[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EQUIPPING CARRIERS AND AGENCIES IN THE WIRELESS ERA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 27, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-63
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-387 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
Chairman Emeritus JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 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
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee LOIS CAPPS, California
Vice Chairman MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JOHN BARROW, Georgia
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana Islands
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
CORY GARDNER, Colorado BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas PETER WELCH, Vermont
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri
BILLY LONG, Missouri
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio ANNA G. ESHOO, California
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
LEE TERRY, Nebraska MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan DORIS O. MATSUI, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana PETER WELCH, Vermont
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
CORY GARDNER, Colorado FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
BILLY LONG, Missouri JIM MATHESON, Utah
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex
JOE BARTON, Texas officio
FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio
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........................................... 2
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 3
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 5
Witnesses
Karl Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum
Management, NTIA............................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Answers to submitted questions............................... 84
Teri Takai, Chief Information Officer, Department of Defense..... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Dean Brenner, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Qualcomm
Incorporated................................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Executive Vice President, CTIA--The
Wireless Association........................................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Answers to submitted questions............................... 89
Submitted Material
Paper entitled, ``Industry Roadmap to Assessing the 1755-1850 MHz
Band,'' submitted by Mr. Walden................................ 76
Letter of May 27, 2013, from the Wi-Fi Alliance to the FCC and
the NTIA, submitted by Mr. Latta............................... 82
EQUIPPING CARRIERS AND AGENCIES IN THE WIRELESS ERA
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in
room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg
Walden (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Shimkus,
Blackburn, Scalise, Lance, Guthrie, Gardner, Kinzinger, Long,
Ellmers, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Eshoo, Doyle, Matsui,
Braley, Lujan, Dingell, Rush, DeGette, Matheson, and Waxman (ex
officio).
Staff present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Ray Baum,
Senior Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Sean Bonyun,
Communications Director; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press
Secretary; Neil Fried, Chief Counsel, Communications and
Technology; Kelsey Guyselman, Counsel, Telecom; David Redl,
Counsel, Telecom; Charlotte Savercool, Executive Assistant,
Legislative Clerk; Shawn Chang, Democratic Senior Counsel;
Patrick Donovan, Democratic FCC Detailee; Margaret McCarthy,
Democratic Staff; Roger Sherman, Democratic Chief Counsel; and
Kara Van Stralen, Democratic Policy Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. I am going to call to order the Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology, and our hearing on ``Equipping
Carriers and Agencies in the Wireless Era.'' I want to thank
our witnesses for being here this morning as we examine ways to
ensure our federal agencies and world leading wireless industry
have the tools they need in the wireless era.
I am convinced we can upgrade the federal system while
freeing spectrum, thereby promoting both our Nation's safety
and our economic well-being. Last year, Congress passed the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act, including the
commercial incentive auction provisions that were the fruits of
this subcommittee's bipartisan labor. Such auctions can help
make spectrum available to meet the growing demand for mobile
broadband services, provided the FCC gets the auction and band
plans right. We cannot afford to rest on our laurels, however.
That is why last Congress Ranking Member Eshoo and I created a
working group led by Representatives Guthrie and Matsui that
focused on federal spectrum use. Building on the knowledge
gained by the working group, today we look at the tools
available to maintain and even improve federal agencies'
capabilities while freeing spectrum for commercial use.
How much would various approaches cost, how much might they
raise, and how long would it take them to implement? What
progress is being made today? What steps might Congress,
agencies, and the private sector take to facilitate the
process? One way we can create additional spectrum is through
use of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act. Under CSEA,
commercial providers bear the cost of moving incumbents to
clear spectrum. This approach has been successful in the past,
but is not without limitations.
Might the principles underlying commercial incentive
auctions be applicable here? As we look at the budgetary
pressures facing the country, is there a way to somehow share
with federal agencies some of the value generated from spectrum
that they relinquish? Our agencies are facing a shortage of
funding. The U.S. wireless industry is facing a shortage of
spectrum. If we work together to harness the strengths and
assets of our agencies and the private sector, we can meet the
needs of government, we can advance our leadership in the
mobile wireless world, and we can create jobs in the process.
Our bipartisan staff, by the way, has spoken with the FCC
to express our desire to see a proceeding opened on 1.6
gigahertz and 1755 to 1780 megahertz bands identified in the
testimony today. We look forward to expeditious action on these
bands. The time has come to take action to bring them to
market.
I thank the witnesses and look forward to their counsel,
and with that, I would recognize the vice chair of the
subcommittee, Mr. Latta, for any comments he might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of the Honorable Greg Walden
I welcome our witnesses as we examine ways to ensure our
federal agencies and world-leading wireless industry has the
tools they need in the wireless era. I'm convinced we can
upgrade federal systems while freeing spectrum, thereby
promoting both our nation's safety and economic well-being.
Last year, Congress passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and
Job Creation Act, including the commercial incentive auction
provisions that were the fruits of this subcommittee's labor.
Such auctions can help make spectrum available to meet the
growing demand from mobile broadband services, provided the FCC
gets the auction and band plans right.
We cannot afford to rest on our laurels, however. That is
why last Congress Ranking Member Eshoo and I created a working
group, led by Reps. Guthrie and Matsui that focused on federal
spectrum use. Building on the knowledge gained by the working
group, today we look at the tools available to maintain and
even improve federal agencies capabilities while freeing
spectrum for commercial use.
How much would various approaches cost, how much might they
raise, and how long would they take to implement? What progress
is being made today? What steps might Congress, agencies, and
the private sector take to facilitate the process?
One way we can create additional spectrum opportunities is
through use of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act. Under
the CSEA, commercial providers bear the cost of moving federal
incumbents to clear spectrum. This approach has been successful
in the past but is not without limitations.
Might the principles underlying commercial incentive
auctions be applicable here? As we look at the budgetary
pressures facing the country, is there a way to somehow share
with federal agencies some of the value generated from spectrum
they relinquish? Our agencies are facing a shortage of funding.
The U.S. wireless industry is facing a shortage of spectrum. If
we work together to harness the strengths and assets of our
agencies and the private sector we can meet the needs of
government, advance our leadership in the mobile wireless
world, and create jobs in the process. I thank the witnesses
for their testimony and look forward to their counsel.
# # #
Mr. Latta. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
you holding this very important hearing today on federal
spectrum.
As we continue to see the demand for mobile broadband
skyrocket, the Nation's spectrum policy is one area that we
must get right. The spectrum crunch is an undeniable fact, and
in order for the United States to continue to lead the wireless
world, we must get closer to the national broadband plan's goal
of making 300 megahertz available by 2015.
Similar to approaching our Nation's energy challenge, we
must take an all-of-the-above approach to spectrum. This
includes looking at our vast federal holdings of spectrum and
discussing solutions for ways to clear that spectrum for
commercial use, particularly as the chairman said, the 1755 to
1780 megahertz band.
I appreciate the witnesses being here today and I look
forward to hearing from them, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back my
time to you.
Mr. Walden. Anyone else on the Republican side seeking the
last minute and 24 seconds? The vice chair of the full
committee, Ms. Blackburn.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When it comes to
transparency and efficiency, as you said, this also gets to
what we are trying to do with spectrum, and I think that when
we look at the spectrum issue and the FCC, it is time to stop
studying the issue and start delivering for the American
people. As one of my constituents said last weekend, they
wanted to send all of us to the Larry the Cable Guy school of
politics and ``Git-R Done'' and they are tired of waiting.
You mentioned the 1755 to 1780 megahertz band for
commercial use, and also the 2155 to 2180 band. We are pleased
to see these discussed today. We look forward to our witnesses
to hearing from you, and we look forward to some action on
these issues. I yield back.
Mr. Walden. Gentlelady yields back, and maybe at our next
telehearing we could have Larry the Cable Guy come.
With that, I will yield back the remainder of my time and
recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Eshoo, for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to
you.
With the President's call earlier this month for increased
spectrum sharing, today is a timely continuation of the
bipartisan examination we began in the last Congress on how to
relocate or share spectrum held by federal agencies. Leading up
to the enactment of the Public Safety and Spectrum Act last
year, Democrats and Republicans on this subcommittee have
worked hand in hand to ensure federal spectrum bands are used
more efficiently. Today is another manifestation of that
cooperation, and with U.S. mobile data traffic expected to
increase nine-fold between 2012 and 2017, making additional
spectrum available for mobile broadband must remain a top
priority for this subcommittee, because it is a top priority
for the people of our country.
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology, better known as PCAST, highlighted in their 2012
report that the Federal Government uses about 60 percent of the
most valuable spectrum located between 225 megahertz and 3.7
gigahertz, 18 percent of which is used on an exclusive basis.
That is a lot. The bottom line is that federal agencies have a
responsibility to ensure efficient use and maximum benefit of
this scarce resource, just as wireless companies do. Federal
agencies and the wireless industry have been working together
to identify ways of relocating or sharing the 1755 to 1850
megahertz band. We are entering a crucial period when we must
begin the process of making some of this spectrum available for
commercial wireless broadband. The economic value of auctioning
this spectrum cannot be understated, since it will go a long
way toward providing a down payment for the construction of
First Net and address our Nation's spectrum crunch.
It is also important for us to examine the 5 gigahertz
band. In February, to increase Wi-Fi speeds and alleviate
congestion, former FCC Chairman Genachowski announced a
proposal to unleash up to 195 megahertz of spectrum in the 5
gigahertz band. The consumer benefits of such an expansion in
unlicensed spectrum include faster data speeds and greater
capacity that will support high definition video, large file
transfers, and a new generation of technologies that have yet
to be invented. I hope that NTIA, DOT, and the FCC will work
with industry stakeholders on a path forward for connected
vehicle technology, while recognizing the immediate economic
and consumer benefits of expanding Wi-Fi in the 5 gigahertz
band.
Consumer appetite for wireless broadband will only continue
to grow, and this is very good news. This is all about
innovation and growth and jobs and opportunities and exciting
markets. So I think the time to act is now. We really cannot
drag our heels on this. So with the conclusion of today's
hearing, Mr. Chairman, I know that we are going to work
together and our staffs will work together to develop a plan to
incent federal agency participation and provide the wireless
industry with the certainty that they need to deliver fast,
reliable wireless broadband service to all Americans.
And Mr. Chairman, I also want you to know that I support
and will work with you to see that the FCC releases an NPRM on
the 1755 to 1780 band as well.
So with that, I yield back.
Mr. Walden. Gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.
Anyone else on the Republican side seeking the chairman's 5
minutes? Any comments? If not, I turn to former chairman of the
committee, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Chairman Walden, for
holding this timely hearing on federal spectrum and how it
might be utilized to serve the needs of both commercial
wireless carriers and federal spectrum users.
Under the leadership of the Obama Administration, the
National Telecommunications Information Administration, and
other federal agencies, they have identified over 400 megahertz
of federal spectrum that can be repurposed for commercial
mobile broadband services on an exclusive or shared basis,
encompassing both licensed and unlicensed services. This
comprehensive all-of-the-above approach has already led the
Federal Communications Commission to initiate two proceedings
to reallocate nearly 300 megahertz of federal spectrum for
commercial use.
I understand that companies like California-based Qualcomm
are looking for innovative ways to share the spectrum with
federal users, and I appreciate their willingness to testify
today, and I welcome back Mr. Brenner. I also want to welcome
Ms. Takai. I am pleased you are here, and Mr. Nebbia and Mr.
Guttman-McCabe. You each represent critical parts of the
cooperative public-private partnership that will be necessary
to solve the challenges posed by repurposing the 1755 to 1850
megahertz band, and I look forward to hearing your perspectives
today.
Now that the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory
Committee is winding down, we are at a crossroads. Federal and
nonfederal users must agree upon a roadmap to reallocate the
lowest 25 megahertz of the 1755 to 1850 megahertz band by
February, 2015. This is a valuable piece of spectrum real
estate for many reasons, not the least of which is the
opportunity to pair it with the 2155 to 2180 megahertz band.
Doing do so would maximize the option value of this spectrum,
and it would also provide a source of funding for incumbent
federal users to modernize their equipment and capabilities,
while generating a substantial down payment for the
construction of First Net and other priorities in the law we
passed last year.
The time to make this all happen is now, and I am hopeful
that with the right tools and incentives we will be able to
meet the deadline. The President recognizes the importance of
this issue as demonstrated by the memorandum he issued earlier
this month. The initiatives outlined in the memorandum should
generate ideas and solutions to provide federal users with
better tools to fulfill their missions, while ensuring our
Nation's long-term spectrum needs are met. Congress, too, has a
role to play. I hope to work concurrently on a bipartisan basis
to explore additional ways to encourage agencies to relinquish
under-utilized spectrum.
That completes my statement and I want to yield the balance
of my time to my California colleague and friend, Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Ranking Member Waxman, for yielding
me time. I would like to thank our witnesses for being here
today. I would like to applaud NTIA for their leadership during
the CSMAC process, and I want to commend Teri Takai for her
strong leadership in her capacity as CIO at the Department of
Defense.
There is no doubt that the future of American innovation
and growth depends on spectrum. Moving forward, we need a sound
and smart spectrum policy. There is not a one-size-fits-all
solution. There are opportunities for both clearing and sharing
spectrum. I applaud the White House for putting forth a
spectrum roadmap to guide government agencies to be more
efficient in their spectrum holdings.
In the short term, there is a need to act swiftly to
reallocate the 1755 to 1780 megahertz band. The clock continues
to tick on the AWS-3 spectrum reallocation. Pairing the 1755 to
1780 band with AWS-3 makes sense, not just for revenue
purposes, but also for spurring American innovation.
For the most part, a thorough review of the 1755 band has
already occurred, and I applaud both industry and government
stakeholders for working closely together. Now we are at a
point where we need to make decisions. Given the time crunch we
are facing on the AWS-3 band, it is not in anyone's interest to
slow walk the process. The conversation needs to remain focused
on the 1755 to 1780 band. We should not waste this opportunity
for our Nation.
It is also my hope that once the Senate confirms Tom
Weaver, he and the FCC will begin to move forward with service
and option rules in consultation with NTIA and DOD on focusing
on the 1755 band.
There are some tough decisions ahead. DOD does hold some
valid concerns that must be addressed, and we should remain
committed to finding a balance that meets both our national
security and economic challenges. I look forward to continue
working in a bipartisan manner moving forward, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Walden. Gentlelady yields back the balance of her time.
All time has been consumed. We will now go to our witnesses,
and we again thank you all for your testimony and for
participating in this discussion which is so important to our
country's future.
We will start with Mr. Karl Nebbia, Associate
Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management for the NTIA. Mr.
Nebbia, thank you for being here. We look forward to hearing
your remarks.
STATEMENTS OF KARL NEBBIA, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT, NTIA; TERI TAKAI, CHIEF INFORMATION
OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; DEAN BRENNER, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, QUALCOMM INCORPORATED; AND
CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CTIA--THE
WIRELESS ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF KARL NEBBIA
Mr. Nebbia. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify about the Administration's efforts to meet the Nation's
spectrum demand. NTIA is the President's advisor on
telecommunications policy and manager of federal spectrum use,
and shares your sense of the importance of these issues. I will
update you today on the progress toward the President's
spectrum goal and discuss his direction for the future.
Spectrum enables agencies to perform their missions,
whether defense, law enforcement, and emergency services,
transportation safety, science, or weather warning and
prediction. While agencies make heavy use of cell phones and
unlicensed devices, their need for government-only capabilities
continues. Modern commercial wireless operations tend to be
standardized and responsive to the market's desire for the
latest capabilities and devices. Federal wireless, however,
supports diverse missions and technologies, covering
communications, many types of radars, science, ground, ship,
aircraft, and satellite systems. These systems must work when
they are needed and our men and women in uniform, including
your local National Guard units, must be able to train at home
before they feel the heat of battle. Furthermore, agencies
develop systems with budgetary constraints and life cycles of
20 years or more. The physics of the spectrum beachfront
supports mobility and small devices. While the beachfront makes
possible pocket cell phones, it also allows systems to fit in
the nose of a tactical aircraft, radars to detect at long
distances, and rapid deployment of tactical systems.
In light of challenges in repurposing spectrum, NTIA with
government and industry is pursuing a path to make spectrum
available faster and at lower cost, relocating federal users
where feasible and affordable, and sharing spectrum where
possible. Thus far, NTIA has put into direct discussion up to
405 megahertz. NTIA brought industry and government together
under the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee and
greatly improved the opportunity for commercial access in the
1695 to 1710 megahertz band. The FCC then started a rulemaking
on the 3550 to 3650 band, drawing proposals for small cell
deployments sharing with government radars. This is another
band NTIA had put in play. We also evaluated expanding
unlicensed use, like Wi-Fi, in two portions of the 5 gigahertz
range. This spectrum holds the potential to improve Wi-Fi
performance, supporting network offloading and lower cost
consumer options. Radar systems, some airborne, and foreign
satellite-based sensors operate in the lower segment. In the
upper portion, the automotive industry has been developing
connected vehicle technologies. As auto and Wi-Fi technologies
use the 802.11 standard, we have encouraged them to work
together. In any case, the incumbent uses need to be protected.
To deal with the challenges of repurposing the 1755 to 1850
megahertz band, NTIA initiated industry and government
collaboration through the CSMAC. Working groups made up of
industry and government experts evaluated each type of federal
system and potential solutions. The discussions have received
tremendous support from industry and government. Two of the
four groups have essentially completed their work; two others
are working to finish by the July 24 CSMAC meeting, but will
almost certainly lead to some further discussion.
Though cooperation and data exchange has been
unprecedented, sharing sensitive information between agencies
and industry is a challenge. DOD and industry are discussing a
way forward right now using the idea of trusted agents. In
March, the FCC notified NTIA that it plans to auction the 1755
megahertz band as early as September, 2014. To make this a
success, the FCC and NTIA must provide a plan for the 1780 to
1850 megahertz band and identify alternative spectrum to which
the agencies could relocate. We are reviewing approaches,
including the industry roadmap, to determine the best path.
While we press ahead on specific bands, the President's June 14
memo reflects his commitment to improving future spectrum
access, creating a policy team to support advances in spectrum
sharing. The team will consider how to give agencies incentives
to share or relinquish spectrum. NTIA and NIST will establish a
center of advanced communications to promote stakeholder
collaboration on sharing technologies. The memo seeks improved
federal usage information by directing NTIA to develop a plan
to quantify federal spectrum use and develop and evaluate a
spectrum monitoring capability. NTIA and the agencies have made
substantial progress towards the President's goal. We are
excited by the momentum that CSMAC's progress and the
Presidential memo bring.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nebbia follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Walden. Mr. Nebbia, thank you for your testimony.
We will now turn to the Chief Information Officer for the
Department of Defense, Ms. Teri Takai. Ms. Takai, thank you for
being here. We look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF TERI TAKAI
Ms. Takai. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Walden----
Mr. Walden. You need to turn that microphone on, please.
Thank you.
Ms. Takai. There we go. Good morning, Chairman Walden,
distinguished subcommittee members, and thank you for the
opportunity to be here this morning to testify before the
subcommittee regarding the vital importance of scarce radio
frequency spectrum to the U.S. national defense capabilities,
the economy, and consumers.
Spectrum is critical to ensuring that our war fighters and
mission partners have the critical capabilities they need to
prepare for and execute their missions, an example of the
Department's use of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) which require
spectrum to control air vehicles as well as process volumes of
critical intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance data,
which is in support of our missions in military areas of
operation.
Our inventory of UAS platforms has increased from 167 in
2002 to nearly 7,500 in 2010, and that is an example of, again,
our concern that we need to become better at spectrum to meet
our needs as well as to meet the needs of the Nation. This has
resulted in a dramatic increase in our use and training
requirements, and consequently an increase in demand.
But within DOD, we also understand that the strength of our
Nation is rooted in the strength of our economy. In that
regard, we remain fully committed in support of the national
economic and security goals of the President's 500 megahertz
initiative. We continue to work with NTIA, other Administration
partners, and industry to ensure balanced spectrum repurposing
decisions that are technically sound and operationally viable.
We are working closely with the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, the FCC, and industry to develop
viable methods to share information about the systems that
depend on spectrum in the 1755 to 1850 band. Some of the key
systems in that space include our satellite launch and on-orbit
control operations, electronic warfare, air combat training,
and many other systems that are the ones that we are focused on
in the discussion.
We recently met with NTIA and industry representatives. We
have agreed on an approach to share information. We have signed
our nondisclosure agreements that are important not only to
protect DOD, but also to ensure that our industry partners who
are participating with us are protected in the future as it
relates to their activities and future procurements with DOD.
So in summary, our ability to operate spectrum dependent
national security capabilities without causing and receiving
harmful interference is a part of our role in meeting the
critical needs of our Nation's economy, as well as national
security. We recognize the growing importance and the need for
spectrum for economic development, technology innovation, and
consumer demand. Any repurposing decisions must include
decisions on comparable spectrum where necessary, adequate
implementation funding, and adequate time to execute the
transition, as well as very important rulemaking as it relates
to how we will share and what the ground rules will be around
sharing.
We realize that no spectrum repurposing decision is without
risk, but we believe those risks can be managed and must be
managed for us to move together. We believe that we do need to
move forward quickly. We do need to make decisions in terms of
the 1755 to 1850, but also do that in the context of our
overall plan for spectrum going into the future. We believe
those long-term solutions will achieve a balance between
national security spectrum requirements and meeting the
expanding demand of commercial broadband services.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Takai follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Ms. Takai. We appreciate your
testimony.
We will go now to Mr. Dean Brenner, the Senior Vice
President, Government Affairs, for Qualcomm Incorporated.
Thanks for your testimony. We look forward to hearing your
comments here.
STATEMENT OF DEAN BRENNER
Mr. Brenner. Good morning, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member
Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. I am proud to begin by
saying that Qualcomm, an American company, is the world's
largest licenser of technology and the world's largest
manufacturer of chips for wireless devices. Our chips support
licensed technologies, 2G, 3G, and 4G, unlicensed Wi-Fi,
Bluetooth, and NFC, and GPS. Our chips support as many
frequency bands as possible, because there are now
approximately 40 bands worldwide for LTE alone.
We strive to develop new technologies, add them into our
chips, and support every new band, as quickly as possible. We
work with virtually every wireless carrier and manufacturer in
the world.
We base our views on spectrum policy on technical
feasibility and implementation. When we think about a new band,
we always ask what technology is technically best suited for
it, and what policies will enable the industry to start using
it rapidly and broadly.
Every day, we deal with the enormous growth of wireless
usage, and that is why we deeply appreciate the subcommittee's
efforts to enact the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act of 2012. In our view, the subcommittee got it right, and to
help ease the spectrum crunch, it is crucial that the FCC
successfully implement the voluntary incentive auction
authorized in the Act.
Qualcomm's goal is to meet what we call the ``1000x
Challenge'' to expand wireless capacity by 1,000 times.
Wireless data usage is doubling each year, and if that trend
continues, in 10 years, the usage will be 1,000 times today's.
Qualcomm, the industry, and policymakers must work together on
many fronts, in parallel, to meet the 1000x Challenge. The
combination of massive research and development, extensive
deployment of new small cells, and allocation of far more
spectrum provides a good path to meet the 1000x Challenge.
Let me start with R&D. Last year, Qualcomm spent almost $4
billion, or over 20 percent of our revenues, on R&D, including
many initiatives to help meet the 1000x Challenge, such as
carrier aggregation and supplemental downlink to bond together
separate bands for more capacity and faster data speeds for
consumers; LTE broadcast for multi-casting of video and data in
places where people want to see the same content; LTE direct to
allow first responders and others to communicate device-to-
device even if the cell network is down; 802.11ac and ad for
faster Wi-Fi and unlicensed; DSRC, which enables cars to
communicate with one another and with infrastructure to avoid
collisions; and a next-generation system to provide broadband
for airplane passengers.
In addition, creating 1000x more capacity will require
locating cellular base stations much closer to devices. I am
not talking about putting cell towers closer to people's homes;
I am talking about integrating licensed small cells into
networks, cells as small as the one I am holding in my hand.
This cell, with one of our chips inside, has the connectivity
of a base station, but at much lower power. You can put it
indoors, where so much wireless traffic originates. Software
will integrate it into a wireless network to create what we
call a hetnet, a heterogeneous network with cells of different
sizes.
The third prong to meet the 1000x Challenge is, of course,
your focus today: spectrum. We need more spectrum, far more
spectrum. We need more clear, exclusive use licensed spectrum,
such as the new 600 megahertz band from the voluntary incentive
auction. Clearing new bands by a date certain in a reasonable
time, and auctioning them for exclusive use, is, of course, the
industry's top priority. For unlicensed, wide contiguous bands,
adjacent to an existing unlicensed band, such as the 5.4
gigahertz band that the 2012 legislation directed NTIA and the
FCC to consider for sharing, is ideal. Other government bands
are equally important but do not fall easily into the two
categories I just mentioned. We support the President's
memorandum that seeks to enable the exchange of information and
resolve the other practical issues that have hamstrung efforts
to free up 1755 to 1780 megahertz. We look forward to working
with the new Spectrum Policy Team created by the memorandum.
We are also focused on other government bands that are not
used coast-to-coast on a 24/7 basis, but will not become clear
in a reasonable time, such as 3.5 gigahertz. 3.5 gigahertz
would be ideal for licensed small cells like this one,
operating at low power and minimizing any impact on government
operations. A small cell can operate at 3.5 because its signal
need not travel far, but it requires licensed spectrum to avoid
interference. We are working very constructively with NTIA and
the FCC on this band.
Qualcomm, Nokia Siemens, and others have proposed what we
call Authorized Shared Access, or ASA, to enable commercial use
of a band such as 3.5 gigahertz when and where it is not used
by the government. ASA is binary, either an operator or the
government would use the spectrum at any given time and
location. A database would ensure that government operations
are fully protected from interference and when the operator
uses the spectrum, it can provide a predictable quality of
service. ASA can provide access to bands that would otherwise
be unavailable for many years, without requiring any new
technology for devices or networks.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brenner follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Walden. Mr. Brenner, thank you for your testimony.
And now our final witness this morning, Mr. Christopher
Guttman-McCabe, the Executive Vice President, CTIA--The
Wireless Association. Sir, please go ahead with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman
Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's hearing.
CTIA hopes this hearing will lead to a recognition that a well-
planned, properly executed reallocation of federal spectrum can
produce results that benefit the government, the wireless
industry, the United States' economy, and the American public.
As I have noted in previous hearings, America's wireless
sector is facing unprecedented demand for wireless broadband
capability. The demand curve we are facing requires that the
wireless industry have access to additional licensed spectrum.
Fortunately, Congress recognized this when it passed the
Spectrum Act and authorized incentive auctions that should
result in the conversion of some television broadcast spectrum
for wireless broadband use. The FCC is moving to implement that
legislation and it is vitally important that the process move
forward expeditiously. But even if the incentive auction yields
the 120 megahertz called for in the National Broadband Plan,
that and other bands identified for auction by last year's
legislation will only provide a portion of what is needed for
the industry to meet consumers' and businesses' need for
wireless broadband.
Additionally, absent an aggressive effort to make
additional spectrum available, the leadership role that the
U.S. has long enjoyed could be put at risk. Many of our trading
partners have recently brought or are in the process of
bringing substantial amounts of spectrum to market for
commercial use. The United States must keep pace, but under the
most optimistic scenario, the auctions flowing from last year's
legislation still will leave us short of these international
efforts and fail to achieve the Broadband Plan's call for
making 300 megahertz available for mobile flexible use by 2015.
To cover the shortfall Congress should, with leadership
from this subcommittee, as has been the case countless times in
the past, look to repurpose bands held by federal users.
Clearing federal users from some of the bands they currently
occupy will help the commercial sector gain access to the
spectrum it needs while providing a critical infusion of funds
to facilitate the federal users' movement to state-of-the-art
equipment. This will reduce ongoing maintenance and procurement
costs and free up limited financial resources that are
increasingly strained by the budget caps imposed under the
Budget Control Act.
The most logical frequency band to start with as we look to
repurpose federal spectrum is the block between 1755 and 1780
megahertz. That band is immediately adjacent to existing
commercial spectrum and it will fit seamlessly into the current
mobile broadband spectrum portfolio. It will allow for rapid
and efficient equipment development and facilitate a more cost-
effective migration of mobile broadband technologies into that
band. Additionally, because most developed countries, including
17 of the 20 members of the G-20, either use or have allocated
the 1755 to 1780 band for commercial use, there are significant
economies of scale and scope that favor commercialization of
this band. Recognizing that most of the developed world has
already made the decision to use this band for commercial
service, CTIA believes that the United States should follow the
course charted by our trading partners. To CTIA, the right
choice is clear. We have been studying this band for well over
3 years. It is time for decisive action on the part of our
federal partners.
Near-term action by NTIA will allow the 1755 band to be
paired with spectrum currently available for licensing at 2155
to 2180 megahertz. Current law requires that 2155 band to be
licensed by February, 2015, and it is our hope that the 1755
band will be made available so that the two bands can be
auctioned together. Pairing these bands will maximize their
value not only to industry, but also to the government. A study
by the Brattle Group found that auctioning the 2155 band by
itself would yield just $3.6 billion, but when paired with the
1755 and auctioned together, they could generate as much as $15
billion. Given the budget realities facing the country, a
difference of that magnitude should not be ignored. With
support from this committee and the rest of Congress, as well
as the White House, NTIA can move quickly to capture the
benefits of pairing these two bands.
As an indication of our focus on this band, we have
proposed a relocation roadmap that identifies alternative bands
to which services currently operating in the 1755 to 1780 band
could be relocated at a cost more than covered by auction
revenue. This can happen in a way that improves their equipment
and maintains and protects federal users' ability to execute
their missions while alleviating risks to taxpayers and
limiting dependence on an unpredictable and strained
appropriation process.
We live in a wireless world. Every day we all see signs
that our lives and our economy are tied directly to this
amazing industry. We are willing to work in a collaborative and
constructive manner, but we need your help to ensure that the
process actually moves forward. We look forward to engaging
with this subcommittee and with the teams at NTIA and DOD.
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in today's
hearing. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guttman-McCabe follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Guttman-McCabe. We share your
concern about moving along and getting this done in a timely
manner.
Ms. Takai, the Department continues to be critical of part
of the spectrum--a critical part, I am sorry, of the spectrum
debate. Let me be clear, we all believe that DOD's mission
critical systems must be maintained and that operational
readiness must be improved through this process. What special
and specific challenges have hampered the Department's ability
to improve its systems, and how can we help DOD clear or
relocate existing systems without impacting their readiness? So
what are the specific challenges that you face?
Ms. Takai. Well, I think if we talk to the specific
challenges in terms of the systems that we have and then speak
to the challenges of moving, I think the challenges that we
have in terms of our specific systems is that today, what we
focused on is because we have the availability of those systems
to support our training needs, we have not necessarily been
able to put the dollars into putting new innovative
technologies into those systems in order to do some of these
things. The second piece of it is that as some of the spectrum
sharing capabilities are being developed, some of the new
technologies, we have to look at how we introduce those into
those capabilities and how long that would take.
So for instance, just to give you probably the most
difficult example, is really our air combat training system,
which is used in all of our planes and is really used in all of
our UASs. The challenge for us is that all of our training is
done in the U.S., and so our ability to actually, first of all,
use that system and be able to compress into the higher band,
moving to the 1780 to 1850, causes us interference problems
because we would run multiple missions in a smaller amount of
spectrum. So that is just one example probably of the most
difficult system.
We have looked at some of the systems that are exclusive
and we would have some opportunity to move, so I don't want to
give the impression that all of our systems are challenged in
that way, but the one I think that is the most problematic, the
specific example is that it would, in fact, give us
interference issues. It would limit the number of training
missions that we could fly at the same time, and therefore
reduce the number of training hours, which again are necessary
for pilot certification prior to being able to deploy.
Mr. Walden. I am curious, to Mr. Guttman-McCabe, what does
your roadmap say about the combat training system and pilot
training?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So just
to take maybe a half-step back, the roadmap was put in place to
address specifically the concerns about the lack of information
that was flowing, so what we did is we actually went back to
NTIA's assessment of several years ago, and we identified bands
that NTIA had identified for possible reallocation and
repurposing of these existing services. And what we found is
that it looks--at least, it should be studied and if we are
wrong, we should get some feedback, but it looks like each of
these services have a band that they could go into, a band that
already is a government-utilized band. And so, there is no one
in this room who wants to negatively impact our war fighters'
ability to prosecute their jobs, but I think there needs to be
a balance and what we are looking for is that balance. We have
put a roadmap on the table. I think it is something, at least a
starting point that DOD could work from and Ms. Takai and her
team could look at, but it is bands that they have identified.
I mean, we didn't pull this and create this from whole cloth.
Mr. Walden. So Ms. Takai, bands you have identified several
years ago could be used? Is that--do you and Mr. Nebbia want to
comment on that?
Ms. Takai. Yes. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I certainly
don't want to imply that we aren't willing to work on moving
and work on what the relocation would be. We have seen some of
the results of the roadmap. We have not seen the full roadmap.
My understanding is that is being released to us, and we are
very willing to take a look at the recommendations that are in
that roadmap and look to see where there are options and where
there are areas that perhaps we have not studied adequately or
where there may be opportunities for us to make the move that
is suggested in that analysis.
Mr. Walden. OK.
Ms. Takai. We have been working on some of those areas in
the CSMAC process, but I don't know that we have seen the
complete one.
Mr. Walden. So Mr. Guttman-McCabe, can you get her the
complete roadmap, or have you done that?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Absolutely. We submitted it formally to
the CSMAC process and it has been filed at the FCC as well, and
I think Dean has one in his right hand.
Mr. Brenner. Here it is.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes.
Mr. Walden. All right. This is great. We are all getting
along. This is wonderful. We have made progress right there.
My time--before I yield to my friend from California, just
know that we are serious about trying to compress this timeline
and get the answers, because it has been a number of years. And
I also respect this is complicated stuff you have to get right,
but I think I see a real bipartisan approach here to on a
regular basis have some discussions and get some updates. We
want to move this along. We want to move this along.
So I will turn now to the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Ms. Eshoo, for 5.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just in that exchange,
maybe 6 months were saved, so maybe we should just keep having
more----
Mr. Brenner. Happy to be of service.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Hearings. So thank you very much to
each one of you for your testimony.
I can't help but think--this is just a general observation
that federal agencies obviously need to have incentives in
order to do this, and we can't just view this--or they can't--
agencies can't just view this as a loss. You have to think of
it as a win as well, and how we bring about the win is
obviously what we want to zero in on.
But I have to say that the same old, same old that has
prevailed for years simply is not going to be accepted around
here. It just can't be. So this is as serious as it gets, and
we really want to see some movement and some action in the
right places with all the right things surrounding it.
So to Ms. Takai first. To date, DOD has not answered or
directly answered what it would cost to reallocate the 25
megahertz of spectrum between 1755 and 1780, so I am going to
ask about it again. Do you have a cost estimate and if not,
when can you get one?
Ms. Takai. Yes, ma'am, we have not done a cost estimate for
only the 1755 to 1780 band in terms of the next steps on it,
and the reasons for not doing it is, number one, what we are
looking for is some direction in terms of what is going to
happen as it relates to is this going to be a two-stage auction
where it would be the 1755 to 1780 and the second would be
the----
Ms. Eshoo. Well, how can that be kind of short-circuited to
get an answer from you?
Ms. Takai. Well, I think I would need to turn to my
colleague at NTIA, because generally the direction in terms of
the agencies to be able to put those estimates together would
come out to all of the agencies.
Ms. Eshoo. But do you sit down and talk to each so that--if
you have a commitment to reallocate and there needs to be a
cost estimate, why wouldn't the two of you sit down and talk
about it? Why are we--why am I even having to ask this question
again? Maybe Ms. Takai first and then maybe NTIA? I don't want
to use all my time on this, but this is frustrating.
Ms. Takai. Sure. Right, and first of all, I think I didn't
mean to give the impression that we don't sit and talk about it
a lot. We have put----
Ms. Eshoo. Well, that is a Washington meeting, with all due
respect.
Ms. Takai. Well----
Ms. Eshoo. You have to have an outcome. We have meetings so
that something comes out of it and we get something done.
Ms. Takai. Yes, ma'am. The challenge, I think, is that as
we have met, in order for us to do an estimate of what it would
take to move out of the 1755 to 1850, we need to understand
where we would either relocate to or what the requirement would
be in terms of where to move.
Ms. Eshoo. When do you think you will get this done?
Ms. Takai. Until we get an estimate or until we get
direction in terms of are we going to be asked to compress into
1850--1780 to 1850-- will we have the opportunity for either
exclusive comparable spectrum or shared comparable spectrum----
Ms. Eshoo. OK.
Ms. Takai [continuing]. And until we have some idea of
where, in fact, we can go and effectively either move to or
share----
Ms. Eshoo. I think I have got the picture.
Ms. Takai. I can't really give you an estimate.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes. It hasn't changed.
Mr. Brenner, thank you for being willing to testify today.
In your testimony, you talk about the benefits of connected
vehicle technology as well as Qualcomm's work to deliver faster
Wi-Fi and other unlicensed applications in the 5 gigahertz
band. Is this an either/or scenario, or through spectrum
sharing can we successfully achieve both goals?
Mr. Brenner. I think we can successfully achieve both
goals.
Ms. Eshoo. Nice soft setup.
Mr. Brenner. Thank you, I appreciate it. We can achieve
both goals and it is crucial that we do, and let me explain why
I say that. So at Qualcomm, we have been working on DSRC for
years. Alistair Inquist, my colleague and I who is here with
me, we attended the meeting at the FCC in 2003 in which they
authorized the rules for DSRC. DSRC is ready, can be
implemented.
Ms. Eshoo. So that is a decade ago.
Mr. Brenner. Right. It is time to get DSRC going, and what
we don't want is a spectrum proceeding at the FCC that, as you
know, can go on for years to delay DSRC. So here is what we
said at Qualcomm. We looked at the spectrum map, and if you--a
faster variant of Wi-Fi that we are launching, 802.11AC, it
operates in channels of 40 megahertz, 80 megahertz, or 160
megahertz. But when you do the math, the last 30 megahertz of
the DSRC spectrum, that is 5895 to 5925, is of no use for Wi-
Fi. It will never be used for Wi-Fi. It is not a multiple of
40, 80, or 160. So what we propose to the FCC is let's take
that off the table for sharing. Let's put DSRC safety
applications into that clear 30 megahertz exclusive use. And by
the way, the chips that we are making for DSRC and which are
used in the testing that has gone on, they only use 10
megahertz. So the 30 that is available would be ample for the
DSRC safety applications that are ready to go. So what we said
is put DSRC exclusively in that 30, and then we can talk about
how do to sharing in the other 45.
Ms. Eshoo. Good, thank you.
Mr. Brenner. And we have some ideas about how to do that.
Ms. Eshoo. Great. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if we are
going to have another round, but if we do, I have some
additional questions. So thank you, and thanks again to the
witnesses.
Mr. Walden. Turn now to the vice chair of the subcommittee,
Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
again, thank you very much to our witnesses for being here.
Mr. Brenner, if I could just go to your testimony, because
it is very interesting when you are talking about the 1,000
times challenge. We have had a lot of hearings and we have had
individuals in here that have testified that by the year 2017,
it is estimated that there will be 1.4 mobile devices per
capita across the entire world. And we know that is not going
to happen across the entire world, but it is really going to
explode here in the United States. And you go on in your
testimony talking about, again, the cellular base stations, and
it really comes down to your last statement is that we have to
have more spectrum to meet these needs. I would like you just
to kind of walk me through this a little bit, because you are
talking in your testimony about that 1,000 times, and that we
are doubling the wireless data, doubling it each year, and that
is where you are talking about being at least 1,000 times
today. Just give me a picture of what things are going to look
like in, let's say, 10 years, what we are going to be seeing
that people are going to be having in their hand, what they are
going to be utilizing them for, because again, if you are
talking about just doubling and getting up 1,000 times, where
we are going to be?
Mr. Brenner. Thank you, Congressman Latta. Let me answer
that question with all dehumility, because I have to say that
all the predictions about wireless broadband usage have always
been wrong, and they have always been wrong because they have
been too low. In fact, when Qualcomm developed the 1000x goal
and actually if you say to any Qualcomm employee 1000x, we know
as a company that is our goal. We originally had a goal that
was much less than that, and we actually shared it with some of
the operators, both in the United States and around the world,
and they said you know what, Qualcomm, you are not thinking big
enough. It is faster, it is bigger. So we went back to the
drawing board and we came up with the goal of 1000x.
So you know, what is it going to be like? I think that
there will be these small cells everywhere because again, think
of the fact that in Washington, D.C., all the best places to
put one of the big towers, there is already a big cellular
tower there. So in the----
Mr. Latta. For me, just to interrupt here. How many of
those small cells do you think you are going to envision, let's
just say, in 5 years?
Mr. Brenner. So actually, the studies that we have done, we
could envision in a neighborhood there being--and by the way,
they are in this form factor for now, but we think they could
go right into a cable box or your set top box could be a little
down goal. It doesn't necessarily even have to be this big, but
we could envision in neighborhoods 10, 20 percent of the
neighborhood very quickly getting these small cells installed,
and then what is exciting is although they will be placed
indoors, they will provide also good coverage outdoors where
again, there is tremendous extensity of use.
So in terms of what the vision is like, I think you would
walk into this room and the lights would have some form of
connectivity. I think that your phone would be on and it would
tell you whether there is any constituent from your district
that is in the building and who they are. I think that----
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. With proper privacy protection.
Mr. Brenner. Right, right. Thank you, Chris.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes.
Mr. Brenner. And I think that, the history is that once
people get these devices they want to use them all the time
wherever they go, and I think that is only going to multiply.
Mr. Latta. Let me follow up with another question, and that
would be what do different types of spectrum sharing due to
potential spectrum evaluations at auction?
Mr. Brenner. That is a great question. So let me say that
the reason why the authorized shared access model that Qualcomm
proposed that I mentioned in our testimony is important is
because if you are going to get access to spectrum for a
cellular type application--I am not talking about Wi-Fi, Wi-Fi
doesn't work, I can use someone else's Wi-Fi or whatever. You
need to depend on it. You need a predictable quality of
service. So you have got to be able to know that once you are
on the spectrum, you will have it unless and until you can't,
and then when you can't, you need to know that you can go onto
another band that is available.
So if the spectrum is just a free-for-all, a wild, wild
west, there will be almost no value to it. If the spectrum is
auctioned in a way that there is a predictable quality of
service, then I think the market can take into account the fact
that it may not be available 24/7, but it will still have
considerable value.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. Mr. Guttman-McCabe, did you want to
make a comment on that?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. I did, and I think what we are seeing
around the world is the delivery of a large box of cleared
spectrum, and what we want to make sure is that the United
States doesn't become the anomaly for bad reasons. Right now we
are sort of the anomaly because we have LTE deployment and next
generation technologies that no one else has. We are the test
bed for the rest of the world. We don't want to be the last to
receive equipment because we are the only ones that are
delivering a range of overly shared spectrum products that
don't allow carriers to really invest, to have a comfort level
that they are going to get some return on their investment and
actually be able to deliver.
So the product that Dean is talking about is one that
people are getting a level of comfort with, but I think in
other instances we are talking about cognitive technologies
that I think people don't--they don't exist, at least don't
exist commercially, and as we looked at this specific band that
we are talking about, there are four uses in the band that the
working groups have said can't be shared. And so we are talking
about sharing in a band where the conclusion has already been
reached that we can't share with those technologies. And so I
am perplexed at times that we continue to prosecute this notion
of sharing in this band when the subject matter experts,
including those from the Department of Defense, have said you
can't share with the unmanned area vehicles. You can't share
with air combat training. You can't share--you can go down
system, system, system, and we continue to investigate sharing.
And now we are having a debate whether we can investigate a
sub-band. My father used to say--I brought this up the other
day. My father used to say you measure twice, you cut once. I
was a little bit of a spastic child and I always wanted to cut
and I always got myself in trouble. We have been measuring this
band for 4 years. It is time to cut.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, and Mr. Chairman, I see my
time is expired and I yield back.
Mr. Walden. Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
yield to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton, to have
a colloquy.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, my friend. We want to engage in a
colloquy and say a couple things here.
First of all, spectrum is quickly becoming the lifeblood of
our economy, as commerce, entertainment, and the government go
wireless. At the same time, our supply of readily usable
spectrum is certainly dwindling, and finding better ways to
manage the spectrum and meet increasing demand is now certainly
a matter of economic and national security for our country.
That is why we are having the hearing today and that is why we
have been discussing federal spectrum use for the better parts
of this Congress and the last.
I have talked with Ranking Member Waxman. We are both
concerned that we are not making progress fast enough, and so
therefore, the two of us, we have agreed on a bipartisan basis
to ask Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo to convene
monthly meetings with the NTIA, FCC, and DOD to make sure that
we tackle the issues both responsibly and expeditiously.
And I yield back to Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much. I think that this
bipartisan process can help us move forward. We have a limited
time to act. It is imperative we push forward to make sure we
are maximizing the use of the federal spectrum. We know that
the agency professionals involved in this process are acting in
good faith. They want what is best for the public interest. But
if this hearing is any indication, Mr. Chairman, we are not
making progress fast enough. The agencies seem to be pointing
fingers at each other in justifying why they are not acting in
accordance with the President's directives to free up the
federal spectrum.
I believe that there is more than enough federal spectrum
to take care of the spectrum needs of our armed forces, provide
additional spectrum for commercial broadband, and raise
additional revenues for priorities like First Net. We need to
make sure that this effort is not slowed because agencies are
talking past each other or because of bureaucratic inertia,
which happens, and the stakes are too high.
So that is why Chairman Upton and I have agreed that the
committee will hold these monthly meetings with the key
officials at NTIA, FCC, and DOD to assess progress. I am
especially pleased we have agreed to pursue this effort in a
bipartisan manner. This is a good example of an area where we
can work together towards a common goal, and I look forward to
engaging with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
And I know that this effort is in good hands under the
leadership of Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back my time.
Mr. Walden. Gentleman yields back. We appreciate your
confidence in us, and we look forward to working with the
agencies on a regular basis, as you heard, on a monthly basis,
to stay on top of this and move forward.
We will now turn to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Shimkus, if he is--wants to go for 5 minutes, would be up next.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a good segue,
because let me move with Mr. Guttman-McCabe. You know, when we
were talking broadband, we really pushed for a broadband
inventory, and although some stuff came out fast, we started
deploying stuff before we knew who had what and where it was
and at what speeds and the like. So there are folks who are
talking about a spectrum inventory, and I would encourage you
all as you start these meetings to talk about it.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe, what would--talk to me about doing a
spectrum inventory and how that would be beneficial.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Sure. Thank you, Congressman, and I
absolutely think it would be beneficial. I hope that it is used
as a tool to move the process forward in an accelerated manner.
You know, we often talk to the broadcasters and they say there
should be an inventory before they are forced to move forward
with the incentive auction process, and I say but we know where
the broadcasters are, where they operate, and where their
stations are. I hope it wouldn't be used as a tool to slow down
the 1755 to 1780 because we have spent several years looking at
what is in those bands. But I think as a whole, as sort of a
holistic tool, it would be fantastic for us to get a sense of
who is where. I, too, have seen the statistics that suggest
that 60 percent of the beachfront spectrum is at least
operationally used by the Federal Government, and so I think it
would be good to get those exact numbers and get a sense of who
is where and for what is it being used.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Brenner, I would hope that you would
concur with that?
Mr. Brenner. Oh, absolutely. Of course, Congressman
Shimkus, as you can imagine, on a regular basis I am in contact
with our folks who design chips to look at new bands and to try
and predict what is going to happen.
Mr. Shimkus. So it might even be important for you to know
what is available?
Mr. Brenner. It is very important, right.
Mr. Walden. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Shimkus. I would yield.
Mr. Walden. I also think it would be interesting to know
who has got it, is it is use, you know, how much is sitting out
there. I realize there are licensed timelines where you have so
many years to----
Mr. Shimkus. Reclaim my time. That is what we tried to do
last year in the Spectrum Working Group, and even though we got
some briefings, I don't think we walked away with a lot of
comfort that we actually knew the actual spectrum holdings, and
really, the more important question is actual use. And then if
there is actual use, by what technology? Because actual use
with old technology is really having more than you need
currently. You know, the folks who know me, I do have a pretty
solid military background in defense and security issues, and--
but I will tell you that unless we know, we have a difficulty
trusting that the Federal Government--that they may be holding
on to assets that with new technology they might not need, and
we could help grow this economy. So I think that is part of a
bipartisan concern that we have out here.
And let me just segue with--because you mentioned the 1755
to 1780. I want to expand that out to the 1850. Ms. Takai and
Mr. Nebbia, your testimony talked about the technical
challenges in that area, right? My question is, this really
segues into this a little bit. How old is that technology that
is giving you technical difficulties? How old is that
technology that is consuming that spectrum in that arena right
now? Do you know?
Mr. Nebbia. Certainly can't say for sure in every system.
Certainly the Act system has some components that are very old.
I might guess probably 20 years. Some of the law enforcement
surveillance systems have been there for a long time also, once
again, working within the budget limitations that they have
deployed those systems.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me ask Ms. Takai. Do you know?
Ms. Takai. Yes, sir, let me just first say those systems
and the systems that are in both the 1755 to 1780 and 1780 to
1850 can be either moved or in some instances, we have
identified opportunities for sharing. So I don't want to leave
the impression that there is a problem with those systems or
that those systems would not operate in other bands or under
other conditions.
Mr. Shimkus. And that might be a technology debate that we
are talking about that new technology might allow you to do the
same thing in a different part of the spectrum, is that
correct?
Ms. Takai. Yes, sir, but in addition to that, the
technologies that we have today can operate--and it depends
upon the particular system, either, again, in a shared mode or
relocated to another band. We can do that with the technologies
that we have today. The challenge is to know where, in fact, we
would move to and what the conditions would be, and then we are
prepared--and when we did the 1755 to 1850 plan, we had a plan
there developed with the costs associated to make the move. So
I wouldn't want to leave the impression that we are dependent
upon new technology in order to do that.
Mr. Shimkus. And my time is expired, but I think we are
pretty much on record, too, that the bona fide cost of
transition will be borne by the selling of some spectrum, but
not a gross premium.
Mr. Walden. First you have to have the spectrum to sell.
Mr. Shimkus. First you got to have it to sell.
Mr. Walden. And then I think it can be a real--we are about
trying to help find a way to fund upgrades and enhance systems
that are more efficient and can benefit protection of our
country as we also do the jobs.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. Turn now to chairman emeritus of the
committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I commend you for this hearing,
and thank you for doing it. It is very important. I think the
statement made that we are going to be inquiring into this
monthly is a good one, and I am very pleased to hear it.
I have my troubles with the way we are allocating spectrum.
For years, we had it all being sat carefully on by the
government, like a duck on an egg, and we couldn't get anybody
off to see to it the spectrum was made available. When we
finally did, it appeared that the matter was driven by money
and that this was--that the spectrum was licensed out in ways
that was going to generate the maximum amount of revenue. It
turns out it was rather sloppily and slovenly done, so I don't
think we gathered the maximum of revenue. I am hopeful we can
avoid some of those things and stay within the good sense of
wise use and proper allocation of the spectrum.
Now I note that the U.S. auto industry has made substantial
investments in developing intelligent transportation systems
that use the upper 5 gigahertz of band. At the same time,
Section 6406 of the Spectrum Act directs NTIA to study risks
associated with permitting unlicensed use in the 5 gigahertz
band. Wireless, as we have witnessed, is a significant driver
of economic and technological growth. I want to ensure that
Americans driver safer vehicles and that they enjoy the benefit
of wireless growth at the same time. Consequently, we need to
have a clear understanding of how these two matters affect one
another.
Mr. Nebbia, these questions are going to be to you mostly,
and will require a yes or no answer. Is NTIA helping facilitate
direct interaction and cooperation between the wireless
industry, automakers, the Department of Transportation to
resolve any possible interference issues and potentially
develop constructive proposals in the area? Yes or no?
Mr. Nebbia. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Again, Mr. Nebbia, given the Federal
Communications Commission the license ITS service almost 15
years ago, would it be premature for the Commission to
authorize the use of unlicensed devices in the upper 5
gigahertz band before studies are completed that confirm these
devices will not cause interference to ITS services or that
strategies are available to sufficiently mitigate this risk?
Yes or no?
Mr. Nebbia. Without those studies, yes.
Mr. Dingell. Again, Mr. Nebbia, will NTIA recommend to the
FCC that it make this band available for unlicensed devices
only when and if NTIA is satisfied that unlicensed services can
spare the spectrum with ITS services without interference? Yes
or no?
Mr. Nebbia. Certainly.
Mr. Dingell. Now, Mr. Nebbia, I would like to urge NTIA to
do its utmost to complete the 5 gigahertz study required in the
Spectrum Act in the time allocated by Congress. Any FCC action
in this area must be grounded on sound quantitative analysis. I
intend to write this matter--write a letter on this matter to
the Commission in order to establish definitively that it will
not move to open up the upper 5 gigahertz band until successful
completion of NTIA study.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that my letter and
the Commission's response be included in this hearing's record.
Now I would like to turn my attention to the relocation of
federal spectrum. The committee called for such relocation for
commercial use in both 1993 and '97. Last year, we enhanced the
protections available to federal users subject to
reallocations. For example, we amended the Commercial Spectrum
Enhancement Act to allow agencies to use funds for planning
purposes, and we raised the threshold amount to 110 percent.
Again, Mr. Nebbia, is it accurate to say that federal users now
have more protections than they did in '93 and '97? Yes or no?
Mr. Nebbia. Yes.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Nebbia, does NTIA believe these safeguards
are sufficient? Yes or no?
Mr. Nebbia. Not completely, Congressman.
Mr. Dingell. Beg your pardon?
Mr. Nebbia. Not completely, no.
Mr. Dingell. Would you please submit for the record further
comments on that?
Mr. Nebbia. Certainly.
Mr. Dingell. Now, these are to the remaining witnesses.
Ladies and gentlemen, would you please comment briefly on Mr.
Nebbia's response to my last question? Ma'am?
Ms. Takai. We certainly support the language that was in
the CSEA. I think that is the heart of your question, sir. We
believe that the----
Mr. Dingell. So you believe the safeguards are sufficient
or not?
Ms. Takai. I believe the safeguard on the 110 percent
requirement is sufficient in terms of being able to----
Mr. Dingell. I have my doubts on that.
Ms. Takai [continuing]. Support our----
Mr. Dingell. Next witness, what are your feelings?
Mr. Brenner. So Congressman Dingell, I want to see any
issue involving the federal spectrum between DOD and NTIA or
between DOD, NTIA, and the FCC resolved absolutely as quickly
as possible.
Mr. Dingell. And the last witness?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Congressman, yes, I do think the
protections are much greater than they were during the last two
reallocation efforts, and certainly, you know, I think we
believe that they are sufficient, but if they are not, we would
like to know where those gaps are.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you again for
this hearing, but I want to urge that we have the FCC in here
because without hearing from them, this whole exercise may be
negatory because we will not have heard the people that are
going to make the decisions.
I thank you for your courtesy to me.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that in our
monthly meetings we will have all three agencies before us.
Mr. Dingell. I would just observe that from time to time,
the FCC has not been forthcoming and I would observe--and I am
using time that I am not entitled to for which I apologize--but
I would observe that they refuse to answer questions sometimes
because the result might be embarrassing. I would hope that we
would have a more forthright interchange with that agency if
it----
Mr. Walden. We think in a bipartisan manner that may not
apply to just one single agency. We are not pointing any
fingers at any today, but we just occasionally think that.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Dingell. A wise comment, Mr. Chairman. They are the
ones that aren't here to hear us.
Mr. Walden. Oh, they may be listening. And they may not be
listening.
We are going to turn now to the gentleman from Louisiana,
Mr. Scalise, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
convening this hearing, and thank our panelists for being here.
I know this is something that our committee has been struggling
with for a long time, but really if you look at the
marketplace, consumers have been demanding this freeing up of
spectrum because of the speed of which the devices, the great
products that you all create and the things it allows people to
do and make their lives so much easier, that has increased the
demand for spectrum, and yet the speed of government is just
not moving fast enough. Unfortunately we see this in so many
examples, but I think it was very significant that you had both
Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman, who do not come to
agreements on big issues like this a lot, to both be in
complete unison that the timeframe is not moving fast enough. I
think Chairman Walden and I think Ranking Member Eshoo both
recognize that as well. And so I do think, you know, hopefully
that will spark some urgency within the federal agencies. I
think having the FCC and NTIA and DOD having monthly meetings
with our subcommittee I think will not only emphasize the
urgency, but also create some deadlines and some timelines that
we can compress, because this does have to get answered. We
have been waiting for years to have a spectrum sale that the
low-hanging fruit is gone already. I mean, at this point if you
are really going to make some progress in freeing this up, and
not only to generate revenue in the Federal Treasury, but to
allow more innovation. I mean, we are holding back innovation
by not getting these answers, and so hopefully we can spark
that urgency but start getting the answers to these questions
so that more of the spectrum can get freed up.
I want to ask first, Mr. Nebbia, we have got some reports
that have come out, PCAST, even some Presidential memos that
talk a lot about sharing, and it has usually been in the
context of sharing between federal agencies and commercial
users, but where the federal agencies would actually have the
primary jurisdiction. If there was a conflict, the federal
agencies could trump. And what we have seen is that
dramatically reduces the value of that spectrum. One of the
things I would like to ask you, have you all looked, as you all
are looking at this concept of sharing, have you all looked at
the concept of sharing between federal agencies where you could
free up spectrum for commercial sale where it would be more
valuable and not shared, and the sharing would occur between
the federal agencies on some of that space that is not being
utilized most efficiently?
Mr. Nebbia. Yes, I think the thing that is important to
understand, the Federal Government lives in an environment of
sharing. The federal agencies have almost no exclusive spectrum
to any particular agency. In fact, in the 1755 to 1850 band, we
have got over 20 agencies sharing that spectrum on a day-to-day
basis. So sharing is the norm among federal agencies. Almost no
bands that we use have exclusive access to one federal agency.
So that is our challenge. We already live in that environment,
and as we begin to work to free up spectrum, one of the
possibilities that that results in is packing those federal
agencies closer and closer together in terms of frequency, and
when there are emergencies, for instance, and everybody lights
up their systems potentially you have problems with them
interfering with one another, so----
Mr. Scalise. Do you recognize that the--and I think it is a
very valid concern that is coming from the commercial users.
One of the goals that we are trying to achieve is, there will
be an expense to relocate federal agencies, and part of it, if
you have a successful sale of an auction of this space that
would be freed up that not only generates money for the Federal
Treasury, but it also provides the money to go and relocate,
and as the chairman said, to upgrade, to allow you to actually
upgrade and make your technology much more efficient. Do you
acknowledge that if you are just sharing between public and
private, that it actually does diminish that value of that
spectrum if it is just for shared use?
Mr. Nebbia. I think it depends on the specific nature of
the sharing that you set up. For instance, right now we still
have federal agencies in the 1710 to 1755 band. That auction
was an overwhelming success. So there are ways and situations
where you can continue sharing. Obviously the more undefined it
is, the more difficult it is for somebody to understand what
value----
Mr. Scalise. And I know my time is running short. I want to
bring in Mr. Brenner and Mr. Guttman-McCabe on this. I know
you, Mr. Guttman-McCabe had talked about the joining together
of the two lines of spectrum of the 2155 as well as 1755, that
you value--the value of it to the taxpayer would increase
dramatically if those were joined together. Of course, that
relies on having NTIA and other agencies providing us the
reports.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Correct.
Mr. Scalise. If you can expand on that and maybe touch on
what we are talking about regarding the sharing?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Certainly. In our roadmap that we
submitted, we suggest that the cost of clearing--an estimate
for the cost of clearing the band 1755 to 1780 is about $4.7
billion. If this spectrum is unpaired, what some economists
have suggested is that the unpaired auction of it would be $3.6
billion. It is south of the 110 percent that is required under
the CSEA, so it doesn't happen. If you put it together and pair
it together, I think it is reasonable to suggest, and I often
hesitate to do this because that means my members have to pay
that much, but I think it is reasonable to suggest $15 billion
could come in if you look at comparable, including the AWS
auction.
And you had mentioned something else, Congressman. I know
General Wheeler and his team and Ms. Takai and her team and Mr.
Nebbia, they are working hard, but I think what we need is that
speed to market, that market speed that you talked about to
move this forward, and we know this because you, we think
intelligently, set an auction deadline, a licensing deadline
for the upper half of the spectrum, the 2155 to 2180. So all we
are asking for is a little bit greater alacrity. We have had
some great movement recently and we are happy with that and we
have had some movement on nondisclosures and memorandums of
understanding, but we--speed is something that I think is
integral to this process.
Mr. Scalise. I see my time is expired, so I appreciate your
answers and yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walden. Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Takai and Mr. Nebbia, I understand that we know in the
past there has been difficulties communicating between your two
agencies and the issues related to the 1755 to 1780 band, but
recently, however, a trusted agent program has been
implemented. What is the status of this program, and has it
been successful in resolving difficulties in communications
between your two agencies? And additionally, Ms. Takai, can you
commit to moving forward expeditiously and resolving any
outstanding issues in a timely fashion now that this trusted
agent program is in place?
Mr. Nebbia. Let me just mention up front, Congressman, the
concept of the trusted agent is dealing with communications
between the federal agency that has sensitive information that
cannot be made public, and the private sector.
Mr. Doyle. Right.
Mr. Nebbia. The distinction there is not in discussions
between NTIA and the DOD. There is no difficulty in us
communicating----
Mr. Doyle. No, I understand that. What is the status of the
program and how do you think this is going to help you move
expeditiously?
Ms. Takai. Well as I said, sir, it is in two steps. First
of all, we have established MOUs, for instance, with DISH
Network on some specific information sharing that is necessary
around a particular band. So we are doing that to make sure
that we have communication. The second thing is we have signed
12 NDAs with members of the CSMAC, so that is completed. The
third step, which we really believe is a major step to speeding
the process up, because the challenge, I think, has been for us
to get this done quickly, is one where we have a proposal on
the table. We are currently in discussion with NTIA and so we
would anticipate moving that fairly quickly, and we are happy
to come back and report on the status of that in one of the
future meetings.
Mr. Doyle. Great, thank you.
Mr. Nebbia, you said in your testimony that NTIA is working
with DOD, FCC, and the industry on a two-phased roadmap to
clear the entire 1755 to 1850 band. Can you give us a timeline
for producing that roadmap, and can you produce that roadmap in
time for the 1755, 1780 band to be paired for the September
2014 auction?
Mr. Nebbia. Well certainly the work that has been done thus
far in CSMAC is absolutely--has been absolutely crucial to
being able to put that roadmap together. Industry drafted
theirs based on the outcomes that they were seeing in that
work. We are looking at similar types of input from DOD and the
Commission, so I believe in the next few months we are going to
have resolved that and we are going to be giving direction to
the agencies concerning the preparation of their transition
plans. But ultimately the critical issues that need to be
solved is where do these systems go? A couple of the bands that
we have talked about thus far, one of them is in the hands of
the broadcasters so there will be some impact there. That is a
door we would have to open. Another one of the bands is
actually of interest to the Wi-Fi industry of 5 gigahertz that
we are also discussing today. So there are not simple
processes. We have got to move other pieces in order to make
these things work. So that becomes the challenge in getting
agreement with the FCC and the industries involved there for
that type of arrangement.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague,
Ms. Eshoo, has some additional questions and I would like to
yield the balance of my time to her.
Ms. Eshoo. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania.
The question that I would like to ask now is related to
wireless. It is a little off the whole issue of spectrum, but
nonetheless, I think it is an important one. I would like to go
to Mr. Guttman-McCabe, because he heads up CTIA.
Last month, one of the larger member companies of your
organization announced a 61 cent administrative fee for all of
its contract wireless customers. Now, in looking at the bill,
the contract is for $89.99. When you go online to sign up for
it--this is for new service. You go to your Web site. There are
three different pages and you move from one, you have to click
to another. You go to page two, the due monthly still says
$89.99. You go to step two, other charges applicable to
wireless service--I have 20/20 vision, but I am telling you,
God has got to give you another set of eyes to read this. I
don't know who can, and I think it may be purposeful so that
you can't figure it out. Then you go to step three, and yet it
still doesn't total out what all of these fees equal.
Now this large company is not the only one that is doing
this. I am just using this as an example, but the press reports
say that this will gross this particular company at least a
half a billion dollars in additional revenues. So you know, the
consumer, I think, should have certainty. If there is a
contract for $89.99 or whatever the contract is for, what are
all these extra fees that are being--these new charges--what
are they called? I don't know. Name it. You can call it
whatever you want, but it is not part of the contract. So you
sign up for one thing and then you get another deal, which I
don't think is so terrific for consumers. So can you just
briefly explain what the industry's rationale is for separating
these mandatory--I guess they are mandatory. I don't know if
they are mandatory or not. Below the line fees from advertised
monthly price of the service?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes----
Ms. Eshoo. This is now across the board. Companies are all
doing this. Sign up for one thing, you get all these other fees
and charges but they are not advertised.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Certainly. I am going to be brief,
because I just got a new job within CTIA and I would like to
actually take it, and so talking about fees and prices gets me
in trouble----
Ms. Eshoo. Timing is everything.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe [continuing]. With my general counsel
who has probably the ability to remove that new title.
Ms. Eshoo. I think it is important to----
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. No, but I think----
Mr. Walden. I do also.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Have a conversation about this, but
it is important to raise.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Sure, it is a good point.
The reality is, we benefit, consumers benefit from national
advertising from the ability to present the customer with a
single price, but taxes and fees do vary in jurisdictions. I
mean, I know you recognize that. And so I think our carriers
are very clear up front, it is X plus taxes and fees, and the
taxes and fees, the taxes are what the taxes are based on the
municipality. We have some--we have on average 17 percent tax
rate, which is troubling, I think, to most Americans. The fee
portion of it is----
Ms. Eshoo. These are not taxes though.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. No, it is----
Ms. Eshoo. What----
Mr. Walden. That may be.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. So you are saying there is an
advertised price and then there are taxes and fees. The fee
portion of it is a recovery of some of the costs of doing
business in different locations, and what they do is they
generally make an average. And the reality is in our
marketplace, consumers will dictate what the carriers can
charge by moving from company to company. And so those, we see
different companies with different prices or different fees,
and that is driven by what consumers will bear.
But I think it is also fair to say that money is returned
exponentially back into the marketplace. I mean, we have $30
billion in capital expenditure, and all of that is part of the
revenue that the companies take in the cost of----
Mr. Walden. I am going to proceed here.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe [continuing]. Regulation and others,
there is a fee, there is a cost to them and I think that is
what you see in the fees.
Mr. Walden. I think your point is you want better
disclosure to the public and truth in advertising.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes, I think if you sign up for something, that
is the cost. If that is not what the cost is going to be, then
say so.
Mr. Walden. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo. But these additional fees--and I am not talking
about taxes, so I think we will have----
Mr. Walden. Yes, I will let you----
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. More discussion. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. You will like my bill, too, then on Obamacare.
It discloses all the taxes on your premium so you will know.
That has been introduced.
We will go to Mr. Long now for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
being here today.
For the entire panel, the Commerce Spectrum Management
Advisory Committee, CSMAC, we call it, advises the Assistant
Secretary of Communications and Information at NTIA on a broad
range of spectrum policy issues. The members are spectrum
policy experts appointed as special government employees from
outside of the Federal Government. Committee members offer
expertise and perspective on reforms to enable new technologies
and services, including reforms that expediate the American
public's access to the broadband services, public safety, and
long range spectrum planning. Members are selected based on
their technical background and expertise, as well as NTIA's
commitment to ensure diversity and balance and points of view.
Members serve in a personal capacity and do not represent any
organization or interest.
Now the CSMAC, it reads like a who is who on steroids. The
co-chairs, Dr. Brian Fontes, Chief Executive Officer, National
Emergency Number Association, and the other co-chair, Dr.
Gregory Rosston, Deputy Director, Stanford Institute of
Economic Policy Research of Stanford University. Members--I
won't list them all--but they include a product manager at
Google, vice president and director, Wireless Future Program,
the New American Foundation, a professor from the University of
Michigan Law School, president and chief executive officer,
Enterprise Wireless Alliance, president, Association of Maximum
Service Television, Inc., vice president of business
development, Verizon, director of business development,
Comsearch, executive director, Center for Law and Technology
Entrepreneurship, University of Chicago, technology policy
consultant, Intel Corporation, IT manager of communication,
infrastructure, strategy, Exelon Corporation, the president of
Shared Spectrum Company, the founder and president of Freedom
Technologies, vice president, global advanced technology
policy, Cisco Systems, assistant vice president of public
policy at AT&T, the head spectrum management department at
Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems, a vice provost of the New
Initiatives and research professor of computer science,
Illinois Institute of Technology, a consultant at Qualcomm, an
aerospace corporation, head department of electrical and
computer engineering, North Carolina State University, a senior
vice president of government affairs at T-Mobile, and a vice
president of technology policy and regulation, Lockheed Martin
Corporation. That is not even the complete list, so like I
said, it is kind of a who is who on steroids.
So my question is for the entire panel. The CSMAC, Consumer
Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, is working on clearing
federal spectrum for commercial broadband use. It has been slow
so far, more like dial-up, I would say, than broadband. What
could you suggest to move this process along, and how can the
pace of CSMAC's work be improved? And as a sidebar, with that
many people from that many different areas, is the committee
too large? But what would you suggest to get them out of the
dial-up age and into the broadband age as far as moving this
along?
Mr. Nebbia. Thank you, Congressman. The work that this
group is doing is very complex. In fact, the group that you
specifically named are the members of the main committee. We
have actually had many, many more people involved in the
working groups, the actual engineers and representatives, the
companies and technologies that are involved here. So we have
broken this work out, actually, into working groups that have
then reported back to the main body. So we have engaged a lot
of people in this process. One of the challenges has been this
issue of sharing specific sensitive information which DOD and
the industry is working out, but some of it has just been the
pure challenge of being able to model and understand how the
networks work. For instance, it took us about 4 months to get
an accurate picture from the industry as to how we should
represent their networks in any analysis that we did. These are
very complex issues. The systems are very capable of changing
how they are operating and so on, so it has been a difficult
discussion. But I think the steps that DOD is taking in opening
this----
Mr. Long. I will move on to DOD. I am running out of time
here, but suggestions on moving their work along more rapidly?
Ms. Takai. Yes, sir. Well first of all, to comment, DOD has
put over 50 full-time employees as a part of the CSMAC process
to make sure that we move the engineering along. In terms of
the answer to your question, we are now at the point where the
CSMAC results will be available in the July timeframe, and I
think from that to the point of this committee, we are prepared
to be able to make some decisions and make some tradeoffs and
be able to move forward.
Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
Mr. Brenner, even though I am over my time?
Mr. Brenner. Yes, respectfully, Congressman, the problem is
not CSMAC. CSMAC is completely fine. The problem is monthly
meetings up here, deadlines, accountability, clear delineation
of responsibility, clear communication on the Federal
Government side. These are the issues. CSMAC is just fine.
Mr. Long. Mr. Guttman-McCabe?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes, I would agree with Mr. Brenner,
and I just think a lack of information hindered the process and
I know we are moving there and Ms. Takai and General Wheeler
and Mr. Nebbia are, I think, going to try to move the process
forward and we have made some headway. Sharing of information
is key. Whether it is sharing that results in actual sharing of
spectrum or sharing of information that results in clearing and
finding new bands, it is information exchange that is key.
Mr. Long. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Walden. Gentleman yields back his time. The chair now
recognizes gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think all of you
recognize the sense of urgency expressed here and the sense
that we really need to move along.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe, one of the most pressing issues that
DOD would like answered and which is important is where DOD can
relocate once they have vacated the 1755 to 1780 band. Do you
have any ideas specifically for us to consider?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Certainly, Congresswoman, and I
submit--and if we haven't formally put the roadmap on the
record, I would ask the ability to do that. But in our roadmap,
we identify the ability for some systems to potentially
truncate, for others to move out of bands maybe higher up in
the spectrum, and then for others, we identify bands, I think
as I stated earlier, that are already have some government use
in them. So we have identified a range of bands----
Ms. Matsui. Do you--can you be more specific in these bands
that you are talking about?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Sure. I will pull this out, but for
instance, particularly the four that are most difficult are in
the working group five. They all involve some form--or almost
all involve some form of aeronautical usage. So we talk about
the air combat training systems able, hopefully, to be
truncated, moved up within the 1755 to 1780, move from 1780 to
1850. As part of that, we talk about moving the AMT systems,
the aeronautical mobile telemetry, moving them up higher in the
band. The same thing is true with the small unmanned aerial
vehicles is truncating some of their uses into the 1780 to 1850
band, and then to the extent that we can, we have identified
some other bands that government can go into, the 1435 band,
the 1780 band, the 2200 band. These are some of the bands that
are already in play, have already been discussed in the
original report from NTIA----
Ms. Matsui. When was this roadmap developed?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. It was I think finalized about a month
ago.
Ms. Matsui. OK, and this is--you all have not had the
opportunity to actually look into it and study it, is that
correct?
Mr. Nebbia. Actually, we have begun to study it,
Congresswoman, so we see points of interest here. They did
suggest, for instance, the 5.1 gigahertz band for some of the
systems. That also was a band that Comcast would like to use
for increased Wi-Fi capability. So once again, each of the
bands that get identified ultimately have some of their own
issues to them, and that is why we are trying to work out as
many of the systems as possible that can stay. In fact,
industry is suggesting even with some of these aeronautical
systems that there may be other approaches that they can take
to living with them.
Ms. Matsui. OK, so is this a starting point then, for all?
Ms. Takai?
Ms. Takai. Yes. Just as a comment there, we do believe that
it is a starting point. We do also feel that there--as the NDAs
(non-disclosure agreements) are being signed so that we can
increase the information sharing between the two groups, there
will be additional information that will impact that industry
roadmap, and so what we need to do now is to really take that
additional information, use the industry roadmap, and then look
at what the suggestions would be for the way ahead.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Question for Mr. Guttman-McCabe and Mr.
Nebbia. In your view, if the FCC auctions AWS-3 band without
the pairing of 1755 to 1780, then could the entire 1755 to 1850
band be potentially lost forever for commercial and innovation
purposes? Mr. Nebbia?
Mr. Nebbia. I think certainly industry has expressed the
fact that they need more downlink spectrum, so that certainly
makes the upper portion worth more. I don't think necessarily
that auctioning them separately necessarily makes that a
permanent situation, but in fact, forcing all the federal
agency operations into the upper portion will almost certainly
lock that piece out from being able to be used in the future.
So I think there is a significant impact here if we take that
short step without knowing where we are heading. So I don't
think it rules it out, but it certainly would make it more of a
challenge.
Ms. Matsui. OK. How about Mr. Guttman-McCabe?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes, there is a significant concern of
ours that auctioning them separately wouldn't bring sufficient
revenue to satisfy the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, so
as a threshold issue, you couldn't hold the auction. And so
that is obviously a significant concern. For us, the fear that
you orphan the band when the rest of--we say 17 of the G-20, it
is everyone. You don't stop there. We have a map here--it is
hard for me to see from this distance, but everything of color
is where this band is being used for commercial operation, so
it is Asia, south Asia, it is all of Europe, it is Africa. It
is everywhere where we would want to compare ourselves to. But
I think almost more importantly, Ms. Takai suggested that the
Department of Defense--and this is logical--that they use
spectrum to properly train as we must fight. Well, I would
argue every place where you are going to potentially fight is
using this band for commercial purposes, so is this the proper
band to train in the United States?
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Most of the Middle East, most of the
countries in Europe and Asia and south Asia use this for
commercial purposes.
Ms. Matsui. Certainly we all know that this band is really
very important for America's innovation economy, and it is
really critical that we not let this ship sail. I think there
is agreement there, and we shouldn't pass on this unique
opportunity.
And I just want to say something here. Ms. Takai, you have
demonstrated really strong leadership and shown an openness to
work with us in good faith on this complicated issue. Moving
forward, given the process as has been discussed between
Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Waxman moving forward, can
you commit to our subcommittee that you will continue to work
with us in good faith and a constructive manner to find the
solution here?
Ms. Takai. Absolutely. DOD is committed to finding the
solution to this issue. I really want to make sure that we have
that on the record. We really have, number one as I mentioned,
we have a plan to move and we certainly have worked, as I say--
we put 50 full-time folks in, even in this budget time, to work
the CSMAC process to see if we can't do the relocation, whether
or not we can solve this problem through spectrum sharing.
So we are committed, again, to finding a solution to this
issue, to making sure that we can make the best decisions in
1755 to 1780 as well as the rest of the band. So----
Ms. Matsui. We appreciate that.
Ms. Takai [continuing]. We welcome the opportunity to,
quite frankly, be here with the FCC and have the three of us
actually see what we can do to work through the issues, because
I do think it will take the three organizations in order to
make the necessary decisions to move forward.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, and I think you realize
that there is this unique opportunity, and we really feel that
we really need to move forward as quickly as possible.
Thank you.
Mr. Walden. I would like to insert in the record a copy of
the ``Industry Roadmap to Assessing the 1755 to 1850 Megahertz
Band.''
Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Walden. And now we will turn gentleman from Kentucky,
Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
being here. Sorry I was at another hearing of a subcommittee of
this full committee.
You know, the Federal Government is changing, the world is
changing. Communications are so important, and it is difficult
in these budget constrained times to get the right equipment at
the right place at the right time. Ms. Takai, I just heard what
you said to Ms. Matsui and I agree with that, but would the
opportunity to purchase new state-of-the-art equipment due to
money generated from sales from spectrum--the opportunity to
buy new state-of-the-art equipment be an incentive for your
agency to relocate? Some of your aging communications systems
are moving away from the propriety federal to the sharing or
the commercial systems. Would that be an incentive that would
be helpful to DOD?
Ms. Takai. Yes, sir. There are two things that you
mentioned there that are important. One is the ability to look
at new technologies that allow us to better take advantage of
using less spectrum for the operations that we have. The second
is the money for us actually to do the transition, either to a
shared environment or to another exclusive environment. So
those are the opportunities.
Now some of that funding is included in the funding that
would come to us as a part of the auction process, so it
wouldn't necessarily be incremental funding, but that is where
we would really need to make those decisions around what those
steps would be, do the auction, and then be able to have the
funding to make those moves.
Mr. Guthrie. We will take it. May be an opportunity to
modernize some areas.
Mr. Nebbia, does the NTIA, have they developed any metrics
for assessing how effective federal agencies are in using
efficient--spectrum efficiently?
Mr. Nebbia. There are certainly existing measures related
to the nature of a particular transmission. For instance, we
try to eliminate as much of the unwanted emissions in any radio
signal. Trying to evaluate the efficiency in terms of how much
the systems are actually turned on we do not have a measure
that we implement along that line. Each agency operates its
systems according to its schedules and immediate needs. For
instance, Department of Justice in the particular band that we
are looking at operates law enforcement surveillance systems
across the country. They operate at any particular time and
location, so if you are asking for that kind of data, we simply
don't have that kind of monitoring. To know more generally,
yes, we have a sense of, in many cases, some of the systems are
on all the time, others operate more sporadically.
Mr. Guthrie. Do you have any idea what kinds of carrots we
could offer to agencies to be more efficient with their
spectrum?
Mr. Nebbia. Well, the one carrot that is in the CSEA right
now is this concept that they can move to improved equipment.
That certainly is a benefit to everybody, but you still have to
be able to perform the mission in some band, so not only do you
get the better equipment, but there has to be a band to move it
to. And then ultimately when you are looking to move in that
direction, you have to have a sense that you have got some
stability, some--it is not we are going to give you an
incentive to move there tomorrow and then next week we are
going upset the apple cart again and ask you to move again. So
we have got to come up with approaches like that. It is like if
I ask you or I direct you to move from your home and I say I am
going to compensate you for that move, it is not an incentive
to want to move. To provide an incentive, you actually have to
give somebody something that improves their situation, and it
is both the place to go, the equipment to use, and that long-
term sense that they are going to keep meeting the mission that
we have all given them to meet.
Mr. Guthrie. That is a fair point. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Nebbia, that is exactly what we are talking
about trying to figure out how to do.
So we will go now to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
witnesses. As many folks have mentioned, we have multiple
subcommittee hearings going on at the same time, so I have a
couple of questions and I will apologize in advance if there is
some redundancy or if there are questions you are already
answered today.
I wanted to ask Mr. Brenner a question. There has been--it
is well accepted the huge increase in demand for spectrum with
new devices and new technology is right there in front of us,
and one suggestion has been a way to accomplish or to
accommodate this is to establish some sharing regimes on parts
of the spectrum. Can you explain what some of the different
types of possible spectrum sharing regimes might have, and what
impact those types of arrangements have on potential spectrum
valuations at an auction?
Mr. Brenner. Sure, Congressman, thank you for that
question. So in my testimony I described the sharing regime
that Qualcomm, Nokia Siemens and other companies are working
on. We call it authorized shared access. Now Wi-Fi itself is a
sharing regime, right? I mean, it is unregulated, there is no
management to it, maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. Obviously
if you are going to auction spectrum on the basis of that, you
are going to get almost nothing for it. There is no
predictability to its use at all. In contrast, obviously the
best regime, the highest value regime is the spectrum is
totally clear and pristine before the auction. You know you can
get exclusive use to it the day the auction ends. That is
obviously highest value. And by the way, we have done auctions
three different ways in that regime. We have had the spectrum
clear before the auction, we have had the spectrum clear after
the auction, and now in the incentive auctions we are going to
try to clear the spectrum through the auction.
So authorized shared access, what we are trying to do is
get the situation of bands that are in between where we don't
want to have them just be completely devalued and where they
would be unusable for cellular, like just the pure unlicensed
regime, and on the other extreme, you know, it is spectrum that
just as far as the eye can see. There isn't a date certain,
there is no reasonable path to clear it. So then this
intermediate regime we call authorized shared access and here
is how it works. There are no changes to devices. There are no
changes to networks. The device has to have support for the
frequency band, and the cell has to have support for the
frequency band, but that is not a big deal. There is no new
technology. Instead, what there is is a database, and one
authorized operator, and that is key to this system. It is
binary. Either the government has the spectrum in use or an
authorized operator has it, and that operator has a network.
This device talks over some other frequency band or through a
wired connection to the network and it says I want to go on.
The network talks to the database. Only the network talks to
the database. There is a clear accountability, and the database
then has the information from the government as to how much
interference, how much power can be tolerated at the location
of the small cell is located at.
And we think that way, when the spectrum is not in use by
the government, where the spectrum is not in use by the
government, an operator could use the spectrum and we think you
would get significant value for the spectrum. Again, only in
this intermediate situation. Thank you.
Mr. Matheson. I would ask Mr. Guttman-McCabe, do you
believe there would be a strong incentive to bid on spectrum
licenses if there was some type of this sharing agreement?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes, I think the key, Congressman,
would be agreement. I think Mr. Brenner had said the more you
know up front, the more you know in advance, the greater the
likelihood that you would feel comfortable bidding. And so we
look at it sort of like Mr. Brenner does. It is almost
bifurcated. On one side is geographic or temporal use, so
something where you really know who is there geographically and
you can use everything but that area, or we know time-based or
temporal. You can have access to the spectrum for every day of
the week except for X or Y.
Then on the other side is cognitive, and what Dean's
company is doing is beginning to sort of, I think, blur that
bright line in that there is a cognitive element to this, but
there seems to be the ability to get some level of comfort. And
so I think there has to be an understanding that you actually
will get access and that the government will provide some real
time or some in advance understanding of what access you are
getting. But it is all about information. If you don't feel
comfortable that you actually will be able to use the spectrum
a fair amount of time, then the value obviously is going to
decrease precipitously.
Mr. Matheson. OK, appreciate those answers. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. Chair now recognizes Mr. Lujan for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I really
appreciate you holding this hearing and Ranking Member Eshoo as
well.
I must say, coming into this hearing I am sensitive to both
sides with the concerns that they have. I come from a rural
State where it is challenging in some of the mountainous
regions to get more penetration for additional bandwidth for
many of my constituents. I represent two national--one national
lab with two national labs residing in the district, Sandy and
Los Alamos. The Air Force Research Lab is in the State of New
Mexico. Cannon Air Force Base is in my district, currently an
Air Force base, Holloman, White Sands. Parts of Fort Bliss from
a training perspective, we have important training grounds in
the State of New Mexico. But I must say, based on some of the
responses today that I have some questions.
Ms. Takai, you indicated that until we are told, so I guess
until the Department of Defense is told or until the Department
of Defense is given direction, that this is something that is
being looked at but not necessarily a priority. If you could
clarify that for me, I am trying to understand until Department
of Defense is given direction to do what?
Ms. Takai. Well first of all, Congressman, let me just
clarify. As I mentioned to you and as I mentioned to the
committee, we are not hanging back and waiting for direction. I
mean, we have put over, as I mentioned, 50 people into the
CSMAC process to look at what the options are for spectrum
sharing. The point is, there needs to be a decision in order to
actually make the auction happen and make the decision happen
around what bands we are going to auction and the dollars that
are coming in. So what we are saying is that as a result of all
of the participation we have had, both in the study we did on
the relocation completely and the sharing, now we are to the
point where we have significant information. We need to make
the decision around what areas are we going to share, where is
there going to be comparable spectrum in order for us to be
able to move.
Mr. Lujan. So a decision needs to be made by whom?
Ms. Takai. It is a combination. It is recommendations
coming from NTIA and then ultimately FCC would be involved as
well in making the decision, particularly around the comparable
spectrum, and then--because right now, what we have is we have
a menu of options of things that we could do. I don't want to
leave you with the impression that we don't. In fact, we have
any number of combinations of things that we could do. But from
an engineering perspective, we need to pick those, make them
fit together, and then go and implement those. And that is the
challenge I think we have right now.
Mr. Lujan. And Ms. Takai, spectrum is important to the
Department of Defense, correct?
Ms. Takai. Absolutely.
Mr. Lujan. So I think that Ranking Member Eshoo asked a
question about timeline. I think my colleague, Ms. Matsui,
submitted into the record the President's Executive Order or
memorandum to the heads of the executive departments and
agencies that lays out inherent timelines therein, 3 month
timelines, 6 month timelines, 12 month timelines, and I hope
that that is enough to give direction, to say this has to be
done and we need to move forward to be able to talk about this.
The reason that I asked the question about the importance
of spectrum to the Department of Defense is does the Department
of Defense monitor filings at the FCC associated with spectrum?
Ms. Takai. Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. Lujan. So how don't you have what they gave you earlier
when--there was a question about a report not being given to
Department of Defense or not seeing it. How does Department of
Defense not have it?
Ms. Takai. Well sir, we have been working with the industry
folks on the report. There are some areas where we have to
increase the information sharing as it results on the report.
But I think what we have been doing is we have been seeing some
of the preliminary recommendations, but in terms of the final
report, bringing it all together and also looking at where, in
fact, they were able to take our input and where they weren't.
That was really where my comment was.
Mr. Lujan. So before today, has Department of Defense seen
the document that was handed to you?
Ms. Takai. We have seen preliminary copies of the report,
yes, sir.
Mr. Lujan. So you did have it?
Ms. Takai. We had preliminary copies of the report, yes.
Mr. Lujan. Do you have the copy that was given to you
today?
Ms. Takai. I do.
Mr. Lujan. Did you have it before?
Ms. Takai. No, we did not have that report before.
Mr. Lujan. So Mr. Brenner, was that filed with the FCC
before today?
Mr. Brenner. It was. It was filed by T-Mobile. T-Mobile
went and met with the FCC, gave it to the FCC, and under the
FCC's rules, T-Mobile was required to file it and I got it off
the FCC's Web site.
Mr. Lujan. So Mr. Chairman, before I was elected to
Congress I was on the utility commission, and interested
parties paid attention to cases that were important to them.
When filings were made, you better know what was in that filing
to be able to defend the position of the party and the client
that you represent. And I would hope that after today, I think
the chairman has made it abundantly clear, as has Ms. Eshoo, we
need to be talking. We need to be monitoring these filings and
doing all we can to be in a position to carry out the
President's memorandum that says we must do this as effectively
and efficiently as possible.
And again, Mr. Chairman, I am sensitive to both sides here,
but some of the responses today I guess place some questions on
my mind associated with information sharing. So I look forward
to working with you, sir, and Ranking Member Eshoo. Thank you
very much to the witnesses today.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. Turn now to our gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank the Ranking Member Eshoo for convening this hearing.
My question is directed, first of all, to Ms. Takai. I
recall sitting in a number of subcommittee hearings over the
last Congress when we marked up the Middle Class Tax Relief and
Job Creation Act of 2012, and in doing that, we reallocated D-
Block spectrum for public safety and first responders. The
Congress also provided an incentive auctions framework for
relocating TV broadcasters at government expense and paying for
the national Public Safety Network, mainly to free up more
wireless broadband spectrum.
Ms. Takai, it is one thing to say that carriers may not
invest in shared spectrum, and I am sure that that is true, but
it sounds like you disagree with Mr. Guttman-McCabe that
effective commercially available spectrum sharing technologies
simply do not exist. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Ms. Takai. Congressman, I hope I have not given the
impression at all that we don't believe the spectrum sharing is
viable and workable. We absolutely do believe it is viable and
workable. We share with other government agencies and we share
with industry in many different situations where, in fact, we
can. So if that was the impression I left, that was certainly
not the impression I meant to leave.
There are, however, some systems where, in fact, we utilize
really all of the band and therefore--and I think that was also
expressed by industry--there are situations with particular
systems where, in fact, sharing may not be viable going
forward.
Mr. Rush. These technologies are highly complex, but can
you quickly tell us about the major barriers in realizing and
implementing these technologies?
Ms. Takai. The major barriers in terms of implementing
spectrum sharing, I think we have spoken of a couple of them.
First of all, one of them is if we were to do geographic
sharing, that, in fact, means that we have to ensure that where
we are not using the spectrum that it is an advantage to
industry to be able to use the spectrum in that geographic
area. The second is we share it from a time standpoint, so on
times that I am not using it, industry does use it. And there
are cases where, in fact, we can do that. And then finally,
there are areas where we are utilizing the band both from the
standpoint of geography and from the standpoint of the amount
of time we use it, which then makes it very difficult for us to
be able to share.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Guttman-McCabe, do you have anything you want
to add to that?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. No--well, I guess yes, Mr. Congressman.
I agree with Ms. Takai completely. I mean, I think that there
are areas where geographically I think we will be able to
potentially share. We are looking at the satellite systems that
are in the band as one example. We haven't yet come across, but
that doesn't mean we won't come across time-based or temporal
sharing opportunities, at least in this scenario. Mr. Brenner's
company is investigating something that is even a little bit
different than that, which is, you know, an intelligence-based
type of sharing where you are dipping into a database that is
already populated. So that, to me, is the next step but it is
something that seems logical because I think people would know
that the database is populated and be comfortable with a
certain level. It is the step after that, it is sort of the
real time intelligence or cognitive-based that, you know, we
have heard and heard that it is not commercially available yet.
We haven't seen it. I am not sure that Department of Defense
would be comfortable with that on either side of the equation.
I am not sure commercial or Department of Defense would be
comfortable with that.
But the key thing to recognize here is that the four
important systems that we are stuck having a debate back and
forth about, I think everyone has already concluded we can't
share with those. And so we continue to have our wheels
spinning investigating sharing when the reality is it doesn't
seem like sharing is going to deliver any usable spectrum or
give the Department of Defense a comfort level. So----
Mr. Rush. My time is running out and Mr. Guttman-McCabe, I
represent a district where there is inter-generational
unemployment, and jobs are the number one issue in my district
and other similar districts across the Nation. If this Congress
works with you to clear up spectrum for industry's use, then
what commitment do your member companies have to create jobs
not overseas, but here at home?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Congressman, I am excited to say that
our industry will commit to that, because that is what we do. I
mean, we are one of the bright shining elements of the economy
right now. You know, we have foreign companies moving their R&D
facilities into the United States because we are at the cutting
edge, so the Ericssons and the Nokia Siemens, all of these
companies are moving their facilities into the United States
and bringing jobs with them. So we are almost the opposite of
some of the job flight that you see, and we have this concept,
we call it the virtuous cycle. You bring spectrum to market,
then companies like Dean's and others come up with new
technologies on the infrastructure side, then handset
manufacturers come up with new capabilities in their handsets.
Then we have this whole new applications world that didn't
exist comes about, and then consumers buy more products and we
are back up asking for more spectrum. It is a cycle that
benefits the economy, it benefits your constituents. Seventy-
eight percent of the apps developers are small businesses, so
those are jobs that zero of them existed 3 years ago. So we are
going to--we are driving jobs. We have more capital
expenditures than the entire EU combined when it comes to
mobile capital expenditures. So I will heartedly and excitedly
make that opportunity--or make that commitment if you give us
the opportunity in terms of new spectrum.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentleman for his questions. I
thank our panelists for their testimony. It has been most
enlightening, and I think you can see, we had 14 of our members
here and asking questions throughout the course of the hearing,
even though we had multiple hearings going on this morning. So
we will look forward to seeing you on a regular basis to
continue in joint progress.
I believe Mr. Latta had something he wanted to put in the
record on behalf of Chairman Upton.
Mr. Latta. Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do
have a letter from the Wi-Fi Alliance and I would ask unanimous
consent to have it submitted for the record, and ask for all
the parties to work together, especially in the 5 gigahertz
band, to get this thing moving.
Mr. Walden. Without objection, it will be entered into the
record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Walden. Again, we want to thank you all for your
counsel and your hard work, and we look forward to continuing
to free up spectrum and create jobs and take care of our men
and women in uniform and their needs.
So with that, the hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]