i

[H.A.S.C. No. 11265]

SUSTAINING GPS FOR NATIONAL

SECURITY

HEARING
BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

68466

WASHINGTON

2012

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 2025121800, or 8665121800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio, Chairman
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MO BROOKS, Alabama
RICK LARSEN, Washington
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California
JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
TIM MORRISON, Professional Staff Member
LEONOR TOMERO, Professional Staff Member
ALEJANDRA VILLARREAL, Staff Assistant

(II)

CONTENTS
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2011
Page

HEARING:
Thursday, September 15, 2011, Sustaining GPS for National Security .............
APPENDIX:
Thursday, September 15, 2011 ...............................................................................

1
25

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011

SUSTAINING GPS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative from California, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces ......................................................................
Turner, Hon. Michael, a Representative from Ohio, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Strategic Forces ...............................................................................................

5
1

WITNESSES
Knapp, Julius, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission ..........................................................................................
Nebbia, Karl, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ...............................................................................................
Russo, Anthony J., Director, National Coordination Office, Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Training, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ..........................................................................................................
Shelton, Gen William L., USAF, Commander, U.S. Air Force Space Command .....................................................................................................................
Takai, Teresa M., Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Defense ........

14
11
12
7
9

APPENDIX
PREPARED STATEMENTS:
Knapp, Julius ....................................................................................................
Nebbia, Karl ......................................................................................................
Russo, Anthony J. .............................................................................................
Sanchez, Hon. Loretta ......................................................................................
Shelton, Gen William L. ...................................................................................
Takai, Teresa M. ...............................................................................................
Turner, Hon. Michael .......................................................................................
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:
Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn and Deputy Secretary
of Transportation John D. Porcaris Letter to Julius Genachowski, Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Dated March 25, 2011 .....
Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynns Letter to Julius
Genachowski, Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Dated
January 12, 2011 ..........................................................................................
(III)

85
56
71
33
34
49
29

105
97

IV
Page

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORDContinued

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowskis
Letter to Hon. Michael Turner, Chairman, Subcommittee on Strategic
Forces, Dated September 15, 2011 ..............................................................
National Legal and Policy Center Chairman Ken Boehms Letter to Hon.
Darrell Issa and Hon. Edolphus Towns, House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, Dated February 2, 2011 ....................................
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING:
Mr. Garamendi .................................................................................................
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING:
Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................

106
98
115
119

SUSTAINING GPS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES,
Washington, DC, Thursday, September 15, 2011.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:42 a.m. in room
2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Turner (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL TURNER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM OHIO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
STRATEGIC FORCES

Mr. TURNER. Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to the

Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on sustaining GPS [Global
Positioning System] for national security.
I was planning to make the usual statement of appreciation to
the witnesses for their appearance here today. And to those witnesses who took this issue seriously enough to be hereGeneral
Shelton, Ms. Takai, Mr. Nebbia, Mr. Russo and Mr. KnappI do
want to thank you for taking the time to be here and your testimony.
That said, I have the unfortunate responsibility to inform the
subcommittee that the Federal Communications Chairman
Genachowski refused to appear today. I must also make clear that
I consider the chairmans failure to show up today to be an affront
to the House Armed Services Committee.
Further, it appears to be symptomatic of a disregard by the
chairman to the consequences of the FCCs [Federal Communications Commission] January 26th waiver to LightSquared.
Now, we have heard that perhaps even the chairman was even
in this very building today. We would like to know that from the
chairman, whether or not he even came so close to this hearing as
to be in this building and still not appear.
At no time did the chairman offer an alternative time to appear.
We are unaware of any issue of this being merely a scheduling conflict. And the chairman did say that he was concerned about it
prejudicing the process about what he might say during the hearing.
Personally, I believe this is an absolute effort by the chairman
to avoid the oversight questions by Congress, to avoid the responsibility of the issue of how this will affect GPS and what the FCCs
processes appear to be irregular as to how this manner is moving
forward.
(1)

2
So I am very concerned that the chairman has not appeared and
has not given us, really, a very good understanding or a very good
reasoning as to why he is not answering these questions.
Now, I do appreciate the chairman is apparently willing to provide personal responses to written questions for the record submitted by the subcommittee, according to staff. But the chairmans
priority should be the same as the subcommittees: Sustaining GPS
for national security.
Now, we all understand the difference between written questions
and in-person testimony. You dont have an ability to ask a followon question. No one else gets to hear the aspect of his question to
have them follow a different take. This, I think, makes the ability
of this subcommittee to get to the bottom of these issues and to,
more importantly, advance the issue of sustaining GPS for national
security more difficult.
With that out of the way, I wish to introduce and express my appreciation to the witnesses who are here: General William Shelton,
Commander of the Air Force Space Command. I note this is General Sheltons second appearance before this subcommittee in as
many weeks. Either the General really likes us or he is working
to accommodate us on a very strong basis. Ms. Takai, Chief Information Officer for the Department of Defense; Mr. Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration; and Mr. Anthony Russo, National Coordination Office, Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Training, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Mr. Julius Knapp, Chief of the Federal
Communications Commission Office of Engineering and Technology.
Mr. Knapp, I want to thank you for being here today. And I want
it to be clear that neither I nor my colleagues have anything other
than gratitude for your service. Our concerns are with the chairmans lack of appearance. And we certainly appreciate the information that you are going to provide us today, but we do believe that
the chairman has additional questions that he needs to be answering.
I want to thank all of you for being here.
Now, why are we here this morning?
General Shelton, you might remember this question. It was
asked by a member of the subcommittee during the classified briefing you provided all of us last week on LightSquared GPS test results.
And that question is, why are we here? I mean, to some extent
this issue seems relatively clear, and yet we are still facing a process that is moving forward. And so that is why we are having this
hearing today, which is to try to get some light on the issue of
LightSquared and GPS.
A brief recap of how we got here to the point of this hearing: On
January 26th of this year, the FCC granted a conditional waiver
of its own rules allowing LightSquared to establish a terrestrial
broadbanded network and be freed of certain gating requirements,
which were designed to keep any potential terrestrial service from
overwhelming the satellite spectrum that LightSquared held.

3
As we now know, this network would operate with over 40,000
base stations operating at a frequency adjacent to that long used
by Global Positioning System, known as GPS, at almost 5 billion
times the power of the GPS system. The chairman of the FCC
knew that there were concerns about the proposed waiver for
LightSquared as he received a letter from Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill Lynn on January 12, 2 weeks before the waiver was
issued.
The Deputy Secretary wrote to Mr. Genachowski that there is
strong potential for interference to these critical national security
space systems, referring to GPS. This letter also asked that the
chairman pay personal attention on this matter.
Without objection, this letter will be made part of the record of
this hearing.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on
page 97.]
Mr. TURNER. We also know that National Telecommunications
Information Administration Assistant Secretary Lawrence
Strickling wrote to Chairman Genachowski recommending that the
FCC not go forward with the LightSquared waiver request.
Many have observed that the FCC followed an irregular process
on the LightSquared waiver. First, the National Legal and Policy
Center stated in a February 2, 2011, letter to the chairman and
ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee that over the course of the past year, a series of odd
decisions, questionable meetings and procedural anomalies at the
Federal Communications Commission and White House highlight
Mr. Falcones growing influence in the hallways of government.
Mr. Falcone is the CEO of the hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners, which owns LightSquared.
Without objection, this letter will be made a part of the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on
page 98.]
Mr. TURNER. Additionally, in a March letter to Chairman
Genachowski, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, joined by the Deputy Secretary of Transportation noted that, the DOD [Department
of Defense] and DOT [Department of Transportation] were not sufficiently included in the development of the LightSquared initial
work plan and its key milestones. This letter again sought the
FCC chairmans personal attention.
Without objection, this letter will also be made a part of our
record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on
page 105.]
Mr. TURNER. And just yesterday, the Center for Policy Integrity
released a report detailing, emails show wireless firms communications with the White House as campaign donations were
made.
In my capacity as a member of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I will be asking Chairman Issa and
Ranking Member Towns to promptly investigate this matter. We
cannot afford to have Federal telecommunications policy, especially
where it affects national security, to be made in the same way that
the White House has parceled out a half billion dollars in loan

4
guarantees to the failed Solyndra Corporation, a large political
campaign contributor of the President.
While there is clearly concern about how the FCC has conducted
this process, those concerns are within the purview of the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform. Also, aside from the scope of
todays hearing, but of significance and concern nonetheless, is the
impact to GPS receiver manufacturers, like Trimble Navigation in
my home town of Dayton, Ohio, which manufacturers GPS receivers for the agricultural sector and heavy machinery producers, like
Caterpillar.
But this subcommittees main purview is national security. And
the national security consequences of the LightSquared network
are significant. As I mentioned, the concern in this case is that
LightSquareds proposed network of 40,000 base stations around
the U.S. which broadcast at an adjacent signal frequency to that
used by the GPS system, but at 5 billion times the signal strength,
will render or may render useless the DODs GPS receivers.
I think General Shelton will be telling us today that it does. General Shelton, Commander of the Air Force Space Command, informed the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee members in last
weeks briefing that tests show LightSquareds signal causes significant interference to military GPS. Simply put, if the FCC gives
LightSquared the final go-ahead to build out this network, I fear
that the DODs training activities in the United States may come
to an end. This cannot be allowed to happen. As the members of
the House Armed Services Committee know, before U.S. troops are
deployed, they conduct extensive real world training, which includes the use of GPS for orientating U.S. Forces, locating friendly
forces and locating enemy forces, conducting search and rescue activities, targeting of precision-guided ordnance and calling in close
air support. None of these activities are possible without DODs
high-precision GPS receivers, which would be most affected by the
LightSquared network.
As a Member of Congress I can think of no higher responsibility
than making sure our U.S. military forces are fully trained and
equipped before they are deployed overseas to Afghanistan, Iraq, or
any place in harms way.
Likewiseand this is something in all of our minds close to the
10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United Statessignificant harmful interference to the GPS system would be a tremendous liability to our defense of our homeland.
General Shelton, I recall you making this point, and I look forward to your comments on that today.
The Armed Services Committees position, as articulated by the
Turner-Sanchez amendment to the National Defense Authorization
Act of fiscal year 2012, is that the Federal Communications Commission should not grant LightSquared final approval of the conditional waiver granted to the company on January 26, 2011, until
the Commission has dealt with potential harmful interference to
DODs GPS receivers.
LightSquared itself has no apparent objection to this provision.
LightSquared has been making a vigorous case for its $4 billion investment in its proposed network build-out of a new nationwide

5
broadband service. That it is a bipartisan policy objective to encourage more nationwide broadband service and more competition as a
policy is not in dispute, at least not before this committee.
The question for the subcommittee today is how to evaluate the
harm identified by the Department of Defense to its $34 billion investment in GPS, GPS ground stations and DOD high-precision
military GPS receivers.
Again, it is more important than how much this cost, the issue
of what is the effect upon the warfighters who rely on this technology for safety and their technological edge against adversity.
And let me state that harm to GPS, once again very clearly, tests
show LightSquareds signal causes significant interference to military GPS.
As my colleagues know by now, on Tuesday of this week, the
FCC apparently came to the same conclusion and issued a Public
Notice that potential for harmful interference meant that additional targeted testing is needed. I consider this to be the understatement of the decade. But we need to know what this Public Notice actually means for DOD GPS users. This may very well be an
effort to push matters off merely a few months under the assumption that Congress will be distracted.
I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses to get to the bottom of this matter.
And with that, let me turn to my ranking member, Ms. Sanchez,
who has done some excellent work on this topic and has been a
great defender of our GPS system for the Department of Defense.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner can be found in the Appendix on page 29.]
STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
STRATEGIC FORCES

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you to the witnesses for being here before us.
You know, I am not really concerned, Mr. Chairman, about
Chairman Genachowski not being before our committee today. I
think that you and I had a very good meeting with him last week.
And he stated some of the reasons why he really didnt want to be
before our committee today, if you will.
And he also sent a letter, I know, to you, which I would like to
put into the record so that everybody can see what the chairman
of the FCC has said with respect to this issue at this point.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on
page 106.]
Ms. SANCHEZ. I would like to say that it seems to me that this
is really a fight brewing, a fight brewing out there between commerce, if you will, and the civilian issues that we face every day
with respect to communicating, between people in particular and
information sharing, et cetera, and our military security. And if
that is the case, if this is going to be sort of a battle between commerce and our national security, I think that you and I would
agree, Mr. Chairman, that I think national security is going to be
on the top layer for, not only us and not only the Congress, but for
Americans if they are faced with that one or the other solution.

6
So what I think this process is about is to see if there is an accommodation that allows our commercial aspects to move forward
in order to make our country as competitive as it can be and yet,
at the same time, continue to allow us the type of national security
that we all have worked so hard toward. And, you know, those
types of pushes and those types of fights, if you will, are really
what this Congress is about, and it is really about policy issues and
really it is about Americans and what they decide that they want.
And that is why it is important that we have these types of hearings and that we have things pretty out in the open as much as
we can so that Americans can also see not only the type of work
that the Congress does, but what is really at stake.
So I doand I want to take note that in the Congress in particular, there are always these judicial types of issues. Energy and
Commerce as a committee, of course, is pushing to see more jobs
come forward, to see new technologies come forward, to have communication happen. We on the military committee, it is our job to
ensure that our national security is at its best.
So I look forward to this hearing for that reason, because we
have heard from a lot of sides. There are a lot of people walking
the halls of Congress trying to speak to these issues.
GPS assets, I want to say, are critical to our national security
and to our way of life. And so I actually support the increase and
the improvement of broadband service, but not at the expense of
national security. So I just want people to know that.
Again, I dont know that it is one or the other. There might be
accommodations.
But here is the issue: The issue is that we are in a time of limited budgets, and that we have a deep investment by our military
and by our taxpayers with respect to the programs that we already
have, to the devices that we have, and so anybody trying to do
something from a commercial aspect will have to show us that it
doesnt affect our national security and that if there is mitigation
to be done, that that should not necessarily fall on the taxpayer.
But then again, that is what public policy is about. That is what
votes are about. That is what elections are about as we move forward.
I would like to say, Mr. Turner, you and I have worked very well
on this committee, and I dont think that we need to point fingers
or politicize or really call into question peoples intents or what
their motives are. I hope that is not the case in some of the harsher
language that I heard right now in your opening statement.
You know, I want to do the right things, and Members of Congress want to do the right things. I hope that this hearing will give
us a better understanding for several key issues.
I also want to say another thing before I get into the specifics
of this. A lot of questions are being placed on whose intent, whose
motivation, et cetera, including to our military men and women.
And I think it is right to question, but I do not want to see anybody
smeared in this about what their motives or intents are, especially
not our military people. So I just want to say that, too, to our general sitting there. I think it is important to have this discussion.
This hearing, I hope, will provide us the opportunity to better
understand key issues that we need to understand in making deci-

7
sions: First of all, the risk and the impacts of LightSquareds proposed terrestrial 4G network plan and how that interference will
affect our weapons systems; the level to which our military depends
on GPS assets; whether the interference can be mitigated, and
whether the fixes would require recertification of our weapons programs; what the impact is to the mission, and what those costs
would be.
It bears noting, and I think the chairman put that forward, that
our investment from the taxpayer standpoint is almost $35 billion.
And if there is to be further testing, what that would look like and
what the timelines would be for something like this.
What the FCCs process is for deciding whether to allow implementation of LightSquareds proposal, and what consultations are
ongoing with other agencies, and whether those agencies in their
consultation, if that is being taken seriously by the FCC. I think
that is an important point because, you know, some would think
that they are not listening.
How the interagency process will ensure that our national security issues are considered and resolved satisfactorily.
I think those are the important issues, and I look forward to this.
And again, I am glad that it is out in the open so that we can do
away with whose intent, and who is a winner and loser, and really
focus on our national security and our communication for the future for America.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will submit my written testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sanchez can be found in the Appendix on page 33.]
Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez.
Without objection, the letter you referenced will be made part of
the record, though I note I do believe that it is nonresponsive and
ambiguous in many key respects of the questions that we had
asked.
I will be submitting additional questions to Chairman
Genachowski that he has indicated that he will accept personally.
As we are turning to our witnesses, I just want to reiterate the
central purpose for this hearing: We currently are in a situation
where DOD says that LightSquared, their system affects GPS and
our national security. We are looking at this information in light
of the fact that the FCC has already, in part, proceeded with
LightSquared in a manner which would affect our national security, and we still understand that there is a process going forward
with the FCC that, ultimately, this could go forward. So we are in
the context of understanding its effects on national security, and I
think the understandingand I am looking forward to General
Sheltons testimonyof the clarity that this is not ambiguous, that
this affects national security and affects our GPS.
With that, General Shelton.
STATEMENT OF GEN WILLIAM L. SHELTON, USAF,
COMMANDER, U.S. AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND

General SHELTON. Mr. Chairman, Representative Sanchez and

distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to ap-

8
pear before you today alongside these other witnesses as the Commander of Air Force Space Command.
Our command is the DOD lead for the Global Positioning System
constellation of satellites responsible for developing, building,
launching, and operating GPS to deliver precision, positioning,
navigation and timing services to billions of military, civil and commercial users.
Although GPS is a military-procured and operated satellite constellation, it is recognized as a global utility, serving users around
the globe. In fact, its use is so ubiquitous here at home, I would
put GPS in the category of critical infrastructure for the United
States.
And for our military, GPS has become an essential capability for
a host of applications in joint operations.
Today I appear at the subcommittees request to discuss the testing conducted thus far for the proposed LightSquared terrestrial
broadband network. The test we conducted in concert with the FAA
[Federal Aviation Administration] was robust, with over 100 receivers from 24 different organizations, and it spanned the military,
Government, aviation, precision, agriculture, automotive, and general-use communities. It is important to note that the testing was
conducted using an actual LightSquared transmitter, broadcast filters, and antennas which would be used in their network.
In addition to providing their equipment and setting it up to ensure an accurate test, LightSquared personnel reviewed our test
plan to ensure it was consistent with their originally planned network deployment.
The test results showed LightSquared signals, operating according to their originally filed deployment plan, interfere with every
type of receiver in the test. These results were compiled in a report
submitted through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to the FCC on July 6th of this year.
LightSquared has since proposed an alternative deployment plan,
which involves lower power broadcasts and the use of only the
lower 10 megahertz of their assigned frequencies. We conducted
only limited testing on broadcasts in the lower 10 alone, but precision receivers, and even some cell phones, were still affected. Further testing would be required to fully characterize the potential
interference with this lower 10 plan.
As we move forward under NTIAs [National Telecommunications
and Information Administration] direction in evaluating the latest
LightSquared proposal, Air Force Space Command remains open to
ideas on mitigation strategies, but we must ensure we continue to
lead the world in PNT [positioning, navigation and timing] services
and reliably support our users worldwide.
In summary, based on the test results and analysis to date, the
LightSquared network would effectively jam vital GPS receivers,
and to our knowledge thus far, there are no mitigation options that
would be effective in eliminating interference to essential GPS
services in the United States.
I thank the committee for your continued support of Air Force
Space Command and the capabilities we provide this Nation, and
I look forward to your questions. Thank you, sir.

9
[The prepared statement of General Shelton can be found in the
Appendix on page 34.]
Mr. TURNER. Ms. Takai.
STATEMENT OF TERESA M. TAKAI, CHIEF INFORMATION
OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Ms. TAKAI. Good morning, Chairman Turner, Ranking Member

Sanchez, and distinguished subcommittee members, and thank you
for the opportunity to testify regarding the importance of GPS to
our national defense capabilities.
My testimony today will focus on the importance of GPS reliability to the Department of Defense in ensuring that our
warfighters and allies have the critical positioning, navigation and
timing, or PNT, capabilities that they require.
As General Shelton said, we believe the GPS stands as a cornerstone of the DOD PNT capability and is integrated into almost
every aspect of our U.S. military operations. To give you but a few
examples, GPS signals are used to ensure the accuracy of precisionguided munitions, to guide troop movements, to synchronize communication networks, and to enable battlespace situational awareness, and to conduct search and rescue missions.
DOD is committed to sustaining and modernizing GPS to maintain and improve our military PNT capabilities. Several GPS innovations are scheduled during the next 10-plus years, including
three new civil signals, enhanced encrypted military signals, and a
new constellation operational control segment, which are scheduled
to come on line by 2018 and then be implemented systemwide into
the GPS receiver populations over the successive 5 or more years.
As DODs chief information officer, I have the collateral duty as
the co-chair of the executive steering group of the National Executive Committee for Space-Based PNT, along with my counterpart
from the Department of Transportation. The role of that EXCOM
[executive committee] is to advise departments, agencies and the
Executive Office of the President regarding strategic policies, requirements, and security of all PNT infrastructures, including GPS.
In response to the January 2011 Federal Communications order
that conditionally allowed LightSquared to unbundle their ancillary
terrestrial component restriction in the mobile satellite services
band adjacent to GPS, the PNT EXCOM tasked the National
Space-Based PNT Engineering Forum, or the NPEF, to perform
testing to ascertain the potential interference. As General Shelton
mentioned, that testing was performed at White Sands Missile
Range in Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico.
That report was completed on June 15th of 2011 and then submitted to NTIA for their review and transmitted to FCC. The test
data indicated that proposed LightSquared terrestrial operations
would cause harmful interference to GPS operations. GPS receivers
of various types of manufacturer, operated not just by DOD but by
the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation Administration, the
State of New Mexico Public Safety, commercial aviation, and precision farming systems showed varying degrees of degradation of
GPS accuracy, interruptions to GPS signal acquisition, or total loss
of GPS tracking and position.

10
None of the parties cognizant of the NPEF testing dispute that
the LightSquared terrestrial network plan that was tested by
NPEF caused unacceptable levels of harmful interference to GPS.
The testing also showed a source of interference that was due to
the combined effect of the LightSquared dual-channel signal. This
inter-modulation product was generated on top of the GPS L1 signal in its GPS band, interfering with GPS receivers. This IMP
[inter-modulation product] was caused by the LightSquared dualchannel choice and its design, and not by the designs or filtering
limitations of the GPS receivers.
Subsequently, LightSquared and the GPS industry filed their
Technical Working Group report. That report also does not contest
the NPEF results, nor does it offer a mitigation solution of the IMP
interference. Instead, as has been mentioned, LightSquared proposed to the FCC the recommendation of an alternative terrestrial
network that was not in the test plans of either the NPEF or TWG
[Technical Working Group] tests and was not tested to any extent
comparable to the dual-channel tests.
LightSquareds modified proposal recommends launching commercial services initially in only their lower 10 megahertz. DOD at
this time has not received a sufficiently clear and complete description of a LightSquared lower 10 megahertz deployment plan to professionally analyze its new aggregate interference environment.
In addition, we are evaluating the effects of LightSquareds terrestrial transmissions on the militarys use of the Inmarsat satellite systems for data and voice communication. The LightSquared
terrestrial system will interfere with DOD usage if Inmarsat if appropriate mitigation actions are not taken.
We are diligently working with Inmarsat to identify mitigating
techniques for reducing the potential interference for military,
land, maritime, and aeronautical missions and communication requirements.
The Department will continue to work with its administration
partners and NTIA, as well as with Congress, to address long-term
solutions regarding the balance between Federal spectrum requirements and the expanding demand for mobile broadband services.
We look forward to working with the FCC, NTIA, and
LightSquared to ensure that all further proposed mitigations or alternatives for the LightSquared terrestrial network are thoroughly
tested to ensure no harmful interference to GPS receivers or other
military spectrum requirements. The ability of GPS to operate
without harmful interference remains of paramount importance to
the Department. Thank you for your interest in the Departments
efforts in this area, and I would be glad to answer any questions
that you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Takai can be found in the Appendix on page 49.]
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Nebbia.

11
STATEMENT OF KARL NEBBIA, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. NEBBIA. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Sanchez, and

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, the Presidents principal advisor on telecommunications and information policy, and manager of Federal use of the
radio spectrum.
As Associate Administrator for the Office of Spectrum Management, I oversee this critical spectrum function. I am pleased to discuss NTIAs efforts to ensure that critical uses of GPS continue
without interference.
In November of last year, LightSquared proposed to modify its
authorization for a mobile satellite service auxiliary terrestrial
component previously understood to be a satellite service gap filler.
This proposal requested authorization to deploy, on a wholesale
basis, a nationwide terrestrial network with handsets that do not
connect to the satellite system. These operations would occur in
two spectrum bands on either side of the GPS range, with two signals within each of these two bands.
This proposal represented the potential for increased mobile
broadband capacity and choice for all Americans. However,
LightSquareds proposal generated concern from the GPS community that the network would cause interference to GPS receivers.
These concerns did not arise from LightSquareds emissions spilling into the GPS band, but from the fact that some GPS receivers
would not adequately filter LightSquared signals outside of the
GPS band. Also, some other GPS receivers, including precision receivers, improved their accuracy by extending into the MSS [Mobile
Satellite Services] band.
On January 12th, NTIA advised the FCC that the Federal agency concerns warranted a full evaluation. On the 26th of January,
the Commission granted LightSquared a waiver conditioned on
consultation with NTIA and the resolution of GPS interference concerns. Between January and June, a Technical Working Group cochaired by LightSquared and the GPS Industry Council; NASA
[National Aeronautics and Space Administration], via the Jet Propulsion Lab; RTCA [Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics],
on behalf of aviation interests; and the Executive Committee for
Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing, the EXCOM, all
conducted tests of GPS devices in the presence of LightSquared signals. These tests were based on LightSquareds original plan to
transmit two separate 10 megahertz base station signals within the
band just below GPS.
On July 6th, NTIA submitted the results of the EXCOM test
showing that LightSquareds proposed operations would cause interference to both Government and commercial GPS uses. NTIA
recommended that the FCC continue to withhold authorization to
commence commercial operations. The report of the Technical
Working Group reached similar conclusions.
As a result, LightSquared proposed to modify its plan and use
only the lower 10 megahertz channel. This change came too late for

12
full testing and evaluation by Federal agencies and raised concern
about applying critical resources to an evolving proposal.
NTIA and the Federal agencies have been reviewing the test
data to determine whether the use of the lower 10 megahertz
would eliminate interference to general navigation and cellular
GPS receivers, and whether additional testing and analyses are
needed.
Everyone agrees that some timing and precision devices will receive interference even if LightSquared uses only the lower 10
megahertz. Therefore, for those applications, some other mitigation
technique will have to be developed and tested.
Last week NTIA requested that the EXCOM work with
LightSquared to develop a test plan to study, by November 30th,
remaining concerns for general navigation and cellular receivers,
and we have provided that document as an exhibit within our testimony.
Meanwhile, LightSquared is pursuing the design and manufacture of a filter to mitigate impacts to precision receivers. With respect to timing receivers, LightSquared has identified an antenna
with filter characteristics that may provide a possible solution.
LightSquared has agreed that it will not commence commercial
operations until the Federal agencies test these techniques and
conclude that they prevent interference without degrading the performance of the receivers.
The Administration intends to protect critical and national security-relevant GPS services. Due to the need for additional spectrum
for mobile broadband, we will try to resolve these interference
issues to maximize use of the band.
We will, in coordination with the FCC, work to complete the required testing or analysis and determine what strategies can provide workable solutions. We await LightSquareds delivery of a filter for the high-precision receivers and will seek prompt agency
testing and analysis of that solution when it arrives.
LightSquared has submitted a new proposal to the Commission
seeking to protect GPS operations based on an agreed signal level
on the ground. We will also review this approach as we move forward.
In coordination with the Federal agencies, we will provide thorough and expert input to this dialogue so that the American public
can extract the greatest possible benefit from the radio spectrum.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I am pleased
to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nebbia can be found in the Appendix on page 56.]
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Russo.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY J. RUSSO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
COORDINATION OFFICE, SPACE-BASED POSITIONING, NAVIGATION AND TRAINING, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Mr. RUSSO. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Sanchez, and

distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.

13
The Global Positioning System has grown into a worldwide utility whose multi-use services are integral to our national and homeland security. Services dependent on GPS information are now an
engine for economic growth and improve both the safety and the
quality of life. The system is essential to first responders and a key
component to multiple critical infrastructure sectors.
Since 1983, the United States has had a multi-use policy in place
for GPS. This policy has had strong bipartisan support, and each
successive administration has strengthened the interagency participation in the program. In 2004, President Bush issued a policy establishing a deputy secretary-level executive committee, or
EXCOM, to advise and coordinate on GPS issues. Last year, President Obama signed a comprehensive National Space Policy which
left this EXCOM structure in place but added emphasis and additional guidance in four key areas related to GPS, and specifically
addressed the issue of GPS interference. This policy also directs the
identification of impacts to Government space systems prior to any
reallocation of spectrum for commercial, Federal, or shared use.
To execute the staff functions of the EXCOM and to assist them
in ensuring implementation of the Presidents policy objectives, a
National Coordination Office was established with representatives
from every department or agency with major equities in GPS. I am
the director of this interagency office.
On the 26th of January of this year, the FCC approved a conditional waiver for LightSquareds high-powered broadband network
that the executive committee had warned might cause significant
interference to GPS applications. And with the permission of the
executive committee, I tasked interagency working group called the
NPEF to conduct modeling, simulation, analysis, bench testing,
chamber testing, and live sky testing to evaluate the effects of
LightSquareds transmissions on GPS receivers.
The group was co-chaired by leaders in FAA and the Air Force,
but with supporting technical representatives from across the
interagency. And despite the numerous limitations and constraints
that I have listed for you in my written testimony, the NPEF was
able to complete the job they were asked to do. They evaluated a
wide range of representative receivers against all three phases of
LightSquareds proposed deployment.
The answer is definitive: LightSquareds proposed system will
create harmful interference. The NPEF could not identify any feasible option that would mitigate harmful interference for all, or
even most, GPS users and still allow LightSquared to meet their
system requirements.
Now, when the FCC granted the conditional waiver, they directed the creation of a LightSquared-led working group to conduct
tests and resolve the interference concerns that the EXCOM had
raised. The FCC highly encouraged participation from the Government, so 10 of our best technical experts from across the interagency participated in this Technical Working Group, or TWG,
along with strong representation from across the diverse GPS industry. The test results collected and analyzed by this TWG were
consistent with the results of the Government NPEF test.
On June 29th, LightSquared submitted their TWG report acknowledging the harmful interference their system would create.

14
And simultaneously, LightSquared submitted a separate recommendations report outlining a proposed three-part solution. The
LightSquared recommendation report was not reviewed or evaluated by the TWG, and all 10 of the Government participants disagree with the assertion it makes about TWG results.
LightSquareds three-part proposal is very constructive and involves both lower authorized power and a rephasing of their deployment so that the channel further from the border of GPS comes
first. This would decrease, but not eliminate, the number and extent of initial impacts to GPS devices and allow more time for the
development of mitigation methods.
This new initial phase was not tested by the Government, since
it wasnt proposed until after we had submitted our results. But
yesterday, I did receive permission from the executive committee to
begin a new round of testing focused on this new signal configuration.
In LightSquareds new proposal, they offered a standstill for operating their second higher frequency channel, which does impact
all classes of GPS receivers. Now, just when they would need to use
the second channel was undefined. However, LightSquared testified
to Congress they were seeking a glide path to using it within 2 to
3 years. Therefore, any necessary mitigation measures would have
to be in place by that timeframe.
Further study is needed, and in progress, on the most recent
LightSquared proposals, and my office will support these studies.
I thank you for this opportunity to speak on this issue of great
strategic importance to the Nation and to over a billion worldwide
users of GPS. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Russo can be found in the Appendix on page 71.]
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Knapp.
STATEMENT OF JULIUS KNAPP, CHIEF, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Mr. KNAPP. Good afternoon, Chairman Turner, Ranking Member

Sanchez, and members of the subcommittee.
My name is Julius Knapp, and I am chief of the Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering and Technology, where
I have been an engineer for 37 years.
OET [Office of Engineering and Technology] is the Commissions
primary resource for engineering expertise and provides technical
support to the chairman, commissioners, and the FCCs bureaus
and offices.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Commission concerning the process for working with other agencies to resolve spectrum interference issues and on LightSquared. The FCC
has managed Americas commercial spectrum since 1934, although
our predecessor agencies were operating since 1912. We have nearly 100 years of accumulated experience in governing airways and
ensuring that the services using our Nations valuable spectrum do
not cause harmful interference to one another. This work is a central part of our core mission.

15
As you are aware, the FCC and the NTIA share responsibility for
managing the radio spectrum. While the FCC is responsible for use
of the spectrum by the commercial sector, as well as State and local
governments, the NTIA is responsible for use by the Federal Government, including the Department of Defense. The FCC and NTIA
have coordinated use of the spectrum by various services, and prevented and resolved harmful interference under a memorandum of
understanding that has worked effectively for more than 70 years.
My written testimony provides historical background on the development of rules for the ancillary terrestrial component service of
the Mobile Satellite Service. There are two brief points I would like
to make. First, the provisions for terrestrial service were first
adopted in 2003 and affirmed in 2005 in an open rulemaking, in
which GPS interference issues were considered.
Second, an authorization was granted to LightSquareds predecessors in 2004 to offer ancillary terrestrial service in the L-Band
spectrum adjacent to GPS. The Commission, in January 2011,
granted LightSquared a conditional waiver of the rule requiring an
integrated satellite and terrestrial service. Under this conditional
waiver, customers of LightSquareds wholesale mobile satellite and
terrestrial service could themselves offer standalone terrestrial
service at retail, provided LightSquared itself offers only a fully integrated terrestrial and satellite service.
The waiver did not alter any of the provisions governing
LightSquareds terrestrial network and continued to require
LightSquared to provide a robust satellite service consistent with
the launch of its new satellite last November.
After LightSquared submitted its request, the GPS industry, the
NTIA, and other Federal agencies raised strong concerns that
LightSquareds base stations operating adjacent to the GPS band
would cause overload interference to GPS receivers. This was a
new issue that had not come up previously.
Accordingly, the conditional waiver stipulated that LightSquared
could not provide commercial service until the Commission, in consultation with NTIA and working with the agencies, is satisfied
that the concerns about potential or harmful interference to GPS
have been resolved. The conditional waiver also directed
LightSquared to organize and participate in a GPS interference
Technical Working Group, in which interested parties could work
directly with LightSquared to resolve potential GPS harmful interference concerns. LightSquared filed the final report of the Technical Working Group on June 30th, and the public comment period
on that closed on August 15th, although we have continued to meet
with all of the parties.
Based on the results of the working groups testing,
LightSquared submitted its recommendations to address the interference problems. LightSquared, recognizing that the upper portion
of its band significantly interfered with GPS receivers, proposed to
operate only in the lower portion of its band furthest away from
GPS. Earlier this week, the Commissions international bureau and
the Office of Engineering and Technology released a Public Notice
which reflects the Commissions determination, in consultation
with the NTIA, that additional targeted testing is needed to ensure

16
that any potential interference from commercial services offered by
LightSquared do not cause harmful interference of GPS.
In closing, I want to make absolutely clear that, as Chairman
Genachowski has said, and I believe it is in his letter as well, the
Commission will not authorize LightSquared to begin commercial
service if its operation would cause harmful interference to GPS.
The Commission and its staff would never take, and have never
taken, an action that would threaten the safety or security of
American citizens.
We will continue to work closely with the NTIA, the Department
of Defense, and the Federal agencies to assess LightSquareds latest proposal and determine the viability of technical solutions that
would enable both services to coexist. We would be certainly happy
to keep the committee informed of our progress, and I look forward
to answering any of your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knapp can be found in the Appendix on page 85.]
Mr. TURNER. Thank you so much, Mr. Knapp.
I appreciate your statement of that commitment. That is why, of
course, we are having this hearing. And we have four witnesses before you who said that this system absolutely affects our national
security and our GPS, upon which we are reliant, and so as we said
before, we are certainly looking forward to this being resolved so
we can all have that confidence that the FCC will recognize the
clear and unambiguous statements of the four people that spoke
before you.
General Shelton, you have been just incredible in helping this
committee to try to understand this and to come up to speed on it.
As we look to GPS, the operations of our military, we look to you,
the technical experts, to come and tell us, in balancing these issues
of technical capabilities, is there an impact to our national security,
and is there an impact to the GPS on which we rely?
We appreciate your very clear statements and your dedication in
looking at testing and engineering requirements so that when you
have provided us your conclusion, that we can all be confident in
it.
In your prepared testimony you state, testing showed unacceptable interference to all 33 high-performance receivers, as well as
certain military receivers, tested in the vicinity of the
LightSquared low band transmitter.
In our classified briefing, you provided us with some slides that
are unclassified, and I have those here, and I appreciate this representation of showing the interference that is coming from the terrestrial system upon the GPSs frequency. And I ask that this slide
be included in the record of today that shows that this encouragement or interference is really the area where we start to see the
problems in the operations for GPS.
And then also, on slide 11, which comments on the proposal of
the lower 10 channel, your statement on this slide is, not acceptable, based upon initial test results from both the Engineering
Forum and Industry Council reports, and then you say more tests
needed. I note, in your written testimony you state, similarly, clearly this affects GPS even at their proposal of the lower 10. So, with
that, knowing that, both in your testimony and the slide, there is

17
a statement of additional testing needed, could you please tell us,
going forward, what would be the path for evaluating this option
of the lower 10 that is proposed by LightSquared?
And from what you have seen so far, what is your opinion as to
whether or not this is at all even a realistic option as you continue
to test it?
General.
General SHELTON. Mr. Chairman, as we looked at that under the
previous testing we saw, certainly, interference even with the lower
10. The TWG saw the same thing. They saw interference in certain
types of receiversnot allbut certain types of receivers. The latest direction from the NTIAand Mr. Nebbia may want to talk
more about thisbut the latest direction is to not test the high-precision receivers and the timing receivers just yet because there are
some mitigation options that have been proposed, but arent quite
yet ready for prime time; that is, filters on the high-precision receivers and a special antenna on the timing receivers. We
Mr. TURNER. Now, before you go forward, I want you to finish,
so dont lose your thought process there, but to clarify the issue of
the filters, the filters are something that you would have to do, not
that they would have to do, right? I mean, it doesnt go on
LightSquareds system? It goes on your system?
General SHELTON. It does. LightSquared has proposed that they
could develop these filters.
Mr. TURNER. And then you would have to put this in everything?
General SHELTON. Absolutely. Every precision receiver would
have to be retrofitted. How that might affect the overall platform
that it is on is an unknown.
Mr. TURNER. And the concepts of any time that you are modifying these systems, you add the issue of vulnerability to the systems and all type of unintended consequences that we cant be certain of, including the enormous cost that you would be facing.
General SHELTON. Enormous cost, time, integration testing to
thoroughly wring out these filters, if they are technically feasible.
And even with that, because there is a difference of opinion, technical difference of opinion here, we believe that the precision of
those receivers would be impacted even in the presence of that filter. There is, without getting too technical here, there is a center
frequency, and then there are harmonics off that center frequency.
It is those harmonics that go out among other frequencies that are
important for the precision of those wideband receivers, if you will.
Clipping off those harmonics decreases the accuracy of the receiver.
If there is something else magic out there, we dont know about it.
Mr. TURNER. And that is an interesting point, because certainly
you are very aware of the existing engineering, that the technology
that is thereso to summarize for a moment, what we have here
is your unambiguous statement that LightSquared system interferes. The two options that have been proposed, the lower 10 is one
that does not ameliorate the interference, and the filters, both of
which at this point seem to be unacceptable options from your testimony.
And then I have to ask you a question that is, I think, a little
bit amusing, and I would like your thoughts or reactions. We are
going to go a little bit from the technical. As you know, while we

18
were sitting in the classified briefing, one of the Members brought
with them this giant ad in Politico by LightSquared. And this ad
says, Excuse me, you are in my space. And in this picture, they
have got these two guys on a train and the one guy is leaning over
in the other guys space. I think the guy who is infringing on the
space is supposed to be DOD and commercial users.
I think they are trying to indicate, General, that this may be you
on the train going into LightSquareds space. And thisit was odd
in the tone of the ad, because again it is not that it is an issue of
technical clarity; it was an ad of blame. And so I have some questions for you. LightSquared argues that in this ad they say,
Theyre causing the problem. Theyve ignored government standards for eight years. Theyre taking advantage of an $18 billion
subsidy.
General, can I have your thoughts on these allegations? I know
you have seen the ad, too, and I think it is just very curious, and
I would just love your response.
General SHELTON. Mr. Chairman, the frequency band that we
are talking about here has, by FCC rulings in the past, has always
been intended to be a quiet neighborhood, that GPS could coexist
with other signals of the same magnitude. GPS is a very weak signal coming from space. It is a spread spectrum signal. It takes very
special processing by receivers to pull that signal out of the background noise. If you have signals of a similar strength to GPS, that
is not a problem for the receiver. However, if you put a rock band
in the middle of that very quiet neighborhood, it is a very different
sort of circumstance.
Does that reach into the spectrum that LightSquared was assigned? Absolutely, it does, but that was intentional in the design
of the GPS receivers to, again, take those harmonics that stretch
out. So to say that the manufacturers arent adhering to a standard, if you look at what we think they are considering to be the
standard, that standard is about broadcasts from the satellite, not
about receiver design.
Mr. TURNER. Well, I just want to point out also, then, my interpretation of this graphic picture here, because I think what is happening is not just that it is actually DOD and GPS users that are
being pushed away; with the LightSquared system, according to
current testing, no one else would be allowed on the bus. So we are
not even trying to share space. We are having one completely block
out the other.
I have additional questions. I know other members do. But I will
turn at this time to the ranking member.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you again to the witnesses.
General, could you elaborate on the impact of redesigning, manufacturing, testing, integrating, modifying cost and time on everything that would be affected if youif there was a technical solution to this and there was a prototype that actually worked and
you were convinced it worked, what would be the timing and the
cost, in your opinion, to DOD to fix just our stuff that needs to
work, continue to work?
General SHELTON. We have not estimated costs. However, I think
it would be very safe to say that the cost would be in the Bs, bil-

19
lions of dollars. We believe that the timing would probably be a
decade or more to accomplish all this.
And the reason for that is, there are probably a million GPS receivers out there in the military. Maybe even more than that. But
again, its use is so ubiquitous in weapons, in high-performance
platforms, in timing of computer networks and all those sorts of applications that we take advantage of the GPS signal. We would
have to install this filteragain, if it is technically feasiblewe
would have to thoroughly test it. We might even have to do software modifications to accommodate it. I mean, there is just a whole
bevy of questions that are unanswered at this point.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Knapp, would the FCC be the one who addresses the question of who would pay for all this fix?
Mr. KNAPP. The first focus is on, do you have a fix that works,
and how could it be implemented, and is it viable? And, certainly,
the judgments relative to the military systems would have to be by
Department of Defense.
Whether there is a way to pay for that and the timing of it, we
would have to be working with the parties to see if there is a viable
solution.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Nebbia, given the technical complexities and,
as you probably can tell, the political sensitivities that are arising,
can you assure this committee that you and your colleagues have
the right ability and the right process to effectively analyze and resolve this issue? What is your comfort level? Because this is going
to come to a head here some time.
Mr. NEBBIA. Thank you, Ranking Member Sanchez.
We certainly have an ability within NTIA to work with the Federal agencies, including the Generals team, who are experts in
dealing with GPS issues. There are quite a number of agencies, including experts within the Department of Transportation, NASA,
and others. And certainly, under the coordinated effort of the
EXCOM, we have a significant resource there to delve into these
issues.
It is critical for usI really cant speak to the political issues in
that sensebut that we work through the factual and technical
issues. That is what our team can do. We can look at the technical
problems that have arisen from this proposal, and we can work
through that through real testing, through analysis, through modeling, to come up with answers. So I think in that process we have,
certainly, adequate involvement of various Federal agencies. We
have done a lot of consultation back and forth with the Commission. We have the Interdepartment Radio Avisory Committee, a
committee of Federal agencies, that supports us, in addition to the
EXCOM that has provided able input. So I think the ability there
is to work through it and to look for what solutions are, in fact,
available in the end.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you.
General Shelton, according to the FCC and LightSquared, neither DOD nor GPS raised any concerns during the multiyear process. Would you take this opportunity to fully explain why it took
so long for the Department and GPS to respond to the significant
terrestrial network?

20
General SHELTON. Yes, maam. I dont know that it is totally accurate to say that there were no concerns. I think this was a very
different business plan that was put forward, and I do believe we
were caught a bit off guard. The network proposed originally was
a space-based network, and then it was space augmented by
ground and then it became principally ground. A very significant
shift: 40,000 transmitters out there is a very different business
plan than just a few augmentation transmitters.
Ms. SANCHEZ. And when did you really kind of start sticking
your foot in and say, Wait a minute, something is wrong here, we
need to be involved here? At what point in this 8-year
General SHELTON. About January 2011, the January-February
timeframe this year is when we really started to get concerned.
Ms. SANCHEZ. And the last questionI know there are plenty of
members here who have questions. It is very well attended here.
The last question I have for all of you very quickly, do you all each
individually feel that your agencies have the ability to work
through this and that the interagency communication and listening
to each other is happening or do you think there are breakdowns?
General SHELTON. I think we have got good representation.
Ms. TAKAI. I would agree with General Shelton.
I think it is important to note that the PNT EXCOM has really
been the focal point for all of our discussion. And we have done
that very deliberately because it does include representation from
all of the parties. And I think being able to work through that committee enables us to look at all of the interests. And I think one
of the interests that we havent talked about a lot here is our partnership with DOT and making sure that we have the FAA concerns
adequately registered as well, because we are very dependent upon
the commercial, and it is very important that we have them included. So I think using the PNT EXCOM and then having the
close cooperation with NTIA and FCC gives us the ability to have
the open dialogue that we need.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you.
Mr. NEBBIA. I agree. I think I already gave an answer along this
line. So I will just pass on to Tony and put him in the hot seat.
Mr. RUSSO. Well, I concur with the other speakers.
We do have very strong participation from all of the departments
and agencies that are affected, and at very high levels. We have
had assistant secretaries, under secretaries, deputy secretaries,
personally working on this issue.
One area of caution I would have is that the technical expertise
on this mostly resides with General Sheltons folks. We have a lot
of people that are users of GPS but dont necessarily understand
how the black box works. So they can tell you how important it is
to their operation, but when it gets down to the very detailed technical discussions with LightSquared, we need help from the Air
Force.
Mr. KNAPP. I feel very confident in the process that we have in
place. What we have tried to do is engage all of the experts in this.
We have had many tough problems before, I know in my career,
and at times, they have seemed unsolvable. You work through it.
You have a debate, and wherever the chips fall based on the engineering is where it will come out.

21
Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Knapp.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Scott.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, Madam, Mr. Russo.
Mr. Knapp, thank you for your statement that you would not
allow anything that would interfere with national security come
through with the FCC.
I want to go back to this letter. Mr. Nebbia, is that correct? Is
that how I say it? I am somewhatI have read this letter and just
briefly.
But I want to read one of the sentences. Without waiting for the
interference issues to be resolved relating to high-precision and
timing receivers, we would like to move forward to reach resolution
of any remaining federal agency concerns with respect to the cellular and personal/general-navigation receivers. This is fromand
it says to contact you if there are any questions.
And it is signed by Lawrence Strickling, who I dont know.
But I have been in politics for 14 years. I have never seen an
agency advocate so strongly for something like this, unless there
was pressure from above or a relationship that was not being disclosed. And I guess I would like for you to explain to me why your
agency is advocating with the strength, and going to the lengths
that you are, in advocating for this private company when you have
got a general sitting thereand you are a graduate of the Naval
Academy, as I understand. You have got a general sitting there
saying that what these people are doing will affect national security, and yet we have got a Federal agency that is advocating on
behalf of a private business. Why should the taxpayers be paying
to prove these things? Why shouldnt that private company be bearing the burden of the expenses?
Mr. NEBBIA. Thank you. Certainly, in this case, there is an effort
on both sides to come to a resolution.
I would not characterize NTIAs efforts on this part in any way
as advocacy, as one side or another but, in fact, to move the proper
people into place to work on the issue. We have had to bring together agencies on our side, get together with the Commission, talk
to the GPS Industry Council, work with LightSquared, and so on.
In this particular case, the situation we have is that we know
that there has been a proposed fix for a certain number of the categories of GPS uses that will not be available for some time. Our
purpose here was to try to move the ball forward on the other parts
that we felt could be worked on at this point, as opposed to waiting
until some later date and getting back into it. So we still have that
difficulty ahead of us. The precision uses, the timing uses will still
have to be dealt with in the time to come. But it seemed like an
opportunity, before then, for us to work specifically on these issues.
The agency
Mr. SCOTT. Sir, I am down to about 2 minutes. Can you give me
another example of where your agency, the agency that you work
for, has advocated on behalf of a company, that the Department of
Defense has said that this particular issue affects national security? Can you give me another example of where your agency has
written a letter with similar language, without waiting for these

22
issues to be resolved, that you want the other agencies to move
ahead with licensing this? Can you give me an example of another
company that you all have advocated for to that level and strength?
Mr. NEBBIA. Actually, the letter does not ask for us to move
ahead with licensing. It is moving ahead in this process of testing.
The NTIA regularly deals with difficult situations in looking at
new commercial interests and demands for radio spectrum and the
fact that, in some cases, we have to be looking at spectrum currently occupied by the military. We are engaged in that at this
time. We have been engaged in it in the past.
In this particular case, the fact that it involves one company in
this band, I cant say whether that is usual or unusual. We generally are dealing with issues of broad issue and broad policy.
Mr. SCOTT. Sir, the letter reads move forward to reach resolution of any remaining Federal agency concerns. I have never seen
an agency, a State agency or a Federal agency, advocate that
strongly on behalf of any private sector company, unless somebodys wheel was getting greased.
I mean, the fact that we are even here having this discussion,
I think, is absolutely ridiculous.
And, Mr. Knapp, I want to thank you for the commitment that
the FCC will not allow the licensing of anything that will affect our
national security.
General, I want to thank you for the work that you have done
on this to protect America.
I yield back.
Mr. TURNER. Thank you.
Mr. Garamendi and Dr. Fleming also would like to go before the
votes.
And if that is the case, then what we will do is, if these two gentlemen can complete in the time in which we need to go, we will
conclude the hearing, and we will submit the remainder of our
questions for the record.
Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Perhaps the best way for me to proceed is not
to ask a question but, rather, to state what I believe to be the situation. We have a very, very important system in place, the GPS
system. It involves all types of activities, all of which have been
mentioned here. It is, therefore, extremely important, in my view,
that that system, in all of its various ways, be protected.
This goes to you, Mr. Knapp. It is not just the national security
through the military. It is the economic security and the personal
security of Americans and others around the world that are at risk
here.
So I would suggest in every way I can that you look way beyond
just the national security. My questions would go to that area.
Secondly, this is going to be a very expensive process of testing.
We have a new company entering space occupied by others. It
seems to me that that new company ought to bear the full cost of
proving that it is not harming others.
It appears to me that is not the case. I have not heard anything
from any of you that the company is paying for the testing that,
it seems to me, is going to be both extensive and expensive.

23
And I would like all of you to comment in writing about what
your costs of testing will be and where in your budgets you have
that money, or whether it is best that the new company that wants
to occupy this space should pay for the testing.
The subsequent question is, if the testing proves that certain
things can be doneantennas or filterswho, then, pays for putting those into effect?
And I would like to have a written response from all of you.
Thank you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on
page 115.]
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Garamendi, thank you so much for your brief
statement.
Dr. Fleming.
Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will try to be brief also. I came in a little bit late because I had
another HASC [House Armed Services Committee] meeting that
overlapped with this one.
What I basically would like to know in a nutshell, just frame,
how did we get here on this? I know General Shelton made reference to the fact that the company originally was going to be primarily space-based and not terrestrially based, but it reversed over
time. Perhaps engineering, science led us to go in that direction.
So can you give me a better explanation to encapsulate, how did
we get here? And we have got engineers; we have got representatives from both sides. So I am open to anybody who might want
to
Mr. RUSSO. I think I can add a little to that.
Since 1971, the band below GPS has been allocated for Mobile
Satellite Services. We have no problem coexisting with that neighbor.
And in the orders you heard about earlierand you may, sir,
have missed it, the oral testimony earlierthey talked about adding an ancillary terrestrial component. That was done for a very
specific reason, to give the Mobile Satellite Services operators additional flexibility. And specifically it talked about a fill-in capability
for gaps in coverage inside buildings and in dense urban terrain.
That is actually written into the FCC orders on this, and that is
what the company at the time applied for, to give them some extra
capability to cover places where it might have a problem with coverage.
They also talked about, in answering complaints about this new
authority, they talked about the fact that they would be limited in
what they could do by a self-interference. In other words, they were
required to have handsets that talked to space and terrestrial systems, and therefore, the company itself argued that that would
then limit what power they could put out, and how many stations
because, they would be interfering with their own service.
So what we are talking about now is, through a series of orders
and amendments and mods [modifications] and reconsiderations
and waivers, over time, that foundation, the assumptions that were
made have changed, and we find ourselves now in a situation that
is different than

24
Dr. FLEMING. Could we have not contemplated this? Was it just
something that morphed gradually without anybody really being
able to contemplate that down the road, all these changes and
amendments would eventually get us in trouble?
Mr. RUSSO. Sir, I think there are pieces of this that there could
have been more discussion of along the way. But the big piece was
this last piece. This last piece changes it from a space-based system
with an ancillary fill-in capability to a primary terrestrial system.
And that is this last waiver, and that is what that does.
Dr. FLEMING. I see. Well, was it not possible to stay with the
original plan in a space-based system? Or did the company just
find out that that wasnt going to work as planned?
Mr. KNAPP. I would largely agree with Mr. Russo, but I would
also say that things evolved on both sides with the evolution of
GPS and the expanded capabilities over time. This is something
thatI think your description was fair. It slowly came about. The
important thing is when we all understood that there was a problem there, we put the brakes on the deployment until we get it
fixed.
Even, I think, with what we have learned here, the number of
base stations, if each one were to have caused interference at 22
miles, I think everybody would agree that wouldnt have been acceptable anyway.
Dr. FLEMING. Right. Sure. Okay. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And I will only ask one question for
the sake of time and with votes pending.
And this will to be you, General Shelton. Thanks for being here.
You may have addressed this earlier. Please accept my apology if
you have because I was chairing another subcommittee, so I was
not able to get here until a little bit later. And this is a little more
general of a question. What are your concerns from a command and
control perspective should GPS signals be somehow impaired?
General SHELTON. Congressman, if you are talking about the
broadest sense of command and control, clearly we count on GPS
precision as one of our key tenets of command and control, knowing
where our forces are, knowing where the adversarys forces are at
very precise locations, that is just fundamental to everything we do
in command and control and modern warfare. So, without GPS, I
think we back up quite a bit.
Mr. LAMBORN. And even in the U.S., not a global, but just a U.S.
focus on this?
General SHELTON. Yes, sir. We train the way we prepare to fight.
And if you take us back in training, you take us back in the way
we fight. So we have to be as realistic as we can in training. And
if you change the training environment to that degree, I think it
is a fundamental step backwards.
Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. TURNER. I want to thank all of our witnesses today. We appreciate your participation. And we look forward to the Chairman
of the FCC providing us with additional answers to our questions.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011

Statement of Hon. Michael Turner

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Hearing on
Sustaining GPS for National Security
September 15, 2011
Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to the Strategic
Forces Subcommittees hearing on Sustaining GPS for National Security.
I was planning to make the usual statement of appreciation to
the witnesses for their appearance here today, and to those witnesses who took this issue seriously enough to be hereGeneral
Shelton, Ms. Takai, Mr. Nebbia, Mr. Russo and Mr. KnappI do
thank you for your time and testimony.
That said, I have the unfortunate responsibility to inform the
subcommittee that Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Chairman Genachowski refused to appear today. I must also make
clear that I consider the Chairmans failure to show up today to be
an affront to the House Armed Services Committee. Further, it appears to be symptomatic of a disregard by the Chairman to the consequences of the FCCs January 26 waiver to LightSquared. I trust
Chairman Genachowski is doing something very important this
morning if he couldnt be here to discuss the significant harm to
national security that may result from the FCCs action on January
26th of this year.
I appreciate that the Chairman is apparently willing to provide
personal responses to written Questions for the Record submitted
by this subcommittee, according to staff. But the Chairmans priority should be the same as the subcommittees: Sustaining GPS
for National Security.
With that unpleasantness out of the way, I wish to introduce and
express appreciation to the witnesses who are here today:
General William Shelton, Commander of Air Force Space
CommandI note this is General Sheltons second appearance before this subcommittee in as many weeks . . . either
the General really likes us or hes working to accumulate his
frequent flier miles;
Ms. Teresa Takai, Chief Information Officer, Department of
Defense;
Mr. Karl Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National Telecommunications and Information Administration;
(29)

30
Mr. Anthony Russo, National Coordination Office, SpaceBased Positioning, Navigation and Training, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
Mr. Julius Knapp, chief of the Federal Communications
Commissions Office of Engineering Technology.
Mr. Knapp, I want to thank you for being here and I want to be
clear that neither I nor my colleagues have anything other than
gratitude for your service at the FCC; our concerns are with Chairman Genachowski. Thank you all for appearing before this subcommittee this morning.
Why are we here this morning? General Shelton, you might remember this question. It was asked by a member of the subcommittee during the classified briefing you provided all of us last
week on LightSquaredGPS test results.
A brief recap of how we got here. On January 26th of this year,
the FCC granted a conditional waiver of its own rules allowing
LightSquared to establish a terrestrial broadband network and be
freed of certain gating requirements which were designed to keep
any potential terrestrial service from overwhelming the satellite
spectrum LightSquared held.
As we now know, this network would operate with over 40,000
base stations operating at a frequency adjacent to that long used
by the Global Position System (GPS), at almost 5 billion times the
power of the GPS system.
The Chairman of the FCC knew there were concerns about the
proposed waiver for LightSquared, as he received a letter from
Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill Lynn on January 12, 2 weeks before the waiver was issued. The Deputy Secretary wrote to Mr.
Genachowski that there is strong potential for interference to
these critical National Security Space Systems referencing GPS,
Inmarsat terminals, and Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry operations.
This letter also asked for Chairman Genachowskis personal attention on this matter. Without objection, this letter will be made a
part of the record.
We also know National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Assistant Secretary Lawrence Strickling wrote
to Chairman Genachowski recommending that the FCC not go forward with the LightSquared waiver request. Many have observed
that the FCC followed an irregular process on the LightSquared
waiver.
First, the National Legal and Policy Center stated in a February
2, 2011, letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that, over the
course of the past year, a series of odd decisions, questionable
meetings and procedural anomalies at the Federal Communications
Commission and White House highlight Mr. Falcones growing influence in the hallways of government. Mr. Falcone is the CEO of
the hedge fund, Harbinger Capital Partners, which owns
LightSquared. Without objection, this letter will be made a part of
the record.
Additionally, in a March letter to Chairman Genachowski, the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, joined by the Deputy Secretary of
Transportation noted that the DOD and DOT were not sufficiently
included in the development of the LightSquared initial work plan

31
and its key milestones. This letter again sought the FCC Chairmans personal attention. Without objection, this letter will be
made a part of the record.
And just yesterday, the Center for Public Integrity released a report detailing, Emails show wireless firms communications with
White House as campaign donations were made. In my capacity
as a member of the House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, I will be asking Chairman Issa and Ranking Member
Towns to promptly investigate this matter.
We cannot afford to have Federal telecommunications policy, especially where it affects national security, to be made in the same
way that the White House parceled out a half billion dollars in loan
guarantees to the failed Solyndra Corporation, a large political
campaign contributor of the President.
While there is clearly a concern about how the FCC has conducted this process, those concerns are within the purview of the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Also outside the scope of todays hearing, but of significant concern nontheless, is the impact to GPS receiver manufacturers like
Trimble Navigation in my home town of Dayton, Ohio, which manufacturers GPS receivers for the agriculture sector and heavy machinery producers like Caterpillar.
But this subcommittees main purview is national security, and
the national security consequences of the LightSquared network
are significant. As I mentioned, the concern in this case is that
LightSquareds proposed network of 40,000 base stations around
the U.S., which broadcast at an adjacent signal frequency to the
signal used by the GPS system, but at 5 billion times the signal
strength, will render useless the DODs GPS receivers.
General Shelton, Commander of Air Force Space Command, informed the HASCStrategic Forces Subcommittee members in last
weeks classified briefing that tests show LightSquared signal
causes significant interference to military GPS.
Simply put, if the FCC gives LightSquared the final go-ahead to
build out its network, I fear the DODs training activities in the
United States would come to an end. This cannot be allowed to
happen. As the members of the House Armed Services Committee
know, before U.S. troops are deployed, they conduct extensive realworld training, which includes use of GPS for orienteering of U.S.
forces, locating friendly forces, locating enemy forces, conducting
search-and-rescue activities, targeting of precision-guided ordnance,
and calling in close air support. None of these activities are possible without DODs high-precision GPS receivers, which would be
most affected by the LightSquared network.
As a Member of Congress, I can think of no higher responsibility
than to make sure U.S. military forces are fully trained and
equipped before they are deployed overseas to Afghanistan, Iraq, or
any place in harms way. Likewise, and this is something in all of
our minds this close to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks
on the United States, significant harmful interference to the GPS
system would be a tremendous liability to our defense of the homeland. General Shelton, I recall you making this point last week.

32
The Armed Services Committees position as articulated by the
TurnerSanchez amendment to the National Defense Authorization
Act for FY2012 is that the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) should not grant LightSquared final approval on the conditional waiver granted to the company on January 26, 2011, until
the Commission has dealt with potential harmful interference to
the DODs GPS receivers. LightSquared itself has no apparent objection to this provision.
LightSquared has been making a vigorous case for its $4 billion
investment in its proposed network build-out of a new nationwide
broadband service. That it is a bipartisan policy objective to encourage more nationwide broadband service and more competition is
not in dispute . . . at least not before the Armed Services Committee.
The question for this subcommittee today is how to evaluate the
harm identified by the Department of Defense to its $34 billion investment in GPS, GPS ground stations, and DOD high-precision
military GPS receivers. Again, it is more important than money . . .
this is about our warfighters who rely on this technology for safety
and their technological edge against adversaries.
And let me state that harm to GPS once again very clearly:
tests show LightSquared signal causes significant interference to
military GPS.
As my colleagues know by now, on Tuesday of this week, the
FCC apparently came to the same conclusion, and issued a Public
Notice that the potential for harmful interference meant that additional targeted testing is needed. I consider that the understatement of this decade. But, we need to know what this Public Notice
actually means for DOD GPS users; this may very well be an effort
to push matters off by a few months under the assumption Congress will be distracted by then. I look forward to the testimony of
the witnesses to get to the bottom of this matter.

33
Statement of Hon. Loretta Sanchez
Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Hearing on
Sustaining GPS for National Security
September 15, 2011
I would like to welcome General Shelton, Mr. Knapp, Ms. Takai,
Mr. Nebbia, and Mr. Russo to this hearing on sustaining GPS capabilities for national security. Thank you for being with us today.
I would also like to note FCC Chairman Genachowskis meeting
with Chairman Turner and me on this important issue, along with
his letter to our subcommittee and the FCC announcement this
week that the Commission has determined that additional targeted testing is needed to ensure that any potential commercial
terrestrial services offered by LightSquared will not cause harmful
interference to GPS operations.
I believe this provides initial reassurance that a deliberate and
careful process for assessing the question of whether concerns
about significant interference with GPS capabilities can be satisfactorily resolved. GPS assets are critical to national security and to
our way of life.
While I support efforts to increase and improve broadband service, we must ensure that plans for expanding this service do not
adversely impact crucial navigation, timing and precision systems
on which many of our nations defense, as well as commercial, capabilities depend.
Last week, at our request in preparation for this hearing, General Shelton provided a closed briefing to our subcommittee detailing the classified test results and concerns about the consequences
of GPS interference.
This hearing will provide the opportunity to better understand
several key issues, including:
The risks and impacts from LightSquareds proposed terrestrial 4G network plan, and how interference will affect weapons systems
The level to which our military depends on GPS assets
Whether this interference can be mitigated, whether fixes
would require recertification of weapon systems, what the
impact to the mission might be and what the costs would be.
It bears noting that DOD investment in GPS stands at about
approximately $35 billion taxpayers dollars
What further testing remains necessary
What the FCCs process is for deciding whether to allow implementation of LightSquareds proposal and what consultations are on-going with other agencies
How the interagency process will ensure that national security issues are considered and resolved satisfactorily
These are important questions to assess in order to understand
what is at stake and consider a way forward that will safeguard
national security. Again, welcome. I look forward to your testimony.

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011

(97)

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

THE HEARING
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011

RESPONSES TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI

General SHELTON. Testing on the initial LightSquared deployment plan cost the
Air Force approximately $500K. The first round of follow-on testing is expected to
cost the Air Force approximately $400K. These figures include test asset costs, but
do not account for travel or personnel time. The costs for further rounds of testing
have not been estimated. None of this testing was budgeted for by AFSPC; this reduces the resources available to support other testing and activities required to provide space and cyber capabilities to our warfighters.
Determination of who will be obligated to pay for adding the filters has not yet
been made. This decision would likely be made by the FCC. [See page 23.]
Mr. NEBBIA. NTIA does not perform interference testing, so the additional costs
of testing on NTIA is de minimis and consists principally of staff time to analyze
test results, coordinate with the agencies of the Interdepartment Radio Advisory
Committee (IRAC), and communicate views to the FCC. While LightSquared has indicated that it is willing to share the cost of any proposed interference mitigation
approach for Federal users of precision and timing receivers, the precise extent of
the cost and the responsibility for paying such costs has not been determined. [See
page 23.]

(115)

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. 1. I have learned that during the testimony coordination process, you
were asked to include the following in your prepared remarks:
The Administration believes that we must protect existing GPS users from disruption of the services they depend on today and ensure that innovative new GPS
applications can be developed in the future. At the same time, recognizing the Presidents instruction to identify 500 MHz of new spectrum for innovative new mobile
broadband services, we will continue our efforts at more efficient use of spectrum.
Therefore, in the short run, we will participate in the further testing required to
establish whether there are any mitigation strategies that can enable LSQ operation
in the lower 10MHz of the band. We also encourage commercial entities with interests to work with LightSquared toward a possible resolution, though any proposed
mitigation must be subjected to full testing. We hope that testing can be complete
within 90 days. The challenge of meeting the Presidents goal also depends on longterm actions by Federal agencies in the area of research and development, procurement practices that encourage spectrally-efficient applications, and new policy development.
a. Who, specifically, asked that this be included?
b. If you declined to include the language, in whole or in part, please describe
why.
c. Did anyone in the Administration attempt to persuade you to include the language? Who?
General SHELTON. 1a. As the hearing was rescheduled from 3 August to 15 September, my written testimony entered the formal review process twice. Both times
the testimony followed a normal review process. For the 3 August scheduled date,
we received a paragraph to add to the testimony from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), relayed through our Air Force Legislative Liaison office (SAF/
LL). The specific author of the paragraph is unknown to us.
1b. I chose not to concur with this edit because I didnt feel an Administration
comment was appropriate for a military officers testimony. I was also concerned
about the suggested timeline for testing.
1c. This OMB paragraph was the only issue from the Administration or other
Government agencies that we were not able to resolve for the 3 August hearing
(which was later postponed). We were in the process of seeking resolution when the
hearing was rescheduled and the review process ended. During the testimony review
process for the 15 September hearing date, there was no suggested paragraph from
OMB and the testimony moved forward without significant issue.
Mr. TURNER. 2. Are your responses to these QFRs your own views or those of your
agency? Have your responses been approved/edited by anyone other than yourself
or someone reporting to you?
General SHELTON. 2. These responses are my own. The QFR responses are sent
forward for Air Force policy review and for the Office of the Secretary of Defense
policy review as part of the standard process for Questions for the Record.
Mr. TURNER. 3. Please describe when you and your agency became aware of the
LightSquared network proposal and its potential for significant interference.
General SHELTON. 3. In the January/February 2011 timeframe, AFSPC became
significantly concerned about LightSquared plans and began to engage our higher
authorities on the issue. This coincides with the January 2011 order from the Federal Communications Commission granting LightSquared a conditional waiver.
Mr. TURNER. 4. LightSquared has recently announced that it has solved the interference issue for 99.5 percent of GPS users.
a. Do you agree with this statement?
b. What is the solution?
c. Is it a solution for uses of GPS for which you are responsible?
d. Has it been tested by the Federal Government? If so, please provide details.
General SHELTON. 4a. We have insufficient data at this point to assess the potential effectiveness of LSQs proposed solution and have not seen substantiation of the
99.5% figure. Even if the 99.5% figure is statistically accurate, the .5% of affected
GPS users represents a group of military and high precision receivers that con(119)

120
tribute significantly to national defense, economic, business, scientific, safety of life,
and precision agriculture.
4b. The LSQ proposed solution includes transmitting on only the 10 MHz low
channel (which is further away from the GPS spectrum), operating at reduced
power, and use of a filter for high precision and timing devices.
4c. Further testing is required to determine the efficacy of these solutions.
4d. The proposed filter is not yet available for testing so we cannot draw any conclusions about its effectiveness. Additionally, we have not done sufficient testing
against LSQs revised plan to determine conclusively whether it will mitigate the
risk to military receivers. Initial testing identified significant interference even at
the 10 MHz low channel. We are in the process of planning and executing followon testing on the revised plan as directed by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA). This round of follow-on testing is focused on
general navigation receivers and cell phones. Additional testing on high precision
and timing receivers will be accomplished once the proposed LSQ filters are available.
Mr. TURNER. 5. General Shelton, you stated that you believed that LightSquareds
filter solution could cost billions of dollars over more than a decade.
a. Are you in a position to elaborate specifically as to costs, timing, and potential
degradation effects to military GPS receivers from these filters?
b. And please describe what testing has occurred thus far with LightSquareds filters and military GPS receivers.
c. Who would be obligated to pay for the costs of adding filters?
General SHELTON. 5a. The estimate of billions I stated is based on the required
modification of a typical platform that uses GPS (an F15 and associated precision
weaponry for example). The typical costs and timing factors include: development,
manufacturing, installation and testing. As we rotate platforms and devices between
CONUS and OCONUS, all affected platforms would require implementation of the
filters which could be expected to have significant mission impact. At this point it
is too early to describe specific costs, scope and impact of the fixes that will be required by DOD systems because we have not been able to comprehensively test
weapons systems with the proposed mitigations against the revised LSQ deployment
plan.
5b. As the filters are not yet available, no testing has been done.
5c. Determination of who will be obligated to pay for adding the filters has not
yet been made.
Mr. TURNER. 6. My understanding is that Mr. Russo solicited all Federal Government agencies with GPS equities on their concerns with the LightSquared proposal.
Are you aware of any Government position papers on LightSquared interference
which have been provided to the National Coordination Office or to the NTIA that
have not been forwarded to the FCC and then made public? If so, why were they
not made public immediately?
General SHELTON. 6. We are not aware of any undisclosed position papers; however, that question would best be answered by the National Coordination Office or
the NTIA.
Mr. TURNER. 7. Mr. Nebbiabased on my reading of the Public Notice, the FCC
seems to be putting the weight of the Department of Defenses equities entirely on
your agency. In turn, in Assistant Secretary Stricklings letter to Deputy Secretaries
Lynn and Porcari, the NTIA is instructing DOD and DOT to conduct additional testing and develop solutions to the LightSquared problem. General Shelton, we are
counting on you to keep this committee informed of the results of testing and we
seek your expert and impartial judgment about the results of those tests. Will you
please contact the Subcommittee staff or Ms. Sanchez or myself to provide us your
recommendation as to whether it is necessary to schedule another classified briefing
with you on GPS interference test results.
General SHELTON. 7. We will keep the committee informed of developments.
Mr. TURNER. 8. We have heard that LightSquared believes the FCC process, including all testing, can be wrapped up by November 30th. However, the Strickling
letter to Deputy Secretaries Lynn and Porcari clearly describes a second phase of
testing to evaluate proposed mitigation plans for high precision and timing receivers which would commence once LightSquared develops a filtering solution to avoid
interference with those classes of devices.
Are you operating under any sort of commitment or obligation to wrap up testing
under a November 30th or other arbitrary date?
a. Do you have an expectation for when both phases of testing will conclude?
b. Might there need to be further testing beyond the two phases suggested in the
Strickling letter of September 9th?

121
General SHELTON. 8a. The PNT EXCOM 5 October letter to Mr. Strickling (NTIA)
acknowledged that the 30 November test deadline, for cellular and personal/general
navigation receivers, is ambitious and the actual testing may be completed by the
deadline date, but analysis and final report may take longer. The NPEF test team
is working expeditiously to complete the testing of general navigation devices and
to have an initial executive draft report available by 30 Nov. At present we expect
the first phase of testing to be completed on 4 Nov. The second phase of testing is
dependent upon LSQ filter availability. We do not have an estimate for the filter
availability at this point so I cannot provide an estimate for completion of the second phase testing.
8b. NTIAs intent as expressed in their 9 September letter is for testing to be conclusive and final with respect to assessing the impact of LSQs revised proposal.
Our understanding is LSQs final deployment plan may still require the upper 10
MHz channel. If true, further testing would be required.
Mr. TURNER. 9. LightSquared has proposed, as part of its lower 10 MHz option
a standstill on the upper 10 MHz of the spectrum adjacent to the GPS signal. At
the same time, LightSquared is said to believe that it needs access to its full spectrum, both the lower and the upper, to be profitable.
a. Please explain what the standstill means and what terms LightSquared is
proposing for the standstill.
b. Has LightSquared indicated the upper 10 of the spectrum is completely, permanently off-the-table? Is that what the standstill means?
c. If the standstill was only a matter of a few years, what would that mean to
your agencies?
d. Should Congress, or the FCC, codify somehow the terms of the standstill if
it is ultimately determined that the lower 10 MHz option is acceptable?
e. Please provide a specific description of the defense equities regarding
LightSquareds lower 10 proposal, for the near term and into the future.
General SHELTON. 9a. While we interpret standstill to mean temporary halt to
deployment and operation in the upper 10 MHz band of LSQs two authorized
bands, we expect FCC to clarify.
9b. LSQ has not given any formal indication that they intend to remove the upper
10 band from their final deployment plans.
9c. It has been agreed by both LSQ and the GPS community that the upper 10
MHz band causes unacceptable interference to GPS. Until an acceptable mitigation
solution is identified and implemented, operation in that band would result in the
level of interference described in my testimony. Assuming an acceptable solution can
be found, I estimate it would take many years to implement across DOD.
9d. I believe it is essential the FCC clearly codify the terms of the standstill.
9e. We are still in the process of assessing the impacts of the lower 10 proposal.
Initial NPEF testing of the proposal indicated significant interference concerns for
DOD receivers. The initial testing was limited with respect to the types of devices
tested but the interference noted was applicable to aviation and maritime applications.
Mr. TURNER. 10. Please give us an idea of the size and scope of the GPS system
to include applications and users. Please elaborate to the extent possible in an open
hearing on the military capabilities that rely on GPS.
General SHELTON. 10. The Global Positioning System is DODs largest satellite
system currently consisting of 30 operational satellites. Total expenditure for the
GPS program since its inception is $34B. It provides 24/7 positioning, navigation
and timing services to the entire world, free of charge. GPS is integrated into nearly
every facet of U.S. military operations and is essential to Federal aviation, first responders, precision agriculture, banking, cell phone service, and automobile/personal
navigation systems. There are over a million DOD GPS receivers and it has been
estimated that there are more than 4 billion users worldwide.
Mr. TURNER. 11. Describe how GPS is used by the military and the degree of dependence the military has on GPS. Is the militarys use of GPS primarily overseas
and in theater, or is the military also dependent on GPS within the continental
United States (where LightSquared plans to deploy its communications services)?
General SHELTON. 11. GPS is integrated into nearly every facet of U.S. military
operations. Combat troops, military aircraft (manned and unmanned), naval vessels,
high speed communications networks, and precision guided munitions all depend
heavily on the accuracy, availability and reliability of GPS. Our primary military
uses are overseas but our aircraft support CONUS and North American defense
missions. The military also supports CONUS search & rescue and drug interdiction
operations (Coast Guard operations are a prime example). Additionally, our training
missions, development and testing of new and modified systems take place primarily
in CONUS. Military equipment and platforms rotate between CONUS and

122
OCONUS and must therefore be completely interoperable with other U.S. equipment as well as with that of our allies. As LSQs deployment covers a significant
portion of the U.S., the vast majority of our CONUS operations, to include combat
training and preparation, would be impacted.
Mr. TURNER. 12. What is the DODs total investment in GPS, including satellites,
ground stations, receivers, etc?
General SHELTON. 12. We estimate the total expenditure for the GPS program
since its inception at $34B.
Mr. TURNER. 13. LightSquared would operate in a different part of the spectrum
(15251559 megahertz) than GPS (15591610 megahertz). Why is there an interference problem when the two systems would operate in different, but neighboring,
parts of the spectrum?
General SHELTON. 13. The original deployment calls for nearly 40,000 transmitters operating in the frequency band immediately adjacent to GPS. With potential
transmitter spacing of .25 to .5 miles apart in cities, the LSQ transmit signal will
be over 5 billion times more powerful than the GPS signal received from space. Essentially, the LSQ signal would overpower the GPS signal causing receivers to become unable to isolate the GPS signal from the noise caused by the more powerful
LSQ signal. It is also important to note that in order to achieve the greatest possible
accuracy, high precision GPS devices are designed to listen to sidelobes of the GPS
signal that extend outside of the GPS band. This design feature has not been an
issue in the past as GPS receivers can easily distinguish the GPS signal from those
in adjacent bands so long as the signals are of comparable strength. Previously, only
such signals were allowed in these frequency bands.
Mr. TURNER. 14. What is the magnitude of the harmful interference and the national security implications of such interference? Discuss the results of the Departments testing and any specific examples that substantiate these observations.
General SHELTON. 14. GPS is used by all Services, from ground forces, to precision-guided munitions, to synchronization and security of communications networks,
to search and rescue operations, to humanitarian relief operations. GPS is also used
by the Department of Homeland Security for National border and maritime security.
As discovered during testing of the original LightSquared deployment plan, aviation receivers operating as far as 7.5 miles from LightSquared transmitters completely lost the GPS signal and were degraded out to distances of more than 16.5
miles. For two representative receivers tested by the FAA, results also showed GPS
would be completely unusable for an aircraft 500 feet above the ground in an area
spanning Stafford, Virginia through Washington and Baltimore, and out to Frederick, Maryland.
High precision GPS receivers such as those used for surveying and geological
study requiring precise measurements were adversely affected out to 213 miles and
totally lost the GPS signal out to 4.8 miles.
Based on testing performed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a class of receivers
used in space to conduct certain types of atmospheric measurements would be unusable up to 12% of the time while in their typical orbits.
The State of New Mexico E911 Program Director, who sent several GPSequipped emergency and police vehicles to the test, stated in a letter to AFSPC that
their equipment showed the LightSquared network will cause interference to GPS
signals and jeopardize 911 and public safety.
Actual test results for the original LightSquared deployment plan indicated significant degradation to every receiver-type tested. Most units tested completely lost
their GPS service at some point. The specific military receiver test results are classified, but the results were consistent with the other receiver test results.
Mr. TURNER. 15. The reviews undertaken suggest that there are certain GPS applications that, even with modification or complete redesign, would still not be able
to perform their current mission in the presence of such network broadcasting directly adjacent to the GPS L1 band. What applications?
General SHELTON. 15. At present there is no proven/tested mitigation that will resolve the interference issues for high precision devices even under the revised LSQ
deployment plan (Lower 10). Proposed filters have not yet been made available for
testing. It is unclear if the proposed filters would impact military receiver accuracy
for our high precision systems. This would be determined through extensive testing.
No mitigations have been identified to resolve interference issues for any type of receiver with respect to LSQ operations at the upper 10 MHz band.
Mr. TURNER. 16. Assuming FCC provides authorization for LightSquared to move
forward with its deployment plans, as outlined in its November 2010 filing, how
would this build-out affect military systems and users in the near-term?
General SHELTON. 16. Testing results demonstrated empirically that the
LightSquared signals operating in the originally proposed manner would signifi-

123
cantly interfere with all types of receivers tested. Specific military receiver test results are classified, but the results were consistent with other receiver results. Impacts would be expected to all Services and Allies ground forces, over 290,000
hand-held navigation receivers, combat aircraft, search and rescue aircraft, remotely
piloted aircraft and precision guided munitions.
Mr. TURNER. 17. Does LightSquareds June 30, 2011, submission to the FCC provide sufficient information on its lower 10 proposal for your organizations to determine whether the proposal mitigates GPS interference?
General SHELTON. 17. We have sufficient information on the lower 10 to begin initial testing. For the longer term, we need to better understand specific LSQ deployment plans to determine potential impacts.
Mr. TURNER. 18. Is your organization concerned that the FCC can provide final
approval for LightSquared operations prior to resolving the GPS interference issues?
General SHELTON. 18. Thus far, the FCC has not granted final approval and has
indicated that it will not do so until the GPS interference issues are satisfactorily
resolved. The NTIA reported in a September 9, 2011, letter to Deputy Secretary of
Defense Lynn and Deputy Secretary of Transportation Porcari that there is agreement by both LSQ and the GPS community that operations in the lower 10 MHz
signal will cause unacceptable interference to high precision receivers. This letter
also documents LSQ statements that it will not commence commercial operations
unless and until Federal agencies test the LSQ proposed filter and conclude that
it is an effective mitigation for the high precision receivers. It is acknowledged by
all parties, including LSQ, that operations in the upper 10 MHz band are currently
unacceptable for all GPS applications.
I agree with the NPEF recommendation to rescind the FCCs waiver. Although
high precision receivers are a small percentage of all receivers in use, their functions are vital to military operations in support of national defense. At an absolute
minimum it would be helpful for the FCC to formally order that operations in the
upper 10 MHz band be prohibited until an acceptable solution can be found and implemented. The implementation timeline should be based on input provided by the
impacted users.
Mr. TURNER. 1. I have learned that during the testimony coordination process, you
were asked to include the following in your prepared remarks:
The Administration believes that we must protect existing GPS users from disruption of the services they depend on today and ensure that innovative new GPS
applications can be developed in the future. At the same time, recognizing the Presidents instruction to identify 500 MHz of new spectrum for innovative new mobile
broadband services, we will continue our efforts at more efficient use of spectrum.
Therefore, in the short run, we will participate in the further testing required to
establish whether there are any mitigation strategies that can enable LSQ operation
in the lower 10MHz of the band. We also encourage commercial entities with interests to work with LightSquared toward a possible resolution, though any proposed
mitigation must be subjected to full testing. We hope that testing can be complete
within 90 days. The challenge of meeting the Presidents goal also depends on longterm actions by Federal agencies in the area of research and development, procurement practices that encourage spectrally-efficient applications, and new policy development.
a. Who, specifically, asked that this be included?
b. If you declined to include the language, in whole or in part, please describe
why.
c. Did anyone in the Administration attempt to persuade you to include the language? Who?
Mr. NEBBIA. 1. My testimony went through the standard review process overseen
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which includes review by other
Federal agencies and entities of the Executive Office of the President. As with all
testimony and other similar documents, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) welcomes input from other Federal entities but determines on its own which, if any, suggestions to incorporate, in full or in part. We
received the text cited above both from the standard legislative interagency clearance process that is overseen by the Office of Management and Budget and through
the Office of Science and Technology Policy. NTIA chose not to include the statement regarding the completion of testing within 90 days in its final testimony. The
final NTIA testimony reflects the views of the NTIA as the Administrations technical and policy expert on telecommunications and information policy.
Mr. TURNER. 2. Are your responses to these QFRs your own views or those of your
agency? Have your responses been approved/edited by anyone other than yourself
or someone reporting to you?

124
Mr. NEBBIA. 2. The responses to the QFRs reflect my views, which are consistent
with the views of the NTIA.
Mr. TURNER. 3. Please describe when you and your agency became aware of the
LightSquared network proposal and its potential for significant interference.
Mr. NEBBIA. 3. NTIA became aware of the potential for interference in November
2010, when LightSquared submitted to the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) an application for modification of its existing Ancillary Terrestrial Component
(ATC) authorization to enable it to deploy, on a wholesale basis, a nationwide 4th
generation (4G) terrestrial wireless broadband network with handsets that do not
include the satellite service. Following the application for modification, several Federal agencies expressed concerns relating to potential interference. In light of these
concerns, NTIA wrote the FCC in January 2011 stating the Administrations position that LightSquared should not be allowed to move forward to commence commercial operations unless interference issues were resolved.
Mr. TURNER. 4. LightSquared has recently announced that it has solved the interference issue for 99.5 percent of GPS users.
a. Do you agree with this statement?
b. What is the solution?
c. Is it a solution for uses of GPS for which you are responsible?
d. Has it been tested by the Federal Government? If so, please provide details.
Mr. NEBBIA. 4. In response to LightSquareds revised proposal to operate in only
the lower 10 megahertz signal of the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) band, NTIA requested, in a September 9, 2011, letter, that the National Executive Committee for
Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (ExCom) work with LightSquared
to develop a test plan and conduct tests to measure interference to cellular and personal/general navigation receivers by November 30, 2011. This testing on cellular
and personal/general navigation receivers is now complete. NTIA has received the
test data and is analyzing it as expeditiously as possible. In addition, NTIAs letter
noted that LightSquared acknowledged that its modified operating proposal to use
only the lower 10 megahertz signal would cause unacceptable interference to highprecision and timing receivers. Accordingly, LightSquared is proceeding to procure
the design and manufacture of a filter to mitigate these impacts. LightSquared
agreed that it will not commence commercial operations unless and until the Federal agencies test the filter and conclude that it is effective at eliminating unacceptable overload without degrading the precision performance of the receivers. With respect to timing receivers, LightSquared has identified the PCTEL antenna as a possible solution to mitigate interference. LightSquared has acknowledged that the
Federal agencies need to perform a more rigorous review of the effectiveness of this
antenna in mitigating interference without degrading the performance of timing receivers. Accordingly, even if the analysis of the tests we requested on September 9
shows that impacts to general navigation and cellular can be mitigated, there will
need to be additional testing to evaluate proposed mitigation plans for high-precision and timing receivers which would commence once LightSquared develops a filtering solution to avoid interference with those classes of devices. However, if analysis does not point a path to mitigation of interference effects to general navigation
and cellular, the testing of high precision and timing devices may not be warranted.
Mr. TURNER. 5. General Shelton stated that he believed that LightSquareds filter
solution could cost billions of dollars over more than a decade. Who would be obligated to pay for the costs of adding filters?
Mr. NEBBIA. 5. While LightSquared has indicated that it would share the cost of
any proposed interference mitigation approach for Federal users, the precise extent
of the cost and the responsibility for paying such costs has not been determined.
State and local governments as well as commercial users may be responsible for the
full costs of the filters.
Mr. TURNER. 6. In a September 29, 2011, Washington Post article by Cecilia Kang,
it was reported that LightSquared chief executive Sanjiv Ahuja said during an interview on CSPANs The Communicators that the company is offering Federal agencies a sufficient amount of money to replace most receivers or fix most receivers
out there.
a. Please provide an estimate of how much money LightSquared would have to
spend to replace most receivers or fix the Federal Governments GPS receivers.
b. How much has the United States Government spent on its GPS receivers?
c. How much have GPS users other than the United States spent on their GPS
receivers?
Mr. NEBBIA. 6. NTIA does not have the information, including the extent and cost
of agency GPS uses as well as sufficient detail regarding LightSquareds proposed
deployment plan, all of which would be necessary to estimate the replacement costs
you describe.

125
Mr. TURNER. 7. My understanding is that Mr. Russo solicited all Federal Government agencies with GPS equities on their concerns with the LightSquared proposal.
Are you aware of any Government position papers on LightSquared interference
which have been provided to the National Coordination Office or to the NTIA that
have not been forwarded to the FCC and then made public? If so, why were they
not made public immediately?
Mr. NEBBIA. 7. NTIA received input from some Federal agencies regarding the potential impact of LightSquareds original plan. Other agencies provided input regarding the FCC public notice in July. NTIA has also requested information regarding agencies use of precision and timing receivers. Consistent with NTIAs mission
to ensure efficient and effective use of spectrum while protecting critical Federal
Government operations, NTIA regularly consults with agencies on important spectrum policy matters. NTIA values the candid input of agencies, which NTIA, as the
manager of Federal spectrum use, utilizes as a critical input into its decision-making. NTIA does not typically release to the public the pre-decisional agency input
it receives. NTIAs final views will be provided to the FCC and made part of the
public record in this proceeding.
Mr. TURNER. 8. Based on my reading of the Public Notice, the FCC seems to be
putting the weight of the Department of Defenses equities entirely on your agency.
In turn, in Assistant Secretary Stricklings letter to Deputy Secretaries Lynn and
Porcari, the NTIA is instructing DOD and DOT to conduct additional testing and
develop solutions to the LightSquared problem.
a. Can you please lay out what options are available to the NTIA to ensure that
the FCC does not finalize a rule that allows interference with the DODs precision
receivers?
b. Is there any circumstance in which General Shelton would say he believes
there to be harmful interference to GPS, regardless of the mitigation solution offered by LightSquared, and the FCC would be permitted to go ahead and remove
the condition on the January 26 waiver? Put another way, what are the NTIAs options to block the FCC from finalizing the LightSquared waiver?
Mr. NEBBIA. 8. Beginning last January and continuing to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on behalf of Federal entities regarding potentially harmful
interference to GPS-reliant systems from LightSquareds proposed terrestrial operations and has urged the FCC not to permit LightSquared to commence operations
until those concerns are resolved. NTIA continues to work with the FCC, Federal
entities, and industry on a data-driven, engineering-based approach to addressing
interference concerns. The FCCs January 26, 2011, Waiver Order stated that the
FCC would not allow LightSquared to commence operations until the Commission,
after consultation with NTIA, concludes that the harmful interference concerns have
been resolved and sends a letter to LightSquared stating that the process is complete. 1 NTIA appreciates that the FCC takes very seriously the concerns raised by
NTIA and the Federal agencies in this matter, as well as its commitment to ensure
that these concerns are resolved before permitting LightSquared to begin commercial operations. We look forward to providing thorough, expert input to the Commission as it moves toward a final decision in this matter.
Mr. TURNER. 9. We have heard that LightSquared believes the FCC process, including all testing, can be wrapped up by November 30th. However, the Strickling
letter to Deputy Secretaries Lynn and Porcari clearly describes a second phase of
testing to evaluate proposed mitigation plans for high precision and timing receivers which would commence once LightSquared develops a filtering solution to avoid
interference with those classes of devices. Please explain the significance of November 30th.
Mr. NEBBIA. 9. In response to LightSquareds revised proposal to operate in only
the lower 10 megahertz signal of the MSS band, NTIA requested, in a September
9, 2011, letter, that the ExCom work with LightSquared to develop and implement
a test plan to measure interference to cellular and personal/general navigation receivers by November 30, 2011. Based on NTIAs technical expertise, we believe this
is an appropriate amount of time for the testing. This phase of testing on cellular
and personal/general navigation receivers is now complete. NTIA has received the
test data and is analyzing it as expeditiously as possible. NTIA will consider all
available data before proposing any recommendations on behalf of the administration with respect to commercial deployment of the LightSquared network. But that
is not all the testing that needs to be done. As described in the September 9 letter
and in my response to Question 4, there will later need to be an additional phase
1 LightSquared Subsidiary LLC; Request for Modification of its Authority for an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, SATMOD201011800239; Call Sign: S2358, Order and Authorization
(Order), 26 F.C.C. Rcd. 566 (2011).

126
of testing to evaluate proposed mitigation plans for high-precision and timing receivers which would commence once LightSquared provides a filtering solution to avoid
interference with those classes of devices. The testing will also evaluate the impact
of the filtering solution on receiver performance. However, if analysis does not point
a path to mitigation of interference effects to general navigation and cellular, the
testing of high precision and timing devices may not be warranted.
Mr. TURNER. 10. LightSquared has proposed, as part of its lower 10 MHz option
a standstill on the upper 10 MHz of the spectrum adjacent to the GPS signal. At
the same time, LightSquared is said to believe that it needs access to its full spectrum, both the lower and the upper, to be profitable.
a. Please explain what the standstill means and what terms LightSquared is
proposing for the standstill.
b. Has LightSquared indicated the upper 10 of the spectrum is completely, permanently off-the-table? Is that what the standstill means?
c. If the standstill was only a matter of a few years, what would that mean to
your agencies?
d. Should Congress, or the FCC, codify somehow the terms of the standstill if
it is ultimately determined that the lower 10 MHz option is acceptable?
Mr. NEBBIA. 10. LightSquared has not yet clearly explained its definition of temporary standstill and if or when the standstill would cease. However,
LightSquareds December 12, 2011, filing with the FCC indicated that they would
not use the upper 10 MHz without the concurrence of the PNT ExCom. We anticipate that this would be among the items that the FCC should clearly and fully articulate in its final determination in this matter.
Mr. TURNER. 11. LightSquareds business plan calls for providing service to 260
million people by 2015. If LightSquared limited its network operations to its lower
10 proposal, including lower power levels, how much of its business plan does it
achieve? Does it need both the lower 10 and upper 10 megahertz bands to realize
full coverage of 260 million people?
Mr. NEBBIA. 11. NTIA defers to LightSquared for specific questions relating to its
business plan.
Mr. TURNER. 12. Part of this proposal is a standstill on the use of the upper
10 MHz spectrum. What is a standstill and how would it work?
Mr. NEBBIA. 12. LightSquared proposed to modify its original deployment plan to
use only the lower 10 megahertz signal of the MSS spectrum in its initial deployment and operate its base stations at lower power. In addition, LightSquared agreed
that it would not operate (i.e., standstill) its terrestrial component signal in the
upper 10 megahertz immediately adjacent to the GPS band. LightSquared has not
yet clearly explained its definition of standstill and if or when the standstill would
cease. However, LightSquareds December 12, 2011, filing with the FCC indicated
that they would not use the upper 10 MHz without the concurrence of the PNT
ExCom.
Mr. TURNER. 13. It has been said by the FCC, including the Chairman, that the
FCC handles interference issues all the time, so we can trust it to handle this one.
This is a troubling statement, as it seems to be suggesting that this case is a routine
matter. Mr. Nebbia, is it the public interest for the United States to have a GPS
system that operates free of harmful interference? Is it the public interest for the
U.S. to have set the global standard in precision, navigation and timing?
Mr. NEBBIA. 13. GPS provides services and benefits of great utility and value to
the nation and NTIA is committed to protecting GPS users from disruption. As the
manager of Federal agency spectrum use, NTIA is focused on enabling Federal
agencies to perform their missions while ensuring, to the greatest extent possible,
that those agencies use and share spectrum efficiently and effectively. Beginning
last January and continuing to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on
behalf of Federal entities regarding potentially harmful interference to GPS-reliant
systems from LightSquareds proposed terrestrial operations and has urged the FCC
not to permit LightSquared to commence operations until those concerns are resolved. At the same time, NTIA is collaborating with the FCC to identify and make
available over the next decade an additional 500 megahertz of spectrum for fixed
and mobile wireless broadband by either reallocating or creating opportunities to
share spectrum currently used by commercial or Federal users. The goal is to nearly
double over the next decade the amount of spectrum that is currently available for
commercial wireless broadband. By doing so, the NTIA and FCC will help spur innovation, expand economic growth and job creation, and preserve Americas global
technology leadership. NTIA is working diligently to consider all available data in
order to address these goals in the most rapid and responsible manner possible.
Mr. TURNER. 14. The subcommittee has asked Mr. Knapp if the FCC has discussed with LightSquared whether it will include technology by two firms linked to

127
the Communist Chinese Peoples Liberation Army, Huawei and ZTE Corp., in this
4G nationwide network, assuming it is approved in some configuration. Will you
please take this back to LightSquared and provide a written response to this Committee for the record of the hearing?
Mr. NEBBIA. 14. NTIA recommends that the Committee request such a written
response directly from LightSquared.
Mr. TURNER. 15. Please give us an idea of the size and scope of the GPS system
to include applications and users. Please elaborate to the extent possible in an open
hearing on the military capabilities that rely on GPS.
Mr. NEBBIA. 15. GPS, and the innovation derived from its application, provides
services and benefits of great utility and value to the nation, including for military
and public safety purposes that protect the homeland and save lives. GPS technologies impact finance, agriculture, military, public safety, transportation, maritime, energy, and nearly every critical economic and social activity. NTIA is committed to protecting GPS users from disruption and continues to work with the
FCC, Federal entities, and industry on a data-driven, engineering-based approach
to addressing interference concerns.
Mr. TURNER. 16. LightSquared would operate in a different part of the spectrum
(15251559 megahertz) than GPS (15591610 megahertz). Why is there an interference problem when the two systems would operate in different, but neighboring,
parts of the spectrum?
Mr. NEBBIA. 16. LightSquareds existing satellite operations utilize relatively lowpowered, satellite-based transmissions that do not create harmful interference to
GPS operations in the adjacent band. By contrast, LightSquareds proposed terrestrial-only operations would utilize a very large number of high-powered, groundbased transmissions. It is the combination of significantly more high-power, groundbased transmitters, combined with the proximity to GPS receivers, that result in the
interference. For a more detailed explanation of the causes of this interference,
please see my September 15 testimony before your Subcommittee, available at:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2011/testimony-karl-nebbia-hearingsustaining-gpsnational-security-0.
Mr. TURNER. 17. The reviews undertaken suggest that there are certain GPS applications that, even with modification or complete redesign, would still not be able
to perform their current mission in the presence of such network broadcasting directly adjacent to the GPS L1 band. What applications?
Mr. NEBBIA. 17. The tests performed thus far indicate that many precision and
timing devices would be impacted by LightSquareds use of the lower 10 MHz. However, these results are based on current technology and do not take into account any
proposed filter solution. Unless and until LightSquared proposes a filtering solution,
we cannot say whether the precision and timing systems would be impaired even
after making modifications or redesigning the devices.
Mr. TURNER. 18. Is LightSquared allowed to build out a terrestrial network today?
What are the limitations, if any? Under what circumstances could/would buildup be
stopped? Assuming FCC provides authorization for LightSquared to move forward
with its deployment plans, as outlined in its November 2010 filing, how would this
build-out affect military systems and users in the near-term?
Mr. NEBBIA. 18. Under its existing authorization, LightSquared is permitted to
offer dual-mode MSS/ATC devices and/or services (i.e., handsets that can communicate both with orbiting satellites and terrestrial base stations). In November 2010,
LightSquared requested a modification to its current authorization to deploy terrestrial-only handsets and services that do not utilize the satellite signal. LightSquared
is not permitted to commence operations on this terrestrial-only network until interference concerns have been adequately addressed. The FCCs January 26, 2011,
LightSquared Order stated that the FCC would not allow LightSquared to commence operations until the Commission, after consultation with NTIA, concludes
that the harmful interference concerns have been resolved and sends a letter to
LightSquared stating that the process is complete. 2 Beginning last January and
continuing to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on behalf of Federal
entities, including military users, regarding potentially harmful interference to GPSreliant systems from LightSquareds proposed terrestrial operations and has urged
the FCC not to permit LightSquared to commence operations until those concerns
have been resolved.
Mr. TURNER. 19. Are FCC and the NTIA looking at other parts of the spectrum
for possible LightSquared operations?
2 LightSquared Subsidiary LLC; Request for Modification of its Authority for an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, SATMOD201011800239; Call Sign: S2358, Order and Authorization
(Order), 26 F.C.C. Rcd. 566 (2011).

128
Mr. NEBBIA. 19. NTIA is not currently looking at other spectrum bands for
LightSquareds operations. In June 2010, President Obama directed NTIA to collaborate with the FCC to identify and make available over the next decade an additional 500 megahertz of spectrum for fixed and mobile wireless broadband by either
reallocating or creating opportunities to share spectrum currently used by commercial or Federal users. The goal is to nearly double over the next decade the amount
of spectrum that is currently available for commercial wireless broadband. By doing
so, the NTIA and FCC will help spur innovation, expand economic growth and job
creation, and preserve Americas global technology leadership. To date, NTIA has
identified 115 megahertz of Federal spectrum for reallocation and is currently evaluating another 95 megahertz of spectrum with the goal of making a recommendation
on that band in the coming weeks.
Mr. TURNER. 20. DOD briefings to the committee suggest that the part of the LBand spectrum in question was intended primarily for space-to-ground transmissions. Can you explain the history here and why decisions were made to allow
significant terrestrial transmissions in this band?
Mr. NEBBIA. 20. In 2003, the FCC granted MSS providers flexibility in how they
could deliver their communications offerings by enabling them to integrate an ATC
into their MSS networks. As envisioned, the ATC would augment MSS services by
utilizing ground stations and mobile terminals that re-use frequencies assigned for
satellite communications in order to enhance MSS coverage. By granting providers
flexibility to integrate MSS and ATC, the FCC sought to maximize spectrum efficiency and expand communications capabilities in the United States by filling in the
gaps in satellite coverage. However, the FCC stated that in order to meet its integrated service rule, the added terrestrial component had to remain ancillary to the
principal MSS offering. This ancillary requirement was particularly important to
users of GPS since emissions from terrestrial base stations represent a significantly
different interference threat to GPS than the far weaker signals emitted from satellites to the ground.
In November 2004, the FCCs International Bureau granted a predecessor company to LightSquared Subsidiary LLC (LightSquared) the authority to operate ATC
facilities providing voice and data communication for users equipped with dual-mode
MSS/ATC devices (i.e., handsets that could communicate both with orbiting satellites and terrestrial base stations). Additionally, in subsequent Orders in 2005 and
2010, the FCC afforded LightSquared additional flexibility for the technical design
of its ATC network by, for example, waiving the requirement for the handsets to
seek a satellite connection before connecting to a terrestrial base station, by waiving
the requirement for a fixed number of base stations, and by allowing increased
power. 3
Mr. TURNER. 21. Does LightSquareds June 30, 2011, submission to the FCC provide sufficient information on its lower 10 proposal for your organizations to determine whether the proposal mitigates GPS interference?
Mr. NEBBIA. 21. No. In response to LightSquareds revised proposal to operate in
only the lower 10 megahertz signal of the MSS band, NTIA requested, in a September 9, 2011, letter, that the ExCom work with LightSquared to develop and implement a test plan to measure interference to cellular and personal/general navigation receivers by November 30, 2011. This phase of testing on cellular and personal/
general navigation receivers is now complete. NTIA has received the test data and
is analyzing it as expeditiously as possible. There may later need to be a second
phase of testing to evaluate proposed mitigation plans for high-precision and timing
receivers which would commence once LightSquared provides a filtering solution to
avoid interference with those classes of devices. However, if analysis does not point
a path to mitigation of interference effects to general navigation and cellular, the
testing of high precision and timing devices may not be warranted.
3 See Federal Communications Commission, Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the LBand, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands,
IB Docket Nos. 01185, 02364, 18 F.C.C. Rcd. 1962, 196465 (2003); see also Federal Communications Commission, Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service
Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the LBand, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 01185,
20 F.C.C. Rcd. 4616 (2005); see also, Federal Communications Commission, SkyTerra Communications, Inc., Transferor and Harbinger Capital Partners Funds, Transferee Applications for
Consent to Transfer Control of SkyTerra Subsidiary, LLC, IB Docket No. 08184, Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 25 F.C.C. Rcd. 3059 (March 25, 2010); Federal Communications Commission, SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC Application for Modification Authority for
an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, File No. SATMOD2009042900047, Call Sign: AMSC1,
File No. SATMOD2009042900046, Call Sign: S2358, File No. SESMOD2009042900536,
Call Sign: E980179, Order and Authorization, 25 F.C.C. Rcd. 3043 (March 26, 2010).

129
Mr. TURNER. 22. How are DOD comments and concerns addressed at this point
in the process?
Mr. NEBBIA. 22. As the manager of Federal agency spectrum use, NTIA is focused
on enabling Federal agencies to perform their missions while ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, that those agencies use and share spectrum efficiently and effectively. Beginning last January, and continuing to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on behalf of Federal entitiesincluding the Department of Defense
regarding potentially harmful interference to GPS-reliant systems from
LightSquareds proposed terrestrial operations and has urged the FCC not to permit
LightSquared to commence operations until those concerns have been resolved.
NTIA values the candid input of agencies, and considers it a critical input into its
decision-making. The Department of Defense co-chairs the Executive Steering Group
of the ExCom, which NTIA has requested work with LightSquared to undertake additional testing. The results of the additional testing will serve as a critical input
as NTIA develops the Administration position on this matter.
Mr. TURNER. 23. The National Positioning, Navigation & Timing (PNT) Engineering Forum (NPEF) report recommends that the U.S. Government should conduct
more thorough studies on the operational, economic and safety impacts of operating
the LightSquared Network. What additional studies and analysis do your organizations (or, you in your professional opinion) believe need to be conducted and why?
Mr. NEBBIA. 23. Please see my answers to Questions 4, 9, 17, and 21, as well as
NTIAs September 9, 2011, letter, which is available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/
ntia/publications/stricklingletter_09092011.pdf.
Mr. TURNER. 24. Describe your organizations involvement in the FCC process
leading to the FCCs January 2011 conditional waiver to LightSquared. Was the Department of Defense, in particular, able to register its concerns with the FCC prior
to its decision in January, and if so, how were those concerns addressed?
Mr. NEBBIA. 24. Beginning last January, prior to the FCCs Order, and continuing
to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on behalf of Federal entitiesincluding the Department of Defenseregarding potentially harmful interference to
GPS-reliant systems from LightSquareds proposed terrestrial operations. On January 12, 2011, NTIA advised the FCC that the LightSquared proposal raised significant interference concerns that warranted a full evaluation to ensure that
LightSquareds proposed terrestrial network would not adversely impact GPS and
other critical Federal systems. 4 The FCCs January 26, 2011, Waiver Order stated
that the FCC would not allow LightSquared to commence operations until the Commission, after consultation with NTIA, concludes that the harmful interference concerns have been resolved and sends a letter to LightSquared stating that the process is complete. 5 NTIA appreciates that the FCC has taken very seriously the concerns raised by NTIA on behalf of Federal agencies in this matter. We look forward
to providing thorough, expert input to the Commission as it moves toward a final
decision in this matter. Please see my September 15 testimony before your Subcommittee for further elaboration on NTIAs involvement with this issue.
Mr. TURNER. 25. Are your organizations concerned that the FCC can provide final
approval for LightSquared operations prior to resolving the GPS interference issues?
Mr. NEBBIA. 25. From the outset, the Federal agencies expressed a desire to resolve all interference concerns prior to granting a waiver. However, the FCCs January 26, 2011, Waiver Order clearly stated that the FCC would not allow
LightSquared to commence operations until the Commission, after consultation
with NTIA, concludes that the harmful interference concerns have been resolved
and sends a letter to LightSquared stating that the process is complete. 6 Both the
NTIA and the FCC have requested additional testing to determine the extent of interference from LightSquareds proposed network. NTIA appreciates that the FCC
has taken very seriously the concerns raised by NTIA on behalf of Federal agencies
in this matter, as well as its commitment to ensure that these concerns are resolved
before permitting LightSquared to begin commercial operations. We look forward to
providing thorough, expert input to the Commission as it moves toward a final decision in this matter.
4 See Letter from Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator, U.S. Department of Commerce, to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (Jan. 12, 2011), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
fcc-filing/2011/letter-regarding-lightsquaredsapplication-provide-mssatc-service.
5 LightSquared Subsidiary LLC; Request for Modification of its Authority for an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, SATMOD201011800239; Call Sign: S2358, Order and Authorization
(Order), 26 F.C.C. Rcd. 566 (2011).
6 Id.

130
Mr. TURNER. 26. There appears to be a tension between national space policy,
which seeks to mitigate harmful interference to GPS, and national broadband policy,
which in this particular case, would cause harmful interference to GPS. How do we
reconcile these two policies?
Mr. NEBBIA. 26. GPS provides services and benefits of great utility and value to
the nation, and NTIA is committed to protecting GPS users from interference. As
the manager of Federal agency spectrum use, NTIA is focused on enabling Federal
agencies to perform their missions while ensuring, to the greatest extent possible,
that those agencies use and share spectrum efficiently and effectively. Beginning
last January and continuing to this day, NTIA has expressed serious concerns on
behalf of Federal entities regarding potentially harmful interference to GPS-reliant
systems from LightSquareds proposed terrestrial operations and has urged the FCC
not to permit LightSquared to commence operations until those concerns have been
resolved. At the same time, NTIA is collaborating with the FCC to identify and
make available over the next decade an additional 500 megahertz of spectrum for
fixed and mobile wireless broadband by either reallocating or creating opportunities
to share spectrum currently used by commercial or Federal users. The goal is to
nearly double over the next decade the amount of spectrum that is currently available for commercial wireless broadband. By doing so, the NTIA and FCC will help
spur innovation, expand economic growth and job creation, and preserve Americas
global technology leadership. NTIA is working diligently to consider all available
data in order to address these goals in the most rapid and responsible manner possible.
Mr. TURNER. 27. Is LightSquared the only current or planned broadband provider
where the GPS interference concern is an issue? How are other interference issues
being resolved to enable co-existence of broadband and GPS services?
Mr. NEBBIA. 27. NTIA leads and manages the IRAC, which is comprised of representatives from 19 Federal agencies that provide advice to NTIA on spectrum policy matters. As part of its Federal spectrum management duties, NTIA, in consultation with the IRAC, regularly reviews systems coming into use to determine their
potential for interference into other spectrum bands used by Federal agencies. NTIA
has reviewed a number of operations for potential interference to GPS. NTIA is not
aware of another MSS provider with proposed operations that pose similar interference concerns for GPS users.
Mr. TURNER. 1. I have learned that during the testimony coordination process, you
were asked to include the following in your prepared remarks:
The Administration believes that we must protect existing GPS users from disruption of the services they depend on today and ensure that innovative new GPS
applications can be developed in the future. At the same time, recognizing the Presidents instruction to identify 500 MHz of new spectrum for innovative new mobile
broadband services, we will continue our efforts at more efficient use of spectrum.
Therefore, in the short run, we will participate in the further testing required to
establish whether there are any mitigation strategies that can enable LSQ operation
in the lower 10MHz of the band. We also encourage commercial entities with interests to work with LightSquared toward a possible resolution, though any proposed
mitigation must be subjected to full testing. We hope that testing can be complete
within 90 days. The challenge of meeting the Presidents goal also depends on longterm actions by Federal agencies in the area of research and development, procurement practices that encourage spectrally-efficient applications, and new policy development.
a. Who, specifically, asked that this be included?
b. If you declined to include the language, in whole or in part, please describe
why.
c. Did anyone in the Administration attempt to persuade you to include the language? Who?
Mr. RUSSO. 1a. As part of the normal Legislative Referral Memorandum (LRM)
process, I received guidance to include this paragraph in my testimony from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on August 1, 2011. I understand that the
language was informed by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
1b. I included this entire paragraph exactly as written with the exception of the
one sentence that established a target deadline for completion of testing. I expressed
my reservations about including this sentence to OMB on August 2, 2011. I objected
to only this one sentence because I had low confidence testing would be completed
by November 3, 2011, as implied. At the point in time when I was testifying, we
had not even begun test planning and therefore I believed this was an unrealistic
target.

131
1c. No one pressured me to include the language. I omitted the one sentence I
did not agree with and subsequently the testimony was cleared by OMB through
the standard process.
Mr. TURNER. 2. Are your responses to these QFRs your own views or those of your
agency? Have your responses been approved/edited by anyone other than yourself
or someone reporting to you?
Mr. RUSSO. 2. These QFR responses are my own views, although I sought input
from representatives from all the agencies that are stakeholders in GPS. Once I
drafted the responses, I sent them out to a wide array of GPS experts across the
Federal Government for fact-checking and editing. And like all Federal agency witnesses, I submitted my final draft for approval to OMB and incorporated comments
received back from the LRM process to get final clearance.
Mr. TURNER. 3. Please describe when you and your agency became aware of the
LightSquared network proposal and its potential for significant interference.
Mr. RUSSO. 3. The National Coordination Office (NCO) is an administrative office
serving the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Executive
Committee (EXCOM). The NCO itself is not a decision-making or policy-making
body. The EXCOM is comprised of the Deputy Secretaries of the nine different Federal departments or agencies that are the principal Government stakeholders in
GPS and systems that augment or back-up GPS.
The issue was brought to the NCOs attention on December 21, 2010, in the context of LightSquareds application for a waiver to the integrated service rules, which
would have resulted in a de facto re-purposing of the spectrum for terrestrial
broadband instead of Mobile Satellite Service (MSS). This represented a significant
change to the interference environment in terms of the number and density of the
Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) base stations we would expect to see. I immediately brought the issue to the attention of the EXCOMs Executive Steering
Group (Assistant Secretary-level) and on December 27, 2010, I wrote to NTIA to request any action on LightSquareds request for waiver be deferred until testing
could be performed. On January 3, 2011, I provided a point paper to all the members of the EXCOM (Deputy Secretary-level) and requested the Deputy Secretary of
Defense engage the FCC Chairman to seek a delay to the waiver decision until specific interference effects and mitigation actions could be identified.
Mr. TURNER. 4. LightSquared has recently announced that it has solved the interference issue for 99.5 percent of GPS users.
a. Do you agree with this statement?
b. What is the solution?
c. Is it a solution for uses of GPS for which you are responsible?
d. Has it been tested by the Federal Government? If so, please provide details.
Mr. RUSSO. 4a. No.
4b. LightSquareds 99.5 percent number is associated with their Recommendation
Paper filed with the FCC on June 30, 2011. I included a summary of this Papers
recommendations in my written testimony to this subcommittee on September 15,
2011, and discussed its implications in both the oral and written testimony. The
LightSquared recommendation paper has three main points:
a) Lower Power. LightSquared proposes operating at significantly lower power
than currently authorized by FCC. They propose to operate at a maximum
base station EIRP per sector for a single carrier at 32 dBW. This was the
power level authorized for LightSquareds predecessor in 2005 and it was
also the maximum level used for live-sky transmission tests done this past
April through June. However, the current power authorized by the FCC is
10 times higher than this level to allow for future growth.
b) Standstill Period. LightSquared proposes they will not deploy the upper 10
MHz of its terrestrial network without receiving explicit approval from the
FCC. The standstill period is undefined, but not less than six months. The
purpose of the standstill period is to allow GPS device manufacturers time
to improve their equipment to coexist with LightSquared.
c) Initial Operations Restricted to the Lower 10 MHz Channel. LightSquared
will start operations in the lower channel instead of the upper channel as
originally planned. This channel is separated from the GPS frequency by 23
MHz, which greatly reduces interference.
4c. The Executive Committee I serve is responsible for helping to implement the
Presidents policy with respect to GPS use . . . for U.S. national and homeland security, civil, scientific, and commercial purposes.
No, the recommendation is not a solution for these uses, primarily because of the
standstill provision, which means LightSquared will still transmit high power terrestrial signals near the GPS L1 spectrum at some point in the future. In addition,

132
even the lower channel transmission, with the lower power limitation still interferes
with some GPS users.
4d. The Government conducted extensive testing of the LightSquared system in
April 2011. The power tested was the same lower power in the recommendation,
which is actually the current technical limit of the LightSquared hardware. Most
of the data points conducted during the live-sky tests in Las Vegas were significantly below this level. The tests also included a dual-channel (upper and lower 10
MHz) and therefore fairly represented what we understand to be the end-state configuration (after standstill). However, the Government tests did not extensively
test operations in only the lower 10 MHz, which is a key part of LightSquareds current recommendations. Some data was collected in what the Government test report
refers to as an initial exploratory evaluation, but it must be remembered this signal configuration was not proposed by LightSquared until several months after the
Government testing.
The Government tests conclusively demonstrated that LightSquareds proposed
dual-channel deployment causes unacceptable interference to all types of GPS applications. However, the testing of the 10 MHz Low now proposed as the first phase
of LightSquareds new deployment was insufficient to reach a conclusion. Therefore,
the Government has requested additional testing on this recommendation. The details of the Government testing conducted earlier this year were attached to the
written version of my testimony in the document called Assessment of
LightSquared Terrestrial Broadband System Effects on GPS Receivers and GPS-dependent Applications from the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and
Timing Systems Engineering Forum (NPEF).
Mr. TURNER. 5. General Shelton stated that he believed that LightSquareds filter
solution could cost billions of dollars over more than a decade. Who would be obligated to pay for the costs of adding filters?
Mr. RUSSO. 5. The FCC has not yet made a determination as to who will pay for
the mitigation of LightSquared interference to GPS.
The Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing believes the public sector should not bear any financial responsibility for the cost of
retrofitting any filters (if they prove to be effective). In the original 2003 Order
granting the Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) license to LightSquareds predecessor, the FCC clearly placed the responsibility for ensuring compatibility on the
ATC service provider:
We [the FCC] adopt technical parameters for ATC operations in each of the
bands at issue designed to protect adjacent and in-band operations from interference from ATC. We fully expect that these operational parameters will be
sufficient. Nevertheless, in the unlikely event that an adjacent MSS or other
operator does receive harmful interference from ATC operations, either from
ATC base stations or mobile terminals, the ATC operator must resolve such
interference.
This responsibility is still placed upon the ATC service provider in the FCC
Rules, specifically in 47 CFR 25.255.
If, for any reason, the FCC concludes 47 CFR 25.255 does not apply, then the
costs of mitigation would likely be borne by the Federal, State, and local agencies
that own and operate the GPS systems and by commercial users. LightSquared has
offered to pay up to $50 million for retrofitting or reequipping Federal agencies.
Mr. TURNER. 6. In a September 29, 2011, Washington Post article by Cecilia Kang,
it was reported that LightSquared chief executive Sanjiv Ahuja said during an interview on CSPANs The Communicators that the company is offering Federal agencies a sufficient amount of money to replace most receivers or fix most receivers
out there.
a. Please provide an estimate of how much money LightSquared would have to
spend to replace most receivers or fix the Federal Governments GPS receivers.
b. How much has the United States Government spent on its GPS receivers?
c. How much have GPS users other than the United States spent on their GPS
receivers?
Mr. RUSSO. 6a. The cost is unknown because the number and types of GPS receivers that would have to be replaced or fixed is unknown. This will depend on the
outcome of the additional testing requested by the FCC and will also depend very
significantly on whether the end-state signal configuration is dual-channel (upper
and lower 10 MHz) or single channel (lower 10 MHz only). It will also depend
on how long the standstill period is before LightSquared deploys its upper channel, if the lower 10 MHz-only regime is not permanent.
6b. The U.S. Government as a whole does not track the total amount it spends
on GPS receivers, but the Department of Defense alone has spent $9.3B on receivers

133
according to an October 2011 report by the Congressional Budget Office. The FAA
reports it has already invested more than $3B in GPS equipment through FY 2011,
with another $8B planned in GPS infrastructure investments planned through FY
2018.
Industry sources put the total Government figure at a minimum $47B for GPS
infrastructure and devices, although this likely includes more than just GPS receivers.
6c. According to the Space Foundation, the total global expenditures are over
$55B per year. The U.S. portion of those expenditures is between 2328 percent.
Mr. TURNER. 7. Mr. Russo, my understanding is that you solicited all Federal
Government agencies with GPS equities on their concerns with the LightSquared
proposal. Please detail which agencies did and did not respond to your solicitation.
If an agency did not respond, please explain, to the best of your understanding, why.
Are you aware of any Government position papers on LightSquared interference
which have been provided to the National Coordination Office or to the NTIA that
have not been forwarded to the FCC and then made public? If so, why were they
not made public immediately?
Mr. RUSSO. 7. All member agencies of the National Executive Committee for
Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (EXCOM) have provided information to NTIA about their concerns with the LightSquared proposal. I am unaware
of the manner and extent to which NTIA will factor in these concerns in its recommendation to the FCC.
At the request of the EXCOM, I tasked each member agency to quantify the economic and operational impact of mitigating GPS interference and to provide their
statements to NTIA. Not all agencies were able to provide the requested statements
because of the uncertainty of the final end-state signal configuration and of the unknown effectiveness of mitigation techniques. Some were able to answer only in general terms, while others did make an order of magnitude estimate. DOD did not
provide a response at all, citing insufficient information as described by Ms. Takai
in her testimony to this Subcommittee. NTIA has asked Federal agencies not to
make any of these statements public yet because they are considered pre-decisional
and part of the deliberative process of the Executive Branch.
Mr. TURNER. 8. LightSquared has proposed, as part of its lower 10 MHz option
a standstill on the upper 10 MHz of the spectrum adjacent to the GPS signal. At
the same time, LightSquared is said to believe that it needs access to its full spectrum, both the lower and the upper, to be profitable.
a. Please explain what the standstill means and what terms LightSquared is
proposing for the standstill.
b. Has LightSquared indicated the upper 10 of the spectrum is completely, permanently off-the-table? Is that what the standstill means?
c. If the standstill was only a matter of a few years, what would that mean to
your agencies?
d. Should Congress, or the FCC, codify somehow the terms of the standstill if
it is ultimately determined that the lower 10 MHz option is acceptable?
Mr. RUSSO. 8a. I believe LightSquared intends the standstill term to mean that
they wish to have approval to operate their network on the lower 10 MHz channel
immediately, but agrees the current conditions on the upper channel should remain
in place for an undefined period of time (but not less than six months).
During the standstill period, LightSquared would expect to continue to work with
the FCC, the NTIA, and Federal agencies on GPS receiver engineering and design
solutions to allow LightSquared to be able to use the upper channel for their future
capacity requirements.
The removal of the conditions for the upper channel would require FCC approval,
in consultation with NTIA.
8b. No, this is not what standstill means. Standstill indicates that LightSquared
seeks to use the upper 10 at some point in the future. The standstill period is
meant to give the Government and the GPS community time to find solutions to
permit coexistence.
LightSquared has referred to the upper 10 being off-the-table in numerous public statements, but has not indicated this in any official filing with the FCC.
On June 23, Mr. Carlisle, Executive Vice President of LightSquared testified to
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that LightSquared
would delay operations in the upper 10 MHz and sought a glide path of 23 years
before using this portion of their spectrum.
In its June 30 Recommendation Paper, LightSquared states:
While LightSquared intends ultimately to deploy a network using a full
complement of terrestrial frequencies operating at appropriate power levels, in
order to provide LTE capacity and service levels to its customers, it will delay

134
incorporating into its terrestrial network the upper 10 MHz of its frequencies
. . .
On September 8, Mr. Carlisle repeated in testimony to the House Committee
on Space, Science and Technology the concept of a standstill period for eventual
upper 10 MHz operations. In follow-on answers to Congressional Questions for the
Record, Mr. Carlisle indicated this standstill period was on the order of 56 years.
Standstill clearly implies eventual use of the upper 10 MHz.
8c. Given the lengthy process for Agency budgeting, authorization and equipment
procurements, most agencies would reequip based only on the projected end-state
configuration. Unfortunately, the target date for the end-state is undefined. This
makes it nearly impossible to build credible cost and impact estimates and to initiate requests for the required funding.
Certainly Federal agencies do not want to begin lengthy and expensive procurement actions, only to have to reinitiate them again in a few years.
8d. Yes, the FCC should codify all terms in their final ruling. If lower 10 MHz
is a permanent configuration, that needs to be specified. If it is approved as a temporary state, then the nature and timing of the final configuration need to be specified.
Mr. TURNER. 9. LightSquareds business plan calls for providing service to 260
million people by 2015. If LightSquared limited its network operations to its lower
10 proposal, including lower power levels, how much of its business plan does it
achieve? Does it need both the lower 10 and upper 10 megahertz bands to realize
full coverage of 260 million people?
Mr. RUSSO. 9. Our office has not been involved in any analysis or evaluation of
LightSquareds business plans. However, an important point to consider is the difference between coverage and capacity. LightSquared tells us that approval of
the lower 10 will allow them to realize full coverage of 260 million people as required by their agreement with the FCC. But just because someone is in the coverage area, does not mean they will be using LightSquareds service. The number
of people actually using the service, as well as how they are using the service, determines the capacity needs. LightSquared projects the lower 10 band is insufficient
to meet their future capacity needs as demand for their broadband service grows.
Mr. TURNER. 10. Part of this proposal is a standstill on the use of the upper
10 MHz spectrum. What is a standstill and how would it work?
Mr. RUSSO. 10. I believe LightSquared intends the standstill term to mean that
they wish to have approval to operate their network on the lower 10 MHz channel
immediately, but agrees the current conditions on the upper channel should remain
in place for an undefined period of time (but not less than six months).
During the standstill period, LightSquared would expect to continue to work with
the FCC, the NTIA, and Federal agencies on GPS receiver engineering and design
solutions to allow LightSquared to be able to use the upper channel for their future
capacity requirements.
The removal on the conditions for the upper channel would require FCC approval,
in consultation with NTIA.
Mr. TURNER. 11. It has been said by the FCC, including the Chairman, that the
FCC handles interference issues all the time, so we can trust it to handle this one.
This is a troubling statement, as it seems to be suggesting that this case is a routine
matter.
Is it the public interest for the United States to have a GPS system that operates
free of harmful interference? Is it the public interest for the U.S. to have set the
global standard in precision, navigation and timing?
Mr. RUSSO. 11. The answers are clearly yes to both. President Obamas Space
Policy (June 2010) states:
Provide continuous worldwide access, for peaceful civil uses, to the Global Positioning System (GPS) and its government-provided augmentations, free of direct user charges;
And,
The United States must maintain its leadership in the service, provision, and
use of global navigation satellite systems (GNSS).
Mr. TURNER. 12. The subcommittee has asked Mr. Knapp if the FCC has discussed with LightSquared whether it will include technology by two firms linked to
the Communist Chinese Peoples Liberation Army, Huawei and ZTE Corp., in this
4G nationwide network, assuming it is approved in some configuration. Will you
please take this back to LightSquared and provide a written response to this Committee for the record of the hearing?

135
Mr. RUSSO. 12. On October 24, 2011, I received this response from Mr. Jeff Carlisle, Executive Vice President for LightSquared:
The FCC has not discussed with LightSquared any specific sourcing of the
technology in our network. Regardless, LightSquared will not include any technology from Huawei or ZTE Corp. in any part of its network.
Mr. TURNER. 13. Please give us an idea of the size and scope of the GPS system
to include applications and users.
Mr. RUSSO. 13. The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a U.S.-owned utility that
provides users with positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) services. This system
consists of three segments: the space segment, the control segment, and the user
segment. The U.S. Air Force develops, maintains, and operates the space and control segments.
Space Segment:
GPS satellites fly in medium Earth orbit (MEO) at an altitude of approximately
20,200 km. Each satellite circles the Earth twice a day.

The satellites in the GPS constellation are arranged into six equally-spaced orbital planes surrounding the Earth, each containing four slots occupied by baseline
satellites. This 24-slot arrangement ensures there are at least four satellites in view
from virtually any point on the planet.
The Air Force normally flies more than 24 GPS satellites to ensure coverage
whenever the baseline satellites are serviced or decommissioned. The extra satellites
may increase GPS performance but are not considered part of the core constellation.
Currently, there are 30 satellites operating with an additional four satellites still
functional, but considered to be in residual status and not actively contributing
to user navigation solutions.
The GPS constellation has now attained the most optimal geometry in its 42-year
history, maximizing GPS coverage for all users worldwide.
Control Segment:
The control segment consists of worldwide monitor and control stations that maintain the satellites in their proper orbits through occasional command maneuvers,
and adjust the satellite clocks. It tracks the GPS satellites, uploads updated navigational data, and maintains health and status of the satellite constellation.

136

User Segment:
The user segment consists of the GPS receiver equipment, which receives the signals from the GPS satellites and uses the transmitted information to calculate the
users three-dimensional position and time. Most of the GPS receiver equipment is
not built or owned by the U.S. Government. There are over a billion GPS receivers
worldwide.
Augmentations:
To date, U.S. taxpayers have invested over $35B in GPS infrastructure and this
figure does not include the extensive investment in systems that augment or enhance GPS services. These services include the FAAs Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), Department of Commerces Continuously Operating Reference Stations
(CORS), the U.S Coast Guard and Department of Transportations Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS), NASAs Global Differential GPS
(GDGPS), or any of the many international and commercial augmentation systems.
Applications:
GPS is used for many diverse applications; it would be impossible to adequately
cover them in this response. A sampling of the civil applications include: agriculture,
roads and highways, aviation, shipping/asset tracking, space, recreation, surveying/
mapping, weather, disaster preparedness, public safety and disaster relief, rail safety, marine operations, and a host of environmental programs. In addition, the GPS
timing service is critical to energy exploration and distribution, telecommunications,
cyber networks, banking and finance, and numerous scientific and research applications.
Mr. TURNER. 14. Please elaborate to the extent possible in an open hearing on the
military capabilities that rely on GPS.
Mr. RUSSO. 14. GPS provides a constant worldwide source for highly precise position and time, both of which are critical for the safe and efficient conduct of military
operations and for a transformation to net-centric operations. GPS enhances interoperability in all aspects of military combat operations because of its commondatum, common-grid, and common time capabilities. GPS has also been the catalyst
for precision operations by increasing individual weapon effectiveness and minimizing collateral damage. GPS military applications are numerous and include:
navigation, target tracking, precision munitions, communications, asset tracking,
search and rescue, missile and projectile guidance, aviation, reconnaissance, delivery
of humanitarian aid, blue-force tracking, and battlefield management.
Mr. TURNER. 15. LightSquared would operate in a different part of the spectrum
(15251559 megahertz) than GPS (15591610 megahertz). Why is there an interference problem when the two systems would operate in different, but neighboring,
parts of the spectrum?
Mr. RUSSO. 15. The issue has to do with the differences between digital radio communications and digital radio navigation. For a communications signal, the receiving device must determine whether each bit is a zero or a one. Determining the se-

137
quence of zeros and ones, determines the message, which is the point of the transmission.
For navigation, the incoming, one-directional signal sequence of zeros and ones is
already known. What the receiver must determine is the precise time of the transition between the ones and zeros. In communications, a message with errors, or
missing information, can be retransmitted. For navigation, errors create integrity
issues and missing information cause a continuity issue that is critical to some realtime applications. For communications purposes, you only need to see one portion
of the transmitted signal to be able to determine the message. For navigation purposes you need to see the full width of the signal. The wider the filter response,
the more accurate the solution. However, if the filter receives too much unwanted
energy (noise) it can experience something called overload or desensitization interference. Current GPS filters work fine in an environment where the neighboring
signals are weak transmissions from other satellites. Many existing GPS filters are
inadequate for the much higher power signals from ground-based towers.

The notional chart above illustrates that GPS filters as they exist today allow full
use of the entire width of the GPS signal and still reject the low power satellite
transmissions from the band right below GPS. However, the much higher power terrestrial transmissions proposed by LightSquared overload the receiver (particularly
for the upper channel transmission).
It may be possible to build a filter system that excludes the higher power signals
and still allows the receiver to see the full range of GPS signals. JAVAD GNSS
claims to have a system of filters that can do this for the lower of the two
LightSquared transmission channels (the one furthest to the left on the chart
above), but not the closer of the two channels (or upper band).
Federal agencies are concerned even if the lower band filter solutions work, they
will increase the cost, weight and power requirements of the GPS receiver, and negatively impact performance characteristics. In addition, it is unclear how the current
installed user base would be addressed or who would bear the cost. FCC and NTIA
have asked for additional testing to determine the effectiveness of LightSquareds
proposed mitigation strategies and the impacts to application performance requirements.
Mr. TURNER. 16. What is the magnitude of the harmful interference and the national security implications of such interference? Discuss the results of the Departments testing and any specific examples that substantiate these observations?
Mr. RUSSO. 16. The testing the Government did on the original LightSquared proposal earlier this year conclusively indicates harmful interference to every category
of GPS user, including national security users. Gen. Shelton mentioned several specific examples in his testimony before this Committee in both the closed and open

138
sessions. I defer a more specific discussion of national security implications to Ms.
Takai, who testified on behalf of DOD.
In my original written testimony, I included the unclassified portion of the Governments test report. Here are some excerpts relative to the civil applications (all
of which assume LSQ operations in both the upper and lower band):
1) LightSquareds out-of-band emissions were within the limits they had
agreed to with GPS industry and significantly better than what is required
by the FCC
2) All GPS receiver applications (but not all receivers) were impacted by the
proposed network
a. Aviation receivers degraded between 0.9 and 19.3 km (for a single
tower)
i. Aggregate effects would deny aviation use of GPS for hundreds of
km
b. Space receivers degraded as far as 305.5 km which includes certain
NASA satellites in low Earth orbit
c. Maritime receivers lost satellite tracking between 0.3 and 1.0 km
d. High Precision receivers lost satellite tracking between 1.7 and 6.1 km
3) Anecdotal observations from single data points during live transmission test
a. New Mexico State Police cruiser lost reception 600 ft from LSQ tower
i. Police HQ also lost the location of the cruiser on their tracking system
b. An ambulance lost GPS tracking 1,000 ft from the LSQ tower
i. Also indicated speed of 9 MPH, while vehicle was actually stationary
c. Fire Department vehicle lost GPS at 1,000 ft from LSQ tower
i. Last reported location was not near actual location
Some information was collected on LSQs new proposal for starting operations in
only the lower 10 MHz, but was insufficient for a conclusion.
Mr. TURNER. 17. The reviews undertaken suggest that there are certain GPS applications that, even with modification or complete redesign, would still not be able
to perform their current mission in the presence of such network broadcasting directly adjacent to the GPS L1 band. What applications?
Mr. RUSSO. 17. Certain applications use not only GPS L1 signals but also signals
from the Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) band right below itthe band where
LightSquared operates. Since the augmentation signals they receive in the MSS
band can come from any portion of that band, just redesigning the receiver cannot
solve this issue. Applications that incorporate these MSS band augmentation signals
include precision farming, military reconnaissance drones, surveying, and GMs OnStar automobile services.
In other instances, applications may not achieve the extremely high precision they
require, even if the proposed filters work properly. These applications may include
natural hazard and environmental monitoring, and scientific/research functions.
Further testing is needed to determine the effectiveness of proposed receiver modifications and their ultimate impact on mission performance.
Mr. TURNER. 18a. Is LightSquared allowed to build out a terrestrial network
today?
18b. What are the limitations, if any?
18c. Under what circumstances could/would buildup be stopped?
18d. Assuming FCC provides authorization for LightSquared to move forward
with its deployment plans, as outlined in its November 2010 filing, how would this
build-out affect military systems and users in the near-term?
Mr. RUSSO. 18a. Yes.
18b. There are many limitations and conditions on LightSquareds build out of a
terrestrial network. One of the most significant is that LightSquared may not commence offering commercial service until the GPS interference issues are resolved.
On September 13, 2011, the FCC issued a Public Notice stating . . . additional targeted testing is needed to ensure that any potential services offered by LightSquared
will not cause harmful interference to GPS operations.
18c. My understanding is only the FCC would have the authority to stop the
buildup. I am not knowledgeable about the criteria they would use to decide this
or the procedures they would use to implement their decision.
18d. I believe Gen. Shelton covered this in his testimony to this Subcommittee
when he testified that tests based on the original LightSquared deployment plans
and original FCC authorization . . . demonstrated empirically that the
LightSquared signals interfere with all types of receivers in the test. His testimony
referenced 29 different types of military receivers. I defer discussion of specific mili-

139
tary system impacts to Ms. Takai and Gen. Shelton, and would expect that the details would be classified at SECRET or above.
Mr. TURNER. 19. Does LightSquareds June 30, 2011, submission to the FCC provide sufficient information on its lower 10 proposal for your organizations to determine whether the proposal mitigates GPS interference?
Mr. RUSSO. 19. Even LightSquared admits in their June 30, 2011, submission that
the lower 10 proposal does not mitigate GPS interference for all users. In numerous technical interchanges with FCC, NTIA, and LightSquared we have learned
more about LightSquareds mitigation strategies which do not solely rely on the
lower 10 proposal. Their proposal partially relies on development of filters and antennas for GPS receivers which we will need to test.
Mr. TURNER. 20. The National Positioning, Navigation & Timing (PNT) Engineering Forum (NPEF) report recommends that the U.S. Government should conduct
more thorough studies on the operational, economic and safety impacts of operating
the LightSquared Network. What additional studies and analysis do your organizations (or, you in your professional opinion) believe need to be conducted and why?
Mr. RUSSO. 20. In my professional opinion, the following additional studies and
analyses need to be done:
1)
Comprehensive testing of GPS receivers against the actual proposed
LightSquared signal configuration. The signal configuration LightSquared
states will mitigate interference for 99.5 percent of GPS users was not
part of the original plan.
2)
Systems-level testing in the expected operational environment. Most of the
testing to date has been component-level. Over the past decade, we have
seen harmful interference occur on integrated systems in tests, exercises
and real-world incidents that were difficult to create in the laboratory environment.
3)
Test and/or analysis of aggregate effects. With the exception of Aviationcertified receivers, most of the data reported so far has been based on a
single LightSquared base station. Under real conditions, interference effects from multiple base stations can produce a larger effect.
4)
More thorough testing of LightSquared handsets. To date, actual handsets
have been unavailable and the simulations we have done are of questionable fidelity. The handsets are much weaker in terms of power compared
to base stations, but much more numerous and are expected to be in close
proximity to GPS receivers.
5)
Realistic testing of the effectiveness of LightSquareds proposed mitigation
solutions for both high-precision receivers and GPS timing. LightSquared
has proposed several different timing antennas and filter systems that appear promising. Government tests need to verify these can be incorporated
in high precision receivers and still permit the receivers to meet their mission requirements.
6)
Once the final end-state is determined, high-fidelity cost estimates need
to be done for the costs of retrofitting or replacing existing GPS receivers
and associated infrastructure.
Mr. TURNER. 21. Describe your organizations involvement in the FCC process
leading to the FCCs January 2011 conditional waiver to LightSquared. Was the Department of Defense, in particular, able to register its concerns with the FCC prior
to its decision in January, and if so, how were those concerns addressed?
Mr. RUSSO. 21. The National Coordination Office (NCO) is an administrative office
serving the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Executive
Committee (EXCOM). The NCO itself is not a decision-making or policy-making
body. The EXCOM is comprised of the Deputy Secretaries of the nine different Federal departments (including DOD) or agencies that are the principal Government
stakeholders in GPS and systems that augment or back-up GPS.
The issue was brought to the NCOs attention on December 21, 2010, in the context of LightSquareds application for a waiver to the integrated service rules, which
would have resulted in a de facto re-purposing of the spectrum for terrestrial
broadband instead of Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS). This represented a significant
change to the interference environment in terms of the number and density of the
Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) base stations we would expect to see. I immediately brought the issue to the attention of the EXCOMs Executive Steering
Group (Assistant Secretary-level) and on December 27, 2010, I wrote to NTIA to request any action on LightSquareds request for waiver be deferred until testing
could be performed. On January 3, 2011, I provided a point paper to all the members of the EXCOM (Deputy Secretary-level) and requested the Deputy Secretary of
Defense engage the FCC Chairman to seek a delay to the waiver decision until specific interference effects and mitigation actions could be identified.

140
The Department of Defense registered its concerns on several levels prior to the
FCC decision. Mr. Price, the chief spectrum officer for the DOD, wrote to NTIA on
December 28, 2010, to request deferment of action on LightSquareds waiver request
and also to request formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to allow for a
robust public record and adequate interference analysis. Ms. Takai, the DOD Chief
Information Officer, personally engaged the NTIA Administrator to express national
security concerns. The Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Lynn, wrote to the FCC
Chairman on January 12, 2011, to assert there was a . . . strong potential for interference to these critical National Security Systems. The Deputy Secretary strongly
recommended deferral of the waiver decision until interference studies could be
done.
The concerns of DOD, and other Federal agencies, were also registered with the
FCC in a January 12, 2011, from the NTIA Administrator to the FCC Chairman
recommending that LightSquared not be permitted to offer service until the interference issues were resolved.
The FCC did not agree to use the NPRM process or to defer the waiver as requested by DOD. However, it did address their concerns by making the waiver conditional on resolving the GPS interference concerns raised by DOD and others.
Mr. TURNER. 22. Are your organizations concerned that the FCC can provide final
approval for LightSquared operations prior to resolving the GPS interference issues?
Mr. RUSSO. 22. Yes, the organizations are concerned. However, FCC representatives at every level have assured us they will not provide final approval until the
GPS interference issues are resolved. The FCC liaison to the Executive Committee
made that statement unequivocally to the Deputy Secretaries that sit on the Committee. FCC also testified to this intent to this Subcommittee. And the FCC Chairman himself has said, . . . the commission will not permit LightSquared to begin
commercial service without first resolving the commissions concerns about potential
widespread harmful interference to GPS devices . . . Under no circumstances would
I put at risk our nations national defense or public safety.
Mr. TURNER. 23. There appears to be a tension between national space policy,
which seeks to mitigate harmful interference to GPS, and national broadband policy,
which in this particular case, would cause harmful interference to GPS. How do we
reconcile these two policies?
Mr. RUSSO. 23. These policies are not mutually exclusive. The President issued
a comprehensive Space Policy in June 2010, which supported maintaining U.S. leadership in space-based positioning, navigation and timing services and also reinforced
a long-standing commitment to offer these services on a worldwide, continuous basis
free from interruption. Also in June 2010, the President issued an Executive Memo
seeking to make available additional spectrum for wireless broadband, but included
a provision to . . . ensure no loss of critical existing and planned Federal, State,
Local and Tribal Government capabilities.
Therefore, the Administrations guidance to Federal agencies seems clear: We
should do what we can to collaborate with FCC to find ways to improve the efficiency of spectrum use, but not at the expense of existing and planned GPS services.
Mr. TURNER. 24. Is LightSquared the only current or planned broadband provider
where the GPS interference concern is an issue? How are other interference issues
being resolved to enable co-existence of broadband and GPS services?
Mr. RUSSO. 24. The Executive Committee requested a briefing on this topic from
FCC and NTIA last year after the Presidential Memorandum on Spectrum was
issued. On November 5, 2010 the Associate Administrator of NTIA briefed the Executive Committee on the implications of the Broadband initiative on GPS and indicated there were no known impacts. The Chief of the Office of Engineering and
Technology for the FCC was also present and had no concerns. However, as the
Broadband plan is implemented and evolves, the Executive Committee will continue
to work closely with NTIA and FCC on any new developments that could impact
GPS service. The Committees Executive Steering Group has opened an Action Item
to create a Spectrum Protection Plan for GPS.
Mr. TURNER. 1. I have learned that during the testimony coordination process, you
were asked to include the following in your prepared remarks:
The Administration believes that we must protect existing GPS users from disruption of the services they depend on today and ensure that innovative new GPS
applications can be developed in the future. At the same time, recognizing the Presidents instruction to identify 500 MHz of new spectrum for innovative new mobile
broadband services, we will continue our efforts at more efficient use of spectrum.
Therefore, in the short run, we will participate in the further testing required to
establish whether there are any mitigation strategies that can enable LSQ operation
in the lower 10MHz of the band. We also encourage commercial entities with inter-

141
ests to work with LightSquared toward a possible resolution, though any proposed
mitigation must be subjected to full testing. We hope that testing can be complete
within 90 days. The challenge of meeting the Presidents goal also depends on longterm actions by Federal agencies in the area of research and development, procurement practices that encourage spectrally-efficient applications, and new policy development.
a. Who, specifically, asked that this be included?
b. If you declined to include the language, in whole or in part, please describe
why.
c. Did anyone in the Administration attempt to persuade you to include the language? Who?
Mr. KNAPP. 1. I did not receive any requests to include this language, or any other
statement from the Administration in my testimony.
Mr. TURNER. 2. Are your responses to these QFRs your own views or those of your
agency? Have your responses been approved/edited by anyone other than yourself
or someone reporting to you?
Mr. KNAPP. 2. Based on an agreement with your staff on September 14, 2011,
FCC Chairman Genachowski designated me as the Commission witness for the September 15, 2011, hearing before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. I drafted my
own testimony in consultation with other Commission staff consistent with standard
procedure, and I stand by the contents of my testimony. Since I served as the Chairmans designee, his staff also reviewed the testimony before it was submitted.
Mr. TURNER. 3. Please describe when you and your agency became aware of the
LightSquared network proposal and its potential for significant interference.
Mr. KNAPP. 3. The specific answer to your question is that prior to December
2010, I was unaware of the potential for receiver overload of GPS devices, although
I now know that the GPS industry raised some concerns in comments and provided
assurances of mitigation in September, 2010. To assist the Committee in its understanding of this matter, a more complete explanation of the procedural history is
warranted. The relevant timeframe at issue is 2001 to the present. During 2001, I
served as Chief of the Policy and Rules Division in the Office of Engineering and
Technology (OFT) and became Deputy Chief of OET in 2002. In 2006, then-FCC
Chairman Kevin Martin appointed me as OFT Chief.
Additionally, it should be understood that the Commission typically addresses interference issues by setting parameters for transmitters to ensure that they do not
emit excessive energy into frequency bands used by other services. The Commission
then relies upon equipment manufacturers, service providers, and other stakeholders to ensure their receivers comply with those technical parameters. We also
look to these equipment manufacturer and service providers to provide technical information on the performance characteristics of their receivers. They are best positioned to know of their limitations and specifications and should notify the Commission if overload interference is a potential issue as a result of receiver characteristics. Because terrestrial transmitters were expected to operate with some frequency
separation from the edge of the GPS band, the potential overload problem was not
one that the FCC would have examined in the ordinary course of the proceeding.
Below is the procedural history of the LightSquared matter:
Commission issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to permit mobile satellite
service providers to offer an ancillary component in response to requests filed
by Mobile Satellite Ventures Inc. and New ICO Global Communications.
Proposal invites comment on whether the proposed rules would protect GPS
systems. See Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite
Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the LBand and the 1.6/2.4 GHz band,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, TB Docket No. 01185, 16 FCC Rcd. 15,532
(2001).
2003
Commission adopts rules permitting MSS licensees to integrate ATC into their
satellite networks to provide mobile service to areas where satellite signals are
degraded or blocked (i.e., urban areas and inside of buildings). See Flexibility
for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2
GHz Band, the LBand, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, TB Docket Nos. 01185,
02364, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd. 1962 (2003), as modified by Order on
Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd. 13,590 (2003).
Rules require MSS licensees to offer an integrated satellite and terrestrial service.
They must maintain a viable satellite service and cannot offer terrestrial service
separately.

142
Rules also allow up to 1,725 terrestrial base stations to be deployed in the L
band, which includes the spectrum adjacent to and below the GPS band.
2004
Commissions International Bureau authorizes SkyTerra (formerly MSV), to
offer an integrated MSS/ATC service to users equipped with dual-mode MSS/
ATC mobile devices. Authorization provides for expansive ATC, including the
deployment of thousands of terrestrial base stations. See Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC Application for Minor Modification of Space Station License for AMSC1, File Nos. SATMOD20031 11800333, SATMOD20031
11800332, SESMOD20031 11801879, Order and Authorization, 19 FCC Rcd.
22,144 (Intl Bur. 2004).
2005
Commission modifies the MSS ATC rules in response to petitions for reconsideration of the 2003 Order.
Adopted rules were (and remain) consistent with the recommendations of the
GPS industry and the Executive Branch, which included input from the Department of Defense.
Commission removes the previously adopted limitation on the number of terrestrial base stations that may be deployed. See TB Docket Nos. 01185, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration 20 FCC Rcd.
4616 (2005) (ATC Reconsideration Order).
Extensively discusses the potential overload interference from Lband
(SkyTerra) ATC base stations to Inmarsat mobile satellite terminals as well as
potential overload interference from 2 GHz ATC mobile devices operating above
1995 MHz to PCS mobile receivers operating in the adjacent band below 1995
MHz.
No one raises receiver overload interference issue.
2009 (MarchApril)
Harbinger and SkyTerra together file an application for transfer of control of
SkyTerra to Harbinger. SkyTerra subsequently files an application for modification of its authority for an ancillary terrestrial component, including requests
for waivers of a number of the Commissions rules for ATC operation. Commission invites public comment on both requests, triggering extensive comments.
2009 (JulyAugust)
GPS industry raises concerns about SkyTerras application for ATC modifications, stating that the existing out-of-band emissions limits would be insufficient to protect against interference to GPS from LightSquareds planned low
power base stations and indoor femto-cells. Note out-of-band emissions are not
the same as receiver overload, which is the basis of the current controversy. No
one raises receiver overload issue. SkyTerra and the U.S. GPS Industry Council
submit a joint letter to the Commission stating that the out-of-band emissions
interference issues had been resolved. No commenter raises any other concerns
about GPS interference.
2010 (March 15)
National Broadband Plan Recommendation 5.8.4 calls for the FCC to accelerate
terrestrial deployment in the MSS spectrum.
2010 (March 26)
Commissions bureaus and offices issue two orders addressing the 2009 Harbinger and SkyTerra requests and comments:
(First Order) SkyTerra Subsidiary LLC Application for Modification Authority
for Ancillary Terrestrial Component, Order and Authorization, 25 FCC Rcd.
3043 (Intl Bur. 2010).
> Authorizes the transfer of control from SkyTerra to Harbinger, explaining Harbingers plans to construct a hybrid-satellite-terrestrial network
and noting terrestrial component would cover 90 percent of the United
States.
> Notes Harbingers plans to deploy a network that will cover 100 percent
of the U.S. population via the satellite component and ultimately over
90 percent of the population via its terrestrial component.
> Observes that if Harbinger successfully deploys its integrated satellite/
terrestrial network, it would be able to provide mobile broadband communications in areas where it is difficult or impossible to provide coverage by terrestrial base stations.
> Does not waive or alter MSS/ATC rules.

143
(Second Order) See SkyTerra Communications, Inc., Transferor and Harbinger Capital partners Funds, Transferee Applications for Consent to Transfer
Control of SkyTerra Subsidiary, LLC, lB Docket No. 08184, Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 25 FCC Rcd. 3059 (TB, OET, WTB,
rel. March 25, 2010).
> Modifies SkyTerras authorization to provide ATC, applying conditions
to address all technical concerns raised in the comment cycle and granting a request to increase the power level of the base stations.
> Commissions bureaus coordinate Order with relevant Executive Branch
agencies. Notes DODs concerns about potential interference to national
security systems in certain circumstances and instructs the licensee to
continue to work with DOD to resolve these concerns.
> No one raises receiver overload interference issue.
2010 (JulySeptember)
Commission follows National Broadband Plan recommendations and initiates a
rule making to provide greater flexibility to deploy terrestrial service in the mobile satellite service. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry,
ET Docket No. 10142, 25 FCC Rcd. 9481.
GPS Industry Council files comments in September that include reference to
the possibility of receiver overload interference to GPS receivers at a distance
of about 100 meters from ATC base stations based on state-of-the-art filtering,
and notes that for much of the mobile consumer UPS in use, including public
safety (e.g., 911 cellphones), the harmful interference effect would be somewhat
worse than this case.
UPS Council notes [i]n earlier Commission proceedings, the Council has
worked collaboratively with MSS operators of ATC to seek mutual agreements
that facilitate successful MSS ATC operations and avoid interference to the
UPS installed base. The Council believes that solutions are available to mitigate
the otherwise unavoidable harmful effects described in these comments and
looks forward to working collaboratively with interested parties to explore these
issues and potential solutions.
2010 (NovemberDecember)
November 15: LightSquared announces the successful launch of its first nextgeneration satellite, SkyTerra 1.
November 18: LightSquared files a request to modify its ATC authority to accommodate its business plan of selling data network capacity at wholesale,
rather than retail (as SkyTerra had done). The request seeks to allow wholesale
service providers to offer terrestrial-only handsets at the same power levels and
conditions previously granted. See LightSquared Subsidiary LLC Request for
Modification of its Authority for an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, SAT
MOD2010111800239.
Commission places November 18th request on Public Notice. See Policy Branch
Information, Satellite Space Applications Accepted for Filing, Report No.
SAT0073 8, Public Notice (rel. November 19, 2010); see also LightSquared Subsidiary LLC Request for Modification of its Authority for Ancillary Terrestrial
Component, SATMOD 2010111800239, Order, DA 102243 (TB, Sat. Div., rd.
Nov. 26, 2010).
GPS industry, GPS users and Federal interests object to LightSquareds
planned terrestrial deployment alleging that the GPS environment will be
changed by LightSquareds wholesale model because it will no longer be motivated to be cognizant of the impact on its own satellite servicebased on a concern about major potential GPS interference due to receiver overload.
Limited technical data is submitted related to the scope of the receiver overload
problem and no mitigation is submitted.
2011 (January)
International Bureau issues January 26th Order modifying LightSquareds authorization. Order provides a conditional waiver of the ATC integrated services rule to allow wholesalers to offer mobile terminals with only terrestrial capability, rather than dual mode capability (i.e., the ability to communicate in
a single handset or terminal via either a satellite or a terrestrial network).
Order establishes a process to investigate the GPS interference issue that had
been raised and stipulates that LightSquared may not offer commercial service
until the process is complete and the risk of harmful interference has been resolved.
Order imposes numerous other conditions to ensure that LightSquared will continue to provide a commercially competitive satellite service and will continue

144
to develop and make available in the marketplace dual mode MSS/ATC-capable
devices.
2011 (July)
Technical Working Group submits report concerning results of testing on the
GPS receiver overload issues.
LightSquared states it will not utilize the upper 10 MHz of the LBand in order
to satisfy interference concerns.
Commission issues a Public Notice requesting comment on the report.
2011 (August)
Commission receives over 3,000 comments in the proceeding.
2011 (September)
Commission releases Public Notice requiring additional testing. See Public Notice, Fed. Commcns Comm., Status of Testing in Connection with
LightSquareds Request for ATC Commercial Operating Authority (Sept. 13,
2011).
I should also note that I only recently learned that John Deere & Co. (Deere) in
2001 filed comments opposing the proposed merger between LightSquareds predecessor companies (Motient and TMI) based on concerns that this would reduce competition in the provision of mobile satellite service. Deere mentioned in a filing to
that proceeding that terrestrial service contemplated under the merger could cause
receiver overload interference to GPS. Inmarsat Ventures also filed an opposition to
this merger and mentioned the possibility of overload interference to GPS. Neither
party provided any data or analyses on this point in their filings a decade ago.
As noted in the timeline above, the Commission subsequently issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in 2001 seeking comment on proposals to deploy terrestrial
service using the MSS spectrum. To my knowledge, neither Deere nor Inmarsat
raised the issue of overload interference to GPS receivers within the context of the
subsequent industry-wide MSS/ATC rulemaking proceeding. I am unaware of any
other filings that would have advised the Commission of potential interference
caused by GPS receiver overload.
Mr. TURNER. 4. LightSquared has recently announced that it has solved the interference issue for 99.5 percent of GPS users.
a. Do you agree with this statement?
b. What is the solution?
c. Is it a solution for uses of GPS for which you are responsible?
d. Has it been tested by the Federal Government? If so, please provide details.
Mr. KNAPP. 4. LightSquared proposes several mitigation measures. First,
LightSquared has proposed to initially use only the lower 10 MHz channel in its
spectrum, a step that it believes would avoid harmful interference to the vast majority of existing GPS equipment without any modification. Second, LightSquared has
stated that it has developed filters for certain types of GPS equipment that would
otherwise still experience interference from its use of the lower channel.
In accordance with the Commissions September 13 Public Notice, further tests
and evaluations are underway relative to operation on the lower 10 MHz. NTIA currently is analyzing the results of tests designed to gauge whether LightSquareds
proposed network will interfere with the operation of GPS receivers in cellphones,
car navigation systems, and other consumer-oriented devices used for marine and
outdoor recreation activities.
NTIA also will review the results of separate tests planned for UPS receivers used
for high-precision and timing applications. Those tests will include GPS devices
modified with new filtering technology that LightSquared and other companies have
said will solve interference and would need to be added to existing GPS devices. We
cannot assess the effectiveness of these measures until the agencies have evaluated
and tested the solution and LightSquared or the Executive Branch presents the data
to the Commission.
Mr. TURNER. 5. General Shelton stated that he believed that LightSquareds filter
solution could cost billions of dollars over more than a decade.
Who would be obligated to pay for the costs of adding filters?
Will the FCC lift the conditional waiver and allow a final waiver to go forward
if the costs of the proposed filters are to be borne by the Federal Government?
Mr. KNAPP. 5. I have not been provided with the data or other sources of information General Shelton relied upon for his statement, and I have not been provided
with any specific cost assessments. As I noted during the hearing, it would be premature to attempt to determine costs without first establishing and testing an engineering solution to the problem.

145
Until an engineering solution is tested and vetted in the public record, any potential cost analysis or allocation would be premature.
Under the January 26, 2011, Order, LightSquared must resolve all harmful interference claims before it can offer commercial service. The threshold question
in any analysis of a filter solution would be whether the filter is effective and
viable to retro-fit existing equipment.
Mr. TURNER. 6. In a September 29, 2011, Washington Post article by Cecilia Kang,
it was reported that LightSquared chief executive Sanjiv Ahuja said during an interview on CSPANs The Communicators that the company is offering Federal agencies a sufficient amount of money to replace most receivers or fix most receivers
out there.
a. Please provide an estimate of how much money LightSquared would have to
spend to replace most receivers or fix the Federal Governments GPS receivers.
b. How much has the United States Government spent on its GPS receivers?
c. How much have GPS users other than the United States spent on their GPS
receivers?
Mr. KNAPP. 6a. See my answer to Question 5, above.
6b. The Commission does not have access to any information on expenditures by
other Government agencies for GPS equipment.
6c. The Commission does not have data on the amount of money the public has
spent on GPS equipment.
Mr. TURNER. 7. My understanding is that Mr. Russo solicited all Federal Government agencies with GPS equities on their concerns with the LightSquared proposal.
Are you aware of any Government position papers on LightSquared interference
which have been provided to the National Coordination Office or to the NTIA that
have not been forwarded to the FCC and then made public? If so, why were they
not made public immediately?
Mr. KNAPP. 7. I am not aware of any such papers.
Mr. TURNER. 8. LightSquared has proposed, as part of its lower 10 MHz option
a standstill on the upper 10 MHz of the spectrum adjacent to the GPS signal. At
the same time, LightSquared is said to believe that it needs access to its full spectrum, both the lower and the upper, to be profitable.
a. Please explain what the standstill means and what terms LightSquared is
proposing for the standstill.
b. Has LightSquared indicated the upper 10 of the spectrum is completely, permanently off-the-table? Is that what the standstill means?
c. If the standstill was only a matter of a few years, what would that mean to
your agencies?
d. Should Congress, or the FCC, codify somehow the terms of the standstill if
it is ultimately determined that the lower 10 MHz option is acceptable?
Mr. KNAPP. 8a. Although LightSquared is best positioned to explain its own proposals, I understand LightSquareds current proposal is to initially deploy terrestrial
operations on the lower 10 MHz channel. Further, the Commissions September 13,
2011, Public Notice specifically states that further targeted testing will focus on the
lower 10 MHz channel.
8b. LightSquared is not now proposing to use the upper 10 MHz channel.
8c. The answer to this question would depend on the engineering solutions and
the population of devices and their characteristics.
8d. The current conditional waiver contained in the January 26, 2011, Order appropriately addresses any potential use of this spectrum, by requiring that all harmful interference issues be resolved. LightSquared would not be permitted to use that
spectrum absent satisfaction of the condition.
Mr. TURNER. 9. LightSquareds business plan calls for providing service to 260
million people by 2015. If LightSquared limited its network operations to its lower
10 proposal, including lower power levels, how much of its business plan does it
achieve? Does it need both the lower 10 and upper 10 megahertz bands to realize
full coverage of 260 million people?
Mr. KNAPP. 9. LightSquared is best positioned to answer questions concerning the
implementation of its business plan.
Mr. TURNER. 10. Part of this proposal is a standstill on the use of the upper
10 MHz spectrum. What is a standstill and how would it work?
Mr. KNAPP. 10. See my answer to Question 8, above.
Mr. TURNER. 11. It has been said by the FCC, including the Chairman, that the
FCC handles interference issues all the time, so we can trust it to handle this one.
This is a troubling statement, as it seems to be suggesting that this case is a routine
matter.

146
a. I have to ask, is it routine for the Deputy Secretary of Defense to warn the
FCC two weeks before it takes an action that that action has strong potential for
interference to . . . critical National Security Systems?
b. Is it routine for the Deputy Secretary of Defense to have to have to say to the
FCC that it and another Department were not sufficiently included in the development of . . . [a] work plan and its key milestones and that we are concerned with
this lack of inclusiveness regarding input from federal stakeholders?
c. Weve been told that bureaus are permitted to grant waivers of the Commissions rules instead of initiating a rulemaking where a waiver will serve the public
interest and good cause has been shown. Please explain the public interest or
good cause where significant national security concerns were known two weeks before the waiver was issued by the FCC on January 26th.
Mr. KNAPP. 11a. The Commission takes all concerns about the potential for harmful interference seriously, especially those involving public safety, national security,
and defense. Indeed, the Commission has successfully resolved many issues in the
past where the Department of Defense initially raised concerns about harmful interference. The radio spectrum is a crowded and complex environment, and changes
in the use of any particular band of frequencies often lead to disagreements about
the potential for interference, including from the Executive Branch. A review of the
U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations (available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osrnhome/
allochrt.html) gives a visual illustration of why we continually engage other Government entities in discussions about this issue and why the Memorandum of Understanding with NTIA exists. NTIA manages Federal spectrum and is advised by the
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC). Among the members of IRAC
are DOD, DOE, NASA, DOT, and the State Department. DOD often raises concerns
about spectrum matters in this forum, and NTIA takes these concerns, along with
other considerations, into account in its deliberations with the Commission on any
spectrum proceedings that could affect Federal operations.
11b. The January Order established a process that called for LightSquared to
form a Technical Working Group including all interested parties and representatives
of the Federal Government. The Commission coordinated the Order with NTIA and
the Federal agencies so they were aware of this process, and they were encouraged
to participate. The Department of Defense and the other Federal agencies with GPS
interests participated in the Technical Working Group. At the time that the Department of Defense raised its concern about the test plan in March, it believed that
the process was moving too quickly and it had not been provided sufficient opportunity to shape the test plan. We contacted the interested parties to ensure that
these concerns were addressed. In addition to the report submitted by the Technical
Working Group, Federal agencies conducted their own tests under the auspices of
the National Positioning, Navigation & Timing (PNT) Engineering Forum (NPEF)
that were submitted to the FCC by the NTIA and were inserted in the public record
for comment.
11c. The Commissions staff acted responsibly by taking the unusual step of preventing LightSquared from deploying its network until concerns about potential
harmful interference could be resolved. Prior to that point, and based on its current
license, LightSquared could have deployed its terrestrial base stations, as long as
its handsets included dual satellite and terrestrial capabilities, instead of singular
terrestrial capabilities. The staffs waiver condition addresses this issue. The waiver
standard for all Commission activities is longstanding and dates to 1972. See
WAITRadio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 409 U.S.
1027 (1972).
Mr. TURNER. 12. The FCC has attempted to assure Congress all along the way,
including in the Public Notice dated September 13, 2011, that it wont permit any
national security harm. What does that mean? How will that be enforced? Does this
mean General Shelton, the general officer in charge of assuring GPS reliability and
effectiveness, will have to give a thumbs up to any final action with respect to
LightSquared? If not, why not?
Mr. KNAPP. 12. The Commissions January 26, 2011, Order specifically stated that
LightSquared may not deploy commercial service until concerns of harmful interference to GPS have been resolved. The Commission is working pursuant to its
MOU with NTIA to determine whether LightSquared s proposal can satisfy this requirement. The testing and evaluation process remains ongoing pursuant to the
September 13, 2011, Public Notice. NTIA currently is analyzing the results of tests
designed to gauge whether LightSquareds proposed network will interfere with the
operation of GPS receivers in cellphones, car navigation systems, and other consumer-oriented devices used for marine and outdoor recreation activities.
NTIA also will review the results of separate tests planned for UPS receivers used
for high-precision and timing applications. Those tests will include GPS devices

147
modified with new filtering technology that LightSquared and other companies have
said will solve interference and would need to be added to existing GPS devices.
The Commission deals directly with NTJA, which represents the Executive
Branch on spectrum management and negotiates on behalf of the Federal agencies.
Under the MOU, the Commission will continue to work with NTIA directly to resolve this matter. The Department of Defense and General Shelton will have the
opportunity to continue to work with the NTIA to ensure that his concerns about
interference are adequately addressed through the longstanding and consultative
process. It should be noted, however, that we have reached out to individual agencies, including DOD, to discuss their concerns.
Mr. TURNER. 13. Can you tell us if the FCC has discussed with LightSquared
whether it will include technology by two firms linked to the Communist Chinese
Peoples Liberation Army, Huawei and ZTE Corp., in this 4G nationwide network,
assuming it is approved in some configuration? Will you please take this back to
LightSquared and provide a written response to this Committee for the record of
the hearing?
Mr. KNAPP. 13. The Commissions Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
and Office of Legislative Affairs have been working closely with the appropriate congressional offices to ensure that they are aware of the FCCs role in addressing telecommunications equipment importation issues. Questions related to LightSquareds
vendor selections are best directed to LightSquared.
Mr. TURNER. 14. LightSquared would operate in a different part of the spectrum
(15251559 megahertz) than GPS (15591610 megahertz). Why is there an interference problem when the two systems would operate in different, but neighboring,
parts of the spectrum?
Mr. KNAPP. 14. Out-of-band interference and in-band interference may occur when
two systems operate in adjacent spectrum allocations. These two forms of interference have been raised in the context of the LightSquared matter.
Out-of-band emission limitations ensure that a licensees signal does not bleed
into the other frequency band and cause interference to receivers in the adjacent
band. The Commission fully considered the issue of out-of-band emissions into the
GPS band during the 20012005 rulemakings. At that time, the Commission adopted the out-of-band emissions limits recommended by the GPS industry and the
NTIA. As noted in the timeline set out to Question 3, the GPS industry raised concerns about out-of-band emissions from indoor consumer terminals as a potential
problem during the SkyTerra-LightSquared transfer of control process but told the
Commission in a 2009 letter that these concerns had been resolved.
In-band interference can cause receiver overload. This type of interference occurs when a receiver that is intended for reception in one band picks up signals in
an adjacent band. In the current case, the primary issue is that GPS receivers will
experience receiver overload because they do not have sufficient capability to reject
signals legally transmitted in the adjacent mobile satellite band from
LightSquareds high power base stations.
The FCC does not regulate receivers. As discussed in Question 3, the Commission
typically addresses interference issues by setting parameters for transmitters to ensure that they do not emit excessive energy into frequency bands used by other services and relies on equipment manufacturers, service providers, and other stakeholders to ensure their receivers comply with those technical parameters.
It should be noted that other testimony in this hearing suggested that a change
in LightSquareds business plan in late 2010 created the receiver overload issue. To
correct the record, LightSquareds ATC business plan is based on the FCCs original
MSS/ATC rules and on LightSquareds 2004 authorization. LightSquareds planned
terrestrial deployment was described plainly in the Commissions March 2010 Order
authorizing the transfer of control from SkyTerra to Harbinger. Concurrently, the
March, 2010 Order that modified LightSquareds authorization to provide terrestrial
service applied technical and operational conditions to address concerns raised by
commenters.
LightSquareds waiver request in November 2010 sought authority to operate on
the same channels, with the same network, and at the same power levels, as currently authorized for ATC and required under the March 2010 Order, but serving
some handsets designed for solely terrestrial service, rather than dual-mode (terrestrial and satellite) communications. The radio frequency environment affecting GPS
is technically identical whether the handsets served by LightSquareds network
have the ability to provide terrestrial or combined terrestrial-satellite operations.
Mr. TURNER. 15. The reviews undertaken suggest that there are certain UPS applications that, even with modification or complete redesign, would still not be able
to perform their current mission in the presence of such network broadcasting directly adjacent to the GPS L1 Band. What applications?

148
Mr. KNAPP. 15. The Commissions September 13, 2011, Public Notice states that
further targeted testing will focus on the lower 10 MHz channel. Since the testing
and evaluation and review process is still ongoing and the Commissions record remains open, I cannot predict the outcome of that process.
Mr. TURNER. 16. Is LightSquared allowed to build out a terrestrial network today?
What are the limitations, if any? Under what circumstances could/would buildup be
stopped? Assuming FCC provides authorization for LightSquared to move forward
with its deployment plans, as outlined in its November 2010 filing, how would this
build-out affect military systems and users in the near-term?
Mr. KNAPP. 16. Until the Commission issued its conditional waiver in the January
26, 2011, Order, LightSquared had authority to build out its network as long as the
handsets served by its network had dual-mode terrestrial and satellite capability.
LightSquareds November 18, 2010 filing requested permission to allow wholesaler
customers of LightSquareds network capacity to offer their retail customers terrestrial-only handsets. As noted earlier, as a condition of the waiver, LightSquared was
required to maintain a competitive mobile satellite service and to develop dual-mode
MSSATC mobile terminals that would be available at retail.
The Order took the unusual and stringent step of stopping commercial deployment until all harmful interference issues raised in the comment period were resolved. The harmful interference concerns raised in December 2010 involved receiver overload problems. The Commissions Order in January 2011 states that no
deployment is permissible absent the resolution of harmful interference concerns.
This requirement includes protection for military systems and users.
Mr. TURNER. 17. Are FCC and the NTIA looking at other parts of the spectrum
for possible LightSquared operations?
Mr. KNAPP. 17. The FCC is not, and there have been no such discussions with
NTIA.
Mr. TURNER. 18. DOD briefings to the committee suggest that the part of the L
Band spectrum in question was intended primarily for space-to-ground transmissions. Can you explain the history here and why decisions were made to allow
significant terrestrial transmissions in this band?
Mr. KNAPP. 18. My answer to Question 3 provides a timeline that illustrates the
historical background of this matter. To summarize, as early as 2001 the Commission proposed to permit ancillary terrestrial service in the mobile satellite spectrum.
In 2003, the Commission permitted mobile satellite service (MSS) licensees to integrate ancillary terrestrial components (ATC) into their satellite networks to provide
mobile service to areas where the satellite signal is degraded or blocked (i.e., urban
areas and into buildings). The Commission determined in 2003 that this change in
policy would encourage innovative techniques and better services. In 2004,
SkyTerra, the predecessor to LightSquared, was given ATC authorization, which
provided for expansive ancillary authority, including authorization to deploy thousands of terrestrial base stations to provide terrestrial services on its authorized satellite spectrum.
Mr. TURNER. 19. Does LightSquared need to submit a formal modification to its
November 2010 application outlining its lower 10 proposal? If not, how will the
Federal agencies have sufficient information about the details of its revised plans
to provide assessments on potential interference? Does LightSquareds June 30,
2011, submission to the FCC provide sufficient information on its lower 10 proposal for your organizations to determine whether the proposal mitigates GPS interference?
Mr. KNAPP. 19. LightSquared has not requested a modification to its authorization, and the Commissions record is open on this issue. I believe that sufficient information has been submitted for parties to evaluate LightSquareds proposals, and
whatever provisions are necessary to avoid causing harmful interference can ultimately be included in any modification to its authorization.
The Commissions September 13, 2011, Public Notice indicates that further targeted testing related to the lower 10 MHz channel is necessary in conjunction with
the written request of NTIA and in compliance with the January 2011 Order. NTIA
is appropriately positioned to take into account Federal agency concerns about
harmful interference to GPS. Under the MOU, the Commission will continue to
work with NTIA and other interested agencies to resolve this matter.
Mr. TURNER. 20. How are DOD comments and concerns addressed at this point
in the process?
Mr. KNAPP. 20. NTIA represents Federal spectrum users, including DOD. Under
the long-standing MOU and as noted in the January 26, 2011, Order, the Commission will work with NTIA to resolve all Executive Branch concerns about interference issues. In this instance, we also have engaged in direct discussions with all
affected agencies, including DOD.

149
Mr. TURNER. 21. Section 911 of H.R. 1540, the FY11 National Defense Authorization Act, provides that the conditional waiver for LightSquared issued by the FCC
on January 26, 2011, may not he lifted until the Commission has resolved concerns
of widespread harmful interference by such commercial terrestrial operations to the
Global Position System devices of the Department of Defense. How would the Commission comply with this provision? Please be specific.
Mr. KNAPP. 21. Section 911s language is consistent with the Commissions January 26, 2011, Order. As stated in the Order, the Commission is not permitting
LightSquared to deploy commercial service until the resolution of harmful interference issues.
Mr. TURNER. 22. In April of this year the Commission issued a Report and Order
where it reallocated portions of the 2 GHz spectrum from primary Mobile Satellite
Service (MSS) to coprimary MSS and Fixed Mobile uses. This reallocation increased
the amount of spectrum available for terrestrial mobile broadband operations by a
significant 40 MHz. Why did the Commission not undertake a similar reallocation
with the L-Band spectrum that is the subject of the LightSquared conditional waiver of the MSS Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) gating rules? Are the results
of these two processes not effectively the same when it comes to the amount of mobile broadband spectrum being made available?
Mr. KNAPP. 22. The circumstances for the L-Band are different from those for the
2 GHz MSS spectrum, which accounts for why they were handled differently.
LightSquared shares the L-Band spectrum with Inmarsat. Both LightSquareds and
Inmarsats spectrum was fragmented into narrow slices. Consistent with Commission policies to encourage satellite licensees to cooperate in their use of the spectrum, LightSquared reached an agreement to fund the reorganization of Inmarsats
spectrum to better enable deployment of LightSquareds integrated satellite and terrestrial service. In short, this was a situation that only the two parties could resolve.
In contrast, the 2 GHz MSS spectrum is authorized to licensees in contiguous
blocks so there was no need to untangle use of the spectrum by multiple licensees.
The Commissions April 2011 order was largely a ministerial action. The Commission modified the Table of Frequency Allocations to add a co-primary Fixed and Mobile allocation to the 2 GHz MSS band to make it consistent with the International
Table of Allocations. This action for the 2 GHz band laid the groundwork for more
flexible use of the band, including for terrestrial broadband services, in the future.
See ET Docket No. 10142, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd. 5710.
Substantive changes to the Table of Frequency Allocations are generally made
through the rule making process. Since there is no international fixed and mobile
allocation for the L-Band, the Commission did not propose to change the allocations
for this spectrum and rule making was not required.
The Commission has received requests from Dish Network for approval of a transaction to transfer the licenses for the existing 2 GHz MSS spectrum and grant a
waiver to deploy terrestrial service under conditions similar to LightSquared. The
Commission has not detennined how it will address these requests. The Commission
has put Dishs proposed transaction and waiver requests out for public comment,
and that proceeding remains open.
Mr. TURNER. 23. Is it not FCC policy enshrined in several orders absolutely to
prevent un-integrated terrestrial service in the MSS band, and to ensure that any
ATC offered is compatible with co-coverage MSS? If that isnt the policy, when did
the policy change?
Mr. KNAPP. 23. LightSquared has never proposed to provide un-integrated terrestrial service in the MSS band. LightSquared continues to integrate its services and
grow its satellite-based services. For instance, using MSAT1 and MSAT2,
LightSquared provides voice and low-speed data services to customers for various
applications, including (1) land-based applications (e.g., voice, asset tracking); (2)
maritime applications; and (3) Government applications (e.g., disaster relief). These
services are available in North and Central America, the Caribbean, Hawaii and
coastal waters.
LightSquareds satellite system currently serves Federal, state, and local agencies
involved in public safety and emergency response operations, including organizations such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Coast Guard, and
local fire and police departments. LightSquared also provides fleet management and
other services to the transportation and natural resources industries. LightSquared
also has entered into an agreement with the Indian Health Service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide satellite service to American Indian and Alaska Native communities until 2020.
The waiver granted to LightSquared is based on existing Commission policy and
a 2005 Order related to its number of base stations and power levels, as well as

150
the language in the 2010 Order permitting the transfer of control from SkyTerra
to LightSquared. In granting LightSquareds proposal and the waiver request, the
International Bureau considered several factors demonstrating an integrated satellite and terrestrial service: (1) LightSquareds provision of substantial satellite
service in the LBand; (2) its ongoing efforts to coordinate with other LBand operators and make substantial investments to rationalize operations in the LBand to
enable use of this spectrum for both MSS and ATC broadband services; (3) the steps
it has taken to promote dual-mode satellite/terrestrial devices; and (4) its deployment of a 4G satellite/terrestrial network in the LBand pursuant to unique and
substantial terrestrial build out requirements. The Bureau determined that these
factors together satisfied the integrated service requirement for ATC, which applies
to LightSquared as well as other MSS providers.
Mr. TURNER. 24. When LightSquared filed its request to provide terrestrial-only
mobile broadband services in November 2010, was the Commission aware of the
GPS receiver overload problem?
If not, when did the Commission first become aware of this problem?
Was it ever addressed in the context of the various MSS ATC rulemakings and
licensing orders?
Mr. KNAPP. 24. Please see my answer to Question 3, above, for a thorough history
of this matter. I first became aware of the receiver overload issue in December,
2010, although I have learned that GPS filed comments that mentioned possible
overload interference and mitigation in September, 2010. Also, to clarify and as discussed in my response to Question 23, above, LightSquared will provide integrated
satellite and terrestrial services on a wholesale basis. It will not provide terrestrialonly service.
Mr. TURNER. 25. The L-Band and 2 GHz MSS licensees did not pay upfront fees
for their use of valuable spectrum. When they operate in ATC mode, especially if
the gating rules are waived and they are allowed to operate within their assigned
MSS spectrum in terrestrial-only mode, in effect they will be providing a service
identical in nature to that provided by the terrestrial carriers.
Is it fair that the MSS spectrum users in ATC mode will not have paid for use
of their spectrum, when others such as ATT and Verizon were required to spend
billions of dollars for access to their spectrum?
Does this disparity not skew the market and place the terrestrial carriers at
a disadvantage? Were the gating rules not adopted in large part to avoid this
disparity? Please explain.
Mr. KNAPP. 25. The assumption that terrestrial providers such as AT&T and
Verizon paid the Government for all of the spectrum they use is mistaken. Prior to
the implementation of the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, entities receiving FCC
licenses did not pay the Government for the value of their spectrum. Licenses were
assigned through a range of methods, including comparative hearings and lotteries.
AT&T and Verizon hold licenses from the pre-auction period, although they have expanded their networks since that time and acquired spectrum through the auction
process.
LightSquareds predecessor in interest (SkyTerra) obtained its licenses in 1995
and assigned them to Harbinger in 2010 in a financial transaction in which Harbinger paid $1.8 billion. At the time of the initial licensing process, the Orbit Act
forbade the auction of MSS spectrum.
Mr. TURNER. 26. The National Positioning, Navigation & Timing (PNT) Engineering Forum (NPEF) report recommends that the U.S. Government should conduct
more thorough studies on the operational, economic and safety impacts of operating
the LightSquared Network. What additional studies and analysis do your organizations (or, you in your professional opinion) believe need to be conducted and why?
Mr. KNAPP. 26. The Commissions September 13, 2011, Public Notice calls for additional targeted testing and adopts by reference the NTJAs letter concerning additional testing requirements. NTIA currently is analyzing the results of tests designed to gauge whether LightSquareds proposed network will interfere with the
operation of GPS receivers in cellphones, car navigation systems, and other consumer-oriented devices used for marine and outdoor recreation activities.
NTIA also will review the results of separate tests planned for GPS receivers used
for high-precision and timing applications. Those tests will include UPS devices
modified with new filtering technology that LightSquared and other companies have
said will solve interference and would need to be added to existing GPS devices.
Mr. TURNER. 27. There appears to be a tension between national space policy,
which seeks to mitigate harmful interference to UPS, and national broadband policy, which in this particular case, would cause harmful interference to UPS. How
do we reconcile these two policies?

151
Mr. KNAPP. 27. I do not believe that the two policies are in conflict. Rather, one
of the goals in the interference-resolution process has been to bring all of the parties
together to develop engineering solutions. From an engineering standpoint, I believe
that technical and operational solutions will bring closure to this matter.
Furthermore, the 2004 Presidential Policy on Position, Navigation and Timing
(PNT Policy) states that the United States shall, among other things, improve the
performance of space-based positioning, navigation, and timing services, including
more robust resistance to interference for [emphasis added], and consistent with,
U.S. and allied national security purposes, homeland security, and civil, commercial,
and scientific users worldwide, which is consistent with the 2010 National Space
Policy stating that the United States will support international activities to detect,
mitigate, and increase resiliency to harmful interference to GPS [emphasis added].