October 4, 2012 CSMAC Meeting Transcript
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
+ + + + +
COMMERCE SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CSMAC)
+ + + + +
+ + + + +
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2012
+ + + + +
The Advisory Committee met in Room
4830 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building, being
the headquarters of the Department of Commerce
at 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C., at 10:00 a.m., Greg Rosston and Brian
Fontes, Co‑Chairs, presiding.
BRIAN FONTES, Co‑Chair *
GREGORY ROSSTON, Co‑Chair
LARRY ALDER *
THOMAS DOMBROWSKY, JR.
HAROLD FURCHTGOTT‑ROTH *
MARK GIBSON *
DALE HATFIELD *PRESENT (Continued):
Designated Federal Official
KARL B. NEBBIA
DAVID LUBAR *
* Present via telephoneTABLE OF CONTENTS
AGENDA ITEM PAGE
Welcome and Opening Remarks 5
Larry Strickling, Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for
Communications and Information
Opening Comments from Co‑Chairs 9
Status of CSMAC Recommendations 12
‑ NTIA ‑ Evaluation of Sharing, 12
Unlicensed and Spectrum
‑ CSMAC ‑ Interference and Dynamic 44
Status of the CSMAC Subcommittee 56
‑ Unlicensed Spectrum 56
‑ Spectrum Management Improvements 59
‑ Spectrum Sharing Subcommittee's 59
Progress Report ‑ CSMAC Working Groups' 60
‑ WGI 1695 ‑ 1710 MHZ Weather 60
Satellite Receive Earth Stations
‑ WG2 1755 ‑ 1850 MHZ Law 118
Enforcement Surveillance and
Other Short‑range Fixed
‑ WG3 1755 ‑ 1850 MHZ Satellite 121
Control Links and Electronic
‑ WG4 1755 ‑ 1850 MHZ Fixed 142
Point‑to‑Point and Tactical
‑ WG5 1755 ‑ 1850 MHZ Airborne 148
‑ Associated Spectrum Measurements 158TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
AGENDA ITEM (Continued) PAGE
Path Forward ‑ The Reporting Framework 162
NTIA's Near‑Term Spectrum Objectives 162
(6 to 12 Months Out)
NTIA Spectrum Management Hot Topics 163
Committee Questions and Discussion 165
Opportunity for Public Comment 166
Schedule of Next Meetings; 171
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Welcome to the CSMAC meeting. I am Greg Rosston and want to ‑‑ maybe I think the thing to do is to have Larry give opening remarks and then do a roll call. I'll go through a list of the people on CSMAC who have said that they are on the phone but give them a minute to dial in. Why don't you go ahead and start, Larry, and then welcome people? It says, opening remarks.
MR. STRICKLING: So I get to address the half‑empty room, is what you are saying. I get it. Thank you, Greg.
WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS
MR. STRICKLING: And welcome Tom Sugrue, ‑‑
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Yes.
MR. STRICKLING: ‑‑ who managed to make it, even after his big announcement from yesterday. So thank you, Tom, for coming. And thanks to all of you for attending. And, more importantly, thanks to all of you and to the many people on your staffs who have been working so hard these past months as we experiment with this new idea of really getting industry and the federal agencies to work together to solve these very difficult issues we are faced with as we try to determine how we can reallocate that 1755 to 1850 band as well as the 1695 to 1710 bands for commercial broadband service. And I think we have made terrific progress.
We will hear the readouts today from the various groups. So I couldn't be happier with the level of effort, the level of commitment that people have made to the process. And I think it is going to be reflected, not just in the progress reports today but, more importantly, in the final recommendations that the groups come back with as they finish up their work.
It has been clear, though, watching the process that there are a couple of key factors for success that I think we all have to keep in mind. And one is I think making sure that the data that each site needs is provided as promptly as possible.
I know we had an issue. And with Working Group 1, I guess they were hoping to get industry information that finally was produced this week. And thanks very much to industry for providing that, but that obviously has an impact on the ability of federal agencies to be able to reach resolution at their end on being able to support particular resolutions.
At the same time, I think it is incumbent on everybody in the process to make sure they are raising the issues early in the process and making clear where they are as we work our way through this so that we don't get surprised at the end with someone who may have been keeping their powder dry only to come in at the end and say, oh, this isn't where we want to be. So I haven't seen much of that, but it is important I think for everybody to keep that in mind as we continue to work through it.
But overall I think the level of cooperation has been outstanding. And it's a process that as we next year turn to developing a strategic plan for spectrum here in the federal government, we really want to take this experience and use this as the foundation for how we approach federal spectrum management in the future. These industry‑agency discussions, while very work‑intensive, I think, are a critical piece to solving the problems that we have to solve going forward.
So I think, with that, I will turn it back to Greg for the roll call.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Great. I want to make sure that everyone is on the line before I start talking.
OPENING COMMENTS FROM CO‑CHAIRS
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: So I am just going to through ‑‑ the people on the phone, who have said they may be on the phone, are Larry Alder. Are you there? Do we hear people on the phone?
MEMBER ALDER: Yes, I am here.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Great. Great. Michael Calabrese?
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Mark Crosby?
MEMBER CROSBY: Yes. I'm on.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Brian Fontes?
CO‑CHAIR FONTES: Good morning. I am on.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Great. I'll struggle without you as my co‑chair here.
MEMBER FURCHTGOTT‑ROTH: Yes, I'm here.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Mark Gibson?
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Dale Hatfield?
MEMBER HATFIELD: Yes. I'm here.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Mark McHenry says by phone, but I think you are here in person.
MEMBER McHENRY: No. I'm on the phone.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Are you on the phone, too? Are there any other members? Charlie Rush?
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Any other members on the phone?
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. I just wanted to reiterate, sort of expand a little bit on what Larry said. And I have been very impressed with all of the amazing amount of work that everybody has been doing on these, not only the CSMAC working groups and CSMAC subcommittees but the industry participation, by people trying to get things moved forward, both from the government and industry sides.
And I think it's really important that we try to push forward to get these groups moving so that there is the possibility of getting frameworks for sharing set up so that we can expand the use of the government spectrum and try to figure out metrics and frameworks that people can have understanding of what is available and what can be done and how we have frameworks for sharing and frameworks for resolution of problems, if there are any and we sort of go into this with our eyes open but make sure that everybody goes in with an idea that we can make this work and that there is the possibility of vastly increasing the use of spectrum to provide much, much higher capacity usage for commercial and government at the same time, that this can be a win‑win situation.
So that is ‑‑ basically I just want to encourage us to move forward expeditiously but also to try to have this goal in mind of getting things done in a cooperative manner. And I think that the working groups so far have been making an extreme effort to do that and putting forth a lot of effort and a lot of time. And it's really appreciated.
So now I think I want to turn it over to the status of the CSMAC recommendations. And I assume this is you, Karl, on the NTIA Evaluation of Sharing, Unlicensed and Spectrum Management Improvement.
MR. NEBBIA: Thank you very much, Greg.
STATUS OF CSMAC RECOMMENDATIONS
‑ NTIA ‑ EVALUATION OF SHARING, UNLICENSED
AND SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT
MR. NEBBIA: All of you should have the feedback that we provided on the three recommendations that we received at the last meeting. These dealt with the evaluation of sharing the unlicensed and I think second iteration of the spectrum management improvements item. And that was where the subcommittee responded to our responses.
So you should have each of those three documents. And I would like to take a walk through them in a way of kind of hitting on some highlights and maybe having a little bit more discussion on some sense of expectation.
With respect to the sharing recommendation, I believe along each of the recommendations that you have provided, we are in agreement with the concept. Certainly doing sharing studies, coming up with sharing arrangements is not a one‑size‑fits‑all process. And, in fact, what we have found is that having information, specific information, about the operation.
Some of it, it might be about, actually, the op plan for the activity. It may be more specific information about the characteristics of the systems or it may actually be some more information about how a specific system operates within its own bounds in a way that may reflect something different than the traditional max‑power, max‑gain type of information that you would get.
In fact, if you will recall, a number of months ago, we had asked for input on what characteristics we should actually be using in terms of doing our analysis in the 1755 to 1850 band. And the Committee provided us a recommendation with a list of those characteristics.
Recently it has come to light that those characteristics are not actually what we have got to use in the detailed discussions in terms of coming up with sharing arrangements, that to use them, in fact, creates large areas that we have to create a buffer between us so that, in fact, certainly starting with Working Group 1 ‑‑ and we'll get there in greater detail ‑‑ there's been a lot more work going on to reflect what the network will actually look like in terms of its operation.
So as we study sharing in general, I think that becomes the critical concept that when you are trying to maximize the opportunity for sharing, you have to get down to that kind of detail to resolve those issues. If you don't, then the sharing arrangement you create is obviously less than optimum, more worst‑case, and so on.
So I think that is our general sense in looking at each of those, of the recommendations that you provided. I think the one question that we continue to have, certainly dealing with the first recommendation, is what is going to be the difference between the general requirements and these other more specific requirements? And essentially how much work should be put into trying to create basically a dictionary or a guide book of "Here are all the requirements band by band for all these different systems." Is that a valuable tool, as opposed to saying, "Where are opportunities?" And then let's get down to the specifics that we really, really need.
So any thoughts on that? There seemed to be an orientation here about producing a wide range of "Here are the services" in various bands and coming up with requirements for each of them, as opposed to focusing on "Okay. What are we really looking at? What sharing situation are we looking at?" and trying to get into it more deeply.
So any thoughts?
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Grab a microphone. David Donovan?
MEMBER DONOVAN: It's a tough call, to be honest with you. I mean, if we want to make progress, then getting right into the specifics and right into the details right away I think makes a whole lot of sense.
On the other hand, having sort of a guide or best practices or a guide as to how you want to approach these things I think is important for an analytical framework, for going beyond the specifics.
So it's really not an answer, but it's sort of ‑‑ I guess the law school analogy is I like having the Gilbert's notes on one side, which provide the framework, and then delve into the individual cases. I don't know whether we have the resources to do both, though. I assume that is the issue.
MR. NEBBIA: I think that certainly becomes a significant part of the issue, is whether we have all the people and staff to do that. But another part I think is that it is very easy if you're just beginning with the general numbers. It's very easy to get put off from a solution because the general type numbers tend to look so negative because you are bringing together all of these worst‑case inputs that ‑‑ people tend to throw up their hands.
So I think it is an issue of resource management and priorities which bands and services and so on do we look at in these terms, but ultimately I think it's also some sense of agreement. If we're really going to make this work, you've got to get down to those details. Otherwise you continue to create these big separations.
MEMBER DONOVAN: So do you think getting down into the details will allow us to proceed in a more expeditious fashion getting spectrum out there?
MR. NEBBIA: I think certainly focusing on that, focusing on the specific opportunities we have and pouring our resources into that, is probably a better use of certainly our efforts and staff time than trying to create the larger guide book or crib sheet or whatever for all the bands and all the services. I just think they are too numerous to try to create that construct.
Even with the work we are doing in one band, we have had to create five different working groups. And I think I've heard recently somebody mention about the 1,000 megahertz sharing possibility, that that might result in many, many more working groups. So I think that we have got to focus certainly our staff efforts and so on on the places that we think are offering real options.
MEMBER DONOVAN: Thank you.
MR. NEBBIA: Any other ones?
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Yes. Can you get a microphone?
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: Well, is this on?
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Yes.
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: Okay. Well, I did want to credit the work that NTIA and various working groups are doing. And to the extent that I have mostly eavesdropped on the process, there has been a lot of good faith and certainly an enormous amount of resources thrown at this.
I also believe we can't help but look at sharing. I mean, I've been on this Working Group for ‑‑ or at least this Advisory Committee for several years now. And one thing that I believe has become very much a reality that everyone around the table has been educated about is the federal users are a very complex lot.
We're not talking about people who are inefficient in their use of trunking technology. We're talking about some of the most sophisticated systems in the world.
And so therein comes the benefit of this in‑depth discussion, but therein I think also comes the need to have some perhaps high‑level principles as well because when you talk about particularly the more sophisticated forms of sharing, you know, all the way up to the PCAST variations, again, the topic of enforcement and trust is absolutely huge. If everything is going to be kind of case by case, looking at the parameters on both sides, and eventually arriving at a technology handshake, there has to be a magnificent amount of trust in both directions.
And, frankly, a concern I have, people say, "Well, why is it that the feds are sharing with the feds but it is more difficult with the commercial?" Well, that is obvious.
You know, over here at NTIA, Larry wields a big stick. He can ‑‑
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: Larry is able, at least in theory, to tell one federal user to back off and the other federal user to advance and sort of manage the sandbox. But when you're talking about commercial players of enormous sophistication with the ability to go to Congress or the courts, sharing with feds, it's really difficult to foresee how the enforcement scenarios might move forward.
And I think that is beyond, to some extent, the work of these working groups. But that is the issue that really is profound.
MR. NEBBIA: Okay. One other comment I want to make about the first recommendation here, one of the items that is included under the general requirements statement I believe is the issue of occupancy. And I'm interested in what you all think is reasonable to expect or it can be expected in terms of occupancy information.
And I appreciate it if you could put it in the context of whatever knowledge you have of the occupancy information that is provided by the private sector in their activities.
So I am trying to ‑‑ I understand we often get into the discussion of providing government occupancy information, but I think we have at least got to look at it in terms of what is the real world here in those terms.
So I would appreciate any thoughts you have on what is the real expectation in terms of access to government occupancy information?
This is part of recommendation number 1 on the Sharing Committee. It is under the general requirements. So it was not a specific requirement as far as I could see, but it was under the general requirements.
MEMBER McHENRY: Working Group 1, they told us there are seven satellites, there are six locations. I mean, you can estimate the occupancy. That's all that was intended. They would 'fess up and say, "We have this many transmitters these places these times."
MR. NEBBIA: Well, "these times," that becomes ‑‑
MEMBER McHENRY: If people don't 'fess up and explain what their occupancy is, how would the entrant know what he's getting? So the incumbent needs to say what is occupancy and how it is going to change, what it is today. Is it going to be triple tomorrow? We have got primary rights. If he's planning on tripling it tomorrow, the entrant needs to know that #
MR. NEBBIA: Right. But that is part ‑‑ once again, I am trying to make the distinction here. This is listed as one of the general requirements. I am assuming, therefore, that you are saying this is the kind of item that should be up front in a database, not part of the detailed discussions but should be generally available. And now what you are saying makes it sound like that's not what you're asking for.
MEMBER McHENRY: The requirement is that you have to disclose it sometime, just that this would be a list of things that would have to be disclosed eventually, a checklist. If someone came to you and said, "I had a deal," when you go to the checklist, "Well, did you answer this question, this question?" that is what was intended here. To provide a checklist for them to understand their work, so they wouldn't overlook something.
MR. NEBBIA: Okay. Now, once again, I am just trying to understand. Where this says, "NTIA should develop," ‑‑
MEMBER McHENRY: Yes.
MR. NEBBIA: ‑‑ these requirements? So you are saying when you are dealing with two specific groups working toward some sharing information, that this information is, in fact, necessary?
MEMBER McHENRY: If someone came to you and said, "We have a deal to share it" and they didn't disclose the occupancy, I wouldn't value the deal. I would say they are going to have a problem with it.
MR. NEBBIA: Sure.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Is this something where you think that what Karl asked was in the private sector, presumably if you were to do a deal with a commercial carrier, you would want to know what they would disclose, what they are going to use in the future, and you would be that ‑‑
MEMBER McHENRY: Their current and future plans.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: You should use a microphone by the way, sir. Yes, their current and future plans so that you know what you could share with us. And you think that that is also ‑‑
MEMBER McHENRY: That's not disclosed and decided. And then they're going to go blow up later. That is what the purpose of this was.
MR. NEBBIA: Okay. Just so I'm clear, you are not expecting this to reside in our databases in a way that is presentable.
MEMBER McHENRY: No. If someone came to you and "I have a done deal," both sides would have to explain the occupancy assumptions they made, where they go them, how much can they grow so it's a checklist for you to validate, "Oh, this deal is credible." It's kind of like the CliffsNotes or whatever you said.
MR. NEBBIA: Right.
MEMBER McHENRY: It's kind of a guideline. Just before the analysis, you gave them a punchlist, "You'd better decide all of these things."
MR. NEBBIA: Okay. Any other thoughts on that?
MEMBER KAHN: You know, I think this goes back to Janice's comment about trust. You kind of have to figure out what you think your basic underlying assumption of the two sides is. And this occupancy is one of those things that you can easily inflame in terms of a projection and in order to discourage, you know, sharing opportunities.
So I do think that, you know, having the NTIA is kind of an arbiter to some degree saying we need that number on both sides probably, I think. Otherwise that becomes a way that discourage and make sure it's possible.
MEMBER McHENRY: But if it isn't considered, it's a disaster.
MEMBER COOPER: Yes. They've got to be accurate or at least best good faith estimates.
MR. NEBBIA: So I think part of the challenge here is that this is not information that is currently required. And I'm not sure, certainly on the private sector side, that it is currently required in that the actual time of operation as a percentage of the whole and so on. That is not traditionally required in licensing or in assigning frequencies and so on.
So that information is not generally resident. Obtaining that information in all federal systems obviously would be challenging to ‑‑
MEMBER McHENRY: But how can you share unless you know what you are going to get?
MR. NEBBIA: I think the issue is once you get together to work on that, you can certainly get into those issues, but, once again, I am looking in the context of providing general requirements that NTIA is supposed to be building this information.
And I think in general terms, providing moment‑by‑moment occupancy or those things is, at least at this point, not a possibility. You will get, as Jan was saying, those very general, broadly stated things.
We know that certain systems, like, for instance, an FAA radar at a particular base, we know that that is operating all the time. On the other hand, most of those radars actually have a backup frequency. And we don't know how often they come up on that frequency. That's not part of the licensing process.
So that is part of what I am trying to say. As we engage in these direct discussions, you can get into bringing that information out. But, as for having that as part of a frequency record at this point, we don't have that. And I'm not sure that that is even consistent with what the private sector provides either.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Jennifer?
MEMBER WARREN: That seems to apply to the data. This is just the notional ‑‑ the list of things that have to be generally identified and discussed at the case‑by‑case level, as opposed to having a resident database that's maintained on a daily basis with this kind of information.
I didn't hear that as part of the discussion that we had in the CSMAC but, rather, this is what is necessary when you go to the deeper level, the next level.
So I think Mark used the term "checklist" but not a checklist that you guys have the information at the ready for every single system but on a case‑by‑case basis, we don't need it. Is that not, Mark?
MEMBER McHENRY: Certainly.
MEMBER WARREN: Okay.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Bryan?
MEMBER TRAMONT: Yes. I think if it were possible for that to be available, obviously that would make sharing easier, right? Private parties would be able to look at a database. They would be able to say what the frequency of use is. They would be able to develop investors and proposals to come to you with the sharing thing that would work. So obviously that would be the home run.
But there were huge transaction costs associated with that. And, to your point, it is not clear that you have been ‑‑ some commercial systems have that kind of transparency. Others don't.
So I think the trick is figuring out to what degree that transparency can be provided, perhaps for bands that are targeted for potential sharing where other systems wouldn't. But that some sort of open database that would allow for private sector entities to look at the spectrum environment, develop business plans, and come to you with ideas would be the home run.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Your idea of when you are doing a deal with a commercial provider ‑‑ right now we are trying to get the government to have a database of who is on what channel. Then you know who to negotiate with.
Right now if you want to do a deal with a commercial provider, they don't make publicly available what their expansion plans are. You go and you do a deal with them. You negotiate with them and figure out what they are going to be. I think that seems like not an unreasonable thing that we would want to go forward with.
Are there people on the phone? I just want to make sure that people on the phone who have a question have a chance to comment as well. Did you want ‑‑
MEMBER McHENRY: Well, it can be very crude. Is it a tenth of a percent, one percent, or ten percent? I mean, it could be. That is all the resolution that's needed. High, medium, and low, maybe a geographic factor is all that's needed.
MR. NEBBIA: Okay. I wanted to just mention one other item under recommendation 2, the aspect of a management and control feature. I think this is one that we see that would be really useful in helping to ensure that sharing arrangements actually work, provide potentially the possibility of being able to tell somebody they can't operate on the channel if they're not abiding by the thing. It also gives the possibility of updating the sharing arrangement as things may change.
But obviously one of the things that this requires is essentially that all of the radio devices that are participating in the arrangement have to be connected to the network and to getting input on their operation.
I think certainly many, many of the radio systems that the government operates, probably many that the commercial world operates are not network‑centric at this point. And, therefore, they don't have that mechanism, that capability. So it's something that we need to look at in the future, but I think we do need to recognize that most of the radios that people are using, once again outside network‑type devices, are probably not connected into the internet, not getting those calls home, and so on. I just think we need to keep that in mind.
MEMBER McHENRY: It says, "Interim."
MR. NEBBIA: Yes.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: I think this is actually sort of a good ‑‑ you know, sometimes the big picture of what we are going to be discussing when we discuss the working groups' specific recommendations and thoughts. So keeping these overall parameters in mind and guidelines in mind is going to be good to the working groups as well.
MR. NEBBIA: Okay. I would like to talk about the unlicensed recommendation. I should say in this case, I think we are in agreement to pursue these ideas. In fact, we will be meeting. OSM and the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology meet regularly. And we will be raising these concepts with them.
I should indicate that out of the many recommendations that the CSMAC has put on the table before, this is probably the only one where I've gotten spontaneous calls from the outside saying things like "What do you mean you're calling us dumb devices?"
MR. NEBBIA: So there is an industry out there that I'm not sure that there was full understanding and evaluation of who they are and what they provide. And I think, certainly in the context of our expertise here, I think there is an orientation around network‑linked devices, internet information passage, and not much of an orientation around car key fobs and all the other many, many devices.
So we are going to be hearing a little bit more from those industry groups on these recommendations. And we may have to change the word "dumb" before we're over.
MEMBER KAHN: Perhaps we should have called them unconnected devices.
MR. NEBBIA: There we go.
MEMBER KAHN: But the reality, I mean, is that those guys typically are not grabbing a lot of spectrum for what they're doing. They're not the demand function for new swaths of spectrum.
The problem case would be if you found a desired application or big chunk of unlicensed spectrum that did not want to be connected. And that application is a little hard to come up with right now.
MR. NEBBIA: Yes. I think one of the challenges, though, is not often grasping that distinction. We hear lots of people referring to unlicensed spectrum or spectrum allocated for unlicensed. And they are surprised when we tell them that most unlicensed devices actually operate in spectrum for which there is no specific mention or authorization for unlicensed.
And many of them actually go on in bands that the federal government is using now and already constitute a form of sharing. So I think, certainly as we go on in our thinking and in the general dialogue outside of the room here, I think we need to keep that in mind.
And certainly as different groups look at this issue, they need to at least recognize the presence of all those many devices. We're going to be evidently sent a list of all of them. And I understand it is quite substantial. So we will be looking at that.
Okay. Any other thoughts on your side on the unlicensed piece?
MR. NEBBIA: I know we had quite a bit of dialogue at the last meeting resolving the final steps on the recommendation.
The last part we had here was the update on the improvements. And I think, once again, our interest in focusing our activities if we are going to be able to pursue actually cleaning up databases is we need to walk through this idea of, well, what are we going to focus on? What are we going to use our time on?
And I think we are actually finding in the discussions that we are having in the working groups and the preparations for these working groups that the process of looking closely at the data, identifying any systems that may have actually passed their lifetime and so on is going on in that process. So I think that's a healthy thing.
And so I think that is where our focus is going to be, on those bands that we're actively looking at right now and we'll be working with. Of course, DoD is the primary user in those bands. We will be working that side of things. So I think that will be an important part of what we are doing.
We did have a little bit of looking at recommendation 2. And this is the one that listed a number of approaches that the Commission has taken in terms of putting requirements on users to help keep the database clean. And I'm sure everybody would totally agree that the FCC's database is pure and there are no mistakes there.
But, once again, in the concept of, for instance, specific license terms that we have not used, as far as I know, in many, many of the cases in the Commission's database, there is a license term, but there is a presumption that they can renew the license. So it becomes a little bit of an administrative activity in doing that.
Also, if we try to identify, well, what is the license term that is appropriate for all of the various types of federal systems, we are probably going to find a lot of them that were probably uneasy with ten years. We may want to say 15 years. If we start getting into satellite systems, there are a lot of them that have far outlived anything that we would have predicted.
So I think that becomes a challenge as the agencies obviously in creating those long‑term systems have to have a sense that they got the time to work through that.
So we see in each of these I think, you know, some potential issues with the government agencies. We do have a five‑year review process. So many of the things that would normally come up during a build out period, we're going to find out then whether they are operating or they are not operating. At least they are supposed to report back on that.
So I think most of these things in some way apply on the government side. Obviously they don't give us construction notification. But I have to ask whether in the government context, these are necessary parts or not or they just become another burden along the way.
So I think we are willing to pursue these ideas. I am just not sure that the private sector construct follows exactly what we need to do but certainly worth looking at.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Jennifer?
MEMBER WARREN: Thank you. I was going to bring this up in the context of Working Group 5 before, but it kind of fits here, too.
In the context of the GMF, I think one of the things that's come out there as well, there have been I think in advance, perhaps, of some of the agencies' five‑year review period, you know, there has been review. And they have been winnowing out some of their assignments. But what has also come out is that there are some agencies, civil agencies, whose assignments aren't in there.
And so I think, you know, while the recommendation 4 from this group, the Spectrum Management Improvements group, focused on kind of winnowing out, I think we also may want to consider something, how we make sure whether it's Coast Guard, DoJ, whomever, that everything is in there, too, because that is equally important, obviously, for understanding sharing impact, sharing analysis, and just overall understanding of the band.
So that came out in Working Group 5. So I just wanted to share that.
MR. NEBBIA: Okay.
MEMBER DOMBROWSKY: And I just want to echo that because it's justified across the group. I mean, we are finding different services and systems much later because it's not in the master frequency file. So if there is a lot of hunting and searching and polling of the actual agencies to find out things. So I would echo that comment as well.
MR. NEBBIA: And I know, certainly, for instance, on the weather satellite side, the reality is we have never required authorizations or licensing on the Commission side for those receive only sites. So it was an exercise in and of itself for people to try to find out where every one of their sites are because it didn't require going through that process in order to get an okay to use it.
So I think we are going to see some pluses and minuses through that process, but I think the work that we are doing is going to help us get there.
Okay. Any other thoughts on the feedback on the spectrum management aspects? Of course, on the fee side, that is once again something that still is something that Congress would have to deal with. We have got a limited authorization at this point, that we collect fees based on our operational cost here in spectrum management.
So any further thoughts before we move on to the next document?
‑ CSMAC ‑ INTERFERENCE AND DYNAMIC ACCESS
MR. NEBBIA: First I want to thank David for having taken the time to go back to the archives when we came to the last meeting and said we had finally gotten back to looking at what was really an extensive document dealing with interference and dynamic spectrum access. We provided a lot of input and then asked for your feedback. And David, who is I guess responsible for that group ‑‑ I have a hard time remembering back that far.
MEMBER DONOVAN: As do I.
MR. NEBBIA: But he has now put together thoughts in response to our comments. And if you would like to introduce it today, David?
MEMBER DONOVAN: Sure. I want to thank you, Karl. I guess I should have attended the last meeting as I was watching it over the internet. Getting this assignment, I was busily trying to hit the No button.
MEMBER DONOVAN: I want to emphasize this is a draft and all that entails. And my goal and hope is that we can receive edits from the CSMAC group and make changes accordingly.
There were a number of questions relating to the original draft that was done in November of 2010. And I might add, in addition, a lot of the policy debate has moved considerably since 2010 since this draft, since the original recommendations were put forth.
I can go through these in excruciating detail, but I think it is ‑‑ if I could just hit four major points? And, again, this has been put out there simply to solicit additional edits.
There are a couple of things. One is that the debate has moved on. And so you will see at least reflected in some of these answers issues that have been raised and philosophies that have been raised in the PCAST report in terms of trying to facilitate and promote sharing.
There are issues in here about money. And I think Karl has already discussed the issue. The original recommendations asked for a lot of research to be devoted on dynamic spectrum access. And there are issues regarding money. And I think we make similar recommendations in which we can see if you can receive funds out of the Spectrum Relocation Fund; in addition, frankly, asking or making sure that requests for that research are in future budgets.
I think one of the great ‑‑ and we have discussed it a little bit here as one of the tensions that I think we have to deal with is one of the key tools in spectrum sharing has, of course, been the database management. You have seen that in TV white spaces. We have discussed this extensively. The PCAST report mentioned it extensively as well.
At the same time, there was a federal interest, Karl. And we have talked about this in terms of how much information you make necessary or make public or make transparent.
This is really a critical issue. I think Mark is right. I mean, you need to know. You need to know information in order to get investors, in order to have private sector sharing in the first place.
This document, while recognizing that there are national security interests and there are other federal interests in terms of releasing database information, it seems, at the very least, for those frequencies for which a policy has been made that said, "Yes, we want to share in that," that there needs to be a way to go about and create a workable database for which the private sector can indeed share.
And depending on the sharing scenarios, which will be considerable, maybe a database needs to be in real time. Maybe it doesn't need to be in real time. If you are just sharing with fixed services that are operating on a 24/7 basis, you certainly may not need that.
But there is a recommendation in here to say, "Look, we really have to try to see if we can move forward, at least with that particular technology," recognizing, of course, that there are federal concerns here.
In addition, there are other technologies that may work very well, spectrum‑sensing or other dynamic spectrum access, which may not require the release of specific database information. And there are technological ways of achieving that. So that discussion is in here.
You had asked, Karl, I think some very important questions about enforcement. And, in particular, the tool, I think, Janice, we had recommended the temporary restrain of interference and one of the elements one would consider.
At the time, we viewed this as sort of the equivalent of a temporary restraining order, almost like a court issuing a preliminary injunction to try to have a temporary resolution of the issue while the underlying interference issues are resolved. We try to flesh that out a little bit more here.
Again, this is a draft. These are just simply examples of the elements, for example, that one may want to consider and try to move forward if there were a massive interference issue and you needed that type of mechanism to solve the problem.
I think the other point, major point, that is in here ‑‑ again, this is a draft, so for discussion ‑‑ is creating a systematic method of reporting interference and how that should be done.
I understand, obviously, there are reports and interference reports that are filed with NTIA. On the FCC side, we have all dealt with them. You hire a lawyer. You go file your interference complaint. And you go to the various respective bureaus to try to resolve it.
I think if we are going to move into a more dynamic sharing environment in which the potential for interference increases, there is a recommendation in here that maybe we ought to think about opening up an interference‑based portal.
I know, just on the broadcast side, a lot of my engineers that may be encountering interference in a variety of scenarios go back to the office and say, "Uh." Then they call me, and they grumble. And that is sort of where it goes.
If there were a portal by which either commercial entities that are being interfered with with federal systems or federal engineers that realize they are being interfered with with commercial systems are being interfered where we begin to track this all, it may help and indeed may help develop policy. Perhaps a specific geographic area was a problem. Maybe it's bad equipment that has entered the marketplace. So it's there.
But, again, I want to really emphasize that this really is a draft. It's certainly not intended for final resolution. And I look forward to working with anyone who deigns to send an edit to Albany.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Carl Povelites?
MEMBER POVELITES: Carl Povelites. Understanding this is a draft, I guess we'll have to walk in and provide comments.
MEMBER DONOVAN: Sure.
MEMBER POVELITES: One concern or question I had was the amount of reliance that there seemed to be through a lot of the responses to the PCAST report, which, to my knowledge, hasn't been adopted by the administration. Nor has it really been vetted by this group. I'm just curious as to when we go through this, what would be the best way to go about dealing with that?
MEMBER DONOVAN: That's a good question. I mean, I think the PCAST report certainly, without getting into the specifics of it, lays out I think a policy which this group really has also been pushing. And that is trying to figure out and define ways of dynamically sharing spectrum.
So I didn't mean to intend to for this group to endorse all of the elements of the PCAST report, but what you will see in here, for example, on the section of database, the PCAST report I think is accurate and says, "Look, if we are going to have sharing as a, database sharing as a, means of sharing, then you need a database. And it is in that context that you will see references to the PCAST report as well in here."
If there is language in here that overextends, we can certainly talk about that.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Other comments? My thought, just in terms of procedure ‑‑ so are there other substantive comments before I talk about procedure a little bit?
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: And I have just been whispering a little bit to Karl and Larry, and I am winging it on my own here. So they bear no responsibility for this.
My thought is that ‑‑ this is a huge amount of work, and we really appreciate it, David ‑‑ for people to take a look at it over the course of the next month to six weeks and get comments back to David and we compile the comments and we actually have that circulated in advance of the January meeting.
We have time at the January meeting to discuss it more and then if we decide we want to come to a vote on it, we actually have the vote at the February meeting but have people have a chance to circulate points for discussion well in the next month or so but maybe by December 1st, actually, get everything back to David. And then he can compile sort of a list of what people's comments were on the different points. But there are a lot of recommendations here and obviously a lot of work that went into this.
But now if Karl wants to talk about substance again?
MEMBER DONOVAN: That was my intent, actually.
MEMBER POVELITES: I just want to make sure we get a Word document or something so that we can go in. I think this is PDF.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Is that ‑‑
MEMBER DONOVAN: I am more than happy to send out a Word document.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Yes? If you could send that to Bruce? Then Bruce can make sure it gets sent out to the Committee. That would be great. Okay. Thank you very much, David. That is a great help to move forward.
MR. NEBBIA: Just to note one item, there are a few places where we in our response discuss the question of unwanted emission levels, the Commission has traditionally used this 43 plus ten log P value. And we have over and over again found that the specific systems that we are working with are much better than that.
And, yet, the challenge becomes as that becomes the regulatory norm, that is what everybody insists on using in their analysis, which, of course, leads you not to a very good sharing situation.
So I would particularly appreciate feedback on that idea as we begin to kind of press that forward.
MEMBER DONOVAN: I fully agree with you. I think that the ten log P as a uniform autoband emission standard is inappropriate in this context. And we do discuss that in here.
MR. NEBBIA: Okay.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Other comments?
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. So why don't we move on to the CSMAC subcommittees. I think, Janice, you are at least first on the agenda.
STATUS OF THE CSMAC SUBCOMMITTEES
‑ UNLICENSED SPECTRUM SUBCOMMITTEE'S REPORT
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: Okay. Well, I can keep it very short because the substance of our report, in fact, has been covered by Karl's presentation of some of the conclusions and NTIA's response. As I mentioned, Michael Calabrese is winging his way to Spain and gives me his proxy.
We have basically concluded our work for this session. The report as presented in July is now final. And, as I said, I think Karl has given the thrust of its recommendations. One is increased reliance on accessing the network. And the second would be a closer look at enforcement going forward.
Basically we're open for your thoughts about work for the Unlicensed Committee as we meet in January assuming there's a request for a new agenda. The FCC just opened the possibility of an unlicensed band in the broadcasting set of bands that might be opened through the incentive auction process.
And while that is not within NTIA's jurisdiction, that does open a whole new frontier because, unlike the category of unlicensed services that are, in fact, people without a country on some level layered on top of licensed services and they are at will, this would be a different category in a very prime band. And so I would highlight that because in some sense, the thinking associated with that will be cutting‑edge as we look at a license going forward.
Thank you for that.
Any other comments? We have some other folks here. Dr. Stancil provided a database suggestion going forward, which we have put into the report as something to consider.
And Dr. Kahn was leading the way on the whole idea of increased reliance on the internet and the ability to connect as a way to avoid interference.
So thank you for all of the Committee members' thoughtful input.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Thanks. Are there other comments or questions?
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. The Spectrum Management Improvements Subcommittee, Bryan?
MEMBER TRAMONT: I don't know if Mark has now joined us by phone or not.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Mark Gibson?
MEMBER GIBSON: Yes. I am here.
MEMBER TRAMONT: Very good. Did you want to do this or do you want me to do this? There isn't much to do. So either way is fine.
MEMBER GIBSON: You're on.
MEMBER TRAMONT: I'm on? Great. Okay. Excellent.
‑ SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
MEMBER TRAMONT: Well, there isn't much to report. We had a surreply round with NTIA in response to their response to our recommendations. We have essentially suspended work pending the completion of the 1755 to 1850 program. So we have nothing new on that front.
‑ SPECTRUM SHARING SUBCOMMITTEE'S REPORT
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. And I think Larry Alder had a similar report. Your concurrence, Mark?
MEMBER McHENRY: Yes.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Yes? Okay. So that's the Spectrum Sharing Subcommittee. So we get that on schedule. I run a good meeting. Wait. Just wait.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. So now we are going to move on to the progress for the CSMAC working groups. And in numerical order, Working Group 1. And we have the CSMAC liaisons to the working groups that are going to be making reports.
At least for Working Group 1, this is Mark and Dennis. Do you want to at least start out, start us out? And then also Janice and Doug are members, and other people are able to talk as well.
PROGRESS REPORT ‑
CSMAC WORKING GROUPS' LIAISONS
‑ WGI 1695 ‑ 1710 MHZ WEATHER
SATELLITE RECEIVE EARTH STATIONS
MEMBER ROBERSON: And for those on the phone, this is Dennis Roberson. And I was nominated to serve as the spokesperson for the group.
For those of you not in the room, I will apologize because we have continued with our deliberations right up until about 9:45 this morning. So those of you in the room have a truly hot‑off‑the‑presses printout of the current status of things. And, Bruce, thank you for printing things out for us.
The actual report comes in an unusual manner. First, we'll talk about the context of the Working Group and the efforts that have been conducted and the results at this point. That will be followed by a short presentation from the liaisons, namely Mark and myself, on our perspective, our broader perspective, on the work of the group. So that is the direction that we are moving toward.
I would like to acknowledge up front the tremendous work of the co‑chairs of Working Group 1, Ivan Navarro and Steve Sharkey, both of whom are in the room. And so they are available for interaction. And if you ask any really tough questions, I obviously have the opportunity to defer to them.
Mark and I have been the liaisons there. Ed has been our contact, Ed Drocella has been our contact, here. Robert Weller and Navid Golshahi have been involved very much from the FCC side.
This Working Group has grown. It started out as one of the more modest working groups not in the 1755‑1850 band that was of keenest interest, it seemed, but we have done quite well in growing our membership.
So we are well over 70 people now on the mailing list. And that over time has shifted to be actually dominated by DoD, which is interesting. Industry is certainly represented in significant proportions as well and other interested parties, including various agencies that are not users directly but have considerable interest in the area.
From an overview standpoint, the goal of the group in line with all of the working groups is to explore ways that we can lower the repurposing costs and to improve the actual availability and spectrum efficiency that we would obtain, while absolutely ensuring that we don't adversely impact the operations within the band.
As a reminder, this is a satellite band. It is a band where there are 18 specific sites that are located, receiver sites that are located, in various parts of the United States. And there are 6 satellites that are interacting with those 18 stations. In addition, there is monitoring and actual data collection from satellites from other nations as well. So that is the basic background to remind everyone what we are looking at.
We began with the fast track report as a basis for moving forward. And the goal was to take advantage of the knowledgeable industry and the broader government knowledge to refine that input to refine in line with the purpose the use of the spectrum and the continuation of the work as well.
Initial areas of focus have been around LTE. And Larry mentioned this. It has turned out to be a more challenging enterprise than was anticipated. There was probably a lot less known about LTE than might have been assumed by the industry side and a lot more detailed requirements for information than perhaps was understood as well. But that was a key focus, has been a key focus, and it has been an expanded focus.
I'm actually jumping a little bit ahead of myself, but in providing that baseline information for the other four working groups, as their timeline was shifted a bit beyond the timeline for Working Group 1, it was appropriate for Working Group 1 to take on that role on behalf of all the working groups.
The other obvious key is to understand the systems themselves, to understand the simulations model that had been used, and to provide the LTE input to feed into that model, and other information as well to do the assessment of reducing the exclusion zones from the fast track report size and then to develop the recommended rules that would allow that to happen.
Qualitatively, the discussions have been rich and positive. A tremendous amount of information has been exchanged, going both directions, a lot greater understanding of the constraints from the industry side that exist in the government, and the characteristics of the system and the operation, going the other way a much enriched understanding of LTE. And we'll talk more about the LTE system in a moment, but that has been very, very helpful.
Moving on to the next page, our method of work, again is focusing heavily on the LTE and specifically LTE user equipment characteristics as a focus. And you will see why that is the key focus in a moment as we get to the recommendations. But that has been a key goal.
There was an expectation that that goal could be achieved much earlier than it has been. There has been a back and forth. Industry thought they would provide all of the information. And then there were lots of good questions and then in the normal way that information transfer takes place.
It has ultimately ended up with the requirement for more time and a great deal of energy applied to this. And the group is to be complimented and the leaders to be complimented and the amount of work that has been undertaken and the foundational nature of that work. So it is quite impactful. The current forecast is that by October 12th; that is to say, a week from Friday, we should have this wrapped up.
There is a significant interference analyst that has been taking place and continues to take place. And Ed Drocella has been leading that work.
The over‑arching comment that goes into this I think for most people not familiar with the LTE system, it's sort of the good news and the bad news. It is an extremely configurable system, much richer, much more complex system than most people had imagined.
Being a professor and teaching this sort of thing, I well remember the first time I taught the subject. The question for the class at the end was, do you all think this will really work? And the consensus was no. But it does. It works quite well. And that's the positive feature. But it does create a lot of problems as we're trying to model this because it has so many features, so many knobs and dials to be twisted and turned that it makes it more challenging, both to understand and, hence, the difficulty and the extended time and the communications characteristics.
But it also gives great power because it does give a lot more flexibility than many people would have imagined to be able to configure the system and to configure it on a dynamic basis. And I mean dynamic as in milliseconds. The systems can be changed, modified, and out to the end user devices as well.
Turning to the recommendations, I will pre‑introduce the input from Mark and I. The recommendations were more expansive as they started and as people looked at those recommendations. There was more queasiness about the recommendations. So they have been narrowed to the couple of recommendations that I will list out from the Working Group. And then we will get into some of the richer part of this in the commentary from Mark and I.
The first recommendation is not really a recommendation. It is more an assumption. And it is an assumption founded on the back and forth. But the assumption is that the 1695‑1710 would be occupied by end user advice.
It's a critical assumption. It was not the original assumption. And this would be end user devices not time division duplexed devices, where you had an intermixing of end user devices and transmitters.
But this is absolutely critical. This means lower power. It means it is controlled by the infrastructure. And it does bear very strongly on the end operation.
Moving to recommendation 2, this is looking at ways to make the current systems operate in an easier‑to‑partner‑with, easier‑to‑share‑with manner. Of the 18 sites that I had mentioned, there are 7 sites that are located within the areas that are of great interest to cellular providers and others because of the population.
The nearest one is in Suitland, Maryland. There's another one in Miami, St Louis, Cincinnati, Sacramento, California, in Hawaii, in the Pearl Harbor area, and then in Omaha, Nebraska.
So the other 11 are actually in relatively remote sites. But for those sites, it is of interest to try to find a or explore the possibility of re‑siting the actual antenna system that would make it easier to ensure that there was no interference that was found.
In addition to that, there are a variety of other mechanisms that can be explored: receiver diversity, interference canceling, filtering, shielding, and so on that could make the sites more immune to any form of interference.
So these are areas that they recommended that we explore to understand this better. And those are really the only two recommendations. The third recommendation was that the group needs to continue to work. I view that as not a real recommendation. It's a fact of life.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: I think everyone can accept the third recommendation.
MEMBER ROBERSON: Very, very good. Thanks, guys. And that moves us to the CMC liaisons' point of view. And I will warn all of you that this is a very strange circumstance in that I found Mark constraining me in my perspective. Usually Mark is quite outspoken and has strongly held views. In this case, he was, "Don't you think we should tone this down?" We had a very, very significant role reversal since I am usually the calming water kind of person. But, in any event, that was just to prepare you and buckle your seat belts for the next chart.
The perspective that Mark and I share is that geographic exclusion zones, which is the recommendation and the attention that the Working Group has not yet been able to come to closure on, that geographic exclusion zones really are not the optimal way to proceed. This is the recommended way. This is the fast track report. But this is not really the most appropriate way to proceed.
The notion is that we should use a different construct. It has many problems because the terminology is undefined. And, in fact, exclusion zones have some of this as well. But the proposal is that we establish coordination zones, zones that are not excluded but, rather, where there is careful work done so that the operation of the ‑‑ presuming cellular units, that those cellular units operate in conjunction with and in close coordination with the government sites, the NOAA sites primarily but also DoD sites.
The second alternative ‑‑ and these are mix and matches, alternative 4 would suggest ‑‑ is that this is a prime opportunity for temporal sharing. This is a very well‑known environment. These are not moving targets. We have 18 very, very fixed sites. They are quite large sites.
The satellites are few in number. They are quite predictable in their path, though they can be moved. There is some dynamism in the satellites. But the movement time is in hours, at minimum, sometimes days. And, as I suggested in LTE, we're talking about milliseconds as the ability to change, turn off all the LEUs in the extreme case.
So you have the circumstance where the locations and particularly those of keen interest are actually receiving information less than five hours a day and actually considerably less in most cases. And half of those are in the middle of the night.
So from a temporal sharing standpoint, this is a poster child. And this is why I have gotten, as some of you have heard, quite excited about this, because if we can't temporally share in this circumstance, where can we temporally share?
All these problems are very difficult. I am going to say something that will be like your comment about dumb devices. But this is the simplest of our circumstances. Most of the rest of the challenges we have are much, much more difficult. So to me temporal sharing is really a critical area that we should be looking at.
The third alternative ‑‑ and this is based on some number of measurements that, actually, both Mark and I have conducted since in our other lives, we do this sort of thing ‑‑ if you put up an antenna and look for LTE receivers or not receivers but LTE end user devices, it is very difficult to find them. There is so much power control since we are trying to have these devices use very little battery and you're trying to get the spectrum efficiencies. The cellular providers and their equipment providers behind them are driven in a direction that is exactly compatible with the needs of the satellite providers.
So the power level is so low, the usage cycle is so low that you, for the most part, can't see the devices. There is some perspective ‑‑ it clearly needs to be tested ‑‑ that you could do whatever you wanted with the LTE system and the satellite receiver sites would never see it, very much to be tested. Certainly there are extreme cases where you would not have that be the case. Alternative 3 is just enjoy life, put out the LTE systems, and continue up.
And alternative 4 is obviously a mix and match alternative of 1 through 3 because these are not independent. The three are definitely not independent approaches but that certainly are worth considering.
The next slide talks about geographic exclusion zone issues. There are a variety of issues. We have worked at this currently. And this will be refined. This is part of even our discussion this morning. But currently there is sort of an order of magnitude or more difference between different views.
And that comes in our simulation result. That comes to play because of differences in propagation models, differences in understanding what cell site layout might be, LTE power, LTE duty cycle. This is getting the parameters again that Larry mentioned, getting them really nailed down, all of them nailed down.
Some of the assumptions that you can make would suggest extreme power levels, but, again, if those extreme power levels existed, cell phones really wouldn't work. So we need to get this really nailed down.
And this is not in any way a blame assignment. It is just a state of where we are with the communications of the information not yet completed.
There are LTE configuration questions; deployment on mountains, for instance, the cell size, the temporal adaptation.
Cell size is getting smaller and smaller and smaller. LTE cell size is tiny and moving smaller with small cell devices or systems that are being deployed. So these kinds of things are there.
This temporal adaptation is really important with the rapid ability to change the configuration. One of the areas where there has been some level of agreement in principle and there is a need ‑‑ and this is interference to noise ratio that may or may not be familiar to most around the table, but this whole notion of adding power into the system. Even though you can't see discrete end user devices, you are raising the noise floor by virtue of this. And that is understood but perceived to be modest, but it needs to be actually fully vetted.
Directionality of antennas. As we are moving to very, very smart antennas, that needs to be built into this as well.
All of these things actually, as we understand these better, make the analysis better and better and better. There are additional tests that are needed, but these tests are eminently doable tests. They are not extraordinary efforts.
We had discussion this morning. Mark and I pointed out that it's at most a few months worth of measurement work. The change from this morning was measurement work. The argument this morning was, "Well, that's the measurement work. It's going to take you a year to get the measurement plan in place so that you have an agreement on what you are going to measure."
And that may well be true based on some of the experience within the Working Group, but the actual measurements are very simple. And it's the sort of thing that we will probably regret, but Mark and I volunteered that we could do most of the measurements and do them at no cost. That is not an infinite number, but, you know ‑‑
MEMBER ROBERSON: That's the regret part. But we have the tools. And I, in particular, have the luxury of having graduate students, which Mark doesn't. He has to pay for his. But we do have the ability to do a lot of this work.
So the recommendation of the liaisons is that we should continue forward to identify the perceived issues, particularly with the temporal sharing and the field strength approaches that have a good life against all the LTE. Industry should conduct the tests, but we will need to have the tests vetted. And this is really critical so that there is government confidence looking over the shoulders to ensure that when the tests are completed, that they are accepted as being reasonable representations of what is needed to understand these sharing capabilities.
We do need also to conduct temporal and geographic exclusion zone tests to understand that side. If we do establish a zone, what should that zone look like?
In the instance that after all we have said and done on temporal and the field strength we decide that what we really do need to do is the geographic exclusion zones ‑‑ and this is my contentious one, and it wasn't meant to be; it was actually a real statement ‑‑ for reasons not understood by me mostly, but if there is a geographic reason that I don't understand for geographic exclusion zones, then we should get on with it, establish the zone, establish them broadly, but establish a mechanism, a tried and true mechanism that moves rapidly as the issues can be resolved that we can shrink the zones down very rapidly to the level that they need to be.
The critical feature of this last bullet is that there need to be resources in place to enable this to happen in a timely manner. There is a great deal of anxiousness in the industry to move forward. And there are some of us that deal with this on religious principles. And, like me, sharing is something that we need to get on with.
We have too long tarried when the technology has moved on to take advantage of sharing opportunities that are out there. And I think we have got to be in a place where we move forward on those.
And, with that, I will welcome your questions and thoughts. Mark, first of all, did you want to amplify?
MEMBER McHENRY: I think the field strength approach, you want to just go for it. It was regulate ‑‑
MEMBER ROBERSON: It is regulate.
MEMBER SUGRUE: You kind of overstated what it was.
MEMBER ROBERSON: Okay. I do have sometimes a tendency to do high contrast. So thank you, Mark.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: So in the temporal sharing case ‑‑
MEMBER KAHN: When you are talking of the temporal sharing, are you thinking of that in a technological sense of like, you know, there's a communication line that comes out of the satellite receiver stations to the local carrier who owns the spectrum in that area that says "About to receive. Please go quiet" kind of thing. I mean, that type of handshaking would be ‑‑
MEMBER ROBERSON: Yes. That would be an implementation. There may be others. The satellites ‑‑
MEMBER KAHN: Since you know ‑‑
MEMBER ROBERSON: You know where the satellites are. You can track them. You can actually go on the internet right now and you can ‑‑
MEMBER KAHN: Right. And you were talking about the fact that they can potentially move and stuff. And so, I mean, assume an automated approach ‑‑
MEMBER ROBERSON: Yes.
MEMBER KAHN: ‑‑ of some sort would be ‑‑
MEMBER ROBERSON: Right.
MEMBER KAHN: ‑‑ ideal and ‑‑
MEMBER ROBERSON: Exactly.
MEMBER KAHN: Okay. Thanks.
MEMBER ROBERSON: Yes.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Are there other comments?
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: So, at least from my perspective, you know, maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like you have different recommendations or are trying to push the Committee in a different direction or a little further than it has gotten to so far.
But your recommendation 3 of continuing to work is I think ‑‑ to get the Committee to incorporate your views or something, it would be useful to try to increase the amount of sharing available and trying to come up with ways that are ‑‑ you know, these things that are able to increase sharing without increasing interference.
MEMBER ROBERSON: Right. No. That is exactly right. The group, the Working Group, I am very sensitive of the Working Group was meant to time‑out by the end of September. And I find that I seem to be much more religious about dates than others. He said, "Well, you know." But, you know, when we said September, that seemed like the right endpoint.
There is work absolutely continuing. Ivan and Steve are carrying on. I think Ivan in one of the emails said, "We don't know how to fail" or a comment similar to that.
So there is a perspective that we will through the Working Group process achieve an endpoint. The endpoint is taking much longer than I would have hoped. There are a variety of reasons for that, not bad people, not ‑‑ the process seems much more obvious than the endpoint that we're achieving in a timely way that I would hope that we might achieve it.
So that was the basis on which Mark and I put together a proposal, which is not inconsistent with where the Working Group may end up; that is, my hope that the Working Group will get there, but the Working Group is not yet there.
At the same time, Mark and I felt that it would be of benefit to the group to hear the thinking that we had in place.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Rick?
MEMBER REASER: Rick Reaser. I like your temporal thing, by the way, because that is very predictable.
So where is the push‑back coming from? Is it from the commercial wireless people or from the feds or where is it coming from? Because, to me, that would be a very simple thing because, even when they move it, that comes out.
MEMBER ROBERSON: Yes.
MEMBER REASER: That's all available on the internet because people want to know when they're going to get their weather data.
So, to me, if you could have an arrangement where the wireless guys plug into that and then take appropriate action, it seems to me that's a gold mine.
MEMBER ROBERSON: I would agree.
MEMBER REASER: So where is the push‑back? Like why is that ‑‑
MEMBER SUGRUE: Well, there was one push‑back, "We were told to do exclusion zones, and that's not exclusion zone." And there's no proof that that works. And, you know, this is life or death. People have a lot at stake here. And they want to have hard proof it works.
MEMBER KAHN: What do you mean by, though, that there's no proof it works?
MEMBER SUGRUE: Well, there is no proof that you can do temporal ‑‑
MEMBER ROBERSON: We have not implemented this system yet.
MEMBER KAHN: Where is the proof? I mean, if you are not transmitting, you are not interfering. So I'm just curious what you mean by "proof" there. I am not trying to be difficult. I just don't understand the statement. What would constitute proof that if you are not transmitting, you are not interfering?
MEMBER SUGRUE: Well, maybe you get to the framers up and you screw up. LTE takes two hours to respond. You could think of a lot of reasons it wouldn't work. It hasn't been proven. That's a reasonable thing to ask for proof.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: The timing. You may not respond as quickly, I guess, or ‑‑
MEMBER SUGRUE: Right. I mean, this may be a law that would be very hard to undo later. So they want to see more proof.
MEMBER ROBERSON: This is why Mark has been trying to tone me down because as a professor, this is ‑‑ and, as most of you know, former ‑‑
MEMBER SUGRUE: Would you put all your ‑‑
MEMBER ROBERSON: ‑‑ have some responsibility for producing cellular systems as well. And this is ‑‑
MEMBER SUGRUE: Would you put all your net worth up that this will work?
MEMBER ROBERSON: Sure, absolutely. Absolutely.
MEMBER REASER: But equipment fails. There are things that get broken. There are lots of ways to have interference scenarios, I mean, that are totally ‑‑ do we have proof that some of these other things will never work, that a single generator won't go haywire and just jam stuff? I mean, we don't have proof of any of these.
MEMBER SUGRUE: Well, you asked what the reasons are. Those are the reasons.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Jennifer?
MEMBER McHENRY: And they are reasonable reasons.
MEMBER WARREN: Just a kind of thought follow‑up on what I hope is a practical approach, in light of the recommendations that that liaison chairs have, which I don't believe we are in a top‑down mode yet, right? I mean, it's still all the working groups are still supposed to be doing their work, but the proof part, is there a plan to an agreement that there need to be the studies to develop that "proof" ‑‑
MEMBER ROBERSON: Well, that is what I ‑‑
MEMBER WARREN: Sorry, Mark.
‑‑ and what is acceptable as proof in terms of what is the defined demo, what is the analysis, et cetera? That is my question to Mark and Dennis.
MEMBER ROBERSON: No. And between what Mark has said and what you are raising, this is the issue to establish the test plan, the definitive test plan. That was the point that was raised this morning, that establishing something ‑‑ the tricky part of this is when you are trying to prove that it will never interfere, having done this in a few other domains in my life, it is a wonderful thing as a researcher because proving a negative is virtually impossible because you always come up with a "Well, did you think about, well, what about" ‑‑ and, actually, there are researchers who have been in my employ who have worked for 25 or 30 years trying to prove that something would not cause a problem. And you never can get to the endpoint.
So you have to at some point say, "Well, you know, we have tried an adequate number of ways. We have done this from an inspection of the way in which the structure operates. And let's go for it."
There are a few things, though, that we can do. And there was agreement this morning that this conversation is bringing up. An important part of this for determining the field strength is to actually take 4G handsets; that is, LTE handsets, out, put them in the environment, run around, and find a receiver. There are backup receivers.
The suggestion was that the ideal place for this was Fairbanks, Alaska, which wasn't ‑‑
MEMBER ROBERSON: Nonetheless ‑‑
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: In January.
MEMBER ROBERSON: Yes. It was suggested that January would be an ideal time, but I am sufficiently invested in this, from Mark's point, that I am happy to go to Fairbanks, Alaska personally and to be involved in the test.
My students may not be quite as happy, but I am happy to do that. And I think that will be an example of how we can prove this out.
We can more exhaustively do the LTE EU, more cities, more places to create a database. But getting to a final endpoint is where you ultimately always have to make a judgment. You have to make a decision because you can't exhaustively prove that it will never interfere. It's not possible to ever get to that point.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Jennifer? Bryan? Tom?
MEMBER WARREN: I hope I can suggest that this should be exhaustive. I was asking, if we are not there, if there had been any agreement as to what was adequate. And, as I understand what you said, there isn't.
MEMBER ROBERSON: No.
MEMBER WARREN: And I think, then, there is a separate point, which I don't remember if Dennis or Mark made, which is exclusion versus coordination zone and the impact of that just generally, irrespective of temporal sharing, because this is a separate matter ‑‑
MEMBER ROBERSON: Yes, it was.
MEMBER WARREN: ‑‑ that the Working Group will come forward because I do get a little nervous when we start trying to top‑down things because that could be a tendency in a lot of different working groups.
And it would be beneficial to have consensus‑driven for a brand new approach to sharing, which is having everybody sitting around the table, all 70. And it's not getting into Working Group level. Let me tell you. It's a new exercise.
And I think while it may be taking a little longer and certainly Working Group 5 is taking a little longer, it's a process that has to unfold and goes back to the point Janice said at the very beginning, which is trust.
And if the process isn't allowed to work and, all of a sudden, people get frustrated at the top down, I think that starts to undermine, then, what is the purpose of the last couple of months of working together?
So I just think we need to be a little sensitive to that, too, in our discussion. Though I think it's great to hear what members and liaisons are thinking, I just would want to raise that issue.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Thanks.
MEMBER TRAMONT: I am tempted to respond to Jennifer, but, instead, I will go right before.
First of all, I think it's ‑‑ especially in the last ten days, you guys made tremendous progress. I think this is a very productive report. So thank you for that.
One question I had, so is there thought yet on what a work plan would be? In other words, are we going to ‑‑ by the January meeting, you would have a test plan agreed to by the Committee and then there would be a final report?
I just feel like, you know, we all started with certain dates. And, Dennis, you were very sensitive about this September 30th date.
The other groups have an end‑of‑the‑year or January date. I just think one of the things that has been revealed during the course of all of the discussions in all of the groups is that these things take longer than everyone expects. And we all have to sort of keep as aggressively as we can on the schedule. All the constituent groups have to keep working diligently because it is taking longer than we thought.
And for this band, in particular, right, we have a 2015 assessment date or auction date by the Commission, if I remember correctly. So there is a real legal imperative here to getting a plan together.
And I just urge the Committee if you have an idea of what that looks like now and you want to talk about that, that would be great, but I think we all just have to keep focused on that timeline.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Tom?
MEMBER SUGRUE: Yes. I wanted to make two points, but one is that one. There is a deadline at the other end. And we need to focus our efforts on that or we lose an opportunity. And those are real deadlines.
The Commission typically will follow the law. We will feel bound to follow the law. So we will do something fairly suboptimal possibly if there are other alternatives available.
Consensus is great. Consensus is not unanimity. It doesn't mean that legally, and it can't mean that practically if any sort of ‑‑ I will just put a little footnote on that. I am not saying you were suggesting that.
Also, Mark, you mentioned that one of the problems is, well, we were told to look at exclusion zones, so, damn it, it's exclusion zones only. Can we get that issue off the table at least?
That is sort of like an ultra‑virus thing. This Committee was not authorized to look at these other sharing scenarios. And that is, just, frankly, in my view a red herring. If we need to authorize them or do something a little different, let's authorize them because there is something constructive going on here. And I think it should continue.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Kevin?
MEMBER KAHN: Yes. I want to endorse that for another reason as well, which is from my perspective, exclusion zones ‑‑ I mean, I understand that they may be the key to getting sharing to happen, but, quite honestly, they are a cop‑out to the sharing problem in the long term, right?
They basically allow the two sides to put their head in the sand and say, "Yeah, we're sharing because, you know, you're doing something in California. We're doing something in New York."
And at the end of the day, that does not really help us with the large, writ large, spectrum sharing problem. So I think it's a terrific technique to do things quickly in some cases.
And, certainly opportunistically, it is a good thing to have in our bag of tricks to be able to do stuff, but, you know, I really applaud the effort to look at things other than exclusion zones because if we are ever going to get to a discipline that allows really good sharing across a broad set of spectrum bands, it is going to have to be based on things other than simply excluding cooperates where. And if this is a first really practical example of how we could do that, that would be terrific.
And so the last thing I would want, as Thomas was saying just now, you know, is that somebody says, you know, gets behind a procedural thing that says all we can look at is exclusion zones and uses that as an excuse. So I would hope that we can actually actively go after other solutions here.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: So I have seen a lot of heads shaking around the table around exclusion zones. I think that I would love to ask if there is anyone who has an objection to sort of give at least a ‑‑ if there's no objection to giving the Committee the charge to going further than exclusion zones, that would be great, but Janice wants to speak on this.
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: I have at least a caveat. This is ‑‑
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Those of you on the phone, could you mute your phone?
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: Do you want me to speak or ‑‑
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Yes.
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: Okay. I have a caveat to that. I don't, per se, have a caveat to this discussion as far as this Committee's work, which, you know, I am not terribly familiar with.
Having said that, as you know, CSMAC's recommendations on fees made their way into legislation. That was a recommendation that was by far, you know, very much argued and certainly not one that was a consensus.
And my concern is that in some of these more sophisticated cases, frankly, we have got a Committee that has got probably 80 percent participation for people who is ‑‑ we are all here doing our best, but, you know, people who have strong instincts vis‑a‑vis a commercial perspective on spectrum, making recommendations as to systems that they are just learning about in the working groups, and issues such as enforcement in the more sophisticated PCAST cases haven't been ironed out and won't be ironed out and, frankly, are going to be resolved largely in the commercial domain at the FCC because if it's a case of enforcing a reg as it pertains to a commercial player, interfering into a government player, Larry doesn't have baton.
And I am very wary of moving forward in the next two months recommending more sophisticated sharings in much more sophisticated instances, such as the ones we are looking at in Committee 5.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: People on the phone, can you please hit mute? There is someone who is making noise.
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: So that is my caveat. Sure, we are an independent Advisory Committee. We can come in here and talk about just about anything we want to talk about, but I would object in the next two months coming up with recommendations about major, major technology developments that have not been thought through from start to finish because, frankly, anything that comes out of here could easily be end‑runned through the legislative process. That has happened once with CSMAC, didn't help the trust factor, and it could happen again.
So at that point I put down a marker and say, "I am not particularly comfortable saying I am going to buy off on sophisticated sharing vis‑a‑vis" or even just saying, "We are going to have minority and majority positions in the next two months" when we haven't thought through many more implications.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Jennifer?
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: Tom and I have discussed these issues for the last 20 years.
MEMBER SUGRUE: Yes.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Tom?
MEMBER SUGRUE: You were a lot more progressive thinker 20 years ago.
MEMBER WARREN: They say wisdom comes with age.
I think I was recognize?
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Yes.
MEMBER WARREN: Great. I do have to associate with some of what Janice said; in particular, what else would need to accompany that expansion of scope. There are a lot of other factors. I mean, exclusion zones are kind of tried and true. They proved out in other areas.
I think there are a number of regulatory issues. I mean, I think some of those CSMAC reports about enforcement and other things that need to be in place for sharing of this type need to be addressed, then, completely in parallel with buy‑off as to how this would ‑‑ not just the technology, not the technological handshake but the regulatory handshake. And that would have to be a complete package, as opposed to relying 100 percent on the technology.
So I share Janice's concerns and would think that only with that kind of complete package would there be that ability because, unlike exclusion, this is a new area of law. I agree we don't have to be bound by the NTIA fast track report. We are trying to provide guidance to NTIA in the areas that they have asked for.
And so that would be my response. Thank you.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Tom, did you now want to say something more?
MEMBER SUGRUE: Well, I will say it was an excellent report that came out under Janice's name 20 years ago on spectrum management. And it does address sharing in there somewhat in ways that are consistent with what I think the Working Group is doing.
I just think, you know, we have got a window closing here, for better or worse. I will go back to my timing. We have an opportunity. We have some very expert people. And we should get on with the work. And we'll deal with these issues going forward.
And I understand the concerns and the trust factor as well, but, you know, it comes almost to a sort of a nihilism here that there is too much risk. I mean, if that is what it is, we should probably just disband the whole effort.
I don't think ‑‑ I am not suggesting that. I mean, we really have an opportunity to make some progress here. We have what looks like a good sort of circumstances to sort of test it, as Dennis said, in a relatively easy case. I mean, if it doesn't work here, then maybe we just all go home and take our little spectrum and hold on to it. But let's try it here at least, and let's not try to shut this effort down.
I would like us to get to some sort of resolution in a couple of ‑‑ you know, and I will disagree with the notion that that is where my consensus and unanimity ‑‑ I mean, I think tasks meant sometimes consensus became a demand for unanimity. And, you know, it's a recommendation. We are in an Advisory Committee.
And the fact that some people act on the recommendations is not something that should dissuade us from making them. You know, you can decide, you know, tell us to get lost and often you do.
MR. NEBBIA: I have never told you that.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: He has always said it much nicer than that.
MEMBER TRAMONT: Yes. We have gone to a lot of lengths to have a very open and transparent process across all the working groups that bring a wide variety of expertise from government systems as well as commercial systems like Working Group 1 has.
Working Group 1's mandate in my mind was broader. What is the best way to utilize this spectrum and identify 15 megahertz for commercial use? I think saying that we are only going to use one tool in the tool box is unnecessarily narrowing.
Now, I understand why an initial review might have said exclusion zones are the answer. They may still be the right answer. But I think it is a failure of the process if we're not based on the expertise of the entire group trying to make sure that we find the most efficient way to be stewards of that spectrum.
And I think it may be exclusion zones. It may be the temporal sharing we talked about, but it's a failure of the process if we are going to say we are only going to look at exclusion zones.
So I just would echo the idea that Greg originally posited, which is that the mandate should go back to figure out the best way to share and to ensure the integrity of both systems, knowing that the representation of this Working Group is diverse and has the expertise needed to come to some conclusions about this, as supplemented by the testing regimen that has been proposed.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Tom and then Janice?
MEMBER DOMBROWSKY: Yes. I just want to add to that because the exclusion zones were really derived based on the knowledge that went into the fast track report.
What these working groups have discovered is more information. That should be allowed to be factored into discussion. So it actually flows very well with what Janice was saying. We have got more technical information. We have technical people around the table. They should be able to move forward with that information.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Janice?
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: Well, given my advanced age ‑‑
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: ‑‑ I am not sure I can respond to some of the fast talk around the table.
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: Well, I will make a couple of points. I prefaced my comment by saying that as to this case, which was ‑‑ and I don't know it well, but from what I have heard, it is a somewhat more clean‑cut case. I wasn't taking that concept off the table.
But I just sat through Working Group 5, where I think some of the commercial players had their minds blown by the complexity of that band, which will only become more complex as, God willing, we get out of Afghanistan and Iraq and bring some of this equipment home.
I don't want to see us sit here and talk about things that have not been proven. The PCAST report put them in a set of recommendations. Have legislation passed without the other half of the trust factor addressed.
When the FCC sets up an advisory committee stacked with government people in equal number to talk about how it is going to address sharing from its end, I think that trust will be established. I don't think we are there yet.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. I think we probably should sort of ‑‑ at least my view based on Janice's last statement is that the sense is in this Working Group to move forward with thinking not only about exclusion zones but other things.
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: Right.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: I think that is the sense of what I have gotten from around here unless there is someone who objects to telling that committee, you know, "Go forward and give us your best technical recommendations on all possible mechanisms," that would be great and that we have that caveat in mind to ensure that the government representation is there as well.
With that, I think we should probably move on to Working Group 2.
MR. STRICKLING: Yes. I think Tom Sugrue started a new mode of engagement here that I think we all should take some concern about.
MR. STRICKLING: But no. I just wanted to say that, first off, I want to thank Dennis and Mark for their commentary. I am very excited by this report. And the reason is that here in a very short period of time, at about three months, I think we have really brought into focus and we are now confronting the challenges that we have in trying to execute on what we all know we have to do as a country, which is to find a way to share.
So the absolute wrong response to this would be to say, "This is getting too hard. Let's go home." And I don't hear anybody saying that, but we absolutely should reject that.
Your recommendation number 3, which is to keep working, is absolutely the right recommendation. And this is the place, these working groups are the place, to get these issues into focus and try to settle them.
We are clearly, as Janice points out, dealing with new territory for people, especially the federal agencies. And we just have to acknowledge that it is part of the process. It means things take a little bit longer.
But you have made so much progress here in three months in terms of taking this so far beyond where we had it at the end of the fast track report that everybody should take a pause and just take a lot of pride in where this has gotten. And that is both the federal agencies and the industry people who participated in this.
So I think there is a solution that jumps out at us from when we look at this. I don't know what the right one is, but I am confident that there is a way to accommodate everyone's interest when we are trying to take this huge step forward into a new way of operating in a shared environment.
It seems to me the issues are on the table. It is now a question of sitting down and getting people comfort to deal with the trust issue, as Janice says.
I think all of this is imminently workable. And I think it is incumbent on all of us to do it here in this group, as opposed to trying to do it in an NPRM proceeding that the FCC would have to start.
The more these issues can be settled now with consensus, which, as Tom points out, is not unanimity, but it's consensus, we are all going to be better off. The agencies will be better off. Industry will be better off to be able to go in and have a proceeding started at the Commission with many of these issues resolved.
So all I would just urge everybody to do is get back at it. You have got an incredible menu of opportunities here to explore. And I am confident that given the good faith I have seen so far, you all are going to come up with a solution here.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Unless it's urgent, I want to thank Mark and Dennis for their report and for their work and also Steve Sharkey and Ivan Navarro for really heading this stuff up.
Did you want to make a ‑‑
MEMBER TRAMONT: Just a quick question. What is our goal by January? I guess I just wanted to figure out where we think we can be by January in terms of moving it forward. I mean, I don't know what the expectation is from Karl and Larry and others about when we sort of have to wrap this up for purpose of the FCC doing their deal. So can we just maybe be a little bit on schedule for Working Group 1 and goals?
MR. NEBBIA: Yes. I think, first of all, a critical first step that has to be taken is resolution of the view of how we model the network. That is not only critical for this group, but it is critical for the other group. So that if we can get that wrapped up in the next week or so, I think it's a very, very important goal.
I do think that looking at the different possibilities here, certainly if we can come to conclusions on certain ones of them and resolve them, that they, in fact, would be prepared in a way that we could have them all written up and so on for when the Commission is going to inevitably get to their beginnings of a rulemaking and moving toward that auction. And that really needs to be wrapped up and on the table by January. I mean, we have got to be there.
So it may mean that not all of the components are in place, but every component, you know, these new suggestions that you have made, if they can reach agreement within the various parties, that moves us that much further ahead.
And then maybe at some point even after that, we do more actual testing of implementing this timing mechanism and so on. So that maybe by then, as the Commission rulemaking goes on, we are even more prepared.
But the main part of it we absolutely have to have ready in January. We actually have the report due to Congress in February. And we have got to base it off of what is going on in this group.
I mean, Ed has got to start writing now. So, in fact, I mean, I am sure he is taking what you are writing other than the misspelling of the word "assess" that is in there, I am sure he ‑‑
MR. NEBBIA: I know that was cut out of one of Tom's emails, but, anyway, I am sure he is building directly off of all of this work in order to be prepared.
But certainly we have got to have a main part of this wrapped up by January.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. So again thank you to Working Group 1. Let's move on to Working Group 2. I don't know whether Dave Borth or Tom Dombrowsky is going to talk. It looks like Tom is ‑‑
MEMBER DOMBROWSKY: Yes.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: ‑‑ leaning forward and ready to go. So let's go.
‑ WG2 1755 ‑ 1850 MHZ LAW ENFORCEMENT
SURVEILLANCE AND OTHER SHORT‑RANGE FIXED
MEMBER DOMBROWSKY: On the bright side, this group will be very quick.
This is the law enforcement surveillance and land robotic system as well as other short distance things. This group actually had had some advantage in that there was a lot of work done during AWS1, 1710 to 1755, that was directly relatable to this.
So there has been no work on sharing studies because we reached the determination five years ago that sharing between these and the commercial systems just would not work.
So the focus of this group has been completely on getting a plan together in terms of priorities for the industry, providing their priority markets for what they might get early access to, and then providing that to federal agencies so they could try and match up as best they can, taking into account their needs and requirements.
So the primary discussion has been all about these markets and market priorities. The industry is going to put together some sort of aggregate information on priority markets and then provide that to the federal agencies with the understanding that obviously each agency is going to have different capabilities in meeting those priorities, but at least they will have that information as they make their decisions on relocation.
So regular meetings, very big group going on. We don't have a need for any confidential information to be traded. So I think this Working Group is sort of progressing along.
We have a draft report already. It is just a matter of dotting i's and crossing t's. So I think this Working Group is actually moving along fairly quickly.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Are there comments or questions for Tom? So I will take Bryan's question for you, which is you said you move fairly quickly. When do you expect to have a draft report?
MEMBER DOMBROWSKY: Well, I think, again, it all comes down to getting those priority markets agreed to in that. And the goal is to sort of finish that up this month and next month. Then the question is, how quickly can we agree on the report? So obviously they are headed towards the January date, ‑‑
MEMBER BORTH: Yes.
MEMBER DOMBROWSKY: ‑‑ which is what everybody has been looking for, but I think we may actually beat that if everybody is in agreement very quickly.
MEMBER BORTH: Yes. Everyone understands January is the time and before the CSMAC meeting is, in particular.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Great. Okay. Moving onto to ‑‑ on average, we're getting done much shorter reports.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: So that puts pressure on you, Rick. This is Working Group 3. I assume it's Rick going to be talking since ‑‑
‑ WG3 1755 ‑ 1850 MHZ SATELLITE CONTROL
LINKS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE
MEMBER REASER: Yes. This is Rick. I don't think Charlie was able to ‑‑ a lot of the group was out at a meeting on the West Coast and so forth.
Our Working Group is not moving very quickly at all, to be quite honest with you. I had thought that it was going to be one of the easiest ones because essentially we had basically three questions on the table. I'll sort of restate those.
We needed to define what the interference environment that the cell towers, the towers, would experience from the ground stations and define that. We needed to make an assessment as to whether there was going to be an aggregate interference problem to the satellites. The third thing was to get some kind of a statement or something out of electronic warfare community about what was going on there.
So back we have met a number of times. I would say that the government guys outnumbered the commercial guys quite a number of people.
So we met our first face‑to‑face in August first. And we laid out the series of questions primarily from the private sector side, about 13 questions with many subquestions, probably about 30 different elements of information, very, very specific things that you can look at the website. And we also had a discussion about electronic warfare.
These questions were kind of agreed to and so forth. And so we waited for about two months. And then on Monday or Tuesday, we got a briefing from the federal side. And it doesn't answer all of the questions, obviously. And it raises a number of new questions that we had not anticipated in the group. And so we are still digesting that.
Most of the people are tied up with this Working Group. And I have been trying to sort of decide and make a checklist of what questions were and were not answered. It would have been more helpful if the DoD would have kind of gone through the list of questions and said, you know, like, "Location of ground stations. Okay," blah blah blah, "Power level of ground." You know, but we have this other briefing, which doesn't really match up with what the questions were. And many of the questions weren't answered.
So the plan is on that piece, we have another face‑to‑face meeting on the 16th and sort of go through about what did and did not get answered in that particular thing.
Now, there has been some reluctance, I guess, or some not reluctance or some difficulty in terms of providing some of this information, much of which was provided in the past, which I find kind of interesting.
And then also one of the things that was of interest to industry was having a source for this information because, you see, at the end of the day, what we are going to try to do, what we need to do, is define what the interference scenario is in a technical way that a cell tower would have to experience. And then that would actually go into the auction role so that people would know what it was they were doing.
So what has to happen is somebody needs to define either worst case or best case or some number so that people can site towers and so forth and do that in a way that they don't get interfered with.
The issue here, once again, is not that the cellular system would interfere with this, with the ground stations. It is the opposite.
So that has been very, very difficult to get that information. And we don't have enough right now. And so that is going to be part of the real dilemma, I think.
And so we are going to go through and go through this briefly. It would be nice if we could get sort of just the answers to our questions. You know, what color is the sky? Blue. You know, just answer the questions. You go down the line. So that is part. So we have to go through this bookkeeping process.
I am going to read you a couple of comments because these are very interesting, I think something the group would be interested in hearing, some of the statements in this briefing we got.
On the electronic warfare, at the first meeting, what we had asked for as a group was that, hey, we just need some statement for the report.
This is the other problem. I don't think that the federal side is focused on the report as much as they could be. We have draft text that has never been looked at by the federal side, and that needs to happen.
Then the real issue is most of this stuff is going to come from them because that is where we are going to define what the interference scenario is and so forth. And we don't really have any text to put in.
But I think on electronic warfare, where we are headed ‑‑ and we have been waiting for two months, you know, for this sentence or statement ‑‑ is that electronic warfare operations operate on a non‑interference basis anyway. We don't give frequency assignments to jammers. In fact, we don't even certify those systems. NTIA doesn't do that. And so they operate on a non‑interference basis. So they have to do their own kind of risk analysis and so forth.
And the impression that we got at the meeting was that DoD would like to possibly expand beyond that and have some other mechanisms that they could kind of work out with the private sector in case they wanted to go beyond a non‑interference basis. And so we're just waiting for that text. Hopefully some day soon it will come and we can put that in the report because I believe that is where they are headed, although they are not really certain about that.
On the satellite uplink interference issue, we got some interesting statements. And that is yet to be resolved.
So I am just going to read you a couple of statements out of this briefing guide which I thought were kind of interesting. One of the statements ‑‑ and this is not going to be helpful. And I will sort of tell you what my personal opinion is. I haven't been able to talk to Charlie since Tuesday because I was flying out here yesterday.
Basically the basic concept is that the data is a reasonably accurate engineering summary in response to industry questions. Well, "reasonably accurate" probably is not going to cut it for auction rules.
So we need to finally say, "Okay. This is a number." And either it has margin on it or there is a caveat or something like that. And then this data will change in the future.
Well, it would be nice to know if there are some brackets on that. Is it going to change 100 percent or 50 percent or what does that mean and any conclusions or sharing arrangements or license agreements, et cetera, that must be left to future additional data surveys and senior policy determinations?
So I am not exactly sure how the Committee can deal with that statement. That will be interesting. So we are going to talk about that on the 16th.
Another statement we talked about, an aggregate, AR to sat ops, we thought we had put this to bed a long time ago.
Sharing agreement should require further coordination for any significant departure from planned 4G LTE architectures. Well, I'm not sure how to deal with that. That will need to be bracketed. And one of the issues we get into is if you go overseas, you know, how is that going to work and so forth?
So basically they said it appears to be acceptable based on prior studies and assumptions of handset users. So what we have asked for is a copy of their study and their analysis and report. We didn't get that. We are hoping to understand what the assumptions were that went into their assessment of that because one of the things that we were hoping to get out of the group was a common technical assessment from both sides.
I am not sure that is going to happen or not because what we would hoped to have had was, say, "Okay. Here are all the input" because we ask for like, "What is your receiver sensitivity?" And all of those are kind of available commercially. Boxes are available. You know, you can buy them.
So we were hoping to have like a common set of assumptions, a common analysis, and agree to a common set of numbers. I am not sure whether we are going to be able to do that, but that is another concern about what we do in the uplink.
And then in its concluding chart, basically they've got the data must be revisited prior to conclusionary actions. And then cooperative DoD industry analysis and testing is needed to assess possible sharing solutions.
I spoke with Colonel Martin about this testing idea. It wasn't clear exactly what we were going to be testing in this regard. If you are testing on a non‑interference basis, EW system against it, I suppose we could test that. The testing that goes into the interference in some of the receiver, there is possibly a way to test that. That would be very difficult to do.
And then the other side ‑‑ this is the part that Charlie is kind of worried about ‑‑ the analysis of what the interference is and how to site a cell tower is really up to the industry. That is not a DoD problem or a federal government problem. What was hoped was that they would have an interference environment upon which to base their own conclusions about how they would go do stuff.
So having both parties agree as to how I site towers and my channel plans, I am not sure that is entirely useful. I think that kind of drags this process through the mud because, really, the industry is going to have to go sort that out and decide, you know, what the spectrum is worth under that condition in an auction. So that's of concern.
So after reading this yesterday in the hotel room before I came over here, I am worried that we are not progressing very quickly on this point. We need to sort of get things jump‑started and get the right data out and so forth. And if we can't have the data, the thing I propose at every meeting is maybe at some point we say that what we have got to do if you can't give us the data is that we do a measurement program that basically the commercial wireless guys go around every site, make an assessment of what the interference environment is. And then the safest thing to do would be able to put on every cell tower, you know, a detector. When they see the satellite pointed in their direction or the power rising in that band, that particular band, then they would actually take action to reschedule transmissions in the band. That would be the way. And that way you may not need any data.
But, like I said, I don't think we are going to meet anything by January. We don't even have the basic answers to the questions from August yet. So it will be a slow thing. But that might be a reasonable approach.
Looking at the preliminary data, it turns out that the opportunity for sharing should be quite high. They only transmit on one frequency at a time. And it's not 24/7. And it's only in certain directions. So it's not in every direction all the time in all frequencies.
And so it would seem to be great opportunities to do that. We understand that we're not going to do the thing you had where basically you can tell them ahead of time, "That is not going to happen." There are obvious security reasons for that.
You could come up with some numbers that say, "Okay. Here is what I do." But the best thing may be for the commercial wireless guys who build in detectors to just stay out of the band when they are going to get interfered with.
MEMBER KAHN: But if I understand, I mean, this is satellite control, right? So it's typically on a pretty high azimuth anyway.
MEMBER REASER: No. They get ‑‑
MEMBER KAHN: Oh, they get #
MEMBER REASER: They gave us numbers. They aren't very long at the low azimuth. In fact, when they are at a low azimuth, they are basically going pretty fast. And so they are not going to be very quick on the low horizon. But they did actually give us a full‑up pattern down to like three degrees. And it will do that at times.
You remember they use this band for essentially ‑‑ with the exception of GPS, they use it for anomaly resolution. So they're really trying to get a hold of this satellite on an emergency basis. That's typically what this is used for. It's launched early over at operations in anomaly resolution. That is what the band is used for.
And there is a lot of that that goes on. And so yes, there will be a low azimuth at a certain time. And there has not been a proposal by industry "Hey, can you just always go above ten degrees?" That hasn't come out in industry. I don't think that would be accepted, but that has certainly not been something that has been suggested.
MEMBER KAHN: But it is really just interference into the commercial side.
MEMBER REASER: Yes, it is.
MEMBER KAHN: Worst‑case commercial ‑‑
MEMBER REASER: The other direction about ‑‑
MEMBER KAHN: If it happens, it happens infrequently enough.
MEMBER REASER: Yes.
MEMBER KAHN: I just accept the fact that I am interfered with and get out of there or do something else.
MEMBER REASER: Yes. That was sort of my ‑‑ if we can't get the data to come up for the model, then maybe that is the best way to do it.
On the other one, it is an interference into the satellites. And so this has kind of always been curious to me because I worked on this before because in other countries and in Europe, this band is used for the handsets a lot. I mean, that is their handset band.
And so if we have a problem in the U.S., they probably ought to be having a problem with uplink interference into the satellite receivers and other places besides us. And I don't think that's true, but I guess it certainly is a concern because the more and more you have, you know, maybe if you have a satellite over the Atlantic, you can see both Europe and the U.S. or something like that.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Did you want to say something?
MR. NEBBIA: I just think we need to move on to the next.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: I know. Okay. Any last comments before we go on, then? My one comment is that you seem like you are having trouble getting information or frustration. If Karl or Larry can help you with that, I am sure they would be happy to. Try to put pressure if they can.
MEMBER REASER: I think, Karl, you saw the briefing that came out in ‑‑
MR. NEBBIA: I have not seen it.
MEMBER REASER: Okay.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Janice?
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: I promise I won't ‑‑ I hope I won't start something here.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Tom?
MEMBER SUGRUE: I'll be the judge of that.
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: No, no. You know, I have not followed this closely. But just the words "the electronic warfare," one can assume some of the concerns here. And one cannot say, "Well, it works in Europe" because, frankly, if you look at the world in which we are operating, the U.S. and a few other strategic allies might see the world quite differently and approach some of these issues very differently and are contending with adversaries who are much more focused upon us than other nations.
And, again, I don't know the answer here, but I would recommend that in seeking help in how to address this, you know, Larry and senior people could help us because some of this may only get resolved on the level of principle.
You know, nobody is going to sit down. My opinion ‑‑ and I am not an engineer, but why in the world if this is some kind of strategic electronic warfare move we're making are we going to negotiate this in its technical dimensions? It just doesn't ‑‑ common sense says this isn't going to be the way this gets resolved by the United States of America.
And if that is the case, I don't know how much time we can devote to this. You know, I admire Rick's technical acumen. I am sure he has got a lot of fixes. And if he were a god, you know, he could probably work this all out.
But, you know, at a level of policy, I would love to see, you know, Larry and senior people raise this as the kind of issue that we need policy direction on and we may never have a technical answer to.
MEMBER REASER: The proposal from DoD is not to change any policy on electronic warfare at all. Right now the policy is they operate on a non‑interference basis for electronic warfare operations in this country. And there has been no attempt to change that.
The idea I think that was presented by Lieutenant Colonel Orwan was that they would like to have an opportunity to get a better deal than NIB at certain locations at certain times.
And so I don't think we are looking. We are looking at maybe expanding to give DoD more access to spectrum at certain things and maybe actually interfere with wireless and have them change frequencies at someplace if they want to do some big exercise.
So we just need the text. Again, all we are looking for is the text. And the other stuff is sort of like, you know, if you can't tell us what interference environment we are going to get for the wireless guys, then maybe we just need to not get that and go with an alternate.
That's not very well‑liked by the wireless guys, by the way. They would much rather have a more elegant solution that doesn't require additional hardware on towers around satellite uplink stations.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Karl?
MR. NEBBIA: Certainly, non‑interference basis means you turn off if you bother somebody. In this particular case, they have to have the ability to train. This is the last band that they get to train in where there is real commercial equipment and so on.
So there has to be an expectation that if they need to do the testing and training, they are going to get access in a way that would not meet the normal requirements of non‑interference. They just have to have some way to gain access and an agreement to do that.
So, based on that, I would then suggest we go on to Working Group 4.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. Thank you, Rick, for that and for the co‑chairs as well.
‑ WG4 1755 ‑ 1850 MHZ FIXED POINT‑TO‑POINT
AND TACTICAL RADIO RELAY
MEMBER GIBSON: Okay. Hi. First of all, I apologize for not being here in person, but I think we can do just fine over the conference.
Essentially what I would say is we are dealing with some of the same issues in our Working Group as Rick is with his. And that is, you know, essentially you are getting clearance on presentation information.
I think the good news is that we are having meetings and they are ongoing. We probably could get a little more easily scheduled so that they are stationed, but I think we have it under control.
And our product has been circulated for feedback. So that's good. And that is moving along as well.
But where we kind of stumble a little bit is on the FDR JTRS. There was a report last year. There was also a report, an analysis, that was presented in our last call. I believe it was last week. And that was I think the result of a report hat has been referred to in the NTIA final report I think as DoD 2.
And so what was really presented in that was a couple of slides on an analysis methodology and then representation of some 30 exclusion zones where the JTRS operations are amiss.
Most of the exclusion zones we believed we could understand them, but several of the exclusion zones were not fully plotted out. There was just one paper. And it somewhat affected the area of operations.
So what that did is it elicited a response back of tasks or a set of questions to be answered, more analysis methodology.
The other question is what we got was what looked like dual presentations. There were no K&L files so that we could determine the extent of the exclusion zone as far as being able to replicate analysis and research analysis.
So that discussion happened. And then it was presented. I forget who it was. Dave is going to run this back through the process to see if more information could be provided based on the questions that were asked in the presentation and then elicited questions that were sent out.
So we are still working on the JTRS systems. And I think basically what I have to agree with what Rick is saying, this kind of concerns me a little bit because the length of time it is taking to get to this information is putting peril on getting our reports done in the time frame we need, at least for JTRS.
So I would echo what Janice said and what everyone sitting around the table has that if there is anything that can be done at a policy level to move this along a little better, that would be helpful.
And we also have to work on the TRRs, which I think what we are going to ask to do if we are ready on the JTRS information, get back up and help on the TRRs and maybe do this stuff in parallel.
The other thing that is probably different for the JTRS system, as opposed to any other systems that are being worked on, is we don't really know what the frequency assignments of the systems are. Whether or not that is classified, you know, we are not sure, but in the total assignment that is in the report, we are not sure how many of them are JTRS systems. We are not really sure of the magnitude of the problem. Are we talking just a few assignments? Are we talking across an entire band? We just don't know whether we are going down a rabbit hole with this or whether it's really a problem. So any work that could be done on fine‑tuning the data as it relates to the assignments would be very helpful.
That is really it. I think, you know, we are making progress, but we are getting slogged down with getting stumbling on the JTRS system. And so, like I said, anything that can be done to move that along would be appreciated.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Kevin, you look like you are leaning forward.
MEMBER KAHN: Yes. Mark, it's Kevin. I know Mike was pretty frustrated a while back on the JTRS situation in terms of information and willingness to provide accurate assessments of what their flexibility was. Has that improved any in your ‑‑
MEMBER GIBSON: No. I think at first, I think where my frustration came from I think is, you know, when we had the first meeting was when we learned that we were going to have to deal with JTRS. And so that was my frustration.
Mike wasn't able to make the last call. So I'm not sure you've heard from him lately. I guess on the commercial side, I would share some of that frustration, really, because I think we see the deadline of January approaching pretty fast. And we want to make sure we get some interim report outlined before then.
I'm not saying that there isn't commitment on the other side to get that information. I'm just saying it is taking a long time to get clearance for it.
So what might be worthwhile in this is to have some agreement up front to check for these questions that we sent out on the type of information we're looking for so they could be clear what we want, rather than, you know, sort of going one step deeper than not having issues but having issues and going back in and getting it.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. Are there other comments or questions for Mark?
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: All right. Thank you, Mark.
MEMBER GIBSON: Okay. Thank you.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: And I think we will move on to Working Group 5. And that is Jennifer and Bryan. Jennifer is going first.
‑ WG5 1755 ‑ 1850 MHZ AIRBORNE OPERATIONS
MEMBER WARREN: Yes. Please don't turn off the microphone.
Just one administrative thing to report on on the Working Group 5. There is going to be a change in co‑chair leadership. Many of you may know Fred Moorefield, who was the Air Force side, the government side. He is moving up to DoD CIO's office. And so his boss, Colonel Reese, will be replacing him as co‑chair with Verizon. So just FYI on that front.
Overall, the Working Group had a really strong early start. It has slowed down a little bit. And I'll talk about some of the reasons for the slowdown and actually maybe make a recommendation on one way that NTIA could help with some of the challenges.
We have had six meetings to date, two face‑to‑face, the last one being yesterday. So the updates are fresh.
And I think it's important to say that, even though this group has the shortest title, it has the most diverse set of systems and the greatest complexity, so much so that it had to be divided into four subworking groups focused on, again, very different subsets of issues. As Janice said, kind of overwhelming.
I think the rate of work in each of the subworking groups has varied a little bit. The ACTS, which is the Air Combat Training System, Q5 group has had some pretty good progress. Based on reporting out yesterday, they have taken the first cut at interference scenarios and working on some refinements for greater accuracy to maybe reduce some of the exclusion zones.
But overall they have provided typical training missions to base their analysis on. So it seems to be that there is a positive momentum in that group.
With respect to the small UAF and the PGM group, there is data that is missing and still coming in. I should say that overall Working Group 5 has had a lot of briefs, started to slow down because there is a holdup on some of the data. And that is what I want to talk about at the end and maybe a way forward.
So what will happen, a number of data briefs, there are still ones that either have been released at the service level and are awaiting DoD release from a higher level.
And then with respect to AMT, which is the fourth group, they have made I think some progress. They are discussing propagation models and how we review the initial LTE parameters. And, like all the working groups, subworking groups are waiting for, I guess the Working Group wanted a kick‑out from the new revisions that went in Tuesday night from industry.
So, you know, there are reviews that went on. One is done. I think they realized that they may be able to start some of their two‑way interference scenarios.
The one issue there is that right now they are working off of 2010 database at their station locations, but they are not going to wait to update that. I think they are going to try and start there because there has not been a lot of movement. And that would be a good starting place.
So while they had a strong start, it has slowed down because there is some delay in some of the briefs.
Most of them are user briefs. There are also two non‑user briefs that I'll call regulatory briefs that people are wanting, too. One is an NTIA one. One is an FAA one on the small UAS rules that they have in development.
Some of the take‑aways I think from yesterday are that the Working Group needs to catalog what is missing, but not only what is missing, but I think John put it very well yesterday.
What is missing that would impede analysis beginning because that is really what we are trying to go to, right, is the ability for analysis to start but also the methodology but then the analysis to start. And that needs to take the next step.
With respect to ‑‑ I already mentioned the GMF. So I won't go through that again. With respect to the data hold‑up, since, as I understand it, it really is a legal review within the Pentagon, perhaps General Counsel to General Counsel discussions could be most beneficial because I understand there is a question about how do you share data in a public forum, maybe a FACA public forum, where you may not be able to create subgroups of those who are cleared and not cleared? I think there is just a question that perhaps the General Counsel who manages the FACA processing question could work with the General Counsel's office at the Pentagon.
So that is a personal recommendation. I have not had a chance to run that past Bryan. So if you would just agree?
MEMBER WARREN: Actually, you will. The original suspend date for the industry briefs was the end of September. And while I think we are not quite at the level of frustration that is ‑‑ it has been moved to October 15th. So there is a goal to have all the information briefs done by then.
And I think, you know, even though we recognize that the 60‑90‑day time frame of working days left for the January schedule is pretty tight, we haven't moved that yet. And I think it's fair to say both of the chairs indicated to me yesterday that both industry and government feel challenged with the resources given the complexity and the diversity of what is being studied in Working Group 5.
So I just share that with you. And that is where ‑‑
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Bryan?
MEMBER TRAMONT: First of all, I wholeheartedly endorse the ‑‑
MEMBER TRAMONT: No. One just sort of process question, is NTIA getting transparency into when the committees are requesting information from government users? I don't know. I don't know how much transparency you have. It seems like there are times where it would be useful for NTIA to call and sort of see like what the schedule is.
I mean, the commercial guys, we're trying to be aggressive with keeping the commercial folks moving and getting the things that the government users want. But I don't know if it might be useful that when requests go in to government users, that you know about them or there is a maintain of central charts so that when things are taking too long, you can place calls to the leadership. I was just curious if that sort of tool would be useful.
MR. NEBBIA: First of all, we have NTIA people in each of these groups.
MEMBER TRAMONT: Right.
MR. NEBBIA: And, to be honest with you, I am trying not to have my finger on every step that everybody takes here. So I would prefer not to be monitoring every request for information. That's I think for our people to do, for the liaisons to participate in.
If there are difficulties, I certainly want to hear about it and our people come in and give me feedback when there is slowdown. So I think that is the approach we have taken thus far. There have been a couple of groups here highlighted today where maybe things are moving more slowly than they need to, and we can certainly approach that.
As for me wanting to have another board on my wall with all the questions that have been asked and what everybody's response is, I would rather not have ‑‑
MEMBER TRAMONT: I guess that escalation process is working. In other words, I know you don't have all your folks in the room, but is that escalation process working well from where you sit? Obviously we have some groups that are stuck a little.
MR. NEBBIA: I think it is working adequately. I mean, we certainly have a couple here clearly we've got to follow up. And we will do that.
And I have to give everybody credit. There has been an amazing amount of work and information that has been passed. So, to some extent, I live with the daily question of how hard can I beat the pig to move the pig along, you know?
MR. NEBBIA: Anyway, so yes, we're dealing with it. But certainly we understand that there are a couple of groups here that are wrestling with that. And we will certainly follow up.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. I think we are ready to move forward. Thank Working Group 5. And I will miss getting all those emails from Fred Moorefield.
Associated Spectrum Measurements. I think this is Tom.
MEMBER SUGRUE: Yes. No wise‑guy comments except I do want to say that ‑‑ and some of you know this, but, despite our little back and forth, Janice Obuchowski is not only a good and dear friend but my former boss and a real mentor of mine in my career and someone for whom ‑‑
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: It gets worse than that. We've had an office marriage. I'm kidding around.
MEMBER SUGRUE: Right.
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: We've been bickering with each other for the last 30 years. I'm also kidding around about that.
MEMBER SUGRUE: Anyway, well, that's right. We had a great working relationship, but it wasn't based on always agreeing with each other. So that was part of it.
‑ ASSOCIATED SPECTRUM MEASUREMENTS
MEMBER SUGRUE: T‑Mobile and other members of the industry have been actively working together on a project with the government in cooperation from NTIA and the Defense Department to test for sharing possibilities in the 1755 to 1780 band, which I think everyone knows is of prime interest in the commercial mobile world.
T‑Mobile on behalf of the industry was able to secure an STA, a Special Temporary Authorization, to conduct testing in partnership with DoD.
We are devoting significant resources, we and others in industry. And by "resources," I mean both people and money. There are dollars that are being spent that we have had to pony up and the people.
Steve Sharkey is not only on Working Group 1, but he is leading this effort. I think he is working more for CSMAC and NTIA than he is for me anymore, but my point of that is just saying that we are ‑‑ you know, Steve has a small team. And they are spending a lot of time on these various efforts. So we are taking it very seriously. We want it to work and are devoting, as I said, the resources to it.
The ultimate goal is to develop a better understanding of the sharing possibilities in that band. We are going to be doing monitoring, simulations, and then eventually actual field testing. And Steve is just going to give you a few of the more details on it right now.
MR. SHARKEY: So, like Tom said, I mean, we have got a program that we have initiated. And, really, it is under the auspices of the industry. So we work closely with CTIA. AT&T and Verizon are equal partners in this and a good working relationship there. And we are working with DoD.
The idea is to monitor some of the sites where these specific operations are happening to gather some real‑world information.
I think a lot of the discussion that has been around the table today shows some of the difficulty of getting a very real picture of what is going on out there.
So the idea is we have got contracts with a couple of organizations that will do some longer‑term monitoring. You know, again, we're working closely with DoD to help us understand the data that we are capturing, that it is accurate data, and that it reflects the systems that are out there.
And then we will be moving from capturing real data to doing some simulation and lab testing and then probably eventually more field testing to see how the systems actually inter‑operate.
You know, like everything else, it has taken longer than I think any of us had hoped it would, but we hope to have monitoring initiated probably I would say in early November and results that will start to come in in the end‑of‑year time frame, although monitoring will extend beyond the end of the year.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. Are there quick questions for Steve?
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. So I think the next three items are Karl's. He's going to talk about the hot new term "Path Forward."
PATH FORWARD ‑ THE REPORTING FRAMEWORK
MR. NEBBIA: Yes. Certainly we are working toward reports coming up from each of the working groups through the group here.
I think it was Tom maybe had done some work on drafting a format. We are looking for a summarization of the results; the specific recommendations of key components of how to move forward; and then, of course, the supporting info. So we will be getting back with you more on that. So I think that is probably as good a summary as I think we need to give at this point.
NTIA'S NEAR‑TERM SPECTRUM OBJECTIVES
(6 TO 12 MONTHS OUT)
MR. NEBBIA: With respect to the near‑term spectrum objectives and so on we were going to talk about here, the thing I wanted to emphasize is that this is the objective.
This work that we're doing in these working groups right now I think is critical to what we are doing. I don't mind taking a hiatus on some of the other subcommittees and so on. To me, this is where the rubber is meeting the road. And I just want to emphasize that.
I think this is critical. I think the way we have gotten feedback through the liaisons I think has shown that this process and the connection with this process is going to work. And we have certainly got a tremendous amount of participation.
So this is where we are focused. I just want everybody to know that. So if you are looking for more tasking in the near future, this is going to be it on the immediate future.
NTIA SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT HOT TOPICS
MR. NEBBIA: With respect to what we call hot topics, I just wanted to inform you that our annual report of progress under our 500 megahertz search, we have now finished the fiscal year. So that draft report is in our review process right now. So that will be coming out soon.
Also, we have an October 22nd deadline I think on the 5 gigahertz report, where we will be laying out the general risk areas of what we would call I think a qualitative study basically pointing out what systems the government is using in this new potentially expanded wi‑fi band, how it differs from the bands we have done work with before and any consideration along that line.
I know industry is waiting for the outcome on that so we can begin to make progress on those, analyzing those systems. So that initial report will also be coming out in the next few weeks. It is well into its review cycle. So that is all I have got to say on those.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. Committee questions and discussion? Any? Yes, Kevin?
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
MEMBER KAHN: Just a real quick process question. I never remember that the official tenure of a CSMAC, but typically around the turn of the year, nominally we are kind of going through the reappointment. But we've got this whole in‑flight set of activity.
I am just curious what the process is to keep continuity, et cetera, as we do that or is there one?
MR. STRICKLING: Yes. I think that the dates of everybody's re‑upping come up next spring ‑‑ is that right? ‑‑ for May for just about everybody?
MEMBER KAHN: That's probably about right.
MR. NEBBIA: So, once again, we have a little bit of time to work with there, but obviously if we're in flight ‑‑
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: At the very least, the working groups will continue, the liaisons. But hopefully they will have reports done or close to done by the end of this.
Opportunity for public comment. Is there anyone in person first who would like to make a comment?
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Is there anyone on the phone who would like to make a comment?
OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS
MR. LUBAR: Yes. This is Dave Lubar, Raytheon. I would like to make a general comment.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. Go ahead, Dave. Please speak loudly.
MR. LUBAR: This thing between the parties for an independent entity for analysis and coordination, as I listened to your report early on and I listened to where we are going in some of the working groups, I am thinking an entity which can handle proprietary industry data or government security concerns, had the tech resources, and could model up some of these things, something maybe similar to what they do for area frequency coordinators or AFTRCC, or maybe something completely different.
But it is clear that these systems will continue to evolve over time. And I think that kind of a mechanism might be needed.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Thank you, Dave.
Karl, did you want to say something?
MR. NEBBIA: I assume you are talking about on an ongoing sense as AFTRCC is in the business of dealing with telemetry, aeronautical telemetry systems. You are talking about a process and a resource that would go on in the future, correct?
MR. LUBAR: Yes. I am talking about a permanent process.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Are there other people on the telephone who would like to make a comment?
CO‑CHAIR FONTES: This is Brian. I just wanted to congratulate you, Greg, for the meeting and also Janice and Tom for their wisdom and insight and particularly I remember them as kids, actually, but, in reality ‑‑
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: I think you meant to say wit, wisdom, and insight.
CO‑CHAIR FONTES: That's right.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Yes.
CO‑CHAIR FONTES: Now, I wanted to just comment. And I thought that the ideas and concepts that were presented today, some of these were I think moving the needle forward when taking a look at the possibility of sharing spectrum with commercial and government entities.
And I also just wanted to compliment everybody for all their work. It's a large amount of work that goes into all of these reports and the behind‑the‑scenes effort. So thank you, everyone.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. And then I think the schedule of the next meetings. Actually, one process question. I think that the slides will be posted up on the website? The slides from Working Group 1 that were presented at this meeting are now posted on the website.
MEMBER ROBERSON: If it's possible, it would be desirable to update the one typographical error.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Okay. I'll let you deal with Bruce on that one.
Janice, another comment, even though you are not part of the public?
MEMBER OBUCHOWSKI: I guess I missed my shot, but I did want to say two things. Firstly, as we look to the January meeting, I do agree with Brian's comment that there has been an unprecedented amount of effort and very good effort and mutual understanding or attempts at understanding.
I would just like to ask NTIA and the co‑chairs to think about what do we do with this work and come back to us with the idea this is a recommendation that stands on its own two feet. It's advanced or not. I don't think we can make a decision on that, but just talking about that would seem to be a very logical next step.
And then yes, as a member of the public, I did want to observe that I was sitting here thinking that as somebody who has been at this for 30 years with several people around the table, that I would have never expected when I started down this path how passionate a former French and history major would feel about the radio spectrum. And the reason for it is I think all around this table, we have grown up and into the realization that this is an enormous national asset. I just wanted to say thank you to Tom and everybody here because we do care.
And sitting in those working groups, I mean, yesterday people have flown in from bases all over the country. The carriers were represented. We all do care. And I appreciate very much, Larry and your leadership. This is kind of a living process.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: Thanks.
SCHEDULE OF NEXT MEETINGS;
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: So we have the schedule of next meetings: January 17th here, February out in a place in California I think I've heard of called Stanford #‑ February 21st at Stanford, I apologize for that ‑‑
MR. NEBBIA: So the intention there is to try to get our recommendations together for the January meeting, understanding that it will probably be new to most people at that point. So we would have the February meeting as a follow‑up to try to resolve any questions about what we are doing, actually coming to agreement on the recommendations.
CO‑CHAIR ROSSTON: And I will provide coffee at the February meeting. So I am three minutes late, but I came close. It was a late ninth‑inning comeback. So we are going to adjourn the formal meeting. I guess we have ethics training at 12:40 and a 1:00 o'clock departure.
So the phone bridge will stay open for members of the Committee to go through the ethics training. We will reconvene in six and a half minutes.
(Whereupon, the foregoing meeting was adjourned at 12:34 p.m.)