<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:80674.wais]
THE FCC'S UWB PROCEEDING: AN EXAMINATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S SPECTRUM
MANAGEMENT PROCESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 5, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-114
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-674 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RALPH M. HALL, Texas
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BART GORDON, Tennessee
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
GREG GANSKE, Iowa BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico TOM SAWYER, Ohio
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, GENE GREEN, Texas
Mississippi KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
TOM DAVIS, Virginia THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
ED BRYANT, Tennessee BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland LOIS CAPPS, California
STEVE BUYER, Indiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JANE HARMAN, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
David V. Marventano, Staff Director
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman ANNA G. ESHOO, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California GENE GREEN, Texas
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BART STUPAK, Michigan
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, JANE HARMAN, California
Mississippi RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
VITO FOSSELLA, New York SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri TOM SAWYER, Ohio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland (Ex Officio)
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Gallagher, Michael D., Deputy Assistant Secretary, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration.......... 9
Johnson, Dennis I., President, Geophysical Survey Systems,
Inc........................................................ 45
Knapp, Julius P., Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and
Technology, Federal Communications Commission.............. 31
Petroff, Ralph G., Chief Executive Officer, Time Domain
Corporation................................................ 35
Price, Steven, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Spectrum,
Space, Sensors and C3 Policy, U.S. Department of Defense... 15
Shane, Jeffrey N., Associate Deputy Secretary, Department of
Transportation............................................. 23
Material submitted for the record by:
Alongi, Anthony J., President, Penetrader Corporation, letter
dated June 3, 2002 to Hon. Fred Upton...................... 70
Nowakowski, Richard C., Coordinator of Special Projects, City
of Chicago, letter dated May 30, 2002 to Hon. Fred Upton... 71
(iii)
THE FCC'S UWB PROCEEDING: AN EXAMINATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S SPECTRUM
MANAGEMENT PROCESS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2002
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Upton, Stearns, Shimkus,
Davis, Bass, Terry, Tauzin (ex officio), Markey, McCarthy,
DeGette, and Sawyer.
Staff present: Howard Waltzman, majority counsel; Will
Nordwind, policy coordinator; Brendan Williams, professional
staff; Hollyn Kidd, legislative clerk; Andy Levin, minority
counsel; and Jessica McNiece, minority staff assistant.
Mr. Upton. Well, good morning, everyone. Sorry we are late.
We had a vote, pressing business on the House floor, a picture.
Had to say cheeseburger a few times. We also have a deadline
for another subcommittee using this room, so we are going to
get started.
Today's hearing is entitled, ``The FCC's Ultrawideband
Proceeding: An Examination of the Government Spectrum
Management Policy.'' And while to the casual observer the title
of today's hearing may sound esoteric and academic, let me
suggest why it is not. Ultrawideband, otherwise known as UWB,
is an exciting new technology with many promising applications
for Americans across the country as well as public safety
officials.
One need only consider the three categories of UWB
applications to see. First, there are imaging systems,
including ground penetrating radar systems, which can help
public safety officials detect images of buried objects; wall
imaging systems, which can help public safety officials or
construction companies detect the location of objects obviously
contained in a wall; through-the-wall imaging systems, again
help public safety officials; surveillance systems, which will
help public safety officials detect intrusions into a secure
perimeter; and medical systems, which will help doctors see
inside an individual's body. In fact, right after September 11,
through-the-wall UWB systems were deployed at Ground Zero and
the Pentagon to help with the rescue efforts.
Second, there are vehicular radar systems, which will help
drivers detect the locations of objects in their vehicle,
enabling vehicles to automatically slow down or stop to avoid
collisions in pretension seatbelts. Third, there are
communications and measurement systems, which will enable
wireless high-speed home and business networking devices and
storage tank measurements.
Clearly, UWB has many exciting potential applications for
public safety and American consumers, and since UWB devices
employ very narrow or short-duration impulses that result in a
very wide-band transmission bandwidth, they certainly have the
potential with appropriate technical standards of operating
using spectrum occupied by existing radio services without
causing interference; therefore, permitting scarce spectrum
resources to be used more efficiently.
So why are we here today? Two reasons: First, we want to
specifically examine the FCC's UWB order released on April 22.
I would note that the FCC indicates through its order that
based on NTIA's recommendation, it was proceeding cautiously
and that it was concerned that the standards it was adopting
may be overprotective and could unnecessarily constrain the
development of UWB technology.
Accordingly, the FCC announced that it would review the UWB
standards within the next 6 to 12 months and issue a further
rulemaking to explore more flexible, technical standards and to
address additional types of UWB operations and technologies. We
will still want to know why the FCC feels the way that it does
and what the NTIA's response is to those feelings.
Second, we are here today to use the UWB proceedings as a
case study to examine how our Nation's spectrum is managed and
to inquire as to whether that system of management with its
bifurcated division of responsibility between the NTIA and FCC
best serves the needs of the 21st century technology. Using the
UWB case study, we should explore whether there is a better way
to manage our spectrum.
Chairman Tauzin announced that he, along with myself, Mr.
Markey, Mr. Dingell and other concerned members of the
committee, would begin to focus on spectrum management
questions through the creation of a Spectrum Management Task
Force, and today's hearing certainly will form the task force
examination.
Without a doubt, the UWB proceedings was controversial. The
issues were complex, the stakes were high. Notwithstanding
that, I want to particularly recognize the efforts of the
Commerce Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary Michael
Gallagher and the FCC's Deputy Bureau Chief Julius Knapp for
all of the sweat equity, which they and their colleagues
invested in the process, all under enormous pressure. And I
particularly want to tip my hat to them for striking the
balance which will enable vehicular radar systems to be
deployed because I am convinced that these systems will save
lives on America's highways and byways. I am pleased that they
are here to testify along with the rest of our witnesses. I
look forward to that, and I yield for an opening statement to
my friend and colleague from Ohio, Mr. Sawyer.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for calling this hearing. There are a number of questions
that we share, and you covered most of them in your opening
statement. The innovation such as ground penetrating radar and
through-the-wall imaging systems, as well as the automotive
applications, are very substantial. They are important not only
in terms of military applications but in terms of public safety
and in a lot of applications that would have commercial
interest. All of them deserve our careful attention today, and
that is why this hearing is important.
I would simply observe, however, that in addition to the
military and public safety applications, it seems to me that
electronic devices that have come into uses in both of those
fields have not been far behind in coming into application in
consumer settings. And it seems to me that if we are to respect
one another's sense of privacy, that we need to take care with
regard to those applications as well as those that you have
mentioned.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will submit my opening statement
for the record and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. I would announce that I will
obviously allow all members to include their opening statements
as part of the record and yield at this time to the chairman of
the full committee, Mr. Tauzin.
Chairman Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you for convening this hearing today. I commend you for
tackling this cutting-edge, complex telecommunications issue.
The manner in which ultrawideband technology is fostered or
stifled by government policy has huge implications, both for
future technologies and for our Nation's spectrum management
process, as the chairman pointed out.
Ultrawideband is an exciting new technology that has many
promising applications. It has fire and rescue applications, it
has military applications, it has vehicular safety
applications, it has huge telecommunications applications, it
has all sorts of commercial applications. And the FCC's recent
ultrawideband decision can be called a major step, but it can
also be called very much of a baby step.
The FCC's ultrawideband rulemaking was a hotly contested
and contentious proceeding. One could argue that it accurately
reflected the give and take that we should expect when any new
technology comes along that defies the rigid confines in which
we have previously categorized energy emissions. But that's not
quite the way I see it.
I watched this proceeding with more than a small degree of
horror. I watched certain government bureaucrats and certain
industries try their absolute best to stifle this new
technology. Ultrawideband technology terrified some people
because it was different. Whether it was out of a competitive
concern or because technology created intentional emissions
where none had previously been encountered, ultrawideband has
been met with the fiercest resistance of any technology in
recent memory.
This leaves us to evaluate where we are now. We have an FCC
order that permits a limited deployment of this new technology.
The Commission itself acknowledged just how conservative an
approach it was taking. ``We are proceeding cautiously in
authorizing UWB technology, based in large measure on standards
that the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration found to be necessary to protect against
interference to vital Federal Government operations.'' The
Commission also stated, ``We are concerned that the standards
we are adopting may be overprotective and could unnecessarily
constrain the development of UWB technology.''
The FCC had lots of conflicting data upon which to draw its
conclusions. NTIA and other agencies produced mountains of data
detailing the potential interference that could be caused by
ultrawideband devices. And ultrawideband developers countered
with mountains of data regarding why ultrawideband devices will
not cause harmful interference.
Now, hopefully, we can get to the bottom of the
interference debate. The FCC will conduct its own tests, and
conduct them on real devices, not by formulating hypothetical
models. I hope, during the next 6 to 12 months, I hope that
during the next 6 to 12 months the FCC is able to conduct
enough real-world testing so that we have solid, real-world
evidence as to whether ultrawideband creates harmful
interference in the restricted bands.
I don't want military operations to be interfered with,
none of us do, and I don't want planes to fall out of the sky;
of course, none of us do. But I want real-world evidence that
tells us whether ultrawideband devices, on a stand-alone or
cumulative basis, could cause these things to occur.
I want to make one final comment about the implications of
this proceeding on the spectrum management process. The way
this proceeding was conducted makes me, and I hope other
members, very nervous about the current state of how we manage
spectrum. NTIA determined the outcome of this proceeding. Let
there be no doubt about it, NTIA determined the outcome of this
proceeding, not the FCC. The FCC's order is pretty clear about
that. The Commission adopted emissions limits based on levels
with which NTIA was comfortable. And the NTIA, of course,
manages spectrum for the Federal Government, but the FCC is
supposed to set the rules for commercial devices, even those
that may intentionally emit in the restricted bands. The FCC is
supposed to coordinate with the NTIA regarding emissions from
commercial entities in the restricted bands.
But I wonder, and I look forward to testimony regarding,
whether NTIA's coordination role was a lot more than mere
coordination in this proceeding. And if it was, what are the
implications of the interaction between the FCC and the NTIA
for new technologies that might also intentionally emit energy
in the restricted bands or somehow defy current standards in
some other way that we can't imagine today?
Sound spectrum management involves a balancing of
government and non-governmental interests. While balancing
these interests always involves policy issues, good spectrum
management requires that sound policy be supported by sound
engineering. I don't think that necessarily happened this time.
And I look forward to the FCC's ultrawideband testing, and
I hope it demonstrates that ultrawideband technology can
flourish without causing harmful interference. This technology
is simply too promising, has too many incredibly important
applications to stifle it based upon unfounded and unproven
concerns. We will see what happens in the next 6 to 12 months,
and I look forward to the testimony today. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Recognize Ms. McCarthy.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
the hearing today. Like the chairman of the full committee
mentioned, I really do look forward to hearing how these
devices can come to the marketplace without interfering with
existing cell phone spectrum and global positioning systems.
For example, Geo Technology is a consulting company which
operates in my district, and it uses ground penetrating radar
to detect cracks under roads or locate ruptured pipelines
without digging. This company has been using GPR technology to
advise government road construction contractors where highway
repairs are needed, but the FCC order would not allow Geo
Technology or other consulting companies to continue the use of
GPR. Since 1987, Geo Technology has used ground penetrating
radar and global positioning systems side by side without any
interference. The FCC has promised to revisit the order within
a year of this enactment, and I hope to see changes to allow
GPR consultants to continue their important work.
I agree with Mr. Tauzin's 6 months to 12 months, as he
emphasized, would be a good timetable for the FCC to use its
own real-world data rather than that of theoretical models to
determine with accuracy any interference effects of UWB. The
public safety and commercial impact of this technology has the
potential to be amazing, and I hope the regulatory barriers do
not prevent it from saving lives.
UWB has great potential. We must ensure that its
development proceeds without interfering with existing
technologies that companies have paid billions for use of
exclusive uses spectrum. So I look forward to the roll-out of
these defense and consumer application as soon as possible, and
I am very grateful to the experts who have joined us today to
help us sort through this very important technology.
I will put the formal remarks in the record, Mr. Chairman,
and yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Karen McCarthy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Karen McCarthy, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Markey for holding this
hearing on the ultra wideband approval process. Ultra wideband has the
potential to bring to market revolutionary technology previously only
imaginable in science fiction works. With wideband high speed, low
power devices, police officers and firemen can look through walls to
assess dangers within, while cars have the option to speed up and slow
down automatically if a crash is imminent. Like the Chairman, I look
forward to hearing how government agencies can work together to permit
these devices to enter marketplace without interfering with existing
cell phone spectrum and global positioning systems (GPS).
UWB will no doubt save countless lives in the future through use of
technology that can detect a human body or the smallest amount of
movement under rubble or through the wall of a building. I am pleased
to see that several companies, including Time Domain, which is
represented here today, are ready to fill this public safety void.
I look forward to the results of the FCC tests and their follow up
report within the next six to twelve months to determine if UWB causes
harmful interference, and if UWB rollout should be expanded to
different power levels. The FCC's use of its own real world data rather
than that of theoretical models will accurately determine interference
effects of UWB. The public safety and commercial impact of this
technology has the potential to be revolutionary, and I hope that the
FCC's regulatory barriers do not prevent UWB from saving lives.
Geotechnology, a consulting company which operates in my district,
uses ground penetrating radar (GPR) to detect cracks under roads or
locate ruptured pipelines without digging. This company has been using
GPR technology to advise government road construction contractors where
highway repairs are needed, but the FCC order would not allow
Geotechnology or other consulting companies to continue use of GPR
because consultants are not specifically mentioned in the order. Since
1987, Geotechnology has used ground penetrating radar and global
positioning systems side by side without any interference. I hope the
FCC makes needed changes to allow GPR consultants to continue their
important work.
I understand that the NTIA made a very conservative recommendation
in part because the Department of Defense was worried about
interference. However, the Department of Defense is eager to use UWB
for military applications, and I would like to know how their planes
and aircraft radar will work if used in conjunction with UWB.
The FCC has followed the conservative recommendation made by the
NTIA, but I look forward to hearing how these agencies will work
together to determine the effects of UWB and promote its rollout in the
future, as long as there is no interference with existing spectrum
users.
UWB has great potential to save lives and make life easier, and we
must ensure that its development proceeds without interfering with
existing technologies that companies have paid billions for exclusive
use of spectrum. I look forward to the rollout of these defense and
consumer applications as soon as possible.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Shimkus?
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for this hearing. Ultrawideband technology holds great promise,
as everyone has said, for public safety and a whole host of
commercial applications that would save many lives. One popular
example is cited in collision detectors in cars, and I know the
chairman has mentioned that numerous times in hearings we had
when he was the chairman of this committee, which would also
detonate airbags and actually help drivers avoid accidents.
Another is the ability to see underneath building rubble
after a disaster and through walls of a burning building to
detect in order to save survivors. However, ultrawideband
technology sends low-powered pulses across many bands. It has
raised some concern that it might cause harmful interference to
spectrum bands used by the Department of Defense, Department of
Transportation and GPS community. To my knowledge, the testing
has shown that the emission levels are low and harmful
interference is not an issue. Nevertheless, the FCC issued a
very conservative ruling on ultrawideband with a promise to
revisit the issue in the next 6 to 12 months.
Now, this is the high-tech committee, I think, of the whole
Capitol Hill and especially the House, but we all bring our own
different perspectives, and as a former active Army officer and
a Reservist, I do carry some of the concerns of the Department
of Defense in this debate. I do agree with the chairman that we
need real science to help us clear up the confusion over the
use of this technology, and I hope we see that to the benefit
of all, the commercial community and our men and women who are
in uniform fighting to protect us all.
I also have continued concerns over just the whole
examination of our spectrum management process, and I think the
chairman mentioned this also. And I am not sure if our process
works or is fair and if it hinders the development of new
technology and can we improve it? I have had my battles with
the NTIA, and I look forward to more battles in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing this
morning and for your oversight and leadership on this issue. I
look forward to hearing from the distinguished panel, and I
yield back my time.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Ms. DeGette?
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Chairman, in the hopes of hearing at least
a little of the testimony before I have to leave for another
hearing, I will submit my opening statement for the record.
Mr. Upton. Terrific.
Mr. Bass?
Mr. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And before I
begin my formal statement, I want to welcome a constituent of
mine, Mr. Dennis Johnson, who is on the far right there,
president of Geophysical Survey Systems in Salem, New
Hampshire. Good morning, Mr. Johnson, and welcome to the
hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing
today and inviting Mr. Johnson and these other witnesses to
testify on the FCC's ultrawideband rulemaking, and I look
forward to beginning our oversight of this spectrum process
allocation. My interest in this issue began when Mr. Johnson
first approached me to explain the effect that severely
restricting the use of high bandwidth but low power ground
penetrating radars would have on his firm and his clients.
He explained the enormous public safety and efficiency
benefits of being able to detect and determine the integrity of
underground pipes and cables prior to digging and of locating
sink holes and other structural voids, defects and stresses.
Indeed, several States, including my State in New Hampshire,
require the use of GPR or similar technology to determine and
document the integrity of new bridges, highway overpasses and
other critical safety uses. And it should be noted that these
applications, as the name implies, direct their transmission
into solids, almost always downward and not in a manner likely
to cause interference.
It seems that no one disputes the benefits of using
ultrawideband transmissions for these purposes and the many
additional purposes that others will describe today, but at
issue are the questions about interference and the larger
debate over spectrum allocation. As for interference, I will
also note that several of the GPR technologies use GPS, global
positioning satellites, for mapping purposes without any
apparent problems.
I appreciate the Commission's cautious approach and their
deference to NTIA's concerns about government interest in this
spectrum space. However, I also recognize the enormous benefit
to State and local governments of sharing the spectrum in such
a manner that will allow all desired uses. I am also encouraged
that the Commission has previously announced and am sure, I
will repeat here, the intent to review the new rules, as my
distinguished chairman said, and conduct the type of testing
not done prior to their issuance. I urge that work begin as
soon as a body of evidence can be formed, and I look forward to
the testimony and yield back to the chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. That concludes our opening
statements. Again, all members will have the opportunity to put
their opening remarks as part of the record.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Davis, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia
First, I would like to thank Chairman Upton for calling this
hearing into the FCC's UWB proceeding. I believe a close examination of
this process is invaluable to obtaining a roadmap of where spectrum
management efforts need to go in the future.
As Time Domain CEO Ralph Petroff states in his testimony, were it
not for the contracts his company had with the Department of Defense,
his company would have gone out of business waiting for regulatory
approval. We cannot allow the promise of future technologies to whither
on the vine while a regulatory process lumbers on. The 3.5 years it
took to develop the final UWB rules are a prime example of what to
avoid in the future. Most companies simply cannot afford to wait that
long.
We all know the conflicts between government agencies and private
industry regarding spectrum use are not going to go away. Rather, as
demand for spectrum increases, we can expect an increase in the number
of conflicts that arise. Therefore, there must be an objective, open
system by which conflicts are resolved, concerns addressed, and policy
developed. I fully appreciate that national defense and public safety
issues must be taken into account in spectrum issues. However, I would
hope the FCC and NTIA would do everything in their power to ensure that
restrictions deemed necessary were based on sound science. Furthermore,
we must acknowledge that the government is both the decision-maker
regarding spectrum as well as a consumer. As we continue our efforts to
efficiently manage spectrum, we must take care that one consumer--in
this case government agencies--does not have approval power over FCC
decisions that apply to all other consumers of spectrum.
Specifically regarding the FCC's First Report and Order, I was
happy to have rules at last so we can get on with things. I realize the
FCC itself feels the rules may be too conservative, but I am encouraged
by the plans to conduct further review. The lowest-common-denominator
approach the FCC has taken may not be the right solution--I will be
eager to see the results by the end of this year and remain hopeful UWB
applications will be allowed to develop to the greatest extent
possible.
Let me close by saying that I appreciate the difficult task both
the FCC and NTIA have in developing spectrum policy. While it will
never be possible to please all concerned parties, I would hope the
focus would be to determine how we can make new technologies and
applications possible, rather than why we cannot.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eliot Engel, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York
Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing. Few issues, like
spectrum, are harder to get your arms around. I also want to thank the
panelist for taking the time to come and testify.
Looking at how spectrum has develop in the past century, I am
reminded of the Malthusian dilemma--that the ability of the world
farmers to grow enough food to feed the population was running out.
Malthus believed that we would have hordes of hungry people. Luckily,
at least here in the United States, this has not come to pass as
Malthus predicted--though I must say that we still have a worldwide
problem with hunger.
One can make the same arguments about Spectrum. We have a common
resource which, due to physics, has limited capacity to carry all the
signals we would want it to. The explosion of the wireless industry is
a truly amazing feat. It helped drive the record economic expansion
during the Clinton Administration.
What Malthus did not factor into his theory was technological
improvement. We must not make the same mistake. In fact, Congress and
the Administration should be actively encouraging the development of
new technologies that seek to exploit spectrum efficiency.
The good news is that through improvements in technology, the
industry has increased the number of transmissions that can fit into
the same spectrum every year.
But it is evident that spectrum needs are surpassing the efficiency
capabilities of today's traditional deployed technologies--new
technologies that can get more out of the same spectrum are needed to
provide the advanced wireless services we have heard so much about. We
must encourage the deployment of technologies that will create more
wireless services within our finite valuable spectrum.
Thus, as I have started to look at Ultra Wide Band technologies, I
am greatly encouraged. I am certainly not an expert at this technology,
but it seems to me to have great promise in aiding our firefighters,
police officers, and emergency medical personnel.
I am quite willing to go slowly on a broad deployment of UWB
networks. However, as I understand it, technologies such as Ground
Penetrating Radar have been around for decades and proven invaluable in
search and rescue operations. Since, this is a proven technology, we
should seriously consider this in a different vein than broader
deployment.
Also, since previously these devices operated under a blanket
approval, the new FCC rules could actually harm existing companies. I
have a letter here from a New York company called Penetradar. The
President of this company writes that ``We are quite concerned with the
affect that the new rules will have and believe time is critical.''
They are concerned that the GPR industry will disappear in the short
time that it takes the FCC to review these new rules.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the text of the
letter be entered into the record.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the question and answer
segment of our hearing.
Mr. Upton. At this point, we welcome our witness guests.
Mr. Michael Gallagher who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
NTIA; Mr. Steven Price, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Spectrum
at the Department of Defense; Mr. Jeff Shane, Associate Deputy
Secretary from the Department of Transportation, Mr. Julius
Knapp, Deputy Chief of Commissions Office of Engineering and
Technology from the FCC; Mr. Ralph Gregory Petroff, CEO of Time
Domain Corporation; and Mr. Dennis Johnson, president of
Geophysical Survey Systems.
Gentlemen, your full statement will be made part of the
record, and we would like to have you limit your remarks to
about 5 minutes. Watch this little timer. And we will be off to
the races.
Mr. Gallagher, welcome you first. If you wouldn't mind
turning that mike on. Terrific.
STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL D. GALLAGHER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION
ADMINISTRATION; STEVEN PRICE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
SPECTRUM, SPACE, SENSORS AND C3 POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE; JEFFREY N. SHANE, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; JULIUS P. KNAPP, DEPUTY CHIEF,
OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION; RALPH G. PETROFF, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIME
DOMAIN CORPORATION; AND DENNIS J. JOHNSON, PRESIDENT,
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY SYSTEMS, INC.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing. Ultrawideband is certainly on the tip of
everybody's tongue these days, and it is a development I am
pleased to be here to address and answer questions to. I would
also like to thank in particular your staff and the staff of
Mr. Tauzin. Your involvement through your staffs was much
appreciated and very helpful in getting to the result we
finally achieved. I would also like to thank all of the
commissioners, the FCC's technical staff and the technical
staff of the agencies. It took all of these minds to come
together, find the answers, and strike the right balance. And
also it is important to recognize the contribution of the
commercial spectrum community and the very valuable input and
analysis that they provided. And, finally, but not to diminish
their role, I would like to commend the staff work at NTIA that
went into this project over 3\1/2\ years.
Ultrawideband, we have heard today, holds great promise.
The ground penetrating radar applications are already in use.
Through-the-wall imaging and the applications for public safety
are very compelling. Vehicular radars hold great promise. There
are over 41,200 lives lost every year in automobiles, and the
estimates are that 88 percent of those could be avoided through
rear-end collision avoidance systems, like ultrawideband.
Communications devices can have a much greater capacity and use
much less battery power.
When we approached ultrawideband at the Department of
Commerce, we approached with two pillars in mind. Secretary
Evans and Deputy Secretary Bodman made very clear that it is
our job to authorize and facilitate the creation of new, world-
leading technologies; our economic security depends on it.
However, we must also protect critical life and defense systems
in the process; our national security depends on it. And within
the scope of those systems, the concerns were very clear about
weather radar, airport surveillance radar, GPS and passive
earth-satellite systems, to name a few. Doing one or the other
is not bold or creative. We had to achieve both, and it took
leadership from the very highest levels to accomplish the task.
And that leadership came from the FCC and from our leadership
at the Department of Commerce, and we were pleased with the
result.
Now, one of the primary reasons that there was a strong
sense of urgency is we face international risk. If the United
States fails to lead in deploying ultrawideband technology that
fits our congested spectrum chart, then another country could
develop ultrawideband technology that would not be as
respectful of our systems, our critical life systems, our
defense systems as what ultimately was born.
What is next? Testing. We need more facts. We need more
peer-reviewed comprehensive real data, and we are looking
forward to the development of that data with the Commission and
with the private sector. Second, truth. Facts, not theory,
should guide our decisions, and in that respect, NTIA performed
six technical reports and three analyses with test protocols
open to public review. We need to continue to build on that
data in order to come up with the absolute best balance over
time for ultrawideband. Finally is timeliness. We need to
accomplish ultrawideband deployment and any modifications, if
necessary, at the right time, when we have the additional real-
world data, when we have a penetration more extensive market
number of devices, and that will lead us to truth and to the
right answer.
I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that we were able to adopt
a regulatory framework that isn't just vertical but in fact
looked horizontal. Thank you. I look forward to answering
questions.
[The prepared statement of Michael D. Gallagher follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael D. Gallagher, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Communications and Information, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, Department of Commerce
Chairman Upton, I would like to thank you and the members of the
Subcommittee for inviting me to testify today about the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA's) role in
the development of rules to authorize ultrawideband (UWB) technology. I
particularly want to commend the leadership of Chairman Michael Powell
and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as well as the FCC
staff, in the UWB authorization process. The process was long, the
arguments were highly technical, and the record was voluminous. But,
together, the FCC and NTIA were able to meet the challenge and develop
a technically sound set of regulations for the safe and effective
authorization of UWB technology while preserving public safety and
national security.
I am very pleased that new rules adopted by the FCC will ensure
that UWB devices will soon be readily available in the marketplace. It
is one of the most promising technologies of our time. UWB can perform
a number of useful telecommunications functions that make them very
appealing for both commercial and government applications. It can be
used for communications devices such as wireless networks to transmit
high-speed data with low battery drain, remote sensing or tracking, and
ground penetrating radar (GPR). UWB through-the-wall imaging systems
can also provide great assistance in locating survivors within
collapsed buildings and provide situational awareness to law
enforcement personnel. UWB technology can also be used for collision
avoidance radars--reducing deadly automobile accidents. With the number
of invaluable applications of the technology that will soon be
available, NTIA fully expects the U.S. Government to continue its role
as the UWB industry's best customers.
The regulatory challenge with UWB technology is, as its name
implies, that it operates across very wide bandwidths of radio spectrum
in which many other commercial and governmental communications systems
operate. While most conventional communications technologies are
authorized within specific frequency bands to avoid harmful
interference to other devices, this traditional spectrum management
technique was not an option given the wide bandwidths used by UWB
devices. In many cases, their average power levels may have been low
enough to be authorized under NTIA's and the FCC's respective rules for
unlicensed devices. However, the bandwidths of UWB devices are so wide
that some of the systems emit signals in bands in which such
intentional transmissions have previously not been permitted because of
the potential harmful effects on safety of life and other critical
governmental systems. Finding a solution for authorizing UWB devices
within the existing spectrum management regime was no small feat and
required groundbreaking technical research and the dedication of the
professional staffs of NTIA and the FCC.
Admittedly, the outlook for UWB's authorization last fall was dim.
The FCC had proposed rules that were strenuously and publicly opposed
in writing by several agencies. The pressure from UWB companies was
intense, and the FCC was pressing forward on a timeline to close the
matter by the year's end. However, with engaged leadership, and a
shared focus by NTIA and the FCC on the technical data in hand, we were
able to authorize this new, world leading technology that will be
sensitive to the needs of the congested U.S. spectrum environment and
not imposed on us by the rest of the world.
NTIA is fully aware that with an effort this broad in scope and its
potential impacts, many challenges will continue to arise. We have
already begun discussion with one group of GPR users who have been
unintentionally excluded by the new rules from using GPRs to determine
ways to help resolve their concerns. We are also working with the
Department of Transportation to complete a study assessing the
compatibility of UWB devices and aviation systems operating below 1
GHz.
background
NTIA, like the FCC, has long been aware of UWB technology's
earliest practical implementations as GPRs, which grew from research
originally begun at some of the government laboratories. As early as
1994, NTIA made preliminary provisions for accommodating this
developing technology within NTIA's systems review processes to
encourage further developments. In 1997, a number of UWB developers,
including TimeDomain, Fantasma, Multispectral Solutions, Inc., and
XtremeSpectrum briefed NTIA spectrum managers and researchers on the
rapid advances in the technology. These discussions heightened NTIA's
awareness of the incredibly exciting opportunities the technology could
present not just for commercial applications, but also for Federal
agencies in their performance of critical services on behalf of the
American people from law enforcement to roadbed construction. Moreover,
from a spectrum management perspective, UWB technology, if properly
managed could lead to a much-needed advance towards greater spectrum
efficiency.
NTIA identified the challenges and difficulties of analyzing the
characteristics of this new technology and its interaction with
critical spectrum-dependent public safety and national security
systems, including aviation systems used for aircraft landings. These
challenges were made greater by the expectation that these new UWB
devices had the potential to become ubiquitous in American households
and businesses, would be highly mobile, and would be offered on an
unlicensed basis, making interference issues more difficult to resolve.
The spectrum managers and researchers at NTIA, however, took very
seriously the agency's dual charge to foster new technology and, to
assure the Federal agencies' continued protection to the spectrum
necessary to perform their critical missions. Thus, in 1998 when Time
Domain Corporation, U. S. Radar and Zircon Corporation filed petitions
to waive the FCC's rules for low power unlicensed transmitters,
referred to as the Part 15 rules, to allow them to manufacture import
and sell certain UWB devices, NTIA worked very closely with the FCC to
accommodate the requests. In consultation with the Interdepartment
Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), NTIA was able to devise safeguards to
protect public safety and critical government systems during the period
of the waiver, which the FCC approved when it granted the Time Domain,
U.S. Radar, and Zircon waiver requests in 1999. These waivers provided
an opportunity for all interested stakeholders to develop a more
thorough understanding of the potential impacts that this technology
could have on other commercial and governmental systems operating in
the bands. Since that date, NTIA has routinely approved requests for
Special Temporary Authority from UWB companies seeking to demonstrate
the technology's capabilities from commercial technology demonstrations
to emergency assistance. In all cases the waiver requests were granted
under conditions that did not present a risk to critical safety-of-life
or national defense systems. For example, after the September 11th
tragedy, NTIA, upon coordination with the potentially affected Federal
agencies, and the FCC authorized the use of through-the-wall imaging
systems for first responder use at the World Trade Center and Pentagon
within 8 hours of the initial request for their use.
NTIA began a significantly detailed measurement and analysis effort
at its Institute for Telecommunication Sciences in Boulder, Colorado
and within NTIA's Office of Spectrum Management here in Washington when
the FCC issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on UWB in May of 2000.
These efforts first focused on determining the characteristics of UWB
signals in the time and frequency domains. Once the UWB signals were
characterized, the information to model the effect of receiver filters
on received UWB signals was developed. Using this data with other
information concerning interference thresholds, the impact of UWB
signals on the critical receiving systems operated by the Federal
government in the ``restricted bands'' was assessed. The restricted
bands consist of 64 frequency bands between 90 kHz and 36.5 GHz (a span
which covers over 96% of all spectrum use) and occupy a total of 13.283
GHz of spectrum protected by the FCC, NTIA, and international rules
against intentional emissions because critical or sensitive receivers
operate in them. Protected receivers include radio astronomy and
satellite passive sensing and the systems used to land and control
aircraft. NTIA focused only on the restricted bands in the 960 MHz to 6
GHz frequency range because of the high density of critical
governmental use of those frequencies and the then-limitations of the
UWB technology.
NTIA obtained samples of 20 UWB devices for measurement and chose
five of the 20 as fairly typical of the group for detailed
measurements. NTIA then started two measurement programs to determine
the potential effects UWB devices could have on conventional narrowband
devices operating in the restricted bands. The documents outlining the
two measurement programs were made available to the public and the FCC
for comment. The first program examined the emissions from several UWB
devices to determine how best to characterize the many types of UWB
signals and to describe procedures and methods for measuring UWB
signals for developing operable certification standards and criteria.
These measurements determined the interference impact of UWB devices on
several sensitive devices to determine permissible power levels and
corresponding required separation distances and an assessment of the
impact of aggregates of several UWB devices.
As part of the first measurement and analysis program, NTIA
identified relevant system characteristics and developed operational
scenarios for conducting susceptibility studies on several systems that
operate in restricted bands. The studies included devices as diverse as
radars and other guidance devices used to navigate and safely land
airplanes; receive signals from beacons transmitting from plane crash
victims and mariners in distress and transmit them to rescue
organizations; weather radars used in forecasting and alerting the
public to severe weather and floods; and earth stations receiving
signals from communication satellites and satellites gathering weather
data and photographs.
Recognizing the critical role the Global Positioning System (GPS)
plays in the nation's infrastructure, the second portion of NTIA's
measurement and analysis program focused on an assessment of the
compatibility between UWB devices and GPS receivers. GPS is a satellite
navigation system developed by the military that provides accurate
navigation signals to any location in the world. The military uses GPS
on all land, air, sea, and space platforms and for precision-guided
munitions. GPS will also be used in all urban warfare operations in
support of homeland defense. GPS has become the preferred navigation
system for the aviation community for en-route flight, precision and
non-precision approach landings and for maritime navigation. Civilian
use of GPS has risen dramatically due to enhanced coverage, improved
accuracy, and rapidly decreasing user equipment cost. Some examples of
existing and planned uses of GPS include: car navigation, consumer and
recreational location, surveying, tracking and machine control, public
services, public safety (Enhanced-911 position location) in mobile
phones, timing, scientific research, environmental management,
precision agriculture, open pit mining, and space navigation. Although
these examples are not all inclusive, they illustrate the wide spread
use of GPS signals, as well as GPS's ubiquitous availability.
GPS has also proven to be a powerful enabling technology driving
the creation of many new industries such as telematics and geographic
information systems. A 2001 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Space
Commercialization report estimated that worldwide GPS hardware sales
will exceed $9 billion in 2002. As part of the GPS modernization
program two new navigation signals will be provided for civil use.
Assisted GPS systems, which use local terrestrial stations to process
location data, are also being developed to enhance position location
inside buildings as well as in difficult propagation environments such
as urban canyons.
Once the analyses were completed, NTIA sought public comment on its
measurement programs and provided the results in six reports made
available to the FCC and placed on the public record in the UWB
proceeding. These reports are available at the NTIA website http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/uwbreports/. The conclusions reached in these
reports formed the technical basis of NTIA's understanding of the
limits on UWB devices necessary for compatible operation with critical
government systems and GPS receivers and were used as the technical
baseline for UWB emissions by virtually all parties engaged in the UWB
debate.
the fcc's amendment to the part 15 rules
On February 14, 2002, the FCC approved amendments to its Part 15
rules to permit UWB devices to operate on an unlicensed basis under
conditions that are expected to protect existing radio systems
operating in the environment. The First Report and Order for UWB
devices establishes different technical standards and operating
restrictions for different types of UWB devices based on their
potential to cause interference. The different types of UWB devices
are: 1) imaging systems including GPRs, wall, through-wall, and medical
imaging systems; 2) surveillance devices; 3) vehicular radar systems;
4) communications and measurement systems; and 5) mobile hand-held
systems. In all frequency ranges, the UWB devices are expected to meet
or fall below the emission limits permitted for narrow band Part 15
devices. Narrow band refers to Part 15 devices that operate within a
specific frequency band. In the range of frequencies between
approximately 1 GHz and 10 GHz additional reduction in the UWB emission
levels are required to protect the critical systems discussed above
(see Exhibit A). In the bands used by GPS between 960 MHz and 1610 MHz
the emission limits are between 12 to 34 dB below the emission limits
permitted for unintentional emissions from narrowband devices in order
to protect the critical applications of base station assisted GPS. In
the 1.6 GHz to 10.6 GHz frequency range, the UWB emission limits are
between 10 to 12 dB below the narrowband limits for unintentional
emissions. Though these limits are conservative, they are based on
NTIA's measurements and comments made on the public record, and reflect
the effect of UWB signals on narrowband receivers. Most importantly,
these measurements and analysis reflect NTIA's commitment in
encouraging UWB technology while maintaining the utmost reliability and
safety of our current radio services.<SUP>1</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ UWB technology can be based on very short pulses of radio
energy. Its wide bandwidth yields low probability of intercept and
excellent multipath immunity. For more information see the NTIA
Institute For Telecommunication Sciences website http://
www.its.bldrdoc.gov/home/programs/uwb/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new UWB rules also address the needs of automobile
manufacturers seeking to deploy new short-range vehicular radar systems
that could provide greater automotive safety. A 1999 report from the
National Safety Council estimates that a death from vehicle crashes
every 13 minutes resulting in 41,200 motor vehicle deaths per year.
Statistics from the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration indicates that short-range radar systems could address
88 percent of all causes of rear-end collisions. The short-range radar
systems are under development as a key component of the next generation
of collision mitigation systems. For example, possible applications
include braking automatically to avoid an impending collision with a
car ahead that is unseen by the driver, or tightening seat belts or
other restraint systems for optimal safety and deployment depending on
the expected severity and position of impact. The automotive industry
is seeking to develop these radar devices with their frequencies
centered at 24.125 GHz with intentional emissions extending between
22.125 to 26.1252 GHz.
The band 23.6-24 GHz is a restricted frequency band currently used
by the Federal Government for satellite passive sensing operations
because of its unique characteristics. The majority of the measurements
using this band are performed over land and depends upon measurements
of microwave energy naturally upwelling from the Earth's surface. The
atmospheric measurements derived from the satellite sensors operating
in the 23.6-24 GHz frequency band are important to Department of
Defense air combat mission planners and National Weather Service
numerical forecast models. Since emissions from proposed vehicular
short-range radar systems will extend into the 23.6-24 GHz band, NTIA
recognized the possibility that these systems could cause interference
to the Federal Government's passive satellite sensing operations. NTIA
worked with representatives from the automobile industry
representatives, the National Aeronautical and Space Administration
(NASA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
to perform an analysis examining under what conditions compatible
operation would be possible. Based on this analysis, NTIA proposed to
establish a time phased approach for emissions from vehicular short-
range radar systems into the band, which would allow the technology to
be deployed in a phase-in approach. The approach struck a balance
between protecting critical Federal passive sensing operations and
allowing the deployment of this potentially life-saving technology. I
am pleased to note that the FCC adopted this compromise in its rules.
Because of the worldwide nature of passive sensing operations,
compatibility with UWB short-range radars is also being studied
internationally. It is anticipated that the approach recommended by
NTIA and adopted by the FCC will drive the standard worldwide.
ntia's implementation of the new part 15 rules
NTIA has already begun to implement the new UWB rules. Our rules
authorize Federal agencies to procure and use any device available in
the marketplace that has been certified in accordance with the FCC's
rules as being compliant with Part 15. When the FCC's new rules go into
effect in July, government agencies may purchase and operate or
contract for the operation of UWB systems that have been certified as
being in conformance to those regulations with no further authorization
from NTIA (See Part 7.8 of the NTIA Manual). Further, NTIA expects to
incorporate appropriate portions of the new Part 15 text into its rules
so that the government agencies may construct custom UWB devices that
conform to these Rules with no further authorization by NTIA (See Part
7.9 of the NTIA Manual). NTIA expects that the vast majority of UWB
applications used by the government will fall under either one or the
other of these two cases. However, if an agency does need a UWB device
that does not conform to the Part 15 Rules, it may seek spectrum
support and frequency assignments through our Systems Review and
Frequency Assignment processes. Operation of these latter devices will
be closely controlled and coordinated with all nearby affected users.
next steps
NTIA is quite aware that more testing and analysis is required on
the impact of UWB devices on other radio systems. The FCC has indicated
a desire to do additional measurements when more UWB devices are
developed. We support the FCC's testing and the development of real
world test data and will actively participate in these measurements.
NTIA is pleased that the United States is now in a position to lead the
evolution of UWB technology while protecting safety-of-life and
national security systems.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, NTIA works closely with the FCC and the
Federal spectrum management community to balance the spectrum needs of
the government agencies with those of the private sector. We look
forward to continuing to work closely with them in the future. I thank
you for this opportunity to share with you the views of NTIA on this
important issue, and I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
GLOSSARY
FCC--Federal Communications Commission
GPR--Ground Penetrating Radar
GPS--Global Positioning System
GHz--Gigahertz
IRAC--Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee
MHz--Megahertz
NASA--National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NOAA--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOI--Notice of Inquiry
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rule Making
NTIA--National Telecommunications and Information Administration
R&O--Report and Order
UWB--Ultrawideband
EXHIBIT A
OVERVIEW OF SYSTEMS ANALYZED BY NTIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SYSTEM FREQUENCY RANGE OF OPERATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Search and Rescue Satellite (SARSAT) 406-406.1 MHz
Satellite.
Distance Measuring Equipment Interrogator. 960-1215 MHz
Distance Measuring Equipment Transponder.. 1025-1150 MHz
Global Positioning System (GPS)........... 1164-1188 MHz; 1215-1240
MHz; and 1559-1610 MHz
Air Traffic Control Radio Beacon System 1030 MHz
Transponder.
Air Traffic Control Radio Beacon System 1090 MHz
Interrogator.
Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR-4)..... 1240-1370 MHz
Search and Rescue Satellite (SARSAT) 1544-1545 MHz
Ground Station Land User Terminal.
Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9)........ 2700-2900 MHz
Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD).... 2700-2900 MHz
Maritime Navigation Radars................ 2900-3100 MHz
Fixed Satellite Service Earth Stations.... 3700-4200 MHz
Radar Altimeters4200-4400 MHzMicrowave 5030-5091 MHz
Landing System (MLS).
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)..... 5600-5650 MHz
Satellite Passive Sensors................. 23.6-24 GHz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Price.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN PRICE
Mr. Price. Thank you, Chairman Upton and members of the
subcommittee, for inviting me today. I would also like to thank
Howard Waltzman and the other members of your staff for helping
us prepare for this hearing.
The Department of Defense truly appreciates that your
committee is looking at spectrum issues, in general, and
ultrawideband, in particular. Spectrum is the lifeblood of our
military. Every ship at sea, every airplane conducting
missions, every forward-deployed young man or woman, especially
in hard-to-reach locations, depends on spectrum and radios to
conduct their missions and to return home safely.
A special forces team leader operating in Afghanistan
recently came back and reported to me and others on his
experience during Operation Enduring Freedom. ``We could go in
there naked with flip-flops and as long as we have good radios,
we could do our job.'' Information is one of our most important
weapons, and our spectrum and information needs are growing
rapidly.
It is critical you understand how the Department of Defense
approached the FCC's ultrawideband proceeding earlier this
year. As Assistant Secretary of Defense, John Stenbit, my boss,
clearly stated in his letter of January 11 to Mike Gallagher at
NTIA--you remember this letter--``DOD supports UWB development.
However, DOD seeks to ensure that such development will proceed
in a manner consistent with core national security needs and
objectives.''
The Department has been an early and ardent proponent, in
fact a founder of ultrawideband technology and plans to use UWB
to advance the Nation's defenses. In other words, DOD was not
saying no, not trying to stifle anything. We worked hard to
develop approaches, even suggesting filters and masks to permit
commercial deployment of UWB, so long as they didn't pose risks
to sensitive and vital national security systems, such as GPS.
To do anything else, we felt, would have been to abdicate our
responsibilities. The proceeding did produce a win-win solution
to a complex problem. I think most of the people here would
agree with that.
We commend the FCC and NTIA, as well as others, for their
hard work in this proceeding. It raised a number of new and
significant issues. It proposed to approve unlicensed and
uncoordinated use of UWB in all Part 15 bands, including
heretofore restricted bands. Never before had the FCC and NTIA
authorized such unconstrained use across an entire horizontal
slice of the spectrum, including restricted bands. This is
important because the stakes were exceedingly high for national
security.
Tests showed that UWB devices could disrupt GPS operations
with emission levels well below the FCC's originally proposed
limits. Measurements taken by NTIA and the Department of
Transportation and associated government studies have clearly
shown that non-licensed use of this technology without proper
emission constraints could cause interference to existing radio
services. Disruption of GPS by UWB operations could have
potentially undermined U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism,
eroded homeland defense and led directly the loss of life of
forces here and abroad. In such a case, prudence was dictated
and prudence was delivered.
It seems fair to argue that the burden of proof was on the
UWB proponents to prove that commercial deployment would not
interfere with GPS and other systems and to prove so beyond a
reasonable doubt. If the goal of the UWB spectrum proceeding
was to meet the twin goals of protecting vital national
security systems from harmful interference and allowing for the
robust development of a new commercial technology, it would
seem by initial indications that the FCC accomplished that
goal. It is wise public policy to go slow in the initial phases
of new technology developments. The alternative, to embrace
unacceptable risk with unknown consequences on the basis of
conflicting science, would have been unacceptable.
We completely agree with Chairman Tauzin and others that
once enough devices are out there, and we can debate the timing
of when that will be, and sound science is able to be studied,
what the tests show the tests will show, and we will support
those tests. In DOD, we have a duty to the young men and women
who defend our country, a duty to ensure that they have the
tools they need to do their job. We owe them policies to ensure
that lack of access to spectrum should not be a constraint on
our war fighter. Thank you very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Steven Price follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven Price, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense
1. introduction
I would like to thank the members of this committee, and
particularly Chairman Upton, for holding this hearing. Spectrum
allocation decisions are timely and important issues, both for
commercial interests and the Department of Defense.
The Executive branch, through NTIA and the FCC adopted a ``win-
win'' approach to a very complex and intricate rulemaking proceeding.
DoD believes that the final order and future decisions by NTIA with
respect to governmental systems will ensure the protection of national
security and public safety while opening the door to commercial
deployment of UWB. They did not accept the alternative, which was to
embrace unacceptable risk, with unknown consequences. Everyone involved
should be proud that the nation's spectrum resources were, in this case
at least, managed in a manner that safeguarded the national interest,
particularly during a time when the country faces domestic and foreign
threats while allowing for commercial innovation and technological
advancement.
Let me say at the outset that it is critical that you understand
how the Defense Department approached the Federal Communications
Commission's (``FCC'') Ultra Wideband (``UWB'') proceeding earlier this
year. The proceeding, which culminated in the FCC's ruling on February
14, 2002, did not come at an opportune time for our nation's military.
Post September 11 and in the midst of Operation Enduring Freedom, the
proceeding took considerable time and effort on the part of our
nation's Defense Department. Nonetheless, DoD understood the importance
of FCC priorities and DoD played an active role trying to reach
consensus and we participated in all aspects of the proceeding.
Far from being an opponent of UWB development and deployment, the
Department has been an early and ardent proponent of UWB technologies
and plans to use UWB to advance the nation's defense systems. The
Department also recognizes that it will benefit from the operational
and cost improvements that will result from commercial deployment.
As Assistant Secretary of Defense John Stenbit, my boss, clearly
stated in his letter of January 11, 2002 to Michael Gallagher of NTIA,
``DoD supports UWB development. However, DoD seeks to ensure that such
development will proceed in a manner consistent with core national
security needs and objectives . . . DoD, in keeping with our national
defense responsibilities, cannot accept any interference with its
systems.'' In other words, DoD was not saying ``no''. DoD worked hard
to develop approaches to permit commercial deployment of UWB
technologies in a manner that would not pose risks to sensitive and
vital defense and national security systems, such as the Global
Positioning Satellite (GPS.) To do anything less would have been to
abdicate our constitutional responsibility.
It is important to understand why the Defense Department takes
spectrum allocation proceedings so seriously. Spectrum is the life's
blood of the Department of Defense. Every ship at sea, every airplane
conducting missions, every forward-deployed young man or woman--
especially in hard to reach locations--depends on radios and spectrum
to conduct missions and to return home safely. A Special Forces team
leader operating in Afghanistan was recently quoted as saying that team
members could do their jobs naked, in flip-flops, as long as they had
the proper radios. Information has become our most effective weapon.
This will be even truer in the future, as DoD's ongoing
transformation to a network-centric military will add new demands. A
DoD spectrum requirements analysis, completed prior to September 11,
2001 (and therefore likely to be an underestimate) predicted DoD
spectrum usage growth of more than 90 percent by 2005. Clearly, DoD's
spectrum needs are increasing due to these new operational concepts,
including more extensive use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, as well as
evolving strategies that require joint, dispersed forces to have
greater connectivity in the ``last tactical mile.'' In addition, there
will be new demands in the arena of homeland defense. These will likely
include new spectrum related missions, such as military support for
major events (such as was the case in the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt
Lake City), protection of critical infrastructure and emergency
response. It will also include use of new technologies.
Spectrum is one of our nation's most valuable natural resources. It
is not uncommon for us to use land or real estate analogies to describe
spectrum. We use terms like ``beachfront property''--that's how
valuable it is. The reason it is so valuable is that it enables so much
of the technology that many people look to in order to solve many
problems. The communications and information revolution has now
resulted in technologies unimagined several years ago: tiny wireless
phones, wireless LANs, Internet access from virtually anywhere in the
world.
The same is true for military technology. Wireless technology is
particularly important for our military forces because of their
increasingly mobile and flexible nature. The ongoing revolution in
military operations has made information the key component of warfare.
Mass of force no longer has the power it once did because our tactics
are more sophisticated, as are our warfighters and the equipment they
carry. The revolution in personal communications that civilians have
experienced is mirrored by a similar revolution in military
communications. But these technologies are even more important to the
military because of the lack of a wired alternative in many military
operations. We can make a call or access the Internet on a landline,
but the ship captain, bomber pilot or tank commander has no other
option but wireless communications. And because of the way we fight,
that information is more important than ever, both to the troops in the
field and to the commanders--whether they are in theater or 12,000
miles away.
As these wireless technologies have flourished, competition for the
resource that enables them has skyrocketed. One only needs to look at
the amount of money bid for spectrum in the most recent auctions to
notice this, though not all auctions have been a success in terms of
revenues. Over the past 10 years, DoD and other federal agencies have
begun to relinquish 247 MHz of prime spectrum to industry. Every re-
allocation of spectrum essential to military capability from DoD
reduces flexibility, requires that replacement equipment be purchased
or a work-around developed and erodes our realistic training. While we
recognize that there are many competing needs for spectrum, including
needs for commerce, important national defense needs must be a top
priority.
The pressure on government spectrum will not end. Wireless
technologies and other commercial uses of spectrum will continue to
proliferate. UWB, like all other new technologies, is a mere stepping-
stone to other technologies--we must arrive at a sound spectrum policy
that allows our commercial interests to coexist with public interests.
And, at the same time as commercial demands increase, so does DoD
becomes increasingly spectrum constrained. It is our view that DoD will
need access to additional spectrum allocations in order to meet our
long-term goals of transforming to a network-centric military and to
meet our obligation to protect our citizens, at home and abroad. To
quote the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, ``True
transformation must include training and education, doctrine and
organizations. As we transform our forces, we need to build
capabilities that allow us to defend our interests in a wide array of
situations. The key to that, in my view, are flexibility and
adaptability.''
Before I discuss the FCC's UWB proceeding, I'd like to share the
Department of Defense's principles regarding spectrum in order to put
the matter in proper context. I believe that it is useful for you to
understand how the Defense Department approaches spectrum policy.
2. dod spectrum principles
DoD spectrum policy is guided by certain core principles. DoD has
been guided by these principles during our work with the NTIA and the
FCC with regard to the UWB proceeding for the last year and it informs
all of our spectrum policy. First, spectrum is a vital national
resource. DoD understands that its needs must be balanced with other
national needs. Therefore, it supports a US spectrum policy that
balances military and economic security. DoD believes that the balance
of authority between the President's spectrum manager, the NTIA, and
the Federal Communications Commission, as implemented at a practical
level, helps to achieve the appropriate balance. That balance must
recognize that the Department of Defense must have sufficient spectrum
to meet the nation's defense needs. This is a longstanding principal of
national spectrum management and it should continue.
Second, spectrum is critical to DoD. It is a core enabler of what
we do, and it is indispensable to national security. Therefore, we
should not allow lack of sufficient spectrum to be a constraint on the
US warfighter or on military capabilities. Senior DoD leadership
recognizes that network-centric warfare and the military's ongoing
transformation will depend on technology as a force multiplier and
demands on bandwidth and access to spectrum will increase. This is true
even without taking into account potential requirements of homeland
defense. DoD spectrum needs should be driven by military requirements
and capabilities, not spectrum allocations.
Third, DoD recognizes that it must be a good spectrum user. DoD
must strive to be as efficient a spectrum user as it can be. Much of
DoD's spectrum use is unique--unlike the commercial sector's drive for
low cost, high revenue solutions, the DoD must put a premium on network
and system reliability. DoD's core belief is that where lives are at
stake, there is no margin for error--the ``call'' must get through.
When an aircraft is guiding a precision weapon, or a commander is
relaying life-saving information to troops on the ground, there cannot
be ``busy'' signals. Some spectrum use that industry might label as
``inefficient'' is actually designed for anti-jam systems, low
probability of intercept, and other ``counter counter-measures.'' For
the military, ``efficient spectrum use'' often translates into
``guaranteed information delivery'' and because of that, commercial
standards that allow a certain percentage of built-in busy signals or
dropped calls cannot be tolerated.
Fourth, DoD intends to continue investing in new, spectrum-
efficient technologies. It will continue to seek to use technology to
alleviate DoD's and the commercial sector's long-term needs for
additional spectrum. DoD has been a major contributor to the birth of
proven spectrum efficient technologies, including CDMA and software-
defined radio, and, for that matter, those that show potential, such as
ultra wideband technologies. Significant research is ongoing within DoD
in search of efficient technologies. This research includes extensive
work on such topics as adaptive spectrum usage, frequency and bandwidth
agility, phased-array antenna configurations, interference mitigation
techniques, congestion control technologies and numerous networking
projects. In addition, DoD continually seeks to better manage its
spectrum allocations.
Fifth, DoD commits to actively supporting US policies and interests
in international organizations and multinational and bilateral
negotiations for spectrum allocation and use. To do this, however, it
is vital that the U.S. national processes recognize that in allocating
spectrum according to the balance of needs among Department of Defense,
commercial and other users, important national defense needs must be a
top priority.
3. u.s. spectrum allocation process
Every time a new technology arises the same interests must be
balanced against each other: commercial interests versus national
security and other public policy interests, such as aviation safety and
law enforcements. We can only expect more of these regulatory balancing
acts in the future, as more technologies are developed to share
spectrum--or reuse it, as is the case of UWB. We must arrive at a sound
spectrum policy.
There is an important point that national policy makers need to
consider as we make spectrum allocation decisions. The current system
places asymmetric risks on the national security and other federal
incumbents. From DoD's position, if we lose spectrum or are forced to
share and such sharing causes interference with vital systems, as a
practical matter little can be done after the fact. Once an allocation
has been made, it is difficult if not impossible to put the genie back
in the bottle. As the Precursor Group, an industry analyst, says, ``the
FCC has never repealed authorization of a technology once granted.''
DoD bears all of this risk--including the risk that our systems
won't operate. The fact that vital systems might be interfered with
raises concerns and uncertainties. The uncertainty caused by
relocations pose serious issues for our long-term planning: will we be
required to move, when will we get the money to move, will we need to
retrain, will we retrain in time to be prepared to deploy in an
emergency, will we need to change concepts of operations to account for
degraded capabilities, will we be able to get host nation approvals to
use the system in the new frequency band in all of the parts of the
world we might need to do so, will our allies who bought interoperable
systems now also be required to modify their existing equipment and, if
so, will they pay their bill, will the new spectrum be free of
interference?
We believe that the current spectrum management process creates
imbalances and asymmetric risks and that these must be set straight
through development and enforcement of a rational, long-term spectrum
management policy that mirrors national priorities. DOD believes it is
important to have a spectrum management system which recognizes that
important defense needs for spectrum should be a top priority in
allocation, that DOD needs long-term certainty and reliability of
access to spectrum, and that, in those cases in which spectrum is
reallocated from defense use to commercial use, DOD should not bear
costs and risks (including financial risks) associated with the
reallocation. However we implement our national spectrum policy, these
national security priorities must be accommodated, in terms of how
competing interests are balanced, before such a proceeding not during
it.
4. fcc uwb proceeding
I want to stress a few key points about the FCC's UWB proceeding.
First, we commend FCC for making a very hard and complex decision and
doing it by striking a reasoned balance. Second, we commend NTIA for
their efforts and their process and role in this complex proceeding. As
you know, NTIA, as the President's spectrum manager, has the authority
to make decisions regarding government use of spectrum dependent
systems. To the extent the FCC February decision impacts federal
government use of spectrum, the Executive branch, through NTIA, had
concurred.
Third, the FCC's proceeding posed new and significant issues. The
proceeding proposed to approve the nonlicensed and uncoordinated
emissions of ultrawide band signals into all Part 15 bands. NTIA and
FCC had previously agreed that certain narrow band systems could emit
at extremely low levels into certain federal government spectrum but
not into so-called restricted bands, where commercial users are
prohibited from intentionally emitting. Never before had the FCC and
the NTIA authorized such unconstrained use of a horizontal slice of the
entire spectrum including restricted bands. To the extent that NTIA has
agreed to this limited use of ``restricted band'' spectrum in no way
diminishes NTIA and DoD's understanding that ``restricted bands'' Are
often the appropriate mechanism to protect spectrum used for essential
national interests, including national security interests. Importantly,
the proposed FCC rules set precedent that has the potential to
eliminate protection of Government restricted bands. These are
essential to national security, safety of life and economic security.
In addition, the FCC was not proposing the imposition of any
aggregation controls in the licensing process.
Fourth, the stakes were extremely high for our national security.
None of the systems at risk from UWB is more important than the federal
government systems, including the GPS and other military systems that
directly support U.S. troops and public safety officials. In fact, a
recent Heritage Foundation homeland security task force report listed
as its number two priority, designating GPS as a critical national
infrastructure. But the Part 15 emissions originally proposed by the
FCC to be allowed into all spectrum, including restricted bands, were
inadequate for protection of most federal systems. UWB devices can
disrupt GPS operations with emission levels well below the FCC's
originally proposed limits, as well as by emission spikes that would
exceed those proposed limits. As a result, the proposed rules could
have, among other things:
<bullet> Degraded the ability to use GPS to navigate and land military
aircraft and commercial airliners, threatening the lives and
safety of military personnel and the general public;
<bullet> Degraded the operation of government airport radars, affecting
flight safety;
<bullet> Risked causing interference to ground distance-measuring
systems that provide vital navigation information to military
and commercial aircraft, as well as to rescue stations that
host military and public safety operations;
<bullet> Eroded our ability to train with precision guided munitions
without which so much of our modern tactics would be
impossible.
Disruption of these systems by UWB operations could undermine U.S.
efforts in the war on terrorism and erode homeland defense. More to the
point, disruption of these operations could directly lead to loss of
life among U.S. forces and American citizens.
One other reason why the UWB proceeding proved so difficult was
because the technology is so new that at the outset no hard science or
empirical data existed. Some in the UWB industry said they believed
that UWB devices, no matter how many in use, would never interfere with
existing users such as GPS. Our view was that unconstrained, aggregated
and non-licensed use of UWB devices, as originally proposed, posed a
severe risk of interference to existing licensed systems and,
therefore, must be governed by sensible technical parameters. Other
government agencies believed that even more stringent limits were
needed.
Unlike traditional wireless technologies which are restricted to a
specific band of frequencies, UWB emits signal energy across an
extremely wide range of spectrum bands. Thus, UWB would operate, on a
non-licensed basis, across many different wireless bands, in which
hundreds of government and commercial users are licensed to provide
hundreds of vital and needed wireless services--including vital
military, aviation safety and law enforcement systems. In theory, UWB
offers ``free spectrum'' by thinly spreading its energy over many
bands. If existing spectrum users are not adversely affected, what's
the harm? Yet measurements taken by NTIA and the Department of
Transportation--and associated government studies--have clearly shown
that non-licensed use of this technology, without proper emission
constraints, could cause interference to existing licensed radio
services, including public safety and critical national security
systems. For example, even thinly spread UWB energy interferes with
very low power signals from distant sources, such as GPS satellites
which are over 12,000 miles away. In such a case, prudence is dictated
because no one knows for sure--and that is what the FCC, with NTIA
concurrence, essentially said.
It is worth considering, What if the FCC had come up with a
different outcome? Suppose the following: First, the FCC had decided to
allow unconstrained, uncoordinated use of commercial UWB devices
throughout the spectrum. Second, UWB industry successfully marketed
such devices so that there was widespread deployment. Third, we accept
the DoD view that such aggregated, widespread use of UWB devices below
3 GHz could interfere with and hamper GPS operations, in addition to
other systems. In such a scenario, the following would have occurred as
a direct result of the FCC ruling: money spent on the constellation of
GPS satellites would be wasted; safety would be compromised in civil
and military aviation which uses GPS for navigation, including in the
critical approach phase; spectrum-dependent warfighting systems which
depend on GPS would be unusable, degrading our readiness, mission
effectiveness and capability, while wasting millions of taxpayer
dollars; and the substantial civil investment in GPS would be wasted,
including taxpayer dollars, and irreparable harm to US industry that
depends on GPS.
Is that an outcome that is in our national interest? Did the
proponents of unconstrained use of UWB prove with any scientific facts
and to any reasonable person beyond a reasonable doubt that this would
not happen? Did they offer DoD and the nation any guarantees? Is any
risk such as this worth taking?
Rather, our view and the FCC's ruling took a prudent approach.
Allow a commercial industry to develop. In fact, let it thrive. Protect
national security and vital systems by imposing moderate limitations
that the majority of companies felt were acceptable. Then, see what
happens.
In his remarks on February 14, 2001, FCC Chairman Powell stated
that the rules announced that day were ``fully coordinated with the
U.S. Government.'' The Department agrees with NTIA Deputy Administrator
Mike Gallagher's analysis that section 305 of the Communications Act of
1934 preserves the President's authority to authorize use of the radio
spectrum for U.S. government owned and operated stations. We are
confident that our colleagues at the Commission recognize the
authorities and responsibilities of the President, authorities
delegated to the NTIA as the Executive Branch spectrum manager, with
regard to managing spectrum in a manner that protects Federal
Government systems, as set forth in the May 15, 2002 letter.
In this regard, we believe that NTIA should not treat authorization
of all DoD UWB device uses in the same way as nonlicensed commercial
devices. Under current NTIA Manual provisions, we are required to and
do provide NTIA--and all other Federal agencies--the details of our
planned UWB device use and seek NTIA authorization to so operate. We
intend to continue this practice. Certain DoD present and future uses
of UWB will require operation at power levels greater than those
allowed for the general public to perform specific missions. DoD will
operate many fewer UWB devices than the public. DoD UWB devices will be
operated mainly on DoD installations and training areas under the
control of the Executive branch. In the case of EMI, the UWB device can
easily be located and turned off by local spectrum or command
personnel. No such controls exist for UWB devices mass-marketed to the
public.
We do agree with NTIA that government use of commercial off-the-
shelf UWB devices authorized by the FCC in the FCC proceeding should be
encouraged. When possible, we want to use such systems--in part because
such use may make these systems more affordable. We support NTIA's
intention to update the applicable sections of the NTIA Manual to so
make clear. However, we must be free to operate high power UWB--in
accordance with criteria appropriate for limited use government systems
in order to fulfill military missions. Some of the military missions
for which we expect to use UWB include: sniper detection/location;
buried weapon cache detection; unexploded ordnance detection; and
tunnel complex detection. Without these devices, we would have to send
our troops directly in to harm's way in very risky missions. Other uses
include, runway void detection; all weather precision formation flying;
ship docking radar; and precision radar altimeters for ultra-small
UAVs. Without these systems the associated functions would either be
impossible or much more dangerous. The NTIA, as the President's
spectrum manager, must continue to have the discretion to individually
authorize DoD UWB systems at specific locations for specific times and
with specific technical characteristics. DoD intends to continue to
coordinate the uses of such devices to ensure protection operation of
all critical federal government systems and to seek to maximize the
efficient use of spectrum.
5. result of fcc uwb proceeding
If the goal of the UWB spectrum allocation proceeding was to meet
the twin goals of (a) protecting vital national security systems from
harmful interference while (b) allowing an innovative new technology to
develop, then it would seem by initial indications that the FCC
accomplished that goal.
DoD primarily was concerned about interference to GPS. GPS is now
used by the military in almost every phase of operations. It is used in
precision-guided munitions; airplanes use it for navigation; and
special operations units operating in Afghanistan use it for
coordination with airborne platforms and allied troops. These functions
are also performed within the United States, as well. Today's military
is designed to ``train like they fight.'' This means that they use the
same equipment, the same tactics and even the same frequencies in
training that they will use in overseas operations to the greatest
extent possible. This goal of making our training as realistic as
possible is intended to prepare our troops for combat as best we can,
so that when they get there casualties are minimized.
Allowing degradation to systems our troops use in the field would
reduce the effectiveness of their training and increase the risk of
casualties. The net effect is to cause harm to our national security.
UWB operates at such a low power level, that a few UWB devices will not
cause interference with critical DoD equipment. However, it is the
aggregate effect of the proliferation of such devices that has the
potential to cause interference. This effect is often referred to as
``raising the noise level'' and it occurs when the aggregate effect of
many, many UWB devices raises the level of ambient noise. Correcting
for this would be very difficult and expensive in systems that are
currently deployed because they are engineered for the existing ambient
noise level and not the heightened noise level caused by the aggregated
effects of UWB devices. This aggregate effect is difficult to predict
and, therefore, a ``go slow'' approach is the preferred way to deal
with it.
The R&O contains several emission masks for the various types of
envisioned UWB devices. This allows a tailored approach for each
individual type of mass-marketed UWB device. The technical criteria
indicated by the masks cover DoD's inputs on the draft R&O. The UWB
discussion has always been ``how low is low enough?'' We are dealing
with a new technology and feel the masks are a good compromise between
allowing the technology into the spectrum on an nonlicensed basis and
the need to protect vital current--and future federal and civil
spectrum dependent services that have a good chance to be in the same
operating area. In all cases, the 960-1610 MHz part of the emission
mask is the most stringent, since that spectrum supports many safety-
of-life radio systems--air traffic control, GPS, and others.
To allow unrestrained deployment of UWB devices could mean opening
Pandora's box: once it is opened it is impossible to close and
mitigating the negative effect is very difficult and expensive. There
are no geographical limits on where the public might use non-licensed
UWB devices or under what circumstances. For example, there isn't any
reason why a mass-marketed UWB device couldn't be used in or around
Reagan National Airport. The potential harm is that widespread
commercial use might raise the overall noise level in localized areas
to the point where RF reception by licensed services is degraded. We
have practical experience with current narrowband Part 15 devices
causing interference to licensed users: tactical VHF frequencies near
50 MHz are degraded at some bases due to nearby cordless phone use.
This is a clear example of raising the noise floor through aggregate
use--no single cordless phone can do this but together they can
interfere with critical military and civil systems.
The American public would not, nor should they, tolerate such a
mishandling of our spectrum resources. We, therefore, adopted sensible
policies as well as technical criteria for public UWB devices that will
protect the sanctity of military equipment. Nearly 90% of all federal
and civil RF devices operate below 3.1 GHz--it is the most crowded part
of the spectrum. Forcing UWB--initially--above 3.1 GHz is part of the
Administration's overall strategy to strike a balance between the need
to jump-start this technology, but in a responsible manner. One
company, Kohler, currently uses UWB technology near 6 GHz, so the
technical barriers must be less than envisioned for UWB use above 3.1
GHz. Building and clear path attenuation above 3.1 GHz is greater than
below 3.1 GHz. Operating mass-marketed UWB devices above 3.1 GHz
provides more isolation between UWB and licensed systems. Therefore,
the FCC's decision that allowed for widespread deployment of UWB
devices above 3.1 GHz--and out of GPS bands ``was not too conservative
but rather prudent and logical.
UWB technology brings great possibilities for expanding use of the
spectrum because theoretically it can reuse spectrum already employed
for other purposes. However, if it turns out that UWB interferes with
existing users it will end up costing us far more than it saves us. We
would either have to stop the use of UWB technology or move the
existing systems to another band of spectrum. Both of these solutions
are highly problematic and expensive. It is much better to go more
slowly in the initial phases and ensure that we have a regulatory
regime in place that allows for development of a new technology while
maintaining the viability of the existing technologies.
6. impact of fcc ruling
It is too early to know the ultimate impact of the FCC ruling. Only
after enough UWB devices are commercially deployed, can the real
empirical evidence be gathered and measured to determine whether UWB
devices at certain levels cause harmful interferences to federal and
commercial systems. But statements by various parties immediately prior
to or following the FCC's ruling leads to the conclusion that the FCC
and NTIA got it right.
Several UWB proponents issued statements prior to the FCC ruling
stating that they believed that a vigorous commercial industry could
develop if UWB devices were restricted to intentional emissions above
3.1 GHz. Time Domain, a UWB proponent, issued a public statement on
February 14, the day of the FCC ruling, stating that, ``The FCC action
enables Time Domain to deliver its patented UWB technology to the
company's development partners for integration into certain products
and applications, including wireless broadband links and precision
radar products.'' Martin Rofheart, chief executive officer of another
UWB firm, XtremeSpectrum, Inc., said the FCC's decision was ``great for
the industry and good for us.''
In other words, the commercial vendors do not need to operate below
3.1 GHz in order to market UWB devices commercially. And a Washington
Post article last week noted that since the FCC UWB ruling,
``competition is growing'' and cited a Precursor Group analyst who
expressed his view of UWB--``we believe that this will be a serious
threat to Blue Tooth and 802.11b.''
The UWB industry needs a chance to develop the technology and prove
its business case. We have seen many examples where promised technology
failed to succeed in the market, even when provided with the required
spectrum and policy incentives. We, other federal spectrum users, NTIA
and the FCC, need time to learn how to address UWB interference. We
need time to gather real world data on interference incidents--or lack
of them. We need to see how the coordination process works out. We also
need time to do more testing and analysis. The Department has concerns
that 6-12 months may not be sufficient to obtain the necessary
information to make further policy or technical standards.
7. conclusion
The Executive branch, through NTIA and the FCC adopted a ``win-
win'' approach to a very complex and intricate rulemaking proceeding.
DoD believes that the final order and future decisions by NTIA with
respect to governmental systems will ensure the protection of national
security and public safety while opening the door to commercial
deployment of UWB. They did not accept the alternative, which was to
embrace unacceptable risk, with unknown consequences. Everyone involved
should be proud that the nation's spectrum resources were, in this case
at least, managed in a manner that safeguarded the national interest,
particularly during a time when the country faces domestic and foreign
threats while allowing for commercial innovation and technological
advancement.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Shane.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY N. SHANE
Mr. Shane. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. On behalf of Secretary Mineta, I would like to
thank you for holding a hearing on these very important topics,
ultrawideband technology, and particularly the government's
spectrum management process. We appreciate very much the
opportunity to participate.
The Department of Transportation is, first and foremost, a
public safety and security agency with the responsibility for
ensuring the integrity of our Nation's transportation system.
In our continuing efforts to improve the safety, security and
efficiency of all modes of transport in these challenging
times, we have become increasingly reliant on assured access to
the radio spectrum in support of a broad range of what we refer
to as communications, navigation and surveillance, CNS,
systems. Because these CNS systems are so important today to
the safety and efficiency of the movement of people and goods
in all modes of transport, it is fair to say that their assured
reliability is now essential to the Nation's economic well-
being, to its safety and increasingly to its security.
It is from this perspective that the Department of
Transportation approaches all new technologies that require
access to radio spectrum. We want to explore their promise
carefully, but we also want to protect against any interference
that could compromise the reliability of vital existing
systems. The burden must be, as Stephen Price said, on the
proponents of new technologies to demonstrate their deployment
will not diminish in any way the essential reliability of these
systems.
Having said that, though, I want to assure the subcommittee
that the Department fully supports the development and
deployment of ultrawideband technology. Indeed, as several
members have noted and as Mr. Gallagher noted, some
ultrawideband-based applications hold enormous promise for
improving transportation safety, ground penetrating radar being
one, potential collision avoidance systems for vehicles being
another. We simply have to have, however, the highest level of
confidence that these applications will be deployed in a way
that ensures the continued integrity of transportation-related,
safety-of-life systems.
Mr. Chairman, because we attach such importance to the
reliability of our CNS systems, they operate in bands of the
spectrum that have traditionally been protected from emissions
of other systems. That is why Part 15, unlicensed devices,
historically have been prohibited from producing intentional
emissions into these bands. Anyone seeking to use spectrum for
a new purpose had to demonstrate that the newly proposed
operations would not interfere with existing systems. We think
that this is the appropriate approach, particularly in the case
of an emerging and unique technology like ultrawideband,
frankly, about which so much is still unknown.
Spectrum requirements for transportation systems are
complicated by the fact that particularly for aviation and
maritime transport they are often predicated on globally
accepted standards. For example, spectrum allocations and
standards for aviation are developed by two United Nations
organizations: The International Telecommunications Union and
the International Civil Aviation Organization. Another U.N.
agency, the International Maritime Organization, develops
standards for ocean shipping. In international fora like these,
the United States has consistently advocated protection for
those bands of the spectrum in which critical transportation-
related and other systems operate.
The FCC's first Report and Order regarding ultrawideband
transmission systems, the so-called R&O, was adopted on
February 14. DOT worked very closely with both the FCC and NTIA
as they prepared the R&O. Mr. Chairman, you outlined the
categories of ultrawideband equipment in the R&O different
technical standards apply to each category, including specific
frequency bands, marketing restrictions, emissions limits,
operating restrictions and coordination requirements. The FCC
committed in the R&O to undertake expedited enforcement action
in the event of rule violations or harmful interference from
UWB devices. That undertaking and the protection it represents
is absolutely critical. While the details of the coordination
process remain to be developed, that too is a crucial step
toward addressing potential interference with our critical CNS
systems.
But we already experience from Part 15 devices in the
restricted bands, and we have expressed serious concern about
the additional potential risk of interference that
ultrawideband devices may represent, particularly given the
wide swath of spectrum into which they emit energy. I might
also note that no equipment is currently available that can
readily detect and locate UWB devices should they malfunction.
In other words, there would be no way to find and contact the
user of a malfunctioning device. While we are working to
identify such equipment, the fact that we have not yet done so
indicates the need for great care.
We will work together with all appropriate parties to
devise a process that spots and resolves cases of interference
promptly and effectively, but until we have done so, we will
continue to insist on caution. The FCC said in the R&O that it
too was proceeding cautiously. At the same time, it indicated
that prescribed standards, and I am quoting, ``may be
overprotective and could unnecessarily constrain the
development of UWB technology.'' The Commission, therefore,
announced its intention to review the standards within 6 to 12
months and to, ``explore more flexible technical standards and
to address the operation of additional types of UWB operations
and technology.'' We are certainly prepared to explore with the
FCC and NTIA whether the new standards can be relaxed, but we
reserve the right to argue that they may actually have to be
strengthened.
The Department also has questions about the timeframe
announced by the FCC for the review because, frankly, it seems
a little hasty. We will certainly endeavor to provide the
needed supporting data and analyses, and in circumstances like
these, we understand that there simply is just no substitute
for empirical testing and hard data. But DOT's tests and
probably other tests will supply only part of the data
necessary to reach an informed decision on possible future UWB
rules.
Additional analytical work is needed in two areas:
prototype testing and aggregation effects. Unfortunately,
prototypes of many UWB devices have not been available for
testing. Until this equipment is more readily available,
crucial data will be lacking. Before changes are made to the
current rule, DOT, in conjunction with the NTIA, FCC and other
Federal agencies, must be in a position to examine actual real-
world results of pro-type testing.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Transportation
will continue to approach with caution the deployment of any
new technology that has the potential to interfere with
transportation-related safety-of-life systems. We do not think
the FCC has taken too conservative an approach with the current
UWB R&O. As we work with NTIA and the FCC to examine potential
changes to this rule, we will continue to demand the highest
levels of protection for our transportation systems and the
safety of the traveling public.
I thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and we
look forward to answering any questions that the subcommittee
may have.
[The prepared statement of Jeffrey N. Shane follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey N. Shane, Associate Deputy Secretary,
U.S. Department of Transportation
introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I would
like to thank you and the members of this Subcommittee for holding a
hearing on this important topic. The U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) welcomes this opportunity to present its views on ultra-wideband
(UWB) technology.
DOT is first and foremost a public safety and security agency with
responsibility for the Nation's transportation systems and those who
use them. In our continuing efforts to modernize and improve the
safety, efficiency and security of our transportation systems, we have
become increasingly reliant on access to spectrum to support a broad
range of communications, navigation and surveillance (CNS) systems.
These systems are critical to the safe and efficient movement of people
and goods in all modes of transportation and must remain absolutely
reliable. It is from this perspective that we approach new
technologies, exploring their promise while adhering to the imperative
that they not interfere with vital existing systems. You will not be
surprised to hear that, from DOT's vantage point, the assured integrity
of these safety-of-life systems must be a given in the debate about new
technologies. The burden should be on the proponents of new
technologies to demonstrate that their deployment will not diminish in
any way that essential integrity.
That is how we approach the ultra-wideband issue. DOT fully
supports the development and deployment of UWB technology. Indeed,
several UWB-based applications hold promise for improving
transportation safety, such as ground-penetrating radar and potential
collision avoidance systems. But we seek assurances that UWB
applications are deployed in a way that ensures the continued integrity
of transportation-related safety-of-life systems.
spectrum management issues
The radio spectrum has become an indispensable resource. The huge
demand for access to spectrum has increased the potential for
interference and this is a serious concern. The Federal Government has
a fundamental responsibility to ensure that the highest level of
service is provided as we explore new and innovative ways to take
advantage of radio spectrum.
DOT makes every effort to scrutinize proposals to introduce new
systems or technologies into the electromagnetic environment if they
might affect transportation systems. No matter what benefits are
foreseen from a proposed new technology or application, we must be
certain of its compatibility with existing systems in order to avoid
potential conflicts with transportation-related services. If, for
example, the FAA's management of the spectrum is affected by unwelcome
changes in the spectrum environment, the problem of flight delays might
well be exacerbated. FAA might have to slow down the National Airspace
System to maintain safe operations.
In the past, spectrum used for navigation was largely allocated
exclusively for that purpose. As pressure resulting from spectrum
congestion increased, others sought to share the spectrum used for
transportation safety systems--and they enjoyed some success in that
regard. That success, coupled with the recent rules adopted for UWB
devices and the trend towards overlay of services different from the
incumbent services, may seriously limit the ability of transportation
industries to modernize their systems to keep pace with increasing
demands.
DOT's spectrum requirements are complicated by the fact that they
are predicated on globally accepted protocols--notably in the case of
aviation and maritime shipping. For example, spectrum allocations and
standards for aviation are developed by two United Nations
organizations--the International Telecommunication Union and the
International Civil Aviation Organization. Pilots who fly U.S.-
registered aircraft between continents thus can be confident today that
the avionics with which their aircraft are equipped will work as well
overseas as they do in the U.S. Maritime standards are developed
through the International Maritime Organization and provide similar
benefits for intercontinental maritime traffic. The allocations and
standards have taken many years and resources to adopt and implement.
It would take at least as many years to change them if rules that
govern the use of UWB devices are not adequate.
critical cns systems
It is important to describe at least briefly the CNS systems for
which DOT is responsible, and their location in the spectrum. The
importance of protecting them against the threat of interference--and
the reasons for our concern about the deployment of UWB devices--are
described below.
First, roughly eighty percent of CNS systems used for air traffic
control operate in bands below 960 Megahertz (MHz). Additional systems
operate in bands up to approximately 3 Gigahertz (GHz) to include the
Global Positioning System (GPS), maritime radar, airborne collision
avoidance, surveillance and communications systems. Some additional
critical systems lie between 4 and 6 GHz, including systems for weather
radar, landing and airborne altitude measurement. And still more
scattered systems for various transportation modes use spectrum up to
90 GHz. A more complete list of transportation systems is appended to
my statement.
DOT is particularly concerned about the effects of UWB emissions on
the following systems:
<bullet> Global Positioning System (GPS) (center frequencies at 1176,
1227 and 1575 MHz)--GPS is being implemented in the U.S. and
globally to improve the safety and efficiency of land, air, and
maritime transportation. It is also used in many other
applications, both civil and military.
<bullet> Various Aids to Navigation using frequencies below 960 MHz:
<bullet> Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range (VOR) equipment
(108-118 MHz), one of the main en route navigation systems used
globally by aircraft today.
<bullet> The Instrument Landing System (ILS) (108-111.95 MHz; 328.6-
335.4MHz), an aviation precision approach and landing aid
during severe weather and ``no visibility'' conditions. It is
the main system used both domestically and globally for these
as an all-weather landing aid.
<bullet> Air Traffic Control Surveillance Radars
<bullet> Air Route Surveillance Radar-4 (ARSR-4) (1215-1390 MHz), the
most modern of the long-range surveillance radars.
<bullet> Airport Surveillance Radar-9 (ASR-9) (2700-2900 MHz), an air
traffic control radar used at numerous airports throughout the
U.S. and its follow-on ASR-11.
<bullet> Systems around 5-6 GHz:
<bullet> The Microwave Landing System (MLS) (5030-5091 MHz), an
aviation precision approach and landing aid for severe weather
conditions--still used at some airports in the U.S. and
currently being more widely implemented in Europe.
<bullet> The Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) (5600 to 5650 MHz)
that provides critical weather advisories for windshear and
microburst phenomena to aircraft on final approach.
<bullet> The Runway Incursion System (5090-5150 MHz), a system in the
early stages of development aimed at reducing the number of
runway incursions, a top safety issue for aviation.
protection of vital cns systems is paramount
These and other safety-of-life CNS systems are critical components
of the national and international transportation infrastructure.
Ensuring the highest level of reliability for these systems and
supporting technologies is essential to securing the safety of the
traveling public. For this reason, these critical systems operate in
bands of the spectrum that are currently protected from the emissions
of other systems. That is why Part 15 unlicensed devices traditionally
have been prohibited from producing intentional emissions--and their
threat of interference--into these restricted bands.
Historically, those who sought to use spectrum for a new purpose
had to demonstrate that their operations would not interfere with
existing systems. We think that this is the appropriate approach. A
similarly cautious approach is indicated in the case of an emerging and
unique technology like UWB, about which so much is still unknown.
the federal communications commission decision
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Report and Order
Regarding Ultra-wideband Transmission Systems (R&O), issued on April
22, was the product of a coordinated effort between the FCC, which
regulates those portions of the radio spectrum dedicated to the private
sector and to state and local governments, and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which
regulates the Federal government's portion of the spectrum. When
spectrum is shared between Federal and non-Federal users, as much of
spectrum is, these agencies must coordinate the exercise of their
authority as co-regulators. DOT worked closely with both agencies as
they prepared the R&O.
The R&O approved operation of UWB equipment in three categories:
imaging systems, vehicular radar systems, and communications and
measurement systems. The first category includes ground penetrating
radar, wall and through-wall imaging, and surveillance and medical
imaging devices. The second refers to devices mounted on vehicles to
detect nearby objects. The third includes home and business networking
devices as well as storage tank measurement devices.
Different technical standards apply to each--with specific
frequency bands, emission limits, and operating restrictions. For
example, the use of imaging systems (other than in emergencies) will be
limited to law enforcement, construction companies, and other entities,
and subject to coordination with NTIA. Communications and measurement
systems will be allowed to operate only indoors or via hand-held
devices. In the R&O, the FCC also committed to undertake expedited
enforcement action in the event of rule violations or harmful
interference from UWB devices. These protections--coordination and
enforcement--are critical. While the details of the coordination
process remain to be developed, it is a crucial step toward avoiding
and addressing potential interference with critical CNS systems. As we
move forward with implementing this rule, we look forward to working
with NTIA and the FCC to define more fully the details of an effective
coordination process.
Rigorous enforcement of the FCC rule is also critical. Such
vigilance is necessary both because tests to date have demonstrated the
potential for interference to CNS systems from UWB operations, and
because experience with other wireless devices has shown that faulty
manufacturing or design can lead to malfunctions and interference, even
in equipment that is designed to protect against such interference. For
example, CNS systems have experienced interference in the past from
malfunctioning Part 15 devices that are specifically designed to avoid
intentional emissions into the restricted bands. This interference has
caused disruptions in the National Airspace System and has taken weeks
or longer to find and mitigate. We will work together with all
appropriate parties to devise both a responsible and a responsive
process that promptly and effectively identifies and resolves cases of
interference.
I might also note in this connection that DOT is not aware of any
equipment currently available that can detect UWB devices, should they
malfunction and need to be located. The characteristics of UWB, such as
wide bandwidth, make it very hard to detect. While we are working to
identify detection equipment, the lack of this equipment also argues
for a cautious approach.
The FCC, in the R&O, acknowledged that it was ``proceeding
cautiously--based in large measure on standards that the NTIA found to
be necessary to protect against interference to vital federal
government operations.'' The FCC expressed concern as well, however,
that these standards ``may be overprotective and could unnecessarily
constrain the development of UWB technology.'' The Commission therefore
announced its intent to review these standards within six to twelve
months and ``to explore more flexible technical standards and to
address the operation of additional types of UWB operations and
technology.''
implementing the fcc decision
As I indicated, DOT considers it prudent to approach new technology
with caution where critical CNS systems are concerned. There is no
substitute for hard data, stringent analyses, and validation by tests.
As we move forward to implement the FCC rule, we are certainly prepared
to explore with the FCC and NTIA whether, on the basis of additional
information, the new standards may be either relaxed or strengthened.
The Department questions the adequacy of the timeframe announced by the
FCC for this purpose, but we will strive to provide needed data and
analyses.
In this regard, DOT is instituting tests and analysis in areas
where additional information is needed to determine possible effects on
many of the systems mentioned earlier. These efforts will focus on:
<bullet> The Global Positioning System--verifying previous test
results.
<bullet> Air traffic control surveillance radars:
<bullet> The Air Route Surveillance Radar-4--validating analysis.
<bullet> The Airport Surveillance Radar-9--validating analysis.
<bullet> Systems below 960 Megahertz including:
<bullet> The Instrument Landing System--analysis and testing.
<bullet> Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range Equipment--analysis
and possible testing.
<bullet> The Microwave Landing System--further analysis and possible
testing.
There are two points that I would like to emphasize. First, while
we appreciate that much attention has been given to protecting GPS,
many of the technical solutions that would protect GPS from UWB
interference are not necessarily transferable to other systems. Because
of different design characteristics, results derived from GPS analyses
cannot simply be extended to other systems.
Second, we must protect against even marginal degradations to our
critical transportation systems. Taking aviation as an example, even
minor weather or other disruptions at an airport can result in delays
and ground stops at other airports throughout the nation due to the
ripple effect in our congested airspace. Likewise, as policy makers, we
need to be cautious of unknown impacts that may result from our
decision on one issue, such as UWB technology, to be sure there are no
adverse effects in other areas. I have stated some examples of impacts
that we believe warrant further scrutiny, such as aggregate noise
effect due to proliferation of UWB devices and direct radio frequency
interference to certain transportation safety systems that have not
been fully analyzed and tested. This is why the Department is so
insistent that every effort is made to make the correct decision the
first time.
It should be noted that some ultra-wideband vendors have indicated
a willingness to constrain the frequencies of their transmissions in
order to be compatible with existing uses of the radio spectrum, while
others have not. The difference appears to be partly a matter of
technology design and implementation, and partly of cost. It is
appropriate that any further consideration of rules governing UWB
devices take this capability into account.
But DOT's tests will supply only part of the data necessary to
reach an informed decision on possible future UWB rules. Additional
analytical work is needed in two areas: prototype testing and
aggregation effects.
Prototypes of proposed equipment are commonly tested to measure the
characteristics of their emissions and their effects. Unfortunately,
prototypes of UWB devices have not been available for testing. The FCC
had hoped to gain experience on the impact of UWB devices on existing
systems as a byproduct of the waivers it granted in 1999 to several UWB
manufacturers. To date none of these waivers has resulted in prototype
devices for testing or useful test data. Until this omission is
corrected, crucial data will remain unknown. Before changes are made to
the current rule, DOT, in conjunction with the NTIA, FCC and other
Federal agencies, must be in a position to examine the results of
prototype testing. We look forward to working with NTIA, FCC and the
industry in planning and conducting the appropriate tests.
The aggregate effect of numerous UWB devices and their effect on
the noise floor remains to be determined. The noise floor is the level
of background energy always present and is increased by emissions from
manufactured devices. Some systems like GPS operate below the noise
floor level and may suffer reduced accuracy from additional energy in
the noise floor. As the use of UWB devices proliferate, we need to pay
keen attention to their aggregate impact. Opinions differ about any
potential impact and we simply don't know enough about UWB at this time
to draw firm conclusions in this regard. We do, however, anticipate
that UWB chips will increasingly be used in personal electronic
devices. The airline industry already has a growing concern over these
personal electronic devices on aircraft. Currently, such electronic
devices are required to be turned off during certain critical phases of
flight because of their potential for interference.
Experience has shown that low-level signals from a number of
otherwise benign devices can, in the aggregate, cause harmful
interference. A telling example of this impact has been the
proliferation of microwave ovens in this country. The frequency band in
which they operate--2.4 GHz--has been rendered useless for critical
applications because the background noise level from microwave ovens
has increased the noise floor by a thousand-fold, causing significant
interference to other uses of the band.
conclusion
In summary, the Department of Transportation will continue to
encourage the adoption of a cautious approach to the deployment of new
technologies that have the potential to interfere with transportation-
related safety-of-life systems. We do not think the FCC has taken too
conservative an approach. As we work with NTIA and the FCC to implement
and examine potential changes to this rule, we all must continue to
demand the highest levels of protection for our transportation systems
and for the safety of the traveling public. I thank you for the
opportunity to testify and I am happy to answer any questions you may
have.
List of CNS Systems Used for Transportation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency Range System/Short Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation
90-110 kHz................................ LORAN-C1 \1\--en route
navigation aid
190-435 & 510-535 kHz..................... Non-directional Beacon--en
route navigation aid
2100-28,000 kHz........................... High Frequency
Communications--en route
(mostly oceanic and remote)
communications
75 MHz.................................... Navigation Aid (NAVAID)
Marker Beacon--used for
approach and landing, part
of Instrument Landing
Systems (ILS)
108-118 MHz............................... NAVAID (Very High Frequency
(VHF) Omni-directional
range (VOR), ILS Localizer,
Special Category I (SCAT-
I)--ILS approach and
landing aid; SCAT-1 GPS
assisted landings; Local
Area Augmentation System
(LAAS) future precision
approach and landing aid
(GPS augmentation)
118-137 MHz............................... VHF Air/Ground
Communications Pilot/
controller communication;
en route and terminal
162-174 MHz............................... Fixed, Mobile
Communications--Comm. for
maintenance and
administrative, controlling
runway lights, etc.
225-328.6 & 335.4-400 MHz................. Ultra-High Frequency (UHF)
Air/Ground Communications--
Military pilot/controller
328.6 & 335.4-400 MHz..................... NAVAID (ILS Glideslope)--
Approach and landing aid
406-406.1 MHz............................. Satellite Emergency Position
Indicating Radiobeacon \1\--
Emergency beacon for search
and rescue
406.1-420 MHz............................. Fixed, Mobile
Communications--Communicati
ons for maintenance and
administrative, controlling
runway lights, etc.
932-935 & 941-944 MHz..................... Fixed Communications--Data
links (radar information)
between control towers and
remote equipment
960-1215 MHz.............................. NAVAID (TACAN, Distance
Measuring Equipment (DME),
etc)--TACAN en-route
guidance for military
aircraft; DME en-route
navigation, UAT
1030 & 1090 MHz........................... Radar Beacon, Traffic Alert
and Collision Avoidance
Systems (TCAS), Mode S--
Identification of aircraft
in flight, collision
avoidance
1176.45 MHz............................... GPS L5 Downlink \1\--Future
En-route and non-precision
landing aid
1227.6 MHz................................ GPS L2 Downlink \1\
1215-1400 MHz............................. Air Route Surveillance
Radar--En-route
surveillance
1544-1545 MHz............................. Emergency Mobile Satellite
Comm. (Downlink)--en route/
Oceanic communications
1545-1559 MHz............................. Aeronautical Mobile
Satellite (R) (Downlink)--
Safety communication
1559-1610 MHz............................. Satellite Navigation \1\
1575.42 MHz............................... GPS L1 Downlink \1\--en-
route and non-precision
landing aid
1645.5-1646.5 MHz......................... Emergency Mobile Satellite
Communications (Uplink)
1646.5-1660.5 MHz......................... Aeronautical Mobile
Satellite (R) (Uplink)--
Safety communication
1710-1850 MHz............................. Fixed Communications
(LDRCL)--radar data, air/
ground communication
2700-3000 MHz............................. Airport Surveillance Radar,
Weather Radar--Airport
Surveillance Radar (ASR)
terminal radar; NEXRAD
weather radar
3700-4200 & 5925-6425 MHz................. ANICS (Commercial Satellite
Link)--Remote communication
in Alaska (leased service)
4200-4400 MHz............................. Airborne Radar Altimeter--
Altitude measuring
equipment
5000-5250 MHz............................. NAVAID Microwave Landing
System (MLS) to 5150 MHz--
Precision approach and
landing aid; Runway
Incursion System (future
system)
5350-5470 MHz............................. Airborne Radar and
Associated Airborne
Beacons--airborne weather
radar
5600-5640 MHz............................. Terminal Doppler Weather
Radar (TDWR)--wind shear,
microbursts, storms, etc.
7125-8500 MHz............................. Radio Communications Link--
Data links (radar
information) between
control towers and remote
equipment
8750-8850 MHz............................. Airborne Doppler Radar
9000-9200 MHz............................. Military Precision Approach
Radar--Transportable
landing aid; ASDE-X
9300-9500 MHz............................. Airborne Radars and
Associated Airborne Beacons
11.7-12.2 & 14.0-14.5 GHz................. FAA Satellite (Commercial
Satellite Links)--Leased
service for communication
between major FAA
facilities
13.25-13.4 GHz............................ Airborne Doppler Radar
15.7-16.2 GHz............................. Television (Video) Microwave
Link--Radar data to remote
control towers
15.7-16.2 GHz............................. Airport Surface Detection
Equipment (ASDE III)--
Surveillance of airport
surface area
21.2-23.6 GHz............................. Microwave Link (Multi-Use)--
Various communication links
35 and 94 GHz............................. Synthetic Vision
(Experimental)
Maritime
90-110 kHz................................ LORAN-C \1\--Vessel
navigation
283.5-315 kHz............................. DGPS corrections link; DGPS--
used for harbor/harbor
entrance and navigation on
inland waterways, rail
transportation; and
navigation integrity
315-325 kHz............................... DGPS; DGPS--used for harbor/
harbor entrance and
navigation on inland
waterways, rail
transportation, and
navigation integrity
415-535 KHz............................... MF Radiotelegraphy and data
518 kHz................................... NAVTEX broadcast maritime
safety information
1605-3800 KHz............................. MF Radiotelephony including
distress and safety
communications
4-27.5 MHz................................ HF data/radiotelephony--
Maritime distress and
safety, including Global
Maritime Distress & Safety
System (GMDSS)
121.5-243 MHz............................. EPIRB/ELT distress alerts
and emergency locating
156-165 MHz VHF........................... Radiotelephony--VHF Maritime
Communications, including
distress, safety, and
vessel traffic control
161.975-162.025 MHz....................... Universal shipborne
automatic identification
systems (AIS)
162-174 MHz............................... Fixed, Mobile
Communications--Communicati
ons for command and control
and public safety
225-328.6 & 335.4-400 MHz................. UHF Air/Ground
Communications--USCG
aircraft
406-406.1 MHz............................. Satellite Emergency Position
Indicating Radiobeacon \1\
406.1-420 MHz............................. Fixed, Mobile
Communications--Comm. for
public safety and
maintenance
1176.45 MHz............................... GPS L5 Downlink \1\
1227.6 MHz................................ GPS L2 Downlink \1\
1535-1544 MHz............................. GMDSS maritime satellite
communications (Downlink)
1544-1545 MHz............................. Satellite emergency position-
indicating radiobeacon
(EPIRB) (Downlink)--
Distress alerts
1559-1610 MHz............................. Satellite Navigation \1\
1575.42 MHz............................... GPS L1 Downlink \1\--Primary
maritime navigation
1602-1615 MHz............................. GLONASS Downlink--Maritime
navigation
1626.5-1645.5 MHz......................... GMDSS maritime satellite
communications (Uplink)
2900-3100 MHz............................. Shipboard and vessel traffic
services radar--maritime
navigation and collision
avoidance (primarily foul
weather)
9300-9500 MHz............................. Shipborne Radars--maritime
navigation and collision
avoidance
Surficial Transportation
5.8 GHz................................... Dedicated Short Range
Communications System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It is the case that with these radionavigation systems, there are
multi-modal user communities far beyond transportation. In addition to
navigation, Loran-C is used to some extent by the telecommunications
community for timing. GPS has numerous additional user communities and
applications.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Knapp.
STATEMENT OF JULIUS P. KNAPP
Mr. Knapp. Chairman Upton, Chairman Tauzin, members of the
subcommittee, good morning. The FCC welcomes this opportunity
to discuss its proceeding to provide for the introduction of
ultrawideband technology. This technology holds great promise
for a vast array of new products that have the potential to
provide significant benefits for public safety, businesses and
consumers. Some of the applications for this technology include
radar imaging of objects buried under the ground or behind
walls, short-range high-speed data services and vehicle radar
systems.
Ultrawideband devices operate by employing very narrow or
short-duration pulses that result in very large or wideband
transmission bandwidths. With appropriate technical standards,
ultrawideband devices can operate using spectrum occupied by
existing radio services without causing interference, thereby
permitting scarce spectrum resources to be used more
efficiently.
On February 14, the Commission adopted a First Report and
Order, establishing rules to provide for the development and
marketing of unlicensed, low-power ultrawideband devices. The
Commission's rules provide for three categories of UWB devices:
imaging systems, vehicle radar systems and communications and
measurement systems. The first category, imaging systems,
includes ground penetrating radars, wall imaging systems,
through-wall imaging systems, surveillance systems and medical
systems.
Imaging systems generally need to operate in the lower
parts of the radio spectrum to operate properly. However, these
are also the parts of the spectrum that are used most heavily
by other radio services. The rules allow imaging devices to
operate below 960 megahertz or above 3.1 gigahertz, preventing
them from causing interference in the most sensitive frequency
bands used for services such as air traffic control and global
positioning systems.
The rules also restricted the users to include law
enforcement, fire and emergency rescue organizations,
scientific research institutions, commercial mining companies,
licensed health care practitioners and construction companies.
And at the request of NTIA, the FCC will coordinate the
operation of all imaging systems with the Federal Government.
The second category of UWB technology permitted by these
rules is vehicle radar systems. Vehicle radars can be used for
collision avoidance, safer deployment of airbags and smoother
suspension systems that better respond to road conditions.
These systems will operate in the upper reaches of the spectrum
between 22 and 29 gigahertz where the spectrum is not as
heavily used as lower frequency bands.
The third category of UWB devices is communications and
measurement systems. These devices can be used for applications
such as high-speed home and business networking devices, in-
home distribution of digital TV signals and storage tank
measurement systems. Existing users of the spectrum expressed
the greatest concerns about this category of devices due to the
potential for widespread proliferation. The Commission
restricted operation of these devices to the frequency band 3.1
to 10.6 gigahertz, thereby avoiding parts of the spectrum that
are most heavily used, including the GPS band.
Because ultrawideband devices emit energy over large swaths
of spectrum, emissions in the spectrum used by both government
and non-government systems cannot be avoided. Therefore, the
FCC and the NTIA have shared jurisdictional responsibilities.
Throughout the ultrawideband proceeding, the staffs of the
Commission, NTIA and other Federal agencies and departments,
worked together cooperatively to develop rules that will enable
initial deployment of ultrawideband technologies while ensuring
that incumbent government systems are fully protected against
harmful interference.
The technical rules are based, in large measure, on
standards recommended by NTIA, that NTIA believes are necessary
to protect against interference to vital Federal Government
operations, including safety systems. We are extremely
confident that the standards the Commission adopted for UWB
devices will protect against harmful interference to both
government and non-government operations.
The FCC plans to closely monitor the introduction of this
technology through our Equipment Authorization Program. In
addition, the Commission is committed to take enforcement
action for non-compliance with the rules and to act
expeditiously to resolve any interference.
The Commission's action is a cautious first step in
authorizing ultrawideband technology. In taking its action, the
Commission expressed concern, however, that the standards may
be overprotective and could unnecessarily constrain the
development of ultrawideband technology. Upon adoption of the
First Report and Order, the Commission indicated its intent to
review the ultrawideband standards within 6 to 12 months. We
are currently undertaking a study at the Commission's
laboratory in Columbia, Maryland to better understand whether
the limits that were adopted are appropriate, particularly
relative to the levels of background noise that already may
exist from other devices. We plan to make the results available
for public evaluation by the end of this year. We have invited
other organizations to perform further studies of ultrawideband
technology as well.
The reactions to the Commission's decision have generally
been quite favorable. Several companies have announced that
they plan to introduce ultrawideband products very soon. We
recognize that some ultrawideband users have raised concerns
about the new rules, in particular manufacturers and users of
ground penetrating radars. However, we are confident that any
remaining issues can be resolved in an expeditious manner.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to appear before you today. This concludes my
testimony. I would be pleased to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Julius P. Knapp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Julius P. Knapp, Deputy Chief, Office of
Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee:
Good morning. I am Julius Knapp, Deputy Chief of the Office of
Engineering and Technology at the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). I welcome this opportunity to discuss the FCC's proceeding to
provide for the introduction of ultra-wideband (UWB) devices.
introduction
Ultra-wideband technology holds great promise for a vast array of
new products that have the potential to provide significant benefits
for public safety, businesses and consumers. Some of the applications
for this technology include radar imaging of objects buried under the
ground or behind walls, short-range high-speed data devices, and
vehicle radar systems.
UWB devices operate by employing very narrow or short duration
pulses that result in very large or wideband transmission bandwidths.
With appropriate technical standards, UWB devices can operate using
spectrum occupied by existing radio services without causing
interference, thereby permitting scarce spectrum resources to be used
more efficiently. To that end, the Commission reviewed extensive
comments that were filed in the UWB proceeding by numerous industry
stakeholders.
On February 14, 2002, the Commission adopted a First Report and
Order establishing rules to allow development and marketing of
unlicensed low power UWB devices. The Commission's action is a cautious
first step in authorizing UWB technology. The technical rules are based
in large measure on standards recommended by the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) that NTIA
believes are necessary to protect against interference to vital federal
government operations, including safety systems. In taking its action,
the Commission expressed concern, however, that the standards may be
overprotective and could unnecessarily constrain the development of UWB
technology. Upon adoption of the First Report and Order, the Commission
indicated an intent to review these standards and explore more flexible
technical standards to address the operation of additional types of UWB
operations and technology.
overview of the new provisions for uwb devices
The Commission categorized UWB devices into three types: (1)
imaging systems; (2) vehicle radar systems: and (3) communications and
measurement systems.
The first category, imaging systems, includes ground penetrating
radars (GPRs), wall imaging systems, through-wall imaging systems,
surveillance systems and medical systems.
<bullet> Ground penetrating radars detect the location and image of
buried objects and can be used for applications such as law
enforcement investigations and for detecting flaws in bridges
and roadways.
<bullet> Wall-imaging systems can be used to examine the foundations of
buildings and to locate objects such as pipes inside a wall.
<bullet> Through-wall imaging devices can be used by law enforcement,
fire and rescue organizations for hostage rescue and locating
persons trapped inside a burning building.
<bullet> Surveillance systems, although technically not imaging, can
operate as ``security fences'' by establishing a stationary
radio frequency (RF) perimeter field and detecting the
intrusion of persons or objects in that field.
<bullet> Medical imaging is used to detect the location or movement of
objects within the body of a person or animal.
Imaging systems generally need to operate in the lower parts of the
radio spectrum in order to work properly. However, these are also the
parts of the spectrum that are used the most heavily by other radio
services. The recently adopted rules generally allow imaging systems to
operate below 960 MHz or above 3.1 GHz, prevent them from causing
interference in the most sensitive frequency bands used for services
such as air traffic control and the global positioning system. The
rules also restricted the users to include law enforcement, fire and
emergency rescue organizations, scientific research institutions,
commercial mining companies, licensed health care practitioners and
construction companies. At the request of NTIA, the FCC will coordinate
the operation of all imaging systems with the federal government.
The second category of UWB technology permitted by these rules is
vehicle radar systems. Vehicle radars can be used for collision
avoidance, safer deployment of airbags, and smoother suspension systems
that better respond to road conditions. These systems will operate in
the upper reaches of the spectrum between 22 and 29 GHz, where the
spectrum is not as heavily used as lower frequency bands.
The third category of UWB devices is communications and measurement
systems. These devices can be used for applications such as high-speed
home and business networking devices, in-home distribution of digital
TV signals, and storage tank measurement devices. Existing users of the
spectrum expressed the greatest concerns about this category of devices
due to the potential for widespread and uncontrolled use. The
Commission restricted operation of these devices to the frequency band
3.1-10.6 GHz, thereby avoiding the parts of the spectrum that are used
most heavily, including the GPS band.
protection of existing radio services against harmful interference
The establishment of standards to protect against harmful
interference from UWB devices has been a daunting task. Most
interference issues involve potential interactions between two, or
perhaps a few, radio services, because the energy generated by a
particular service tends to be limited to a narrow range of
frequencies. In contrast, UWB devices emit energy over wide swaths of
the spectrum used by dozens of services, raising the possibility of
many potential interference interactions, each of which needed to be
analyzed.
Since the UWB proceeding commenced in 1998, many parties filed
comments in the Commission's rules making proceeding raising concerns
about potential interference from UWB devices to the personal
communications service, multipoint distribution service, satellite
digital audio radio service, GPS, and others. The Federal Government,
under the auspices of NTIA, also evaluated potential interference to a
wide variety of systems such as GPS, aeronautical navigation systems,
weather radars, and systems used by agencies such as the Department of
Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the
Department of Transportation.
The FCC's engineering and technology staff analyzed the extensive
tests performed by NTIA, Stanford University, the University of Texas
and others. We reviewed and considered more than 700 filings that were
submitted in the Commission's rule making proceeding. We also
coordinated extensively with NTIA.
We are extremely confident that the standards the Commission
adopted will protect against harmful interference to other radio
services. For example, the rules require ultra-wideband communications
devices to operate above 3.1 GHz, well away from the frequency band at
1.6 GHz used for GPS. In addition, any spurious emissions in the GPS
spectrum would need to be suppressed by 34 dB below the emissions
limits that apply to millions of existing radio frequency devices--in
other words, more than 2000 times less than the radio noise permitted
to be emitted by a personal computer.
The FCC plans to closely monitor the introduction of this
technology through our equipment authorization program. In addition,
the Commission is committed to take enforcement action for
noncompliance with the rules and to act expeditiously to resolve any
instances of interference.
coordination with ntia
As I previously mentioned, FCC staff coordinated extensively with
NTIA staff in developing the standards adopted in the First Report and
Order and in large part based the standards on measures that NTIA
believes are necessary to protect against interference to vital federal
government operations. Throughout the proceeding NTIA and FCC staffs
were in constant dialogue. Because UWB devices emit energy over large
swaths of spectrum, emissions into spectrum used by both Government and
non-Government systems cannot be avoided. Therefore, both NTIA and the
FCC have shared jurisdictional responsibilities. Given the multitude of
radio services that could potentially be affected by UWB emissions and
the complexity of the technical analyses, it should not be surprising
that there were different points of view on some issues among the
agencies as well as the parties. However, the staffs of the Commission,
NTIA and the other Federal agencies and departments worked together
cooperatively to develop rules that will enable initial deployment of
some UWB technologies while ensuring that incumbent government systems
are fully protected against harmful interference.
next steps: further testing and measurements
UWB technology is still in its infancy and it is important that the
government continue to monitor the development of this technology.
Additional scientific work is needed to expand our understanding of
this technology and its interference potential as it develops.
As I mentioned earlier, the Commission has committed to review the
standards for UWB devices in the next six to twelve months. We are
undertaking a study at the Commission's Laboratory in Columbia,
Maryland, to better understand whether the limits that were adopted are
appropriate, particularly relative to the levels of background noise
that may already exist from other devices. We plan to make the results
available to the public for evaluation by the end of the year. We have
invited other organizations to perform further studies of UWB
technology as well.
reaction to the first report and order
The reactions to the Commission's decision on UWB have generally
been quite favorable. Several companies have announced that they plan
to introduce new UWB products very soon. We recognize that some UWB
interests have raised concerns about the new rules, in particular,
manufacturers and users of ground penetrating radars. We also realize
that some non-Government radio services may not be satisfied that they
will be adequately protected against interference. We are confident
that any remaining issues can be resolved in an expeditious manner.
conclusion
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
appear before you today. This concludes my testimony and I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or the other members may have.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Petroff.
STATEMENT OF RALPH G. PETROFF
Mr. Petroff. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and----
Mr. Upton. You just need to hit that--I think you need to
hit the mike button there.
Mr. Petroff. Now? Okay. Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, I am honored to testify, thank you
very much. And, Mr. Tauzin, before I begin I would like to take
a moment to recognize this committee and particularly your
leadership on behalf of new technologies. Your advocacy has
contributed to the success of new technologies and increased
choices and services for the public. I would also like to take
a moment to recognize the distinguished public servants who sit
here on this panel. We worked closely with FCC, NTIA and DOD
throughout the approval process. I respect Julie Knapp and Mike
Gallagher and Stephen Price, and they deserve praise for their
work on a difficult issue. I only met Mr. Shane earlier this
morning.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, while you may
hear different views from the distinguished panelists today on
the specifics surrounding the UWB approval process, I believe
there are two points upon which everyone will agree. First, we
are all pleased the First Report & Order was adopted. It is an
historic first step for a technology that will ultimately bring
significant benefits to government, military, transportation
and consumers. Second point is our spectrum management can be
improved to promote, rather than delay, important new
technologies. Our current process takes too long. We started
this regulatory approval 13 years ago, including nearly 4 years
of detailed regulatory proceedings, and it is not over yet.
This is far too much time, if new technologies are going to
have any chance of getting to market. Too often government
agencies and commercial interests act based on spectrum
politics, rather than spectrum policymaking. If we do not
improve this process of spectrum management, we will fall
behind the rest of the world in deploying new technologies.
Let me start by describing UWB. It is a new wireless
technology that enables several orders of magnitude improvement
in three core technologies: communications, radar and precision
positioning and tracking. UWB is different from existing radio
in that it emits infinitesimally low levels of power across a
wide band. To put this in context, a mobile phone emits almost
7 million times the power of a UWB device into the same
spectrum. Because the signal looks like the emissions from
computers and has the same power level as computers, we
initially sought approval to be treated like computers in FCC's
Part 15 rules.
I have a chart here. You can see at the very bottom that
red line that cuts across all spectrum. That is the Part 15
limit, and it is not drawn to scale. It is actually much lower
than that. This is a spectrum sidewalk that cuts across every
single government and commercial spectrum band. In the
sidewalk, billions of devices like laptops and palm pilots have
operated without interference, even in the restricted bands,
since the 1980's. This sidewalk is infinitesimally small. Cell
phones are allowed to put out half a watt per megahertz, while
Part 15 devices are limited to 0.00000007 watts. To put things
in perspective, if the power level for a cell phone was a
building, it would be as tall as the Empire State Building, but
the spectrum sidewalk would be only the width of a human hair.
I want to be very clear, this is issue is not about
reallocation of spectrum. It is about using the same spectrum
sidewalk that billions of other low-power devices use without
harm to existing users and without requiring any existing user
to move to different bands in the spectrum. We agree with the
FCC's public statements about a conservative first step. In
fact, if you examine the text in the ruling, the word
``conservative'' appears 30 times; ``cautious,'' 11;
``limited,'' 36. Despite this cautious first step, the NTIA/FCC
ruling will permit some applications of UWB technology to reach
the market and benefit the public. Other applications will have
to wait.
What will the public see from UWB in the short term? The
first market where the public will see UWB products is for
personal area networkings, wirelessly connecting consumer
electronics and personal computers in the home and office. This
is the focus of our commercial business. UWB can provide ultra
high-speed wireless connectivity between consumer devices,
wirelessly transferring video among camcorders, digital cameras
and printers.
Another market where we believe the public will see product
is in ground penetrating radar and through-wall radar. We have
developed a through-wall imaging radar device, called
Radarvision, to help military, police and fire fighters. It can
help them determine the location of people on the other side of
the door for policemen, fire fighters to determine in what room
a victim might be located in a burning building and rescue
workers to locate victims under earthquake rubble by detecting
their breathing. Like GPR, it is only used in isolated
instances by trained personnel. We have a waiver from the FCC
to deploy a limited number products. However, we will not be
able to fully do our job with this through-wall imaging under
the current rules. I hope this is one quick change to the rules
that we can all agree to make quickly.
How can UWB benefit the public over time? It is a
remarkable new technology for all sorts of applications in
medical and in military. Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, with all of these unprecedented benefits to
offer, UWB faced enormous hurdles getting approval. The
regulatory process fell victim to spectrum politics rather than
spectrum policymaking. There needs to be objective oversight of
technical testing and analyses to ensure that everyone plays by
the same rules.
UWB should be a win-win for incumbent government and non-
government users of spectrum. After all, UWB can use spectrum
efficiently without displacing existing users. For new
technologies like UWB to reach the public, we need timely
spectrum management that fairly balances the need to deploy new
technologies with the need to protect existing users. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ralph G. Petroff follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ralph G. Petroff, Chief Executive Officer, Time
Domain Corporation
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, I am
honored to be invited to testify before you today--thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that a copy of my complete
remarks be entered as part of the record.
I would like to start out by recognizing the distinguished public
servants who sit on the panel. I am fortunate to be appearing in the
company of our nation's experts on spectrum management. We worked
closely with the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC''), National
Telecommunications Information Administration (``NTIA'') and the
Department of Defense (``DOD'') throughout the UWB approval process. I
respect Julie Knapp, Mike Gallagher, and Steven Price and they deserve
praise for their work on this difficult issue. While we may have had
differences at times during the first phase of the Ultra Wideband
(``UWB'') approval process, these gentlemen worked very hard on the
difficult and thankless task of UWB regulatory approval. At times, they
faced tremendous pressure from within their own agency or department,
other agencies or departments, and parts of the private sector, yet
they fought hard to find a way to respond to the participants in the
process and approve UWB. Their efforts have resulted in the first step
in the UWB regulatory approval process.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, while you may hear
different views from the distinguished panelists today on specifics
surrounding the UWB approval process, I believe there are two points on
which everyone will agree. First, we are pleased the First Report &
Order was adopted. It is an historic first step for a technology that
will bring life-saving and other benefits to the public. Second, our
spectrum management process can be improved to promote, rather than
delay important new technologies. Our current process takes too long to
evaluate and approve new technologies. The path to UWB regulatory
approval took more than 13 years, including three and one half years of
regulatory proceedings. This is far too much time, if new technologies
are going to have any chance of getting to market. Too often government
agencies and commercial interests act based on spectrum politics,
rather than spectrum policy-making. There needs to be objective
oversight in areas such as testing and technical analysis that can form
the basis for sound spectrum policymaking. Finally, there are often
inherent conflicts within and among the government entities involved in
spectrum management that diminish their ability to function
independently. If we do not improve our process of spectrum management,
we will fall behind the rest of the world in deploying new
technologies.
This morning, I would like to briefly cover the history of the UWB
proceeding, quickly discuss what the FCC's First Report & Order means
for industry and the public, and then discuss in greater detail some of
the challenges in the regulatory process that we faced as a company
seeking regulatory approval.
i. brief history of time domain corporation and its breakthrough ultra
wideband technology
A. History of Time Domain
Time Domain's UWB technology was discovered in 1974 by the
proverbial inventor in his garage--an Arkansan named Larry Fullerton.
While in college, one of Fullerton's engineering professors challenged
his class by telling them that pulses of the kind now used by Time
Domain could not be sent through an antenna. Larry Fullerton thought
the professor might be wrong. After years of experimentation, Fullerton
succeeded in sending pulses that transmitted radio programming across
his workbench in Huntsville, Alabama.
Fullerton's discovery remained hidden from the rest of the world
for many years as he toiled away in near obscurity. Many of the people
with whom he shared his discovery told him that what he claimed the
technology could do simply could not be done. Fullerton did not have
the money to develop the technology for commercial deployment, so he
used whatever money he could scrape together to file patents on his
technology and build crude functioning prototypes.
After receiving his first patent in 1987, Fullerton founded Time
Domain, with a goal of building more support for his discovery and,
ultimately, commercializing the technology. While some progress was
made in this regard, particularly in terms of further technology
development and acquiring additional patents, Time Domain remained a
struggling small business for many years.
By 1995, Fullerton had 15 patents and had built 22 prototypes,
including: radar devices that could detect motion through walls,
``see'' underground, and create security bubbles to determine the exact
size and shape of an object penetrating the bubble; location and
tracking devices that worked like GPS, except that they did not need
satellites, worked underground and indoors where GPS could not go, and
were accurate to approximately two centimeters; and communications
devices that could wirelessly send digital video through walls.
In 1996, the Petroff family, who had been involved in NASA programs
and several successful start up technology companies recognized that
Fullerton had potentially discovered a once-in-a-generation technology.
The Petroffs did a year's worth of due diligence on the technology and
the patents and concluded that: (1) Fullerton had excellent patent
coverage on his UWB technology; (2) the UWB technology worked and had
the potential to be a fundamental technology; and (3) the technology
was enabling in that it could create entirely new products and even
entirely new industries. The Petroffs proceeded to make a significant
multi-million dollar investment in Fullerton's company and, convinced
of the technology's significance and potential, joined the company as
its management team.
By 1998, there was still no movement on obtaining regulatory
approval and the Petroffs had supplemented their initial investment
with a substantial portion of their net worth. In order for the company
to remain solvent, the CEO was forced to take out a mortgage on his
house. Then, the technology community and press began to discover UWB
technology, writing stories that described a technology that could
potentially change the world, and investors began to invest in the
company.
Today, Time Domain has attracted the attention of corporate America
and financial investors, including a number of Fortune 500 strategic
investors and more than a dozen venture capital investors. The company
is working on its third generation chipset and has more than 240
patents filed or granted. The company has completed or is currently
working on more than 50 government contracts, most of which are for the
Department of Defense. The IEEE, the governing body for standards
setting in the engineering world, is working on a standard for UWB for
consumer products. The military is using UWB technology in more than
100 programs.
B. Time Domain's Ultra Wideband Technology
UWB technology is different from existing radio. It does not use an
assigned carrier frequency, nor does it employ sine waves using
traditional concepts such as amplitude or frequency modulation.
Instead, Time Domain's technology uses extraordinarily brief pulses--
from 40 million to a several billion a second. These pulses emit very
low energy, similar to the energy emitted by a Part 15 device such as a
laptop computer. As you know, Part 15 devices are not licensed. They
operate at very low power and may not cause harmful interference to
other radio services. To put this in context, a UWB device emits about
1/10,000th the power of a cell phone.
We initially approached regulatory approval believing that because
our technology met the Part 15 rules regarding emissions levels, UWB
would be approved to operate under those same rules. The final rule
does not allow UWB to operate at Part 15 power levels in key parts of
the spectrum, but at power levels more than 2000 times less than Part
15 devices such as laptop computers. UWB is permitted to operate at
Part 15 power levels in spectrum above 3.1 GHz. The FCC indicated, and
we agree, that this very conservative decision should be revisited in
coming months.
Time Domain's UWB technology produces vastly reduced wave
cancellation from multipath distortion of the sort that plagues
conventional radio systems. This enables incredible efficiencies and
several orders of magnitude improvement in three areas: communications,
radar, and position-location-tracking. This technology is unique in
that all three of these capabilities can be fused into a single
chipset. Time Domain's business model is to design the chipset, which
the company's strategic partners will then integrate into their own
products to bring substantial new benefits to consumers, businesses and
government.
ii. the fcc's first report & order: what does it mean for industry and
the public?
We agree with the FCC's public statements that the First Report &
Order is a very conservative first step. If you examine the text of the
First Report & Order, the word ``conservative'' appears 30 times, the
word ``cautious'' appears 11 times, and the word ``limited'' appears 36
times. Despite being a cautious first step, the First Report & Order
will permit some applications of UWB technology to reach the market and
benefit the public. Other applications of the technology that would
have been possible will have to wait for a reexamination of the limits
set forth in the First Report & Order.
What will the public see in the short to medium term from UWB? The
first market where we believe the public will see UWB products is for
personal area networking (``PAN'')--or connecting consumer electronics
and personal computers in the home and office. UWB can provide wireless
connectivity among camcorders, PCs, DVD players, flat screen television
displays, digital cameras, printers, MP3 players and other digital
devices. UWB's ability to transmit very high bandwidth over short
distances offers wireless connectivity for multimedia applications that
no other technology can provide. Devices with UWB will consume low
power enabling the technology in hand held devices and preserving these
devices' battery life. UWB will be priced low enough for equipment
manufacturers to include the technology in their consumer electronic
products. Finally, because of UWB's use of spectrum, it can co-exist
with other technologies without causing or receiving interference like
other technologies operating in unlicensed spectrum. The IEEE is
working on a standard for UWB in PAN and large consumer electronics
companies such as Motorola, Sony, Intel, Phillips, Panasonic, Intersil,
and Kodak are supporting the effort. We expect products with UWB for
the PAN market to be on store shelves as early as the end of 2003.
The second market where we believe the public will see products in
the near term is for automotive radar. While Time Domain does not work
in this area, we are aware that Daimler Chrysler and other companies
have performed considerable work on automotive radars operating in the
24 GHz frequencies. We believe that Daimler Chrysler has a working
demonstration of a 24 GHz radar for automotive collision avoidance
sensors and is actively developing products for this application using
UWB.
A third market where we believe the public will see product shortly
is in the applications for ground penetrating and through-wall radar. I
am less qualified to talk about GPRs than our panelist, whose company
has worked with this application of UWB for many years. As I am sure he
will recount, they have been used for years by public safety and law
enforcement personnel, and others. Similar to ground penetrating radar,
Time Domain has developed a through-wall imaging radar device under
military contract called RadarVision for the military, police,
firefighters and rescue workers. This may allow, for example, police to
determine the location of people on the other side of a door;
firefighters to determine in what room a victim might be located in a
burning building; and rescue workers to locate under earthquake rubble
where a survivor may be alive simply by detecting breathing. Time
Domain's RadarVision 2000 product will be ready for deployment in
October this year. Time Domain has successfully demonstrated the
prototype product at major law enforcement agencies including, the
Fairfax County Rescue Squad and the Dade County Search and Rescue team,
two of the top organizations in the country that respond to earthquakes
to rescue victims.
Time Domain has had a waiver from the FCC to deploy a limited
number of its Radarvision products. The FCC's First Report & Order
extended the duration of the waiver for an additional year. However,
like the GPR community's ground penetrating radar, Time Domain's
through-wall radar would not be able to achieve full functionality
under the rules set forth in the First Report & Order absent the
extension of the waiver. Under the current rules, these devices would
be able to be used by the military and federal, but not state and
local, law enforcement and public safety personnel. Given that there
will only be a limited number of these devices, operated by trained
life-saving first responders, we urge the FCC and NTIA to revisit this
issue as quickly as possible so these devices can save lives in the
hands of state and local safety personnel, in the same manner as they
will in the hands federal users. I hope this is one change to the FCC
rules on which we can all agree.
iii. potential long term benefits of uwb technology to the public
How can UWB benefit the public over time? UWB has the potential to
enable entirely new wireless applications and products, and to make
significant advances in critical areas such as public safety, aviation
safety, military effectiveness, medical applications, and
communications.
UWB enables radar with superior clutter rejection and much higher
resolution than traditional radar, achieving range resolutions of less
than six inches. This facilitates new short-range radar applications
such as ``through-walls'' radar and radar that can ``see'' underground;
security bubbles and electronic security fences that can tell the exact
size and shape of an object penetrating them; and sensors for ``smart''
airbag deployment. The military is evaluating UWB radar technology for
terrain mapping to aid in the location and removal of landmines.
Time Domain's UWB technology enables precise-location-tracking
applications that complement GPS by providing relative position
information to enhance the absolute position information provided by
GPS. UWB technology can provide position information indoors,
underground, in urban canyons, and under foliage where GPS often cannot
provide position information. The positioning information from UWB is
accurate to within two centimeters. Thus, UWB can complement GPS by
extending the reach of GPS locally indoors, underground, and in urban
canyons based upon the last GPS reading. The applications for this
functionality are numerous. UWB can be used to track which workers
enter sensitive areas of hospitals, nuclear plants, and military
installations. The technology can be used to track assets such as
mobile, life-saving equipment in hospitals, packages and containers in
a factory or warehouse, or objects in the home. The military is
currently evaluating the technology to solve one of their most
difficult problems--the precise location and tracking of soldiers in
urban combat and training exercises.
A number of firefighters and other first responders urged the FCC
to allow public safety use of UWB for tracking personnel, for example,
tracking firefighters inside a burning building. If this tracking use
were permitted in the future, it could be combined with communications
functions to provide a dramatic improvement in firefighter safety.
While we are not engaged in this business, we urge the Committee to
support the approval of these public-safety tracking applications when
the FCC reexamines the rules in six to twelve months.
In the area of communications, UWB can provide very high bandwidth,
hundreds of megabits per second, at very short distances. In time, UWB
will enable ultra high-speed indoor wireless networks across many
devices for the true ``smart'' home and office.
iv. the regulatory approval process for uwb: lessons learned
A. History of UWB Proceeding
Time Domain began its quest for regulatory approval in 1989 when
Larry Fullerton made his first visit to Washington, DC to the FCC. I
would like to briefly summarize the process because I believe it
demonstrates a number of ways that it could be improved. During the
subsequent early years after Larry's first visit, and even later, Time
Domain met with FCC officials to move the regulatory approval process
for UWB forward. In 1992, a predecessor company that later merged with
Time Domain filed a request for a pioneer's preference at the FCC which
was denied that same year. In 1994, the FCC granted Time Domain a
special temporary authority to test UWB and Time Domain voluntarily
filed its testing data to speed up the regulatory process. In 1995, the
company filed comments in the UNII proceeding urging the FCC to approve
UWB. In 1996, Time Domain presented an overview of UWB technology to
the FCC's Office of Engineering Technology.
During the first half of 1997, Time Domain met with FCC labs and
OET staff approximately a dozen times. In April 1997, Time Domain
demonstrated UWB to the Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee
(``IRAC'') at NTIA and discussed intentionally radiating into the
government bands at Part 15 level power. In September 1997, Time Domain
demonstrated its technology for the FCC Office of Engineering
Technology ``(OET''), FCC labs, NTIA, and ITS labs staff.
In February 1998, Time Domain filed a request for a waiver of Part
15 rules to permit operation of a limited number of Radarvision devices
for public safety and law enforcement personnel. 14 law-enforcement,
defense, public safety, and counter-terrorism entities file comments in
support of granting the waiver. No party filed comments in opposition
to the granting of the waiver request during the comment period. From
April 1998 to March 1999, Time Domain attended approximately 25
meetings with the FCC to discuss UWB technology. On June 30, 1998, OET
wrote a letter to the Office of Spectrum Management, NTIA, tentatively
concluding that Time Domain's waiver request is ``ripe for grant
subject to coordination with NTIA.'' In September 1998, the FAA
Administrator's office voiced strong opposition to the use of UWB
devices, claiming in a letter to the NTIA Administrator and the FCC
Chairman that a proliferation of UWB devices could pose potential
safety problems due to interference with avionics and navigation units.
During the next several months, Time Domain repeatedly met with FAA
officials. On May 11, 1999, the FAA Administrator writes a letter to
the FCC Chairman in which she agreed to remove FAA's objections to Time
Domain's request for waiver. On June 15, 1999, nearly a year after Time
Domain first filed its waiver request, NTIA indicated that the FCC
could grant the waiver for use of 2500 units with nine conditions on
the use of the devices. On June 29, 1999, the FCC granted the waiver
requests from Time Domain and two other companies with the NTIA
conditions attached. In August 1999, Professor Per Enge, on behalf of
the GPS Industry Council, filed a petition for reconsideration of the
grant of the waiver requests. In September 1999, Professor Enge
withdrew his petition for reconsideration of the grant of the waiver
requests.
On September 1, 1998, the FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry on UWB
technology. From August to November of 1999, Time Domain worked with
NTIA's ITS labs to develop a test plan for testing UWB with GPS
systems. On December 1, 1999, after four months of working with ITS
engineers on the test plan, NTIA staff oppose moving forward with
testing and the plan is set aside. On September 29, 1999, the Ultra-
Wideband Working Group sponsored the first international Ultra-Wideband
Conference in Washington, D.C. Representatives from more than 14
countries attend, and the Working Group expands to more than 75
members. FCC Commissioner Susan Ness delivered the keynote address in
which she calls on the FCC and NTIA to: (1) issue a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on UWB within a few months; (2) complete a rule making on
UWB by the end of the year 2000; and (3) conduct joint testing with
government users and industry participants concurrently with the
rulemaking process.
On December 5-6, 1999, Time Domain learned that the Department of
Transportation planned to sponsor a meeting at Stanford University to
discuss testing for potential interference of UWB with GPS. On December
7, 1999, representatives of Time Domain attended the DOT/Stanford
University meeting as uninvited participants. At the meeting, Professor
Enge presented testing results that purport to show that UWB devices
cause harmful interference with GPS devices. As part of his
presentation, Professor Enge performed a demonstration in which he
places a UWB device operating at higher power levels than Part 15 in
proximity to a GPS receiver to demonstrate interference.
Representatives of several of the airlines are in attendance at the
meeting. On December 21, 1999, the Air Transport Association circulated
a draft letter for Members of Congress to sign to William Kennard,
Chairman of the FCC, expressing concerns over UWB technology.
On May 11, 2000, the FCC released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on UWB. During the remainder of 2000 and the first half of 2001, NTIA,
the Department of Transportation and Stanford University, and the
University of Texas and Johns Hopkins University conducted
compatibility studies and analysis between UWB and other radio
services. Interested parties filed hundreds of comments on the test
results and other issues in the FCC docket during this period.
On November 20, 2001, Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz sent a
letter to Secretary Evans urging the FCC to delay its pending December
decision on UWB. On December 11, the FCC pulled the UWB item from its
December 12, 2001 meeting agenda citing a request of the Commerce
Secretary.
On February 14, 2002, the FCC adopted the First Report & Order in
the UWB proceeding. On March 20, 2002, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz sent
letter to Secretary Evans applauding his efforts in ensuring that the
FCC's UWB decision contained sufficient safeguards to protect spectrum
dependent military systems. On March 15, 2002, Deputy Assistant
Secretary Gallagher sent a letter to Chairman Powell indicating that
the government users may not be required to follow the rules in the
First Report & Order for use of UWB.
B. The Process for Approving New Technologies Takes Too Long
It took 13 years, including three and one half years of intensive
efforts, to gain regulatory approval for UWB. I personally made over
100 trips to Washington since 1996 to meet with regulators, and we
spent several million dollars seeking regulatory approval. Often I am
amazed that we are still in business. Fantasma Networks, the second
largest UWB company that was backed by Intel and Paul Allen's Vulcan
Ventures, went out of business last year waiting for regulatory
approval. Without the ability to earn revenue from government contracts
with the Defense Department, we would have gone out of business years
ago waiting for regulatory approval.
In today's difficult business climate, early-stage companies have
trouble raising capital to sustain their businesses. Unlike the mid and
late 1990's when capital was plentiful, companies today have less
operating capital and thus shorter timelines to get their products to
market. No company or industry is going to be able to wait several
years for regulatory approval. There must be a way to shorten this
process, so that new technologies have a chance to get to market.
C. Conflicts Between Government Agencies on Spectrum Management
The UWB proceeding may have been unusual in that it involved both
government and commercial spectrum and a large number of incumbent
users of spectrum. However, there are other issues, such as 3G, where
this dynamic exists and there are likely to be more such issues in the
future. The legal requirement as I understand it, is that the FCC and
NTIA must ``coordinate'' on issues affecting commercial and government
spectrum. Throughout the UWB regulatory approval process, it appeared
as though the FCC and NTIA had difficulty coordinating the views of the
government and commercial users of spectrum, as illustrated by a few
examples below.
It took NTIA nearly a year to obtain internal sign off by
government users of spectrum to approve with conditions the requests
for waivers submitted by Time Domain and other companies. This despite
the fact that the devices requested by Time Domain were lifesaving
instruments for public safety and law enforcement personnel, and all
2500 devices requested, if operating together in a single room, would
emit less than one quarter the power of a cell phone.
The FCC and NTIA had a very difficult time agreeing on the final
wording of the order on reconsideration of the waivers. The petition
for reconsideration still had not been dealt with at the time the FCC
issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, nearly a year after the FCC
first approved the requests for waivers. The FCC was sufficiently
concerned about its coordination efforts with NTIA that in its final
order dismissing the petitions for reconsideration, Commissioner
Furchtgott-Roth expressed his views on the FCC interaction with NTIA on
the item as:
. . . an unacceptable distortion of the appropriate
consultative role that NTIA should play in our decision making.
Although the FCC and NTIA have a legitimate obligation to
coordinate their activities regarding shared spectrum, NTIA's
intrusive role in this proceeding is a source of concern for
all of us who value the independence of this Commission.
Repeated NTIA editing of orders after adoption undermines our
independence and the integrity of our processes. No other
entity had repeated opportunities to review drafts of our
decision. No other entity was able to ``sign off'' on edits
from Commissioner offices. Equally important, neither the
public, the parties, nor many of the Commissioners were aware
that this ``process'' was even going on. The process was not
transparent or even discernible. Those regulated by the
Commission have a right to know that FCC decisions are truly
FCC decisions. When an item sits for five months after
adoption, it turns our voting process into a sham.
Once the staff has a complete record and develops its final
recommendation for the Commission, NTIA should not be provided
with additional drafts or have ``sign off'' authority on
revisions. The circulated Order should be the sole province of
the Commissioners and the staff. NTIA has every right to be
heard, but no right to edit every word.
The FCC may have found itself in a difficult position evaluating
test results for compatibility between UWB and other systems when one
of the major testing efforts was performed by NTIA. The raw data of the
different tests were very similar, although the interpretation of data
varied to produce different ``results.'' It appears as though the FCC
did not have the resources to conduct its own independent testing.
It appears as though the FCC and NTIA may have had difficulty
agreeing on the rules for UWB in the First Report & Order. As reported
in the trade press, the FCC appeared ready to adopt rules for UWB in
December of 2001 that reportedly were significantly less restrictive
than the rules ultimately adopted by the agency. As a result of
strongly worded, public letters from high level officials at the
Defense Department to the Commerce Department, and the Commerce
Department to the FCC, adoption of these rules was postponed for 60
days to provide the Department of Defense additional time to submit
their comments to NTIA. The proceeding had been ongoing for more than
three and one half years at this point. During the 60-day delay, it
appears as though the rules for UWB became more stringent as the FCC
strove to achieve the requisite consensus with NTIA on the rules.
While conflicts between agencies are nothing new, the conflicts in
the UWB proceeding in large measure revolved around spectrum politics,
not policy. This resulted in a lack of objectivity in interpreting
technical data that made reaching sound policy decisions more
difficult.
D. The Regulatory Process Should Rely on Sound Spectrum Policy, Not
Spectrum Politics
In 2000, I had the opportunity to visit with David Hendon, the head
of the Radio Communications Agency in the UK, the British equivalent to
our FCC Chairman Powell. The U.K. had just finished their spectrum
auctions for 3G licensees and taken in more than 40 billion dollars.
Mr. Hendon remarked that the North Atlantic oil rights had sold for
several billion dollars in the 1970's, and, in inflation adjusted
terms, the sale of spectrum in the U.K. had fetched an even higher
price, perhaps making it the most valuable commodity on the planet. I
think few would disagree with him that spectrum has become the most
valuable commodity on the planet today for governments and commercial
users. Not only is spectrum a limited commodity, but there is a finite
amount of this valuable resource so that all spectrum decisions are
part of a virtual zero sum game: when one player gains another player
almost always loses. The battles over the last several years between
government users and commercial are a good example of this phenomenon.
When spectrum was reallocated from government users to auction for
commercial use, government users had to find new spectrum for their
services. The zero sum game creates an incentive for spectrum users to
oppose all spectrum actions that might harm their interests, and even
those actions that are neutral or the effect of which is unknown. The
lowest-cost, rational action is to oppose all spectrum management
proposals that do not directly benefit your position. This is true
whether the actor in question is a government agency or a commercial
user. So even when we proposed a use of spectrum that would not require
any incumbent to move and efficiently shared spectrum under Part 15,
there was no incentive for either commercial or government operators to
support this new technology.
The Congress relies on the FCC and NTIA for spectrum management
policymaking based on scientific analysis and objective assessment of
competing needs and interests. In the UWB proceeding, spectrum
politics, rather than sound policymaking often dictated the course of
decision making. For example, there were three major testing efforts
conducted on GPS and UWB compatibility: one by Stanford University/DOT,
another by NTIA, and a third effort funded by Time Domain and conducted
by the University of Texas and Johns Hopkins University. The results of
the three tests differed greatly from finding that there was no harmful
interference to GPS until the UWB devices were within one meter of each
other to finding harmful interference at greater distances. The
Department of Defense Joint Spectrum Center analyzed the test data and
found that the data were very close on all tests. What differed among
the three tests was the interpretation of the data based on assumptions
applied to the data about how UWB and GPS devices would operate in the
real world and the scenarios for UWB and GPS interaction. Parties used
assumptions and scenarios that would produce the results they sought.
This phenomenon was not limited to the GPS testing. The same dynamic
occurred with the PCS testing. In the absence of agreed upon joint
testing and analysis by the NTIA, the FCC, and commercial and
government users, there needs to be an objective way to evaluate the
different test data, the assumptions, and scenarios. Otherwise, parties
will simply spin technical data to their advantage without sound
scientific basis for their positions.
After the FCC requested parties in its NPRM to submit compatibility
data, Time Domain spent millions of dollars funding the University of
Texas and Johns Hopkins University, two of the top GPS facilities in
the country, to conduct testing under their independent control. The
test plan was created through an open process in which numerous parties
participated, including UWB opponents. In the final analysis in the
Report & Order, the UT/JHU test data was almost entirely ignored.
Whether this occurred because an interested party funded the test, or
the results disagreed with preconceived philosophical positions is open
to debate. If privately-funded tests are going to be dismissed, then
the government needs to have the capability and the mission to test
objectively and independently of even the government's own, internal
interested constituents.
E. Conflicts Within Government Agencies
The Commerce Department plays a critical role in promoting new
technologies and advising the President on technology and
telecommunications issues. The Commerce Department, through NTIA, also
plays an important role in managing the spectrum used by federal
agencies and departments. When it comes to spectrum management issues,
these two roles may conflict, as they did in the UWB proceeding. The
Commerce Department may want to promote new technologies to save lives,
benefit the public, and help the economy, but it also must protect the
spectrum of its government users. When these two missions conflict, the
likely losers will be the commercial interests seeking to promote new
technologies. In the case of UWB, for example, the Office of Spectrum
Management within NTIA played a large role in the proceeding, while the
Technology Administration did not participate. This is understandable,
as the Commerce Department's government agency constituents may claim
that national security and public safety demand that their spectrum be
protected at any cost. There is no question that government spectrum
should be protected, as there are lives that depend on this spectrum
being free from harmful interference. However, the question is who
should make the determination as to whether there is a threat to the
government spectrum, and how to balance the possibility of any effect
on government spectrum with advancing new technologies?
Today, the NTIA and the FCC coordinate their views and make these
decisions jointly. However, when it comes to spectrum management, the
government is an interested party--it holds spectrum, fights to
maintain its spectrum, and seeks to acquire additional spectrum. At the
same time, however, the government also sits in judgment of what
spectrum can be made available to non-government users. It is in effect
operating as a party to proceedings and the judge of those very same
proceedings.
The potential conflict of interest inherent in such an arrangement
is obvious on its face. However, it goes one step further. Since the
release of the First Report & Order, government agencies have been
debating whether government users of UWB have to follow the same rules
that the government has imposed upon non-government users. Paragraph
273 of the First Report & Order suggests that government users might
have to follow the rules set forth in the First Report & Order.
However, the Commerce Department has informed the FCC in a letter last
week that they do not believe this to be the case. It appears as though
Commerce was acting in its role as judge, rather than a party to the
proceeding in informing the FCC of this position.
These conflicts are not unique to UWB. They have occurred in the
past. They will occur in the future over issues such as 3G. In any
proceeding in which the government is both an interested party due to
its need to protect and increase its spectrum and arbitrating the
rights of non-government users to spectrum it cares about, there is a
potential conflict of interest. This potential conflict is heightened
by the fact that the government does not have to reveal its views and
role in shaping a proceeding to the same extent as non-government
participants.
F. Secrecy on Issues of Spectrum Management Affecting Non-Government
Interests.
Throughout the process we met frequently with the FCC and NTIA, and
on a few occasions with DOD, NASA, and the FAA. At least one agency,
even took pride in what they stated as an ``open door'' policy.
However, while the door may have been open, the information from
government agencies was not always forthcoming. The NTIA, for example,
took the stance that they would meet with us and listen to our
viewpoint, but they could not provide any information on their
position, nor respond to any information we presented. It is difficult
for commercial users to know what issues may exist with their proposed
use of spectrum that impacts government spectrum or respond to
proposals generated by government agencies without openness. This is
not an issue when NTIA is making a decision that only affects
government users of spectrum. In those instances, the issue is debated
before the IRAC and a position reached. However, when NTIA is making a
decision that affects both government and commercial users of spectrum,
secrecy often prevents non-government users from commenting on
information that directly affects them. IRAC proceedings are generally
closed to non-government entities, even when the issues debated concern
NTIA's views on non-government use of spectrum.
The FCC conducted a proceeding in which contacts with the agency
were permitted, but were required to be disclosed on the record in the
FCC docket. There were more than 900 comments filed in the first phase
of UWB proceeding. However, government as a commenter to the FCC did
not need to comply with the ex parte rules, and--sent letters and
filings to FCC that were not made public before the decision. It was
very difficult for interested parties in the proceeding to assess these
filings or rebut them. Perhaps more disturbing, the government sent
letters to the FCC saying their studies supported conclusions of
interference, but they did not submit the studies. This prevented any
evaluation or critique of these claims by parties to the proceeding.
v. conclusion
There is a worldwide race to deploy UWB. Since FCC approval of UWB,
startups have sprouted up in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Europe
and parts of Asia are moving quickly to approve UWB for commercial use.
Some countries, such as Singapore, are examining approval UWB at higher
power levels than the levels set forth in the FCC's First Report &
Order. While these parts of the world may be the first countries to
enjoy the full promise of UWB, this is an undesirable outcome. UWB was
invented in the United States and the U.S. should enjoy the benefits of
the technology and retain technological leadership in UWB.
The United States' future with UWB and other new technologies
depends on an efficient system of spectrum management. Our regulatory
processes must operate in a timely manner in which the agencies charged
with spectrum management collaborate to advance the deployment of new
technologies, while protecting the rights of incumbents. Our
proceedings must operate according to science, not spectrum politics.
And the public needs to have some information on the positions
government agencies are taking with regard to spectrum decisions that
affect non-government users. Our global economic competitiveness
depends on it.
I hope that some good will come from the process we went through
with UWB approval, so future technologies will have an easier path
through the regulatory process. Perhaps the lessons learned from UWB
approval can help improve our spectrum management process to better
advance new technologies, while protecting spectrum incumbents.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS J. JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee.
Mr. Upton. You need to move the mike over a little closer
to you.
Mr. Johnson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. I am pleased to be here on behalf of Geophysical
Survey Systems, GSSI, which is one of several manufacturers of
ground penetrating radar, or GPR. For the past 32 years, GSSI
has designed, manufactured and sold GPR systems worldwide. We
thank you for the opportunity to be here today to speak about
GPR and the recent UWB Report and Order issued by the Federal
Communications Commission. The new regulations are an extremely
important subject to everyone in the GPR industry.
I want to be clear that I am speaking for only a part of
the UWB industry. This part is called ground penetrating radar.
GPR is a very important class of UWB devices with a long
history of applications relating to public safety,
infrastructure inspection, and I will comment on those more
shortly. First, let me explain a little bit about GPR.
Ground penetrating radar is an established technology
widely used in a variety of applications in the United States
and the rest of the world. GPR looks downward into the earth,
fresh water, ice and man-made materials, such as concrete, to
non-destructively detect anomalies. Many of these applications
provide unique and significant safety-of-life and other
benefits in the public interest.
I have four points to make today: One, GPR is an
established technology with many important applications. GPR is
different from air UWB transmitters and should be treated
differently in the regulations. No. 2, there is no record of
GPR interference with other receivers--32 years. The two most
onerous and confusing provisions in the new rules were not
contained in the NPRM, which gave us no opportunity to comment
on them during the rulemaking process. We only found out about
them after the rulemaking was concluded. No. 4, if the rules
are not changed, the outcome and consequences for the GPR
industry are extremely serious. Many companies will go out of
business and the public's access to a new and useful technology
will be severely limited, if not eliminated.
To amplify those four points, GPR is an established
industry. We are one of several manufacturers and for the past
32 years, we have been selling equipment worldwide. In a
nutshell, the business was started in 1970 in New Hampshire,
developed and sold the first commercial GPR systems that same
year. Average selling price is about $25,000 per system. It is
not a consumer product. We have been a GSA supplier since 1984.
Products have been sold to over 25 government agencies,
including every military branch. We have sold products and
exported to 50 countries. Some working systems are now 10 to 15
years old and still ticking.
So some of the standard applications for GPR include
utility pipe detection and 3D mapping. Safety for the public is
a consideration. Concrete inspection to find rebar and pipes,
fiber optic lines before cutting and coring into concrete.
Again, safety a consideration. Highway inspection to identify
voids, pipes and required pavement thickness. Again, safety a
consideration. Bridge deck inspection for quality assurance
condition assessment and maintenance decisions; public safety a
consideration. Geophysical surveys to locate bedrock, water
tables and other geological properties, detection of voids and
anomalies before construction; safety a consideration. Airport
runway inspection to find voids for quality assurance of
pavement thickness. Our equipment has been used at every major
airport in the country during flight operations with no
interference. Railroad bed inspection to find leaking pipes and
voids; safety a consideration. Forensics, locating bodies and
evidence in criminal cases. Environmental contamination surveys
to determine location and extent of contamination, pipe leaks,
waste pits; safety a consideration. Archaeology, mapping of
underground sites prior to digging. Mining, location of mineral
deposits, seams and water levels; safety a consideration.
Measuring ice thickness in rivers, lakes and the Antarctic;
safety a consideration. It is worth noting that GPR systems are
compatible with GPS systems, because we have sold them together
for over 10 years. No interference.
I want to give you a few of the more interesting one-of-a-
kind discoveries. Discovery of the wooly mammoth in Siberia--
you might have seen that on the Discovery Channel; survey of
unopened royal tomb in Xian, China; discovery of unknown
village near Macchu Pichu--that was on National Geographic a
month ago. We have done surveys at Mount Vernon, Monticello,
FDR's home; discovery of emerald deposit in North Carolina,
North Americas largest emerald deposit discovery. And we are
also developing a GPR system to go to Mars. The purpose, to
define creek beds where remnants of life might be found.
More applications can be listed but clearly GPR technology
has a high value to society in the United States and the rest
of the world. We mention the rest of the world because as many
of you know, the UWB standards set here will surely be followed
in other countries.
GPR is different from air UWB transmitters. I see I am over
my time, but if you don't mind, I will keep going, sir. During
the rulemaking process, there was a tendency to treat GPR as
just another UWB transmission device. There are several
important distinctions between GPR and other UWB transmission
devices to consider when formulating rules for UWB
transmission. By definition, GPR looks downward into the earth,
water, ice and man-made materials. GPR is not intended for air
transmission. GPR manufacturers go to great lengths to minimize
air transmission. In addition to the fact that GPR does not
intend to transmit into air, GPR is also different from air UWB
devices in spectrum used and in Pulse Repetition Rate.
Comments on the UWB rulemaking process. The long history of
GPR and the testing of GPR equipment provide no basis for these
regulations, and we were not even aware of some of them until
they appeared in the final Report and Order. As I mentioned
earlier, many important aspects of the published rules were a
complete surprise to the GPR community, as they were not part
of the public disclosure and debate. At no time in the past 30
years has the FCC recorded any GPR interference with other
receivers. Indeed, one of the few areas in which all parties
agreed throughout the FCC proceeding was that GPRs were not a
source of interference. The proposed FCC rules published for
comment did not include the NTIA coordination requirements and
limits on who can buy GPRs, as one example.
The probable consequences of the new regulations will be
two immediate outcomes for the GPR industry. One is substantial
reduction of sales for GPR manufacturing companies; two, many
GPR service providers, our customers, will go out of business.
The long-term impact of the new regulations will be the end of
the GPR industry.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Johnson----
Mr. Johnson. In summary----
Mr. Upton. That helps you, ``In summary.'' All right.
Mr. Johnson. In summary, we propose that the FCC treat GPR
differently from other UWB devices, because GPR is different
from other forms of wireless communication. Surprise rules such
as those encountered with the UWB regulations should not be a
part of the process to regulate and allocate bandwidth. We are
confident that reasonable regulatory requirements can be
developed that will allow for the development and use of new
wireless air transmission UWB devices, while protecting current
users of the spectrum and the continued growth of the GPR
industry. We look forward to working with policymakers on that
subject. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dennis J. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dennis J. Johnson, President, Geophysical Survey
Systems, Inc.
Good morning Chairman Tauzin, Sub-committee Chairman Upton, and
members of the Sub-committee. I am pleased to be here today on behalf
of Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. (GSSI), which is one of several
manufacturers of ground penetrating radar (GPR) systems. For the past
32 years, GSSI has designed, manufactured and sold GPR equipment
worldwide. We thank you for the opportunity to be here to speak about
GPR and the recent ultra-wideband (UWB) Report and Order issued by the
Federal Communications Commission. The new regulations are an extremely
important subject to everyone in the GPR industry.
I want to be clear that I am speaking for only a part of the UWB
industry. This part is called ground penetrating radar or GPR. GPR is a
very important class of UWB devices, with a long history of
applications relating to public safety and infrastructure inspection
that I will comment on shortly.
I have four points to make today:
1. GPR is an established technology with many important applications.
GPR is different from air UWB transmitters and should be
treated differently in the regulations.
2. There is no record of GPR interference with other receivers.
3. The two most onerous and confusing provisions in the new rules were
not contained in the NPRM, which gave us no opportunity to
comment on them during the rulemaking process. We only found
out about them after the rulemaking was concluded.
4. If the rules are not changed, the outcome and consequences for the
GPR industry are extremely serious. Many companies will go out
of business . . . and the public's access to a very useful
technology will be severely limited, if not eliminated.
Point #1: GPR is an established industry
Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. (GSSI), is one of several
manufacturers of GPR systems. For the past 32 years, GSSI has designed,
manufactured and sold GPR equipment worldwide.
In a nutshell . .
<bullet> Business started 1970, purchased by the Oyo Group, Tokyo, 1990
<bullet> Developed and sold first commercial GPR systems in 1970
<bullet> Average selling price $25,000 per system (range $13,000 to
$100,000)
<bullet> A GSA supplier since 1984
<bullet> Products sold to over 25 government agencies in the U.S.
<bullet> Products sold and exported to 50 countries
<bullet> Some working systems are 10 to 15 years old, and still
``ticking''
An important class of UWB devices is Ground Penetrating Radar
(GPR). GPR is an established technology widely used in a variety of
applications in the United States and the rest of the world. GPR looks
downward into the earth, fresh water, ice and man-made materials to
non-destructively detect anomalies. Many of these applications provide
unique and significant safety-of-life and other benefits in the public
interest.
Standard applications for GSSI GPR equipment include:
<bullet> Utility pipe detection and 3D mapping (safety a consideration)
<bullet> Concrete inspection to find rebar and pipes and fiber optic
lines before cutting or coring (safety a consideration)
<bullet> Highway inspection to identify voids, pipes and required
pavement thickness (safety a consideration)
<bullet> Bridge deck inspection for quality assurance condition
assessment and maintenance decisions
<bullet> Geophysical surveys (locate bedrock, water table and other
geological properties, also detection of voids and anomalies)
<bullet> Airport runway inspection to find voids and for quality
assurance of pavement thickness (used at all major airports and
by NASA) (safety a consideration)
<bullet> Railroad bed inspection to find leaking pipes and voids
(safety a consideration)
<bullet> Forensics (locating bodies, evidence, etc.)
<bullet> Environmental contamination surveys to determine location and
extent of contamination, pipe leaks, waste pits, etc. (safety a
consideration)
<bullet> Archaeology--mapping of underground sites prior to digging
<bullet> Mining, location of mineral deposits, seams and water levels
(safety a consideration)
<bullet> Measure ice thickness in rivers, lakes and in Antarctic
research (safety a consideration)
(It is worth noting that GPR systems and GPS systems are
compatible; indeed GPR systems are sold with GPS systems without
special modification.)
Non standard and ``once-in-a-lifetime'' uses/results of GPR
surveys:
<bullet> Discovery of the wooly mammoth in Siberia (Discovery channel)
<bullet> Survey of unopened tomb in Xian, China
<bullet> Discovery of unknown village near Macchu Pichu (National
Geographic expedition)
<bullet> Surveys at Mount Vernon, Monticello, and FDR's home
<bullet> Frozen river bed survey--Russia
<bullet> Discovery of buried murder victims, some leading to
convictions
<bullet> Discovery of emerald deposit in North Carolina, North Americas
largest find
<bullet> Developing a GPR system to go to Mars; purpose, to define
creek beds where remnants of life might be found
More applications can be listed but clearly GPR technology has a
high value to society in the United States and the rest of the world.
We mention the ``rest of the world'' because as many of you know, the
UWB standards set here will surely be followed in many other countries.
Point #2: GPR is different from air UWB transmitters
During the rule-making process, there has been a tendency to treat
GPR as just another UWB transmission device. There are several
important distinctions between GPR and other UWB transmission devices
to consider when formulating rules for UWB transmission:
<bullet> By definition, GPR looks downward into the earth, water, ice
and man-made materials to non-destructively detect anomalies.
GPR is not intended for air transmission. GPR manufacturers go
to some length to reduce unwanted air transmissions.
<bullet> In addition to the fact that GPR does not intend to transmit
into air, GPR is also different from air UWB transmitters in
Pulse Repetition Rate and in the frequency spectrum used.
<bullet> A primary issue behind rule changes centers on the protection
of Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system operations. GPR
works well with GPS systems, as evidenced by the fact that for
the past 10 years GPR manufacturers have sold GPS systems that
work successfully in conjunction with their GPR systems.
Point #3: Comments on the UWB Rule-Making Process
The long history of GPR and the testing of GPR equipment provide no
basis for these regulations, and we were not even aware of them until
they appeared in the final Report and Order. As I mentioned earlier,
many important aspects of the published rules were a complete surprise
to the GPR community as they were not part of the public disclosure and
debate. Isn't the rulemaking process itself designed to be the
opportunity for public disclosure and debate? Surely were we to have
had knowledge of these particular rules, we could have easily explained
why they are inappropriate and unnecessary.
The background leading to this nexus:
<bullet> FCC Rules, Part 15, created for frequency domain transmitters
to keep systems from interfering with each other
<bullet> Original Part 15 Rules did not contemplate UWB transmitters
(time domain).
<bullet> At no time in the past 30 years has the FCC recorded any GPR
interference with other receivers.
<bullet> All parties agreed throughout the FCC proceeding that GPRs are
NOT a source of interference.
<bullet> UWB rules are now being written for the first time.
<bullet> The proposed FCC rules published for comment in 2000 did NOT
include the NTIA coordination requirements and limits on who
can buy GPRs--and the FCC cannot lawfully adopt rules that were
never proposed.
<bullet> We believe that requirements for overly stringent rules come
from (1) a perceived need to protect against in-the-wall and
through-the wall radars, not GPRs; and (2) NTIA policy (not
technical) concerns about ``intentional'' emissions into
certain bands, even at completely harmless levels.
<bullet> The new UWB rules protect GPS frequency spectrum beyond
reasonable limits, resulting in the elimination of an entire
industry--the GPR industry.
Point #4: The probable consequences of the new regulations
The recently published regulations intended to govern UWB devices
will have two immediate outcomes for the GPR industry:
1. Substantial reduction of sales for GPR manufacturing companies
2. Many GPR service providers will go out of business
The longer-term impact of the new regulations will be the end of
the GPR industry.
summary and recommendation
We propose that the FCC treat GPR differently from other UWB
devices--because GPR is different from all forms of wireless
communication. (See above)
Surprise rules such as those encountered with the UWB regulations
should not be a part of the process to regulate and allocate bandwidth,
or for any rulemaking process.
We are confident that reasonable regulatory requirements can be
developed which will allow for the development and use of new wireless
air transmission UWB devices, while protecting current users of the
spectrum and enabling the continued growth of the GPR industry. We look
forward to working with policymakers on that solution.
Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. I would recognize first from the
panel the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Tauzin.
Chairman Tauzin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Petroff did a
good job of putting this in perspective when he compared the
width of a human hair to the Empire State Building in terms of
the relative position of Part 15 services. But let put it in
layman's terms. The last time the Commission, Mr. Knapp,
reviewed its Part 15 rules was 1989. In 1989, there was a big
revision that followed up on actions in the 1960s and the 1980s
to open up Part 15 services for Americans. I want to talk about
some of the devices that came into being because the Commission
was willing to open up Part 15 rules in the 1960s and 1980s.
Provisions were made under Part 15 to permit the operation
of such things as wireless microphones, telemetry systems,
garage door openers, TV interface devices, you know, like video
recorders. Wouldn't have them but for the 1980's amendments.
Such things as a field disturbance centers, you know the anti-
theft systems in stores, auditory assistance devices for people
with hearing defects, control and security alarm apparatus,
cordless telephones. That is what we are talking about. We are
talking about all these little devices that Americans use in so
many different ways to make our lives comfortable and useful
and to protect us in alarm systems, et cetera, that wouldn't be
in existence but for Part 15 rules that say you don't need to
go get a license from the FCC to buy a VCR, for heaven sakes.
That is what we are talking about, folks. We are talking
about those kinds of devices under Part 15, and the Commission
has generally been very good about making sure those devices
come to the marketplace. In fact, in the 1989 proceedings, Mr.
Knapp, I am going to read it to you: ``We note that NTIA's
calculations represent theoretical noise levels generated with
a receiver under ideal conditions. They do not take into
consideration existing background noise, et cetera. NTIA's
calculations appear to represent the worst-case situation. NTIA
has also not supplied any information detailing the cumulative
effect referenced in their comments.''
And then it goes on, ``For these reasons, we are not
adopting NTIA's proposal for tighter emission limits for the
restricted bands.'' In 1989, the Commission had guts. It stood
up for consumers, and it stood up for commercial use of new
technologies, and it said to the NTIA, ``Unless you can come in
and prove to us that something is really here instead of these
imagined problems, we are not going to adopt your restricted
standards. We are going to give this stuff a chance to show us
what it can do.''
It noted in that same review that in fact there is no
evidence that licensed communication services have been
significantly impacted by the widespread proliferation of
computing devices operating under proposed limits. You made the
point, Mr. Petroff, all the computers, we don't go get a
license from the Federal Government to have a PC in America. So
we have got devices operating in this Part 15 area, and I
suppose the first question I have to ask you, Mr. Knapp, has
there ever been any documented evidence of interference by Part
15 devices to GPS or other safety-of-life systems in this
country?
Mr. Knapp. Not that I am aware of.
Chairman Tauzin. Not that you are aware of. And I guarantee
you won't find it anywhere in the record. All these devices
operating, no documented evidence of any interference at these
such limited low levels of operation of power with any
lifesaving systems.
Now, Mr. Petroff, Mr. Price makes a comment in his written
statement that commercial vendors do not need to operate below
3.1 gigahertz in order to market UWB devices commercially.
Would you respond to that?
Mr. Petroff. Well, I think that is a reference in the
written testimony to one company, Kohler, the plumbing
manufacturer who----
Chairman Tauzin. Yes. In fact, Mr. Price brags about one
manufacturer, Kohler, operating at 6 megahertz and say if they
can do it, anybody can do it, right? What device is operated by
Kohler at 6 megahertz?
Mr. Petroff. It is a plumbing fixture.
Chairman Tauzin. It is a toilet flusher.
Mr. Petroff. Yes.
Chairman Tauzin. Yes, right. It is a toilet flusher. So we
are going to have to apparently walk by our toilets to operate
our home video systems if we have to operate at 6 megahertz. I
mean for you to cite one device, a toilet flusher, as a good
example of how these tight restrictions can work, if that is
all we are going to get out of this, is toilets that flush when
we walk by then instead of having to pull the handle, woopy
ding.
I am serious, guys. I mean that is hardly something to brag
about, and the tight restrictions that NTIA has recommended,
that the Commission just adopted this time, when in 1989 they
said, ``No, we are not going to do that. We are not going to
adopt such tight restrictions without proof that there is real
problem, because we know of no problems. There has never been a
documented case of a problem. So we are not going to take your
advice and adopt these restrictions.'' But this time, Mr.
Knapp, you did. This time you said, ``Look, we have got joint
jurisdiction here. We talk about background noise, we have got
governmental uses that obviously have a problem with background
noise. So we have two responsibilities here: NTIA has one and
we have one.'' What was NTIA's responsibilities in this case,
Mr. Gallagher? What was NTIA's responsibility first? What was
your job?
Mr. Gallagher. Our job was to find the right answer, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Tauzin. Was to find what?
Mr. Gallagher. The right answer, find the right balance.
Chairman Tauzin. But who do you represent? Don't you
represent protecting the government spectrum uses?
Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Chairman, we have two responsibilities
under our enabling statute: One is the President's primary
advisory on telecommunications matters----
Chairman Tauzin. Right. I understand that point.
Mr. Gallagher. [continuing] and the other is the manage the
Federal spectrum.
Chairman Tauzin. Management of the Federal spectrum. What
is your responsibility in this shared responsibility, Mr.
Knapp? What is the FCC's job when you have got to work with the
NTIA in coming up with the right policy?
Mr. Knapp. Certainly, one of our roles is to make sure that
our rules are as flexible as possible, that they allow the
technology, and in this case ultrawideband technology----
Chairman Tauzin. Is your job simply to say that the manager
of the Federal spectrum will adopt your restrictions, whatever
they are?
Mr. Knapp. When it comes to spectrum that is allocated on
exclusive primary basis for the Federal Government, we provide
wide deference to their recommendation.
Chairman Tauzin. Provide wide deference to them. In 1989,
you say, ``No deal. We are not adopting those restrictions.''
But this year you did. This year you said, ``Okay, we will go
ahead and take the NTIA's word on it, and we will adopt such
tight restrictions on the use of this new technology that in
some cases, we hear testimony, it might not survive.'' What is
the difference? What happened between 1989 and now?
Mr. Knapp. Well, the difference was the standards that you
are referring to are spurious emissions as contrasted to an
ultrawideband product.
Chairman Tauzin. The difference is intention.
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Chairman Tauzin. Yes. The difference is that this
technology is based upon using literally background noise. It
is based upon intentional emissions. It is not just spurious,
they just happen. But shouldn't the technology, the engineering
question be not whether you intended it or whether it was
accidental but whether it in fact causes any problem? Shouldn't
that be the real question?
Mr. Knapp. Certainly.
Chairman Tauzin. Yes. But that is not what happened here.
What happened here is that you made a different decision based
upon the fact that this technology intends to do it, intends to
emit into the spectrum, whereas computing services and garage
door openers and cordless telephones just do it accidentally so
they are okay. Where is the rationale for that, where is the
engineering rationale for that distinction?
Mr. Knapp. Part of the concern is that when we allow
products to intentionally emit in particular bands there is
always the risk that they will proliferate and add up.
Chairman Tauzin. We may get a lot of computers and we may
get a lot of garage door openers. Haven't we gotten a lot of
computers and a lot of garage openers? Didn't the Commission in
1989 say, ``The NTIA has given no information regarding the
cumulative effect referred to in their comments,'' and haven't
we found out since 1989 that there is no such thing as a
cumulative effect, that all our computers and all this
equipment is not having the deleterious effect that the NTIA
predicted it would have in 1989.
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Chairman Tauzin. Right. So the facts are that in 1989 you
said, ``You didn't bring us any evidence of the cumulative
effect of these spurious emissions,'' and sure enough since
1989 the cumulative effect has not shown up, there has been no
documented case of interference. But in this case, when you
look at it, you said, ``Even though you didn't bring us any
information regarding the cumulative effect and even though the
facts, reality, tells us that there has been no cumulative
effect, as was predicted by the Commission in 1989, we are
going to clamp down on this new technology this year.'' You see
why I am a little confused as to the FCC's role this year?
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Chairman Tauzin. This year, it looks like the FCC said to
the NTIA, ``Okay. We understand your hypothetical concerns, we
understand your argument there may be a cumulative effect, so
we will just adopt your restrictions this year.'' You
understand.
Mr. Knapp. Right.
Chairman Tauzin. And all of a sudden now new technologies
may not make it--may not survive, and consumers may be denied a
lot of new products; worse than that, we might not find bodies
in rubble, we might not find people in time to save their lives
the next earthquake or the next 9/11 catastrophe. Or we may not
be able to locate somebody lost inside a building or lost
inside some natural disaster in Louisiana when a hurricane
strikes or something, because this technology may not be there.
We may not have a better alarm system, we may not have a better
military protection system for our country, better military
communications in the field battle, because we restricted these
communications. We may not have the home video distribution
systems in broadband we want 1 day. All kind of things we may
not have because you decided this year just to go ahead and
adopt the NTIA restrictions without proof that their claims of
potential interference were real. You see our concerns.
Mr. Knapp. I do understand, and I----
Chairman Tauzin. Look, I don't want to beat up on you
terminably, although I enjoyed it.
I simply want to make the case that you said you could do
something in 6 to 12 months to review these rules and to decide
whether or not you have been too restrictive, as you think you
have been, even in your own report. Now, I am counting on you,
and I think America is counting on you, to do a good job and
all of you to help the Commission get a good job done on here.
And if you have to amend this order in order to give this
technology a chance to show what it can do in a way that gives
us reasonable assurance it will not interfere or that you can
pull the plug on it if it does, then for heaven sake's do that.
I mean the FCC is supposed to be the balance to the NTIA. It is
supposed to say to the NTIA once in a while, ``No, you just
can't come stop something because you are scared of it. You
can't stop something because you think it might be hurtful or
damaging somewhere. Come show us what you got.''
So let us do some quick show-and-tell over the next 6 to 12
months, and we will be watching carefully the process at the
FCC, and we will be watching carefully NTIA's collaborative
efforts and Defense and Transportation and all of you guys in
trying to work this out. But for heaven sakes, don't let
anybody out there who has a commercial product encourage you to
stop a new one from coming in just because it might be better,
because there are some of us who believe maybe that is going on
too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Recognize Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. First, I
would like to ask Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Knapp to explain how
they intend to proceed on resolving unintended impacts with
respect to ground penetrating radar systems. Please give me
both your short-term and long-term suggestions on how to
address the issue. And then, Mr. Johnson, I would like you to
comment on their explanations. And I have one other question I
want to ask, so please try to be brief in your answer. Mr.
Gallagher.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Markey. First, the process is
already underway in which we are understanding the concerns and
we have already met with the GPR community to address the path
forward. There was absolutely no intention of limiting or
inhibiting the growth of small business or overregulating any
particular set of entities. We are purely concerned about the
emissions above the ground from GPR receivers. And some of the
specific thoughts that we have discussed with the community are
enhancing our definition, which currently restricts the
eligible users, also, perhaps, if it is necessary, a waiver of
some sort, and, finally, more closely understanding and testing
their equipment, which up to this point has not been tested by
the FCC or by NTIA to understand the types of emissions that
are coming out from around the device. Again, it is not the
emissions that are focused into the ground, there is no limit
on those, the R&O simply speaks to what leaks around the edges.
Mr. Markey. What is your timetable for fixing the problem?
Mr. Gallagher. With all due haste.
Mr. Markey. What does that mean? This year?
Mr. Gallagher. We will work with the FCC. I think there are
some technical limitations imposed by regulatory rules that we
need to comply with, but as fast as we can under those
constraints.
Mr. Markey. Okay. So you don't have like an FBI-CIA
relationship, right?
Mr. Gallagher. No. No, absolutely not.
Mr. Markey. So let us go--I mean you are not putting that
up as some big barrier. I mean that actually telescopes the
timeframe that we have to work with the FCC, right? Let us go
to you, Mr. Knapp.
Mr. Knapp. Yes. First of all, we are very supportive of the
GPR technology. We certainly don't want to shut down this
industry; they are very worthwhile products. I think the
immediate things we can do, part of it had to do with the
wording of the usage restrictions in the rules. Certainly, what
we have heard described to us is the applications, including
consultant use, for example, in inspecting the foundations of
buildings, were all envisioned in our Report and Order. So I
think that we have some latitude to take care of that problem
without a further order.
On the issue of coordination, we want to make that as
streamlined as possible so that, for example, rather than
getting a coordination for every individual use, you could get
a coordination for statewide operation if you are a State
highway department.
Mr. Markey. So how much time to fix this issue?
Mr. Knapp. Immediately. I think we are already talking
about how we can address those issues. The coordination issue I
think we can take care of, working together between the
agencies----
Mr. Markey. By the end of this year?
Mr. Knapp. Certainly.
Mr. Markey. Certainly. Excellent. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Because of the Internet and the widespread
information being transferred to everybody very fast, many of
our customers that have placed orders have already canceled
them because of the impending rules. We have had other
potential customers call and say they are not going to place an
order because of the rules. So we are already being impacted
today by the rules that will go into effect. So I do
appreciate--we have had some meetings with Mr. Knapp and the
FCC, do appreciate their consideration in doing something
immediately to give us some immediate relief.
Mr. Markey. Thank you. And my second and final question is
I have introduced legislation, H.R. 4641, that would, among a
number of other things, require NTIA and the FCC to work
together to make progress in creating a spectrum commons. The
Legislation asks for chunks of spectrum to be freed up and
clear but not auctioned to the private sector. Instead such
frequencies would remain unlicensed and therefore available for
use by the general public. High-tech manufacturers,
entrepreneurs and the proverbial kid in the garage could make
more robust use of wireless communications if sufficient
spectrum were available in unlicensed form for the general
public. Such a public set-aside could foster the formulation of
an open platform for innovation, entrepreneurial activity and
public communications. It would also militate against unhealthy
consolidation of spectrum in the hands of too few providers. We
have already seen growth in Blue Tooth and 802.11 technologies,
but we need to do more. Is the spectrum commons idea a good
idea or a bad idea, yes or not, that is all? Yes or no, Mr.
Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. I am not sure how to answer that, sir.
Mr. Markey. Okay. Mr. Petroff?
Mr. Petroff. Yes, an excellent idea.
Mr. Markey. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Knapp?
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mr. Markey. Yes. Mr. Shane?
Mr. Shane. It would have to be a pretty wide spectrum, a
wide commons to accommodate ultrawideband.
Mr. Markey. But good idea?
Mr. Shane. If it were feasible, yes, sir.
Mr. Markey. Okay. Yes. Mr. Price?
Mr. Price. It depends if part of it means taking spectrum
from DOD for the commons.
Mr. Markey. Okay.
Mr. Price. If not, I support it, sir.
Mr. Markey. Mr. Gallagher?
Mr. Gallagher. Seeing how we are able to expand here, I
would say that it is a good idea when you measure where the
spectrum is going to come from and also that we avoid a tragedy
of the commons.
Mr. Markey. I understand that, but if we could do that,
yes?
Mr. Gallagher. Absolutely.
Mr. Markey. Okay. My point in mentioning this proposal is
simply to underscore that the process that has just been
completed by NTIA and FCC for so-called Part 15 devices and UWB
technology is likely to be repeated again and again. We need to
work well, not only for government users but also for
consumers, high-tech manufacturers, innovators and
entrepreneurs. Our economy is affected by how well NTIA and the
FCC perform our spectrum management tasks. So my question to
NTIA and FCC is whether they need additional resources to do
the kind of real-world testing to distinguish between fact and
fantasy, between theoretical interference and actual observed
interference and to do that kind of testing in the future so
that we can accelerate the introduction of new technology into
the marketplace. Mr. Gallagher?
Mr. Gallagher. The issue of funding is always an
interesting one. We are just now preparing our 1904 budgets and
the like and one----
Mr. Markey. Do you need resources, Mr. Gallagher, or not?
It is an interesting question.
Mr. Gallagher. We definitely need to additional testing,
and I would suggest that funding in that area would be
necessary and appreciated.
Mr. Markey. Mr. Knapp?
Mr. Knapp. The short answer is yes, and we have been
explaining to the Congress that we need resources for engineers
and the equipment for our laboratory, and we thank you for the
support we have gotten so far. And I think we are certainly a
lot better off now than we were a year ago.
Mr. Markey. Mr. Chairman, if we want to see a
revitalization of a sector we now call the Nasdaq that no one
heard of before 1995, I would suggest that a lot of what we are
talking about here today, about technologies and companies
whose names we do not know or understand yet, are central to a
next generation boom that gives people a good reason to invest
in companies and technologies, assuming that the accounting
standards for those companies have been updated to reflect
lessons learned since Enron/Arthur Andersen. But I think that,
to a large extent, the key to a Nasdaq revitalization sits at
our table today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank my friend from Massachusetts. Mr.
Gallagher, how is it that you all resolve these conflicts
between the business end of those knocking on the door trying
to get their products out using the spectrum and folks like
your neighbor, Mr. Price, looking for the domino theory of if
you take this little bit of spectrum, it is all going to go?
And as you look at other Federal Government incumbent spectrum
users, what is the process that you all begin to look at as you
weigh those----
Mr. Gallagher. Well, the first thing you have to do is
listen, because there is a lot that we need to learn from the
private sector coming in explaining what it is they are trying
to accomplish, the technical data on this is extraordinary in
length. Over 900 comments have been filed on the docket,
multiple studies introduced by multiple parties. You have to
grasp and understand and be able to translate those into
concepts that normal people can understand.
Mr. Upton. Well, Mr. Petroff had a pretty good chart that
was shown, I don't know if you were able to see it at the end,
of using just a very narrow red line versus the Empire State
Building, and we see a lot of different examples of that,
whether they be the bathroom example that Mr. Tauzin used or a
whole host of things.
Mr. Gallagher. And I would suggest that sometimes those
charts can distort the truth, because if you look at the data
about ultrawideband, the testing that was done in our Boulder
facility, the emissions that come from ultrawideband, the
characteristics of the signal are fundamentally different.
Instead of just a random spike that would appear in a
restricted band under the Part 15 rules, this is an
intentional, as many as a million emissions per second in that
band. That is a lot of energy, and it is particularly
distortive to GPS and we documented that, and it is part of the
record of the rulemaking.
But I would say besides the listening and the learning, it
took multiple meetings with the Commission so they could
understand every db of protection that was being requested by
NTIA. It took multiple meetings of NTIA with DOD and Department
of Transportation making them justify and explain it, sending
them back to the engineer drawing board to answer particular
questions, and I think you see the benefit of that in the
results. If you look back to September, the Department of
Defense's position was further notice, put it all above 6
gigahertz and, you know, by the way, you have to have a high-
pass filter. If you look at where we ended up in the final
order, it is the need of the ultrawideband signals at 3.1
gigahertz, substantial movement, and also there is no
requirement for a high-pass filter. Instead, there is agreement
that the mask that was developed by NTIA was the right
approach. Under those circumstances, it just shows that when
you engage on a technical and a factual level and you do it
with leadership, you can achieve the right results.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Sawyer.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess my questions
are largely all follow-up to many of the things we have heard
before. Mr. Gallagher, you are telling us that this inherent
conflict, this tension between your dual missions is a good
thing despite the fact that it slows down the process. Is that
essentially what you are saying?
Mr. Gallagher. I would agree it is good to have both
perspectives in coming up with the right balance, yes.
Mr. Sawyer. In the post-911 situation, apparently there was
a way to achieve a waiver in this extraordinary circumstance.
What would happen in the event of a smaller scale disaster, a
simple earthquake, the kind of bridge collapses we saw in urban
highway systems? Is there a mechanism in place to achieve this
sort of thing on a regular basis so that you don't have to have
the kind of disaster that occurred in September? You can both
answer.
Mr. Gallagher. The answer is yes, and we have a history of
responding favorably to the types of situations you have
described.
Mr. Knapp. And I agree completely.
Mr. Sawyer. I guess I don't understand, on another subject,
why the testing wasn't done before the FCC issued this rule.
But just to go beyond that, if in fact the tests that will take
6 to 12 months to undergo show that the concern over harmful
interference was less than necessary, does that imply a new
rulemaking process? And if so, is there any reason why those
can't operate in parallel instead of sequentially?
Mr. Knapp. I think we need to develop the data through the
tests and then make that public. We would probably have to
issue another proposal to change the standards to allow
everybody, remember these rules also affect non-government
services as well, to have an opportunity, if we are going to
make a change, to comment on it.
Mr. Sawyer. Considering how far this has gone, don't you
have a substantial amount of information on which to condition
the pathway that the new rulemaking would take?
Mr. Knapp. I think, legally, under the Administrative
Procedures Act, if we are going to change the rules, we would
have to issue a proposal. So we would have to go through that
administrative step.
Mr. Sawyer. And yet you largely accepted the standards that
were originally issued by the NTIA. Should the NTIA be
anticipating a favorable result from the testing so that you
have something in hand?
Mr. Knapp. What we are going to do is once our results are
completed, we will make them public. We are going to talk to
NTIA and the other agencies as we go through the process of
conducting these tests.
Mr. Sawyer. Overall then, how long do you anticipate this
entire process taking?
Mr. Knapp. We still said 6 to 12 months for examining the
rules. We should have our data out publicly before the end of
the year.
Mr. Sawyer. Does the rulemaking under the Federal
procedures is that then subsequent to that step?
Mr. Knapp. No. No, we would have a proposal out certainly
within 6 to 12 months.
Mr. Sawyer. So at least there is something that Mr. Johnson
can look at and have some hope that he can deal with in a
reasonable period of time. The answer is yes?
Mr. Knapp. Yes.
Mr. Sawyer. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to direct my
questions to Mr. Price, and I do this out of love and
admiration. I think if you all think through these questions,
these are the questions that people are asking, and so let us
go through them. You indicate in your testimony that the
Department of Defense needs more time, and does that time also
apply to the Pentagon's own ultrawideband devices?
Mr. Price. That is a fair question, sir. If you are talking
about the time on the 6 to 12 months that was just being
discussed, I would weigh in probably with a counter argument
that our concern at the Department of Defense is that as we
understood what the FCC said, and Mr. Tauzin said and a number
of people have said this, there has been conflicting data. This
was a case of, ``My study is prettier than your study,'' to
some extent. There was no hard science, there was no sound
science. And part of the reason is because you can't measure
the aggregation effects of ultrawideband devices, a whole bunch
of them in a particular area, to see how much it raises the
noise floor if there aren't a whole bunch of them in a
metropolitan area out there being used as they would in
commercial settings.
So I thought the point of the--we thought the point of the
6 to 12 months was to give the industry a chance to
commercially deploy--manufacture, sell, deploy devices, get
them out there, get people playing with them, using them,
breaking them, getting new ones the way people typically use
cell phones, other kind of new technologies, and then be able
to examine the real science, as Mr. Tauzin said, sound testing.
We agree with that. We are not sure that that can be done
within the 6- to 12-month period. There won't be enough--our
concern is there won't be enough devices out there.'' If you
start the testing today, the devices aren't in widespread use.
So the first part of the question is in terms of the delay,
there is no delay. Once the science is out there, we will be
happy to--we have even said that we would contribute resources
to help review the test plan, if that would be useful. Because,
clearly, a strong safe commercial deployment of ultrawideband
is in the Department's interest.
As far as the second part of your question, which is, I
think, whether or not the Department of Defense is going to use
or be treated the same as commercial, was that the second?
Mr. Sawyer. Well, you could skew it that way, but the basic
issue is you do have the technology, you are using it. There
are military applications, you like it. So if there--I mean the
other question I was going to follow-up with then is if you
like it but you are afraid of it interfering with aviation or
GPS, wouldn't that cause you to be a little bit concerned of
your own use?
Mr. Price. Well, our use is typically very constrained. It
is only in certain places, it is limited in number, limited in
area and limited in duration. It is on a range, it is in a
particular place. The concern with--our concern with this
proceeding was that it was unconstrained, unaggregated,
unlicensed use.
Mr. Sawyer. Well, let me ask the panel, because I want to
go back to the first answer to the first question, because you
said there is no hard science, and I want to ask the rest of
the panel, starting with Mr. Gallagher, do you agree that there
is no hard science on the aggregation effects?
Mr. Gallagher. I would say that we tested I believe it was
two devices in an anechoic chamber and built a model based on
that, but even then they were UWB emitters. They were on loan
from the companies manufacturing the technology or hoping to--
--
Mr. Sawyer. So you agree with Mr. Price.
Mr. Gallagher. I think we need to see real penetration of
real devices and then test those devices in those settings and
come up with the truth. And I think that the time to do those
tests is when they have penetrated into the market.
Mr. Sawyer. Okay. Let me ask Mr. Shane.
Mr. Shane. Absolutely, Congressman. The Department of
Transportation, from the get-go in this proceeding, has been
arguing for more testing and more specific prototype testing,
empirical testing in the real world as a basis for making what
at the end of the day is a national security decision about the
allocation of a critical piece of our infrastructure--the
spectrum.
Mr. Sawyer. That is fine. Let me go to Mr. Knapp. And I
also follow the great discourse of the chairman, so you kind of
addressed this in some of your comments, so how would you
respond to that question?
Mr. Knapp. I wouldn't agree that there was no hard science,
I think there was some. This was an issue where we received
information in our record. It was examined as part of the
testing. But I think there certainly is a lot more to do.
Ultrawideband devices are not of one consistent set of
technical standards. They have different pulse rates and so
forth, so there are questions about how they would add up.
Mr. Sawyer. And, Mr. Chairman, if I may finish up the panel
with this one question, Mr. Petroff?
Mr. Petroff. Yes. There was much testing done. Chairman
Powell was quoted as saying there had been more testing done on
this proceeding than on any other proceeding. DOD's Joint
Spectrum Center evaluated the different tests, there were four
of them, and found that all the data basically said the same
thing, it is just a question of which assumptions were used.
There are two types of ways these tests are done. One is real-
world testing, and in our case we spent well over $1 million
with Johns Hopkins and the University of Texas, the two
foremost GPS testing labs in the country, developing. And then
there is also what happens after the testing when you do
assumptions.
And if you look at these assumptions, they make all the
difference in the world. Because under some assumptions you can
run the numbers and you can find that a baby monitor will not
GPS from 200 miles away. So we need to watch carefully the
assumptions. And there was aggregate testing done during this.
So there has been extensive testing this time. I don't know if
it is the most in FCC history but it has been a lot.
Mr. Sawyer. And, finally, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Well, speaking again from a GPR standpoint, I
think GPR was not tested very extensively at all. Our pulse
repetition rate is much lower than the area UWB, and I think we
have got a rough number of maybe 1,000 units working in the
U.S. already, so we have got units that can be tested today.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just end by
saying that if we have this interim of 6 to 12 months and we
come and we don't have an answer to that question, whether the
stakeholders agree that there has been enough testing or not,
then we are just going to be back here next year. So I would
encourage us somehow to get a scientific basis to make these
public policy decisions, and I yield back my time. Thank you.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Bass.
Mr. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson, I heard you
in your testimony mention that you noted some surprise that
several provisions were included in the rule that were not in
the Notice of Rulemaking. Can you describe those? Which
provisions were those?
Mr. Johnson. Two of them in particular. One is the limit of
types of industries that we can sell to. And, second, the
coordination where every user has to contact the FCC 15 days
prior to use. Both of those were a surprise to us.
Mr. Bass. Mr. Knapp, can you comment on that?
Mr. Knapp. Yes. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking had
several broad questions. Certainly, the waivers that we had
issued previously included restrictions on use and a
coordination requirement, and that came essentially from NTIA.
NTIA's comments that they furnished that were inserted in the
record requested the coordination requirement.
Mr. Bass. Mr. Johnson, do you have any rebuttal to that or
not?
Mr. Johnson. Well, we didn't look up on the waiver given to
one company as representative of what the rules were going to
be, so I think we have a different viewpoint.
Mr. Bass. Mr. Price, you mentioned that there are not
enough devices out there to have the full body of evidence for
interference. Now, if the order places a chill or reduces the
ability for devices to be created, how can you develop the
evidence if they can't be created? Don't you have a chicken and
egg issue here?
Mr. Price. I wouldn't say so, because I don't think that
the order places a chill on ultrawideband deployment. I think
if it is widely available above 3.1 gigahertz and with various
constraints depending on the type of device and within what
band. I think if you look at the web sites of the various
companies and industry analysts, I think the genera consensus
would be that the FCC's order allowed for ultrawideband
deployment. This wasn't a case where the FCC or NTIA said no;
they said yes in these areas. And I think most of the companies
that certainly we had met with or whose statements we read
believe that there will be ample deployment of ultrawideband.
So I think there will be enough science out there but just in
areas that protect national security systems.
Mr. Bass. Do either of you gentlemen from industry have any
comment on that? Do you agree?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think, as I have stated, we have been
out selling systems for some time with no interference, and I
think that the R&O went a little too far.
Mr. Petroff. And just to follow-up on that question, I
think we are of two minds. On the one hand, it was good to get
something out there, and it will allow some developments. We
will be able to make lots of our wonderful PAN devices. But I
do think that the public safety and GPR applications were
unfairly penalized. There is not enough power there to do the
kind of work that needs to be done. And, moreover, it sets sort
of a double standard where Federal public safety will be able
to use the technology at higher power but State and local will
not.
Mr. Bass. I would just like to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by
associating myself with the comments made by our full committee
chairman. He said it better than I ever could have said it, and
I hope the message is clearly received by the agencies
involved. I would also note I have here the--this is a sales
brochure for Geophysical Survey Systems in which there is a
device here on the front called a Pathfinder, obviously
emitting low-level frequencies, but it also has a computer that
is connected to GPS; is that not correct? So if there was a
problem with interference, how well would this device work?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. We sell systems with both
differential GPS, which has a one-inch accuracy as long as it
is picking up six satellites or more, and it is an expensive
system, $27,000 system, and we also sell systems that will work
with a $150 GPS system. In both cases, the GPS system is
working one foot away from the radar system.
Mr. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Pickering.
Mr. Pickering. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for giving us the opportunity to address this very important
issue. Mr. Price, let me ask some questions as we try to strike
the balance in our policy between the commercial applications
in development and innovation and investment and our national
security needs. And we just want to understand the Department
of Defense's concerns and this goes to the very heart of what
we are trying, I think, to achieve in the end. If we set a very
conservative authorization in our first decision, how quickly
will we have an evolving standard testing and how quickly can
we move forward on being less restrictive if in fact the
testing shows that we do not have interference, especially with
our national security?
Again, to understand the standard at which we are starting,
my understanding is that Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz,
in his letter to Secretary Evans on November 20, 2001, he took
a position that approval of UWB be at a power level more than
2,000 times lower than Part 15. Now, why would DOD take the
position that UWB be restricted to a power level more than
2,000 times below the level of billions of other Part 15
devices that are currently not interfering with GPS and other
safety-of-life systems?
Mr. Price. Those devices aren't in the GPS band, sir.
Mr. Pickering. Okay.
Mr. Price. So it is a little bit of a different story. The
concern here is that----
Mr. Pickering. So is it----
Mr. Price. I am sorry.
Mr. Pickering. The question is not so much the power level
but the band in which they operate.
Mr. Price. Right. Those devices aren't in the GPS band, so
we have no problem with those.
Mr. Pickering. Okay. But even if you are in a separate
band, why such a conservative approach, 2,000 times?
Mr. Price. Well, we don't think it was conservative. We
think the testing showed that it was prudent. UWB energy may
seem negligible certainly compared to a TV tower or a broadcast
tower or the business I used to be in, the cell phone business.
But not to a receiver that is trying to measure a weak signal
from GPS 12,000 miles away. And especially if you think about
urban canyons and the like, this is a very sensitive area, and
the testing showed that even a single UWB device can raise the
noise floor at a 6-foot separation by 1 DB, causing 26 percent
sensitivity decreases. So there were real risks to GPS. And the
point here wasn't to say no, it was just to say that we need to
protect GPS. If it is outside of the GPS bands, which is the
particular area we had concerns, and I know other departments
had other concerns, above 3.1 gigahertz we didn't have a
problem. In fact, we are looking forward to commercial
development because it will be cheaper for us to buy COTS
technology. So we support that. It was just to protect the GPS
bands.
Mr. Pickering. Mr. Petroff, your response to that.
Mr. Petroff. Well, right now there are presently billions
of consumer devices putting their energy into the GPS bands.
They are doing this and they have been doing it for 20 years.
But they are doing it at such a low power level that they are
virtually undetectable and unnoticed. And this is part of the
genius of Part 15 that it has allowed so many billions of
devices to be used in government spectrum and in commercial
spectrum without any interference. And, indeed, the first time
I met Mr. Knapp over here, almost 6 years ago, he said, ``If
you are going to be in Part 15, you have to remember one very
important rule, and that is you are not allowed to create any
harmful interference into anybody's band. That is the standard
that has to be met.'' And all the testing that we have done has
consistently showed that.
I want to take issue with Mr. Gallagher on one point. This
signal is a noise-like signal that is virtually
indistinguishable from what you see out of a computer. So it is
very, very close in terms of what its impact is.
Mr. Pickering. So you would disagree with Mr. Price and Mr.
Gallagher. You would say that it is not only the power level,
but you are also operating within GPS bands.
Mr. Petroff. Yes. There are many, many, dozens, hundreds,
thousands of consumer devices. There are probably, if you add
every palm pilot, every laptop, every pocket calculator, all
these devices I see over here, all of these give off ultra low-
level energy, and many of them put some amount of energy into
the GPS bands, and they do it on a non-interfering basis, and
they have been doing it for 20 years.
Mr. Pickering. Mr. Price, Mr. Gallagher, your defense?
Mr. Price. I hate to argue with Mr. Petroff because I am
probably his biggest customer by a factor of 10----
Mr. Pickering. But not 2,000.
Mr. Price. I would argue it is probably 2,000, but I
haven't seen his financial statements. I just know everywhere
we go in Department of Defense they are testing various
ultrawideband devices, and for good reason because it is a
great technology. But I think the argument--the discussion you
are seeing here is the point. There is no hard science. We
can't all go to your district and see----
Mr. Pickering. Would you disagree with Mr. Petroff's
assertion that there are thousands of devices out there
operating within GPS bands?
Mr. Price. I would certainly disagree that there is no
potential harm to GPS from ultrawideband devices. This
something-for-nothing argument is one I have trouble buying
across the board in life, and here as well. If there is an
emission, there is a danger for interference.
Mr. Pickering. But what he said, that there are thousands
of devices operating now, is that true?
Mr. Price. I would have to take that for the record. I
don't know the exact number and various----
Mr. Pickering. But I guess the question is it seems like it
would be a pretty easy thing to ascertain, to know, do you
have, Mr. Gallagher, would you say today, thousands of devices
operate in that band today? Mr. Gallagher?
Mr. Gallagher. I would say there are no doubt millions, but
you have to listen very carefully to Mr. Petroff's words.
Mr. Pickering. Okay. Let me ask, we acknowledge that there
are now millions of devices operating in that band. So that is
a fact we----
Mr. Gallagher. They are not operating, they are emitting
energy on a spurious or out-of-band basis intermittently. These
are random signals that are in or out. They are not there a
million times a second at whatever level we authorize UWB
operation.
Mr. Pickering. Let me--one last question, Mr. Chairman. I
thank you for your time and your patience. Mr. Gallagher, you
would say that what you and the FCC authorized or your
recommendations, the FCC's authorization was a starting point.
We are now trying to get the testing and the penetration and
the scientific facts and evidence that would allow us to then
hopefully liberalize over time and evolve over time. Do you
have a recommendation--does the administration have a
recommendation as to what your benchmarks are, what your
timetables are, when should the FCC authorize greater levels or
begin to permit greater penetration and use of UWB technology?
Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Pickering, the first thing I would say
is that, and quoting the chairman of the FCC, is that, ``These
numbers, these protections can go up or down--we can liberate
them or we can make them more stringent depending on what the
facts show us.'' The dial can be turned either way if the facts
demonstrate that there is a greater risk.
Mr. Pickering. But when is your benchmark, what is your
timetable?
Mr. Gallagher. The benchmark is we need real-life devices
in consumers' and professional hands which we can test. Now, we
are understanding from the investor community, from the
companies that we could see those devices begin to be
introduced by year-end. We would want to have an adequate
sampling of those devices arrive at a peer-approved measurement
plan to do the test in conjunction with the Commission, do our
own tests, and work with the agencies who have the affected
systems.
Mr. Pickering. Would you envision 6 months, 12 months from
now whether you either liberalize or go more stringent--take a
more stringent approach? What is your timetable?
Mr. Gallagher. I think that is a very ambitious timetable.
I don't expect----
Mr. Pickering. 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, what would
you say?
Mr. Gallagher. Again, I go back, Mr. Pickering, to when the
time is right, when we have the devices to test, and I don't
have that today, and I don't control that. When they are
available, we will of course move expeditiously----
Mr. Pickering. Don't you think for the industry, for the
investment that we should have benchmarks, some timetables,
some certainty in this process?
Mr. Gallagher. But the industry, in many ways, determines
the certainty, because we don't have the devices in the
marketplace yet.
Mr. Pickering. Now, I am afraid the government is going to
decide the certainty or the uncertainty, and our role and
responsibility is to create as much certainty as possible, and
I would encourage you all to set timetables of when you are
going to measure and when you will make decisions to either go
more liberal or more stringent based on the facts. And with
that, Mr. Chairman, let me yield back.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had a great debate
in the late 1980's and early 1990's over the transfer of 200
megahertz of spectrum that was going to be used for the
creation of something that was called the PCS revolution that
would move cell phone technology from analog to digital. And at
that time, Mr. Price, we used to have a two-star general who
would sit here and tell us what the national security
consequences would be if we moved over that 200 megahertz. And
he was adamantly opposed to us doing it, and he let us know
that. And there was absolutely no way, from his perspective,
that we could reconcile this private sector/public sector
tension. And so finally the subcommittee, and then the full
committee, in 1993, as part of the Budget Act of 1993, we just
moved over the 200 megahertz. And since then we have had a
third, fourth, fifth and sixth cell phone license in each one
of the communities in the country license, a dramatic drop in
the price, vast millions and billions made by people, Mr.
Price, who are in the cell phone industry because of that
decision and a revolution in communications in our country. And
thus far we have had no accusation that it has undermined
national security, at least no testimony I have heard.
And so when we reach this stage once again, different
people representing the same interests show up to testify. And,
obviously, this committee has a stake in seeing the further
advancement of the private application of technology using
spectrum. And it always reminds me, Mr. Price, of the movie,
``Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark,'' where this
relatively low-level person is sent off to find this very
valuable thing, and finally they return it--Indiana returns it
to Washington, and the government officials then take it, put
it inside of a container, nail it down and then put it on a
forklift and house it in a warehouse, knowing some day, in some
way they will be able to use it. But, ``Thank you, Mr. Jones.
We will take it from here.''
So you have all these private sector companies who have
identified this incredible valuable resource, they bring their
testimony here to Washington, they talk about all the marvelous
things that it can do for our economy, for our economic
competitiveness, and pretty much they are told, ``Well, that is
going to be a difficult thing to resolve.'' Of course, it is by
the same agency that says that it is possible in a minute and a
half to launch a missile using incredibly sophisticated
outerspace technology to shoot down a North Korean missile in a
minute and a half after it has been launched at 2:30 in the
morning with no notice.
Now, many scientists say, ``That is impossible,'' and we
are 20 years into trying to prove that it is possible, that is
the government who supports this technology, and so far they
have been able to prove that if the actual incoming test
missile yells electronically, ``Yoohoo, over here,'' they can
shoot it down if they are given the exact latitude and
longitude and time that it will arrive and it is saying,
``Yoohoo, over here.'' That is where we are with that so far.
However, when you have an issue like this that it seems has
a lot of historical analogs in terms of proving that it can
work, we are told that because of resource problems at FCC or
NTIA, our lack of coordination between NTIA and FCC working
with the Defense Department, that it could take a very long
time to resolve those issues that would have a tangible near-
term benefit for the American public looking for a shot in the
arm in the sector that we will broadly call the Nasdaq.
And so while we are not in any way opposed to ensuring that
we have the maximum amount of security for our country in using
spectrum-based technologies, we also, because of past
experience, know that perhaps there are people inside of some
of these agencies that still have a, we will call it, pre-end-
of-the-Cold-War view of these issues. And they aren't--not
saying you, Mr. Price, but others to whom you report who might
not have the technical sophistication. I mean you are here
because many of those people who are your superiors would be
afraid to undergo some of the questioning using any one of the
acronyms that you use so fluently. And so it is those people
about whom we are talking, those people who we never get to
testify before our committee.
So that is what we are concerned about, not your knowledge
and ability brilliantly to fence with any members of our
committee or any other people who are here, but it is those who
are up above who have given you the orders to fence without
themselves knowing anything about these technologies
whatsoever. And I say that from long experience with all of
your superiors that they know almost nothing about it. And it
is not to denigrate them because they have many other very
important that they have to work on, but they actually just
want the status quo to be preserved until the point in time
when they get enough time to visit these issues, which means
never, because they never actually have that time. And I
actually have many opportunities to talk to your superiors, and
none of them ever knows anything about any of the acronyms
about which you are speaking about here quite eloquently today.
So that is the message to you, Mr. Price, that we are
looking for coordination and specific recommendations for
resource augmentation from the NTIA and the FCC, and we
understand that they have to act with some trepidation in
making those requests because of the enhanced defense budget
request. Now, we would hope that as part of your increased
ability to get any resources that you want, Mr. Price, for
anything that is related to the defense of our country, that
perhaps part of the request could be to help to resolve this
other issue, which could then help the civilian economy to move
forward, because the NTIA and FCC is not as strong a position
to make those requests as are you.
So perhaps you could do that, and using your authority,
your clout, get the money that resolves the technical issues
and then to share it with these other two agencies in a way
that telescopes the timeframe that it will take in order to
ensure that Mr. Petroff and many others here can also see the
civilian benefits flow to our economy. Does that make sense to
you, Mr. Price? By the way, are you the winner of the Vito
Fossella look-a-like contest?
I mean that is unbelievable. I mean you are--you know, I
mean I kept thinking Vito is doing a good job today testifying
down there.
Mr. Price. I have been called a lot of things. I have never
been called that before. I think that, first of all, the
Department of Defense is spending a lot of money in spectrum
areas. Our budget, and I am actually having people pull
together the numbers, and when we get it I will send it to you,
something on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars on
spectrum-efficient technologies, which I think ultimately, you
would agree, is one of the ways to solve the problems of the
spectrum-constrained feeling by both government and non-
government users.
I would also say I take issue slightly with the point that
my superiors, who I gather you talk to more than I do, which is
probably a fair point, don't----
Mr. Markey. All of your present-day superiors and all of
their predecessors in their various ideological--they all kind
of--where you stand depends upon where you sit, and it doesn't
make any difference who gets the job at any of these Pentagon
jobs, regardless of the administration, they always take the
same position.
Mr. Price. Well, I will commend the current leadership in
OSD, in the Office of Secretary of Defense, because they
decided that spectrum was important enough--an important enough
area to raise it to the Deputy Assistant Secretary level and to
have somebody, actually it gave me a job, but to create a job
that is dedicated to spectrum issues. So at least now--and it
was really something that Dr. Hamre, when he was at the
Department of Defense, started to raise these issues. So I
think the fact that spectrum is important, needs expertise,
needs to be shaped, is something that this administration has
focused on, and I think we will continue to do that, looking at
ultrawideband, looking at software-defined radio, some of those
other things.
I think it is a little different--the ultrawideband
scenario is a little different than the 200 megahertz that was
decided in 1993, but I do take the point that everyone, the
Department of Defense as well as the commercial interests, do
need more spectrum. And if there are ways to do that, be it
sharing or otherwise, or raising noise floors, as long as it
doesn't constrain national security interests, like GPS, we
support it, and we think we supported it in this proceeding.
Mr. Markey. And I appreciate that, and I think that the
record will note that you did praise your superiors effusively,
and I think----
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Mr. Markey. [continuing] that is absolutely something that
should be noted. And my hope is that we would find evidence to
justify that praise as we move forward. And, again, you know
what, a good example of this whole conflict is even when
Secretary Rumsfeld says that he doesn't want the crusader
giganto cannon, he has to be told, ``Mr. Secretary, there are
limits to your power. You need this cannon, okay?'' And even as
he says, ``No, I would rather use the same money on more high
tech, more sophisticated stuff,'' he is being told, ``No, there
are real pressures here inside of the Army, the Air Force that
you might not be able to control in terms of the way the
ultimate process leads to a resolution of the issue.''
So all we are saying here is that we are cognizant of the
problem that exists inside the Pentagon, and it is very severe,
it is ongoing, and it is in fundamental conflict with these
other agendas which we have for America, which we believe can
move forward simultaneously, but we need the resources that are
dedicated to the resolution of the issue, because in the
absence of that, the status quo ante, the homeostasis of an
issue then puts all the weight on not moving, and then the rest
of the agenda is harmed. So I appreciate, Mr. Price, that they
have named someone with the level of expertise on the subject
that they have, and my hope is that we can, again, resolve the
issue in a way using Defense Department money to help the
civilian economy get a shot in the arm. Thank you, Mr. Price.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. Would recognize the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am sorry that I
wasn't here earlier. Like you, I chaired a committee this
morning for about 3 hours, so we just finished up, but I did
want to get down here, obviously to pay my respects but also
the staff who sat in during this morning's hearing indicated
there were two questions that were not asked that I might ask,
and these are for Mr. Shane, who is with the Department of
Transportation.
Mr. Shane, these questions are--the first one is I
understand the Department of Transportation in a report by the
Volpe Center determined that GPS is not robust enough for
critical commercial aircraft use. And, further, Boeing is
working on next-generation GPS, including increasing the
transmit power for GPS, decreasing the self-interference of the
GPS signals and adding more channels. So the question is are
not the concerns with GPS overblown, given that the signal is
going to be strengthened to such a great degree or are they not
overblown? So I think that is the question.
Mr. Shane. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I think
the concerns about GPS are not overblown. GPS has not been
strengthened. Both civilian and military applications are
absolutely essential to our national security right now, and I
am happy to report that as far as I can tell from the R&O there
isn't a GPS problem in the FCC's decision, that the FCC and
NTIA took the concern about GPS very seriously, and that is one
of the issues that nobody is arguing about right now. So it
seems to me that that question has been mooted by the R&O, the
Report and Order issues by the FCC.
Mr. Stearns. Anyone else like to comment? No? Mr. Shane,
you indicate in your testimony that, ``There is no substitute
for hard data, stringent analyses and validation by test.'' You
also expressed a lot of concern that UWB devices could
interfere with critical aviation systems, but where is the hard
data to support that and validation by tests?
Mr. Shane. That is in fact our question, where is the hard
data to support any final decision with respect to the
deployment of----
Mr. Stearns. No, but you have indicated a concern that
these devices could interfere with critical aviation systems.
How do you know that?
Mr. Shane. Well, the burden should not be on those who are
responsible for maintaining critical safety-of-life
applications in spectrum.
Mr. Stearns. No, but if you make a claim, then you should
be able to substantiate or corroborate your claim.
Mr. Shane. I don't want to substantiate it. I want to
substantiate the fact that UWB equipment can be deployed
without any harm to the spectrum. That is our interest. We are
interested in this technology. The problem is there simply is
no prototype, not sufficient prototypes available, and this has
been the consensus within the panel, to support the kind of
empirical testing that we could rely upon with real confidence
before liberalizing the content of the FCC's Report and Order.
I don't think we really--there is no difference among any
of the agencies that have participated about whether or not we
need more empirical testing. This is not just the Department of
Transportation. This has been a problem. The NTIA had a very
difficult job in this case, and it has done a magnificent job,
I think, in pulling together different threads of interest from
different agencies in the commercial sector and making
recommendations to the FCC, which it has adopted, for purposes
of getting this technology launched. Now the question is, is it
launched with only a baby step, as someone said earlier today?
Should we be liberalizing the rules? This is a brochure put out
by the Federal Highway Administration, one of our agencies. It
supports ground penetrating radar for the use of measuring the
quality of pavement in our highways. We have talked earlier
today about the importance of GPR for bridge quality and a
whole host of other transportation applications. We are
interested in this technology, we want it deployed, that is
what the Department of Transportation is about. The only issue
here is whether or not there is sufficient science right now to
say that we can deploy it without the kinds of limits that the
FCC and NTIA have agreed upon. Nobody at this table knows the
answers to that as we sit here today, and all we seek is to
find out that answer as quickly as possible.
Mr. Stearns. I understand. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Stearns. Gentlemen, we
appreciated your testimony. I can assure you that we are going
to continue to look at this issue. We are going to have a
number of multiple hearings over the next number of months, and
we welcome your input and your thoughts on the whole range of--
the whole spectrum of issues. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Penetradar Corporation
Niagara Falls, New York
June 3, 2002
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel
United States Congress
Washington, DC Office
2303 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
RE: The FCC's UWB Proceeding: An Examination of the Government's
Spectrum Management Process
Dear Congressman Engel: In reference to the June 5, 2002 meeting of
the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet hearings we
would like to request your assistance in expressing our concerns to the
FCC and NTIA in regard to the recent FCC Revision of Part 15 of the
Commission's Rules Regarding Ultra-Wideband (UWB) Transmission Systems,
FCC 02-48 Released April 22, 2002.
Penetradar Corporation is a small, high-technology business located
in Niagara Falls, New York, involved in the manufacture and use of
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) systems. GPR's are a special class of
radar system designed to penetrate solid materials, such as soil or
concrete and our products and services are used in a multitude of
engineering as well as public safety related applications, ranging from
bridge deck and highway pavement condition evaluation to detection of
subsurface hazardous spills. The new FCC ruling, FCC 02-48, which
restricts the domestic sale and use of Ground Penetrating Radar devices
will effectively shut-down our company and many other small businesses
in our industry that manufacture and/or use this technology. The result
of this will be the loss of hundreds of jobs and ultimately the loss of
an industry of which the United States presently leads the world.
We are quite concerned with the affect that the new rules will have
and believe that time is critical.Although the FCC has indicated that
the new part 15 rules represent a very conservative approach to dealing
with UWB and has promised to revisit this issue in the next 6 to 12
months, with the new rules becoming law in mid-July it is unrealistic
to believe that there will be a GPR industry remaining by this time the
ruling is reviewed.
In our recent meetings with the FCC and NTIA, we have found the
NTIA to be adverse to the GPR industry citing hypothetical cases of
potential interference with government systems and GPS receivers. In
over 30 years of GPR usage, there has never been a reported instance of
interference caused by any GPR device on any other user of the
frequency spectrum. The interference potential of GPR is negligible as
its intent is to propagate signals into the ground and not into the
air. Further, the proliferation of GPR devices is low, with no more
than a total of 1000 units industry wide operating in the United
States.
We have reviewed NTIA publications 01-43 and 01-45 which are
analyses conducted on the compatibility of UWB devices on federal
systems and GPS, and are the basis for the new FCC rules. We believe
that the NTIA analyses are based upon improper assumptions of ``worst
case''' scenarios, all of which cannot or will not occur in situ.\1\
When operated in a normal manner GPR's will never pose an interference
problem and to summarily eliminate an entire industry and ultimately
compromise public safety for hypothetical and unrealistic scenarios
proposed by the NTIA would not be in the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, one NTIA analysis assumes large numbers of GPR's
operating in close proximity to an E911 GPS receiver at separation
distances of approximately 2 meters and at elevations of 3 meters,
thereby resulting in interference. This ignores the fact that GPR's are
typically used individually--not in large numbers in one area, and are
in contact (or within a few inches) of the ground and not operated at 3
meters in height where the GPS receiver may be located. In normal
operation, the hypothetical NTIA operational scenario would not be
possible.
In another example, the NTIA proposed the possibility of
interference between a UWB device and Air Route Surveillance Radar
(ARSR-4), a high power, surveillance radar with sufficient radiated
power to literally overload and destroy any nearby device receiving in
its frequency band. This analysis was not conducted using an actual GPR
but rather signals were simulated and tests performed with the ARSR-4
transmitter off, thereby eliminating its own normal clutter
interference and antenna cross talk, which are greater than low level
GPR emissions. We do not believe this to be a realistic analysis but
rather one that was improperly designed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past, GPR has been supported, used and in fact developed by
governmental agencies such as the DOD, for land mine detection and DOT
for bridge deck, pavement and runway inspection. The GPR industry has
provided critical products and services that have enhanced public
safety and have been used in the development and preservation of the
nation's infrastructure. Typical application of GPR includes highway
pavement and airport runway condition evaluation for the detection of
voids and sinkholes prior to collapse, on bridge decks, parking garages
and tunnels to determine the condition of concrete and structural
safety, inspection of integrity of nuclear containment facilities,
power plants and buildings, detection of underground utilities such as
gas and electrical lines, detection of underground chemical spills and
for law enforcement in forensic investigations.
Attached is a separate statement describing the particular points
in the new rules which have created considerable consternation to our
company and much of the GPR industry. I am hopeful that you will be
able to address our concerns in the upcoming Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet and that you will support our
position.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Anthony J. Alongi
President
cc: Addressed to Congressman Vito J. Fossella
______
May 30, 2002
Honorable Fred Upton
Chair, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
The Committee on Energy and Commerce
United States House of Representatives
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Upton: Thank you for the opportunity to testify
before your subcommittee. Ultra wideband technology will allow for
radio spectrum efficiency and development of such devices as through
the wall radar, ground penetrating radar, and new wireless technology
that are much faster than the current Blue tooth technology. The
Federal Communications Commission approved ultra wideband at power
levels significantly lower than originally requested. While this power
level is minimally sufficient to operate certain devices, others will
not operate at all.
Public Safety's, First Responders need power levels that will allow
for through the wall radar systems and ground penetrating radar systems
to work efficiently and safely. These through the wall radar detection
units need to be remotely activated in most cases. Ultra wideband
technology will allow a Fire Fighter to use a Video Image Display piece
to display maps and other critical information such as location
technology, personnel body telemetry's and equipment status information
onto the mask of his self contained breathing apparatus.
Very truly yours,
Richard C. Nowakowski, Coordinator of Special Projects
City of Chicago, Office of Emergency Management and Communications
On August 28, 2001, Chicago Police Detective Joseph Airhart Jr.,
was assigned to a Federal Bank Robbery Task Force that was serving a
warrant on a suspected bank robber. Detective Airhart posed as delivery
man and knocked on the suspects' door. When the suspect answered the
door, he shot Detective Airhart in the head and dragged him into the
apartment. Assisting officers were held at bay as the offender
continued to fire and dragged the seriously wounded detective behind a
wall. Daniel Salley also held his wife and two small children in the
apartment, and out of sight of backup officers. After a two-hour
standoff, Salley agreed to let paramedics remove the detective. Today,
Detective Joe Airhart is still hospitalized and remains in serious
condition suffering from seizure attributed to his head and brain
injuries.
Had the Chicago Police Departments, Hostage and Barricade Team been
equipped with remote through the wall radar devices they may have been
able to secure a faster release of the injured detective and arrest of
the suspect.
We welcome the February 14, 2002, ruling of the Federal
Communications Commission on ultra wideband technology as a great first
step. We applaud the long and arduous work of the Commission and
National Telecommunications and Information Administration in their
technical analysis of UWB, and also respect those companies, agencies,
institutions and individuals that submitted comments.
Public safety needs UWB as a tool in their arsenal. Through the
wall radar that utilizes UWB needs to deployed and remotely operated in
most Police usages, while miniature units mounted on Fire Fighters
helmets need to be on constant during primary and secondary searches of
structures. Power levels need to be of sufficient strength to penetrate
through several layers and at distances of 20 to30 feet.
A Fire Fighter responds and prepares to enter a structure. He dons
his SCBA (Self Contained Breathing Apparatus) and enters the building.
His SCBA immediately begins a system of tracking his location in the
building and overlays a small (you are here type) dot onto a digital
floor plan of the building (provided be the OEMC, Office of Emergency
Management and Communications) and then transmits the images to a heads
up, translucent display screen in the masks' face piece. The heads up
display will also show the level of air in the SCBA Bottle. As the Fire
Fighter makes his way through the building, his Motorola XTS5000
portable radio will be leaving the equivalent of digital breadcrumbs
that can be tracked. As he enters a room, he turns and scans a 360-
degree area while utilizing a helmet mounted UWB device that will
penetrate walls and doors and display the images behind. Body acoustic
sensors will monitor the firefighter's telemetry and report back on his
physical condition. UWB will provide short range communications systems
that will allow mobility and high data rates in order to facilitate
information sharing with this Virtual Fire Fighter. This Fire Fighter
must work unencumbered by hand-held devices as he searches, therefore
it is important that UWB devices used by Public Safety be free from any
requirement that mandates contact points on devices.
Licensing of these UWB devices under Part 90 to Public Safety
Agencies will allow strict regulations and provide remedies if
interference is experienced. These devices must also be free to operate
in broad, pre-approved geographic areas. The operation of these devices
would be limited in duration and any interference caused would be
minimized, easily detected and corrected.