Recap: Using Spectrum to Advance Public Safety, Promote Broadband, Create Jobs, and Reduce the Deficit

On April 12, the House Commerce Committee's Communications and Technology Subcommittee held a hearing entitled “Using Spectrum to Advance Public Safety, Promote Broadband, Create Jobs, and Reduce the Deficit."

Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) said: "We’re here today for a broad overview on how spectrum can help expand broadband availability, advance public safety, help broadcasters further innovate, create jobs, and reduce the deficit. Spectrum is a critical input for broadcast television, wireless voice and broadband services, and public safety communications. As a former radio broadcaster and licensed HAM radio operator, spectrum is a medium with which I am somewhat familiar. These critical uses of spectrum have shaped the way Americans live, work, and stay connected to their families and the world.... Today we begin discussing how we will get the next wave of spectrum deployed. There is growing consensus we need between an additional 100 MHz and 300 MHz in the short term -- say 5 to 10 years -- to meet the exploding consumer and economic demand for wireless broadband. Given the staggering growth in smartphone sales, app store sales, and demand for streaming video content, it is no surprise that the FCC’s National Broadband Plan and the President of the United States are calling for an additional 500 MHz of spectrum to be allocated for wireless broadband use in the next five years. There are a variety of options that could be used in combination to start addressing this need."

House Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said: "One thing we will consider is the spectrum allocated to the federal government and whether those spectrum bands can be better allocated to both the government and commercial sectors. There is already legislation designed to help relocate government users and provide them with better communications resources, to be paid for with auction proceeds from spectrum they clear. And, there may be ways to make that legislation work even better."

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) emerged as a champion of broadcasting, at least when it came to providing emergency communications. He pressed the Federal Communications Commission's chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology, Julius Knapp, on what percentage of spectrum the government needs could be freed up by being more efficient with the spectrum already allocated. "A significant percentage," asked Markey. "A fair percentage," said Knapp, who, pressed by Rep Markey said it was probably somewhere between 10% and 50%, a range proposed by Rep Markey that Knapp said was probably about right. "Good," said Rep Markey. "We can get a big part of this problem solved just by ensuring there is more efficient use of the spectrum." Markey also pointed to public interest principles the FCC needed to abide by.

Then turning to another "Good," broadcast witness Robert Good, chief engineer at WGAL-TV, Markey asked whether if the spectrum reallocation and auction process was voluntary, if broadcasters were compensated, and if interference were not created for other stations who did not wish to participate, whether broadcasters were open-minded to reallocation. Good said that only if broadcasters were held harmless, by which he meant that "coverage areas are the same." Rep Markey asked whether that was something that could be worked out among engineers of common sense and good will. Good could not get there given the issue of repacking. "I am not confident we can achieve that type of coverage given that scenario."

The most pointed questions about the impact of the FCC spectrum reclamation plan on broadcasters came from Rep John Dingell (D-MI), famous for requiring one-word answers, though he allowed some leeway. Once he had determined that Knapp had helped draft the National Broadband Plan, he asked whether the FCC had failed to take into account the channel reservations of the Canadians, which are protected by treaty, in cities like Detroit. Knapp said that the plan had acknowledged that, and that the FCC has taken that into account and was talking to the Canadians. Dingell said that he understood that in order to get the 120 MHZ from broadcasters would, if the Canadian allocations were preserved, that would leave no available U.S. broadcast channels. Knapp said he did not believe that would be the case. But he also conceded that the FCC would not know exactly what channels would be available. "The repacking will depend on what stations participate in the incentive auction," Knapp said, "and we don't know which those will be."