[Senate Hearing 119-116]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-116
AMERICA OFFLINE?
HOW SPECTRUM AUCTION DELAYS GIVE CHINA
THE EDGE AND COST US JOBS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 19, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-206 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi Ranking
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GARY PETERS, Michigan
TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
TED BUDD, North Carolina TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOHN CURTIS, Utah BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
TIM SHEEHY, Montana JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ANDY KIM, New Jersey
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
Nicole Christus, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Liam McKenna, General Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Staff Director
Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
Jonathan Hale, General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 19, 2025................................ 1
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................ 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 3
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 29
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 31
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 32
Statement of Senator Blackburn................................... 34
Statement of Senator Rosen....................................... 36
Statement of Senator Budd........................................ 37
Statement of Senator Schmitt..................................... 40
Statement of Senator Hickenlooper................................ 41
Statement of Senator Curtis...................................... 43
Statement of Senator Kim......................................... 45
Statement of Senator Moreno...................................... 47
Witnesses
Prof. Thomas Hazlett, Hugh H. Macaulay Endowed Professor of
Economics, Clemson University.................................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Charles P. Baylis, Ph.D., Professor of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Baylor University, and Director, SMART Hub........ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Matthew Pearl, Director, Strategic Technologies Program, Center
for Strategic and International Studies........................ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Bryan Clark, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute..................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Thomas Hazlett by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 51
Hon. Todd Young.............................................. 52
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 52
Hon. Tammy Baldwin........................................... 53
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........................................... 53
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Charles Baylis by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 54
Hon. Todd Young.............................................. 55
Hon. Ted Budd................................................ 56
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 57
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........................................... 58
Response to written questions submitted to Matthew Pearl by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 59
Hon. Todd Young.............................................. 60
Hon. Ted Budd................................................ 60
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 61
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 63
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........................................... 63
Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester.................................... 64
Response to written questions submitted to Bryan Clark by:
Hon. Todd Young.............................................. 64
Hon. Ted Budd................................................ 65
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 65
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 66
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 68
Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester.................................... 68
AMERICA OFFLINE?
HOW SPECTRUM AUCTION DELAYS GIVE CHINA THE EDGE AND COST US JOBS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Wicker, Fischer,
Blackburn, Young, Budd, Schmitt, Curtis, Moreno, Sheehy,
Cantwell, Klobuchar, Peters, Baldwin, Rosen, Lujan,
Hickenlooper, Kim, and Blunt Rochester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Chairman Cruz. All right. We will now move onto the
hearing. Good morning.
Auctioning spectrum has been one of the most successful
drivers of American innovation, economic growth, and global
technology leadership. Spectrum auctions have unlocked billions
for the Treasury while enabling our Nation's wireless networks
to deliver faster, better connectivity, fueling the rise of
breakthroughs from the iPhone to generative AI. This has
created millions of jobs, spurred new industries, positioned
American companies at the forefront of global innovation, and,
most importantly, improved the lives of American consumers.
The next wireless leap, whether it is driverless cars,
remote surgeries, or air taxis, may be just around the corner.
But whether Americans will reap the benefits--and whether it
will be made here or overseas--depends on our will to unlock
more spectrum.
We stand today at a critical juncture. It has been two
years since the FCC lost auction authority and three years
since the last meaningful auction of spectrum valuable to
American consumers. The dithering and the inaction sadly
characteristic of the prior administration yielded nothing.
Meanwhile, our spectrum innovation lags the rest of the world
as China, an adversarial surveillance state, threatens to
control worldwide communication networks.
Thanks to this new Congress and the historic election of
President Trump, we have an opportunity to build better and
faster networks, to create tens of thousands of high-paying
jobs, and to secure America's global technological lead.
The Spectrum Pipeline Act, which Leader Thune, Senator
Blackburn, and I introduced last year, would restore FCC
auction authority and end our spectrum drought. Through a clear
pipeline of mid-band spectrum, American companies will have the
certainty they need to invest billions in their networks and
lead the world in revolutionary innovation.
Certain special interests, aligned with adversaries like
Huawei, have falsely portrayed a spectrum pipeline as a blunt
instrument to deprive the Defense Department of the spectrum it
needs to engage in 21st century warfare.
To the contrary, our bill ensures both consumer interests
and defense capabilities are protected. The bill has a generous
time-frame for performing the necessary feasibility studies so
Federal missions are not degraded. And it uses the existing
deliberative process, which is carried out by technical experts
across the Federal Government, including DoD, to begin
auctioning a fraction of underutilized Federal spectrum.
But studies are not enough to spur action: we need clear
goals. For many years now, U.S. Government incumbents,
particularly bureaucrats at the Pentagon under the direction of
Mark Milley, have insisted they are using every single
megahertz as efficiently as possible and must maintain absolute
control of their vast spectrum holdings.
Look, I am more than open to compromise on what the
aggregate pipeline target number should be, but zero is
objectively unreasonable. And no institution should be afforded
blind deference, especially not one that cannot even pass an
audit and that claimed that leaving billions in tanks,
helicopters, and weapons in Afghanistan was more efficient than
bringing them home.
But do not just take it from me. Military analysts with
firsthand expertise agree that we are falling behind, both in
terms of its effective usage and in the development of
intellectual property and wireless capabilities. Further, the
Pentagon is not the only user of the airwaves globally. Many of
the bands used by DoD currently are used commercially in
countries like Taiwan, Japan, and Korea. If DoD is technically
unable to operate alongside wireless carriers using these bands
domestically, how on Earth can we expect it to prevail in a
Pacific conflict? It simply is not credible.
There are also significant opportunity costs for our
national defense in delaying spectrum auctions. A pipeline
would be lucrative, raising $100 billion or more that could go
directly to rebuilding our military, to funding border
security, and to financing Coast Guard polar icebreakers. That
is an incredibly valuable offset for the reconciliation process
we are undergoing right now.
But the risk of doing nothing is broader than lost revenue.
We are fighting a global technology race against communist
China. If we do not catch up and lead, it will be Huawei that
creates the backbone of tomorrow's global communication
networks through which much of the world's economic traffic--
and indeed, much of our own government's traffic--will flow.
Chinese infiltrations, like the recent Salt Typhoon attack and
the release of DeepSeek, are but a small preview of a future
where Chinese equipment sets the standards and dominates global
networks. Negative ripple effects cascade indefinitely from
there, handicapping our efforts in other adjacent technologies
like AI, quantum, and semiconductors, and threatening to make
America the loser in the 21st century technology race. We
cannot allow that to happen. Now is the time.
Let me make a final point. The Commerce Committee, as we
take up reconciliation, will move forward on spectrum. It would
be an abdication of our responsibility to do anything
otherwise. We must move quickly and together to preserve the
Promethean flame of American technology and to bolster our
national security for years to come. We must prevail in the
race against China.
I recognize the Ranking Member.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for
convening this important hearing. I look forward to hearing all
our witnesses and your expert testimony on this subject, and I
look forward to working with the Chairman and all my colleagues
in any way possible to resolve our previous conflicts on these
issues.
Last Congress, the Committee worked to expand commercial
spectrum access while protecting critical Department of Defense
and Federal system infrastructure, and I think we can all agree
on two facts. First, the commercial industry needs access to
more spectrum to innovate and bring new technologies to market.
But second, the vital national security, aviation security and
essential Federal capabilities that rely on Spectrum must be
protected.
One of our witnesses, I think, characterized it best. Mr.
Clark, in his testimony, said, ``The U.S. military will need to
operate in additional areas of electronic electromagnetic
spectrum to address the increasing challenges of the threat
environment to overcome its numerical and geographic
disadvantages to China.''
I could not agree more. During the last Congress, I worked
to try to balance those access issues with national security
efforts, and many of my colleagues on this committee have
directed the Department of Commerce to have a larger role in
trying to define the issues of agency overlap in this area of
spectrum.
That led to the Department of Commerce and the Joint Chiefs
of Staff agreeing on the legislation that we put forward that
would open up more spectrum for commercial uses, and study
basically how we could work together on spectrum sharing. So I
want to continue to focus on how we get this right. We need to
ensure that our global leadership and advanced wireless
technology against China is there. However, we need legislation
and leadership that does not abandon our national security
goals.
I know it is easy to say this is what I want to do, but I
am firmly convinced, when looking at the past history here, the
only thing that is going to work is the collaborative,
hardworking efforts and probably test bedding of technology
that will allow us to get this right for the future.
In 2019, the FCC auctioned 24 gigahertz band, endangering
our ability to track and predict hurricanes. In 2020, the FCC
approved Ligado's petition to use satellite spectrum for 5G and
risk severely disrupting essential GPS service. The U.S.
Government is now facing a $39 billion lawsuit because of that
debacle.
And in 2020, the FCC also rushed to auction the C-band,
which was adjacent to spectrum used by airline altimeters.
Concerns about interference with those flight safety systems
nearly caused the FAA to ground all flights. It also put $81
billion worth of private investment by wireless industry at
risk, significantly delaying the deployment of 5G in the United
States.
In early 2000, Congress had to spend about a billion
dollars replacing the radar system on the B-2 stealth bomber
because of uncoordinated changes to spectrum allocations. This
is exactly what I am talking about when we say we need to work
together. We cannot continue to have this play out in a way
where we are not thinking about our military capabilities.
In Ukraine, we are seeing how essential spectrum is every
day. The Russians are jamming Ukraine drones, communications,
GPS, and satellites. This all shows that our military needs to
be nimbler, more flexible, if we are going to succeed in our
operations in that kind of contested and congested spectrum
environment.
And let's face it. Today our warfare does depend on
spectrum-enabled communications. As one brigadier general who
is in charge of cyberspace and war fighting said, ``Spectrum is
no longer just an enabler of the warfare. It is the warfare.''
So today's victories and battles really will depend on us
getting this right, and if we lose the spectrum war, we lose
the war.
Today's hearing is about how we keep the U.S. globally
competitive, while China and Russia and other foreign
adversaries are making inroads that we need to assert our
leadership in the rest of the world. So I would like to work
with my colleagues on legislation that would help us get this
right and continue to move forward.
I will also note that President Trump, in Mr. Clark's
testimony, has a line, quote, ``The most challenging driver of
U.S. spectrum policy access requirements will be the Trump
administration's initiative to establish a comprehensive
missile defense architecture for the United States,'' end
quote. Well, I do not know how we can do that if we give the
spectrum away.
So I look forward to today's hearing, and I thank my
colleagues and the Chairman for this important hearing.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. I will now introduce the
distinguished panel of experts we have testifying.
Joining us today is Dr. Thomas Hazlett, Professor of
Economics at Clemson University. Dr. Hazlett served as the
Chief Economist of the FCC, and is a noted expert in
telecommunications policy. His book, ``The Political
Spectrum,'' chronicles the history of American spectrum
regulation and how spectrum policy reforms, such as public
auctions, generated explosive technological innovation and
economic growth.
Our second witness is Dr. Charles Baylis, a Professor of
Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University, the
oldest continuing operating university in the great state of
Texas. Dr. Baylis currently serves as Director of SMART Hub, a
DoD Spectrum Innovation Center that organizes research efforts
among 25 researchers across 15 universities, to revolutionize
the increasingly crowded spectrum used by both DoD and non-
military users.
Our third witness is Matt Pearl, Director of the Strategic
Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. Mr. Pearl has more than 15 years of
government service, including most recently as advisor to the
National Security Council. Prior to that, Mr. Pearl served as
Associate Bureau Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau at the FCC, where he helped transition the use of DoD
spectrum to include commercial wireless use in multiple bands.
And our final witness, Bryan Clark, is a Senior Fellow and
Director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at
the Hudson Institute. From 1982 to 2013, he served in a variety
of roles in the United States Navy. While in the Navy, Mr.
Clark received the Department of Navy Superior Service Medal
and the Legion of Merit.
And we will start, Dr. Hazlett, with you. You are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF PROF. THOMAS HAZLETT, HUGH H.
MACAULAY ENDOWED PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS,
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY
Dr. Hazlett. Thanks very much, and I thank everyone for
their kind invitation to participate in today's discussion.
Radio spectrum is a vital component of the modern economy,
yet artificial scarcity has been imposed by public policies
that prevent entrepreneurs from moving underutilized spectrum
resources into their highest-valued uses. Such impediments have
long been a problem. Dating to the 1927 Radio Act, facets of
the law require ``Mother May I?'' The term of art describes the
slow process wherein idle bandwidth is discovered, defined in
scope, and then transitioned into productive employments.
Needless permissions and red tape too often limit markets
and impede America's economic growth. Bands have been reserved
for maritime communications in Utah. The Forestry Service has
enjoyed exclusive frequency rights in New York City. And today,
some 35 channels from the TV Allocation Table of 1952 are still
reserved for terrestrial over-the-air broadcasting. I Love Lucy
may have benefited from this arrangement back in the day, but
we now have more efficient means to deliver video using cable,
satellites, and broadband internet.
These long lags continue to plague entrepreneurial
ventures, reduce competition, and frustrate wireless consumers
desiring more bandwidth for enhanced communication. Yet the
good news is that U.S. policy has not been static. American
regulators have taken corrective actions to promote
liberalization, in particular, market-oriented policies have
relaxed mandates for how spectrum must be utilized. In granting
users and licensees wider discretion via flexible use spectrum
rights, enormously valuable new competitive forms have been
unleashed. Today, over ten times as much bandwidth is available
for mobile wireless than in the mid 1990s. Vast mobile
ecosystems have, as a result, bloomed. In addition, competitive
bidding--auctions--assigns such rights, replacing arbitrary
distributions.
Recent decades have brought experiments with new methods,
and even the ones hidebound FCC has innovated. In the early
1990s, the introduction of what became known as second-
generation cellar, or 2G wireless, was held up for some years
by protests registered by holders of micro-wave allotments.
These incumbents claimed catastrophe would result from any
change in band access rights.
As is often the case, such claims were overwrought. The
situation was put into clearer focus and resolved by a clever
FCC policy, an ``overlay.'' This approach granted emerging 2G
networks the right to utilize vacant frequencies in the micro-
wave band under ``flexible use.'' Further, the overlays granted
to the new licensee secondary rights over spectrum occupied by
the micro-wave transmissions. This protected incumbents but
gave life to entrants by defining the spectrum access rights
needed for bargains to be struck. Investors in 2G networks were
able to pay incumbents to move aside, using alternative
technologies or other frequencies, so as to free up bandwidth
for higher-valued services. The holdup ended, airways became
available, and the U.S., then lagging EU countries in digital
wireless, began to innovate and forge global leadership in
emerging networks service.
The overlay policy has since been used in numerous contexts
by U.S. regulators.
Overlays were modified in Auction 107 held in 2020-2021.
The 500 MHz allocated there had appeared crowded, congested,
and unavailable to entrants. In fact, with Incentive payments,
the entrants relocated. Winning bidders paid $94 billion for
the new licenses. Of that, some $13 billion was passed through
to the incumbents.
The reconfiguration of the band took less than 4 years,
lightning fast in spectrum regulation time.
Such mechanisms have improved incentives for cooperation in
the process of radio spectrum reallocation. Many more targets
of opportunity for efficient reforms in radio spectrum await.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hazlett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Prof. Thomas Hazlett, Hugh H. Macaulay Endowed
Professor of Economics, Clemson University
Thank you for your invitation to participate in today's discussion
of radio spectrum allocation. I am an economist who has studied this
and related issues, publishing numerous research articles and books on
the topic,\1\ formerly serving as Chief Economist of the Federal
Communications Commission, and currently serving as a co-principal
investigator of SpectrumX, an NSF Spectrum Innovation Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Thomas Winslow Hazlett, The Political Spectrum: The
Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, From Herbert Hoover to
the Smartphone (Yale University Press, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio spectrum is a vital component of the modern economy. The
airwaves through which communications flow--enabling mobile networks,
connections to Internet services, satellite links, and a host of other
stunningly useful applications--is limited in supply. But regulatory
restrictions have made it even more restricted than nature and economic
demand alone. Artificial scarcity has been imposed by public policies
that prevent entrepreneurs from moving under-utilized spectrum
resources into their highest valued uses.
Such impediments have long been a problem of traditional spectrum
allocation. Dating to the 1927 Radio Act, a statute still dictating the
basic structure of regulation, many facets of law require Mother May I?
The term of art describes the slow process wherein idle bandwidth is
discovered, defined in scope, and then transitioned into productive
employments. Needless permissions and red tape too often limit markets
and impede America's economic growth. Bands have been reserved for
maritime communications in Utah. The Forestry Service has enjoyed
exclusive frequency rights in New York City. And today, some 35
channels from the TV Allocation Table of 1952 are still reserved for
terrestrial, over-the-air broadcasting. I Love Lucy might have
benefited from this arrangement back in the day, but we now have more
efficient means to deliver video using cables, satellites, and
broadband Internet.
But too often such opportunities are greeted with a spectrum
strategy of ``hurry up and wait.'' The famous scientist Edwin Howard
Armstrong could, in the 1930s, invent FM radio, a hi-fidelity
technology superior to the old AM, only for FCC machinations to prevent
its eventual blossoming until the 1960s. The World War II invention of
cellular radio ran into a licensing roadblock that delayed wireless
telephone networks until the 1980s. Spectrum wars in bureaucratic
trenches pit industries against each other, with the upshot that vast
bands--and better networks--may go idle for a lifetime.
These long lags continue to plague entrepreneurial ventures, reduce
competition, and frustrate wireless consumers desiring more bandwidth
for enhanced communications. Yet, the good news is that U.S. policy has
not been static. American regulators have occasionally taken corrective
actions to promote liberalization. In particular, market-oriented
policies have relaxed mandates for how spectrum must be utilized. In
granting users and licensees wider discretion via ``flexible-use
spectrum rights,'' enormously valuable new competitive forms have been
unleashed. Today, over ten times as much bandwidth is available for
mobile wireless use than in the mid-1990s. In addition, competitive
bidding--auctions--assigns such rights, replacing arbitrary
distributions prior to 1994. The trick, however, is that in the
underlying allocation process itself, administrative designations are
still largely used to define the nature, location, and rules governing
what technologies, services, and business models are to be made
available for deployments.
Recent decades have brought experiments with new methods, and even
the once hidebound FCC has innovated.\2\ In 1994, the introduction of
what became known as second generation cellular, or 2G wireless, was
held up for some years by protests registered by holders of micro-wave
allotments. The incumbents claimed catastrophe would result from any
change is band access rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Former FCC Member (and Chair) Jessica Rosenworcel summarized
the new spirit of change this way: ``When it comes to wireless policy,
we have a history of embracing the ideas that are cool, kooky, and new
before anyone else. After all, it was more than two decades ago that we
took the academic ideas of Ronald Coase and ushered in a whole new era
of spectrum auctions. We also pioneered the use of unlicensed
spectrum--the airwaves we now know and use every day as Wi-Fi. More
recently, we blazed a trail for two-sided incentive auctions.''
Statement of Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, FCC 19-96 (Rel. Sept.
27, 2019), p. 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is (was) often the case, such claims were overwrought. The
situation was put into clearer focus, and resolved, by a clever FCC
policy, an ``overlay.'' This approach granted emerging 2G networks the
rights to utilize vacant frequencies in the micro-wave band under
``flexible use'' rules. Further, the overlays granted the new licensee
secondary rights over spectrum occupied by the micro-wave
transmissions. This protected incumbents but gave life to entrants by
defining the spectrum access rights needed for bargains to be struck.
Investors in 2G networks were able to pay incumbents to move aside--
using alternative technologies or other frequencies--so as to free up
bandwidth for higher valued services. The hold-up ended, airwaves
became available, and the U.S.--then lagging E.U. countries in digital
wireless--began to innovate and forge global leadership in emerging
network services.
The overlay policy has since been used in numerous contexts by U.S.
regulators.\3\ The 2016-2017 ``Incentive Auction'' moved 70 MHz
allotted to TV broadcasts to flexible use spectrum rights won at
auction by mobile carriers; broadcasters were paid to economize on
airwave usage with funds bid by the new licensees. Incentive payments
to incumbents were also paid from auction revenues in Auctions 101
(2019) and 103 (2020). Overlays were then modified in Auction 107 held
in 2020-2021, restructuring the Satellite C-Band. The 500 MHz allocated
there had appeared crowded, congested, and unavailable to entrants. In
fact, with payments to incumbents, some 280 MHz of prime mid-band
spectrum became available for reallocation to entrants. Winning bidders
paid $94 billion for the licenses. Of that total, some $13 billion was
passed through to the incumbent users of the band, satellite operators.
The transfer enabled the companies to upgrade their systems while
reducing their spectrum footprint--``relocation costs and incentives''
in FCC parlance. This capacious tranche of new flexible-use spectrum
was the largest ever released by the FCC for auction in one proceeding,
and it energized U.S. 5G build-out. The rapid manner in which the
policy was crafted and executed was also notable. From a Notice of
Inquiry in July 2017 to the conclusion of bidding in Feb. 2021, a
relatively short timetable departed from the long delays that the FCC
has too often witnessed.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Hazlett, The Political Spectrum, 276-287.
\4\ Even a generous accounting led the FCC to estimate standard
delays as 6-11 years. See: FCC, National Broadband Plan (March 2010),
p. 79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such mechanisms have improved incentives for cooperation in the
process of radio spectrum reallocation. They lubricate transitions that
enable the adoption of advanced methods of spectrum sharing, a term
that is too often narrowly seen as top-down administrative rules. Most
significantly, they help identify where consumers most value airwaves,
revealing opportunities for new models and increasingly useful
technologies. With attention to economic incentives, demonstrated in
both encouraging and disappointing results exhibited in spectrum policy
experiments, pro-consumer strategies have been discovered. Many more
targets of opportunity for efficient reforms in radio spectrum await.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Dr. Baylis.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES P. BAYLIS, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF ELECTRICAL
AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, BAYLOR
UNIVERSITY, AND DIRECTOR, SMART HUB
Dr. Baylis. Thank you and good morning. My name is Dr.
Charlie Baylis, and I serve as Professor of Electrical and
Computer Engineering at Baylor University, and Director of
SMART Hub, a Department of Defense Spectrum Innovation Center.
SMART stands for Spectrum Management with Adaptive and
Reconfigurable Technology, and SMART Hub consists of 25 U.S.
citizen researchers across 15 universities in 13 states. Our
unified mission is to make spectrum usage adaptive and
reconfigurable, from policy all the way through circuits. We
have been established through congressional appropriation
support and commissioned through the Army Research Laboratory.
We are not a typical collection of academicians. We do not
desire merely to publish papers on technology that will
stagnate in a laboratory, but to quickly put superior
technologies into the hands of our warfighters and into the
hands of consumers. We want to put America First in spectrum,
arguably the most important dimension of battle and a very
valuable natural resource.
As a center, we are creating adaptive and reconfigurable
technologies that will provide a ``win-win'' for military
dominance and economic growth. By adapting, we aim to provide
flexible, opportunistic spectrum capabilities to military
systems and 5G and 6G commercial wireless systems, maximizing
performance in whatever band they operate. We can also
simultaneously enable the construction of the Iron Dome for
America.
Two weeks ago, we demonstrated our initial technologies to
the Pentagon, Congress, and the defense industry right here in
Arlington. As an example of some of our innovations, we have
developed sense-react-and-avoid, sense-predict-and-avoid, and
metacognitive techniques to choose the best available spectrum
for operation in real time, and are looking to AI to speed
spectrum selection.
We are building a Dynamic Spectrum Management System, or
DSMS, that will include live interference reports to inform the
real-time coordination of spectrum. We are working on
reconfigurable plasma circuits and antennas, capable of
handling high transmission power levels, that allow us to
maximize radar range in under a millisecond after changing
frequencies to avoid wireless communications. We are pioneering
a novel measurement module that, when placed inside a
transmitter chain, will allow us to assess what we are
transmitting to avoid interference and improve our system
performance ``on the fly.'' These techniques will allow both
incumbent Government systems and commercial wireless systems to
have the functionality to work around each other.
Technology innovation will convert congestion into
opportunity. Many attempts to organize spectrum have been
limited to regulation and re-regulation, but adaptive and
reconfigurable technology will revolutionize spectrum use. It
will allow us to both provide for the common defense and
promote the general welfare.
As the developer of adaptive and reconfigurable technology,
the United States will gain an enormous international advantage
both economically and tactically. U.S. industries will develop
these systems and sell their technology worldwide. China will
have to buy the technology from us. Commercial wireless systems
will realize heretofore uncomprehensible bandwidths. And our
military systems will be the strongest, most agile in the
world, dominating in the most important dimension of battle,
the spectrum.
How do we get to this situation from where we are today?
This is a question that I, as the Director of a congressionally
funded Spectrum Innovation Center, have spent a lot of time
considering and mapping to direct our research, innovation, and
workforce development. If spectrum coexistence is like driving
a car down a highway with other vehicles, we must develop
adaptive and cognitive techniques to maneuver devices through a
congested spectrum. In less congested environments, device-to-
device interaction can be used to coexist, just as cars can
pass each other autonomously in uncrowded highways. In more
congested environments, like a traffic light, a Dynamic
Spectrum Management System will be useful for coordinating. So
how do we grow into this paradigm from where we are today? You
cannot expect a kindergartener to drive a car, and we cannot
expect rigid wireless technologies to coexist adaptively. In
both cases, maturation and development is needed. We are
mapping a technology development trajectory using Bloom's
Taxonomy. Widely used by educators in cognitive development,
Bloom's Taxonomy shows the progression from knowledge, which is
the simple memorization of facts, to evaluation, the mature
cognitive and adaptive approach to life.
In elementary, middle, and high school, educators carefully
plot the course of these students in subjects such as reading,
writing, mathematics, science, and physical education to
develop the cognitive and physical skills the children will
need to eventually get behind the wheel of a car and drive the
car down a road adaptively. In a similar manner, we are moving
quickly toward evaluation ?-cognitive and adaptive use of the
spectrum.
In conclusion, in the race for spectrum superiority,
America needs to win. The opportunity is now, and we must seize
it or be left behind. There are 25 patriot scholars in SMART
Hub, with their U.S. citizen students, that are determined and
working hard to see this happen. With God's enablement and
provision, we look forward to continuing to partner with
Congress, our President, and our Nation to ensure American
superiority.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to answering questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Baylis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles P. Baylis, Ph.D., Professor of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, Baylor University, and Director, SMART Hub
Good morning. My name is Dr. Charlie Baylis, and I serve as a
Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University
and Director of SMART Hub, a Department of Defense Spectrum Innovation
Center. ``SMART'' stands for ``Spectrum Management with Adaptive and
Reconfigurable Technology'', and SMART Hub consists of 25 U.S. citizen
researchers across 15 universities and 13 states. Our unified mission
is to make spectrum usage adaptive and reconfigurable, from policy
through circuits. We have been established through Congressional
appropriation support, and commissioned through the Army Research
Laboratory. We are not a typical collection of academicians. We do not
desire merely to publish papers on technology that will stagnate in a
laboratory, but to quickly put superior technologies into the hands of
our warfighters and into the hands of consumers. We want to put America
First in spectrum: arguably the most important dimension of battle and
a very valuable natural resource.
As a center, we are creating adaptive and reconfigurable
technologies that will provide a ``win-win'' for military dominance and
economic growth. By adapting, we aim to provide flexible, opportunistic
spectrum capabilities to military systems and 5G and 6G commercial
wireless systems, maximizing performance in whatever band they operate.
Two weeks ago, we demonstrated our initial technologies to the
Pentagon, Congress, and the Defense Industry in Arlington, VA. As an
example of some of our innovations, we have developed sense-react-and-
avoid, sense-predict-and-avoid, and metacognitive techniques to choose
the best available spectrum for operation in real time, and are looking
to AI to speed spectrum selection. We are building a Dynamic Spectrum
Management System (DSMS) that will include live interference reports to
inform the real-time coordination of spectrum. We are working on
reconfigurable plasma circuits and antennas, capable of handling high
transmission power levels, that allow us to maximize radar range in
under a millisecond after changing frequencies to avoid wireless
communications. We are pioneering a novel measurement module that, when
placed inside a transmitter chain, will allow us to assess what we are
transmitting to avoid interference and improve our system performance
``on the fly.'' These techniques will allow both incumbent government
systems and commercial wireless systems to have the functionality to
work around each other.
Technology innovation will convert congestion into opportunity.
Many attempts to organize spectrum have been limited to regulation and
re-regulation, rather than innovative technology to revolutionize
spectrum use. Adaptive and reconfigurable technology provides a better
alternative. It will allow us to both ``provide for the common
defense'' and ``promote the general welfare.''
As the developer of adaptive and reconfigurable technology, the
United States will gain an enormous international advantage both
economically and tactically. U.S. industries will develop these systems
and sell their technology worldwide. Commercial wireless systems will
realize heretofore uncomprehensible bandwidths. And our military
systems will be the strongest, most agile in the world, dominating in
the most important dimension of battle: the spectrum.
How do we get to this situation from where we are today? This is a
question that I, as Director of a Congressionally funded Spectrum
Innovation Center, have spent a lot of time considering and mapping to
direct our research, innovation, and workforce development. If spectrum
coexistence is like driving a car down a highway with other vehicles,
we must develop adaptive and cognitive techniques to maneuver devices
through a congested spectrum. In less congested environments, device-
to-device interaction can be used to coexist, just as cars can pass
each other autonomously in uncrowded highways. In more congested
environments, like a traffic light, a DSMS will be useful for
coordinating.
How do we grow into this paradigm? You cannot expect a
kindergartener to drive a car, and you cannot expect rigid wireless
technologies to coexist adaptively. In both cases, maturation and
development is needed. We are mapping a technology development
trajectory using Bloom's Taxonomy. Widely used by educators in
cognitive development, Bloom's Taxonomy shows the progression from
``knowledge,'' which is the simple memorization of facts, to
``evaluation,'' the mature cognitive and adaptive approach to life. In
elementary, middle, and high-school, educators carefully plot the
course of these students in subjects such as reading, writing,
mathematics, science, and physical education to develop the cognitive
and physical skills the children will need to eventually get behind the
wheel of a car and adaptively drive down a road. In a similar manner,
we are moving quickly toward ``evaluation''--cognitive and adaptive use
of the spectrum.
In the race for spectrum superiority, America needs to win. The
opportunity is now, and we must seize it or be left behind. There are
25 patriot scholars in SMART Hub, with their U.S. citizen students,
that are determined and working hard to see this happen. With God's
enablement and provision, we look forward to continuing to partner with
Congress, our President, and our Nation to ensure American superiority.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to
answering questions that you have.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Mr. Pearl.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW PEARL, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGIES
PROGRAM, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Mr. Pearl. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell,
distinguished members of the Committee, it is an honor to
appear before you to discuss spectrum policy. The Center for
Strategic and International Studies does not take policy
positions, so the views expressed here are my own.
In my testimony I will explain the importance of
establishing U.S. leadership in spectrum policy, draw attention
to recent developments that undermine such leadership, and urge
Congress and the Administration to act to improve the U.S.'s
position.
U.S. leadership in spectrum is critical because the
People's Republic of China is spending tens of billions of
dollars to subsidize Huawei in an effort to control the future
of this strategically vital technology. The U.S. is not, and
should not, take the PRC's approach of massively subsidizing a
single company. However, the U.S. should make available its
other policy levers to counter the PRC, and spectrum is
particularly critical.
Until recently, our country was at the forefront of
spectrum policy. Since Congress authorized the FCC to conduct
auctions in 1993, it held 100 auctions that generated $233
billion for the Treasury. In addition, Congress repeatedly
provided clearing targets for making spectrum available for
commercial use. These actions were critical to economic growth,
economic security, and national security. During the period of
4G, for instance, U.S. networks supported 20 million jobs and
were responsible for 10 percent of GDP growth.
Further, spectrum has played a critical role in fostering a
stable, resilient U.S. economy. While we take it for granted
that U.S. companies top the App Store on our phones, spectrum
played a decisive role in enabling that to happen. In 2008, we
were the first country to auction the 700 MHz band, giving us a
head start in building high-power 4G networks. As a result,
U.S. innovators were able to develop the first mobile apps.
While I have focused on auction spectrum, I must also
highlight the importance of unlicensed and satellite use. We
were the first country to adopt unlicensed use, leading to the
development of ubiquitous, low-power technologies such as Wi-
Fi. The U.S. has also been a leader in satellite spectrum,
enabling U.S. companies to launch massive, low-earth orbit
constellations.
While the U.S. has traditionally played a leadership role
in spectrum, we are now at risk of falling behind. In March
2023, the FCC's authority to hold spectrum auctions lapsed. In
addition, many countries have launched 5G in prime mid-band
spectrum that the U.S. has not made available. It is critical
for Congress to restore FCC auction authority and to establish
ambitious clearing targets.
Another threat to U.S. leadership involves lengthy delays
in acting on a request for satellite licenses, which is another
threat to our leadership.
Finally, I will address the relationship between spectrum
and national security. I have strong views on this question
because during my service at the National Security Council one
of the areas that I oversaw was electronic warfare. Some have
taken the position that making spectrum available for
commercial use is undesirable because DoD uses the remaining
bands. I agree that it is critical for DoD to maintain the
capabilities it needs to accomplish its mission. However, we
have an opportunity to expand those capabilities while creating
opportunities for commercial use.
There is also a misunderstanding about whether Congress
needs to provide new statutory protections so that spectrum
reallocation does not threaten national security. As one
example, under an existing statutory provision, DoD cannot
surrender spectrum unless the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certifies that they will maintain
essential military capabilities.
The biggest misconception we confront is that we only need
to ensure that DoD has continued access to spectrum to prevail
in the electromagnetic domain. The reality is that our
military's budget is dwarfed by the commercial sector when it
comes to technology, meaning that to prevail over our
adversaries, DoD will need to leverage commercial innovation.
For instance, wireless networks will be critical to the AI race
because developing sophisticated AI services will require more
data be sent to and from mobile devices. DoD will need to
leverage the most advanced AI technologies, but this will not
happen unless we make commercial spectrum available.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pearl follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew Pearl, Director, Strategic Technologies
Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, distinguished Members of
the Committee, thank you for allowing me to share my views with you on
spectrum. I have worked on spectrum issues for nearly 15 years, and so
it is a special honor to testify in front of the Senate committee that
has repeatedly adopted legislation to ensure that the United States is
at the forefront of spectrum policy and wireless technology. The Center
for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) does not take policy
positions, so the views represented in this testimony are my own and
not those of my employer. In my testimony, I will 1) explain the
importance of the United States taking a leadership role on spectrum
policy for U.S. economic growth, economic security, and national
security; 2) draw attention to recent developments that threaten the
ability of the U.S. to out-compete and out-innovate its adversaries in
wireless technology; and 3) urge Congress and the Administration to
take several key actions so that the United States leads the world in
wireless innovation.
Spectrum and U.S. Leadership
It is critical for the United States to play a leadership role in
spectrum policy. In recent years, for example, the People's Republic of
China (PRC) has spent tens of billions subsidizing Huawei, as part of
an effort to destroy the non-PRC wireless industry, dominate the global
market for wireless services, and control the future of this
strategically vital technology. The U.S. is not--and should not--take
the PRC's approach of picking a winner and providing that company with
massive subsidies. The threat posed by the PRC, however, makes it
absolutely critical for the U.S. to use the other policy levers it has
available to advance our position in wireless innovation and
technology, and making spectrum available for commercial use is one of
the key ways to ensure that we are able to do so.
Over most of the past thirty years, our country has been successful
in leading the world in spectrum policy. During that time, our Nation
was able to make a massive amount of spectrum available for commercial
use, thus providing great benefits to the American people, while at the
same time preserving and expanding Federal spectrum-based
capabilities,.
In 1993, Congress authorized the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to allow competitive bidding for spectrum licenses, and we became
the first country to hold a major spectrum auction. Since 1994, the FCC
has held 100 spectrum auctions that raised over $233 billion for the
U.S. Treasury. Moreover, the total cost of the auctions program was
less than 1 percent of what the auctions brought in. That represents an
incredible return on investment for the American taxpayer.
Auctions have been even more instrumental, however, in promoting
technological innovation and economic growth. If we look at the period
between 1985 and 2020, when the United States made a tremendous amount
of high-power spectrum available, wireless operators invested over $600
billion in their networks.\1\ The contribution that the wireless
industry made toward the larger U.S. economy was even greater--
according to one estimate, U.S. networks supported 20 million jobs,
contributed $700 billion to the economy in a single year, and were
responsible for almost 10 percent of the GDP increase that the U.S.
economy experienced during the period of 4G/LTE deployments.\2\ Looking
forward, another study estimates that by 2030, 5G will add between $1.4
trillion and 1.7 trillion dollars to U.S. economic growth.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Compass-
Lexecon-Licensed-Spectrum-Report.pdf
\2\ https://apnews.com/press-releases/pr-newswire/4g-wireless-
transformed-americas-economy-new-study-shows-
fbf58a1343f9e7ae38129b48aa1d6b62
\3\ https://www.bcg.com/publications/2023/accelerating-the-5g-
economy-in-the-us#: :text=The%
205G%20economy%20is%20the,trillion%20in%20US%20economic%20growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While holding auctions has been critical to economic growth, there
were other factors that made the United States a success in wireless
policy. In many cases, the United States was successful at achieving
international harmonization for the spectrum bands we adopted here,
which allowed us to create a global equipment ecosystem and benefit
from economies of scale. Moreover, Congress has repeatedly provided
guidance to the FCC, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA), and the many agencies that use spectrum on
making spectrum available, including spectrum that was made available
for high-power use, and has given the FCC and NTIA authority and
flexibility to orchestrate complex spectrum transitions and determine
the rules of the road Each time Congress reauthorized the FCC to hold
auctions--in 1997, 2006, and 2012--it provided a statutory target for
making spectrum available for commercial use, enabling the FCC to make
high-power spectrum available.
Congress also expanded the ability of NTIA and FCC to manage
complex spectrum transitions, such as giving them the ability to
reimburse Federal agencies for relocation and sharing expenses in the
2004 Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and expanding on the
activities that were able to be reimbursed in the Bipartisan Budget Act
of 2015. Finally, Congress expanded on the FCC's authority to hold
auctions, authorizing it to hold incentive auctions in 2012. Congress
has also recognized and preserved the Commission's ability to adopt the
rules of the road, so that engineering rather than politics determines
the technical details of spectrum management. These actions were all
critical to ensuring that the United States adopted a forward-leading,
innovative approach to spectrum policy.
I have focused thus far on licensed terrestrial spectrum, but I
would also like to recognize the key role of low-power, unlicensed
spectrum, as well as spectrum for satellite use. First, the U.S. was
the first country to adopt rules for low-power unlicensed spectrum,
which has powered innovation and our economy. The FCC first adopted
rules for ``junk'' bands that were undesirable and unused in the
1930s--the concept was that anyone would be allowed to use the spectrum
without obtaining permission from the government, provided that the
equipment they used could not cause harmful interference to licensed
users. During the 1980s, we began to see use of these frequencies for
common household applications such as garage door openers and baby
monitors. More significantly, beginning in the 1990s, we saw the
development of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. By leveraging the permissionless
innovation that the FCC provided in its unlicensed rules, the
developers of those technologies have greatly increased our
connectivity and contributed nearly $100 billion per year to the U.S.
economy.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.cta.tech/Resources/Newsroom/Media-Releases/2022/
January/Unlicensed-Spectrum-Generates-95-Billion-Per-Year
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the U.S. has also been a leader in licensing spectrum for
satellite technology. As a result, U.S. companies built and launched
many of the pioneering communications satellites in the 1960s. Now,
U.S. companies have launched, or are in the process of launching,
massive low earth orbit (LEO) constellations that can provide broadband
Internet on a global basis. These constellations are particularly
useful in rural and remote areas. Thus far, LEO is a critical market in
which we have outcompeted the PRC, though I would note that continued
leadership in satellite spectrum is critical as the PRC attempts to
launch clones of our successful LEO networks.
While the U.S. has traditionally played a leadership role in
wireless, I believe that--regretfully--we are falling behind the rest
of the world in spectrum policy. As you know, in March 2023, the FCC's
authority to hold spectrum auctions lapsed. Many countries have
deployed new networks in prime mid-band spectrum such as the lower 3
GHz band that we have not made available for commercial use,
threatening to leave the United States behind. There is a lack of logic
for failing to make that spectrum available in the U.S., given that key
U.S. allies have already deployed in this spectrum using many of the
military systems that we use to protect the homeland. It is critical to
restore FCC auction authority and to create new opportunities for
licensed and unlicensed spectrum use, particularly in mid-band
spectrum. We need Congress and the Administration to set ambitious
goals for making spectrum available for commercial use, so that we can
make spectrum available for high-power and low-power use. At the same
time, we must empower the FCC, NTIA, and the agencies to proceed in a
systematic way based on sound science and engineering, and preserving
key capabilities of the Department of Defense (DOD) and other
departments and agencies.
Another area that threatens U.S. leadership involves delays in
licensing spectrum for satellite use. As noted, U.S. companies
currently have a strong leadership position in providing broadband
Internet globally, but they won't be able to maintain that lead if they
are unable to obtain timely access to spectrum. In this context, it is
important to note that satellite operators have faced significant
delays when making requests to modify their licenses--in fact, it has
taken an average of three years for the FCC to grant or deny many
requests.
Spectrum and Economic Security
As I mentioned, spectrum plays a critical role in ensuring that our
economy grows, and that provides a strong rationale to adopt forward-
leaning spectrum policies. However, I would also note that spectrum is
important to our economic security--that is, our ability to ensure that
the United States has a stable and resilient economy. Economic security
requires the United States to control key technologies so that home-
grown companies can protect and sustain our economy in the face of
potential global risks, shocks, and dislocations.
Spectrum is critical to economic security because it provides a
foundation for U.S. companies to innovate. Take, for instance, the app
economy. Many Americans take it for granted that U.S. companies such as
Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb are at the top of the app store charts. Few
understand, however, that it was spectrum policy that played a decisive
role in enabling American innovators to make that happen. In 2008, we
were the first country to auction the 700 MHz band--and this band was
critical to wireless leadership at the time because it enabled mobile
providers to broadly deploy new wireless services to the public across
wide geographies. After we moved first on this spectrum, the United
States quickly built 4G/LTE networks. Once these networks became
available, U.S. innovators were the first to experiment and develop
mobile apps, enabling U.S. companies to lead the world in the app
economy, and unlocking hundreds of billions of dollars in economic
benefits.
Looking forward, wireless networks will serve as the proving ground
for the next technology that is central to our economic security:
artificial intelligence (AI). For AI to be fully integrated in our
daily lives, AI-enhanced services and the data traffic they generate
will need to be sent to--and from--the mobile devices that we carry
around with us. Such devices will be able to rearrange our schedules
better than any human assistant, edit our photographs with more skill
than any professional photo editor, and get us home faster and more
safely than the most experienced professional driver. But U.S.
companies won't be able to develop and deploy all those AI applications
unless we make additional spectrum available to handle all that
increased data traffic, particularly so that there is uplink capacity
from devices to mobile networks. Unless the United States is a leader
in spectrum, we risk losing the ability to easily develop such
applications, and with it control over this strategic technology.
Spectrum and National Security
As discussed, the connections between spectrum, on the one hand,
and economic growth and economic security, on the other hand, are
underappreciated. When it comes to the role of spectrum policy in
protecting our national security, however, we unfortunately face many
misunderstandings and misconceptions. I have strong views on this
question because I have seen the role that spectrum policy plays from
the national security perspective. I spent ten years at the FCC
managing spectrum transitions and auctions. I'm incredibly proud of the
work we did to advance the U.S. wireless industry there; for instance,
in Lower C-band, our efforts resulted in the largest spectrum auction--
and likely the largest auction of any type--in world history, with over
$81 billion in gross bids. More recently, however, I moved over to the
National Security Council, where I oversaw policy related to spectrum
and satellite use, including electronic warfare and other national-
security related uses of spectrum. I have a deep appreciation for the
critical role that spectrum plays in safeguarding the United States and
its allies and partners.
Some stakeholders have publicly taken the position that making
spectrum available for commercial use is no longer desirable given that
most of the commercially-attractive frequencies are used by DOD. I
agree with them that DOD uses spectrum to protect our nation, and that
it is critical that we ensure that DOD has all the capabilities it
needs to do so. Please note, however, that the key term I used is
``capabilities''--unfortunately, some stakeholders have confused things
by implying that to preserve all of DOD's ``capabilities,'' we need to
prevent commercial users from ever gaining new access to the spectrum
that DOD uses. To the contrary, it is possible to preserve and even
expand DOD's capabilities by modernizing the systems it uses, while
creating more opportunities for commercial use.
Take, for instance, the Airborne Warning and Control System
(AWACS), which is a key, airborne radar system that operates globally
and provides an early warning to the United States, as well as its key
allies, regarding potentially hostile ships, aircraft, vehicles, and
missiles, in addition to serving a critical command and control
function during aerial combat. DOD deployed the first production-model
AWACS in 1977, meaning that right now we're still relying on a radar
system that was put into service when Happy Days and Three's Company
were on television. As DOD plans to upgrade this system, we have a
critical opportunity to ensure that we are operating the most advanced
radar system in the world, and that such a system is spectrally
efficient and future-proof. After all, to address challenges by
competitors such as the PRC and adversaries such as Russia, we need to
deploy these systems not only in our homeland, but also to key U.S.
allies, many of which have already deployed 5G in mid-band frequencies
that we have not auctioned.
I would note that AWACS is only one system and that DOD has many
other systems in the mid-range spectrum bands that are being targeted
for commercial use. There are numerous issues for the FCC, NTIA, and
the agencies to work through, and the spectrum transitions that will
result will be complicated. Nonetheless, I've seen technical experts at
the FCC, NTIA, and the agencies successfully work through these issues
many times in the past, and I am confident that they can do so again
now. It is important for Congress to set goals and timelines so that
the FCC, NTIA, and the agencies know what to aim for, and so that
industry has sufficient certainty regarding the future availability of
spectrum. It is equally important for the Administration to make it
clear to the agencies that spectrum is a priority and that political
actors should not block engineers from working through technical
challenges on behalf of the President.
There is also a misunderstanding about whether Congress needs to
provide additional statutory protections to prevent the spectrum
repurposing process from threatening our national security. Under
Section 1062 of the 2000 National Defense Authorization Act, which is a
provision that remains in effect, spectrum that DOD uses cannot be
surrendered for commercial use unless the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs jointly certify to key congressional
committees that they will have access to other spectrum that maintains
essential military capabilities. This is only one example of the
numerous statutory protections that Congress has already adopted to
ensure that our military can maintain its spectrum-based capabilities.
Another misconception about spectrum and national security is that
we only need to ensure that DOD has access to spectrum and can procure
equipment, and this will be sufficient to protect our national security
needs. This view is extremely short-sighted, as in the future the U.S.
military will no longer have the budget to meet all its future needs
but rather will need to leverage commercial technology to prevail over
our competitors and adversaries. If we look at the example of
semiconductors in the 1960s, the U.S. military dominated the market,
purchasing all the integrated circuits that were produced. By the
2020s, that number had fallen to 2 percent of the U.S. market. The
trend was inevitable across the entire technological sector: as
technology has exploded across economic markets, both in the United
States and abroad, our military simply no longer has the purchasing
power to consistently move markets and ensure innovation. Instead, DOD
needs to take advantage of commercial innovation from our companies to
ensure that it stays ahead of our competitors and adversaries.
In the domain of wireless technology, we're already seeing this
play out in the battlefield in Ukraine, where commercial wireless
networks and smartphones have directly transformed command, control,
communications, computing, intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance. For instance, we have seen smartphones used to
crowdsource information to predict UAS attacks, serve as nodes in a
network that create accurate geospatial maps of developments on the
battlefield, and triangulate enemy positions. In the future, as
wireless networks carry actionable insights from AI and quantum
computing, the side in a conflict that can leverage the most advanced
commercial wireless technology will have a significant, and in some
cases, decisive advantage. In wireless technology, DOD will not be able
to leverage commercial innovation unless the wireless industry has
access to spectrum, given that spectrum will serve as a critical
determinant of whether the wireless industry is able to develop and
deploy innovative technologies. Ensuring that we preserve critical
military spectrum-based capabilities while creating opportunities for
commercial access to spectrum is therefore essential to our ability to
prevail in future conflicts.
Recommendations
I. For Congress
1. Restore the FCC's ability to conduct spectrum auctions.
2. In such legislation, provide targets, goals, and associated
timelines for making spectrum available, particularly for mid-
band spectrum, including the ability to make spectrum available
for high-power and low-power use. This will serve as critical
guidance to the FCC, NTIA, and the agencies as they work
together on spectrum policy. It is important for these targets
to be informed by discussions with the FCC, NTIA, and industry.
3. Adopt requirements that would apply to Federal agencies to
cooperate with NTIA and the FCC as they attempt to make
spectrum available.
4. Preserve the discretion of NTIA and the FCC to determine the
specific bands made available, and the ability of the FCC to
determine the technical rules that would apply to spectrum.
5. Update the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act by offering
agencies the opportunity to receive reimbursement under the
Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF) for upgrading their systems
beyond what they are currently capable of doing, allowing NTIA
the ability to receive funds to conduct studies and analyses of
spectrum use, and providing the Technical Panel that reviews
studies and transition plans further oversight over process
after they have approved such studies or plans.
6. Elevate the Administrator of NTIA to an Undersecretary to improve
the interagency process on spectrum.
7. Require streamlined procedures for granting satellite
applications and shot clocks for granting or denying licenses.
8. To further advance our wireless capabilities, develop a
comprehensive ``system of systems'' for position, location, and
timing, which can back up and compliment GPS, and therefore
mitigate vulnerabilities and enhance reliability for both
Federal and commercial users.
II. For the Administration
1. Adopt ambitious goals and timelines that are informed by
discussions with the FCC, NTIA, and industry.
2. Provide guidance and an escalation process to ensure that
disagreements or disputes between the FCC, NTIA, and/or the
Federal agencies that use spectrum are quickly and properly
resolved.
3. Ensure that planned spectrum transitions preserve critical
national security, public safety, and other Federal mission
capabilities.
4. Develop a process that will enable the United States to arrive at
positions on international spectrum allocations well in advance
of the 2027 World Radio Conference.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Mr. Clark.
STATEMENT OF BRYAN CLARK, SENIOR FELLOW,
HUDSON INSTITUTE
Mr. Clark. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, thank
you very much for the opportunity to speak today, to you and
the rest of the Committee, about spectrum policy.
The national security competition between the U.S. and
China in the electromagnetic spectrum is not just a commercial
one. It is also a military one, and in a lot of ways it is
predominantly a military one, as we look at the future
conflicts we might face against China and others.
If you look at the invasion of Ukraine and how the
electromagnetic spectrum has played out as the centerpiece,
essentially, of that war, early on Russia had a lot of problems
in its initial push toward Kyiv. In part, that was because of a
lack of spectrum management on its part, the inability to use
the spectrum effectively. Later, we see today now that both
sides are using sophisticated electromagnetic warfare against
each other, but as Ranking Member Cantwell talked about, they
are using jamming against GPS, they are using jamming against
communications. The recent offensive that Ukrainian forces
mounted into Kursk was enabled, in large part, by their ability
to gain superiority in the electromagnetic spectrum, so
operating in parts of the spectrum where the Russians were
trying to operate, and operating outside their coms, putting
their own coms in parts of the spectrum where the Russians were
unable to jam them. So the spectrum is increasingly where wars
are going to be one and lost.
Against China, the U.S. faces a much more powerful
competitor, in general, and also in the spectrum, than Russia
poses. To overcome its geographic and numerical disadvantages,
when you are fighting as the away team against China, U.S.
forces are going to have to rely on a lot of what we would call
counter-ISR, counter-surveillance and reconnaissance, counter-
communications capabilities, to degrade the ability of China's
reconnaissance intelligence network to be able to target and
attack U.S. forces.
If we cannot operate inside frequencies where the Chinese
operate, and outside of our normal frequencies so we can
deceive them, hide our forces, and degrade their targeting
ability, we are not going to be able to amass the number of
forces successfully to defeat them in an invasion of Taiwan. So
really, fundamentally, winning that invasion of Taiwan comes
down to the ability to control the spectrum in that Western
Pacific region.
We need to be able to build the capabilities for that and
train with them here in the United States before we go
overseas, and in a lot of ways that deception campaign has to
start here, meaning we are operating in parts of the spectrum
that we would not normally operate in, as part of an effort to
begin that deception against the Chinese forces.
In addition, as we mentioned earlier, the Iron Dome for
America is going to create new demands for electromagnetic
spectrum to protect the United States from missile attack.
Obviously, there are opportunities to use those technologies to
be able to more efficiently use the spectrum, and more
effectively manage that surveillance network, we need to
protect the United States. But requirements for terminal
missile defense and for airborne moving target indication from
space are both going to create demands on S-and X-band
frequencies that we currently want to make available to
commercial users.
So the needs for DoD in the spectrum are becoming larger
and more complex. But that does not preclude that we would be
able to share that spectrum between military and commercial
users. It does mean we need to bring new technologies to bear.
We need to bring new policies to bear. And there will be some
deliberative process so that we can figure out which parts of
the spectrum can be made available and which ones really
cannot, because of physics and because of the number of systems
we might need to be able to conduct the operation.
Examples like CBRS, the Citizens Band Radio Service, and
AMBIT are good examples of where, in the past, we have been
able to deconflict users in the spectrum between Federal and
commercial users, or share spectrum by taking advantage of new
technologies for detection and relocation of spectrum users.
But we need to be able to take the time and the analysis
necessary to make those mechanisms feasible in the United
States to support both the operations we need to do for things
like Iron Dome, as well as the training and preparation
necessary to get our forces ready to go overseas and fight in a
war where they are going to need the spectrum to make up the
difference between their lack of mass as the away team and the
large mass that is available to the Chinese, or the home team.
So we should not fall victim to getting into a symmetrical
competition with China over who is giving more of a particular
part of the spectrum to the commercial users, and we should not
unilaterally disarm our military capabilities in the spectrum.
We need to work out ways so that both military and commercial
uses can be taking advantage of our spectrum resources, so we
can compete on both battlefields.
With that I will be looking forward to your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clark follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bryan Clark, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and distinguished members
of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
committee on the topic: America Offline? How Spectrum Auction Delays
Give China the Edge and Cost Us Jobs.
Summary
The U.S. military will require more, not less, access to the
electromagnetic spectrum in the coming decade. Facing numerical and
geographic disadvantages against an opponent like China, U.S. forces
will need electronic warfare systems that can jam, decoy, and deceive
enemy sensors by operating outside traditional U.S. frequencies and
inside those used by adversaries. At home, the U.S. military will need
to continuously operate high-power sensors and defenses from S through
K band to defend U.S. territory from air and missile attack as part of
the Trump Administration's Iron Dome for America initiative.
China's leaders want the U.S. government to unilaterally disarm by
further constraining the Department of Defense's spectrum access.
Beijing disingenuously claims that it has given more spectrum to
Chinese telecommunication companies when in fact the People's
Liberation Army (PLA) retains the authority and mechanisms to routinely
displace commercial spectrum users. Instead of engaging in a
unproductive spectrum competition against China in S-band, the U.S.
government should ensure military and commercial users can co-exist in
U.S. spectrum through sustainable and executable sharing schemes.
Telecommunication companies should be prepared for the cost and time
needed to implement these approaches, especially as military demands
for spectrum are likely to grow.
Winning the Fight for Sensing and Sensemaking
Militaries have always depended on the electromagnetic spectrum to
communicate and coordinate operations, navigate over vast distances,
and attack or avoid enemies. Starting during World War II, electronic
warfare made the spectrum itself a battlefield when jammers and decoys
emerged as new tools to prevent an opponent from coordinating
operations or sensing and understanding its environment.
The war in Ukraine highlights how the electromagnetic spectrum is
now the domain in which battles--and wars--are often won or lost.
Russian and Ukrainian troops routinely use vehicle-and drone-borne
electronic sensors to detect enemy forces by their radio transmissions
and enable attacks with artillery or rockets. To protect themselves,
troops on both sides have developed work-arounds that enable them to
transmit on unexpected frequencies where the enemy is not looking, use
directional antennas, or avoid radio communications altogether.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vikram Mittal, ``Ukraine Is Now Dominating The Drone And
Electronic Warfare Domains,'' Forbes, August 21, 2024, https://
www.forbes.com/sites/vikrammittal/2024/08/21/ukraine-is-now-dominating-
the-drone-and-electronic-warfare-domains/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian and Ukrainian forces are also extensively jamming each
other in the spectrum. Traditional radio communications are often
impossible near the front lines.\2\ Ukrainian forces stopped using US-
provided guided weapons like the Excalibur artillery round and Joint
Direct Attack Munition until they are modified to be more jam-resistant
or incorporate multiple modes of navigation.\3\ Both militaries have
turned to using radars or cameras on drones for guidance, sometimes
augmented by a human operator connected via a fiber-optic cable to
avoid radio jamming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Chris Panella, ``A 'hidden electronic warfare battle' is raging
in Ukraine and demanding more from the soldiers fighting it, special
drone unit says,'' Business Insider, February 8, 2025, https://
www.businessinsider.com/hidden-electronic-warfare-battle-demanding-
more-of-ukrainian-soldiers-2025-2.
\3\ Thomas Withington, ``Jamming JDAM: The Threat to U.S. Munitions
from Russian Electronic Warfare,'' RUSI, June 6, 2023, https://
www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/jamming-jdam-
threat-us-munitions-russian-electronic-warfare
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China is a much more challenging electromagnetic adversary for the
United States than Russia. The PLA fields a growing array of electronic
warfare aircraft, drones, and satellites that can listen and jam across
relevant areas of the spectrum at long range.\4\ China's navy, coast
guard, and maritime militia ships are equipped with electronic sensors
to surveil U.S. and allied communications and radar transmissions.\5\
And the Chinese government's space-based electronic surveillance
architecture over U.S. territory and the Indo-Pacific region is growing
faster than its U.S. counterpart.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Kristin Burke, ``PLA Counterspace Command and Control''
(Montgomery, AL: U.S. Air Force China Aerospace Studies Institute,
2023), https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/
Research/PLASSF/2023-12-11%20Counterspace-%20web%20version.pdf.
\5\ John Christianson, ``Fighting and Winning in the
Electromagnetic Spectrum,'' War on the Rocks, December 5, 2022, https:/
/warontherocks.com/2022/12/fighting-and-winning-in-the-elec-
tromagnetic-spectrum/
#: :text=The%20Chinese%20concept%20recognizing%20the,the%20Chinese
%20coastline%2C%20is%20a.
\6\ J. Michael Dahm, ``China C4ISR and Counter-Intervention,''
Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission,'' March 21, 2024, https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/
2024-03/J.Michael_Dahm_Testimony.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China's electronic surveillance network in the air, on the water,
and in space is part of an overall Reconnaissance-Intelligence System
that leaders in Beijing rely on to assess their opponents' operations
in peacetime and target enemy forces in wartime. As shown in Figure 1,
this system is one of several systems the PLA plans to use in a
potential conflict such as an invasion of Taiwan. China's leaders rely
on a systems approach to warfare in part due to their well-publicized
lack of confidence in PLA commanders' abilities to engage and defeat
enemy forces without suffering unsustainable losses.\7\ Chinese leaders
would prefer to centrally manage a war, using the Reconnaissance-
Intelligence System to find enemy forces, predict their future actions
and operations, and target them for long-range precision attacks by the
Firepower Strike System.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Jackson, Kimberly, Andrew Scobell, Stephen Webber, and Logan
Ma, Command and Control in U.S. Naval Competition with China. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2020, pp. 23-49. https://www.rand.org/
pubs/research_reports/RRA127-1.html; Larry Wortzel, ``The PLA and
Mission Command: Is the Party Control System Too Rigid for Its
Adaptation by China?,'' Association of the U.S. Army, March 2024,
https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/publications/LWP-159-The-PLA-
and-Mission-Command-Is-the-Party-Conrol-System-Too-Rigid-for-Its-
Adaptation-by-China.pdf.
\8\ Joel Wuthnow, ``System Destruction Warfare and the PLA,''
Institute for National Strategic Studies, June 2024, https://
keystone.ndu.edu/Portals/86/PLA%20Systems%20Attack%20-%20
JW%20update%20June%2024.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: China's warfare systems\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Jeffrey Engstrom, Systems Confrontation and System Destruction
Warfare (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2018), https://www.rand.org/pubs/
research_reports/RR1708.html.
China's hierarchical approach to command and control creates
vulnerabilities that U.S. and allied forces will try to exploit.\10\
Chinese leaders depend primarily on their signals intelligence and
imaging satellites to build an operational picture because these space-
based systems offer continuous coverage of the Indo-Pacific region and
do not depend on the competence of ship, aircraft, or ground-based
sensor crews. However, U.S. and allied militaries could confuse these
sensors by operating their radars and radios in unexpected areas of
spectrum; deploying decoys that simulate signals or radar returns from
U.S. ships, aircraft, or ground troops; and using jammers against PLA
sensors and communication systems to obscure the location of real U.S.
or allied forces and prevent Chinese sensor fusion.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Jon Harper, ``Counter-C5ISRT is top priority for nominee to
lead Indo-Pacific Command,'' DefenseScoop, February 1, 2024, https://
defensescoop.com/2024/02/01/counter-c5isrt-samuel-paparo-indo-pacific-
command-nomination/.
\11\ This approach is detailed in Bryan Clark, ``Winning the Fight
for Sensing and Sensemaking,'' (Washington, DC: Hudson Institute,
2024), https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/winning-fight-
sensing-sensemaking-fielding-cyber-electronic-warfare-c5isr-bryan-
clark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faced with an unreliable operational picture, China's leaders would
turn to ground-based sensors and ships and aircraft to verify real vs.
false targets. U.S. and allied forces could use the same counter-sensor
approaches against these systems, although with less effect. However,
the impact will already be felt as China's leaders begin to question
their centrally-controlled ``fire and forget'' military strategy.
U.S. forces will need to sustain counter-sensing and counter-
sensemaking operations over months or years to translate Chinese
leaders' temporary doubts into an enduring lack of confidence that
could deter them from pursuing aggression against U.S. allies. As shown
in Figure 2, the U.S. military will need a large number of diverse
electronic warfare tools and techniques to support a jamming and
deception campaign.
Figure 2: Importance of a deep magazine of electronic warfare effects
in a campaign
Electronic warfare techniques are often short-lived in wartime, as
demonstrated by the electromagnetic spectrum competition during World
War II and more recently in Ukraine.\12\ After one side fields a new
jammer or decoy, the other side quickly develops a countermeasure or
work-around. To sustain the move-countermove competition shown in
Figure 2, the DoD will need to develop and test systems, train and
certify relevant units, and sometimes conduct operations in the United
States to create a deep magazine of diverse electronic warfare effects.
These efforts will require access to diverse areas of spectrum not
currently or often used by U.S. forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ John Stillion and Bryan Clark, ``What it Takes to Win:
Succeeding in 21st Century Battle Network Competitions,'' (Washington,
DC: Center for Strategic and budgetary Assessments, 2015), https://
csbaonline.org/research/publications/what-it-takes-to-win-succeeding-
in-21st-century-battle-network-competitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China's long con for spectrum superiority
U.S. and allied electronic warfare operations threaten the
effectiveness of China's war plans. To prevent the U.S. from fielding
these critical capabilities, China is attempting to convince the U.S.
government to unilaterally disarm in the spectrum.
Numerous studies and industry white papers have asserted during the
last decade that the United States is ``losing the spectrum
competition'' with China. These studies argue that the Chinese
government has made more spectrum available for commercial
telecommunications use compared to the United States--especially in the
3-5 Ghz band.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Accenture, ``The Case for Global Spectrum Harmonization,''
CTIA, January 2024, https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/
Advancing-US-Wireless-Excellence-Global-Harmonization.pdf; James Lewis,
``Spectrum Allocation for a Contest with China,'' (Washington, DC:
CSIS, 2023), https://www.csis.org/analysis/spectrum-allocation-contest-
china.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-band spectrum in the 2-8 Ghz range is coveted by commercial and
military system developers because it offers an attractive combination
of range, data rate, and resistance to interference. Higher frequency
signals can carry more data or achieve higher resolution in radars but
suffer higher attenuation due to atmospheric heating and are more
susceptible to interference because they tend to bounce off obstacles
rather than passing through them. Lower frequency transmissions can
travel much farther distances, but carry less data and achieve lower
resolution.
By the mid-2030s, China's government reportedly plans to make up to
1,500 Mhz more mid-band spectrum available for commercial
telecommunications use compared to the U.S. government.\14\ But this
potential disparity is an illusion. In China, all frequency
allocations--like all commercial endeavors--are contingent. The
government retains the authority to force commercial users off the
spectrum when needed, and maintains organizations and processes for
doing so.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Clete Johnson, ``Next Steps to Close the Gap with China on
Licensed Spectrum for Commercial 5G,'' Center for Strategic and
International Studies, February 12, 2024, https://www.csis.org/blogs/
strategic-technologies-blog/next-steps-close-gap-china-licensed-
spectrum-commercial-5g.
\15\ Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT),
``Radio Regulation of the People's Republic of China (2016 Revision),''
http://106.15.139.130/Law/LawShowEn?id=222067.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the concept of military-civil fusion, China's regional radio
management centers are charged with clearing spectrum to enable
military and civil defense operations whenever needed for training,
exercises, system development, or crisis response. To enable rapidly
removing commercial users, each radio management center includes a PLA
reserve frequency management unit. These units are led by a core of
active-duty PLA officers and mainly comprised of reserve soldiers whose
civilian jobs are in the telecommunications industry. Their civilian
experience is intended to enable these reserve operators to quickly
kick commercial users out of needed spectrum in support of PLA or other
government needs.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ John Dotson, ``Military-Civil Fusion and Electromagnetic
Spectrum Management in the PLA,'' Jamestown Institute, October 8, 2019,
https://jamestown.org/program/military-civil-fusion-and-
electromagnetic-spectrum-management-in-the-pla/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time its government reserves the right to use any
spectrum at will, China's political and industry leaders suggest that
China is building a lead in 5G and future communication technologies
because the country makes more spectrum available to national champions
like Huawei and ZTE. The U.S. government should not unilaterally disarm
by taking mid-band spectrum away from U.S. military uses in an effort
to win this non-existent spectrum race against China.
Another argument for making more U.S. mid-band spectrum available
for commercial use is to align with the frequency allocations of other
countries, including numerous U.S. European and Indo-Pacific allies.
The World Radio Congress (WRC) has recommended that wide swaths of
spectrum in relevant frequency ranges for 5G and potential future 6G
communications, which many countries have adopted in their own radio
regulations.
However, this argument incorrectly assumes each country has similar
needs for spectrum outside of commercial functions. As the world's most
sophisticated force and the largest one outside of China, the U.S.
military incorporates a more numerous and diverse portfolio of
electromagnetic spectrum systems than any of its allies. For example,
the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) maintains more than 100 high-power
jamming aircraft, which is more than its European and Indo-Pacific
allies combined. The U.S. Navy and Air Force include more than 100
airborne radar surveillance aircraft and nearly 100 air defense
destroyers and cruisers carrying high-power radars. To follow through
on its alliance commitments, the U.S. military requires access to
spectrum across large areas of the country for training, concept
development, maintenance, and operations.
Enabling the Iron Dome for America
The most challenging driver of U.S. military spectrum access
requirements will be the Trump Administration's initiative to establish
a comprehensive missile defense architecture for the United States.
Announced by executive order last month, the ``Iron Dome for America''
is intended to field a system of systems that can defeat hypersonic,
ballistic, and cruise missiles as well as emerging airborne threats
such as drones. The proposed architecture would include weapons to
engage enemy missiles soon after launch, in mid-flight, and in the
terminal phase when they near a target in the United States.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Donald J. Trump, ``The Iron Dome For America,'' January 27,
2025, The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/
2025/01/the-iron-dome-for-america/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. military already maintains a ballistic missile detection
and tracking system as part of the national missile defense system,
which mainly uses infrared satellites to detect launches overseas and
radars in Alaska, Canada, and Greenland to track ballistic missiles
coming over the North Pole. The Iron Dome architecture would build on
this existing network by adding satellite-borne sensors that the DoD is
already developing for tracking ballistic and hypersonic missiles.\18\
These space-based and forward-deployed sensors would probably not
require new frequency allocations to the DoD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, ``Fact sheet:
U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense,'' Center for Arms Control and Non-
Proliferation, June 12, 2023, https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-
u-s-ballistic-missile-defense/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the Iron Dome for America will require a dramatic increase
in radar surveillance and tracking in the S and X bands to support
terminal defense against ballistic and hypersonic missiles. Terminal
defense systems like SM-6 or PAC-3 interceptors engage ballistic and
hypersonic missiles in the atmosphere at ranges of only 100 to 200
miles, which requires that they be positioned near the targets they
defend. Planned space-based sensors can detect and initially track
incoming hypersonic and ballistic missiles, but they cannot provide
interceptors the target missile's position and movement precisely or
quickly enough for an engagement.\19\ Existing surveillance radars used
to manage commercial air traffic lack the responsiveness and precision
needed to track ballistic and hypersonic missiles. To guide terminal
defense interceptors, the DoD will need to operate military radars such
as the U.S. Navy's SPY-1, 6, and 7 or carried by airborne warning and
control aircraft including the E-2D or E-3 in the interior of the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Planned space-based radars or infrared sensors cannot
precisely determine the elevation of missiles they are tracking, which
is needed to direct an interceptor to the target, and they lack a
mechanism for sending target information to the interceptor in flight
in real-time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater spectrum access will also be needed to defeat cruise
missiles and ``other next-generation aerial attacks,'' which could
include advanced drones like those Russia is using against Ukraine. The
DoD may need to use airborne or ground-based S and X-band radars to
track these threats.\20\ But the more significant challenge will be
shooting them down. As recent operations in the Middle East, Ukraine,
and around the United States suggest, an opponent could attack U.S.
bases, government facilities, or public gatherings using hundreds of
drones and cruise missiles.\21\ To defeat these large salvos the DoD
would likely need to turn to high-power microwave (HPM) systems that
generally transmit pulses across the X through K (8-27 Ghz) bands also
used by some mid-band and millimeter-wave 5G networks.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Cruise missiles and drones are generally too small to be
tracked by space-based radars to track and too slow to generate an
infrared signature that could be detected by satellite sensors. Space-
based electro-optical sensors could track cruise missiles and drones,
but would need to be cued to the threat's exact location. Existing
civilian air surveillance radars can often track cruise missiles and
drones, but are not dedicated to that mission and do not provide data
in the form needed for an interceptor to engage the target.
\21\ Jim Garamone, ``Reports of Drone Incursions Taken Seriously,
DOD Spokesman Says,'' DoD News, December 17, 2024, https://
www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/40088
36/reports-of-drone-incursions-taken-seriously-dod-spokesman-says/.
\22\ Office of Naval Research Code 35, ``Directed Energy Weapons:
High Power Microwaves,'' Office of Naval Research, https://
www.onr.navy.mil/organization/departments/code-35/division-353/
directed-energy-weapons-high-power-microwaves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commander of U.S. Northern Command testified earlier this month
that one of his most significant challenges was air domain
awareness.\23\ Closing that gap and establishing the Iron Dome for
America will require operations by military systems in multiple
commercially-relevant frequency ranges across large parts of the United
States. In contrast to today's needs for episodic military training,
testing, and certification, these missions would create a continuous
need for spectrum access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Gregory M. Guillot, ``Testimony on the Posture of United
States Northern Command and United States Southern Command in Review of
the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2026 and the Future
Years Defense Program,'' February 13, 2025, https://www.armed-
services.senate.gov/hearings/to-receive-testimony-on-the-posture-of-
united-states-northern-command-and-united-states-southern-command-in-
review-of-the-defense-authorization-request-for-fiscal-year-2026-and-
the-future-years-defense-program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reconciling spectrum demands
The U.S. military will need to operate in additional areas of the
electromagnetic spectrum to address an increasingly challenging threat
environment. To overcome its numerical and geographic disadvantages
against China, U.S. forces will need to develop, test, and train on
systems that emit outside traditional U.S. military frequencies and
inside adversary bands as part of its effort to undermine Chinese
sensing and sensemaking. The DoD will also need to operate radars and
HPM systems in S through K bands across the United States as part of a
comprehensive domestic air and missile defense architecture.
However, the DoD's growing need for spectrum does not preclude
commercial uses in the same or adjacent frequencies. For example, some
regions of spectrum like 6 Ghz could be more efficiently segmented
between government, commercial, and unlicensed users. In these
frequencies, the government could apply the approach demonstrated by
the 2020 White House-DoD America's Mid-Band Initiative Team (AMBIT)
initiative.\24\ Using the results of AMBIT, the Federal Communications
Commission established procedures that allow military and commercial
users to both operate in the 3450-3550 Mhz range by separating their
emissions in time and geographically.\25\ Advances in the spectral
efficiency of military and commercial systems could allow static
allocation models like AMBIT to be implemented in additional
geographies or frequencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ C. Todd Lopez, ``AMBIT Gambit Pays Off, Advances U.S. 5G
Efforts,'' DoD News, August 10, 2020, https://www.defense.gov/News/
News-Stories/Article/Article/2306902/ambit-gambit-pays-off-advances-us-
5g-efforts/.
\25\ Federal Communications Commission, ``Second Report And Order,
Order On Reconsideration, And Order Of Proposed Modification,'' Federal
Register, March 21, 2021, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-
21-32A1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New technologies can also allow for dynamic spectrum sharing
between commercial and military users. For example, the Citizen's
Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) allows military, civilian, and
commercial users to share spectrum from 3550-3700 Mhz in some regions
using a combination of procedures and automated controls that move
priority and general access commercial or private users to other
frequencies when incumbent government users are detected in the band.
This process allows periodic military operations in the spectrum while
minimizing the impact on commercial applications.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
``An Analysis of Aggregate CBRS SAS Data from April 2021 to July
2024,'' NTIA, November 18, 2024, https://www.ntia.gov/report/2024/
analysis-aggregate-cbrs-sas-data-april-2021-july-2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Models like CBRS could be employed in other tranches of spectrum,
such as 6Ghz, or other geographic regions where military and commercial
users could share spectrum. However, as identified by the 2023 DoD
Emerging Mid-Band Radar Spectrum Sharing (EMBRSS) study, the government
will need to evolve the CBRS model to enable the industrial base to
experiment with and test new electromagnetic systems, accommodate fast-
moving airborne radars, and ensure coordination in more complex
electromagnetic environments compared to the current applications of
CBRS.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ DoD Chief Information Officer, ``Emerging Mid-Band Radar
Spectrum Sharing (EMBRSS) Feasibility Assessment Report,'' (Washington,
DC: U.S. DoD, 2023), https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/
Library/DoD-EMBRSS-FeasabilityAssessmentRedacted.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The challenge for regulators and Congress will be creating spectrum
sharing schemes that protect necessary DoD access while remaining
financially attractive for the telecommunications industry. Time and
geographic constraints such as under AMBIT or the need to periodically
relocate to other frequencies under CBRS will require companies to
maintain access to additional frequency bands, establish automated
sensing and control systems, and manage a patchwork of different
frequency coverage and control mechanisms across the Nation. The time
and investment needed to implement these approaches will reduce the
value of spectrum at auction. This cost and complexity will only grow
as the DoD's need for spectrum increases as a result of new operational
concepts and missions.
Conclusion
The Congress should not fall victim to China's disinformation.
China's telecom companies suggest they are winning the 5G race because
they can use more frequencies than their competitors in the United
States and Europe. However, the PLA retains access to the
electromagnetic spectrum whenever and wherever needed, enforced by
military personnel at China's radio management centers and in its
telecommunications industry.
The U.S. government should not unilaterally disarm in militarily
important segments of the spectrum. Chinese leaders want to degrade the
DoD's ability to conduct electronic warfare and radar operations that
could undermine China's Reconnaissance-Intelligence System and protect
the U.S. homeland from air and missile attack. Spectrum sharing schemes
could allow the U.S. government to protect its military operations and
support commercial uses, but companies and U.S. policymakers should
ensure they account for the associated costs and complexity.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you to all the witnesses for your
helpful testimony. We will now move to questions.
Dr. Hazlett, I want to start with you. What are the
specific economic benefits that putting more spectrum into the
commercial marketplace would produce, and how would my spectrum
pipeline legislation, which requires some full-power spectrum
to be made available to the commercial sector, benefit everyday
Americans and American businesses?
Dr. Hazlett. Additional spectrum, particularly of the
flexible use variety, has been found extremely important to
increasing American productivity. It allows more things to be
done with wireless, wireless applications, and wireless
networks. And, in fact, the reverse I also true. When we have
had these delays that have come into the system, we have
actually taken the vital inputs out of the sector, and the
progress has been stymied.
So, in fact, getting more spectrum into the marketplace,
allowing entrepreneurs and competitors to get access to expand,
that explains not only the wireless revolution that we have
seen, with so much changing in terms of new innovations, but it
explains why, going forward, we have to keep our eye on the
ball and make sure that there is a pipeline, there is spectrum
pouring into the market, to be used in efficient ways, not in
the old locked-in, rigid definitions of old.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Mr. Pearl, would you agree that
making more spectrum available to the private sector would
result in billions in new investments and thousands of new
jobs?
Mr. Pearl. Yes, absolutely.
Chairman Cruz. And history demonstrates that.
Mr. Pearl. Yes, no, consistently. You make the spectrum
available, and particularly as I mentioned with the example of
the app economy, being first really matters in that because
then you have innovators that take advantage of the
capabilities that they can use in that spectrum.
Chairman Cruz. And does my pipeline bill preclude the
Department of Defense from accessing the spectrum it needs to
accomplish critical missions, or are there ways full-power
commercial license use can accommodate the needs of DoD?
Mr. Pearl. So your bill allows for both the possibility of
exclusive use as well as shared use. And so in terms of DoD
being able to continue to use some or most of the bands in
order to maintain their capabilities, it absolutely creates
that opening.
Chairman Cruz. Now, Mr. Pearl, we have also heard concerns
that reinstating auction authority could hinder President
Trump's initiative to create an American Iron Dome. I am a
strong and passionate supporter of missile defense, and have
been advocating for an American Iron Dome for some time.
Based on your experience at both the National Security
Council and in the FCC auction room, do you believe those
concerns are well founded that having an auction would prevent
missile defense here at home?
Mr. Pearl. No, absolutely not. As long as we have the
proper interagency process and we make sure that the engineers
work together, we can absolutely ensure we have Iron Dome as
well as increased commercial use.
Chairman Cruz. And could an Iron Dome system coexist with
commercial 5G use, subject to geographical or location
carveouts, like in the AMBIT process?
Mr. Pearl. Potentially it could. We do have some cases of
countries that are using Iron Dome, like the Czech Republic,
that are using 5G quite close to those systems of Iron Dome,
and so that is one possibility. And there are some other ways
that you can design Iron Dome so that you could have potential
coexistence.
Chairman Cruz. So we are told by some in the Defense
Department that if any of the vast spectrum that they currently
have use of goes to the private sector that it will cripple the
military's ability to defend our Nation. The facts make that
claim highly dubious. Right now, today, about 50 nations across
the globe operate commercial licensed 5G networks in the 3.3 to
3.45 GHz bands.
Take an example close to home. Mexico's 5G networks operate
on frequencies between 3.35 and 3.45 GHz, at full power, less
than 30 miles away from Fort Bliss in Texas, where the U.S.
operates ground-based radar systems in the lower third band.
Likewise, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines also
have 5G networks that operate between the 3.3 and the 3.45 GHz
band.
Now, given the fact that in much of the rest of the world
there are commercial players operating in those bands, is it
credible that our military cannot operate in the Pacific, and
we cannot operate if the commercial sector is operating in
those bands?
Mr. Pearl. As long as the process is done responsibly,
absolutely not, it will not cripple the military.
Chairman Cruz. Let me ask you, finally, what would the
consequences to national security be if China wins the race for
5G and 6G, and if the global telecommunication network is
Huawei and Chinese-based, is that good or bad for national
security, and if bad, how bad?
Mr. Pearl. It is catastrophic for national security as well
as both DoD and the intelligence community, because we will not
have access to advanced, trusted, secure technology. It is true
that the U.S. will still ban Huawei, but the rest of the world
will use Huawei. It will become more advanced. And it is not
only telecommunications networks, which are obviously very
important. But the plan the PRC has with Huawei is to leverage
its control over telecom up the technology sack, so to be able
to control other technologies.
So I would say it is an absolutely catastrophic risk.
Chairman Cruz. And soldiers use cellphones.
Mr. Pearl. Yes, absolutely, and that is something that we
have discovered in Ukraine is that a lot of these mobile
technologies can be incredibly valuable. They have been used to
triangulate drone attacks. They have been used to create
accurate geographic maps of the combat zones. So we are already
seeing how these cellphones and mobile technology is critical.
Chairman Cruz. Ranking Member Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman., and again,
thanks for this hearing. I actually so appreciate the panel of
witnesses. Dr. Hazlett, I think lots of members of this
committee could give a critique of the FCC and it would
probably mirror yours, in the issues of challenges of that
agency in addressing our most urgent needs, and probably the
fact of good broadband mapping lacking. And even when Microsoft
produced one by ZIP code they still did not use it. So there is
a long line of concern here about the current FCC structure.
Dr. Baylis, I love that you are training the next
generation of young people to understand this dynamic, because
we will need it. And there is a reason that the Information Age
is just sucking up everybody out of college, now that you can
produce, so keep producing them.
Mr. Pearl, thank you for this crystallization of, I think,
your exact words are, quote, ``ensuring that we preserve
critical military spectrum base capabilities while creating
opportunities for commercial access to spectrum.''
So that is it. That is what we are trying to do. That is
what we tried to do in the bill that DoD and NTIA and the
Department of Commerce agreed to.
So the challenge becomes--and thank you, Mr. Clark, for
your football analogy, of the away game, because I do think
that really does give you a picture of what warfighters face.
But the one thing I struggle with is that, if you could, I
feel like people misunderstand where we are. I am not saying we
are playing a Peewee League, but let's say we are playing at
the K-12 league right now. But the shift in the dynamics and
capabilities of the warfare that is going to take place, based
on spectrum, you are not going to be in K-12 football. You are
going to be in a Super Bowl. And how do we get people here to
understand, as you said, you cannot unilaterally disarm if the
ascending technical capabilities and challenges.
And I wonder if you could address white space. A lot of
people talk about, oh, well, we could just have dynamic
spectrum sharing, and you could easily. But there are lots of
ways that right now that is really detrimental to our effort.
Mr. Clark. Right, yes, Senator Cantwell. So a couple of
things on that. One is that the military is going to have to be
much more dynamic in its use of the spectrum. So we are going
to have to maneuver a lot more in the spectrum to avoid where
our adversaries are looking for us, or to get to where our
adversaries are so we can jam them. Using some of the
technologies that Dr. Baylis is developing, we will eventually
be able to both do those operations as well as maintain some
ability to have commercial users operate on that same spectrum.
But we are not there yet. Those technologies are not fielded
yet.
The reason being that our opponents, like we see in
Ukraine, it is a constant cat-and-mouse game in the
electromagnetic spectrum. So you operate in one part of the
spectrum, you quickly get detected and jammed, and you have to
maneuver to another part in order to be able to continue to
communicate with your allies, be able to continue sending
targets, and attacking your enemy.
So this cat-and-mouse game in the spectrum requires you to
be maneuvering back and forth, and you cannot be isolated to a
very narrow band of spectrum during operations, and we have to
train to be able to conduct those same types of operations.
Senator Cantwell. But we are going to grow in complexity
here, right?
Mr. Clark. Right.
Senator Cantwell. We are just at a very elementary level--
--
Mr. Clark. Right.
Senator Cantwell.--and now it is going to grow in
complexity. So I do not think, Mr. Pearl, you are not
suggesting that we mandate auctions before we do all those
technical feasibility studies, are you?
Mr. Pearl. No. I mean, I think we need to mandate clearing
targets and then do the analysis. But certainly before you hold
the auction you need to do the work of making sure that we are
not going to interfere with essential military capabilities.
Senator Cantwell. Which is what I think DoD was requesting
of us and why they supported the legislation.
But Mr. Clark, back to this work, hard work, like AMBIT and
CBRS, how do we go forward here with those ideas? Because in
the one case it is Navy spectrum, right, and we hear a lot of
great things about this. But there are paths forward, but do we
have to test bed? What is it that we have to do to get this
right, and how do we do, as Mr. Pearl is suggesting, this more
collaborative effort on the innovation that the private sector
can drive?
Mr. Clark. Well, there is a lot of new modeling simulation
tools, and obviously test bedding these capabilities is going
to be really important. So there is a path forward to be able
to identify the opportunities for spectrum sharing. But physics
comes into it also, because certain parts of the spectrum just
are not going to lend themselves to things like missile defense
or to electronic warfare--I have to jam an opponent where his
system operates. So we will be limited by physics and being
able to just maneuver anywhere in the spectrum to avoid the
commercial users.
But within those spaces where we can use the spectrum
effectively in the military, we need to figure out if there is
a way we can coexist or share.
Senator Cantwell. Yes, and the Chinese just falsely kick
them out, right. They just control everything. I mean, I guess
you could have that hierarchy. We do not want that hierarchy.
Mr. Clark. China's approach to spectrum management is they
have PLA personnel embedded inside the radio management
centers, and in industry who then maneuver the commercial users
out of the spectrum whenever the military wants to conduct
routine training operations, development, testing, et cetera.
Senator Cantwell. Yes. Well, that is our competitor, and
that is why we have to beat them. So we have to figure out how
to take care of this defense issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Wicker.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Thank you. Mr. Pearl, before we auction we
have still got to do the work. Could you briefly explain what
that means, and how long will that take?
Mr. Pearl. Yes. I think it is important to have clearing
targets in the legislation of how much we are intending to make
available. I think that really focuses the process. But doing
the work occurs at several different levels. The most important
level is the engineers from the different agencies. The laws of
physics are not political or partisan. The laws of physics are
what they are, and you need engineers who are going to share
information and work together. And I have seen just the most
brilliant solutions come out of that, in some of these bands
that we have talked about.
Senator Wicker. Including engineers from DoD?
Mr. Pearl. Yes, absolutely, including engineers from DoD.
But you need the White House leadership to work with the heads
of the departments and agencies so that the engineers know to
share information, to be cooperative, to work together. Because
what you do not want is a situation where--and there have been
examples--where there is not that collaboration, and as a
result oftentimes decisions get made by the FCC or others that
are less than optimal.
Senator Wicker. OK. You do not speak for CSIS. You are
giving us your own views. Are there persons, learned persons,
within CSIS who take the same position as the admirals and
generals from the Defense Department, that just absolutely no
way this can be shared? Do you have colleagues that believe
that?
Mr. Pearl. So I think Clayton Swope, who does a lot of our
work on the defense side would certainly advocate for some of
the defense equities, although I would not necessarily say that
he takes their side on everything.
Senator Wicker. So you are saying--and we could perhaps get
him here, or I could call him--but perhaps he would even say
there is some scenario in which some of the spectrum could be
shared and not
Mr. Pearl. Yes. I think that there is a willingness on the
part, through CSIS, to find those practical solutions so that
we can accomplish that.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Baylis, do you speak for SMART Hub or
for yourself today?
Dr. Baylis. That is a good question. I believe I have
really tried to consult my team.
Senator Wicker. Is there a minority view there that does
not agree with you?
Dr. Baylis. I do not believe so. I believe we are unified
in the sense that we are trying to develop adaptive and
reconfigurable technology to solve the very spectrum crisis we
are convening.
Senator Wicker. Would it be helpful if you had somebody
inside the team who was the devil's advocate and could bounce
these absolute objections against your people?
Dr. Baylis. Devil's advocate as to what?
Senator Wicker. I will tell you. When we get the military
in the SCIF, I am not giving away any secrets, they say it is
just absolutely impossible, we cannot give an inch, and
anything that the Chairman might advocate would be detrimental
to national security. Am I pretty much correct that that is
their testimony?
Dr. Baylis. I believe we have objective people on our team
that would give me, and do give me, you know, contrasting views
when they need to be given. I think we have got a team that is
working to try to get the best technological solution to the
problem, and I think that is our sole goal.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Clark, tell us about the idea of
finding a solution by compression, and compare and contrast
that to relocating.
Mr. Clark. Yes. Great point, Senator. Compression of
spectral efficiency is looking at ways to use digital
technology to narrow the beam width or bandwidth that a sensor
needs for, for example, a radar, to be able to put enough
energy downrange to be able to detect a target and track it. So
using new digital technologies we are able to reduce the amount
of spectrum that a sensor might need to be effective.
Senator Wicker. And there is a history to this.
Mr. Clark. Yes. Over time the DoD has done this with
different sensor technologies. As we replace and recapitalize
the new generation of radars that is coming into DoD right now,
they are more spectrally efficient.
Senator Wicker. Supplement your answer on that. Can you
briefly talk about Mr. Baylis' reference to live interference
notices?
Mr. Clark. Yes. So the idea would be can you, in real time,
be able to get a notification. Normally what happens when you
try to deconflict spectrum is you just detect the other user
out there, and then you have to respond to that. You would want
to augment that with a notification that comes from that other
user to automatically tell you, I am going to use the spectrum
now, and here is the level and power and the frequency I am
going to be at. And then the systems can coordinate between
themselves. So instead of simply responding to what they see in
the environment, they are communicating with each other to
coordinate their use of the spectrum in real time.
Senator Wicker. Do you subscribe to his point of view in
that regard?
Mr. Clark. I think, definitely, that technology is
certainly viable. The challenge will be getting to implement it
into the defense systems that are multiple generations, and in
some cases, old.
Senator Wicker. Just quickly, if Dr. Hazlett and Mr. Pearl
could respond and perhaps supplement on the record as to that
question.
Dr. Hazlett. Sure. This is an ongoing problem of a general
order, and it is having an unpriced asset, and at a zero price,
if opportunity costs are not considered, of course there is
going to be over-consumption and no give. But the fact is there
are social costs. There are economic costs. There are also
technology costs in terms of taking the tradeoffs for
compression, better radios, better training, better software.
There are other alternatives here that everybody in the
room should have the incentives to pursue, and that is where
there has been some progress and there have been real good
allocations made that really do bring efficiency. But to say
that we are not going to look at efficiency, yet we need more
and more and more, you are undermining the quest for
efficiency. That is undermining both civilian and military
applications.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Chairman, I realize I am way over time.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Fischer.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the
panel for being here today.
We know the context of this hearing about whether and how
to use spectrum in a reconciliation bill. One key focus I am
hearing is on revenues from the new spectrum pipeline that is
only for exclusive commercial use. I want to stress for my
colleagues that we must also weigh the cost and the timelines
to relocate existing users for this type of pipeline.
The Department of Defense is one of the users, with missile
defense radars and satellite constellations providing critical
capabilities. DoD losing access to its spectrum bands entirely,
which is what vacating or clearing spectrum means, comes with
huge risks and will end up costing us more. Replacing national
security systems, if that is even possible, would cost hundreds
of billions of dollars, and we all know it would take decades
to be able to finish.
So a pipeline estimated to raise, by CBO, based on current
proposals, between $10 and $15 billion in a 10-year budget
window may actually take 20 years to transition. I agree there
are technologies that could make sharing spectrum possible. But
DoD must have a seat at the table when its spectrum bands are
studied and tested. Otherwise, we lose them, we risk losing
access to this finite resource forever.
Mr. Clark, what specific military capabilities could we use
if lawmakers on this committee do not fully consider these
realities before pressing ahead?
Mr. Clark. Well, Senator, I think the key capability would
be sensing technologies needing for air and missile defense. So
in the lower S-band, lower X-band----
Senator Fischer. Could you explain what S and X-band are?
Mr. Clark. Right. So the lower part of the 3 GHz range in
the S-band is really important for air and missile defense,
because it gives you that combination of resolution and range
that allows a radar to be pretty effective at tracking incoming
targets. And then we need radars that operate up in the X-band,
which is the 8 to 12 GHz range, but the lower part of that
generally, to be able to differentiate small targets and be
able to target them and be able to direct an interceptor like a
Patriot missile to go hit them and shoot them down.
Senator Fischer. So we have to see them and identify them.
Mr. Clark. Right. So you need to both see them and then
target them and track them, and that requires essentially two
different sensor technologies to be either combined in the same
radar or be in different radars. That is how the Patriot system
works. That is how the AEGIS system works that the Navy has.
So if we were to relocate out of those parts of the
spectrum, you lose the physics that allows those sensors to
work effectively, and we would have to either have more sensors
or come up with a different approach.
Senator Fischer. Right.
Mr. Clark. So that is why sharing might be an effective
alternative. But relocating them entirely may not be feasible
because of the physics.
Senator Fischer. You know, Mr. Clark, I have concerns about
the role that China has played in influencing our spectrum
policy in this country. We are being told that we have to keep
up with China, that they have far more mid-band spectrum
available, that their carriers can use the lower 3 for mobile
networks, and that there have been no negative impacts to
China's national security.
Well, you know, in reality, China only has 10 more MHz of
mid-band spectrum available for mobile networks. China also
recently imposed restrictions in its lower 3 band, limiting
commercial access to that low power which is indoor use. And
yet we still hear that China comparison from carrier and their
effort to gain exclusive use of these bands, which are needed
for our radar systems.
If the U.S. blinds its radars purely for economic reasons
that only helps foreign adversaries like China. Do you share my
concerns?
Mr. Clark. I do. I think China could be playing a very
sophisticated game here, where they are looking to get us to
vacate parts of the spectrum that we need for our military
sensors while they retain that access. So we unilaterally
disarm while they are able to retain their capabilities,
because as I said before, they have the ability to move
commercial users out of the spectrum basically whenever they
need to for their routine government purposes.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
submit some questions for the record to Mr. Clark about
spectrum management and how that also impacts what we are
talking about today. Thank you.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, thank
you to Ranking Member Cantwell, for this important hearing. I
know this has been a good discussion about spectrum. I had a
Judiciary hearing at the same time. But this is specifically
important to our 911 system. I co-chair the Next Gen 911 Caucus
with Senator Budd, and we are dedicated to expanding and
improving emergency communications infrastructure.
Yet the FTC spectrum authority expired in March 2023, as we
all know, for the first time in nearly 30 years, and I am
concerned about this lapse in spectrum authority with the
increasing needs for emergency authority.
An estimated 240 million calls are made to 911 centers
annually. However, this critical public service relies on
outdated technologies. I have led legislation with Senator
Cortez Masto to modernize America's 911 system, to help enable
911 call centers to better handle text messages, pictures,
videos, and modern communications.
Dr. Baylis, can you give an example of an innovation at
your lab that could help make our 911 system stronger and more
resilient?
Dr. Baylis. So I think this depends on what types of
interference the 911 systems are receiving. But an innovation
that we are finding our lab that could really be helpful--well,
there are two of them. One is we have got reconfigurable
circuitry that can reconfigure within under a millisecond, and
that would allow us to actually frequencies and then optimize
our performance at a new frequency.
What happens is your circuit is designed to operate at the
old frequency, so if you change frequencies you may drain your
batter because you do not have any efficiency, you may not get
the transit power you need. So that is an example of one thing
we are doing, is reconfigurable circuitry.
And then I think that the Dynamic Spectrum Management
System innovations we are working on, as well as our in-situ
measurement capability, which would allow us to actually see
when we are causing interference and change our transmissions,
and be able to plug AI in through that. Those would help 911
systems as well as any system that is trying to reconfigure.
Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar. You know, just recently, in the
aftermath of Hurricane Helene, many affected areas experienced
local communications blackouts because the flooding was severe
enough to override the Internet providers' disaster contingency
plans. How could we leverage innovation in spectrum management
to ensure that our wireless broadband networks are more
resilient when things happen like natural disasters?
Dr. Baylis. I am not aware of this particular. I did not
research this. I would have to go in and see exactly what the
problem was in terms of the technical lapse and then try to be
able to bring a team to solve it. If it was an interference
issue or frequencies not being available, then I think our team
has the solutions we could deal with it.
Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm, and getting the spectrum thing
set would be helpful, if we had more----
Dr. Baylis. I think in the sense that technology is behind
regulation right now, technology needs to be developed, and I
think that is where our lapse is, really. I really believe that
investment needs to be made in technology rather than just re-
regulating and re-regulating, because we are slicing the bread
thinner and thinner and thinner until it crumbles.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Mr. Pearl and Mr. Clark,
during President Trump's first administration there were
interagency disputes regarding spectrum. We have seen these
interagency disputes through Democratic administrations, as
well. Recognizing the importance of providing more order, the
National Spectrum Strategy was released in November 2023, and
its implementation plan in March 2024.
Mr. Pearl, can you discuss why it is important to continue
to improve planning and coordination, and then, Mr. Clark, how
can this administration cultivate more agency buy-in to avoid
the sorts of disputes that have arisen, especially when it
comes to the Department of Defense. Mr. Pearl?
Mr. Pearl. You cannot work out these issues on an
engineering level unless you have the proper interagency
coordination, and that has to come from the White House really
demanding that the agencies work together and participate in a
robust way, and have the right engineers who are there to work
out the problems, and really mandate that they share
information. That is something that we have run into in the
past, where an agency that wants to continue to use the
spectrum is not willing to play ball and share information so
they can work together collaboratively.
And then you need a really healthy interagency process
where it starts at the lower levels and eventually escalates if
you cannot solve problems. That is incredibly helpful because
if you just have the White House weigh in without having all
the information and having that refined set of issues that
comes from the interagency process, then in some cases the
right decisions do not get made.
Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm. Yes, we are experiencing a
little bit of that right now, but I am not going to go there.
OK, Mr. Clark.
Mr. Clark. It requires leadership, both in the White House
but also in the department. My discussion with the leadership
of the current team in the Defense Department showed that they
are very willing to engage in this interagency deliberation to
figure out the best way to use the spectrum. And there are a
lot of modeling and simulation tools that Dr. Baylis and others
have that could help us to figure out what are the
opportunities for sharing, and even coexistence, in adjacent
spectra.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Blackburn.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for this hearing. I think it is one of the things we need to be
focused on is what is our leadership going to be as a nation in
this area.
So one of my concerns, and I have talked about this with
the Chairman, is what I see as spectrum squatting, with our
Federal agencies. They control most of the spectrum assets, and
they are failing to optimize this. And I have, for years,
advocated that we do a good inventory, so we know who is using
what spectrum, where, and then be able to recoup it. Because it
does not matter what project is being worked on, whether it is
wireless, whether it is the MUOS system, whether it is LEO--
everybody in the DoD is working with the private sector,
because they are leading the innovation. And for Federal
agencies, Mr. Chairman, to squat on this spectrum, and to not
use it, and to not want to yield it back, and not want anybody
to know what they have got, it disadvantages us as a nation.
And we know that recouping it, going through the auction
process, would yield billions and billions of dollars, as much
as $100 billion, and we need that because we are in a race with
China when it comes to leading in this area. And we do not have
time to waste, and we do not have time for squatters to bicker
with what they are going to do with this spectrum.
Mr. Pearl, let me come to you. This last World Radio
Conference was a hot mess for the U.S. We were unprepared. We
had not done our homework. And if we are going to continue to
be a world leader, we are going to have to be prepared. You
mentioned this is in your testimony, and I appreciated that you
did, because I think it was embarrassing that we were
unprepared for the leadership road.
So I want to hear from you, and if you want to submit this
in writing I would appreciate that, but the lessons we should
have learned from this last one and the steps that we should be
taking to prepare for the 2027 WRC.
Mr. Pearl. Yes. So I think one of the lessons we learned
is, so the next WRC is WRC 2027, and that is tomorrow in real
terms, which is the preparatory process in incredibly quick in
arriving at positions. It is going to give you a huge advantage
vis-a-vis China.
So I think that it is just important to have Congress, when
it reauthorizes FCC auction authority, as well as the White
House to make sure that these issues are resolved early and
that you do not have the U.S. coming in late with positions.
I also think that it is important as we are----
Senator Blackburn. And I think that we know what those
positions are, rather than squishing through the whole thing.
That would be helpful.
Mr. Pearl. Yep.
Senator Blackburn. OK. Homework for each of you. You know,
there are disputes, center agency disputes, about how to use
spectrum. So each of you have touched on this, but in writing I
want from you what your recommendation would be to resolve
these disputes. We have to recoup the spectrum. We have got to
look at how we slice these bands and put more--Mr. Clark, as
you were saying--into that bandwidth. So help us with your best
thoughts on that.
Mr. Pearl, I want to come back to you on AI, because when
we talk about AI and quantum and the utilizations that are
there, we know more spectrum is needed. And in Tennessee, we
have--I repeatedly hear from innovators, whether they are
working logistics, they are working on something for DOE or
DoD, or health care, they talk a good bit about this.
But with AI, I think it is important to get on the record
how spectrum constraints would actually hamper AI development
and deployment.
Mr. Pearl. Yes, I am absolutely happy to submit that on the
record. I think one of the important points is it would hamper
things not only on the commercial side but also on the DoD side
of things, where there are really interesting AI applications
for first responders in terrorist attacks and things like that,
and leveraging it to make the right decisions. And that is
something that is directly applicable to what DoD does in the
battlefield.
Another example is, you know, we have talked about
spectrum, but to really advance what we need AI to do is to be
able to take all the sources of information--spectrum, OPC,
cyberspace, thermal imaging--just all of these things and
generate real actionable insights. And we cannot do that unless
we have those commercial technologies and we are winning the AI
race with China.
Senator Blackburn. And I will add to that the satellite
systems.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Rosen.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chair Cruz, Ranking Member
Cantwell. Thank you to the witnesses for all of your work, your
education, what you bring to the table here because our
Nation's spectrum we know is one of our Nation's most important
resources. So spectrum policy must be thoughtful, it has to be
deliberative, and unlocking innovation while protecting our
national security.
I share some of my colleagues' concerns that this
Administration and some of the majority want to sidestep having
a deliberative, fact-based process, and instead advance
spectrum proposals merely to raise as much revenue as possible
to fund massive tax breaks for billionaires.
So we must instead take our time to find the right policy
that ensures that revenues from spectrum sales actually lower
costs for the American people. Last Congress, this committee
advanced legislation to use spectrum proceeds to lower my state
of Nevada, Nevada's Internet bills, to help our first
responders that is so important, and invest in the R&D that we
need to share spectrum safely with the Department of Defense.
That is a foundation we can and should build upon.
And we know there are key challenges between the DoD,
commercial operations. One thing that is particularly
concerning, that I have been thinking a lot about, is dynamic
spectrum sharing and where we are at with that. Mr. Clark, then
Mr. Baylis, where are we really at, in reality, with our
capabilities on dynamic spectrum sharing, and how can we
deploy, when we get there, dynamic spectrum sharing, to ensure
that efforts to expand access do not undermine military access?
We still want to unlock possibilities, but is it still a
concept? Are we testing it? Where are we at in the dynamic
spectrum sharing role, please?
Mr. Clark. Yes, Senator. Dynamic spectrum sharing is a
relatively mature technology at this point. It is being used in
applications like the Citizens Band Radio Service, where along
the coast we have dynamic spectrum sharing between Navy radars
that use the spectrum and then also 5G providers that operate
in that same spectrum.
There are obviously new technologies that are being
employed, that Dr. Baylis has done a lot of work in, to make it
even more sophisticated in terms of how that spectrum sharing
happens----
Senator Rosen. And more nimble.
Mr. Clark.--and how seamless it can be, right, and how you
can start to do that in much narrower parts of spectrum because
it gives the ability for both users to jump around into
different parts of the spectrum much more agilely than they
could today.
The challenge is always the implementation, because now we
have got to take those new technologies and got to bake them
in, in the case of the military, military systems that span
multiple generations of technologies. So we have analog radars
still in service, and analog communication systems that do not
lend themselves. They are on the digital back end.
Senator Rosen. So we would need a bridge to get there. We
would need a bridge to get there.
Mr. Clark. Right. We are going through this
recapitalization of the U.S. military's spectrum-dependent
systems that will, over time, make them better able to take
advantage of these technologies. And the question is how
quickly can we accelerate that in order to make dynamic
spectrum sharing more of a reality.
Senator Rosen. Thank you.
Dr. Baylis. So thanks for the question. Incumbent DoD
systems need technology development, and I think I want to
focus on that for a minute because in the research question a
lot of times we are very focused on helping the commercial
wireless systems be more adaptive. SMART Hub has really taken
what I think is a very unique focus, and looking at the
incumbent systems, actually how do we improve the DoD systems?
Given where the DoD systems are today, we want to see those
move to an adaptive and reconfigurable model. So we are working
on flexible circuitry. We are working on flexible communication
strategies. We are trying to figure out how can we put AI into
actually predicting the spectrum, so these incumbent systems we
can hopefully, and with our industry partnerships, we have got
a quick pathway to put technology into the hands of the DoD to
facilitate the types of economic growth that our Nation needs
from the spectral bands.
So hopefully the technology development is a game-charger,
where we can have our cake and eat it too.
Senator Rosen. Well, to your point then, what are the risks
associated with mandating the movement of certain bands, or the
alterations of certain bands, prior to having first done these
studies about what we can and cannot do, and how we need maybe
a measured approach to get some of these legacy systems where
they can be nimble and more adaptive?
Dr. Baylis. Technology development is, I think, the big
elephant in the room, and we need to address it, because if we
do not we can do a lot of things to posture but we are not
going to make improvements because we are just slicing the
bread thinner and thinner. By having adaptive and
reconfigurable technology, what Congress needs to do is to fund
work going forward with entities like SMART Hub, because we are
going to bring it to the DoD quickly, and that will be a game-
changer. We will not have to have these discussions anymore
because the technology will supersede, way supersede what we
have today that is available. And it can be done in a
reasonably short period of time.
Senator Rosen. So investing in smart, more things that you
are doing in SMART Hub. Thank you very much.
Dr. Baylis. Thank you.
Senator Rosen. I appreciate it.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Budd.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED BUDD,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Senator Budd. Thank you, Chairman, and again I thank the
panel for being here. This is a fascinating testimony.
I think we are all trying to find the ``both/and'' here. I
mean, how do we find the revenues from the spectrum auction
that is much needed, and how do we secure and protect national
defense.
Dr. Baylis, I want to follow up. Thanks for your work at
SMART Hub. I did not hear, between Mr. Clark's answer then your
answer, what is the timeline for dynamic spectrum sharing? If
you saw great promise, how far out before an actual practical
implementation of that, in your best estimation?
Dr. Baylis. Yes. I would say as fast as possible. We are in
a national----
Senator Budd. Do you have years----
Dr. Baylis. We are in a national crisis right now in terms
of spectrum. We really are. And so when you have an emergency
you try to fix the problem as quickly as possible, and that is
what we are doing. We really are trying to work as quickly as
possible.
I will say that having a center like this, where we have
convened the Nation's top 25 spectrum researchers, in my
opinion, to solve a problem, you have got everybody reading off
the same sheet of music, working together. You have got policy
and economics experts alongside circuit experts. That is really
going to speed it up. I say that is going to give you a three-
time speed-up rather than a program director funding one-off
projects somewhere.
So I will say we can really accelerate it. May be able to
put a time scale, I would say as quickly as possible. I really
do not want to give you an exact number, just because I do not
know exactly what that number is. But I can tell you at our 6-
month demo we showed tremendous progress.
Senator Budd. Mr. Clark, do you have a number?
Mr. Clark. I can give you a number. To get these
technologies incorporated into the military systems that need
them it would take 10 to 20 years, because you are going to
take these ships offline, these aircraft offline, these radars
offline, to go upgrade them. And we cannot have them all do it
at once, obviously. So it takes time to run them all through
the process of being upgraded.
Senator Budd. Thank you. Mr. Baylis, you mentioned that
Congress needs to fund some more research on this. Do you have
a dollar amount on that? Is there something that you are
particularly asking for to do more research in dynamic spectrum
sharing?
Dr. Baylis. Well, thanks for asking. SMART Hub is annually
funded by an appropriation right now. We have gotten one so
far, and we are in this bill coming from the House side, with
Mr. Sessions, and we are asking for $5 million for this year.
We have been working off of a $5 million budget.
Senator Budd. Should industry also bear some of the burden
of this?
Dr. Baylis. So our technology transfer model actually is
going to line up investors very early on in the process. And
also industry, we are building industry partnerships quickly,
so that essentially investors will start pouring their funds in
when they see the technology. And we are already building DoD
contractor pipelines that will not only put the technology in
the hands of warfighter, but through this pipeline we will fund
more research.
So we have got an ecosystem that just needs a runway to get
the plane taking off.
Senator Budd. Thank you.
Dr. Baylis. And we are not going to be, hopefully, coming
to you infinitely for money. That is not my goal. The reason
for me not stating a year is not for me to say, hey, we have
got to continue this infinitely, with support. I think I just
want to be cautious about promising anything and not delivering
on it.
Senator Budd. You did not give us a year but you did give
me a dollar, so thank you very much.
Mr. Pearl, a question for you. I appreciate your statement
that spectrum is critical to economic security, and I am
quoting you, because it provides a foundation for U.S.
companies to innovate. So what is your assessment of when
innovation might be stifled, giving the increasing data
traffic?
Mr. Pearl. So I think that it has not happened yet because
we had some recent auctions in the last administration. But I
would say probably in the next 2 years we would see some real
impacts. Although I would say Congress has to act much sooner
than that, because it takes time, once auction authority is
restored, to have the auctions. But in terms of when you will
really have an impact on our networks to handle the loads, I
think it could be in the next year or two.
Senator Budd. So would upgrades to existing 5G, would that
buy us some time?
Mr. Pearl. It could but, you know, there are some fiscal
constraints on that, which is that the companies spent $190
billion so far upgrading their networks for 5G, and that has
been great. That got us through COVID. We have all these
wonderful, fixed networks. So just their ability to do that
might be constrained, and it could be that spectrum is the only
solution at this particular time.
Senator Budd. Thank you. And Mr. Pearl, continuing, in your
experience in Federal spectrum management, how important is
White House leadership on this, and do we need more and more
clear leadership from the White House than we had in the
previous administration on this issue?
Dr. Baylis. So White House leadership is absolutely
critical, although I would say that in my view it does start
with Congress in terms of establishing some clearing targets
and some guidance. That really strengthens the hand of the
White House, and working with the agencies. But yes, without
having, from the President on down, and having the willingness
from people like the National Security Advisor, Director of
National Economic Council to actually spend time on these
issues and prioritize them with everything else that is going
on. Because that is ultimately how you get things done and
ensure that everyone in the interagency has their marching
orders of how to make progress.
Senator Budd. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Dr. Baylis, you told Senator Budd
a second ago, you said that we are facing a national crisis in
spectrum. Could you articulate explicitly what you mean by
that, what national crisis we are facing?
Dr. Baylis. We have applications that need to have
spectrum, spectrum real estate, so to speak, and we do not have
enough bandwidth for all of them. So the way we are currently
doing spectrum, by fixed allocations of spectrum, is just not
going to work moving forward. So we need technology to support
the movement of devices in real time between spectral bands,
and it is a paradigm shift. We really need a paradigm shift
badly, where we have got too much trying to use too little.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Schmitt.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC SCHMITT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really do
believe that over the last 3 years the U.S. has ceded a lot of
leadership in spectrum policy and 5G innovation, both
domestically and internationally. That is not good news. Under
the first Trump administration, we went from stagnation to
global leadership. Congress passed--I was not here but Congress
passed the Secure and Trusted Networks Act. But in the time
since then, the last 4 years, the Biden administration's
failure to act and focus on divisive things like DEI has really
set us back.
I am one of the members that serves both on Armed Services,
with Senator Budd also, and the Commerce Committee, so there is
a bit of a balancing act, I think, that goes with this. And
while I think DoD should have a voice in this process, I
strongly believe that Congress is has already established the
NCIA as the primary authority for spectrum allocation, and it
must lead rather than act as a rubber stamp for DoD. I think
that is one of the issues. National security has been heard
today. It is very multi-faceted, economic security is national
security, and China is coming for our lunch, in more than one
way.
I wanted to ask just a few questions, and I will try not to
ask questions that have already been asked, but it is possible
I might. Dr. Baylis, when we talk about spectrum management and
enhancing the ability of commercial and defense users to sort
of coexist in those shared bands, what role and how far have we
come, and how far do we have to go for that to be really
effective with AI, as these advancements proceed?
Dr. Baylis. So it is interesting. AI can be used in
multiple levels in the new spectrum sharing--or I should say
the new adaptive and reconfigurable paradigm. One level is to
assess, predict the spectrum that is going to be available for
our use, and having this technology in the DoD and commercial
hands is very useful.
The second is actually inside the devices themselves, to be
able to optimize their performance, to make sure a radar
transmitter can reconfigure its circuitry after it has to move
in frequency to maximize its range so it can detect targets far
out.
We can use AI to help us reconfigure the circuits quickly
and take measurements on board the device. So a lot of our
technology development is actually equipped with this plug-in
of AI. In fact, we have one of the world's AI experts,
Professor Bob Marks, who has written great books on AI that
Congress actually is on the recommended reading list. He is
part of SMART Hub and working very actively with us to infuse
AI into our decisionmaking for our spectrum adaptive and
reconfigurable devices.
Senator Schmitt. And, of course, that allows you to
maximize, right? It allows you to actually maximize the bands
of spectrum, right, as opposed to having maybe overutilization
in one place and lack of utilization somewhere else. It is a
predictive modeling.
Dr. Baylis. It really could. And I think AI has tremendous
power, and we need to marshal it for being able to use the
spectrum efficiently and to adapt our technologies to where the
spectrum is maximally being shared.
Senator Schmitt. And I will throw this open for any one of
the four. One of the things on a topic like this, to try to ask
the question. Back home, I actually think this is one of those
topics that it just does not come up in a town hall. It does
not come up on the stump. But it is of critical importance for
our country.
So it is with those kinds of topics then, how do you, if
you were in our position, how would you sort of crystallize why
this issue is so important for the American people? And I would
open it up to any one of you.
Dr. Baylis. I will take this quickly. I have to go out and
tell people what we are doing, and one of the things that I say
is spectrum is the most important dimension of battle. If you
can dominate the spectrum, you are going to win the war. So
from the DoD side it is unquestionable.
In fact, the Space Force, we are talking with Space Force
people now. The Space Force, the only dimension of battle is
spectrum. There are no tanks. There are no soldiers on the
ground. It is just spectrum, and we are going to have to be
dominant in spectrum. So from the DoD side that is really
important.
I think from the commercial side, we are more connected
than we have ever been through spectrum. We learned that during
the pandemic, because we had to use the wireless spectrum to
connect with loved ones and other things. So I think our
society certainly sees the need for wireless devices.
Senator Schmitt. Anybody else?
Mr. Clark. I think the challenge comes into play where we
have to afford the military the ability to be agile in the
spectrum and be able to maneuver and keep our adversaries off
balance, which some of the technology that Dr. Baylis is
developing could help us to do. So if we were to field those it
would make our military more agile when it comes to sharing
spectrum at home and also more agile when it comes to creating
problems for our enemies overseas.
So that is really important. It will take time to get to
the point where those technologies can be incorporated into our
military systems. Until then, we are going to have to have some
hybrid approach.
Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Hickenlooper.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HICKENLOOPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you
all for being here. I appreciate how busy you all are.
I think this is one of the key discussions we are going to
have here all year. The Spectrum Relocation Fund, let me start
with that, provides funding to Federal agencies to research the
feasibility of modifying and, if necessary, upgrading the
Federal systems that use spectrum. So SRF, at least as we see
it, it seems limited by only reimbursing a Federal agency for
necessary costs to update a system of, quote/unquote,
``comparable'' capability. So not the next level but comparable
capability. Many Federal agencies have stated that the SRF
limits their ability to upgrade their systems that use
spectrum, just to be able to continue fulfilling their
missions.
Mr. Pearl, why don't I start with you. Do you believe SRF
could be reformed to better incentivize agencies to share or
reallocate spectrum? Why or why not?
Mr. Pearl. Yes, and I would put it stronger and say that
SRF must be reformed, I think if we are going to resolve these
issues.
Senator Hickenlooper. I was trying to say that myself, but
I was being generous
Mr. Pearl. But yes, I think you identified one of the key
issues, which is that the agencies need to be able to receive
upgrades and have more advanced systems. Some of these
capabilities we are talking about could be paid for with
auction funds.
I think it is also necessary to give NTIA the authority to
get funding in order to do studies. Right now, only the
agencies can get SRF money to do studies. But as several
Senators have said, it is really important, and the NTIA
engineers are really looking at this from an honest broker
perspective and trying to get to the right answer. So allowing
them to do that would be really helpful.
And then I think the last thing is that there is a
technical panel under the legislation--NTIA, FCC, OMB--and they
have proved what the agency is going to do when they do the
study. But they need more oversight of the process after that,
because when things to off the rails and the study is not going
to be useful, you need that ability for the other agencies and
the other engineers to weigh in and get things back on track.
Senator Hickenlooper. Absolutely. I could not agree more.
Dr. Baylis, your testimony underscores how collaboration in
the academic community and within government and the academic
community helps enhance this Spectrum Innovation Center you
lead. You see firsthand how our universities educate and create
that workforce pipeline that we need to maintain our
leadership, in all STEM fields--computer scientists to advanced
cybersecurity of the wireless networks, radio frequency
engineers--to develop new technologies for sharing spectrum and
getting more efficient usage.
As we debate, as Congress debates how to study and share
and reallocate spectrum, and try to be as fair and look at the
greatest good for the greatest number of people, how do you
highlight the importance of ensuring that U.S. grows a trained
spectrum and cyber work force?
Dr. Baylis. Thank you. I appreciate the question. Workforce
development is one of the important things we do, and I think
it starts with the fact that our faculty, our staff
researchers, our students that are on this project are all U.S.
citizens. You will not find that in many academic centers. But
we are a bunch of patriots, because we want to see this country
succeed, and we want to see this country be the best in
wireless technology, so it starts there.
I think we have to develop an American pipeline of students
that is going to be able to work on the future spectrum
paradigm. We have been doing a lot of efforts, one of which the
National Science Foundation is currently funding, where we
actually have undergraduate students from around the country
apply to and get the opportunity to come to a 4-day residential
workshop on one of our campuses. And we will be holding four of
them this summer. Actually one in your state, at Colorado State
University, is one of our universities, and we will be holding
one there. So you are welcome to come and check it out if you
would like.
Senator Hickenlooper. I will do that.
Dr. Baylis. We are also involved with the Army Research
Laboratory, who we are even commissioned through. We have a
SMART Hub fellows program, where we actually place students at
the lab, working with some of our brightest minds in the
laboratory, and working with each other so that they can build
cross-disciplinary expertise in spectrum. And we are expanding
that to some other agencies now, also.
So definitely that is a big part of bringing in the new
adaptive and reconfigurable paradigm. Thank you.
Senator Hickenlooper. I appreciate that. I am kind of out
of time. Mr. Clark--and I will leave this and you can answer
very concisely--this partnership between the Federal Government
and the auctions around how spectrum gets divvied up, how do
you look when you are evaluating spectrum used for a Federal
mission, how important is it for the agencies to have a
meaningful and collaborative role in that feasibility study?
Mr. Clark. It is really important because the physics
matter. I think that fundamentally, no matter how much spectrum
sharing or division of the spectrum into more efficient bands
comes, you still have to deal with the physics of certain bands
are going to be useful for certain operations, and you cannot
just move to another part of the spectrum. So physics matter,
and I think that is fundamentally what it comes down to.
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you so much. I yield back to
the chair.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Curtis.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CURTIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our national
security is a top priority. Without it we are a nation at risk
of attack from those who would do us harm. I support the
Department of Defense. But when it comes to spectrum debate,
the DoD and the commercial interests have been at a stalemate
for decades. After years of discussion it seems unclear to me
why something cannot be worked out. It feels as if there is
something I do not know.
I know that DoD is not here today, but I suspect they are
listening, and I would challenge them to better articulate just
specifically what it is that they are not telling us. Perhaps
it needs to be classified, and if so I am game for that
briefing. But I think it is fair to say that I do not see it,
and I think it is important that as a Member of Congress we
better understand just exactly why we cannot come to this
consensus.
Mr. Hazlett, the United States won the 4G race, which led
to considerable investment and innovation, that resulted the
app economy being developed here in the United States. Looking
ahead to the future of 5G and 6G technologies, I share a
concern that many have that if the U.S. yields its technology
dominance to China, future economies may develop abroad instead
of at home.
Can you speak to the importance of the United States being
the global leader on 5G and 6G technologies?
Dr. Hazlett. Well, we simply squander an opportunity to
move ahead and to make the economy stronger, have innovation
here that, by the way, has benefits way beyond the auction
revenues. So in talking about scoring the auction revenues, my
economist reaction is you are leaving out the biggest part of
this, which is surging the economy, and, in fact, getting tax
revenues over time. These are routinely led on the other side.
I would just quickly say one thing. Yes, this debate
between civilian and military, it has been going on since----
Senator Curtis. Let's figure it out.
Dr. Hazlett.--before 2020.
Senator Curtis. So I had meant to say this question if I
had enough time, but you brought it up so I am just going to
hit it right now. The CBO has consistently mis-scored the
revenue, and I understand you are talking about additional
revenue that comes from that. How is it that we keep getting
wrong by such dramatic numbers the value of these?
Dr. Hazlett. Good question. I do not have an answer to
that.
Senator Curtis. Their score is 51 percent lower than the
average sale. All right. We will let you off because I have a
whole bunch of other questions.
Mr. Baylis, could you explain the difference between full
power, exclusive use spectrum licenses versus potential
spectrum sharing models, and how those different policy
approaches might impact the rollout of the next generation of
wireless technologies?
Dr. Baylis. So I think what you mean by exclusive, full
power is that is the only device that gets to use the band. I
think you mean by dynamic spectrum sharing that there is some
level of interplay.
I would say that from my perspective as a director of a
center that is developing adaptive and reconfigurable
technology, what we need to do, we are here at you service to
build the best technology that we can to help our country
succeed, and we are happy to inform you where the technologies
are. In terms of choosing a side in that game, I prefer not to
try to speak out on that, because that is not my lane. I am
really trying to develop technologies that will make us the
best.
Senator Curtis. OK. Mr. Pearl, did you want to comment?
Mr. Pearl. Yes. I would just mention that I would separate
a bit in terms of full power versus low power, and they both
have their benefits and advantages, as we have seen with
cellular networks and Wi-Fi, although full power does not
necessarily need to be exclusive use. And I am actually not
aware of a Federal spectrum transition that is completely
exclusive use in the sense that DoD completely cleared out.
So I do think you can look at it both ways, where you are
looking at full power but not necessarily exclusive use, and
vice versa with low power. So I just would mention that.
Senator Curtis. OK, good. That is helpful. While we are on
you let me ask you a question that was mentioned. DoD is not
here, so we will pick on you. The demand, as we all know, for
mid-range spectrum is high, and it is not going away. DoD says
they cannot afford to give up a single part of their spectrum
without negative national security consequences.
Is DoD truly using all of its spectrum with maximizing
efficiency, and what other considerations are leading DoD to
this conclusion?
Mr. Pearl. No, I do not believe they are, and, you know, if
you get into the details with them, in many cases, I think that
they would concede that. And I think that it is necessary to
work with all the right constituencies in DoD.
One thing I would mention is that you are hearing one thing
at the briefings, but there are people in DoD that have a more
innovative mindset and see some of the advantages here. And I
think figuring out how to empower some of those people and
bring them to the table is really helpful, because that is how
we can solve some of these problems.
Senator Curtis. Good. I am out of time. I would like to
just close with, I am a DoD supporter, right. I want them to
have what they need. But I also think we can work this out.
Thank you all for your time. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Kim.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY KIM,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Kim. Yes, thank you, Chairman. Actually, I just
want to pick up where we were there. Dr. Pearl, I mean, we are
trying to get all this sense of the tradeoffs that are out
there and what we are hearing from DoD and elsewhere. And I
guess I would just ask you, do you think that this committee
would benefit from having a classified briefing conversation
with DoD and try to dig into some of those other people that
you are talking about that could try to bring to light some of
what this is? I am just kind of curious your thoughts on that.
Mr. Pearl. I do, and I think that it would be helpful to
work with the right people and bring in some engineers to that
process. Because what it really comes down to is not just the
high-level briefing. It is getting into here is a critical
system, and here is the actual impact it would have on
performance if it used less spectrum, and getting very precise
about that. And then talking about some of the technologies
that might be able to avoid that outcome and preserve the DoD
capability. But really focusing on some of those, like, a small
number of critical systems and getting into those details.
Because just to be told, ``We can't share any. We are using
all of it, at all times,'' I mean, to me, you know, there are
important systems in these bands. There are systems that
absolutely are essential to our national security. But to say
that we cannot share any of it and we are using all of it is
just not--that does not pass muster.
Senator Kim. Yes, I think you are right. That precision is
incredibly important when it comes to these decisions.
Mr. Clark, I guess I would ask you the same question. What
are your thoughts about us, in this committee, diving in deeper
in a classified way?
Mr. Clark. Oh yes, yes, sir. I think that is absolutely
what needs to happen, is to get down to that level of precision
of what do the systems do, what frequencies do they operate it,
what is the purpose of the system and how does it work in the
war fight. And then how could it operate differently if we were
to try to make it more agile in the spectrum?
So a lot of these systems, they need a band of spectrum
that is available so that they can jump around and avoid enemy
detection or avoid enemy jamming. So in some cases these
systems are not efficient, because they have to have more
spectrum made available to them so they can do this kind of
anti-jam function. But that means they are not using the
frequency continuously. So if you had spectrum sharing schemes
and dynamic spectrum sharing you could still do anti-jam
operations while being able to free that spectrum up for other
users when you are not employing it.
Senator Kim. OK.
Mr. Pearl. If I could just add one point on having--because
I think it is a worthwhile conversation. Also looping in what
are the possible ways that you could accommodate DoD in other
parts of the spectrum. So if we talk about, for instance, lower
3 GHz, which is a really critical area of discussion, there is
a Federal band that goes 400 MHz below where is DoD is using
it. So also having a conversation about where could DoD
potentially move I think could be really helpful.
Senator Kim. Yes. Thank you for that. I agree. I mean, Mr.
Chair, I guess I would just, for your consideration, you know,
as one of the newer members here on the Committee, you know, I
was on Armed Services on the House, but still a lot here to
unpack. So if we could consider whether or not that might be
doable for us to engage in a classified way, that might be able
to make sure that we are all really trying to understand this,
especially what Dr. Pearl said about the precision that is
necessary here, because so much is at stake.
Just in my final time here, Dr. Pearl, I guess I just
wanted to ask you, in your testimony you talked about how
critical it is for the U.S. to advance our position in wireless
innovation and technology, especially when it comes to the
strategic competition that we face with the PRC. I guess I
would like you to just expand. Can you explain to us how the
spectrum auction authority fits into that goal? How is that
embedded within that broader ability for us to advance our
position?
Mr. Pearl. So I would characterize spectrum auctions as the
first step in a chain reaction that reverberates through the
global economy, meaning that the auction is something that,
other than us insiders, no one is aware of, raises some money
for the Treasury. But that is the opportunity for mobile
operators to upgrade their networks. Otherwise, it is too
expensive. There is no reason to do it. It is once they have
obtained new spectrum that they launch new services, expand
their use of it. And then from there it reverberates into the
app economy, into tech companies, into like what you can use
all that bandwidth for.
And then ultimate that creates an ecosystem, and we want a
technology ecosystem outside the PRC that is the most advanced
and robust. So it is a key component in terms of building that
overall tech ecosystem that is going to be able to outcompete
and out-innovate the----
Senator Kim. And that innovation, that is not just good for
our own nation but that helps us be able to try to export that
and be able to get market share around the world. Is that what
you are saying?
Mr. Pearl. Yes, absolutely. So other countries are going to
make decisions about what spectrum bands they use, what
wireless networks they procure from. So having that ecosystem
that is attractive to them means that they will choose the U.S.
over the PRC.
Senator Kim. Great. Thank you. I yield back, Chair.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Moreno.
STATEMENT OF HON. BERNIE MORENO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO
Senator Moreno. First, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding
this hearing. I am glad I sat through the whole thing. It was
extremely enlightening. And I know in the Senate you are
supposed to abide by the rules that even though a point has
been made, it has not been made by everybody. I will break that
tradition and thank the four of you for your testimony. I
thought the exchange was fantastic. We learned a lot. And with
that I yield my time.
Chairman Cruz. Very good. You may win the prize for
brevity. I must say, I am not sure you are going to make it as
a Senator.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Cruz. I am not going to follow that line. There
are several things I want to revisit.
There was a claim mentioned earlier that it would take 20
years developed advanced sharing technologies. Mr. Pearl, did
it take 20 years to develop the AMBIT process?
Mr. Pearl. No. I think that was a matter of--the study was
done in about 6 months, and it was completed within 12 to 18
months, if I am remembering it correctly.
Chairman Cruz. Mr. Clark, are geographic carveouts another
way to share?
Mr. Clark. Yes, sir, they are, absolutely. And on the point
about 20 years, I was just saying it would take 20 years,
potentially, to upgrade all the systems with the new
technology. The new technology would be available more quickly,
obviously.
Chairman Cruz. And was the AMBIT process successful in
enabling DoD and commercial 5G coexistence?
Mr. Clark. It did. Yes, sir.
Chairman Cruz. Some of my colleagues have also discussed
low-power spectrum sharing or CBRS. Mr. Pearl, do you think
CBRS is a panacea, or do we also need full-power spectrum?
Mr. Pearl. We need full-power spectrum, as well. CBRS was
the first really serious effort to do dynamic spectrum sharing
in a band where it was really difficult. But you need both
those high-powered uses to really utilize the ability to
penetrate buildings, walls, to really have the capital
investment that the carriers need in order to offer a lot of
those services. So you need those high-power services, you need
low-power services, which we have in 6 GHz and elsewhere, and
both are important, absolutely.
Chairman Cruz. Dr. Hazlett, I have heard concerns that CBRS
has been underutilized because providers lack the certainty
they need to invest in their CBRS spectrum. Do you share these
concerns?
Dr. Hazlett. Well, there are some problems, as the FCC is
acknowledging, and it is going back to try to see how it can
fix it. You know, the claims were that that was the solution,
that that was going to really have what is called sharing. I
will just mention the fact that all spectrum is shared, OK.
What is called exclusive use is not exclusive at all. You have
networks in the United States with 100 million subscribers and
they share these aggregations of bandwidth. And, in fact, there
are all kinds of models that have developed, between firms,
between providers, when you do get the incentives to come
together and make deals.
So in terms of, yes, people coming in from the private
sector dealing with government assignments, the fact is that
paying to share--in other words, paying to separate the
allocations between the new users and the existing users--that
is a very effective form of sharing.
So it is really not just science. It is incentives to come
together. That is why things like overlays are so important. It
is why a better system of audits, which has been talked about,
this has been suggested 25 years ago to the FCC to, in fact,
have, by auction or assignment, have private firms come in and
actually audit spectrum that is being used by government
agencies to see if there are opportunities there for sharing.
But maybe it is money coming to the agency in an improved
version of the spectrum relocation process, to get that out
there.
Chairman Cruz. Mr. Clark, we heard from my colleague,
Senator Fischer, that a pipeline bill would require exclusive
licensed use of, and vacating or clearing DoD out of bands.
Now, as you know, the Spectrum Pipeline Act, that I have
authored, requires a pipeline of full power, not exclusive use,
and does not identify any specific bands.
Mr. Clark, is there anything in that bill that is
inconsistent with your testimony or Senator Fischer's concerns?
Mr. Clark. No. In theory, it is not. And I think the
challenge will be implementation, because depending on how much
your target is to try to clear, it may prove difficult to be
able to work out an arrangement so that the commercial and
military users can both employ that spectrum. And the auction
may not be attractive from the commercial companies'
perspective because the geographic patchwork they may end up
with or the spectrum sharing requirements are going to be such
that maybe it makes it too expensive for them to pursue.
Chairman Cruz. So, Mr. Pearl, we had an exchange with
Senator Fischer and Mr. Clark where they were discussing the
theory that China's public push to lead in wireless technology
is just a mind game, that they are somehow baiting the United
States with ambitious plans, and they are secretly holding
back, trying to trick us into giving up spectrum to the
commercial sector.
I find that a particularly odd conspiracy theory, given the
actual facts of what we know. First of all, we know that Huawei
and other Chinese manufacturers are actively and successfully
pushing worldwide adoption of Chinese 6G equipment standards.
That would not be possible without China having made its
spectrum available for commercial use.
Second, China has aggressively targeted our
telecommunication industry, has tapped the phones of top
officials, including President Trump and Vice President Vance,
and prompted this committee to fully fund a multibillion-dollar
rip-and-replace program to remove Chinese equipment from
American networks.
Mr. Pearl, would American national and economic security be
harmed if Chinese firms, like Huawei and ZTE, set the global
standard for 6G network equipment via this first-mover
advantage? And how would that affect the global competitiveness
of U.S. companies?
Mr. Pearl. So it would have a great deal of harm, and I
would echo my agreement that I do not think this is a
disinformation campaign. I fought the battle against Huawei and
ZTE for almost 2 years. And in order for their businesses to be
able to sell equipment outside of China they need to be able to
use these bands inside of China and get those economies of
scale.
But if they are successful in terms of setting the global
standard, that means that the U.S. will have a siloed market
with a few of its allies and partners, where it will have much
worse technology, much worse networks. We will just have an
inferior ecosystem. And ultimately that means that we are going
to be put at a military disadvantage, because as others have
commented, in a battle the electromagnetic domain can be
absolutely decisive, and we just will not have the technology
to prevail in that case.
Chairman Cruz. Well, I want to thank all the witnesses for
very helpful testimony. Senators will have until the close of
business on Wednesday, February 26, to submit questions for the
record, and then the witnesses will have until the close of
business on Wednesday, March 12, to respond to those questions.
And with that, that concludes today's hearing. The
committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Dr. Thomas Hazlett
Question. I have long been an advocate for increasing access to
both licensed and unlicensed spectrum. What are some of the notable
innovations in the unlicensed spectrum space, and how have unlicensed
technologies, such as Wi-Fi, benefitted our economy?
Answer. The unlicensed bands benefited from two reforms in the
1980s, wherein devices using the ISM (Industrial, Scientific, and
Medical) frequencies -which had been regulated so as to exclude
advanced technologies--were significantly deregulated in terms of
formats adopted. The particular driver was permitting ``spread
spectrum'' technologies. These now enable our local area communications
(Wi-Fi) as well as wide area wireless networks (2G, 3G, 4G, 5G). The
innovations specifically in the unlicensed bands revolve around
wireless local area network (WLAN) applications--signals designed to
work within a house or office, a Bluetooth transmissions linking a
smart phone to a car speaker, ID tags, off-load for wide area networks
(including the Internet, wireless and fixed), security cameras,
doorbells, and on and on. These products are purchased by millions and
generate significant benefits.
The more difficult part comes in separating the distinct impact
(``marginal value'') of a specific spectrum allocation. With
unlicensed, the allocations are typically imposed by regulators who
make an administrative judgement that the spectrum is better under one
set of rules than under another. But the popular use of local area
networks, and products such as mentioned above, have developed in
parallel with other expanding wireless ecosystems. There are multiple
ways for an additional dollop of bandwidth to fortify wireless
services. Each allocation specifically crafted for unlicensed uses and
business models of one sort (including local area networks rather than
wide area networks) confronts an opportunity cost. Those costs are
generally invisible to regulators and are poorly estimated (in many
cases) by the FCC.
For instance, in 2002, the FCC announced it would allocate the
large, unoccupied bandwidth set aside for TV broadcasting in the 1952
TV Station Allocation Table for ``white space'' device use. The
regulatory model would by non-exclusive access rights permit unlicensed
devices into the set aside spaces, free of charge. Devices would comply
with power limits and technology restrictions (checking with a database
for instructions as to which channels were available for use,
dynamically in time, e.g.).
While the approach promised to introduce valuable new services--
``Wi-Fi on steroids''--virtually no devices have been made or sold in
the nearly quarter-century that the FCC has sponsored the ``TV White
Spaces'' policy. Meanwhile, an adjacent 70 MHz block of former TV
spectrum was transitioned to an alternative rights model--with
exclusive, flexible-use rights--over 2010-2020. This allocation not
only received market feedback in the $20 billion in winning bids
generated by their sale, but demonstrably boosted mobile network
capacity, intensified wireless broadband competition, and supplied
billions of dollars in economic gains. This far outperforms the 210 MHz
of over-the-air TV dedicated to the video distribution model of I Love
Lucy, on the one hand, and TV White Spaces, on the other.
Hence, the choices about how to allocate spectrum must carefully
consider appropriate margins, recognize spectrum substitution
possibilities, account for opportunity costs, and incorporate the
transaction costs consumed in administrative delays.\1\--TWH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas Hazlett & Michael Honig, Valuing Spectrum Allocations,
23 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 45 (2016-2017); Hazlett, Benefit-
cost analysis in the 5.9 GHz band, Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
(2025): 1-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to
Dr. Thomas Hazlett
Question. Dr. Hazlett: In your testimony, you mention success of
market-oriented policies like spectrum auctions and overlays. What
reforms do you believe are necessary to further accelerate U.S.
leadership in wireless innovation?
Answer.
1. More overlays. Take the 35 channels still dedicated to over-the-
air (OTA) television, as per the TV Station Allocation Table of
1952. It's been a quarter century since OTA was a thing, as
cable and satellite TV had nationwide footprints already
supplying 90 percent of U.S. households. Today, of course, much
video traffic has further migrated--to the Internet. Now the
``TV Spectrum Allocation'' is positively harming video delivery
in the U.S. by constraining networks--both incumbent and new
entrants--from delivering more wireless product to U.S.
households (in both urban and rural areas). Overlays would
allow entrants to get access to a large tranche of effectively
unused bandwidth and prove beneficial to consumers, media
competition, and U.S. economic growth. And incumbent TV
stations would not be harmed. With an overlay, the licensees
only make bargains that benefit them.
2. More FCC deregulation. Allow the licenses being sold by the
Commission to be technology-neutral and business model-neutral.
This requires a few changes, like eliminating build-out
requirements that block entrepreneurs from bidding on spectrum,
winning, and then supplying more ``plug and play'' services
analogized to ``unlicensed'' use. The build-out requirements
have themselves been ineffective and the better way to get
networks built is to provide a competitive space--with more
access to spectrum--that allows for innovation in business
models.
3. 3rd party Audits for Government Spectrum assignments. Private or
public organizations should bid for the rights to audit
spectrum holdings of the DOJ, DOD, Forestry Service--all
organizations that face zero opportunity cost in holding on to
valuable resources. The difficulty in negotiating with such
parties is not that the officials in the agencies are wrong or
ill-informed, as sometimes charged. It is that they rationally
defend ``free options'' that may perform some valuable function
(now or in the future) and cost their agencies nothing. It is
predictable that such actors over-protect these assets in
pursuing the mission of their agency--they would virtually be
violating a public trust not to, given the circumstances in
which they operate. (Certainly this is the viewpoint of
constituencies within the agency.) The way out is to allow
motivated outsiders, perhaps firms with interest and subject
matter expertise, to evaluate the costs and benefits facing
such firms in making wireless trades. These might include
ceding some proportion of bandwidth assignments to other
parties in exchange for a new radio system, or a specific
funding request, or a change in rules that allows greater
efficiency in operations. Companies like, say, Haliburton,
might pay to conduct this (presumably CLASSIFIED) audit of the
DOD (as it could yield commercially valuable information in
forming proposals for transactions post-audit), or the GAO
(with expertise in audits) or GSA (expertise in managing
government assets) might be selected to evaluate Department of
Transportation use of spectrum. These are the sort of ideas
that spectrum policy experts do propose.--TWH
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Dr. Thomas Hazlett
Question. You have contended that commercial providers are often
better positioned to deploy spectrum quickly and at scale.
In your opinion, if Congress wants to ensure broadband expansion in
Tribal areas, how would policies that encourage partnerships between
private industry and Tribal governments-such as infrastructure
investment incentives, spectrum-sharing agreements, or Federal funding
for public-private partnerships-be more effective than direct Tribal
spectrum allocation?
Answer. The best short answer I can give to this provocative and
interesting question is: allow Native Corporations in the Tribal areas
flexibility in devising contracts for cooperation with wireless service
providers.\1\ This should, of course, be nested in a productive, pro-
consumer business environment in which the Corporations have
appropriate incentives to well serve their customer base, develop
advanced services, and earn sufficient returns as to make the company
effective in delivering services for decades to come. Selection of the
Corporations might be by competitive bidding, either in money (a
procurement auction) or in franchise bidding.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Failure to do so has led to disappointing results, both for the
Tribal population and the investors/owners of the firms. Jonathan
Karpoff & Edward Rice, Structure and Performance of Alaska Native
Corporations, Contemporary Economic Policy (July 1992).
\2\ Harold Demsetz, Why Regulate Utilities? 11 Journal of Law &
Economics (1968): 55-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using service contracting models to supply public safety radio, an
analogy to the idea of extending wireless networks in Tribal areas with
contracts or awards of FCC licenses, is an experiment undertaken in the
2017 award of the FirstNet contract to AT&T. The set-up has AT&T, a
major commercial wireless network, service its large base of
subscribers and then fold-in additional obligations to provide
emergency radio service to first responders. The structure aims to
achieve economies of scale, and standard efficiencies evolving in the
commercial sector, while applying such beneficial developments to
supply solutions to fire, policy, emergency medical services and other
efforts of keen ``public interest'' importance. The challenges,
successes, and failures of the FirstNet effort offer insights, I
believe, for how other such initiatives--tackling important social
problems via efficient marketplace platforms--might best proceed.--TWH
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to
Dr. Thomas Hazlett
Question. As an advocate for bringing Internet access to all
Wisconsinites, I am a strong supporter of measures to bridge the
digital divide and expand broadband access in rural and underserved
communities. In the interest of boosting access and affordability for
unconnected Americans, how do you see increases in commercial access to
spectrum through the proposed sharing measures impacting ongoing
efforts to increase rural network capacities?
Answer. There is no doubt that making more radio spectrum available
for productive use is a key in spreading and improving broadband
coverage in the U.S. This is true in urban and rural areas, and with
respect to both terrestrial and space-based delivery networks.
The problem with resolving to expand spectrum availability through
particular sharing mechanisms is that the rules chosen by regulators
may not facilitate the task designed or hoped for. First, all spectrum
rights models incorporate ``spectrum sharing.'' That is as true for the
exclusively assigned, flexible-use rights purchased at FCC auction and
intensely utilized by mobile carriers as it is for Wi-Fi, supporting
localized networks distributing broadband data through a house or
around a campus.
Second, all such systems have strengths and weaknesses, and
categorical claims that technology solves all coordination plans--in,
e.g., ``bandwidth sharing''--has been a costly error. In one important
instance, TV band white spaces, channels that have been unoccupied
since the 1952 TV Allocation Table, were thought by the FCC to be
perfect to host new unlicensed devices yielding valuable new services--
``Wi-Fi on steroids.'' That decision, initially launched in 2002, has
proven virtually a complete failure. There is today no substantial
``white space device'' use, and vast ``white spaces'' in the over-the-
air TV Band lie fallow. Overlay rights transferring these open spaces
to exclusively-assigned, flexible-use licenses would have--and still
could--generate billions of dollars in annual consumer welfare--by
effectively introducing band-sharing mechanisms well developed
elsewhere in the wireless marketplace.
Hence, choosing the right set of rights for the task at hand should
be informed by economics, history, and the experiences gained in
previous endeavors.\3\--TWH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ My book goes into some detail on the regulatory choice of
spectrum rights in supporting wireless services: Thomas Hazlett, The
Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies,
from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone (Yale, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Dr. Thomas Hazlett
Question 1. Dr. Hazlett, I appreciate your testimony highlighting
the need to optimize our processes for freeing up and assigning more
spectrum. Spectrum is a limited natural resource, and if we want to
fully address our economic needs while safeguarding our national
security, we have to invest in innovation. This includes not only
exclusive use but also shared and unlicensed spectrum, which are vital
to technological development and economic growth.
Do you think it is possible for the FCC to structure auctions in a
way that incentivizes innovation and technological development, and do
you believe that can be done in a way that still maximizes economic
benefit & auction revenue?
Answer. Thank you for inviting me to testify.
YES--auctions for FCC licenses (adopted in 1993 by congressional
legislation) are a positive innovation in public policy, but they can
be improved. Specifically, they can reveal--discover--the relative
values of what are commonly called ``licensed'' and ``unlicensed''
spectrum. Three things need to be reformed.
First, the licenses offered for sale in auctions need to be
technology-neutral and regime-neutral, such that they can be used as
competitive market conditions suggest. (We are not far from this and
the tweak is easily achievable.)
Second, the winner (high bidder) for a particular license cannot be
subject to ``build-out requirements'' of the type imposed today. This
regulatory approach assumes that one type of usage will result from the
license distribution--a business model wherein the licensee builds and
manages a network. In fact, many call this is ``licensed use model.''
But it isn't. There are other ways to use licensed spectrum, and some
of them look like the way ``unlicensed spectrum'' is utilized. In other
words, a license winner may sponsor a ``spectrum park'' (or, as some
might say, a ``commons'') that hosts access for radio users conforming
to certain device standards. The build-out requirements make this model
essential a violation of FCC regulations. (The regulations, by the way,
do very little to encourage actual service build-out.)
Third, the bidders participating in FCC auctions should have
authority to create their own business models, not to be constrained to
those imposed by the Commission. That is, a licensee who forms a
consortium to buy more ``unlicensed'' bandwidth and pay for it by
assessing license fees on the equipment used (perhaps manufactured by
companies in the consortium) should not be impeded by FCC rules about
what an ``unlicensed spectrum band'' must be, which would block the
business case for the consortium. This more open, competitive way to
develop innovative forms of organization was suggested in an important
1992 FCC policy paper.\4\ It is time to give it a run.--TWH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Evan Kwerel and John Williams, A Proposal for a Rapid
Transition to Market Allocation of Spectrum, OSP Working Paper 38 (Nov
2002).
Question 2. Do you believe it makes sense for spectrum auction
revenues to be reinvested in priorities like innovation?
Answer. In general, I do not favor such dedications. Outlays should
be considered on their merits, against all other outlays (by the
Federal government). The one exception is where the dedicated
expenditures are useful in creating the transactions generating the
gains in question. Using auction revenues to compensate firms, as in
FCC Auction 107 (2020-2021), where satellite carriers were paid to
update their equipment, making more bandwidth available for other
parties; and in the 2016-2017 ``incentive auction,'' paying TV station
licensees to give up broadcasting rights) or government agencies (as in
FCC Auction 66).
Innovation is encouraged in two other ways. By conditions hosting
robust entrepreneurial activity, and by support for basic research with
organizations like NSF and NIH.--TWH
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Dr. Charles Baylis
Question 1. I have long been an advocate for increasing access to
both licensed and unlicensed spectrum. What are some of the notable
innovations in the unlicensed spectrum space, and how have unlicensed
technologies, such as Wi-Fi, benefitted our economy?
Answer. Wi-Fi and other unlicensed technologies, such as Bluetooth
and Ultra Wideband, have been great innovations. Wi-Fi sharing was
developed in part of the 5 GHz band, as well as eventually in the 6 GHz
band. In the 6 GHz band, Wi-Fi was shared with incumbent point-to-point
microwave links. Sharing was coordinated using an Automated Frequency
Coordination (AFC) System.
The AFC used many lessons learned from the Spectrum Access System
(SAS) that coordinated spectrum use in the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service (CBRS) band.
Unlicensed spectrum usage has been a significant benefit to the
economy. Unlicensed bands have allowed devices to use and share a band
effectively on an as-needed basis. There are numerous unlicensed users
that share small ranges of frequencies, and now are able to share even
other frequencies (such as 6 GHz) with incumbent users. This seems to
allow for expansion of Wi-Fi unlicensed applications.
Question 2. National security and wireless innovation are not
mutually exclusive. Please detail how the technology you are advancing
at Baylor University's SMART Hub will ensure spectrum policy remains a
``win-win'' for both the defense industry and the economy at large.
Answer. The adaptive and reconfigurable technology we are
developing at SMART Hub is heavily focused toward DoD incumbent systems
in the 3 GHz band. As such, this will allow DoD systems to adapt to the
surrounding environment given our prescribed approach, examined in part
by research preceding SMART Hub, includes the ability to sense and even
predict locations and frequencies of other users. If a system can
locate bands in which it can operate, it can then reconfigure its
circuits and systems to, for example, maximize radar range after
changing frequency. This allows the DoD systems to function with
maximum performance and be flexible in frequency and spatial
operations.
Many of the same concepts we are working on that are applicable to
DoD systems are also applicable to commercial wireless systems. As
such, when systems can work around one another adaptively, they use the
spectrum more efficiently. It is through an adaptive and reconfigurable
technology approach that we can do more with less, and accomplish a
``win-win'' for both defense and commercial wireless users.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to
Dr. Charles Baylis
Question 1. Dr. Baylis: In your testimony, you highlight the
potential benefits and exciting new opportunities that technological
innovation can unlock in the realm of spectrum management.
From your perspective as a researcher and technical expert, how can
AI help transform our management and use of spectrum?
Answer. Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used in several ways
within a spectrum-use ecosystem. First, it can predict spectrum and
spatial use of a wireless system. The ability to predict how other
spectrum users perform, and evaluate different predictive methods to
choose the correct one, is an area that SMART Hub members Professor
Robert Marks from Baylor University and Professor Mike Buehrer from
Virginia Tech have worked on.
Secondly, AI and Machine Learning (ML) can be used to reconfigure
systems and circuits. In optimizing an array of reconfigurable
circuits, AI may be useful in cutting through the multiple dimensions
of optimization to select a ``best'' setting for range, efficiency,
spectral performance, and/or spatial performance, for example. An
adaptive and reconfigurable environment must be based on automation,
and AI and ML can play a significant role in making these optimizations
efficient.
The present thrust toward AI technologies and the need to better
optimize spectrum use and spectrum use systems are coming together at a
very useful time. As a national center committed to solving the
spectrum crisis, we are working to marshal AI in addressing these
issues.
Question 1a. What are some of the risks or challenges policymakers
should consider?
Answer. Policy should be developed in parallel with and
complementary to supporting technology. One danger that should be
avoided is where policy outruns technology. Technological limitations,
such as propagation challenges and antenna size, must be considered in
band allocations; allocations must be reasonable given these
limitations. Given this, however, advancements in technology can be
enablers for new, advanced policy approaches.
Regulating a small amount of available spectrum will not provide a
long-term solution to the problem we are facing currently in the
midband spectrum. Innovative adaptive and reconfigurable technology
will allow flexibility in wireless communications and radar systems
that will support new policy.
Question 2. Dr. Baylis: In your testimony, you also mention the
importance of the United States winning the spectrum superiority race.
Can you elaborate on this point? What is needed by Congress to ensure
continued leadership on spectrum technology?
Answer. Spectrum superiority requires having the best technology:
technology that can flexibly use the spectrum. The ability to flexibly
use the spectrum allows our radar and communication systems to gain a
tactical advantage in wartime: we can avoid the enemy's jamming
maneuvers by finding open spectrum and using it. Additionally, in
peacetime, being agile allows us to use the spectrum more efficiently.
We can reconfigure both radar and communication systems to use
available spectrum opportunistically, rather than being confined to a
single band.
Adaptive and reconfigurable spectrum use is the new paradigm that
is on the way. The nation that builds the technology for this paradigm
will be able to sell it to the world. America needs to be the Nation
that builds this technology first. If America is the first to build it,
we will benefit both economically and (for wartime) tactically. If
China wins this race, we will be buying systems from China to build the
6G backbone that may be compromised from a security perspective. We
also will no longer have an edge in wartime.
Congress should prioritize funding for research and development in
spectrum technologies to ensure America builds the backbone technology
for the adaptive and reconfigurable spectrum use of the future.
Congress should supervise the results of this funding, ensuring that
this funding does not merely create innovations that die in a
laboratory, but instead move from academia, through industry, and into
the hands of warfighters and consumers. Innovation that has happened at
the fundamental level must move to the applied level and then into
industry production. The development of this type of pipeline for these
technologies must involve universities and industry (both commercial
wireless and defense contractors).
An example of this type of model is SMART Hub, which was initially
funded by Congress and consists of 15 universities with 25 U.S.
citizen, multidisciplinary spectrum researchers across the country,
spanning 13 states. SMART Hub is also building industry partnerships
that can move technology into the hands of the warfighters and
consumers, but it will need additional funds to continue to continue
this important work. Congress should appropriate additional funding for
these types of activities, as well as consider legislation to authorize
additional funding for spectrum technology university-industry
partnerships.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Budd to
Dr. Charles Baylis
Question 1. Can we get to a point where full-power spectrum use can
be efficiently shared in a way that allows wireless buildout without
excessive negative impacts to national security systems? If so, how far
away are we?
Answer. It is possible to get to a point where full-power spectrum
use can be efficiently shared without excessive impacts to national
security systems. New technology would enable this type of sharing.
Adaptive and reconfigurable technology is a ``game changer''. It would
render the current arguments about ``auction versus defense'' moot.
Spectrum surveys show that very little of the spectrum is being
simultaneously used in a given geographic region. Yet, problems exist
because present incumbent military systems are significantly rigid,
and, as such, demand to always have the same part of the spectrum
available for their use.
Some of the key developments that will be required to get to this
point include: (1) spectrum sensing and/or prediction capabilities to
be aware of other users' spectrum usages; (2) spectrum coordination
mechanisms for congested bands; (3) reconfigurable circuits, antennas,
and arrays (including reconfigurable circuits capable of handling high
power levels for radar) that enable increased spectral and spatial
flexibility and control of wireless transmissions; and (4) the ability
to measure device performance in-situ (on board the device) to assess
transmissions to inform reconfiguration algorithms. The good news is
that many of these developments are already at the Technology Readiness
Levels TRL-2 through TRL-4 and are ready to be carried forward to
industry for the buildout of new radar and/or communications systems.
Spectrum sensing and prediction has been effectively demonstrated
through sense-react-and-avoid and sense-predict-and-avoid methods. We
have been able to demonstrate how future Dynamic Spectrum Management
Systems (DSMS) can build upon the existing CBRS approach while allowing
for incumbents to provide real-time interference reports, enabling a
more responsive, closed-loop coordination of the spectrum. In terms of
reconfigurable circuits, a high-power reconfigurable circuit, capable
of handling 20-68 W that can reconfigure from 2-4 GHz in less than a
millisecond provides an entire 2 GHz of reconfiguration capability.
This breakthrough means that radars could, using this circuit, optimize
their transmission range, within matching limitations of the circuit,
anywhere between 2-4 GHz within a millisecond after changing
frequencies. If a radar has the ability to move this widely in
frequency, then coexisting with communication systems becomes a much
less complex problem. Finally, we have demonstrated an in-situ
measurement approach to assess signals entering an antenna as part of
the reconfigurable circuit chain.
These technologies must now be taken from their current innovation
level into actual system implementation. This will not only allow
radars to more flexibly use their own bands, but provide them with
opportunistic access to bands outside their current assignments. The
range of frequencies that will be able to be flexibly used will
increase drastically. If we are successful, China will have to buy this
technology from us, and we will have the advantage on the battlefield
and in the ability to coexist in our homeland. Yet, it will take
foresight and investment from Congress. Continuing to regulate and re-
regulate current frequency usages with present legacy systems without
this newly updated technology will only yield temporary gains, and our
foreign competitors will build this technology before we do. We need to
build it first to give ourselves the best defense systems and to expand
commercial access to frequencies. We should strive to win this race,
sell this technology worldwide, and build the backbone of 6G and the
world's strongest military wireless technology.
Question 2. What lessons can we learn from CBRS in opening up
spectrum to commercial use in congested bands?
Answer. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) sharing with
Navy radars in the 3.55--3.7 GHz band has provided useful lessons. One
significant lesson is that bands whose primary users are in limited
geographical regions can often have a second use. Because Navy radars
are not usually found inland, it is advantageous to allow communication
device access to these frequencies when away from the coastlines.
Additionally, the ability to design a third-party system, known as a
Spectrum Access System (SAS) in the CBRS case, to coordinate spectrum
usage has now been successfully demonstrated.
This lesson should be applied with limitations. First, if
geographic limitations of a band-user are known, it makes sense to
allow the same band to be used outside of these geographic limitations
by another user. Second, third-party coordination can be an effective
use to ensure spectrum coexistence, provided its time-frame is fast
enough to ensure spectrum to a primary user when needed.
Ideally, the time-scale of spectrum brokering should strive for
improvement over CBRS. It would be ideal for such spectrum assignments
to approach real-time. However, spectrum assignments should be based on
accurate understanding of positions, propagation models, and potential
victims of interference.
Caution should be used in applying the CBRS model to other
scenarios. The CBRS model, with current wireless systems, works well
when geographic separation of systems needing to use the band is
present. Additionally, the Dynamic Spectrum Management System (DSMS)
needs to be fast enough to parcel spectrum at the needed time-scales
(and with appropriate security) for the primary user to gain access
when needed.
Another lesson learned from CBRS is that if spectrum sharing is
adopted, the technical parameters that govern the sharing, such as the
propagation model, should not be based solely on worst-case
assumptions. This can result in inefficient spectrum use. In the case
of CBRS, after four years of operations, the propagation models were
successfully refined, allowing better use of the spectrum while not
interfering with critical DoD systems in the band.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Dr. Charles Baylis
Question. How do we advance commercial spectrum while respecting
mission-critical Federal users and national security?
Answer. Spectrum bands are overcrowded, and reallocation of
spectrum bands will eventually meet its limit. We need a paradigm shift
in how spectrum is used. Currently, spectrum allocations may be drawn
with very broad strokes to ensure spectrum is available in certain
bands and regions in case it is needed. However, this leads to large
portions of the spectrum being reserved but underutilized. The adaptive
and reconfigurable use of the spectrum will allow more spectrum to be
available to more users when they need it by allowing allocations to be
specified more precisely in time, frequency, and location.
The key to unlocking this spectrum availability is the innovation
and development of adaptive and reconfigurable technology. For example,
researchers now part of SMART Hub have developed reconfigurable
circuits that can handle higher power levels (toward the power levels
needed for radar operation) to optimize their detection range, within
the limitations of the impedance matching coverage, after changing
frequencies in a 2-4 GHz octave. If radar systems operating in the 3.1-
3.45 GHz band could move to another band and optimize their performance
within a millisecond, this would make more and more frequencies
available to wireless communication. The inflexibility of current radar
system technology limits the growth of wireless communication
infrastructure, and it also limits the tactical advantage of our
military.
However, with additional investments in innovating, developing, and
producing this technology, the financial benefit will dwarf the current
argued amounts.
The approach of developing adaptive and reconfigurable technology
transcends the present arguments about spectrum allocations. If systems
are flexible, they can use whatever band is available, reducing the
amount of spectrum that must be held in reserve on a ``just-in-case''
basis. The capability of both DoD systems and commercial wireless
systems to use available bands would give the U.S. a technological
advantage in battle, as well as the ability to form a new spectrum-
coexistence model that will enormously benefit the American economy.
Immediate, sustained focus and investment in innovation and the
development of adaptive and reconfigurable technology will reap
enormous economic and national security benefits.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Dr. Charles Baylis
Question 1. Dr. Baylis, can you elaborate on SMART Hub's current
sources of funding?
Answer. SMART Hub was initially funded by a $5 million
appropriation in the FY 2023 budget. Our 6-month research demonstration
in February 2024 in Arlington, Virginia showed Pentagon, Congressional,
and industry spectrum leaders how adaptive and reconfigurable
technology is being developed to assist warfighters and to promote the
economic benefits of adaptive and reconfigurable technologies for
spectrum usage. We are in near-term need of additional funding to allow
SMART Hub's innovation to continue.
The SMART Hub leadership team considers Congressional funding as
``anchor'' funding and has launched an ecosystem by which other funding
sources will eventually grow to sustain SMART Hub. For example, the
National Science Foundation funded a grant of over $340,000 for
spectrum workforce development through an Undergraduate Spectrum
Workshop known as the ``Spectrum Sizzle''. Four SMART Hub universities
will host this immersive, residential, four-day, hands-on experience
for undergraduates from across the country in Summer 2025, and we
expect 160 undergraduate students to be trained in fundamental spectrum
technology and policy principles this summer. With our team working
together and demonstrating results from our work, we have submitted
additional proposals since our first round of anchor funding arrived,
and we are in the process of establishing industry partnerships that
will further grow the ecosystem through technology transfer and
industry sponsored research. We have begun the process of building
partnerships with both DoD contractors and wireless network providers,
with the goal of continued industry investment in our innovations that
will result in technologies placed in the hands of American warfighters
and consumers. This ecosystem is designed to thrive on its own after
several years of Congressional investment.
Question 2. Is it important to your work that Congress pass a full
FY25 funding package?
Answer. We currently have funding pending in the FY 2025 DoD
appropriations bill to continue investments in SMART Hub. If Congress
does not pass a full FY 2025 funding package that includes this pending
funding in it, SMART Hub may have to make difficult decisions about its
operations in the future. It is crucial to our development of adaptive
and reconfigurable technology that Congress pass a full-year funding
package with funding for our work included in it. We encourage Congress
to act soon to continue to invest in adaptive and reconfigurable
technologies, building American leadership in this area.
Unfortunately, a Continuing Resolution is not helpful to SMART
Hub's operations, given we are looking for new funding to carry on
SMART Hub innovation. Should Congress decide to move forward with a
year-long CR, we encourage appropriators to include an explicit
provision for SMART Hub funding.
Question 3. Should the government continue to play a role in
developing innovative technologies to solve both commercial and defense
spectrum challenges?
Answer. The innovation of adaptive and reconfigurable technology is
the key to U.S. global leadership in spectrum. Arguments about
allocation and re-allocation do not provide a long-term economic or
national security solution. It is imperative that the U.S. solve the
spectrum crisis by developing innovative technology that transcends
these arguments by using the spectrum differently: adaptively and
flexibly. If the U.S. possesses this capability, then more bandwidth
will be available to meet the needs of commercial wireless providers as
well as national security systems, such as radar. The investment by
Congress in American innovation will spur jobs, science, and
technology, as well as create national leadership in spectrum.
Importantly, U.S. industries will be able to sell this new technology
worldwide, which will build the backbone of 6G, and its commercial
wireless industry, defense industry, and technology suppliers will
thrive.
If Congress sees this potential and invests in it now, the
dividends reaped down the road for American industry will far outweigh
the cost of present investment.
Question 4. Do you believe it makes sense for spectrum auction
revenues to be reinvested in priorities like innovation?
Answer. Yes. If spectrum is auctioned, revenues should be heavily
invested in innovation. Innovation is what will allow America to be the
best: in commercial wireless and in national security. The benefits of
innovating new systems that can share the spectrum in an adaptive and
reconfigurable way will far outweigh the costs of this investment.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Matthew Pearl
Question 1. There have been concerns about expanding commercial
access to spectrum and its implications for our national security and
defense capabilities.
Can you clarify the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration's role in administering spectrum? Specifically, when a
conflict arises between wireless and defense use of spectrum, how do
agencies coordinate to resolve the issue and ensure that U.S. national
security is not compromised?
Answer. NTIA plays an indispensable and underappreciated role in
resolving disputes over conflicts regarding interference between
commercial and government users, including DOD users. NTIA is
responsible for managing the radio spectrum that is used by the Federal
government, and it also serves as the President's principal advisor on
telecommunications issues. When there are new proposed commercial or
Federal uses that could potentially cause interference between the
Federal or commercial users (respectively), the FCC and NTIA coordinate
before any new access is granted. In the case of an FCC proposed action
that is coordinated with NTIA, the draft proposed action is shared by
NTIA with the relevant Federal agencies for comment. NTIA then compiles
those comments and, assuming any agency concerns have a technical
basis, they work with the FCC to resolve the disagreements. As part of
the process, NTIA and the FCC convene meetings, including with the
agencies who have expressed concerns, to work through any technical
issues.
In most cases, NTIA and the FCC resolve such conflicts using the
mechanisms described above. In some cases, however, disagreements
remain over whether there will be interference to commercial or Federal
systems from a proposed action. Historically, in those cases, the White
House--led by the National Security Council, with the participation of
other components such as the National Economic Council and the Office
of Science and Technology--convenes a formal interagency process to
resolve those disputes. FCC, NTIA, and agencies who have equities in
the relevant spectrum band are all included in this interagency
process. At every level (beginning at lower levels), there is an effort
by the White House to resolve as many disagreements as possible, and
then--if necessary--to escalate any remaining differences to a higher
level. This process reduces, clarifies, and refines the issues that
must be resolved at the higher political levels, ensuring that
principals' (and, in some cases, the President's) efforts are spent on
the key issues and that the best information is provided before a
decision is made.
Question 2. As the Federal Communications Commission looks to
expand access to additional licensed spectrum, would you expect the
same coordination to continue across agencies to ensure national
security is not compromised in the future?
Answer. Yes. The current MOU between the FCC and NTIA remains in
effect, and the White House continues to have the ability to use the
interagency process to resolve disagreements and disputes. If these
processes are diligently followed by the White House, FCC, NTIA, and
the agencies, they provide a highly effective mechanism for ensuring
that actions that are taken on spectrum do not compromise national
security. Ensuring that the right decisions are made requires high-
level White House leadership, so that all the agencies involved
understand that they are required to share information, work through
technical issues in good faith, and abide by decisions that are made by
the White House.
Question 3. I have long been an advocate for increasing access to
both licensed and unlicensed spectrum. What are some of the notable
innovations in the unlicensed spectrum space, and how have unlicensed
technologies, such as Wi-Fi, benefitted our economy?
Answer. The United States was the first country to adopt unlicensed
rules, beginning in the 1930s, and these rules have been a tremendous
benefit to the American economy because they allow anyone to experiment
and use the spectrum without obtaining permission from the government,
provided that the equipment they use cannot cause harmful interference
to licensed users.
We first saw the benefits of unlicensed rules to the American
economy in the 1970s, when bands in which unlicensed use was authorized
began to be used in everyday consumer applications such as baby
monitors and garage door openers. While these devices wouldn't normally
come to mind as examples of disruption innovation, a significant number
of U.S. companies sprung up to produce the equipment used for these
purposes, and the devices they old offered practical solutions that
benefitted millions of Americans.
Even more importantly, in the 1990s, innovators developed Wi-Fi and
Bluetooth. By leveraging the permissionless innovation of unlicensed
spectrum, the developers of those technologies have greatly increased
our connectivity, and contribute nearly $100 billion per year to the
U.S. economy.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to
Matthew Pearl
Question 1. Mr. Pearl: During the previous administration, progress
on strengthening our spectrum leadership slowed, with few actionable
steps taken. While my colleagues have worked tirelessly to advance
meaningful spectrum legislation, much remains to be done and we are
eager to see it done under the current administration.
If we were to implement an ambitious spectrum policy, how quickly
would we see tangible benefits?
Answer. If Congress reauthorizes the FCC to hold auctions and sets
ambitious goals and timelines for making spectrum available, we could
see auctions within one to two years, thus generating billions of
dollars for the American taxpayer, and we could see tangible benefits
to the American consumer within months of those auctions, as licensees
would begin to deploy spectrum in some areas. There are a variety of
bands where some of the spectrum could be made available. While it will
take some time for FCC, NTIA, and relevant agencies to do technical
analyses regarding which of these bands (and, in some cases, which
parts of these bands) to make available, and the conditions under which
they do so, it is possible to make progress quickly so that Americans
do not need to wait to be able to use these frequencies.
Question 1a. What would those benefits look like for the American
people?
Answer. The benefits to the American people would include greater
ability to use their mobile devices regardless of the location they are
in, and the ability to transmit more data than they can today. By
enabling those more data-intensive uses, innovators will be able to
develop new applications that benefit consumers in two ways: 1) they
will benefit from the capabilities that those apps offer, and 2) they
will also benefit from the economic gains that accrue to the American
economy, including the jobs created and the increased value of the U.S.
stock market, from those new apps. Further, this new spectrum will
enable businesses, universities, and other organizations to build
better private networks, enabling those businesses to benefit from the
capabilities that such networks offer, including increased security and
reliability. Additionally, those private networks will enable those
organizations to be more efficient, thus increasing their economic
efficiency and enabling them to pass on economic gains to their
employees and shareholders.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ted Budd to
Matthew Pearl
Question. Why are power levels important as we consider making new
investments of spectrum in mobile wireless connectivity?
Answer. Power levels are a critical aspect of spectrum policy. High
power levels are necessary to enable wireless carriers to provide wide-
area coverage, and to enable them to penetrate walls, foliage, and
other objects. Higher power levels thus enable networks to reach
consumers in a variety of places--which is a significant benefit in our
highly mobile society. The ability to penetrate walls is particularly
critical because we spend roughly 90 percent of our time indoors, and
when we are not at home or work (where we often use WiFi), we still
need to be able use those devices indoors. Thus, to build networks that
satisfy the needs of their customers, carriers need spectrum with high
power levels. Unless the spectrum that carriers obtain is useful to
their customers in all the places they move during the day, it does not
make sense for carriers to spend billions of dollars investing in their
networks.
Providing access to spectrum at lower power levels for unlicensed
use is also important, particularly for enabling indoor use of
spectrum. When we are at home or in the office, we frequently rely on
low-power uses of spectrum, such as WiFi. I should note, however, that
low-power use complements high-power use, rather than serving as
substitute for it, and vice versa.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Matthew Pearl
Question 1. Relocation Risks are Real. Mr. Pearl, you worked at the
National Security Council and with the Department of Defense and other
Federal agencies. And from that perch, you've seen firsthand the
complexities and interplay between commercial and Federal users of
spectrum and know how important it is to get coordination done and done
right.
Do you believe that without a smart, evidence-based, well-
coordinated spectrum policy we could put critical national security
capabilities at risk?
Answer. The United States has essential national security
capabilities in some of the bands that we are currently examining for
commercial use. For example, DOD uses lower 3 GHz for high-power radars
that play an essential role in protecting our homeland. Therefore, I
agree it is absolutely critical that the Administration and the FCC
have the right process in place, including ``smart, evidence-based,
well-coordinated'' spectrum policy, so that as they make decisions that
enable new commercial use, they do not jeopardize national security.
At the same time, to enable the Federal Government to create new
opportunities for commercial use (which are urgently needed to compete
with the PRC in the economic domain), Congress should set clear,
ambitious goals to offer an impetus for the Federal Government to make
spectrum available for commercial use, while building in flexibility
that enables the United States to fully accommodate national security
uses. Providing such an impetus is important to ensuring agencies that
use spectrum understand they must cooperate in good faith and find ways
to make spectrum available without harming their operations, rather
than preserving spectrum in cases where they have no current or
anticipated use for it. By providing flexibility, such as allowing the
FCC and the Executive Branch to satisfy the requirements of any
clearing targets by making the spectrum available for either exclusive
use or shared use, Congress can ensure that--before an FCC auction
takes place--the Executive Branch has determined how to preserve
critical national security uses in bands when relocation proves to be
infeasible.
Question 2. Do you think it's wise to auction Federal spectrum,
before technical studies are finished, to determine the viability of
relocating Federal systems? And have you seen this result in the public
being put at risk?
Answer. I do not believe it is prudent to auction spectrum before
technical work has been done regarding the conditions under which it
will be made available. I should note, however, that all the major
bills that are currently under active consideration (of which I am
aware) do not propose to hold auctions before the FCC, NTIA, and the
agencies do such analyses. For instance, some proposed bills set
clearing targets for making spectrum available across a broad range of
spectrum--which includes bands that are used for exclusive Federal use,
bands that are used for exclusive non-Federal use, and bands that are
shared by Federal and non-federal users--and they allow for the
possibility that Federal uses will still have access to bands (on a
shared basis with new commercial use). Following the passage of a bill,
the interagency process and associated technical work would take place
to establish the conditions under which spectrum may be made available,
including ensuring--before any auction takes place--that commercial use
will not jeopardize national security.
Question 3. Spectrum Warfare. We are seeing spectrum's importance
on the battlefield, the Russians are jamming Ukrainian drones,
communications, and satellite services. We also know that China is a
real threat to U.S. innovation and national security.
Could auctioning Federal spectrum put critical DoD capabilities at
risk and potentially disadvantage the United States in a conflict with
our adversaries?
Answer. If the FCC were to auction spectrum without collaborating
with NTIA and following the interagency process, it would potentially
put DOD capabilities at risk and potentially disadvantage the United
States in a conflict. If the FCC, NTIA, and the agencies
conscientiously abide by the FCC-NTIA MOU and the interagency process,
and there is White House leadership on spectrum issues, I am confident
that we can make additional spectrum available for commercial use
without compromising any DOD capabilities or ceding an EW advantage to
our adversaries.
Question 4. How might this affect our deterrence capabilities? And
are there any examples you are aware of where this has happened, and if
so, can you share them?
Answer. I am unaware of any examples where auctioning spectrum put
critical DoD capabilities at risk. It is possible that poor decisions
about auctioning spectrum could affect our deterrence capabilities; for
instance, if we undermined the effectiveness of EW capabilities by
providing insufficient spectrum for testing and training at DOD bases,
then we may be unable to deter efforts by our adversaries to jam,
spoof, or employ other malicious methods to undermine the United States
military's spectrum-based operations outside of the United States.
Question 5. Interagency Cooperation. We can avoid the mismanagement
of the past by creating a coordinated approach to domestic spectrum
policy, where agencies with critical missions such as the FAA and DoD
work together with NTIA and FCC--cooperatively--on spectrum.
Have you witnessed instances where poor government coordination led
to decisions that unknowingly compromised our national security?
Answer. In the 15 years I spent working on spectrum policy, I did
not witness any instances in which poor coordination of domestic
spectrum policy compromised national security missions. In the case of
C-band (3.7-3.98 GHz), a lack of coordination involving the FAA led to
a public controversy over whether the FCC's actions to authorize
commercial use would interfere with radio altimeters, which are used on
both civilian and military aircraft. In that case, however, prior to
deployment of any 5G operations in the spectrum, there was extensive
coordination between FCC, NTIA, DOT/FAA, and the mobile industry, and
issues of potential interference were addressed to the satisfaction of
the agencies. Thus, while this case involved a potential compromise to
national security, the interagency process was successful in preventing
an actual instance of compromising national security.
There were also claims made that the FCC's grant of authority to
Ligado near GPS frequencies in 2020 could jeopardize national security,
given that both the commercial sector and the military rely on GPS to
obtain position, time, and navigation. I was not involved in working on
those decisions during my government service. According to reports,
however, Ligado never launched in that spectrum, so this decision did
not jeopardize national security.
Question 6. Did those decisions put Federal systems and the public
at large at risk?
Answer. I have not witnessed instances in which decisions actually
compromised national security.
Question 7. What specific interagency coordination mechanisms would
you recommend to prevent similar risks in the future?
Answer. First, it would be helpful to have a continuing, robust
role for the Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Group (IRAC) and
Interagency Spectrum Advisory Council (Council). The IRAC is essential
in enabling agencies to advise NTIA as it develops policy, particularly
on technical issues. The Council offers an interagency forum for high-
level officials from agencies to resolve any spectrum policy issues
that cannot be resolved at the working level. Further, for
disagreements and disputes that cannot be resolved by the IRAC or the
Council, it is essential for the White House--led by the National
Security Council--to use the interagency process to ensure the right
decisions are made to prevent risks to government missions, including
national security missions.
At the same time, I would recommend that we remain open to
incorporating new mechanisms, particularly if such mechanisms enhance
White House leadership on spectrum, to ensure robust, effective
coordination of spectrum policy decisions. While we should not replace
any of the mechanisms above without thoughtful deliberation, there is
always room for new approaches to ensure that effective spectrum
coordination takes place.
Question 8. How do we advance commercial spectrum while respecting
mission-critical Federal users and national security?
Answer. Based on most of the instances in which we have
successfully made commercial spectrum available without jeopardizing
Federal uses of spectrum, we need to take several actions:
Congress should establish ambitious clearing targets, so
that the Executive Branch has guidance on making spectrum
available and agencies know that they must cooperate and share
information in order for the legislation to be implemented
within the timeline set by Congress.
The heads of the FCC, NTIA, and the agencies should
regularly meet and establish good-faith, transparent, and
cooperative relationships so that they are able to avoid
disagreements and disputes when possible.
The heads of these agencies should also empower their
engineers to work closely with engineers from other agencies so
that they can solve technical problems.
NTIA should play the role of an ``honest broker'' when
agencies and the FCC have differing views, and should use its
technical expertise to solve engineering challenges.
The White House should provide robust leadership, including
by instituting an interagency process to resolve disagreements
and disputes.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Matthew Pearl
Question. Should the Federal Communications Commission consider the
national security implications of our existing GPS system in making
spectrum allocation decisions?
Answer. Yes. GPS is used both by our military and the civilian
sectors, including for national security operations. In making spectrum
allocation decisions, the FCC should consider whether such decisions
could interfere with GPS. At the same time, because GPS is extremely
susceptible to malicious signals such as jamming and spoofing, it is
critical that we develop a comprehensive ``system of systems'' for
information on position, navigation, and time. Such a system could be
used to back up and supplement GPS, and therefore reduce risks of
interference. It could enhance the accuracy and reliability of
position, navigation, and timing for both Federal and commercial users.
Finally, I would note that quantum sensing may provide an alternative
to GPS that is far more accurate and not susceptible to interference,
though unlike other technologies to make GPS more accurate and
resilient, it is challenging to predict precisely when quantum sensing
will be ready for commercialization.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Matthew Pearl
Question 1. Is it important that we complete thorough studies on
spectrum bands before the FCC moves forward with auctions?
Answer. I do not believe it is prudent to auction spectrum before
solid technical work has been done regarding the conditions under which
it will be made available. All the major bills that I am aware of under
active consideration, however, do not require auctions before the FCC,
NTIA, and the agencies to do such analyses. If a bill sets clearing
targets for making spectrum available under a reasonable time-frame and
allows flexibility for preserving Federal use in auctioned bands when
necessary, such as by allowing shared use, then the FCC and the
Executive Branch will be able to complete studies and ensure that
Federal capabilities are preserved prior to any auction.
Question 2. Is it important that the relevant Federal agencies are
coordinating and sharing information with each other regarding spectrum
management?
Answer. Yes. It is critical that Federal agencies that use spectrum
provide fulsome information regarding their use, plans, and analyses
regarding co-existence issues with NTIA and the FCC. Some of our
coordination challenges in the past, such as the conflict between the
FCC and NOAA over 24 GHz, arose from an unwillingness to share the
assumptions that went into agencies studies with the FCC and NTIA. This
delays spectrum decisions and makes it difficult to get the Federal
Government to adopt a ``whole-of-government'' view regarding how to
proceed on specific spectrum decisions.
Question 3. Should industry and government partners be investing in
developing innovative technology to solve spectrum challenges of today
and prepare for new challenges down the line?
Answer. Yes. Both industry and the government have a vital role in
developing innovative technology. First, government needs to make
early-stage investments in R&D that would be too risky for industry, so
that the United States is the first to develop new spectrum-based
capabilities. Such investments should occur in close cooperation with
the private sector. This will enable industry to invest in implementing
those innovations in their networks and products when they are ready
for commercialization. Further, it is important for the private sector
to invest in R&D, given that they are sometimes able to identify
opportunities to innovate in spectrum use, and close coordination with
the Federal Government will ensure that there is complimentary rather
than duplicative spending on R&D.
Question 4. Should this administration continue the last
administration's work in the National Spectrum Strategy to increase
transparency around Federal spectrum usage?
Answer. Yes, efforts to increase transparency around Federal
spectrum usage will help to ensure the Federal Government adopts the
right spectrum policy. It is critical that, for unclassified government
uses of spectrum, that those efforts capture not only when the spectrum
is used for, but also the precise times, places, and technical details
of such use. To capture that information, it is important for NTIA and
the agencies to leverage advanced sensing technologies, which can
accurately capture all the details of spectrum use.
Question 5. In spectrum reauthorization legislation, should
Congress consider setting a dispute resolution process in statute
similar to what was included in the National Spectrum Strategy under
the prior administration?
Answer. I agree that it would be helpful to the Executive Branch
and the FCC to codify long-standing procedures around dispute
resolution. I should note that many of those procedures did not begin
with the National Spectrum Strategy, but rather were captured and
formally adopted in the Strategy. Having Congress codify those
procedures will help to ensure that the dispute-resolution process is
consistently used when proposed spectrum actions are being considered
by the FCC, NTIA, or the agencies that use spectrum. While I agree that
codification of procedures is a helpful step for Congress to take, it
is also necessary for the White House to have high-level commitment to
following those procedures, so that they are effectively implemented.
Question 6. Should this administration continue the last
administration's work to bolster the spectrum workforce?
Answer. Yes. For the United States to be competitive in next-
generation networks, it is necessary to attract, educate, and grow the
spectrum workforce. This will require extensive collaboration between
the Executive Branch, the FCC, universities and other research
institutions, think tanks, and civil society organizations.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester to
Matthew Pearl
Question. Congress typically waits to have technical feasibility
studies regarding spectrum allocation in hand prior to authorizing
auction authority to avoid problems. A number of studies are under way
now. If we were to go ahead now without waiting for the studies, then
what are the risks we could expect regarding commercial spectrum use?
What are the risks to DoD systems or other Federal spectrum needs?
Answer. I agree that we should not auction spectrum before
technical analysis has been done on the specific conditions under which
such spectrum will be made available. There are numerous risks that
could occur to national security and other Federal uses of spectrum if
such an approach were adopted. For instance, we could interfere with
the ability of DOD to test next-generation radars on its military
bases, thus putting us at a disadvantage with the PRC as it attempts to
leapfrog over our radar capabilities. As another example, we could
effect the Department of Energy's Power Marketing Administration, which
markets and delivers hydropower to dozens of U.S. states.
I would note, however, that all the major bills that are currently
under active consideration in Congress (of which I am aware) would
enable the FCC, NTIA, and the agencies to conduct such analysis before
auctions take place. For instance, bills that set clearing targets for
making spectrum available can build in flexibilities, such as allowing
the FCC to make the bands available for exclusive non-federal use or
shared use. Following the passage of a bill, the interagency process
and associated technical work should take place to establish the
conditions under which spectrum may be made available, including
ensuring--before any auction takes place--that commercial use will not
jeopardize national security.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to
Bryan Clark
Question. Mr. Clark: My understanding is that China's strategy for
wireless technology has been to secure exclusive licensing rights
globally while restricting access. What is your perspective on China's
approach?
Answer. China's approach to spectrum allocation has made similar
portions of mid-band and high-band spectrum available to commercial
mobile network operators (MNO) as in western countries.
However, China's government intends to dramatically increase the
amount of spectrum available for Chinese MNOs over the next decade,
which some fear could create an advantage for Chinese telecomunciations
companies by allowing them to mature technologies that exploit wide
areas of spectrum for mobile broadband and obtain revenue that allows
them to make more inroads into telecommunication networks of U.S.
allies.
An element of Chinese spectrum management that is often not
discussed is the role of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in
controlling spectrum access. The PLA has reserve personnel embedded in
China's radio management centers around the country and in Chinese
MNOs.
These personnel are in place to move commercial users out of
military frequencies whenever needed. In addition to during
emergencies, which is similar to the United States, these reserve PLA
personnel also move commercial users out of military spectrum for
routine testing, training, and other operations.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ted Budd to
Bryan Clark
Question. In your written testimony you state ``Beijing
disingenuously claims that it has given more spectrum to Chinese
telecommunication companies when in fact the People's Liberation Army
(PLA) retains the authority and mechanisms to routinely displace
commercial spectrum users.'' Can you expand on this and explain the
differences between the Chinese and U.S. mechanisms to displace
commercial spectrum users for national security purposes?
Answer. An element of Chinese spectrum management that is often not
discussed is the role of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in
controlling spectrum access. The PLA has reserve personnel embedded in
China's radio management centers around the country and in Chinese
MNOs.
These personnel are in place to move commercial users out of
military frequencies whenever needed. In addition to during
emergencies, which is similar to the United States, these reserve PLA
personnel also move commercial users out of military spectrum for
routine testing, training, and other operations. See John Dotson,
``Military-Civil Fusion and Electromagnetic Spectrum Management in the
PLA,'' Jamestown Institute, October 8, 2019, https://jamestown.org/
program/military-civil-fusion-and-electromagnetic-spectrum-management-
in-the-pla/.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Bryan Clark
Question 1. The Spectrum Pipeline is Flawed. 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.
Mr. Clark, what risks to national security and American defense
strategy can arise from decisions to relocate spectrum currently relied
upon by military systems?
Answer. Military radars, radios, and electronic warfare systems are
essential for military operations at home such as countering missile,
drone, and air threats as part of the Trump Administration's Golden
Dome initiative. These systems operate predominantly in the S-band
(especially the lower 3 GHz band) and X band (8-12 Ghz), which are
attractive to commercial telecommunications for the same reasons--
effective range, relatively high-bandwidth--that makes them valuable
for military operations. Relocating them to new frequencies will take
more than a decade and cost more than $100 billion. But forcing
military systems to operate in the presence of full-power 5G
telecommunications will create interference and prevent effective air
defense.
U.S. forces need to train with radars, radios, and electronic
warfare systems in and around U.S. territory to enable them to fight
effectively overseas. If they are unable to use the spectrum currently
allotted for sensors and communications, they will not be able to train
in the same way they would fight, reducing their proficiency when
troops arrive at the battlefield.
Military operations overseas also increasingly depend on U.S.
forces being able to operate in unexpected parts of the spectrum to
avoid enemy detection and classification--operations ships and aircraft
need to train for in the United States. Moreover, countering adversary
sensors will require jammers that operate in adversary frequencies,
such as C-band to deceive synthetic aperture radar satellites. U.S.
forces will need to begin these electronic warfare operations in U.S.
territory to ensure their deception operation is effective. If U.S.
forces cannot use these frequencies, they will be easier to track and
target.
Question 2. How do shared spectrum approaches help us avoid those
risks while still helping us find new spectrum for commercial use?
Answer. Shared spectrum can allow military operations to continue
unimpeded while affording access for commercial users. Military systems
do not need continuous access to S and X-band frequencies, for example,
in all geographic regions. Spectrum can be shared statically, by
establishing time and geographic limitations for different users, such
as under the America's Mid-Band Initiative Team (AMBIT) effort.
Spectrum can also be shared dynamically, as in the Citizen's Band Radio
Service (CBRS), by adopting technological and procedural solutions that
enable commercial communications to proceed most of the time, but
automatically shift them to another band when a military system
energizes in the area.
Spectrum sharing approaches like these can enable commercial users
to gain at least periodic or geographically limited access to new areas
of spectrum. This requires industry to incorporate additional
technology or combine multiple regions of spectrum, but is the
compromise that allows both military and commercial activities to use
the same valuable regions of spectrum.
Question 3. How do we advance commercial spectrum while respecting
mission-critical Federal users and national security?
Answer. By adopting geographic and time constraints, as in the
AMBIT program, or by using dynamic spectrum sharing, as in CBRS, the
government can create commercial opportunities while protecting
incumbent Federal users like the military and law enforcement that face
an increasingly challenging threat environment at home as well as
overseas.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Bryan Clark
Question 1. The Department of Defense (DoD) has significant
equities in Hawaii and the Indo-Pacific, including systems that are
being actively funded and built with specific spectrum parameters in
mind.
How would modifications to DoD spectrum allocations impact existing
requirements for ongoing projects related to cruise and ballistic
missile radar detection systems that the DoD has established project
timelines and appropriations for to develop and procure?
Answer. The DoD operates an Aegis Ashore radar and interceptor
launcher at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) in Hawaii to test
the Aegis Weapons System's ability to defend against cruise and
ballistic missile threats. The facility was primarily built to test
Aegis Ashore systems that were established in Eastern Europe but is now
used to test new capabilities for shipboard Aegis systems as well. The
radar for this system operates in the lower part of the 3 Ghz band for
search and in the X-band (8-12 Ghz) for targeting. Relocating the
system to other frequency bands will increase the system's cost by
hundreds of millions of dollars and introduce years of delay in
testing.
The DoD is considering using the Aegis Ashore installation at PMRF
to also support homeland missile defense, where it could be
incorporated into the Trump Administration's Golden Dome initiative. In
addition to increasing the system's cost, changing its frequency bands
will reduce its performance in defending the United States from
ballistic and hypersonic missile threats.
Question 2. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA)
operates earth observation satellites that are crucial to weather
forecasting, including tracking extreme weather events.
What technological capabilities currently exist to allow in-band
sharing of spectrum?
Answer. Earth observation satellites depend on downlinks in the L
(1-2 Ghz) and S (2-4 Ghz) bands to send data to earth. Government and
commercial users could employ technologies for dynamic spectrum sharing
like that used by the Citizen's Band Radio System (CBRS) to both
operate in these bands.
Question 3. What technological capabilities currently exist to
block or attenuate out-of-band emissions?
Answer. Radars and radios use a combination of digital beamforming
and antenna design to reduce out-of-band emissions from being
transmitted or received. For example, by using software and phased
array antennas, radars and radios can control the emissions from each
antenna element and use destructive interference to narrow the physical
beam of energy being transmitted or received by the system. This can
help reduce the likelihood emissions will exceed geographic bounds
established under static spectrum sharing schemes like the AMBIT
program.
To reduce the likelihood of signals leaving outside their assigned
frequency bands, radars and radios can used digital radio frequency
systems on a chip (RFSOC) and software-defined radios (SDR) that
program their waveforms to include more data in each channel or
frequency. These systems can also increase their power level to allow a
higher reliability of data transfer and thereby transmit more data on
each channel (or frequency) and reduce the need to transmit data over
multiple channels simultaneously.
Question 4. In light of potential impacts to adjacent bands,
shouldn't emissions that cross into adjacent bands trigger the need for
a spectrum sharing agreement similar to in-band sharing? In other
words, if one party's use of a band includes both in-band and out-of-
band components, shouldn't the Spectrum Relocation Fund be fully
compensated for both?
Answer. All radio transmitters experience some level of out-of-band
emissions because of imperfections in antenna hardware. Spectrum
allocation schemes like those used by the FCC have employed ``guard
bands'' to prevent signals from one assigned set of frequencies from
spilling over into adjacent bands. Digital RFSOC and SDR technologies
allow the signals generated by radars and radios to be narrowed, which
allowed the FCC to shrink or eliminate guard bands in some areas of the
spectrum. This creates the potential for out-of-band signals
interfering with adjacent frequencies. When this happens, compensation
should be triggered if the power level of the out-of-band emission is
such that it interferes with the adjacent band's uses.
Question 5. Tribal lands, including reservations, Hawaiian Home
Lands, and Alaska Native Corporation lands, account for roughly 11
percent of all land in our country. Private sector investment and thus
access to spectrum here is historically low.
What national security and economic risks does the digital divide
in rural and Tribal areas present, especially those that are near
military installations?
Answer. The governments assignment to the military of frequencies--
especially in L, S, C, and X-band--for radars and radios on training
ranges and other large facilities can disincentivize telecommunications
companies from investing in adjacent territory. To implement dynamic
spectrum sharing schemes as in CBRS, mobile network operators (MNO) may
need to build more infrastructure to allow transmitters to operate at
low power because each tower's coverage will be lower than a high-power
installation. If they implement a static sharing scheme like AMBIT,
MNOs would need to establish a more complex architecture using
different power levels and frequencies around the military installation
to avoid conflicts with military systems.
However, MNOs are also disincentivized from investing in these
areas due to the low population density, which would offer few users to
fund the infrastructure to provide mobile communication services.
Bridging this digital divide will likely require government support to
build out mobile communications infrastructure and help mitigate the
costs of implanting spectrum sharing schemes in rural areas around
large military installations.
Question 6. Do you see a role for dynamic spectrum sharing in
Tribal areas, especially those that border military spectrum
allocations?
Answer. Yes, static spectrum sharing schemes like AMBIT and dynamic
spectrum sharing like CBRS could be employed in these regions. However,
both will impose costs on network operators.
Government support may be needed to ensure MNOs can recoup their
investment in building out these networks.
Question 7. Given the growing competition for mid-band spectrum
between military and commercial users, how should policymakers view
Tribal governments in this dynamic?
Answer. Tribal governments should be viewed as a partner in
allocating spectrum in their regions, although spectrum still needs to
be allocated nationally since radio transmissions do not recognize
tribal or state boundaries. Tribal governments should be brought into
collaboration with regulators, users, and industry to develop
approaches for providing telecommunication services on tribal lands,
especially mobile communications that are needed for safety and
security. Spectrum Relocation Funds may need to be employed to help
compensate network operators for the cost of building out
infrastructure on tribal land and incorporating spectrum sharing
technologies.
Question 8. Do Tribes represent a unique category of spectrum
stakeholders, and what role does direct access to spectrum for them
play in expanding competition in underserved areas?
Answer. Tribes are a governmental entity and should therefore have
a voice in deciding how spectrum is allocated in their region. This is
especially true for regions near military installations where a
combination of low population density and spectrum sharing requirements
disincentive network operators from building infrastructure.
Question 9. As the U.S. seeks to expand broadband to underserved
areas--including Tribal lands--while also ensuring sufficient spectrum
for national security and commercial purposes, what policies should
Congress consider to balance these competing needs?
Answer. Congress should consider ways to incentive industry to
invest in a combination of spectrum sharing schemes and network
infrastructure that can address these underserved areas while
protecting the need of military users to periodically access priority
regions of spectrum.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Bryan Clark
Question. Should the Federal Communications Commission consider the
national security implications of our existing GPS system in making
spectrum allocation decisions?
Answer. Yes. The GPS system operates in the L band (1-2 Ghz), which
is also a popular frequency band for satellite communications because
it offers a combination of long-range and relatively high data rates.
GPS signals are also very low power, which makes them very susceptible
to jamming and interference, as seen in Ukraine and Eastern Europe due
to Russian electronic warfare operations.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester to
Bryan Clark
Question 1. Congress typically waits to have technical feasibility
studies regarding spectrum allocation in hand prior to authorizing
auction authority to avoid problems. A number of studies are under way
now. If we were to go ahead now without waiting for the studies, then
what are the risks we could expect regarding commercial spectrum use?
What are the risks to DoD systems or other Federal spectrum needs?
Answer. The risks of auctioning spectrum that DoD is currently
using are significant to extreme, depending on the mission. U.S.
military forces depend on access to commercially-valuable spectrum--
such as S-band (2-4 Ghz), C-band (4-8 Ghz), and X-band (8-12 Ghz)--for
radars and radios. U.S. forces need to train on these systems in and
around the U.S. to prepare for combat overseas. If they cannot train in
the United States, they will be less proficient and effective.
More important, the military needs access to these regions of the
spectrum in the United States to support homeland defense. Initiatives
like the Trump Administration's Golden Dome air and missile defense
system will depend on access to S and X-band around priority defended
locations around the country and potentially over the whole country if
satellite-based radars are used as part of the architecture. If this
spectrum is unavailable over the U.S., Golden Dome will only be able to
engage threats as they enter the U.S. and would be unable to shoot them
down once they are over U.S. territory.
For U.S. military systems to move out of these frequency ranges
will take more than a decade and nearly $100 billion, and in the end
they will be less capable because they will use less useful part of the
spectrum.
Question 2. Maintaining our economic competitiveness globally and
creating conditions for innovation are important, and I am open to
strategies to put our country in the best possible position. Still, a
top priority must be ensuring that we are prepared in the event of
aggressive actions by an adversary. Mr. Clark, in your testimony, you
noted that ensuring the military has the spectrum they need is
important for countering China. Can you expand on how China would
benefit if DoD's spectrum access was overly constrained?
Answer. If the U.S. military is limited to narrower ranges of
frequency, the Chinese military could more easily detect and classify
U.S. forces by their emissions. One of the techniques U.S. forces might
use to confuse Chinese sensing and sensemaking is to move to other
areas of the spectrum and use different waveforms than normal. Although
U.S. commanders would not want to routinely operate using these ``war-
reserve modes'', their forces would need to periodically train on them
in the United States and their capabilities would need to be evaluated
on DoD ranges.
Electronic warfare operations require that U.S. forces emit in
frequency ranges that U.S. forces do not normally use. Chinese radars
and radios use similar frequencies to U.S. systems because their
physical properties are beneficial, but Chinese systems do not use the
same frequencies. If U.S. forces are constrained to a narrow band of
frequencies, then they cannot train or develop electronic warfare
systems that are effective against Chinese sensors and radios.
Question 3. Mr. Clark, in your testimony you cited spectrum-sharing
as a strategy to move forward. Do you think it is feasible that both
DoD needs and commercial needs could be met through carefully planned
spectrum-sharing?
Answer. Yes. DoD operations in the United States (except perhaps
for Golden Dome) are not continuous and do not happen across the entire
country. Static spectrum sharing schemes like AMBIT that use geographic
and power constraints to prevent spectrum conflicts could be employed
outside the areas around military installations. Dynamic spectrum
sharing arrangements like CBRS could be employed in areas in or near
military installations, where commercial and civilian users are forced
to move to another frequency when a military user begins emitting.
However, these schemes create complexity and cost for mobile network
operators, and reduce the value of the associated spectrum. The auction
approach and timing need to account for the time and investment needed
to establish these schemes before commercial operations commence.
Question 3a. Do we have the feasibility studies needed to move
forward with spectrum-sharing? If not, what do we need to do?
Answer. These studies are underway now, but these studies may be
too open-ended to provide actionable recommendations. The study
parameters may need to be adjusted to provide analysts clear goals for
the amounts of spectrum they should seek to make available and in which
regions, as well as accounting for the costs associated with
implementing appropriate spectrum sharing arrangements.
[all]