Telecommunications: History and Current Issues Related to Radio  
Spectrum Management (11-JUN-02, GAO-02-814T).			 
                                                                 
As new technologies that depend on the radio spectrum continue to
be developed and used more widely, managing the spectrum can grow
increasingly challenging. The current legal framework for	 
domestic spectrum management evolved as a compromise over the	 
questions of who should determine the distribution of the	 
spectrum among competing users and what standard should be	 
applied in making this determination. Although initially, all	 
responsibility for spectrum management was placed in the	 
executive branch, this responsibility has been divided between	 
executive branch for managing federal use and an independent	 
commission for managing non-federal use since 1927 . The current 
shared U.S. spectrum management system has processes for	 
allocating spectrum, but these processes have occasionally	 
resulted in lengthy negotiations between the Federal		 
Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) over allocation issues. The	 
United States also faces challenges in effectively preparing for 
World Radiocommunication Conferences. NTIA has several activities
to encourage efficient spectrum use by federal agencies, but it  
lacks the assurance that these activities are effective. NTIA is 
required to promote efficiency in the federal spectrum it	 
manages, which included more than 270,000 federal frequency	 
assignments at the end of 2000. To do this, NTIA directs federal 
agencies to use only as much of the spectrum as they need.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-814T					        
    ACCNO:   A03564						        
  TITLE:     Telecommunications: History and Current Issues Related to
Radio Spectrum Management					 
     DATE:   06/11/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Radio frequency allocation 			 
	     Telecommunication					 
	     International agreements				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-814T
     
Testimony Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation U.
S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 9: 30 a. m. EDT Tuesday, June 11,
2002 TELECOMMUNICATIONS

History and Current Issues Related to Radio Spectrum Management

Statement of Peter F. Guerrero Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

GAO- 02- 814T

Page 1 GAO- 02- 814T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to be here to report
on the preliminary observations from our work on radio spectrum management
issues. The radio spectrum is the medium that makes possible wireless
communications of all sorts, such as cellular and paging services, radio and
television broadcasting, radar, and satellite- based services. As new
technologies that depend on the radio spectrum continue to be developed and
used more widely, managing the spectrum has grown increasingly challenging.
The radio spectrum can become congested if too many users operate on it in
an uncoordinated manner. Moreover, because spectrum has no geographical
boundaries, the domestic management of spectrum is closely tied to
international agreements on spectrum use. Therefore, the radio spectrum must
be carefully managed, both on a national and international level, to meet
the needs of a constantly increasing variety of services and users. One
important task of spectrum management is the allocation of spectrum, or the
apportionment of spectrum between the different types of uses and users of
wireless services. As demand for spectrum has grown, this task has become
more difficult, raising complex questions that cannot be easily answered.

At the request of this committee, we have interviewed agency and industry
officials and reviewed relevant documents to address the following issues:
(1) the evolution of the current legal framework for domestic spectrum
management; (2) how well the current U. S. spectrum management structure
facilitates the allocation of spectrum; (3) what challenges the United
States faces in preparing for World Radiocommunication Conferences (WRC), at
which decisions are made on how to allocate spectrum internationally; and
(4) how the federal government encourages efficient use of spectrum by
federal agencies

Our work is ongoing and will result in a report to be issued this summer. We
reviewed the legislative history and relevant agency manuals, policies, and
regulations, and interviewed officials responsible for spectrum management
from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and Department of
State, and key wireless industry representatives. In addition, to determine
how the federal government uses and manages spectrum, we interviewed
officials from the following seven agencies: the Department of Energy, the
Department of the Interior, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Coast
Guard, the Department of Justice, the Federal Emergency Management
Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Page 2 GAO- 02- 814T

In summary, our preliminary observations are as follows: * The current legal
framework for domestic spectrum management evolved

as a compromise over the questions of who should determine the distribution
of spectrum among competing users and what standard should be applied in
making this determination. Although initially all responsibility for
spectrum management was placed in the executive branch, since 1927 this
responsibility has been divided between the executive branch for managing
federal use (currently, the President has delegated this responsibility to
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration), and an
independent commission for managing non- federal spectrum use (at first the
Federal Radio Commission and since 1934, its successor, the Federal
Communications Commission). The standard to be applied in managing non-
federal government spectrum is ?the public interest.? Under this divided
management framework, no one entity has ultimate decision- making power over
all spectrum users; the two agencies must coordinate and cooperate in order
to determine how to accommodate different users competing for spectrum.

 The current shared U. S. spectrum management structure has processes for
allocating spectrum for new uses and users of wireless services, but these
processes have occasionally resulted in lengthy negotiations between FCC and
NTIA over how to resolve some allocation issues. Since nearly all of the
usable radio spectrum has been allocated already, accommodating more
services and users often involves redefining spectrum allocations. One
method of doing this used by FCC and NTIA is to increase the amount of
shared spectrum. In shared spectrum, more than one type of service or user
may utilize the frequencies in the allocation. For example, according to
NTIA, 56 percent of the spectrum in the 0- 3. 1 GHz range is now shared
between federal and non- federal users. Another method of redefining
allocations, called band clearing, involves moving a service or user from
one area of spectrum to another in order to make room for a new service or
user. Occasionally, these methods are contentious and protracted, such as
the continuing efforts to reallocate spectrum for third- generation advanced
wireless services. Some government officials and nongovernmental
representatives we interviewed discussed the possibility of designating a
third party to arbitrate between FCC and NTIA in such circumstances and the
need for better planning to help increase coordination between the two
agencies in their shared management of this resource.

Page 3 GAO- 02- 814T

 The United States faces challenges in effectively preparing for World
Radiocommunication Conferences, at which decisions are made regarding the
allocation of spectrum internationally, to ensure that the United States can
best serve the interests of domestic spectrum users. Timely preparation has
become more important and challenging due to increases in the frequency of
conferences, the number of participating nations (each of which has one
vote), and the number of items on conference agendas that countries vote on
to change the international rules for spectrum use. In addition, regional
blocks have emerged, with countries pooling their votes to promote their
position on agenda items. Under the current structure, FCC and NTIA develop
positions on agenda items through separate processes that involve the users
of the spectrum they manage. The positions reached during these two
processes must be merged into a unified U. S. position. An ambassador is
appointed by the President for a period not exceeding six months to
facilitate the development of this unified position and lead the U. S.
delegation in negotiating for the adoption of U. S. positions at the World
Radiocommunication Conference. In our meetings with government officials and
wireless industry representatives, we heard differing opinions about (1) the
ability of the United States to develop a unified position early enough to
promote that position effectively and (2) the manner in which we appoint an
ambassador to head the U. S. delegation.

 NTIA has several activities to encourage efficient spectrum use by federal
agencies, but it lacks assurance that these activities are effective. NTIA
is required to promote efficiency in the federal spectrum it manages, which
included more than 270,000 federal frequency assignments at the end of 2000.
To do this, NTIA directs federal agencies to use only as much spectrum as
they need. Because agencies have different mission- based needs and because
there are a large number of frequency assignments that require attention,
NTIA?s frequency assignment and review processes place the primary
responsibility for promoting efficiency in the hands of the agencies. NTIA
requires that agencies justify their need for spectrum and review most
spectrum assignments every 5 years. Officials from the seven federal
agencies in our review told us that they attempt to use spectrum as
efficiently as possible, but five of them are not completing the required
five- year reviews in a timely or meaningful way because of staff shortages
and other agency priorities. Moreover, although NTIA has established
monitoring programs to verify how agencies are using spectrum, it said that
some of these programs are inactive because of staff and funding shortages.
NTIA also conducts research and technical initiatives that are designed to
promote efficiency by conserving spectrum, but NTIA said some of these
efforts have been difficult to implement. In

Page 4 GAO- 02- 814T

addition, NTIA states that its spectrum management fees, which were designed
to recover part of the costs of NTIA?s spectrum management functions,
provide agencies with a financial incentive to remove inactive assignments.
However, it is not clear that these fees promote efficient use of spectrum
because agencies can reduce the number of assignments without returning
spectrum.

In addition to these issues, the committee requested that we review how the
current rules and regulations governing spectrum holders affect the rollout
of new technologies and services and the level of competition in markets
that utilize spectrum. As part of this work, we will look at how other
countries manage spectrum. Although our review of these issues will not be
completed until early 2003, I will briefly discuss our ongoing work at the
end of this statement.

To a large degree, spectrum management policies flow from the technical
characteristics of radio spectrum. Although the radio spectrum spans nearly
300 billion frequencies, 90 percent of its use is concentrated in the 1
percent of frequencies that are below 3. 1 gigahertz. 1 The crowding in this
region has occurred because these frequencies have properties that are well
suited for many important wireless technologies, such as mobile phones,
radio and television broadcasting, and numerous satellite communication
systems.

The process known as spectrum allocation has been adopted, both domestically
and internationally, as a means of apportioning frequencies among the
various types of uses and users of wireless services and preventing radio
congestion, which can lead to interference. Interference occurs when radio
signals of two or more users interact in a manner that disrupts the
transmission and reception of messages. Spectrum allocation involves
segmenting the radio spectrum into bands of frequencies that are designated
for use by particular types of radio services or classes of users, such as
broadcast television and satellites. Over the years, the United States has
designated hundreds of frequency bands for numerous types of wireless
services. Within these bands, government, commercial, scientific,

1 Radio waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation that propagates in
space as the result of particle oscillations. The number of oscillations per
second is called frequency, which is measured in units of hertz. The terms
?kilohertz? refers to thousands of hertz and

?gigahertz? to billions of hertz. The radio spectrum comprises a range of
frequencies from 3 kilohertz to around 300 gigahertz. Background

Page 5 GAO- 02- 814T

and amateur users receive specific frequency assignments or licenses for
their wireless operations. 2 The equipment they use is designed to operate
on these frequencies.

During the last 50 years, developments in wireless technology have opened up
additional usable frequencies, reduced the potential for interference, and
improved the efficiency of transmission through various techniques, such as
reducing the amount of spectrum needed to send information. While this has
helped limit congestion within the radio spectrum, competition for
additional spectrum remains high. Wireless services have become critically
important to federal, state, and local governments for national security,
public safety, and other functions. At the same time, the consumer market
for wireless services has seen extraordinary growth. For example, mobile
phone service in the United States greatly exceeded the industry?s original
growth predications, as it jumped from 16 million subscribers in 1994 to an
estimated 110 million in 2001.

The legal framework for allocating radio spectrum among federal and
nonfederal users emerged from a compromise over two fundamental policy
questions: (1) whether spectrum decisions should be made by a single
government official, or a body of decision- makers; and (2) whether all
nonfederal users should be able to operate radio services without
qualification, or if a standard should be used to license these operators.
The resulting regulatory framework- dividing spectrum management between the
President and an independent regulatory body- is rooted both in the
President?s responsibility for national defense and in the fulfillment of
federal agencies? missions, and the encouragement and recognition by the
federal government of the investment made by private enterprise in radio and
other communications services.

The first federal statute to establish a structure for spectrum management-
the Radio Act of 1912 3 -consolidated licensing authority

2 Part 15 of FCC rules permits the operation of authorized low- power
wireless devices without a license from FCC or the need for frequency
coordination. The technical standards contained in Part 15 are designed to
ensure that there is a low probability that these unlicensed devices will
cause harmful interference to other users of the radio spectrum. 47 C. F. R.
sect. 15 (2001). Framework for

Spectrum Management

Page 6 GAO- 02- 814T

with the Secretary of Commerce. However, the act proved to be deficient in
addressing the burgeoning growth of radio communications and ensuing
interference that occurred in the late 1910s and 1920s. Specifically, the
Secretary of Commerce lacked the authority to use licensing as a means of
controlling radio station operations, 4 or to take actions to control
interference, such as designating frequencies for uses or issuing licenses
of limited duration. In recognition of such limitations, deliberations began
in the 1920s to devise a new framework for radio spectrum management.
Although there was general agreement that licensing should entail more than
a registration process, there was debate about designation of the licensing
authority and the standard that should govern the issuance of licenses. 5

The Radio Act of 1927, 6 reflecting a compromise on a new spectrum
management framework, reserved the authority to assign frequencies for all
federal government radio operators to the President and created the Federal
Radio Commission (FRC) to license non- federal government operators.
Composed of five members from five different regions of the country, FRC
could assign frequencies, establish coverage areas, and establish the power
and location of transmitters under its licensing

3 37 Stat. 302 (1912). The Radio Act of 1912 was enacted, in part, to
fulfill U. S. obligations incurred by the first international radio treaty.
Congress had passed an earlier federal statute, the Wireless Ship Act, 36
Stat. 629 (1910), as amended, 37 Stat. 199 (1912), to address a first use of
radio- safety of ships at sea. In 1904, President Roosevelt adopted a
recommendation of the first known inter- agency board to address radio use
by the federal government placing all government coastal radio facilities
under the U. S. Navy?s control.

4 The Secretary of Commerce could not refuse to grant a license upon proper
application under the Act as held by a court and two attorneys general
opinions. See 29 Op. 579 (1912); 35 Op. 126 (1926); Hoover v. Intercity
Radio Co., Inc; 286 Fed. 1003 (D. C. Cir., 1923). The Secretary had no power
to make regulations additional to those in the act. See United States v.
Zenith Radio Corporation et al., 12 F. (2d) 614 (N. D. Ill., 1926);
Carmichael v. Anderson, 14 F. 2d 166 (W. D. Mo. 1926). The 1912 act did not
regulate broadcasting. See

Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broad. Station, Inc., et al., reported in the
Congressional Record on December 10, 1926 (Cong. Rec. Vol. 68, Part I, pp.
216- 219).

5 This debate went on over several years as the Department of Commerce
convened four radio conferences (1922- 25) attended by manufacturers,
broadcasters, civilian and military government users, and other stakeholders
to make recommendations addressing overcrowding of the airwaves. Designation
of the Secretary of Commerce as the sole licensing authority, one of the
recommendations from the conferences, was a matter of contention in
congressional debate on new legislation.

6 44 Stat. 1162 (1927). Under the act, the FRC was granted licensing
authority for one year to resolve interference problems and then was to
become an appellate body to address disputes with the Secretary of Commerce
who was to assume licensing duties. However, the FRC?s one- year tenure was
extended three times by Congress, the last for an indefinite term pending
new legislation.

Page 7 GAO- 02- 814T

authority. Further, the act delineated that a radio operation proposed by a
non- federal license applicant must meet a standard of ?the public interest,
convenience and necessity,? and that a license conveyed no ownership in
radio channels nor created any right beyond the terms of the license. 7
FRC?s authorities were subsequently transferred to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), and the FRC was abolished upon enactment of
the Communications Act of 1934, which brought together the regulation of
telephone, telegraph, and radio services under one independent regulatory
agency. The 1934 act also retained the authority of the President to assign
spectrum to and manage federal government radio operations.

The need for cooperative action in solving problems arising from the federal
government?s interest in radio use was recognized in 1922 with the formation
of the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), comprised of
representatives from the federal agencies that use the most spectrum. 8
IRAC, whose existence and actions were affirmed by the President in 1927,
has continued to advise whoever has been responsible for exercising the
authority of the President to assign frequencies to the federal government.
9 In 1978, the President?s authority for spectrum management of federal
government users was delegated to NTIA, an agency of the Department of
Commerce. 10 IRAC assists NTIA in assigning

7 Prior to the 1927 Radio Act, an Illinois state court issued a decision to
enforce a property right to a radio frequency under the principle of ?right
of user.? Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broad. Station, Inc., et al., (Cir. Ct.,
Cook County, Ill. 1926), reprinted in 68 Cong. Rec. 216 (1926).

8 When originally formed in 1922, the inter- agency committee was known as
the

?Interdepartment Advisory Committee on Governmental Radio Broadcasting.? 9
Under the Radio Act of 1927, the President?s spectrum management authority
was delegated- and IRAC reported through- first, the Secretary of Commerce,
and then, beginning in 1932, the FRC (replaced by the FCC in 1934). In 1940,
an inter- agency Defense Communications Board was formed to coordinate the
relationship of all branches of communication to the national defense; IRAC
reported directly to the Board as of 1941 until the Board was abolished in
1947. Since 1951, the President?s spectrum management authority, coupled
with telecommunications policy advice, has been delegated, and IRAC has
reported through: the Telecommunications Advisor to the President (1951);
the director of the Office of Defense Mobilization (1953); the director of
the Office of Civil Defense Mobilization (1958); the director of
Telecommunications Management (1962); the director of the Office of
Telecommunications Policy (1970); and NTIA (1978).

10 President Carter?s Executive Order 12, 046, issued in 1978, abolished the
Office of Telecommunications Policy, transferred its functions to the
Department of Commerce, and established an Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information. Subsequently, the Department formally
established NTIA and Congress codified NTIA and its mission into law. See
The Telecommunications Authorization Act of 1992, 106 Stat. 3533 (1992).

Page 8 GAO- 02- 814T

frequencies to federal agencies and developing policies, programs,
procedures, and technical criteria for the allocation, management, and use
of the spectrum.

Over the past 75 years, since the 1927 act formed our divided structure of
spectrum management, there is historical evidence of cooperation and
coordination in managing federal and non- federal users to ensure the
effective use of spectrum. For example, FCC and IRAC agreed in 1940 to give
each other notice of proposed actions that might cause interference or other
problems for their respective constituencies. Further, FCC has always
participated in IRAC meetings 11 and NTIA frequently provides comments in
FCC proceedings that impact federal radio operations. And, as I will discuss
later, FCC and NTIA also work together with the Department of State to
formulate a unified U. S. position on issues at international meetings that
coordinate spectrum use regionally and globally. However, as demand for this
limited resource increases, particularly with the continuing emergence of
new commercial wireless technologies, NTIA and FCC face serious challenges
in trying to meet the growth in the needs of their respective incumbent
users, while accommodating the needs of new users.

The current shared U. S. spectrum management structure has methods for
allocating spectrum for new uses and users of wireless services, but these
methods have occasionally resulted in lengthy negotiations between FCC and
NTIA over how to resolve some allocation issues. Since nearly all of the
usable radio spectrum has been allocated already, accommodating more
services and users often involves redefining spectrum allocations.

One method, spectrum ?sharing,? enables more than one user to transmit radio
signals on the same frequency band. In a shared allocation, a distinction is
made as to which user has ?primary? or priority use of a frequency and which
user has ?secondary? status, meaning it must defer to the primary user.
Users may also be designated as ?co- primary? in which the first operator to
obtain authority to use the spectrum has priority to use the frequency over
another primary operator. In instances where spectrum is shared between
federal and non- federal users- currently

11 Although FCC once served as a representative to IRAC, its role in IRAC
was transformed in 1952 to that of liaison. Facilitating Spectrum

Allocations

Page 9 GAO- 02- 814T

constituting 56 percent of the spectrum in the 0- 3.1 GHz range 12 -FCC and
NTIA must ensure that the status assigned to users (primary/ secondary or
co- primary) meet users? radio needs, and that users abide by rules
applicable to their designated status.

Another method to accommodate new users and technologies is ?bandclearing,?

or re- classifying a band of spectrum from one set of radio services and
users to another, which requires moving previously authorized users to a
different band. Band- clearing decisions affecting either only non- federal
or only federal users are managed within FCC or NTIA respectively, albeit
sometimes with difficulty. However, bandclearing decisions that involve
radio services of both types of users pose a greater challenge.
Specifically, they require coordination between FCC and NTIA to ensure that
moving existing users to a new frequency band is feasible and not otherwise
disruptive to their radio operation needs. 13 While many such band- clearing
decisions have been made throughout radio history, these negotiations can
become protracted. For example, a hotly debated issue is how to accommodate
third- generation wireless services. 14 FCC also told us that the
relationship between FCC and NTIA on spectrum management became more
structured following the

12 NTIA also reported that 42 percent of the shared allocations between
federal and nonfederal users in the 0 to 3.1 GHz range are shared on a ?co-
primary? basis. 13 The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for
the Fiscal Year 1999, P. L. 105- 251, Oct. 17, 1998, authorized federal
entities to accept compensation payments when they relocate or modify their
frequency use to accommodate non- federal users of the spectrum. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, P. L. 106- 65, Oct.
5, 1999, specified a number of conditions that have to be met if spectrum in
which DOD is the primary user is surrendered. The act requires NTIA, in
consultation with FCC, identify and make available to DOD for its primary
use, if necessary, an alternate band( s) of frequency as replacement for the
band surrendered. Further, if such band( s) of frequency are to be
surrendered, the Secretaries of Defense and Commerce, and the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff must jointly certify to relevant congressional
committees that such alternative band( s) provide comparable technical
characteristics to restore essential military capability.

14 For more information on spectrum use decisions for third- generation
wireless services, see Defense Spectrum Management: More Analysis Needed to
Support Use Decisions for the 1755- 1850 MHz Band (GAO- 01- 795, August 20,
2001).

Page 10 GAO- 02- 814T

enactment of legislative provisions mandating the reallocation of spectrum
from federal to non- federal government use. 15

To address the protracted nature of some spectrum band- clearing efforts,
some officials we interviewed have suggested establishing a third party-
such as an outside panel or commission, an office within the Executive
branch, or an inter- agency group- to arbitrate or resolve differences
between FCC and NTIA. In some other countries, decisions are made within one
agency or within interagency mechanisms that exist for resolving contentious
band- clearing issues. For example, the United Kingdom differs from the U.
S. spectrum management structure in that a formal standing committee, co-
chaired by officials from the Radiocommunications Agency and the Ministry of
Defense, has the authority to resolve contentious spectrum issues.

Another proposed mechanism is the preparation of a national spectrum plan to
better manage the allocation process. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1993 required NTIA and FCC to conduct joint spectrum planning sessions.
16 The National Defense Authorization Act of 2000 included a requirement for
FCC and NTIA to review and assess the progress toward implementing a
national spectrum plan. 17 Top officials from FCC and NTIA said that neither
requirement has been fully implemented. However, they indicated their
intention to implement these directives.

15 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, P. L. 103- 66, Aug. 10, 1993, mandated
that bands of frequencies not less than 200 MHz be transferred from use of
the federal government to non- federal users. NTIA was directed to make a
report on the identification and recommendation for reallocation of
frequency bands; utilize specific criteria in making recommendations; issue
a preliminary report upon which public comment on proposed reallocations
would be solicited; obtain analyses and comment from FCC on reallocations;
and transfer frequency bands within specified time frames. It required FCC
to gradually allocate and assign frequencies over the course of ten years.
The Balanced Budget Act, P. L. 105- 33, Aug. 5, 1997, imposed a stricter
deadline for NTIA to identify for reallocation and FCC to reallocate,
auction, and assign licenses by September 2002 for an additional 20 MHz of
spectrum. (Eight MHz of spectrum was subsequently reclaimed per
congressional direction. See section 1062 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, P. L. 106- 65, Oct. 5, 1999.)

16 47 U. S. C. sect. 922. 17 P. L. 106- 65, 113 Stat. 767 (1999).

Page 11 GAO- 02- 814T

A central challenge for the United States in preparing for WRCs, at which
international spectrum allocation decisions are made, is completing the
preparatory actions to ensure that the U. S. is able to effectively
negotiate for international allocations that best serve the interests of
domestic federal and non- federal spectrum users. The management of our
domestic spectrum is closely tied to international agreements on spectrum
use at regional and global levels. Domestic spectrum allocations are
generally consistent with international allocations negotiated and agreed to
by members of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 18 The
spectrum allocation decisions reached at these international conferences can
affect the direction and growth of various wireless communications services
and have far- reaching implications for the multi- billion dollar wireless
communications industry in this country and abroad.

While the first international radio conferences were aimed at interference
avoidance for early radio uses, such as maritime safety, meeting this same
objective has become increasingly challenging throughout the last century
with the proliferation of services and the number of nations adopting
communications that utilize the radio frequency spectrum. For example, the
emergence of new radio applications with international ramifications, such
as broadcasting, radio navigation, and satellite- based services, has
increased the need to reach agreements to prevent cross border signal
interference and maximize the benefits of spectrum in meeting global needs,
such as air traffic control. At the same time, the number of participating
nations in these negotiations has risen dramatically- from 9 nations in the
first conference held in 1903, to 65 nations in 1932, to 148 at the
conference held in 2000- along with the frequency of conferences (now held
every 2 to 3 years), and the number of agenda items negotiated at a
conference (e. g., 11 in 1979; 34 in 2000). There has also been a movement
toward regional cooperation at WRCs. Because decisions on WRC agenda items
are made by vote of the participating countries- with one vote per country-
uniform or block voting of nations in regional alignment has emerged to more
effectively advance regional positions. 19

18 ITU is a United Nations specialized agency. The federal government
considers the ITU the principal competent and appropriate international
organization for the purpose of formulating international treaties and
understandings regarding certain telecommunications matters.

19 One of the U. S. delegation?s objectives stemming from its experience at
the 2000 WRC is to work more closely with participating countries in our own
region in preparing for the 2003 conference. Challenges in

Preparing for World Radiocommunication Conferences

Page 12 GAO- 02- 814T

The State Department coordinates and mediates the U. S. position for the WRC
and leads the U. S. delegation to the conference through an ambassador
appointed by the President. We found strong agreement among those we
interviewed that it is important for the United States to develop its
position in advance of the conference in order to have time to meet with
other nations to gain international support for our positions. However, we
heard differences of opinion about the United States? preparatory process
for the conferences. U. S. positions on WRC agenda items are developed
largely through separate processes by FCC and NTIA with the involvement of
their respective constituencies. To obtain input from non- federal users,
FCC convenes a federal advisory committee comprised of representatives of
various radio interests (e. g., commercial, broadcast, private, and public
safety users), and solicits comment through a public notice in the Federal
Register. NTIA and federal government users can and do participate in the
FCC process. To obtain the views of federal spectrum users, IRAC meets to
provide NTIA with input on WRC agenda items. Although IRAC?s WRC preparatory
meetings are closed to the private sector due to national security concerns,
non- federal government users may make presentations to IRAC to convey their
views on WRC agenda items. Any differences of opinion between FCC and NTIA
on the U. S. position must ultimately be reconciled into a unified U. S.
position on each WRC agenda item. In cases where differences persist, the
ambassador acts as a mediator to achieve consensus to form a position.

State Department and FCC officials told us that the work of FCC and NTIA
with their respective constituencies and with each other in preparation for
a conference leads to U. S. positions on WRC agenda items that are
thoroughly scrutinized, well reasoned, and generally supported among federal
and non- federal parties. In contrast, some non- federal officials told us
that the NTIA process does not allow the private sector adequate involvement
in the development of U. S. positions for the WRC. Also, some federal and
non- federal officials said that since each agency develops its positions
through separate processes, it takes too long to meld the two toward the end
of the preparatory period. For example, to speed up our preparatory process,
the former U. S. Ambassador to the 2000 WRC recommended merging the separate
FCC and NTIA preparatory groups to

Page 13 GAO- 02- 814T

get an earlier start at working with industry and government users to reach
a consensus on U. S. positions regarding WRC agenda items. 20

Differing views also have been expressed on how we appoint an individual to
head the U. S. delegation. Since the early 1980s, the President has
appointed an ambassador to head the U. S. delegation to WRCs for a time
period not exceeding six months. 21 The former U. S. Ambassador to the 2000
WRC said that ambassador status is generally believed to confer a high level
of support from the administration, and it is viewed as helping to achieve
consensus in finalizing U. S. positions and enhancing our negotiating
posture. However, the former ambassador also said that the brief tenure of
the appointment leaves little time for the ambassador to get up to speed on
the issues, solidify U. S. positions, form a delegation, and undertake pre-
conference meetings with heads of other delegations to promote U. S.
positions. In addition, the ambassador said there is concern about the lack
of continuity in leadership from one conference to the next, in contrast to
other nations that are led by high- level government officials who serve
longer terms and may represent their nations through multiple conferences.
Leaders of national delegations with longer terms are perceived as being
more able to develop relationships with their counterparts from other
nations, helping them to negotiate and build regional and international
support for their positions. On the other hand, NTIA officials expressed the
view that the ambassador?s negotiating skill was of equal importance to the
duration of the appointment.

NTIA has several activities to encourage efficient spectrum use by the
federal government, but does not have assurance that these activities are
effective. NTIA is required 22 to promote the efficient and cost- effective
use of the federal spectrum that it manages- over 270,000 federal frequency
assignments at the end of 2000-? to the maximum extent feasible.? NTIA has
directed agencies to use only as much spectrum as they need.

20 Recommendations to Improve United States Participation in World
Radiocommunication Conferences, Ambassador Gail S. Schoettler, U. S. Head of
Delegation, World Radiocommunications Conference 2000, June 27, 2000.

21 22 U. S. C. sect. 3942. This provision of law enables the President to confer
the personal rank of ambassador on an individual in connection with a
special mission for the President not exceeding six months in duration. The
President need only transmit to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations a
written report on the appointment; confirmation by the Senate is not needed.

22 47 U. S. C. sect. 903( d)( 1). Encouraging Efficient

Federal Spectrum Use

Page 14 GAO- 02- 814T

NTIA?s process for assigning and reviewing spectrum places primary
responsibility for promoting efficiency in the hands of the individual
agencies because the determination of agencies? spectrum needs depends on an
understanding of their varied missions. Moreover, the large number of
frequency assignments that require attention (NTIA processes between 7,000
and 10, 000 assignment action requests- applications, modifications, or
deletions- from agencies every month on average) makes it necessary to
depend heavily on the agencies to justify and review their assignment needs.

NTIA authorizes federal agency use of the spectrum through its frequency
assignment process. As part of this process, NTIA requires an agency to
justify on its application that it will use the frequency assignment to
fulfill an established mission and that other means of communication, such
as commercial services, are not appropriate or available. In turn, agencies
generally rely on mission staff to identify and justify the need for a
frequency assignment and complete the engineering and technical
specifications for the application. NTIA and IRAC review the application to
ensure, among other things, that the assignment will not interfere with
other users. Once NTIA has authorized spectrum use by agencies, it requires
that the agencies review their frequency assignments every 5 years to
determine that the assignments are still needed and meet technical
specifications. 23 NTIA said that it may delete assignments that have not
been reviewed for more than 10 years.

Officials from the seven federal agencies in our review told us that they
attempt to use spectrum as efficiently as possible, but five of them are not
completing the required five- year reviews in a timely or meaningful way.
According to agency officials, this is due to shortages of staff available
to complete the review or because completing the reviews are a low agency
priority. For example, a spectrum manager for a major agency division has
over 1,000 frequency assignments that have not been reviewed in 10 years or
more. A spectrum manager in another agency said that the agency has
eliminated all field staff responsible for assisting with the five- year
reviews, which has impaired the timeliness and quality of the reviews. The
spectrum manager for a third federal agency said that he was sure that the
agency was not using all of its frequency assignments, but he added that
conducting a comprehensive review would be cost prohibitive and

23 Certain aeronautical and military frequency assignments are required to
be reviewed every 10 years.

Page 15 GAO- 02- 814T

generate limited benefits to the agency. However, we note that although the
agencies may not reap benefits from conducting these reviews, if these
reviews result in the release of unused or underutilized spectrum, other
federal and non- federal users could benefit.

Although NTIA?s rules and procedures also include NTIA monitoring programs
designed to verify how spectrum is used by federal agencies, NTIA no longer
conducts these programs as described. For example, at one time, the Spectrum
Management Survey Program included NTIA site visits to verify if agency
transmitters were being used as authorized. NTIA said that although this
program helped correct frequency assignment information and educate field
staff on NTIA requirements, it is not currently active due to NTIA staff
shortages. In addition, the Spectrum Measurement Program made use of van-
mounted monitoring equipment to verify that federal agencies were utilizing
assigned frequencies in accordance with the assignment?s requirements. NTIA
said that although this program provided useful information, the van-
mounted verification has been discontinued due to lack of resources. As a
result of the limited nature of the assignment and review programs and
decreased monitoring, NTIA lacks assurance that agencies are only using as
much spectrum as they need. 24

NTIA also seeks to promote efficiency by advocating spectrum conservation
through research and technical initiatives, but some of these activities
face implementation problems. Two examples illustrate the potential and the
limitations of these types of efforts. First, NTIA, with the approval of
IRAC, has required all federal agencies to upgrade land- based mobile radios
by setting deadlines for halving the spectrum bandwidth used per channel (in
essence, freeing up half of each band currently in use) for radios in
certain highly congested bands- a process called narrowbanding. 25 This
requirement has the potential to greatly expand the spectrum available for
land mobile telecommunications, but some agencies said that they are
struggling to meet the deadline due to a lack of

24 The issue of unused spectrum is not exclusive to federal agencies. A
recent self- reported survey of some private radio bands by FCC resulted in
the return of over 30, 000 unused spectrum licenses.

25 In 1992, Congress directed NTIA to adopt and implement a plan for federal
agencies with existing mobile radio systems to use more spectrum- efficient
technologies. 47 U. S. C. sect.

903( d)( 3). In 1993, NTIA provided Congress with a report- Land Mobile
Spectrum Efficiency: A Plan for Federal Government Agencies to Use More
Spectrum- Efficient Technologies- that included the narrowbanding plan.

Page 16 GAO- 02- 814T

sufficient staff and funding. Several agencies in our review said they will
not complete the upgrades before the deadline. For example, the Chief
Information Officer for one agency that is a member of IRAC compared the
requirement to an unfunded mandate, and indicated that his office did not
have the financial resources needed to upgrade the tens of thousands of
radios that fall under the requirement.

A second example of a technological initiative is a NTIA- sponsored pilot
program for federal agencies in six cities in the early 1990s to establish a
spectrum sharing method for voice radio communications, called trunking,
which conserves spectrum by putting more users on each radio channel.
According to NTIA, some agencies resisted the program because it was more
costly for agencies to participate in trunking than it was for them to use
their own channels. In addition, some agencies said the trunking systems did
not meet their mission needs. 26 NTIA added that the program was only
completely successful in Washington, DC, where agency demand for frequency
assignments, and therefore spectrum congestion, is extremely high. We found
efforts to encourage this technology in other countries as well. In the
United Kingdom, providers of emergency services are being encouraged to join
a trunking system. Once the new system has proved to be capable of meeting
their needs, certain public safety users will incur financial penalties if
they do not use this system. Additionally, in one province in Canada, a
variety of public safety users have voluntarily begun developing a trunking
system in order to use their assigned spectrum more efficiently in light of
the fees they must pay for this resource.

NTIA also told us that the congressionally- mandated spectrum management
fees agencies must pay also help to promote the efficient use of spectrum.
These fees are designed to recover part of the costs of NTIA?s spectrum
management function. The fees began in 1996 and amounted to about $50 per
frequency assignment in 2001. NTIA decided to base the fee on the number of
assignments authorized per agency instead of the amount of spectrum used per
agency because the number of assignments better reflects the amount of work
NTIA must do for each agency. Moreover, NTIA stated that this fee structure
provides a wider distribution

26 In addition to cost constraints, federal agencies can choose not to use
an existing land mobile system if the agency can justify that it needs its
own system to meet its mission requirements. For example, GAO agreed with
NTIA that the Navy was in the best position to assess whether it needed its
own land mobile system to meet its mission.

Page 17 GAO- 02- 814T

of cost to the agencies. 27 Although NTIA officials said that spectrum fees
provide an incentive for agencies to relinquish assignments, it is not clear
that this promotes efficient use of spectrum, in part because agencies may
be able to reduce assignments without returning spectrum. For example, a
spectrum manager for a federal agency said that the spectrum fee has caused
the agency to reduce redundant assignments, but that it has not impacted the
efficiency of the agency?s spectrum use because the agency did not return
any spectrum to NTIA as a result of reducing its assignments.

We have learned that other countries are moving toward using payment
mechanisms for government spectrum users that are specifically designed to
encourage government users to conserve their use of spectrum, rather than to
recover the cost of managing the spectrum. Both Canada and the United
Kingdom are reviewing their administrative fee structures at this time with
the intent of encouraging spectrum efficiency.

We are conducting additional work on the management of the radio spectrum to
determine how the current rules and regulations governing spectrum holders
affect the rollout of new technologies and services and the level of
competition in markets that utilize spectrum. To address these and other
related issues, we are building on the information presented here today
concerning U. S. rules and regulations governing spectrum management. We are
interviewing an array of providers of mobile telephone, satellite, paging
services, broadcasters, NTIA, other federal agencies, and public safety
representatives. Tomorrow we are hosting a panel with experts from several
of these sources to elicit additional input on these and other issues.

We are also collecting information from spectrum managers in approximately
12 other countries. We are interested in learning about their regulatory
structure, including their assignment processes, the amount of flexibility
allowed spectrum users, the existence of secondary markets, and their rules
regarding interference. In addition, we are interested in determining what
incentives- market- based or administrative- are employed to encourage
government and non- government users to

27 A bandwidth- based approach would have forced the Air Force to pay the
majority of the fees because of the large amount of spectrum the radars they
operate use. However, each radar transmitter requires only one assignment.
Additional GAO Work

on Spectrum Management

Page 18 GAO- 02- 814T

conserve spectrum. We will also seek to determine what impact these
regulators think their actions are having on consumer prices, the deployment
of new technology, the rollout of new services, and the level of
competition. From this work, we hope to summarize alternative approaches to
spectrum management used around the world and to identify similarities and
differences between these approaches and those used in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the committee may have.

For questions regarding this testimony, please contact Peter Guerrero on
(202) 512- 2834 or at guerrerop@ gao. gov. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony included Dennis Amari, Karin Bolwahnn, Keith
Cunningham, John Finedore, Terri Russell, Hai Tran, Mindi Weisenbloom, and
Alwynne Wilbur. Contact and

Acknowledgments
*** End of document. ***