[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 112-65]
SUSTAINING GPS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-466 WASHINGTON : 2012
___________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer
Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or
866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio, Chairman
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MO BROOKS, Alabama RICK LARSEN, Washington
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California
JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
Tim Morrison, Professional Staff Member
Leonor Tomero, Professional Staff Member
Alejandra Villarreal, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2011
Page
Hearing:
Thursday, September 15, 2011, Sustaining GPS for National
Security....................................................... 1
Appendix:
Thursday, September 15, 2011..................................... 25
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
SUSTAINING GPS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative from California, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces....................... 5
Turner, Hon. Michael, a Representative from Ohio, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces............................... 1
WITNESSES
Knapp, Julius, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology,
Federal Communications Commission.............................. 14
Nebbia, Karl, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum
Management, National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.................... 11
Russo, Anthony J., Director, National Coordination Office, Space-
Based Positioning, Navigation and Training, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration................................. 12
Shelton, Gen William L., USAF, Commander, U.S. Air Force Space
Command........................................................ 7
Takai, Teresa M., Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of
Defense........................................................ 9
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Knapp, Julius................................................ 85
Nebbia, Karl................................................. 56
Russo, Anthony J............................................. 71
Sanchez, Hon. Loretta........................................ 33
Shelton, Gen William L....................................... 34
Takai, Teresa M.............................................. 49
Turner, Hon. Michael......................................... 29
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn and Deputy
Secretary of Transportation John D. Porcari's Letter to
Julius Genachowski, Federal Communications Commission
Chairman, Dated March 25, 2011............................. 105
Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn's Letter to
Julius Genachowski, Federal Communications Commission
Chairman, Dated January 12, 2011........................... 97
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius
Genachowski's Letter to Hon. Michael Turner, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Dated September 15, 2011. 106
National Legal and Policy Center Chairman Ken Boehm's Letter
to Hon. Darrell Issa and Hon. Edolphus Towns, House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Dated
February 2, 2011........................................... 98
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Garamendi................................................ 115
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Turner................................................... 119
SUSTAINING GPS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces,
Washington, DC, Thursday, September 15, 2011.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:42 a.m. in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Turner
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL TURNER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
OHIO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES
Mr. Turner. Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to the
Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on sustaining GPS [Global
Positioning System] for national security.
I was planning to make the usual statement of appreciation
to the witnesses for their appearance here today. And to those
witnesses who took this issue seriously enough to be here--
General Shelton, Ms. Takai, Mr. Nebbia, Mr. Russo and Mr.
Knapp--I do want to thank you for taking the time to be here
and your testimony.
That said, I have the unfortunate responsibility to inform
the subcommittee that the Federal Communications Chairman
Genachowski refused to appear today. I must also make clear
that I consider the chairman's failure to show up today to be
an affront to the House Armed Services Committee.
Further, it appears to be symptomatic of a disregard by the
chairman to the consequences of the FCC's [Federal
Communications Commission] January 26th waiver to LightSquared.
Now, we have heard that perhaps even the chairman was even
in this very building today. We would like to know that from
the chairman, whether or not he even came so close to this
hearing as to be in this building and still not appear.
At no time did the chairman offer an alternative time to
appear. We are unaware of any issue of this being merely a
scheduling conflict. And the chairman did say that he was
concerned about it prejudicing the process about what he might
say during the hearing.
Personally, I believe this is an absolute effort by the
chairman to avoid the oversight questions by Congress, to avoid
the responsibility of the issue of how this will affect GPS and
what the FCC's processes appear to be irregular as to how this
manner is moving forward.
So I am very concerned that the chairman has not appeared
and has not given us, really, a very good understanding or a
very good reasoning as to why he is not answering these
questions.
Now, I do appreciate the chairman is apparently willing to
provide personal responses to written questions for the record
submitted by the subcommittee, according to staff. But the
chairman's priority should be the same as the subcommittee's:
Sustaining GPS for national security.
Now, we all understand the difference between written
questions and in-person testimony. You don't have an ability to
ask a follow-on question. No one else gets to hear the aspect
of his question to have them follow a different take. This, I
think, makes the ability of this subcommittee to get to the
bottom of these issues and to, more importantly, advance the
issue of sustaining GPS for national security more difficult.
With that out of the way, I wish to introduce and express
my appreciation to the witnesses who are here: General William
Shelton, Commander of the Air Force Space Command. I note this
is General Shelton's second appearance before this subcommittee
in as many weeks. Either the General really likes us or he is
working to accommodate us on a very strong basis. Ms. Takai,
Chief Information Officer for the Department of Defense; Mr.
Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration; and
Mr. Anthony Russo, National Coordination Office, Space-Based
Positioning, Navigation and Training, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; Mr. Julius Knapp, Chief of the
Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering and
Technology.
Mr. Knapp, I want to thank you for being here today. And I
want it to be clear that neither I nor my colleagues have
anything other than gratitude for your service. Our concerns
are with the chairman's lack of appearance. And we certainly
appreciate the information that you are going to provide us
today, but we do believe that the chairman has additional
questions that he needs to be answering.
I want to thank all of you for being here.
Now, why are we here this morning?
General Shelton, you might remember this question. It was
asked by a member of the subcommittee during the classified
briefing you provided all of us last week on LightSquared GPS
test results.
And that question is, why are we here? I mean, to some
extent this issue seems relatively clear, and yet we are still
facing a process that is moving forward. And so that is why we
are having this hearing today, which is to try to get some
light on the issue of LightSquared and GPS.
A brief recap of how we got here to the point of this
hearing: On January 26th of this year, the FCC granted a
conditional waiver of its own rules allowing LightSquared to
establish a terrestrial broadbanded network and be freed of
certain gating requirements, which were designed to keep any
potential terrestrial service from overwhelming the satellite
spectrum that LightSquared held.
As we now know, this network would operate with over 40,000
base stations operating at a frequency adjacent to that long
used by Global Positioning System, known as GPS, at almost 5
billion times the power of the GPS system. The chairman of the
FCC knew that there were concerns about the proposed waiver for
LightSquared as he received a letter from Deputy Secretary of
Defense Bill Lynn on January 12, 2 weeks before the waiver was
issued.
The Deputy Secretary wrote to Mr. Genachowski that ``there
is strong potential for interference to these critical national
security space systems,'' referring to GPS. This letter also
asked that the chairman pay ``personal attention on this
matter.''
Without objection, this letter will be made part of the
record of this hearing.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 97.]
Mr. Turner. We also know that National Telecommunications
Information Administration Assistant Secretary Lawrence
Strickling wrote to Chairman Genachowski recommending that the
FCC not go forward with the LightSquared waiver request.
Many have observed that the FCC followed an irregular
process on the LightSquared waiver. First, the National Legal
and Policy Center stated in a February 2, 2011, letter to the
chairman and ranking member of the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee that ``over the course of the past
year, a series of odd decisions, questionable meetings and
procedural anomalies at the Federal Communications Commission
and White House highlight Mr. Falcone's growing influence in
the hallways of government.'' Mr. Falcone is the CEO of the
hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners, which owns LightSquared.
Without objection, this letter will be made a part of the
record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 98.]
Mr. Turner. Additionally, in a March letter to Chairman
Genachowski, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, joined by the
Deputy Secretary of Transportation noted that, ``the DOD
[Department of Defense] and DOT [Department of Transportation]
were not sufficiently included in the development of the
LightSquared initial work plan and its key milestones.'' This
letter again sought the FCC chairman's personal attention.
Without objection, this letter will also be made a part of
our record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 105.]
Mr. Turner. And just yesterday, the Center for Policy
Integrity released a report detailing, ``emails show wireless
firm's communications with the White House as campaign
donations were made.''
In my capacity as a member of the House Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, I will be asking Chairman Issa
and Ranking Member Towns to promptly investigate this matter.
We cannot afford to have Federal telecommunications policy,
especially where it affects national security, to be made in
the same way that the White House has parceled out a half
billion dollars in loan guarantees to the failed Solyndra
Corporation, a large political campaign contributor of the
President.
While there is clearly concern about how the FCC has
conducted this process, those concerns are within the purview
of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Also, aside from
the scope of today's hearing, but of significance and concern
nonetheless, is the impact to GPS receiver manufacturers, like
Trimble Navigation in my home town of Dayton, Ohio, which
manufacturers GPS receivers for the agricultural sector and
heavy machinery producers, like Caterpillar.
But this subcommittee's main purview is national security.
And the national security consequences of the LightSquared
network are significant. As I mentioned, the concern in this
case is that LightSquared's proposed network of 40,000 base
stations around the U.S. which broadcast at an adjacent signal
frequency to that used by the GPS system, but at 5 billion
times the signal strength, will render or may render useless
the DOD's GPS receivers.
I think General Shelton will be telling us today that it
does. General Shelton, Commander of the Air Force Space
Command, informed the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee
members in last week's briefing that ``tests show
LightSquared's signal causes significant interference to
military GPS.'' Simply put, if the FCC gives LightSquared the
final go-ahead to build out this network, I fear that the DOD's
training activities in the United States may come to an end.
This cannot be allowed to happen. As the members of the House
Armed Services Committee know, before U.S. troops are deployed,
they conduct extensive real world training, which includes the
use of GPS for orientating U.S. Forces, locating friendly
forces and locating enemy forces, conducting search and rescue
activities, targeting of precision-guided ordnance and calling
in close air support. None of these activities are possible
without DOD's high-precision GPS receivers, which would be most
affected by the LightSquared network.
As a Member of Congress I can think of no higher
responsibility than making sure our U.S. military forces are
fully trained and equipped before they are deployed overseas to
Afghanistan, Iraq, or any place in harm's way.
Likewise--and this is something in all of our minds close
to the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United
States--significant harmful interference to the GPS system
would be a tremendous liability to our defense of our homeland.
General Shelton, I recall you making this point, and I look
forward to your comments on that today.
The Armed Services Committee's position, as articulated by
the Turner-Sanchez amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act of fiscal year 2012, is that the Federal
Communications Commission should not grant LightSquared final
approval of the conditional waiver granted to the company on
January 26, 2011, until the Commission has dealt with potential
harmful interference to DOD's GPS receivers.
LightSquared itself has no apparent objection to this
provision. LightSquared has been making a vigorous case for its
$4 billion investment in its proposed network build-out of a
new nationwide broadband service. That it is a bipartisan
policy objective to encourage more nationwide broadband service
and more competition as a policy is not in dispute, at least
not before this committee.
The question for the subcommittee today is how to evaluate
the harm identified by the Department of Defense to its $34
billion investment in GPS, GPS ground stations and DOD high-
precision military GPS receivers.
Again, it is more important than how much this cost, the
issue of what is the effect upon the warfighters who rely on
this technology for safety and their technological edge against
adversity. And let me state that harm to GPS, once again very
clearly, ``tests show LightSquared's signal causes significant
interference to military GPS.''
As my colleagues know by now, on Tuesday of this week, the
FCC apparently came to the same conclusion and issued a Public
Notice that ``potential for harmful interference'' meant that
``additional targeted testing is needed.'' I consider this to
be the understatement of the decade. But we need to know what
this Public Notice actually means for DOD GPS users. This may
very well be an effort to push matters off merely a few months
under the assumption that Congress will be distracted.
I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses to get to
the bottom of this matter.
And with that, let me turn to my ranking member, Ms.
Sanchez, who has done some excellent work on this topic and has
been a great defender of our GPS system for the Department of
Defense.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner can be found in the
Appendix on page 29.]
STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the witnesses for being here before us.
You know, I am not really concerned, Mr. Chairman, about
Chairman Genachowski not being before our committee today. I
think that you and I had a very good meeting with him last
week. And he stated some of the reasons why he really didn't
want to be before our committee today, if you will.
And he also sent a letter, I know, to you, which I would
like to put into the record so that everybody can see what the
chairman of the FCC has said with respect to this issue at this
point.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 106.]
Ms. Sanchez. I would like to say that it seems to me that
this is really a fight brewing, a fight brewing out there
between commerce, if you will, and the civilian issues that we
face every day with respect to communicating, between people in
particular and information sharing, et cetera, and our military
security. And if that is the case, if this is going to be sort
of a battle between commerce and our national security, I think
that you and I would agree, Mr. Chairman, that I think national
security is going to be on the top layer for, not only us and
not only the Congress, but for Americans if they are faced with
that ``one or the other'' solution.
So what I think this process is about is to see if there is
an accommodation that allows our commercial aspects to move
forward in order to make our country as competitive as it can
be and yet, at the same time, continue to allow us the type of
national security that we all have worked so hard toward. And,
you know, those types of pushes and those types of fights, if
you will, are really what this Congress is about, and it is
really about policy issues and really it is about Americans and
what they decide that they want. And that is why it is
important that we have these types of hearings and that we have
things pretty out in the open as much as we can so that
Americans can also see not only the type of work that the
Congress does, but what is really at stake.
So I do--and I want to take note that in the Congress in
particular, there are always these judicial types of issues.
Energy and Commerce as a committee, of course, is pushing to
see more jobs come forward, to see new technologies come
forward, to have communication happen. We on the military
committee, it is our job to ensure that our national security
is at its best.
So I look forward to this hearing for that reason, because
we have heard from a lot of sides. There are a lot of people
walking the halls of Congress trying to speak to these issues.
GPS assets, I want to say, are critical to our national
security and to our way of life. And so I actually support the
increase and the improvement of broadband service, but not at
the expense of national security. So I just want people to know
that.
Again, I don't know that it is one or the other. There
might be accommodations.
But here is the issue: The issue is that we are in a time
of limited budgets, and that we have a deep investment by our
military and by our taxpayers with respect to the programs that
we already have, to the devices that we have, and so anybody
trying to do something from a commercial aspect will have to
show us that it doesn't affect our national security and that
if there is mitigation to be done, that that should not
necessarily fall on the taxpayer.
But then again, that is what public policy is about. That
is what votes are about. That is what elections are about as we
move forward.
I would like to say, Mr. Turner, you and I have worked very
well on this committee, and I don't think that we need to point
fingers or politicize or really call into question people's
intents or what their motives are. I hope that is not the case
in some of the harsher language that I heard right now in your
opening statement.
You know, I want to do the right things, and Members of
Congress want to do the right things. I hope that this hearing
will give us a better understanding for several key issues.
I also want to say another thing before I get into the
specifics of this. A lot of questions are being placed on whose
intent, whose motivation, et cetera, including to our military
men and women. And I think it is right to question, but I do
not want to see anybody smeared in this about what their
motives or intents are, especially not our military people. So
I just want to say that, too, to our general sitting there. I
think it is important to have this discussion.
This hearing, I hope, will provide us the opportunity to
better understand key issues that we need to understand in
making decisions: First of all, the risk and the impacts of
LightSquared's proposed terrestrial 4G network plan and how
that interference will affect our weapons systems; the level to
which our military depends on GPS assets; whether the
interference can be mitigated, and whether the fixes would
require recertification of our weapons programs; what the
impact is to the mission, and what those costs would be.
It bears noting, and I think the chairman put that forward,
that our investment from the taxpayer standpoint is almost $35
billion. And if there is to be further testing, what that would
look like and what the timelines would be for something like
this.
What the FCC's process is for deciding whether to allow
implementation of LightSquared's proposal, and what
consultations are ongoing with other agencies, and whether
those agencies in their consultation, if that is being taken
seriously by the FCC. I think that is an important point
because, you know, some would think that they are not
listening.
How the interagency process will ensure that our national
security issues are considered and resolved satisfactorily.
I think those are the important issues, and I look forward
to this. And again, I am glad that it is out in the open so
that we can do away with whose intent, and who is a winner and
loser, and really focus on our national security and our
communication for the future for America.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will submit my written
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sanchez can be found in the
Appendix on page 33.]
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez.
Without objection, the letter you referenced will be made
part of the record, though I note I do believe that it is
nonresponsive and ambiguous in many key respects of the
questions that we had asked.
I will be submitting additional questions to Chairman
Genachowski that he has indicated that he will accept
personally.
As we are turning to our witnesses, I just want to
reiterate the central purpose for this hearing: We currently
are in a situation where DOD says that LightSquared, their
system affects GPS and our national security. We are looking at
this information in light of the fact that the FCC has already,
in part, proceeded with LightSquared in a manner which would
affect our national security, and we still understand that
there is a process going forward with the FCC that, ultimately,
this could go forward. So we are in the context of
understanding its effects on national security, and I think the
understanding--and I am looking forward to General Shelton's
testimony--of the clarity that this is not ambiguous, that this
affects national security and affects our GPS.
With that, General Shelton.
STATEMENT OF GEN WILLIAM L. SHELTON, USAF, COMMANDER, U.S. AIR
FORCE SPACE COMMAND
General Shelton. Mr. Chairman, Representative Sanchez and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to
appear before you today alongside these other witnesses as the
Commander of Air Force Space Command.
Our command is the DOD lead for the Global Positioning
System constellation of satellites responsible for developing,
building, launching, and operating GPS to deliver precision,
positioning, navigation and timing services to billions of
military, civil and commercial users.
Although GPS is a military-procured and operated satellite
constellation, it is recognized as a global utility, serving
users around the globe. In fact, its use is so ubiquitous here
at home, I would put GPS in the category of critical
infrastructure for the United States.
And for our military, GPS has become an essential
capability for a host of applications in joint operations.
Today I appear at the subcommittee's request to discuss the
testing conducted thus far for the proposed LightSquared
terrestrial broadband network. The test we conducted in concert
with the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] was robust, with
over 100 receivers from 24 different organizations, and it
spanned the military, Government, aviation, precision,
agriculture, automotive, and general-use communities. It is
important to note that the testing was conducted using an
actual LightSquared transmitter, broadcast filters, and
antennas which would be used in their network.
In addition to providing their equipment and setting it up
to ensure an accurate test, LightSquared personnel reviewed our
test plan to ensure it was consistent with their originally
planned network deployment.
The test results showed LightSquared signals, operating
according to their originally filed deployment plan, interfere
with every type of receiver in the test. These results were
compiled in a report submitted through the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration to the FCC on
July 6th of this year.
LightSquared has since proposed an alternative deployment
plan, which involves lower power broadcasts and the use of only
the lower 10 megahertz of their assigned frequencies. We
conducted only limited testing on broadcasts in the lower 10
alone, but precision receivers, and even some cell phones, were
still affected. Further testing would be required to fully
characterize the potential interference with this lower 10
plan.
As we move forward under NTIA's [National
Telecommunications and Information Administration] direction in
evaluating the latest LightSquared proposal, Air Force Space
Command remains open to ideas on mitigation strategies, but we
must ensure we continue to lead the world in PNT [positioning,
navigation and timing] services and reliably support our users
worldwide.
In summary, based on the test results and analysis to date,
the LightSquared network would effectively jam vital GPS
receivers, and to our knowledge thus far, there are no
mitigation options that would be effective in eliminating
interference to essential GPS services in the United States.
I thank the committee for your continued support of Air
Force Space Command and the capabilities we provide this
Nation, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of General Shelton can be found in
the Appendix on page 34.]
Mr. Turner. Ms. Takai.
STATEMENT OF TERESA M. TAKAI, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Ms. Takai. Good morning, Chairman Turner, Ranking Member
Sanchez, and distinguished subcommittee members, and thank you
for the opportunity to testify regarding the importance of GPS
to our national defense capabilities.
My testimony today will focus on the importance of GPS
reliability to the Department of Defense in ensuring that our
warfighters and allies have the critical positioning,
navigation and timing, or PNT, capabilities that they require.
As General Shelton said, we believe the GPS stands as a
cornerstone of the DOD PNT capability and is integrated into
almost every aspect of our U.S. military operations. To give
you but a few examples, GPS signals are used to ensure the
accuracy of precision-guided munitions, to guide troop
movements, to synchronize communication networks, and to enable
battlespace situational awareness, and to conduct search and
rescue missions.
DOD is committed to sustaining and modernizing GPS to
maintain and improve our military PNT capabilities. Several GPS
innovations are scheduled during the next 10-plus years,
including three new civil signals, enhanced encrypted military
signals, and a new constellation operational control segment,
which are scheduled to come on line by 2018 and then be
implemented systemwide into the GPS receiver populations over
the successive 5 or more years.
As DOD's chief information officer, I have the collateral
duty as the co-chair of the executive steering group of the
National Executive Committee for Space-Based PNT, along with my
counterpart from the Department of Transportation. The role of
that EXCOM [executive committee] is to advise departments,
agencies and the Executive Office of the President regarding
strategic policies, requirements, and security of all PNT
infrastructures, including GPS.
In response to the January 2011 Federal Communications
order that conditionally allowed LightSquared to unbundle their
ancillary terrestrial component restriction in the mobile
satellite services band adjacent to GPS, the PNT EXCOM tasked
the National Space-Based PNT Engineering Forum, or the NPEF, to
perform testing to ascertain the potential interference. As
General Shelton mentioned, that testing was performed at White
Sands Missile Range in Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico.
That report was completed on June 15th of 2011 and then
submitted to NTIA for their review and transmitted to FCC. The
test data indicated that proposed LightSquared terrestrial
operations would cause harmful interference to GPS operations.
GPS receivers of various types of manufacturer, operated not
just by DOD but by the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation
Administration, the State of New Mexico Public Safety,
commercial aviation, and precision farming systems showed
varying degrees of degradation of GPS accuracy, interruptions
to GPS signal acquisition, or total loss of GPS tracking and
position.
None of the parties cognizant of the NPEF testing dispute
that the LightSquared terrestrial network plan that was tested
by NPEF caused unacceptable levels of harmful interference to
GPS. The testing also showed a source of interference that was
due to the combined effect of the LightSquared dual-channel
signal. This inter-modulation product was generated on top of
the GPS L1 signal in its GPS band, interfering with GPS
receivers. This IMP [inter-modulation product] was caused by
the LightSquared dual-channel choice and its design, and not by
the designs or filtering limitations of the GPS receivers.
Subsequently, LightSquared and the GPS industry filed their
Technical Working Group report. That report also does not
contest the NPEF results, nor does it offer a mitigation
solution of the IMP interference. Instead, as has been
mentioned, LightSquared proposed to the FCC the recommendation
of an alternative terrestrial network that was not in the test
plans of either the NPEF or TWG [Technical Working Group] tests
and was not tested to any extent comparable to the dual-channel
tests.
LightSquared's modified proposal recommends launching
commercial services initially in only their lower 10 megahertz.
DOD at this time has not received a sufficiently clear and
complete description of a LightSquared lower 10 megahertz
deployment plan to professionally analyze its new aggregate
interference environment.
In addition, we are evaluating the effects of
LightSquared's terrestrial transmissions on the military's use
of the Inmarsat satellite systems for data and voice
communication. The LightSquared terrestrial system will
interfere with DOD usage if Inmarsat if appropriate mitigation
actions are not taken.
We are diligently working with Inmarsat to identify
mitigating techniques for reducing the potential interference
for military, land, maritime, and aeronautical missions and
communication requirements.
The Department will continue to work with its
administration partners and NTIA, as well as with Congress, to
address long-term solutions regarding the balance between
Federal spectrum requirements and the expanding demand for
mobile broadband services. We look forward to working with the
FCC, NTIA, and LightSquared to ensure that all further proposed
mitigations or alternatives for the LightSquared terrestrial
network are thoroughly tested to ensure no harmful interference
to GPS receivers or other military spectrum requirements. The
ability of GPS to operate without harmful interference remains
of paramount importance to the Department. Thank you for your
interest in the Department's efforts in this area, and I would
be glad to answer any questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Takai can be found in the
Appendix on page 49.]
Mr. Turner. Mr. Nebbia.
STATEMENT OF KARL NEBBIA, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Nebbia. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Sanchez, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, the President's principal advisor
on telecommunications and information policy, and manager of
Federal use of the radio spectrum.
As Associate Administrator for the Office of Spectrum
Management, I oversee this critical spectrum function. I am
pleased to discuss NTIA's efforts to ensure that critical uses
of GPS continue without interference.
In November of last year, LightSquared proposed to modify
its authorization for a mobile satellite service auxiliary
terrestrial component previously understood to be a satellite
service gap filler. This proposal requested authorization to
deploy, on a wholesale basis, a nationwide terrestrial network
with handsets that do not connect to the satellite system.
These operations would occur in two spectrum bands on either
side of the GPS range, with two signals within each of these
two bands.
This proposal represented the potential for increased
mobile broadband capacity and choice for all Americans.
However, LightSquared's proposal generated concern from the GPS
community that the network would cause interference to GPS
receivers. These concerns did not arise from LightSquared's
emissions spilling into the GPS band, but from the fact that
some GPS receivers would not adequately filter LightSquared
signals outside of the GPS band. Also, some other GPS
receivers, including precision receivers, improved their
accuracy by extending into the MSS [Mobile Satellite Services]
band.
On January 12th, NTIA advised the FCC that the Federal
agency concerns warranted a full evaluation. On the 26th of
January, the Commission granted LightSquared a waiver
conditioned on consultation with NTIA and the resolution of GPS
interference concerns. Between January and June, a Technical
Working Group co-chaired by LightSquared and the GPS Industry
Council; NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration],
via the Jet Propulsion Lab; RTCA [Radio Technical Commission
for Aeronautics], on behalf of aviation interests; and the
Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and
Timing, the EXCOM, all conducted tests of GPS devices in the
presence of LightSquared signals. These tests were based on
LightSquared's original plan to transmit two separate 10
megahertz base station signals within the band just below GPS.
On July 6th, NTIA submitted the results of the EXCOM test
showing that LightSquared's proposed operations would cause
interference to both Government and commercial GPS uses. NTIA
recommended that the FCC continue to withhold authorization to
commence commercial operations. The report of the Technical
Working Group reached similar conclusions.
As a result, LightSquared proposed to modify its plan and
use only the lower 10 megahertz channel. This change came too
late for full testing and evaluation by Federal agencies and
raised concern about applying critical resources to an evolving
proposal.
NTIA and the Federal agencies have been reviewing the test
data to determine whether the use of the lower 10 megahertz
would eliminate interference to general navigation and cellular
GPS receivers, and whether additional testing and analyses are
needed.
Everyone agrees that some timing and precision devices will
receive interference even if LightSquared uses only the lower
10 megahertz. Therefore, for those applications, some other
mitigation technique will have to be developed and tested.
Last week NTIA requested that the EXCOM work with
LightSquared to develop a test plan to study, by November 30th,
remaining concerns for general navigation and cellular
receivers, and we have provided that document as an exhibit
within our testimony.
Meanwhile, LightSquared is pursuing the design and
manufacture of a filter to mitigate impacts to precision
receivers. With respect to timing receivers, LightSquared has
identified an antenna with filter characteristics that may
provide a possible solution.
LightSquared has agreed that it will not commence
commercial operations until the Federal agencies test these
techniques and conclude that they prevent interference without
degrading the performance of the receivers.
The Administration intends to protect critical and national
security-relevant GPS services. Due to the need for additional
spectrum for mobile broadband, we will try to resolve these
interference issues to maximize use of the band.
We will, in coordination with the FCC, work to complete the
required testing or analysis and determine what strategies can
provide workable solutions. We await LightSquared's delivery of
a filter for the high-precision receivers and will seek prompt
agency testing and analysis of that solution when it arrives.
LightSquared has submitted a new proposal to the Commission
seeking to protect GPS operations based on an agreed signal
level on the ground. We will also review this approach as we
move forward.
In coordination with the Federal agencies, we will provide
thorough and expert input to this dialogue so that the American
public can extract the greatest possible benefit from the radio
spectrum.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I am
pleased to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nebbia can be found in the
Appendix on page 56.]
Mr. Turner. Mr. Russo.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY J. RUSSO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COORDINATION
OFFICE, SPACE-BASED POSITIONING, NAVIGATION AND TRAINING,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Russo. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Sanchez, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you.
The Global Positioning System has grown into a worldwide
utility whose multi-use services are integral to our national
and homeland security. Services dependent on GPS information
are now an engine for economic growth and improve both the
safety and the quality of life. The system is essential to
first responders and a key component to multiple critical
infrastructure sectors.
Since 1983, the United States has had a multi-use policy in
place for GPS. This policy has had strong bipartisan support,
and each successive administration has strengthened the
interagency participation in the program. In 2004, President
Bush issued a policy establishing a deputy secretary-level
executive committee, or EXCOM, to advise and coordinate on GPS
issues. Last year, President Obama signed a comprehensive
National Space Policy which left this EXCOM structure in place
but added emphasis and additional guidance in four key areas
related to GPS, and specifically addressed the issue of GPS
interference. This policy also directs the identification of
impacts to Government space systems prior to any reallocation
of spectrum for commercial, Federal, or shared use.
To execute the staff functions of the EXCOM and to assist
them in ensuring implementation of the President's policy
objectives, a National Coordination Office was established with
representatives from every department or agency with major
equities in GPS. I am the director of this interagency office.
On the 26th of January of this year, the FCC approved a
conditional waiver for LightSquared's high-powered broadband
network that the executive committee had warned might cause
significant interference to GPS applications. And with the
permission of the executive committee, I tasked interagency
working group called the NPEF to conduct modeling, simulation,
analysis, bench testing, chamber testing, and live sky testing
to evaluate the effects of LightSquared's transmissions on GPS
receivers.
The group was co-chaired by leaders in FAA and the Air
Force, but with supporting technical representatives from
across the interagency. And despite the numerous limitations
and constraints that I have listed for you in my written
testimony, the NPEF was able to complete the job they were
asked to do. They evaluated a wide range of representative
receivers against all three phases of LightSquared's proposed
deployment.
The answer is definitive: LightSquared's proposed system
will create harmful interference. The NPEF could not identify
any feasible option that would mitigate harmful interference
for all, or even most, GPS users and still allow LightSquared
to meet their system requirements.
Now, when the FCC granted the conditional waiver, they
directed the creation of a LightSquared-led working group to
conduct tests and resolve the interference concerns that the
EXCOM had raised. The FCC highly encouraged participation from
the Government, so 10 of our best technical experts from across
the interagency participated in this Technical Working Group,
or TWG, along with strong representation from across the
diverse GPS industry. The test results collected and analyzed
by this TWG were consistent with the results of the Government
NPEF test.
On June 29th, LightSquared submitted their TWG report
acknowledging the harmful interference their system would
create. And simultaneously, LightSquared submitted a separate
recommendations report outlining a proposed three-part
solution. The LightSquared recommendation report was not
reviewed or evaluated by the TWG, and all 10 of the Government
participants disagree with the assertion it makes about TWG
results.
LightSquared's three-part proposal is very constructive and
involves both lower authorized power and a rephasing of their
deployment so that the channel further from the border of GPS
comes first. This would decrease, but not eliminate, the number
and extent of initial impacts to GPS devices and allow more
time for the development of mitigation methods.
This new initial phase was not tested by the Government,
since it wasn't proposed until after we had submitted our
results. But yesterday, I did receive permission from the
executive committee to begin a new round of testing focused on
this new signal configuration.
In LightSquared's new proposal, they offered a standstill
for operating their second higher frequency channel, which does
impact all classes of GPS receivers. Now, just when they would
need to use the second channel was undefined. However,
LightSquared testified to Congress they were seeking a glide
path to using it within 2 to 3 years. Therefore, any necessary
mitigation measures would have to be in place by that
timeframe.
Further study is needed, and in progress, on the most
recent LightSquared proposals, and my office will support these
studies. I thank you for this opportunity to speak on this
issue of great strategic importance to the Nation and to over a
billion worldwide users of GPS. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Russo can be found in the
Appendix on page 71.]
Mr. Turner. Mr. Knapp.
STATEMENT OF JULIUS KNAPP, CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. Knapp. Good afternoon, Chairman Turner, Ranking Member
Sanchez, and members of the subcommittee.
My name is Julius Knapp, and I am chief of the Federal
Communications Commission Office of Engineering and Technology,
where I have been an engineer for 37 years.
OET [Office of Engineering and Technology] is the
Commission's primary resource for engineering expertise and
provides technical support to the chairman, commissioners, and
the FCC's bureaus and offices.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
Commission concerning the process for working with other
agencies to resolve spectrum interference issues and on
LightSquared. The FCC has managed America's commercial spectrum
since 1934, although our predecessor agencies were operating
since 1912. We have nearly 100 years of accumulated experience
in governing airways and ensuring that the services using our
Nation's valuable spectrum do not cause harmful interference to
one another. This work is a central part of our core mission.
As you are aware, the FCC and the NTIA share responsibility
for managing the radio spectrum. While the FCC is responsible
for use of the spectrum by the commercial sector, as well as
State and local governments, the NTIA is responsible for use by
the Federal Government, including the Department of Defense.
The FCC and NTIA have coordinated use of the spectrum by
various services, and prevented and resolved harmful
interference under a memorandum of understanding that has
worked effectively for more than 70 years.
My written testimony provides historical background on the
development of rules for the ancillary terrestrial component
service of the Mobile Satellite Service. There are two brief
points I would like to make. First, the provisions for
terrestrial service were first adopted in 2003 and affirmed in
2005 in an open rulemaking, in which GPS interference issues
were considered.
Second, an authorization was granted to LightSquared's
predecessors in 2004 to offer ancillary terrestrial service in
the L-Band spectrum adjacent to GPS. The Commission, in January
2011, granted LightSquared a conditional waiver of the rule
requiring an integrated satellite and terrestrial service.
Under this conditional waiver, customers of LightSquared's
wholesale mobile satellite and terrestrial service could
themselves offer standalone terrestrial service at retail,
provided LightSquared itself offers only a fully integrated
terrestrial and satellite service.
The waiver did not alter any of the provisions governing
LightSquared's terrestrial network and continued to require
LightSquared to provide a robust satellite service consistent
with the launch of its new satellite last November.
After LightSquared submitted its request, the GPS industry,
the NTIA, and other Federal agencies raised strong concerns
that LightSquared's base stations operating adjacent to the GPS
band would cause overload interference to GPS receivers. This
was a new issue that had not come up previously.
Accordingly, the conditional waiver stipulated that
LightSquared could not provide commercial service until the
Commission, in consultation with NTIA and working with the
agencies, is satisfied that the concerns about potential or
harmful interference to GPS have been resolved. The conditional
waiver also directed LightSquared to organize and participate
in a GPS interference Technical Working Group, in which
interested parties could work directly with LightSquared to
resolve potential GPS harmful interference concerns.
LightSquared filed the final report of the Technical Working
Group on June 30th, and the public comment period on that
closed on August 15th, although we have continued to meet with
all of the parties.
Based on the results of the working group's testing,
LightSquared submitted its recommendations to address the
interference problems. LightSquared, recognizing that the upper
portion of its band significantly interfered with GPS
receivers, proposed to operate only in the lower portion of its
band furthest away from GPS. Earlier this week, the
Commission's international bureau and the Office of Engineering
and Technology released a Public Notice which reflects the
Commission's determination, in consultation with the NTIA, that
additional targeted testing is needed to ensure that any
potential interference from commercial services offered by
LightSquared do not cause harmful interference of GPS.
In closing, I want to make absolutely clear that, as
Chairman Genachowski has said, and I believe it is in his
letter as well, the Commission will not authorize LightSquared
to begin commercial service if its operation would cause
harmful interference to GPS. The Commission and its staff would
never take, and have never taken, an action that would threaten
the safety or security of American citizens.
We will continue to work closely with the NTIA, the
Department of Defense, and the Federal agencies to assess
LightSquared's latest proposal and determine the viability of
technical solutions that would enable both services to coexist.
We would be certainly happy to keep the committee informed of
our progress, and I look forward to answering any of your
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knapp can be found in the
Appendix on page 85.]
Mr. Turner. Thank you so much, Mr. Knapp.
I appreciate your statement of that commitment. That is
why, of course, we are having this hearing. And we have four
witnesses before you who said that this system absolutely
affects our national security and our GPS, upon which we are
reliant, and so as we said before, we are certainly looking
forward to this being resolved so we can all have that
confidence that the FCC will recognize the clear and
unambiguous statements of the four people that spoke before
you.
General Shelton, you have been just incredible in helping
this committee to try to understand this and to come up to
speed on it. As we look to GPS, the operations of our military,
we look to you, the technical experts, to come and tell us, in
balancing these issues of technical capabilities, is there an
impact to our national security, and is there an impact to the
GPS on which we rely?
We appreciate your very clear statements and your
dedication in looking at testing and engineering requirements
so that when you have provided us your conclusion, that we can
all be confident in it.
In your prepared testimony you state, ``testing showed
unacceptable interference to all 33 high-performance receivers,
as well as certain military receivers, tested in the vicinity
of the LightSquared low band transmitter.''
In our classified briefing, you provided us with some
slides that are unclassified, and I have those here, and I
appreciate this representation of showing the interference that
is coming from the terrestrial system upon the GPS's frequency.
And I ask that this slide be included in the record of today
that shows that this encouragement or interference is really
the area where we start to see the problems in the operations
for GPS.
And then also, on slide 11, which comments on the proposal
of the lower 10 channel, your statement on this slide is, ``not
acceptable, based upon initial test results from both the
Engineering Forum and Industry Council reports,'' and then you
say more tests needed. I note, in your written testimony you
state, similarly, clearly this affects GPS even at their
proposal of the lower 10. So, with that, knowing that, both in
your testimony and the slide, there is a statement of
``additional testing needed,'' could you please tell us, going
forward, what would be the path for evaluating this option of
the lower 10 that is proposed by LightSquared?
And from what you have seen so far, what is your opinion as
to whether or not this is at all even a realistic option as you
continue to test it?
General.
General Shelton. Mr. Chairman, as we looked at that under
the previous testing we saw, certainly, interference even with
the lower 10. The TWG saw the same thing. They saw interference
in certain types of receivers--not all--but certain types of
receivers. The latest direction from the NTIA--and Mr. Nebbia
may want to talk more about this--but the latest direction is
to not test the high-precision receivers and the timing
receivers just yet because there are some mitigation options
that have been proposed, but aren't quite yet ready for prime
time; that is, filters on the high-precision receivers and a
special antenna on the timing receivers. We----
Mr. Turner. Now, before you go forward, I want you to
finish, so don't lose your thought process there, but to
clarify the issue of the filters, the filters are something
that you would have to do, not that they would have to do,
right? I mean, it doesn't go on LightSquared's system? It goes
on your system?
General Shelton. It does. LightSquared has proposed that
they could develop these filters.
Mr. Turner. And then you would have to put this in
everything?
General Shelton. Absolutely. Every precision receiver would
have to be retrofitted. How that might affect the overall
platform that it is on is an unknown.
Mr. Turner. And the concepts of any time that you are
modifying these systems, you add the issue of vulnerability to
the systems and all type of unintended consequences that we
can't be certain of, including the enormous cost that you would
be facing.
General Shelton. Enormous cost, time, integration testing
to thoroughly wring out these filters, if they are technically
feasible. And even with that, because there is a difference of
opinion, technical difference of opinion here, we believe that
the precision of those receivers would be impacted even in the
presence of that filter. There is, without getting too
technical here, there is a center frequency, and then there are
harmonics off that center frequency. It is those harmonics that
go out among other frequencies that are important for the
precision of those wideband receivers, if you will. Clipping
off those harmonics decreases the accuracy of the receiver. If
there is something else magic out there, we don't know about
it.
Mr. Turner. And that is an interesting point, because
certainly you are very aware of the existing engineering, that
the technology that is there--so to summarize for a moment,
what we have here is your unambiguous statement that
LightSquared system interferes. The two options that have been
proposed, the lower 10 is one that does not ameliorate the
interference, and the filters, both of which at this point seem
to be unacceptable options from your testimony.
And then I have to ask you a question that is, I think, a
little bit amusing, and I would like your thoughts or
reactions. We are going to go a little bit from the technical.
As you know, while we were sitting in the classified briefing,
one of the Members brought with them this giant ad in Politico
by LightSquared. And this ad says, ``Excuse me, you are in my
space.'' And in this picture, they have got these two guys on a
train and the one guy is leaning over in the other guy's space.
I think the guy who is infringing on the space is supposed to
be DOD and commercial users.
I think they are trying to indicate, General, that this may
be you on the train going into LightSquared's space. And this--
it was odd in the tone of the ad, because again it is not that
it is an issue of technical clarity; it was an ad of blame. And
so I have some questions for you. LightSquared argues that in
this ad they say, ``They're causing the problem. They've
ignored government standards for eight years. They're taking
advantage of an $18 billion subsidy.''
General, can I have your thoughts on these allegations? I
know you have seen the ad, too, and I think it is just very
curious, and I would just love your response.
General Shelton. Mr. Chairman, the frequency band that we
are talking about here has, by FCC rulings in the past, has
always been intended to be a ``quiet neighborhood,'' that GPS
could coexist with other signals of the same magnitude. GPS is
a very weak signal coming from space. It is a spread spectrum
signal. It takes very special processing by receivers to pull
that signal out of the background noise. If you have signals of
a similar strength to GPS, that is not a problem for the
receiver. However, if you put a rock band in the middle of that
very quiet neighborhood, it is a very different sort of
circumstance.
Does that reach into the spectrum that LightSquared was
assigned? Absolutely, it does, but that was intentional in the
design of the GPS receivers to, again, take those harmonics
that stretch out. So to say that the manufacturers aren't
adhering to a standard, if you look at what we think they are
considering to be the standard, that standard is about
broadcasts from the satellite, not about receiver design.
Mr. Turner. Well, I just want to point out also, then, my
interpretation of this graphic picture here, because I think
what is happening is not just that it is actually DOD and GPS
users that are being pushed away; with the LightSquared system,
according to current testing, no one else would be allowed on
the bus. So we are not even trying to share space. We are
having one completely block out the other.
I have additional questions. I know other members do. But I
will turn at this time to the ranking member.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you again to the witnesses.
General, could you elaborate on the impact of redesigning,
manufacturing, testing, integrating, modifying cost and time on
everything that would be affected if you--if there was a
technical solution to this and there was a prototype that
actually worked and you were convinced it worked, what would be
the timing and the cost, in your opinion, to DOD to fix just
our stuff that needs to work, continue to work?
General Shelton. We have not estimated costs. However, I
think it would be very safe to say that the cost would be in
the B's, billions of dollars. We believe that the timing would
probably be a decade or more to accomplish all this.
And the reason for that is, there are probably a million
GPS receivers out there in the military. Maybe even more than
that. But again, its use is so ubiquitous in weapons, in high-
performance platforms, in timing of computer networks and all
those sorts of applications that we take advantage of the GPS
signal. We would have to install this filter--again, if it is
technically feasible--we would have to thoroughly test it. We
might even have to do software modifications to accommodate it.
I mean, there is just a whole bevy of questions that are
unanswered at this point.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Knapp, would the FCC be the one who addresses the
question of who would pay for all this fix?
Mr. Knapp. The first focus is on, do you have a fix that
works, and how could it be implemented, and is it viable? And,
certainly, the judgments relative to the military systems would
have to be by Department of Defense.
Whether there is a way to pay for that and the timing of
it, we would have to be working with the parties to see if
there is a viable solution.
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Nebbia, given the technical complexities
and, as you probably can tell, the political sensitivities that
are arising, can you assure this committee that you and your
colleagues have the right ability and the right process to
effectively analyze and resolve this issue? What is your
comfort level? Because this is going to come to a head here
some time.
Mr. Nebbia. Thank you, Ranking Member Sanchez.
We certainly have an ability within NTIA to work with the
Federal agencies, including the General's team, who are experts
in dealing with GPS issues. There are quite a number of
agencies, including experts within the Department of
Transportation, NASA, and others. And certainly, under the
coordinated effort of the EXCOM, we have a significant resource
there to delve into these issues.
It is critical for us--I really can't speak to the
political issues in that sense--but that we work through the
factual and technical issues. That is what our team can do. We
can look at the technical problems that have arisen from this
proposal, and we can work through that through real testing,
through analysis, through modeling, to come up with answers. So
I think in that process we have, certainly, adequate
involvement of various Federal agencies. We have done a lot of
consultation back and forth with the Commission. We have the
Interdepartment Radio Avisory Committee, a committee of Federal
agencies, that supports us, in addition to the EXCOM that has
provided able input. So I think the ability there is to work
through it and to look for what solutions are, in fact,
available in the end.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
General Shelton, according to the FCC and LightSquared,
neither DOD nor GPS raised any concerns during the multiyear
process. Would you take this opportunity to fully explain why
it took so long for the Department and GPS to respond to the
significant terrestrial network?
General Shelton. Yes, ma'am. I don't know that it is
totally accurate to say that there were no concerns. I think
this was a very different business plan that was put forward,
and I do believe we were caught a bit off guard. The network
proposed originally was a space-based network, and then it was
space augmented by ground and then it became principally
ground. A very significant shift: 40,000 transmitters out there
is a very different business plan than just a few augmentation
transmitters.
Ms. Sanchez. And when did you really kind of start sticking
your foot in and say, ``Wait a minute, something is wrong here,
we need to be involved here''? At what point in this 8-year----
General Shelton. About January 2011, the January-February
timeframe this year is when we really started to get concerned.
Ms. Sanchez. And the last question--I know there are plenty
of members here who have questions. It is very well attended
here. The last question I have for all of you very quickly, do
you all each individually feel that your agencies have the
ability to work through this and that the interagency
communication and listening to each other is happening or do
you think there are breakdowns?
General Shelton. I think we have got good representation.
Ms. Takai. I would agree with General Shelton.
I think it is important to note that the PNT EXCOM has
really been the focal point for all of our discussion. And we
have done that very deliberately because it does include
representation from all of the parties. And I think being able
to work through that committee enables us to look at all of the
interests. And I think one of the interests that we haven't
talked about a lot here is our partnership with DOT and making
sure that we have the FAA concerns adequately registered as
well, because we are very dependent upon the commercial, and it
is very important that we have them included. So I think using
the PNT EXCOM and then having the close cooperation with NTIA
and FCC gives us the ability to have the open dialogue that we
need.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Mr. Nebbia. I agree. I think I already gave an answer along
this line. So I will just pass on to Tony and put him in the
hot seat.
Mr. Russo. Well, I concur with the other speakers.
We do have very strong participation from all of the
departments and agencies that are affected, and at very high
levels. We have had assistant secretaries, under secretaries,
deputy secretaries, personally working on this issue.
One area of caution I would have is that the technical
expertise on this mostly resides with General Shelton's folks.
We have a lot of people that are users of GPS but don't
necessarily understand how the black box works. So they can
tell you how important it is to their operation, but when it
gets down to the very detailed technical discussions with
LightSquared, we need help from the Air Force.
Mr. Knapp. I feel very confident in the process that we
have in place. What we have tried to do is engage all of the
experts in this.
We have had many tough problems before, I know in my
career, and at times, they have seemed unsolvable. You work
through it. You have a debate, and wherever the chips fall
based on the engineering is where it will come out.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Knapp.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, Madam, Mr. Russo.
Mr. Knapp, thank you for your statement that you would not
allow anything that would interfere with national security come
through with the FCC.
I want to go back to this letter. Mr. Nebbia, is that
correct? Is that how I say it? I am somewhat--I have read this
letter and just briefly.
But I want to read one of the sentences. ``Without waiting
for the interference issues to be resolved relating to high-
precision and timing receivers, we would like to move forward
to reach resolution of any remaining federal agency concerns
with respect to the cellular and personal/general-navigation
receivers.'' This is from--and it says to contact you if there
are any questions.
And it is signed by Lawrence Strickling, who I don't know.
But I have been in politics for 14 years. I have never seen
an agency advocate so strongly for something like this, unless
there was pressure from above or a relationship that was not
being disclosed. And I guess I would like for you to explain to
me why your agency is advocating with the strength, and going
to the lengths that you are, in advocating for this private
company when you have got a general sitting there--and you are
a graduate of the Naval Academy, as I understand. You have got
a general sitting there saying that what these people are doing
will affect national security, and yet we have got a Federal
agency that is advocating on behalf of a private business. Why
should the taxpayers be paying to prove these things? Why
shouldn't that private company be bearing the burden of the
expenses?
Mr. Nebbia. Thank you. Certainly, in this case, there is an
effort on both sides to come to a resolution.
I would not characterize NTIA's efforts on this part in any
way as advocacy, as one side or another but, in fact, to move
the proper people into place to work on the issue. We have had
to bring together agencies on our side, get together with the
Commission, talk to the GPS Industry Council, work with
LightSquared, and so on.
In this particular case, the situation we have is that we
know that there has been a proposed fix for a certain number of
the categories of GPS uses that will not be available for some
time. Our purpose here was to try to move the ball forward on
the other parts that we felt could be worked on at this point,
as opposed to waiting until some later date and getting back
into it. So we still have that difficulty ahead of us. The
precision uses, the timing uses will still have to be dealt
with in the time to come. But it seemed like an opportunity,
before then, for us to work specifically on these issues. The
agency----
Mr. Scott. Sir, I am down to about 2 minutes. Can you give
me another example of where your agency, the agency that you
work for, has advocated on behalf of a company, that the
Department of Defense has said that this particular issue
affects national security? Can you give me another example of
where your agency has written a letter with similar language,
without waiting for these issues to be resolved, that you want
the other agencies to move ahead with licensing this? Can you
give me an example of another company that you all have
advocated for to that level and strength?
Mr. Nebbia. Actually, the letter does not ask for us to
move ahead with licensing. It is moving ahead in this process
of testing. The NTIA regularly deals with difficult situations
in looking at new commercial interests and demands for radio
spectrum and the fact that, in some cases, we have to be
looking at spectrum currently occupied by the military. We are
engaged in that at this time. We have been engaged in it in the
past.
In this particular case, the fact that it involves one
company in this band, I can't say whether that is usual or
unusual. We generally are dealing with issues of broad issue
and broad policy.
Mr. Scott. Sir, the letter reads ``move forward to reach
resolution of any remaining Federal agency concerns.'' I have
never seen an agency, a State agency or a Federal agency,
advocate that strongly on behalf of any private sector company,
unless somebody's wheel was getting greased.
I mean, the fact that we are even here having this
discussion, I think, is absolutely ridiculous.
And, Mr. Knapp, I want to thank you for the commitment that
the FCC will not allow the licensing of anything that will
affect our national security.
General, I want to thank you for the work that you have
done on this to protect America.
I yield back.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
Mr. Garamendi and Dr. Fleming also would like to go before
the votes.
And if that is the case, then what we will do is, if these
two gentlemen can complete in the time in which we need to go,
we will conclude the hearing, and we will submit the remainder
of our questions for the record.
Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Perhaps the best way for me to proceed is
not to ask a question but, rather, to state what I believe to
be the situation. We have a very, very important system in
place, the GPS system. It involves all types of activities, all
of which have been mentioned here. It is, therefore, extremely
important, in my view, that that system, in all of its various
ways, be protected.
This goes to you, Mr. Knapp. It is not just the national
security through the military. It is the economic security and
the personal security of Americans and others around the world
that are at risk here.
So I would suggest in every way I can that you look way
beyond just the national security. My questions would go to
that area.
Secondly, this is going to be a very expensive process of
testing. We have a new company entering space occupied by
others. It seems to me that that new company ought to bear the
full cost of proving that it is not harming others.
It appears to me that is not the case. I have not heard
anything from any of you that the company is paying for the
testing that, it seems to me, is going to be both extensive and
expensive.
And I would like all of you to comment in writing about
what your costs of testing will be and where in your budgets
you have that money, or whether it is best that the new company
that wants to occupy this space should pay for the testing.
The subsequent question is, if the testing proves that
certain things can be done--antennas or filters--who, then,
pays for putting those into effect?
And I would like to have a written response from all of
you. Thank you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 115.]
Mr. Turner. Mr. Garamendi, thank you so much for your brief
statement.
Dr. Fleming.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will try to be brief also. I came in a little bit late
because I had another HASC [House Armed Services Committee]
meeting that overlapped with this one.
What I basically would like to know in a nutshell, just
frame, how did we get here on this? I know General Shelton made
reference to the fact that the company originally was going to
be primarily space-based and not terrestrially based, but it
reversed over time. Perhaps engineering, science led us to go
in that direction.
So can you give me a better explanation to encapsulate, how
did we get here? And we have got engineers; we have got
representatives from both sides. So I am open to anybody who
might want to----
Mr. Russo. I think I can add a little to that.
Since 1971, the band below GPS has been allocated for
Mobile Satellite Services. We have no problem coexisting with
that neighbor.
And in the orders you heard about earlier--and you may,
sir, have missed it, the oral testimony earlier--they talked
about adding an ancillary terrestrial component. That was done
for a very specific reason, to give the Mobile Satellite
Services operators additional flexibility. And specifically it
talked about a fill-in capability for gaps in coverage inside
buildings and in dense urban terrain. That is actually written
into the FCC orders on this, and that is what the company at
the time applied for, to give them some extra capability to
cover places where it might have a problem with coverage.
They also talked about, in answering complaints about this
new authority, they talked about the fact that they would be
limited in what they could do by a self-interference. In other
words, they were required to have handsets that talked to space
and terrestrial systems, and therefore, the company itself
argued that that would then limit what power they could put
out, and how many stations because, they would be interfering
with their own service.
So what we are talking about now is, through a series of
orders and amendments and mods [modifications] and
reconsiderations and waivers, over time, that foundation, the
assumptions that were made have changed, and we find ourselves
now in a situation that is different than----
Dr. Fleming. Could we have not contemplated this? Was it
just something that morphed gradually without anybody really
being able to contemplate that down the road, all these changes
and amendments would eventually get us in trouble?
Mr. Russo. Sir, I think there are pieces of this that there
could have been more discussion of along the way. But the big
piece was this last piece. This last piece changes it from a
space-based system with an ancillary fill-in capability to a
primary terrestrial system. And that is this last waiver, and
that is what that does.
Dr. Fleming. I see. Well, was it not possible to stay with
the original plan in a space-based system? Or did the company
just find out that that wasn't going to work as planned?
Mr. Knapp. I would largely agree with Mr. Russo, but I
would also say that things evolved on both sides with the
evolution of GPS and the expanded capabilities over time. This
is something that--I think your description was fair. It slowly
came about. The important thing is when we all understood that
there was a problem there, we put the brakes on the deployment
until we get it fixed.
Even, I think, with what we have learned here, the number
of base stations, if each one were to have caused interference
at 22 miles, I think everybody would agree that wouldn't have
been acceptable anyway.
Dr. Fleming. Right. Sure. Okay. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. And I will only ask one question
for the sake of time and with votes pending.
And this will to be you, General Shelton. Thanks for being
here. You may have addressed this earlier. Please accept my
apology if you have because I was chairing another
subcommittee, so I was not able to get here until a little bit
later. And this is a little more general of a question. What
are your concerns from a command and control perspective should
GPS signals be somehow impaired?
General Shelton. Congressman, if you are talking about the
broadest sense of command and control, clearly we count on GPS
precision as one of our key tenets of command and control,
knowing where our forces are, knowing where the adversary's
forces are at very precise locations, that is just fundamental
to everything we do in command and control and modern warfare.
So, without GPS, I think we back up quite a bit.
Mr. Lamborn. And even in the U.S., not a global, but just a
U.S. focus on this?
General Shelton. Yes, sir. We train the way we prepare to
fight. And if you take us back in training, you take us back in
the way we fight. So we have to be as realistic as we can in
training. And if you change the training environment to that
degree, I think it is a fundamental step backwards.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Turner. I want to thank all of our witnesses today. We
appreciate your participation. And we look forward to the
Chairman of the FCC providing us with additional answers to our
questions. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
September 15, 2011
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
September 15, 2011
=======================================================================
Statement of Hon. Michael Turner
Chairman, House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Hearing on
Sustaining GPS for National Security
September 15, 2011
Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to the Strategic
Forces Subcommittee's hearing on Sustaining GPS for National
Security.
I was planning to make the usual statement of appreciation
to the witnesses for their appearance here today, and to those
witnesses who took this issue seriously enough to be here--
General Shelton, Ms. Takai, Mr. Nebbia, Mr. Russo and Mr.
Knapp--I do thank you for your time and testimony.
That said, I have the unfortunate responsibility to inform
the subcommittee that Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Chairman Genachowski refused to appear today. I must also make
clear that I consider the Chairman's failure to show up today
to be an affront to the House Armed Services Committee.
Further, it appears to be symptomatic of a disregard by the
Chairman to the consequences of the FCC's January 26 waiver to
LightSquared. I trust Chairman Genachowski is doing something
very important this morning if he couldn't be here to discuss
the significant harm to national security that may result from
the FCC's action on January 26th of this year.
I appreciate that the Chairman is apparently willing to
provide personal responses to written Questions for the Record
submitted by this subcommittee, according to staff. But the
Chairman's priority should be the same as the subcommittee's:
``Sustaining GPS for National Security.''
With that unpleasantness out of the way, I wish to
introduce and express appreciation to the witnesses who are
here today:
LGeneral William Shelton, Commander of Air
Force Space Command--I note this is General Shelton's
second appearance before this subcommittee in as many
weeks . . . either the General really likes us or he's
working to accumulate his frequent flier miles;
LMs. Teresa Takai, Chief Information Officer,
Department of Defense;
LMr. Karl Nebbia, Associate Administrator,
Office of Spectrum Management, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration;
LMr. Anthony Russo, National Coordination
Office, Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and
Training, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; and
LMr. Julius Knapp, chief of the Federal
Communications Commission's Office of Engineering
Technology.
Mr. Knapp, I want to thank you for being here and I want to
be clear that neither I nor my colleagues have anything other
than gratitude for your service at the FCC; our concerns are
with Chairman Genachowski. Thank you all for appearing before
this subcommittee this morning.
Why are we here this morning? General Shelton, you might
remember this question. It was asked by a member of the
subcommittee during the classified briefing you provided all of
us last week on LightSquared-GPS test results.
A brief recap of how we got here. On January 26th of this
year, the FCC granted a conditional waiver of its own rules
allowing LightSquared to establish a terrestrial broadband
network and be freed of certain gating requirements which were
designed to keep any potential terrestrial service from
overwhelming the satellite spectrum LightSquared held.
As we now know, this network would operate with over 40,000
base stations operating at a frequency adjacent to that long
used by the Global Position System (GPS), at almost 5 billion
times the power of the GPS system.
The Chairman of the FCC knew there were concerns about the
proposed waiver for LightSquared, as he received a letter from
Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill Lynn on January 12, 2 weeks
before the waiver was issued. The Deputy Secretary wrote to Mr.
Genachowski that ``there is strong potential for interference
to these critical National Security Space Systems'' referencing
GPS, Inmarsat terminals, and Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry
operations. This letter also asked for Chairman Genachowski's
``personal attention on this matter.'' Without objection, this
letter will be made a part of the record.
We also know National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) Assistant Secretary Lawrence Strickling
wrote to Chairman Genachowski recommending that the FCC not go
forward with the LightSquared waiver request. Many have
observed that the FCC followed an irregular process on the
LightSquared waiver.
First, the National Legal and Policy Center stated in a
February 2, 2011, letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that,
``over the course of the past year, a series of odd decisions,
questionable meetings and procedural anomalies at the Federal
Communications Commission and White House highlight Mr.
Falcone's growing influence in the hallways of government.''
Mr. Falcone is the CEO of the hedge fund, Harbinger Capital
Partners, which owns LightSquared. Without objection, this
letter will be made a part of the record.
Additionally, in a March letter to Chairman Genachowski,
the Deputy Secretary of Defense, joined by the Deputy Secretary
of Transportation noted that ``the DOD and DOT were not
sufficiently included in the development of the LightSquared
initial work plan and its key milestones.'' This letter again
sought the FCC Chairman's personal attention. Without
objection, this letter will be made a part of the record.
And just yesterday, the Center for Public Integrity
released a report detailing, ``Emails show wireless firm's
communications with White House as campaign donations were
made.'' In my capacity as a member of the House Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, I will be asking Chairman Issa
and Ranking Member Towns to promptly investigate this matter.
We cannot afford to have Federal telecommunications policy,
especially where it affects national security, to be made in
the same way that the White House parceled out a half billion
dollars in loan guarantees to the failed Solyndra Corporation,
a large political campaign contributor of the President.
While there is clearly a concern about how the FCC has
conducted this process, those concerns are within the purview
of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Also outside the scope of today's hearing, but of
significant concern nontheless, is the impact to GPS receiver
manufacturers like Trimble Navigation in my home town of
Dayton, Ohio, which manufacturers GPS receivers for the
agriculture sector and heavy machinery producers like
Caterpillar.
But this subcommittee's main purview is national security,
and the national security consequences of the LightSquared
network are significant. As I mentioned, the concern in this
case is that LightSquared's proposed network of 40,000 base
stations around the U.S., which broadcast at an adjacent signal
frequency to the signal used by the GPS system, but at 5
billion times the signal strength, will render useless the
DOD's GPS receivers.
General Shelton, Commander of Air Force Space Command,
informed the HASC-Strategic Forces Subcommittee members in last
week's classified briefing that ``tests show LightSquared
signal causes significant interference to military GPS.''
Simply put, if the FCC gives LightSquared the final go-
ahead to build out its network, I fear the DOD's training
activities in the United States would come to an end. This
cannot be allowed to happen. As the members of the House Armed
Services Committee know, before U.S. troops are deployed, they
conduct extensive real-world training, which includes use of
GPS for orienteering of U.S. forces, locating friendly forces,
locating enemy forces, conducting search-and-rescue activities,
targeting of precision-guided ordnance, and calling in close
air support. None of these activities are possible without
DOD's high-precision GPS receivers, which would be most
affected by the LightSquared network.
As a Member of Congress, I can think of no higher
responsibility than to make sure U.S. military forces are fully
trained and equipped before they are deployed overseas to
Afghanistan, Iraq, or any place in harm's way. Likewise, and
this is something in all of our minds this close to the tenth
anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States,
significant harmful interference to the GPS system would be a
tremendous liability to our defense of the homeland. General
Shelton, I recall you making this point last week.
The Armed Services Committee's position as articulated by
the Turner-Sanchez amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2012 is that the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) should not grant LightSquared final approval
on the conditional waiver granted to the company on January 26,
2011, until the Commission has dealt with potential harmful
interference to the DOD's GPS receivers. LightSquared itself
has no apparent objection to this provision.
LightSquared has been making a vigorous case for its $4
billion investment in its proposed network build-out of a new
nationwide broadband service. That it is a bipartisan policy
objective to encourage more nationwide broadband service and
more competition is not in dispute . . . at least not before
the Armed Services Committee.
The question for this subcommittee today is how to evaluate
the harm identified by the Department of Defense to its $34
billion investment in GPS, GPS ground stations, and DOD high-
precision military GPS receivers. Again, it is more important
than money . . . this is about our warfighters who rely on this
technology for safety and their technological edge against
adversaries.
And let me state that harm to GPS once again very clearly:
``tests show LightSquared signal causes significant
interference to military GPS.''
As my colleagues know by now, on Tuesday of this week, the
FCC apparently came to the same conclusion, and issued a Public
Notice that the ``potential for harmful interference'' meant
that ``additional targeted testing is needed.'' I consider that
the understatement of this decade. But, we need to know what
this Public Notice actually means for DOD GPS users; this may
very well be an effort to push matters off by a few months
under the assumption Congress will be distracted by then. I
look forward to the testimony of the witnesses to get to the
bottom of this matter.
Statement of Hon. Loretta Sanchez
Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Hearing on
Sustaining GPS for National Security
September 15, 2011
I would like to welcome General Shelton, Mr. Knapp, Ms.
Takai, Mr. Nebbia, and Mr. Russo to this hearing on sustaining
GPS capabilities for national security. Thank you for being
with us today.
I would also like to note FCC Chairman Genachowski's
meeting with Chairman Turner and me on this important issue,
along with his letter to our subcommittee and the FCC
announcement this week that the Commission ``has determined
that additional targeted testing is needed to ensure that any
potential commercial terrestrial services offered by
LightSquared will not cause harmful interference to GPS
operations.''
I believe this provides initial reassurance that a
deliberate and careful process for assessing the question of
whether concerns about significant interference with GPS
capabilities can be satisfactorily resolved. GPS assets are
critical to national security and to our way of life.
While I support efforts to increase and improve broadband
service, we must ensure that plans for expanding this service
do not adversely impact crucial navigation, timing and
precision systems on which many of our nation's defense, as
well as commercial, capabilities depend.
Last week, at our request in preparation for this hearing,
General Shelton provided a closed briefing to our subcommittee
detailing the classified test results and concerns about the
consequences of GPS interference.
This hearing will provide the opportunity to better
understand several key issues, including:
LThe risks and impacts from LightSquared's
proposed terrestrial 4G network plan, and how
interference will affect weapons systems
LThe level to which our military depends on
GPS assets
LWhether this interference can be mitigated,
whether ``fixes'' would require recertification of
weapon systems, what the impact to the mission might be
and what the costs would be. It bears noting that DOD
investment in GPS stands at about approximately $35
billion taxpayers dollars
LWhat further testing remains necessary
LWhat the FCC's process is for deciding
whether to allow implementation of LightSquared's
proposal and what consultations are on-going with other
agencies
LHow the interagency process will ensure that
national security issues are considered and resolved
satisfactorily
These are important questions to assess in order to
understand what is at stake and consider a way forward that
will safeguard national security. Again, welcome. I look
forward to your testimony.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
September 15, 2011
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
September 15, 2011
=======================================================================
RESPONSES TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI
General Shelton. Testing on the initial LightSquared deployment
plan cost the Air Force approximately $500K. The first round of follow-
on testing is expected to cost the Air Force approximately $400K. These
figures include test asset costs, but do not account for travel or
personnel time. The costs for further rounds of testing have not been
estimated. None of this testing was budgeted for by AFSPC; this reduces
the resources available to support other testing and activities
required to provide space and cyber capabilities to our warfighters.
Determination of who will be obligated to pay for adding the
filters has not yet been made. This decision would likely be made by
the FCC. [See page 23.]
Mr. Nebbia. NTIA does not perform interference testing, so the
additional costs of testing on NTIA is de minimis and consists
principally of staff time to analyze test results, coordinate with the
agencies of the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), and
communicate views to the FCC. While LightSquared has indicated that it
is willing to share the cost of any proposed interference mitigation
approach for Federal users of precision and timing receivers, the
precise extent of the cost and the responsibility for paying such costs
has not been determined. [See page 23.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
September 15, 2011
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER
Mr. Turner. 1. I have learned that during the testimony
coordination process, you were asked to include the following in your
prepared remarks:
``The Administration believes that we must protect existing GPS
users from disruption of the services they depend on today and ensure
that innovative new GPS applications can be developed in the future. At
the same time, recognizing the President's instruction to identify 500
MHz of new spectrum for innovative new mobile broadband services, we
will continue our efforts at more efficient use of spectrum. Therefore,
in the short run, we will participate in the further testing required
to establish whether there are any mitigation strategies that can
enable LSQ operation in the lower 10MHz of the band. We also encourage
commercial entities with interests to work with LightSquared toward a
possible resolution, though any proposed mitigation must be subjected
to full testing. We hope that testing can be complete within 90 days.
The challenge of meeting the President's goal also depends on long-term
actions by Federal agencies in the area of research and development,
procurement practices that encourage spectrally-efficient applications,
and new policy development.''
a. Who, specifically, asked that this be included?
b. If you declined to include the language, in whole or in part,
please describe why.
c. Did anyone in the Administration attempt to persuade you to
include the language? Who?
General Shelton. 1a. As the hearing was rescheduled from 3 August
to 15 September, my written testimony entered the formal review process
twice. Both times the testimony followed a normal review process. For
the 3 August scheduled date, we received a paragraph to add to the
testimony from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), relayed
through our Air Force Legislative Liaison office (SAF/LL). The specific
author of the paragraph is unknown to us.
1b. I chose not to concur with this edit because I didn't feel an
Administration comment was appropriate for a military officer's
testimony. I was also concerned about the suggested timeline for
testing.
1c. This OMB paragraph was the only issue from the Administration
or other Government agencies that we were not able to resolve for the 3
August hearing (which was later postponed). We were in the process of
seeking resolution when the hearing was rescheduled and the review
process ended. During the testimony review process for the 15 September
hearing date, there was no suggested paragraph from OMB and the
testimony moved forward without significant issue.
Mr. Turner. 2. Are your responses to these QFRs your own views or
those of your agency? Have your responses been approved/edited by
anyone other than yourself or someone reporting to you?
General Shelton. 2. These responses are my own. The QFR responses
are sent forward for Air Force policy review and for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense policy review as part of the standard process for
Questions for the Record.
Mr. Turner. 3. Please describe when you and your agency became
aware of the LightSquared network proposal and its potential for
significant interference.
General Shelton. 3. In the January/February 2011 timeframe, AFSPC
became significantly concerned about LightSquared plans and began to
engage our higher authorities on the issue. This coincides with the
January 2011 order from the Federal Communications Commission granting
LightSquared a conditional waiver.
Mr. Turner. 4. LightSquared has recently announced that it has
solved the interference issue for 99.5 percent of GPS users.
a. Do you agree with this statement?
b. What is the solution?
c. Is it a solution for uses of GPS for which you are responsible?
d. Has it been tested by the Federal Government? If so, please
provide details.
General Shelton. 4a. We have insufficient data at this point to
assess the potential effectiveness of LSQ's proposed solution and have
not seen substantiation of the 99.5% figure. Even if the 99.5% figure
is statistically accurate, the .5% of affected GPS users represents a
group of military and high precision receivers that contribute
significantly to national defense, economic, business, scientific,
safety of life, and precision agriculture.
4b. The LSQ proposed solution includes transmitting on only the 10
MHz low channel (which is further away from the GPS spectrum),
operating at reduced power, and use of a filter for high precision and
timing devices.
4c. Further testing is required to determine the efficacy of these
solutions.
4d. The proposed filter is not yet available for testing so we
cannot draw any conclusions about its effectiveness. Additionally, we
have not done sufficient testing against LSQ's revised plan to
determine conclusively whether it will mitigate the risk to military
receivers. Initial testing identified significant interference even at
the 10 MHz low channel. We are in the process of planning and executing
follow-on testing on the revised plan as directed by the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). This round of
follow-on testing is focused on general navigation receivers and cell
phones. Additional testing on high precision and timing receivers will
be accomplished once the proposed LSQ filters are available.
Mr. Turner. 5. General Shelton, you stated that you believed that
LightSquared's filter ``solution'' could cost billions of dollars over
more than a decade.
a. Are you in a position to elaborate specifically as to costs,
timing, and potential degradation effects to military GPS receivers
from these filters?
b. And please describe what testing has occurred thus far with
LightSquared's filters and military GPS receivers.
c. Who would be obligated to pay for the costs of adding filters?
General Shelton. 5a. The estimate of billions I stated is based on
the required modification of a typical platform that uses GPS (an F-15
and associated precision weaponry for example). The typical costs and
timing factors include: development, manufacturing, installation and
testing. As we rotate platforms and devices between CONUS and OCONUS,
all affected platforms would require implementation of the filters
which could be expected to have significant mission impact. At this
point it is too early to describe specific costs, scope and impact of
the fixes that will be required by DOD systems because we have not been
able to comprehensively test weapons systems with the proposed
mitigations against the revised LSQ deployment plan.
5b. As the filters are not yet available, no testing has been done.
5c. Determination of who will be obligated to pay for adding the
filters has not yet been made.
Mr. Turner. 6. My understanding is that Mr. Russo solicited all
Federal Government agencies with GPS equities on their concerns with
the LightSquared proposal. Are you aware of any Government position
papers on LightSquared interference which have been provided to the
National Coordination Office or to the NTIA that have not been
forwarded to the FCC and then made public? If so, why were they not
made public immediately?
General Shelton. 6. We are not aware of any undisclosed position
papers; however, that question would best be answered by the National
Coordination Office or the NTIA.
Mr. Turner. 7. Mr. Nebbia--based on my reading of the Public
Notice, the FCC seems to be putting the weight of the Department of
Defense's equities entirely on your agency. In turn, in Assistant
Secretary Strickling's letter to Deputy Secretaries Lynn and Porcari,
the NTIA is instructing DOD and DOT to conduct additional testing and
develop solutions to the LightSquared problem. General Shelton, we are
counting on you to keep this committee informed of the results of
testing and we seek your expert and impartial judgment about the
results of those tests. Will you please contact the Subcommittee staff
or Ms. Sanchez or myself to provide us your recommendation as to
whether it is necessary to schedule another classified briefing with
you on GPS interference test results.
General Shelton. 7. We will keep the committee informed of
developments.
Mr. Turner. 8. We have heard that LightSquared believes the FCC
process, including all testing, can be wrapped up by November 30th.
However, the Strickling letter to Deputy Secretaries Lynn and Porcari
clearly describes a second phase of testing ``to evaluate proposed
mitigation plans for high precision and timing receivers which would
commence once LightSquared develops a filtering solution to avoid
interference with those classes of devices.''
Are you operating under any sort of commitment or obligation to
wrap up testing under a November 30th or other arbitrary date?
a. Do you have an expectation for when both phases of testing will
conclude?
b. Might there need to be further testing beyond the two phases
suggested in the Strickling letter of September 9th?
General Shelton. 8a. The PNT EXCOM 5 October letter to Mr.
Strickling (NTIA) acknowledged that the 30 November test deadline, for
cellular and personal/general navigation receivers, is ambitious and
the actual testing may be completed by the deadline date, but analysis
and final report may take longer. The NPEF test team is working
expeditiously to complete the testing of general navigation devices and
to have an initial executive draft report available by 30 Nov. At
present we expect the first phase of testing to be completed on 4 Nov.
The second phase of testing is dependent upon LSQ filter availability.
We do not have an estimate for the filter availability at this point so
I cannot provide an estimate for completion of the second phase
testing.
8b. NTIA's intent as expressed in their 9 September letter is for
testing to be ``conclusive and final'' with respect to assessing the
impact of LSQ's revised proposal. Our understanding is LSQ's final
deployment plan may still require the upper 10 MHz channel. If true,
further testing would be required.
Mr. Turner. 9. LightSquared has proposed, as part of its ``lower 10
MHz'' option a ``standstill'' on the upper 10 MHz of the spectrum
adjacent to the GPS signal. At the same time, LightSquared is said to
believe that it needs access to its full spectrum, both the lower and
the upper, to be profitable.
a. Please explain what the ``standstill'' means and what terms
LightSquared is proposing for the ``standstill.''
b. Has LightSquared indicated the ``upper 10'' of the spectrum is
completely, permanently off-the-table? Is that what the ``standstill''
means?
c. If the ``standstill'' was only a matter of a few years, what
would that mean to your agencies?
d. Should Congress, or the FCC, codify somehow the terms of the
``standstill'' if it is ultimately determined that the ``lower 10 MHz''
option is acceptable?
e. Please provide a specific description of the defense equities
regarding LightSquared's ``lower 10'' proposal, for the near term and
into the future.
General Shelton. 9a. While we interpret ``standstill'' to mean
temporary halt to deployment and operation in the upper 10 MHz band of
LSQ's two authorized bands, we expect FCC to clarify.
9b. LSQ has not given any formal indication that they intend to
remove the upper 10 band from their final deployment plans.
9c. It has been agreed by both LSQ and the GPS community that the
upper 10 MHz band causes unacceptable interference to GPS. Until an
acceptable mitigation solution is identified and implemented, operation
in that band would result in the level of interference described in my
testimony. Assuming an acceptable solution can be found, I estimate it
would take many years to implement across DOD.
9d. I believe it is essential the FCC clearly codify the terms of
the ``standstill.''
9e. We are still in the process of assessing the impacts of the
``lower 10'' proposal. Initial NPEF testing of the proposal indicated
significant interference concerns for DOD receivers. The initial
testing was limited with respect to the types of devices tested but the
interference noted was applicable to aviation and maritime
applications.
Mr. Turner. 10. Please give us an idea of the size and scope of the
GPS system to include applications and users. Please elaborate to the
extent possible in an open hearing on the military capabilities that
rely on GPS.
General Shelton. 10. The Global Positioning System is DOD's largest
satellite system currently consisting of 30 operational satellites.
Total expenditure for the GPS program since its inception is $34B. It
provides 24/7 positioning, navigation and timing services to the entire
world, free of charge. GPS is integrated into nearly every facet of
U.S. military operations and is essential to Federal aviation, first
responders, precision agriculture, banking, cell phone service, and
automobile/personal navigation systems. There are over a million DOD
GPS receivers and it has been estimated that there are more than 4
billion users worldwide.
Mr. Turner. 11. Describe how GPS is used by the military and the
degree of dependence the military has on GPS. Is the military's use of
GPS primarily overseas and in theater, or is the military also
dependent on GPS within the continental United States (where
LightSquared plans to deploy its communications services)?
General Shelton. 11. GPS is integrated into nearly every facet of
U.S. military operations. Combat troops, military aircraft (manned and
unmanned), naval vessels, high speed communications networks, and
precision guided munitions all depend heavily on the accuracy,
availability and reliability of GPS. Our primary military uses are
overseas but our aircraft support CONUS and North American defense
missions. The military also supports CONUS search & rescue and drug
interdiction operations (Coast Guard operations are a prime example).
Additionally, our training missions, development and testing of new and
modified systems take place primarily in CONUS. Military equipment and
platforms rotate between CONUS and OCONUS and must therefore be
completely interoperable with other U.S. equipment as well as with that
of our allies. As LSQ's deployment covers a significant portion of the
U.S., the vast majority of our CONUS operations, to include combat
training and preparation, would be impacted.
Mr. Turner. 12. What is the DOD's total investment in GPS,
including satellites, ground stations, receivers, etc?
General Shelton. 12. We estimate the total expenditure for the GPS
program since its inception at $34B.
Mr. Turner. 13. LightSquared would operate in a different part of
the spectrum (1525-1559 megahertz) than GPS (1559-1610 megahertz). Why
is there an interference problem when the two systems would operate in
different, but neighboring, parts of the spectrum?
General Shelton. 13. The original deployment calls for nearly
40,000 transmitters operating in the frequency band immediately
adjacent to GPS. With potential transmitter spacing of .25 to .5 miles
apart in cities, the LSQ transmit signal will be over 5 billion times
more powerful than the GPS signal received from space. Essentially, the
LSQ signal would overpower the GPS signal causing receivers to become
unable to isolate the GPS signal from the ``noise'' caused by the more
powerful LSQ signal. It is also important to note that in order to
achieve the greatest possible accuracy, high precision GPS devices are
designed to ``listen'' to sidelobes of the GPS signal that extend
outside of the GPS band. This design feature has not been an issue in
the past as GPS receivers can easily distinguish the GPS signal from
those in adjacent bands so long as the signals are of comparable
strength. Previously, only such signals were allowed in these frequency
bands.
Mr. Turner. 14. What is the magnitude of the harmful interference
and the national security implications of such interference? Discuss
the results of the Department's testing and any specific examples that
substantiate these observations.
General Shelton. 14. GPS is used by all Services, from ground
forces, to precision-guided munitions, to synchronization and security
of communications networks, to search and rescue operations, to
humanitarian relief operations. GPS is also used by the Department of
Homeland Security for National border and maritime security.
As discovered during testing of the original LightSquared
deployment plan, aviation receivers operating as far as 7.5 miles from
LightSquared transmitters completely lost the GPS signal and were
degraded out to distances of more than 16.5 miles. For two
representative receivers tested by the FAA, results also showed GPS
would be completely unusable for an aircraft 500 feet above the ground
in an area spanning Stafford, Virginia through Washington and
Baltimore, and out to Frederick, Maryland.
High precision GPS receivers such as those used for surveying and
geological study requiring precise measurements were adversely affected
out to 213 miles and totally lost the GPS signal out to 4.8 miles.
Based on testing performed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a
class of receivers used in space to conduct certain types of
atmospheric measurements would be unusable up to 12% of the time while
in their typical orbits.
The State of New Mexico E-911 Program Director, who sent several
GPS-equipped emergency and police vehicles to the test, stated in a
letter to AFSPC that their equipment showed ``the LightSquared network
will cause interference to GPS signals and jeopardize 911 and public
safety.''
Actual test results for the original LightSquared deployment plan
indicated significant degradation to every receiver-type tested. Most
units tested completely lost their GPS service at some point. The
specific military receiver test results are classified, but the results
were consistent with the other receiver test results.
Mr. Turner. 15. The reviews undertaken suggest that there are
certain GPS applications that, even with modification or complete
redesign, would still not be able to perform their current mission in
the presence of such network broadcasting directly adjacent to the GPS
L1 band. What applications?
General Shelton. 15. At present there is no proven/tested
mitigation that will resolve the interference issues for high precision
devices even under the revised LSQ deployment plan (``Lower 10'').
Proposed filters have not yet been made available for testing. It is
unclear if the proposed filters would impact military receiver accuracy
for our high precision systems. This would be determined through
extensive testing. No mitigations have been identified to resolve
interference issues for any type of receiver with respect to LSQ
operations at the upper 10 MHz band.
Mr. Turner. 16. Assuming FCC provides authorization for
LightSquared to move forward with its deployment plans, as outlined in
its November 2010 filing, how would this build-out affect military
systems and users in the near-term?
General Shelton. 16. Testing results demonstrated empirically that
the LightSquared signals operating in the originally proposed manner
would significantly interfere with all types of receivers tested.
Specific military receiver test results are classified, but the results
were consistent with other receiver results. Impacts would be expected
to all Services' and Allies' ground forces, over 290,000 hand-held
navigation receivers, combat aircraft, search and rescue aircraft,
remotely piloted aircraft and precision guided munitions.
Mr. Turner. 17. Does LightSquared's June 30, 2011, submission to
the FCC provide sufficient information on its ``lower 10'' proposal for
your organizations to determine whether the proposal mitigates GPS
interference?
General Shelton. 17. We have sufficient information on the lower 10
to begin initial testing. For the longer term, we need to better
understand specific LSQ deployment plans to determine potential
impacts.
Mr. Turner. 18. Is your organization concerned that the FCC can
provide final approval for LightSquared operations prior to resolving
the GPS interference issues?
General Shelton. 18. Thus far, the FCC has not granted final
approval and has indicated that it will not do so until the GPS
interference issues are satisfactorily resolved. The NTIA reported in a
September 9, 2011, letter to Deputy Secretary of Defense Lynn and
Deputy Secretary of Transportation Porcari that there is agreement by
both LSQ and the GPS community that operations in the lower 10 MHz
signal will cause unacceptable interference to high precision
receivers. This letter also documents LSQ statements that it will not
commence commercial operations unless and until Federal agencies test
the LSQ proposed filter and conclude that it is an effective mitigation
for the high precision receivers. It is acknowledged by all parties,
including LSQ, that operations in the upper 10 MHz band are currently
unacceptable for all GPS applications.
I agree with the NPEF recommendation to rescind the FCC's waiver.
Although high precision receivers are a small percentage of all
receivers in use, their functions are vital to military operations in
support of national defense. At an absolute minimum it would be helpful
for the FCC to formally order that operations in the upper 10 MHz band
be prohibited until an acceptable solution can be found and
implemented. The implementation timeline should be based on input
provided by the impacted users.
Mr. Turner. 1. I have learned that during the testimony
coordination process, you were asked to include the following in your
prepared remarks:
``The Administration believes that we must protect existing GPS
users from disruption of the services they depend on today and ensure
that innovative new GPS applications can be developed in the future. At
the same time, recognizing the President's instruction to identify 500
MHz of new spectrum for innovative new mobile broadband services, we
will continue our efforts at more efficient use of spectrum. Therefore,
in the short run, we will participate in the further testing required
to establish whether there are any mitigation strategies that can
enable LSQ operation in the lower 10MHz of the band. We also encourage
commercial entities with interests to work with LightSquared toward a
possible resolution, though any proposed mitigation must be subjected
to full testing. We hope that testing can be complete within 90 days.
The challenge of meeting the President's goal also depends on long-term
actions by Federal agencies in the area of research and development,
procurement practices that encourage spectrally-efficient applications,
and new policy development.''
a. Who, specifically, asked that this be included?
b. If you declined to include the language, in whole or in part,
please describe why.
c. Did anyone in the Administration attempt to persuade you to
include the language? Who?
Mr. Nebbia. 1. My testimony went through the standard review
process overseen by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which
includes review by other Federal agencies and entities of the Executive
Office of the President. As with all testimony and other similar
documents, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) welcomes input from other Federal entities but
determines on its own which, if any, suggestions to incorporate, in
full or in part. We received the text cited above both from the
standard legislative interagency clearance process that is overseen by
the Office of Management and Budget and through the Office of Science
and Technology Policy. NTIA chose not to include the statement
regarding the completion of testing within 90 days in its final
testimony. The final NTIA testimony reflects the views of the NTIA as
the Administration's technical and policy expert on telecommunications
and information policy.
Mr. Turner. 2. Are your responses to these QFRs your own views or
those of your agency? Have your responses been approved/edited by
anyone other than yourself or someone reporting to you?
Mr. Nebbia. 2. The responses to the QFRs reflect my views, which
are consistent with the views of the NTIA.
Mr. Turner. 3. Please describe when you and your agency became
aware of the LightSquared network proposal and its potential for
significant interference.
Mr. Nebbia. 3. NTIA became aware of the potential for interference
in November 2010, when LightSquared submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) an application for modification of its
existing Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) authorization to enable
it to deploy, on a wholesale basis, a nationwide 4th generation (4G)
terrestrial wireless broadband network with handsets that do not
include the satellite service. Following the application for
modification, several Federal agencies expressed concerns relating to
potential interference. In light of these concerns, NTIA wrote the FCC
in January 2011 stating the Administration's position that LightSquared
should not be allowed to move forward to commence commercial operations
unless interference issues were resolved.
Mr. Turner. 4. LightSquared has recently announced that it has
solved the interference issue for 99.5 percent of GPS users.
a. Do you agree with this statement?
b. What is the solution?
c. Is it a solution for uses of GPS for which you are responsible?
d. Has it been tested by the Federal Government? If so, please
provide details.
Mr. Nebbia. 4. In response to LightSquared's revised proposal to
operate in only the lower 10 megahertz signal of the Mobile Satellite
Service (MSS) band, NTIA requested, in a September 9, 2011, letter,
that the National Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning,
Navigation, and Timing (ExCom) work with LightSquared to develop a test
plan and conduct tests to measure interference to cellular and
personal/general navigation receivers by November 30, 2011. This
testing on cellular and personal/general navigation receivers is now
complete. NTIA has received the test data and is analyzing it as
expeditiously as possible. In addition, NTIA's letter noted that
LightSquared acknowledged that its modified operating proposal to use
only the lower 10 megahertz signal would cause unacceptable
interference to high-precision and timing receivers. Accordingly,
LightSquared is proceeding to procure the design and manufacture of a
filter to mitigate these impacts. LightSquared agreed that it will not
commence commercial operations unless and until the Federal agencies
test the filter and conclude that it is effective at eliminating
unacceptable overload without degrading the precision performance of
the receivers. With respect to timing receivers, LightSquared has
identified the PCTEL antenna as a possible solution to mitigate
interference. LightSquared has acknowledged that the Federal agencies
need to perform a more rigorous review of the effectiveness of this
antenna in mitigating interference without degrading the performance of
timing receivers. Accordingly, even if the analysis of the tests we
requested on September 9 shows that impacts to general navigation and
cellular can be mitigated, there will need to be additional testing to
evaluate proposed mitigation plans for high-precision and timing
receivers which would commence once LightSquared develops a filtering
solution to avoid interference with those classes of devices. However,
if analysis does not point a path to mitigation of interference effects
to general navigation and cellular, the testing of high precision and
timing devices may not be warranted.
Mr. Turner. 5. General Shelton stated that he believed that
LightSquared's filter ``solution'' could cost billions of dollars over
more than a decade. Who would be obligated to pay for the costs of
adding filters?
Mr. Nebbia. 5. While LightSquared has indicated that it would share
the cost of any proposed interference mitigation approach for Federal
users, the precise extent of the cost and the responsibility for paying
such costs has not been determined. State and local governments as well
as commercial users may be responsible for the full costs of the
filters.
Mr. Turner. 6. In a September 29, 2011, Washington Post article by
Cecilia Kang, it was reported that LightSquared chief executive Sanjiv
Ahuja said during an interview on C-SPAN's ``The Communicators'' that
the company is offering Federal agencies ``a sufficient amount of money
to replace most receivers or fix most receivers out there.''
a. Please provide an estimate of how much money LightSquared would
have to spend to ``replace most receivers or fix the Federal
Government's GPS receivers.''
b. How much has the United States Government spent on its GPS
receivers?
c. How much have GPS users other than the United States spent on
their GPS receivers?
Mr. Nebbia. 6. NTIA does not have the information, including the
extent and cost of agency GPS uses as well as sufficient detail
regarding LightSquared's proposed deployment plan, all of which would
be necessary to estimate the replacement costs you describe.
Mr. Turner. 7. My understanding is that Mr. Russo solicited all
Federal Government agencies with GPS equities on their concerns with
the LightSquared proposal. Are you aware of any Government position
papers on LightSquared interference which have been provided to the
National Coordination Office or to the NTIA that have not been
forwarded to the FCC and then made public? If so, why were they not
made public immediately?
Mr. Nebbia. 7. NTIA received input from some Federal agencies
regarding the potential impact of LightSquared's original plan. Other
agencies provided input regarding the FCC public notice in July. NTIA
has also requested information regarding agencies' use of precision and
timing receivers. Consistent with NTIA's mission to ensure efficient
and effective use of spectrum while protecting critical Federal
Government operations, NTIA regularly consults with agencies on
important spectrum policy matters. NTIA values the candid input of
agencies, which NTIA, as the manager of Federal spectrum use, utilizes
as a critical input into its decision-making. NTIA does not typically
release to the public the pre-decisional agency input it receives.
NTIA's final views will be provided to the FCC and made part of the
public record in this proceeding.
Mr. Turner. 8. Based on my reading of the Public Notice, the FCC
seems to be putting the weight of the Department of Defense's equities
entirely on your agency. In turn, in Assistant Secretary Strickling's
letter to Deputy Secretaries Lynn and Porcari, the NTIA is instructing
DOD and DOT to conduct additional testing and develop solutions to the
LightSquared problem.
a. Can you please lay out what options are available to the NTIA to
ensure that the FCC does not finalize a rule that allows interference
with the DOD's precision receivers?
b. Is there any circumstance in which General Shelton would say he
believes there to be harmful interference to GPS, regardless of the
mitigation solution offered by LightSquared, and the FCC would be
permitted to go ahead and remove the condition on the January 26
waiver? Put another way, what are the NTIA's options to block the FCC
from finalizing the LightSquared waiver?
Mr. Nebbia. 8. Beginning last January and continuing to this day,
NTIA has expressed serious concerns on behalf of Federal entities
regarding potentially harmful interference to GPS-reliant systems from
LightSquared's proposed terrestrial operations and has urged the FCC
not to permit LightSquared to commence operations until those concerns
are resolved. NTIA continues to work with the FCC, Federal entities,
and industry on a data-driven, engineering-based approach to addressing
interference concerns. The FCC's January 26, 2011, Waiver Order stated
that the FCC would not allow LightSquared to commence operations until
``the Commission, after consultation with NTIA, concludes that the
harmful interference concerns have been resolved and sends a letter to
LightSquared stating that the process is complete.'' \1\ NTIA
appreciates that the FCC takes very seriously the concerns raised by
NTIA and the Federal agencies in this matter, as well as its commitment
to ensure that these concerns are resolved before permitting
LightSquared to begin commercial operations. We look forward to
providing thorough, expert input to the Commission as it moves toward a
final decision in this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ LightSquared Subsidiary LLC; Request for Modification of its
Authority for an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, SAT-MOD-2010118-
00239; Call Sign: S2358, Order and Authorization (Order), 26 F.C.C.
Rcd. 566 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Turner. 9. We have heard that LightSquared believes the FCC
process, including all testing, can be wrapped up by November 30th.
However, the Strickling letter to Deputy Secretaries Lynn and Porcari
clearly describes a second phase of testing ``to evaluate proposed
mitigation plans for high precision and timing receivers which would
commence once LightSquared develops a filtering solution to avoid
interference with those classes of devices.'' Please explain the
significance of November 30th.
Mr. Nebbia. 9. In response to LightSquared's revised proposal to
operate in only the lower 10 megahertz signal of the MSS band, NTIA
requested, in a September 9, 2011, letter, that the ExCom work with
LightSquared to develop and implement a test plan to measure
interference to cellular and personal/general navigation receivers by
November 30, 2011. Based on NTIA's technical expertise, we believe this
is an appropriate amount of time for the testing. This phase of testing
on cellular and personal/general navigation receivers is now complete.
NTIA has received the test data and is analyzing it as expeditiously as
possible. NTIA will consider all available data before proposing any
recommendations on behalf of the administration with respect to
commercial deployment of the LightSquared network. But that is not all
the testing that needs to be done. As described in the September 9
letter and in my response to Question 4, there will later need to be an
additional phase of testing to evaluate proposed mitigation plans for
high-precision and timing receivers which would commence once
LightSquared provides a filtering solution to avoid interference with
those classes of devices. The testing will also evaluate the impact of
the filtering solution on receiver performance. However, if analysis
does not point a path to mitigation of interference effects to general
navigation and cellular, the testing of high precision and timing
devices may not be warranted.
Mr. Turner. 10. LightSquared has proposed, as part of its ``lower
10 MHz'' option a ``standstill'' on the upper 10 MHz of the spectrum
adjacent to the GPS signal. At the same time, LightSquared is said to
believe that it needs access to its full spectrum, both the lower and
the upper, to be profitable.
a. Please explain what the ``standstill'' means and what terms
LightSquared is proposing for the ``standstill.''
b. Has LightSquared indicated the ``upper 10'' of the spectrum is
completely, permanently off-the-table? Is that what the ``standstill''
means?
c. If the ``standstill'' was only a matter of a few years, what
would that mean to your agencies?
d. Should Congress, or the FCC, codify somehow the terms of the
``standstill'' if it is ultimately determined that the ``lower 10 MHz''
option is acceptable?
Mr. Nebbia. 10. LightSquared has not yet clearly explained its
definition of temporary ``standstill'' and if or when the standstill
would cease. However, LightSquared's December 12, 2011, filing with the
FCC indicated that they would not use the upper 10 MHz without the
concurrence of the PNT ExCom. We anticipate that this would be among
the items that the FCC should clearly and fully articulate in its final
determination in this matter.
Mr. Turner. 11. LightSquared's business plan calls for providing
service to 260 million people by 2015. If LightSquared limited its
network operations to its ``lower 10'' proposal, including lower power
levels, how much of its business plan does it achieve? Does it need
both the ``lower 10'' and ``upper 10'' megahertz bands to realize full
coverage of 260 million people?
Mr. Nebbia. 11. NTIA defers to LightSquared for specific questions
relating to its business plan.
Mr. Turner. 12. Part of this proposal is a ``standstill'' on the
use of the upper 10 MHz spectrum. What is a ``standstill'' and how
would it work?
Mr. Nebbia. 12. LightSquared proposed to modify its original
deployment plan to use only the lower 10 megahertz signal of the MSS
spectrum in its initial deployment and operate its base stations at
lower power. In addition, LightSquared agreed that it would not operate
(i.e., ``standstill'') its terrestrial component signal in the upper 10
megahertz immediately adjacent to the GPS band. LightSquared has not
yet clearly explained its definition of ``standstill'' and if or when
the standstill would cease. However, LightSquared's December 12, 2011,
filing with the FCC indicated that they would not use the upper 10 MHz
without the concurrence of the PNT ExCom.
Mr. Turner. 13. It has been said by the FCC, including the
Chairman, that the FCC handles interference issues all the time, so we
can trust it to handle this one. This is a troubling statement, as it
seems to be suggesting that this case is a routine matter. Mr. Nebbia,
is it the public interest for the United States to have a GPS system
that operates free of harmful interference? Is it the public interest
for the U.S. to have set the global standard in precision, navigation
and timing?
Mr. Nebbia. 13. GPS provides services and benefits of great utility
and value to the nation and NTIA is committed to protecting GPS users
from disruption. As the manager of Federal agency spectrum use, NTIA is
focused on enabling Federal agencies to perform their missions while
ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, that those agencies use and
share spectrum efficiently and effectively. Beginning last January and
continuing to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on behalf
of Federal entities regarding potentially harmful interference to GPS-
reliant systems from LightSquared's proposed terrestrial operations and
has urged the FCC not to permit LightSquared to commence operations
until those concerns are resolved. At the same time, NTIA is
collaborating with the FCC to identify and make available over the next
decade an additional 500 megahertz of spectrum for fixed and mobile
wireless broadband by either reallocating or creating opportunities to
share spectrum currently used by commercial or Federal users. The goal
is to nearly double over the next decade the amount of spectrum that is
currently available for commercial wireless broadband. By doing so, the
NTIA and FCC will help spur innovation, expand economic growth and job
creation, and preserve America's global technology leadership. NTIA is
working diligently to consider all available data in order to address
these goals in the most rapid and responsible manner possible.
Mr. Turner. 14. The subcommittee has asked Mr. Knapp if the FCC has
discussed with LightSquared whether it will include technology by two
firms linked to the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army, Huawei
and ZTE Corp., in this 4G nationwide network, assuming it is approved
in some configuration. Will you please take this back to LightSquared
and provide a written response to this Committee for the record of the
hearing?
Mr. Nebbia. 14. NTIA recommends that the Committee request such a
written response directly from LightSquared.
Mr. Turner. 15. Please give us an idea of the size and scope of the
GPS system to include applications and users. Please elaborate to the
extent possible in an open hearing on the military capabilities that
rely on GPS.
Mr. Nebbia. 15. GPS, and the innovation derived from its
application, provides services and benefits of great utility and value
to the nation, including for military and public safety purposes that
protect the homeland and save lives. GPS technologies impact finance,
agriculture, military, public safety, transportation, maritime, energy,
and nearly every critical economic and social activity. NTIA is
committed to protecting GPS users from disruption and continues to work
with the FCC, Federal entities, and industry on a data-driven,
engineering-based approach to addressing interference concerns.
Mr. Turner. 16. LightSquared would operate in a different part of
the spectrum (1525-1559 megahertz) than GPS (1559-1610 megahertz). Why
is there an interference problem when the two systems would operate in
different, but neighboring, parts of the spectrum?
Mr. Nebbia. 16. LightSquared's existing satellite operations
utilize relatively low-powered, satellite-based transmissions that do
not create harmful interference to GPS operations in the adjacent band.
By contrast, LightSquared's proposed terrestrial-only operations would
utilize a very large number of high-powered, ground-based
transmissions. It is the combination of significantly more high-power,
ground-based transmitters, combined with the proximity to GPS
receivers, that result in the interference. For a more detailed
explanation of the causes of this interference, please see my September
15 testimony before your Subcommittee, available at: http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2011/testimony-karl-nebbia-hearing-
sustaining-gpsnational-security-0.
Mr. Turner. 17. The reviews undertaken suggest that there are
certain GPS applications that, even with modification or complete
redesign, would still not be able to perform their current mission in
the presence of such network broadcasting directly adjacent to the GPS
L1 band. What applications?
Mr. Nebbia. 17. The tests performed thus far indicate that many
precision and timing devices would be impacted by LightSquared's use of
the lower 10 MHz. However, these results are based on current
technology and do not take into account any proposed filter solution.
Unless and until LightSquared proposes a filtering solution, we cannot
say whether the precision and timing systems would be impaired even
after making modifications or redesigning the devices.
Mr. Turner. 18. Is LightSquared allowed to build out a terrestrial
network today? What are the limitations, if any? Under what
circumstances could/would buildup be stopped? Assuming FCC provides
authorization for LightSquared to move forward with its deployment
plans, as outlined in its November 2010 filing, how would this build-
out affect military systems and users in the near-term?
Mr. Nebbia. 18. Under its existing authorization, LightSquared is
permitted to offer dual-mode MSS/ATC devices and/or services (i.e.,
handsets that can communicate both with orbiting satellites and
terrestrial base stations). In November 2010, LightSquared requested a
modification to its current authorization to deploy terrestrial-only
handsets and services that do not utilize the satellite signal.
LightSquared is not permitted to commence operations on this
terrestrial-only network until interference concerns have been
adequately addressed. The FCC's January 26, 2011, LightSquared Order
stated that the FCC would not allow LightSquared to commence operations
until ``the Commission, after consultation with NTIA, concludes that
the harmful interference concerns have been resolved and sends a letter
to LightSquared stating that the process is complete.'' \2\ Beginning
last January and continuing to this day, NTIA has expressed serious
concerns on behalf of Federal entities, including military users,
regarding potentially harmful interference to GPS-reliant systems from
LightSquared's proposed terrestrial operations and has urged the FCC
not to permit LightSquared to commence operations until those concerns
have been resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ LightSquared Subsidiary LLC; Request for Modification of its
Authority for an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, SAT-MOD-2010118-
00239; Call Sign: S2358, Order and Authorization (Order), 26 F.C.C.
Rcd. 566 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Turner. 19. Are FCC and the NTIA looking at other parts of the
spectrum for possible LightSquared operations?
Mr. Nebbia. 19. NTIA is not currently looking at other spectrum
bands for LightSquared's operations. In June 2010, President Obama
directed NTIA to collaborate with the FCC to identify and make
available over the next decade an additional 500 megahertz of spectrum
for fixed and mobile wireless broadband by either reallocating or
creating opportunities to share spectrum currently used by commercial
or Federal users. The goal is to nearly double over the next decade the
amount of spectrum that is currently available for commercial wireless
broadband. By doing so, the NTIA and FCC will help spur innovation,
expand economic growth and job creation, and preserve America's global
technology leadership. To date, NTIA has identified 115 megahertz of
Federal spectrum for reallocation and is currently evaluating another
95 megahertz of spectrum with the goal of making a recommendation on
that band in the coming weeks.
Mr. Turner. 20. DOD briefings to the committee suggest that the
part of the L-Band spectrum in question was intended primarily for
space-to-ground transmissions. Can you explain the history here and why
decisions were made to allow significant terrestrial transmissions in
this band?
Mr. Nebbia. 20. In 2003, the FCC granted MSS providers flexibility
in how they could deliver their communications offerings by enabling
them to integrate an ATC into their MSS networks. As envisioned, the
ATC would augment MSS services by utilizing ground stations and mobile
terminals that re-use frequencies assigned for satellite communications
in order to enhance MSS coverage. By granting providers flexibility to
integrate MSS and ATC, the FCC sought to maximize spectrum efficiency
and expand communications capabilities in the United States by filling
in the ``gaps'' in satellite coverage. However, the FCC stated that in
order to meet its ``integrated service rule,'' the added terrestrial
component had to remain ancillary to the principal MSS offering. This
ancillary requirement was particularly important to users of GPS since
emissions from terrestrial base stations represent a significantly
different interference threat to GPS than the far weaker signals
emitted from satellites to the ground.
In November 2004, the FCC's International Bureau granted a
predecessor company to LightSquared Subsidiary LLC (LightSquared) the
authority to operate ATC facilities providing voice and data
communication for users equipped with dual-mode MSS/ATC devices (i.e.,
handsets that could communicate both with orbiting satellites and
terrestrial base stations). Additionally, in subsequent Orders in 2005
and 2010, the FCC afforded LightSquared additional flexibility for the
technical design of its ATC network by, for example, waiving the
requirement for the handsets to seek a satellite connection before
connecting to a terrestrial base station, by waiving the requirement
for a fixed number of base stations, and by allowing increased power.
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Federal Communications Commission, Flexibility for Delivery
of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz
Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, IB Docket Nos. 01-185, 02-
364, 18 F.C.C. Rcd. 1962, 1964-65 (2003); see also Federal
Communications Commission, Flexibility for Delivery of Communications
by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band,
and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 01-185, 20 F.C.C. Rcd. 4616
(2005); see also, Federal Communications Commission, SkyTerra
Communications, Inc., Transferor and Harbinger Capital Partners Funds,
Transferee Applications for Consent to Transfer Control of SkyTerra
Subsidiary, LLC, IB Docket No. 08-184, Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Declaratory Ruling, 25 F.C.C. Rcd. 3059 (March 25, 2010); Federal
Communications Commission, SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC Application for
Modification Authority for an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, File No.
SATMOD-20090429-00047, Call Sign: AMSC-1, File No. SAT-MOD-20090429-
00046, Call Sign: S2358, File No. SES-MOD-20090429-00536, Call Sign:
E980179, Order and Authorization, 25 F.C.C. Rcd. 3043 (March 26, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Turner. 21. Does LightSquared's June 30, 2011, submission to
the FCC provide sufficient information on its ``lower 10'' proposal for
your organizations to determine whether the proposal mitigates GPS
interference?
Mr. Nebbia. 21. No. In response to LightSquared's revised proposal
to operate in only the lower 10 megahertz signal of the MSS band, NTIA
requested, in a September 9, 2011, letter, that the ExCom work with
LightSquared to develop and implement a test plan to measure
interference to cellular and personal/general navigation receivers by
November 30, 2011. This phase of testing on cellular and personal/
general navigation receivers is now complete. NTIA has received the
test data and is analyzing it as expeditiously as possible. There may
later need to be a second phase of testing to evaluate proposed
mitigation plans for high-precision and timing receivers which would
commence once LightSquared provides a filtering solution to avoid
interference with those classes of devices. However, if analysis does
not point a path to mitigation of interference effects to general
navigation and cellular, the testing of high precision and timing
devices may not be warranted.
Mr. Turner. 22. How are DOD comments and concerns addressed at this
point in the process?
Mr. Nebbia. 22. As the manager of Federal agency spectrum use, NTIA
is focused on enabling Federal agencies to perform their missions while
ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, that those agencies use and
share spectrum efficiently and effectively. Beginning last January, and
continuing to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on behalf
of Federal entities--including the Department of Defense--regarding
potentially harmful interference to GPS-reliant systems from
LightSquared's proposed terrestrial operations and has urged the FCC
not to permit LightSquared to commence operations until those concerns
have been resolved. NTIA values the candid input of agencies, and
considers it a critical input into its decision-making. The Department
of Defense co-chairs the Executive Steering Group of the ExCom, which
NTIA has requested work with LightSquared to undertake additional
testing. The results of the additional testing will serve as a critical
input as NTIA develops the Administration position on this matter.
Mr. Turner. 23. The National Positioning, Navigation & Timing (PNT)
Engineering Forum (NPEF) report recommends that the U.S. Government
should ``conduct more thorough studies on the operational, economic and
safety impacts of operating the LightSquared Network.'' What additional
studies and analysis do your organizations (or, you in your
professional opinion) believe need to be conducted and why?
Mr. Nebbia. 23. Please see my answers to Questions 4, 9, 17, and
21, as well as NTIA's September 9, 2011, letter, which is available at:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/
stricklingletter_09092011.pdf.
Mr. Turner. 24. Describe your organization's involvement in the FCC
process leading to the FCC's January 2011 conditional waiver to
LightSquared. Was the Department of Defense, in particular, able to
register its concerns with the FCC prior to its decision in January,
and if so, how were those concerns addressed?
Mr. Nebbia. 24. Beginning last January, prior to the FCC's Order,
and continuing to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on
behalf of Federal entities--including the Department of Defense--
regarding potentially harmful interference to GPS-reliant systems from
LightSquared's proposed terrestrial operations. On January 12, 2011,
NTIA advised the FCC that the LightSquared proposal raised significant
interference concerns that warranted a full evaluation to ensure that
LightSquared's proposed terrestrial network would not adversely impact
GPS and other critical Federal systems. \4\ The FCC's January 26, 2011,
Waiver Order stated that the FCC would not allow LightSquared to
commence operations until ``the Commission, after consultation with
NTIA, concludes that the harmful interference concerns have been
resolved and sends a letter to LightSquared stating that the process is
complete.'' \5\ NTIA appreciates that the FCC has taken very seriously
the concerns raised by NTIA on behalf of Federal agencies in this
matter. We look forward to providing thorough, expert input to the
Commission as it moves toward a final decision in this matter. Please
see my September 15 testimony before your Subcommittee for further
elaboration on NTIA's involvement with this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Letter from Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator, U.S. Department
of Commerce, to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission (Jan. 12, 2011), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/fcc-
filing/2011/letter-regarding-lightsquaredsapplication-provide-mssatc-
service.
\5\ LightSquared Subsidiary LLC; Request for Modification of its
Authority for an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, SAT-MOD-2010118-
00239; Call Sign: S2358, Order and Authorization (Order), 26 F.C.C.
Rcd. 566 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Turner. 25. Are your organizations concerned that the FCC can
provide final approval for LightSquared operations prior to resolving
the GPS interference issues?
Mr. Nebbia. 25. From the outset, the Federal agencies expressed a
desire to resolve all interference concerns prior to granting a waiver.
However, the FCC's January 26, 2011, Waiver Order clearly stated that
the FCC would not allow LightSquared to commence operations until ``the
Commission, after consultation with NTIA, concludes that the harmful
interference concerns have been resolved and sends a letter to
LightSquared stating that the process is complete.'' \6\ Both the NTIA
and the FCC have requested additional testing to determine the extent
of interference from LightSquared's proposed network. NTIA appreciates
that the FCC has taken very seriously the concerns raised by NTIA on
behalf of Federal agencies in this matter, as well as its commitment to
ensure that these concerns are resolved before permitting LightSquared
to begin commercial operations. We look forward to providing thorough,
expert input to the Commission as it moves toward a final decision in
this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Turner. 26. There appears to be a tension between national
space policy, which seeks to mitigate harmful interference to GPS, and
national broadband policy, which in this particular case, would cause
harmful interference to GPS. How do we reconcile these two policies?
Mr. Nebbia. 26. GPS provides services and benefits of great utility
and value to the nation, and NTIA is committed to protecting GPS users
from interference. As the manager of Federal agency spectrum use, NTIA
is focused on enabling Federal agencies to perform their missions while
ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, that those agencies use and
share spectrum efficiently and effectively. Beginning last January and
continuing to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on behalf
of Federal entities regarding potentially harmful interference to GPS-
reliant systems from LightSquared's proposed terrestrial operations and
has urged the FCC not to permit LightSquared to commence operations
until those concerns have been resolved. At the same time, NTIA is
collaborating with the FCC to identify and make available over the next
decade an additional 500 megahertz of spectrum for fixed and mobile
wireless broadband by either reallocating or creating opportunities to
share spectrum currently used by commercial or Federal users. The goal
is to nearly double over the next decade the amount of spectrum that is
currently available for commercial wireless broadband. By doing so, the
NTIA and FCC will help spur innovation, expand economic growth and job
creation, and preserve America's global technology leadership. NTIA is
working diligently to consider all available data in order to address
these goals in the most rapid and responsible manner possible.
Mr. Turner. 27. Is LightSquared the only current or planned
broadband provider where the GPS interference concern is an issue? How
are other interference issues being resolved to enable co-existence of
broadband and GPS services?
Mr. Nebbia. 27. NTIA leads and manages the IRAC, which is comprised
of representatives from 19 Federal agencies that provide advice to NTIA
on spectrum policy matters. As part of its Federal spectrum management
duties, NTIA, in consultation with the IRAC, regularly reviews systems
coming into use to determine their potential for interference into
other spectrum bands used by Federal agencies. NTIA has reviewed a
number of operations for potential interference to GPS. NTIA is not
aware of another MSS provider with proposed operations that pose
similar interference concerns for GPS users.
Mr. Turner. 1. I have learned that during the testimony
coordination process, you were asked to include the following in your
prepared remarks:
``The Administration believes that we must protect existing GPS
users from disruption of the services they depend on today and ensure
that innovative new GPS applications can be developed in the future. At
the same time, recognizing the President's instruction to identify 500
MHz of new spectrum for innovative new mobile broadband services, we
will continue our efforts at more efficient use of spectrum. Therefore,
in the short run, we will participate in the further testing required
to establish whether there are any mitigation strategies that can
enable LSQ operation in the lower 10MHz of the band. We also encourage
commercial entities with interests to work with LightSquared toward a
possible resolution, though any proposed mitigation must be subjected
to full testing. We hope that testing can be complete within 90 days.
The challenge of meeting the President's goal also depends on long-term
actions by Federal agencies in the area of research and development,
procurement practices that encourage spectrally-efficient applications,
and new policy development.''
a. Who, specifically, asked that this be included?
b. If you declined to include the language, in whole or in part,
please describe why.
c. Did anyone in the Administration attempt to persuade you to
include the language? Who?
Mr. Russo. 1a. As part of the normal Legislative Referral
Memorandum (LRM) process, I received guidance to include this paragraph
in my testimony from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on
August 1, 2011. I understand that the language was informed by the
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
1b. I included this entire paragraph exactly as written with the
exception of the one sentence that established a target deadline for
completion of testing. I expressed my reservations about including this
sentence to OMB on August 2, 2011. I objected to only this one sentence
because I had low confidence testing would be completed by November 3,
2011, as implied. At the point in time when I was testifying, we had
not even begun test planning and therefore I believed this was an
unrealistic target.
1c. No one pressured me to include the language. I omitted the one
sentence I did not agree with and subsequently the testimony was
cleared by OMB through the standard process.
Mr. Turner. 2. Are your responses to these QFRs your own views or
those of your agency? Have your responses been approved/edited by
anyone other than yourself or someone reporting to you?
Mr. Russo. 2. These QFR responses are my own views, although I
sought input from representatives from all the agencies that are
stakeholders in GPS. Once I drafted the responses, I sent them out to a
wide array of GPS experts across the Federal Government for fact-
checking and editing. And like all Federal agency witnesses, I
submitted my final draft for approval to OMB and incorporated comments
received back from the LRM process to get final clearance.
Mr. Turner. 3. Please describe when you and your agency became
aware of the LightSquared network proposal and its potential for
significant interference.
Mr. Russo. 3. The National Coordination Office (NCO) is an
administrative office serving the National Space-Based Positioning,
Navigation and Timing Executive Committee (EXCOM). The NCO itself is
not a decision-making or policy-making body. The EXCOM is comprised of
the Deputy Secretaries of the nine different Federal departments or
agencies that are the principal Government stakeholders in GPS and
systems that augment or back-up GPS.
The issue was brought to the NCO's attention on December 21, 2010,
in the context of LightSquared's application for a waiver to the
integrated service rules, which would have resulted in a de facto re-
purposing of the spectrum for terrestrial broadband instead of Mobile
Satellite Service (MSS). This represented a significant change to the
interference environment in terms of the number and density of the
Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) base stations we would expect to
see. I immediately brought the issue to the attention of the EXCOM's
Executive Steering Group (Assistant Secretary-level) and on December
27, 2010, I wrote to NTIA to request any action on LightSquared's
request for waiver be deferred until testing could be performed. On
January 3, 2011, I provided a point paper to all the members of the
EXCOM (Deputy Secretary-level) and requested the Deputy Secretary of
Defense engage the FCC Chairman to seek a delay to the waiver decision
until specific interference effects and mitigation actions could be
identified.
Mr. Turner. 4. LightSquared has recently announced that it has
solved the interference issue for 99.5 percent of GPS users.
a. Do you agree with this statement?
b. What is the solution?
c. Is it a solution for uses of GPS for which you are responsible?
d. Has it been tested by the Federal Government? If so, please
provide details.
Mr. Russo. 4a. No.
4b. LightSquared's 99.5 percent number is associated with their
``Recommendation Paper'' filed with the FCC on June 30, 2011. I
included a summary of this Paper's recommendations in my written
testimony to this subcommittee on September 15, 2011, and discussed its
implications in both the oral and written testimony. The LightSquared
recommendation paper has three main points:
a) Lower Power. LightSquared proposes operating at
significantly lower power than currently authorized by FCC.
They propose to operate at a maximum base station EIRP per
sector for a single carrier at 32 dBW. This was the power level
authorized for LightSquared's predecessor in 2005 and it was
also the maximum level used for live-sky transmission tests
done this past April through June. However, the current power
authorized by the FCC is 10 times higher than this level to
allow for future growth.
b) Standstill Period. LightSquared proposes they will not
deploy the upper 10 MHz of its terrestrial network without
receiving explicit approval from the FCC. The standstill period
is undefined, but not less than six months. The purpose of the
standstill period is to allow GPS device manufacturers time to
improve their equipment to coexist with LightSquared.
c) Initial Operations Restricted to the Lower 10 MHz Channel.
LightSquared will start operations in the lower channel instead
of the upper channel as originally planned. This channel is
separated from the GPS frequency by 23 MHz, which greatly
reduces interference.
4c. The Executive Committee I serve is responsible for helping to
implement the President's policy with respect to GPS use `` . . . for
U.S. national and homeland security, civil, scientific, and commercial
purposes.''
No, the recommendation is not a solution for these uses, primarily
because of the ``standstill'' provision, which means LightSquared will
still transmit high power terrestrial signals near the GPS L1 spectrum
at some point in the future. In addition, even the lower channel
transmission, with the lower power limitation still interferes with
some GPS users.
4d. The Government conducted extensive testing of the LightSquared
system in April 2011. The power tested was the same ``lower power'' in
the recommendation, which is actually the current technical limit of
the LightSquared hardware. Most of the data points conducted during the
``live-sky'' tests in Las Vegas were significantly below this level.
The tests also included a dual-channel (upper and lower 10 MHz) and
therefore fairly represented what we understand to be the end-state
configuration (after ``standstill''). However, the Government tests did
not extensively test operations in only the lower 10 MHz, which is a
key part of LightSquared's current recommendations. Some data was
collected in what the Government test report refers to as an ``initial
exploratory evaluation,'' but it must be remembered this signal
configuration was not proposed by LightSquared until several months
after the Government testing.
The Government tests conclusively demonstrated that LightSquared's
proposed dual-channel deployment causes unacceptable interference to
all types of GPS applications. However, the testing of the ``10 MHz
Low'' now proposed as the first phase of LightSquared's new deployment
was insufficient to reach a conclusion. Therefore, the Government has
requested additional testing on this recommendation. The details of the
Government testing conducted earlier this year were attached to the
written version of my testimony in the document called ``Assessment of
LightSquared Terrestrial Broadband System Effects on GPS Receivers and
GPS-dependent Applications'' from the National Space-Based Positioning,
Navigation and Timing Systems Engineering Forum (NPEF).
Mr. Turner. 5. General Shelton stated that he believed that
LightSquared's filter ``solution'' could cost billions of dollars over
more than a decade. Who would be obligated to pay for the costs of
adding filters?
Mr. Russo. 5. The FCC has not yet made a determination as to who
will pay for the mitigation of LightSquared interference to GPS.
The Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and
Timing believes the public sector should not bear any financial
responsibility for the cost of retrofitting any filters (if they prove
to be effective). In the original 2003 Order granting the Ancillary
Terrestrial Component (ATC) license to LightSquared's predecessor, the
FCC clearly placed the responsibility for ensuring compatibility on the
ATC service provider:
``We [the FCC] adopt technical parameters for ATC operations
in each of the bands at issue designed to protect adjacent and
in-band operations from interference from ATC. We fully expect
that these operational parameters will be sufficient.
Nevertheless, in the unlikely event that an adjacent MSS or
other operator does receive harmful interference from ATC
operations, either from ATC base stations or mobile terminals,
the ATC operator must resolve such interference.''
This responsibility is still placed upon the ATC service
provider in the FCC Rules, specifically in 47 CFR Sec. 25.255.
If, for any reason, the FCC concludes 47 CFR Sec. 25.255 does not
apply, then the costs of mitigation would likely be borne by the
Federal, State, and local agencies that own and operate the GPS systems
and by commercial users. LightSquared has offered to pay up to $50
million for retrofitting or reequipping Federal agencies.
Mr. Turner. 6. In a September 29, 2011, Washington Post article by
Cecilia Kang, it was reported that LightSquared chief executive Sanjiv
Ahuja said during an interview on C-SPAN's ``The Communicators'' that
the company is offering Federal agencies ``a sufficient amount of money
to replace most receivers or fix most receivers out there.''
a. Please provide an estimate of how much money LightSquared would
have to spend to ``replace most receivers or fix the Federal
Government's GPS receivers.''
b. How much has the United States Government spent on its GPS
receivers?
c. How much have GPS users other than the United States spent on
their GPS receivers?
Mr. Russo. 6a. The cost is unknown because the number and types of
GPS receivers that would have to be replaced or fixed is unknown. This
will depend on the outcome of the additional testing requested by the
FCC and will also depend very significantly on whether the end-state
signal configuration is dual-channel (``upper and lower 10 MHz'') or
single channel (``lower 10 MHz only''). It will also depend on how long
the ``standstill'' period is before LightSquared deploys its upper
channel, if the lower 10 MHz-only regime is not permanent.
6b. The U.S. Government as a whole does not track the total amount
it spends on GPS receivers, but the Department of Defense alone has
spent $9.3B on receivers according to an October 2011 report by the
Congressional Budget Office. The FAA reports it has already invested
more than $3B in GPS equipment through FY 2011, with another $8B
planned in GPS infrastructure investments planned through FY 2018.
Industry sources put the total Government figure at a minimum $47B
for GPS infrastructure and devices, although this likely includes more
than just GPS receivers.
6c. According to the Space Foundation, the total global
expenditures are over $55B per year. The U.S. portion of those
expenditures is between 23-28 percent.
Mr. Turner. 7. Mr. Russo, my understanding is that you solicited
all Federal Government agencies with GPS equities on their concerns
with the LightSquared proposal. Please detail which agencies did and
did not respond to your solicitation. If an agency did not respond,
please explain, to the best of your understanding, why. Are you aware
of any Government position papers on LightSquared interference which
have been provided to the National Coordination Office or to the NTIA
that have not been forwarded to the FCC and then made public? If so,
why were they not made public immediately?
Mr. Russo. 7. All member agencies of the National Executive
Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (EXCOM)
have provided information to NTIA about their concerns with the
LightSquared proposal. I am unaware of the manner and extent to which
NTIA will factor in these concerns in its recommendation to the FCC.
At the request of the EXCOM, I tasked each member agency to
quantify the economic and operational impact of mitigating GPS
interference and to provide their statements to NTIA. Not all agencies
were able to provide the requested statements because of the
uncertainty of the final end-state signal configuration and of the
unknown effectiveness of mitigation techniques. Some were able to
answer only in general terms, while others did make an ``order of
magnitude'' estimate. DOD did not provide a response at all, citing
insufficient information as described by Ms. Takai in her testimony to
this Subcommittee. NTIA has asked Federal agencies not to make any of
these statements public yet because they are considered pre-decisional
and part of the deliberative process of the Executive Branch.
Mr. Turner. 8. LightSquared has proposed, as part of its ``lower 10
MHz'' option a ``standstill'' on the upper 10 MHz of the spectrum
adjacent to the GPS signal. At the same time, LightSquared is said to
believe that it needs access to its full spectrum, both the lower and
the upper, to be profitable.
a. Please explain what the ``standstill'' means and what terms
LightSquared is proposing for the ``standstill.''
b. Has LightSquared indicated the ``upper 10'' of the spectrum is
completely, permanently off-the-table? Is that what the ``standstill''
means?
c. If the ``standstill'' was only a matter of a few years, what
would that mean to your agencies?
d. Should Congress, or the FCC, codify somehow the terms of the
``standstill'' if it is ultimately determined that the ``lower 10 MHz''
option is acceptable?
Mr. Russo. 8a. I believe LightSquared intends the ``standstill''
term to mean that they wish to have approval to operate their network
on the ``lower 10 MHz'' channel immediately, but agrees the current
conditions on the upper channel should remain in place for an undefined
period of time (but not less than six months).
During the standstill period, LightSquared would expect to continue
to work with the FCC, the NTIA, and Federal agencies on GPS receiver
engineering and design solutions to allow LightSquared to be able to
use the upper channel for their future capacity requirements.
The removal of the conditions for the upper channel would require
FCC approval, in consultation with NTIA.
8b. No, this is not what ``standstill'' means. Standstill indicates
that LightSquared seeks to use the ``upper 10'' at some point in the
future. The standstill period is meant to give the Government and the
GPS community time to find solutions to permit coexistence.
LightSquared has referred to the ``upper 10'' being off-the-table
in numerous public statements, but has not indicated this in any
official filing with the FCC.
--On June 23, Mr. Carlisle, Executive Vice President of
LightSquared testified to the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure that LightSquared would delay operations in the upper 10
MHz and sought a ``glide path'' of 2-3 years before using this portion
of their spectrum.
--In its June 30 ``Recommendation Paper'', LightSquared states:
``While LightSquared intends ultimately to deploy a network
using a full
complement of terrestrial frequencies operating at appropriate
power levels, in order to provide LTE capacity and service
levels to its customers, it will delay incorporating into its
terrestrial network the upper 10 MHz of its frequencies . . .
''
--On September 8, Mr. Carlisle repeated in testimony to the House
Committee on Space, Science and Technology the concept of a
``standstill'' period for eventual upper 10 MHz operations. In follow-
on answers to Congressional Questions for the Record, Mr. Carlisle
indicated this standstill period was on the order of 5-6 years.
``Standstill'' clearly implies eventual use of the upper 10 MHz.
8c. Given the lengthy process for Agency budgeting, authorization
and equipment procurements, most agencies would reequip based only on
the projected end-state configuration. Unfortunately, the target date
for the end-state is undefined. This makes it nearly impossible to
build credible cost and impact estimates and to initiate requests for
the required funding.
Certainly Federal agencies do not want to begin lengthy and
expensive procurement actions, only to have to reinitiate them again in
a few years.
8d. Yes, the FCC should codify all terms in their final ruling. If
``lower 10 MHz'' is a permanent configuration, that needs to be
specified. If it is approved as a temporary state, then the nature and
timing of the final configuration need to be specified.
Mr. Turner. 9. LightSquared's business plan calls for providing
service to 260 million people by 2015. If LightSquared limited its
network operations to its ``lower 10'' proposal, including lower power
levels, how much of its business plan does it achieve? Does it need
both the ``lower 10'' and ``upper 10'' megahertz bands to realize full
coverage of 260 million people?
Mr. Russo. 9. Our office has not been involved in any analysis or
evaluation of LightSquared's business plans. However, an important
point to consider is the difference between ``coverage'' and
``capacity.'' LightSquared tells us that approval of the ``lower 10''
will allow them to realize full coverage of 260 million people as
required by their agreement with the FCC. But just because someone is
in the coverage area, does not mean they will be using LightSquared's
service. The number of people actually using the service, as well as
how they are using the service, determines the capacity needs.
LightSquared projects the ``lower 10'' band is insufficient to meet
their future capacity needs as demand for their broadband service
grows.
Mr. Turner. 10. Part of this proposal is a ``standstill'' on the
use of the upper 10 MHz spectrum. What is a ``standstill'' and how
would it work?
Mr. Russo. 10. I believe LightSquared intends the ``standstill''
term to mean that they wish to have approval to operate their network
on the ``lower 10 MHz'' channel immediately, but agrees the current
conditions on the upper channel should remain in place for an undefined
period of time (but not less than six months).
During the standstill period, LightSquared would expect to continue
to work with the FCC, the NTIA, and Federal agencies on GPS receiver
engineering and design solutions to allow LightSquared to be able to
use the upper channel for their future capacity requirements.
The removal on the conditions for the upper channel would require
FCC approval, in consultation with NTIA.
Mr. Turner. 11. It has been said by the FCC, including the
Chairman, that the FCC handles interference issues all the time, so we
can trust it to handle this one. This is a troubling statement, as it
seems to be suggesting that this case is a routine matter.
Is it the public interest for the United States to have a GPS
system that operates free of harmful interference? Is it the public
interest for the U.S. to have set the global standard in precision,
navigation and timing?
Mr. Russo. 11. The answers are clearly ``yes'' to both. President
Obama's Space Policy (June 2010) states:
``Provide continuous worldwide access, for peaceful civil
uses, to the Global Positioning System (GPS) and its
government-provided augmentations, free of direct user
charges;''
And,
``The United States must maintain its leadership in the
service, provision, and use of global navigation satellite
systems (GNSS).''
Mr. Turner. 12. The subcommittee has asked Mr. Knapp if the FCC has
discussed with LightSquared whether it will include technology by two
firms linked to the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army, Huawei
and ZTE Corp., in this 4G nationwide network, assuming it is approved
in some configuration. Will you please take this back to LightSquared
and provide a written response to this Committee for the record of the
hearing?
Mr. Russo. 12. On October 24, 2011, I received this response from
Mr. Jeff Carlisle, Executive Vice President for LightSquared:
``The FCC has not discussed with LightSquared any specific
sourcing of the technology in our network. Regardless,
LightSquared will not include any technology from Huawei or ZTE
Corp. in any part of its network.''
Mr. Turner. 13. Please give us an idea of the size and scope of the
GPS system to include applications and users.
Mr. Russo. 13. The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a U.S.-owned
utility that provides users with positioning, navigation, and timing
(PNT) services. This system consists of three segments: the space
segment, the control segment, and the user segment. The U.S. Air Force
develops, maintains, and operates the space and control segments.
Space Segment:
GPS satellites fly in medium Earth orbit (MEO) at an altitude of
approximately 20,200 km. Each satellite circles the Earth twice a day.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The satellites in the GPS constellation are arranged into six
equally-spaced orbital planes surrounding the Earth, each containing
four ``slots'' occupied by baseline satellites. This 24-slot
arrangement ensures there are at least four satellites in view from
virtually any point on the planet.
The Air Force normally flies more than 24 GPS satellites to ensure
coverage whenever the baseline satellites are serviced or
decommissioned. The extra satellites may increase GPS performance but
are not considered part of the core constellation. Currently, there are
30 satellites operating with an additional four satellites still
functional, but considered to be in ``residual'' status and not
actively contributing to user navigation solutions.
The GPS constellation has now attained the most optimal geometry in
its 42-year history, maximizing GPS coverage for all users worldwide.
Control Segment:
The control segment consists of worldwide monitor and control
stations that maintain the satellites in their proper orbits through
occasional command maneuvers, and adjust the satellite clocks. It
tracks the GPS satellites, uploads updated navigational data, and
maintains health and status of the satellite constellation.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
User Segment:
The user segment consists of the GPS receiver equipment, which
receives the signals from the GPS satellites and uses the transmitted
information to calculate the user's three-dimensional position and
time. Most of the GPS receiver equipment is not built or owned by the
U.S. Government. There are over a billion GPS receivers worldwide.
Augmentations:
To date, U.S. taxpayers have invested over $35B in GPS
infrastructure and this figure does not include the extensive
investment in systems that augment or enhance GPS services. These
services include the FAA's Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS),
Department of Commerce's Continuously Operating Reference Stations
(CORS), the U.S Coast Guard and Department of Transportation's
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS), NASA's
Global Differential GPS (GDGPS), or any of the many international and
commercial augmentation systems.
Applications:
GPS is used for many diverse applications; it would be impossible
to adequately cover them in this response. A sampling of the civil
applications include: agriculture, roads and highways, aviation,
shipping/asset tracking, space, recreation, surveying/mapping, weather,
disaster preparedness, public safety and disaster relief, rail safety,
marine operations, and a host of environmental programs. In addition,
the GPS timing service is critical to energy exploration and
distribution, telecommunications, cyber networks, banking and finance,
and numerous scientific and research applications.
Mr. Turner. 14. Please elaborate to the extent possible in an open
hearing on the military capabilities that rely on GPS.
Mr. Russo. 14. GPS provides a constant worldwide source for highly
precise position and time, both of which are critical for the safe and
efficient conduct of military operations and for a transformation to
net-centric operations. GPS enhances interoperability in all aspects of
military combat operations because of its common-datum, common-grid,
and common time capabilities. GPS has also been the catalyst for
precision operations by increasing individual weapon effectiveness and
minimizing collateral damage. GPS military applications are numerous
and include: navigation, target tracking, precision munitions,
communications, asset tracking, search and rescue, missile and
projectile guidance, aviation, reconnaissance, delivery of humanitarian
aid, blue-force tracking, and battlefield management.
Mr. Turner. 15. LightSquared would operate in a different part of
the spectrum (1525-1559 megahertz) than GPS (1559-1610 megahertz). Why
is there an interference problem when the two systems would operate in
different, but neighboring, parts of the spectrum?
Mr. Russo. 15. The issue has to do with the differences between
digital radio communications and digital radio navigation. For a
communications signal, the receiving device must determine whether each
bit is a zero or a one. Determining the sequence of zeros and ones,
determines the message, which is the point of the transmission.
For navigation, the incoming, one-directional signal sequence of
zeros and ones is already known. What the receiver must determine is
the precise time of the transition between the ones and zeros. In
communications, a message with errors, or missing information, can be
retransmitted. For navigation, errors create integrity issues and
missing information cause a continuity issue that is critical to some
real-time applications. For communications purposes, you only need to
see one portion of the transmitted signal to be able to determine the
message. For navigation purposes you need to see the full width of the
signal. The wider the filter response, the more accurate the solution.
However, if the filter receives too much unwanted energy (noise) it can
experience something called ``overload'' or ``desensitization''
interference. Current GPS filters work fine in an environment where the
neighboring signals are weak transmissions from other satellites. Many
existing GPS filters are inadequate for the much higher power signals
from ground-based towers.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The notional chart above illustrates that GPS filters as they exist
today allow full use of the entire width of the GPS signal and still
reject the low power satellite transmissions from the band right below
GPS. However, the much higher power terrestrial transmissions proposed
by LightSquared overload the receiver (particularly for the upper
channel transmission).
It may be possible to build a filter system that excludes the
higher power signals and still allows the receiver to see the full
range of GPS signals. JAVAD GNSS claims to have a system of filters
that can do this for the lower of the two LightSquared transmission
channels (the one furthest to the left on the chart above), but not the
closer of the two channels (or ``upper band'').
Federal agencies are concerned even if the lower band filter
solutions work, they will increase the cost, weight and power
requirements of the GPS receiver, and negatively impact performance
characteristics. In addition, it is unclear how the current installed
user base would be addressed or who would bear the cost. FCC and NTIA
have asked for additional testing to determine the effectiveness of
LightSquared's proposed mitigation strategies and the impacts to
application performance requirements.
Mr. Turner. 16. What is the magnitude of the harmful interference
and the national security implications of such interference? Discuss
the results of the Department's testing and any specific examples that
substantiate these observations?
Mr. Russo. 16. The testing the Government did on the original
LightSquared proposal earlier this year conclusively indicates harmful
interference to every category of GPS user, including national security
users. Gen. Shelton mentioned several specific examples in his
testimony before this Committee in both the closed and open sessions. I
defer a more specific discussion of national security implications to
Ms. Takai, who testified on behalf of DOD.
In my original written testimony, I included the unclassified
portion of the Government's test report. Here are some excerpts
relative to the civil applications (all of which assume LSQ operations
in both the upper and lower band):
1) LightSquared's out-of-band emissions were within the
limits they had agreed to with GPS industry and significantly
better than what is required by the FCC
2) All GPS receiver applications (but not all receivers) were
impacted by the proposed network
a. Aviation receivers degraded between 0.9 and 19.3
km (for a single tower)
i. Aggregate effects would deny aviation use
of GPS for hundreds of km
b. Space receivers degraded as far as 305.5 km which
includes certain NASA satellites in low Earth orbit
c. Maritime receivers lost satellite tracking between
0.3 and 1.0 km
d. High Precision receivers lost satellite tracking
between 1.7 and 6.1 km
3) Anecdotal observations from single data points during live
transmission test
a. New Mexico State Police cruiser lost reception 600
ft from LSQ tower
i. Police HQ also lost the location of the
cruiser on their tracking system
b. An ambulance lost GPS tracking 1,000 ft from the
LSQ tower
i. Also indicated speed of 9 MPH, while
vehicle was actually stationary
c. Fire Department vehicle lost GPS at 1,000 ft from
LSQ tower
i. Last reported location was not near actual
location
Some information was collected on LSQ's new proposal for starting
operations in only the lower 10 MHz, but was insufficient for a
conclusion.
Mr. Turner. 17. The reviews undertaken suggest that there are
certain GPS applications that, even with modification or complete
redesign, would still not be able to perform their current mission in
the presence of such network broadcasting directly adjacent to the GPS
L1 band. What applications?
Mr. Russo. 17. Certain applications use not only GPS L1 signals but
also signals from the Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) band right below
it--the band where LightSquared operates. Since the augmentation
signals they receive in the MSS band can come from any portion of that
band, just redesigning the receiver cannot solve this issue.
Applications that incorporate these MSS band augmentation signals
include precision farming, military reconnaissance drones, surveying,
and GM's ``On-Star'' automobile services.
In other instances, applications may not achieve the extremely high
precision they require, even if the proposed filters work properly.
These applications may include natural hazard and environmental
monitoring, and scientific/research functions. Further testing is
needed to determine the effectiveness of proposed receiver
modifications and their ultimate impact on mission performance.
Mr. Turner. 18a. Is LightSquared allowed to build out a terrestrial
network today?
18b. What are the limitations, if any?
18c. Under what circumstances could/would buildup be stopped?
18d. Assuming FCC provides authorization for LightSquared to move
forward with its deployment plans, as outlined in its November 2010
filing, how would this build-out affect military systems and users in
the near-term?
Mr. Russo. 18a. Yes.
18b. There are many limitations and conditions on LightSquared's
build out of a terrestrial network. One of the most significant is that
LightSquared may not commence offering commercial service until the GPS
interference issues are resolved. On September 13, 2011, the FCC issued
a Public Notice stating `` . . . additional targeted testing is needed
to ensure that any potential services offered by LightSquared will not
cause harmful interference to GPS operations.''
18c. My understanding is only the FCC would have the authority to
stop the buildup. I am not knowledgeable about the criteria they would
use to decide this or the procedures they would use to implement their
decision.
18d. I believe Gen. Shelton covered this in his testimony to this
Subcommittee when he testified that tests based on the original
LightSquared deployment plans and original FCC authorization `` . . .
demonstrated empirically that the LightSquared signals interfere with
all types of receivers in the test.'' His testimony referenced 29
different types of military receivers. I defer discussion of specific
military system impacts to Ms. Takai and Gen. Shelton, and would expect
that the details would be classified at SECRET or above.
Mr. Turner. 19. Does LightSquared's June 30, 2011, submission to
the FCC provide sufficient information on its ``lower 10'' proposal for
your organizations to determine whether the proposal mitigates GPS
interference?
Mr. Russo. 19. Even LightSquared admits in their June 30, 2011,
submission that the ``lower 10'' proposal does not mitigate GPS
interference for all users. In numerous technical interchanges with
FCC, NTIA, and LightSquared we have learned more about LightSquared's
mitigation strategies which do not solely rely on the ``lower 10''
proposal. Their proposal partially relies on development of filters and
antennas for GPS receivers which we will need to test.
Mr. Turner. 20. The National Positioning, Navigation & Timing (PNT)
Engineering Forum (NPEF) report recommends that the U.S. Government
should ``conduct more thorough studies on the operational, economic and
safety impacts of operating the LightSquared Network.'' What additional
studies and analysis do your organizations (or, you in your
professional opinion) believe need to be conducted and why?
Mr. Russo. 20. In my professional opinion, the following additional
studies and analyses need to be done:
1) Comprehensive testing of GPS receivers against the actual
proposed LightSquared signal configuration. The signal
configuration LightSquared states will mitigate interference
for 99.5 percent of GPS users was not part of the original
plan.
2) Systems-level testing in the expected operational
environment. Most of the testing to date has been component-
level. Over the past decade, we have seen harmful interference
occur on integrated systems in tests, exercises and real-world
incidents that were difficult to create in the laboratory
environment.
3) Test and/or analysis of aggregate effects. With the
exception of Aviation-certified receivers, most of the data
reported so far has been based on a single LightSquared base
station. Under real conditions, interference effects from
multiple base stations can produce a larger effect.
4) More thorough testing of LightSquared handsets. To date,
actual handsets have been unavailable and the simulations we
have done are of questionable fidelity. The handsets are much
weaker in terms of power compared to base stations, but much
more numerous and are expected to be in close proximity to GPS
receivers.
5) Realistic testing of the effectiveness of LightSquared's
proposed mitigation solutions for both high-precision receivers
and GPS timing. LightSquared has proposed several different
timing antennas and filter systems that appear promising.
Government tests need to verify these can be incorporated in
high precision receivers and still permit the receivers to meet
their mission requirements.
6) Once the final end-state is determined, high-fidelity
cost estimates need to be done for the costs of retrofitting or
replacing existing GPS receivers and associated infrastructure.
Mr. Turner. 21. Describe your organization's involvement in the FCC
process leading to the FCC's January 2011 conditional waiver to
LightSquared. Was the Department of Defense, in particular, able to
register its concerns with the FCC prior to its decision in January,
and if so, how were those concerns addressed?
Mr. Russo. 21. The National Coordination Office (NCO) is an
administrative office serving the National Space-Based Positioning,
Navigation and Timing Executive Committee (EXCOM). The NCO itself is
not a decision-making or policy-making body. The EXCOM is comprised of
the Deputy Secretaries of the nine different Federal departments
(including DOD) or agencies that are the principal Government
stakeholders in GPS and systems that augment or back-up GPS.
The issue was brought to the NCO's attention on December 21, 2010,
in the context of LightSquared's application for a waiver to the
integrated service rules, which would have resulted in a de facto re-
purposing of the spectrum for terrestrial broadband instead of Mobile-
Satellite Service (MSS). This represented a significant change to the
interference environment in terms of the number and density of the
Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) base stations we would expect to
see. I immediately brought the issue to the attention of the EXCOM's
Executive Steering Group (Assistant Secretary-level) and on December
27, 2010, I wrote to NTIA to request any action on LightSquared's
request for waiver be deferred until testing could be performed. On
January 3, 2011, I provided a point paper to all the members of the
EXCOM (Deputy Secretary-level) and requested the Deputy Secretary of
Defense engage the FCC Chairman to seek a delay to the waiver decision
until specific interference effects and mitigation actions could be
identified.
The Department of Defense registered its concerns on several levels
prior to the FCC decision. Mr. Price, the chief spectrum officer for
the DOD, wrote to NTIA on December 28, 2010, to request deferment of
action on LightSquared's waiver request and also to request formal
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to allow for a robust public
record and adequate interference analysis. Ms. Takai, the DOD Chief
Information Officer, personally engaged the NTIA Administrator to
express national security concerns. The Deputy Secretary of Defense,
Mr. Lynn, wrote to the FCC Chairman on January 12, 2011, to assert
there was a `` . . . strong potential for interference to these
critical National Security Systems.'' The Deputy Secretary strongly
recommended deferral of the waiver decision until interference studies
could be done.
The concerns of DOD, and other Federal agencies, were also
registered with the FCC in a January 12, 2011, from the NTIA
Administrator to the FCC Chairman recommending that LightSquared not be
permitted to offer service until the interference issues were resolved.
The FCC did not agree to use the NPRM process or to defer the
waiver as requested by DOD. However, it did address their concerns by
making the waiver conditional on resolving the GPS interference
concerns raised by DOD and others.
Mr. Turner. 22. Are your organizations concerned that the FCC can
provide final approval for LightSquared operations prior to resolving
the GPS interference issues?
Mr. Russo. 22. Yes, the organizations are concerned. However, FCC
representatives at every level have assured us they will not provide
final approval until the GPS interference issues are resolved. The FCC
liaison to the Executive Committee made that statement unequivocally to
the Deputy Secretaries that sit on the Committee. FCC also testified to
this intent to this Subcommittee. And the FCC Chairman himself has
said, `` . . . the commission will not permit LightSquared to begin
commercial service without first resolving the commission's concerns
about potential widespread harmful interference to GPS devices . . .
Under no circumstances would I put at risk our nation's national
defense or public safety.''
Mr. Turner. 23. There appears to be a tension between national
space policy, which seeks to mitigate harmful interference to GPS, and
national broadband policy, which in this particular case, would cause
harmful interference to GPS. How do we reconcile these two policies?
Mr. Russo. 23. These policies are not mutually exclusive. The
President issued a comprehensive Space Policy in June 2010, which
supported maintaining U.S. leadership in space-based positioning,
navigation and timing services and also reinforced a long-standing
commitment to offer these services on a worldwide, continuous basis
free from interruption. Also in June 2010, the President issued an
Executive Memo seeking to make available additional spectrum for
wireless broadband, but included a provision to `` . . . ensure no loss
of critical existing and planned Federal, State, Local and Tribal
Government capabilities.''
Therefore, the Administration's guidance to Federal agencies seems
clear: We should do what we can to collaborate with FCC to find ways to
improve the efficiency of spectrum use, but not at the expense of
existing and planned GPS services.
Mr. Turner. 24. Is LightSquared the only current or planned
broadband provider where the GPS interference concern is an issue? How
are other interference issues being resolved to enable co-existence of
broadband and GPS services?
Mr. Russo. 24. The Executive Committee requested a briefing on this
topic from FCC and NTIA last year after the Presidential Memorandum on
Spectrum was issued. On November 5, 2010 the Associate Administrator of
NTIA briefed the Executive Committee on the implications of the
Broadband initiative on GPS and indicated there were no known impacts.
The Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology for the FCC was
also present and had no concerns. However, as the Broadband plan is
implemented and evolves, the Executive Committee will continue to work
closely with NTIA and FCC on any new developments that could impact GPS
service. The Committee's Executive Steering Group has opened an Action
Item to create a Spectrum Protection Plan for GPS.
Mr. Turner. 1. I have learned that during the testimony
coordination process, you were asked to include the following in your
prepared remarks:
``The Administration believes that we must protect existing GPS
users from disruption of the services they depend on today and ensure
that innovative new GPS applications can be developed in the future. At
the same time, recognizing the President's instruction to identify 500
MHz of new spectrum for innovative new mobile broadband services, we
will continue our efforts at more efficient use of spectrum. Therefore,
in the short run, we will participate in the further testing required
to establish whether there are any mitigation strategies that can
enable LSQ operation in the lower 10MHz of the band. We also encourage
commercial entities with interests to work with LightSquared toward a
possible resolution, though any proposed mitigation must be subjected
to full testing. We hope that testing can be complete within 90 days.
The challenge of meeting the President's goal also depends on long-term
actions by Federal agencies in the area of research and development,
procurement practices that encourage spectrally-efficient applications,
and new policy development.''
a. Who, specifically, asked that this be included?
b. If you declined to include the language, in whole or in part,
please describe why.
c. Did anyone in the Administration attempt to persuade you to
include the language? Who?
Mr. Knapp. 1. I did not receive any requests to include this
language, or any other statement from the Administration in my
testimony.
Mr. Turner. 2. Are your responses to these QFRs your own views or
those of your agency? Have your responses been approved/edited by
anyone other than yourself or someone reporting to you?
Mr. Knapp. 2. Based on an agreement with your staff on September
14, 2011, FCC Chairman Genachowski designated me as the Commission
witness for the September 15, 2011, hearing before the Strategic Forces
Subcommittee. I drafted my own testimony in consultation with other
Commission staff consistent with standard procedure, and I stand by the
contents of my testimony. Since I served as the Chairman's designee,
his staff also reviewed the testimony before it was submitted.
Mr. Turner. 3. Please describe when you and your agency became
aware of the LightSquared network proposal and its potential for
significant interference.
Mr. Knapp. 3. The specific answer to your question is that prior to
December 2010, I was unaware of the potential for receiver overload of
GPS devices, although I now know that the GPS industry raised some
concerns in comments and provided assurances of mitigation in
September, 2010. To assist the Committee in its understanding of this
matter, a more complete explanation of the procedural history is
warranted. The relevant timeframe at issue is 2001 to the present.
During 2001, I served as Chief of the Policy and Rules Division in the
Office of Engineering and Technology (OFT) and became Deputy Chief of
OET in 2002. In 2006, then-FCC Chairman Kevin Martin appointed me as
OFT Chief.
Additionally, it should be understood that the Commission typically
addresses interference issues by setting parameters for transmitters to
ensure that they do not emit excessive energy into frequency bands used
by other services. The Commission then relies upon equipment
manufacturers, service providers, and other stakeholders to ensure
their receivers comply with those technical parameters. We also look to
these equipment manufacturer and service providers to provide technical
information on the performance characteristics of their receivers. They
are best positioned to know of their limitations and specifications and
should notify the Commission if overload interference is a potential
issue as a result of receiver characteristics. Because terrestrial
transmitters were expected to operate with some frequency separation
from the edge of the GPS band, the potential overload problem was not
one that the FCC would have examined in the ordinary course of the
proceeding.
Below is the procedural history of the LightSquared matter:
Commission issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to permit
mobile satellite service providers to offer an ancillary component in
response to requests filed by Mobile Satellite Ventures Inc. and New
ICO Global Communications.
Proposal invites comment on whether the proposed rules
would protect GPS systems. See Flexibility for Delivery of
Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band,
the L-Band and the 1.6/2.4 GHz band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, TB
Docket No. 01-185, 16 FCC Rcd. 15,532 (2001).
2003
Commission adopts rules permitting MSS licensees to
integrate ATC into their satellite networks to provide mobile service
to areas where satellite signals are degraded or blocked (i.e., urban
areas and inside of buildings). See Flexibility for Delivery of
Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band,
the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, TB Docket Nos. 01-185, 02-364,
Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd. 1962 (2003), as modified by Order on
Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd. 13,590 (2003).
Rules require MSS licensees to offer an integrated
satellite and terrestrial service.
They must maintain a viable satellite service and cannot
offer terrestrial service separately.
Rules also allow up to 1,725 terrestrial base stations to
be deployed in the L-band, which includes the spectrum adjacent to and
below the GPS band.
2004
Commission's International Bureau authorizes SkyTerra
(formerly MSV), to offer an integrated MSS/ATC service to users
equipped with dual-mode MSS/ATC mobile devices. Authorization provides
for expansive ATC, including the deployment of thousands of terrestrial
base stations. See Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC Application
for Minor Modification of Space Station License for AMSC-1, File Nos.
SAT-MOD-20031 118-00333, SAT-MOD-20031 118-00332, SESMOD-20031 118-
01879, Order and Authorization, 19 FCC Rcd. 22,144 (Int'l Bur. 2004).
2005
Commission modifies the MSS ATC rules in response to
petitions for reconsideration of the 2003 Order.
Adopted rules were (and remain) consistent with the
recommendations of the GPS industry and the Executive Branch, which
included input from the Department of Defense.
Commission removes the previously adopted limitation on
the number of terrestrial base stations that may be deployed. See TB
Docket Nos. 01-185, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Order on
Reconsideration 20 FCC Rcd. 4616 (2005) (ATC Reconsideration Order).
Extensively discusses the potential overload interference
from L-band (SkyTerra) ATC base stations to Inmarsat mobile satellite
terminals as well as potential overload interference from 2 GHz ATC
mobile devices operating above 1995 MHz to PCS mobile receivers
operating in the adjacent band below 1995 MHz.
No one raises receiver overload interference issue.
2009 (March-April)
Harbinger and SkyTerra together file an application for
transfer of control of SkyTerra to Harbinger. SkyTerra subsequently
files an application for modification of its authority for an ancillary
terrestrial component, including requests for waivers of a number of
the Commission's rules for ATC operation. Commission invites public
comment on both requests, triggering extensive comments.
2009 (July-August)
GPS industry raises concerns about SkyTerra's application
for ATC modifications, stating that the existing out-of-band emissions
limits would be insufficient to protect against interference to GPS
from LightSquared's planned low power base stations and indoor ``femto-
cells.'' Note out-of-band emissions are not the same as receiver
overload, which is the basis of the current controversy. No one raises
receiver overload issue. SkyTerra and the U.S. GPS Industry Council
submit a joint letter to the Commission stating that the out-of-band
emissions interference issues had been resolved. No commenter raises
any other concerns about GPS interference.
2010 (March 15)
National Broadband Plan Recommendation 5.8.4 calls for
the FCC to accelerate terrestrial deployment in the MSS spectrum.
2010 (March 26)
Commission's bureaus and offices issue two orders
addressing the 2009 Harbinger and SkyTerra requests and comments:
(First Order) SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC Application for
Modification Authority for Ancillary Terrestrial Component,
Order and Authorization, 25 FCC Rcd. 3043 (Int'l Bur. 2010).
> Authorizes the transfer of control from SkyTerra to
Harbinger, explaining Harbinger's plans to construct a hybrid-
satellite-terrestrial network and noting terrestrial component
would cover 90 percent of the United States.
> Notes Harbinger's plans to deploy a network that will cover
100 percent of the U.S. population via the satellite component
and ultimately over 90 percent of the population via its
terrestrial component.
> Observes that if Harbinger successfully deploys its
integrated satellite/terrestrial network, it would be able to
provide mobile broadband communications in areas where it is
difficult or impossible to provide coverage by terrestrial base
stations.
> Does not waive or alter MSS/ATC rules.
(Second Order) See SkyTerra Communications, Inc., Transferor
and Harbinger Capital partners Funds, Transferee Applications
for Consent to Transfer Control of SkyTerra Subsidiary, LLC, lB
Docket No. 08-184, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Declaratory
Ruling, 25 FCC Rcd. 3059 (TB, OET, WTB, rel. March 25, 2010).
> Modifies SkyTerra's authorization to provide ATC, applying
conditions to address all technical concerns raised in the
comment cycle and granting a request to increase the power
level of the base stations.
> Commission's bureaus coordinate Order with relevant
Executive Branch agencies. Notes DOD's concerns about potential
interference to national security systems in certain
circumstances and instructs the licensee to continue to work
with DOD to resolve these concerns.
> No one raises receiver overload interference issue.
2010 (July-September)
Commission follows National Broadband Plan
recommendations and initiates a rule making to provide greater
flexibility to deploy terrestrial service in the mobile satellite
service. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, ET
Docket No. 10-142, 25 FCC Rcd. 9481.
GPS Industry Council files comments in September that
include reference to the possibility of receiver overload interference
to GPS receivers at a distance of about 100 meters from ATC base
stations based on state-of-the-art filtering, and notes that for much
of the mobile consumer UPS in use, including public safety (e.g., 911
cellphones), the harmful interference effect would be somewhat worse
than this case.
UPS Council notes ``[i]n earlier Commission proceedings,
the Council has worked collaboratively with MSS operators of ATC to
seek mutual agreements that facilitate successful MSS ATC operations
and avoid interference to the UPS installed base. The Council believes
that solutions are available to mitigate the otherwise unavoidable
harmful effects described in these comments and looks forward to
working collaboratively with interested parties to explore these issues
and potential solutions.''
2010 (November-December)
November 15: LightSquared announces the successful launch
of its first next-generation satellite, SkyTerra 1.
November 18: LightSquared files a request to modify its
ATC authority to accommodate its business plan of selling data network
capacity at wholesale, rather than retail (as SkyTerra had done). The
request seeks to allow wholesale service providers to offer
terrestrial-only handsets at the same power levels and conditions
previously granted. See LightSquared Subsidiary LLC Request for
Modification of its Authority for an Ancillary Terrestrial Component,
SAT-MOD20101118-00239.
Commission places November 18th request on Public Notice.
See Policy Branch Information, Satellite Space Applications Accepted
for Filing, Report No. SAT0073 8, Public Notice (rel. November 19,
2010); see also LightSquared Subsidiary LLC Request for Modification of
its Authority for Ancillary Terrestrial Component, SAT-MOD 20101118-
00239, Order, DA 10-2243 (TB, Sat. Div., rd. Nov. 26, 2010).
GPS industry, GPS users and Federal interests object to
LightSquared's planned terrestrial deployment alleging that the GPS
environment will be changed by LightSquared's wholesale model because
it will no longer be motivated to be cognizant of the impact on its own
satellite service--based on a concern about major potential GPS
interference due to ``receiver overload.''
Limited technical data is submitted related to the scope
of the receiver overload problem and no mitigation is submitted.
2011 (January)
International Bureau issues January 26th Order modifying
LightSquared's authorization. Order provides a conditional waiver of
the ATC ``integrated services'' rule to allow wholesalers to offer
mobile terminals with only terrestrial capability, rather than ``dual
mode'' capability (i.e., the ability to communicate in a single handset
or terminal via either a satellite or a terrestrial network). Order
establishes a process to investigate the GPS interference issue that
had been raised and stipulates that LightSquared may not offer
commercial service until the process is complete and the risk of
harmful interference has been resolved.
Order imposes numerous other conditions to ensure that
LightSquared will continue to provide a commercially competitive
satellite service and will continue to develop and make available in
the marketplace dual mode MSS/ATC-capable devices.
2011 (July)
Technical Working Group submits report concerning results
of testing on the GPS receiver overload issues.
LightSquared states it will not utilize the upper 10 MHz
of the L-Band in order to satisfy interference concerns.
Commission issues a Public Notice requesting comment on
the report.
2011 (August)
Commission receives over 3,000 comments in the
proceeding.
2011 (September)
Commission releases Public Notice requiring additional
testing. See Public Notice, Fed. Commc'ns Comm., Status of Testing in
Connection with LightSquared's Request for ATC Commercial Operating
Authority (Sept. 13, 2011).
I should also note that I only recently learned that John Deere &
Co. (Deere) in 2001 filed comments opposing the proposed merger between
LightSquared's predecessor companies (Motient and TMI) based on
concerns that this would reduce competition in the provision of mobile
satellite service. Deere mentioned in a filing to that proceeding that
terrestrial service contemplated under the merger could cause receiver
overload interference to GPS. Inmarsat Ventures also filed an
opposition to this merger and mentioned the possibility of overload
interference to GPS. Neither party provided any data or analyses on
this point in their filings a decade ago.
As noted in the timeline above, the Commission subsequently issued
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2001 seeking comment on proposals to
deploy terrestrial service using the MSS spectrum. To my knowledge,
neither Deere nor Inmarsat raised the issue of overload interference to
GPS receivers within the context of the subsequent industry-wide MSS/
ATC rulemaking proceeding. I am unaware of any other filings that would
have advised the Commission of potential interference caused by GPS
receiver overload.
Mr. Turner. 4. LightSquared has recently announced that it has
solved the interference issue for 99.5 percent of GPS users.
a. Do you agree with this statement?
b. What is the solution?
c. Is it a solution for uses of GPS for which you are responsible?
d. Has it been tested by the Federal Government? If so, please
provide details.
Mr. Knapp. 4. LightSquared proposes several mitigation measures.
First, LightSquared has proposed to initially use only the lower 10 MHz
channel in its spectrum, a step that it believes would avoid harmful
interference to the vast majority of existing GPS equipment without any
modification. Second, LightSquared has stated that it has developed
filters for certain types of GPS equipment that would otherwise still
experience interference from its use of the lower channel.
In accordance with the Commission's September 13 Public Notice,
further tests and evaluations are underway relative to operation on the
lower 10 MHz. NTIA currently is analyzing the results of tests designed
to gauge whether LightSquared's proposed network will interfere with
the operation of GPS receivers in cellphones, car navigation systems,
and other consumer-oriented devices used for marine and outdoor
recreation activities.
NTIA also will review the results of separate tests planned for UPS
receivers used for high-precision and timing applications. Those tests
will include GPS devices modified with new filtering technology that
LightSquared and other companies have said will solve interference and
would need to be added to existing GPS devices. We cannot assess the
effectiveness of these measures until the agencies have evaluated and
tested the solution and LightSquared or the Executive Branch presents
the data to the Commission.
Mr. Turner. 5. General Shelton stated that he believed that
LightSquared's filter ``solution'' could cost billions of dollars over
more than a decade.
Who would be obligated to pay for the costs of adding
filters?
Will the FCC lift the conditional waiver and allow a
final waiver to go forward if the costs of the proposed filters are to
be borne by the Federal Government?
Mr. Knapp. 5. I have not been provided with the data or other
sources of information General Shelton relied upon for his statement,
and I have not been provided with any specific cost assessments. As I
noted during the hearing, it would be premature to attempt to determine
costs without first establishing and testing an engineering solution to
the problem.
Until an engineering solution is tested and vetted in the
public record, any potential cost analysis or allocation would be
premature.
Under the January 26, 2011, Order, LightSquared must
resolve all harmful interference claims before it can offer commercial
service. The threshold question in any analysis of a filter solution
would be whether the filter is effective and viable to retro-fit
existing equipment.
Mr. Turner. 6. In a September 29, 2011, Washington Post article by
Cecilia Kang, it was reported that LightSquared chief executive Sanjiv
Ahuja said during an interview on C-SPAN's ``The Communicators'' that
the company is offering Federal agencies ``a sufficient amount of money
to replace most receivers or fix most receivers out there.''
a. Please provide an estimate of how much money LightSquared would
have to spend to ``replace most receivers or fix the Federal
Government's GPS receivers.''
b. How much has the United States Government spent on its GPS
receivers?
c. How much have GPS users other than the United States spent on
their GPS receivers?
Mr. Knapp. 6a. See my answer to Question 5, above.
6b. The Commission does not have access to any information on
expenditures by other Government agencies for GPS equipment.
6c. The Commission does not have data on the amount of money the
public has spent on GPS equipment.
Mr. Turner. 7. My understanding is that Mr. Russo solicited all
Federal Government agencies with GPS equities on their concerns with
the LightSquared proposal. Are you aware of any Government position
papers on LightSquared interference which have been provided to the
National Coordination Office or to the NTIA that have not been
forwarded to the FCC and then made public? If so, why were they not
made public immediately?
Mr. Knapp. 7. I am not aware of any such papers.
Mr. Turner. 8. LightSquared has proposed, as part of its ``lower 10
MHz'' option a ``standstill'' on the upper 10 MHz of the spectrum
adjacent to the GPS signal. At the same time, LightSquared is said to
believe that it needs access to its full spectrum, both the lower and
the upper, to be profitable.
a. Please explain what the ``standstill'' means and what terms
LightSquared is proposing for the ``standstill.''
b. Has LightSquared indicated the ``upper 10'' of the spectrum is
completely, permanently off-the-table? Is that what the ``standstill''
means?
c. If the ``standstill'' was only a matter of a few years, what
would that mean to your agencies?
d. Should Congress, or the FCC, codify somehow the terms of the
``standstill'' if it is ultimately determined that the ``lower 10 MHz''
option is acceptable?
Mr. Knapp. 8a. Although LightSquared is best positioned to explain
its own proposals, I understand LightSquared's current proposal is to
initially deploy terrestrial operations on the lower 10 MHz channel.
Further, the Commission's September 13, 2011, Public Notice
specifically states that further targeted testing will focus on the
lower 10 MHz channel.
8b. LightSquared is not now proposing to use the upper 10 MHz
channel.
8c. The answer to this question would depend on the engineering
solutions and the population of devices and their characteristics.
8d. The current conditional waiver contained in the January 26,
2011, Order appropriately addresses any potential use of this spectrum,
by requiring that all harmful interference issues be resolved.
LightSquared would not be permitted to use that spectrum absent
satisfaction of the condition.
Mr. Turner. 9. LightSquared's business plan calls for providing
service to 260 million people by 2015. If LightSquared limited its
network operations to its ``lower 10'' proposal, including lower power
levels, how much of its business plan does it achieve? Does it need
both the ``lower 10'' and ``upper 10'' megahertz bands to realize full
coverage of 260 million people?
Mr. Knapp. 9. LightSquared is best positioned to answer questions
concerning the implementation of its business plan.
Mr. Turner. 10. Part of this proposal is a ``standstill'' on the
use of the upper 10 MHz spectrum. What is a ``standstill'' and how
would it work?
Mr. Knapp. 10. See my answer to Question 8, above.
Mr. Turner. 11. It has been said by the FCC, including the
Chairman, that the FCC handles interference issues all the time, so we
can trust it to handle this one. This is a troubling statement, as it
seems to be suggesting that this case is a routine matter.
a. I have to ask, is it routine for the Deputy Secretary of Defense
to warn the FCC two weeks before it takes an action that that action
``has strong potential for interference to . . . critical National
Security Systems''?
b. Is it routine for the Deputy Secretary of Defense to have to
have to say to the FCC that it and another Department ``were not
sufficiently included in the development of . . . [a] work plan and its
key milestones'' and that ``we are concerned with this lack of
inclusiveness regarding input from federal stakeholders''?
c. We've been told that bureaus are permitted to grant waivers of
the Commission's rules instead of initiating a rulemaking where a
waiver will serve the public interest and good cause has been shown.
Please explain the ``public interest'' or ``good cause'' where
significant national security concerns were known two weeks before the
waiver was issued by the FCC on January 26th.
Mr. Knapp. 11a. The Commission takes all concerns about the
potential for harmful interference seriously, especially those
involving public safety, national security, and defense. Indeed, the
Commission has successfully resolved many issues in the past where the
Department of Defense initially raised concerns about harmful
interference. The radio spectrum is a crowded and complex environment,
and changes in the use of any particular band of frequencies often lead
to disagreements about the potential for interference, including from
the Executive Branch. A review of the U.S. Table of Frequency
Allocations (available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osrnhome/
allochrt.html) gives a visual illustration of why we continually engage
other Government entities in discussions about this issue and why the
Memorandum of Understanding with NTIA exists. NTIA manages Federal
spectrum and is advised by the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee
(IRAC). Among the members of IRAC are DOD, DOE, NASA, DOT, and the
State Department. DOD often raises concerns about spectrum matters in
this forum, and NTIA takes these concerns, along with other
considerations, into account in its deliberations with the Commission
on any spectrum proceedings that could affect Federal operations.
11b. The January Order established a process that called for
LightSquared to form a Technical Working Group including all interested
parties and representatives of the Federal Government. The Commission
coordinated the Order with NTIA and the Federal agencies so they were
aware of this process, and they were encouraged to participate. The
Department of Defense and the other Federal agencies with GPS interests
participated in the Technical Working Group. At the time that the
Department of Defense raised its concern about the test plan in March,
it believed that the process was moving too quickly and it had not been
provided sufficient opportunity to shape the test plan. We contacted
the interested parties to ensure that these concerns were addressed. In
addition to the report submitted by the Technical Working Group,
Federal agencies conducted their own tests under the auspices of the
National Positioning, Navigation & Timing (PNT) Engineering Forum
(NPEF) that were submitted to the FCC by the NTIA and were inserted in
the public record for comment.
11c. The Commission's staff acted responsibly by taking the unusual
step of preventing LightSquared from deploying its network until
concerns about potential harmful interference could be resolved. Prior
to that point, and based on its current license, LightSquared could
have deployed its terrestrial base stations, as long as its handsets
included dual satellite and terrestrial capabilities, instead of
singular terrestrial capabilities. The staff's waiver condition
addresses this issue. The waiver standard for all Commission activities
is longstanding and dates to 1972. See WAITRadio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153,
1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972).
Mr. Turner. 12. The FCC has attempted to assure Congress all along
the way, including in the Public Notice dated September 13, 2011, that
it won't permit any national security harm. What does that mean? How
will that be enforced? Does this mean General Shelton, the general
officer in charge of assuring GPS reliability and effectiveness, will
have to give a thumbs up to any final action with respect to
LightSquared? If not, why not?
Mr. Knapp. 12. The Commission's January 26, 2011, Order
specifically stated that LightSquared may not deploy commercial service
until concerns of harmful interference to GPS have been resolved. The
Commission is working pursuant to its MOU with NTIA to determine
whether LightSquared' s proposal can satisfy this requirement. The
testing and evaluation process remains ongoing pursuant to the
September 13, 2011, Public Notice. NTIA currently is analyzing the
results of tests designed to gauge whether LightSquared's proposed
network will interfere with the operation of GPS receivers in
cellphones, car navigation systems, and other consumer-oriented devices
used for marine and outdoor recreation activities.
NTIA also will review the results of separate tests planned for UPS
receivers used for high-precision and timing applications. Those tests
will include GPS devices modified with new filtering technology that
LightSquared and other companies have said will solve interference and
would need to be added to existing GPS devices.
The Commission deals directly with NTJA, which represents the
Executive Branch on spectrum management and negotiates on behalf of the
Federal agencies. Under the MOU, the Commission will continue to work
with NTIA directly to resolve this matter. The Department of Defense
and General Shelton will have the opportunity to continue to work with
the NTIA to ensure that his concerns about interference are adequately
addressed through the longstanding and consultative process. It should
be noted, however, that we have reached out to individual agencies,
including DOD, to discuss their concerns.
Mr. Turner. 13. Can you tell us if the FCC has discussed with
LightSquared whether it will include technology by two firms linked to
the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army, Huawei and ZTE Corp.,
in this 4G nationwide network, assuming it is approved in some
configuration? Will you please take this back to LightSquared and
provide a written response to this Committee for the record of the
hearing?
Mr. Knapp. 13. The Commission's Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau and Office of Legislative Affairs have been working closely with
the appropriate congressional offices to ensure that they are aware of
the FCC's role in addressing telecommunications equipment importation
issues. Questions related to LightSquared's vendor selections are best
directed to LightSquared.
Mr. Turner. 14. LightSquared would operate in a different part of
the spectrum (1525-1559 megahertz) than GPS (1559-1610 megahertz). Why
is there an interference problem when the two systems would operate in
different, but neighboring, parts of the spectrum?
Mr. Knapp. 14. Out-of-band interference and in-band interference
may occur when two systems operate in adjacent spectrum allocations.
These two forms of interference have been raised in the context of the
LightSquared matter.
Out-of-band emission limitations ensure that a licensee's signal
does not bleed into the other frequency band and cause interference to
receivers in the adjacent band. The Commission fully considered the
issue of out-of-band emissions into the GPS band during the 2001-2005
rulemakings. At that time, the Commission adopted the out-of-band
emissions limits recommended by the GPS industry and the NTIA. As noted
in the timeline set out to Question 3, the GPS industry raised concerns
about ``out-of-band'' emissions from indoor consumer terminals as a
potential problem during the SkyTerra-LightSquared transfer of control
process but told the Commission in a 2009 letter that these concerns
had been resolved.
In-band interference can cause ``receiver overload.'' This type of
interference occurs when a receiver that is intended for reception in
one band picks up signals in an adjacent band. In the current case, the
primary issue is that GPS receivers will experience ``receiver
overload'' because they do not have sufficient capability to reject
signals legally transmitted in the adjacent mobile satellite band from
LightSquared's high power base stations.
The FCC does not regulate receivers. As discussed in Question 3,
the Commission typically addresses interference issues by setting
parameters for transmitters to ensure that they do not emit excessive
energy into frequency bands used by other services and relies on
equipment manufacturers, service providers, and other stakeholders to
ensure their receivers comply with those technical parameters.
It should be noted that other testimony in this hearing suggested
that a change in LightSquared's business plan in late 2010 created the
receiver overload issue. To correct the record, LightSquared's ATC
business plan is based on the FCC's original MSS/ATC rules and on
LightSquared's 2004 authorization. LightSquared's planned terrestrial
deployment was described plainly in the Commission's March 2010 Order
authorizing the transfer of control from SkyTerra to Harbinger.
Concurrently, the March, 2010 Order that modified LightSquared's
authorization to provide terrestrial service applied technical and
operational conditions to address concerns raised by commenters.
LightSquared's waiver request in November 2010 sought authority to
operate on the same channels, with the same network, and at the same
power levels, as currently authorized for ATC and required under the
March 2010 Order, but serving some handsets designed for solely
terrestrial service, rather than dual-mode (terrestrial and satellite)
communications. The radio frequency environment affecting GPS is
technically identical whether the handsets served by LightSquared's
network have the ability to provide terrestrial or combined
terrestrial-satellite operations.
Mr. Turner. 15. The reviews undertaken suggest that there are
certain UPS applications that, even with modification or complete
redesign, would still not be able to perform their current mission in
the presence of such network broadcasting directly adjacent to the GPS
L1 Band. What applications?
Mr. Knapp. 15. The Commission's September 13, 2011, Public Notice
states that further targeted testing will focus on the lower 10 MHz
channel. Since the testing and evaluation and review process is still
ongoing and the Commission's record remains open, I cannot predict the
outcome of that process.
Mr. Turner. 16. Is LightSquared allowed to build out a terrestrial
network today? What are the limitations, if any? Under what
circumstances could/would buildup be stopped? Assuming FCC provides
authorization for LightSquared to move forward with its deployment
plans, as outlined in its November 2010 filing, how would this build-
out affect military systems and users in the near-term?
Mr. Knapp. 16. Until the Commission issued its conditional waiver
in the January 26, 2011, Order, LightSquared had authority to build out
its network as long as the handsets served by its network had dual-mode
terrestrial and satellite capability. LightSquared's November 18, 2010
filing requested permission to allow wholesaler customers of
LightSquared's network capacity to offer their retail customers
terrestrial-only handsets. As noted earlier, as a condition of the
waiver, LightSquared was required to maintain a competitive mobile
satellite service and to develop dual-mode MSS-ATC mobile terminals
that would be available at retail.
The Order took the unusual and stringent step of stopping
commercial deployment until all harmful interference issues raised in
the comment period were resolved. The harmful interference concerns
raised in December 2010 involved receiver overload problems. The
Commission's Order in January 2011 states that no deployment is
permissible absent the resolution of harmful interference concerns.
This requirement includes protection for military systems and users.
Mr. Turner. 17. Are FCC and the NTIA looking at other parts of the
spectrum for possible LightSquared operations?
Mr. Knapp. 17. The FCC is not, and there have been no such
discussions with NTIA.
Mr. Turner. 18. DOD briefings to the committee suggest that the
part of the L-Band spectrum in question was intended primarily for
space-to-ground transmissions. Can you explain the history here and why
decisions were made to allow significant terrestrial transmissions in
this band?
Mr. Knapp. 18. My answer to Question 3 provides a timeline that
illustrates the historical background of this matter. To summarize, as
early as 2001 the Commission proposed to permit ancillary terrestrial
service in the mobile satellite spectrum. In 2003, the Commission
permitted mobile satellite service (MSS) licensees to integrate
ancillary terrestrial components (ATC) into their satellite networks to
provide mobile service to areas where the satellite signal is degraded
or blocked (i.e., urban areas and into buildings). The Commission
determined in 2003 that this change in policy would encourage
innovative techniques and better services. In 2004, SkyTerra, the
predecessor to LightSquared, was given ATC authorization, which
provided for expansive ancillary authority, including authorization to
deploy thousands of terrestrial base stations to provide terrestrial
services on its authorized satellite spectrum.
Mr. Turner. 19. Does LightSquared need to submit a formal
modification to its November 2010 application outlining its ``lower
10'' proposal? If not, how will the Federal agencies have sufficient
information about the details of its revised plans to provide
assessments on potential interference? Does LightSquared's June 30,
2011, submission to the FCC provide sufficient information on its
``lower 10'' proposal for your organizations to determine whether the
proposal mitigates GPS interference?
Mr. Knapp. 19. LightSquared has not requested a modification to its
authorization, and the Commission's record is open on this issue. I
believe that sufficient information has been submitted for parties to
evaluate LightSquared's proposals, and whatever provisions are
necessary to avoid causing harmful interference can ultimately be
included in any modification to its authorization.
The Commission's September 13, 2011, Public Notice indicates that
further targeted testing related to the lower 10 MHz channel is
necessary in conjunction with the written request of NTIA and in
compliance with the January 2011 Order. NTIA is appropriately
positioned to take into account Federal agency concerns about harmful
interference to GPS. Under the MOU, the Commission will continue to
work with NTIA and other interested agencies to resolve this matter.
Mr. Turner. 20. How are DOD comments and concerns addressed at this
point in the process?
Mr. Knapp. 20. NTIA represents Federal spectrum users, including
DOD. Under the long-standing MOU and as noted in the January 26, 2011,
Order, the Commission will work with NTIA to resolve all Executive
Branch concerns about interference issues. In this instance, we also
have engaged in direct discussions with all affected agencies,
including DOD.
Mr. Turner. 21. Section 911 of H.R. 1540, the FY11 National Defense
Authorization Act, provides that the conditional waiver for
LightSquared issued by the FCC on January 26, 2011, may not he lifted
until ``the Commission has resolved concerns of widespread harmful
interference by such commercial terrestrial operations to the Global
Position System devices of the Department of Defense.'' How would the
Commission comply with this provision? Please be specific.
Mr. Knapp. 21. Section 911's language is consistent with the
Commission's January 26, 2011, Order. As stated in the Order, the
Commission is not permitting LightSquared to deploy commercial service
until the resolution of harmful interference issues.
Mr. Turner. 22. In April of this year the Commission issued a
Report and Order where it reallocated portions of the 2 GHz spectrum
from primary Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) to coprimary MSS and Fixed
Mobile uses. This reallocation increased the amount of spectrum
available for terrestrial mobile broadband operations by a significant
40 MHz. Why did the Commission not undertake a similar reallocation
with the L-Band spectrum that is the subject of the LightSquared
conditional waiver of the MSS Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC)
gating rules? Are the results of these two processes not effectively
the same when it comes to the amount of mobile broadband spectrum being
made available?
Mr. Knapp. 22. The circumstances for the L-Band are different from
those for the 2 GHz MSS spectrum, which accounts for why they were
handled differently. LightSquared shares the L-Band spectrum with
Inmarsat. Both LightSquared's and Inmarsat's spectrum was fragmented
into narrow slices. Consistent with Commission policies to encourage
satellite licensees to cooperate in their use of the spectrum,
LightSquared reached an agreement to fund the reorganization of
Inmarsat's spectrum to better enable deployment of LightSquared's
integrated satellite and terrestrial service. In short, this was a
situation that only the two parties could resolve.
In contrast, the 2 GHz MSS spectrum is authorized to licensees in
contiguous blocks so there was no need to untangle use of the spectrum
by multiple licensees. The Commission's April 2011 order was largely a
ministerial action. The Commission modified the Table of Frequency
Allocations to add a co-primary Fixed and Mobile allocation to the 2
GHz MSS band to make it consistent with the International Table of
Allocations. This action for the 2 GHz band laid the groundwork for
more flexible use of the band, including for terrestrial broadband
services, in the future. See ET Docket No. 10-142, Report and Order, 26
FCC Rcd. 5710.
Substantive changes to the Table of Frequency Allocations are
generally made through the rule making process. Since there is no
international fixed and mobile allocation for the L-Band, the
Commission did not propose to change the allocations for this spectrum
and rule making was not required.
The Commission has received requests from Dish Network for approval
of a transaction to transfer the licenses for the existing 2 GHz MSS
spectrum and grant a waiver to deploy terrestrial service under
conditions similar to LightSquared. The Commission has not detennined
how it will address these requests. The Commission has put Dish's
proposed transaction and waiver requests out for public comment, and
that proceeding remains open.
Mr. Turner. 23. Is it not FCC policy enshrined in several orders
absolutely to prevent un-integrated terrestrial service in the MSS
band, and to ensure that any ATC offered is compatible with co-coverage
MSS? If that isn't the policy, when did the policy change?
Mr. Knapp. 23. LightSquared has never proposed to provide un-
integrated terrestrial service in the MSS band. LightSquared continues
to integrate its services and grow its satellite-based services. For
instance, using MSAT-1 and MSAT-2, LightSquared provides voice and low-
speed data services to customers for various applications, including
(1) land-based applications (e.g., voice, asset tracking); (2) maritime
applications; and (3) Government applications (e.g., disaster relief).
These services are available in North and Central America, the
Caribbean, Hawaii and coastal waters.
LightSquared's satellite system currently serves Federal, state,
and local agencies involved in public safety and emergency response
operations, including organizations such as the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the Coast Guard, and local fire and police
departments. LightSquared also provides fleet management and other
services to the transportation and natural resources industries.
LightSquared also has entered into an agreement with the Indian Health
Service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide
satellite service to American Indian and Alaska Native communities
until 2020.
The waiver granted to LightSquared is based on existing Commission
policy and a 2005 Order related to its number of base stations and
power levels, as well as the language in the 2010 Order permitting the
transfer of control from SkyTerra to LightSquared. In granting
LightSquared's proposal and the waiver request, the International
Bureau considered several factors demonstrating an integrated satellite
and terrestrial service: (1) LightSquared's provision of substantial
satellite service in the L-Band; (2) its ongoing efforts to coordinate
with other L-Band operators and make substantial investments to
rationalize operations in the L-Band to enable use of this spectrum for
both MSS and ATC broadband services; (3) the steps it has taken to
promote dual-mode satellite/terrestrial devices; and (4) its deployment
of a 4G satellite/terrestrial network in the L-Band pursuant to unique
and substantial terrestrial build out requirements. The Bureau
determined that these factors together satisfied the integrated service
requirement for ATC, which applies to LightSquared as well as other MSS
providers.
Mr. Turner. 24. When LightSquared filed its request to provide
terrestrial-only mobile broadband services in November 2010, was the
Commission aware of the GPS receiver overload problem?
If not, when did the Commission first become aware of
this problem?
Was it ever addressed in the context of the various MSS
ATC rulemakings and licensing orders?
Mr. Knapp. 24. Please see my answer to Question 3, above, for a
thorough history of this matter. I first became aware of the receiver
overload issue in December, 2010, although I have learned that GPS
filed comments that mentioned possible overload interference and
mitigation in September, 2010. Also, to clarify and as discussed in my
response to Question 23, above, LightSquared will provide integrated
satellite and terrestrial services on a wholesale basis. It will not
provide terrestrial-only service.
Mr. Turner. 25. The L-Band and 2 GHz MSS licensees did not pay
upfront fees for their use of valuable spectrum. When they operate in
ATC mode, especially if the gating rules are waived and they are
allowed to operate within their assigned MSS spectrum in terrestrial-
only mode, in effect they will be providing a service identical in
nature to that provided by the terrestrial carriers.
Is it fair that the MSS spectrum users in ATC mode will
not have paid for use of their spectrum, when others such as ATT and
Verizon were required to spend billions of dollars for access to their
spectrum?
Does this disparity not skew the market and place the
terrestrial carriers at a disadvantage? Were the gating rules not
adopted in large part to avoid this disparity? Please explain.
Mr. Knapp. 25. The assumption that terrestrial providers such as
AT&T and Verizon paid the Government for all of the spectrum they use
is mistaken. Prior to the implementation of the Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993, entities receiving FCC licenses did not pay the Government
for the value of their spectrum. Licenses were assigned through a range
of methods, including comparative hearings and lotteries. AT&T and
Verizon hold licenses from the pre-auction period, although they have
expanded their networks since that time and acquired spectrum through
the auction process.
LightSquared's predecessor in interest (SkyTerra) obtained its
licenses in 1995 and assigned them to Harbinger in 2010 in a financial
transaction in which Harbinger paid $1.8 billion. At the time of the
initial licensing process, the Orbit Act forbade the auction of MSS
spectrum.
Mr. Turner. 26. The National Positioning, Navigation & Timing (PNT)
Engineering Forum (NPEF) report recommends that the U.S. Government
should ``conduct more thorough studies on the operational, economic and
safety impacts of operating the LightSquared Network.'' What additional
studies and analysis do your organizations (or, you in your
professional opinion) believe need to be conducted and why?
Mr. Knapp. 26. The Commission's September 13, 2011, Public Notice
calls for additional targeted testing and adopts by reference the
NTJA's letter concerning additional testing requirements. NTIA
currently is analyzing the results of tests designed to gauge whether
LightSquared's proposed network will interfere with the operation of
GPS receivers in cellphones, car navigation systems, and other
consumer-oriented devices used for marine and outdoor recreation
activities.
NTIA also will review the results of separate tests planned for GPS
receivers used for high-precision and timing applications. Those tests
will include UPS devices modified with new filtering technology that
LightSquared and other companies have said will solve interference and
would need to be added to existing GPS devices.
Mr. Turner. 27. There appears to be a tension between national
space policy, which seeks to mitigate harmful interference to UPS, and
national broadband policy, which in this particular case, would cause
harmful interference to UPS. How do we reconcile these two policies?
Mr. Knapp. 27. I do not believe that the two policies are in
conflict. Rather, one of the goals in the interference-resolution
process has been to bring all of the parties together to develop
engineering solutions. From an engineering standpoint, I believe that
technical and operational solutions will bring closure to this matter.
Furthermore, the 2004 Presidential Policy on Position, Navigation
and Timing (PNT Policy) states that the United States shall, among
other things, ``improve the performance of space-based positioning,
navigation, and timing services, including more robust resistance to
interference for [emphasis added], and consistent with, U.S. and allied
national security purposes, homeland security, and civil, commercial,
and scientific users worldwide,'' which is consistent with the 2010
National Space Policy stating that the United States will ``support
international activities to detect, mitigate, and increase resiliency
to harmful interference to GPS'' [emphasis added].
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
