[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

THE ROLE OF RECEIVERS IN A SPECTRUM SCARCE WORLD

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

NOVEMBER 29, 2012

__________

Serial No. 112-183

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

energycommerce.house.gov

______

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-744 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman

JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MARY BONO MACK, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina GENE GREEN, Texas
Vice Chairman DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma LOIS CAPPS, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JOHN BARROW, Georgia
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey Islands
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia

7_____

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO MACK, California DORIS O. MATSUI, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan JOHN BARROW, Georgia
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California Islands
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois officio)
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) officio)

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 5
Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nebraska, opening statement.................................... 6
Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 6

Witnesses

Ronald T. Repasi, Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and
Technology, Federal Communications Commission.................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Answers to submitted questions............................... 56
Pierre de Vries, Senior Adjunct Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center
for Law, Technology, and Entrepreneurship, University of
Colorado at Boulder............................................ 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Brian Markwalter, Senior Vice President, Research and Standards,
Consumer Electronics Association............................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32

THE ROLE OF RECEIVERS IN A SPECTRUM SCARCE WORLD

----------

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2012

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:58 a.m., in
room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg
Walden (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Walden, Terry, Stearns,
Blackburn, Gingrey, Latta, Guthrie, Eshoo, Markey, Barrow, and
Christensen.
Staff present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of
Coalitions; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Neil
Fried, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Debbee
Keller, Press Secretary; Andrew Powaleny, Deputy Press
Secretary; David Redl, Counsel, Communications and Technology;
Charlotte Savercool, Executive Assistant; Roger Sherman,
Democratic Chief Counsel; Shawn Chang, Democratic Senior
Counsel; David Strickland, Democratic FCC Detailee; Margaret
McCarthy, Democratic Professional Staff Member; and Kara Van
Stralen, Democratic Special Assistant.
Mr. Walden. We will call to order the Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology and our hearing on ``The Role of
Receivers in a Spectrum Scarce World.'' First of all, I want to
thank our witnesses not only for your extraordinary testimony--
we appreciate it; I have read through it--but also for your
patience and that of our visitors here today as well.
As you know, we are all in our organizational phases in the
Congress and we are giving courtesy to my colleagues on the
other side because they were having an organizational meeting
today. And we appreciate their breaking loose so we could get
this going even though we are a little delayed. So it is what
it is. Thank you. I will start with some opening comments and
then recognize my friend and colleague from California.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Good fences make good neighbors. Where I come from in
Oregon, we know that is the case whether it is crowded city
blocks or sprawling ranches. In many places in my district, the
ranches stretch for miles, and running out of space isn't a
problem. But in our digital world--in Oregon and around the
country--we are running out of room. Demand for spectrum is far
outpacing supply, and we need to figure out how to use this
room we have as efficiently as possible. In short, how do we
create good, strong fences to make sure everyone stays within
their spectrum bands so spectrum can be used as efficiently as
possible?
Now, why is this important? Simple. Spectrum equals jobs.
Telecommunications is the most vibrant and innovative sector in
America. Spectrum is the fuel that it runs on, but there is a
limit to our supply. As our subcommittee continues its work to
free up more spectrum, we are also focused on maximizing the
use of the existing spectrum. We have taken a forward-looking
approach--authorizing first-of-its-kind incentive auctions and
taking a look at making government spectrum use more efficient
and more available.
This hearing focuses on receivers and how interference
issues can impact our ability to roll out new broadband
services. While the controversy surrounding LightSquared and
GPS is one example, we have seen similar debates involving a
would-be broadband provider called M2Z networks. We have seen
it in satellite radio; we have seen it in unlicensed and white-
space devices. So that this issue is starting to recur more
frequently raises an important question: What engineering
techniques and smart strategies are available to fit more
mobile services in a crowded spectrum environment without
having to carve out larger and larger guard bands--big,
inefficient moats--to avoid interference? And how can we do so
without unreasonably increasing the costs of services and
devices?
Now, the Federal Communications Commission has
traditionally tried to combat interference by regulating
wireless transmitters and placing wireless services of a
similar type in neighboring bands--like a city planner placing
schools next to other schools and factories next to other
factories. While that has generally been successful in the
past, fitting additional users into existing spectrum is
becoming more difficult with the accelerating rise of the new
wireless technologies and services.
Recently, both the FCC and the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology have taken a fresh look at
the way we manage interference and suggested that we need to
begin examining receiver performance to maximize our spectrum
resources. This is in part because receivers are developed to
meet current technological needs, not to anticipate a changing
spectrum environment. They are built for the technology world
of today or even a few years ago, which, as we know, will look
very different in just a few more years. Again, we need to be
prepared.
As a result, the FCC is increasingly either rejecting new
users to protect existing ones or turning to guard bands--bands
of restricted-use spectrum to physically separate the two
licensed uses. Sometimes these guard bands are like digging a
big, wide moat between neighbors when a simple fence will do.
Neither rejecting new users, nor ordering large guard bands, is
ideal if we intend to remain the world's most innovative
wireless community and economy.
Today's witnesses include electrical engineers and a
physicist with expertise in radio engineering. So I look
forward to your guidance on how receiver performance strategies
in devices as different as televisions, Smartphones, and GPS
systems impact our ability to put spectrum to its best use. I
am also looking forward to your thoughts on how to strike a
balance so we can accommodate new innovations in wireless
technology without forcing manufacturers to waste time and
money over-engineering receivers for unworkable future uses.
Remember: spectrum equals jobs, and we must make sure it
continues to remain a job-creation engine into the future. We
must ensure that our policies promote continued growth and
innovation in this sector without endangering our Nation's
communications, commerce, and security.
We are also looking forward to the full report from the
Government Accountability Office as we requested in our
spectrum legislation, which is now law, as they look at this
issue as well.
So, gentlemen, thank you for being here. I now would
recognize the gentlelady from California.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.001

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my thanks to all of
my Republican colleagues for your patience, as well as that of
the witnesses and everyone that has come to this hearing today
as the Democrats held their reorganizational caucus. And I had
no idea that it would take the amount of time that it did,
especially with unanimous nominations, but the speeches went on
and on. So thank you again for your patience.
Mr. Chairman, harmful interference between adjacent
spectrum bands is becoming the new spectrum crisis. As time in
which demand for mobile broadband continues to skyrocket,
ensuring that every megahertz of spectrum is used efficiently
is as important as our ongoing effort to free up new spectrum
bands. And our subcommittee I think has worked very, very hard
on this certainly with the instruction of witnesses, our
terrific staffs, and others as well.
What happened to LightSquared, a promising company with
plans to inject new competition into the wireless broadband
market, is disappointing. But unfortunately, that ship has
sailed. What is just as unfortunate is that this isn't the
first time in which an incumbent has raised the problem of
receiver overload. Similar interference issues arose between
cellular and public safety radio systems, as well as between
satellite digital radio systems and proposed terrestrial data
services.
These are tough issues. Consumers want their Smartphones
and tablets to provide fast, reliable broadband service, but no
one wants more expensive devices, a potential outcome of
setting standards on receiver performance. If we successfully
reconcile these competing goals, I believe consumers win, new
entrants will have greater certainty before investing billions
of dollars, and a thriving consumer electronics industry will
not be unduly burdened.
Like most members of this subcommittee, I am not an
engineer and I don't have the technical expertise to answer
questions such as how much interference is tolerable, what the
cost of imposing standards are on receiver performance, and if
such standards were imposed, how many megahertz of unused guard
bands could be repurposed for mobile broadband? Recognizing the
importance of spectrum efficiency, we included a GAO study of
receiver performance in the bipartisan spectrum bill, which was
signed into law earlier this year. The results of this study,
the work of the FCC's Technological Advisory Council (the TAC)
along with the experts testifying before our committee today
will guide us as we tackle these challenging questions and
determine whether new legislation and FCC rulemaking or
advancement in technology or a blend of these things--I don't
know--are the appropriate path forward.
So thank you again, the patience of our witnesses. You got
to stay longer in Washington. Oh, joy, is right. But we really
appreciate your being here to be instructive to us. We thank
you for your important work that you have done and what you
will continue to do to promote spectrum efficiency.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentlelady for her opening
statement and comments and now I turn to the vice chair of the
subcommittee, Mr. Terry.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing on receivers. I can tell you that many in
Nebraska are very upset that wide receiver Kenny Bell was not
named All-Big Ten and have demanded a hearing for which I
appreciate you calling.
Seriously, though, we have before us a policy that is
especially difficult to solve. As recent disputes over
interference clearly illustrate that the center of these
conflicts is the question of who bears the cost of mitigating
interference, the incumbent or the newcomer? This transaction
cost is a big obstacle to efficient spectrum use. And the
efficiency of spectrum use is so vital because spectrum is the
lifeblood of the wide variety of wireless services that see
ever-increasing demand. Spectrum, like valuable land, cannot
lie fallow or else our economy really bears the cost.
The problem before us requires us to look closely at the
costs involved with mitigating interference. I am very
interested in hearing our witnesses' ideas about how best to
handle these costs. If the FCC has a role here, what should it
be? Whatever the answer is, I understand that our task is to
ensure that the licensees are able to utilize their inputs
effectively, but we must also avoid the trap of imposing
inordinate costs on a single type of licensee or hampering
innovative uses of spectrum.
I look forward to working with all of my colleagues and
look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Yield to the gentleman from Florida.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Stearns. I thank my distinguished colleague from
Nebraska and I welcome this hearing.
And this hearing is an important follow-up from the hearing
of my Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee that I chair
that was held in September and that examined the FCC's role in
the LightSquared network. As we discussed during that hearing,
LightSquared's billion-dollar investment has simply been put in
jeopardy due to an overload interference issue that is caused
by faulty receivers and GPS devices. I warned then that we must
not let poor receiver standards result in more interference
issues down the road. Therefore, I am very pleased that this
subcommittee is closely examining the issue and beginning an
important discussion in how we can address receivers going
forward. It is extremely important.
I agree with the witnesses today that we should be wary of
government mandates that would govern receiver designs.
However, I do believe that more must be done to ensure maximum
use of our spectrum.
So I look forward to their approaches and I yield back, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Latta or Mr. Guthrie, any comments before we go on?
Seeing none, the time is yielded back.
Is there a request for time on your side, Dr. Christensen?
It doesn't appear we have any other Members seeking
recognition at this time. So now we will move right----
Mr. Terry. Note this date in history.
Mr. Walden. They have waited long enough. So let's start
with Mr. Repasi. Thank you for being here from the Federal
Communications Commission. We appreciate your testimony and
look forward to your comments. And just kind of pull that mike
close, make sure it is on, and then we will avoid any receiver
or transmitter interference with your comments.

STATEMENTS OF RONALD T. REPASI, DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE OF
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
PIERRE DE VRIES, SENIOR ADJUNCT FELLOW, SILICON FLATIRONS
CENTER FOR LAW, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, UNIVERSITY OF
COLORADO AT BOULDER; AND BRIAN MARKWALTER, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, RESEARCH AND STANDARDS, CONSUMER ELECTRONICS
ASSOCIATION

STATEMENT OF RONALD T. REPASI

Mr. Repasi. Good afternoon, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member
Eshoo, and members of the Communications and Technology
Subcommittee.
My name is Ron Repasi and I am deputy chief of the FCC's
Office of Engineering and Technology. OET is the Commission's
primary resource for engineering expertise and provides
technical support to the chairman, commissioners, and the FCC's
Bureaus and Offices.
I appreciate your bipartisan interest in receiver standards
and for this opportunity to testify concerning the role of
receivers in enabling spectrum to be used for new and
innovative communication services. I am pleased to report that
the FCC's efforts to explore the issue in a comprehensive way
that includes stakeholders and technical experts in both the
Federal and private sectors.
There is no question that, without concerted action, the
demand for mobile broadband spectrum would quickly outpace the
available supply. The Commission has and continues to take
numerous steps to meet this demand, including reallocating
spectrum, fostering advanced spectrum sharing techniques, and
promoting improvement in efficient spectrum use.
The Commission's spectrum management efforts have focused
primarily on transmitters by establishing limitations on power
and noise that they may generate outside their designated
frequency bands while the performance of receivers has
generally been left to the marketplace. Receivers are expected
to operate within the same parameters as their associated
transmitters. That is not always the case because sometimes
receivers pick up energy outside of the spectrum provided for
their service.
Receiver performance is becoming increasingly important as
a limiting factor as we move to repurpose spectrum and pack
more services closer together. The continuing challenge for the
Commission will be to maximize the amount of usable spectrum
for cost-effective deployment of new communication services
while sufficiently protecting incumbent receivers. If receiver
technology remains static or is unable to keep pace with the
rapid evolution of transmission technologies, the challenges
before the Commission will increase dramatically.
In 2003, the Commission initiated a Notice of Inquiry to
consider incorporating receiver interference protection
standards into spectrum policy on a broader basis. The
proceeding was terminated in 2007 but the Commission found that
nothing precludes it from evaluating the issues raised by
parties in the context of other proceedings that are frequency
band or service specific.
Over the past several years, receiver performance issues
have arisen in certain band-specific instances as a conflict
between legacy stakeholders and new entrants. The Commission is
proactively addressing the issue of receiver performance and
its impact on spectrum access for new services. Earlier this
year, Chairman Genachowski initiated a review of spectrum
efficiency and receiver standards with a two-day workshop at
FCC headquarters, featuring a broad range of experts and
stakeholders, including licensees, equipment manufacturers and
consumers. Chairman Genachowski has also tasked the
Commission's Technological Advisory Council to study the issue
of receiver performance, and OET Chief Julius Knapp has been
working with the TAC as it develops its recommendations. The
TAC plans to finalize its recommendations at this upcoming
December 10 meeting and then submit to the Commission those
recommendations for consideration.
Commission staff participated as well in various technical
groups organized by private sector entities and to discuss
ideas about how to address receiver spectrum issues. Staff also
met with filter and electronic component suppliers to discuss
technology developments that hold promise for improving the
interference rejection capabilities of receivers. These efforts
by the Commission to gain a broader perspective on receiver
performance have been conducted in tandem with OET's
cooperation with GAO as it carries out the Job Creation Act
requirements to the study receiver performance and spectrum
efficiency. We look forward to the GAO report and consulting
with Congress as we consider what next steps may be appropriate
following release of the report.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify here
today. We look forward to working with you and your staff to
forge solutions to future engineering challenges. And I would
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Repasi follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.007

Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Repasi. We appreciate
the good work of you and your staff and Julius Knapp down at
the FCC. We have called upon your or Julius before for your
engineering answers, and we appreciate all that you do down
there.
We are going to go now to Mr. Pierre de Vries, Senior
Adjunct Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center, University of
Colorado, Boulder. Mr. de Vries, thank you for being here. I
appreciate your testimony and look forward to you offering it
orally.

STATEMENT OF PIERRE DE VRIES

Mr. de Vries. Thank you, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member
Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure and an
honor to be here today.
Yes, I am the physicist. My name is Pierre de Vries. I have
been involved in spectrum issues for about a decade and spent
the last 4 years focusing on the issue that is the subject of
this hearing today.
I laid out my testimony under four headings, and I would
like to just summarize the key points: first, the ``spectrum
crunch.'' The spectrum crunch that matters is the need to
squeeze in evermore services into increasingly crowded
spectrum, and that requires the ability to improve receivers
and radio systems in general to tolerate interference in
adjacent bands if they are in a given band. In this regard, I
would like to compliment and commend you, Mr. Chairman and the
committee, for your hard work on the incentive auction
legislation. That was a vital step in extracting maximum value
from this very scarce spectrum.
The FCC can also play its part, I believe, by drawing
boundary lines more clearly. That is by clarifying both the
rights that radio services have to be protected from harm and
their responsibilities to tolerate reasonable interference.
Second, yes, receiver performance is key. Receivers in one
band or in fact more accurately the receivers and the
transmitters together as a system in that band--receivers that
cannot tolerate reasonable levels of interference in an
adjacent band unfairly impose costs on others and they reap the
benefits themselves--for example, cheaper equipment. So far, as
we have heard, the FCC has handled such interference almost
entirely by placing the burden on the neighbor--for example, by
reducing their transmit power sometimes to zero, effectively
precluding the introduction of valuable new services. However,
the receiving system operator also needs to bear some
responsibility, but it needs to know what that responsibility
is.
So third, I believe we can go a long way towards solving
this problem by using harm claim thresholds, also known as
interference protection limits or interference limits, and that
is the proposal I am putting to you today. Harm claim
thresholds state the interference levels in adjacent
frequencies that a service needs to tolerate without being able
to bring a harmful interference claim. No FCC-mandated receiver
specifications or standards are required. Harm claim thresholds
let manufacturers and operators figure out the best way to deal
with interference--for example, by deploying suitable
receivers.
Now, there may well be a few cases where harm claim
thresholds won't be sufficient and additional measures, perhaps
even mandated standards, may be unavoidable in a few cases, but
they should be a last resort.
Finally, Congress and this committee in particular can play
a decisive role by continuing to focus attention on this issue
as you are doing by making clear that the FCC can use
approaches that don't mandate receiver standards like the one I
have mentioned and by funding the FCC to commission the
engineering studies that are necessary to inform smart
regulatory frameworks.
So Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. Thank you
again for inviting me today. I would be very happy to respond
to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. de Vries follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.020

Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. de Vries. We appreciate that. I
was hoping you would give us your neighbor/tent analogy. I
thought that really put it in perfectly understandable terms.
We will go now to Mr. Markwalter, who is the senior vice
president, Research and Standards, at the Consumer Electronics
Association. Mr. Markwalter, we appreciate your testimony and
look forward to your comments.

STATEMENT OF BRIAN MARKWALTER

Mr. Markwalter. Thank you. Subcommittee Chairman Walden,
Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee, on
behalf of the Consumer Electronics Association, thank you for
the opportunity to testify at today's hearing on ``The Role of
Receivers in a Spectrum Scarce World.'' My name is Brian
Markwalter and I am senior vice president of Research and
Standards at CEA.
CEA's more than 2,000 member companies include almost all
the world's leading consumer electronics manufacturers and
hundreds of small business. CEA and its members have a vital
interest and an important role to play in ensuring the most
effective and efficient use of spectrum.
As we continue to examine how to make the most efficient
use of our Nation's spectrum, CEA believes that spectrum
management must include an approach that examines the
interaction between transmitters and receivers. This approach
need not cause a shift from command-and-control spectrum
management to command-and-control device regulation. The
pillars of spectrum policy in a world of overcrowded airwaves
must include better information about receivers in the field
and their ability to tolerate interference, certainty on
possible new allocations so that businesses and Federal
spectrum users may make informed design and investment
decisions, and primary reliance on stakeholders to find the
cost and performance boundary between adjacent systems.
Equipment manufacturers and wireless service provides have
a strong self-interest in developing and deploying devices that
are resistant to forms of interference and to create as little
interference as possible. Service providers require that their
receivers meet very stringent design specifications to ensure
non-interference.
Licensed mobile devices must meet applicable standards
bodies' requirements prior to use by wireless provides. The two
primary examples are the standards created by the Third
Generation Partnership Projects. Industry has developed these
standards to ensure the items such as reference sensitivity
levels, receiver input levels, adjacent channel selectivity,
and blocking characteristics are standardized and controlled.
Digital TV receivers provide another example of effective
response by industry stakeholders to document the RF
environment and the associated tradeoffs made by receivers to
operate in the wide range of expected signal levels. The
standard in this case ATSC Recommended Practice A/74. CEA
believes that A/74 serves as a good starting point for the
industry-to-industry dialogue as needed to complete incentive
auctions and introduce new mobile broadband services as the
upper adjacent neighbor to the TV band.
The debate over efficient use of spectrum has moved beyond
knee-jerk reactions and entered a thoughtful, solutions-
oriented discussion in venues like the FCC's Technological
Advisory Council. The early calls for government mandates on
device design have faded as stakeholders have come to
understand that such approaches are not the best solution we
have to spectrum crowding. We look forward to a broader review
of the soon-to-be-released TAC report.
As we work to mitigate interference between the services
and receivers in adjacent bands, CEA offers the following
principles to guide policymakers and industry:
First, reduce uncertainty. The ultimate goal of spectrum
management should be to make the interference environment more
transparent so that designers have all the information needed
to deliver cost-effective products that allow more efficient
use of adjacent bands.
Second, use voluntary performance principles and industry
standards, not device mandates. Instead of adopting static
regulations governing receiver design, we believe the FCC
should allow industry to develop standards responsive to
planned allocations.
Third, collect information. The FCC should continue to
carefully inventory what services are operating in each band
and work with industry and government users to understand the
types of receivers deployed and their interference immunity
characteristics.
Fourth, case-by-case analysis. Any regulatory action
regarding spectrum allocations and receiver performance should
be narrowly tailored to allow technological advancement. These
principles are explained in more detail in my written
testimony.
To conclude, CEA is encouraged by the numerous fresh ideas
on spectrum policy and the concerted effort to free up spectrum
for much-needed commercial use. We believe that the right
regulatory approach to spectrum management leverages
stakeholders' deep understanding of their system capabilities
and price points in response to any government-articulated
plans for future allocations.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markwalter follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.026

Mr. Walden. Mr. Markwalter, thank you for your very
thoughtful testimony. We appreciate your being here today as
well.
I will lead off with the questions and I will start with
you just as you were giving your testimony and certainly, Mr.
de Vries. What did you think of Mr. de Vries' proposal for our
consideration regarding the harm claim threshold notion of how
you might--I won't say regulate in this space--but provide
guidance in this space? Is that something CEA would be
interested in? Is that something you see as workable?
Mr. Markwalter. Yes, well, we are definitely interested.
And we should confess we are both on the TAC and so we are both
working this issue very carefully, the interference limits
approach. There are a lot of details to be worked out yet.
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. Markwalter. What is very appealing about the approach
is it allows the problem to be stated and doesn't go directly
to the solution. So as Pierre, described, it sets up the
environment and allows----
Mr. Walden. A framework.
Mr. Markwalter. A framework.
Mr. Walden. Yes.
Mr. Markwalter. And, you know, leaves in the hand of the
users to build equipment to meet those needs rather than going
directly to solutions by dictating specific device performance.
There are some complicated issues yet to be worked out about
how you would, you know, establish the limits--
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. Markwalter [continuing]. To begin with in different use
cases but--
Mr. Walden. I appreciate that and I want to encourage the
TAC and its work and you two, since you are here in public and
not back in your TAC world, to continue because while trying to
break loose spectrum is one of the most enjoyable tasks we have
here on the subcommittee. It is simple and easy and there is
never any--well, there is a limit what we can do. And so we are
going to be looking at all these efficiencies.
Mr. de Vries, the growing need to place varied wireless
services in neighboring spectrum bands has prompted the FCC to
increasingly rely on guard bands, and that is something that I
really want to drill in a bit here. How efficient a solution is
that? One of my underlying questions I guess is how much guard
band, how much spectrum lies fallow because we have this
problem between transmitter and receiver? Can you kind of
address that piece of this? And does anybody know how much that
is? That is not calculated, I assume.
Mr. de Vries. Mr. Chairman, I think the answer to it is how
long is an elastic band? It depends on how hard you pull it. To
go back to the levels analogy, so let's say I have got a
receiver in this band--
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. de Vries. If I set the level of the maximum
interference that it can tolerate very low, that is effectively
a guard band.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. de Vries. Right? If I set it very high, it is not. And
choosing exactly where--
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. de Vries [continuing]. One chooses that level
influences how much you free up.
Mr. Walden. Got it.
Mr. de Vries. And so that decision, which the way we are
thinking on the TAC probably--the discussion starts amongst
engineers in a multi-stakeholder space--may end up at the FCC.
But where that number is set influences how much more we can
squeeze in.
Mr. Walden. Right. OK. Well, you know, in my background I
was in the radio broadcast business 22 years and a licensed
amateur radio operator and so I played a little in this. And
you know, we had to limit our transmission, can have this
exposure and, you know, we all argued about how sloppy the
front ends are on AM receivers, you know, and all the
interference you get from power lines and everything else. And
so it just has always struck me that there is ability to
improve in that side of the equation. So I appreciate that.
Let me go to Mr. de Vries. In the license context there is
a licensee on the hook at the FCC that has an ongoing
relationship with both the subscriber and the manufacturer.
Mr. de Vries. Um-hum.
Mr. Walden. The licensee can try to get a solution deployed
in the marketplace, but when there is no licensee, as was the
case with the GPS device problems in the LightSquared case, it
is a lot harder to identify and help the individually impacted
customers. So what do you think the remedy is in such cases
short of prohibiting or limited the proposed new service? Do we
need to treat these situations differently from the licensed
ones? Do we need to be particularly careful where and how we
deploy such devices?
Mr. de Vries. I think one definitely needs to pay
additional care to these cases for exactly the reasons that you
state. I think that there are a variety of possible solutions
on offer, and the ones that are chosen depends on one's
assessment of the risk. So the simplest solution is to say we
will set the harm claim thresholds and we will assume that it
is a well run industry with a lot of consensus and they will
come up with industry standards and they will sort it out.
On the other hand, if one has less appetite for risk, you
could say we are going to require manufacturers to self-
certify, not have the government tell them how to build their
devices, but say it is going to work. And then thirdly, and
that is the last resort that may be necessary for there to be
mandated standards for particular kind of devices.
Mr. Walden. OK. My time has expired. Before I turn over to
my ranking member and friend from California I just want to say
publicly that the chairman of the FCC was very helpful to me
during the LightSquared GPS issue by making Julius available
for a closed-door meeting of engineers from both sides. The
poor legal folks and lobbyists were, you know, apoplectic on
the sidelines but we tried to drill down in this space: is
there an engineering solution here? Are there notch filers? Are
there other things you can do in this space? So I appreciated
his willingness to let us do that.
I turn now to my friend from California.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you again to the witnesses not only again for
your patience but your excellent testimony, too. It is on a
very important subject.
Before I begin with the questions, I would just like to
ask--and you don't have to do it now--but in the majority's
memo for today's hearing it states that the PCAST report
recommended the establishment of minimum technical standards
for receivers, and I would just like to know where in the
report it says that? We don't find it, and as we are talking
about whether there should be or shouldn't be and how much, I
think that it is important to have that clear. So it is in the
memo but we don't find it in the PCAST report. But you can get
that to us?
Mr. Walden. Yes, I didn't----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes, afterward. All right?
Mr. Walden. We will be happy to find it.
Ms. Eshoo. But I think it is a semi-important point.
To Mr. de Vries, you have been an advisor, you know, to
PCAST, to the President's Council of Advisors in Science and
Technology. Can you describe how government users would benefit
from establishing objective criteria for harmful interference
conditions? And just be as brief as you can because I want to
get through the panel.
Mr. de Vries. Um-hum. I think government users would
benefit by there being clearer criteria for what counts as
harm, which means they would be able to engineer their systems
to be more interference-tolerant, jamming-tolerant.
Ms. Eshoo. And by putting in place what you just described,
does this require technological advances? Are there costs to
it? And how open would the defense community be to it do you
think, I mean in your estimation, because that is really the
largest nut to crack I think.
Mr. de Vries. The setting of the threshold is just a
number. And the engineering that is required is left to
industry.
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. de Vries. I can't speak for the DOD. I would observe I
think that one of the benefits of having clearer fences is that
it makes sharing or coexistence more feasible, which means that
it is less necessary perhaps to relocate and clear.
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. de Vries. They may find that attractive.
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum. Thank you.
Mr. Repasi, thank you again for your fine work and for
being here. We have heard today that in reallocating spectrum,
the FCC should consider an inventory of services and receivers
that are operating in adjacent bands. Does the FCC do this
today? And if not, from an engineering perspective, would this
information help you to better anticipate potential concerns
with harmful interference?
Mr. Repasi. Thank you. Currently, the FCC does not collect
an inventory of receives that are in adjacent bands. We rely
on----
Ms. Eshoo. How do you know?
Mr. Repasi. We rely on the information that is supplied in
the course of our rulemakings. Manufacturers who have concerns
about interference, whether it is on a band or overload
interference, will supply technical information to support
their arguments on what their threshold----
Ms. Eshoo. I mean, wouldn't it be in the interest of
whomever is the applicant to bring forward what is advantageous
to their case and then you rely on that?
Mr. Repasi. That is correct. The earliest possible
opportunity, of course, would be when the Commission issues a
proposal for a new rule, whether it----
Ms. Eshoo. I think that is a little squishy, don't you?
Mr. Repasi. Well, that is the first opportunity.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, I mean you may not want to say yes to
that, squishy, but I mean, you know, in this town people
obviously are going to advance and I think it is human nature
to advance the best case possible, to advance your case. But if
the information you are using is just that, it could be biased
and that is what I am concerned about. But maybe I am off on
the wrong track on this.
Mr. Repasi. But that information would go into what
proposals we present and we seek comment on those. And if there
were assumptions that we made that are challenged by the
public, we take that information into account. And usually,
supporting technical material is supplied in our record to
support the challenge to our assumptions.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Markwalter, thank you again for what you do. You
suggested in your testimony that equipment manufacturers have a
strong self-interest in developing and deploying products that
create as little interference as possible. I agree, but is this
a problem that has been many years in the making? I mean to
help expedite a long-term solution, would you support the FCC
reopening the formal proceeding on the matter? Does it need
that?
Mr. Markwalter. So I think given the time that has passed
and the amount of work that is even currently underway----
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Markwalter. I would recommend we wait for the TAC
report to come out and see----
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Markwalter [continuing]. What work is teed up for the
TAC next year, because I think the interference limits, this
notion of clarifying rights and expectations is being addressed
pretty thoroughly.
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Markwalter. So I would leave it at that. I think there
is plenty of work----
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Markwalter [continuing]. For the industry yet to do in
that environment.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you. That is most helpful. Thank you to
each witness.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. You are welcome.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, the
very able vice chair of the Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology, Mr. Terry.
Mr. Terry. Well stated, just like I wrote it.
Thank you, Mr. Walden, for your able leadership over the
last 2 years. And certainly the receiver issue is one that you
have mentioned many, many times and I am glad we have this
hearing.
I am intrigued, Mr. de Vries, about this harm claim
threshold standard. It is almost a libertarian type of view in
how to resolve this issue. I have to work in examples, so the
first issue that I have is how do we resolve the incumbent
receiver? And so using the GPS versus LightSquared issue, using
the harm claim threshold, tell me how that would require or
force GPS receivers to upgrade to be able to better filter out
the delete over interference?
Mr. de Vries. The way I anticipate this might work is when
you start, you are going to have a lot of devices out there. We
are beginning a transition. So the thresholds would be set very
low. So I am the GPS receiver, very low interference threshold
so that all the existing receivers are protected. That may be
so low that no service can be deployed. The FCC might then say
or industry might agree that 10 years from now it goes up to
here at which point these receivers have 10 years to build
filters to accommodate this increased signal.
Mr. Terry. All right. That is interesting. How would they
know how to predict what type of interference or level of
interference could occur in 10 years? So in a sense would the
FCC have to come back and say, hey, there is this new standard?
So now we are getting back to the standards issue. So is that
the way it would work? Because right now, these GPS folks can
just say we don't have any reason to move.
Mr. de Vries. I am so glad you asked that question, sir,
because I wasn't clear. So the harm claim threshold doesn't
attempt to describe the actual interference environment.
Mr. Terry. All right.
Mr. de Vries. It simply says if the interference is below
this number, you cannot claim harm.
Mr. Terry. OK.
Mr. de Vries. If it is above the number, then you can. So
the FCC does not get into the business of trying to predict
what the environment will be.
Mr. Terry. But just where the threshold would be, the harm
threshold----
Mr. de Vries. Yes.
Mr. Terry [continuing]. Would still be set by the FCC?
Now, Mr. Repasi, add a layer then on the involvement in
this plan of the FCC. How long would it take for the FCC to
establish a harm claim threshold and what would be the
processes to get there?
Mr. Repasi. Thank you. Well, as we know, currently, the TAC
is debating on how to flesh out this approach and provide
formal recommendations to the Commission. We also have the GAO
that is reviewing spectrum efficiency standards, and that
report is due by February of next year. We, of course, would
have to take the recommendations from the TAC and then the
recommendations----
Mr. Terry. Well, for further questions let's just assume
that TAC recommended an approach like the harm claim threshold.
Mr. Repasi. Right. It would come down to where we would
apply it first. If it is applied in a specific case, we would
have to determine who the neighbors are before we could
adjudicate whether the harm claim threshold is sufficient to
protect the existing services, let alone services that are----
Mr. Terry. So it would still have to be done on a per-
device level?
Mr. Repasi. I think it would still have to be on a case-
specific, band-specific basis, yes.
Mr. Terry. OK.
Mr. Repasi. Because the interference to a receiver that is
looking into space for example, may be a much lower threshold
than for a receiver that is communicating with a broadband
advanced wireless system.
Mr. Terry. Some of the earlier discussions amongst us is
that the FCC preferred more of a standards-based. I would
assume the thinking would be that on a standards-based, then it
is clear; everyone knows what they have to manufacture to or
engineer up to. Any thoughts that you could share with us? Is
that where the FCC is? Are they waiting for the report to come
out?
Mr. Repasi. I think we are waiting for the report to come
out. We want to make sure we have all the facts in line before
we come out with a specific proposal on how to implement some
of the recommendations, including from the GAO. So I think we
are a little bit of a wait mode. But nonetheless, we want to be
sure that we don't curb innovation. We did have that 2003 NOI
that we released. We got a lot of good comments from the
industry. Some of the comments still remain today. The
sentiment still remains the same. And there was concern
expressed in the record there that standards could equate to
curbing innovation, and we want to be careful not to be in a
position to stop innovation.
Mr. Terry. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman's time is expired.
Turn to our friend from the Virgin Islands, Dr.
Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again thank you for your patience with us today.
I guess I would ask this question to the panel but
beginning with Mr. Repasi because I know you are familiar with
NTIA's work in the role of receivers in managing spectrum for
Federal users. Do you or any of the other panelists think that
there are lessons that we can learn from NTIA's approach to
setting Federal receiver standards?
Mr. Repasi. Thank you. Yes, I believe you are referring to
the NTIA study document that was produced in the 2003 time
frame as well, and they listed several types of standards for
the fixed and mobile systems that were operating through a
range of spectrum. That of course is helpful to know where
things are on the Federal side as far as where they operate and
what their thresholds are for interference so that when we do
get into looking at new uses of spectrum that involve Federal
users, we at least know what the starting point is.
Mrs. Christensen. Any other comments from anyone else? So I
will just go on to another question.
Mr. de Vries. The one thing that I learned from that report
was how complicated receiver specifications become and how
service-specific they are and that they intend to imbed
assumptions about how things work today into requirements that
then live on perhaps for life.
Mrs. Christensen. And as things change and new innovation.
Just if you wanted to comment.
Mr. Markwalter. Thank you. And I agree with that. It is a
good reference point but a Federal user is both user and
procurer, you know, manages everything about it. In a
commercial case, the allocations are done by the FCC but
equipment may be purchased by a licensee or may be done
independently. So there are a lot of parts at work that doesn't
map over from Federal use to commercial use.
Mrs. Christensen. And Mr. Markwalter, what tools do you
think are currently available to the FCC to incentivize and
improve receiver standards?
Mr. Markwalter. Yes, so I know we are all kind of falling
back on the TAC report. I think there are some good things that
will be documented in the TAC report. The FCC right now, you
know, clearly can articulate the emissions side. It is less
clear what the authority is on regulating receivers. And, you
know, as we have said, we probably need to see what the exact
tools are being proposed before we decide whether that is the
right amount of authority or not. And then as the previous
cases show, they have the ability to go in and work with users
in adjacent bands and figure things out, but the evidence I see
is that the best case is when the adjacent users, even if they
are in conflict because the problems are typically so technical
and so case-specific, if they can bring a solution to the FCC,
that seems to be the best outcome.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. So that was my next question which I
was going to pose to Mr. de Vries. What role do you think
manufacturers of receiver devices should play in setting
performance levels or defining a reasonable level of
interference?
Mr. de Vries. I think manufacturers do that as part of
their business. The discussion about what a good receiver is is
a negotiation between the provider and their customer and that
that is what happens when industry sets standards or when
purchasers like the Federal Government do it.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
I think we have each got a few other questions to ask.
I am going to throw one out that is just slightly outside
of what we came here to talk about but it plays into it a bit,
and that has to do with the notion of efficient use of spectrum
as opposed to just interference use. But do you all look at
things like how much spectrum there might be or more usage
capability if you have, for example, interoperable devices in
the cell phone world? Does LTE and that sort of thing, does
that begin to merge all that in when you are looking at total
number of users versus total amount of spectrum? I mean do you
all get into those discussions?
Mr. de Vries?
Mr. de Vries. Chairman, I grin because I have great
difficulty with the concept efficient use of spectrum.
Mr. Walden. OK.
Mr. de Vries. I don't know what it means. To me maybe
because I am a geek, efficiency is a ratio. It is what you get
out for what you put in.
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. de Vries. The number of frequencies that you put in is
not the only input.
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. de Vries. There are things like investment costs----
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. de Vries [continuing]. Infrastructure costs, deployment
costs, and I think what I try to focus on is how do we maximize
the value of radio services.
Mr. Walden. OK.
Mr. de Vries. And in fact that is somewhat of a change from
what we have traditionally done, which is how do we minimize
interference if we need to maximize value?
Mr. Walden. All right. Now, bring that down from your
physicist level. You know, we work better with pictures----
Mr. de Vries. Yes.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. And small words. So tell me what
that means for us as policymakers. I mean, from your perch,
from your big-brained perspective, what is it we can do in this
space? I mean we all talk about crisis and spectrum. There is
spectrum out there right now. I think this is a down-the-road
spectrum crisis and hopefully technology eclipses that. But
what is it that we should be looking at that we are not?
Mr. de Vries. I think the first thing I would say is that
you have to keep all our noses to the grindstone.
Mr. Walden. That is what we are here for.
Mr. de Vries. As you have said, it is a long-term problem
and everybody's tendency is to punt and not deal with the long-
term ones because there are lots of short-term hard problems.
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. Markey. It is not just us, sorry, that likes to punt
things.
Mr. Walden. So what should we be looking at specifically?
Mr. de Vries. What I, of course, would be saying is two
things: one, to focus on encouraging the FCC to set these clear
boundaries--
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. de Vries [continuing]. Because I have ended up thinking
about interference limits as the minimal effective step that we
need to take to make progress on this problem.
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. de Vries. And I think part of that is to, if you can,
remove any uncertainty that the FCC has the ability to do that
because there have been doubts about FCC authority regarding
receiver standards. These are not receiver standards;
therefore, they should be able to move ahead.
Mr. Walden. OK. Mr. Markwalter, do you have some comments
along these lines?
Mr. Markwalter. I don't think I have much to add. There are
some people who are looking at the question of the complexity
of band plans, especially for cell phones--
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. Markwalter [continuing]. Which is sort of related to
what you are talking about. One of the things that inhibits
phones that can be used across a lot of different carriers and
a lot of different bands is the fact that, you know, as we find
more spectrum, it is not all together--
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Markwalter [continuing]. Anymore. It is scattered
around. And so there is a separate part of the TAC working on
that issue as--
Mr. Walden. Sort of----
Mr. Markwalter [continuing]. It is sort of an unrelated
problem.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Markwalter. You know, we conjecture that, you know,
there is a time in the future where technology gets better and
better where receivers can be more agile so--
Mr. Walden. Um-hum. So you can skip across the bands and
still----
Mr. Markwalter. Correct. And we are clearly not there yet--
Mr. Walden. Um-hum.
Mr. Markwalter [continuing]. And we are having some
discussion about how accurately we could project when that
would happen. And really what you would like to do is have
receivers that are cost-effective that can be agile in the
future; then, you have got a shot at changing allocations.
Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you.
Once again, I am going to turn to Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be as brief as
possible. I just have three quick questions to ask Mr. Repasi
and yes or no will do.
I would like to ask you to address the question that has
been raised about the need for guard bands if receiver filters
can dramatically improve spectral efficiency. Do you think
based on today's filter technology that guard bands can be
eliminated as an interference mitigating solution? Yes or no?
No.
Mr. Walden. Turn on your mike.
Mr. Repasi. I am sorry. No, I don't think they can be
eliminated in all cases when you have two adjacent services.
Ms. Eshoo. Are you seeing any leaps in improvement of
filter technology for public broadband services?
Mr. Repasi. Seeing leaps, no; seeing improvements, yes.
Filter technology is improving. As I mentioned in my testimony,
we have met several times with equipment manufacturers and
component designers, and at the component level, there are
improvements being made mainly because of the demand for more
broadband services. The demands are being placed on the
component designers to come up with better filters that are
sharper and able to better deal with interference issues
because they have got the spectrum congestion issues.
Ms. Eshoo. So in the foreseeable future we still need guard
bands to separate mobile broadband services from adjacent
services like over-the-air broadcast television?
Mr. Repasi. Yes. With current technology, even in the PCS
world where they are going to 4G deployments with LTE----
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Repasi [continuing]. Remember, you have downlinks in
one band and uplinks in another----
Ms. Eshoo. Uplinks in the others, um-hum.
Mr. Repasi [continuing]. With frequency division duplex
technology----
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Repasi [continuing]. Where there is a duplexer spacing
in between the two out of necessity because the up- or downlink
channel could interfere with the lower uplink channel if there
is not sufficient----
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Repasi [continuing]. Separation between the two. That
is the equivalent of a guard band.
Ms. Eshoo. Um-hum.
Mr. Repasi. And this is with the state-of-the-art
technology as it is now.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Gentleman from Nebraska?
Mr. Terry. Thank you. Mine is to the consumer electronic,
Mr. Markwalter. So let's take the again GPS/LightSquared
interference issue. And now the FCC is threatening or
developing their harm threshold saying that now GPS devices
have to have a higher level of being able to filter out the
interference. What does that mean to the consumer electronics
manufacturers who are making the GPS? What would be the burdens
on them and what would be the potential cost to them to now
develop the filters to meet this harm threshold?
Mr. Markwalter. Sure. I think the industry and one of the
things we have talked about a lot and I have included in my
testimony is how important it is to have the industry directly
involved in that. And in my mind, ideally, you want the
industry to try to develop those numbers, to recognize the
problem and try to develop those numbers because it is very
hard as an outsider to understand the cost and performance
impact.
GPS in particular isn't a communication system as everybody
has talked about. You know, it is a positioning system so it
has different behaviors in how it is trying to pick up signals,
so I won't even hazard to guess what the cost impact would be.
And the truth is it depends on where you set the level. And so
that is going to take some dialogue about, you know, how much
impact do you want to have on this type of positioning system
to in the future be able to get new use of the adjacent band.
Mr. Terry. All right. And it still comes back to that. It
is almost a device and some specific for the FCC would have
different thresholds particularly on different devices, Mr. de
Vries?
Mr. de Vries. I don't think that would be appropriate. That
actually to me would be a receiver specification. So if you
build this device, you have got to do this. I believe that it
is appropriate to set the harm claim threshold for a service.
And so, for example, in a service like GPS, you could have a
certain level for terrestrial operations. You might have
another level, a different value, for aviation. But many more
permutations like that and we get too----
Mr. Terry. Right. That makes more sense to me. All right.
Still, it means that incumbents would have a new standard put
on them or threshold of harm that was different than perhaps
when the manufacturers put the product out, whatever it would
be. So they would have to redevelop technology for the next
generation of device. All right. I wish I can come up with more
questions but that did add some context and clarification. So
thank you.
Mr. Walden. The interesting thing in that is it is kind of
what we all go through with updating computers and software.
Ms. Eshoo. Absolutely.
Mr. Walden. You know, I tried to download a little app on
my older iPhone and the new app won't load on the old iPhone.
Ms. Eshoo. Right. Right.
Mr. Walden. I mean it just is the march of technology.
Mr. Terry. That is a discussion some of us lay people were
having in our office. What does it take? Is this simply writing
new code or is the device going to have to have physical filter
device chips in it? What does it take?
Mr. Walden. I will let the engineer----
Mr. Terry. Do we have an engineer here?
Mr. Markwalter. So this also relates kind of to the other
questions to me. I think most of what we are talking about here
is a hardware question, what the engineers would call the RF
front end, the radio part of the equipment. And so we are
talking about things like filters for the most part. This other
group that, you know, we are looking at these potential for
future agile radios. What we hope to get to is where there is
less of that sort of fixed, you know, these components that
can't move; they are highly specifically designed to more of
this, you know, digitally with processors and algorithms, you
know, software as you talked about, but we are not there yet
for very many things. Most of it is still much more cost-
effective, performance is a lot higher, and the battery life is
a lot better to separate out the RF front end.
Mr. Walden. OK.
Mr. Markwalter. So for now it is hardware.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Gingrey, do you have any questions for our
witnesses or comments you would like to make? We have a
transmitter issue here.
Mr. Gingrey. Yes, I----
Mr. Walden. You might want to slip to the other microphone.
Mr. Gingrey. Is it working?
Mr. Walden. No.
Ms. Eshoo. No.
Mr. Gingrey. All right. I will move.
Mr. Walden. I think you may have to move up to this level,
which you have sought to do for some time.
Ms. Eshoo. He can sit next to me.
Mr. Gingrey. I am making progress.
Mr. Walden. Watch the seniority grow, right there, before
our very eyes.
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman? All right. We are live. Mr.
Chairman, thank you for calling today's hearing on another
issue within the realm of spectrum, and of course, that is the
receivers.
And I also want to thank the panel, these technical experts
in providing the subcommittee with their perspective on this
important issue. In my brief time this morning I will get right
to my questions. And let me start with you, Mr. Markwalter.
Based on your testimony, you voiced support for industry
standards as opposed to FCC mandates when it comes to the
interfering subordinates. Would FCC standards undermine what is
already in place, and if so, how?
Mr. Markwalter. Well, in some cases we already have very
good industry standards in place, so I guess if the FCC did
something on top of that, I would argue that it would undermine
it because it would in effect overrule what maybe industry has
already done. So when I talked about the cell phone industry
has very robust standards and, you know, a very strong test
regime to make sure products meet it. So overlaying mandates on
top of that probably would have a bad effect. And, you know,
what we would like to see is industry working on these
voluntary standards because we think they understand their use
cases better and what can be tolerated in terms of cost and
efficiency and then figure out where there is regulation
necessary or not from that point.
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. de Vries, do you have a comment on that?
Mr. de Vries. So I would actually echo that because the
standards that industry set reflect what their best practices
are. Very often--and Mr. Repasi can correct me--but the FCC
does sometimes incorporate reference to industry standards in
its rules deferring to industry. The difficult issue that the
harm claim threshold and interference limit approach is trying
to address is not one industry trying to referee interference
from Verizon to AT&T to T-Mobile but from cellular to broadcast
things, say, or vice versa. And typically, what we have seen is
that broadcasters don't often read the cellular standards and
the cellular guys don't read the broadcasting standards. That
is an outstanding problem.
Mr. Gingrey. Well, let me then move to Mr. Repasi and shift
a few questions for you in your important position as part of
FCC. Can you clarify for us whether the FCC currently has the
authority to impose receiver standards?
Mr. Repasi. Thank you. I am here to offer engineering and
technical expertise. I am not in a position to offer a legal
opinion on the Commission's authority but I can say that the
approaches that are being considered within the TAC are
certainly within our ability from a technical perspective to
implement the approaches that are being highlighted in that
process.
Mr. Gingrey. Yes, I was going to ask. I think maybe you
just answered the question. I was going to ask you if this was
a situation where we in Congress would need to act to grant FCC
the necessary authority but you have kind of taken a pass on
that in regard to your level of expertise. Personally, I think
that it is unclear as to what authority the FCC has in this
arena. Hypothetically speaking, and not to indicate support for
further regulation, but does the Commission currently even have
the resources to set technical standards for this wide variety
of receivers out there? And would Congress need to authorize
and appropriate new funding for this purpose under the FCC?
Mr. Repasi. Thank you. Yes, we do have the technical
expertise to deal with the recommendations that come out of the
TAC. Again, I think we have the expertise to implement those.
As far as funding goes, we are in a position now where we would
have to factor in any budgeting into the next fiscal year
budget and we would have to address it when we deal with our
budget issues for the following year as far funding new
programs at the agency.
Mr. Gingrey. Yes, well, of course as I am sure you all have
talked about in your testimony, there are untold number of
receiver devices out there for hundreds of different purposes,
and we see them all parts of society. So therefore, how would
you anticipate receiver regulations even being implemented? I
mean is this something that can be done and how costly would it
be? How much more funding would be necessary for the FCC to
take on this challenge?
Mr. Repasi. I don't have a specific cost estimate or even a
ballpark that I could offer up, but as far as the approach, I
would imagine if we apply the approach in several frequency
bands, it could be voluminous at first trying to manage the
different type of receiver specifications. As Mr. de Vries had
mentioned, broadcasters are not participating in 3GPP. 3GPP
participants aren't participating in the broadcast standard
development. So it is going to be new, I think, across
different industry sectors on understanding the underpinnings
of each of the standards. So I think there is a hurdle there
and it will take some time to get that level of understanding
among the different industry sectors.
And then as far as incorporation by reference to some of
the standards, we are very familiar with 802.11 from IEEE. We
are very familiar with the 3GPP standards. So again within the
Commission we have the expertise. We know the underpinnings of
those standards, so maybe it is less of a hurdle for us to deal
with it.
Mr. Gingrey. Well, thank you very much. I thank all three
of you.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
We are about to enter a brave new world where tens of
thousands of domestic drones consume an increasing share of
spectrum and crowd into already congested bands. The FAA
Modernization and Reform Act passed in February requires the
Federal Government to fully integrate government commercial and
recreational drones into U.S. airspace by October of 2015.
There could be as many as 30,000 drones in the sky above the
United States by 2020. Drones can carry surveillance equipment
including video cameras, infrared thermal imagers, radar, and
wireless network detectors. Drones may gather information, take
measurements, snap photos, use GPS and communicate all this
information back to its operators. All this requires spectrum
and raises a number of questions about whether this
dramatically expanded use of drones will cause interference
problems.
But we must also ensure that as drones take flight in
domestic airspace, they don't take off without privacy
protections for those along their flight path. Drones shouldn't
interfere with our privacy and they also shouldn't interfere
with other devices using neighboring spectrum.
Mr. Repasi, what steps is the FCC taking to ensure
potential interference problems are addressed as thousands of
drones will soon fill our skies? Has the FCC staff met with FAA
staff to address what receivers are necessary on drones to
ensure interference is minimized? And what are you doing to
protect privacy?
Mr. Repasi. Thank you. As far as interference concerns with
respect to drones, it is a case of interference scenario just
like any other where you have radio communications equipment,
whether it is used for video or whether it is used for
controlling the aircraft. We have tradeoffs that we have to
make with respect to the allocation, whether it is in an
aeronautical band and who the neighbors are so we can deal with
power levels and emissions to make sure that interference is
not caused to those drones.
As far as working with the FAA, we stand ready to work with
the FAA to discuss these issues. In fact we have a team of
folks who deal with the FAA regularly on the Interdepartment
Radio Advisory Committee where not just the FAA but other
Federal agencies who are interested in the use of drones
participate and discuss technical issues that we deal with from
an interagency perspective.
And I must say from a privacy perspective, I haven't been
involved in privacy issues with respect to the Commission's
work, but I would be more than happy to go back to the
appropriate bureau and have somebody contact you directly to
answer your questions.
Mr. Markey. Well, today, Mr. Barton and I are releasing the
FAA's response to our inquiry asking how the agency plans to
ensure that the privacy of Americans will be protected as the
agency permits the large expansion and use of drones in
domestic airspace. What is clear from the FAA's response is
that they have little interest in establishing privacy
protections, public transparency into its current and future
licensing process. The FAA is wrong. The FAA is dead wrong on
this issue in terms of ensuring that privacy is protected.
These 21st century eyes in the sky shouldn't become spies
in the skies preying on the private lives of Americans all
across our country, 30,000 drones without insurance that the
information gathered is not compromised.
All three of you, hopefully, would support legislation that
establishes privacy rules of the sky that ensure private
information on Americans is protected before drones are
licensed. So the question that I have for each of you is do you
think drone operators should have to disclose what data they
collect, how long data is retained, and whether information is
provided or sold to third parties? Does the public have a right
to know where and when these drones will be flying over their
backyards gathering information about their families? Mr. de
Vries?
Mr. de Vries. Sir, I am afraid I have no expertise.
Mr. Markey. That is fine. Mr. Markwalter?
Mr. Markwalter. The same. I am not familiar with the issue.
Mr. Markey. OK. Well, I will tell you who the experts are--
your ordinary families. And as new technologies take off, they
have to be accompanied by the human values which have animated
civilization for 5,000 years and the protection of the sanctity
of a family its privacy. What it does, where it goes is still
central to the identity of us as a species. And I think it is
important for this committee to play a role in ensuring it is
built into this new technology.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman's time is expired.
I turn now to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Markwalter, you stated in your testimony that an
inventory of what services and receivers are operating in each
band as an area of spectrum policy that needs more attention.
And so I agree with you and have long called for various
spectrum inventories to be conducted. Do you think there is a
role for Congress here that there should be legislation that
would apply to help bring this spectrum inventory to fruition?
Mr. Markwalter. I think at this point we should see what
the TAC tees up for next year because I think this question of
the dearth of information on what is out there is going to
become critical, and so we may see some work in that area. So I
think we can wait for a couple more reports to come out and
then address the issue of whether legislation is needed to push
it.
Mr. Stearns. And what time next year will this be?
Mr. Markwalter. So presumably the TAC would lay out its
work agenda early in the year. We have had quarterly meetings
in the past. I would think within the first quarter of next
year we would have both the GAO report and know what the TAC
plans on working on.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. de Vries, as you explained your testimony,
``wireless systems in one band that cannot tolerate reasonable
signal levels in an adjacent band unfairly imposed cost on
others, notably the operators in those adjacent bands, while
reaping the benefits themselves, for example, by using cheaper
receivers.'' You know, I think this is what exactly happened in
LightSquared or the GPS case. As you stated, not only is this
unfair, but it also prevents the addition of new wireless
services that could foster innovation, improve public safety,
and obviously create jobs. What do you believe either Congress
or possibly the FCC, their role to prevent this situation from
occurring again?
Mr. de Vries. I believe the important role that the FCC can
play is to foster the definition of these harm claim
thresholds.
Mr. Stearns. OK.
Mr. de Vries. And they can do that by fostering a multi-
stakeholder process, bring parties from different industries,
different services together, and then if necessary, to take
steps to actually put those values into the rules.
Mr. Stearns. Anyone else have a suggestion here? Mr.
Markwalter?
Mr. Markwalter. Yes, well, I agree. And as I mentioned
earlier, we work on the TAC so you will probably get more
alignment on our views than misalignment. I think we are sort
of behind in the curve in all aspects. So none of our tools are
in place to help us get in front of the problem and that is
what we are trying to get to, a point where we can establish
what we are trying to do with spectrum rather than build and
then figure out we got a problem after the fact. So we really
need to get some of these tools in place and unwind the problem
a little bit. It is just not going to be solved overnight.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Repasi, you stated in your testimony that
better awareness and coordination between entities in adjacent
bands would go far in solving some of the receiver problems we
have seen occur recently. What do you think the FCC's role is?
Could they facilitate this process?
Mr. Repasi. Yes, I think our rulemaking processes are open
and transparent. We again make proposals based on assumptions.
We expect that the folks who have an equity or stake in the use
of that spectrum will come into our rulemaking process and
challenge our assumptions, if there are concerns about
interference, it would be brought up as early as possible in
the process so that we could deal with those interference
concerns before we go to final rule.
Mr. Stearns. Any other folks on the panel have any other
suggestions in how the FCC could facilitate this process? No?
All right, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back the balance of time.
The Chair recognizes the future vice chair of the full
committee, Mrs. Blackburn.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here and for the hearing.
I have just got a couple of questions and I know you all
are ready to depart this room. And we are going to have votes
in a couple of minutes.
Mr. Repasi, if I could come to you first. And I want to
thank you all for submitting your written testimony in a timely
manner. That is always helpful.
You suggested in your testimony that the FCC clarify what a
license-holder's rights are in a band of spectrum, incentivize
receiver manufacturers to respect those rights, and enforce
those rights when one licensee in an adjacent band doesn't play
by the rules. So this policy framework if you will really
strikes me as looking at three goals. And I want to see if you
agree with this: number one is recognition of a licensee's
rights in a given band of spectrum with clear rules of the road
to ensure that licensees respect other licensees' valuable
property rights; and number two, promotion of new entrance to
the wireless marketplace because they would have regulatory
clarity from the onset; and number three, accomplishment of the
aforementioned goals without stifling innovation in the
wireless marketplace by imposing potentially crippling device
or guard band mandates. So recognizing that the Commission's
Technical Advisory Committee plans to give us a report on
December 10 that could address these issues, I would like to
ask what your professional and technical opinion is on how you
would instruct the Commission to structure the rules of the
road and to provide the clarity and the guidance on respecting
property rights.
It is to you, sir.
Mr. Repasi. Thank you. We are, as you are aware, awaiting
the recommendations for the TAC but are also awaiting the
recommendations of the GAO. They are mandated by the Job Act to
have their report by February of next year. We would need to
take that information, those facts into account in a general
process where we have input from the public who could be
affected by whatever rules we would propose to set up to give
them clarity, to identify what the environment would look like.
Mrs. Blackburn. Yes, sir. But I am asking what your advice
to them would be. What would your professional advice be?
Mr. Repasi. I am sorry. To the Commission or to the public?
Mrs. Blackburn. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Repasi. To the Commission? Well, clarity is good.
Clarity allows certainty. Certainty leads to investment.
Investment leads to competition and innovation, which is
important for this mobile wireless economy. So certainly in any
technical tradeoffs that would weigh into the policies that
would be presented before the Commission, the technical issues
are one of several things. You have got the legal and economic
issues as well, but certainly the technical issues are very
important from that perspective.
Mrs. Blackburn. Yes, specificity and clarity in a timely
manner is a good thing. So I appreciated your testimony.
Mr. Markwalter?
Mr. Markwalter. Yes?
Mrs. Blackburn. In your testimony you wrote, ``the early
calls for government mandates on device design have faded as
stakeholders have come together to understand that such
approaches are not the best solution we have to spectrum
crowding.'' Now, I was pleased to read that because as anybody
who has sat through these hearings has heard from me, I like
seeing industry set best practices and guidelines and standards
and come up with those rules of the road if you will. So in
your view, what is the current status of the various private
industry stakeholder proposals to address receiver standards?
And do you think they are making progress in a voluntary self-
regulation working framework? And is there anything out there,
any kind of uncertainty or lack of clarity that is preventing
the industry from making progress toward meeting the balance
between flexible use and greater efficiency?
Mr. Markwalter. OK. Thank you. So I think industry--and I
don't know if you are aware or not--CEA is one of those
standard-setting organizations. In fact, our standards are
incorporated by reference for closed-captioning for example. So
because I am close to it, I guess I see the industry is always
working on it. Where it might not be sufficient is the enter-
industry relationships as we have mentioned a couple of times
here today where we are trying to put two users next to each
other like cell phones and broadcasters and to get those
industries talking. That level of dialogue needs to be
increased. I think to the extent we have a shortcoming it is in
that area.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
Mr. Walden. OK.
Mrs. Blackburn. Anybody want to add anything further to
that on the progress or lack thereof? OK.
Yield back.
Mr. Walden. Gentlelady yields back her time.
I want to thank our witnesses for your testimony, your
guidance, your counsel, your good work at TAC. I want to thank
the FCC for your work in this area. Know that we care a lot
about it and we are going to continue to be involved in it. And
we will look forward to the report from TAC. We will look
forward to the GAO report in February as well.
The record will stay open for 10 days for further comments
and questions or maybe some back to all of you, which would
help us in our work.
So again, thank you for your patience this morning as we
got going and thank you for your comments and your testimony.
With that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5744.030