensed
wireless equipment for 6 GHz. Despite our lack of preparedness, the
U.S. delegation was able to block these attempts. However, I am
concerned this may be the new normal in international venues.
Question 2. Do you expect China to try something like this again,
and what can the United States do to be better prepared in the future
to pushback and deter similar China actions?
Answer. Please see my answer above to a similar question from
Senator Moran.
[all]