Telecommunications
Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum Management Gao ID: GAO-02-906 September 30, 2002The radiofrequency spectrum is the medium that enables wireless communications of all kinds, such as mobile phone and paging services, radio and television broadcasting, radar, and satellite-based services. As new spectrum-dependent technologies are developed and deployed, the demand for this limited resource has escalated among both government and private sector users. Meeting these needs domestically is the responsibility of the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for federal government users and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for all other users. The current legal framework for domestic spectrum management evolved as a compromise over the questions of who should determine how spectrum is allocated among competing users and what standard should be applied in making this determination. Current methods for allocating spectrum face difficulties, and FCC and NTIA's efforts are not guided by a national spectrum strategy. Since nearly all of the usable radio spectrum has been allocated already, accommodating more services and users generally involves redefining current radiofrequency allocations. One method used by FCC and NTIA is to increase the amount of spectrum that is designated for shared use, so that additional types of services or users may be placed within a particular frequency allocation. Another method, called band-clearing, involves relocating a service or user from one area spectrum to another in order to make room for a new service or user. The challenges the United States faces in preparing for World Radiocommunication Conferences, where decisions are made regarding the global and regional allocation of spectrum, have raised questions about the adequacy of the United States' current preparatory process. Under the current structure, FCC and NTIA develop positions on agenda items through separate processes that involve the users of the spectrum they manage. NTIA has several oversight activities to encourage accountability and efficient use of the spectrum by federal agencies, but federal officials stated that the effectiveness of these activities is hindered by staffing and resource shortages. Specifically, NTIA has directed federal agencies to use only as much spectrum as they need and has established frequency assignment and review processes that place primary responsibility for promoting efficiency in the hands of the agencies. As an accountability measure, NTIA requires that agencies justify their initial need for a frequency assignment and periodically review their continued need for the assignment, generally every 5 years.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-02-906, Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum Management
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-906
entitled 'Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced
Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum Management' which was
released on September 30, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
September 2002:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS:
Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability Needed to Improve
Spectrum Management:
GAO-02-906:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Concern Over Concentrating Authority Led to Divided Structure for
Spectrum Management:
Methods for Allocating Spectrum Face Difficulties and Are Not Guided by
a Coordinated National Plan:
Issues Have Emerged Regarding the Adequacy of U.S. Preparations for
World Radiocommunication Conferences:
Federal Officials Said Activities to Encourage Efficient Federal
Spectrum Use Are Hindered by Staffing and Resource
Problems:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Major Parts of the Radiofrequency Spectrum and Their
Uses:
Appendix II: Timeline of Spectrum Management:
Appendix III: Comments from the Federal Communications COmmission:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State:
Figures:
Figure 1: Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee‘s Membership:
Figure 2: Percent of Spectrum Shared by Federal and Nonfederal Users (9
kHz to 3.1 GHz):
Figure 3: Spectrum Reallocation Process:
Figure 4: Relationship of U.S. Participants in Preparing for World
Radiocommunication Conferences:
Figure 5: NTIA Frequency Assignment Process:
Figure 6: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1895-1925):
Figure 7: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1925-1955):
Figure 8: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1955-1985):
Figure 9: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1985-2005):
Abbreviations:
3G: third-generation wireless systems:
BOC: Bell Operating Company:
CITEL: Inter-American Telecommunication Commission:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOE: Department of Energy:
EHF: extremely high frequency:
FCC: Federal Communications Commission:
FRC: Federal Radio Commission:
GHz: gigahertz:
HF: high frequency:
IRAC: Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee:
ITAC: International Telecommunication Advisory Committee:
ITS: Institute for Telecommunication Science:
ITU: International Telecommunication Union:
kHz: kilohertz:
LF: low frequency:
MF: medium frequency:
MHz: megahertz:
NTIA : National Telecommunications and Information Administration:
SHF: superhigh frequency:
UHF: ultrahigh frequency:
VHF: very high frequency:
VLF: very low frequency:
WARC : World Administrative Radio Conference:
WRC: World Radiocommunication Conference:
Letter September 30, 2002:
The Honorable Conrad Burns
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
The Honorable John F. Kerry
United States Senate:
The radiofrequency spectrum is the medium that enables wireless
communications of all kinds, such as mobile phone and paging services,
radio and television broadcasting, radar, and satellite-based services.
As new spectrum-dependent technologies are developed and deployed, the
demand for this limited resource has escalated among both government
and private sector users. Meeting these needs domestically is the
responsibility of the Department of Commerce‘s National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for federal
government users and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for
all other users. One of these agencies‘ most important tasks is to
decide how to allocate (apportion) the spectrum among the different
types of wireless services and users--a task that is increasingly
difficult as the spectrum becomes more crowded and competition for
radiofrequencies intensifies. A further complication is that domestic
management and use of the spectrum and its commercial development are
greatly affected by international agreements on spectrum use. Our
ability to promote our strategic and economic interests internationally
has become more difficult as countries vie with the United States for
leadership in the multibillion dollar global telecommunications
marketplace. As a result of these developments, debate has been
intensifying about whether our current approach to spectrum management
is adequate to meet the challenges of the wireless age.
As the Congress begins to debate whether fundamental reforms are needed
in spectrum management, you asked us to provide an overview of the
development of the legal and regulatory framework for spectrum
management at the federal level and assess key issues associated with
spectrum management at federal agencies. As agreed, we focused on the
following issues: (1) the evolution of the current legal and regulatory
framework for domestic spectrum management; (2) the current methods for
allocating spectrum domestically and planning for its use; (3) the
adequacy of the current U.S. preparatory process for the World
Radiocommunication Conferences, at which decisions are made on how to
allocate spectrum internationally; and (4) the activities used to
increase accountability and encourage the efficient use of spectrum by
federal agencies.
In addition to these issues, you requested that we review how the
current rules and regulations governing spectrum holders affect the
rollout of new technologies and services and the level of competition
in markets that use spectrum. Work on this issue is ongoing and will
result in a separate report early in 2003, which will also include a
discussion of approaches to spectrum management in other countries,
such as the use of incentives for efficient spectrum use.
To address the four issues covered in this report, we reviewed major
legislative and regulatory developments in spectrum management over the
past century, along with relevant agency manuals, policies, and
regulations. We interviewed officials responsible for spectrum
management at FCC, NTIA, and the Department of State. We also
interviewed representatives from the commercial wireless industry. To
gain an understanding of how the federal government uses and manages
spectrum, we reviewed relevant documents and interviewed officials from
the following seven agencies that are major users of this resource: the
Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Federal
Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard, the Department of Justice,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.[Footnote 1] We conducted our review from July
2001 through July 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The current legal framework for domestic spectrum management evolved as
a compromise over the questions of who should determine how spectrum is
allocated among competing users and what standard should be applied in
making this determination. Although all spectrum management was
initially placed in the executive branch, concern over concentrating
licensing authority in this way led to legislation in 1927 and 1934
that divided this authority between the executive branch for federal
government spectrum use and an independent commission for nonfederal
spectrum use, currently NTIA and FCC, respectively. Since 1922, the
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC)--composed of the
representatives from the federal agencies that use the most spectrum--
has been a source of advice and support on the federal government‘s use
of spectrum. Under the divided management framework, no one entity has
been given ultimate decision-making power over all spectrum use, and
the two agencies must coordinate and cooperate in order to determine
how best to accommodate different users competing for spectrum.
Current methods for allocating spectrum face difficulties, and FCC and
NTIA‘s efforts are not guided by a national spectrum strategy. Since
nearly all of the usable radio spectrum has been allocated already,
accommodating more services and users generally involves redefining
current radiofrequency allocations. One method used by FCC and NTIA is
to increase the amount of spectrum that is designated for shared use,
so that additional types of services or users may be placed within a
particular frequency allocation. Another method, called band-clearing,
involves relocating a service or user from one area of spectrum to
another in order to make room for a new service or user. Both of these
methods can sometimes result in lengthy negotiations between FCC and
NTIA because redefining allocations can be disruptive and costly for
incumbent users who may need to replace their radio equipment to
operate at new frequencies. Some government and private sector sources
have raised the possibility of designating a third party to arbitrate
between FCC and NTIA on hard-to-resolve allocation issues, though no
consensus has emerged either on the necessity for this or who the
arbiter should be. Congress has twice mandated that FCC and NTIA engage
in coordinated planning, which could aid in resolving difficult
allocation issues. Although FCC and NTIA have conducted independent
planning efforts and are currently engaged in efforts that could
provide the basis for improved planning, it is uncertain whether these
efforts will result in a clearly defined national spectrum strategy. As
a result, we are recommending that FCC and NTIA develop a strategy for
establishing a clearly defined national spectrum plan and report the
results of this effort to the appropriate congressional committees.
The challenges the United States faces in preparing for World
Radiocommunication Conferences, where decisions are made regarding the
global and regional allocation of spectrum, have raised questions about
the adequacy of the United States‘ current preparatory process. Under
the current structure, FCC and NTIA develop positions on agenda items
through separate processes that involve the users of the spectrum they
manage. With the assistance of the Department of State, the positions
are then merged into a unified U.S. position. Timely preparation for
these conferences is important to give the United States an opportunity
to build support with other countries for its position on conference
agenda items. In the past, however, the U.S. position on some items has
remained unresolved until the eve of the conference, leaving the United
States with little time to build preconference support. Another
challenge involves the short tenure of the individual selected as the
head of delegation, whose role is to help negotiate a unified U.S.
position and lead the U.S. delegation at the conference. The President
typically confers the personal rank of ambassador in connection with
this special mission for a period not exceeding 6 months. There is
concern that this leaves the ambassador with insufficient time to
prepare for the conference. No consensus has been reached on whether
fundamental changes are needed to improve the current preparatory
process for World Radiocommunication Conferences. We are recommending
all three agencies jointly review the adequacy of the preparation
process following the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference and
develop recommendations for any needed changes.
NTIA has several oversight activities to encourage accountability and
efficient use of the spectrum by federal agencies, but federal
officials stated that the effectiveness of these activities is hindered
by staffing and resource shortages. Specifically, NTIA has directed
federal agencies to use only as much spectrum as they need and has
established frequency assignment and review processes that place
primary responsibility for promoting efficiency in the hands of the
agencies. As an accountability measure, NTIA requires that agencies
justify their initial need for a frequency assignment and periodically
review their continued need for the assignment, generally every 5
years. Officials from several federal agencies told us that they have
been unable to complete the required five-year reviews in a timely or
in-depth manner because of shortages in experienced spectrum staff and
competing agency priorities. Moreover, although NTIA has established
monitoring programs to further increase agency accountability, it said
that some of these programs are inactive because of staff and funding
shortages. NTIA also conducts research and has technical initiatives
under way to promote the efficient use of the spectrum. However,
several agencies we reviewed reported difficulties implementing an
important NTIA initiative for more efficient use of land mobile radio
spectrum. Due to these workforce issues, we are recommending that the
Department of Commerce conduct an analysis of the human capital needs
of federal agencies for spectrum management as well as develop a
strategy for enhancing its oversight of federal agencies‘ use of
spectrum.
In commenting on the draft of this report, FCC, the Department of
Commerce, and the Department of State were in general agreement with
our recommendations. FCC, the Department of Commerce, and the
Department of State offered technical comments that were incorporated
as appropriate.
Background:
To a large degree, spectrum management policies flow from the technical
characteristics of the radio spectrum. Although the radio spectrum
spans the range from 3 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz, 90 percent of its
use is concentrated in the 1 percent below 3.1 gigahertz.[Footnote 2]
The crowding in this region has occurred because these frequencies have
properties that are well suited for many important wireless
technologies, such as mobile phones, radio and television broadcasting,
numerous satellite communication systems, radars, and aeronautical
telemetry systems.
The process known as spectrum allocation has been adopted, both
domestically and internationally, as a means of apportioning
frequencies among various types of wireless services and users to
prevent radio interference. Interference occurs when two or more radio
signals interact in a manner that disrupts the transmission and
reception of messages. Spectrum allocation involves segmenting the
radio spectrum into bands of frequencies that are designated for use by
particular types of radio services or classes of users, such as
broadcast television and satellites. Over the years, the United States
has designated hundreds of frequency bands for numerous types of
wireless services. Within these bands, government, commercial,
scientific, and amateur users receive specific frequency assignments or
licenses for their wireless operations.[Footnote 3] The equipment they
use is designed to operate on these frequencies. Appendix I provides an
overview of how the major frequency ranges of the spectrum are
currently used.
During the last 50 years, developments in wireless technology have
increased the number of usable frequencies, reduced the potential for
interference, and improved the efficiency of transmission through
various techniques, such as reducing the amount of spectrum needed to
send information. In June 2002, for example, FCC initiated a proceeding
to promote the commercial development of several undeveloped bands in
the upper region of the spectrum where new uses for these bands are
becoming practical due to technological developments. Nevertheless, the
demand for frequencies by both government and the private sector
remains high as new technologies that use spectrum are developed and
used. An example of this is the unexpectedly rapid growth of mobile
phone use in the United States. Subscribers of mobile phone service
jumped from 16 million in 1994 to an estimated 137 million in 2002,
greatly exceeding even the wireless industry‘s original projections.
Concern Over Concentrating Authority Led to Divided Structure for
Spectrum Management:
Our nation‘s approach to spectrum management evolved in response to
technical developments, legislation, court decisions, and policy
initiatives.[Footnote 4] The legal and regulatory framework in place
today for allocating radio spectrum among federal and nonfederal users
emerged from a compromise over two fundamental policy questions: (1)
whether spectrum decisions should be made by a single government
official or shared among several decision makers; and (2) whether all
nonfederal government users should operate radio services without
qualification, or if a standard should be used to license these
operators. The resulting structure--dividing spectrum management
between the President and an independent regulatory body--reflects both
the President‘s responsibility for national defense and the fulfillment
of federal agencies‘ missions, and the U.S. government‘s longstanding
encouragement and recognition of private sector investment in
developing and deploying commercial radio and other communications
services.
The need for government regulation of the radiofrequency spectrum
became apparent at the beginning of the twentieth century with the
application of wireless communications to maritime safety. In 1904,
President Theodore Roosevelt adopted a recommendation of an interagency
board and placed all government coastal radio facilities under the U.S.
Navy‘s control. The first federal statute to establish a structure for
spectrum management was the Radio Act of 1912,[Footnote 5] which was
enacted in part to rationalize the burgeoning use of the radio
spectrum. The Act required users of the radio spectrum to obtain a
license, and it consolidated licensing authority with the Secretary of
Commerce.[Footnote 6] Commerce‘s practice was to grant licenses for
particular frequencies on a first-come, first-served basis.
This approach proved to be deficient, however, when the burgeoning
growth of radio communications in the late 1910s and 1920s led to
radiofrequency interference problems. The courts determined that the
Secretary of Commerce lacked the authority under the 1912 Act to
alleviate these problems by using licensing as a means of controlling
radio station operations[Footnote 7] or by designating frequencies for
uses or issuing licenses of limited duration.
In recognition of such limitations, deliberations began in the 1920s to
devise a new framework for radio spectrum management. Although there
was general agreement that licensing should entail more than a
registration process, there was debate about designation of the
licensing authority and the standard that should govern the issuance of
licenses. This debate went on over several years as the Department of
Commerce convened four radio conferences (1922-25) attended by
manufacturers, broadcasters, civilian and military government users,
and other stakeholders to make recommendations addressing overcrowding
of the airwaves. For example, at the first national radio conference in
1922, a bill was drafted that was subsequently introduced in the House
of Representatives, that would have placed the issuance of licenses
under the absolute discretion of the Secretary of Commerce. Subsequent
bills introduced in the House and Senate in 1925 took differing
approaches to licensing authority. The House bill would have vested
licensing authority with the Secretary of Commerce with licensing
appeals going to a commission, while the Senate bill would have placed
all licensing functions in an independent commission from the start.
The Radio Act of 1927[Footnote 8] reflected a compromise on a spectrum
management framework. In order to allay concerns about vesting all
licensing authority in the hands of one person (specifically, the
Secretary of Commerce) the new Act reserved the authority to assign
frequencies for all federal government radio operators to the President
and created the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) to license nonfederal
government operators. Under the Act, the FRC was granted licensing
authority for one year to resolve interference problems, after which it
was to become an appellate body to address disputes with the Secretary
of Commerce, who was to assume licensing duties. Composed of five
members from five different regions of the country, FRC was empowered
to assign frequencies, establish coverage areas, and establish the
power and location of transmitters under its licensing authority.
Further, the Act delineated that a radio operation proposed by a
nonfederal license applicant must meet a standard of ’the public
interest, convenience, and necessity,“ and that a license conveyed no
ownership in radio channels nor created any right beyond the terms of
the license.[Footnote 9]
The FRC‘s one-year authority over licensing was extended several times
by the Congress because the commission needed more time to deal with
interference problems. As these problems persisted, the FRC‘s authority
was extended for an indefinite term pending new legislation. By 1930,
it was becoming evident that the licensing task was too complex to be
conferred permanently on the Department of Commerce, which was
perceived as being already overburdened with other issues. New
legislation was enacted in the form of the landmark Communications Act
of 1934.[Footnote 10] Under this Act, the FRC was abolished and its
authorities transferred to the new Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), which brought together the regulation of telephone, telegraph,
and radio services under one independent regulatory agency. The 1934
Act, however, also retained the authority of the President to assign
spectrum to and manage federal government radio operations. For over 75
years, this division in responsibilities has remained the essential
feature of U.S. spectrum management, unlike many other countries that
chose to concentrate spectrum management within one government entity.
The President‘s authority for managing federal spectrum has been lodged
in various parts of the government since the 1934 Act.[Footnote 11]
However, a source of advice and support on federal government spectrum
use during these changes has been IRAC, composed of representatives
from federal agencies that use the most spectrum. IRAC was formed in
1922 when Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover drew attention to the
need for cooperative action in solving problems arising from the
federal government‘s interest in radio use. He invited interested
government departments to designate representatives for a special
government radio committee. The committee recommended the establishment
of a permanent interdepartmental committee. As a result, the
Interdepartment Advisory Committee on Governmental Radio Broadcasting
(later renamed IRAC) was formed. Over the ensuing decades, IRAC, whose
existence and actions were affirmed by the President in 1927, has
continued to advise whomever has been responsible for exercising the
authority of the President to assign frequencies to the federal
government. Currently, IRAC assists NTIA in assigning frequencies to
federal agencies and developing policies, programs, procedures, and
technical criteria for the allocation, management, and use of the
spectrum. Figure 1 shows IRAC‘s present membership, which includes FCC
in a nonvoting liaison capacity.
Figure 1: Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee‘s Membership:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NTIA.
[End of figure]
Over the past 75 years, since the 1927 Act formed our divided structure
of spectrum management, there is historical evidence of cooperation and
coordination in managing federal and nonfederal spectrum to promote its
effective use. For example, FCC and IRAC agreed in 1940 to give each
other notice of proposed actions that might cause interference or other
problems for their respective constituencies. Further, FCC has
participated in IRAC meetings,[Footnote 12] and NTIA frequently
provides comments in FCC proceedings that affect federal radio
operations. As will be discussed later, FCC and NTIA also work together
with the Department of State to formulate a unified U.S. position on
issues at international meetings that coordinate spectrum use
regionally and globally.
However, as demand for this limited resource increases, particularly
with the continuing emergence of new commercial wireless technologies,
NTIA and FCC face serious challenges in trying to meet the growth in
the needs of their respective incumbent users, while accommodating the
needs of new users. As FCC has noted, the basic problem is that demand
for spectrum is outstripping the supply.
Methods for Allocating Spectrum Face Difficulties and Are Not Guided by
a Coordinated National Plan:
Since nearly all of the usable radio spectrum has been allocated
already, accommodating more services and users often involves
redefining spectrum allocations. The current divided U.S. spectrum
management structure has methods for allocating spectrum for new uses
and users of wireless services, but these methods have occasionally
resulted in lengthy negotiations between FCC and NTIA. Several,
including Congress, have suggested that coordinated planning could help
identify and resolve some allocation difficulties. FCC and NTIA have
not yet implemented long-standing congressional directives to conduct
joint, national spectrum planning although they have conducted
independent planning efforts and have recently taken steps to improve
coordination.
Spectrum Is Allocated through Sharing and Band-clearing:
One method to accommodate more services and users is spectrum
’sharing,“ which enables more than one user to transmit radio signals
on the same frequency band. In a shared allocation, a distinction is
made as to which user has ’primary“ or priority use of a frequency and
which user has ’secondary“ status, meaning that it must defer to the
primary user. Users may also be designated as ’co-primary,“ in which
the first operator to obtain authority to use the spectrum has priority
to use the frequency over another primary operator. As shown in figure
2, more than half of the spectrum from 9 kHz to 3.1 GHz is shared
between federal and nonfederal users.[Footnote 13] NTIA must ensure
that the status assigned to users in shared spectrum (primary/secondary
or co-primary) meets users‘ needs, and that users abide by rules
applicable to their designated status.
Figure 2: Percent of Spectrum Shared by Federal and Nonfederal Users (9
kHz to 3.1 GHz):
[See PDF for image]
Source: NTIA.
[End of figure]
Another method to accommodate new users and technologies is ’band-
clearing,“ or reclassifying a band of spectrum from one set of radio
services and users to another, which requires moving previously
authorized users to a different band. Band-clearing decisions affecting
only nonfederal or only federal users are managed within FCC or NTIA,
respectively, albeit sometimes with difficulty. However, band-clearing
decisions that involve radio services of both types of users pose a
greater challenge. Specifically, they require coordination between FCC
and NTIA to ensure that moving existing users to a new frequency band
is technically feasible and meets their radio operation needs. In
addition, such moves often involve costs to the existing user of the
band, who may need to modify or replace existing equipment to operate
on new frequencies.
The need for spectrum reallocation can originate from many different
sources, including the results of international decisions on spectrum
use or requests from industry or federal users. Also, the Congress has
in the past mandated the reallocation of spectrum from federal to
nonfederal use. Once any needed research has been conducted and both
FCC and NTIA agree on the proposed reallocation, FCC issues a ’Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking“ to obtain public comments on the proposed
allocation change. After the comment period, FCC publishes a Report and
Order that directs any changes that will be made to the frequency
allocation table. Spectrum users who disagree with the Report and Order
may petition FCC for a change that could result in an amended decision.
Figure 3 depicts the primary steps in the process by which the
reallocation of a frequency band from a federal to nonfederal
government designation would occur if no court challenges arise.
Figure 3: Spectrum Reallocation Process:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FCC and NTIA.
[End of figure]
While many such band-clearing decisions have been made throughout radio
history, these negotiations can be protracted and contentious. A hotly
debated issue today is how to accommodate ’third-generation“ wireless
services, which enable handheld communication devices to provide both
voice and high-speed data. In October 2000, President Clinton directed
that a plan be developed to select spectrum for third-generation
services, but this attempt was unsuccessful. A new task force was
established. In July 2002 the Department of Commerce in conjunction
with FCC, the Department of Defense (DOD), and other federal agencies
released its study that concluded that 90 MHz of spectrum could be
allocated for third-generation services without disrupting
communication services critical to national security. This 90 MHz of
spectrum could be available for third-generation services no later than
December 2008 and would come from both federal and nonfederal bands.
FCC told us that the relationship between FCC and NTIA on spectrum
management became more structured since the Congress became active in
the 1990s in directing the reallocation of spectrum from federal to
nonfederal government use. For example, the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66, Aug. 10, 1993) directed the
reallocation of not less that 200 MHz of spectrum from federal to
private sector use. NTIA was directed to identify frequency bands that
could be reallocated; use specific criteria in making recommendations
for their reallocation; issue a preliminary report upon which public
comment on proposed reallocations would be solicited; obtain analyses
and comment from FCC; and transfer frequency bands within specified
time frames. The Act also required FCC to gradually allocate and assign
these frequencies over the course of 10 years. The Balanced Budget Act
of 1997 (P.L. 105-33, Aug. 5, 1997) imposed a stricter deadline for
NTIA to identify frequency bands for reallocation and required FCC to
reallocate, auction, and assign licenses by September 2002 for an
additional 20 MHz of spectrum.[Footnote 14]
Various Options for Facilitating Reallocations Have Been Raised:
To deal with the protracted nature of some spectrum reallocation
decisions, some officials we interviewed have suggested establishing a
third party--such as an outside panel or commission, an office within
the White House, or an interagency group--to arbitrate or mediate
differences between FCC and NTIA. For example, the United Kingdom has a
formal standing committee, co-chaired by officials from the
Radiocommunications Agency and the Ministry of Defense, that has
authority to resolve contentious spectrum issues.[Footnote 15] FCC
officials noted, however, that an arbitration function would go to the
core of the responsibilities currently entrusted to FCC and NTIA in
making allocation decisions. Moreover, it is not clear how such a
function would be set up or the extent to which the President, who
retains spectrum management authority for government users and national
defense, would allow this authority to be placed in the hands of an
arbitrator. FCC officials maintain that the handful of issues involving
inherently difficult reallocation choices attracts attention and leads
to what, in their view, is a mistaken assumption that the current
reallocation process is broken. They noted that FCC and NTIA have
coordinated successfully on over 50 spectrum-related rulemakings in the
past year alone.
Mechanisms for ensuring that incumbent users receive comparable
spectrum and are reimbursed for the cost of relocating are also being
developed or proposed. The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000[Footnote 16] specified a number of conditions that
have to be met if spectrum in which DOD is the primary user is
surrendered. The Act requires NTIA, in consultation with FCC, to
identify and make available to DOD for its primary use, if necessary,
an alternate band(s) of frequency as replacement(s) for the band(s)
surrendered. Further, if such band(s) of frequency are to be
surrendered, the Secretaries of Defense and Commerce, and the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must jointly certify to relevant
congressional committees that such alternative band(s) provide
comparable technical characteristics to restore essential military
capability. Under the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1999,[Footnote 17] federal agencies are authorized to
accept compensation payments when they relocate or modify their
frequency use to accommodate nonfederal users of spectrum. The Act
directs NTIA and FCC to develop procedures for the implementation of
the relocation provisions. NTIA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
regarding these provisions in January 2001 and a final rule in June
2002. Under this rule, federal agencies would prepare an estimate of
their relocation costs. This figure would be provided to potential
bidders at future auctions. FCC has stated that the Commission will
adopt any additional rules or procedures necessary to supplement NTIA‘s
reimbursement procedures. Under current law, however, federal agencies
would be unable to expend these payments without additional
congressional action. In July 2002, the Department of Commerce sent to
the congressional leadership a draft bill to amend the Communications
Act of 1934 to create a Spectrum Relocation Fund to revise the
procedures under which federal entities are paid for relocating from
spectrum frequencies reallocated for auction to commercial entities.
According to NTIA, this fund would benefit both the agencies, by
providing greater certainty in recovering their relocation costs, and
the private sector, by providing greater certainty on the ultimate
price of the licenses they obtain at auction. However, it would be
important for the Congress to establish up front what controls it wants
to maintain over such a fund. For example, would the Office of
Management and Budget control when and how much an agency received in
reimbursement or would the Congress maintain control by requiring an
agency to obtain an appropriation?
FCC and NTIA Have Not Yet Implemented Congressional Planning
Directives:
Several U.S. spectrum experts said that one means of improving the
spectrum allocation process is to develop coordinated, national
spectrum planning and policies that better anticipate future needs and
put more predictability into spectrum decision-making. The Congress
called for coordinated spectrum planning in the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993, which required NTIA and FCC to conduct
joint spectrum planning sessions.[Footnote 18] Subsequently, the
National Defense Authorization Act of 2000 included a requirement for
FCC and NTIA to review and assess the progress toward implementing a
national spectrum plan.[Footnote 19] Even before these congressional
directives, NTIA itself, in a 1991 report, recommended that NTIA and
FCC seek to institute a coordinated, strategic, long-range planning
process. The output of this process would be a formal joint FCC/NTIA
plan that would be periodically updated, with goals, policies, and
specific actions to provide for future spectrum requirements and
improved spectrum management.[Footnote 20] The Defense Science Board
similarly concluded in November 2000 that the United States lacks a
mechanism to formulate a national spectrum policy that balances
traditional national:
security uses of the spectrum with new commercial uses of the
spectrum.[Footnote 21] According to NTIA, the United States Table of
Frequency Allocations, which documents the spectrum allocations for
over 40 radio services, along with existing spectrum management
processes, constitutes a basic U.S. strategic spectrum plan, which
covers all cases of spectrum use. However, as we pointed out in an
earlier report, the national allocation table reflects only the current
landscape of spectrum use and does not provide a framework to guide
spectrum decisions for the future.[Footnote 22]
FCC and NTIA have each undertaken planning efforts, but they are
focused largely on issues involving their separate constituencies and,
as such, do not fulfill the requirements of the congressional
directives. For example, FCC conducts spectrum planning for nonfederal
government use through two staff committees[Footnote 23] and uses
public forums, en banc hearings, advisory committees, and other
methods[Footnote 24] to gather and provide information for its spectrum
planning. NTIA‘s spectrum planning has resulted in several spectrum
planning documents over the last 20 years,[Footnote 25] including the
September 2000 Federal Long-Range Spectrum Plan that identified current
and future federal spectrum uses, along with any unsupported spectrum
requirements. In addition, NTIA established the Strategic Spectrum
Planning program in 1992, through which it produced several additional
reports on spectrum planning, dealing with land mobile spectrum
planning options, radio astronomy spectrum planning options, and
federal radar spectrum requirements.
Interaction between the two agencies also takes place on an ongoing
basis. For example, FCC has liaison status on IRAC and its
subcommittees, which provides it with an avenue for commenting on
federal government issues. NTIA, for its part, provides comments on FCC
proceedings on issues that could affect federal users. In addition,
both agencies (along with industry) are involved in preparing the
United States‘ unified position for World Radiocommunication
Conferences (WRCs). One FCC official called the consensus-building
involved in this preparatory process as being the closest thing the
United States has to a national spectrum strategy. However, FCC and
NTIA officials acknowledged that these interactions have not fulfilled
the congressional mandate for coordinated national spectrum planning.
FCC and NTIA officials stated that a key problem in developing a
strategy for national spectrum planning is the inherent difficulty of
trying to predict future trends in the fast-developing area of wireless
services. For example, FCC officials noted that both FCC and wireless
industry forecasts greatly underestimated the huge growth of mobile
phone service during the 1990s. On the other hand, emerging wireless
technologies that appear promising may not develop as planned,
resulting in underutilization of spectrum that has been set aside for
them.
The Chairman of FCC and the Administrator of NTIA recently commented on
the need for coordinated planning, and the agencies are currently
engaged in efforts that could provide a basis for improved planning.
For example, in early 2002, FCC announced the creation of a Spectrum
Policy Task Force to explore how spectrum can be put to the highest and
best use in a timely manner. In July 2002, FCC received comments in
response to a public notice issued for the Task Force on several
spectrum management and use issues including market-oriented allocation
and assignment policies, interference protection, spectral efficiency,
public safety communications, and international coordination. In August
2002, the Spectrum Policy Task Force held four public workshops
addressing spectrum policy issues. Participants included
representatives from academia, industry, and government. The Task Force
intends to report to the Commission by October 2002.
For its part, NTIA hosted a spectrum summit in early April 2002 that
included participants from FCC, NTIA, and federal agency and industry
representatives. The summit included several sessions to explore ways
to improve the management of the spectrum through planning and
technological innovations. In addition, NTIA‘s 2003 budget request
includes over $1 million in funding to develop a plan to review and
improve its overall performance of spectrum management duties. In June
2002, NTIA officials stated that FCC and NTIA had recently adopted a
’One Spectrum Team“ approach to improve interagency communication and
take a more proactive approach to spectrum management. It remains to be
seen whether a well-coordinated and clearly defined national spectrum
strategy emerges from these efforts.
Issues Have Emerged Regarding the Adequacy of U.S. Preparations for
World Radiocommunication Conferences:
As noted earlier, the management of our domestic spectrum has been tied
to international agreements on spectrum use at regional and global
levels. Domestic spectrum allocations are generally consistent with
international allocations negotiated and agreed to by members of the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) at WRCs.[Footnote 26]
Decisions reached at these conferences can have far-reaching
implications for the direction and growth of the multibillion dollar
wireless communications industry in this country and abroad. Key
officials raised questions about the adequacy of the current U.S.
preparatory process, in particular the use of separate processes by FCC
and NTIA to develop U.S. positions, and the short tenure of the head of
the U.S. delegation to the conferences.
WRCs Are Increasing in Size, Frequency, and Substance:
The emergence of new radio applications with international
ramifications, such as broadcasting, radio navigation, and satellite-
based services, has increased the need for international agreements to
prevent cross-border signal interference and maximize the benefits of
spectrum in meeting global needs, such as air traffic control. At the
same time, the number of participating nations in international radio
conferences has risen dramatically--from 9 nations in the first
conference held in 1903, to 65 nations in 1932, to 148 nations in 2000-
-along with the frequency of conferences (now held every 2 to 3 years),
and the number of agenda items negotiated at each conference (e.g., 11
in 1979; 34 in 2000). There has also been a movement toward regional
alignment at WRCs. Because decisions on agenda items are made by vote
of the participating countries--with one vote per country--uniform or
block voting by groups of nations has emerged, as areas such as the
European Union seek to advance regional positions.
Timely Preparation for the WRC Is a Key Challenge for the United
States:
The Department of State coordinates and mediates the development of the
U.S. position for each WRC and leads the U.S. delegation at the
conference through an ambassador named by the President. We found
strong agreement among those we interviewed that it is important for
the United States to develop its position in advance of the conference
in order to have time to meet with other nations to gain international
support for our positions. U.S. positions on WRC agenda items are
developed largely through separate processes by FCC and NTIA with the
involvement of their respective constituencies. To obtain input from
nonfederal users, FCC convenes a WRC advisory committee composed of
representatives of various radio interests (e.g., commercial,
broadcast, private, and public safety users) and solicits comments
through a public notice in the Federal Register. NTIA and federal
government users also participate in FCC‘s preparatory process.
To obtain the views of federal spectrum users, IRAC meets to provide
NTIA with input on WRC agenda items. Although IRAC‘s WRC preparatory
meetings are closed to the private sector due to national security
concerns, nonfederal government users may make presentations to IRAC to
convey their views on WRC agenda items. In addition, the Department of
State solicits input from its International Telecommunication Advisory
Committee (ITAC),[Footnote 27] made up of representatives of
government, scientific, and industrial organizations involved in the
telecommunications sector. Any differences of opinion between FCC and
NTIA on agenda items must ultimately be reconciled into a unified U.S.
position. In cases where differences persist, the ambassador who leads
the U.S. delegation to the conference acts as a mediator to achieve
consensus on a unified U.S. position.
The Department of State ultimately transmits the U.S. position on WRC
agenda items to the regional organization of which the United States is
a member--the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (CITEL),
which convenes prior to a WRC to build regional consensus on conference
agenda items.[Footnote 28] The department also transmits the U.S.
position to ITU, which sponsors the conference. Figure 4 depicts the
relationship among the domestic players and these two international
organizations in preparing the U.S. position for the WRCs.
Figure 4: Relationship of U.S. Participants in Preparing for World
Radiocommunication Conferences:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FCC and NTIA.
[End of figure]
Some Experts Have Raised Questions about Adequacy of Current
Procedures:
We obtained conflicting views on the effectiveness of the U.S.
preparatory process for WRCs. Department of State and FCC officials
told us that the work of FCC and NTIA with their respective
constituencies and with each other in preparation for a conference
leads to U.S. positions on WRC agenda items that are thoroughly
scrutinized, well reasoned, and generally supported among federal and
nonfederal parties. In contrast, some industry officials told us that
the NTIA process does not allow the private sector adequate involvement
in the development of U.S. positions for the WRC. Also, some federal
and industry officials said that, because each agency develops its
positions through separate processes, it takes too long to meld the two
toward the end of the preparatory period. For example, in the past, the
U.S. position on some items has remained unresolved until the eve of
the conference, leaving the United States with little time to build
preconference support for them. The former U.S. Ambassador to the 2000
WRC recommended merging the separate FCC and NTIA preparatory groups to
get an earlier start at working with industry and government users to
reach a consensus on U.S. positions regarding WRC agenda
items.[Footnote 29] However, NTIA said that the separate processes are
needed because much of the government side of spectrum policy and use
is classified and because NTIA and FCC are responsible for separate
groups of constituents. In June 2002, FCC, NTIA, and Department of
State officials stated they believed coordination in developing U.S.
positions was improving and that most of the 2003 WRC agenda items were
close to resolution.
There has been long-standing concern about the length of tenure of the
individual who is designated head of the U.S. delegation. The
President--under his authority to confer the personal rank of
ambassador on an individual in connection with a special mission of a
temporary nature--has selected an ambassador to head the U.S.
delegation to each WRC for a time period not exceeding 6
months.[Footnote 30] This authority allows the conferral of the
personal rank of ambassador to be made without confirmation by the
Senate, subject to appropriate notification. The former U.S. Ambassador
to the 2000 WRC said that ambassador status is generally believed to
confer a high level of support from the administration, helps to
achieve consensus in finalizing U.S. positions, and enhances our
negotiating posture with other countries. However, the former U.S.
Ambassador also said that the brief tenure of the appointment leaves
little time for an ambassador to get up to speed on the issues,
solidify U.S. positions, form a delegation, and undertake preconference
meetings with heads of other delegations to promote U.S. positions. In
addition, the Ambassador said there is concern about the lack of
continuity in leadership from one conference to the next, in contrast
to other nations that are led by high-level government officials who
serve longer terms and may represent their nations at multiple
conferences. FCC and NTIA officials stated that longer-term leaders of
national delegations are perceived by other participants as being more
able to develop relationships with their counterparts from other
nations, and that this helps them to negotiate and build regional and
international support for their positions. Similar observations were
made by the Office of Technology Assessment as far back as
1991,[Footnote 31] but no consensus has emerged to resolve this issue.
Department of State officials said previous administrations have
identified the person who was to become the ambassador early so that
they could involve that person in conference planning prior to the
start of the 6-month term. For example, the 2000 WRC Ambassador knew
she would be chosen for the position and was given a temporary
telecommunications policy position in the White House 4 months prior to
her official selection. This position provided additional time for her
to learn the issues and observe WRC preparatory meetings, but she could
not lead the meetings until her formal selection about 5 months before
the conference. Department officials said that the current
administration is also planning to identify the 2003 WRC Ambassador
several months before the official selection. Other suggestions for
dealing with this issue that have been raised include establishing a
telecommunications policy office in the White House, whose head would
also be responsible for leading the delegation; extending the length of
an ambassador‘s appointment through a Senate confirmation process; and
creating an upper-level career position within the Department of State
to provide continuity from one conference to the next and organize WRC
preparations.
Federal Officials Said that FCC Has Been Slow to Implement All WRC
Agreements Domestically:
Officials at the Department of State said that, after a WRC concludes,
countries need to implement the agreements reached at the conference--
known as the Final Acts. The officials said that NTIA, FCC, and the
Department of State share responsibility for implementing the Final
Acts in the United States. NTIA and FCC develop an implementation
manual that includes all of the necessary changes in U.S. allocations,
regulations, and rules. FCC must then implement the changes through its
rule-making process. Meanwhile, the Department of State prepares a
Memorandum of Law to transmit to the Senate along with the Final Acts
of the WRC for ratification.[Footnote 32]
Officials from NTIA, FCC, and Department of State said that the United
States has faced timeliness challenges in implementing the Final Acts
over the last 10 years. In July 2002, NTIA officials stated that
federal agencies are concerned that WRC allocation decisions of
interest to the private sector are often dealt with quickly, while
those primarily of interest to the federal government go without
action. For example, at the 1997 WRC, the United States sought and
gained a primary allocation of spectrum from 5250 MHz to 5350 MHz for
an earth exploration satellite service. NTIA officials stated that FCC
has still not formally considered their request for a national primary
allocation for this service. In addition, one agency said that it had
not gained access to two channels designated for its use by the 1997
WRC due to the slowness of the FCC rule-making process. Officials from
another agency said that FCC‘s table of allocations is out of date
because it does not reflect some of the government-specific allocation
changes made at WRCs over the last 10 years. The officials said that
this has led others to seek allocations on some of these bands.
FCC officials told us that some changes to the U.S. allocation table
resulting from the WRCs had not been made because FCC had a shortage of
engineering staff required to make the changes. For this reason, they
said that FCC had to prioritize WRC allocation decisions and defer
those changes that they believed had the least impact on spectrum use.
These officials added, however, that additional staff recently hired by
FCC has allowed FCC to complete the work needed to update the
allocation table, and FCC plans to initiate the necessary rulemaking
actions in the near future. In addition, the FCC officials stated that
they are unaware of any impact the delays have had on planned federal
systems.
Federal Officials Said Activities to Encourage Efficient Federal
Spectrum Use Are Hindered by Staffing and Resource Problems:
NTIA is required to promote the efficient and cost-effective use of the
federal spectrum that it manages--over 270,000 frequency assignments as
of June 24, 2002--“to the maximum extent feasible.“[Footnote 33]
Accordingly, as accountability measures, NTIA has directed federal
agencies to use only as much spectrum as they need and has established
several processes and activities to encourage efficient spectrum use.
However, NTIA does not have assurances that these processes and
activities are effective. NTIA and federal agency officials said that
key challenges include a shortage of staff with appropriate expertise
to support spectrum management activities, as well as staffing and
resource problems in implementing spectrum-efficient technologies.
NTIA Depends on Federal Agencies to Determine Their Spectrum Needs:
NTIA authorizes federal agency use of the spectrum through its
frequency assignment process. Before submitting a frequency assignment
application, an agency must justify to NTIA that the frequency
assignment will fulfill an established mission need and that other
means of communication, such as commercial services, are not
appropriate or available.[Footnote 34] Agencies generally rely on
mission staff to identify and justify the need for a frequency
assignment and to complete the engineering and technical specifications
for the application. Once an application is submitted, it goes through
an NTIA review and a 15-day IRAC peer review process. NTIA staff
members said they examine assignment applications to ensure that they
comply with technical rules, while IRAC members said they primarily
look to see whether the assignment could cause interference with other
users. If no one at NTIA or IRAC objects, the assignment is
automatically approved and added to the Government Master
File.[Footnote 35] The requester can then begin operating on the
assigned frequency. Figure 5 illustrates the frequency assignment
process.
Figure 5: NTIA Frequency Assignment Process:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NTIA.
[End of figure]
NTIA officials said they are not in a position to independently assess
the justification for each frequency request, not only because this
would require a detailed understanding of an agency‘s operational
needs, but also because of the high volume of assignment action
requests that require attention. On average, NTIA processes between
7,000 and 10,000 assignment action requests--applications,
modifications, or deletions--from agencies each month.
To help agencies prepare frequency assignment applications, as well as
to help NTIA staff review them, NTIA has implemented a computer-based
tool, called Spectrum XXI, to automate the application process.
Spectrum XXI is designed to help agencies in a number of ways. For
example, Spectrum XXI allows for status tracking and editing of
applications. In addition, Spectrum XXI helps in assigning users to the
most heavily used channels first, rather than less heavily used ones,
in order to minimize the amount of spectrum space used. NTIA officials
stated that they are continuing to modify Spectrum XXI to improve the
efficiency of the selection of frequencies by new users. One spectrum
manager we interviewed stated that Spectrum XXI has greatly reduced the
amount of time and work involved in applying for a frequency
assignment. However, four of the seven agencies we reviewed were not
using this tool for various reasons. For example, spectrum managers
from two agencies said that their own spectrum management programs
better fit their needs.
Some Agencies Are Not Completing Mandatory Spectrum Reviews, While NTIA
Monitoring Activities Have Decreased:
NTIA‘s Frequency Assignment Review Program generally requires all
federal users of spectrum to review their frequency assignments every 5
years.[Footnote 36] The purpose of the reviews is to determine if the
frequency assignments are still essential to meeting the agencies‘
missions, justified correctly, not redundant to other assignments, and
up to date. Federal spectrum users are expected to modify or delete
frequency assignments as needed based on the results of these reviews.
NTIA said that it may delete assignments that have not been reviewed in
more than 10 years.
Using its database of federal agencies‘ frequency assignments, NTIA is
to track assignments that are due for review and provide a listing to
the respective agencies. NTIA is notified that an agency has completed
an assignment review when the agency requests a modification to the
database that contains the frequency assignments. These modifications
may simply be requesting a change to the date on which the assignment
was last reviewed or may indicate technical and operational changes
made since the last review. NTIA forwards modification requests to IRAC
members for their review. If no member objects to the modification, the
user can continue to operate on the frequency assignment for another 5
years.
NTIA has implemented additional requirements for reviews that are
significantly overdue--meaning the federal agency has not reviewed the
frequency assignment in over 10 years. Every 6 months, NTIA provides
IRAC with a list of these overdue assignments for a case-by-case review
and recommendation on whether to retain or delete the assignment. NTIA
officials said this method of notification works very well in getting
the reviews done because federal users recognize that it is easier to
review existing assignments than it is to lose the frequency
authorizations and start the process over. NTIA does not maintain any
information on the number of assignments that have been deleted for
noncompliance with the review program.
According to NTIA officials, the Frequency Assignment Review Program
’weeds out“ assignments that are no longer being used so that they can
be returned for use by others. We found, however, that the program
relies mainly on self-reported agency information that receives no
independent verification by NTIA. Comments by spectrum managers at the
seven agencies we reviewed raise concerns about how well these reviews
are being carried out. Officials from these agencies told us that they
attempt to use spectrum as efficiently as possible, but five of them
acknowledged that they are not completing the 5-year reviews in a
timely or in-depth way. For example, a spectrum manager for a major
agency division said that over 1,000 of its frequency assignments have
not been reviewed in 10 years or more. According to agency officials,
problems with performing timely assignment reviews are occurring due to
shortages in qualified staff to complete the reviews and because
completing the reviews is a lower priority compared to other agency
work. For example, a spectrum manager at one agency noted that all
field staff responsible for helping with the
5-year reviews had been eliminated, which impaired the timeliness and
quality of the reviews.
Another spectrum manager stated that his agency‘s central spectrum
management staff had operated a comprehensive program of oversight, on-
sight inspections, field staff training, and planning until 8 of their
10 full-time positions were eliminated. This official said that he
could not ensure all spectrum assignments are being used as authorized.
The spectrum manager at another agency said that he was sure that the
agency was not using all of its frequency assignments, but he added
that conducting a comprehensive review would be time consuming and of
limited benefit. The spectrum manager located at an agency‘s field
office stated that some frequency assignments connected to a single
system critical to mission functions had been deleted by NTIA because
the agency did not have the staff or time to complete the assignment
reviews. This manager stated the agency continued to use these
frequencies while staff struggled to find the time to reapply for them.
Aside from the assignment review process, NTIA had established
additional programs for overseeing how federal agencies were using
their spectrum, but these programs have been scaled back or
discontinued. One component of NTIA‘s Spectrum Measurement Program used
van-mounted monitoring equipment by NTIA staff to verify that federal
agencies were using assigned frequencies in different geographic
locations in accordance with applicable technical regulations. Although
NTIA officials recently stated that this program was an invaluable
monitoring tool, the van-mounted verification has been discontinued due
to a lack of agency resources. Another effort that is no longer active
is NTIA‘s Spectrum Management Survey Program, established in 1965,
which included on-site visits by NTIA staff to determine whether
federal agencies‘ transmitters were being used as authorized, to
educate field staff on NTIA requirements, and to improve spectrum
management. NTIA said that although this program helped to correct
frequency assignment information and provided for an exchange of
information, the program is not currently operating because of
increased workloads and a shortage of staff.
The issue of reported spectrum staffing shortages at federal agencies
has broader ramifications for the general management of spectrum that
go beyond the frequency review and monitoring programs. In January
2002, NTIA officials told us that its Office of Spectrum Management was
facing serious staffing problems. Specifically, the office had 21
vacancies out of a total of 122 positions. In addition, over 40 percent
of the current staff will be eligible for retirement by 2006.[Footnote
37] NTIA officials said that agencies such as FCC and the Department of
State have recently had a number of openings for technical positions at
higher salary levels then NTIA currently offers. As a result, their
Office of Spectrum Management has lost staff to these
agencies.[Footnote 38] In addition, two other agencies we reviewed have
conducted staffing needs assessments that indicate that their current
levels of staff are inadequate. First, an internal analysis conducted
by the Coast Guard Maritime Radio and Spectrum Management Division
showed an immediate need for six additional field staff members and at
least one additional headquarters staff to assist with spectrum
management. Second, a June 2002 study sponsored by the Department of
Energy (DOE) reviewed the resources and management structure of the 12
IRAC member federal agencies that hold more than 1000 frequency
assignments. Although the study‘s analysis focused on agencies with
large numbers of assignments, the complete study includes a description
of all 20 IRAC agencies‘ spectrum management organizational structures,
reporting chains, and resource allocations, among other spectrum
management issues. It concluded that federal and contract staffing for
DOE‘s spectrum management was inadequate when compared to that of other
agencies, particularly with regard to planning, homeland security, and
spectrum-use initiatives.
Although the loss of qualified staff and the need to recruit new staff
has been a source of concern for the agencies, no concerted effort has
been made to define the federal government‘s needs in this area or
develop a strategy for addressing it. NTIA officials mentioned that
they had been working with the Office of Personnel Management to
consider establishing a federal job series for spectrum management in
order to help attract and retain these specialists. However, they said
the effort appears to have lost momentum.
Addressing these perceived human capital issues may help increase
accountability. However, even if these problems were addressed, it is
unclear that this type of oversight management approach in itself would
ensure the efficient use of federal spectrum. NTIA and FCC officials
have said that incentives that encourage the efficient use of spectrum
by federal users could help further increase the efficiency of the
federal government‘s use of spectrum.
Some Technical Research and Initiatives to Promote Efficient Spectrum
Use Face Implementation Challenges:
NTIA stated that it has conducted technical research and introduced a
number of additional initiatives to promote the efficient use of
federal spectrum, but some of these efforts face challenges related to
measurement, resources, equipment, and costs. For example, NTIA‘s
Institute for Telecommunication Science (ITS), established in 1977,
operates the primary telecommunications research laboratory in the
United States involved in the development and application of radio wave
propagation measurements, studies, and prediction models. ITS provides
the tools, analysis, and data that enable studies of spectrum use,
efficiency, coverage, and interference analysis. ITS has participated
in antenna studies that may result in a substantial increase in the
’carrying capacity“ of a radio system (or piece of spectrum) by
providing multiple beams to independently link to different users on
the same channel. In addition, ITS has been assisting the public safety
community in increasing spectrum efficiency by examining and
implementing system improvements to support increased voice and data
traffic. Working with IRAC, NTIA also strives to establish standards
that are equal to or better than private sector standards at aiding in
the conservation of spectrum. For example, NTIA officials have noted
that federal radar standards are among the tightest radar spectrum
standards in the world and are currently under review for further
refinements.
NTIA officials said that, when applicable, NTIA uses the definition of
spectrum efficiency described by ITU, namely the ratio of
communications achieved to the spectrum space used, which has practical
value for many types of commercial communications systems. The specific
technical measurement may take different forms, depending on the
system. For example, the spectrum efficiency of a commercial wireless
system might be measured in terms of subscribers served per megahertz
of spectrum used per square kilometer of service area. NTIA officials
cautioned, however, that many or most of the systems used by the
federal government, including radars, navigation, military tactical,
and scientific systems, do not fall within the scope of this type of
measure of spectrum efficiency and that no effective measure for
spectrum efficiency has been identified for these latter types of
systems.
Implementing more spectrum-efficient technologies at federal agencies
can be challenging. For example, around 1990, NTIA began exploring the
use of ’narrowbanding“ because of concerns over its ability to continue
to meet federal agencies‘ land mobile communications needs.
Narrowbanding is a technique for reducing the amount of spectrum
(bandwidth) needed to transmit a radio signal, thereby freeing up
spectrum to meet future growth. In 1992, the Congress directed NTIA to
adopt and implement a plan for federal agencies with existing mobile
radio systems to use more spectrum-efficient technologies.[Footnote 39]
With the approval of IRAC, NTIA required all federal agencies to
upgrade their existing land-based mobile systems so as to reduce the
bandwidth needed per channel from 25 kHz to 12.5 kHz. NTIA set
deadlines for the narrowbanding requirement, which is to be completed
in two stages by 2008.[Footnote 40]
All federal agencies need to meet the narrowbanding requirement in
order to prevent harmful interference. NTIA officials stated that any
agency not meeting the narrowbanding requirements would be responsible
for eliminating the harmful interference. NTIA officials also stated
that no acceptable justifications for not adopting narrowbanding have
been proposed or developed. Spectrum managers from the seven agencies
we reviewed presented a mixed picture about their ability to meet this
deadline. While some believed that they were on track, others stated
that they were either having difficulty meeting the deadlines or would
not meet the deadlines at all. The Chief Information Officer in one
agency compared the requirement to an unfunded mandate; he said the
agency had not been provided with the financial resources needed to
make system design changes, buy new equipment, and maintain current
equipment until the transition was finalized. He stated that his office
could not compete with other agency priorities for funding. Officials
at other agencies stated that shortages in qualified staff were
affecting their ability to meet the narrowbanding deadlines. For
example, they said additional staff are needed to design systems using
the smaller amount of bandwidth and to find and request the needed
frequencies. Finally, several officials stated that the commercial
sector would be unable to provide them all the narrowbanding equipment
and support needed to continue their operations even if the money was
available. On June 26, 2002, NTIA requested that federal agencies
provide the status of their compliance with the narrowbanding
requirements.
Another example of problems in implementing spectrum-efficient
technologies involves a technique known as trunking. Trunking systems
conserve spectrum by enabling users to share a common set of voice
radio channels rather than have their own dedicated channels that may
not be heavily used at all times. NTIA sponsored a pilot trunking
program for federal agencies in the early 1990s that included six
cities. According to NTIA, some agencies resisted the program because,
although spectrum could be conserved, the agencies found that it was
more costly to participate in trunking than it was to use their own
channels. In addition, some agencies said the trunking systems did not
meet their mission needs.[Footnote 41] In 1993, NTIA insisted that the
contracted system be used unless a waiver had been approved for an
economic and/or technical exemption.[Footnote 42] NTIA noted that the
program has only been successful in Washington, D.C., where agency
demand for frequency assignments, and therefore spectrum congestion, is
extremely high.
Unclear Whether Spectrum Management Fees Provide an Incentive for
Efficient Spectrum Use:
NTIA told us that the congressionally-mandated spectrum management fees
agencies pay help promote spectrum efficiency by providing federal
users with an incentive to return frequency assignments that they no
longer need. These fees are designed to recover part of the costs of
NTIA‘s spectrum management function. The fees began in 1996 and
amounted to about $50 per frequency assignment in 2001.[Footnote 43]
NTIA decided to base the fee on the number of assignments authorized
per agency instead of the amount of spectrum used per agency because
the number of assignments better reflects the amount of work NTIA must
do for each agency. Moreover, NTIA stated that this fee structure
provides a wider distribution of cost to the agencies. For example,
basing the fee on the amount of bandwidth used would have resulted in
the Air Force paying the majority of the fees because of the large
amount of spectrum used by the radar systems they operate.
Although NTIA officials said that spectrum fees provide an incentive
for agencies to relinquish assignments, it is not clear how much this
promotes efficient use of spectrum. Officials from two agencies said
that the financial costs were not high enough to cause them to decrease
the number of frequency assignments they retained. Specifically,
officials from one of the agencies said that the amount of money paid
in spectrum fees was a small share of the money needed to operate a
radio system. In addition, agencies may be able to reduce assignments
without returning spectrum. For example, a spectrum manager for a
federal agency said that the spectrum fee has caused the agency to
reduce redundant assignments, but that it has not affected the
efficiency of the agency‘s spectrum use because the agency did not
return any spectrum to NTIA as a result of reducing its assignments.
Other countries are moving toward using payment mechanisms for
government spectrum users that are specifically designed to encourage
efficiency, rather than to recover the cost of managing the spectrum.
Both Canada and the United Kingdom are reviewing their administrative
fee structures at this time with the intent of encouraging spectrum
efficiency. Our work on this issue is ongoing and will be addressed in
our report that will be completed in early 2003.
Conclusions:
The divided structure of U.S. spectrum management, coupled with the
increasing difficulty of accommodating new services and users, has
heightened the importance of coordinated national spectrum planning.
Although FCC and NTIA have recently taken steps to better coordinate
spectrum management, it is unclear whether these steps will result in a
national spectrum strategy. The absence of such a strategy may make it
more difficult for FCC and NTIA to avoid contentious, protracted
negotiations when providing for future spectrum requirements.
Similarly, the United States‘ ability to promote its strategic and
economic interests at WRCs has become increasingly important and
difficult as spectrum has grown more congested and countries vie for
advantage in the multibillion dollar global telecommunications
marketplace. The ongoing debate about the effectiveness of the United
States‘ preparatory process for WRCs has raised concerns that the U.S.
delegation may not be in the best position to promote U.S. positions as
effectively as possible. While the Department of State, FCC, and NTIA
maintain that they have improved preparations for the 2003 WRC through
better coordination, key issues remain unresolved, including the use of
separate processes by FCC and NTIA to develop U.S. positions and the
short tenure of the head of the delegation.
Because of the large number of federal frequency assignments, NTIA‘s
processes for promoting the efficient use of federal spectrum are
heavily dependent on the federal agencies that use the spectrum.
However, some federal agencies are not conducting comprehensive reviews
of their frequency assignments. Compounding this problem is NTIA‘s
discontinuation of two spectrum-monitoring programs that helped promote
accountability by verifying that federal agencies were using their
spectrum assignments as specified. Federal agencies and NTIA primarily
attributed the lack of comprehensive reviews and the discontinuation of
NTIA monitoring programs to staffing and resource issues. The result of
these limitations is that the federal government does not have the
information necessary to assure that federal agencies are using only as
much spectrum as needed to fulfill their mission requirements.
Moreover, even if additional resources became available to enable
agencies to conduct reviews to determine how effectively they are using
spectrum available to them, it is unclear if this alone could ensure
the efficient use of hundreds of thousands of federal spectrum
assignments. Other countries are moving toward using incentives such as
payment mechanisms for government spectrum users to encourage
conservation of spectrum. In follow-on work, we will be looking at the
types of incentives that are being employed to encourage both
government and nongovernment users to conserve spectrum.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
In order to improve U.S. spectrum management, we are making the
following recommendations:
* The Secretary of Commerce and the Chairman of FCC should establish
and carry out formal, joint planning activities to develop a clearly
defined national spectrum strategy to guide domestic and international
spectrum management decision making. The results of these planning
activities should be reported to the appropriate congressional
committees.
* Following the 2003 WRC, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
Commerce, and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
should jointly review the adequacy of the process used to develop and
promote the U.S. position, including the separate processes used by FCC
and NTIA, and the short tenure of the head of delegation, and prepare a
report containing any needed recommendations for making improvements.
The report should be provided to the appropriate congressional
committees.
* To strengthen the management and accountability of the federal
government‘s use of spectrum, the Secretary of Commerce should direct
NTIA, assisted by IRAC and the Office of Personnel Management, to
analyze the human capital needs of federal agencies for spectrum
management and develop a strategy for addressing any identified
shortcomings. This analysis should be linked to near-term and long-term
human capital issues that may be identified as part of the development
of a national spectrum strategy.
* The Secretary of Commerce should develop a strategy for enhancing its
oversight of federal agencies‘ use of spectrum, such as revitalizing
its former monitoring programs, and define the Department of Commerce‘s
human capital needs for carrying out this strategy.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to FCC, the Department of Commerce,
and the Department of State for a review and comment. They were in
general agreement with our recommendations. FCC said that both it and
the Department of Commerce have initiated processes to review and
improve spectrum management. FCC also said that it would be beneficial
for the Department of State, Department of Commerce, and FCC to further
review the U.S. preparatory process following the 2003 WRC. FCC also
offered some technical comments that we incorporated into the report
where appropriate. FCC‘s written comments appear in appendix III.
The Department of Commerce said it is time for the United States to
take a broad look at the organizational structures and processes the
United States has built both nationally and internationally to manage
and plan spectrum use. The Department of Commerce also said that NTIA
and FCC participate together in spectrum planning activities, as
evidenced by NTIA‘s Spectrum Summit in April 2002 and FCC‘s spectrum
policy workshops, but that spectrum planning and interagency
coordination could be improved. With regard to WRCs, the Department of
Commerce agreed that the Department of State, FCC, and NTIA should
jointly review the adequacy of the preparation process following the
2003 WRC. The Department of Commerce also said that it would review its
human capital needs and current resources in spectrum management and
develop a strategy for addressing any shortcomings. The Department will
also encourage other agencies that are members of IRAC to conduct a
similar analysis. The Department also offered some technical comments
that we incorporated into the report where appropriate. The Department
of Commerce‘s written comments appear in appendix IV.
The Department of State said that it would consult with the Department
of Commerce and FCC after the conclusion of the 2003 WRC, and it
offered a technical comment that we incorporated into the report. The
Department of State‘s written comments appear in appendix V.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees. We are also sending this report to the Secretary of State,
the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and the
Secretary of Commerce. We also will make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me on (202) 512-2834 or at guerrerop@gao.gov. Individuals
making key contributions to this report include Dennis Amari, Karin
Bolwahnn, Keith Cunningham, John Finedore, Rahul Gupta, Peter Ruedel,
Terri Russell, Tanya Tarr, Dr. Hai Tran, Mindi Weisenbloom, and Alwynne
Wilbur.
Peter F. Guerrero
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Signed by Peter F. Guerrero
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Major Parts of the Radiofrequency Spectrum and Their Uses:
Different parts of the radiofrequency spectrum have different technical
characteristics that make them better-suited for some types of
communications than others. For example, the most technically suitable
spectrum for mobile communications is below 3 gigahertz because this
part of the spectrum provides the best match for spectrum propagation
characteristics (such as distance, capacity, and reliability) required
for mobile communications. The major parts and uses of the spectrum are
as follows:
* The lower frequency waves (including very low frequency [VLF], low
frequency [LF], and medium frequency [MF]) are located from 3 kilohertz
(kHz) to 3 megahertz (MHz). They tend to travel along the ground and
penetrate water and solid objects. Uses include submarine communication
and AM radio.
* High frequency (HF) waves are located from 3 MHz to 30 MHz. They
travel along the ground and into the sky where they are reflected back
to earth by the ionosphere. By using this reflection to extend range,
devices in the HF bands can transmit over long distances on relatively
low power. Amateur Radio (Ham), Citizens Band Radio Service (CB),
military tactical radio, and maritime communications are found in this
frequency range.
* Very high frequency (VHF) waves are located from 30 MHz to 300 MHz.
They follow the ground less and will pass through the ionosphere, which
makes satellite communication possible. To operate in the VHF range,
transmitters require less power but larger antennas relative to higher
frequencies. Broadcast television, FM radio, federal government, public
safety, and private mobile radio services are some of the applications
that operate in this frequency range.
* Ultrahigh frequency (UHF) waves are located from 300 MHz to 3
gigahertz (GHz). The combination of smaller antenna and lower power
requirements for device operation make this frequency range ideal for
many wireless telecommunication applications. Broadcast television,
first and second-generation mobile telephones, satellites (such as the
global positioning system [GPS] and commercial satellites), federal and
nonfederal radio systems, and numerous military applications--like the
Ballistic Missile Early Warning System--operate in UHF bands.
* Superhigh frequency (SHF) waves are located from 3 GHz to 30 GHz, and
extremely high frequency (EHF) waves are located from 30 GHz to 300
GHz. These waves require more power to operate and are affected by rain
and clouds, especially at the higher frequencies. Numerous military and
commercial satellites, aeronautical radio altimeters, radars (such as
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar), and fixed microwave links occupy these
frequency bands. Some of the highest bands are allocated for certain
uses but remain unused due to cost and technical constraints of using
those frequencies.
[End of section]
Appendix II Timeline of Spectrum Management:
Numerous legislative, regulatory, legal, and policy decisions and
actions have shaped the United States‘ management and use of the
radiofrequency spectrum. This appendix provides supplemental
information and major milestones in the development of the divided
structure for domestic spectrum management and on international
conferences on global spectrum issues. Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9
throughout this appendix illustrate the interplay of wireless
technological advances with key international and domestic policy
events.
Figure 6: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1895-1925):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
1895:
Radio Signal Transmission--Guglielmo Marconi became the first person to
succeed in sending a message in telegraphic code over a distance of 1
1/4 miles using electricity without wires.
Early 1900s:
Ships at Sea--Radio‘s most important initial use was at sea where it
reduced the isolation of ships during emergencies. By 1904, according
to a report of the President‘s Board on Wireless Telegraphy, there were
24 radio-equipped naval ships and 10 more planned; 20 naval coastal
stations had been established, and equipment for 10 more had been
ordered; 6 stations were operated by the U.S. Army; 2 stations were
operated by the Weather Bureau; 5 private companies were operating
coastal stations (one serving the Pacific coast); and a total of 200
additional stations on shore or at sea had been planned.
1903:
First International Conference--The First International Radio
Telegraphic Conference was held in Berlin, Germany, with the
governments of Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy,
Russia, Spain, and the United States represented. The conference
drafted a protocol to address the exchange of messages from coastal
stations with ships regardless of the system of radiotelegraphy used.
The protocol served as the basis for the first agreement on the use of
radiotelegraphy, which occurred in 1906.
1904:
Roosevelt‘s Interdepartmental Board--At the recommendation of the
Secretary of Navy, President Theodore Roosevelt appointed an
Interdepartmental Board of Wireless Telegraphy to consider ’the entire
position of wireless telegraphy in the service of the National
Government.“ Among matters addressed by the Board were the control of
interference between radiotelegraph stations in general and
nonduplication of coastal stations by government departments. The Board
recommended that all government coastal radio facilities be placed
under control of the Navy, and that all private stations be licensed by
the Department of Commerce and Labor.
1906:
First International Convention--A second International Radiotelegraphy
Conference was convened in Berlin, Germany, with 28 countries
represented. The conference adopted a convention that followed closely
the protocol of the first conference. The main provisions of the
convention were: requiring that messages by all coastal stations and
ships be accepted regardless of the system used; establishing priority
for distress calls from ships; and creating a bureau to gather and
distribute information about the radiotelegraphy systems and coastal
station installations in each country. The convention also addressed
tariffs for international radio communications and regulations
prescribing specific wavelengths from which commercial entities were
excluded. Technical and operational standards for radio communications
in the form of ’Service Regulations“ were included in an appendix. A
precursor to the International Table of Allocations, the regulations
distinguished two service categories (1) ’general public service“ with
an exclusive allocation of the 187-500 kHz band; and (2) ’long-range or
other services“ which could be assigned to other frequencies.
1910:
Wireless Ship Act--The first instance of U.S. government regulation of
radio technology and services, this act required any U.S. or foreign
oceangoing ship with 50 or more passengers to be equipped with an
operator of and an apparatus for radio communications equipment. The
Department of Commerce and Labor was designated to provide for its
execution.
1912:
Wireless Ship Act Amended--Three months after the sinking of the
Titanic, Congress quickly passed amendments to the Wireless Ship Act of
1910. Among the amendments to the law were requirements that ships
carry an auxiliary power supply capable of enabling radio apparatus to
be operated continuously for at least 4 hours at a minimum range of 100
miles, day or night; that ships carry two or more persons skilled in
the use of radio apparatus; and that ships traversing the Great Lakes
comply with provisions of the Act.
Radio Act of 1912--The Radio Act of 1912 was the first domestic statute
that addressed spectrum allocation. It was enacted, in part, to comply
with obligations under the international convention of 1906. The Act
required every operator of radio to obtain a license from the Secretary
of Commerce and Labor. (When the Department of Labor was separately
established in 1913, these powers were retained by the Department of
Commerce.) Any person that operated any apparatus for radio
communication without a license was guilty of a misdemeanor, and the
offending apparatus was subject to forfeiture. Licenses were subject to
detailed regulations contained in the Act itself, with certain
additional and supplementary regulations promulgated by the Secretary
of Commerce. The Act also provided for the protection of federal
government radio operations and gave the President special authority
over radio communications in emergencies.
Third International Conference--Although the United States was a
signatory to the 1906 international convention, the U.S. Senate did not
ratify the treaty until after its adhering members withdrew an
invitation to the United States to attend the third international
conference scheduled for June 1912 in London, England. Soon thereafter,
and only 2 months before the start of the conference, the Senate
ratified the 1906 convention resulting in a renewed invitation to the
United States to attend the London conference.
In light of the sinking of the Titanic earlier that year, the use of
radiotelegraphy for safety of ships at sea dominated this conference.
The resulting convention was ratified in the United States by the
Senate in 1913.
1917:
Legislation on Radio Operations Considered by Congress--In the late
1910s, legislation was considered by Congress to maintain government
control of all radio stations and prohibit the construction of any new
commercial stations. An alternative to government control was proposed-
-the establishment of a privately-controlled company operating as a
government-authorized monopoly. These proposals were advocated in
response to Great Britain‘s dominance in wireline communications and
the pursuit of dominance by British nationals in radio communications.
While neither proposal was adopted in the United States, in 1920
Congress did act on a recommendation of the Navy to authorize the use
of naval stations for a temporary 2-year period for the transmission
and reception of private commercial messages at locations that lacked
adequate commercial facilities. This authority was extended again in
1922 and 1925 and, ultimately, made permanent by an act of Congress in
1927.
1920:
Devising a New International Union--Representatives of the Allied
nations of World War I met in Washington, D.C., to create a new
international union and simplify communications by bringing all methods
of electrical transmission, as far as practicable, under the same
rules. A convention and regulations were drafted setting forth basic
international institutional features for telecommunications. Although
a consensus was not reached, provisions of these documents were used at
the next international radiotelegraph conference held in 1927 and,
ultimately, served as the basic structure of the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), which was established in 1932.
Introduction of Commercial Radio--Westinghouse, one of the leading
radio manufacturers, devised a means of selling more radios by offering
radio programming. Dr. Frank Conrad, who had played records over the
airwaves for his friends, was asked by Westinghouse to establish a
station in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that would regularly transmit
programming. The Department of Commerce licensed the station to operate
on 833.3 kHz and awarded it the call letters KDKA. On the night of
November 2, 1920, KDKA made what is claimed to be the nation‘s first
commercial radio broadcast. The commercial radio business grew quickly;
within 4 years, there were nearly 600 commercial radio stations
licensed in the United States.
1921:
Public Safety Use of Land Mobile Radio--Among the first known
experimental uses of land mobile radio was by the Police Department of
Detroit, Michigan, for emergency dispatch in patrol cars. The Detroit
Police Department implemented a police dispatch system using a
frequency band near 2 MHz. This service proved to be so successful that
the channels allocated in the band were soon used to their full
capacity. Police and emergency services‘ communications needs are said
to have been critical to the development of mobile radio telephone
services. :
1922:
First National Annual Radio Conference--Because radio interference had
become so chaotic, with the rise of radio broadcasting and the
limitations of the Radio Act of 1912, Secretary of Commerce Herbert
Hoover convened a conference of manufacturers, broadcasters, amateur
radio representatives, and civilian and military government radio
communications personnel to study the problem and make recommendations
to alleviate the overcrowding of the radio waves. Three subsequent
conferences were held in each of the following years.
Legislation was introduced to implement various recommendations of the
national radio conferences throughout this period. There was
disagreement as to whether the Secretary of Commerce or a new
commission should be given regulatory authority over spectrum use.
However, it was not until 1927 that a compromise was reached on a
framework for the management of radiofrequency spectrum by the federal
government.
Formation of IRAC--To enable the most effective use of spectrum by
government, the Interdepartment Advisory Committee on Governmental
Radio Broadcasting (later renamed the Interdepartment Radio Advisory
Committee, or IRAC) was formed. The 1922 national radio conference
awakened several of the federal government departments to the need for
cooperative action in solving problems arising from the federal
government‘s interest in radio use. Secretary Hoover invited interested
government departments to designate representatives for a special
government radio committee. When they met, the committee recommended
that a permanent interdepartment committee be formed. The committee
agreed that its scope should extend beyond broadcasting and should be
advisory to the Secretary of Commerce in all matters of government
radio regulation.
Figure 7: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1925-1955):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
1926:
Legal Decisions on the Secretary‘s Powers under the 1912 Act--Several
key court decisions and opinions of the Attorney General regarding the
power of the Secretary of Commerce were made following enactment of the
Radio Act of 1912. For example:
* In 1912, the Attorney General stated in an opinion to the Secretary
of Commerce and Labor that the Secretary did not have discretion in the
matter of granting or refusing radio licenses and was not given general
regulative powers under the Radio Act of 1912.
* In Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., Inc., 286 F. 1003 (D.C. Cir.,
1923), the Secretary of Commerce was denied authority to use his
discretion to refuse a radio license on the grounds that he ’had been
unable to ascertain a wave length for use by Plaintiff, which would not
interfere with government and private stations.“ The court pointed out
that the Radio Act of 1912 necessarily contemplated interference
between stations, that the Secretary had no discretion to refuse the
license, and that the issuance of licenses was a ministerial act.
* The court held in U.S. v. Zenith Radio Corporation, 12 F.2d 614
(N.D.Ill., 1926), that the Secretary of Commerce had no power to make
regulations additional to those found in the Radio Act and that it was,
at best, ambiguous on whether the Secretary could impose a limitation
on the hours of operation of a radio licensee.
* In Carmichael v. Anderson, 14 F.2d 166 (W.D.Mo. 1926), the court held
that while the Secretary of Commerce had the right to grant licenses
with restrictions agreed upon by multiple applicants--such as time
sharing by two radio operators using the same frequency--the Secretary
may have no right to impose restrictions other than those contained in
the Radio Act of 1912.
* In the case Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station, Inc.,
(Cir. Ct., Cook County, Ill. 1926) reprinted in 68 Cong. Rec. 216-219
(1926), the court held that the novelty of broadcasting did not prevent
an established station from asserting a right to be free from
interference and the destruction of its operations by a newcomer. In
the court‘s view, the ’priority of time“--obtaining a license first--
created a superior right.
* In 1926, the Acting Attorney General issued an opinion stating that a
broadcasting station could not operate under the Act without a license,
but the Secretary had no discretion to refuse a license upon a proper
application. Moreover, the Secretary had no power to designate the
frequency within the broadcast band at which a broadcasting station
might operate, nor to prescribe the hours of operation, to limit the
power of stations, or to issue licenses of limited duration.
1927:
Radio Act of 1927--The Radio Act of 1912 proved to be totally
inadequate in coping with the spectrum of the rapidly growing radio
broadcasting industry. Further, Congress had become concerned with
other issues related to spectrum use, such as vested rights in the
spectrum, the basis or criteria for granting licenses, and the
potential monopoly in radio equipment manufacturing. Five years in the
making, the Radio Act of 1927 was enacted with two key provisions: the
creation of a new government commission to manage nongovernment
spectrum use, and the adoption of the ’public interest, convenience,
and necessity“ standard for licensing.
Concerns about placing all regulatory authority for radio licensing in
one individual, such as the Secretary of Commerce, led to the adoption
of a compromise--the creation of the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), a
five-member independent regulatory agency with licensing authority for
nongovernment stations for a period of one year.[Footnote 44] After 1
year, as originally enacted, licensing authority would revert back to
the Secretary of Commerce and the FRC would serve as an appellate body.
Among the responsibilities assigned to the FRC were the following:
issuing station licenses, classifying radio stations, assigning
frequencies, describing types of service, preventing interference,
establishing power and location of transmitters, and establishing
coverage areas. The Act reserved to the President authority over all
government radio stations. The ’public interest, convenience, and
necessity“ standard was not defined in the Act.
First International Table of Frequencies--Representatives from nations
around the world met in Washington, D.C. for the third international
radiotelegraphy conference, agreeing to many of the proposals discussed
at the 1920 Washington meeting. The conference agreed to a request made
at the 1925 Paris Telegraph Conference to consider the unification of
the radiotelegraph and telegraph conventions into a single
international instrument. In addition, the conference resulted in
agreement on the first International Table of Frequency Allocations.
The following services were given exclusive or shared use of various
frequency bands between 10 kHz and 40 MHz: (1) fixed, (2) mobile, (3)
maritime mobile, (4) broadcasting radio beacon, (5) air mobile, and (6)
amateur. The conference also created the International Radio
Consultative Committee for purposes of studying technical and related
radio communications questions.
1932:
International Telecommunication Union Formed--Unification of the
international radiotelegraph and telegraph conventions was
accomplished in Madrid, Spain, thus forming a single international
treaty for both wireline and wireless communications, and a single
international treaty organization known as the ITU.
The use of radio for both aeronautical mobile communications and
broadcasting had increased substantially in the late 1920s, and
allocations had to be identified for them in the frequency allocation
table. Because of the nature of propagation characteristics of the
contested frequencies, low and medium bands were divided into a
European region and ’other regions.“:
1934:
Enactment of the Communications Act of 1934--At the request of
President Franklin Roosevelt, an interdepartmental committee was
established in 1933 by the Secretary of Commerce to study the problem
of how to regulate communications. Reporting to the President the
following year, the Committee recommended that all regulation over
communications--both radio and common carrier--be vested in a single
agency. With the committee report, President Roosevelt sent a letter to
Congress recommending the creation of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), transferring authorities of the Federal Radio
Commission and (as pertaining to communications) the Interstate
Commerce Commission, affecting services that ’rely on wires, cables, or
radio as a medium of transmission.“ Legislation embodying the
recommendation was passed by Congress and signed into law by President
Roosevelt on June 19, 1934.
Title III of the Act, governing the provision of radio services, is
intended to ’maintain control—over all the channels of radio
transmission,“ and provide for the use--but not ownership--of channels
of the radio-frequency spectrum through licenses of limited duration.
Among the key authorities granted to FCC in Title III of the Act are
to: make reasonable regulations governing the interference potential of
radio-frequency emitting devices; classify radio stations; prescribe
the nature of services in each class of licensed stations; assign
frequency bands to various classes of stations and assign frequencies
for each individual station; make regulations to prevent interference
between stations; study new uses of radio and provide for experimental
use of frequencies; and suspend licenses for violations of the Act.
Title III also includes provisions addressing broadcasting.
Like the Radio Act of 1927, the Communications Act of 1934 required the
commission to use the ’public interest, convenience, and necessity“
standard for granting licenses. In order to satisfy the standard, FCC
was authorized to grant applications and make ’such distribution of
licenses, frequencies, hours of operation, and of power among the
several States and communities as to provide a fair, efficient, and
equitable distribution of radio service to each of the same.“:
1940:
Defense Communications Board Formed--President Roosevelt issued an
executive order creating the Defense Communications Board (renamed the
Board of War Communications) to coordinate the relationship of all
branches of communication to the national defense. The Board was
composed of: the Chairman of FCC, who served as Chairman; the Chief
Signal Officer of the U.S. Army; the Director of Naval Communications;
the Assistant Secretary of State, Division of International
Communications; and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Coast
Guard. During a war involving the United States, IRAC was to serve as a
committee of the board in an advisory capacity.
IRAC-FCC Agree to Interference Notice--IRAC and FCC agreed to cooperate
in giving each other notice of all proposed actions that would tend to
cause interference to radio stations managed by the other.
1947:
Three Regions Formed for International Allocations--At the first post-
World War II international radio conference held in Atlantic City, New
Jersey, extensive changes were made to the International Table of
Frequency Allocations reflecting the advances in radio technology, such
as radar and similar radio-determination systems, made during World War
II. In addition, new services contending for allocations produced
further fragmentation of the table and a new arrangement for spectrum
allocations. The new arrangement subdivided the world into three
regions--Europe, U.S.S.R., and Africa in region 1; North and South
America comprising region 2; and Asia, Australia, and Oceania in region
3.
1950:
Communications Policy Board Established--By executive order issued by
President Truman, the President‘s Communications Policy Board was
established to study and make recommendations on the policies and
practices that should be followed by the federal government in the
field of telecommunications to meet the broad requirements of the
public interest. The decision to appoint the Board stemmed in part from
the inability of existing organizations to resolve competing
requirements of FCC on behalf of nongovernment users and government
agencies for the use of high frequencies.
In a report to the President, the Board recommended that either a
single adviser, or a three-person board, carry out the following
duties:
* plan and execute the authority of the President to assign frequencies
to government users;
* exercise control over the nation‘s telecommunications facilities
during a national emergency or war;
* stimulate and correlate the formulation of plans and policies to
ensure maximum contribution of telecommunications to the national
interest and maximum effectiveness of U.S. participation in
international negotiations;
* stimulate research on problems in telecommunications;
* establish and monitor a system of initial justification and continued
use of frequencies by government agencies; and:
* supervise, in cooperation with FCC, the division of spectrum space
between federal government and nonfederal government users.
1951:
President Truman Appoints Telecommunications Adviser--Approving a
recommendation of the President‘s Communications Policy Board,
President Truman issued an executive order establishing the
Telecommunications Adviser within the Executive Office of the President
to carry out the duties prescribed by the Board.
1952:
IRAC Reorganizes and FCC‘s Role Becomes Liaison--IRAC was reconstituted
with a permanent Chairman designated by the Telecommunications Adviser
to the President and was charged with the additional responsibilities
of formulating and recommending policies, plans, and actions in
connection with the management and usage of radio frequencies by the
U.S. government. FCC withdrew as a regular member of IRAC and in lieu
thereof designated a liaison representative to work jointly with IRAC
in the solution of mutual problems.
1953:
Position of Adviser to the President Abolished--President Eisenhower
accepted the resignation of the Telecommunications Adviser to the
President and issued an executive order abolishing the position and
transferring the functions to the Director of the Office of Defense
Mobilization.
IRAC Establishes Assignment Principles--IRAC established principles
for the assignment and use of radio frequencies by government agencies,
including assurances that requests are justified and assignments are
used by the agencies and not stored for future use.
Figure 8: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1955-1985):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
1959:
International Allocation for Satellite Service Adopted--At the World
Administrative Radio Conference, held in Geneva, Switzerland, the
assembled nations revised the International Table of Frequency
Allocations to accommodate use of higher radio frequencies. A brand new
radio service was defined that would eventually bring about a new era
of international conferences and issues--the satellite
radiocommunication service. The next international radiocommunication
conference would not be held for another 20 years.
1960:
Communications Act Amendments of 1960--Congress added new sections to
the Communications Act of 1934 addressing comparative hearings held by
FCC to determine licensing. The new sections were added following the
decision in U.S. v. Storer Broadcasting, 351 U.S. 192 (1955). In
Storer, the Court held that a hearing is not required under Sec. 309 of
the Act in cases where undisputed facts show that the granting of an
application would contravene the Commission‘s perception of the ’public
interest.“ In the opinion of the court, Congress did not likely intend
FCC to ’waste time on applications that do not state a valid basis for
a hearing.“ The Act was revised to provide FCC with broad discretion to
avoid hearings on petitions to deny a license application unless a
substantial and material question of fact is presented.
1962:
Communications Satellite Act of 1962--This act provided for U.S.
participation in a global commercial communications satellite system by
the Communications Satellite Corporation under government regulation.
The principal task of the corporation was to plan, establish, and
operate the system in cooperation with other nations to furnish, for
hire, satellite relay of international and interstate telephone and
telegraph services, including television. The U.S. portion of the
system was subject to the same regulatory controls by FCC as were other
communications common carriers.
Director of Telecommunications Management Position Established--
President Kennedy issued an executive order establishing the position
of Director of Telecommunications Management. The authority of the
President to assign, amend, modify or revoke frequency assignments to
government agencies was delegated to the Director.
1965:
IRAC Approves Spectrum Management Manual--IRAC approved, as a working
document, a draft ’Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Frequency
Management.“ After approval by the Director of Telecommunications
Management, copies were distributed to all government users of radio,
and it became the guideline for daily use.:
1966:
Report on Telecommunications Science and the Federal Government
Released--The report, Electromagnetic Spectrum Utilization--The Silent
Crisis, prepared by the Telecommunication Science Panel of the Commerce
Technical Advisory Board, Department of Commerce, suggested the
appearance of a strong basis for the separate management of government
and nongovernment radio spectrum use. The separation is rooted mainly
in the direct responsibility of the President for national defense, the
report states, and the missions of the federal agencies; whereas the
administration of nongovernment telecommunications in the national
interest requires processes that provide adequate public representation
of economic and political forces.
1967:
Periodic Review of Government Assignments--IRAC approved a policy for
the periodic review of government frequency assignments on a 5-year
cycle. The procedure would serve to eliminate unused assignments,
update remaining assignments, and make the master file of government
assignments much more useful in engineering new assignments.
1968:
President‘s Task Force on Communications Policy Issues Report--Neither
the President nor any executive branch agency had access to ’a source
of coordinated and comprehensive policy advice,“ concluded the
President‘s Task Force on Communications Policy in its report to
President Johnson. As a result, the executive branch had difficulty
presenting a coherent and consistent position on problems. To address
these problems, the Task Force recommended the establishment of an
executive agency to pursue long-term strategy and coordination, to
formulate policy, and to serve other executive departments and agencies
as a resource center for communications expertise.
1970:
Office of Telecommunications Policy Created--Congress approved a plan
proposed by President Nixon to transfer various telecommunications and
functions of the President to a new Office of Telecommunications
Policy. The new office would be responsible for developing plans,
policies, and programs with respect to telecommunications that will
promote the public interest; support national security; sustain and
contribute to the full development of the economy and world trade;
strengthen the position and serve the best interests of the United
States in negotiating with foreign nations; and promote the effective
and innovative use of telecommunications technology, resources, and
services. In addition, the President delegated to the new office his
authority over assignments to federal radio stations and directed the
Secretary of Commerce to support the new office‘s spectrum management
responsibilities with analysis, engineering, and administrative
assistance.
1978:
NTIA Formed--President Carter issued an executive order to abolish the
Office of Telecommunications Policy and establish an Assistant
Secretary for Communications and Information, transferring the
functions of the Office of Telecommunications Policy to the Department
of Commerce. A departmental order was issued shortly thereafter forming
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
1979:
First World Radio Conference in 20 Years--The first general World
Administrative Radio Conference (WARC) held in 20 years was convened
for 10 weeks in Geneva, Switzerland. The most significant results of
WARC 1979 included revisions to many technical and operational
standards for radio, particularly the International Table of Frequency
Allocations, and the scheduling of a series of specialized conferences
for the next decade. The table of allocations was expanded upward and
modifications were made in various frequency bands to reflect increased
use of satellite radiocommunications.
1981:
FCC Establishes Cellular Duopoly--FCC concluded that the public
interest would be best served with two competing cellular systems in
each geographic area. Each geographic market was divided in such a way
as to allow the local exchange service (typically, one for the Bell
Operating Companies) and a nonwireline applicant to provide service.
1982:
AT&T Divestiture Consent Decree--AT&T and the Department of Justice
entered into a consent decree that required divestiture of the local
Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) from AT&T. In addition, the decree
required that the BOCs provide equal access to long distance and
information service providers to their networks for interconnection,
and it prohibited the BOCs from providing long distance service,
information services, and telecommunications equipment manufacturing.
The BOCs retained their mobile services subsidiaries in 1984 after
divestiture.
1983:
Congress Authorizes Department of State Communications Policy Office--
Congress passed the Department of State Authorization Act for Fiscal
Years 1984 and 1985, codifying into law and providing for the
presidential appointment of a Coordinator for International
Communications and Information Policy within the U.S. Department of
State. The position had been established by the Department of State
2 years earlier and had made the incumbent responsible to the
Undersecretary of State for Security Assistance, Science, and
Technology. The Coordinator acquired a rank equivalent to an Assistant
Secretary of State and the personal rank of Ambassador in 1983 and
became head of a new Bureau of International Communications and
Information Policy in 1985. In 1994, the bureau was incorporated into
the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, and legislation was passed
that no longer required presidential appointment of the Coordinator
position, reassigning it to the Bureau of Economic and Business
Affairs.
NTIA Created Office of International Affairs--Primary responsibility
for international telecommunications, which had been handled within
NTIA by the Office of Spectrum Management, was transferred to the newly
created Office of International Affairs.
1985:
Communications and Information Policy Bureau at Department of State--
The Coordinator for Communications and Information Policy, Department
of State, became the head of a new bureau--the Bureau of International
Communications and Information Policy.
Figure 9: Timeline of Spectrum Management (1985-2005):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
1990:
FCC International Office Established--FCC created the Office of
International Communications to coordinate international activities
and policy development for spectrum and other telecommunications
matters. This action was taken, in part, to prepare for the World
Administrative Radio Conference in 1992 and to establish a focal point
at FCC for international matters.
1992:
NTIA Organization Act Passed--Fourteen years after NTIA was formed,
Congress enacted the Telecommunications Authorization Act of 1992,
codifying into law the existence and authority of NTIA as an executive
branch agency principally responsible for advising the President on
telecommunications and information policies.
Two-Year Intervals Established for WRCs--Delegates to the 1992 ITU
Plenipotentiary Conference, held in Geneva, Switzerland, adopted a
resolution to convene World Radiocommunications Conferences (WRCs)
every 2 years.
1993:
Competitive Biding for Spectrum Licenses Authorized by Law--Title VI of
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 included several
provisions addressing spectrum management as follows:
* The Act amended the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration Organization Act to direct NTIA to identify and
recommend the reallocation of a minimum of 200 MHz of spectrum used by
the federal government to nonfederal government users.
* The Communications Act of 1934 was amended to authorize the use of
competitive bidding (auctions) by FCC for certain spectrum licenses.
FCC was also authorized to make available frequencies reallocated from
federal to nonfederal government use.
* The Act amended the Communications Act of 1934 to specify that all
mobile radio service providers (public and private) be treated under a
comprehensive and consistent regulatory framework. The Act created the
new statutory category of commercial (CMRS) and private (PMRS) mobile
radio services. As provided earlier, the statute requires all CMRS
providers to be treated as common carriers, whereas PMRS providers are
exempt from common carrier regulation. However, the new provisions
expressly preempted the states from entry or rate regulation of both
CMRS and PMRS; authorized FCC to forbear from regulating CMRS where it
deemed regulation unnecessary to ensure just, reasonable, and
nondiscriminatory practices; and granted wireless carriers new rights
to interconnect with wireline carriers.
1994:
FCC International Bureau Created--FCC established an International
Bureau to consolidate FCC‘s various international activities. This
change was made to reflect the increasingly global nature of the
communications marketplace as well as the concern that international
communications policy needed to be better coordinated within FCC, with
industry, with other government agencies, and with other countries.
1996:
Public Safety Spectrum Report Issued--By congressional directive, FCC
and NTIA established a Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee in
1995 to provide advice and recommendations on specific wireless
communications requirements of public safety agencies through 2010. In
the final report issued in September 1996, the Advisory Committee
concluded that additional public safety spectrum was needed, that
spectrum must be used more efficiently, and interoperability standards
must be established to meet current and future needs of public safety
users. In addition, the committee proposed:
* immediate identification of 2.5 MHz of spectrum for interoperability
from new or existing allocations;
* allocation in the short term of 25 MHz for public safety purposes, up
to an additional 70 MHz to support increased use of data, imagery, and
video by the year 2010, and the use of unused spectrum in the 746-806
MHz band (television channels 60-69), as well as TV channels below 512
MHz;
* more flexible licensing policies to encourage the use of spectrally
efficient approaches while remaining technologically neutral;
* more sharing and joint use of spectrum and policies to streamline
cooperative use of federal and nonfederal spectrum;
* the use of commercial services for public safety provided that
essential requirements of coverage, priority access and system
restoration, security, and reliability are met;
* a continuing consultative process to permit the public safety
community, FCC, and NTIA to adjust to new requirements and
opportunities; and:
* identification of alternative methods of funding future public safety
communications systems.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996--The Telecommunications Act was
intended to ’provide for a pro-competitive, deregulatory national
policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector
deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies
and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets
to competition.“:
NTIA Authorized to Collect Fees from Government Agencies--Included in a
provision for additional fiscal year 1996 funding for NTIA, the
Secretary of Commerce was authorized to charge fees to federal agencies
for spectrum management, analysis, operations, and related services,
and to retain and use as offsetting collections funds transferred for
all costs incurred in telecommunications research, engineering, and
related activities by the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences of
NTIA.
1997:
Congress Passes Balanced Budget Act of 1997--The Balanced Budget Act of
1997 amended FCC‘s spectrum auction authority by requiring that FCC
award mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses using
competitive bidding procedures (not including licenses for public
safety radio, digital television, and existing terrestrial broadcast
licenses). Among the various other provisions in the Act addressing
spectrum, NTIA was directed to reallocate another 20 MHz below 3 GHz
for commercial uses, and the Act authorized private parties that win
spectrum licenses encumbered by federal entities to reimburse the
federal entities for the costs of relocation if the private parties
seek to expedite the spectrum transfer.
1998:
Defense Authorization Act Revises Spectrum Relocation Reimbursement
Policy--Under the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act,
any government entity using this spectrum band that proposes to
relocate is directed to notify NTIA of the marginal costs anticipated
to be incurred in relocation or modification necessary to accommodate
prospective nongovernment licensees. NTIA is directed to notify FCC of
such costs before an auction of the spectrum, and FCC must notify
potential bidders prior to the auction of the estimated relocation or
modification costs based on the geographic area covered by the proposed
licenses. Any new licensee benefiting from a government station
relocation must compensate the government entity in advance for
relocation or modification costs.
1999:
FCC Issues Principles for Spectrum Reallocation to Encourage
Development of Telecommunications Technologies--FCC issued a policy
statement setting forth guiding principles for the Commission‘s future
spectrum management activities. The principles are designed to respond
to increasing demand for spectrum, promote competition, and encourage
the development of emerging telecommunications technologies. The
principles are to serve as a guidepost for the reallocation of
approximately 200 MHz of spectrum to enable a broad range of new radio
communication services, such as expanded wireless services, advanced
mobile services, new spectrum-efficient private land mobile systems,
and medical telemetry systems.
Spectrum Planning Directive in Defense Authorization Act--The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, contained the following
requirements addressing spectrum management:
* The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary and
in coordination with the Chairman of FCC, was directed to convene an
interagency review and assessment of (1) the progress made in
implementation of national spectrum planning; (2) the reallocation of
federal government spectrum to nonfederal use, and (3) the implications
for such reallocations to the affected federal executive agencies.
* The Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the heads of the
affected federal agencies and the Chairman of FCC, was directed to
submit a report to the President; the Senate Committee on Armed
Services; the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation; the House Committee on Armed Services; the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce; and the House Committee on Science
providing the results of the review and assessment not later than
October 1, 2000.
* If, in order to make available for other use a band of frequencies of
which it is a primary user, the Department of Defense was required to
surrender use of such band of frequencies only after (1) NTIA, in
consultation with FCC, identifies and makes available an alternative
band or bands of frequencies as a replacement for the band to be
surrendered; and (2) the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff jointly certify
to the House Committees on Armed Services and Commerce that such an
alternative band provides comparable technical characteristics to
restore essential military capability that will be lost as a result of
the surrendered bands.
* Eight MHz, previously designated for transfer from federal to
nonfederal use, was reclaimed for exclusive federal government use on a
primary basis by the Department of Defense.
NTIA issued a report, Assessment of Electromagnetic Spectrum
Reallocation, in response to these provisions in January 2001.
2000:
Federal Long-Range Spectrum Plan Issued by NTIA--NTIA issued a report
providing for long-range planning of radiofrequency spectrum use by the
federal government. The report states that the national objectives for
the use of the radio spectrum are to make effective, efficient, and
prudent use of the spectrum in the best interest of the nation, with
care to conserve it for uses where other means of communication are not
available or feasible. The report also states that the government
shall, in general, encourage the development and regulate the use of
radio and wire communications subject to its control so as to meet the
needs of national security; safety of life and property; international
relations; and the business, social, educational, and political life of
the nation.
3G Allocations Dominate WRC-2000--At the 2000 World Radiocommunication
Conference (WRC-2000), spectrum and regulatory issues related to
advanced mobile communications, including third-generation services,
were discussed and three bands identified for its use (806-960 MHz,
1710-1885 MHz, and 2500-2690 MHz). The United States agreed that it
would study these bands domestically, but did not commit to providing
additional spectrum for third-generation systems.
Congress Passes the ORBIT Act--The Open-market Reorganization for the
Betterment of International Telecommunications (the ’ORBIT“ Act) became
law in March 2000 to promote a ’fully competitive global market for
satellite communication services for the benefit of consumers and
providers of satellite services and equipment.“ The Act prohibits FCC
from assigning orbital locations or spectrum licenses to international
or global satellite communications services through the use of
auctions. Further, the Act directs the President to oppose the use of
auctions of satellite spectrum bands in international forums.
Executive Memorandum Issued on Advanced Mobile Communications Systems-
-President Clinton issued a memorandum stating the need to select radio
frequency spectrum for future mobile, voice, high-speed data, and
Internet-accessible wireless capacity. The memorandum established the
guiding principles for executive agencies to use in selecting spectrum
that could be made available for third-generation (3G) wireless systems
and strongly encouraged independent federal agencies to follow the same
principle in any actions they take related to the development of 3G
systems. The memorandum directed the Secretary of Commerce to work
cooperatively with FCC (1) to develop a plan to select spectrum for 3G
systems by October 20, 2000, and (2) to issue by November 15, 2000, an
interim report on the current spectrum use and potential for
reallocation or sharing of the bands identified at the WRC-2000 that
could be used for 3G systems. These actions were seen as enabling FCC
to identify spectrum for 3G systems by July 2001 and auction licenses
by September 2002.
Interference Avoidance for Defense and Public Safety Users--In the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, the Secretary
of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary
of Commerce, was directed to conduct an engineering study to identify
(1) any portion of the 138-144 MHz band that the Department of Defense
can share, in various geographic regions, with public safety radio
services; (2) any measures required to prevent harmful interference
between Department of Defense systems and the public safety systems
proposed for operation on those frequencies; and (3) a reasonable
schedule for implementation of such sharing of frequencies. The
Secretary of Commerce and the Chairman of FCC were to jointly submit a
report to Congress on alternative frequencies available for use by
public safety systems by January 1, 2002. NTIA issued a report,
Alternative Frequencies For Use by Public Safety Systems, in December
2001, and a companion report was issued by FCC.
2001:
Domestic Developments on Spectrum for 3G Systems--FCC issued a final
report on the use of the 2500-2690 MHz band for advanced mobile
communications systems, including 3G systems. NTIA also issued a final
report on the 1710-1755 MHz federal government band and the 1755-1850
MHz band. FCC Chairman Michael Powell and Secretary of Commerce Donald
Evans exchanged letters in which they agreed to postpone the July 2001
deadline for FCC to identify spectrum for 3G systems. Secretary Evans
informed Chairman Powell that he had directed the then-Acting
Administrator of NTIA to work with FCC to develop a new plan for the
selection of 3G spectrum to be executed as quickly as possible.
2002:
NTIA Hosts Two-Day Spectrum Summit--NTIA hosted a summit in Washington,
D.C., on April 4-5, 2002, to help identify the best solutions to
challenges posed by management of the nation‘s airwaves. The purpose of
the spectrum summit was to explore new ideas to develop and implement
spectrum policy and management approaches that will make more efficient
use of the spectrum; provide spectrum for new technologies; and improve
the effectiveness of domestic and international spectrum management
processes. The first day featured industry and government spectrum
users, economists, analysts, and technologists; the second day was
devoted to working sessions focused on commercial, international, and
federal government perspectives.
FCC Chairman Forms Spectrum Policy Task Force--The formation of a
Spectrum Policy Task Force was announced by FCC Chairman for purposes
of assisting the Commission in identifying and evaluating changes in
spectrum policy that will increase the public benefits derived from the
use of radio spectrum. Composed of senior staff from various offices
and bureaus of FCC, the Spectrum Policy Task Force issued a public
notice on June 6, 2002, soliciting comment on various aspects of
spectrum policy, including: market-oriented allocation and assignment
policies, interference protection, spectral efficiency, public safety
communications, and international issues. In August 2002, the Spectrum
Policy Task Force held four public workshops in order to provide
additional public input to the Task Force‘s review. The topics included
experimental licenses and unlicensed spectrum, interference
protection, spectrum efficiency, and spectrum rights and
responsibilities. Participants in these workshops included
representatives from academia, industry, and government. The Task Force
is tentatively scheduled to issue a report to the Commission by October
2002.
Study on Viability of Accommodating 3G Systems Concluded--NTIA released
findings of an assessment performed by NTIA, FCC‘s 3G Working Group,
the Department of Defense, and other members of the Intra-Government 3G
Planning Group on the viability of accommodating advanced mobile
wireless (3G) systems in the 1710-1770 MHz and 2110-2170 MHz bands. The
study concluded that 90 MHz of this spectrum can be allocated for 3G
services to meet increasing demand for new services without disrupting
communications systems critical to national security.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Federal Communications Commission:
Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554:
August 28, 2002:
Mr. Peter Guerrero:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues United States General
Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Guerrero:
Chairman Powell has asked me to respond to your letter of August 12,
2002 requesting FCC‘s comments on GAO‘s draft report entitled
Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability
Needed to Improve Spectrum Management (GAO code 545002).
The report makes two recommendations that pertain to the FCC. The first
recommendation is that: The Secretary of Commerce and the Chairman of
the Federal Communications Commission should establish and carry out
formal, joint planning activities to develop a clearly defined national
spectrum strategy to guide domestic and international spectrum
management decision making. The results of these planning activities
should be reported to the appropriate congressional committees.
The FCC staff supports this recommendation. As noted in the report,
both the Department of Commerce, under the auspices of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, and the Federal
Communications Commission, have initiated processes to review and
improve spectrum management. A cornerstone of these efforts is to
improve coordination between our agencies and to conduct joint planning
to develop a national spectrum management strategy. This national
strategy should emphasize ways to support innovation and the efficient,
flexible use of spectrum, with the overarching goal of maximizing the
public benefits derived from the use of the radio spectrum.
The second recommendation is: Following the 2003 World
Radiocommunication Conference, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
Commerce, and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
should jointly review the adequacy of the process used to develop and
promote the U.S. position, including the separate processes used by the
FCC and NTIA, and the short tenure of the head of delegation, and
prepare a report containing any needed recommendations for making
improvements. The report should be provided to the appropriate
congressional committees.
The FCC staff supports this recommendation as well. The United States
has had an outstanding record of success at past international radio
conferences. The FCC took several actions following WRC 2000 to improve
the way the U.S. prepares for such conferences. We agree that it would
be beneficial for State Department, Department of Commerce, and FCC to
further review the U.S. preparatory processes following the 2003 WRC.
We have already provided you with a list of minor edits and corrections
to the report. Please contact Mr. Julius Knapp at (202) 418-2468, if we
can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Edmond J. Thomas:
Chief:
Office of Engineering and Technology:
Signed by Edmund J. Thomas:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information:
Washington, D.C. 20230:
SEP 6 2002:
Mr. Peter Guerrero Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues 441 G Street, NW:
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Guerrero:
On behalf of Secretary Evans, thank you for providing the Department
with a copy of the General Accounting Office‘s draft report entitled
’Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability
Needed to Improve Spectrum Management“ (GAO-02-906). I have the
following comments on the three areas in which GAO makes
recommendations: improved processes for spectrum planning; better
coordination for world radio conferences; and increased accountability
and efficient use of the spectrum.
In the area of spectrum planning, GAO recommends that the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) carry out formal joint planning
activities to develop clearly defined national spectrum strategy to
guide domestic and international spectrum management decision making
and report the results to the appropriate congressional committees. The
National Table of Allocations, which represents the United States‘
spectrum plan, is comprised of over 40 radio services spread out over
900 frequency bands. The FCC and NTIA currently conduct examinations of
those services and bands as circumstances dictate, usually in areas of
congestion or where growth is expected, or to accommodate a new
technology or service. The two agencies also participate together in
higher level or more theoretical spectrum planning activities, as
evidenced by NTIA‘s Spectrum Summit in April (in which FCC
participated) and the FCC‘s recent spectrum policy workshops (in which
NTIA participated). Yet, we agree that spectrum planning and
interagency coordination can be improved. NTIA will develop strategies
to better prepare for inevitable technological changes, to increase
efficient use of spectrum, to facilitate the deployment of new
technologies, and to implement closer coordination between the agencies
in their planning activities.
With respect to the world radio conferences, it is vitally important
that the United States develop coordinated positions and be well
prepared in advance of these conferences to ensure that U.S. spectrum
interests are protected and promoted internationally. The draft GAO
report recommends that the State Department, FCC, and NTIA jointly
review the adequacy of the preparation process following the 2003 World
Radio Conference and develop recommendations for improvements. I agree
with this recommendation and will work with the State Department and
the FCC to this end.
Finally, the draft GAO report calls on NTIA to encourage increased
accountability and efficient use of the spectrum by federal agencies.
The report indicates that financial and personnel resource shortages at
NTIA and the other agencies have adversely affected the deployment of
more spectrum efficient technology within the federal government and
hampered NTIA‘s ability to monitor federal agencies‘ compliance with
authorization conditions. GAO specifically recommends that the
Department of Commerce, assisted by the Interdepartment Radio Advisory
Committee (IRAC) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), conduct
an analysis of the human resources required for the Federal agencies‘
spectrum management processes to evaluate the adequacy of resources.
NTIA will review its human capital needs and current resources and
develop a strategy for addressing any shortcomings. I will also
encourage other agencies who are members of the IRAC to conduct a
similar analysis. NTIA will additionally continue to look at other
mechanisms to achieve spectrum efficiency, such as incentives and
mandates for narrowbanding.
I believe it is time for the United States to take a broad look at the
organizational structures and processes we have built both nationally
and internationally to manage and plan spectrum use. The President‘s
Fiscal Year 2003 Budget includes an initiative designed to make the
spectrum management process more responsive, effective, and efficient
so that it can implement new technologies, satisfy critical public
safety radiocommunication needs, increase economic growth, and
eliminate unnecessary regulation. It is essential that this initiative
be funded.
As the draft GAO report highlights, spectrum is a very valuable
resource that is the life blood of our radiocommunications. If managed
properly, this resource will be available to meet all of our Federal,
private sector and public needs. Thank you again for this opportunity
to review the draft report and to provide these comments.
Sincerely,
Nancy J. Victory:
Signed by Nancy J. Victory:
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State Washington, D. C. 20520:
AUG 2 8 X02:
Dear Ms. Westin:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report,
’TELECOMMUNICATION: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability
Needed to Improve Spectrum Management,“ GAO-02-906, GAO Job Code
545002.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Douglas Spalt, Telecommunications Officer, Office of Multilateral
Affairs, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, at (202) 647-0200.
Sincerely,
Christopher B. Burn:
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer:
Signed By Christoper B. Burn:
Enclosure:
As stated.
cc: GAO/PI - Mr. John Finedore State/OIG - Mr. Berman State/EB/CIP/MA -
Mr. Beaird:
Ms. Susan S. Westin, Managing Director, International Affairs and
Trade, U.S. General Accounting Office.
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability
Needed to Improve Spectrum Management (GAO-02-906, GAO Code 545002):
The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the
draft report and notes the second recommendation under Recommendations
for Executive Action. The Department will consult with the Department
of Commerce and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) after the
conclusion of the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference.
The Department requests that one modification be made in the Annex II
to the Report. The title of the 1979 entry in the timeline should be
modified to reflect what has been stated in the first sentence, i.e.,
First General World Radio Conference in 20 Years.
In reading the report the Department has some questions concerning the
wording of the report; however, these issues should be more
appropriately addressed by the technical agencies, i.e., the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration and the FCC.
[End of Section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Department of Defense, one of the largest users of the federal
spectrum, was not included in this review because GAO recently
completed a separate report on defense spectrum management. U.S.
General Accounting Office, Defense Spectrum Management: More Analysis
Needed to Support Spectrum Use Decisions for the 1755-1850 MHz Band,
GAO-01-795 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20, 2001).
[2] Radio waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation that propagates
in space as the result of particle oscillations. The number of
oscillations per second is called frequency, which is measured in units
of hertz. The term kilohertz (kHz) refers to thousands of hertz, the
term megahertz (MHz) refers to millions of hertz, and the term
gigahertz (GHz) refers to billions of hertz. The radio spectrum
comprises a range of frequencies from 3 kHz to around 300 GHz.
[3] Part 15 of FCC rules permits the operation of authorized low-power
wireless devices without a license from FCC or the need for frequency
coordination. The technical standards contained in Part 15 are designed
to ensure that there is a low probability that these unlicensed devices
will cause harmful interference to other users of the radio spectrum.
47 C.F.R. § 15 (2001).
[4] Appendix II provides a detailed timeline on the evolution of
spectrum management in the United States.
[5] The Radio Act of 1912, ch. 287, 37 Stat. 302 (1912), was enacted,
in part, to fulfill U.S. obligations incurred by the first
international radio treaty. Congress had passed an earlier federal
statute, the Wireless Ship Act, ch. 379, 36 Stat. 629 (1910), as
amended, ch. 250, 37 Stat. 199 (1912), to address a first use of radio-
-safety of ships at sea.
[6] The Act designated what was then the Department of Labor and
Commerce as the licensing authority. When that department was separated
into two cabinet departments in 1913, the licensing authority was given
to the new Department of Commerce.
[7] The Secretary of Commerce could not refuse to grant a license upon
proper application under the Act as held by a court and opinions by two
attorneys general. See 29 Op. Att‘y Gen. 579 (1912); 35 Op. Att‘y Gen.
126 (1926); Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., Inc., 286 F. 1003 (D.C.
Cir., 1923). The Secretary had no power to make regulations additional
to those in the Act. See United States v. Zenith Radio Corporation, 12
F.2d 614 (N.D. Ill., 1926). The 1912 Act did not regulate broadcasting.
See Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station, Inc., (Cir. Ct.,
Cook County, Ill., 1926) reprinted in 68 Cong. Rec. 216-219 (1926).
[8] Ch. 169, 44 Stat. 1162 (1927).
[9] Prior to the 1927 Radio Act, an Illinois state court issued a
decision to enforce a property right to a radio frequency under the
principle of ’right of user.“ Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting
Station, Inc., (Cir. Ct., Cook County, Ill. 1926), reprinted in 68
Cong. Rec.
216-219 (1926).
[10] Ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064 (1934)(codified, as amended, at 47 U.S.C. §
§ 151 et seq.).
[11] Under the Radio Act of 1927, the President‘s spectrum management
authority was delegated--and IRAC reported through--first, the
Secretary of Commerce, and then, beginning in 1932, the FRC (replaced
by FCC in 1934). In 1940, an interagency Defense Communications Board
was formed to coordinate the relationship of all branches of
communication to the national defense; IRAC reported directly to the
Board as of 1941 until the Board was abolished in 1947. Since 1951, the
President‘s spectrum management authority, coupled with
telecommunications policy advice, has been delegated, and IRAC has
reported through: the Telecommunications Adviser to the President
(1951); the Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization (1953); the
Director of the Office of Civil Defense Mobilization (1958); the
Director of Telecommunications Management (1962); and the Director of
the Office of Telecommunications Policy (1970). President Carter‘s
Executive Order 12,046, issued in 1978, abolished the Office of
Telecommunications Policy, transferred its functions to the Department
of Commerce, and established an Assistant Secretary for Communications
and Information. Subsequently, the Department formally established NTIA
and Congress later codified NTIA and its mission into law. See The
Telecommunications Authorization Act of 1992, P.L. 102-538, 106 Stat.
3533 (1992).
[12] Although FCC once served as a voting member of IRAC, its role in
IRAC was changed to that of liaison in 1952 after IRAC‘s
responsibilities were augmented to include formulating policies, plans,
and actions for the management and use of government radio frequencies.
[13] NTIA also reported that 42 percent of the currently shared
allocations between federal and nonfederal users in the 0 to 3.1 GHz
range are shared on a ’co-primary“ basis.
[14] Eight MHz of spectrum was subsequently reclaimed per congressional
direction. See section 1062 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000, P.L. 106-65, 113 Stat. 768 (1999) (codified, as
amended, at 47 U.S.C. § 923(b)(3)(A)).
[15] Our continuing spectrum work focuses, in part, on the regulatory
structure for spectrum management in approximately 12 other countries.
A report that includes this work will be issued in early 2003.
[16] P.L. 106-65, Div. A, Title X, § 1062 (b), 113 Stat. 768 (1999).
[17] P.L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1920 (1998) (codified at 47 U.S.C. §
923(g)).
[18] 47 U.S.C. § 922.
[19] P.L. 106-65, Div. A, Title X, § 1062(a), 113 Stat. 767 (1999). The
Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the heads of the affected
federal agencies and the Chairman of FCC, was directed to submit a
report providing the results of the required review and assessment by
October 1, 2000, to the President; the Senate Committees on Armed
Services and Commerce, Science and Transportation; and the House
Committees on Armed Services, Commerce, and Science. 113 U.S.C. § 768.
NTIA issued a report, Assessment of Electromagnetic Spectrum
Reallocation, in response to these provisions in January 2001. This
report summarized past and current spectrum planning activities of both
FCC and NTIA, but did not address future spectrum planning.
[20] U.S. Spectrum Management Policy: An Agenda for the Future, NTIA
Special Publication 91-23, February 1991.
[21] Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Frequency
Spectrum Issues, November 2000. The Board recommended establishing a
White House Office of Information Resource Policy to develop the
overall U.S. spectrum policy and bring NTIA, FCC, and the Department of
State under a common policy framework.
[22] GAO-01-795.
[23] The Spectrum Coordinating Committee is composed of FCC staff
involved in spectrum management; the Spectrum Executive Committee is
composed of FCC bureau and office chiefs.
[24] FCC officials stated other methods include experimental licensing,
inquiries, and policy statements.
[25] A Long-Range Strategy for Spectrum Management, NTIA, 1983; and
Long-Range Plan for Management and Use of the Radio Spectrum, NTIA
Special Publication 89-22, June 1989.
[26] ITU is a United Nations specialized agency. The federal government
considers ITU the principal, competent, and appropriate international
organization for the purpose of formulating international treaties and
understandings regarding certain telecommunications matters.
[27] ITAC aids in the preparation of U.S. positions for meetings of
international treaty organizations, develops and coordinates proposed
contributions to international meetings, and submits them to the
Department of State for consideration.
[28] One of the U.S. delegation‘s objectives stemming from its
experience at the 2000 WRC Radio Conference is to work more closely
with participating countries in our own region in preparing for the
2003 conference.
[29] Recommendations to Improve United States Participation in World
Radiocommunication Conferences, Ambassador Gail S. Schoettler, U.S.
Head of Delegation, World Radiocommunication Conference 2000, June 27,
2000.
[30] 22 U.S.C. § 3942. This provision of law enables the President to
confer the personal rank of ambassador on an individual in connection
with a special mission for the President of a temporary nature not
exceeding 6 months in duration. The President need only transmit to the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations a written report; confirmation by
the Senate is not needed.
[31] See the Office of Technology Assessment‘s two reports, The 1992
World Administrative Radio Conference: Issues for U.S. International
Spectrum Policy--Background Paper, OTA-BP-TCT-76, November 1991; and
The 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference: Technology and Policy
Implications, OTA-TCT-549, May 1993.
[32] Department of State has not yet submitted the Final Acts from the
WRCs in 1992, 1995, 1997, or 2000 to the Senate for ratification.
Department of State officials said that the agency is preparing to send
all of these Final Acts to the Senate as one package, and that
ratification is not necessary for the United States to implement the
agreements.
[33] 47 U.S.C. § 903(d)(1).
[34] NTIA also uses IRAC‘s Spectrum Planning Subcommittee to hold
agencies accountable for ensuring that new equipment being developed
and procured for federal use conforms with various policies, such as
those designed to ensure adherence with current and future national
frequency allocations and to encourage compatible spectrum sharing.
Compliance with applicable spectrum standards is also addressed prior
to certifying spectrum support for major systems.
[35] The Government Master File is the complete listing of government
frequency assignments. It also includes thousands of nonfederal and
foreign frequency assignments that must be coordinated with the federal
government assignments.
[36] Certain space systems, aeronautical, and military assignments must
be reviewed every 10 years.
[37] Among the current staff of 101, 17 are currently eligible to
retire, with an additional 25 staff eligible to retire in 4 years.
[38] NTIA officials stated they planned on using the normal hiring
process to replace staff that retire, as well as increase the pay
levels for some of the current positions to attract and retain
qualified staff.
[39] 47 U.S.C. § 903(d)(3). In 1993, NTIA provided the Congress with a
report that included the narrowbanding plan: Land Mobile Spectrum
Efficiency: A Plan for Federal Government Agencies to Use More
Spectrum-Efficient Technologies.
[40] There are three frequency bands involved in this effort: 138-150.8
MHz, 162-174 MHz, and 406.1-420 MHz. The narrowbanding deadline for the
162-174 MHz band is 2005. A 2008 deadline applies to the 138-150.8 MHz
and 406.1-420 MHz bands. After January 1, 1995, most new land mobile
systems were required to meet the narrowband requirements.
[41] In addition to cost constraints, federal agencies can choose not
to use an existing land mobile system if the agency can justify that it
needs its own system to meet its mission requirements. For example, GAO
agreed with NTIA that the Navy was in the best position to assess
whether it needed its own land mobile system to meet its mission. (John
H. Anderson to the Honorable Frank R. Wolf, memorandum, 1 July 1998,
Your letter regarding our report on NTIA‘s contract with FEDSMR [GAO/
RCED-98-116R, April 13, 1998])
[42] NTIA has denied frequency assignment requests for ’stand-alone“
radio communication systems when it was clear that the existing trunked
radio system could serve the applicants‘ needs. For example, NTIA
denied requests from the National Archives and Bolling Air Force Base
to build and operate their own trunked radio systems in the Washington,
D.C. area. Instead of using new frequencies, these agencies joined the
NTIA sponsored area-wide trunking system.
[43] NTIA was first authorized to charge and retain fees for federal
spectrum management services under the Omnibus Consolidated Rescission
and Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 [1996]).
[44] FRC‘s authority was repeatedly renewed by the enactment of
legislation until the Communications Act of 1934 was enacted into law.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
