Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum Management (09/30/2002, GAO-02-906}

-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-906
    TITLE:   Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum Management
     DATE:   09/30/2002



This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-906 
entitled 'Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced 
Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum Management' which was 
released on September 30, 2002.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO productsï¿½ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to [email protected].



Report to Congressional Requesters:



September 2002:



TELECOMMUNICATIONS:



Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability Needed to Improve 

Spectrum Management:



GAO-02-906:



Contents:



Letter:



Results in Brief:



Background:



Concern Over Concentrating Authority Led to Divided Structure for 

Spectrum Management:



Methods for Allocating Spectrum Face Difficulties and Are Not Guided by 

a Coordinated National Plan:



Issues Have Emerged Regarding the Adequacy of U.S. Preparations for 

World Radiocommunication Conferences:



Federal Officials Said Activities to Encourage Efficient Federal 

Spectrum Use Are Hindered by Staffing and Resource 

Problems:



Conclusions:



Recommendations for Executive Action:



Agency Comments:



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Major Parts of the Radiofrequency Spectrum and Their

Uses:



Appendix II: Timeline of Spectrum Management:



Appendix III: Comments from the Federal Communications COmmission:



Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce:



Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State:



Figures:



Figure 1: Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committeeï¿½s Membership:



Figure 2: Percent of Spectrum Shared by Federal and Nonfederal Users (9 

kHz to 3.1 GHz):



Figure 3: Spectrum Reallocation Process:



Figure 4: Relationship of U.S. Participants in Preparing for World 

Radiocommunication Conferences:



Figure 5: NTIA Frequency Assignment Process:



Figure 6: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1895-1925):



Figure 7: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1925-1955):



Figure 8: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1955-1985):



Figure 9: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1985-2005):



Abbreviations:



3G: third-generation wireless systems:



BOC: Bell Operating Company:



CITEL: Inter-American Telecommunication Commission:



DOD: Department of Defense:



DOE: Department of Energy:



EHF: extremely high frequency:



FCC: Federal Communications Commission:



FRC: Federal Radio Commission:



GHz: gigahertz:



HF: high frequency:



IRAC: Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee:



ITAC: International Telecommunication Advisory Committee:



ITS: Institute for Telecommunication Science:



ITU: International Telecommunication Union:



kHz: kilohertz:



LF: low frequency:



MF: medium frequency:



MHz: megahertz:



NTIA : National Telecommunications and Information Administration:



SHF: superhigh frequency:



UHF: ultrahigh frequency:



VHF: very high frequency:



VLF: very low frequency:



WARC : World Administrative Radio Conference:



WRC: World Radiocommunication Conference:



Letter September 30, 2002:



The Honorable Conrad Burns

The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye 

The Honorable John F. Kerry

United States Senate:



The radiofrequency spectrum is the medium that enables wireless 

communications of all kinds, such as mobile phone and paging services, 

radio and television broadcasting, radar, and satellite-based services. 

As new spectrum-dependent technologies are developed and deployed, the 

demand for this limited resource has escalated among both government 

and private sector users. Meeting these needs domestically is the 

responsibility of the Department of Commerceï¿½s National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for federal 

government users and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for 

all other users. One of these agenciesï¿½ most important tasks is to 

decide how to allocate (apportion) the spectrum among the different 

types of wireless services and users--a task that is increasingly 

difficult as the spectrum becomes more crowded and competition for 

radiofrequencies intensifies. A further complication is that domestic 

management and use of the spectrum and its commercial development are 

greatly affected by international agreements on spectrum use. Our 

ability to promote our strategic and economic interests internationally 

has become more difficult as countries vie with the United States for 

leadership in the multibillion dollar global telecommunications 

marketplace. As a result of these developments, debate has been 

intensifying about whether our current approach to spectrum management 

is adequate to meet the challenges of the wireless age.



As the Congress begins to debate whether fundamental reforms are needed 

in spectrum management, you asked us to provide an overview of the 

development of the legal and regulatory framework for spectrum 

management at the federal level and assess key issues associated with 

spectrum management at federal agencies. As agreed, we focused on the 

following issues: (1) the evolution of the current legal and regulatory 

framework for domestic spectrum management; (2) the current methods for 

allocating spectrum domestically and planning for its use; (3) the 

adequacy of the current U.S. preparatory process for the World 

Radiocommunication Conferences, at which decisions are made on how to 

allocate spectrum internationally; and (4) the activities used to 

increase accountability and encourage the efficient use of spectrum by 

federal agencies.



In addition to these issues, you 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 use spectrum. Work on this issue is ongoing and will 

result in a separate report early in 2003, which will also include a 

discussion of approaches to spectrum management in other countries, 

such as the use of incentives for efficient spectrum use.



To address the four issues covered in this report, we reviewed major 

legislative and regulatory developments in spectrum management over the 

past century, along with relevant agency manuals, policies, and 

regulations. We interviewed officials responsible for spectrum 

management at FCC, NTIA, and the Department of State. We also 

interviewed representatives from the commercial wireless industry. To 

gain an understanding of how the federal government uses and manages 

spectrum, we reviewed relevant documents and interviewed officials from 

the following seven agencies that are major users of this resource: the 

Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Federal 

Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard, the Department of Justice, 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration.[Footnote 1] We conducted our review from July 

2001 through July 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards.



Results in Brief:



The current legal framework for domestic spectrum management evolved as 

a compromise over the questions of who should determine how spectrum is 

allocated among competing users and what standard should be applied in 

making this determination. Although all spectrum management was 

initially placed in the executive branch, concern over concentrating 

licensing authority in this way led to legislation in 1927 and 1934 

that divided this authority between the executive branch for federal 

government spectrum use and an independent commission for nonfederal 

spectrum use, currently NTIA and FCC, respectively. Since 1922, the 

Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC)--composed of the 

representatives from the federal agencies that use the most spectrum--

has been a source of advice and support on the federal governmentï¿½s use 

of spectrum. Under the divided management framework, no one entity has 

been given ultimate decision-making power over all spectrum use, and 

the two agencies must coordinate and cooperate in order to determine 

how best to accommodate different users competing for spectrum.



Current methods for allocating spectrum face difficulties, and FCC and 

NTIAï¿½s efforts are not guided by a national spectrum strategy. Since 

nearly all of the usable radio spectrum has been allocated already, 

accommodating more services and users generally involves redefining 

current radiofrequency allocations. One method used by FCC and NTIA is 

to increase the amount of spectrum that is designated for shared use, 

so that additional types of services or users may be placed within a 

particular frequency allocation. Another method, called band-clearing, 

involves relocating a service or user from one area of spectrum to 

another in order to make room for a new service or user. Both of these 

methods can sometimes result in lengthy negotiations between FCC and 

NTIA because redefining allocations can be disruptive and costly for 

incumbent users who may need to replace their radio equipment to 

operate at new frequencies. Some government and private sector sources 

have raised the possibility of designating a third party to arbitrate 

between FCC and NTIA on hard-to-resolve allocation issues, though no 

consensus has emerged either on the necessity for this or who the 

arbiter should be. Congress has twice mandated that FCC and NTIA engage 

in coordinated planning, which could aid in resolving difficult 

allocation issues. Although FCC and NTIA have conducted independent 

planning efforts and are currently engaged in efforts that could 

provide the basis for improved planning, it is uncertain whether these 

efforts will result in a clearly defined national spectrum strategy. As 

a result, we are recommending that FCC and NTIA develop a strategy for 

establishing a clearly defined national spectrum plan and report the 

results of this effort to the appropriate congressional committees.



The challenges the United States faces in preparing for World 

Radiocommunication Conferences, where decisions are made regarding the 

global and regional allocation of spectrum, have raised questions about 

the adequacy of the United Statesï¿½ current preparatory process. Under 

the current structure, FCC and NTIA develop positions on agenda items 

through separate processes that involve the users of the spectrum they 

manage. With the assistance of the Department of State, the positions 

are then merged into a unified U.S. position. Timely preparation for 

these conferences is important to give the United States an opportunity 

to build support with other countries for its position on conference 

agenda items. In the past, however, the U.S. position on some items has 

remained unresolved until the eve of the conference, leaving the United 

States with little time to build preconference support. Another 

challenge involves the short tenure of the individual selected as the 

head of delegation, whose role is to help negotiate a unified U.S. 

position and lead the U.S. delegation at the conference. The President 

typically confers the personal rank of ambassador in connection with 

this special mission for a period not exceeding 6 months. There is 

concern that this leaves the ambassador with insufficient time to 

prepare for the conference. No consensus has been reached on whether 

fundamental changes are needed to improve the current preparatory 

process for World Radiocommunication Conferences. We are recommending 

all three agencies jointly review the adequacy of the preparation 

process following the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference and 

develop recommendations for any needed changes.



NTIA has several oversight activities to encourage accountability and 

efficient use of the spectrum by federal agencies, but federal 

officials stated that the effectiveness of these activities is hindered 

by staffing and resource shortages. Specifically, NTIA has directed 

federal agencies to use only as much spectrum as they need and has 

established frequency assignment and review processes that place 

primary responsibility for promoting efficiency in the hands of the 

agencies. As an accountability measure, NTIA requires that agencies 

justify their initial need for a frequency assignment and periodically 

review their continued need for the assignment, generally every 5 

years. Officials from several federal agencies told us that they have 

been unable to complete the required five-year reviews in a timely or 

in-depth manner because of shortages in experienced spectrum staff and 

competing agency priorities. Moreover, although NTIA has established 

monitoring programs to further increase agency accountability, it said 

that some of these programs are inactive because of staff and funding 

shortages. NTIA also conducts research and has technical initiatives 

under way to promote the efficient use of the spectrum. However, 

several agencies we reviewed reported difficulties implementing an 

important NTIA initiative for more efficient use of land mobile radio 

spectrum. Due to these workforce issues, we are recommending that the 

Department of Commerce conduct an analysis of the human capital needs 

of federal agencies for spectrum management as well as develop a 

strategy for enhancing its oversight of federal agenciesï¿½ use of 

spectrum.



In commenting on the draft of this report, FCC, the Department of 

Commerce, and the Department of State were in general agreement with 

our recommendations. FCC, the Department of Commerce, and the 

Department of State offered technical comments that were incorporated 

as appropriate.



Background:



To a large degree, spectrum management policies flow from the technical 

characteristics of the radio spectrum. Although the radio spectrum 

spans the range from 3 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz, 90 percent of its 

use is concentrated in the 1 percent below 3.1 gigahertz.[Footnote 2] 

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, 

numerous satellite communication systems, radars, and aeronautical 

telemetry systems.



The process known as spectrum allocation has been adopted, both 

domestically and internationally, as a means of apportioning 

frequencies among various types of wireless services and users to 

prevent radio interference. Interference occurs when two or more radio 

signals 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, and amateur users receive specific frequency assignments or 

licenses for their wireless operations.[Footnote 3] The equipment they 

use is designed to operate on these frequencies. Appendix I provides an 

overview of how the major frequency ranges of the spectrum are 

currently used.



During the last 50 years, developments in wireless technology have 

increased the number of 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. In June 2002, for example, FCC initiated a proceeding 

to promote the commercial development of several undeveloped bands in 

the upper region of the spectrum where new uses for these bands are 

becoming practical due to technological developments. Nevertheless, the 

demand for frequencies by both government and the private sector 

remains high as new technologies that use spectrum are developed and 

used. An example of this is the unexpectedly rapid growth of mobile 

phone use in the United States. Subscribers of mobile phone service 

jumped from 16 million in 1994 to an estimated 137 million in 2002, 

greatly exceeding even the wireless industryï¿½s original projections.



Concern Over Concentrating Authority Led to Divided Structure for 

Spectrum Management:



Our nationï¿½s approach to spectrum management evolved in response to 

technical developments, legislation, court decisions, and policy 

initiatives.[Footnote 4] The legal and regulatory framework in place 

today 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 shared among several decision makers; and (2) whether all 

nonfederal government users should operate radio services without 

qualification, or if a standard should be used to license these 

operators. The resulting structure--dividing spectrum management 

between the President and an independent regulatory body--reflects both 

the Presidentï¿½s responsibility for national defense and the fulfillment 

of federal agenciesï¿½ missions, and the U.S. governmentï¿½s longstanding 

encouragement and recognition of private sector investment in 

developing and deploying commercial radio and other communications 

services.



The need for government regulation of the radiofrequency spectrum 

became apparent at the beginning of the twentieth century with the 

application of wireless communications to maritime safety. In 1904, 

President Theodore Roosevelt adopted a recommendation of an interagency 

board and placed all government coastal radio facilities under the U.S. 

Navyï¿½s control. The first federal statute to establish a structure for 

spectrum management was the Radio Act of 1912,[Footnote 5] which was 

enacted in part to rationalize the burgeoning use of the radio 

spectrum. The Act required users of the radio spectrum to obtain a 

license, and it consolidated licensing authority with the Secretary of 

Commerce.[Footnote 6] Commerceï¿½s practice was to grant licenses for 

particular frequencies on a first-come, first-served basis.



This approach proved to be deficient, however, when the burgeoning 

growth of radio communications in the late 1910s and 1920s led to 

radiofrequency interference problems. The courts determined that the 

Secretary of Commerce lacked the authority under the 1912 Act to 

alleviate these problems by using licensing as a means of controlling 

radio station operations[Footnote 7] or by 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. 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. For example, at the first national radio conference in 

1922, a bill was drafted that was subsequently introduced in the House 

of Representatives, that would have placed the issuance of licenses 

under the absolute discretion of the Secretary of Commerce. Subsequent 

bills introduced in the House and Senate in 1925 took differing 

approaches to licensing authority. The House bill would have vested 

licensing authority with the Secretary of Commerce with licensing 

appeals going to a commission, while the Senate bill would have placed 

all licensing functions in an independent commission from the start.



The Radio Act of 1927[Footnote 8] reflected a compromise on a spectrum 

management framework. In order to allay concerns about vesting all 

licensing authority in the hands of one person (specifically, the 

Secretary of Commerce) the new Act reserved the authority to assign 

frequencies for all federal government radio operators to the President 

and created the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) to license nonfederal 

government operators. Under the Act, the FRC was granted licensing 

authority for one year to resolve interference problems, after which it 

was to become an appellate body to address disputes with the Secretary 

of Commerce, who was to assume licensing duties. Composed of five 

members from five different regions of the country, FRC was empowered 

to assign frequencies, establish coverage areas, and establish the 

power and location of transmitters under its licensing authority. 

Further, the Act delineated that a radio operation proposed by a 

nonfederal license applicant must meet a standard of ï¿½the public 

interest, convenience, and necessity,ï¿½ and that a license conveyed no 

ownership in radio channels nor created any right beyond the terms of 

the license.[Footnote 9]



The FRCï¿½s one-year authority over licensing was extended several times 

by the Congress because the commission needed more time to deal with 

interference problems. As these problems persisted, the FRCï¿½s authority 

was extended for an indefinite term pending new legislation. By 1930, 

it was becoming evident that the licensing task was too complex to be 

conferred permanently on the Department of Commerce, which was 

perceived as being already overburdened with other issues. New 

legislation was enacted in the form of the landmark Communications Act 

of 1934.[Footnote 10] Under this Act, the FRC was abolished and its 

authorities transferred to the new Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC), which brought together the regulation of telephone, telegraph, 

and radio services under one independent regulatory agency. The 1934 

Act, however, also retained the authority of the President to assign 

spectrum to and manage federal government radio operations. For over 75 

years, this division in responsibilities has remained the essential 

feature of U.S. spectrum management, unlike many other countries that 

chose to concentrate spectrum management within one government entity.



The Presidentï¿½s authority for managing federal spectrum has been lodged 

in various parts of the government since the 1934 Act.[Footnote 11] 

However, a source of advice and support on federal government spectrum 

use during these changes has been IRAC, composed of representatives 

from federal agencies that use the most spectrum. IRAC was formed in 

1922 when Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover drew attention to the 

need for cooperative action in solving problems arising from the 

federal governmentï¿½s interest in radio use. He invited interested 

government departments to designate representatives for a special 

government radio committee. The committee recommended the establishment 

of a permanent interdepartmental committee. As a result, the 

Interdepartment Advisory Committee on Governmental Radio Broadcasting 

(later renamed IRAC) was formed. Over the ensuing decades, IRAC, whose 

existence and actions were affirmed by the President in 1927, has 

continued to advise whomever has been responsible for exercising the 

authority of the President to assign frequencies to the federal 

government. Currently, IRAC assists NTIA in assigning frequencies to 

federal agencies and developing policies, programs, procedures, and 

technical criteria for the allocation, management, and use of the 

spectrum. Figure 1 shows IRACï¿½s present membership, which includes FCC 

in a nonvoting liaison capacity.



Figure 1: Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committeeï¿½s Membership:



[See PDF for image]



Source: NTIA.



[End of figure]



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 nonfederal spectrum to promote its 

effective use. 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 

participated in IRAC meetings,[Footnote 12] and NTIA frequently 

provides comments in FCC proceedings that affect federal radio 

operations. As will be discussed 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. As FCC has noted, the basic problem is that demand 

for spectrum is outstripping the supply.



Methods for Allocating Spectrum Face Difficulties and Are Not Guided by 

a Coordinated National Plan:



Since nearly all of the usable radio spectrum has been allocated 

already, accommodating more services and users often involves 

redefining spectrum allocations. The current divided 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. Several, 

including Congress, have suggested that coordinated planning could help 

identify and resolve some allocation difficulties. FCC and NTIA have 

not yet implemented long-standing congressional directives to conduct 

joint, national spectrum planning although they have conducted 

independent planning efforts and have recently taken steps to improve 

coordination.



Spectrum Is Allocated through Sharing and Band-clearing:



One method to accommodate more services and users is spectrum 

ï¿½sharing,ï¿½ which 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 ï¿½primaryï¿½ or priority use of a frequency and 

which user has ï¿½secondaryï¿½ status, meaning that it must defer to the 

primary user. Users may also be designated as ï¿½co-primary,ï¿½ in which 

the first operator to obtain authority to use the spectrum has priority 

to use the frequency over another primary operator. As shown in figure 

2, more than half of the spectrum from 9 kHz to 3.1 GHz is shared 

between federal and nonfederal users.[Footnote 13] NTIA must ensure 

that the status assigned to users in shared spectrum (primary/secondary 

or co-primary) meets usersï¿½ needs, and that users abide by rules 

applicable to their designated status.



Figure 2: Percent of Spectrum Shared by Federal and Nonfederal Users (9 

kHz to 3.1 GHz):



[See PDF for image]



Source: NTIA.



[End of figure]



Another method to accommodate new users and technologies is ï¿½band-

clearing,ï¿½ or reclassifying 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 

only nonfederal or only federal users are managed within FCC or NTIA, 

respectively, albeit sometimes with difficulty. However, band-clearing 

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 technically feasible and meets their radio operation needs. In 

addition, such moves often involve costs to the existing user of the 

band, who may need to modify or replace existing equipment to operate 

on new frequencies.



The need for spectrum reallocation can originate from many different 

sources, including the results of international decisions on spectrum 

use or requests from industry or federal users. Also, the Congress has 

in the past mandated the reallocation of spectrum from federal to 

nonfederal use. Once any needed research has been conducted and both 

FCC and NTIA agree on the proposed reallocation, FCC issues a ï¿½Notice 

of Proposed Rulemakingï¿½ to obtain public comments on the proposed 

allocation change. After the comment period, FCC publishes a Report and 

Order that directs any changes that will be made to the frequency 

allocation table. Spectrum users who disagree with the Report and Order 

may petition FCC for a change that could result in an amended decision. 

Figure 3 depicts the primary steps in the process by which the 

reallocation of a frequency band from a federal to nonfederal 

government designation would occur if no court challenges arise.



Figure 3: Spectrum Reallocation Process:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FCC and NTIA.



[End of figure]



While many such band-clearing decisions have been made throughout radio 

history, these negotiations can be protracted and contentious. A hotly 

debated issue today is how to accommodate ï¿½third-generationï¿½ wireless 

services, which enable handheld communication devices to provide both 

voice and high-speed data. In October 2000, President Clinton directed 

that a plan be developed to select spectrum for third-generation 

services, but this attempt was unsuccessful. A new task force was 

established. In July 2002 the Department of Commerce in conjunction 

with FCC, the Department of Defense (DOD), and other federal agencies 

released its study that concluded that 90 MHz of spectrum could be 

allocated for third-generation services without disrupting 

communication services critical to national security. This 90 MHz of 

spectrum could be available for third-generation services no later than 

December 2008 and would come from both federal and nonfederal bands.



FCC told us that the relationship between FCC and NTIA on spectrum 

management became more structured since the Congress became active in 

the 1990s in directing the reallocation of spectrum from federal to 

nonfederal government use. For example, the Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66, Aug. 10, 1993) directed the 

reallocation of not less that 200 MHz of spectrum from federal to 

private sector use. NTIA was directed to identify frequency bands that 

could be reallocated; use specific criteria in making recommendations 

for their reallocation; issue a preliminary report upon which public 

comment on proposed reallocations would be solicited; obtain analyses 

and comment from FCC; and transfer frequency bands within specified 

time frames. The Act also required FCC to gradually allocate and assign 

these frequencies over the course of 10 years. The Balanced Budget Act 

of 1997 (P.L. 105-33, Aug. 5, 1997) imposed a stricter deadline for 

NTIA to identify frequency bands for reallocation and required FCC to 

reallocate, auction, and assign licenses by September 2002 for an 

additional 20 MHz of spectrum.[Footnote 14]



Various Options for Facilitating Reallocations Have Been Raised:



To deal with the protracted nature of some spectrum reallocation 

decisions, some officials we interviewed have suggested establishing a 

third party--such as an outside panel or commission, an office within 

the White House, or an interagency group--to arbitrate or mediate 

differences between FCC and NTIA. For example, the United Kingdom has a 

formal standing committee, co-chaired by officials from the 

Radiocommunications Agency and the Ministry of Defense, that has 

authority to resolve contentious spectrum issues.[Footnote 15] FCC 

officials noted, however, that an arbitration function would go to the 

core of the responsibilities currently entrusted to FCC and NTIA in 

making allocation decisions. Moreover, it is not clear how such a 

function would be set up or the extent to which the President, who 

retains spectrum management authority for government users and national 

defense, would allow this authority to be placed in the hands of an 

arbitrator. FCC officials maintain that the handful of issues involving 

inherently difficult reallocation choices attracts attention and leads 

to what, in their view, is a mistaken assumption that the current 

reallocation process is broken. They noted that FCC and NTIA have 

coordinated successfully on over 50 spectrum-related rulemakings in the 

past year alone.



Mechanisms for ensuring that incumbent users receive comparable 

spectrum and are reimbursed for the cost of relocating are also being 

developed or proposed. The National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2000[Footnote 16] 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, to 

identify and make available to DOD for its primary use, if necessary, 

an alternate band(s) of frequency as replacement(s) for the band(s) 

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. Under the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 1999,[Footnote 17] federal agencies are authorized to 

accept compensation payments when they relocate or modify their 

frequency use to accommodate nonfederal users of spectrum. The Act 

directs NTIA and FCC to develop procedures for the implementation of 

the relocation provisions. NTIA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

regarding these provisions in January 2001 and a final rule in June 

2002. Under this rule, federal agencies would prepare an estimate of 

their relocation costs. This figure would be provided to potential 

bidders at future auctions. FCC has stated that the Commission will 

adopt any additional rules or procedures necessary to supplement NTIAï¿½s 

reimbursement procedures. Under current law, however, federal agencies 

would be unable to expend these payments without additional 

congressional action. In July 2002, the Department of Commerce sent to 

the congressional leadership a draft bill to amend the Communications 

Act of 1934 to create a Spectrum Relocation Fund to revise the 

procedures under which federal entities are paid for relocating from 

spectrum frequencies reallocated for auction to commercial entities. 

According to NTIA, this fund would benefit both the agencies, by 

providing greater certainty in recovering their relocation costs, and 

the private sector, by providing greater certainty on the ultimate 

price of the licenses they obtain at auction. However, it would be 

important for the Congress to establish up front what controls it wants 

to maintain over such a fund. For example, would the Office of 

Management and Budget control when and how much an agency received in 

reimbursement or would the Congress maintain control by requiring an 

agency to obtain an appropriation?



FCC and NTIA Have Not Yet Implemented Congressional Planning 

Directives:



Several U.S. spectrum experts said that one means of improving the 

spectrum allocation process is to develop coordinated, national 

spectrum planning and policies that better anticipate future needs and 

put more predictability into spectrum decision-making. The Congress 

called for coordinated spectrum planning in the Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1993, which required NTIA and FCC to conduct 

joint spectrum planning sessions.[Footnote 18] Subsequently, 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.[Footnote 19] Even before these congressional 

directives, NTIA itself, in a 1991 report, recommended that NTIA and 

FCC seek to institute a coordinated, strategic, long-range planning 

process. The output of this process would be a formal joint FCC/NTIA 

plan that would be periodically updated, with goals, policies, and 

specific actions to provide for future spectrum requirements and 

improved spectrum management.[Footnote 20] The Defense Science Board 

similarly concluded in November 2000 that the United States lacks a 

mechanism to formulate a national spectrum policy that balances 

traditional national:



security uses of the spectrum with new commercial uses of the 

spectrum.[Footnote 21] According to NTIA, the United States Table of 

Frequency Allocations, which documents the spectrum allocations for 

over 40 radio services, along with existing spectrum management 

processes, constitutes a basic U.S. strategic spectrum plan, which 

covers all cases of spectrum use. However, as we pointed out in an 

earlier report, the national allocation table reflects only the current 

landscape of spectrum use and does not provide a framework to guide 

spectrum decisions for the future.[Footnote 22]



FCC and NTIA have each undertaken planning efforts, but they are 

focused largely on issues involving their separate constituencies and, 

as such, do not fulfill the requirements of the congressional 

directives. For example, FCC conducts spectrum planning for nonfederal 

government use through two staff committees[Footnote 23] and uses 

public forums, en banc hearings, advisory committees, and other 

methods[Footnote 24] to gather and provide information for its spectrum 

planning. NTIAï¿½s spectrum planning has resulted in several spectrum 

planning documents over the last 20 years,[Footnote 25] including the 

September 2000 Federal Long-Range Spectrum Plan that identified current 

and future federal spectrum uses, along with any unsupported spectrum 

requirements. In addition, NTIA established the Strategic Spectrum 

Planning program in 1992, through which it produced several additional 

reports on spectrum planning, dealing with land mobile spectrum 

planning options, radio astronomy spectrum planning options, and 

federal radar spectrum requirements.



Interaction between the two agencies also takes place on an ongoing 

basis. For example, FCC has liaison status on IRAC and its 

subcommittees, which provides it with an avenue for commenting on 

federal government issues. NTIA, for its part, provides comments on FCC 

proceedings on issues that could affect federal users. In addition, 

both agencies (along with industry) are involved in preparing the 

United Statesï¿½ unified position for World Radiocommunication 

Conferences (WRCs). One FCC official called the consensus-building 

involved in this preparatory process as being the closest thing the 

United States has to a national spectrum strategy. However, FCC and 

NTIA officials acknowledged that these interactions have not fulfilled 

the congressional mandate for coordinated national spectrum planning. 

FCC and NTIA officials stated that a key problem in developing a 

strategy for national spectrum planning is the inherent difficulty of 

trying to predict future trends in the fast-developing area of wireless 

services. For example, FCC officials noted that both FCC and wireless 

industry forecasts greatly underestimated the huge growth of mobile 

phone service during the 1990s. On the other hand, emerging wireless 

technologies that appear promising may not develop as planned, 

resulting in underutilization of spectrum that has been set aside for 

them.



The Chairman of FCC and the Administrator of NTIA recently commented on 

the need for coordinated planning, and the agencies are currently 

engaged in efforts that could provide a basis for improved planning. 

For example, in early 2002, FCC announced the creation of a Spectrum 

Policy Task Force to explore how spectrum can be put to the highest and 

best use in a timely manner. In July 2002, FCC received comments in 

response to a public notice issued for the Task Force on several 

spectrum management and use issues including market-oriented allocation 

and assignment policies, interference protection, spectral efficiency, 

public safety communications, and international coordination. In August 

2002, the Spectrum Policy Task Force held four public workshops 

addressing spectrum policy issues. Participants included 

representatives from academia, industry, and government. The Task Force 

intends to report to the Commission by October 2002.



For its part, NTIA hosted a spectrum summit in early April 2002 that 

included participants from FCC, NTIA, and federal agency and industry 

representatives. The summit included several sessions to explore ways 

to improve the management of the spectrum through planning and 

technological innovations. In addition, NTIAï¿½s 2003 budget request 

includes over $1 million in funding to develop a plan to review and 

improve its overall performance of spectrum management duties. In June 

2002, NTIA officials stated that FCC and NTIA had recently adopted a 

ï¿½One Spectrum Teamï¿½ approach to improve interagency communication and 

take a more proactive approach to spectrum management. It remains to be 

seen whether a well-coordinated and clearly defined national spectrum 

strategy emerges from these efforts.



Issues Have Emerged Regarding the Adequacy of U.S. Preparations for 

World Radiocommunication Conferences:



As noted earlier, the management of our domestic spectrum has been 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) at WRCs.[Footnote 26] 

Decisions reached at these conferences can have far-reaching 

implications for the direction and growth of the multibillion dollar 

wireless communications industry in this country and abroad. Key 

officials raised questions about the adequacy of the current U.S. 

preparatory process, in particular the use of separate processes by FCC 

and NTIA to develop U.S. positions, and the short tenure of the head of 

the U.S. delegation to the conferences.



WRCs Are Increasing in Size, Frequency, and Substance:



The emergence of new radio applications with international 

ramifications, such as broadcasting, radio navigation, and satellite-

based services, has increased the need for international 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 international radio 

conferences has risen dramatically--from 9 nations in the first 

conference held in 1903, to 65 nations in 1932, to 148 nations in 2000-

-along with the frequency of conferences (now held every 2 to 3 years), 

and the number of agenda items negotiated at each conference (e.g., 11 

in 1979; 34 in 2000). There has also been a movement toward regional 

alignment at WRCs. Because decisions on agenda items are made by vote 

of the participating countries--with one vote per country--uniform or 

block voting by groups of nations has emerged, as areas such as the 

European Union seek to advance regional positions.



Timely Preparation for the WRC Is a Key Challenge for the United 

States:



The Department of State coordinates and mediates the development of the 

U.S. position for each WRC and leads the U.S. delegation at the 

conference through an ambassador named 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. 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 

nonfederal users, FCC convenes a WRC advisory committee composed of 

representatives of various radio interests (e.g., commercial, 

broadcast, private, and public safety users) and solicits comments 

through a public notice in the Federal Register. NTIA and federal 

government users also participate in FCCï¿½s preparatory process.



To obtain the views of federal spectrum users, IRAC meets to provide 

NTIA with input on WRC agenda items. Although IRACï¿½s WRC preparatory 

meetings are closed to the private sector due to national security 

concerns, nonfederal government users may make presentations to IRAC to 

convey their views on WRC agenda items. In addition, the Department of 

State solicits input from its International Telecommunication Advisory 

Committee (ITAC),[Footnote 27] made up of representatives of 

government, scientific, and industrial organizations involved in the 

telecommunications sector. Any differences of opinion between FCC and 

NTIA on agenda items must ultimately be reconciled into a unified U.S. 

position. In cases where differences persist, the ambassador who leads 

the U.S. delegation to the conference acts as a mediator to achieve 

consensus on a unified U.S. position.



The Department of State ultimately transmits the U.S. position on WRC 

agenda items to the regional organization of which the United States is 

a member--the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (CITEL), 

which convenes prior to a WRC to build regional consensus on conference 

agenda items.[Footnote 28] The department also transmits the U.S. 

position to ITU, which sponsors the conference. Figure 4 depicts the 

relationship among the domestic players and these two international 

organizations in preparing the U.S. position for the WRCs.



Figure 4: Relationship of U.S. Participants in Preparing for World 

Radiocommunication Conferences:



[See PDF for image]



Source: FCC and NTIA.



[End of figure]



Some Experts Have Raised Questions about Adequacy of Current 

Procedures:



We obtained conflicting views on the effectiveness of the U.S. 

preparatory process for WRCs. Department of State 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 

nonfederal parties. In contrast, some industry 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 industry officials said that, because 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, in the past, the 

U.S. position on some items has remained unresolved until the eve of 

the conference, leaving the United States with little time to build 

preconference support for them. The former U.S. Ambassador to the 2000 

WRC recommended merging the separate FCC and NTIA preparatory groups to 

get an earlier start at working with industry and government users to 

reach a consensus on U.S. positions regarding WRC agenda 

items.[Footnote 29] However, NTIA said that the separate processes are 

needed because much of the government side of spectrum policy and use 

is classified and because NTIA and FCC are responsible for separate 

groups of constituents. In June 2002, FCC, NTIA, and Department of 

State officials stated they believed coordination in developing U.S. 

positions was improving and that most of the 2003 WRC agenda items were 

close to resolution.



There has been long-standing concern about the length of tenure of the 

individual who is designated head of the U.S. delegation. The 

President--under his authority to confer the personal rank of 

ambassador on an individual in connection with a special mission of a 

temporary nature--has selected an ambassador to head the U.S. 

delegation to each WRC for a time period not exceeding 6 

months.[Footnote 30] This authority allows the conferral of the 

personal rank of ambassador to be made without confirmation by the 

Senate, subject to appropriate notification. 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, helps to 

achieve consensus in finalizing U.S. positions, and enhances our 

negotiating posture with other countries. However, the former U.S. 

Ambassador also said that the brief tenure of the appointment leaves 

little time for an ambassador to get up to speed on the issues, 

solidify U.S. positions, form a delegation, and undertake preconference 

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 at multiple 

conferences. FCC and NTIA officials stated that longer-term leaders of 

national delegations are perceived by other participants as being more 

able to develop relationships with their counterparts from other 

nations, and that this helps them to negotiate and build regional and 

international support for their positions. Similar observations were 

made by the Office of Technology Assessment as far back as 

1991,[Footnote 31] but no consensus has emerged to resolve this issue.



Department of State officials said previous administrations have 

identified the person who was to become the ambassador early so that 

they could involve that person in conference planning prior to the 

start of the 6-month term. For example, the 2000 WRC Ambassador knew 

she would be chosen for the position and was given a temporary 

telecommunications policy position in the White House 4 months prior to 

her official selection. This position provided additional time for her 

to learn the issues and observe WRC preparatory meetings, but she could 

not lead the meetings until her formal selection about 5 months before 

the conference. Department officials said that the current 

administration is also planning to identify the 2003 WRC Ambassador 

several months before the official selection. Other suggestions for 

dealing with this issue that have been raised include establishing a 

telecommunications policy office in the White House, whose head would 

also be responsible for leading the delegation; extending the length of 

an ambassadorï¿½s appointment through a Senate confirmation process; and 

creating an upper-level career position within the Department of State 

to provide continuity from one conference to the next and organize WRC 

preparations.



Federal Officials Said that FCC Has Been Slow to Implement All WRC 

Agreements Domestically:



Officials at the Department of State said that, after a WRC concludes, 

countries need to implement the agreements reached at the conference--

known as the Final Acts. The officials said that NTIA, FCC, and the 

Department of State share responsibility for implementing the Final 

Acts in the United States. NTIA and FCC develop an implementation 

manual that includes all of the necessary changes in U.S. allocations, 

regulations, and rules. FCC must then implement the changes through its 

rule-making process. Meanwhile, the Department of State prepares a 

Memorandum of Law to transmit to the Senate along with the Final Acts 

of the WRC for ratification.[Footnote 32]



Officials from NTIA, FCC, and Department of State said that the United 

States has faced timeliness challenges in implementing the Final Acts 

over the last 10 years. In July 2002, NTIA officials stated that 

federal agencies are concerned that WRC allocation decisions of 

interest to the private sector are often dealt with quickly, while 

those primarily of interest to the federal government go without 

action. For example, at the 1997 WRC, the United States sought and 

gained a primary allocation of spectrum from 5250 MHz to 5350 MHz for 

an earth exploration satellite service. NTIA officials stated that FCC 

has still not formally considered their request for a national primary 

allocation for this service. In addition, one agency said that it had 

not gained access to two channels designated for its use by the 1997 

WRC due to the slowness of the FCC rule-making process. Officials from 

another agency said that FCCï¿½s table of allocations is out of date 

because it does not reflect some of the government-specific allocation 

changes made at WRCs over the last 10 years. The officials said that 

this has led others to seek allocations on some of these bands.



FCC officials told us that some changes to the U.S. allocation table 

resulting from the WRCs had not been made because FCC had a shortage of 

engineering staff required to make the changes. For this reason, they 

said that FCC had to prioritize WRC allocation decisions and defer 

those changes that they believed had the least impact on spectrum use. 

These officials added, however, that additional staff recently hired by 

FCC has allowed FCC to complete the work needed to update the 

allocation table, and FCC plans to initiate the necessary rulemaking 

actions in the near future. In addition, the FCC officials stated that 

they are unaware of any impact the delays have had on planned federal 

systems.



Federal Officials Said Activities to Encourage Efficient Federal 

Spectrum Use Are Hindered by Staffing and Resource Problems:



NTIA is required to promote the efficient and cost-effective use of the 

federal spectrum that it manages--over 270,000 frequency assignments as 

of June 24, 2002--ï¿½to the maximum extent feasible.ï¿½[Footnote 33] 

Accordingly, as accountability measures, NTIA has directed federal 

agencies to use only as much spectrum as they need and has established 

several processes and activities to encourage efficient spectrum use. 

However, NTIA does not have assurances that these processes and 

activities are effective. NTIA and federal agency officials said that 

key challenges include a shortage of staff with appropriate expertise 

to support spectrum management activities, as well as staffing and 

resource problems in implementing spectrum-efficient technologies.



NTIA Depends on Federal Agencies to Determine Their Spectrum Needs:



NTIA authorizes federal agency use of the spectrum through its 

frequency assignment process. Before submitting a frequency assignment 

application, an agency must justify to NTIA that the frequency 

assignment will fulfill an established mission need and that other 

means of communication, such as commercial services, are not 

appropriate or available.[Footnote 34] Agencies generally rely on 

mission staff to identify and justify the need for a frequency 

assignment and to complete the engineering and technical specifications 

for the application. Once an application is submitted, it goes through 

an NTIA review and a 15-day IRAC peer review process. NTIA staff 

members said they examine assignment applications to ensure that they 

comply with technical rules, while IRAC members said they primarily 

look to see whether the assignment could cause interference with other 

users. If no one at NTIA or IRAC objects, the assignment is 

automatically approved and added to the Government Master 

File.[Footnote 35] The requester can then begin operating on the 

assigned frequency. Figure 5 illustrates the frequency assignment 

process.



Figure 5: NTIA Frequency Assignment Process:



[See PDF for image]



Source: NTIA.



[End of figure]



NTIA officials said they are not in a position to independently assess 

the justification for each frequency request, not only because this 

would require a detailed understanding of an agencyï¿½s operational 

needs, but also because of the high volume of assignment action 

requests that require attention. On average, NTIA processes between 

7,000 and 10,000 assignment action requests--applications, 

modifications, or deletions--from agencies each month.



To help agencies prepare frequency assignment applications, as well as 

to help NTIA staff review them, NTIA has implemented a computer-based 

tool, called Spectrum XXI, to automate the application process. 

Spectrum XXI is designed to help agencies in a number of ways. For 

example, Spectrum XXI allows for status tracking and editing of 

applications. In addition, Spectrum XXI helps in assigning users to the 

most heavily used channels first, rather than less heavily used ones, 

in order to minimize the amount of spectrum space used. NTIA officials 

stated that they are continuing to modify Spectrum XXI to improve the 

efficiency of the selection of frequencies by new users. One spectrum 

manager we interviewed stated that Spectrum XXI has greatly reduced the 

amount of time and work involved in applying for a frequency 

assignment. However, four of the seven agencies we reviewed were not 

using this tool for various reasons. For example, spectrum managers 

from two agencies said that their own spectrum management programs 

better fit their needs.



Some Agencies Are Not Completing Mandatory Spectrum Reviews, While NTIA 

Monitoring Activities Have Decreased:



NTIAï¿½s Frequency Assignment Review Program generally requires all 

federal users of spectrum to review their frequency assignments every 5 

years.[Footnote 36] The purpose of the reviews is to determine if the 

frequency assignments are still essential to meeting the agenciesï¿½ 

missions, justified correctly, not redundant to other assignments, and 

up to date. Federal spectrum users are expected to modify or delete 

frequency assignments as needed based on the results of these reviews. 

NTIA said that it may delete assignments that have not been reviewed in 

more than 10 years.



Using its database of federal agenciesï¿½ frequency assignments, NTIA is 

to track assignments that are due for review and provide a listing to 

the respective agencies. NTIA is notified that an agency has completed 

an assignment review when the agency requests a modification to the 

database that contains the frequency assignments. These modifications 

may simply be requesting a change to the date on which the assignment 

was last reviewed or may indicate technical and operational changes 

made since the last review. NTIA forwards modification requests to IRAC 

members for their review. If no member objects to the modification, the 

user can continue to operate on the frequency assignment for another 5 

years.



NTIA has implemented additional requirements for reviews that are 

significantly overdue--meaning the federal agency has not reviewed the 

frequency assignment in over 10 years. Every 6 months, NTIA provides 

IRAC with a list of these overdue assignments for a case-by-case review 

and recommendation on whether to retain or delete the assignment. NTIA 

officials said this method of notification works very well in getting 

the reviews done because federal users recognize that it is easier to 

review existing assignments than it is to lose the frequency 

authorizations and start the process over. NTIA does not maintain any 

information on the number of assignments that have been deleted for 

noncompliance with the review program.



According to NTIA officials, the Frequency Assignment Review Program 

ï¿½weeds outï¿½ assignments that are no longer being used so that they can 

be returned for use by others. We found, however, that the program 

relies mainly on self-reported agency information that receives no 

independent verification by NTIA. Comments by spectrum managers at the 

seven agencies we reviewed raise concerns about how well these reviews 

are being carried out. Officials from these agencies told us that they 

attempt to use spectrum as efficiently as possible, but five of them 

acknowledged that they are not completing the 5-year reviews in a 

timely or in-depth way. For example, a spectrum manager for a major 

agency division said that over 1,000 of its frequency assignments have 

not been reviewed in 10 years or more. According to agency officials, 

problems with performing timely assignment reviews are occurring due to 

shortages in qualified staff to complete the reviews and because 

completing the reviews is a lower priority compared to other agency 

work. For example, a spectrum manager at one agency noted that all 

field staff responsible for helping with the 

5-year reviews had been eliminated, which impaired the timeliness and 

quality of the reviews.



Another spectrum manager stated that his agencyï¿½s central spectrum 

management staff had operated a comprehensive program of oversight, on-

sight inspections, field staff training, and planning until 8 of their 

10 full-time positions were eliminated. This official said that he 

could not ensure all spectrum assignments are being used as authorized. 

The spectrum manager at another 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 time consuming and of 

limited benefit. The spectrum manager located at an agencyï¿½s field 

office stated that some frequency assignments connected to a single 

system critical to mission functions had been deleted by NTIA because 

the agency did not have the staff or time to complete the assignment 

reviews. This manager stated the agency continued to use these 

frequencies while staff struggled to find the time to reapply for them.



Aside from the assignment review process, NTIA had established 

additional programs for overseeing how federal agencies were using 

their spectrum, but these programs have been scaled back or 

discontinued. One component of NTIAï¿½s Spectrum Measurement Program used 

van-mounted monitoring equipment by NTIA staff to verify that federal 

agencies were using assigned frequencies in different geographic 

locations in accordance with applicable technical regulations. Although 

NTIA officials recently stated that this program was an invaluable 

monitoring tool, the van-mounted verification has been discontinued due 

to a lack of agency resources. Another effort that is no longer active 

is NTIAï¿½s Spectrum Management Survey Program, established in 1965, 

which included on-site visits by NTIA staff to determine whether 

federal agenciesï¿½ transmitters were being used as authorized, to 

educate field staff on NTIA requirements, and to improve spectrum 

management. NTIA said that although this program helped to correct 

frequency assignment information and provided for an exchange of 

information, the program is not currently operating because of 

increased workloads and a shortage of staff.



The issue of reported spectrum staffing shortages at federal agencies 

has broader ramifications for the general management of spectrum that 

go beyond the frequency review and monitoring programs. In January 

2002, NTIA officials told us that its Office of Spectrum Management was 

facing serious staffing problems. Specifically, the office had 21 

vacancies out of a total of 122 positions. In addition, over 40 percent 

of the current staff will be eligible for retirement by 2006.[Footnote 

37] NTIA officials said that agencies such as FCC and the Department of 

State have recently had a number of openings for technical positions at 

higher salary levels then NTIA currently offers. As a result, their 

Office of Spectrum Management has lost staff to these 

agencies.[Footnote 38] In addition, two other agencies we reviewed have 

conducted staffing needs assessments that indicate that their current 

levels of staff are inadequate. First, an internal analysis conducted 

by the Coast Guard Maritime Radio and Spectrum Management Division 

showed an immediate need for six additional field staff members and at 

least one additional headquarters staff to assist with spectrum 

management. Second, a June 2002 study sponsored by the Department of 

Energy (DOE) reviewed the resources and management structure of the 12 

IRAC member federal agencies that hold more than 1000 frequency 

assignments. Although the studyï¿½s analysis focused on agencies with 

large numbers of assignments, the complete study includes a description 

of all 20 IRAC agenciesï¿½ spectrum management organizational structures, 

reporting chains, and resource allocations, among other spectrum 

management issues. It concluded that federal and contract staffing for 

DOEï¿½s spectrum management was inadequate when compared to that of other 

agencies, particularly with regard to planning, homeland security, and 

spectrum-use initiatives.



Although the loss of qualified staff and the need to recruit new staff 

has been a source of concern for the agencies, no concerted effort has 

been made to define the federal governmentï¿½s needs in this area or 

develop a strategy for addressing it. NTIA officials mentioned that 

they had been working with the Office of Personnel Management to 

consider establishing a federal job series for spectrum management in 

order to help attract and retain these specialists. However, they said 

the effort appears to have lost momentum.



Addressing these perceived human capital issues may help increase 

accountability. However, even if these problems were addressed, it is 

unclear that this type of oversight management approach in itself would 

ensure the efficient use of federal spectrum. NTIA and FCC officials 

have said that incentives that encourage the efficient use of spectrum 

by federal users could help further increase the efficiency of the 

federal governmentï¿½s use of spectrum.



Some Technical Research and Initiatives to Promote Efficient Spectrum 

Use Face Implementation Challenges:



NTIA stated that it has conducted technical research and introduced a 

number of additional initiatives to promote the efficient use of 

federal spectrum, but some of these efforts face challenges related to 

measurement, resources, equipment, and costs. For example, NTIAï¿½s 

Institute for Telecommunication Science (ITS), established in 1977, 

operates the primary telecommunications research laboratory in the 

United States involved in the development and application of radio wave 

propagation measurements, studies, and prediction models. ITS provides 

the tools, analysis, and data that enable studies of spectrum use, 

efficiency, coverage, and interference analysis. ITS has participated 

in antenna studies that may result in a substantial increase in the 

ï¿½carrying capacityï¿½ of a radio system (or piece of spectrum) by 

providing multiple beams to independently link to different users on 

the same channel. In addition, ITS has been assisting the public safety 

community in increasing spectrum efficiency by examining and 

implementing system improvements to support increased voice and data 

traffic. Working with IRAC, NTIA also strives to establish standards 

that are equal to or better than private sector standards at aiding in 

the conservation of spectrum. For example, NTIA officials have noted 

that federal radar standards are among the tightest radar spectrum 

standards in the world and are currently under review for further 

refinements.



NTIA officials said that, when applicable, NTIA uses the definition of 

spectrum efficiency described by ITU, namely the ratio of 

communications achieved to the spectrum space used, which has practical 

value for many types of commercial communications systems. The specific 

technical measurement may take different forms, depending on the 

system. For example, the spectrum efficiency of a commercial wireless 

system might be measured in terms of subscribers served per megahertz 

of spectrum used per square kilometer of service area. NTIA officials 

cautioned, however, that many or most of the systems used by the 

federal government, including radars, navigation, military tactical, 

and scientific systems, do not fall within the scope of this type of 

measure of spectrum efficiency and that no effective measure for 

spectrum efficiency has been identified for these latter types of 

systems.



Implementing more spectrum-efficient technologies at federal agencies 

can be challenging. For example, around 1990, NTIA began exploring the 

use of ï¿½narrowbandingï¿½ because of concerns over its ability to continue 

to meet federal agenciesï¿½ land mobile communications needs. 

Narrowbanding is a technique for reducing the amount of spectrum 

(bandwidth) needed to transmit a radio signal, thereby freeing up 

spectrum to meet future growth. In 1992, the Congress directed NTIA to 

adopt and implement a plan for federal agencies with existing mobile 

radio systems to use more spectrum-efficient technologies.[Footnote 39] 

With the approval of IRAC, NTIA required all federal agencies to 

upgrade their existing land-based mobile systems so as to reduce the 

bandwidth needed per channel from 25 kHz to 12.5 kHz. NTIA set 

deadlines for the narrowbanding requirement, which is to be completed 

in two stages by 2008.[Footnote 40]



All federal agencies need to meet the narrowbanding requirement in 

order to prevent harmful interference. NTIA officials stated that any 

agency not meeting the narrowbanding requirements would be responsible 

for eliminating the harmful interference. NTIA officials also stated 

that no acceptable justifications for not adopting narrowbanding have 

been proposed or developed. Spectrum managers from the seven agencies 

we reviewed presented a mixed picture about their ability to meet this 

deadline. While some believed that they were on track, others stated 

that they were either having difficulty meeting the deadlines or would 

not meet the deadlines at all. The Chief Information Officer in one 

agency compared the requirement to an unfunded mandate; he said the 

agency had not been provided with the financial resources needed to 

make system design changes, buy new equipment, and maintain current 

equipment until the transition was finalized. He stated that his office 

could not compete with other agency priorities for funding. Officials 

at other agencies stated that shortages in qualified staff were 

affecting their ability to meet the narrowbanding deadlines. For 

example, they said additional staff are needed to design systems using 

the smaller amount of bandwidth and to find and request the needed 

frequencies. Finally, several officials stated that the commercial 

sector would be unable to provide them all the narrowbanding equipment 

and support needed to continue their operations even if the money was 

available. On June 26, 2002, NTIA requested that federal agencies 

provide the status of their compliance with the narrowbanding 

requirements.



Another example of problems in implementing spectrum-efficient 

technologies involves a technique known as trunking. Trunking systems 

conserve spectrum by enabling users to share a common set of voice 

radio channels rather than have their own dedicated channels that may 

not be heavily used at all times. NTIA sponsored a pilot trunking 

program for federal agencies in the early 1990s that included six 

cities. According to NTIA, some agencies resisted the program because, 

although spectrum could be conserved, the agencies found that it was 

more costly to participate in trunking than it was to use their own 

channels. In addition, some agencies said the trunking systems did not 

meet their mission needs.[Footnote 41] In 1993, NTIA insisted that the 

contracted system be used unless a waiver had been approved for an 

economic and/or technical exemption.[Footnote 42] NTIA noted that the 

program has only been successful in Washington, D.C., where agency 

demand for frequency assignments, and therefore spectrum congestion, is 

extremely high.



Unclear Whether Spectrum Management Fees Provide an Incentive for 

Efficient Spectrum Use:



NTIA told us that the congressionally-mandated spectrum management fees 

agencies pay help promote spectrum efficiency by providing federal 

users with an incentive to return frequency assignments that they no 

longer need. These fees are designed to recover part of the costs of 

NTIAï¿½s spectrum management function. The fees began in 1996 and 

amounted to about $50 per frequency assignment in 2001.[Footnote 43] 

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 of cost to the agencies. For example, 

basing the fee on the amount of bandwidth used would have resulted in 

the Air Force paying the majority of the fees because of the large 

amount of spectrum used by the radar systems they operate.



Although NTIA officials said that spectrum fees provide an incentive 

for agencies to relinquish assignments, it is not clear how much this 

promotes efficient use of spectrum. Officials from two agencies said 

that the financial costs were not high enough to cause them to decrease 

the number of frequency assignments they retained. Specifically, 

officials from one of the agencies said that the amount of money paid 

in spectrum fees was a small share of the money needed to operate a 

radio system. In addition, 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 affected the 

efficiency of the agencyï¿½s spectrum use because the agency did not 

return any spectrum to NTIA as a result of reducing its assignments.



Other countries are moving toward using payment mechanisms for 

government spectrum users that are specifically designed to encourage 

efficiency, 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. Our work on this issue is ongoing and will be addressed in 

our report that will be completed in early 2003.



Conclusions:



The divided structure of U.S. spectrum management, coupled with the 

increasing difficulty of accommodating new services and users, has 

heightened the importance of coordinated national spectrum planning. 

Although FCC and NTIA have recently taken steps to better coordinate 

spectrum management, it is unclear whether these steps will result in a 

national spectrum strategy. The absence of such a strategy may make it 

more difficult for FCC and NTIA to avoid contentious, protracted 

negotiations when providing for future spectrum requirements.



Similarly, the United Statesï¿½ ability to promote its strategic and 

economic interests at WRCs has become increasingly important and 

difficult as spectrum has grown more congested and countries vie for 

advantage in the multibillion dollar global telecommunications 

marketplace. The ongoing debate about the effectiveness of the United 

Statesï¿½ preparatory process for WRCs has raised concerns that the U.S. 

delegation may not be in the best position to promote U.S. positions as 

effectively as possible. While the Department of State, FCC, and NTIA 

maintain that they have improved preparations for the 2003 WRC through 

better coordination, key issues remain unresolved, including the use of 

separate processes by FCC and NTIA to develop U.S. positions and the 

short tenure of the head of the delegation.



Because of the large number of federal frequency assignments, NTIAï¿½s 

processes for promoting the efficient use of federal spectrum are 

heavily dependent on the federal agencies that use the spectrum. 

However, some federal agencies are not conducting comprehensive reviews 

of their frequency assignments. Compounding this problem is NTIAï¿½s 

discontinuation of two spectrum-monitoring programs that helped promote 

accountability by verifying that federal agencies were using their 

spectrum assignments as specified. Federal agencies and NTIA primarily 

attributed the lack of comprehensive reviews and the discontinuation of 

NTIA monitoring programs to staffing and resource issues. The result of 

these limitations is that the federal government does not have the 

information necessary to assure that federal agencies are using only as 

much spectrum as needed to fulfill their mission requirements. 

Moreover, even if additional resources became available to enable 

agencies to conduct reviews to determine how effectively they are using 

spectrum available to them, it is unclear if this alone could ensure 

the efficient use of hundreds of thousands of federal spectrum 

assignments. Other countries are moving toward using incentives such as 

payment mechanisms for government spectrum users to encourage 

conservation of spectrum. In follow-on work, we will be looking at the 

types of incentives that are being employed to encourage both 

government and nongovernment users to conserve spectrum.



Recommendations for Executive Action:



In order to improve U.S. spectrum management, we are making the 

following recommendations:



* The Secretary of Commerce and the Chairman of FCC should establish 

and carry out formal, joint planning activities to develop a clearly 

defined national spectrum strategy to guide domestic and international 

spectrum management decision making. The results of these planning 

activities should be reported to the appropriate congressional 

committees.



* Following the 2003 WRC, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 

Commerce, and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission 

should jointly review the adequacy of the process used to develop and 

promote the U.S. position, including the separate processes used by FCC 

and NTIA, and the short tenure of the head of delegation, and prepare a 

report containing any needed recommendations for making improvements. 

The report should be provided to the appropriate congressional 

committees.



* To strengthen the management and accountability of the federal 

governmentï¿½s use of spectrum, the Secretary of Commerce should direct 

NTIA, assisted by IRAC and the Office of Personnel Management, to 

analyze the human capital needs of federal agencies for spectrum 

management and develop a strategy for addressing any identified 

shortcomings. This analysis should be linked to near-term and long-term 

human capital issues that may be identified as part of the development 

of a national spectrum strategy.



* The Secretary of Commerce should develop a strategy for enhancing its 

oversight of federal agenciesï¿½ use of spectrum, such as revitalizing 

its former monitoring programs, and define the Department of Commerceï¿½s 

human capital needs for carrying out this strategy.



Agency Comments:



We provided a draft of this report to FCC, the Department of Commerce, 

and the Department of State for a review and comment. They were in 

general agreement with our recommendations. FCC said that both it and 

the Department of Commerce have initiated processes to review and 

improve spectrum management. FCC also said that it would be beneficial 

for the Department of State, Department of Commerce, and FCC to further 

review the U.S. preparatory process following the 2003 WRC. FCC also 

offered some technical comments that we incorporated into the report 

where appropriate. FCCï¿½s written comments appear in appendix III.



The Department of Commerce said it is time for the United States to 

take a broad look at the organizational structures and processes the 

United States has built both nationally and internationally to manage 

and plan spectrum use. The Department of Commerce also said that NTIA 

and FCC participate together in spectrum planning activities, as 

evidenced by NTIAï¿½s Spectrum Summit in April 2002 and FCCï¿½s spectrum 

policy workshops, but that spectrum planning and interagency 

coordination could be improved. With regard to WRCs, the Department of 

Commerce agreed that the Department of State, FCC, and NTIA should 

jointly review the adequacy of the preparation process following the 

2003 WRC. The Department of Commerce also said that it would review its 

human capital needs and current resources in spectrum management and 

develop a strategy for addressing any shortcomings. The Department will 

also encourage other agencies that are members of IRAC to conduct a 

similar analysis. The Department also offered some technical comments 

that we incorporated into the report where appropriate. The Department 

of Commerceï¿½s written comments appear in appendix IV.



The Department of State said that it would consult with the Department 

of Commerce and FCC after the conclusion of the 2003 WRC, and it 

offered a technical comment that we incorporated into the report. The 

Department of Stateï¿½s written comments appear in appendix V.



We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees. We are also sending this report to the Secretary of State, 

the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and the 

Secretary of Commerce. We also will make copies available to others 

upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on 

the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.



If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me on (202) 512-2834 or at [email protected]. Individuals 

making key contributions to this report include Dennis Amari, Karin 

Bolwahnn, Keith Cunningham, John Finedore, Rahul Gupta, Peter Ruedel, 

Terri Russell, Tanya Tarr, Dr. Hai Tran, Mindi Weisenbloom, and Alwynne 

Wilbur.



Peter F. Guerrero

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:

Signed by Peter F. Guerrero



[End of section]



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Major Parts of the Radiofrequency Spectrum and Their Uses:



Different parts of the radiofrequency spectrum have different technical 

characteristics that make them better-suited for some types of 

communications than others. For example, the most technically suitable 

spectrum for mobile communications is below 3 gigahertz because this 

part of the spectrum provides the best match for spectrum propagation 

characteristics (such as distance, capacity, and reliability) required 

for mobile communications. The major parts and uses of the spectrum are 

as follows:



* The lower frequency waves (including very low frequency [VLF], low 

frequency [LF], and medium frequency [MF]) are located from 3 kilohertz 

(kHz) to 3 megahertz (MHz). They tend to travel along the ground and 

penetrate water and solid objects. Uses include submarine communication 

and AM radio.



* High frequency (HF) waves are located from 3 MHz to 30 MHz. They 

travel along the ground and into the sky where they are reflected back 

to earth by the ionosphere. By using this reflection to extend range, 

devices in the HF bands can transmit over long distances on relatively 

low power. Amateur Radio (Ham), Citizens Band Radio Service (CB), 

military tactical radio, and maritime communications are found in this 

frequency range.



* Very high frequency (VHF) waves are located from 30 MHz to 300 MHz. 

They follow the ground less and will pass through the ionosphere, which 

makes satellite communication possible. To operate in the VHF range, 

transmitters require less power but larger antennas relative to higher 

frequencies. Broadcast television, FM radio, federal government, public 

safety, and private mobile radio services are some of the applications 

that operate in this frequency range.



* Ultrahigh frequency (UHF) waves are located from 300 MHz to 3 

gigahertz (GHz). The combination of smaller antenna and lower power 

requirements for device operation make this frequency range ideal for 

many wireless telecommunication applications. Broadcast television, 

first and second-generation mobile telephones, satellites (such as the 

global positioning system [GPS] and commercial satellites), federal and 

nonfederal radio systems, and numerous military applications--like the 

Ballistic Missile Early Warning System--operate in UHF bands.



* Superhigh frequency (SHF) waves are located from 3 GHz to 30 GHz, and 

extremely high frequency (EHF) waves are located from 30 GHz to 300 

GHz. These waves require more power to operate and are affected by rain 

and clouds, especially at the higher frequencies. Numerous military and 

commercial satellites, aeronautical radio altimeters, radars (such as 

Terminal Doppler Weather Radar), and fixed microwave links occupy these 

frequency bands. Some of the highest bands are allocated for certain 

uses but remain unused due to cost and technical constraints of using 

those frequencies.



[End of section]



Appendix II Timeline of Spectrum Management:



Numerous legislative, regulatory, legal, and policy decisions and 

actions have shaped the United Statesï¿½ management and use of the 

radiofrequency spectrum. This appendix provides supplemental 

information and major milestones in the development of the divided 

structure for domestic spectrum management and on international 

conferences on global spectrum issues. Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9 

throughout this appendix illustrate the interplay of wireless 

technological advances with key international and domestic policy 

events.



Figure 6: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1895-1925):



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO.



[End of figure]



1895:



Radio Signal Transmission--Guglielmo Marconi became the first person to 

succeed in sending a message in telegraphic code over a distance of 1 

1/4 miles using electricity without wires.



Early 1900s:



Ships at Sea--Radioï¿½s most important initial use was at sea where it 

reduced the isolation of ships during emergencies. By 1904, according 

to a report of the Presidentï¿½s Board on Wireless Telegraphy, there were 

24 radio-equipped naval ships and 10 more planned; 20 naval coastal 

stations had been established, and equipment for 10 more had been 

ordered; 6 stations were operated by the U.S. Army; 2 stations were 

operated by the Weather Bureau; 5 private companies were operating 

coastal stations (one serving the Pacific coast); and a total of 200 

additional stations on shore or at sea had been planned.



1903:



First International Conference--The First International Radio 

Telegraphic Conference was held in Berlin, Germany, with the 

governments of Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, 

Russia, Spain, and the United States represented. The conference 

drafted a protocol to address the exchange of messages from coastal 

stations with ships regardless of the system of radiotelegraphy used. 

The protocol served as the basis for the first agreement on the use of 

radiotelegraphy, which occurred in 1906.



1904:



Rooseveltï¿½s Interdepartmental Board--At the recommendation of the 

Secretary of Navy, President Theodore Roosevelt appointed an 

Interdepartmental Board of Wireless Telegraphy to consider ï¿½the entire 

position of wireless telegraphy in the service of the National 

Government.ï¿½ Among matters addressed by the Board were the control of 

interference between radiotelegraph stations in general and 

nonduplication of coastal stations by government departments. The Board 

recommended that all government coastal radio facilities be placed 

under control of the Navy, and that all private stations be licensed by 

the Department of Commerce and Labor.



1906:



First International Convention--A second International Radiotelegraphy 

Conference was convened in Berlin, Germany, with 28 countries 

represented. The conference adopted a convention that followed closely 

the protocol of the first conference. The main provisions of the 

convention were: requiring that messages by all coastal stations and 

ships be accepted regardless of the system used; establishing priority 

for distress calls from ships; and creating a bureau to gather and 

distribute information about the radiotelegraphy systems and coastal 

station installations in each country. The convention also addressed 

tariffs for international radio communications and regulations 

prescribing specific wavelengths from which commercial entities were 

excluded. Technical and operational standards for radio communications 

in the form of ï¿½Service Regulationsï¿½ were included in an appendix. A 

precursor to the International Table of Allocations, the regulations 

distinguished two service categories (1) ï¿½general public serviceï¿½ with 

an exclusive allocation of the 187-500 kHz band; and (2) ï¿½long-range or 

other servicesï¿½ which could be assigned to other frequencies.



1910:



Wireless Ship Act--The first instance of U.S. government regulation of 

radio technology and services, this act required any U.S. or foreign 

oceangoing ship with 50 or more passengers to be equipped with an 

operator of and an apparatus for radio communications equipment. The 

Department of Commerce and Labor was designated to provide for its 

execution.



1912:



Wireless Ship Act Amended--Three months after the sinking of the 

Titanic, Congress quickly passed amendments to the Wireless Ship Act of 

1910. Among the amendments to the law were requirements that ships 

carry an auxiliary power supply capable of enabling radio apparatus to 

be operated continuously for at least 4 hours at a minimum range of 100 

miles, day or night; that ships carry two or more persons skilled in 

the use of radio apparatus; and that ships traversing the Great Lakes 

comply with provisions of the Act.



Radio Act of 1912--The Radio Act of 1912 was the first domestic statute 

that addressed spectrum allocation. It was enacted, in part, to comply 

with obligations under the international convention of 1906. The Act 

required every operator of radio to obtain a license from the Secretary 

of Commerce and Labor. (When the Department of Labor was separately 

established in 1913, these powers were retained by the Department of 

Commerce.) Any person that operated any apparatus for radio 

communication without a license was guilty of a misdemeanor, and the 

offending apparatus was subject to forfeiture. Licenses were subject to 

detailed regulations contained in the Act itself, with certain 

additional and supplementary regulations promulgated by the Secretary 

of Commerce. The Act also provided for the protection of federal 

government radio operations and gave the President special authority 

over radio communications in emergencies.



Third International Conference--Although the United States was a 

signatory to the 1906 international convention, the U.S. Senate did not 

ratify the treaty until after its adhering members withdrew an 

invitation to the United States to attend the third international 

conference scheduled for June 1912 in London, England. Soon thereafter, 

and only 2 months before the start of the conference, the Senate 

ratified the 1906 convention resulting in a renewed invitation to the 

United States to attend the London conference.



In light of the sinking of the Titanic earlier that year, the use of 

radiotelegraphy for safety of ships at sea dominated this conference. 

The resulting convention was ratified in the United States by the 

Senate in 1913.



1917:



Legislation on Radio Operations Considered by Congress--In the late 

1910s, legislation was considered by Congress to maintain government 

control of all radio stations and prohibit the construction of any new 

commercial stations. An alternative to government control was proposed-

-the establishment of a privately-controlled company operating as a 

government-authorized monopoly. These proposals were advocated in 

response to Great Britainï¿½s dominance in wireline communications and 

the pursuit of dominance by British nationals in radio communications. 

While neither proposal was adopted in the United States, in 1920 

Congress did act on a recommendation of the Navy to authorize the use 

of naval stations for a temporary 2-year period for the transmission 

and reception of private commercial messages at locations that lacked 

adequate commercial facilities. This authority was extended again in 

1922 and 1925 and, ultimately, made permanent by an act of Congress in 

1927.



1920:



Devising a New International Union--Representatives of the Allied 

nations of World War I met in Washington, D.C., to create a new 

international union and simplify communications by bringing all methods 

of electrical transmission, as far as practicable, under the same 

rules. A convention and regulations were drafted setting forth basic 

international institutional features for telecommunications. Although 

a consensus was not reached, provisions of these documents were used at 

the next international radiotelegraph conference held in 1927 and, 

ultimately, served as the basic structure of the International 

Telecommunication Union (ITU), which was established in 1932.



Introduction of Commercial Radio--Westinghouse, one of the leading 

radio manufacturers, devised a means of selling more radios by offering 

radio programming. Dr. Frank Conrad, who had played records over the 

airwaves for his friends, was asked by Westinghouse to establish a 

station in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that would regularly transmit 

programming. The Department of Commerce licensed the station to operate 

on 833.3 kHz and awarded it the call letters KDKA. On the night of 

November 2, 1920, KDKA made what is claimed to be the nationï¿½s first 

commercial radio broadcast. The commercial radio business grew quickly; 

within 4 years, there were nearly 600 commercial radio stations 

licensed in the United States.



1921:



Public Safety Use of Land Mobile Radio--Among the first known 

experimental uses of land mobile radio was by the Police Department of 

Detroit, Michigan, for emergency dispatch in patrol cars. The Detroit 

Police Department implemented a police dispatch system using a 

frequency band near 2 MHz. This service proved to be so successful that 

the channels allocated in the band were soon used to their full 

capacity. Police and emergency servicesï¿½ communications needs are said 

to have been critical to the development of mobile radio telephone 

services.																																								:



1922:



First National Annual Radio Conference--Because radio interference had 

become so chaotic, with the rise of radio broadcasting and the 

limitations of the Radio Act of 1912, Secretary of Commerce Herbert 

Hoover convened a conference of manufacturers, broadcasters, amateur 

radio representatives, and civilian and military government radio 

communications personnel to study the problem and make recommendations 

to alleviate the overcrowding of the radio waves. Three subsequent 

conferences were held in each of the following years.



Legislation was introduced to implement various recommendations of the 

national radio conferences throughout this period. There was 

disagreement as to whether the Secretary of Commerce or a new 

commission should be given regulatory authority over spectrum use. 

However, it was not until 1927 that a compromise was reached on a 

framework for the management of radiofrequency spectrum by the federal 

government.



Formation of IRAC--To enable the most effective use of spectrum by 

government, the Interdepartment Advisory Committee on Governmental 

Radio Broadcasting (later renamed the Interdepartment Radio Advisory 

Committee, or IRAC) was formed. The 1922 national radio conference 

awakened several of the federal government departments to the need for 

cooperative action in solving problems arising from the federal 

governmentï¿½s interest in radio use. Secretary Hoover invited interested 

government departments to designate representatives for a special 

government radio committee. When they met, the committee recommended 

that a permanent interdepartment committee be formed. The committee 

agreed that its scope should extend beyond broadcasting and should be 

advisory to the Secretary of Commerce in all matters of government 

radio regulation.



Figure 7: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1925-1955):



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO.



[End of figure]



1926:



Legal Decisions on the Secretaryï¿½s Powers under the 1912 Act--Several 

key court decisions and opinions of the Attorney General regarding the 

power of the Secretary of Commerce were made following enactment of the 

Radio Act of 1912. For example:



* In 1912, the Attorney General stated in an opinion to the Secretary 

of Commerce and Labor that the Secretary did not have discretion in the 

matter of granting or refusing radio licenses and was not given general 

regulative powers under the Radio Act of 1912.



* In Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., Inc., 286 F. 1003 (D.C. Cir., 

1923), the Secretary of Commerce was denied authority to use his 

discretion to refuse a radio license on the grounds that he ï¿½had been 

unable to ascertain a wave length for use by Plaintiff, which would not 

interfere with government and private stations.ï¿½ The court pointed out 

that the Radio Act of 1912 necessarily contemplated interference 

between stations, that the Secretary had no discretion to refuse the 

license, and that the issuance of licenses was a ministerial act.



* The court held in U.S. v. Zenith Radio Corporation, 12 F.2d 614 

(N.D.Ill., 1926), that the Secretary of Commerce had no power to make 

regulations additional to those found in the Radio Act and that it was, 

at best, ambiguous on whether the Secretary could impose a limitation 

on the hours of operation of a radio licensee.



* In Carmichael v. Anderson, 14 F.2d 166 (W.D.Mo. 1926), the court held 

that while the Secretary of Commerce had the right to grant licenses 

with restrictions agreed upon by multiple applicants--such as time 

sharing by two radio operators using the same frequency--the Secretary 

may have no right to impose restrictions other than those contained in 

the Radio Act of 1912.



* In the case Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station, Inc., 

(Cir. Ct., Cook County, Ill. 1926) reprinted in 68 Cong. Rec. 216-219 

(1926), the court held that the novelty of broadcasting did not prevent 

an established station from asserting a right to be free from 

interference and the destruction of its operations by a newcomer. In 

the courtï¿½s view, the ï¿½priority of timeï¿½--obtaining a license first--

created a superior right.



* In 1926, the Acting Attorney General issued an opinion stating that a 

broadcasting station could not operate under the Act without a license, 

but the Secretary had no discretion to refuse a license upon a proper 

application. Moreover, the Secretary had no power to designate the 

frequency within the broadcast band at which a broadcasting station 

might operate, nor to prescribe the hours of operation, to limit the 

power of stations, or to issue licenses of limited duration.



1927:



Radio Act of 1927--The Radio Act of 1912 proved to be totally 

inadequate in coping with the spectrum of the rapidly growing radio 

broadcasting industry. Further, Congress had become concerned with 

other issues related to spectrum use, such as vested rights in the 

spectrum, the basis or criteria for granting licenses, and the 

potential monopoly in radio equipment manufacturing. Five years in the 

making, the Radio Act of 1927 was enacted with two key provisions: the 

creation of a new government commission to manage nongovernment 

spectrum use, and the adoption of the ï¿½public interest, convenience, 

and necessityï¿½ standard for licensing.



Concerns about placing all regulatory authority for radio licensing in 

one individual, such as the Secretary of Commerce, led to the adoption 

of a compromise--the creation of the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), a 

five-member independent regulatory agency with licensing authority for 

nongovernment stations for a period of one year.[Footnote 44] After 1 

year, as originally enacted, licensing authority would revert back to 

the Secretary of Commerce and the FRC would serve as an appellate body. 

Among the responsibilities assigned to the FRC were the following: 

issuing station licenses, classifying radio stations, assigning 

frequencies, describing types of service, preventing interference, 

establishing power and location of transmitters, and establishing 

coverage areas. The Act reserved to the President authority over all 

government radio stations. The ï¿½public interest, convenience, and 

necessityï¿½ standard was not defined in the Act.



First International Table of Frequencies--Representatives from nations 

around the world met in Washington, D.C. for the third international 

radiotelegraphy conference, agreeing to many of the proposals discussed 

at the 1920 Washington meeting. The conference agreed to a request made 

at the 1925 Paris Telegraph Conference to consider the unification of 

the radiotelegraph and telegraph conventions into a single 

international instrument. In addition, the conference resulted in 

agreement on the first International Table of Frequency Allocations. 

The following services were given exclusive or shared use of various 

frequency bands between 10 kHz and 40 MHz: (1) fixed, (2) mobile, (3) 

maritime mobile, (4) broadcasting radio beacon, (5) air mobile, and (6) 

amateur. The conference also created the International Radio 

Consultative Committee for purposes of studying technical and related 

radio communications questions.



1932:



International Telecommunication Union Formed--Unification of the 

international radiotelegraph and telegraph conventions was 

accomplished in Madrid, Spain, thus forming a single international 

treaty for both wireline and wireless communications, and a single 

international treaty organization known as the ITU.



The use of radio for both aeronautical mobile communications and 

broadcasting had increased substantially in the late 1920s, and 

allocations had to be identified for them in the frequency allocation 

table. Because of the nature of propagation characteristics of the 

contested frequencies, low and medium bands were divided into a 

European region and ï¿½other regions.ï¿½:



1934:



Enactment of the Communications Act of 1934--At the request of 

President Franklin Roosevelt, an interdepartmental committee was 

established in 1933 by the Secretary of Commerce to study the problem 

of how to regulate communications. Reporting to the President the 

following year, the Committee recommended that all regulation over 

communications--both radio and common carrier--be vested in a single 

agency. With the committee report, President Roosevelt sent a letter to 

Congress recommending the creation of the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC), transferring authorities of the Federal Radio 

Commission and (as pertaining to communications) the Interstate 

Commerce Commission, affecting services that ï¿½rely on wires, cables, or 

radio as a medium of transmission.ï¿½ Legislation embodying the 

recommendation was passed by Congress and signed into law by President 

Roosevelt on June 19, 1934.



Title III of the Act, governing the provision of radio services, is 

intended to ï¿½maintain controlï¿½over all the channels of radio 

transmission,ï¿½ and provide for the use--but not ownership--of channels 

of the radio-frequency spectrum through licenses of limited duration. 

Among the key authorities granted to FCC in Title III of the Act are 

to: make reasonable regulations governing the interference potential of 

radio-frequency emitting devices; classify radio stations; prescribe 

the nature of services in each class of licensed stations; assign 

frequency bands to various classes of stations and assign frequencies 

for each individual station; make regulations to prevent interference 

between stations; study new uses of radio and provide for experimental 

use of frequencies; and suspend licenses for violations of the Act. 

Title III also includes provisions addressing broadcasting.



Like the Radio Act of 1927, the Communications Act of 1934 required the 

commission to use the ï¿½public interest, convenience, and necessityï¿½ 

standard for granting licenses. In order to satisfy the standard, FCC 

was authorized to grant applications and make ï¿½such distribution of 

licenses, frequencies, hours of operation, and of power among the 

several States and communities as to provide a fair, efficient, and 

equitable distribution of radio service to each of the same.ï¿½:



1940:



Defense Communications Board Formed--President Roosevelt issued an 

executive order creating the Defense Communications Board (renamed the 

Board of War Communications) to coordinate the relationship of all 

branches of communication to the national defense. The Board was 

composed of: the Chairman of FCC, who served as Chairman; the Chief 

Signal Officer of the U.S. Army; the Director of Naval Communications; 

the Assistant Secretary of State, Division of International 

Communications; and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Coast 

Guard. During a war involving the United States, IRAC was to serve as a 

committee of the board in an advisory capacity.



IRAC-FCC Agree to Interference Notice--IRAC and FCC agreed to cooperate 

in giving each other notice of all proposed actions that would tend to 

cause interference to radio stations managed by the other.



1947:



Three Regions Formed for International Allocations--At the first post-

World War II international radio conference held in Atlantic City, New 

Jersey, extensive changes were made to the International Table of 

Frequency Allocations reflecting the advances in radio technology, such 

as radar and similar radio-determination systems, made during World War 

II. In addition, new services contending for allocations produced 

further fragmentation of the table and a new arrangement for spectrum 

allocations. The new arrangement subdivided the world into three 

regions--Europe, U.S.S.R., and Africa in region 1; North and South 

America comprising region 2; and Asia, Australia, and Oceania in region 

3.



1950:



Communications Policy Board Established--By executive order issued by 

President Truman, the Presidentï¿½s Communications Policy Board was 

established to study and make recommendations on the policies and 

practices that should be followed by the federal government in the 

field of telecommunications to meet the broad requirements of the 

public interest. The decision to appoint the Board stemmed in part from 

the inability of existing organizations to resolve competing 

requirements of FCC on behalf of nongovernment users and government 

agencies for the use of high frequencies.



In a report to the President, the Board recommended that either a 

single adviser, or a three-person board, carry out the following 

duties:



* plan and execute the authority of the President to assign frequencies 

to government users;



* exercise control over the nationï¿½s telecommunications facilities 

during a national emergency or war;



* stimulate and correlate the formulation of plans and policies to 

ensure maximum contribution of telecommunications to the national 

interest and maximum effectiveness of U.S. participation in 

international negotiations;



* stimulate research on problems in telecommunications;



* establish and monitor a system of initial justification and continued 

use of frequencies by government agencies; and:



* supervise, in cooperation with FCC, the division of spectrum space 

between federal government and nonfederal government users.



1951:



President Truman Appoints Telecommunications Adviser--Approving a 

recommendation of the Presidentï¿½s Communications Policy Board, 

President Truman issued an executive order establishing the 

Telecommunications Adviser within the Executive Office of the President 

to carry out the duties prescribed by the Board.



1952:



IRAC Reorganizes and FCCï¿½s Role Becomes Liaison--IRAC was reconstituted 

with a permanent Chairman designated by the Telecommunications Adviser 

to the President and was charged with the additional responsibilities 

of formulating and recommending policies, plans, and actions in 

connection with the management and usage of radio frequencies by the 

U.S. government. FCC withdrew as a regular member of IRAC and in lieu 

thereof designated a liaison representative to work jointly with IRAC 

in the solution of mutual problems.



1953:



Position of Adviser to the President Abolished--President Eisenhower 

accepted the resignation of the Telecommunications Adviser to the 

President and issued an executive order abolishing the position and 

transferring the functions to the Director of the Office of Defense 

Mobilization.



IRAC Establishes Assignment Principles--IRAC established principles 

for the assignment and use of radio frequencies by government agencies, 

including assurances that requests are justified and assignments are 

used by the agencies and not stored for future use.



Figure 8: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1955-1985):



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO.



[End of figure]



1959:



International Allocation for Satellite Service Adopted--At the World 

Administrative Radio Conference, held in Geneva, Switzerland, the 

assembled nations revised the International Table of Frequency 

Allocations to accommodate use of higher radio frequencies. A brand new 

radio service was defined that would eventually bring about a new era 

of international conferences and issues--the satellite 

radiocommunication service. The next international radiocommunication 

conference would not be held for another 20 years.



1960:



Communications Act Amendments of 1960--Congress added new sections to 

the Communications Act of 1934 addressing comparative hearings held by 

FCC to determine licensing. The new sections were added following the 

decision in U.S. v. Storer Broadcasting, 351 U.S. 192 (1955). In 

Storer, the Court held that a hearing is not required under Sec. 309 of 

the Act in cases where undisputed facts show that the granting of an 

application would contravene the Commissionï¿½s perception of the ï¿½public 

interest.ï¿½ In the opinion of the court, Congress did not likely intend 

FCC to ï¿½waste time on applications that do not state a valid basis for 

a hearing.ï¿½ The Act was revised to provide FCC with broad discretion to 

avoid hearings on petitions to deny a license application unless a 

substantial and material question of fact is presented.



1962:



Communications Satellite Act of 1962--This act provided for U.S. 

participation in a global commercial communications satellite system by 

the Communications Satellite Corporation under government regulation. 

The principal task of the corporation was to plan, establish, and 

operate the system in cooperation with other nations to furnish, for 

hire, satellite relay of international and interstate telephone and 

telegraph services, including television. The U.S. portion of the 

system was subject to the same regulatory controls by FCC as were other 

communications common carriers.



Director of Telecommunications Management Position Established--

President Kennedy issued an executive order establishing the position 

of Director of Telecommunications Management. The authority of the 

President to assign, amend, modify or revoke frequency assignments to 

government agencies was delegated to the Director.



1965:



IRAC Approves Spectrum Management Manual--IRAC approved, as a working 

document, a draft ï¿½Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Frequency 

Management.ï¿½ After approval by the Director of Telecommunications 

Management, copies were distributed to all government users of radio, 

and it became the guideline for daily use.:



1966:



Report on Telecommunications Science and the Federal Government 

Released--The report, Electromagnetic Spectrum Utilization--The Silent 

Crisis, prepared by the Telecommunication Science Panel of the Commerce 

Technical Advisory Board, Department of Commerce, suggested the 

appearance of a strong basis for the separate management of government 

and nongovernment radio spectrum use. The separation is rooted mainly 

in the direct responsibility of the President for national defense, the 

report states, and the missions of the federal agencies; whereas the 

administration of nongovernment telecommunications in the national 

interest requires processes that provide adequate public representation 

of economic and political forces.



1967:



Periodic Review of Government Assignments--IRAC approved a policy for 

the periodic review of government frequency assignments on a 5-year 

cycle. The procedure would serve to eliminate unused assignments, 

update remaining assignments, and make the master file of government 

assignments much more useful in engineering new assignments.



1968:



Presidentï¿½s Task Force on Communications Policy Issues Report--Neither 

the President nor any executive branch agency had access to ï¿½a source 

of coordinated and comprehensive policy advice,ï¿½ concluded the 

Presidentï¿½s Task Force on Communications Policy in its report to 

President Johnson. As a result, the executive branch had difficulty 

presenting a coherent and consistent position on problems. To address 

these problems, the Task Force recommended the establishment of an 

executive agency to pursue long-term strategy and coordination, to 

formulate policy, and to serve other executive departments and agencies 

as a resource center for communications expertise.



1970:



Office of Telecommunications Policy Created--Congress approved a plan 

proposed by President Nixon to transfer various telecommunications and 

functions of the President to a new Office of Telecommunications 

Policy. The new office would be responsible for developing plans, 

policies, and programs with respect to telecommunications that will 

promote the public interest; support national security; sustain and 

contribute to the full development of the economy and world trade; 

strengthen the position and serve the best interests of the United 

States in negotiating with foreign nations; and promote the effective 

and innovative use of telecommunications technology, resources, and 

services. In addition, the President delegated to the new office his 

authority over assignments to federal radio stations and directed the 

Secretary of Commerce to support the new officeï¿½s spectrum management 

responsibilities with analysis, engineering, and administrative 

assistance.



1978:



NTIA Formed--President Carter issued an executive order to abolish the 

Office of Telecommunications Policy and establish an Assistant 

Secretary for Communications and Information, transferring the 

functions of the Office of Telecommunications Policy to the Department 

of Commerce. A departmental order was issued shortly thereafter forming 

the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).



1979:



First World Radio Conference in 20 Years--The first general World 

Administrative Radio Conference (WARC) held in 20 years was convened 

for 10 weeks in Geneva, Switzerland. The most significant results of 

WARC 1979 included revisions to many technical and operational 

standards for radio, particularly the International Table of Frequency 

Allocations, and the scheduling of a series of specialized conferences 

for the next decade. The table of allocations was expanded upward and 

modifications were made in various frequency bands to reflect increased 

use of satellite radiocommunications.



1981:



FCC Establishes Cellular Duopoly--FCC concluded that the public 

interest would be best served with two competing cellular systems in 

each geographic area. Each geographic market was divided in such a way 

as to allow the local exchange service (typically, one for the Bell 

Operating Companies) and a nonwireline applicant to provide service.



1982:



AT&T Divestiture Consent Decree--AT&T and the Department of Justice 

entered into a consent decree that required divestiture of the local 

Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) from AT&T. In addition, the decree 

required that the BOCs provide equal access to long distance and 

information service providers to their networks for interconnection, 

and it prohibited the BOCs from providing long distance service, 

information services, and telecommunications equipment manufacturing. 

The BOCs retained their mobile services subsidiaries in 1984 after 

divestiture.



1983:



Congress Authorizes Department of State Communications Policy Office--

Congress passed the Department of State Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Years 1984 and 1985, codifying into law and providing for the 

presidential appointment of a Coordinator for International 

Communications and Information Policy within the U.S. Department of 

State. The position had been established by the Department of State

2 years earlier and had made the incumbent responsible to the 

Undersecretary of State for Security Assistance, Science, and 

Technology. The Coordinator acquired a rank equivalent to an Assistant 

Secretary of State and the personal rank of Ambassador in 1983 and 

became head of a new Bureau of International Communications and 

Information Policy in 1985. In 1994, the bureau was incorporated into 

the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, and legislation was passed 

that no longer required presidential appointment of the Coordinator 

position, reassigning it to the Bureau of Economic and Business 

Affairs.



NTIA Created Office of International Affairs--Primary responsibility 

for international telecommunications, which had been handled within 

NTIA by the Office of Spectrum Management, was transferred to the newly 

created Office of International Affairs.



1985:



Communications and Information Policy Bureau at Department of State--

The Coordinator for Communications and Information Policy, Department 

of State, became the head of a new bureau--the Bureau of International 

Communications and Information Policy.



Figure 9: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1985-2005):



[See PDF for image]



Source: GAO.



[End of figure]



1990:



FCC International Office Established--FCC created the Office of 

International Communications to coordinate international activities 

and policy development for spectrum and other telecommunications 

matters. This action was taken, in part, to prepare for the World 

Administrative Radio Conference in 1992 and to establish a focal point 

at FCC for international matters.



1992:



NTIA Organization Act Passed--Fourteen years after NTIA was formed, 

Congress enacted the Telecommunications Authorization Act of 1992, 

codifying into law the existence and authority of NTIA as an executive 

branch agency principally responsible for advising the President on 

telecommunications and information policies.



Two-Year Intervals Established for WRCs--Delegates to the 1992 ITU 

Plenipotentiary Conference, held in Geneva, Switzerland, adopted a 

resolution to convene World Radiocommunications Conferences (WRCs) 

every 2 years.



1993:



Competitive Biding for Spectrum Licenses Authorized by Law--Title VI of 

the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 included several 

provisions addressing spectrum management as follows:



* The Act amended the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration Organization Act to direct NTIA to identify and 

recommend the reallocation of a minimum of 200 MHz of spectrum used by 

the federal government to nonfederal government users.



* The Communications Act of 1934 was amended to authorize the use of 

competitive bidding (auctions) by FCC for certain spectrum licenses. 

FCC was also authorized to make available frequencies reallocated from 

federal to nonfederal government use.



* The Act amended the Communications Act of 1934 to specify that all 

mobile radio service providers (public and private) be treated under a 

comprehensive and consistent regulatory framework. The Act created the 

new statutory category of commercial (CMRS) and private (PMRS) mobile 

radio services. As provided earlier, the statute requires all CMRS 

providers to be treated as common carriers, whereas PMRS providers are 

exempt from common carrier regulation. However, the new provisions 

expressly preempted the states from entry or rate regulation of both 

CMRS and PMRS; authorized FCC to forbear from regulating CMRS where it 

deemed regulation unnecessary to ensure just, reasonable, and 

nondiscriminatory practices; and granted wireless carriers new rights 

to interconnect with wireline carriers.



1994:



FCC International Bureau Created--FCC established an International 

Bureau to consolidate FCCï¿½s various international activities. This 

change was made to reflect the increasingly global nature of the 

communications marketplace as well as the concern that international 

communications policy needed to be better coordinated within FCC, with 

industry, with other government agencies, and with other countries.



1996:



Public Safety Spectrum Report Issued--By congressional directive, FCC 

and NTIA established a Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee in 

1995 to provide advice and recommendations on specific wireless 

communications requirements of public safety agencies through 2010. In 

the final report issued in September 1996, the Advisory Committee 

concluded that additional public safety spectrum was needed, that 

spectrum must be used more efficiently, and interoperability standards 

must be established to meet current and future needs of public safety 

users. In addition, the committee proposed:



* immediate identification of 2.5 MHz of spectrum for interoperability 

from new or existing allocations;



* allocation in the short term of 25 MHz for public safety purposes, up 

to an additional 70 MHz to support increased use of data, imagery, and 

video by the year 2010, and the use of unused spectrum in the 746-806 

MHz band (television channels 60-69), as well as TV channels below 512 

MHz;



* more flexible licensing policies to encourage the use of spectrally 

efficient approaches while remaining technologically neutral;



* more sharing and joint use of spectrum and policies to streamline 

cooperative use of federal and nonfederal spectrum;



* the use of commercial services for public safety provided that 

essential requirements of coverage, priority access and system 

restoration, security, and reliability are met;



* a continuing consultative process to permit the public safety 

community, FCC, and NTIA to adjust to new requirements and 

opportunities; and:



* identification of alternative methods of funding future public safety 

communications systems.



The Telecommunications Act of 1996--The Telecommunications Act was 

intended to ï¿½provide for a pro-competitive, deregulatory national 

policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector 

deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies 

and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets 

to competition.ï¿½:



NTIA Authorized to Collect Fees from Government Agencies--Included in a 

provision for additional fiscal year 1996 funding for NTIA, the 

Secretary of Commerce was authorized to charge fees to federal agencies 

for spectrum management, analysis, operations, and related services, 

and to retain and use as offsetting collections funds transferred for 

all costs incurred in telecommunications research, engineering, and 

related activities by the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences of 

NTIA.



1997:



Congress Passes Balanced Budget Act of 1997--The Balanced Budget Act of 

1997 amended FCCï¿½s spectrum auction authority by requiring that FCC 

award mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses using 

competitive bidding procedures (not including licenses for public 

safety radio, digital television, and existing terrestrial broadcast 

licenses). Among the various other provisions in the Act addressing 

spectrum, NTIA was directed to reallocate another 20 MHz below 3 GHz 

for commercial uses, and the Act authorized private parties that win 

spectrum licenses encumbered by federal entities to reimburse the 

federal entities for the costs of relocation if the private parties 

seek to expedite the spectrum transfer.



1998:



Defense Authorization Act Revises Spectrum Relocation Reimbursement 

Policy--Under the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act, 

any government entity using this spectrum band that proposes to 

relocate is directed to notify NTIA of the marginal costs anticipated 

to be incurred in relocation or modification necessary to accommodate 

prospective nongovernment licensees. NTIA is directed to notify FCC of 

such costs before an auction of the spectrum, and FCC must notify 

potential bidders prior to the auction of the estimated relocation or 

modification costs based on the geographic area covered by the proposed 

licenses. Any new licensee benefiting from a government station 

relocation must compensate the government entity in advance for 

relocation or modification costs.



1999:



FCC Issues Principles for Spectrum Reallocation to Encourage 

Development of Telecommunications Technologies--FCC issued a policy 

statement setting forth guiding principles for the Commissionï¿½s future 

spectrum management activities. The principles are designed to respond 

to increasing demand for spectrum, promote competition, and encourage 

the development of emerging telecommunications technologies. The 

principles are to serve as a guidepost for the reallocation of 

approximately 200 MHz of spectrum to enable a broad range of new radio 

communication services, such as expanded wireless services, advanced 

mobile services, new spectrum-efficient private land mobile systems, 

and medical telemetry systems.



Spectrum Planning Directive in Defense Authorization Act--The National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, contained the following 

requirements addressing spectrum management:



* The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary and 

in coordination with the Chairman of FCC, was directed to convene an 

interagency review and assessment of (1) the progress made in 

implementation of national spectrum planning; (2) the reallocation of 

federal government spectrum to nonfederal use, and (3) the implications 

for such reallocations to the affected federal executive agencies.



* The Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the heads of the 

affected federal agencies and the Chairman of FCC, was directed to 

submit a report to the President; the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services; the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation; the House Committee on Armed Services; the House 

Committee on Energy and Commerce; and the House Committee on Science 

providing the results of the review and assessment not later than 

October 1, 2000.



* If, in order to make available for other use a band of frequencies of 

which it is a primary user, the Department of Defense was required to 

surrender use of such band of frequencies only after (1) NTIA, in 

consultation with FCC, identifies and makes available an alternative 

band or bands of frequencies as a replacement for the band to be 

surrendered; and (2) the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of 

Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff jointly certify 

to the House Committees on Armed Services and Commerce that such an 

alternative band provides comparable technical characteristics to 

restore essential military capability that will be lost as a result of 

the surrendered bands.



* Eight MHz, previously designated for transfer from federal to 

nonfederal use, was reclaimed for exclusive federal government use on a 

primary basis by the Department of Defense.



NTIA issued a report, Assessment of Electromagnetic Spectrum 

Reallocation, in response to these provisions in January 2001.



2000:



Federal Long-Range Spectrum Plan Issued by NTIA--NTIA issued a report 

providing for long-range planning of radiofrequency spectrum use by the 

federal government. The report states that the national objectives for 

the use of the radio spectrum are to make effective, efficient, and 

prudent use of the spectrum in the best interest of the nation, with 

care to conserve it for uses where other means of communication are not 

available or feasible. The report also states that the government 

shall, in general, encourage the development and regulate the use of 

radio and wire communications subject to its control so as to meet the 

needs of national security; safety of life and property; international 

relations; and the business, social, educational, and political life of 

the nation.



3G Allocations Dominate WRC-2000--At the 2000 World Radiocommunication 

Conference (WRC-2000), spectrum and regulatory issues related to 

advanced mobile communications, including third-generation services, 

were discussed and three bands identified for its use (806-960 MHz, 

1710-1885 MHz, and 2500-2690 MHz). The United States agreed that it 

would study these bands domestically, but did not commit to providing 

additional spectrum for third-generation systems.



Congress Passes the ORBIT Act--The Open-market Reorganization for the 

Betterment of International Telecommunications (the ï¿½ORBITï¿½ Act) became 

law in March 2000 to promote a ï¿½fully competitive global market for 

satellite communication services for the benefit of consumers and 

providers of satellite services and equipment.ï¿½ The Act prohibits FCC 

from assigning orbital locations or spectrum licenses to international 

or global satellite communications services through the use of 

auctions. Further, the Act directs the President to oppose the use of 

auctions of satellite spectrum bands in international forums.



Executive Memorandum Issued on Advanced Mobile Communications Systems-

-President Clinton issued a memorandum stating the need to select radio 

frequency spectrum for future mobile, voice, high-speed data, and 

Internet-accessible wireless capacity. The memorandum established the 

guiding principles for executive agencies to use in selecting spectrum 

that could be made available for third-generation (3G) wireless systems 

and strongly encouraged independent federal agencies to follow the same 

principle in any actions they take related to the development of 3G 

systems. The memorandum directed the Secretary of Commerce to work 

cooperatively with FCC (1) to develop a plan to select spectrum for 3G 

systems by October 20, 2000, and (2) to issue by November 15, 2000, an 

interim report on the current spectrum use and potential for 

reallocation or sharing of the bands identified at the WRC-2000 that 

could be used for 3G systems. These actions were seen as enabling FCC 

to identify spectrum for 3G systems by July 2001 and auction licenses 

by September 2002.



Interference Avoidance for Defense and Public Safety Users--In the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, the Secretary 

of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary 

of Commerce, was directed to conduct an engineering study to identify 

(1) any portion of the 138-144 MHz band that the Department of Defense 

can share, in various geographic regions, with public safety radio 

services; (2) any measures required to prevent harmful interference 

between Department of Defense systems and the public safety systems 

proposed for operation on those frequencies; and (3) a reasonable 

schedule for implementation of such sharing of frequencies. The 

Secretary of Commerce and the Chairman of FCC were to jointly submit a 

report to Congress on alternative frequencies available for use by 

public safety systems by January 1, 2002. NTIA issued a report, 

Alternative Frequencies For Use by Public Safety Systems, in December 

2001, and a companion report was issued by FCC.



2001:



Domestic Developments on Spectrum for 3G Systems--FCC issued a final 

report on the use of the 2500-2690 MHz band for advanced mobile 

communications systems, including 3G systems. NTIA also issued a final 

report on the 1710-1755 MHz federal government band and the 1755-1850 

MHz band. FCC Chairman Michael Powell and Secretary of Commerce Donald 

Evans exchanged letters in which they agreed to postpone the July 2001 

deadline for FCC to identify spectrum for 3G systems. Secretary Evans 

informed Chairman Powell that he had directed the then-Acting 

Administrator of NTIA to work with FCC to develop a new plan for the 

selection of 3G spectrum to be executed as quickly as possible.



2002:



NTIA Hosts Two-Day Spectrum Summit--NTIA hosted a summit in Washington, 

D.C., on April 4-5, 2002, to help identify the best solutions to 

challenges posed by management of the nationï¿½s airwaves. The purpose of 

the spectrum summit was to explore new ideas to develop and implement 

spectrum policy and management approaches that will make more efficient 

use of the spectrum; provide spectrum for new technologies; and improve 

the effectiveness of domestic and international spectrum management 

processes. The first day featured industry and government spectrum 

users, economists, analysts, and technologists; the second day was 

devoted to working sessions focused on commercial, international, and 

federal government perspectives.



FCC Chairman Forms Spectrum Policy Task Force--The formation of a 

Spectrum Policy Task Force was announced by FCC Chairman for purposes 

of assisting the Commission in identifying and evaluating changes in 

spectrum policy that will increase the public benefits derived from the 

use of radio spectrum. Composed of senior staff from various offices 

and bureaus of FCC, the Spectrum Policy Task Force issued a public 

notice on June 6, 2002, soliciting comment on various aspects of 

spectrum policy, including: market-oriented allocation and assignment 

policies, interference protection, spectral efficiency, public safety 

communications, and international issues. In August 2002, the Spectrum 

Policy Task Force held four public workshops in order to provide 

additional public input to the Task Forceï¿½s review. The topics included 

experimental licenses and unlicensed spectrum, interference 

protection, spectrum efficiency, and spectrum rights and 

responsibilities. Participants in these workshops included 

representatives from academia, industry, and government. The Task Force 

is tentatively scheduled to issue a report to the Commission by October 

2002.



Study on Viability of Accommodating 3G Systems Concluded--NTIA released 

findings of an assessment performed by NTIA, FCCï¿½s 3G Working Group, 

the Department of Defense, and other members of the Intra-Government 3G 

Planning Group on the viability of accommodating advanced mobile 

wireless (3G) systems in the 1710-1770 MHz and 2110-2170 MHz bands. The 

study concluded that 90 MHz of this spectrum can be allocated for 3G 

services to meet increasing demand for new services without disrupting 

communications systems critical to national security.



[End of section]



Appendix III: Comments from the Federal Communications Commission:



Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554:



August 28, 2002:



Mr. Peter Guerrero:



Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues United States General 

Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548:



Dear Mr. Guerrero:



Chairman Powell has asked me to respond to your letter of August 12, 

2002 requesting FCCï¿½s comments on GAOï¿½s draft report entitled 

Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability 

Needed to Improve Spectrum Management (GAO code 545002).



The report makes two recommendations that pertain to the FCC. The first 

recommendation is that: The Secretary of Commerce and the Chairman of 

the Federal Communications Commission should establish and carry out 

formal, joint planning activities to develop a clearly defined national 

spectrum strategy to guide domestic and international spectrum 

management decision making. The results of these planning activities 

should be reported to the appropriate congressional committees.



The FCC staff supports this recommendation. As noted in the report, 

both the Department of Commerce, under the auspices of the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration, and the Federal 

Communications Commission, have initiated processes to review and 

improve spectrum management. A cornerstone of these efforts is to 

improve coordination between our agencies and to conduct joint planning 

to develop a national spectrum management strategy. This national 

strategy should emphasize ways to support innovation and the efficient, 

flexible use of spectrum, with the overarching goal of maximizing the 

public benefits derived from the use of the radio spectrum.



The second recommendation is: Following the 2003 World 

Radiocommunication Conference, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 

Commerce, and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission 

should jointly review the adequacy of the process used to develop and 

promote the U.S. position, including the separate processes used by the 

FCC and NTIA, and the short tenure of the head of delegation, and 

prepare a report containing any needed recommendations for making 

improvements. The report should be provided to the appropriate 

congressional committees.



The FCC staff supports this recommendation as well. The United States 

has had an outstanding record of success at past international radio 

conferences. The FCC took several actions following WRC 2000 to improve 

the way the U.S. prepares for such conferences. We agree that it would 

be beneficial for State Department, Department of Commerce, and FCC to 

further review the U.S. preparatory processes following the 2003 WRC.



We have already provided you with a list of minor edits and corrections 

to the report. Please contact Mr. Julius Knapp at (202) 418-2468, if we 

can be of any further assistance.



Sincerely,



Edmond J. Thomas:

Chief:

Office of Engineering and Technology:

Signed by Edmund J. Thomas:



[End of section]



Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce:



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Assistant Secretary for 

Communications and Information:



Washington, D.C. 20230:



SEP 6 2002:



Mr. Peter Guerrero Director:



Physical Infrastructure Issues 441 G Street, NW:



United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548:



Dear Mr. Guerrero:



On behalf of Secretary Evans, thank you for providing the Department 

with a copy of the General Accounting Officeï¿½s draft report entitled 

ï¿½Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability 

Needed to Improve Spectrum Managementï¿½ (GAO-02-906). I have the 

following comments on the three areas in which GAO makes 

recommendations: improved processes for spectrum planning; better 

coordination for world radio conferences; and increased accountability 

and efficient use of the spectrum.



In the area of spectrum planning, GAO recommends that the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) carry out formal joint planning 

activities to develop clearly defined national spectrum strategy to 

guide domestic and international spectrum management decision making 

and report the results to the appropriate congressional committees. The 

National Table of Allocations, which represents the United Statesï¿½ 

spectrum plan, is comprised of over 40 radio services spread out over 

900 frequency bands. The FCC and NTIA currently conduct examinations of 

those services and bands as circumstances dictate, usually in areas of 

congestion or where growth is expected, or to accommodate a new 

technology or service. The two agencies also participate together in 

higher level or more theoretical spectrum planning activities, as 

evidenced by NTIAï¿½s Spectrum Summit in April (in which FCC 

participated) and the FCCï¿½s recent spectrum policy workshops (in which 

NTIA participated). Yet, we agree that spectrum planning and 

interagency coordination can be improved. NTIA will develop strategies 

to better prepare for inevitable technological changes, to increase 

efficient use of spectrum, to facilitate the deployment of new 

technologies, and to implement closer coordination between the agencies 

in their planning activities.



With respect to the world radio conferences, it is vitally important 

that the United States develop coordinated positions and be well 

prepared in advance of these conferences to ensure that U.S. spectrum 

interests are protected and promoted internationally. The draft GAO 

report recommends that the State Department, FCC, and NTIA jointly 

review the adequacy of the preparation process following the 2003 World 

Radio Conference and develop recommendations for improvements. I agree 

with this recommendation and will work with the State Department and 

the FCC to this end.



Finally, the draft GAO report calls on NTIA to encourage increased 

accountability and efficient use of the spectrum by federal agencies. 

The report indicates that financial and personnel resource shortages at 

NTIA and the other agencies have adversely affected the deployment of 

more spectrum efficient technology within the federal government and 

hampered NTIAï¿½s ability to monitor federal agenciesï¿½ compliance with 

authorization conditions. GAO specifically recommends that the 

Department of Commerce, assisted by the Interdepartment Radio Advisory 

Committee (IRAC) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), conduct 

an analysis of the human resources required for the Federal agenciesï¿½ 

spectrum management processes to evaluate the adequacy of resources. 

NTIA will review its human capital needs and current resources and 

develop a strategy for addressing any shortcomings. I will also 

encourage other agencies who are members of the IRAC to conduct a 

similar analysis. NTIA will additionally continue to look at other 

mechanisms to achieve spectrum efficiency, such as incentives and 

mandates for narrowbanding.



I believe it is time for the United States to take a broad look at the 

organizational structures and processes we have built both nationally 

and internationally to manage and plan spectrum use. The Presidentï¿½s 

Fiscal Year 2003 Budget includes an initiative designed to make the 

spectrum management process more responsive, effective, and efficient 

so that it can implement new technologies, satisfy critical public 

safety radiocommunication needs, increase economic growth, and 

eliminate unnecessary regulation. It is essential that this initiative 

be funded.



As the draft GAO report highlights, spectrum is a very valuable 

resource that is the life blood of our radiocommunications. If managed 

properly, this resource will be available to meet all of our Federal, 

private sector and public needs. Thank you again for this opportunity 

to review the draft report and to provide these comments.



Sincerely,



Nancy J. Victory:

Signed by Nancy J. Victory:



[End of section]



Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State:



United States Department of State Washington, D. C.	20520:



AUG 2 8 X02:



Dear Ms. Westin:



We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, 

ï¿½TELECOMMUNICATION: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability 

Needed to Improve Spectrum Management,ï¿½ GAO-02-906, GAO Job Code 

545002.



The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 

incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.



If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact 

Douglas Spalt, Telecommunications Officer, Office of Multilateral 

Affairs, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, at (202) 647-0200.



Sincerely,



Christopher B. Burn:

Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer:

Signed By Christoper B. Burn:



Enclosure:



As stated.



cc: GAO/PI - Mr. John Finedore State/OIG - Mr. Berman State/EB/CIP/MA - 

Mr. Beaird:



Ms. Susan S. Westin, Managing Director, International Affairs and 

Trade, U.S. General Accounting Office.



Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:



TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability 

Needed to Improve Spectrum Management (GAO-02-906, GAO Code 545002):



The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the 

draft report and notes the second recommendation under Recommendations 

for Executive Action. The Department will consult with the Department 

of Commerce and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) after the 

conclusion of the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference.



The Department requests that one modification be made in the Annex II 

to the Report. The title of the 1979 entry in the timeline should be 

modified to reflect what has been stated in the first sentence, i.e., 

First General World Radio Conference in 20 Years.



In reading the report the Department has some questions concerning the 

wording of the report; however, these issues should be more 

appropriately addressed by the technical agencies, i.e., the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration and the FCC.



[End of Section]



FOOTNOTES



[1] The Department of Defense, one of the largest users of the federal 

spectrum, was not included in this review because GAO recently 

completed a separate report on defense spectrum management. U.S. 

General Accounting Office, Defense Spectrum Management: More Analysis 

Needed to Support Spectrum Use Decisions for the 1755-1850 MHz Band,

GAO-01-795 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20, 2001).



[2] 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 term kilohertz (kHz) refers to thousands of hertz, the 

term megahertz (MHz) refers to millions of hertz, and the term 

gigahertz (GHz) refers to billions of hertz. The radio spectrum 

comprises a range of frequencies from 3 kHz to around 300 GHz.



[3] 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. ï¿½ 15 (2001).



[4] Appendix II provides a detailed timeline on the evolution of 

spectrum management in the United States.



[5] The Radio Act of 1912, ch. 287, 37 Stat. 302 (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, ch. 379, 36 Stat. 629 (1910), as 

amended, ch. 250, 37 Stat. 199 (1912), to address a first use of radio-

-safety of ships at sea.



[6] The Act designated what was then the Department of Labor and 

Commerce as the licensing authority. When that department was separated 

into two cabinet departments in 1913, the licensing authority was given 

to the new Department of Commerce.



[7] The Secretary of Commerce could not refuse to grant a license upon 

proper application under the Act as held by a court and opinions by two 

attorneys general. See 29 Op. Attï¿½y Gen. 579 (1912); 35 Op. Attï¿½y Gen. 

126 (1926); Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., Inc., 286 F. 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, 12 

F.2d 614 (N.D. Ill., 1926). The 1912 Act did not regulate broadcasting. 

See Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station, Inc., (Cir. Ct., 

Cook County, Ill., 1926) reprinted in 68 Cong. Rec. 216-219 (1926).



[8] Ch. 169, 44 Stat. 1162 (1927).



[9] 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 ï¿½right of user.ï¿½ Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting 

Station, Inc., (Cir. Ct., Cook County, Ill. 1926), reprinted in 68 

Cong. Rec. 

216-219 (1926).



[10] Ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064 (1934)(codified, as amended, at 47 U.S.C. ï¿½ 

ï¿½ 151 et seq.).



[11] Under the Radio Act of 1927, the Presidentï¿½s spectrum management 

authority was delegated--and IRAC reported through--first, the 

Secretary of Commerce, and then, beginning in 1932, the FRC (replaced 

by FCC in 1934). In 1940, an interagency 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 

Presidentï¿½s spectrum management authority, coupled with 

telecommunications policy advice, has been delegated, and IRAC has 

reported through: the Telecommunications Adviser 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); and the Director of 

the Office of Telecommunications Policy (1970). President Carterï¿½s 

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 later codified NTIA and its mission into law. See The 

Telecommunications Authorization Act of 1992, P.L. 102-538, 106 Stat. 

3533 (1992).



[12] Although FCC once served as a voting member of IRAC, its role in 

IRAC was changed to that of liaison in 1952 after IRACï¿½s 

responsibilities were augmented to include formulating policies, plans, 

and actions for the management and use of government radio frequencies.



[13] NTIA also reported that 42 percent of the currently shared 

allocations between federal and nonfederal users in the 0 to 3.1 GHz 

range are shared on a ï¿½co-primaryï¿½ basis.



[14] 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, 113 Stat. 768 (1999) (codified, as 

amended, at 47 U.S.C. ï¿½ 923(b)(3)(A)).



[15] Our continuing spectrum work focuses, in part, on the regulatory 

structure for spectrum management in approximately 12 other countries. 

A report that includes this work will be issued in early 2003.



[16] P.L. 106-65, Div. A, Title X, ï¿½ 1062 (b), 113 Stat. 768 (1999).



[17] P.L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1920 (1998) (codified at 47 U.S.C. ï¿½ 

923(g)).



[18] 47 U.S.C. ï¿½ 922.



[19] P.L. 106-65, Div. A, Title X, ï¿½ 1062(a), 113 Stat. 767 (1999). The 

Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the heads of the affected 

federal agencies and the Chairman of FCC, was directed to submit a 

report providing the results of the required review and assessment by 

October 1, 2000, to the President; the Senate Committees on Armed 

Services and Commerce, Science and Transportation; and the House 

Committees on Armed Services, Commerce, and Science. 113 U.S.C. ï¿½ 768. 

NTIA issued a report, Assessment of Electromagnetic Spectrum 

Reallocation, in response to these provisions in January 2001. This 

report summarized past and current spectrum planning activities of both 

FCC and NTIA, but did not address future spectrum planning.



[20] U.S. Spectrum Management Policy: An Agenda for the Future, NTIA 

Special Publication 91-23, February 1991.



[21] Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Frequency 

Spectrum Issues, November 2000. The Board recommended establishing a 

White House Office of 	Information Resource Policy to develop the 

overall U.S. spectrum policy and bring NTIA, FCC, and the Department of 

State under a common policy framework.



[22] GAO-01-795.



[23] The Spectrum Coordinating Committee is composed of FCC staff 

involved in spectrum management; the Spectrum Executive Committee is 

composed of FCC bureau and office chiefs.



[24] FCC officials stated other methods include experimental licensing, 

inquiries, and policy statements.



[25] A Long-Range Strategy for Spectrum Management, NTIA, 1983; and 

Long-Range Plan for Management and Use of the Radio Spectrum, NTIA 

Special Publication 89-22, June 1989.



[26] ITU is a United Nations specialized agency. The federal government 

considers ITU the principal, competent, and appropriate international 

organization for the purpose of formulating international treaties and 

understandings regarding certain telecommunications matters.



[27] ITAC aids in the preparation of U.S. positions for meetings of 

international treaty organizations, develops and coordinates proposed 

contributions to international meetings, and submits them to the 

Department of State for consideration.



[28] One of the U.S. delegationï¿½s objectives stemming from its 

experience at the 2000 WRC Radio Conference is to work more closely 

with participating countries in our own region in preparing for the 

2003 conference.



[29] Recommendations to Improve United States Participation in World 

Radiocommunication Conferences, Ambassador Gail S. Schoettler, U.S. 

Head of Delegation, World Radiocommunication Conference 2000, June 27, 

2000.



[30] 22 U.S.C. ï¿½ 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 of a temporary nature not 

exceeding 6 months in duration. The President need only transmit to the 

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations a written report; confirmation by 

the Senate is not needed.



[31] See the Office of Technology Assessmentï¿½s two reports, The 1992 

World Administrative Radio Conference: Issues for U.S. International 

Spectrum Policy--Background Paper, OTA-BP-TCT-76, November 1991; and 

The 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference: Technology and Policy 

Implications, OTA-TCT-549, May 1993.



[32] Department of State has not yet submitted the Final Acts from the 

WRCs in 1992, 1995, 1997, or 2000 to the Senate for ratification. 

Department of State officials said that the agency is preparing to send 

all of these Final Acts to the Senate as one package, and that 

ratification is not necessary for the United States to implement the 

agreements.



[33] 47 U.S.C. ï¿½ 903(d)(1).



[34] NTIA also uses IRACï¿½s Spectrum Planning Subcommittee to hold 

agencies accountable for ensuring that new equipment being developed 

and procured for federal use conforms with various policies, such as 

those designed to ensure adherence with current and future national 

frequency allocations and to encourage compatible spectrum sharing. 

Compliance with applicable spectrum standards is also addressed prior 

to certifying spectrum support for major systems.



[35] The Government Master File is the complete listing of government 

frequency assignments. It also includes thousands of nonfederal and 

foreign frequency assignments that must be coordinated with the federal 

government assignments.



[36] Certain space systems, aeronautical, and military assignments must 

be reviewed every 10 years.



[37] Among the current staff of 101, 17 are currently eligible to 

retire, with an additional 25 staff eligible to retire in 4 years.



[38] NTIA officials stated they planned on using the normal hiring 

process to replace staff that retire, as well as increase the pay 

levels for some of the current positions to attract and retain 

qualified staff.



[39] 47 U.S.C. ï¿½ 903(d)(3). In 1993, NTIA provided the Congress with a 

report that included the narrowbanding plan: Land Mobile Spectrum 

Efficiency: A Plan for Federal Government Agencies to Use More 

Spectrum-Efficient Technologies.



[40] There are three frequency bands involved in this effort: 138-150.8 

MHz, 162-174 MHz, and 406.1-420 MHz. The narrowbanding deadline for the 

162-174 MHz band is 2005. A 2008 deadline applies to the 138-150.8 MHz 

and 406.1-420 MHz bands. After January 1, 1995, most new land mobile 

systems were required to meet the narrowband requirements.



[41] 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. (John 

H. Anderson to the Honorable Frank R. Wolf, memorandum, 1 July 1998, 

Your letter regarding our report on NTIAï¿½s contract with FEDSMR [GAO/

RCED-98-116R, April 13, 1998])



[42] NTIA has denied frequency assignment requests for ï¿½stand-aloneï¿½ 

radio communication systems when it was clear that the existing trunked 

radio system could serve the applicantsï¿½ needs. For example, NTIA 

denied requests from the National Archives and Bolling Air Force Base 

to build and operate their own trunked radio systems in the Washington, 

D.C. area. Instead of using new frequencies, these agencies joined the 

NTIA sponsored area-wide trunking system.



[43] NTIA was first authorized to charge and retain fees for federal 

spectrum management services under the Omnibus Consolidated Rescission 

and Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 [1996]).



[44] FRCï¿½s authority was repeatedly renewed by the enactment of 

legislation until the Communications Act of 1934 was enacted into law.



GAOï¿½s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAOï¿½s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAOï¿½s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ï¿½Todayï¿½s Reports,ï¿½ on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select ï¿½Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released productsï¿½ under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: