GOP House Commerce Members Urge U.S. to Sell Federal Spectrum Before Sharing

Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., said he’s unready to accept the notion that spectrum sharing should be the norm for spectrum use. “That is simply not good enough,” he said in his opening statement. “Sharing technologies and the underlying business models … are not sufficiently developed to make it the entire focus of our spectrum strategy or to supplant clearing."

Other Republican subcommittee members closely aligned their views with Walden. “Sharing should not be considered as a substitution for clearing,” said Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., who lost his primary race last month. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who did not attend the hearing, said in an interview on C-SPAN that the U.S. must find a way to make better use of spectrum in federal hands. (See related story in this issue.) “Almost, by definition, you could assume the spectrum the government uses is the least efficiently used,” Barton said in the pre-taped interview to be shown this weekend on The Communicators. “It’s allocated, I would have to say, with the best of intentions, not allocated in the most efficient fashion."

Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman, D-Calif., cheered the administration’s efforts to embrace an “all of the above” strategy that employs both sharing and clearing federal spectrum for commercial use. “Given the looming spectrum crunch, I agree that we cannot afford to take any options off the table. Spectrum sharing is an innovative concept that should be part of a multi-pronged strategy going forward,” he said.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., said federal spectrum policy should not be an “either/or” situation that prioritizes clearing spectrum over sharing scenarios. “I see them as complementary,” she said. Eshoo said that spectrum policy should include greater incentives for federal agencies to relinquish and share more spectrum, increase investments in spectrum technology research and create greater efficiency through new technologies like automatic Wi-Fi switches, “small cell” technologies and cognitive radio. “I think this is an opportunity for us to plan our spectrum future and to keep America number one” in terms of global broadband competitiveness, she said.

Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., also urged federal spectrum policies that encourage both sharing and clearing to free up more commercial spectrum. “There could be viable opportunities for both spectrum clearing and sharing to meet the short-term and long-term demands for our digital economy, all while protecting our national security interest,” she said. Matsui added that she believes the Defense Department, NTIA and the FCC understand the “urgency that they must re-evaluate underutilized government spectrum holdings.”

DOD supports the administration’s 500 MHz wireless broadband initiative, said Maj. Gen. Robert Wheeler, deputy chief information officer for command, control, communications and computers and information infrastructure. While “there are significant challenges,” it’s possible to re-purpose all 95 MHz of spectrum of the 1755-1850 MHz band, he said. DOD requires three things to relocate its systems out of spectrum to be re-purposed for wireless broadband, Wheeler said: cost reimbursements, sufficient time and comparable spectrum.

Creating new financial incentives for federal users wouldn’t accelerate the process of freeing up more spectrum for commercial use, Wheeler said. Though DOD’s interested in studying alternative incentive plans, leasing federal spectrum to commercial users wouldn’t work because the department doesn’t physically own spectrum. “I don’t think it will make it move any faster,” Wheeler said. “From my perspective, our folks are working very hard and fast to try to find solutions to it to make sure are following through with the president’s desired target.” Meanwhile Defense is trying to find “smart ways” to develop a long-term spectrum strategy that allows users to predict where they should locate their future systems, he said.

The key to achieving the president’s goal of freeing 500 MHz of spectrum depends on sharing scenarios, said Preston Marshall, deputy director of the University of Southern California’s Information Sciences Institute. A contributor to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) spectrum report that encouraged such sharing, he emphasized that federal spectrum clearing would be costly. “Our federal spectrum has turned into hard ice,” he said. “We have pushed it and pushed it to where it is exponentially more difficult to relocate.” Commercial entities must understand that they need to share what’s available and utilize low-powered spectrum technologies to use federal bands more efficiently, he said.

Stearns pointedly asked Marshall if he agreed with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s statement that sharing should not come at the cost of clearing. Marshall responded that “certainly clearing is a desirable option. No electrical engineer would possibly rather say he'd want shared spectrum over cleared spectrum. It is an absolute truth. The question is the pragmatic issues that get in the way."

Genachowski met with PCAST officials this week to make clear the agency expects to move forward on a notice of proposed rulemaking, to be released by year-end, on using the 3550-3650 MHz band as a launching pad for sharing. Government officials have highlighted work on the band as a sign that the FCC and other parts of the government are quietly moving forward on PCAST recommendations (CD Sept 6 p1). Genachowski met with PCAST members on the eve of the hearing (CD Sept 13 p1).

"I announce the FCC will initiate formal steps by the end of the year to implement key recommendations of the [PCAST] report around freeing up spectrum in the 3.5 GHz band,” Genachowski said. “This action will represent a major innovation in spectrum policy that will in turn enable innovations in wireless applications throughout the economy, including energy, healthcare, education, and other uses yet to be discovered."

Walden and other Republicans said they're concerned that NTIA’s federal spectrum report was based on inaccuracies. Mark Goldstein, GAO director of physical infrastructure issues, said NTIA’s spectrum report suffered from an antiquated data management system and a reliance on agency self-evaluations to derive its estimates. He told Walden that, to his knowledge, the flaws hadn’t been repaired, and suggested NTIA establish better controls to ensure more accurate agency data on spectrum use. Generally, spectrum sharing is possible “around the edges” of federal holdings, but the long-term business model for companies is problematic, Goldstein said.

Karl Nebbia, NTIA associate administrator at the Office of Spectrum Management, said the data provided in the agency’s report was only a “starting point.” As federal users find ways to share the spectrum, “some systems won’t have to be used and those numbers will change,” he said. Nebbia said NTIA has to rely on agency data rather than internal analysis because the technical complexity of the varied federal systems “simply cannot be determined by our spectrum staff.”

Industry witnesses from T-Mobile and Ericsson reaffirmed their positions that clearing federal spectrum for commercial use is the best way to address the increasing demands from consumers. “Sharing can be a tool to facilitate the transition of government spectrum to commercial use, but the ultimate goal should be reallocation to the extent possible,” said Steve Sharkey, T-Mobile’s chief of engineering and technology policy. He spoke about the carrier’s unique experience with the FCC’s special temporary authorization to share spectrum with federal users on the 1755-1780 MHz band. Though carriers are open to sharing scenarios with agencies, “the conditions around sharing is not an easy process,” he told lawmakers. Sharkey said T-Mobile will release its report on the sharing experiment at the end of 2012, and concluded that the broader sharing proposal in the PCAST report “does not provide the certainty we need to provide a commercial service.” Wi-Fi offloading of spectrum was “not an unacceptable option,” he said. “We do offload on Wi-Fi traffic as a way to move traffic off the mobile broadband network. …. But the growth we see continues to impact the broader mobile network, and we need dedicated spectrum to meet that demand and growth.”

Mark Racek, Ericsson’s director of global spectrum policy, cautioned policymakers about being too optimistic about the administration’s spectrum sharing proposals. “There are a host of technical and engineering challenges to building and operating networks that will rely upon shared spectrum and there is no evidence yet that business models exist to sustain them,” he said.

Industry groups representing carriers said more cleared spectrum is needed quickly to keep pace with dramatic increases in mobile broadband traffic, in a letter sent to the Commerce Committee leaders Wednesday. “More cleared, paired, internationally-harmonized spectrum allocations below 3 GHz are needed and needed soon,” said the letter signed by executives from CTIA, the Information Technology Industry Council, High-Tech Spectrum Coalition, Telecommunications Industry Association, Wireless Broadband Coalition, CEA and 4G Americas. Competitive Carriers Association President Steve Berry urged members to restore interoperability, emphasize clearing and reallocating spectrum for commercial use and focus on efficiently using federal spectrum, in a separate news release. “I urge Congress to support a policy framework that supports competition to efficiently use and maximize the value of finite, tax-payer owned spectrum resources,” he said.