[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OUR WIRELESS FUTURE: BUILDING A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO SPECTRUM
POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 16, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-54
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-711 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Chairman
JERRY McNERNEY, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York Ranking Member
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia PETE OLSON, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
ANNA G. ESHOO, California BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILLY LONG, Missouri
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina BILL FLORES, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California, Vice SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Chair TIM WALBERG, Michigan
PETER WELCH, Vermont GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
TONY CARDENAS, California
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Witnesses
Julius P. Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology,
Federal Communications Commission.............................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Answers to submitted questions............................... 196
Derek Khlopin, Senior Policy Advisor, National Telecommunications
and Information Administration, Department of Commerce......... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Answers to submitted questions............................... 200
Jeffrey S. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Director of Government
Relations, APCO International.................................. 60
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Michael Calabrese, Director, Wireless Future Project, Open
Technology Institute at New America............................ 68
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Answers to submitted questions............................... 201
Mariel Triggs, Chief Executive Officer, MuralNet................. 84
Prepared statement........................................... 86
Tim Donovan, Senior Vice President, Legislative Affairs,
Competitive Carriers Association............................... 97
Prepared statement........................................... 99
Scott Bergmann, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA.. 119
Prepared statement........................................... 121
Answers to submitted questions............................... 203
Peter Pitsch, Executive Vice President, Advocacy and Government
Relations, C-Band Alliance..................................... 135
Prepared statement........................................... 137
Submitted Material
Letter of June 25, 2019, from Wilbur Ross, Secretary, Department
of Commerce, to Senator Ron Johnson, submitted by Mr. Doyle.... 160
Article, ``Your 5G Phone Won't Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to
Think Otherwise,'' by William J. Broad, New York Times, May 12,
2019, submitted by Mr. Walden.................................. 163
Letter of June 11, 2019, from Ajit V. Pai, Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission, to Hon. Marie Cantwell, Ranking
Member, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted by Mr. Johnson....................... 172
Letter of June 21, 2019, from Steve B. Sharkey, Vice President,
Government Affairs, Technology and Engineering Policy, T-
Mobile, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, submitted by Mr. Doyle \1\
Letter of June 16, 2019, from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Intelligent Transportation Society of
America, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle.... 178
Report, ``Smarter and More Efficient: How America's Wireless
Industry Maximizes Its Spectrum,'' CTIA, submitted by Mr. Doyle 181
Statement of Joe Kane, Technology and Innovation Policy Fellow, R
Street Institute, July 16, 2019, submitted by Mr. Doyle \2\
Statement of the American Public Power Association, et al., July
16, 2019, submitted by Mr. Doyle............................... 192
----------
\1\ The letter and an accompanying 31-page report have been retained in
committee files and also are available at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF16/20190716/109797/HHRG-116-IF16-20190716-SD006.pdf.
\2\ The R Street statement been retained in committee files and also is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20190716/109797/
HHRG-116-IF16-20190716-SD009.pdf.
OUR WIRELESS FUTURE: BUILDING A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO SPECTRUM
POLICY
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:28 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Doyle
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Doyle, McNerney, Clarke,
Loebsack, Veasey, O'Halleran, Eshoo, Butterfield, Matsui,
Welch, Lujan, Schrader, Cardenas, Dingell, Pallone (ex
officio), Latta (subcommittee ranking member), Shimkus, Olson,
Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores, Brooks, Walberg,
Gianforte, and Walden (ex officio).
Staff present: AJ Brown, Counsel; Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff
Director; Jennifer Epperson, FCC Detailee; Evan Gilbert, Deputy
Press Secretary; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief Counsel,
Communications and Consumer Protection; Jerry Leverich, Senior
Counsel; Dan Miller, Policy Analyst; Meghan Mullon, Staff
Assistant; Phil Murphy, Policy Coordinator; Joe Orlando, Staff
Assistant; Alivia Roberts, Press Assistant; Tim Robinson, Chief
Counsel; Rebecca Tomilchik, Staff Assistant; Mike Bloomquist,
Minority Staff Director; S. K. Bowen, Minority Press Assistant;
Michael Engel, Minority Detailee, Communications and
Technology; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Minority Staff Assistant;
Tim Kurth, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Communications and
Technology; and Brannon Rains, Minority Legislative Clerk.
Mr. Doyle. The Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology will now come to order.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to this
subcommittee's first hearing on wireless spectrum policy. I
would also like to thank our two panels of witnesses for
appearing before us today to discuss these important issues.
Wireless spectrum enables much of technology that powers
our modern economy. From connecting/streaming Netflix over Wi-
Fi or listening to Spotify on your phone, these technologies
rely on spectrum that has been carefully licensed and
coordinated by the FCC. As we look to the future and the
explosion of smart home devices, like digital assistants and
connected appliances and smart city technologies, such as
connected infrastructure and smart environmental sensors, it is
clear that this is just the beginning.
To meet the current demand and enable future needs, we need
a national spectrum policy that incentives innovation and
provides opportunities for new technologies and new entrants.
The challenge we face today is just how constrained our
spectrum resources are. While there are some greenfield
spectrum opportunities, they are few and far between.
The Federal Government is the largest holder of spectrum
and, as such, much of the new spectrum being made available for
commercial purposes is repurposed from Federal agencies. In the
past, this process has worked well, with the NTIA coordinating
Federal spectrum use and working with the FCC, impacted
agencies, and stakeholders to transition spectrum to the
private sector without impacting critical Federal users.
I am very concerned that there has been a breakdown between
the FCC, NTIA, and other Federal stakeholders. Over the last
year and a half, several Federal agencies have expressed deep
concerns about a number of FCC proceedings relating to spectrum
policy, including the Department of Education, the Department
of Transportation, the Defense Department, the Department of
Commerce, and NOAA.
You know it is a strange day when Democrats agree with
Secretary DeVos about education policy, but many of us here are
concerned that the FCC's recent order regarding the educational
broadband service effectively stripped the education purpose
and benefit from the band. It is also concerning that NOAA and
the Department of Commerce continue to assert that the recently
completed auction of 24 gigahertz band could have serious
impact on NOAA's ability to forecast hurricanes.
It makes a great deal of sense to look at bands and
repurpose them as needed, but it is very concerning when
Cabinet officials are publicly fighting with the FCC over
spectrum policy. I am deeply concerned that this process has
broken down and that the American people are going to be the
ones that suffer. These challenges aren't new, and policymaker
and stakeholders are in a constant struggle to enable spectrum
to be shared more efficiently or to be transitioned to better
uses.
Today, Congress has an opportunity with the so-called C-
band, and I am happy to have several witnesses testifying on
the second panel who can discuss this opportunity as well as
the challenges in transitioning it. Through congressional
action, I believe that this band can provide consumers,
incumbent users, satellite operators, wireless companies, and
new entrants an incredible opportunity.
Congresswoman Matsui and I are working on a proposal to
make a significant amount of mid-band spectrum available over
the next 5 years and in a way that helps accelerate deployment
of 5G. We also hope that a portion of the proceeds from this
transaction can be used for the priorities that this committee
has focused on for so long: rural broadband deployment, Next
Generation 9-1-1, and closing the digital divide.
We hope to work together with our friends, my ranking
member, Mr. Latta, with ranking member of the full committee
Mr. Walden and all our colleagues on the Republican side and
the Senate to help facilitate that transition and ensure all
Americans can benefit from the opportunities these new
technologies offer.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle
Good morning, I'd like to welcome everyone to this
subcommittee's first hearing on wireless spectrum policy. I'd
also like to thank our two panels of witnesses for appearing
before us today to discuss these important issues.
Wireless spectrum enables much of technology that powers
our modern economy. From connecting streaming Netflix over Wi-
Fi or listening to Spotify on your phone, these technologies
rely on spectrum that has been carefully licensed and
coordinated by the FCC. As we look to the future and the
explosion of smart home devices, like digital assistants and
connected appliances, and smart city technologies such as
connected infrastructure and smart environmental sensors, it is
clear, this is just the beginning.
To meet current demand and enable future needs we need a
national spectrum policy that incentivizes innovation and
provides opportunities for new technologies and new entrants.
The challenge we face today, is just how constrained our
spectrum resources are. While there are some greenfield
spectrum opportunities, they are few and far between.
The Federal Government is the largest holder of spectrum,
and as such, much of the new spectrum being made available for
commercial purposes is repurposed from Federal agencies.
In the past this process has worked well, with the NTIA
coordinating Federal spectrum use and working with the FCC,
impacted agencies, and stakeholders to transition spectrum to
the private sector without impacting critical Federal users.
I'm very concerned that there has been a breakdown between
the FCC, NTIA and other Federal stakeholders. Over the last
year and a half, several Federal agencies have expressed deep
concerns about a number of FCC proceedings related to spectrum
policy including the Department of Education, the Department of
Transportation, the Defense Department, the Department of
Commerce, and NOAA.
It's a strange day when Democrats agree with Secretary
Devos about education policy, but many of us are concerned that
the FCC's recent order regarding the Educational Broadband
Service effectively stripped the educational purpose and
benefit from the band.
It's also concerning that NOAA and the Department of
Commerce continue to assert that the recently completed auction
the 24 gigahertz band could have serious impacts on NOAA's
ability to forecast hurricanes.
It makes a great deal of sense to look at bands and to
repurpose them as needed, but it's very concerning when Cabinet
officials are publicly fighting with the FCC over spectrum
policy. I'm deeply concerned that this process has broken down
that the American people are going to be the ones that suffer.
These challenges aren't new, and policymakers and
stakeholders are in a constant struggle to enable spectrum to
be shared more efficiently or to be transitioned to better
uses.
Today, Congress has an opportunity with the so called ``C-
band.'' I'm happy to have several witnesses testifying on the
second panel who can discuss this opportunity as well the
challenges in transitioning it. Through Congressional action, I
believe that this band can provide consumers, incumbent users,
satellite operators, wireless companies, and new entrants an
incredible opportunity.
Congresswoman Matsui and I are working on a proposal to
make a significant amount of mid-band spectrum available over
the next 5 years, and in a way that helps accelerate the
deployment of 5G.
We also hope that a portion of the proceeds of this
transaction can be used for the priorities that this committee
has focused on for so long, rural broadband deployment, Next
Generation 9-1-1, and closing the digital divide.
We hope to work together with Ranking Members Latta and
Walden and our colleagues in the Senate to help facilitate this
transition and ensure that all Americans can benefit from the
opportunities these new technologies offer.
I yield the balance of my time to the vice chair of the
subcommittee and my good friend Doris Matsui.
Mr. Doyle. I want to yield the balance of my time to the
vice chair of the subcommittee and my good friend, Doris
Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I said before in the FCC oversight hearing in May, the
C-band has been one of the most complex and high-stakes
proceedings in front of the Commission and Congress. And that
is why I released the WIN 5G Act, to propose a compromise,
consensus-based approach to rapidly reallocate the spectrum in
a manner that addresses many of the concerns raised on the
Commission's record.
Of note, the WIN 5G Act solves the legal issues presented
by an FCC action that would otherwise be hamstrung by the
holdout problem and creates a funding opportunity for rural
broadband deployment. I am pleased that it has the support of
wireless, rural, and cable stakeholders, including many of
those represented here today.
I do look forward to working with the chairman, the members
of this committee, and all interested parties to ensure C-band
spectrum is reallocated quickly and equitably. We cannot afford
to wait while this proceeding is tied up in court.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Latta, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5
minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate
the subcommittee holding this hearing today, and I thank both
our panels of witnesses for testifying today, especially our
government witnesses that are here on pretty short notice. But
thanks very much for being here.
I am pleased that this subcommittee is returning to the
importance subject of spectrum policy. As the colead of both
the Wi-Fi Caucus and the Rural Broadband Caucus, I know there
is a careful balance we must achieve as we seek to clear more
spectrum for our marketplace. Only through sound, transparent,
light-touch policies formed through effective coordination
between government, consumers, and industry stakeholders, we
will guarantee U.S. leadership in the next generation of
wireless connectivity.
This approach to the deployment of 5G will ensure that all
people in all sectors of our economy can benefit from its
innovative ripple effect. We will cover a lot of territory
today, but it is important that the testimonies be considered
in totality, as we examine the implementation of key building
blocks such as clearing spectrum for nationwide 5G deployment.
The FCC has made a huge swath of mid-band spectrum
available in the incentive auction and has also successfully
auctioned off spectrum in the high band. I appreciate that the
agency recognizes the importance of making America a leader in
5G and continue to focus efforts on clearing additional bands.
There is no doubt that 5G will benefit urban areas, but I
am also excited how it remakes internet traffic management to
prioritize low-band and mid-band spectrum for our rural areas.
In cities, the dense, high-speed networks provided over
millimeter wave spectrum will unleash unlimited possibilities
for the Internet of Things. Therefore, we must not undervalue
the benefit of high-band spectrum, as its quick deployment will
make such IoT synergies possible as we add capacity. 5G will
truly be disruptive in every sector from new technologies and
innovations to an expanded workforce.
We must also discuss other technologies that play a
critical role in connecting Americans and supporting 5G, such
as Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi is convenient deployment that all people
enjoyed and was meant to simply offer a no-wire solution.
Certainly, its impact has been underestimated. We live in an
increasingly connected world, from streaming live TV from a
handheld device to smart thermostats, to self-driving cars.
Given the integration of Wi-Fi into our daily lives, I am
intrigued by the FCC's recent proposal to expand unlicensed use
in the 6 gigahertz band. Doing so would enable Wi-Fi to provide
affordable connectivity across the country, assuming such uses
would not come at the detriment of another user.
Just as 5G and Wi-Fi are essential components to our
telecommunications landscape, so is wireless broadband. Closing
the digital divide is one of my top priorities, and the
wireless broadband is part of the solution. Spectrum can help
students complete their homework, hospitals perform offsite
tests and patient checkups, and farmers operate precision
agricultural equipment. In my district, I have witnessed
firsthand the incredible value wireless technologies have on
precision agriculture, such as drones and self-driving tractors
that assist farmers with monitoring crops and livestock and
analyzing soil.
Access to broadband should not be dependent on one
technology, and spectrum allows for another avenue of delivery.
Spectrum is a valuable, yet limited, resource that benefits
consumers in so many ways. That is why we must have balanced
policies that efficiently utilize bands, encourage innovations,
and effectively address our Nation's needs.
I will look forward to working with the chairman and the
members of the subcommittee as we continue our pursuit to reach
such policy solutions and to keep America ahead of the
international competition and win the 5G race.
Again, I want to thank the witnesses for being with us
today.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the subcommittee
holding this hearing today and I thank both panels of witnesses
for testifying, especially our Government witnesses that are
appearing on short notice.
I am pleased this subcommittee is returning to the
important subject of spectrum policy. As the colead to both the
Wi-Fi Caucus and the Rural Broadband Caucus, I know there is a
careful balance we must achieve as we seek to clear more
spectrum for the marketplace. Only through sound transparent
light-touch policies, formed through effective coordination
between government, consumers, and industry stakeholders, will
we guarantee U.S. leadership in Next Generation wireless
connectivity. This approach to the deployment of 5G will ensure
that all people and all sectors of our economy can benefit from
its innovative ripple effect. We will cover a lot of territory
today, but it's important that the testimonies be considered in
totality as we examine the implementation of key building
blocks, such as clearing spectrum, for nationwide 5G
deployment.
The FCC has made a huge swath of mid-band spectrum
available in the incentive auction and has also successfully
auctioned off spectrum in the high-band. I appreciate that the
agency recognizes the importance of making America a leader in
5G and continue to focus efforts on clearing additional bands.
There is no doubt that 5G will benefit urban areas, but I am
also excited how it remakes internet traffic management to
prioritize low-band and mid-band spectrum for rural areas. In
cities, the dense, high-speed networks provided over millimeter
wave spectrum will unleash unlimited possibilities through the
Internet of Things. Therefore, we must not undervalue the
benefit of high-band spectrum as its quick deployment will make
such IoT synergies possible as we add capacity. 5G will truly
be disruptive in every sector from new technologies and
innovations to an expanded workforce.
We must also discuss other technologies that play a
critical role in connecting Americans and supporting 5G, such
as Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi is a convenient development that all people
enjoy and was meant to simply offer a no-wire solution.
Certainly, its impact has been underestimated as we live in an
increasingly connected world from streaming live TV from a
hand-held device to smart thermostats to self-driving cars.
Given the integration of Wi-Fi into our daily lives, I am
intrigued by the FCC's recent proposal to expand unlicensed use
in the 6 gigahertz band. Doing so would enable Wi-Fi to provide
affordable connectivity across the country, assuming such uses
would not come at the detriment of another user.
Just as 5G and Wi-Fi are essential components to our
telecommunications landscape, so is wireless broadband. Closing
the digital divide is one of my top priorities, and wireless
broadband is part of the solution. Spectrum can help students
complete their homework, hospitals perform off-site tests and
patient check-ups, and farmers operate precision agriculture
equipment. In my district, I've witnessed first-hand the
incredible value wireless technologies have on precision
agriculture--such as drones and self-driving tractors that
assist farmers with monitoring crops and livestock and
analyzing soil. Access to broadband should not be dependent on
one technology and spectrum allows for another avenue of
delivery.
Spectrum is a valuable, yet limited resource that benefits
consumers in so many ways. That is why we must have balanced
policies that efficiently utilize bands, encourage innovation,
and effectively address our Nation's needs. I look forward to
working with the chairman and the members of the subcommittee
as we continue our pursuit to reach such policy solutions, and
to keep America ahead of the international competition to win
the race to 5G. Thank you again to our witnesses and I yield
back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Pallone, the chairman of the full committee, for
5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The topic of today's hearing is important because, in the
same way that we manage our water, our air, and our other
natural resources, we must manage our airwaves. And that means
carefully and deliberately allocating spectrum for the benefit
of consumers, whether they live in a dense, urban metropolis or
in remote rural areas.
If we manage our airwaves correctly, new wireless
technologies, including 5G, promise to meaningfully improve the
lives of Americans, and educational institutions, like Rutgers
in my home State, will be able to provide greater access to
their world-class education. Telehealth services will be able
to better bring medical care to those in need over vast
distances to keep us healthier, and small businesses will be
given tools to help them better compete with big corporations.
So smart spectrum management is also critical for public
safety. In the face of increasingly frequent natural disasters,
new 5G technologies could help first responders better locate
us when we call 9-1-1 or help spread the word during an
impending natural disaster, so that we can prepare. And these
examples just scratch the surface of why it is so important
that we work together on a comprehensive spectrum policy.
Unfortunately, despite the hard work of incredibly skilled
career civil servants like those testifying before us today, I
am increasingly concerned that this administration is not up to
the task. It seems that, as a nation, we are somehow unable to
cobble together a coherent policy for managing our airwaves.
Right now, there is a leadership vacuum, and I am concerned
that too few people in our government understand that our
agencies' spectrum needs must be coordinated and the Government
must speak with one voice.
A few years ago, Congress, the FCC, and the NTIA were
working hard to keep the mobile economy moving forward, but
that is not the case anymore. Today, the Trump FCC goes one
way, the Commerce Department and NTIA go another. Then, you
have other departments throughout the Federal Government, like
the Departments of Transportation, Education, and Defense,
voicing their own opinions about how spectrum should be used.
And this lack of coordination affects a mind-numbing list of
important bands of spectrum. In my opinion, the process has
completely broken down.
So, to be clear, this reality does not reflect the system
that Congress created and that this committee has relied on for
years. Under the law, Congress charged the FCC with managing
commercial uses of spectrum while we charged the NTIA with
managing Federal spectrum use. And up until now, that meant we
had two agencies working together on relevant policy, but not
anymore, unfortunately. I don't think it has to be this way.
Spectrum is at its heart a bipartisan issue. It is a rural and
an urban issue. And it is not all bad news. The FCC is still
conducting auctions and working towards making more unlicensed
spectrum and shared-use spectrum available.
And I also have tremendous confidence in the bipartisan
leadership of this committee--of this subcommittee, I should
say. Mr. Doyle, in the past, we have worked successfully on
spectrum policy and passed laws such as the RAY BAUM'S Act, the
Spectrum Pipeline Act, and the 2012 Spectrum Act. So, I look
forward to working with my colleagues to find a consensus
approach--you are known for that--to fill this void left by
this administration and resolve the pressing spectrum issues
before us, including the disposition of the C-band, and how we
resolve that, being it is incredibly important, and troubling
questions remain about the ongoing process at the FCC.
So, it is clear that Congress has to legislate to resolve
these concerns and provide the greatest benefits to consumers
with a transparent process that generates revenue for the
Treasury. And I know we are up to that, and hopefully, that is
what we will achieve after this hearing over the next few
months.
So, thank you again, Chairman Doyle.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
The topic of today's hearing is important, because in the
same way that we manage our water, our air, and other natural
resources, we must manage our airwaves. That means carefully
and deliberately allocating spectrum for the benefit of
consumers, whether they live in a dense urban metropolis or in
remote rural areas.
If we manage our airwaves correctly, new wireless
technologies, including 5G, promise to meaningfully improve the
lives of Americans. Educational institutions like Rutgers in my
district will be able to provide greater access to their world-
class education. Telehealth services will be able to better
bring medical care to those in need over vast distances to keep
us healthier. And small businesses will be given tools to help
them better compete with big corporations.
Smart spectrum management is also critical for public
safety. In the face of increasingly frequent natural disasters,
new 5G technologies could help first responders better locate
us when we call 9-1-1 or help spread the word during an
impending natural disaster so that we can prepare.
These examples just scratch the surface of why it is so
important that we work together on a comprehensive spectrum
policy.
Unfortunately, despite the hard work of incredibly skilled
career civil servants like those testifying before us today,
I'm increasingly concerned that this administration is not up
to the task. It seems that, as a nation, we are somehow unable
to cobble together a coherent policy for managing our airwaves.
Right now there is a leadership vacuum. And I'm concerned that
too few people in our government understand that our agencies'
spectrum needs must be coordinated, and the Government must
speak with one voice.
A few years ago, Congress, the FCC, and the NTIA were
working hard to keep the mobile economy moving forward. That's
not the case anymore. Today, the Trump FCC goes one way, the
Commerce Department and NTIA go another. Then you have other
departments throughout the Federal Government, like the
Departments of Transportation, Education and Defense voicing
their own opinions about how spectrum should be used. This lack
of coordination affects a mind-numbing list of important bands
of spectrum. In my opinion, the process has completely broken
down.
To be clear this reality does not reflect the system that
Congress created and that this committee has relied on for
years. Under the law, Congress charged the FCC with managing
commercial uses of spectrum while we charged the NTIA with
managing Federal spectrum use. And up until now, that meant we
had two agencies working together on relevant policy, but not
anymore.
It doesn't have to be this way. Spectrum is, at its heart,
a bipartisan issue. It's a rural issue and an urban issue. And
it's not all bad news. The FCC is still conducting auctions and
working toward making more unlicensed spectrum and shared-use
spectrum available.
I also have tremendous confidence in the bipartisan
leadership of this subcommittee. In the past, we've worked
successfully on spectrum policy and passed laws such as the
RAYBAUM'S Act, the Spectrum Pipeline Act, and the 2012 Spectrum
Act.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to find a
consensus approach to fill the void left by this administration
and resolve the pressing spectrum issues before us, including
the disposition of the C-band. How we resolve that band is
incredibly important and troubling questions remain about the
ongoing process at the FCC.
It's clear that Congress must legislate to resolves these
concerns and provide the greatest benefit to consumers, with a
transparent process that generates revenue for the Treasury.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, my friend
Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to say at the head-in to the comments by my
friend from New Jersey, the conflict going on in the
administration right now on this matter is a bit troubling. We
all know we had a good NTIA Director in place and things were
going swimmingly, and then, they weren't. And I will express my
dissatisfaction with what is happening as well out of Commerce
and elsewhere.
I want to welcome our witnesses to this hearing on
spectrum. Almost 2 years ago, we held a hearing on the so-
called race to 5G, and as I said then, it is a sprint, not a
marathon. Some may be concerned about overhyping the situation
such competitive technology may have, but I believe it is even
more disconcerting if we undersell the importance of this.
As we speak, competitors in Asia and Europe are running
full speed ahead to be the global leader. Maybe we need an even
more dramatic term to convey the immediacy of the situation.
Our success in the 5G race will revolutionize American
competitiveness and further strengthen our position in the
global economy. This is really important stuff.
As you all know, I grew up in the radio business. Probably
the only member of this committee that has--I know maybe Billy
Long has--wired in a transmitter or two.
[Laughter.]
But a lot has changed since the '96 Telecom Act--he always
got higher ratings than I think I ever got on air, but I had
the face for radio--which focused primarily on how local long-
distance rates could be more competitive. But, ultimately, the
'96 Act instilled the light-touch regulatory regime that
provided the building blocks to the internet infrastructure we
have come to know and depend on.
Similarly, the 5G revolution will deliver on priorities
that this committee, and I think our country, share. From
closing the digital divide, making cities smarter, improving
the grid, these consumer benefits will mean faster and more
advanced services with billions of devices expected to come
online as part of the Internet of Things.
So we have to be strategic in how we do this. We have to be
smart and unified in how we do this. Spectrum availability,
infrastructure deployment, risks to our supply chain, all these
need to be worked out together. If we fall behind on any one
aspect, it will be a detriment to our future. If you think that
sounds too dramatic, let me suggest our adversaries are very
focused. They know what needs to happen here.
The potential threats represented by equipment from
suspected entities, it has been well publicized. So I won't
spend a lot of time on that. But I would reference the New York
Times story on Russian propaganda efforts in this space. The
story is headlined ``Your 5G Phone Won't Hurt You. But Russia
Wants You to Think Otherwise.'' It is a review of a media
outlet known as RT America running stories of health risks of
5G deployment. RT America, of course, is a division of Russia
Today, which has been referred to as, quote, ``the Kremlin's
principal international propaganda outlet''--close quote--by
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
We certainly should not dismiss whether there are health
concerns. We need to make sure there are not. So I will look
forward to hearing from our expert witnesses on this panel.
However, I must say, when a Russian outlet is reporting on
this, and at the same time Russia is pushing ahead with their
own 5G efforts, maybe there is something else going on here.
Moving forward to become the world's leader in 5G
deployment means we have got to make some tough decisions. The
5G marketplace requires more spectrum, and it does so as
quickly as possible. So, we need to carefully balance this
demand with our responsibility to consider the effects on
incumbent spectrum users and the value they provide to American
consumers.
Look, we have done this before multiple times--with
agencies, with the private sector--to free up spectrum and
benefit consumers. So, with your help today, we will continue
down this path. And then, my constituents and those across the
country can eventually enjoy the 5G revolution, greater
connectivity, and a more dynamic economy.
With that, Mr. Chairman, unless anybody on our side wants
the remaining minute, I will yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome our witnesses to this hearing on
spectrum. Almost two years ago, we held a hearing on the so-
called Race to 5G, and as I said at the hearing--this is a
sprint, not a marathon. Some may be concerned about overhyping
the situation using such competitive terminology, but I believe
it's even more disconcerting if we undersell. Even as we speak,
competitors in Asia and Europe are running full speed ahead to
be the global leader. Maybe we need an even more dramatic term
to convey the immediacy of the situation, and how our success
in the 5G race will revolutionize American competitiveness and
further strengthen our position in the global economy.
As you all know, my background is in radio. My wife and I
owned and operated our own radio station in Oregon for many
years. I'm pretty sure I'm the only Member of Congress who has
ever had to wire in a transmitter! But it has been remarkable
to witness the acceleration of change and advancement in
technology in recent years. For example, think back to the 1996
Telecommunications Act, which focused primarily on how local
and long-distance rates could become more competitive. But
ultimately, this bill instilled the light-touch regulatory
regime that provided the building blocks to the internet
infrastructure we have come to know and depend on. Similarly,
the 5G revolution will deliver on priorities for this
committee--from closing the digital divide, making cities
smarter, to improving our grid, consumer benefits such as
faster and more advanced devices and the Internet of Things,
improved industrial manufacturing, improved health care
outcomes, and of course the future of transportation--to things
we can't fully conceptualize today.
We need to be thinking strategically about spectrum
availability, infrastructure deployment, and risks to our
supply chain as all of these pieces need to work together in
unison for our success in 5G.
If we fall behind on any one aspect, it will be a detriment
to our future. If you think that sounds too dramatic, our
adversaries certainly understand this fact. The potential
threats represented by equipment from suspect entities has been
well publicized, so I will not eat up a lot of discussion here
on that issue, which will be better addressed at a hearing on
supply chain we will hopefully have here soon. I'm referring to
the recent report by The New York Times on Russian propaganda
efforts. The story, ``Your 5G Phone Won't Hurt You. But Russia
Wants You to Think Otherwise,'' is a review of a media outlet
known as RT America running stories of health risks of 5G
deployment. RT America of course is a division of Russia Today,
which has been referred to as ``the Kremlin's principal
international propaganda outlet'' by the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence. We certainly shouldn't dismiss
whether there is a health concern, so I will look forward to
hearing from the expert panel. However, I must say when a
Russian outlet is reporting on this and at the same time Russia
is pushing ahead with their 5G efforts, we should take that
into account in considering the stakes.
Moving forward, to become the world's leader in 5G
deployment brings tough decisions. The 5G marketplace requires
more spectrum as quickly as possible. We must also carefully
balance this demand with our responsibility to consider the
effects on incumbent spectrum users, and the value they provide
to the American consumer. Today's witnesses can help us refine
this equation, and I look forward to hearing how all Americans,
particularly those in rural areas like Oregon, can receive the
full benefits of the 5G revolution.
Remembering back to our previous efforts, it will take this
committee exercising its expertise on this sector, working in a
bipartisan manner, and finding the right recipe needed on
regulatory reforms and international harmonization to make this
technology a reality.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
And I would say to the gentleman, we look forward to
working with you on this in a bipartisan fashion to get it
done.
OK. I would now like to introduce our first panel of
witnesses today: the Honorable Julius P. Knapp, Chief of the
Office of Engineering and Technology at the Federal
Communications Commission, and the Honorable Derek Khlopin,
Senior Policy Advisor at the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration.
We want to thank you both for joining us today. We look
forward to your testimony.
At this time, the Chair will now recognize each witness for
5 minutes to provide their opening statement.
Before we begin, I would like to explain our lighting
system. In front of you is a series of lights. The light will
initially be green at the start of your opening statement. It
will turn yellow when you have 1 minute remaining. Please begin
to wrap up your testimony at that point. The light will turn
red when your time expires.
Mr. Knapp, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF JULIUS P. KNAPP, CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, AND DEREK
KHLOPIN, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
STATEMENT OF JULIUS P. KNAPP
Mr. Knapp. Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this
hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with an
update on the FCC's activities on spectrum.
Spectrum management is woven into the fabric of the FCC
across all of our bureaus and offices. And I have the privilege
of leading our Office of Engineering and Technology, where I
have served as an engineer for, I shudder to admit, 45 years
now. My office works closely with the other FCC bureaus and
offices to ensure our recommendations to the Chairman and
Commissioners on spectrum matters are based on sound
engineering and efficient use of the airwaves.
The Commission is hard at work implementing a balanced
spectrum policy that is responsive to the many demands for
spectrum, including 5G, new satellite services, unlicensed
advanced spectrum sharing, rural use, and so forth. And I would
like to highlight some of the things we have been working on.
A top priority for the Commission is to ensure the U.S.
maintains and advances its leadership in 5G, the next
generation of wireless technology. To realize this potential,
Chairman Pai developed and we are executing the 5G FAST Plan, a
comprehensive strategy that will facilitate America's
superiority in 5G technology. And it consists of three central
components: freeing up more spectrum, promoting wireless
infrastructure deployment, and modernizing our regulations to
promote more fiber deployment. And I would like to just focus
on the spectrum aspects.
So 5G networks are going to be woven together with a
combination of low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum. The low-band
spectrum is important for coverage, particularly in the rural
areas. The mid-band spectrum provides a great mix of coverage
and capacity, and the high-band spectrum provides much greater
capacity and delivers fastest speeds, and it is well-suited for
urban areas.
On the low-band spectrum, the Commission conducted a
successful broadcast incentive auction that yielded 84
megahertz of spectrum for wireless broadband services. The
Commission is also taking several actions to make mid-band
spectrum available for 5G. Last week, for example, the
Commission revised its rules for the 2.5 gigahertz band to make
this valuable spectrum available for 5G, much of which
currently lies fallow in rural areas.
This is going to be accomplished by allowing incumbents
greater flexibility in their use of spectrum, providing a
priority window for Tribal nations to obtain unassigned
spectrum, and introducing a spectrum auction that will ensure
that this public resource is devoted to its highest-valued use.
We are anticipating holding the spectrum auction next year.
The Commission also made available 150 megahertz of
spectrum in the 3.5 gigahertz band, which is known as the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service. We are well along in that
process, and it is our hope that very soon we will be able to
approve initial commercial deployments in that spectrum.
We have also moved ahead with a rulemaking on what is
called C-band, the 3.7 to 4.2 gigahertz band, and to make part
or all of that spectrum available for flexible use. And the
Commission is considering a number of proposals for how we
might go about repurposing that spectrum, including through
market mechanisms and auctions. It is a very complicated
proceeding, and the Chairman has indicated that we will have
results to show on this front this fall.
Turning to high-band spectrum, we have had successful
auctions of 24 and 28 gigahertz. And let me just turn, in the
interest of time, as well to unlicensed, which is also a very
important part of our strategy. We recently modified our rules
for the TV white spaces to make them more amenable for
deployment. Last year, we proposed to open up as much as 1200
megahertz of spectrum in the 6 gigahertz region for unlicensed
use, while protecting the incumbent uses, and we are hard at
work on that proceeding as well. And we have also been looking
at proceeding at 5.9 gigahertz for unlicensed sharing with
Intelligent Transportation Services.
The Commission is also taking a number of actions in the
areas of advanced spectrum sharing, support for space services
in preparation for the upcoming World Radio Conference. And in
the interest of time, I would refer you to my written
testimony.
Lastly, I want to recognize the outstanding staff of the
FCC who day in and day out dedicate themselves to finding
solutions to these very difficult problems.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knapp follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Knapp.
Mr. Khlopin, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DEREK KHLOPIN
Mr. Khlopin. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of
the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on NTIA's activities regarding spectrum management and
spectrum policy.
Radio frequency spectrum is a finite resource. Yet, demand
for it only continues to grow on an increasingly larger scale,
but with shorter expected timelines. This is in large part
because so many of our national priorities come with spectrum
requirements, including U.S. leadership in 5G wireless, space
exploration and commerce, artificial intelligence, autonomous
vehicles, and other emerging technologies. It is also
fundamental to maintaining our global military superiority,
protecting the safety of our national airspace, and forecasting
the all-too-frequent weather events that devastate our
communities.
Our spectrum management and policy decisions must take into
account and balance all of these and other important interests.
It is a difficult task, but we have no choice but to succeed.
NTIA sits right in the middle of this important decisionmaking
process.
NTIA manages use of spectrum by the U.S. Government,
accommodating the diverse and compelling spectrum requirements
of Federal programs while at the same time seeking
opportunities to expand spectrum access for private-sector and
other non-Federal Government spectrum users.
President Trump has declared the U.S. must win the race to
5G. 5G connectivity is expected to become essential to the
American economy, to national security, and to our continued
leadership in the information age. Some estimates have 5G
creating up to 3 million new American jobs and generating $500
billion a year in economic growth. The figures are stunning,
and they help demonstrate why we must accelerate and succeed in
5G.
These networks also must be the most secure and reliable in
the world. We will continue to create the conditions for 5G to
prosper in the U.S. NTIA and the Department of Commerce are
taking numerous actions to ensure U.S. 5G leadership. These
include efforts to secure 5G equipment and supply chains in the
country, to engage with our allies around the world on these
concerns, to support U.S. industry in global standards
development, and to conduct and coordinate targeted research
activities. But my focus today is on our efforts to identify
spectrum bands that can support 5G.
NTIA continues to work with the FCC, with the support and
direction of Congress, to significantly increase commercial
access to scores of frequencies across low-, mid-, and high-
frequency bands. The efforts to date have been very successful.
The U.S. currently leads the world in spectrum made available
for mobile wireless services with almost 6 gigahertz for
licensed exclusive use, and the more than 3 gigahertz of
additional spectrum is under active study. So, we could be at 9
gigahertz soon for commercial use. And this does not include
spectrum for unlicensed and satellite uses that will also have
a role in 5G connectivity.
So it is very exciting, but we are very well aware that we
have more work to do, especially with respect to the mid-band
spectrum that industry is coveting. NTIA continues to make
progress on this front. We are excited for the approaching
launch of the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, or CBRS, in the
dynamically shared Federal and non-Federal 3.5 band. It has
been a great example of interagency cooperation.
NTIA and its research arm, the Institute for
Telecommunication Sciences, has worked closely with the FCC,
the Department of Defense, and industry to enable the
innovative sharing framework. In addition, NTIA and the DoD are
studying the feasibility of shared access by commercial systems
to neighboring frequencies at 3450 to 3450 megahertz. In
combination with other FCC proceedings addressing mid-band, the
U.S. is well positioned to ensure such highly sought-after
frequencies are available for 5G and other services.
NTIA and the Department are also very busy evaluating how
current and future spectrum allocations will help drive a
trillion-dollar space economy. At the direction of the
President, in 2018 the Department through NTIA issued a report
providing recommendations to improve the global competitiveness
of the U.S. space sector through spectrum policies.
NTIA also works to advance U.S. spectrum interests
globally, and this includes representing the Federal
Government's interests at the ITU's World Radio Conference,
which will occur this fall in October in Egypt.
Finally, last October, President Trump issued a
Presidential Memorandum titled, ``Developing a Sustainable
Spectrum Strategy for America's Future''. In the PM, the
President directed Secretary Wilbur Ross, working through NTIA,
to develop and implement a comprehensive, balanced, and
forward-looking National Spectrum Strategy to more effectively
manage our Nation's use of this critical resource. The
Department is on track to submit the strategy to the President
in the coming weeks.
In conclusion, NTIA, on behalf of the administration, takes
a comprehensive approach to our spectrum management and policy
responsibilities. In this way, we ensure the U.S. effectively
and efficiently is putting spectrum to use in ways that drive
our national economic activity and help protect the safety and
security of all Americans.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Khlopin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. I thank the witnesses.
We have now concluded our openings. We are going to move to
Member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask
questions of our witnesses. And I will start by recognizing
myself for 5 minutes.
There has been a lot of concern and confusion regarding the
24 gigahertz band and the level of interference protection
necessary to protect other Federal incumbent users. Among these
users is NOAA, who have claimed that the deployment of 5G in
this band could prevent their weather satellites from
accurately predicting hurricanes and other major weather
events.
Mr. Knapp, my understanding is that NOAA and NASA have
submitted a technical report to the FCC that describes their
concerns related to interference in the 24 gigahertz band based
on updated assumptions related to the propagation of 5G
signals. Has that report been made public or shared with
industry stakeholders? And if not, when do you expect it to be?
Mr. Knapp. The report has not been made public, and it is
not our report. So, that would be up to NOAA and NASA.
Mr. Doyle. To make it public?
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
To both of you, I am concerned that the United States is
going into the World Radio Conference, where an international
interference protection level will be set in this band, and we
don't have a cohesive position. What is the interference level
that your respective agencies believe is appropriate?
Mr. Knapp. So I think the answer is we believe both of
these can live together. They are in separate bands. The
passive satellite band is below 24 gigahertz; the 5G band is
separated by a considerable amount. The Commission adopted a
protection standard that would prevent the interference. That
is why I was hesitating in answer, because we don't look at it
as what is an acceptable level of interference as a standard
that will protect it. And the debate is over what is the
appropriate level, and there are still discussions going on.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Khlopin?
Mr. Khlopin. So, NTIA's role in this process, as you are
aware, is to represent the Federal interest. Some of these
specific questions are best answered by NOAA and NASA that
performed the study. But, as you indicated, they do have a
study available out that they put together that is working
through the deliberative process to come to a final number.
Mr. Doyle. I saw Secretary Ross recently responded to a
letter from Senator Johnson related to the 24 gigahertz band.
In that letter, which I will submit for the record, Secretary
Ross says that an interagency working group had recently
reached a compromise on the interference protection levels in
that band. Can you tell the committee what that compromise is?
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Knapp. From our point of view, there has not been a
compromise. There are still discussions on the levels.
Mr. Doyle. So you are saying Secretary Ross said a
compromise has been reached, and you are saying that hasn't
occurred?
Mr. Knapp. From the perspective of the FCC, we have not
reached a compromise.
Mr. Doyle. When do you think we are going to reach a
compromise?
Mr. Knapp. Well, clearly, we have to have a position before
we go into the CTeL meetings that are coming up in August. And
everybody is working hard to make sure that we get to that
point.
Mr. Doyle. Well, I would agree with that.
Mr. Knapp, let me ask you, do you believe the spectrum-
sharing model adopted in the CBRS band could be adopted in
other bands? Specifically, do you think that using a spectrum
access system could make other encumbered bands accessible on a
shared basis while still protecting incumbent users?
Mr. Knapp. So, the short answer is I think dynamic spectrum
access is a tool that can provide access to other spectrum
bands. I wouldn't look at it as a one-size-fits-all. There are
some complexities about the CBRS sharing approach that might
not be necessary in other bands. But the model I think is one
that we can look at in other bands.
Mr. Doyle. And, Mr. Khlopin, I wanted to ask you, too,
about this Secretary Ross letter. Is it your understanding that
a compromise has been reached, or do you agree with Mr. Knapp
that that hasn't been done?
Mr. Khlopin. So I am certainly not in a position to put
words in the Secretary's mouth or speak for him. I think it was
his understanding that conversations that were had were leading
toward that agreement, but, as Mr. Knapp said, those
discussions continue. So, right now, that process is still
underway.
Mr. Doyle. So why would the Secretary tell Senator Johnson
that a compromise had been reached?
Mr. Khlopin. Because, again, I think that was his
understanding at the time.
Mr. Doyle. Who gave him that understanding?
Mr. Khlopin. That is a part of a larger meeting. Again, I
can't speak for the Secretary. I was not in that meeting.
Mr. Doyle. I see.
I will yield back my time. I am going to now recognize the
ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Latta, for his
questions.
Mr. Latta. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman.
And again, thanks to our witnesses for being with us today.
As the cochair of the Wi-Fi Caucus, I spend a great deal of
time focused on the undeniable benefits of Wi-Fi to American
innovation and economic growth. One of the critical inputs, as
consumers engage with spectrum-intensive applications, is more
spectrum dedicated to unlicensed use.
Mr. Knapp, would you describe the Commission's efforts on
this front and the potential candidates as we look for spectrum
bands that are most able to be quickly repurposed and deployed?
Mr. Knapp. Yes. And I think a common theme as we go through
today's hearing is that none of these are easy. So, as I
mentioned, unlicensed is critically important. I think there is
real synergy between both licensed and unlicensed.
So, right now, we are concentrating on the spectrum around
5 gigahertz that is used by Wi-Fi today and trying to expand
that. We have the proceeding that we are looking at at 5.9
gigahertz and whether we can share with transportation. We
opened up this proceeding at 6 gigahertz, which is 1200
megahertz of spectrum, that could be made available that would
be well-suited for Wi-Fi. We need to protect the incumbents
there. They are a lot of microwave services used by public
safety, the utilities, backhaul. And we are working hard at
that. We are optimistic that we are going to be able to get to
a positive outcome.
Mr. Latta. OK. Well, thank you.
Mr. Khlopin, you discussed in your testimony the National
Spectrum Strategy, and I appreciate the presence and leadership
on the topic. Specifically, you discussed spectrum-sharing
tools. The International Telecommunications Union has adopted
NTIA's software as the global standard to optimize radio-
frequency spectrum sharing between air and ground systems.
Would you share with us about this software and what this will
do to advance the 5G development?
Mr. Khlopin. Sure, and thank you very much for the
question.
The software you are referring to is a software
propagation modeling tool developed by NTIA's ITS, Institute
for Telecommunication Sciences, in Boulder, Colorado, which, as
you indicated, the ITU has officially adopted. What this allows
is to take the propagation, meaning how far a signal travels,
and specifically, this software tool was for working with
ground-based systems and air systems and how they interact and
share spectrum.
The benefits here, it was used when we were looking at the
AWS-3 spectrum made available several years ago and how those
systems would work together. And right now, it is being used by
NTIA's Office of Spectrum Management, and the Department of
Defense as well, to look at 3450-3550 megahertz, key mid-band
spectrum that we have talked about. It could be made available
for 5G. So it has a direct impact on trying to advance
spectrum-sharing. ITS has a long history of leadership there.
It also ties into our National Spectrum Strategy, as we
look for tools that we can collaboratively use across both
spectrum managers and spectrum regulators, spectrum users, to
more efficiently, effectively, and quickly do this analysis, so
we can get spectrum put to better use.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. Knapp, we know there are several American cities that
have deployed 5G, but it seems that a few of the bands' vital
5G deployment, some of which are under discussion today, may be
years from being auctioned. How can the United States get
these, and future bands we are not even discussing, to market
quicker to ensure that we don't lag behind our global
competitors out there?
Mr. Knapp. Yes, absolutely. So we have already auctioned 28
and 24 gigahertz, and you are starting to see deployments
there. You are also seeing some deployments at 39 gigahertz
because of the flexibility we have provided in the rules. It is
often not understood that the way we did things didn't require
everything to be auctioned, because we provided more
flexibility to the existing licenses.
And we are planning to conduct an auction at 37-39 and 47
gigahertz towards the end of this year. And I mentioned, I
think, that at 2.5, an overlay auction next year as well as
auctions of the PAL licenses at 3.5. So, we are moving pretty
quickly across all fronts to auction spectrum.
In these other lower bands, there is flexibility, so that,
for example, in the 6 and even the 7 hundred megahertz existing
bands, it would be up to the carriers when the technology is
ready to deploy there as well.
Mr. Latta. OK. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes--oh, Mr. Pallone is not here and Mr. Walden is not
here. OK. So we will now go to Mr. McNerney. You have 5 minutes
for questions.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairman. I will try not to run
over.
And I thank the witnesses.
This is an inherently bipartisan issue, and the real focus
should be on effective use of the spectrum. Access to
unlicensed spectrum has fostered innovation and created
opportunities in many sectors, revolutionizing areas such as
healthcare, agriculture, and education. This has led to a lot
of benefits across the spectrum in another sense.
Mr. Knapp, do you think freeing up more unlicensed spectrum
is important for continuing to promote innovation?
Mr. Knapp. Long answer: Absolutely.
Mr. McNerney. OK, good. Thank you. That is what I would
hope you would do.
Last month, I, together with several bipartisan members of
this subcommittee, sent a letter to Chairman Pai urging him to
move forward with a rulemaking proceeding that takes a fresh
look at the 5.9 gigahertz band, which provides significant
opportunities for unlicensed usage. I am disappointed that this
isn't on the tentative August open meeting agenda. We are
overdue for reexamining how to reallocate this band so that it
meets the demands of our times and best serves the American
people. It is important that the Commission act quickly to get
this proceeding underway.
The 6 gigahertz band is also critical for providing
unlicensed spectrum. This band is very important for deploying
Next Generation Wi-Fi technology to offer tremendous
opportunities for our customers and our Nation's economy. There
is a record, however, of the 6 gigahertz proceedings that
includes discussions about potential interference with
unlicensed use in this band.
Mr. Knapp, how are things progressing toward finding a
solution that allows unlicensed use of the 6 gigahertz band
while protecting utilities and public safety users?
Mr. Knapp. Yes, thank you for the question.
Things are moving along well. The key challenges there are
all of these point-to-point microwave systems that we have to
make sure we don't interfere with, the public safety systems,
the systems used by the utilities, and so forth. So what we
proposed was an automatic frequency coordination system for
outdoor deployments that makes sure, essentially, we stay out
of the way of the areas that could interfere with those
microwave systems. There is debate about the indoor use and
whether it needs to be included as part of that system or the
power levels are so low and the protections that they can just
operate like your normal system.
So we are continuing to have meetings with stakeholders,
lots of good ideas put forward. And the key is that we want to
move forward and protect the incumbents.
Mr. McNerney. Well, we need to move forward in a timely
fashion.
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. It is certainly an exciting area there.
NTIA's Engineering Lab recently shared its Spectrum Access
System laboratory test results, and they said that there was a
critical part of advancing the sharing model of the Citizens
Band Radio Service in the 3.5 gigahertz band. Mr. Khlopin, can
you explain how these engineering reports are used in
disposition of the 3.5 gigahertz band?
Mr. Khlopin. Sure. I am happy to do so, and some of this, I
think, will actually be a question for the FCC.
But the Spectrum Access Systems are the software
controllers, if you will, to manage the protection for
incumbents there. So, it literally will send signals to the
networks and the devices when channels are available or when
they need to vacate them to protect incumbents. So, the SAS
literally manages that. It is software-based. It is a newer
technology.
What we are working through is a process with the
Commission on how they will be certified. So, the ITS role was
to test the software and work with the SAS vendors. As you
indicated, those draft reports were completed, sent to the SAS
vendors, and ultimately these will end up back at the
Commission for the Commission to do the final certification
approval.
Mr. McNerney. Well, good. I am glad to hear about that. Can
you tell us a little bit more about how the collaboration has
been working?
Mr. Khlopin. The collaboration has been absolutely
fantastic at both NTIA, including ITS, with the FCC, with the
Department of Defense as an important stakeholder there with
the incumbent Navy radars, as well as the industry, the SAS
vendors and other vendors as well, organizations like the
WinnForum, the CBRS Alliance. So it is an extremely great
example of collaboration/coordination that we would like to use
in other places as well, too.
Mr. McNerney. Can you describe the disagreement in the 24
gigahertz band?
Mr. Khlopin. So the disagreement, again, this is, you know,
at a high level it is not so much a disagreement on the
spectrum being made available or an auction occurring. This has
to do with out-of-band emission levels, that there is a long
process for setting these that we continue to work through.
Mr. McNerney. I have heard that we are behind our
competitors with 5G, and I am going to leave that hanging. But
I would like a little explanation of that in the written word.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Shimkus for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
McNerney, for leaving it hanging. So, I appreciate that.
So we hear a lot about 5G, and not to be confused with 10
gigabyte internet or the Internet of Things. But I want to make
sure, from a rural district, that we don't lose focus on trying
to get rural areas connected. 5G offers a great opportunity.
Also in your testimony, you say that--well, I am really
speaking to Mr. Knapp right now--we have low spectrum, mid- and
high-band spectrum that all has to work together. But in my
focus to rural America, how do we make low-band spectrum
available, and how might this additional spectrum be applied in
practical sense to improve the daily lives of rural Americans?
I did an ag tour just last week. We have a tariff war going
on. We have a wet season. And agricultural America is really
moving to technology, like everybody else, to be able to help
them feed the world.
So, for the low band, what do you perceive as you listed in
your testimony?
Mr. Knapp. So I know that at least one of the carriers has
suggested that they would provide coverage out into the rural
areas in low band. I do think, absolutely, we need to improve
the availability of broadband into the rural areas. Much of
that is also on the policy side, things like providing greater
flexibility for the incumbent licenses to provide access to
spectrum. We have a proceeding on aggregation and
disaggregation, and so forth, that is seeking to provide that
kind of flexibility. It stemmed from the NOW Act. But we are
fixated as well making sure we get 5G out into the rural areas.
Mr. Shimkus. So, did I get an answer?
[Laughter.]
I mean, you say flexibility and kind of mealy-mouth.
Mr. Knapp. Yes. So, basically, it is providing the policy
structure to give the incentives to the carriers to deploy out
there. And it is a combination of programs, whether it is
universal service or policy changes that I just referred to.
Mr. Shimkus. OK, thanks. And mid-band spectrum will be
helpful in making use of the multiple new Wi-Fi devices coming
to the market, correct?
Mr. Knapp. Correct.
Mr. Shimkus. And you mentioned your work on the 2.5
gigahertz band, and Mr. McNerney mentioned that briefly. Is
that generally where we start using the mid-band label?
Mr. Knapp. Yes. I mean----
Mr. Shimkus. Great answer.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Knapp. Like a lot of things, it is a little bit more
nuanced, but that is the area that we are generally focused on
when we talk about mid-band, is from roughly 2.5 up to the high
end of C-band, 4.2.
Mr. Shimkus. So you indicated FCC was conducting the phase
2 and phase 3 field tests exploring the feasibility of
spectrum-sharing with unlicensed devices in the 5.9 gigahertz
band. Do you know when the FCC will issue a notice that takes a
fresh look at this band?
Mr. Knapp. So the spectrum we were talking about, 75
megahertz of spectrum, was allocated quite a long time ago for
Intelligent Transportation Services. So, we started proceeding,
following from the Spectrum Act in 2012, to look at sharing
with unlicensed. We have completed phase 1, the lab tests,
issued a report. The Transportation Department is working on
phase 2 right now, which is basic field tests. And there have
been some other developments with a new technology called C-
V2X. That is different than what our rules allow right now for
something called dedicated short-range communications.
So, all along, we have worked closely with the NTIA and the
Department of Transportation. We are continuing to do so. And I
expect that there will be an item presented to the Commission
very soon.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
We just finished having the House National Defense
Authorization Act on the floor. Of course, it ended up going
into jurisdictional issues across committee lines.
So, for Mr. Khlopin, the Senate Armed Services Committee
included language in theirs that would give DoD a role in
managing both Federal and non-Federal spectrum. Did you all
review and approve this language?
Mr. Khlopin. No, we did not.
Mr. Shimkus. OK. Thank you.
And that is my time. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
now recognizes the vice chair of the committee, Ms. Clarke, for
5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank
our ranking member, Mr. Latta.
I want to thank our witnesses for your testimony here
today.
Today's discussion is critical to the future of our Nation.
Our discussion will help ensure that the United States is the
preeminent leader in the race to 5G. However, we can't settle
for a silver or a bronze medal. Right now, China is the world's
leader in 5G. They are eating our lunch. And with Russian
propaganda campaigns and our seeming lack of urgency, we are
not pursuing this with the type of urgency that is required for
us to be preeminent in this space and to use this technology to
be leaders in the world. America must win the readiness race
and, through that, the unleashing of innovation worldwide.
And as we race forward, it is important to keep in mind
that there are so many people with skin in the game. Our
constituents want to know and hear our approach to spectrum
policy that will impact their daily lives. This month, Public
Knowledge and other interest groups wrote a letter to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on
this very topic, specifically the reallocation of C-band. This
request must be highlighted in our discussion to ensure that
underserved areas and historically underserved communities have
voices at the table.
I will close by quoting Phillip Berenbroick, policy
director at Public Knowledge: ``Allowing this spectrum to
remain underutilized or permitting a private sale will not
serve the public interest or help achieve pressing national
goals such as closing the digital divide.''
So, I urge my colleagues to keep this in mind as we discuss
this matter on spectrum.
And I wanted to just ask a question of you, Mr. Knapp. It
should be expected from Members of Congress to work to bring
our communities into the 21st century through innovation and
technological change. Today, we see the workforce transforming
before our eyes. Mr. Knapp, as you highlighted in your
testimony, new generations of wireless services have created
new businesses and new jobs. Can you please elaborate on the
transformation of the workforce as you have described in your
testimony and with regard to the new creation of new businesses
and jobs?
Mr. Knapp. Yes. So, as I mentioned in the testimony, each
generation of wireless technology has brought with it growth in
jobs and the economy. When 3G and 4G came along, nobody
envisioned the apps economy that we all take for granted today,
the applications for getting us through traffic, and so forth.
So the one thing that I think we can be certain of is that
the capabilities of this next generation of technology which
effectively allow for instantaneous interactions--so I can now
react and remotely control a machine, for example--which of
these things might emerge? Which of these things haven't been
imagined yet? I can't tell you, but what I do know for sure: It
is going to be astounding.
Ms. Clarke. Yes, and I am talking about workforce,
entrepreneurship----
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Ms. Clarke [continuing]. And the future of work----
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Ms. Clarke [continuing]. For Americans. So, having said
that, knowing the ultimate potential or the idea of the
potential of what this will unleash in terms of what I call the
next industrial revolution, which is the use of technology at
work, do you believe that this new workforce should reflect the
diversity of America?
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Ms. Clarke. If so, how could the FCC ensure that that
occurs?
Mr. Knapp. I think by making sure that we have a variety of
ways that people can gain access to spectrum as well as access
to the services that are provided.
Ms. Clarke. And that means that we have to have a
deployment that goes into every community across this Nation:
rural, suburban, urban.
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Ms. Clarke. OK. Very well. There is work to be done in that
regard.
Mr. Knapp. Yes, and we are trying to do it every day.
Ms. Clarke. All right. Very well.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes my friend Mr. Olson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. Thank you, my dear friend from Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, home of the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Welcome to our witnesses.
As has been said over and over, this hearing is about
technology and lots of challenges, like 5G, spectrum access. We
have been talking about conflicts between key players in this
whole endeavor. I want to remind everybody that on this day 50
years ago Americans showed the whole world we could overcome
anything with technology. Apollo 11 was going to the moon right
now 50 years ago to bring Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to
walk on the moon, and Mike Collins, to bring them back home.
So, again, we can do this if we commit and work together.
My first question is to you, Mr. Khlopin. Given the need
for more mid-band spectrum, can you elaborate on what NTIA is
doing to encourage and accelerate spectrum-sharing in the 3.1
to 3.55 gigaband arena?
Mr. Khlopin. Sure. Happy to do so. Thank you very much for
the question.
The 3.1 to 3.55 is a large block of spectrum. In fact,
Congress directed us to take a look at that in the RAM BAUM'S
Act. So, we will be submitting a report to Congress by, I
believe, March 2020.
So we started aggressively looking at that range. What we
found in the short term is the upper 100, the 3450-to-3550,
presents the opportunity in the near term to make spectrum
available. Having said that, we will continue to look for the
larger block as well.
So we started internal work, extensive work, with our
engineers and the scientists to examine initial feasibility on
whether that spectrum could be available using all kinds of
analysis and tools, and working with the Department of Defense
as the incumbent. And that is likely to transition into a
further study, assuming everything looks good upfront, from the
Department of Defense, using the Spectrum Relocation Fund/
Spectrum Pipeline Act dollars, Spectrum Pipeline proposal, to
look into more detail on how that could occur.
Mr. Olson. Interesting answer. Somewhere, hopefully, 2020,
late 2020, early 2021, that is something we should expect?
Mr. Khlopin. Absolutely. Yes, for more of a final
determination, if you will, on availability. Again, we are very
optimistic about it. It is similar to the CBRS band, but the
radar systems in there from the Department of Defense are
different.
Mr. Olson. Yes, yes, yes.
Mr. Khlopin. Yes.
Mr. Olson. The next one is for you, Mr. Knapp. A company
back home called Wilson Amplifiers--they are in Stafford,
Texas, they are in Texas 22--they are a value-added reseller of
cellular amplification. They use this technology, they provide
it to individuals, homes, cars, and commercial buildings. Can
you please explain how signal boosters will assist in the
implementation of 5G technology? How about signal boosters?
Mr. Knapp. Sure. So what a signal booster does, it
basically is an add-on to a device like a cell phone to
increase the range. And the FCC adopted rules just a few years
ago, I think, largely driven by Wilson, to accommodate those
devices, to make sure that they didn't spill out energy into
frequency bands that they shouldn't. So it is something that we
have made an allowance for, and it would be up to consumers
whether they want to take advantage of that.
Mr. Olson. And the consumer is always right. One final
question, sir. In case you don't know this, but Mr. McNerney
and I are the cochairs of the House AI Caucus. And we have had
a few packed meetings this past couple of weeks, I mean jammed-
packed meetings on flyaway days.
As you know, AI can impact on the future telecommunication
industry. What is the FCC doing for AI and the network
optimization?
Mr. Knapp. So we have a Technological Advisory Council. And
one of the things that we have tasked them to do for this year
is to give us feedback and recommendations on artificial
intelligence, its role in the networks, conceivably what it
could do to increase access to the spectrum.
Mr. Olson. Chairman, I have no more questions. I yield back
the balance of my time. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Eshoo for 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And it is wonderful to see both of you.
Mr. Knapp, I have probably been asking you questions and
working with you for almost half of your career.
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo. So, thank you for everything----
Mr. Knapp. Thank you.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. That you have done and your
commitment to all the issues over the years. I mean, you have
an encyclopedic knowledge of all of this.
So it seems to me that the discussion about unlicensed
continues to be in many ways the same. First of all, it is the
most, I think, innovative platform relative its use of
spectrum. And there always issues about interference. There are
always groups that say, ``Uh-uh, no, we can't do this because
it is going to be a problem.'' And then, there is the other
kind of Greek chorus on the side of the stage that says,
``Let's share,'' except there are problems with that. So, this
isn't any--I don't want to hurt your feelings, but this isn't
anything new.
[Laughter.]
These things come up all the time. I have confidence that
you can work them out.
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo. You are a pro, and we always have to pay
attention to what the public safety people are saying, because
that whole system has to always be working superbly well 24/7.
There just isn't any room for something that would take down
what they need.
So the FCC is considering the 5.9 gigahertz and the 6
gigahertz bands for unlicensed uses. Aside from just allocating
more spectrum for unlicensed uses such as for Wi-Fi, are there
benefits to assigning a contiguous spectrum band or subparts of
the bands for unlicensed uses, rather than more of a piecemeal
approach? Are you considering that?
Mr. Knapp. What we have, the existing 5 gigahertz band, we
have the transportation spectrum here, and then, we have above
it the 6 gigahertz spectrum that we have been talking about.
Ms. Eshoo. Right.
Mr. Knapp. The kind of sharing that has been discussed in
5.9 has not been all of it. It has been some of it.
Ms. Eshoo. So, what are you saying? It is not, can't be
contiguous?
Mr. Knapp. So, to finish this out, though, the technology
today does not have a real problem with these little
discontinuities, as long as they are close. The technology has
the smarts to piece it all together in a way----
Ms. Eshoo. So, the technology can, essentially, make it
contiguous?
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo. I see. Well, that is good news.
If you consider all the various bands that the FCC is
considering for unlicensed uses, is this enough?
Mr. Knapp. Is this enough? I have been at it a while. It is
never enough.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Eshoo. Well, the appetite keeps increasing. So, yes.
Mr. Knapp. And that is a good thing----
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. Knapp [continuing]. Because it is doing terrific things
for the American people. I think we have got a lot on our plate
right now. We want to make the TV white spaces more amenable
for rural deployment. We are working on 5.9. We have got the
proceeding on 6. We opened up the spectrum at 60 gigahertz a
huge amount. And the technology evolves at something called
WiGig. And we just opened up another 21.2 gigahertz of spectrum
above 95 gigahertz. This is spectrum----
Ms. Eshoo. So, what you are describing, does that get us
out in front of it all, or are we just trying to keep up with
the appetite?
Mr. Knapp. I think what we are always trying to do is stay
out in front.
Ms. Eshoo. Good.
Mr. Knapp. And I would say the United States has led the
way worldwide----
Ms. Eshoo. Don't say, ``try,'' say, ``We're going to.''
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo. Say, ``We're going to.''
Mr. Knapp. We are going to.
Ms. Eshoo. OK, good. Good. Now I am satisfied.
With all of this becoming available, what kind of hardware
upgrades will be needed? Will we need new chips in phones,
routers in our homes?
Mr. Knapp. No, you won't need new things. What will happen
is, you will see products with new capabilities. So, everything
you have is not obsolete. It will be up to the consumer----
Ms. Eshoo. Oh, I am going to remember that, then. Yes, OK.
[Laughter.]
Words don't matter here?
Mr. Knapp. You are going to back me up, I sure hope.
But, absolutely, the idea is that you would continue to be
able to use all the existing stuff. But if we open up the 6
gigahertz band, what I anticipate will happen is this will be
added as a new capability.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize Mr.
Johnson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Knapp, I was a little bit disappointed--well, a lot
disappointed, actually--to see last week that there was not a
priority window included for rural educators using EBS licenses
as part of the FCC's order on the 2.5 gigahertz band. How will
the new rules for the 2.5 gigahertz band spectrum benefit rural
areas? And is there a strategy for using 2.5 gigahertz band
spectrum to bridge the digital divide?
Mr. Knapp. Yes. So this was certainly a policy call, not a
technical issue. And I know there were tough decisions that
were made. There is a drive for mid-band spectrum. And so, this
was one of the--this is the largest band of mid-band spectrum
below 3 gigahertz that was available. Throughout much of the
country, the spectrum was not in use. And so, what the
Commission did is the existing licensees don't lose any of
their rights. Their existing leases can continue, and it will
give them flexibility to move from some of the constraints that
there are in the current rules, with the idea that we also have
a priority window for Tribal nations to apply for use of that
spectrum, and then, to do an overlay auction for the areas
where there is no use now.
Mr. Johnson. But if we could do a carveout for Tribal
nations, which have the same problem that rural America does as
far as the urban-rural divide, why wasn't there a carveout for
those licenses in rural America?
Mr. Knapp. I think there is an explanation in the
Commission's decision that basically said there was a belief
that greater flexibility would better incentivize investment
into the rural areas, rather than the restrictions that we had
before. And those restrictions that were there previously were
largely used as part of leases for broadband.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I wish I shared your optimism that that
investment is going to come, because we have been talking about
the rural-urban divide now for almost 9 years, since I came in
in 2011. And in spite of the amount of money that we have put
into it, I can tell you, in Appalachia we are not seeing a lot
of progress on the ground.
I also understand the FCC is considered the expert agency
at determining thresholds for interference between entities
using spectrum. I would like to ask you some questions
specifically about the process the FCC undertook when it looked
at auctioning the 24 gigahertz band, a band identified for 5G
services. So, did standard interagency coordination take place
before the FCC moved forward with rules and the auction of the
24 gigahertz band? I understand that process took nearly 5
years.
Mr. Knapp. The short answer is yes, there was standard
interagency coordination.
Mr. Johnson. OK. And that auction of the 24 gigahertz band
earned over $2 billion from wireless companies. Do I have that
figure right? Is that right?
Mr. Knapp. That is roughly right, yes.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Chairman Pai, in a recent letter, wrote
that, during your interagency process, quote, ``Other Federal
agencies did not object''--unquote--to expanded use of the 24
gigahertz band to 5G. Is that correct?
Mr. Knapp. That is correct.
Mr. Johnson. OK. When the Department of Commerce provided a
study purporting to show there may be interference between
weather centers and 5G use of the 24 gigahertz band, were you
able to validate that study? I mean, wasn't that study based on
a sensor that doesn't exist?
Mr. Knapp. That is correct, and we had a number of concerns
about the study.
Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. Given your experience and long
tenure at the FCC, are you confident that commercial wireless
operations in the 24 gigahertz band can peacefully coexist with
weather-sensing capabilities now and in the future?
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Chairman, I am going to give you back
37 seconds. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Veasey for 5 minutes.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Knapp, good morning, and I want to thank you for being
here today.
I represent the Dallas-Fort Worth area. And it is one of
the 11 cities of the FCC-granted T-band spectrum2 for public
safety purposes. In the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012, this spectrum was directed to be
reallocated and auctioned off to commercial entities. And I was
wondering if you could discuss some of the challenges of
relocating the T-band spectrum to commercial users and whether
there is any benefit to moving public safety entities and, to a
lesser degree, broadcasters off of them?
Mr. Knapp. Yes, so we are following the statute as it
exists. I understand that parties are talking to folks in
Congress. And so we have just looked to whatever guidance there
is from Congress.
And the technical challenges are always when you are trying
to find space for systems that have spectrum today. And I don't
know that there is an obvious place to relocate them, but that
we would carry out whatever the statute calls for.
Mr. Veasey. Well, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. I appreciate it.
And thank you for your testimony, Panel.
Mr. Knapp, CTIA has suggested we need a national 5-year
spectrum plan. From an investment standpoint, I can see the
value of this policy, since the testing and rollout of new
capabilities is often a multiyear process. What are your
thoughts on adopting a multiyear spectrum plan? This is for,
again, Mr. Knapp.
Mr. Knapp. Yes. So there are a few things that are going
on. One, from time to time, for example, we conducted an
inquiry about spectrum above 24 gigahertz, spectrum in the
lower bands, and so forth, to identify spaces. It does take
time to roll them out. So, that is what we have been doing, for
example, in what we call the millimeter way of proceeding. So,
we are constantly, rather than a static process, constantly
looking at what are the others that are ripe for a look as
well.
And perhaps Mr. Khlopin can also talk about the work that
is going on in the National Spectrum Strategy.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, please. Please, if you would like to.
Mr. Khlopin. Sure. I would be happy to talk about the
National Spectrum Strategy. So this is, again, from the
directive of the President, NTIA is leading development of this
strategy. A forward-looking, sustainable approach, better
tools, better collaboration, and how we can do a better job of
managing spectrum into the future. It is less of a band-
specific, technology-specific approach we are looking at, but
more in getting away from that and how we can ultimately expand
access in a larger perspective, rather than just looking
piecemeal, so we can come up with an approach for better
solutions long term.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Very good.
One question for you, sir, again, Mr. Khlopin--and you have
touched on this--but there is an article on the front page of
The Washington Times last week, actually, titled, ``Savvy South
Koreans Race to Embrace 5G Networks.'' Did you read that?
Mr. Khlopin. I believe I am familiar with it, yes.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. The article notes that South Korea
already has tens of thousands of 5G-based stations and it is
projecting to serve 90 percent of the population by the of the
year, while South Korea is significantly smaller than the U.S.,
obviously. This is a substantial deployment and consumer pickup
rate of, again, 5G in such a short period of time.
NTIA is required to release a report this month on the
National Spectrum Strategy, as you alluded to. What do you
recommend in your report to make more mid-band spectrum
available, as we compete with South Korea and other countries
in this race to get the 5G?
Mr. Khlopin. So, again, in the National Spectrum Strategy
we look at, particularly I think on the increased collaboration
side, on how we can get parties together to act quicker,
because a lot of this is about timing. We have talked about
spectrum roadmaps and making spectrum available. How do we do
it quicker? How do we do it faster?
In the 3450-3550 megahertz discussion, which, again, is key
mid-band spectrum, we have already--I talked before about an
internal NTIA analysis going on on the band, but we have also
reached out to industry stakeholders and invited them to come
in and discuss with us a process on how we collaborate not just
as the Government, but with industry as well. So, get a better
understanding on the license side, on 5G, on unlicensed, the
visions for how they might utilize the band, come up with an
approach where we can get groups together, get engineers
together from the Government and industry, and more quickly get
the requirements in, understand systems, and work through that
process.
We did this in AWS-3 and that expedited things. And we are
looking at similar things here. Again, each band, each
analysis, is going to be a little bit different, but those are
the type of tools we are looking at.
And then, automating software, too. So, one of the big
initiatives for NTIA is so much of our processes are more
manual and slow, and we are trying to bring modernization, to
bring better technology and artificial intelligence, bring that
into the spectrum, you know, update spectrum management tools
to reflect the industry that we are trying to make spectrum
available for.
Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Very good.
Mr. Knapp, the FCC has an open rulemaking to allow
unlicensed devices in the 6 gigahertz band. This spectrum is
currently used for mission-critical backhaulings for public
safety, again, commercial carriers, and utility companies. What
steps can you take to prevent harmful interference to these
important services?
I don't have a lot of time, but----
Mr. Knapp. I will make it very quick.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Mr. Knapp. So, for the outdoor deployments, we would use an
automated frequency coordination system to stay out of the way
of those point-to-point links and not interfere with them. This
is still an open proceeding. So, that is what we had proposed.
For the indoor use, there is a debate about whether they
need to be part of that or not, and at certain power levels,
where there is so little risk that we don't need to tie them
into a separate mechanism.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank the panel for being here today.
As you know, Agenda Item 1.13 will be considered at WRC-19
to discuss identification of additional millimeter wave bands
for International Mobile Telecommunications, or IMT. The 26
gigahertz band has emerged internationally as a leading
candidate for 5G services. International harmonization includes
various different efficiencies, especially as equipment
manufacturers are able to integrate several spectrum bands that
the Commission has already auctioned for commercial use into a
single radio. As you already know, the 26 gigahertz band is
allocated primarily for Federal Government services.
Mr. Knapp and Mr. Khlopin, could you comment on the
potential of appropriate sharing of protection arrangements for
Federal users in the band?
Mr. Knapp. So one of the reasons that 24 is so important is
because we asked about 26 in an open rulemaking proceeding, but
the key here is it is very active Federal Government use.
Ms. Matsui. Right.
Mr. Knapp. It is probably better for the Department of
Defense to speak to what they have in there.
Ms. Matsui. OK. All right.
Mr. Khlopin. Yes. No, I would echo that point, that we did
take a look and it is more intensive use----
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Mr. Khlopin [continuing]. As opposed to some of these bands
where you are dealing with adjacent, as opposed to coband
systems.
Ms. Matsui. OK. So, it is much more difficult. We will have
to--OK.
The international community has had a long history with
consideration of the 4200-to-4400 megahertz band for
terrestrial mobile use. In 1990, the ITU concluded that the
whole of the band would be required up to the year 2015 for
radio navigation services, but noted that current accuracy
requirements may be achievable in a smaller bandwidth. And NTIA
had previously initially identified the upper and lower 20
megahertz segments of this band as a potential candidate for
terrestrial wireless use. Of course, this band is reserved
internationally for radio altimeters, based on onboard
aircraft, and for the associated transponders on the ground. It
is also adjacent to the 500 megahertz, the C-band spectrum
currently under consideration for mobile use.
Mr. Khlopin, what would NTIA's role be in determining the
suitability of introducing mobile services into the upper 100
megahertz of the C-band?
Mr. Khlopin. Thank you very much for the question. And I am
not real familiar with the specifics that you raised on the
bands up above. So, we will probably have to get back to you
and your staff. But, in general, again, if we have adjacent
Federal services there, then we would be involved in the
analysis and recommendations on how to move forward.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Two major issues in slow additional
wireless uses of both Federal and commercial spectrum bands are
the need to relocate incumbent users and the need to conduct
incompatibility analysis testing of additional services in
existing bands, frequencies such as those between 7.125
gigahertz and 8.4 gigahertz or the 4.9 gigahertz. Both offer
potential opportunities, but currently there is no precise
mechanism that exists for prospective commercial users to
coordinate with either Federal or other commercial users to
relocate or study compatible uses of spectrum bands.
My SPECTRUM NOW Act creates additional opportunities for
Federal users to access otherwise unused Spectrum Relocation
Fund resources in some instances to perform the services. But I
believe, if given the opportunity, commercial users may be open
to providing resources to accelerate the relocation of
incumbent users or study additional uses of existing bands as
appropriate.
Mr. Khlopin and Mr. Knapp, do any of you have any thoughts
on allowing commercial users to make payments that could
accelerate spectrum transitions?
Mr. Khlopin. So, thank you very much for the question, and
appreciate your leadership on these issues.
I will start by saying that the administration does not
have a position on your legislation specifically, but, more
generally, we are certainly always willing to have these
conversations about how to enable more effective tools. As much
as I mentioned with the National Spectrum Strategy, it is
figuring out how to better collaborate between industry and
government users. So, we are very interested in exploring the
possibilities.
Ms. Matsui. OK, fine.
Yes, any other comments here, Mr. Knapp?
Mr. Knapp. No, not on that.
Ms. Matsui. OK, great.
Mr. Knapp. Federal spectrum.
Ms. Matsui. OK. I think I am going to run out of time
before I can ask the next question, so I will just yield back.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Walden for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And again, both of you, thank you for being here.
Mr. Knapp, we were talking earlier in the hearing about the
WRC conference that is coming up, a little focus on CTeL,
focusing on the Americas. And I would appreciate your insights
on both of these critical forums and other priorities that the
U.S. and the administration have for this.
I also want to get back to this NOAA and NASA study issue.
I would just tell you, I am tired of reading about it in the
press and not being able to get a copy of it. I am told the
Science Committee was provided a copy of it. I realize there
are processes you all have to go through in the administration,
but I recall pretty distinctly a time when the President stood
next to the Chairman of the FCC and said, ``Here's my policy
going forward on 5G.'' And then, there has been all this
dysfunction since.
And so, I want a copy of that study. Mr. Knapp and I have
worked together on a number of issues going back to
LightSquared, when I dragged you in as the engineer-in-chief to
help sort out the politics from the reality of the actual
technology.
And we have got to figure this out, and we can only do it
effectively if we have access to the information. And so, this
has to get cleaned up. It is nonsense.
So, if you all can, back to the point here, if you all can
talk about what you expect we should pay attention to in WRC
coming up. Mr. Knapp?
Mr. Knapp. So, quite a few issues. I have been more
involved in support for the spectrum side. I think
Congresswoman Matsui referred to Item 1.13----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Knapp [continuing]. Which is all about spectrum for 5G,
and so forth. And so it is always a dual mission for us to make
sure we get access and make sure that nothing is done that is
going to harm the U.S.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Knapp. And what is being debated here is what are the
protections for the passive satellite bands.
Mr. Walden. Correct.
Mr. Knapp. Twenty-four is just one of them. There are
others at 32, and so forth. And so, the discussions--I know
there is a lot of reference to this one study. There are
actually more than 10 studies that have been submitted
internationally----
Mr. Walden. Ah.
Mr. Knapp [continuing]. That are publicly available. It is
not just one.
Mr. Walden. Maybe you could give us a list of those at some
point?
Mr. Knapp. Right. Happy to.
And each comes to a different proposed limit. The tradeoffs
here are always the level of protection that is assumed through
the analyses----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Knapp [continuing]. Versus the viability, whether
anybody can meet it. I think one of the big concerns for us,
and as we strive to find access to spectrum, is that we don't
create protections that are so stringent that we are leaving
thousands of megahertz of----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Knapp [continuing]. Of spectrum on the table.
Mr. Walden. Right, and I think that has been my concern.
Nobody wants interference, but I have heard that you are going
to wipe out every satellite that does anything related to
weather and NASA is going to have to shut down. I mean, that is
kind of the spin that seems to be coming, and I am not
convinced that is what we are doing.
Mr. Knapp. I am quite confident that is not going to
happen.
Mr. Walden. And I have read some things, that these are old
transponders or something, that aren't even in use now that was
part of an underlying study, some receiver.
Mr. Knapp. So, there are a number of sensors on the
satellite.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Knapp. This was one of them that was used for the
analysis. There are other sensors. We are committed to
protecting them. What we also want to see is that whatever is
adopted is reasonable, based on not absolute worst-case
science.
Mr. Walden. And while we are on the international
conferences, I referenced the issue with the Russians and RT,
which, Mr. Chairman, I would put in the record the story, if
that is OK.
Have the Russians raised this issue of health effects from
5G at any of the international conferences you all have
attended?
Mr. Knapp. I am not aware.
Mr. Khlopin. I do not believe so. I have heard there has
maybe been the equivalent of water-cooler talk, if you will,
when the story was out in The New York Times, but I am happy to
also explore further with our team that attends the ITU
meetings.
I also wanted to take just a quick opportunity, too----
Mr. Walden. Sure.
Mr. Khlopin [continuing]. To come back on the studies and
24 gigahertz. And I know it was characterized before that NOAA
and NASA--and by the way, on the study, again, it is not an
NTIA study. So, we can't deliver it, but I am happy to take
back that request for the committee----
Mr. Walden. Yes, it needs to happen.
Mr. Khlopin [continuing]. To the Department and NOAA. I do
know they want to be transparent.
But, on the issue generally of the studies, I want to be
clear. It was not that NOAA and NASA or NTIA, or anybody, was
thinking this band with 24 gigahertz is not available for 5G.
Again, it is a discrete issue on the out-of-band mission
protection levels. And, as Mr. Knapp indicated, we believe that
both can coexist.
And also, going back in time, there was also, I believe, a
conversation or an allegation that the agencies brought this to
attention late. And this goes back 2 or 3 years, a study
underway. The FCC report and order actually says that we have
the potential to reevaluate these rules, based on further
international studies. You know, auction participants were
fully on notice. So, all that. This is a typical process. It
just, unfortunately, got a lot more publicity this time.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Doyle. The Chair requests unanimous consent to enter
the document that Mr. Walden referenced into the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Doyle. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Schrader for 5
minutes.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
I guess, Mr. Knapp, with regard to low spectrum sales and
auctions, when is that going to occur and, given the interest
in the mid-band and the versatility of the mid-band, are we
concerned about subscription to that auction? And what are we
doing to incentivize that? I mean, this is going to be the
rural broadband or the rural expansion. And historically, the
ROI has been less than you see in some of the suburban and
urban areas. So, how are we going to incentivize, since our
plan is based on, frankly, private industry supplying the need,
how are we going to incentivize that? And what do you
anticipate?
Mr. Knapp. So the spectrum at 600 megahertz is what was
obtained through the TV incentive auction. So we are repacking
the TV band. We have auctioned the licenses. The carriers are
in the process of deploying. One of the carriers has made
commitments that they would deploy service into most of the
country, including the rural areas. These other bands that we
talk about as low, 700 megahertz, which we have done a while
ago, the 800 megahertz--sorry to throw out so many numbers--
but, as a matter of policy, we provided flexibility to the
carriers to change the technologies as they see fit.
So, what has happened is, as they introduce the newer
technologies into the newer bands, and then over time deploy it
into the legacy ones--in other words, changing out the old
ones. And I mentioned before that I think, on the policy side,
there is work that is going on to incentivize deployment into
the rural areas.
Mr. Schrader. All right. I appreciate it. I am just
concerned that it, frankly, doesn't quite sound like enough. I
have the same concerns my colleagues from Illinois and Ohio
have about how this is going to play out. We don't want to have
rural America, rural Oregon in my case, left behind in this new
international economy that is out there. So anything we can do
to incentivize folks, more competition and, frankly, more
investment in those areas would be great.
Mr. Khlopin, first, 5G sounds wonderful. It is a nice
little buzzword. And I can hardly keep up with 4G personally
but understand I am old and that is just the way of things.
But there are dangers. The Internet of Things sounds great,
but given the evidence of the cyber threats that we are seeing
nowadays from our ``friends'' in Russia, China, North Korea,
Iran, you name it, what are we doing or what are our friends in
the private sector, or what are our friends in the Federal
Government doing, to make sure that we are not going to have a
wholesale shutdown of the Internet of Things or some big energy
sector or our financial institutions? How do we guard against
this with the 5G interoperability and speeds that are
occurring?
Mr. Khlopin. Thank you for the question. I really do
appreciate it. And I will preface this by I have mostly focused
more on the spectrum issues, and I am certainly happy to have a
followup conversation with you and your staff and bring in some
of our experts.
But you are right, there are a number of pillars, if you
will, to 5G and IoT to make sure it is a success, and the
spectrum was one piece. But we do need to make sure the
security is there, the cybersecurity, the standards work, and a
number of areas where we are involved, along with plenty of
other government colleagues as well, is supply chain security.
It is a significant issue, and we have seen vulnerabilities
particularly in IoT, where they connect to the network and you
can't trust the supplier necessarily or you have software
upgradeability concerns and ways to tap into the network. So,
we do worry about that: where the products are coming from,
what is the supply chain.
And cybersecurity as well is a significant issue, and NTIA
and the Department of Commerce, with our colleagues at NIST, in
particular, do a lot of work there as well. And one of the big
reports we did recently is how to counter botnets, which are a
significant threat in this space as well, too.
So, it is a little bit ``all of the above'' and also
working internationally with our global allies, so we all share
similar concerns.
Mr. Schrader. I appreciate it. I just want to draw
attention that I know we are having an intelligence
reauthorization coming up, and I know there is a lot of work
going on, partnering with the private sector, government
sectors, partners across the world, because that is going to be
a big issue. We don't want to have a brownout of the United
States of America as a result of our connectivity, frankly.
Well, I guess my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Kinzinger for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here.
I would like to circle back on the 24 gigahertz band, which
I broached at the FCC oversight hearing in May. As I explained
to the Chairman and Commissioners in May, my top priority when
I come to work every day is U.S. national security and the
safety of my constituents. Thankfully, Chairman Pai provided
assurances to me and this committee that there was really
nothing that is cause for concern, and he promised to work with
us and other relevant agencies to assess and report cases of
interference, in order to mitigate future instances.
But I would like to ask some more technical questions, Mr.
Knapp. It is my understanding that there are nearly 40,000
high-powered fixed microwave links deployed in the 21.2 to 23.6
gigahertz band, which is adjacent to and directly below the
23.6 to 24 gigahertz band. These services are operated under
the same out-of-band emission limits adopted for the 24
gigahertz band. And, unlike with the 24 gigahertz band, there
is no guard band separating this from the 23.6 to 24 gigahertz
band. So have you been alerted to any interference to the
passive band from those services at all?
Mr. Knapp. No.
Mr. Kinzinger. And how would NOAA's suggested out-of-bands
emission limit for the 24 gigahertz impact 5G deployment in
that band?
Mr. Knapp. So the question is the achievability of the
level that they are talking about. And if it is set so
stringent that nobody can meet it, it risks our ability to use
that spectrum.
Mr. Kinzinger. Got it. And let me ask you a little bit
about a little less controversial, the C-band. Mr. Cardenas and
I wrote a letter to the FCC in January expressing thanks for
working to clear spectrum for 5G, but also expressing our
desire for the Commission to simultaneously strive to avoid
unnecessary disruptions in the content-based services American
consumers currently enjoy during the transition. Let me ask you
again, sir: The Commission responded to our letter, and it
seemed to confirm that it generally shares those goals. But
would you please briefly explain how the Commission proposes to
facilitate continuity in services with minimal disruption?
Mr. Knapp. Yes. We have several proposals before us about
how to transition the spectrum. One of the objectives for the
Commission all through this is that the incumbents would be
protected and made whole. So, although there are different
approaches, and without going into some of the technical
details about switching channels and so forth, we would ensure
that they are accommodated.
Mr. Kinzinger. So, you have multiple options with those
overall values that you will----
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. Do you know when that is going to be
decided, by chance?
Mr. Knapp. So the Chairman has said a bit later this year,
as I mentioned in the testimony, that we would have some action
to report.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. And how is the FCC ensuring that
important safety of flight services are protected from
interference, such as the 4200 to 4400 megahertz band, also
known as the flight altimeter band, and are you working on that
with affected stakeholders?
Mr. Knapp. Yes. So, it is often missed, and I think it came
up before when we talked about this band just above it at 4200
to 4400, the radio altimeters are there. We need to make sure
that they are protected as well. I think these different plans
are looking at different amounts of spectrum, and we have to
understand, if we get close, what the tradeoffs would be to
protect them.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. Because I know, obviously, that is
really important----
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mr. Kinzinger [continuing]. Safety in flight issue.
Mr. Knapp. Absolutely.
Mr. Kinzinger. And then, Mr. Khlopin--I am probably not
saying your name right, I am sorry.
Mr. Khlopin. No, you got it.
Mr. Kinzinger. Did I? Whoa.
Next Generation national security systems and solutions are
often spectrum-dependent. What is the NTIA doing to ensure that
there is adequate spectrum to accommodate growing national
security requirements generally?
Mr. Khlopin. Thank you very much for the question.
And if you don't mind, I am actually going to go back to
your 24 gigahertz----
Mr. Kinzinger. Sure.
Mr. Khlopin [continuing]. Real quickly. You raised the
issue of other adjacent services to 24, and I just thought it
was important to point out one of the distinctions there, and
those are longstanding rules. And when they were originally set
up, you had a much lower number, and these are generally,
traditionally fixed microwave deployments. So now, we are
looking at an analysis here on 5G coming in there. It does
change the scene a little bit. You are talking about intensive
mobile use, high-density areas. So, this is why you go through
this long, lengthy process of doing a study and taking opinions
from Study Group One, ITU, that brings in the parameters when
you are looking at a 5G system. So, it is not quite an exact
comparison to look at the protection values that have existed
before.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. And I will just cut you off there
because the other one is really broad, and we are running out
of time. But I thank you guys both for being here and your
testimony.
And I will yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Dingell for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, I am from Michigan. I am a car girl. And I am
probably the one person in this room really paying attention on
the 5.9 gigahertz spectrum band, and I am really worried about
what is going to happen to it because I am hearing rumors.
Mr. Knapp, it is my understanding that you helped designate
this spectrum. So, I thank you for your leadership and your
work on it.
I also read, though, that the FCC plans to announce a new
NPR to take a fresh look at the 5.9 band that includes the
potential of allowing nonauto safety technologies to utilize
it. This happens as the Department of Transportation is about
to begin phase 2 and phase 3 of interference testing to see if
additional technologies can harmoniously exist within this
spectrum. So, obviously, I am focused.
So, Mr. Knapp, these questions are for you. One of the
arguments I keep hearing against maintaining the 5.9 gigahertz
spectrum strictly for automotive safety use is that the band is
underutilized, that the auto industry has had 20 years, and the
level of DSRC deployments hasn't happened as promised. Do you
believe that?
Mr. Knapp. I do believe that the things that were planned
when the original allocation was done, and the hopes that we
all had for the improvements to safety, haven't blossomed to
the point that were envisioned at the time. So I am happy to
take your questions, or I can say a little bit more.
Mrs. Dingell. Well, let me keep building on this.
Mr. Knapp. Yes, go ahead.
Mrs. Dingell. Because I am worried that you are going to
take that away, and the companies are worried.
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mrs. Dingell. So I also understand that, in addition to
DSRC, the C-V2X technology shows great promise in the
connecting of vehicles and infrastructure to achieve both the
safety and orchestration benefits that were intended when the
5.9 spectrum was reserved for automotive use. Would you agree
that C-V2X could also help deployments and increase the
utilization of the band?
Mr. Knapp. So, to be clear, these decisions in the end will
be for the Chairman and the Commissioners to decide. And what
we have been doing----
Mrs. Dingell. And I want you to make sure the Chairman of
the Commission knows that some of us are paying attention.
Mr. Knapp. And we anticipated that. So we have been working
with the Department of Transportation and the NTIA on the next
steps on this. And you are absolutely right, we have this other
technology, C-V2X, that looks promising. I don't think we are
at a point of saying whether it should be DSRC or C-V2X. But I
think that the issue that we are grappling with is it has been
a long time, there are a lot of things that have been
happening. What should we do to take a look at how we can
foster better use of the spectrum?
Mrs. Dingell. Well, how are we going to make sure that the
industry has the spectrum that they need as these things are
coming online? And there have been a lot of forces that----
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mrs. Dingell. I mean, we are not going to do it in this
whole hearing room.
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mrs. Dingell. But what I am worried about is that, when
they need it, it is not going to be there.
Mr. Knapp. Yes, understood. And I think for the Commission,
it will be trying to take a look at these issues and get a
better understanding of everything.
Mrs. Dingell. I also understand that the Chinese government
and 13 Chinese OEMs have committed to utilizing C-V2X. Is China
ahead of the U.S. in recognizing the benefits of this
technology?
Mr. Knapp. I think that it is so new, that I would not
characterize it as ``ahead.''
Mrs. Dingell. But don't we need to worry?
Mr. Knapp. I think we need to be focused.
Mrs. Dingell. OK. With the FCC considering opening up the
5.9 gigahertz safety spectrum to new technologies, how will the
FCC ensure that there is no interference in the auto safety
technologies and that vehicles equipped with different V2X
technologies can talk to each other, which is a real concern?
Mr. Knapp. Yes, absolutely. And I know that is a key point,
for example, in working with the Department of Transportation.
What do we do? Do we leave it open for all technologies, and
what if they can't talk to each other? Is it partitioned in
some way? And that all kind of speaks to trying to better
understand where to go with this.
Mrs. Dingell. Do you and DOT are talking the way that you
need to be? This is nonscripted now, and I am about to go----
Mr. Knapp. Yes, absolutely.
Mrs. Dingell. I don't see everybody on the same page some
days.
Mr. Knapp. Well, I think we are working through some of the
different viewpoints on it, but we absolutely are talking
through it.
Mrs. Dingell. Will the FCC move forward with any actions on
the 5.9 gigahertz band prior to the completion of all
interference testing? And should the testing prove that these
additional technologies do, indeed, cause harmful interference
on auto safety technologies, will you still split or look to
open up this band?
Mr. Knapp. So, a couple of things. We are continuing with
the program for the testing. So we continue to be committed to
seeing it through to its completion. If there is a rulemaking
proceeding, then we will see where that all goes.
Mrs. Dingell. I am paying attention.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Knapp. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Long for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here today.
I am from Missouri, and another Missourian, Mark Twain, his
publicist telegraphed him one day. And if you don't know what a
telegraph is, Google it.
[Laughter.]
But he telegraphed him one day and he said, ``Need 2 pages
2 days.''
Twain replied back, ``No can do 2 pages 2 days. Can do 30
pages in 2 days. Need 30 days to do 2 pages.''
So, I have spent the last 2 days coming up with 30
questions for you all.
[Laughter.]
And after sitting here all morning and hearing the
questions hashed and rehashed, I am down to one.
[Laughter.]
So, I want to ask one question. I am going to yield back a
lot of my time here in just a second.
Mr. Doyle. Good.
Mr. Long. What do you mean ``good''? I wasn't talking to
you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Knapp, the 24 gigahertz band represents critical
spectrum that could be used to implement 5G technology. And the
Commission recently concluded a successful auction of that
spectrum. But now, at the 11th hour, objections to the use of
the band have been raised by some Federal agencies. Were any of
these objections raised on the record during the rulemaking
process that resulted in the allocation of spectrum for
commercial use?
Mr. Knapp. No.
Mr. Long. I yield back.
Mr. Khlopin. Can I, Congressman, to that question--I would
just, yes, disagree with Mr. Knapp's answer that the concerns
were not expressed.
Mr. Long. Thank you. Do you have anything else to add? I'm
sorry I didn't----
Mr. Khlopin. No, I just wanted to state that, in the
interagency coordination process, the concerns over protecting
the passive centers was clearly raised and reflected in FCC
documents.
Mr. Long. Care to comment, Mr. Knapp, or?
Mr. Knapp. Sure.
Mr. Long. And I will rescind my yield back.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Knapp. The objection, I think, as Mr. Khlopin said
before, was not to allocating or using the spectrum for 5G. The
question was about the upcoming World Radio Conference and what
limits might come out of that. And the Commission's decision
recognized that and said it was open if there was submittal of
validated studies about a different out-of-band-emissions
limit.
Mr. Khlopin. You know, I agree with that statement.
Mr. Long. OK. Now, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Lujan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Knapp, I want to start by reading a section of your
testimony that I especially appreciated regarding 5G. You say,
I quote, ``Each generation of wireless services brought with it
new opportunities for innovation, enhanced the safety of our
citizens, new businesses, and job creation, and improved our
overall quality of life. If you ask 5 people what 5G is, you
will probably get 6 different answers. Yet, most seem to agree
on certain important aspects of 5G's potential--speeds 100
times faster than today's networks, much greater capacity, and
lag times one-tenth of what they are today that enable real-
time interactions with people and the Internet of Things.''
Close quote.
That sounds great, but here is the thing. Too many
communities that I represent are still waiting for 4G, rural
parts of America. And according to the FCC, less than half of
New Mexicans have access to mobile broadband that reaches 10
megabits, 3 megabits upload.
Regarding Tribal communities, the 2018 GAO report on Tribal
access to spectrum stated that, I quote, ``The FCC has not
collected data related to Tribal access to spectrum, analyzed
unused license spectrum that exists over Tribal lands, or made
data available to Tribal entities in an accessible and easy
manner that could be beneficial in their efforts to obtain
spectrum licenses from other providers.'' Close quote.
What progress has the FCC made in addressing these issues?
Mr. Knapp. So I think what you saw reflected in the 2.5
gigahertz decision last week was a priority for, first, access
for Tribal nations to that spectrum as a way to encourage the
coverage in that. And we are also working across a number of
fronts on better collection of information on the availability
of service and policies that can support that deployment.
Mr. Lujan. Can I get a commitment today, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Knapp, that we can work together to raise this issue and
work with other FCC Commissioners and staff to ensure that,
when we are here in a year from now, that we will not have a
GAO report that says the FCC has not collected data related to
Tribal access to spectrum?
Mr. Knapp. So I know that the Commission will continue to
work with you on the deployment to rural areas.
Mr. Lujan. Can we work together to raise the issue, though?
Mr. Knapp. Sure.
Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that.
Mr. Knapp, I have also repeatedly heard concerns that 5G
networks may not reach rural and Tribal communities for years.
What specifically is the FCC doing to prevent the creation of
what I will describe as the new digital divide?
Mr. Knapp. Yes, and the deployment of 5G into the rural
areas is also one of our key objectives. The low bands that we
have been talking about are probably the best vehicle, although
all of the bands will be woven together to provide that
coverage, so it is not necessarily just any one. And so, what
we are trying to do is make sure there is spectrum out there
and that people will have access to it.
Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that. When we had Commissioner Pai
and Commissioner Rosenworcel before us, we asked a question to
them about mapping, that if we, indeed, were going to be able
to make investments to close the digital divide, we needed to
have more accurate mapping. Is there something that we could be
doing, working with you as well and with the other
Commissioners, to ensure that we have accurate maps as opposed
to being dependent on what some of the mobile providers are
putting out there that show that there is coverage everywhere?
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mr. Lujan. Matter of fact, if I went by their maps, all the
dead spots that exist in New Mexico and other parts of the
country that I have traveled should have coverage, but they
don't. Just because someone's measurement of a bar on my phone
to them means coverage, I can't make a call, can't use the
internet, can't even use that phone if there was an AMBER Alert
to let me know that I should be looking for somebody. What can
we be doing to better close that divide to ensure that this is
going to get out?
Mr. Knapp. Of course, we would be happy to work with
Congress, providing technical assistance for anything that
Congress wanted to take a look at. We are working hard at the
agency on ways we can improve the maps. We know that they need
to be better.
Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that.
Chairman, I thank you for your support with this important
hearing. And to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I
have been stepping up to make sure that we are able to close
these divides across the country and make use of spectrum as
well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Flores for 5 minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have appreciated
this hearing and the witnesses who have been here.
Mr. Knapp, I want to echo the comments of Ms. Dingell
regarding the 5.9 gigahertz part of the spectrum. I am also
concerned about any attempts to make that spectrum or to keep
that spectrum from being able to the transportation sector.
I think one of the reasons we have a slow adoption was
nobody dreamed 20 years ago about autonomous vehicles, number
1. And number 2 is the FCC set the standard, the DSRC standard,
which maybe it shouldn't have done then. It should have made it
available to the ecosystem to develop its own standard.
So, (A) I am glad the FCC is doing the NPRM on this issue,
but (B) I encourage the FCC to look at this carefully, so that
it allows the autonomous vehicle space, that ecosystem, a
chance to grow into it to fill that spectrum up before that
spectrum is given away. So, I encourage you to be very careful
about that, as part of that NPR-A. And you may want to consider
getting rid of the DSRC standard, since it hadn't been widely
adopted, so that the stakeholders in the space will develop the
standard that works.
I know you have talked about Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything
technologies, but one of the challenges there is the latency
that comes by going to cellular, then back to go somewhere
else, and then come back to the vehicles, when really we need
to make sure that we allow for vehicle-to-vehicle
communications using that set of spectrums.
So, again, I am glad you are doing the NPRM, but (B) Ms.
Dingell and I, and others, will be paying close attention to
that because there are important stakeholder interests that are
involved in that space.
Mr. Khlopin, as you know, the President recently announced
his Memorandum Developing a Sustainable Spectrum Strategy for
America's Future. A key part of that strategy is to protect the
homeland, but part of the protecting the homeland is also to
make sure that we have proper cybersecurity elements built into
the Internet of Things and to other ways to close off
vulnerabilities that may exist, as we begin to move forward
with that memorandum.
Can you expand on the administration's strategy in this
regard to keep the cyber vulnerability low in the Internet of
Things, as part of the memorandum?
Mr. Khlopin. Sure, and thank you. Thank you very much for
the question.
Again, I will preface this by focusing a little more on the
spectrum side. And I think the way we are viewing the National
Spectrum Strategy is, while considering the security issues and
the national security considerations, a little more directly on
spectrum management. And then the administration has a number
of other interagency activities to implement: the national
security strategy, cybersecurity strategy, and those type of
issues. So, while there is an overlap, and I think increasingly
going forward on the spectrum side we do need to consider that,
I think that the spectrum strategy is a little less focused on
that.
On the bigger issues there, on IoT security and 5G
security, I think probably my best response would be to come
back to you on that and maybe welcome a dialog with you and
your staff.
Mr. Flores. That would be great. And when we do that, we
would like to talk about working with industry experts on this
issue as well.
Mr. Knapp, one of the things I was excited to hear about is
what used to be a spectrum wasteland, and that is 95 gigahertz
and above. In the hearing the FCC had, tell us about some of
the things that may be available using that set of spectrum.
Mr. Khlopin, I will come to you and see if we have got any
incumbents in that area that we have to worry about.
Mr. Knapp?
Mr. Knapp. So I think back to when we opened up the
spectrum in 1985 for what we called spread spectrum.
Mr. Flores. Right.
Mr. Knapp. It was a dozen years before we saw Wi-Fi. So,
what we have really done here is opened up a huge amount of
space for people to be creative and innovate. There is work
going on around the world looking at different potential
applications, potentially improved security applications, and
so forth. I think it is a little early to tell. These signals
tend to be very pinpoint.
Mr. Flores. Right.
Mr. Knapp. They don't go very far, but they have got huge
bandwidth.
Mr. Flores. And they are attenuated by almost everything.
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mr. Flores. As a geek, I am pretty exited about it.
Mr. Knapp. Yes, if you put your hand up in front, they
stop.
Mr. Flores. Yes. I am hopeful that we can get something
done.
Mr. Khlopin, are there any incumbents that are potentially
damaged by opening up the 95 gigahertz part of the spectrum?
Mr. Khlopin. Of 95 and above? That is why I would have to
come back and probably get a little more details on that. Are
you looking anywhere above 95, or what are you----
Mr. Flores. Well, there is 21 gigahertz from 95 and above
that has been opened up by the FCC. I just want to make sure we
haven't damaged any incumbent users.
Mr. Khlopin. Yes, and I know when the FCC does these
proceedings, again, they coordinate through the IRAC, through
the agency processes. So, we did have comments back to the FCC
I believe were largely incorporated.
Mr. Flores. Very good. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Engel for 5 minutes.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta.
I would like to address the T-band. The T-band is radio
spectrum located on portions of the 470 to 512 megahertz band.
For decades in 11 major metropolitan areas around the country,
the T-band has supported vital public safety radio
communications for our first responders. It allows police,
firefighters, and EMS to communicate, even when cell towers,
electricity, or the internet are down. It functions deep
underground in tunnels and inside concrete buildings. But now,
thanks to an outdated provision in the law, the FCC is required
to reallocate and auction the T-band spectrum by 2021.
I have heard from my constituents back home in New York, in
Westchester and the Bronx, that this auction would endanger
crucial public safety communications. Options to replace the
spectrum are extremely limited. New York City police, fire, and
emergency management departments have said that there is no
alternative spectrum available for them. Further, GAO completed
a study last month which found that auctioning off the T-band
radio spectrum without the availability of alternative spectrum
would definitely jeopardize public safety in major metropolitan
areas around the country.
Mr. Knapp, let me ask you: Are you familiar with the GAO
study on the T-band? Do you have any reason to doubt its
conclusion or that of the New York City police, fire, and
emergency management departments that auctioning off the T-band
could jeopardize public safety in some of the Nation's largest
metropolitan areas?
Mr. Knapp. So I have been involved, obviously, with a lot
of things at the agency, but, actually, it has been our Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau that has been lead on this,
and I am not familiar with the report.
Mr. Engel. OK. Well, trust me, what I am saying is
accurate, and it is really very, very worrisome. The GAO also
concluded that, even if alternative available spectrum were
available, public safety users are likely to bear significant
costs associated with relocating and reestablishing
interoperability. The National Public Safety Telecommunication
Council, which is NPSTC, calculated in 2013 and again in 2016
that the cost of relocating public safety options off the T-
band would be $5.9 billion. In early 2019, the FCC also placed
the total cost between 5 billion and 6 billion.
So, Mr. Knapp, the same question, probably the same answer:
Do you have reason to doubt the members from the NPSTC or the
FCC on the enormous costs associated with reallocating and
auctioning the T-band spectrum?
Mr. Knapp. Yes, I haven't been involved. So I can't comment
either way.
Mr. Engel. OK. Well, we are going to have to follow this
up.
To deal with this problem, the GAO concluded that Congress
should pass legislation allowing first responders to continue
using the T-band radio spectrum. I wrote a bill last year with
Mr. Zeldin and others. We call it the Don't Break Up the T-Band
Act, which would allow law enforcement, fire officials, and EMS
to continue using the T-band. A companion bill was later
introduced in the Senate. Neither of these bills got a vote
last Congress, but I have reintroduced the bill with Mr. Zeldin
and others again this Congress. It is H.R. 451. Our bipartisan
legislation is backed by law enforcement and fire department
officials from different jurisdictions across the country, and
it is my hope that we will move this critical bill forward and
allow our first responders to continue using the T-band
spectrum to communicate effectively and keep us safe.
And if anyone cares to comment on it? I will just leave my
statement the way it is.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Brooks for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you both for being here today.
I cofounded, actually with Congresswoman Debbie Dingell,
the House 5G Caucus. And so my questions are focused more on
5G.
A recent Defense Innovation Board study highlighted mid-
band frequencies below 6 gigahertz as critical to America's
competitiveness in 5G. And the New Citizens Broadband Radio
Service at 3.5 gigahertz has great potential for delivering 5G
services in this critical mid-band spectrum. I understand that
network and consumer equipment or available systems needed to
manage are built and are just waiting for the FCC go-ahead.
So, can either of you speak to what is causing the delay in
getting the CBRS launched for commercial use? I would be
interested in both your perspectives.
Mr. Knapp. Yes. So I think we are very close. Just to
clarify a couple of points, that sharing to protect the Navy
radars is based on a computer system, a spectrum access system.
So, when the ships are close by, the devices get out of the
way. They just use other spectrum.
These spectrum access systems are developed in the private
sector. They have just gone through a cycle of tests out at the
NTIA labs in Boulder, Colorado. They have completed the tests.
The test reports haven't come yet to FCC. We expect them very
soon.
Mrs. Brooks. OK.
Mr. Knapp. Once we have that, once we have the controlling
element to make all of this work, then we will be ready to move
ahead with the initial commercial developments, the ICDs. We
already have proposals for it. Everybody is excited about it.
It is a way to just kind of kick the tires before we go full
bore nationwide, but we are pretty close.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
Mr. Khlopin, anything you want to add?
Mr. Khlopin. No, I certainly agree with 100 percent of what
Mr. Knapp said. And again, it is a complex system, both on the
technology side, even the licensing side, ultimately, to have
some priority access licenses and general authorized access. So
a lot of moving parts here.
I think what we are really excited about, though, is the
dynamic sharing here ultimately. When we started this process,
we were looking at drawing a large circle of exclusion zones
for the Navy radars, and now we are moving, hopefully, to where
it is a much more dynamic sharing and the spectrum can be used
more efficiently.
Mrs. Brooks. But, as we talk about the delay, and while you
say ``very close,'' are we talking about this calendar year
possibly or are we not?
Mr. Knapp. We had better be.
Mrs. Brooks. OK.
Mr. Knapp. I think we are talking, you know, hopefully,
within a couple of months.
Mrs. Brooks. OK.
Mr. Knapp. I can't nail that because it depends that there
are no surprises that crop up in the review.
Mrs. Brooks. Right.
Mr. Knapp. But we are just as eager as everybody to get
this up and running.
Mrs. Brooks. OK. Thank you.
I want to go to something that I think some of my
colleagues have talked about, and that is the race that we all
hear about, the U.S. leading the race in 5G. And I am really
proud the city of Indianapolis was actually the first city
where both AT&T and Verizon built out, and we are doing
development testing. And it is very exciting to be one of the
first cities and to be the first city in the country.
But then I recently saw--and it has been talked about--the
RT story, the Russian network spreading propaganda about the
dangers of 5G and causing dire health effects, including brain
cancer. But yet ironically, in Russia, it is my understanding
from this New York Times article, that they are actually
talking about the health benefits of 5G. And so, health
benefits versus here, you know, spreading information to our
citizens and those here in our country about all the health
dangers. And then, someone has called it economic warfare.
Are you familiar with this story? And can you comment? Can
you comment on it? Mr. Knapp?
Mr. Knapp. So, familiar with the story. What I will tell
you is we have RF exposure limits in place----
Mrs. Brooks. OK.
Mr. Knapp [continuing]. That go all the way up to 100
gigahertz.
Mrs. Brooks. OK.
Mr. Knapp. We are not a health agency. We work closely with
other agencies, particularly the FDA. The FDA issued a
statement last year that the existing standards--they reviewed
all of the science--the existing standards should remain in
place without major change. We also have an open proceeding. We
are working hard to try and get next steps out on that as well.
There is also a lot of work going on in the Institute of
Electrical Engineers and another group called ICNIRP. I won't
go through the acronym. But it includes scientists, and they
are updating the standards a bit, but there is not a major
change in what the standards are. It has more to do with test
procedures and things like that.
Mrs. Brooks. But I think what you are saying is that the
health professionals are also engaged in this as well.
Mr. Knapp. Yes, absolutely.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to the panel for being here.
If there is one thing that is positive about being toward
the end of the line here, you get a chance to hear all the
testimony. And with what has been discussed here today, I think
there is an important trend that we fully need to consider, and
that is the fact that new services drive new demand. It is very
clear, and I appreciated your comments earlier on that.
Mr. Knapp, given this demand, it is clear that everyone is
going to have neighbors in their respective bands. The easy
decisions probably are over. And as you know, the FCC is
required to protect from harmful interference. So, let me ask
you, what does the FCC look at when making those determinations
of what constitutes harmful interference?
Mr. Knapp. I am thinking people have been trying to define
harmful interference for as long as we have been in existence.
So, here is the rub of it: Technically, it is interference that
would disrupt the service, cause it to go off the air.
A lot of the debates center around things like not whether
your device is operating or it is giving you the wrong
information, but whether the noise level in the background
rises above a particular point that under the worst set of
conditions you might not be able to get a connection. So in our
rulemakings we invite studies. We do an analysis of everything
that has been submitted to come up with what we believe is a
reasonable protection level that is not going to disrupt
services.
Mr. Walberg. Do you account for legacy systems that may be
less spectrally efficient?
Mr. Knapp. Yes. The one point I will get to is, if we have
an outlier that is a system that really is operating far
outside of its lane, the question--and it depends what it is
and how many people have got it, and what the extent of
deployment is. It may not be appropriate to have one outlier
drive prevention of access to spectrum.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Mr. Khlopin, are there things we need to
do on the Federal side to improve incumbents' efficient use of
the spectrum?
Mr. Khlopin. Sure, and thank you for the question. I think
that is an ongoing question that I am sure this committee,
Congress, and NTIA, and others have asked for years.
Yes, we are always interested in more efficient spectrum
use. And I think sometimes the agencies' use can be
mischaracterized as inefficient. I will give an example of
spectrum bands. When we did the AWS look, we realized there
were--I don't know--15, 16, 17, 18, many different Federal
systems operating who actually already share spectrum today. So
in some ways there is a lot of innovation on the Federal side
because we cram a lot of Federal agency use into frequency
bands.
Having said that, we know there are always opportunities to
be more efficient. And part of the challenges are that, from
any agency perspective, they are mission-driven, right? They
are not driven to be especially efficient for the sake of the
good of the order, right? I mean, they are driven to accomplish
their mission, and Congress wants them to accomplish their
mission.
So it is sort of aligning where those incentives are, how
we get a framework. And again, I will come back to the National
Spectrum Strategy, where we are trying to determine how we do
those processes better, how we incentivize agencies, and how
collectively we do a better job of that.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Knapp, in cases where incumbents claim new entrants may
harmfully interfere with their existing systems, how does the
FCC weigh the criticality of certain services like providing
for public safety?
Mr. Knapp. So public safety is always going to be a prime
concern for the Commission, to make sure that it is protected.
So, if we are looking at something where we think there would
be a risk of interference to public safety, we try to figure
out a way that we can make sure they are protected.
Mr. Walberg. To what extent can interference concerns be
allayed without testing?
Mr. Knapp. So in some cases testing is appropriate. I think
the one thing you have to be a little bit concerned about, that
testing doesn't become a way to delay implementation of a new
service. I mean, for many years, the Commission has acted
without having to have tests in every case, just based on the
analysis of what we have in the record. And there are times
where, for example, in the white spaces and unlicensed, and in
the sharing with the Intelligent Transportation Services, where
to get a better understanding we had to do tests.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. Last, but certainly
not least, Mr. Gianforte, you have 5 minutes to wrap it up.
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for the panelists today.
My concern is rural deployment, being from Montana. We
recently had Commissioner Carr. I was there with him, and I
applaud him. He has been to 30 States as FCC Commissioner,
experiencing on the ground. And he shared with me that Montana
is probably worst of all 30 States he has been in for cell
phone coverage.
So what we do related to 5G is critically important. 5G
will come to rural America if, and only if, these spectrum
bands are available. My understanding is that mid-band spectrum
is particularly important here. I am an electrical engineer. I
can follow most of the discussion we are having. High-frequency
spectrum has a very short range and is less suited for rural
communities. Lower frequencies have better range, but
challenges on throughput. This is why mid-band is so important,
and of course you know this.
Mr. Knapp, we heard that a critical input for 5G is mid-
band. I find it interesting that China has deployed 100
megahertz to multiple providers, giving each one of their
state-owned carriers a 100 megahertz band, while here in the
U.S. we have only allocated 70 megahertz of licensed spectrum,
and this hasn't been auctioned off yet.
You have spoken about this today, but could you just for
the record talk about when can we expect this spectrum to get
to market?
Mr. Knapp. Yes, absolutely. So let me just try to run
through it fast and break it into pieces. So we talked about
2.5 and things we have tried to do on the policy side to make
that more flexible. Then you start moving up. You have got the
NTIA studies with DoD of 3.1 to 3.45 or 3.55. So they are
looking mostly at the upper 100 megahertz of that. Then, we
have got our Citizens Broadband Radio Service. The 70 that you
are referring to, it is actually 150 megahertz that is
available to everybody under kind of an unlicensed model. The
70 megahertz is what we are going to be auctioning next year.
And there was a lot of interest from rural folks in that
spectrum as well.
Then we come up to the C-band at 3.7 to 4.2. Why, when you
look at China? We have deployments in a lot of this spectrum,
whereas China may not. We also are accommodating a lot of
missions on the Federal side that are very important as well,
probably more than anybody else in the world. So, it is
sometimes a bigger challenge for us in accomplishing these
transitions. But we have got a lot of activity going on trying
to make mid-band available.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. And so, you mentioned C-band. I am
interested in learning more about your efforts around the
reallocation of C-band. As you consider the best way to
reallocate this in a timely manner, I understand that, if it is
a private sale, there are really no buildout requirements. Is
that correct for rural America?
Mr. Knapp. So this is an open proceeding. We are still
getting new ideas seemingly every day to look at. So I know
that the Chairman and Commissioners are considering everything
that is being presented to them. So nothing has really been
decided at this point.
Mr. Gianforte. So, in fact, there may be buildout
requirements attached to transfer of C-band?
Mr. Knapp. I think all of these issues are part of the
package.
Mr. Gianforte. And just for the record, I want to just
reiterate that, as we make spectrum available for 5G, if in
part it is through private sales, we have to keep in mind that
rural America wants to participate, and without buildout
requirements that would be difficult.
There are entities using parts of that band today. And we
have got to really be conscious of these areas of the country
where the buildout is not as economically viable. That is why
places like Montana lag behind. What else can we do to make
sure that we get buildout in these rural areas?
Mr. Knapp. Yes. So I have referred kind of earlier to more
on the policy side. We have actually had our Technological
Advisory Council looking at what we could do on the technical
side, and it often comes down to money. And so I think there is
a lot going on on the policy side that I am not directly
involved in to try to make sure that that happens.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. Well, we want to continue to work
together to close this digital divide so we can have rural
health care, education, and, of course, economic development.
It is critically important.
So, again, I thank you.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Khlopin. Could I make just a quick comment,
Congressman?
Mr. Doyle. Sure.
Mr. Khlopin. Congressman, I just wanted to offer, too, from
the NTIA perspective, outside of spectrum we are doing a lot of
work there that I think you would appreciate. The American
Broadband Initiative and the administration is looking at these
obstacles in rural areas, in particular. And part of this is an
acknowledgment that the Federal Government is actually a large
landowner. So we are looking at ways to improve access to
Federal facilities, including Federal fiber networks. So there
are a lot of opportunities there as well.
And also, as is the Commissioner, we are looking at the
mapping opportunities that I think would be helpful as well.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. Well, that concludes our first panel. I want to
thank our witnesses for joining us today.
I would also ask that each witness respond promptly to any
questions for the record that you receive from our Members
following this hearing.
Mr. Doyle. So thank you very much for being here today.
At this time, I would ask the staff to prepare the witness
table such that we may begin our second panel shortly.
[Recess.]
Mr. Doyle. OK. We are going to ask the second panel to come
forward and take their seats.
OK. We will now hear from a second panel of witnesses on
this important issue. Those witnesses include Mr. Jeffrey
Cohen, chief counsel at APCO International; Mr. Michael
Calabrese, Director of Wireless Future Project at the Open
Technology Institute at New America; Ms. Mariel Triggs, chief
executive officer of MuralNet; Mr. Tim Donovan, senior vice
president of legislative affairs at the Competitive Carriers
Association; Mr. Scott Bergmann, senior vice president of
legislative affairs at CTIA; Mr. Peter Pitsch, head of advocacy
and government relations for the C-Band Alliance.
We want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today.
We look forward to your testimony. We will recognize each
witness for 5 minutes to provide their opening statement.
And since you were probably all sitting here for the first
panel, you know about the lighting system. So when that light
turns yellow, wrap up your remarks. And when it turns red,
please finish up.
So, Mr. Cohen, we will start with you. You are recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF JEFFREY S. COHEN, CHIEF COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, APCO INTERNATIONAL; MICHAEL CALABRESE,
DIRECTOR, WIRELESS FUTURE PROJECT, OPEN TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE AT
NEW AMERICA; MARIEL TRIGGS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MURALNET;
TIM DONOVAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS,
COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION; SCOTT BERGMANN, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CTIA; AND PETER PITSCH,
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ADVOCACY AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, C-
BAND ALLIANCE
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY S. COHEN
Mr. Cohen. Chairman Doyle and Ranking Member Latta, members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today on behalf of APCO International. Founded in
1935, APCO was the world's largest and oldest organization of
public safety communications professionals, with over 33,000
members. I serve as APCO's chief counsel and director of
government relations. It is an honor to be back before this
subcommittee.
For many decades, public safety professionals have relied
upon the availability of dedicated and interference-free
spectrum for mission-critical communications ranging from
essential 9-1-1 dispatch operations to radio communications
among police, fire, and EMS responders.
Today, I will address three spectrum matters of pressing
concern: the 6 gigahertz band, the T-band, and the potential of
5G technology.
Beginning in August 2017, the FCC began to explore the
potential of introducing new, unlicensed operations into the 6
gigahertz band. This band is heavily encumbered by public
safety for extremely reliable, fixed, point-to-point microwave
links support backhaul for 9-1-1 dispatch and first responder
radio communications.
The plan advanced by the unlicensed community for sharing
this band could result in the deployment of hundreds of
millions of unlicensed devices, many of which would be managed
by an automated frequency coordination mechanism. This has left
APCO concerned because, if the sharing mechanism fails or
consumers or equipment manufacturers disable or misuse the
mechanism, or devices are allowed to operate outside the
control of the mechanism, there is no way to reverse the
resulting interference. There will be hundreds of millions of
unlicensed devices out in the stream of commerce, and when
interference occurs, that would mean the irreparable loss of
communications critical to public safety.
Switching over the T-band, this spectrum is located in
portions of the 470 to 512 megahertz band, available in 11
metropolitan areas, available for public safety use. The 2012
spectrum legislation requires the FCC to reallocate and auction
the spectrum by February 2021. With nowhere for public safety
to move, Congress should repeat this provision. Further, there
has been little, if any, interest expressed by potential
bidders for this spectrum.
I would like to acknowledge Congressman Walden, who has
been engaged in this matter and which we appreciate. Also, the
International Association of Fire Chiefs has been at the
forefront of representing the interests of public safety on
this important topic.
Finally, I would like to turn to the potential benefits to
public safety of 5G technologies. First, 5G can provide
wireless carriers with more options to improve location
accuracy for 9-1-1 callers. For example, in-home and in-
business products can provide dispatchable location quality
information, meaning the street address of the building plus
the room, suite, or apartment number. We encourage service
providers to more actively leverage 5G and tools in their
current networks as a 9-1-1 location solution.
5G can also contribute to significant advances in wireless
emergency alerts. The platform currently used by the wireless
industry is outdated. Ongoing enhancements to wireless networks
such as 5G present new opportunities to enhance public safety
features.
Finally, if we don't upgrade the Nation's 9-1-1 systems, 5G
will never reach its full potential. While 5G will tremendously
enhance the communications capabilities of the general public
and first responders, it will only further widen the gap
between those capabilities and what is possible for 9-1-1.
Unless we modernize the 9-1-1 system, all these innovations are
lost at the door of the 9-1-1 center.
While I am discussing 9-1-1, I would like to specifically
thank Representatives Eshoo and Shimkus for their bipartisan
work to introduce the Next Generation 9-1-1 Act of 2019, and to
Chairman Pallone for including the provisions of this bill into
the LIFT America Act. This legislation would modernize 9-1-1 in
an innovative, interoperable, effective, and efficient manner
while preserving State and local control over 9-1-1 operations,
which are all goals that we fully support.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and
present APCO's views. I look forward to any questions. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Calabrese, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CALABRESE
Mr. Calabrese. Good afternoon. My name is Michael
Calabrese. I direct the Wireless Future Project at New
America's Open Technology Institute.
There are two fundamental reasons we believe it is critical
to make substantially more mid-band spectrum available on a
licensed, unlicensed, and shared basis. The first is that the
most robust 5G wireless ecosystem will not be built out by
mobile carriers alone on exclusively licensed spectrum. Like
today's 4G ecosystem, America's 5G wireless future will rely on
carrier networks for mobile, on-the-go use, but also on many
thousands of complementary, high-capacity Wi-Fi, private LTE,
and other networks deployed by individual enterprises and
households.
A second reason we need more unlicensed and shared spectrum
is the critical need to assist rural and low-income communities
that find themselves on the losing side of the digital divide.
At least 20 million Americans, including 1 in 4 rural
residents, still lack access to basic broadband service. More
unlicensed and shared mid-band spectrum can serve as the public
infrastructure that enables high-speed broadband in underserved
areas at a fraction of the cost of trenching fiber.
One historic step in this direction is the new Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. By using dynamic database
coordination, CBRS allows private operators to share this
underutilized band with the military, fully protecting Navy
radar from interference.
Immediately above the CBRS band is C-band. We support the
FCC's proposal to combine clearing and sharing in C-band to
achieve three vital, public-interest outcomes: first, to
reallocate a large portion of the band for mobile 5G; second,
to enable shared use of unused C-band spectrum for high-speed,
fixed wireless service in rural, small town, and other
underserved areas; and third, to protect existing earth
stations from harmful interference.
Consumer and taxpayer advocates remain concerned, however,
that the FCC continues to consider proposals for a private
auction that would needlessly transfer 10 to 30 billion dollars
or more to four foreign satellite companies that never paid for
the public airwaves they use. A private auction would violate
Section 309(j) and willfully ignore congressional intent and
precedent.
When the TV bands at 700 and, later, 600 megahertz were
consolidated for auctions that raised $20 billion each,
Congress twice passed legislation ensuring that local TV
stations would receive either no windfall or, at most,
incentive payments limited by a competitive reverse auction.
Just as Congress in 2012 designated $7 billion to fund
FirstNet, Congress should require a public auction and
designate $10 billion or more to pay for rural broadband
infrastructure.
The FCC should hold a traditional public auction that
consolidates existing earth stations into the upper portion of
the band and requires auction winners to reimburse incumbents
for reasonable costs. Congress should also direct the FCC to
authorize coordinated shared access to unused spectrum across
the entire C-band to support broadband buildout in rural and
underserved areas.
Moving up in frequency, OTI commends the FCC for its
pending proposal to open the 5.9 and 6 gigahertz bands to fuel
Next Generation Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi today makes broadband connectivity
more available, productive, and affordable for all. Next Gen
Wi-Fi can likewise make 5G capabilities immediately available
to all homes and businesses in rural, small town, and exurban
areas that may not see mobile carrier 5G for many years.
The FCC's pending proposal for unlicensed sharing across
the entire band, 1200 megahertz in total, deserves your full
support. The FCC's proposed rulemaking has one critical
shortcoming, however. Consumer, rural, and high-tech advocates
have urged the Commission to authorize lower-power, indoor-only
unlicensed use across the entire 1200 megahertz without the
added cost of database coordination.
Finally, concerning 5.9 gigahertz, we encourage Members to
urge the FCC and DOT to move forward to determine a way
consumers can benefit from both vehicle safety communications
and Next Gen Wi-Fi. Authorizing unlicensed use of the 5.9
gigahertz band is key to removing the roadblock to a Wi-Fi
superhighway. The FCC should move forward and consider whether
another band, such as the nearly vacant 4.9 gigahertz public
safety band, could be equally or more useful for vehicle safety
integrated with 4G networks.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calabrese follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Calabrese.
Ms. Triggs, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARIEL TRIGGS
Ms. Triggs. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Doyle,
Ranking Member Latta, and members of the subcommittee. My name
is Mariel Triggs, and I am the CEO of MuralNet, a young
nonprofit dedicated to helping Tribal nations build wireless
internet networks.
I am here to tell you the story about how the Havasupai
Tribe, MuralNet, and local partners brought high-speed internet
service to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, and how spectrum
acquisition was the biggest challenge time and time again.
As schools increase their internet connectivity, teachers
assign more online homework. In order to meet academic
expectations, students with no access to sufficient internet at
home have to go to extreme measures, such as working out of a
McDonald's parking lot to pick up Wi-Fi. Rural areas are hit
hard, with only 60 percent of homes having broadband access,
and on Tribal lands that number is halved to 30 percent.
Martin Casado, the father of software-defined networking,
and Brian Shih, an expert in E-rate policy, wanted to address
the homework gap on Tribal lands. In February of 2017, they
founded MuralNet. LTE technologies had matured, so equipment
was cheap, reliable, and could be easily installed on existing
structures. Network management platforms used to be
prohibitively expensive, but now there were free open-source
software stacks in beta phase. Many anchor institutions already
were connected to fiber.
The remaining hurdle was spectrum for that last mile to
homes, and educational broadband service spectrum in the 2.5
gigahertz range was perfect. It could travel far, penetrate
trees, had high throughput, and was protected from interference
through licensing. But applications have been frozen since the
mid-nineties, and we worked to find a solution.
In the spring of 2017, Dr. Chad Hamill of Northern Arizona
University vetted MuralNet and connected us with Councilwoman
Ophelia Watahomigie-Corliss of the Havasupai Tribe. The village
of Supai is home to about 400 members and is located at the
bottom of the Grand Canyon. Travel there requires a helicopter
or an 8-mile hike through difficult terrain.
We asked the FCC for special temporary authorization to use
EBS-A channels over Supai. We thought it would take 2 weeks for
approval, but it actually took 4 months. In February of 2018,
the Havasupai Tribe was granted access, and within a few days
they made their first high-speed internet connection through
their own network. It took Niles Radio Communications and
MuralNet half a day to install the network equipment on the rim
of the Grand Canyon. It provides signal to the whole town, with
the village center having broadband speeds.
The network was a success. So we applied for a permanent
license, and this was the second hurdle, and it took a year to
obtain. The delay was due to the FCC's efforts to utilize
fallow EBS spectrum by changing the 2.5 gigahertz licensing
rules. They proposed opening applications through a Tribal
priority window and educational priority window, and then
auctioning off what remained.
I learned everything I could about the FCC policy from
organizations like Schools, Health, and Libraries Broadband
Coalition and the National EBS Association. Councilwoman
Ophelia Watahomigie-Corliss and I met with decisionmakers in
DC, telling them of the success of our pilot. We wanted to let
them know what was possible if 2.5 gigahertz spectrum became
available to other Tribal nations.
Last week, the FCC announced that there will be a 90-day
outreach period, a 60-day Tribal priority window, and then an
immediate auction. Having a Tribal priority window is
tremendous, but its impact will be stunted because the window
is too short. It took 5 months for the Havasupai Tribe to
assess the impact of a high-speed internet network on their way
of life and decide to move forward. Other Tribal nations
learned from their example and are now working with us to build
their own networks. If Tribal party windows were a year long
with rolling application approvals, the first wave of
applicants would inspire a second, much bigger wave.
Now the Havasupai want broadband coverage for the whole
village. They want emergency communications throughout their
canyon, an online charter high school, and telemedicine for a
new clinic. MuralNet already has grants for this work. And now
we have hit our third spectrum hurdle.
Niles Radio Communications applied for a spectrum license
in the 6 gigahertz band to make the necessary increases to
microwave backhaul for Supai, but their application might be
rejected because in 2015 another company expressed interest in
the frequencies through the prior coordination notification
process. Even though the other company did not apply for a
license until Niles Radio made their interest public, their
application has seniority. If Niles Radio application is
rejected, we must wait 18 months to try again. That is a year
and a half of schooling, telemedicine, and economic development
lost.
The rural digital divide is surmountable. Our LTE network
toolkits, the infrastructure we erect, and the skills of our
Tribal community partners that they build will make 5G upgrades
easy. Spectrum acquisition has been our biggest issue. And as
you make new rules to encourage 5G and make current wireless
internet faster, please do not create policies that make it
harder for Tribal nations to build their first networks and
connect their people for the first time to this vital resource.
I will be honored to address any questions the committee
has, and thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Triggs follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Ms. Triggs.
Mr. Donovan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TIM DONOVAN
Mr. Donovan. Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify about how to best use finite, taxpayer-owned spectrum
resources to support ubiquitous wireless service across the
United States.
CCA is the Nation's leading association for competitive
wireless providers, representing carrier members ranging from
small, rural providers serving fewer than 5,000 customers to
regional and nationwide providers serving millions, as well as
vendors and suppliers that provide products and services
throughout the wireless communications ecosystem.
This hearing is timely. Our future is, indeed, wireless.
There are now more wireless connections than people in the
United States. The National Center for Health Statistics
reports that over half of all adults live in wireless-only
households. What's more, the share of adults that primarily
rely on a smartphone to access the internet has nearly doubled
since 2013.
While Americans continue to cut the cord, today wireless
services power so much more than voice calls. Mobile
connections power new technologies and improve quality of life
across the United States. These services rely on a tremendous
and increasing amount of wireless data, with no signs of
slowing down.
5G will supercharge these services and enable new services,
some not yet even imagined. To make this future a reality, all
carriers must have meaningful opportunity to access sufficient
spectrum. And while the potential of 5G is exciting, without
the right spectrum policies in place to make spectrum available
for competitive carriers to serve rural areas, rural America
will be left behind.
Congress has established several guiding policies to foster
fair and transparent opportunities for all carriers to access
spectrum on a level playing field. Policymakers should continue
to support these policies.
One, spectrum must be made available in sufficiently small
license size, while respecting technological use cases and
power levels, to ensure that competitive carriers that serve
rural areas have a true, meaningful opportunity to gain access.
Two, standards within spectrum bands must be interoperable
to support roaming and viable equipment ecosystems.
Three, enough spectrum must be made available to support
competition as bands are brought to market.
And four, auctions should be designed with incentives for
small entities and to serve rural and Tribal areas, and
designed to avoid unnecessarily complex and unpredictable
processes.
These policies should apply to spectrum allocated for
wireless use in low-, mid-, and high-frequency bands.
Greenfield opportunities do not exist in the frequencies best
suited to support our wireless future, so we must make all
efforts to reallocate spectrum from inefficient users.
The SPECTRUM NOW Act may unlock new opportunities through
smart policies to support research and development. CCA thanks
Representatives Matsui and Guthrie for introducing this bill
and supports its consideration.
While low-band spectrum provides a strong foundation for
wireless service with vast coverage, and high-band spectrum
promises blistering speeds and capacity, mid-band spectrum
balances both characteristics. That is why competitive carriers
have prioritized ways to access additional mid-band spectrum,
particularly to support expanded buildout and Next Generation
services in less sparsely populated areas.
There are many steps being taken or under consideration
regarding mid-band spectrum. We heard about many of them on the
first panel, including the 1675 proceeding, the upcoming 3.5
auction, and last week's FCC order on 2.5. These should all be
pursued.
But the C-band presents a unique and immediate opportunity
to reallocate a substantial portion of mid-band airwaves for
wireless use. We should seize the opportunity for this 500
megahertz slide of mid-band spectrum with important
foundational principles in place:
Maximize the amount of spectrum made available for wireless
use;
Implement a transparent, reliable assignment process that
ensures meaningful opportunities for all carriers to access
spectrum;
Make spectrum available for wireless use as efficiently and
timely as possible;
And ensure that the proceeds of selling licenses to use
this taxpayer-owned resource benefit taxpayers, with profits
flowing to the U.S. Treasury or used to benefit the American
public, as directed by Congress.
CCA recently filed a joint compromise plan to meet these
goals with substantial benefits for rural America, including
expanded wireless and wire line broadband services that merit
strong consideration from Congress and the FCC.
We are also pleased to hear, Chairman Doyle, your work with
Congresswoman Matsui to advance continued focus on these
issues.
In closing, only a comprehensive, holistic approach to
spectrum policy will ensure that Americans in all corners of
the United States reap the benefits that stem from Next
Generation wireless broadband networks and technologies. All
carriers require equitable access to spectrum resources, or
Americans throughout the Nation will miss out on a massive
opportunity for economic growth, job creation, and worldwide
leadership across industries.
Thank you for your leadership on these critical issues, and
I would welcome any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donovan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Donovan.
Mr. Bergmann, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT BERGMANN
Mr. Bergmann. Thank you, Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member
Latta, and members of the subcommittee. I am Scott Bergmann,
and on behalf of CTIA and the wireless industry, I want to
thank you for your leadership in making spectrum available for
5G. Your continued focus on crafting smart spectrum policies
will be critical to our 5G future.
Thanks to this committee's past efforts, we lead the world
in initial 5G deployments. U.S. wireless providers were the
first to deploy 5G last year, and by year end we will have
launched 92 deployments across the country, nearly double that
of any other nation.
With the right spectrum resources, the U.S. wireless
industry is ready to invest $275 billion, creating 3 million
new jobs and adding $500 billion to our economy. But the full
societal and economic impact will likely be even greater. U.S.
entrepreneurs will leverage new 5G platforms to lead the world
in tomorrow's advancements in healthcare, public safety,
transportation, robotics, the environment, and every other key
sector.
But every benefit we expect to reap from 5G is predicated
on the availability of spectrum. It is the building block of
everything we do. We led the world in 4G and benefited from
economic growth, jobs, and the emergence of the wireless
ecosystem. Not surprisingly, other nations saw those benefits
and have been aggressive in identifying spectrum for 5G.
Fortunately, we know the roadmap for success, and all of
the above spectrum policy focused on low-, mid-, and high-band
spectrum. Our mobile wireless networks will need access to all
three types of spectrum. They are the three-legged stool that
we need for 5G.
Low-band provides great coverage. It goes for miles. It is
what your wireless service relies on today. High-band has huge
capacity, but it travels short distances. It will be key for
bandwidth-intensive applications. And mid-band is the sweet
spot. It offers both capacity and coverage. It can handle the
increased traffic that 5G will bring, and it can travel
distances. It will be a workhorse for 5G. To deliver all of the
benefits and services that 5G will offer, we need to have a
healthy mix of all three.
Our leadership in 5G today is thanks to the wise spectrum
policies adopted over the past several years. We applaud
Congress and the FCC for pushing low-band spectrum into the
market through the broadcast incentive auction. Providers are
busy building out this spectrum today. And to their credit, the
FCC just successfully concluded the second of three planned
high-band auctions scheduled for this year. As a result, we are
leading the world in high-band availability, but other nations
are scrambling to catch up.
To keep our 5G leadership, mid-band will be the key. The
challenge is that we are behind globally today. Our key rivals
will have four times the amount of licensed mid-band spectrum
above 3 gigahertz available by 2020. Chairman Pai and the FCC
deserve credit for working hard to catch up. The FCC recently
finalized the rules for the licensed portion of the 3.5
gigahertz band, and we are eager for the FCC to resolve its C-
band proceeding, which has the potential to make available
hundreds of megahertz of mid-band spectrum.
The administration is also reviewing the 3.45 gigahertz
band, part of the larger 3100 to 3550 band which Congress
identified last year in the MOBILE NOW Act. We appreciate this
committee's continued focus on efficient use of spectrum by
government users, including the recently introduced SPECTRUM
NOW Act. The opportunities for mid-band are there. It is now
about execution. We need to free up hundreds of megahertz of
mid-band, and fast.
Even as you focus on these national priorities, we must
maintain our leadership on the international stage for the 2019
World Radiocommunication Conference. This includes events in 5G
in the 2400 gigahertz band, which the FCC just auctioned for
over $2 billion.
We urge Congress to ensure that our U.S. positions
reinforce our 5G leadership and do not undermine access to
critical bands that have already been made available for 5G. We
must be unified across government and respect the interagency
process to free up morespectrum.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and the
committee to craft spectrum policies that meet the needs of
wireless users to rapidly address our Nation's mid-band needs
and to provide a consistent pipeline of high-, mid-, and low-
band spectrum.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I
welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bergmann follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Bergmann.
Mr. Pitsch, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PETER PITSCH
Mr. Pitsch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Peter
Pitsch. I am the executive vice president for government
affairs for the C-Band Alliance, CBA.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Latta and the other members of the subcommittee for this
opportunity to explain the efforts of the C-band satellite
operators and what they are doing to make mid-band spectrum
available for 5G.
The United States is at risk of falling behind in the
global race to 5G. Countries like China, Korea, Japan, many
others, have made more mid-band spectrum available to 5G than
we have. That is a problem for U.S. 5G leadership and security.
Mid-band spectrum is the Goldilocks band for 5G because it
has the right balance of coverage and capacity, especially in
rural America, and the portion of the band known as C-band is
especially well-suited for 5G. But repurposing the C-band for
5G is complicated.
First, all the major television and radio networks--Fox,
NBC, ESPN, NPR, and religious broadcasters--rely on C-band to
deliver programming to nearly 120 million television and radio
households.
The other complication is that each of the operating
satellite companies has a nonexclusive right to use the full
500 megahertz, which means that no one satellite operator alone
can make that spectrum available for 5G.
To solve these challenges, the four satellite companies
that are providing C-band services in the continental United
States have formed a consortium called the C-Band Alliance, and
we have developed a proposal to assign and clear 5G spectrum as
soon as possible.
Here is how it will work: The C-band will clear the lower
200 megahertz of the C-band--that is 40 percent of the
spectrum--for 5G within 36 months. This could lead, should lead
to spectrum assignments in the first half of 2020, years ahead
of the alternative approaches. Some economists have calculated
that, for each year the rollout of 5G is delayed, the U.S.
economy would lose $50 billion in GDP. Making this spectrum
available quickly will also foster a more secure 5G vendor
ecosystem.
The C-band proposal that we put forward is the only
proposal that fully protects existing satellite services. We
have the expertise and knowhow to clear the lower 200
megahertz. We will assume substantial costs to make that
spectrum available, and the fiber alternatives are not timely
and suitable.
I want to move to the transparency of our plan. We have
publicly filed our auction design, customer commitments, band
plan, transition implementation process, and other key aspects
of our plan. The FCC will be involved throughout this process.
We will be fully accountable. The FCC will be involved, for
example, in approving the auction design and issuing licenses,
and as one of the Members raised, determining buildout
requirements, and so on.
Finally, our proposal is fair. CBA member companies have
committed to delivering a significant portion of the auction
proceeds to the U.S. Government. We are also committed to
working with the Congress and this committee to assure that
that goal is met. The CBA members are undertaking substantial
risk and expense to clear 40 percent of their spectrum and
break the 5G logjam to make this spectrum available years ahead
of the alternatives. In short, our proposal is the fastest way
to repurpose C-band spectrum for near-term benefits for U.S.
consumers, workers, businesses, and U.S. security.
We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitsch follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Pitsch.
That concludes our opening statements from our second
witness panel. We will now move to Member questions, and I will
start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Donovan, the C-Band Alliance has proposed an entirely
private transaction in the C-band that would make 180 megahertz
available for mobile broadband. Do you think this is enough
spectrum to meet our Nation's mid-band needs for 5G, and what
would be the risks of not providing enough spectrum, if you
don't think it is enough?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So we have heard from our carriers that you really in this
spectrum need a minimum of 60 megahertz or so--more is better--
to provide a meaningful service on that. If you only free up
180 megahertz for wireless use, that is a maximum of three
licenses. If we want to talk about putting spectrum in the
hands of competitors that serve rural areas, that is not enough
to go around. So, we need to be able to free up more spectrum
to make sure that there is a competitive marketplace for more
than three licenses, to make sure that there is enough spectrum
available for those to serve rural areas.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Let me ask you this, Mr. Donovan. One of the subcommittee's
priorities is to help facilitate the deployment of rural
broadband and close the digital divide. Would a private
transaction by the C-Band Alliance, even if it included a
donation to the Treasury, help your members deploy broadband in
rural America?
Mr. Donovan. I think we don't have the transparency into
the private transaction to have that type of assurance. The
plan that we have put forward on the record not only frees up
additional spectrum but pushes fiber further out into rural
areas to support expanded fiber broadband access as well as
backhaul for 5G, while also freeing up additional spectrum for
5G services.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Calabrese, how would you respond to that
question?
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, we actually vastly prefer the proposal
that has been put forward by CCA and the smaller cable systems
and Charter, for the reasons, I think most of the reasons that
Tim mentioned, that there is return back to the public. It
would be a public auction that would be more transparent and
fair. It seems to have a side benefit of pushing fiber out,
although legislation would be preferable so that that return to
the public could be designated specifically for rural and
underserved areas, which it wouldn't be if it was simply a
public auction. And we also worry a bit, if the FCC went ahead
with this proposal, it sort of has a blank check for incentive
payments to satellite companies that never paid spectrum, which
completely breaks off precedent and is not necessary.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Calabrese, what are the potential benefits
of unlicensed or coordinated access to spectrum in any parts of
the C-band that are not licensed for mobile use or where mobile
broadband is not deployed?
Mr. Calabrese. Right. That is a very much overlooked
portion of the FCC's Notice of Rulemaking. They also propose
that in whatever portion, well, the upper portion of the band
that remains in service for fixed satellite use, that you can
open that for coordinated shared access, for high-capacity
point-to-multiple-point in rural areas, very much the same way
a spectrum access system will be used in CBRS to protect the
Navy.
Tech companies just put out an engineering study last week
that shows why this is the case. And, in fact, you could
actually authorize sharing across the entire band using a
database mechanism just like you do in the adjacent CBRS.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mr. Pitsch, in your testimony you note that your proposal
for the disposition of C-band includes asking spectrum holders
that relinquish spectrum to make voluntary payments to the
Treasury. How do you propose that transaction would occur, and
what is the legal authority for that type of donation?
Mr. Pitsch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question.
We have looked at the legality, and we are confident it is
legal for private parties to make contributions to the
Treasury. It is also the case that the Commission could choose
to condition parts of the decision on our making such a
contribution. We are confident that would be legal.
Mr. Doyle. Has such a donation to the FCC ever occurred
before, to your knowledge?
Mr. Pitsch. Not specifically like that. However, it is the
case that parties in settlements have made contributions to
particular groups. I can think of a railroad situation that
made a contribution that was approved by the FCC to a Tribal
authority. Of course, a recent merger proponent has promised to
make voluntary contributions to the Treasury if they do not
live up to certain commitments regarding broadband deployment,
and so on. So we don't think that the legality here is a
problem.
Mr. Doyle. Does the Commission have the authority to
enforce this?
Mr. Pitsch. It does if it, in fact, conditions our license
on our following through. Let me assure you there will not be a
problem in following through by the C-band companies.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
I see my time is expired, and I yield to my good friend Mr.
Latta.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again, thanks to our panel for being with us and all
your great information.
Again, there is certainly no shortage of discussion topics
when it comes to spectrum. One that factored heavily in the
testimony of some of our witnesses is C-band and the different
proposals for harnessing this prime mid-band real estate for
5G.
I also appreciate the chairman's invitation to work
together on this and also along with Ms. Matsui. It is my hope
that we can all engage in a very productive conversation toward
a solution that could address some other priorities while it
turbocharges our transition to 5G.
As the chairman just mentioned in his questions, one of the
biggest sticking points in the current discussion is the
mechanism of the potential sale. Everyone agrees the spectrum
should be auctioned, but the question is whether that auction
should be handled by the private sector with appropriate
oversight or by the Federal Government.
I will start my question with you, Mr. Pitsch, if I may,
but will ask several of the witnesses as well. What are your
thoughts on the pros and cons of each approach on a private or
an FCC auction?
Mr. Pitsch. Thank you for that question, Congressman Latta.
First off, as I indicated, our approach would assign
spectrum early next year. I think if you look at all the
alternatives with a public auction in the future and look at
the track record for how long it takes for the Commission to go
through a public auction process, or through this legislation,
we are talking years later.
The impact on 5G could be crucial. China, Korea, Japan, the
UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Sweden, the Ukraine, Qatar,
Australia all have much more spectrum available or will have
before the end of 2020.
This proposal balances the interests of the incumbents.
There is discussion about what happens and could we do more. It
is important to realize that, on some of those fiber-based
proposals, Disney, Fox, Discovery, CBS, Viacom have all said
they do not think that that fiber solution is appropriate.
Under our approach, the members of this committee will be able
to look at one entity who will be fully accountable for
clearing spectrum quickly for 5G and make sure that all of
those viewers and listeners at home are getting ESPN and NPR.
Mr. Latta. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Calabrese? And if I could, if you would do it in about
30 seconds, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Calabrese. I think the main advantage to the CBA
proposal is that the satellite operators could be far more
cooperative with the process if they are receiving billions and
billions of dollars. The downsize, of course, is that the
public would lose that revenue, which could be far better used,
as I said, for rural and underserved infrastructure. It is also
just a terrible precedent to----
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Calabrese, can you pull your microphone up a
little closer to you?
Mr. Calabrese. Oh, yes.
And then it would also be, we believe, just a terrible
precedent to set because we are moving--as Julian Knapp said
earlier--we are moving into an era where all the new spectrum
we make available is going to be in bands that are in use, but
underutilized. And so, for sharing, for consolidating, as we
did with the broadcasters earlier, and we should do here now,
we can't be paying off unnecessarily these incumbents. The
Commission has the authority to consolidate them, modify
licenses. We should take advantage of that.
Mr. Latta. Mr. Bergmann?
Mr. Bergmann. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
And I think you are focused on exactly the right band. We
recognize that this has exactly those criteria that I talked
about earlier, the balance of coverage and capacity. So this is
exactly the right place to focus.
Our members have different perspectives on the question of
whether it should be a public auction or a private auction, but
I think what they all agree on is we need to find opportunities
for hundreds of megahertz of mid-band spectrum. We know that a
recent report suggested that bringing 400 megahertz of mid-band
spectrum to market would lead to a $274 billion increase to the
GDP. So this is exactly the right place to be focused.
Mr. Latta. Mr. Donovan?
Mr. Donovan. So there is a track record of success with FCC
auctions having raised over $120 billion through mechanisms
that carriers, large and small, have comfortable experience
with, know how to navigate, know how to place bids, and know
how to participate.
Mr. Latta. OK. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My
time is expired, but I will ask the last question be submitted
for the witnesses. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Latta. OK, Mr. McNerney, you have
5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman and I thank the
witnesses. It is a great hearing. It is a great subject, and
you are giving us a fairly diverse viewpoint on this. So, I
appreciate that very much.
I care deeply about the United States leading in 5G and
maximizing its benefits. Mr. Calabrese, how then is the 5G
ecosystem likely to impact the amount of mobile traffic that
will be offloaded to Wi-Fi?
Mr. Calabrese. Well, it is going to increase that
tremendously. Cisco has a continuous survey they do of internet
traffic around the world, the Visual Networking Index, and they
are projecting a huge increase because 5G will enable
applications that are far more bandwidth intense. And every
time that happens, the typical consumer wants to use those same
applications. In fact, 80 percent of use is indoors. And so,
indoors they will use Wi-Fi. And so they project a spike in Wi-
Fi use, if consumers are going to get the benefit of 5G
everywhere.
Mr. McNerney. So what would happen to U.S. leadership in 5G
if we don't make more unlicensed spectrum available?
Mr. Calabrese. Well, we have always been ahead. I mean, we
invented unlicensed spectrum in Wi-Fi and all these great
innovations. And we will, in turn, fall behind. And also, our
average consumers will not have the ability to use these great,
new applications nearly as much they would otherwise.
Mr. McNerney. Great. In your written testimony, you
mentioned that relocating the 5.9 band to unlicensed spectrum
would create a very high-capacity Wi-Fi super-band. What kind
of benefits would that lead to in our communities?
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, so that is very important. The
Commission set out, you may recall, in 2014 to clear 750
contiguous megahertz in 5 gigahertz. That didn't work out
because of military radar, because we are logjammed on 5.9. So
what you can do is, if you can get access to that 5.9 band, you
could have as many as, I think it is six or seven contiguous
160-megahertz channels. That is gigabit Wi-Fi for many
different users. So, that is great for businesses, for families
in congested areas. It really becomes a Wi-Fi superhighway.
Mr. McNerney. And so that will help close the digital
divide as well?
Mr. Calabrese. Yes, it sure will. Low-income people and
communities of color depend far more on Wi-Fi than more
affluent folks do, often because it is a primary internet
connection. And so it is going to be important that we have
that combination of getting fiber deep into communities and
also having plenty of Wi-Fi access, including in schools and
libraries and everywhere.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you.
You know, spectrum is limited, and the demand for spectrum
continues to grow. So what can we do to incent the more
efficient use of spectrum? In other words, packing more
information into existing real estate, what is the best way to
encourage technology to be developed along those lines?
Mr. Calabrese. Well, I think the Commission--we see that
with Citizens Band Radio Service, with CBRS. If you target
these underutilized bands and allow for dynamic spectrum
sharing, you really set off a whole wave of innovation for more
efficient spectrum sharing and use. So we are going to be
seeing that in CBRS. If we open all these 6 gigahertz band
segments to unlicensed use, you will see even more of it. So
the spectrum-sharing technologies, even DoD now wants to
develop more of that, and I think that is all just for the
good.
Mr. Pitsch. Congressman McNerney, could I answer your
question just briefly?
Mr. McNerney. Briefly.
Mr. Pitsch. The C-Band Alliance is going to create the
capacity on its remaining 60 megahertz by substituting capital.
We are going to buy billions of dollars' worth of satellites
and install filters, and that is going to free up 40 percent of
the spectrum for 5G use.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Mr. Calabrese, the chairman mentioned his
concern about the enforceability of the spectrum deal that Mr.
Pitsch was referring to. What do you think about that in terms
of enforceability of the payment to the Federal Government?
Mr. Calabrese. I don't see how they can really because it
is beyond, it is certainly beyond the Commission's authority to
require. The Commission is clearly--it is clear that there are
competing applications here for licenses. That puts them within
Section 309(j). That requires an auction. 309(j)(8) requires
that the revenue, every bit of revenue to the Treasury. This
won't be eligible as an incentive auction. So I just don't see
it.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Let me just say that we already started our first of a
series of three votes. I think we have 9 minutes left. We have
checked with the floor. They are going to give us a little bit
of extra time.
But if the remaining three Members can try to be brief with
their comments, I think we can get all your questions in and
not have to come back and make the panel sit here for 45
minutes or so.
So, Mr. Johnson, you are up.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And one quick
administrative task. I request to enter into the record this
letter from Chairman Pai to the ranking member on Science,
Space, and Technology dealing with the recently completed 24
gigahertz auction.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Donovan, I know that there are a lot of
different proposals floating around about how to reallocate C-
band spectrum for 5G wireless services. I hear all kinds of
numbers discussed about how much spectrum can be freed up in
the C-band for 5G use. Some proposals talk about freeing up 200
megahertz of spectrum. Other proposals say that close to 400
megahertz of spectrum can be made available. Still other
proposals suggest that the spectrum should be made available in
different stages. What is so important about maximizing the
amount of C-band spectrum used for 5G? Isn't there other
spectrum being made available for 5G use?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question. It makes me think
of, Why did Willie Sutton rob banks? That is where the money
is.
As we are looking at 5G spectrum, where is the most
spectrum that we can have? It is in the C-band. And that is why
competitive carriers are so focused on it.
Two of your questions, in part--so, it is important to make
it available all at once, so that an equipment ecosystem
develops and all carriers have an opportunity to access the
spectrum without any carrier getting elite in the market or
disrupting economies of scale for smaller carriers to be able
to get access to spectrum.
And it is important to make a lot of it available. I really
think we need to look at how we can use fiber resources to
transition the end users. Our plan has the buy-in from the
cables companies that provide the service to their customers.
Even last month, the NBA signed a contract to put fiber to all
their arenas, so that all of their content can go out in 10 ADP
and they can have another 30 cameras in each arena. We see a
lot of benefit to that, and in the process, we can build fiber
instead of buying filters. We can free up additional spectrum
while advancing our 5G interests.
Mr. Johnson. OK. I keep hearing this back-and-forth debate
about C-band, and I am wondering how these plans will
accelerate the deployment of desperately needed broadband to
rural America. So how will your C-band plan that was recently
filed with the FCC benefit rural America?
Mr. Donovan. There are many benefits to rural America from
the plan that we recently filed with Charter and with ACA
Connects. So it not only frees up additional spectrum for 5G
use, it incents building out the fiber that can be used not
only to transition that programming but also to serve as
backhaul for that 5G service, while also freeing up additional
revenue to either go to the Treasury or to be used as directed
by Congress. We have heard a lot of talk about using auctions
to support important policies like expanding rural broadband
access, and we support those.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Donovan, continuing with you, and also
Ms. Triggs, what role can the 2.5 gigahertz band play in
expanding broadband to rural America?
Mr. Donovan. A lot of the 2.5 that will be made available
will be in these rural areas. So we do see it as one of the
all-the-above options to help expand access in rural areas.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Ms. Triggs. The same. Fifty-one percent of EBS spectrum is
available in the U.S., and most of that is west of the
Mississippi, which overlaps with a lot of Tribal lands. So it
is something that they could right away turn around and start
building. Builds are fast, builds are cheap. We are talking
$15,000 and half a day of labor. That got things up, going for
the Havasupai Tribe.
What is stopping us, actually, is the current licenses that
aren't being used. The original licensed were a 35-mile radii.
And what ends up happening is, any of our partners that are
within 30 miles of a major metropolitan center have all of the
spectrum allocated, but none of it being used.
I will go along with the spectrum analyzer and I will see
that 2.4, huge spikes. Lots of people from outside of the
reservation are beaming in on unlicensed spectrum and offering
internet for $40 a month. You see the signs everywhere. 2.5, it
is a straight line.
So, if we can find some way to incentivize those people who
have the spectrum and get them to share it, that is what I am
looking for. And that would be huge for a lot of, about half of
our partners.
Mr. Johnson. OK. All right.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
Ms. Matsui, you are recognized.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As has been discussed here today, C-band offers perhaps the
best opportunity to repurpose a potential coordinated range
spectrum band for Next Generation terrestrial broadband
networks. This band has propagation characteristics that make
it ideal for reliable satellite distribution and particularly
valuable for 5G mobile networks.
My draft WIN 5G Act proposes to ensure the spectrum is
reallocated rapidly by building capacity within the C-band,
incentivizing a clearing target, and maximizes the amount of
spectrum made available for terrestrial services, and requiring
a demonstration that incumbent users will continue to receive
comparable service. More fundamentally, my proposal reflects
the three pillars necessary to this reallocation: repurposing
the maximum amount of spectrum possible, protecting current
users, and ensuring an efficient clearing process.
Mr. Donovan, do you agree that developing consensus and
compromise around these three pillars will be key to moving
forward?
Mr. Donovan. Yes, we do. We agree with those three pillars.
We appreciate ongoing discussions with C-Band Alliance and
other stakeholders over how we can do this, and support the
idea to incent freeing up as much spectrum as possible.
Ms. Matsui. OK. One tenet of the C-Band Alliance proposal
is to tag the entire 3.7 to 4.2 gigahertz range for our mobile
and wireless use. As Mr. Pitsch notes in his testimony, C-band
satellite operators have equal overlapping, nonexclusive rights
to transmit across the entire 500-megahertz range. And I
certainly appreciate the CBA's proposal to entice all eligible
operators to join the Alliance.
But I remain concerned with the fact that an FCC action
taken to allow a portion of the satellite operators to
financially benefit from any sale, while another portion with
the exact same market rights does not benefit, will result in
the need for a settlement, potentially tying our spectrum
policy and 5G deployment up in that process. My WIN 5G Act
attempts to address this holdup problem by creating a process
to designate satellite operators as a transition facilitator,
later directing the FCC to modify the protection rights of the
satellite operators and to clear spectrum pursuant to statute.
Mr. Donovan and Mr. Pitsch, how could the WIN 5G Act
provide the additional clarity necessary to resolve the holdout
issue?
Mr. Donovan?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you.
So it would certainly address some of the litigation risk
that we share, and we have heard other issues raised this
afternoon that address some of the litigation risk. It also
does provide those incentives for a greater incentive payment
to free up additional parts of the band.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Mr. Pitsch?
Mr. Pitsch. Congresswoman Matsui, we recognize the goals
and, as you know, we are closely to comment on your
legislation. However, we continue to believe that the market-
based approach that the FCC proposed will get the spectrum in
the market much more quickly and strike the optimal balance
between keeping customers whole and getting 5G going. We will
have assignments in the first half of 2020. And, as expeditious
as your deadlines are, Congresswoman Matsui, that would be
substantially later.
I just want to emphasize one point, because something was
made of it. The foreign companies here purchased their
antecedent American companies, PanAmSat and GE Americom. Not
surprisingly, most of their employees, or many of their
employees, are U.S. taxpayers, more than any other country. But
more importantly, for decades they have been providing an
integral service for the delivery of video and radio to nearly
120 million households. So----
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Pitsch. I have some other
questions here.
Mr. Pitsch. Sure.
Ms. Matsui. Last month, Congressman Guthrie and I, along
with Senators Wicker and Schatz, introduced the SPECTRUM NOW
Act. Now, specifically, the framework in the SPECTRUM NOW Act
could provide a pathway for NTIA and DoD to make an additional
100 megahertz of spectrum available in the 3.4 gigahertz band.
This language is also included in Title II of my WIN 5G Act.
Mr. Donovan and Mr. Bergmann, what potential does a 3.4
gigahertz band have in our effort to allocate additional mid-
band spectrum for wireless use? And do you support these
provisions?
I have got 35 seconds left. Quickly.
Mr. Donovan. Yes, we support, and this falls into all-the-
above options for mid-band spectrum. We need to look seriously
at all of them.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Mr. Bergmann?
Mr. Bergmann. Congresswoman, I would say, yes, we support.
We really appreciate your focus on this band. These three bands
are all contiguous. We need as much as possible as fast as
possible. And we really appreciate your focus on making sure
that we drive efficiency out of government use of spectrum.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mr. Walberg, you are up.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And before I begin my questions, I would like to make an
observation that we have an excellent and diverse set of
panelists here--and thanks for putting that together--
epresenting a wide swath of wireless users. But I also believe
that, as we move forward, we should seek participation from the
energy sector as well and their growing wireless needs. And
representing the energy sector in my district, the largest
energy district in the State, I think that is extremely
important.
Mr. Bergmann, yes or no--dealing with the time here--as
NTIA and the FCC look to identify more spectrum and gain
efficiencies through spectrum management, do you think Federal
incumbents are doing enough to invest in their systems, to
become more efficient with the spectrum we have given them?
Mr. Bergmann. I think they are working hard to try to
perform very important missions, but the challenge is always
lack of incentives. And so, we really appreciate this
committee's focus on creating more incentives for efficiency
out of those government users.
Mr. Walberg. So, is that yes and no?
Mr. Bergmann. I think that is there are real win-win
opportunities to make Federal spectrum available for commercial
use.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Given the growing trend of executive
branch agencies other than the NTIA playing a more outsized
role in spectrum policy over parochial issues, Mr. Bergmann,
how do you suggest we promote a more unified, organized, and
efficient spectrum policy?
Mr. Bergmann. Well, thank you, Congressman, for the
question.
I certainly think oversight hearings like this are
tremendously important. There is also the development of a
National Spectrum Strategy that the administration is working
on. We think that there are real opportunities for both this
committee and the administration to work together to put
forward a schedule and create a consistent pipeline of
spectrums, so that we can make sure that we are getting each of
those elements that we talked about earlier, low-, mid-, and
high-band spectrum. So, these are real opportunities to set a
path forward to bring that spectrum to market for the industry.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
Mr. Donovan and Mr. Pitsch, rural America--and I represent
rural America in my district significantly--not only should it
not get left behind, but rural America also benefits from 5G
and Next Generation technologies. They need to experience that
and know that they are getting it.
We know spectrum policy plays a big role here, but carriers
need access to spectrum first. And so, Mr. Donovan and then Mr.
Pitsch, what would be the regulatory burden to participate in
the respective proposals on C-band for rural carriers in terms
of complexity, cost, process, et cetera?
Mr. Donovan?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question.
At one of our recent trade shows, the CTO for a rural
company was asked the question of, what does rural America want
from 5G? And the answer is simple: The same thing as everyone
else, and they don't want to have to wait for it.
So, it is really important that the carriers that are
building in rural areas are able to get access to the spectrum
that is going to be used to support that 5G future. There is an
opportunity cost to participating in any auction. So it is
important to make sure that we are freeing up enough spectrum
to give these carriers confidence to go out, obtain the
financing, do their necessary legwork ahead of time, and
participate in the process, with a meaningful opportunity that,
if they do those things, they have a chance to win spectrum. So
that is something that we have had through FCC auctions in the
past. If there is enough spectrum brought to market for a
future FCC auction, that will be the case in the future. We do
not yet have assurances on how CCA members would participate in
another process, but we will continue those discussions.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
Mr. Pitsch?
Mr. Pitsch. Thank you for the question.
We believe our approach is very relevant and very helpful
to rural America. First off, our spectrum in the first 3 years
will be available nationwide. Assignments will be known early
next year. Spectrum will be available nationwide.
We came up with a band plan that includes 9 times 20
megahertz licenses. There will be many opportunities for rural
entities, rural businesses, to compete.
We are committed to it. The FCC will determine whether or
not there are benchmarks, milestones, buildout requirements,
and so. We are committed to working with all of those.
So, then, the last thing I will say is that our approach,
unlike some of the fiber proposals, will assure that rural
households are able to get ESPN and NPR all through this
process.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. OK. Mr. Cardenas, it is up to you to get us down
to votes.
Mr. Cardenas. All right. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
will paraphrase down to my most pertinent questions and points.
There are a lot of proposals out there on how best to
reallocate the spectrum. Mr. Donovan and Mr. Pitsch, please
help explain the key differences between your plans by
providing very brief responses to each of the following
questions:
How much spectrum are you proposing to reallocate? Mr.
Donovan, and then Mr. Pitsch.
Mr. Donovan. At least 370 megahertz.
Mr. Pitsch. Two hundred megahertz within 3 years. As much
as available after that, where efficient.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. A phase-in.
How much will it take until this spectrum is available to
its new owners?
Mr. Donovan. The first set of spectrum within 18 months.
Additional, that is within 3 years, with the most remote areas
within 5 years.
Mr. Pitsch. This is a key difference. Assignments will be
known in the first half of 2020, which means people can contact
their vendors right away.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. Thank you.
Does your proposal depend on an FCC-led auction or a
private sale?
Mr. Donovan. FCC auction.
Mr. Pitsch. Private sale overseen by the FCC.
Mr. Cardenas. Will your plan provide proceeds to the U.S.
Treasury?
Mr. Donovan. Yes.
Mr. Pitsch. Yes.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. Does your plan include any investments in
infrastructure?
Mr. Donovan. Yes, our plan will also support deploying
additional fiber resources in rural America.
Mr. Pitsch. We are going to do what the FCC tells us to do
on that. And Congress, obviously, can determine where those
proceeds go.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. Thank you for the confidence.
The intersection of the energy and telecommunications
sectors is only growing, and their importance to each other for
recovery from natural disasters and other hazards is critical
to our national security. It is important to have emergency
communication networks open and functioning properly, and it is
important for our infrastructure, as, for example, the electric
sector uses for grid reliability. I think it is important that
the FCC protect communications within our power grid.
In addition to that, I understand that the 6 gigahertz band
of spectrum used by energy and water utilities is being
considered for unlicensed purposes. I think it is important
that the FCC take a balanced approach to the reallocation of
spectrum to ensure that critical communications are not
disrupted.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Cardenas.
Well, that concludes our hearing for today.
I want to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules,
they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for
the record to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared. I
ask each witness to respond promptly to any such questions.
The Chair also requests unanimous consent to enter the
following documents into the record: an ex parte letter from T-
Mobile, a letter from ITS America, a report from CTIA, a
statement from R Street, a letter from the Electric Water
Utilities. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the
hearing.]\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The T-Mobile letter with accompanying 31-page report and the R
Street statement have been retained in committee files and also are
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109797.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Doyle. At this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]