0001 1 2 3 4 COMMERCE SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT POLICY 5 ADVISORY COMMITTEE 6 7 U.S. Department of Commerce 8 9 Herbert C. Hoover Building 10 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW 11 Washington, D.C. 12 Room 4830 13 14 Tuesday, October 27, 2009 15 9:30 a.m. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 0002 1 Attending: 2 Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce 3 for Communications and Information 4 Susan Crawford, Special Assistant to the President for 5 Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 6 Andrew McLaughlin, Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer, 7 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science 8 and Technology Policy 9 Dr. David E. Borth, Motorola,Inc. 10 Don Brittingham, Verizon 11 Jeff Carlisle, SkyTerra 12 Giselle Creeser, Lockheed Martin 13 Martin Cooper, ArrayComm, Inc. (via telephone) 14 Mark E. Crosby, Enterprise Wireless Alliance 15 David L. Donovan, Association for Maximum Service 16 Television 17 Brian Fontes, National Emergency Number Association 18 Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Furchtgott-Roth Enterprises 19 Robert M. Gurss, Association of Public Safety 20 Communications Officials 21 Kathleen Ham, T-Mobile 22 Dale N. Hatfield, Professor 0003 1 Attending continued: 2 Dr. Kevin C. Kahn, Intel Corporation 3 Brett Kilbourne, UTC 4 James Andrew Lewis, Center for Strategic and International 5 Studies 6 Dr. Mark A. McHenry, Shared Spectrum Company 7 Darrin M. Mylet, Cantor Fitzgerald 8 Janice Obuchowski, Freedom Technologies, Inc. 9 Robert Pepper, Cisco Systems, Inc. 10 Neville Ray, T-Mobile USA 11 Richard L. Reaser, Jr., Raytheon Space and Airborne 12 Systems 13 R. Gerard Salemme, Clearwire Corporation 14 Bryan Tramont, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP 15 Jennifer Warren, Lockheed Martin Corporation 16 Steve Sharkey, Motorola 17 Peter Tenhula, Shared Spectrum 18 19 20 21 22 0004 1 (The meeting came to order at 9:30 a.m.) 2 >>DALE HATFIELD: I would like to welcome 3 everyone to the first meeting of our rechartered Commerce 4 Advisory Committee. And I would like to thank everyone 5 for attending and frankly to welcome the returning 6 committee members. I thank you again for volunteering 7 your services for the second time around, and of course a 8 special welcome to the new members of the committee. We 9 have as you probably have seen on the list of issues, a 10 number of interesting and challenging questions to 11 address. I would like to thank -- just leading up to the 12 meeting I would like to thank Larry, Karl, Danny, and 13 everybody at NTIA who has helped to get this first meeting 14 off the ground. As I indicated, I am personally looking 15 forward to the work that we have before us. I won't go 16 any longer. 17 I will turn it over to the coach here. I am 18 Dale Hatfield, the co-chair and let me turn it over to my 19 co-chair Bryan Tramont. 20 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: I would like to welcome new 21 members and also express my appreciation and share my 22 excitement about some of the spectrum issues that we will 0005 1 be retiring as part of the retired CSMAC, obviously at the 2 top of our agenda and we look forward to contributing to 3 the decision-making process in a fruitful way. So with 4 that I think we will go around the table and maybe 5 introduce ourselves. If you want to start with Mark, 6 maybe. 7 >>MARK MCHENRY: I have a lot of DOD projects. 8 >> I am with Spectrum Station. I do a lot of 9 work with spectrum management, spectrum trading systems 10 along with cognitive radio and radio systems. 11 >>MR. ROBERT PEPPER: Robert Pepper working on 12 spectrum not just here but also globally. And I also for 13 comparative purposes sit on the spectrum advisory board. 14 And there are a lot of parallel issues that we are dealing 15 with. 16 >>MR. NEVILLE RAY: Neville Ray from T-Mobile 17 USA. I run the engineering organization from T-Mobile and 18 right now we're very busy rolling out the network and 19 rolling out. 20 >>MR. RICHARD REASER: I am Rick Reaser. I know 21 my name tag says Richard but that's what my mom calls me. 22 I work at Raytheon. We build radar and com systems for 0006 1 the Department of Defense. 2 >>R. GERARD SALEMME: My name is Jerry Salemme. 3 I work with Clearwire. We provide services nationwide. 4 >>JENNIFER WARREN: My name is Jennifer Warren. 5 I work at Lockheed Martin. I manage the policy and 6 regulations group and we build satellites and radar and 7 solutions. 8 >>MR. JAMES ANDREW LEWIS: I am Jim Lewis I work 9 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. We 10 don't build anything but a lot of people read our stuff. 11 >>DR. KEVIN KAHN: Kevin Kahn, senior fellow, 12 Intel. We build very small things. Some of which are 13 radios and I happen to be in the research labs associated 14 with those programs. 15 >>MR. ROBERT GURSS: I am Bob Gurss with the 16 Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, an 17 association of primarily government public safety 18 officials. 19 >>MR. HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH: I am Harold 20 Furchtgott-Roth with the FCC. 21 >>DAVID DONOVAN: David Donovan, president of 22 the Association for Maximum Service Television, the leader 0007 1 on technical and spectrum policy issues for the 2 broadcasting industry. We have been involved obviously in 3 the most recent GTB transition but also actively involved 4 in testing the mobile video applications the standard of 5 which was recently adopted by the Advanced Television 6 Systems Committee. Looking forward to mobile broadcasting. 7 >>MARK CROSBY: Mark Crosby, President of the 8 Enterprise Wireless Alliance, the national association 9 representing the interests of business enterprises in 600 10 local and regional communication devices. 11 >>DR. DAVID E. BORTH: I am Dave Borth with 12 Motorola. I am in advanced technology and research with 13 the government enterprise mobility organization and we 14 build equipment for multiple frequency bands. 15 >> BRYAN TRAMONT: With that we will turn it over 16 to Assistant Secretary Strickling. 17 >> Hello? 18 >>Mr. Cooper? We were amiss. 19 >>MARTY COOPER: I am calling from London, as a 20 matter of fact but it's Marty Cooper. I am with Ray Com 21 in the land mobile systems. 22 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Is anyone else on the phone? 0008 1 >>LARRY STRICKLING: I would like to thank Dale 2 and Bryan for co-chairing this committee. I am very 3 pleased that two people of the stature of Dale and Bryan 4 have continued to lead this group, so thank you very much. 5 I want to welcome all of you here today, 6 particularly the former members who have been with this 7 group for some time as well as the new members. In 8 addition I would like to introduce three prospective new 9 members who we just didn't get the paperwork done today, 10 so they are sitting as spectators for today's session. 11 The paperwork has gotten through enough that I am 12 confident we will have them as members of our next 13 meeting. Maybe they can stand up. Although I'm sure 14 everyone knows these faces. Greg Rostron. Michael 15 Halabrese from New America Foundation. And Gary Epstein 16 from SkyTerra, or at least it was SkyTerra. I don't know 17 what you are calling it today. So welcome all three of 18 you. 19 So this is called CSMAC I guess for short. In 20 terms of it being an advisory committee, I think that's 21 the wrong name for the group. Unfortunately my acronym 22 doesn't scan at all. But I think we ought to refer to 0009 1 this as the spectrum management policy working committee, 2 because I think it's important that everybody who 3 participates in this understand that for you all to 4 provide the kind of help and assistance we need, we really 5 need folks who are here prepared to work and really think 6 through these very important issues, but I haven't figured 7 out a way to pronounce CSMWC and I welcome any suggestions 8 from the audience. 9 But as long as we all proceed in tandem working 10 together that this is a working group, not just a group 11 for people to put on their resumes, we hopefully can get 12 as much out of these activities as we can. Related to 13 that is -- I would like to ask the group to really be 14 principals. There will be plenty of activities and 15 projects where we will want to call on the many resources 16 that each of you commands back at the home office, but for 17 our meetings we want to keep them with the principals only 18 so we can keep the discussion at a high level and make as 19 much progress as we can. We do want to rely on your 20 expertise. 21 You will see on the discussion that will follow 22 this morning that we really want you all to come back and 0010 1 recommend to us as a group the projects, the issues that 2 we really ought to be focused on. We certainly have 3 identified kind of a smorgasbord of issues for your 4 consideration, but we really are going to depend on this 5 group being empowered to identify the key issues in coming 6 up with a work plan that allows us to advance the ball on 7 these. Some of the specific topics on the list I just 8 wanted to flag as you go through this, and I know we have 9 Susan and Andrew who are here who are going to talk about 10 some of the administration priorities. 11 But clearly once again as always, the issue of 12 finding additional spectrum to be devoted to new uses 13 continues to dominate the discussion. And it's not just 14 on the commercial side, but those of you who participated 15 in the Department of Defense spectrum symposium a couple 16 of weeks ago know that the national security agencies have 17 growing spectrum use as well. So there is constant need 18 to identify how we can better use spectrum efficiently, 19 how we can look to all pictures being used to the highest 20 and best uses. 21 So most of the topics on our list are devoted to 22 that issue early on the list but we also hope that as a 0011 1 group you all take the time to really think about a 2 licensed spectrum and what are the possibilities there, 3 and in particular what sort of regimes are necessary to 4 get the most we can out of unlicensed spectrum. 5 As we look at possible reallocations, we are now 6 faced with the fact that a lot of these bands are 7 currently occupied by radar systems. And the issue of the 8 complexities and the problems and issues of how you might 9 even consider moving radar into different bands is one 10 that really hasn't had a lot of attention. We hope that's 11 one that this group takes on as an area where you can help 12 us advance our thinking a great deal as we try to wrestle 13 with that very large problem. So on those as well as the 14 other issues that have been identified for you today, we 15 look forward to your discussion on them as you prepare 16 your work plans for the coming months. 17 Again, we are very thankful for your willingness 18 to serve in this group and we look forward to working with 19 you over the months ahead. So what I would like to do now 20 is ask, we have two speakers from the White House here to 21 present some introductory comments. 22 First I would like to introduce Susan Crawford, 0012 1 who has been with the National Economic Council since the 2 beginning of the Obama administration where she focused on 3 technology, innovation and telecommunications issues. 4 Spectrum policy is very much at the top of her list right 5 now in terms of being able to make serious recommendations 6 to the administration as to how we ought to proceed and 7 what the landscape is that we are facing today. So with 8 that I will turn it over to Susan. 9 >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Thank you, Larry. It's a joy 10 to see you all here. And I'm glad to be at the first 11 meeting of the CSMAC, and just see if anybody else knows 12 what is going on. So, the release of the platform from 13 the Obama campaign back in 2007 was a very big moment in 14 tech policy. We never had seen such a focused, 15 widespread, at the same time plan for technology policy 16 articulated by a candidate for president. 17 Now that candidate is our executive leader. He 18 understands technology. And let's remember what that 19 platform said about wireless. I thought I would do a 20 little invocation here: 21 President Obama will confront the entrenched 22 Washington interests -- if you can identify who those 0013 1 are -- that have kept our public airways from being 2 maximized for the public's interest. President Obama 3 will demand a review of existing uses of our wireless 4 spectrum, and will create incentives for smarter, 5 more efficient and more imaginative use and use 6 standards for commercial spectrum to bring broadband 7 to rural communities that previously lacked it. 8 9 You are here to give us advice as we move forward with 10 this agenda. There could be no more important economic 11 policy and technology area than this one. This is it. 12 This is what's going to drive our country ahead. We are 13 at a tremendous turning point. It certainly feels like 14 that. It probably feels like that to you as it does to 15 me. 16 Just as we have the broadcast area now we are 17 confronted about decisions about where we are going to go. 18 It's quite fundamental because technology has advanced to 19 the point where we have a choice and opportunity to move 20 from a silo approach for some uses of spectrum to much 21 more efficient shared dynamic, unlicensed, all kinds of 22 different ways to use spectrum that will be smart and 0014 1 efficient and will push this country ahead in economic 2 policy. 3 We can see spectrum in some bands as input, just 4 a simple input to a huge variety of industries that will 5 transform our economy. We can't miss this opportunity, 6 and so I may be speaking too earnestly here, which is my 7 way. There is nothing more important in technology policy 8 than spectrum policy right now. This turning point. The 9 silo uses that we are all used to at the least could 10 coordinate with other forms of uses of the spectrum, of 11 the essential input. The ideals of the policy tech 12 platform are confronting a difficult world. We live at a 13 time of tremendous technological upheaval but the policies 14 and power structures haven't changed that much. And it's 15 a conflict that you are all seeing at this particular 16 moment in tech policy history. 17 Our president takes technology policy very 18 seriously, understands it but he needs your help and 19 energy to work through these extraordinarily difficult 20 questions that we are facing with spectrum policy. We are 21 just at the beginning of this story. The entrenched 22 Washington interests are where they are. We will need 0015 1 help specifically with this inventory. What information 2 should be in. How should it best be public. How quickly 3 can we get it out if we have the idea that perceiving 4 information changes behavior, that we don't make progress 5 until we see the landscape in front of us. 6 But it's not going to be an easy job to do an 7 inventory and we need you and the systems, the test beds 8 for the spectrum that this group worked on last time 9 around could be expanded. What is the smartest way to do 10 that? Where should that spectrum come from? 11 What kinds of technology should be tested, and 12 how can we best take the results of those tests and move 13 them into the commercial realm crossing the Valley of 14 Death into these transforming technologies for the 15 country. This could unleash millions of dollars of 16 economic growth, going wireless, but it will not be easy 17 and that's where your role comes in. We are seeing a big 18 move from silo, single purpose, fixed processes into raw 19 functionalities, platforms for different purposes and 20 spectrum as an input into those platforms. You can think 21 of it as moving from the time when you saw these 22 architectures as essentially mechanical, single purpose 0016 1 turning out particular data outputs to much more of a 2 system where there is a substrate in place or some of 3 these bands that makes possible these opportunistic 4 visions. 5 This vision requires a lot of collaboration, a 6 lot of working across lines. So your hard-working 7 committee members will be extremely valuable to the 8 administration. I had an opportunity to look back at the 9 NTIA's statutory authorities. This group has a lot of 10 authority. Larry has authority to conduct and coordinate 11 our economic activities and opportunities so it's not just 12 serving as the president's advisor on spectrum policy, but 13 also doing the hard work that changes those policies and 14 it happens inside NTIA. 15 The authority to conduct studies and make 16 recommendations concerning the impact of the convergence 17 of the computer and communications technology. Obviously 18 the turning point we are at now. NTIA has the authority 19 to do that, and you are here to help them make those 20 policy recommendations. In this committee's first two 21 years you already supplied very valuable recommendations 22 and solid advice on things like that initial spectrum 0017 1 sharing test bed, opportunities for government option 2 commercial technologies, streamlining and sharing, the use 3 of incentives to encourage efficiency. That was all on 4 your agenda before. Now you can weigh in on all that plus 5 more, information sharing between FCC and NTIA, the test 6 bed issues, recommending methods of monitoring, looking at 7 adjacent band and channel interference, facilitating the 8 use of dynamic sharing techniques. Larry has mentioned 9 radar and how sharing may be possible. And a hard focus 10 on whether economic incentives make any difference to 11 federal agencies as they look at their own use of the 12 spectrum would be -- input on that question would be 13 extremely useful from this committee. 14 Are there any market oriented incentives that 15 would push forward efficiency? 16 So we treasure your service. We appreciate your 17 willingness to devote your time and energy to the CSMAC. 18 And I would like to take this opportunity to 19 introduce Andrew McLaughlin who is Deputy CTO, Chief 20 Technology Officer in the Office of Science and Technology 21 Policy, and he will share with us his vision of what's 22 going to happen next. 0018 1 >>ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN: So, thank you very much. 2 Susan and I tend to think alike about most things so let 3 me try to differentiate what I'm going to say in the 4 following way. I have three observations I want to pass 5 along. And these come from my now towering four months of 6 service in the White House, digging into spectrum issues. 7 Probably the most important message that we can 8 send is that this is taken very seriously in the White 9 House. Susan said it, I will just say it again: we think 10 spectrum policy is the single most important driver for 11 economic growth that we have been able to think of outside 12 of the grand macro reforms of our financial sector and so 13 forth. If we are going to make innovative progress on job 14 creation and productivity improvement and everything else 15 we need to do, the spectrum policy lies at the heart of 16 it. 17 Why do we say that? Part of it is because 18 spectrum keeps coming up in context after context after 19 context in the work we are doing. To give you three 20 examples, the evolution of the air traffic control system 21 from the squawking and tower-based land-to-airplane 22 systems that we have right now to where we want to go, 0019 1 which is communicating with airplanes as autonomous actors 2 with multiple areas of levels of communication, to ground 3 stations and directly from plane to plane, that has a 4 fundamentally important spectrum component and 5 technological component if we are going to evolve that 6 system. Another one is the evolution of vehicles and the 7 integration of communications technologies and the ability 8 of cars to sense each other, communicate directly with 9 each other and anticipate and avoid accidents, find the 10 most direct routes. And who knows what else might be 11 accomplished for the sharing of information among 12 vehicles. That requires not only spectrum availability 13 but also the evolution of shared spectrum and other kinds 14 of technologies to support that. 15 A third example which is one that we talk about a 16 lot, but also one we hope to make progress on, is on 17 emergency responder public safety communications. You 18 know, the world that we want to get to is one where an 19 individual first responder has a multichip set radio that 20 can talk to different kinds of frequencies, commercial, 21 noncommercial, unlicensed, point-to-point. Your emergency 22 responder ought to be able to have a device that can talk 0020 1 directly to somebody nearby, to talk to a car which can 2 talk to a satellite which can talk to a bay station, which 3 can talk to car, which can talk to another person -- 4 whatever the situation requires. And if we are going to 5 get there we need to cut away from the thicket of spectrum 6 policies that have been holding us back. 7 Observation number two is that as I've spent 8 time with DARPA. With people in private companies it is 9 clear that there is a lot of R that needs to get into the 10 world of D. We have a lot of technologies that seem like 11 they are ripe for broader experimentation, for a move into 12 production environments and it's not happening for a bunch 13 of different reasons: failure to raise capital, market 14 potential that would justify private investment. But one 15 of the areas that keeps being raised over and over again 16 is an absence of playpens and playgrounds where different 17 kinds of geographies and different kinds of licensing 18 models can be tested with different bits of spectrum. 19 So that brings me to observation number three, 20 which is that for whatever reason very few of the federal 21 agencies really feel much of an incentive to engage in 22 sharing spectrum in pilot programs and tests and so forth. 0021 1 And so I think if I have one question to ask this group, 2 it's please help us figure that out. We really need to 3 figure out how to make better use of the underutilized 4 holdings of federal agencies that might be in a position 5 without jeopardizing their missions and critical 6 capabilities to participate in shared spectrum pilots. 7 There is of course, the ever-hungry mob at OMB 8 that is looking for revenue opportunities. Some of these 9 may be revenue-generating opportunities. Maybe we can 10 paint a picture of revenue potential from network 11 partnerships and formal shared spectrum arrangements 12 between holders and network operators. It may be that 13 individual devices with particular kinds of spread 14 spectrum or ultra wideband kind of short range 15 technologies, we can come up with a revenue model that is 16 based on the device rather than the network. 17 It may be that we can come up with non-revenue 18 incentive models that would encourage these agencies to 19 engage in shared spectrum pilots. Whatever the mechanisms 20 are, I think they are most likely resident in the brains 21 around this table and in the organizations that you work 22 with. And I think my request is that it is of fundamental 0022 1 importance and great urgency that we identify those 2 mechanisms and for the White House side, I can say that we 3 are fishing for your considered input so we could then 4 figure out how to turn it into action. We are very 5 committed to using the levers of the Executive Branch 6 where they are available, going to Congress where we need 7 to, and trying to dislodge more of the government spectrum 8 in service of these goals. 9 So, my last sort of informal observation is that 10 having read through basically ten years of committee 11 outputs, NTIA and FCC studies, FTC studies and so forth, 12 some of them are awfully good, and a lot of them strike me 13 as pretty watered down and milk toast. So the final thing 14 I would urge you to do is to hunker down and avoid any 15 sense that you have to water down your recommendations or 16 your thinking or streamline your ideas for public 17 consumption. We are interested in the heavy lifting that 18 is necessary and the boldest ideas you can put on the 19 table. 20 With that I will just say I am eagerly awaiting 21 your work, looking forward to working with you and 22 available by email and phone any time you want to talk to 0023 1 somebody on our side of the street. Thank you. 2 >>LARRY STRICKLING: Thank you all very much for 3 coming and sharing your -- 4 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: I think we should all quit our 5 jobs and just do this for the next few months. We have 6 plenty of work to do. So thank you very much. With that, 7 you all have in your packets, materials, the list of 8 issues, many of which have been touched on during the 9 course of the conversations already this morning: the 10 incentive, spectrum inventory, radars, some of the other 11 issues that have already been addressed. 12 I thought what Dale and I thought we would do is 13 turn to Karl, and work with Karl to go through the issues 14 list and we will go through them one by one, and then as 15 we do, hopefully we will have a chance to bat around some 16 ideas about whether or not the description in the issues 17 is adequate and whether it should be expanded or 18 contracted or how we should address it. Then we will go 19 through each one and then at the end we will take out an 20 assessment of which ones are worthy of pursuit in the 21 short term, and then we will turn to dividing you all up 22 or dividing us up into teams that will address issues 0024 1 individually. How's that? 2 Okay. So with that, any questions about how we 3 are going to do this before we go on? 4 Karl, why don't we turn to you on spectrum 5 inventory and we will open it up for discussion on 6 inventory and go down the list. 7 >>KARL: Thank you very much Bryan. I assume 8 when we go through the list there is certainly a 9 possibility that others have ideas or issues that they 10 think are worth pursuing. 11 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: I want to go back to that as 12 one of the issues. 13 >>KARL: First of all everybody is aware of the 14 legislation that is on the table concerning inventory, one 15 in the House and one in the Senate. There’s some slight 16 differences within them, but from our standpoint, I think 17 part of what we would like the committee to look at is 18 what type of information is really needed within those 19 inventories in order to prepare us for policy decisions to 20 be made. What types of information is necessary for 21 innovators and so on and how can we do this in a cost- 22 effective way. 0025 1 One of the biggest concerns that we have had on 2 our side as we begin to look at doing an inventory, we 3 always feel like well, we need to be looking for what are 4 we trying to find spectrum for, and therefore, how do we 5 define in terms of spectrum blocks what is occupied and 6 what isn't. So we don't know, for instance, whether we 7 are looking for 6 megahertz pieces, 10 megahertz pieces. 8 If we are going to, for instance, create any type of 9 contour, we have to know what that contour is being drawn 10 in relation to, what is it there to protect and so on. So 11 we are looking for that type of input to help us define 12 what steps we will take within inventory. 13 >>R. GERARD SALEMME: The only thing I think 14 would be helpful in looking at the inventory is also 15 assessing what the location in the basic timeframe is. I 16 think one of the things we need in the spectrum -- is to 17 know the spectrums will be more available and not 18 available for a long period of time, declaring it will 19 take years. I think it will be helpful to add in one of 20 the questions of any assessments. 21 >>KARL: That's a big help and certainly as we 22 look at that, one of the questions that will come up is 0026 1 whether that can be done within the inventory. If you 2 look at, for instance, a major radar system that is 3 incorporated in aircraft, you know that is going to take 4 some time to work with that, if you have satellites up in 5 space that are going to be there for those receivers for 6 20 years, it's not an easy thing to turn over. By looking 7 at the types of processes and asking how long will this 8 take to convert, it also involves research to determine 9 whether there is spectrum that the system has moved to and 10 that sort of thing. So that's certainly a valid part of 11 what the inventory I think should look at. 12 >>Question: how does inventory look at available 13 spectrum versus who is actually using it and what the 14 utilization is? Because there are bands that are 15 licensed, because of the intermittent use they may be 16 highly used, may be minimally used, may be never used. So 17 how do these two things relate together? 18 >>KARL: That is certainly a good point and we 19 have a separate item related to monitoring in this case. 20 The first level of the inventory is going to be, this is 21 what our records reflect is there. Once again I think we 22 can tell by the types of operations the approximate amount 0027 1 of time that they operate. For instance, we have done 2 many, many surveys of land mobile bands and we could do 20 3 more surveys of land mobile bands, and I can guarantee you 4 they are going to show the federal presence in those bands 5 is between 2 and 5 percent, something along along the 6 line. The questions are, do we go out and do another 7 survey of the band? The air traffic control, air route 8 surveillance, those systems are pretty well set. They are 9 operating all the time from specific locations. I think 10 many of those things we can take into consideration just 11 by understanding what types of systems are out there. 12 We obviously in the relocation effort, in this 13 last relocation effort, the one we are in the middle of, 14 we did find fixed links out there that were no longer 15 operating that were in the database, but to be honest with 16 you, a few fixed links do not a spectrum make. They are 17 nice to know. We cleared them out of the database, but 18 they don't change the big picture. And that's part of the 19 picture. So I think we would like to look closely at how 20 monitoring fits in and how it should be done. How it can 21 be used as cost-effective. 22 Dale always says, you can't make decisions; you 0028 1 can't manage what you haven't measured or you don't know 2 is out there. On the other hand, we are a very big United 3 States, and measuring at any one point doesn't necessarily 4 give you the answer. Measuring across the country is a 5 huge challenge. So it certainly has to be done in a cost- 6 effective way to get the best answers and there is also 7 some -- I mean we have certainly heard from people who 8 have gone out with an antenna and said I didn't hear 9 anything. It's not just a matter of sticking up an 10 antenna and saying "I didn't hear anybody." So we are 11 certainly going to take the data we have got on record 12 already and play that as part, but certainly right now 13 Congress is talking about a six-month time period, maybe a 14 year time period, and it would be challenging to do 15 meaningful measurements around the country in that time 16 period in all the bands that we are talking about. I 17 think we are looking in the House bill right now at 120 18 some separate bands, all of them different operations. So 19 -- 20 >>I want to add that test monitoring is time- 21 consuming. You want to use the monetary resources in the 22 most cost-effective way. So in the inventory you would 0029 1 see certain bands that would beg for field verification. 2 So that's how I felt to myself that that would be part of 3 our recommendations as to where the priorities are set for 4 monitoring. 5 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Maybe this worker could figure 6 out what would be the triggers looking at that, beyond 7 what is in the database. 8 >>If you do monitoring, Dale, and you find other 9 people are not using it, you need some rules that have 10 some teeth to take it away or to say you are going to 11 force them to share. 12 >>DALE HATFIELD: That is the power of the 13 incentive. But once you get the data, what are you going 14 to do? There is 10 Mhz here and these people have to have 15 some teeth. Otherwise we sort of like are going through 16 the motions. We ought to be that goes directly to the 17 incentives. It's been sitting here underutilized. Why is 18 it underutilized and what would it take to create 19 incentives? Once they have the role. That Mike -- 20 >>DR. KEVIN KAHN: I am concerned about this 21 getting tied to another item that is down here which is 22 existence or nonexistence of a longer-term plan. Because 0030 1 what you have today is a prefractured environment that is 2 kind of our given. And absent some longer-term vision on 3 what you would like to achieve, you will continue to have 4 as fractured or the only thing you will have is more 5 fractured, because the only thing you get to do is chop, 6 without some real thought about where we are trying to go. 7 So it does seem that one of the things that you have to 8 try to couple pretty quickly to any workable -- obviously 9 the database is the database, the inventory, but the use 10 of that is where are you trying to go? Because otherwise 11 I don't think you are going to end up with anything that 12 is any less fractured or less difficult to extract value 13 added that what you have today. Without some 14 understanding of long-term, trying to create 10 or 20MHZ 15 Chunks or narrow voice channels -- I don't think so, but 16 we have to have some view of where we are trying to go 17 with it. I don't see how you guide any action based on 18 that. 19 So I think the notion of trying to motivate a 20 real plan here for where the agencies are trying to go 21 seems to be great. 22 >>DAVID DONOVAN: The inventory is a question. 0031 1 When this group does its work on the inventory, a lot of 2 these spectrum inventories -- although I think this House 3 really kicks it up a little bit. We can find what 4 segments of the spectrum -- and the reason why I say that 5 is that there is a significant amount of communications 6 work and systems and technologies, and licenses that come 7 to mind. So I'm trying to figure out exactly what is the 8 scope of this group's inventory. I think for a number of 9 reasons it really should be expanded. For example with the 10 FCC, I think the limit is 3.7. And the role right now, 11 for a number of reasons, is not only to find out what's 12 there, but if you have to started making some reallocation 13 decisions, it's important to know where people can go. 14 And I guess it goes to Jerry's point on relocation. So I 15 guess I throw that out as a question. 16 And the desire, and I think the role of this 17 group depending on what the focus and the use will be in 18 terms of our recommendations and what types of services we 19 are talking about, should be all-inclusive. 20 >>KARL: I think we are certainly looking for 21 input as to how best to do it. I don't think we expect 22 this group to do the inventory. But for instance, if 0032 1 working above 3.7 is important, that's certainly an 2 important thing for us to hear. But I think as we begin 3 to look at stating how the federal agencies use the 4 spectrum, as the commission is looking to see how the 5 private sector is using it, I think we need to come to 6 some sense as to what kind of information is important in 7 the outcome, not that we need the committee here to 8 actually do the inventory. 9 >>DAVID DONOVAN: Is the scope of the 10 information going to be limited to specific bands or 11 below, or is it going to be much broader? 12 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: One of the things that Karl 13 mentioned was fighting commercial demand. It may be that 14 the consensus from the committee is we should focus where 15 there is existing commercial demand. Maybe the committee 16 says we should do everything. I think that is one of the 17 things we could get advice on. 18 >>DAVID DONOVAN: If we wanted to move private 19 safety out of that and move it to another location, it 20 seems to me we would have to look at where to move it to. 21 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: You would have to wrestle with 22 Bob on that. 0033 1 >>DAVID DONOVAN: Because it would -- our other 2 value which is why Bob is there. 3 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Jennifer and then Mark. 4 >>JENNIFER WARREN: I think flagging the demand 5 is important and as Larry mentioned flagging demand on the 6 government use side as well as the commercial use side so 7 we see both increases in demand and can look at to my 8 second point, which is not just to promote reallocation 9 but to promote ways of sharing. Centers for technology 10 and innovation to facilitate sharing. If we are focused 11 on innovation it shouldn't be to move somebody out to silo 12 but how to maximize up these bands by as many players as 13 possible. I would encourage that as being part of the 14 scope, not either/or. 15 >>DALE HATFIELD: And that goes to dynamic 16 spectrum access, I think is what you are talking about. 17 So that is an item that we have been asked to address. 18 What we are seeing here is of course this is all -- they 19 are all interrelated and anytime you divide work up there 20 is always this problem. But I think we need to divide it 21 up into parts that are doable; otherwise we won't ever get 22 it done. But that creates edges. Mark? 0034 1 >>MARK MCHENRY: The reason why you are out 2 there; you are not helping them fix the problem. So we go 3 through why did it end up like this. This one or that 4 one. There must be reasons like that. 5 >>DALE HATFIELD: That's exactly what our advice 6 needs to be. We are getting right on this sort of thing. 7 We need to get back. 8 >>MR. RICHARD REASER: I think we need to see if 9 the government agrees to what advice we -- that is, the 10 advisory committees work. We can pose that question. But 11 the idea of having all these questions, okay, here's the 12 questions the government wants advice on. Here's 13 additional questions that the government should have asked 14 that we can provide advice on and come up with a list of 15 topics. As a procedural thing. 16 Everybody is going to jump to the answer and 17 say okay, put fixed wireless access here and move 18 satellites here. I don't think that's the advice that the 19 government is really seeking. And one question that is 20 missing out of all of this was the question I had at the 21 DOE, which is how is all this information going to be used 22 or what is the process to create a policy out of this 0035 1 information? That bridge has never been laid out. 2 We are going to collect all this data, the 3 question is how do you make policy out of this inventory 4 of informational data, what is the process for doing that? 5 And that is a fascinating study for a policy analyst but I 6 don't think anybody has figured out what that is. Part of 7 that involves having a hypothesis as to what policy you 8 want to have in the first place and whether the 9 information you are collecting supports that process or 10 no. You may end up finding out that the information has 11 nothing to do with the policy. 12 >>DALE HATFIELD: That relates to the national 13 policy plan which is the fourth item. 14 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: In the spirit of adding 15 questions to the list and moving on. Gary? 16 >>GARY: What is the level of specificity, 17 whether it be urban or rural, classified versus 18 nonclassified allocations and assignments? Because I 19 think I know exactly what we will get out of it. We will 20 identify that there is unused spectrum in parts of the 21 country that the federal government hasn't used and 22 probably won't use, and we will create policy to assign 0036 1 that to utilities that are covering that area that are 2 trying to install smart grid, or rural or wireless 3 Internet providers or whatever the case may be. 4 What level of specificity and what percentage 5 in your inventory would be classified versus nonclassified 6 data and how will the folks see the classified data and 7 understand? That's my question. 8 >>KARL: I will get to the transparency question 9 also, that we've got -- the amount of classified records 10 that we have in our government master files is actually 11 very low. The number of records that we have in our 12 government master file under the rules of Freedom of 13 Information Act is very high. So when you look at the 14 totality, at least in the frequency ranges we are looking 15 at, probably 85% or more of those records are not 16 available to the public. We are certainly see that as a 17 need for that to be reviewed. How each of those 18 determinations are made. 19 But even if you improve it from 85% or cut it to 20 75% or 50%, it still creates a challenge for decision 21 making. From our standpoint, looking at the inventory 22 concept, we believe the first -- the first step in doing 0037 1 that is to represent in an understandable way how the 2 agencies use the spectrum as opposed to getting down to 3 the location detail, to the – well, this antenna turns at 4 this speed and so on. But to talk about each of these 5 bands in a way that people can actually say, okay, now I 6 understand what is here. 7 For instance, there is certain bands that we 8 know that GPS operates in. Anybody puts their hands on 9 those bands gets electrocuted quickly. We know that. But 10 in addition to that, it's important for everybody to 11 understand that there is bands related to them that other 12 countries have put their marker on, that we in trying to 13 promote GPS have to somewhat accept their need for that 14 spectrum. 15 So as we begin to explain those things, I think 16 we get to an initial baseline of understanding. And as 17 I've expressed to this committee before, the amount of 18 land mobile spectrum that we are talking about in this 19 range, if you start -- let's say you start at 400MHZ and 20 go to 3 Ghz, the federal government has one 16MHZ land 21 mobile band in that whole range. So if we want to spend a 22 lot of time debating land mobile and efficiencies and how 0038 1 you do that, we can do that but it has almost no impact on 2 the outcome of this discussion. These bands are filled 3 with big radar systems, radio navigation systems for 4 hundreds of MHZ, and they have been built as time has gone 5 on and the opportunity for the next radar requirement has 6 come along. And that's one of the reasons why we also 7 have the radar issue on the table here, because it's -- if 8 we can't solve how we work with radar systems, there is 9 not much of the government spectrum here that seems to be 10 in play. That's what so much of it is. So anyway -- 11 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: So with that, why don't we try 12 to move on. We have ten of these issues to go through. 13 >>KARL: We have done five. 14 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Our focus as we mention, as 15 Rick articulated is to try to add questions to the 16 mandates of each of the individual tasks, with the idea 17 that we are going to pick a subset of them to proceed 18 through our first tranche of work. With that, Karl -- you 19 discussed transparency? 20 >>KARL NEBBIA: This is a major issue. How you 21 make decisions without having the data. On the other hand 22 there is certainly significant concerns on the government 0039 1 side, particularly about the release of specific locations 2 and frequencies that they don't believe should be in the 3 hands of people who might misuse it. They are concerned 4 about that. We have seen the same concern, however, 5 reflected on the commercial side. That cell phone 6 companies don't want to yield up where all their base 7 stations are and this type of information. So I think it 8 is a fairly consistent issue. 9 The question is how we get past that. There are 10 different approaches that can ultimately be taken from our 11 standpoint. One is to work on our IT side to what we call 12 a cross-domain capability where you can link classified 13 data via web interface and keep it protected and allow 14 decisions and interactions to go on, and another 15 possibility is since the amount of classified records is 16 pretty small, if you can work with the FOIA-exempt records 17 then you don't need the high-tech bridge through the cross 18 domain capability. We are already doing that at 70, 80, 19 90GHZ. A simplified system. 20 These issues are critical for people to 21 understand, but they will certainly be closely tied. 22 >>Questions on transparency, Bob? 0040 1 >>MR. ROBERT GURSS: I was curious about the 2 analogy, the nonfederal public safety databases being 3 available. Anyone can go see what the metropolitan police 4 department uses in radio frequencies, and it hasn't been a 5 huge security problem, the fact that that exists. It's a 6 problem, and a huge one, but it's also a problem that goes 7 away as more people convert to digital communications and 8 other ways of encryption. So it doesn't matter if someone 9 knows what frequency the FBI is on, they can't access it. 10 Oh, I'm sorry, sorry. That may be at least a 11 going forward consideration in terms of the willingness of 12 certain agencies to open up their information if it is 13 useless to the public to know where people are. That may 14 be a consideration. And also, to whom are you making the 15 information available? I think I said in the last round 16 of the comment when we were meeting last time is, in terms 17 of, for example, nonfederal public safety, a desire to 18 share spectrum, I would assume there might be a greater 19 willingness to share information with those types of 20 people so that, you know, than sort of more generally, as 21 well as creating various filters. There is lots of ways 22 of filtering the information so you get what you need 0041 1 without compromising security. 2 >>DR. KEVIN KAHN: Yeah, I just wanted to -- I 3 mean, I do think that we do have to challenge at least 4 some of the what needs to be -- not secure -- I mean -- 5 just secure, digital and things like that comes into play, 6 but what needs to be protected in terms of information 7 flow. Because fundamentally radio is a submissive 8 technology. At the end of the day you don't get to hide, 9 for almost anything you do, where your transmitter is. 10 So while I think there are legitimate reasons, I 11 think I would also expect that there are a lot of things 12 that are simply created over the years in terms of things 13 we don't want to share or look at that in truth add little 14 or nothing to the security posture. So I do think it is 15 very reasonable to challenge some of those assumptions and 16 say look, if you need secure transmissions, there are 17 obviously ways to secure transmissions, and most of those 18 have to do with digital encryption and things of that 19 sort. But just waving a flag that says, we can't look at 20 these things, where in reality that information is 21 available for anybody who is curious to find it using 22 rather brute force methods, if nothing else seems a bit 0042 1 disingenuous. 2 >>DAVID DONOVAN: I don't know if it's a 3 transparency or monitoring question but the question is 4 this. In terms of creating publicly available databases 5 as to what is being used and what have you, it's one 6 question to use it and I think it's essential to do that 7 to make public policy decisions. I guess what I'm trying 8 to figure out is do you go down to the next level? For 9 example, if one is involved in sharing and if in a 10 geographic database, for example, in which a device will 11 actually have access to this database and won't interfere 12 with another device. Are we going down to that level? Is 13 that encompassed within this construct? 14 Because then you run into competitive issues. 15 You run into, okay, I will allow this device to be used if 16 the commission or government will certify this device, but 17 if everything is uniformly available across the entire 18 public I can make another device which will not pass 19 through, for example, any process that will also have 20 access to that database. 21 So it becomes an issue frankly of efficient use. 22 And I just wasn't quite sure how in-depth we were to go 0043 1 here, whether this was just database for public policy 2 purposes or to go to the next level in terms of 3 transparency of information for actual avoidance of 4 interference. 5 >>DALE HATFIELD: My sense is that's exactly the 6 sort of question we ought to be addressing, because you 7 look at this system in Australia, they have very detailed 8 information on every transmitter site and that's the way 9 you can figure out whether you can come in and get a 10 license for an area. If you have information that you can 11 demonstrate that you won't cause interference, that is a 12 very different requirement on the database than just sort 13 of a general policy. I agree with you that's a critical 14 issue, but I think that's sort of advice that we ought to 15 be able to get. 16 >>JENNIFER WARREN: Getting back to Kevin's 17 point. As well as efficiency, we need to look to see if 18 there are different issues of levels of transparency for 19 the different types of uses, coms, versus detection versus 20 passive. I mean there are a lot of different uses and 21 they may have different revelations with different 22 transparency. We need to keep that in mind. 0044 1 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Anything else on transparency 2 before we move on to spectrum monitoring? 3 >>KARL:Once again, actually I think we talked 4 quite a bit about monitoring so far. So in this case once 5 again I think the issue has become how this fits in. We 6 have done spectrum monitoring for years. We have quite a 7 number of records, but where it plays into, in inventory 8 where it plays into the decision process is often a 9 challenge. And ultimately in some bands, does the 10 determination that the use level at a particular time is 11 low, does that create a situation where a decision needs 12 to be made to change how we use that spectrum? Or for 13 instance, public safety bands, is that the expectation, 14 that the use levels would actually be low on a normal 15 basis? 16 So they are the kind of things I think we have 17 to look at in doing monitoring. But the big issue is 18 resources, cost, how do you do it and make it cost- 19 efficient and useful. 20 Obviously you can -- we can do a Google, like, 21 drive the car down every road in the country and do 22 measurements, but even that, I'm not sure would be 0045 1 productive. 2 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: It's easier to pose the 3 question and the hardest one to answer. 4 >>On the monitoring question we are largely 5 focusing discussion; so far it’s a federal discussion. If 6 this -- 7 >>Go ahead, start over. 8 >>I think I was at the FCC when we 9 decommissioned the monitoring band, but as we move to make 10 policy in an era of scarcity, it becomes to my mind 11 critical that that monitoring be done consistently across 12 all the relevant bands, whichever ones we happen to be 13 making recommendations about. 14 And certainly my point of view on this is sort 15 of illustrated by the number being bandied about about 16 800mhz of commercial spectrum needed, and I don't think it 17 takes a double E major, which I'm not, to say I suspect 18 those requirements are much higher in urban America than 19 in rural America. And I would suspect if one got out 20 one's monitoring bands, one would see -- and I believe 21 Darrin and Mark highlighted this in round 1 of this 22 advisory committee -- that, you know, there's, for some 0046 1 reason the idea of resale by the incumbents never took 2 off. But that scarcity number would be illustrated, I 3 think, much more soundly with some monitoring across all 4 the bands. 5 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: I think we envision working 6 closely with FCC on our work on these issues, but that 7 would be part of the eventual course work. 8 >>DALE HATFIELD: To reiterate, looking at Mark, 9 these measurements have to be done right. Because you can 10 miss signals. If you have an antenna on the roof I may 11 not hear it because the mean is to directly upstairs. You 12 can reach very misleading, get to misleading conclusions. 13 We need to be very careful. 14 >>DR. KEVIN KAHN: I think the point earlier 15 someone made, which is a good one not to forget, I think 16 absent the inventory and knowing what's in use, monitoring 17 isn't very helpful, right, because you have no idea 18 whether you are looking at a band that is unused because 19 it needs to be used instantaneously under certain 20 circumstances, or you are looking at a band that somebody 21 has asserted that they can't possibly share because they 22 were always using it, and in fact it's empty. 0047 1 I think it's a prerequisite to do the inventory 2 and jot -- and then you know how to monitor it. Other 3 than that I don't know that you get any information. 4 >>DALE HATFIELD: I think some band people are 5 operating illegally. 6 >>DR. KEVIN KAHN: That's enforcement. 7 >>DALE HATFIELD: Or monitoring sometimes can 8 show up things that there may be utilization which may 9 present political problems. If you get devices in the 10 private sector's hands, that may as a practical matter 11 keep you from doing things, if they are illegal. 12 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: One option is to sort of 13 sequence this from inventory versus monitoring as part of 14 the recommendation. 15 >>The other parts of enforcement if you move 16 things closely together, try to do sharing and different - 17 - this may become important at the device level. So the 18 point is it's not monitoring just as a method of advanced 19 reallocation. When you get into DSA, when you get into 20 the other things, this whole thing about monitoring 21 becomes important. Becomes sharing in a dynamic real time 22 way. 0048 1 >>MARK MCHENRY: The disconnect between FCC and 2 commercial carriers. If the FCC has spectrum and the 3 carriers don't want to disclose what they are using 4 because they say they are using it all typically, and they 5 may or may not be. But on the familiar side, it seems to 6 me you are on the same side. You are the owner of the 7 record and you should know what power height, what power 8 level, I am allocated or assigned. 9 So it seems to me on the FCC that's a harder 10 task to really hit first base and second base. On the 11 federal side, it should be easier because, well, we are 12 all on the same scheme. 13 >>MARK CROSBY: Make a note of that. Write that 14 down. 15 >>Some of them have guns. 16 >>We are all on the same team. 17 >> BRYAN TRAMONT: Anything else on monitoring 18 before we hit the national spectrum? 19 >>KARL: This one represents a special challenge 20 because all of you have been in spectrum management these 21 years. We progressed up the spectrum bands more or less 22 one by one, anybody that has attended WRC's in the last 20 0049 1 years has seen the way we get new things in is to chop the 2 spectrum up finer and finer and finer trying to make room 3 for them. 4 We are now looking at a number of new 5 technologies, whether it's for smart grid or medical 6 purposes, and trying to overlay them on existing 7 technologies, existing uses, not really asking ourselves 8 the question, well, if we ever get into a relocation, we 9 will have now filled up the bands with a lot of little 10 players, that we will have to move them all. So it is a 11 big challenge. 12 A lot of folks like to talk about the Defense 13 Department's band of 225 to 400 and I can guarantee you 14 for most who would like to move in there for cellular 15 mobile, you are already too late. The unlicensed 16 community moved in there a long time ago and those might 17 have to be moved out if you were to try to do that. 18 There’s those types of issues that have come up. 19 So the question of whether we want -- we can do 20 a national plan that is far reaching that is really 21 looking forward, that in the end sets direction for where 22 we want to go, as opposed to we wait until somebody asks 0050 1 for the next thing and then we try to accommodate that. 2 That's the big, big challenge. 3 Many of the systems we have below 3ghz today, 4 maybe they don't have to be below 3ghz but somehow we need 5 to make those decisions that require national direction. 6 >>MR. HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH: I think this 7 issue is historically very politically sensitive because 8 of the institutional relationships between the NTIA and 9 the FCC. And it's a very important issue, and I think 10 it's probably one that is probably best handled at the 11 level between Larry and --- but not in a public forum. I 12 think for this group to sort of independently come out 13 with something saying NTIA ought to do something, it's 14 probably not going to be well received at the FCC or 15 visa-versa. 16 So, there clearly needs to be coordination 17 between the agencies, but I'm not sure that it's something 18 that is best addressed unilaterally by one agency or even 19 publicly by either agency. I think it's something that 20 needs to be frankly done very delicately and at the 21 highest levels. 22 >>KARL: I guess that solves the transparency 0051 1 question. 2 (Laughter.) 3 >>KARL: That was not for the agency, no. 4 >>DR. BORTH: I understand the issue about this 5 committee but understand that at NTIA our role is to be 6 dealing with telecommunications and information policy for 7 the government, for the administration. So even if there 8 are actual jurisdictional separations that put particular 9 pieces of this in the hands of the FCC and another piece 10 of this operationally in our hands, I don't think that 11 should be viewed as a barrier that prevents this committee 12 from giving advice at the higher policy level. So if 13 people want to delve in these topics and make overall 14 recommendations to us, that as you point out, Harold, 15 might actually need to be implemented by the respective 16 expert agencies depending on their jurisdictions, I think 17 that's appropriate. So I wouldn't view this committee as 18 only giving advice to NTIA in its role as federal spectrum 19 manager but should be giving federal advice to NTIA in its 20 role to develop communications policy for the 21 administration, including the FCC. 22 >>MR. JAMES ANDREW LEWIS: I think that's an 0052 1 important point so I'm glad you made it, that the 2 committee is supposed to be looking more broadly at the 3 problem of spectrum management. I think how the group is 4 operating, not all of our discussions are public, right? 5 So we have a lot of people here today, but 6 closed discussions are the norm, right, and there has to 7 be some public accountability under FACA, but the public 8 dimension doesn't bother me. Plan might be not right word 9 because a plan suggests we are going to implement 10 something. And maybe we are doing something different 11 than a plan but we need to establish priorities, and goals 12 and values, and I think this group is well situated to do 13 that. With those as objectives it seems like a reasonable 14 thing to move forward on. 15 >>JENNIFER WARREN: Well, I think understanding 16 what we mean by what our recommendations would focus on 17 here, if it's whether or not there should be a plan and 18 what the agency should ask of themselves in looking at 19 doing a plan that's one thing, versus what should a plan 20 be. 21 If it's the former, I think that's perfectly 22 appropriate and a good use -- a potential good use of our 0053 1 time. If it's the latter, I think there would need to be 2 a great deal of time and effort to learn every single 3 mission application, every reason why a particular 4 technology is in a particular band, what gets lost if it 5 gets moved to a higher frequency range, what capabilities. 6 That is a lot of intensive work that I don't think was 7 intended, but can be corrected for this committee to do. 8 So if it's the former, I think it's able to be done here 9 but if it's the latter, I think it's a different exercise 10 covering a lot of different technologies and a lot of 11 bands. 12 >>I share the misgiving I think of Jim about the 13 word plan. I know had we had a plan back in 1980 for the 14 network driven by AT&T -- we probably wouldn't have the 15 Internet as we know it. When one is planning one has to 16 be careful, because I think one is foreclosing 17 opportunities as well as opening them up. With that 18 rhetorical point having been made, the word road map 19 strikes me as a very useful approach here, and one 20 recommendation I would make is it would be helpful, 21 whether we do it in the context of a formal meeting or as 22 a sidebar for those willing to participate, to have a 0054 1 couple sessions where some of the federal agencies come in 2 early and present to us their tech road maps. First round 3 of -- CSMAC was beating a dead horse here, we never really 4 got the road map. We were talking about problems we 5 hadn't been briefed on. 6 So I would recommend that early on we ask for 7 such a road map from some of the key agencies. You 8 mention these FAA radars. I'm really quite ignorant about 9 where they hope to go with those and what the timetables 10 are. Obviously DOD is a big user and others -- DHS ought 11 to be invited. You know the FCC did that as part of even 12 their internal -- I mean as part of their interim report. 13 They kind of set forth some of the big requirements they 14 see coming down the pike. And from our perspective, we 15 need the same thing. 16 >>DALE HATFIELD: If I could just add a comment. 17 I think one of the most important things we could do, is 18 you know, we are not a planned economy. We don't want to 19 plan spectrum in such detail that we freeze out innovation 20 that Janice is talking about. On the other hand, if you 21 have a free for fall completely, then you end up with 22 incompatibility. It's like zoning, we use -- a dangerous 0055 1 analogy sometimes -- but you don't want -- what was your 2 example yesterday? Yeah, I would say rendering plant, but 3 that would show our age. You don't want the rendering 4 plant in the residential neighborhood. You don't want 5 high powered systems with low powered systems. 6 So at some level some planning is important to 7 keep compatible uses together. At the other hand you 8 don't want to go down in such detail that you keep people 9 from inventing. So one of the most important things we 10 can do is provide advice as to how much planning is really 11 useful and how much planning is car -- would carry it too 12 far before it actually has a negative impact on 13 innovations, as Janice was saying. 14 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Bob? 15 >>MR. ROBERT PEPPER: I think that's right. I 16 want to pick up on what Jim talked about. The priorities, 17 goals, objectives, you can add Janice's framework. 18 Because Karl talked about the prior moves to, you know, 19 take federal spectrum and commercialize it and slice and 20 dice into narrow bands. The question is, it goes back to 21 fit for what purpose? 22 And so, I don't see plan as being an immutable, 0056 1 actual plan but rather, what's the framework? The kinds 2 of things you are talking about, what are the principles, 3 high power next to high power, low power next to low 4 power? if the goals are for broadband, you need to have 5 large chunks of spectrum, slicing and dicing doesn't work. 6 How do you begin to think about these things to 7 allow the FCC and NTIA to actually move forward to -- with 8 the road maps going forward with what's needed? 9 So maybe we are getting hung up on the word 10 "plan" but rather framework, principles, how do you think 11 about this going forward for planning purposes. “Planning 12 purposes” is not a plan. We need to make a distinction. 13 >>KARL: But certainly if we are looking for 14 200MHZ, or 500, MHZ or whatever it needs to be you are not 15 going to get to an end state without some plan for getting 16 there. Because the bands we are talking about, although 17 they may not be occupied at 50% of the time or 70% of the 18 time or anywhere near that, they are occupied. And there 19 is going to be a lot of equipment that would either have 20 to be shared with or moved out in order now for us to get 21 to a point where basically half the spectrum under 3GHZ 22 would be allocated for public land mobile. That's a lot 0057 1 of spectrum below 3GHZ, and there is a lot of stuff in 2 there. It's going to require, whether we calm it a 3 framework or road map or something, obviously DOD can't be 4 told this year, well, your program's been cut off. You 5 need to go find new money and a new place to go do what 6 you're doing. It's going to take an effort to move 7 things. 8 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: With that we will go to 9 incentives. 10 >>KARL: Incentives is our favorite topic. We 11 decide to bring it back from the last go round. We did 12 break down the table set by the sides with new people 13 injected on the other side. But we would certainly like 14 to continue this discussion. I think the concept of how 15 to provide incentives to end up in the best use of the 16 spectrum to encourage people to move to other bands, or to 17 other technologies, if they don't need to be where they 18 are -- obviously I think we need to continue to pursue 19 that. So obviously -- 20 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: There is a lot of interest as 21 well. We did talk about this the last time, but are there 22 more questions that aren't framed here that we should add 0058 1 to the list? 2 >>MR. RICHARD REASER: I think you need to open 3 it up beyond incentives. I think you need to say allocate 4 money specifically to do this task. Incentives are 5 interesting for federal people, when there is a budget 6 line item that actually pays for it out of somebody else's 7 budget line. I think we need to get beyond the word 8 incentives. Incentives are interesting -- they only last 9 as long as the incentivizers determine. 10 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Very good point. 11 >>MR. RICHARD REASER: I think you need to go 12 beyond the word incentives. How do you pay for it? 13 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Okay. Jennifer? 14 Brian? 15 >>BRIAN FONTES: I have been in discussions 16 before where we try to better utilize spectrum in the 17 first pushback came from the federal agency and said what 18 incentives? Bottom line is if we have an economic gain to 19 moving to a more efficient radio system, we don't 20 recognize those incentives. The incentives go into a form 21 of the General Treasury and so therefore the incentives 22 become a disincentive, so we need to factor that into the 0059 1 discussions. 2 >>JENNIFER WARREN: Just a process question. 3 Are we going to bring into this working group the work 4 that is going to be established from the work of the prior 5 committee so we are reminded of the work that is going to 6 be done? Or are we going to start from scratch? 7 >>MR. JAMES ANDREW LEWIS: I was actually 8 wondering, Dale maybe I will defer to you. Maybe you can 9 say that all previous combatants are recused. 10 >>DALE HATFIELD: I have watched you combatants 11 fight it out. A spectator sport. 12 >>MR. JAMES ANDREW LEWIS: How can it be on the 13 sidelines? 14 >>KARL: We apologize for putting Bryan on the 15 wrong side of the table. 16 >>It is building off of but not redrafting from. 17 So the mandate is different so we think it will be built 18 off the foundation, but it's like a slightly different 19 mission. 20 >>KARL: The next topic is dealing with adjacent 21 band and adjacent channel issues. Once again this is a 22 little bit more -- it's a lot like our environment where 0060 1 we have animals and people getting in closer contact with 2 one another. The more spectrum use, grows, we are now 3 starting to have a lot of major commercial activities 4 right up against band edges where there have been 5 traditionally radar systems. These sorts of things. 6 We've not gone down the path traditionally of looking at 7 the receiver side and how they add to the interference 8 issues and yet obviously they do. 9 On the same hand any time a new system comes in 10 through the commission processes and they want to send -- 11 set spurious emission limits, what we find is them taking 12 the existing limits that are on the table saying, well, 13 they were good enough for Noah, so they are good for 14 whoever lives today, as opposed to knowing that the 15 equipment today is able to meet much better standards and 16 therefore make it able for us to move things closer 17 together. 18 I may argue that this is a technical issue but 19 there is certainly a lot to it. 20 >>DAVID DONOVAN: Is this issue limited to 21 essentially adjacent bands to commercial and government, 22 or would it involve commercial to commercial uses? 0061 1 >>DALE HATFIELD: My own thinking is that it's 2 broader, looking at the issue broadly and then bringing it 3 down to talk about some specifics where we have federal -- 4 and we have got some examples of this, where somebody's 5 hesitant to invest in one band because they are not sure 6 what their neighbor -- what the requirements on their 7 neighbor are. That's one of the things we would like 8 recommendations for. 9 >>DAVID DONOVAN: The reason I ask, Dale, is 10 because if it involves sort of a commercial to commercial 11 adjacencies or sharing, the concepts need to be expanded a 12 little bit, because they were not necessarily limited to 13 adjacent. In some sharing situations including geography, 14 they could be co-chairmen, and when you get down to the 15 issue, the issue of receiver standards, may move front and 16 center depending on what kind of regime we are talking 17 about. 18 I guess I will raise it now. I was going to 19 wait until the end but nobody likes people who raise 20 things at the end so I will raise it now. One of the 21 things I don't know if it's beyond the scope of the 22 working group or not, it essentially deals with receiver 0062 1 standards – is consumers. And in this entire context it's 2 easy for us to say, let's move this here and let's move 3 this there. But you have consumers that made significant 4 investments in certain types of equipment that may or may 5 not work depending on what the recommendations are. So I 6 don't know whether that should be highlighted as the 7 straight-up bullet point for discussion or whether it's 8 subsumed. I'm the new kid on the block, so just asking. 9 >>DALE HATFIELD: Well, I'm looking at Karl and 10 my own feeling is that very much is an issue. If 11 consumers have gone out and purchased because there is 12 incentive to have receivers that are inexpensive and it 13 precludes the federal government from using an adjacent 14 band, that's a real problem and I think that is what NTIA 15 is seeking help on. What do you do about that? Do you 16 lean towards receiver standards or labeling like we 17 proposed five years ago? What do you do about it? 18 Myself, I am increasingly concerned because of 19 the incorporation of devices, I have a UPS receiver and 20 BlueTooth all on this device and they are all on the 21 table. If that receiver is wide open it may preclude 22 people in adjacent bands from operating the way they ought 0063 1 to. I just gave my speech I'm going to give tonight. 2 >>DAVID DONOVAN: It becomes an equipment legacy 3 issue from the consumer side and those are costs and 4 values that have to be calculated. 5 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: I think we envision 6 integrating each of them. That will help us in the 7 calculus on any of these individual assessments. 8 >>MR. RICHARD REASER: I think you ought to ask 9 the question that gets to the planning once again because 10 in order to implement receiver standards and transmitter 11 standards that has more stuff, you got to have a planning 12 process to implement that. So the question will be, is 13 that a good idea, a bad idea, is that going to help us 14 share more? 15 Is that something that is valuable from NTIA's 16 perspective as a regulator? 17 It also gets into monitoring because as you go 18 into this plan saying, okay I have to look at stricter 19 standards, you probably need to weigh monitoring and 20 enforcing that -- not just independent federal monitoring 21 but possibly within the devices themselves. That's 22 another whole -- I think you need to ask the question 0064 1 specifically, are receiver standards a good thing and are 2 transmitter standards not a good thing, and how would 3 CSMAC have a plan to make that happen? 4 >>DAVID DONOVAN: I think the concept of 5 receiver standards should be highlighted because it's 6 going to cut across all these issues. I know it's a 7 subpoint within this overall discussion, but on a 8 going-forward basis, if the paradigm is shifting from sort 9 of heavy siloed licensing to more sharing to more -- to 10 sharing what is licensed and unlicensed, moving forward, 11 the receiver part of this becomes as important if not more 12 than the allocation side. 13 >>KARL: We certainly have some cases where, for 14 instance, the government has had radar systems for years. 15 They gave up some spectrum in order to make room for 16 somebody else, and then as that allocation is implemented, 17 people coming into that new 100MGHZ are planning on 18 operating right up to the band edge. The government 19 didn't give up the 100MGHZ plus another 30 to stay inside. 20 Whether it's a broadcast satellite receiver or a WIMAX 21 system or something, the public doesn't understand. 22 >>DAVID DONOVAN: That problem will get worse 0065 1 because it's not only at the band edge, given what we were 2 talking about in terms of sharing, but we will be in band. 3 This thing is going to become even more of an issue. 4 >>DALE HATFIELD: And the people make the 5 operating perfectly legal and you can't operate the band 6 adjacent to it. 7 >>DAVID DONOVAN: Let me talk to you about HMI. 8 >>KARL: Dynamic spectrum access. The next 9 item. I know we have a lot of interest in that here. I 10 think we are certainly looking for best ways to go about 11 it, go about developing the concept and ultimately what 12 approaches in terms of flexibility and so on will work 13 best. I think if we look at our history the -- the 5ghz 14 Wi-Fi as one of the areas we see as the first test case, 15 we look at setting some threshold levels. 16 Once we got past the WRC that Janice helped us 17 so much with, we came back from that and instantly found 18 out that they couldn't meet those threshold levels, that 19 really what they needed to do was know the exact signature 20 of the radars that they were looking for in order for them 21 to operate. So, those things, very difficult 22 experience -- and one I think we should learn from. But 0066 1 the questions get to be as we start moving from research 2 to development, what's the best way to allow these 3 systems, what kind of flexibility do we give them and how 4 much do they have to prove themselves band by band? Or 5 can they go through some more generic proofs, that sort of 6 thing? 7 >>JENNIFER WARREN: As I was just going to say, 8 there is embedded in this -- and Karl didn't mention, how 9 much does it also facilitate sharing across commercial 10 bands? It's not just commercial into radar but radar into 11 commercial spectrum. I think we have to keep that in 12 mind. 13 Karl, you keep mentioning 800MHZ for the 14 commercial guys but there is a drive on the other side, 15 too, and all of this can benefit both sets of 16 requirements. I think we have to keep remembering that. 17 >>MARK MCHENRY: You have experience with Wi-Fi. 18 We need details about what is right and wrong and issues. 19 It would be very good to have details. 20 >>I had exactly the same question, I don't think 21 there is much public knowledge. 22 >>MARK MCHENRY: We need that work. 0067 1 >>DALE HATFIELD: Transparency. 2 >>MS. JANICE OBUCHOWSKI: I would like to 3 reiterate my request because that's clearly technology 4 that is enormously promising, it's also technology that is 5 not a panacea. And for the consumer, we heard a lot about 6 some of the difficulties of deploying some of these radios 7 into the bandwidth scenario. I think we need to get that 8 road map and get a sense of timetables and that would be 9 helpful. 10 >>Is there going to be updates on the spectrum 11 test bed? 12 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: I was going to add that in to 13 think about whether or not that would be a 12 option. 14 >>It seems like there’s macro business models -- 15 Verizon, and AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Clear Wire, these are 16 macro business models that cover the country and there is 17 a lot of micro business models that are even noncommercial 18 in nature, in areas of this country where there is 19 spectrum utilization, studies show 90% of that spectrum is 20 not used. 21 So we ought to really try to promote some of 22 this, get out there and get in the field and try to solve 0068 1 some of the these problems that utilities may have in 2 getting spectrum and try experimenting a little bit more 3 especially in areas where we know for a fact there is a 4 broad loss of spectrum. 5 >>KARL: Some of the critical aspects when you 6 look at cognitive technologies, the question gets to be 7 what are you building them to sense? Because ultimately 8 in the long term you want to change what's in that band 9 and you have built a whole bunch of stuff that is only 10 sensing this type of signal and you actually wedged 11 yourself into a particular use that you kind of can't back 12 out of. So the issue of how flexible these things are is 13 a critical part of it. 14 >>You try to avoid inflexibility. 15 >>KARL: That's right. We are trying to create 16 something flexible. But once you get people in there and 17 they are looking for certain things, for instance, right 18 now, 5GHZ, if we want to add a new radar in there that 19 wasn't part of the original plan, everybody's going to 20 throw up their hands to say, we didn't build our Wi-Fi to 21 fit that radar. That's a big challenge. 22 Next item is unlicensed policy as a general 0069 1 subject. Oftentimes in discussing this we hear people 2 talk about the terms on licensed bands which as far as I 3 know in my 30 years of doing spectrum management do not 4 exist in the United States. It's not that they don't 5 exist elsewhere but there are a few bands that they can't 6 go into, but otherwise they are allowed at very low 7 towers. On the other hand it does raise the question, has 8 the time come for us to look forward setting up some 9 spectrum commons specifically for this purpose? 10 >>MARK CROSBY: Are you talking about the 11 federal government side? 12 >>KARL: Anywhere. 13 >>MARK CROSBY: We have web spaces. We are 14 channeling. 15 >>KARL: It's not unlicensed and 2.98 is a 16 licensed band. For a number of different operations there 17 are allocations in there and there are rules that apply. 18 It is not an unlicensed band. Even the 2.4 to 2.5 is not 19 unlicensed. 20 >>DAVID DONOVAN: I guess one of the questions 21 becomes then how do you define non-allocated band. One 22 point is setting aside clean spectrum for the unlicensed 0070 1 model, which frankly makes sense -- somebody would be 2 surprised to hear me say that but it does make sense. 3 What I'm trying to figure out, what is contemplated in 4 this is additional sharing, and it goes to Dale's remarks 5 about sharing power, high powered systems versus low 6 powered systems, is it efficient to do that. It gets into 7 the database enforcement and gets into transparency and 8 enforcement issues. 9 So I don't know whether or not this committee 10 wants to look at that. If you want to facilitate and 11 promote unlicensed spectrum, you need to set something 12 aside rather than sharing. Which of course affects, once 13 you start sharing it affects spectrum values down the 14 road. Verizon is trying to kick off all the unlicensed 15 wireless mice. That's a classic example. Once they are 16 there, that affects my licensing. 17 >>MARK CROSBY: Can we address this afterwards? 18 It would save a lot of time, if we can. 19 >>DAVID DONOVAN: Thanks a lot. Understand, I'm 20 not trying to -- while I would love to, I'm not trying to 21 debate the white space proceeding, but if we are looking 22 for certain types of spectrum efficiencies, do certain 0071 1 things play together well or don't they? If they don't 2 maybe they should have spectrum set aside. 3 >>MARK CROSBY: Maybe the issue ought to be to 4 put together a national spectrum road map. That seems to 5 have some correlation. 6 >>MR. ROBERT GURSS: I think a good example that 7 David mentioned, sometimes the problem occurs when the 8 primary user uses changes and the unlicensed users are 9 allowed in. It was fine, it was compatible, and over time 10 the primary use changes and suddenly that other use is no 11 longer compatible, what do we do with these people? 12 That's the problem we have with the microphones. I'm not 13 sure how do deal with it. 14 >>KARL: We have a similar problem in the 225 to 15 400 band where the garage door openers started building 16 out and we have a problem there. And also once again with 17 new cognitive technologies, as I said before, if you move 18 something new in after they have built out that was there, 19 you have issues. And it gets down to the public; 20 obviously with broadcasting, the public's always involved 21 but more and more of these devices are going into the 22 hands of the public and they don't respond well to being 0072 1 told you have to turn in your piece of equipment. 2 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: And on enforcement issues band 3 is very important. 4 >>JENNIFER WARREN: I think there is enough 5 examples of this being a current issue that it warrants 6 discussion in a working group. When we had the situation 7 with satellite dishes and the radar detectors for speeding 8 from the police, the enforcement mechanism was slow but 9 company standards fast by regulatory standards. But 10 nonetheless it is a problem. And it goes also to a 11 consumer issue. There is no labeling, no notice other 12 than the back of the page, the instruction manual that 13 nobody reads, “this device is operating under part 15.” 14 Which really doesn't tell a consumer anything, that they 15 might have problems with their unlicensed devices that 16 they have no rights to, as far as quality of service. 17 So I think there are a number of issues there 18 from a consumer angle as well from an enforcement and 19 radio field prospective. 20 >>DAVID DONOVAN: There is a lot more. 21 >>DALE HATFIELD: Thank you for the useful 22 discussion. 0073 1 >>KARL: We did think that radars, radar spectrum 2 was worth looking at. It represents a significant part of 3 the spectrum. Certainly between 400MHZ and 4GHZ, there is 4 a lot of it. It would certainly be useful to hear from 5 the DOD and FAA and others who use these systems as to 6 where they are going and also to explain, like we were 7 talking about what kind of questions we wanted to ask, and 8 one of the questions we normally get is ways to 9 incentivize people to be more efficient with the system. 10 The reality today is targets are getting smaller and 11 faster, looking for them in distances, looking for them in 12 the trees and different things where radar bandwidth is 13 moving wider, not moving narrower. There are unwanted 14 emissions and that may be a separate issue, but in today's 15 world radars are getting more complex, not less complex. 16 So I think that's important for us to look at. 17 We also wanted to look at some of the passive 18 type sensing activities, obviously important for 19 environmental study today. We have got a lot of systems 20 that the science community is putting into space to sense 21 changes to the earth that are important to all of us. 22 Unfortunately while they are listening to what is 0074 1 happening on earth, a lot of new communications devices 2 are in bands immediately next to them, looking upward or 3 outward, and they are having to deal with the signal that 4 comes from those systems, in some cases with the loss of 5 data and so on. 6 So I think that's certainly something we need to 7 look at in terms of -- I would have argued years ago what 8 we have to do is figure out how to keep them apart, what 9 bands to not put next to each other, but it seems like the 10 spectrum is so crowded at this point with new systems 11 coming in, it's not an easy process to just say, okay, 12 we're not going to put an active system in a band next to 13 passive satellites looking down to earth. So. 14 >>DR. KEVIN KAHN: One of the things on the 15 radar side of this that it seems to me we ought to at 16 least put in the discussions is -- and this bothered me, 17 the 5GHZ -- the right notion for assymmetry for radars. 18 What I mean by that there is the issue of radar 19 interfering with the other device, whatever the other 20 device, and there is the other device interfering with 21 radar. Quite honestly I don't know that those are given 22 quite enough thought relative to -- clearly there are 0075 1 public service radar systems for which any interference of 2 the radar system is routinely bad. So I mean if you were 3 running an air traffic control system, systematically that 4 is routinely bad. 5 There are other radar systems which are 6 intentionally designed to operate in the presence of much 7 more hostile jamming than routine low level consumer use, 8 and I don't know that we treat those that way. It always 9 bothered the hell out of me that we basically have a 10 discussion around the 5GHZ military radars that 11 essentially translated to if Saddam Hussein goes down to 12 Radio Shack and buys some stuff he could jam our radars, 13 which I think we knew was patently ridiculous. 14 Somehow that asymmetry, what is radar for, what 15 is the operation demand? It is operationally demanding to 16 run in the presence of much, much worse interference. 17 Then the issue becomes, okay, can the consumer proposed 18 use of that band survive the actual distribution of radar 19 use. But it's not as much is the radar going to survive 20 the existence of the consumer demand? That's very 21 different from, say, whether there is air traffic 22 surveillance. 0076 1 We need to get those issues articulated and make 2 it clear to people why we are doing what we are doing in 3 some of those spaces. 4 >>MR. JAMES ANDREW LEWIS: I think also in the 5 radar one, you need to somehow work in the word 6 international, particularly if you are going to talk about 7 DOD, because they are constrained or at least sometimes 8 they admit to being constrained by international 9 activities, and we know the stories about J-Stars in Italy 10 so we can't discuss this without thinking about the 11 international aspect. 12 On the science, I would like to see good data on 13 this. I have a relatively good idea of the actual number 14 of satellites being operated, it's single digit for some 15 activities, so I am puzzled to see this here. And we need 16 to have a good foundation of exactly how much of the claim 17 here of use and interference is justified by the number of 18 operating systems. 19 If that didn't make sense, we can talk about it 20 more. But the first point is an addition. You need to 21 add the international aspect to radar. When we get to the 22 discussion of science sensing, we need to be more driven 0077 1 by data than we have been in the past. 2 >>JENNIFER WARREN: Question on the science 3 sensing. We are talking about the ground; we are talking 4 about radio strong sites, not just satellite systems? 5 >>KARL:We certainly are, although radio 6 astronomy tends to be protectable in certain ways that 7 obviously you can't protect the satellite systems. It's 8 more of a bounded problem, I think, than the other. 9 >>JENNIFER WARREN: On the radar front, I think 10 going back to was said, Karl, would be very helpful for 11 the group at large or the working group that is going to 12 work on radars, to have people come in and talk about 13 emissions. They obviously won't talk about the 14 specific -- about their missions, they obviously won't 15 talk about the details of their characteristics, but talk 16 about why they operate the way they do, the different 17 types of collection, what clutter -- how much clutter 18 radars are supposed to be able to penetrate through in 19 order to detect what we want them to detect. So that kind 20 of background would be educational for all of us as we go 21 forward to talk about an area that I know is uncommon 22 parlance to most. 0078 1 >>R. GERARD SALEMME: One comment on the radar. 2 Basically, you also have to take a look at, you have to 3 form the question, what kind of question are you trying to 4 answer. Maybe the question should be, should there be 5 more stringent radar standards that the government wants 6 to pay for? 7 In the end the government is going to pay for 8 additional penalty in terms of having a radar perform in a 9 high-interference environment. Or possibly consumers may 10 have to pay a higher price for a product that operates in 11 a radar band. So the question is, maybe we should look 12 at, is that a good thing or a bad thing, because if you do 13 either one of those, somebody is going to end up paying 14 the price for that kind of stuff. Technology is 15 wonderful, and eventually we probably could do all these 16 things together; the question is who are you willing to 17 pay the price, for that to happen. 18 The dilemma on that -- all this means is there 19 a transition timeline. Taking these systems is expensive. 20 Consumer devices are in people's cold, dead hands in terms 21 of being upgrades that they will be able to handle radar 22 interference if that is really going to be an issue. Bob? 0079 1 >>MR. ROBERT PEPPER: On the sensing, we have a 2 long list of things we are trying to figure out. What's 3 the focus going to be? What I look at is the sensing 4 issues; I think they are important but almost contextual. 5 There is a separate focus of, you know, the group's 6 activities, or is this one of the thing we need to 7 understand? I think Janice is right. We need to know a 8 lot more about things before we actually have 9 conversations on understanding what is there. To help us 10 is a broader issue, which is how do you do sharing, what 11 about adjacencies, co-channel, interference issues? This 12 is input to that. I don't see this as a separate focus. 13 Getting everything else we need to be doing that is on the 14 list. 15 >>KARL: Okay. Last item on the list is 16 automation spectrum management. Right now, I know the 17 commission has a number of different databases. We have 18 our own database. The structures of those are different. 19 We are trying to bring those things together. But 20 ultimately I think we've got a vision of spectrum 21 management process that is very automation oriented where 22 analysis can be quickly done, decisions can be fairly 0080 1 easily made based on the data as opposed to being more or 2 less a manual process that requires a lot of human 3 intervention. We certainly up to -- up at 70 or 80GHZ, we 4 have a simple structure where systems coming in basically 5 look the same. There is no classified records in the 6 band. We were able to set up a website where new 7 licensees can come in, put in their endpoints, get a yes 8 or no on whether those endpoints worked and so on. And we 9 were able to coordinate basically instantaneously. 10 We certainly would like to be able to do that 11 in more parts of the spectrum, but we are looking for your 12 input as to how that can be -- how we can meet those 13 goals. 14 >>NEVILLE RAY: A quick point: on our clearance 15 work on AWS-1 we were able to leverage with several 16 departments for clearance. And that certainly sped up the 17 process, worked very effectively and something we look to 18 see continue. And if that program can go it would be 19 helpful. So. 20 >>DAVID DONOVAN: Is the context of this 21 automation on the federal side or does the bullet point 22 contemplate private sector? I wasn't quite sure. 0081 1 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Commercial systems or a 2 private sector vendor that would have access to all the 3 systems. 4 >>DAVID DONOVAN: Either one. 5 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Either one. I think our focus 6 was trying to increase transparency in federal government 7 use --I think inevitably is fighting the AWS. My 8 example -- other joint operations, so the questions are, 9 are there places where we can make a little bit of 10 government IT investment in order to leverage for 11 additional sharing opportunities? 12 >>DAVID DONOVAN: Fine. 13 >>So the question was do you envision putting 14 the information out on an Excel spreadsheet sort of like 15 the FCC does today so that folks who do spectrum 16 management and look at assignments and utilization can 17 take a look at that? 18 >>KARL: There is certainly a challenge in doing 19 that, in that the amount of data you end up looking at is 20 a small percentage of what's out there. I think there are 21 probably a few bands where you might find that useful, 22 because most of the systems in the bands are not 0082 1 classified or not FOIA-exempt, I guess that's the major 2 category. I'm not sure putting out spreadsheets of a 3 small percentage of the assignments is all that helpful. 4 In fact we have on request before provided groups with 5 disks of our assigned, nonclassified, FOIA-exempt 6 assignments. I'm not sure they found it all that 7 fruitful. 8 But I think it's still a major issue how we go 9 about that. Certainly one of it seems like more hopeful 10 approaches might be to link the databases in a way maybe 11 closely resembling what is going on with the wide spaces 12 database, the idea that systems that want to operate would 13 check into a database mechanism which they wouldn't have 14 to necessarily be seeing the data right in front of them, 15 but they would be linking in and getting some response 16 whether that territory is open or not open. 17 >>MS. JANICE OBUCHOWSKI: I was just going to 18 suggest that -- I was simply going to suggest, Karl, that 19 perhaps this was a question for which it would be best 20 that NTIA staff and obviously the Assistant Secretary at 21 some point make a recommendation as we go through the 22 process here for us to react to. I don't think we have 0083 1 got the expertise necessarily around the table to talk 2 about how best to automate federal systems, nor do we have 3 the budgetary numbers that would tell us whether this was 4 readily feasible in the timetable. 5 So from my vantage point I would be happy to 6 raise my hand and say, yes, right on, let's do it, but I 7 think we need recommendations from the staff to which we 8 could respond. 9 >>MARK CROSBY: That said, I think there is some 10 experience at the table, APCO and EWA to process 11 electronically just south of 10,000 cost of frequency 12 coordination units in an automated fashion and yes we do 13 have yes's and no's. And it does come out and it's not 14 necessarily manual. If somebody can go from “I want 15 this,” and come in electronically and make a decision that 16 goes to the FCC for licensing along with the money, I 17 mean the frequency advisory committees, not APCO but EWA 18 also collects funds that we pass on to the FCC in the way 19 of fees and so forth. There may be something. 20 I would be happy to sit down with whoever at 21 NTIA, and we have been doing this since 1979 and it is a 22 big investment. 0084 1 >>KARL: I assume in that context you are taking 2 like systems with similar types of systems and getting a 3 response, as opposed to getting a completely unlike 4 system, wanting to put in some data and get out an answer. 5 >>MARK CROSBY: Absolutely. We are not putting 6 broadband into voice. But we do data trunk, shared, all 7 those types of considerations are in the process. 8 >>DR. KEVIN KAHN: I'm just curious, Karl, what 9 is the primary cause of that many FOIA-exempt records? I 10 mean again, since radio is inherently something that any 11 old person can listen to if they have the motivation to do 12 so, I am a little surprised at your comment. Obviously 13 based on the data, that there is that many that are 14 effectively classified, I guess. 15 >>KARL: Yeah. Well certainly a bit of history. 16 I know we had an evaluation many years ago by security 17 people that basically said if you put any two assignments 18 on the same page, that makes it classified. Now we have 19 moved on from there, because they felt that by putting 20 those pieces of information together you could make 21 judgments about other things you did or didn't know. We 22 have moved on from that place. 0085 1 On the other hand, as you said, if someone wants 2 to go out with a spectrum analyzer, they could find most 3 of these things but the biggest question from a security 4 standpoint on the government side is, is it really useful 5 to help them do that? 6 And we have gotten to a place in spectrum 7 policymaking where we have concluded that it's more 8 important to have the public data than to have that bit of 9 security. And I think that's kind of where you begin 10 to -- to get to that line, what is needed. 11 If there wasn't a crush for spectrum, we could probably 12 say, why even talk about it? But at this point that's why 13 it's certainly being raised. 14 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Anything else on this 15 automation point? 16 The one addition I heard earlier was the 17 expanded test bed discussions. So we have built off of 18 the test bed work we have done, and also look at expanding 19 based on the data from existing test bed, or if there is 20 things to go beyond, we talked to the NTIA, FCC and other 21 actors about the additional types of test beds that can be 22 explored for different types of options. I guess that 0086 1 would be the 12th one to add to the list. Are there other 2 comments on this test bed issue? 3 >>I think one of the questions for you to ask is 4 should there be a federal funding package to give to 5 federal agencies to go play in the test bed? I am going 6 to tell you right now, we don't have anything going on in 7 Raytheon. We built more radar or at least the 8 subcontractors who are most of the people doing that, 9 there is nothing going on with that and the reason is, 10 there is no money to do it. If you want federal systems 11 to play in the test beds you have to pay industry to make 12 that happen through your funding chain. I think that's 13 one of the reasons. 14 We have this discussion all the time at our 15 spectrum groups. Nobody wants to pay for us to pay for 16 radar to play in a test bed. So the issues on the test 17 bed, you want federal participation, you have to give the 18 federal agencies money to pay contractors to do it. And 19 do the reports and data and stuff. There is no incentive 20 for us -- we are totally dependent on federal government 21 contracts to do that work. If there is no federal 22 government contract to do it, it won't be done. There is 0087 1 no competitive vantage. There is -- whether it's FAA, 2 DHS, NASA, DOD, FAA. 3 >>DR. KEVIN KAHN: That's a question I always 4 had about the whole test bed notion, not that it was not 5 conceptually unattractive, but for a test bed to be 6 meaningful, you really want to run it at some reasonable 7 scalel; otherwise it's not clear it tells you very much. 8 If you are talking about running something at a serious 9 scale, most private side folks aren't expecting to run it 10 for a little while and turn it off. It's a pretty big 11 investment. So trying to understand, what are we trying 12 to get out of test beds and what is the likelihood of 13 their being exercised in meaningful ways? Because you can 14 put a lot of energy in test beds and create a situation 15 where nobody -- the government side is not incented 16 because they don't have the money, and the private side 17 looks at it and says, why would I do a big expensive 18 deployment when it may not work and even if it works they 19 may decide, "well, that's a nice experiment, but." 20 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: It is undercut by mandatory 21 test bed, so it has the undercut. 22 >>DR. KEVIN KAHN: It has the negative side 0088 1 which is, maybe I will be forced. I think while 2 conceptually test beds is a nice idea, I think we don't 3 necessarily really understand enough of the dynamic there 4 to know how effective it would be. 5 >>MR. RICHARD REASER: That's the question. Do 6 test beds really work, and if they do, how? I want to 7 tell you, I have been on the other end. Write specific 8 questions you want us to answer and let us add to that. 9 Otherwise -- it will be what do you want advice on. 10 >>JENNIFER WARREN: I think this discussion goes 11 back to the point that Andrew made which is how do you get 12 the R into D. And I think that's a really good question. 13 But I wanted to go back to a couple of things that Andrew 14 teed up. He talked about the issue of emergency responder 15 communications as being a principal issue we want to look 16 at with respect to being able to have commercial 17 government unlicensed crossing satellite terrestrial and 18 all sorts of different structures. 19 Is there a question there that we can or should 20 take on, since you bothered to tee it up for the group? I 21 assume there was some messaging there. And I just wanted 22 to flag that. Because I think we have left that out in 0089 1 the larger discussion. Maybe that falls into a national 2 spectrum road map. Maybe it falls into other places but I 3 think that is conspicuously absent from our discussion. 4 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: I agree that should probably 5 be on a separate. 6 >>KARL: I think certainly from where we have 7 been before in the last two years, a lot of the 8 recommendations we had related to public safety and land 9 mobile types of communications. So I think we were 10 probably thinking more in terms of other subjects in 11 general and also from the federal side. Once again, 12 there’s a few bands where that applies and right now the 13 feds, for instance, don't have any spectrum where they can 14 do public safety broadband. It doesn't exist other than 15 to operate with state and locals. It's not -- there is no 16 federal public safety broadband. 17 >>JENNIFER WARREN: That's to the point. 18 >>KARL: For that reason we haven't focused on 19 that. 20 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: A couple of other things that 21 have been raised. The test bed point would be phrased and 22 then talk about the -- the spectrum services for air 0090 1 traffic control and air safety, as well as vehicles and 2 other transportation points pointing to as well. Also -- 3 are there other topics that haven't been raised that we 4 should put on our list? Okay. 5 >>R. GERARD SALEMME: I think if we could follow 6 up on James' initial point about having access to agencies 7 and technologies so we have a better understanding to help 8 us ground these discussions as we go forward and putting 9 that on the front end. The last time a lot of the 10 meetings came at the end of the discussion, and we were 11 really pretty far down the process before we got some 12 expertise that was helpful. 13 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: I think hopefully that each of 14 the work groups as they begin their work will work with 15 Karl and other members of the NTIA for commercial and 16 federal and public safety uses across all of these issues 17 so we can get a good database to start with. I'm not sure 18 whether this is part of the discussion or part of the 19 spectrum plan, so to speak. It's the international 20 element in terms of allocations, where we are as a country 21 in terms of our efforts in planning long term in the 22 international forum in terms of spectrum allocations. 0091 1 >>KARL: I probably should mention that we had 2 talked some about the possibility first of all of having a 3 briefing, for instance, on radar technology. We knew we 4 had Rick here. So, with his assistance and probably DOD 5 and FAA assistance, we felt that was something that we 6 could provide to all of you. Another aspect was to try to 7 pull up some of the specific frequency bands that the 8 government uses and maybe at each meeting present, you 9 know, take ten minutes and talk about this is what we do 10 in this band. 11 Another idea to get you some information so you 12 have more to understand or think through when you were 13 making recommendations. But certainly NASA I'm sure would 14 be happy to come in and talk about some of their sensing 15 requirements so we can understanding that better. 16 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Jennifer? 17 >>JENNIFER WARREN: It would be helpful if 18 program people accompanied the spectrum people rather than 19 just spectrum people talking about the missions that they 20 are forming or technologies. Spectrum people will 21 describe it in a certain way and the mission people and 22 program people will describe it in a way that is very 0092 1 relevant to understanding the bigger context. 2 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: We didn't have any magic 3 notion as to how to proceed. We originally thought there 4 would be four working groups to start that would tackle 5 four of these. There’s 19 of us today. There hopefully 6 will soon be 22. And obviously you can be a member of 7 more than one group and each of the subcommittees are open 8 that would allow four or five people to focus their 9 attention on any of these issues going forward. If four 10 is the right number, if you should try to be more 11 aggressive or less aggressive, there is nothing magical 12 about four -- but people had thoughts that was -- if there 13 is some other right one. 14 >>MR. JAMES ANDREW LEWIS: Does four imply there 15 are topics that you would not address? 16 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: I think we will take a first 17 tranche of issues and keep rolling through and assess each 18 time what set of issues we will address. We don't have to 19 address all of these at any point. So that is completely 20 up to us. Larry has been gracious in sort of giving us a 21 road map that is not something that keeps us constrained, 22 we don't have to. Combine them or repurpose them as we 0093 1 move forward. Maybe after doing the first set of four, 2 out of the eight, there is two that can be merged. 3 >>MR. JAMES ANDREW LEWIS: What you might want 4 to think about is are there possibilities for, as you 5 said, for merging some of these issues. Some of them are 6 so relatively minor so they might better be combined. You 7 are implying a prioritization. That's where we might 8 benefit. 9 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: I think there is a balance 10 between -- we want it to be digestible. We want to pursue 11 it in a relatively timely fashion. So there is a balance 12 to be struck. We mentioned I think as we went through the 13 issues that inventory might be the first issue that the 14 group addresses and then we move on to monitoring, so it 15 might be that they combine temporarily in spite of the 16 first work plan. So any reactions to the four number? 17 Does that seem reasonable for folks? 18 >>DAVID DONOVAN: Then we can subdivide it. 19 Normally when we start out with a bunch of them we end up 20 with -- 21 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: The way we envisioned this is 22 we will go through the issues, and raise your hand on the 0094 1 floor to show what you would think are most useful for us 2 to do and we will pick the top four as a path forward. 3 So we will give you a second to caucus and think 4 through things. We will talk and listen to you for five 5 or ten minutes and take a break and come back here at 5 6 of. Each person gets four. They will pick four. Come 7 back at 5 of and come up with reasons to move forward. 8 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: So as I mentioned this very 9 informal process, what we envision is polling everyone. 10 Everyone's going to vote for four and we will take the top 11 four choices, those will be the jumping off point. And 12 then we will issue topics and adapt as we go; there is 13 nothing magical about how this is going to work. Then we 14 will ask for team leaders for each of the four and what 15 will hopefully happen is the team leader will get together 16 with the each of the team to put together a plan for 17 addressing the topic. We sent around a template 18 electronically earlier that had a model for how this could 19 look, with the idea that you have benchmarks and different 20 tasks and it would be transparent for everyone involved, 21 what the timelines were for deliverables and thing like 22 that. That's the thing, I hope you will take some time 0095 1 this afternoon with your team or over the course of next 2 week, and put together a draft and work plan for each 3 individual task group. 4 Did I get that right, Joe? With that, why don't 5 we go ahead and go through the listed issues and just take 6 a poll. So those who believe the spectrum inventory is 7 one of the top four, can you raise your hands? That would 8 be great. 9 Transparency? 7. 10 Spectrum monitoring? 1, 2, 3. 11 Unlicensed policy? 1, 2, 3, 4 -- 12 I am in a different order. 4 was unlicensed policy. 13 National Spectrum Plan? 14 >>Marty has his hand up. 15 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: There was a consensus on 16 spectrum inventory. Did you vote for transparency? I 17 guess not. Marty, did you vote for spectrum monitoring or 18 for unlicensed policy? 19 Spectrum plan is the only one you voted for so far? 20 >>MARTY: Yes. 21 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Incentives for federal 22 spectrum -- incentives for federal spectrum uses, adjacent 0096 1 band and adjacent channel issues? 2 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 3 Spectrum band access and cognitive technologies. 4 8. 5 Unlicensed policy, we had 4 before. 6 Radars -- 3. 7 Protection of science sensing? 8 Inadvertent text? 9 Or otherwise -- I don't think it's on the list. 10 Automation of spectrum management? 11 >>MARK CROSBY: That's okay. That's okay. 12 >>DAVID DONOVAN: We got you covered. 13 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Expanded test bed? 14 Okay. We won't tell Susan. Marty, as best I can tell you 15 only voted once? 16 >>MARTY: Yes, that's right. 17 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: With that we have a clear 18 consensus that spectrum inventory will be one of our 19 topics. And as we mentioned -- we then have adjacent band 20 and adjacent channel issues incentives and federal 21 spectrum issues. 22 >>What was the first one? 0097 1 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Inventory is in, and then 2 incentives is in, and then we are less clear on the next 3 one. Dynamic spectrum access and adjacent band and 4 adjacent channel issues have 7 and transparency has 7. 5 >>They are closely related and talking about 6 adjacent bands and channels and then there is GSA 7 technology issues and after that 8 >>That is in the technology bucket. 9 >>And also understanding what radar is, if you 10 want to understand radar to -- 11 >>DAVID DONOVAN: If you look at adjacent band 12 and adjacent channels, your dynamic spectrum access and to 13 some extent your spectrum monitoring and your sort of 14 database stuff are ways to avoid problems – 15 Adjacent channel. Is this an interference bundle 16 in which you look at interference avoidance mechanisms and 17 sort of a database kind of approach? 18 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: One way we could do that, We 19 could clump these two together and say the group would 20 come up together and based on the votes would slightly 21 favor the dynamic spectrum access thing. But to work 22 through a plan to address this family of issues over the 0098 1 course of the next -- 2 >>MR. JAMES ANDREW LEWIS: Bryan, I wonder if 3 you couldn't do that with other issues, too. Dynamic 4 spectrum in the adjacent band clumped together and 5 transparency and monitoring clumped together and national 6 plan and incentive and values and something EMS; I can't 7 read my own writing. You could think of it that there is 8 three or four clumps. 9 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: There is a sequencing 10 component. We need to have a prioritization. Any agree 11 that we -- and some of them may collapse on themselves as 12 we go. We have inventory done. We have incentives, that 13 is in, and perhaps clumping these two with maybe the idea 14 that they do radars next, the third group bundled 15 together. And we have transparency or the next vote after 16 that would be the National Spectrum Plan. 17 >>DAVID DONOVAN: What happened on license? 18 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: License had 4. 19 >>DAVID DONOVAN: That's out -- 20 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: For this. 21 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: We were going to do inventory, 22 monitoring and plans. 0099 1 >>MR. ROBERT GURSS: I think that transparency 2 follows closely with inventory. 3 >>JENNIFER WARREN: There is an aspect of 4 inventory with it. 5 >>DALE HATFIELD: I am sufficiently confused. 6 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: I think where we are, we 7 definitely have inventory done and incentives done and we 8 have a third group of issues with the demand group. We 9 are trying to decide what the fourth group are working on 10 as a jumping off. Our candidates are transparency, 11 national spectrum plan, unauthorized policy and some 12 support. 13 >>MR. JAMES ANDREW LEWIS: Is there a potential 14 problem with having one body off working on transparency 15 and another body working on monitoring or inventory? 16 Don't you want to combine that? 17 >>DALE HATFIELD: I was going to raise that. 18 Normally in project management you break out tasks and you 19 show a coordination or dependency between the two, and 20 maybe we ought to formalize that we expect those two to 21 coordinate in their timing of their reports and so forth 22 so they can solve that problem. 0100 1 >> BRYAN TRAMONT: I'm afraid I am getting too 2 many tasks under one -- 3 >>MR. HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH: The transparency 4 is an issue that you can do with existing inventory 5 knowledge. What is reasonable transparency. I can see 6 that they are ultimately related, but at the same time I 7 think they are quite different. 8 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: I know there are substantial 9 amounts of work to be done on each. What about this 10 dependency notion? Transparency -- those two groups 11 worked closely. And some of those relationships and data 12 differently -- does that make sense? So that would be our 13 fourth group as constructed. Spectrum inventory, group 1. 14 Incentives value for spectrum, group 2. Combined group 3 15 addressing adjacent plan along with dynamic spectrum 16 access and cognitive technologies and group 4 on 17 transparency. Then as we roll through these four initial 18 tasks we will go on with a new set of tasks in 19 consultation with Larry and with NTIA. 20 >>Do we do a crash effort to come to a 21 conclusion? Maybe we could do that for two or three weeks 22 or months. 0101 1 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: There is some aspirational 2 crafting components for all four. They want feedback 3 fairly quickly on a number of different fronts. My sense 4 is on the inventory that whether there is legislation 5 passed or whether the agency wants this for themselves we 6 are timely for a while. >>KARL: I 7 think the earlier you can tell us what kind of information 8 you can tell us, the earlier the better. 9 >>DALE HATFIELD: This gets into a little bit 10 how we schedule the next meeting. Is it possible that we 11 can task this group during the inventory to focus more on 12 getting into something that is a little further along 13 during the next meeting? 14 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: We will -- we hope to do 15 something in December. And have the NTIA -- on us on a 16 shorter time cycle. Be more aggressive on the time 17 schedule. Okay. So is that our list of four. 18 >>Run them again. 19 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Inventory incentives, adjacent 20 band and dynamic spectrum access combined; I'm pointing 21 the microphone in the wrong direction -- after he reminded 22 me, too. And then transparency is our fourth one, thank 0102 1 you. 2 >>MR. JAMES ANDREW LEWIS: The only thing I will 3 put a footnote in is, you might want to check with the 4 folks who were here this morning, because they have a lot 5 of -- I don't know what you want to call it, plans or 6 frameworks or strategies for other stuff, and in some ways 7 that would be my bet that it would be one of their top 8 priorities. So it seems to me that we managed to pick 9 everything but the one thing that they are most interested 10 in. 11 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Which one was that one? 12 >>MR. JAMES ANDREW LEWIS: We have it listed as 13 national plan now. 14 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: National plan. 15 >>MR. JAMES ANDREW LEWIS: They are going to do 16 one and we are not going to contribute to it directly. 17 Maybe timing was just an issue, but I think providing 18 coffee for the next meeting, and if I lose, who has to 19 cover the other side? 20 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: We did obviously coordinate 21 these issues with NTIA, they felt strongly we would be -- 22 provide direction on which we would tackle first. So 0103 1 there was a sense that all of them would be useful. 2 >>DAVID DONOVAN: If we do these topics well, 3 would we be doing work into whatever is the national plan? 4 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: I think it will build off each 5 other. With that we now need the volunteer stage. And 6 for the new folks, the committee structure -- the 7 committee structure is extremely informal. You can 8 participate with these committees as you like. So there 9 is no limitation. All information about committee 10 meetings and things like that is shared with the whole 11 group, so you should feel welcome to join. But generally, 12 the line responsibility needs to be divided amongst these 13 four things and obviously people have drafting and other 14 core responsibilities associated with each group. So we 15 encourage people to volunteer to take on responsibilities 16 in each one. 17 So with that, will we have a volunteer to lead 18 the spectrum inventory working group? 19 >>MARK CROSBY: Why don't you ask who wants to 20 work on it? 21 >>KARL: Election without embarrassment. 22 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: You are going to shame 0104 1 sanctions? 2 >>JENNIFER WARREN: I think it should be new 3 people. 4 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Is this like -- 5 >>DALE HATFIELD: I would like to walk out of 6 this room knowing who to contact. If I didn't know who to 7 call or who has taken responsibility -- 8 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: If we could have the list of 9 people who are on the voluntary committee convene amongst 10 themselves and decide amongst them who would lead, if that 11 would provide additional cover for those who would 12 volunteer or be volunteered. Is that an acceptable 13 outcome? 14 We will do it that way. So those interested in 15 serving on the spectrum inventory committee, please raise 16 your hand. 17 >>MARTY: Would you add me to that committee, 18 please? 19 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Mark, Bob, Darrin, Bob, Marty, 20 Jennifer, Mark, and Mark. Gary, and you are our members 21 in waiting. That's spectrum inventory. 22 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Incentives is next. 0105 1 Incentives volunteers? Mark, Jim, Greg. Greg, we will 2 volunteer him in absentia. 3 Adjacent band, dynamic spectrum access? 4 Kevin, Jerry, and Bryan. And last but not least, the 5 transparency one? Bob, David, Rick, Jennifer, Darrin. 6 Okay. Is that it? Is that our list? 7 >>DALE HATFIELD: Is everybody on at least one? 8 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: That would be important. So 9 what we will do, before people leave the room, each of you 10 will convene your individual groups to assess who your 11 chair's going to be and let us know before you leave. We 12 will lock the door. And the goal is that that chair 13 working with their group will develop a work plan template 14 that they will circulate next week showing what the 15 timeline is leading up to the next meeting and when 16 products will start to roll through the next process. 17 >>When is the next meeting? 18 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: A perfect segue. We had hoped 19 for December 9 as the next meeting date but that is 20 obviously subject to checking with all of you. Does 21 anyone know they have problems with December 9? 22 Anybody know they have a problem with the 9th? 0106 1 Does anyone else know if they are clear on the 9th? 2 >>There is an NTIA board meeting that Larry is 3 on on the 9th. There is a tentative date for that. 4 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Okay. Anything else on the 5 schedule? 6 >>The only other thing on Janice's 7 recommendation if at that meeting we could start the 8 briefing process? 9 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Yeah. Why don't Joe and Karl 10 come back and circle with the group with recommendations 11 about who we should start with on that front? Does that 12 make sense? 13 Okay. Joe, are there any paperwork housekeeping 14 things that we need to worry about for this group? 15 16 >>JOE: One thing we had talked about before the 17 meeting. 18 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Can you hand him a microphone? 19 Yeah. 20 >>JOE: One thing we talked about before the 21 meeting because not only do we have several new members 22 and it has been two years since you all were appointed, 0107 1 some folks expressed interest on having a briefing on 2 obligations for being a special employee and ethics 3 requirements. Most of you went through this process 4 recently or have reminder of papers in February and was 5 wondering why I was asking about again. The ethics 6 attorney has offered to do a telephonic interview, we can 7 do that sooner than later. So I don't know if everybody 8 finds that valuable or at least for some of you, that 9 would be valuable. 10 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: If people want something 11 before the 9th they can set something up in advance. 12 >>JOE: It would also be a good opportunity to 13 review requirements for record keeping with respect to the 14 Federal Advisory Committee Act. I keep the records of the 15 committee, but it's always good to see because we are 16 subject to that. We keep all records with that. 17 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: So we all have that. 18 >>JOE: Just a forewarning. I don't want you to 19 be surprised. Sometimes probably in the next two months 20 before the end of the year we will be back to ask for your 21 2010 financial requirements. 22 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: It was so much fun the first 0108 1 time around. Okay. Anything else? Before we open it up? 2 Rick? 3 >>R. GERARD SALEMME: Can we take up a 4 collection for coffee in the room the next time? 5 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: We have a coffee request. 6 >>JOE: I am so glad to hear it. I am sorry 7 about the coffee and water. As you know the federal 8 government is not allowed to expend funds. And it's not 9 that the current officials are not generous, it's just we 10 didn't make it up the chain. If you want to take this on 11 yourself, it's -- I know where to buy the coffee and I 12 know where to get the water. 13 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: We will take care of it. 14 >>I'm sure people here will be happy to 15 contribute. 16 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: Anything else? 17 Logistics or otherwise? We have traditionally done the 18 half day. If we want to go a full day, that's an option. 19 In the past the full days have been when we travel. When 20 we went to -- Marty was gracious to host us and then we 21 went out in the shop in Boulder and the lab we did a full 22 day. Usually the meetings in Washington are a half day. 0109 1 >>DR. KEVIN KAHN: I wonder if it would be 2 worthwhile meeting in the morning here, like scheduling a 3 couple of hour block for subcommittees -- formally 4 scheduling that. 5 >>BRYAN TRAMONT: We will take our cue from the 6 chairs of committees for doing that. But that sounds like 7 a good idea. We thought about doing that today but we 8 thought it was premature for where we are. 9 The groups will reconvene. Inventory over here. 10 Incentives over here and dynamic over here and 11 transparency over here. 12 Before we adjourn I want to ask for public 13 comment. If there is anyone in the audience who has a 14 question or comment about the work in the committee today? 15 Okay. Hearing that, we look forward to hearing 16 from you all. We adjourn. 17 (The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 p.m.) 18 19 20 21 22