From: Subject: Date: To: Tilley, Kenneth R ken@ ts.b drdoc.gov Goog e Cook es June 26, 2012 at 10:15 AM Cate er, Andrew acate er@ ts.b drdoc.gov Cook es are used but they co ect no persona nfo. https://deve opers.goog e.com/ana yt cs/resources/concepts/gaConceptsCook es From: Subject: Date: To: Cc: Catellier, Andrew acate er@ ts.b drdoc.gov GIT repos tory update January 9, 2013 at 7:53 PM Frank Sanders fsanders@ ts.b drdoc.gov Patt Raush patt @ ts.b drdoc.gov Frank, Today I had a meet ng w th Max to work towards gett ng a pub c-fac ng code repos tory up and runn ng. Not T Responsive M f We , I thought t was fine, unt he sent me the fo ow ng ema : On Jan 9, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Max Lucchett wrote: http://code.google.com/p/git-repo/ Will this work as an alternative? If not please provide the reason why. Thanks, -Max H s quest on s effect ve y ask ng f a shoe (wh ch goes over your sock) s a rep acement for the act of runn ng from one secure, ocked bu d ng to another. You can find my response to h m after the body of th s ema . Not Responsive Andrew From: Andrew Catellier Subject: Re: Take a look Date: January 9, 2013 6:48:42 PM MST To: Max Lucchetti Max, The short answer s that the software you po nted to s not an a ternat ve to the system I have bu t/am propos ng. Goog e s "repo" s a user nterface ayer (a wrapper around GIT, cons st ng of a s ng e Python scr pt) that he ps a user already using GIT dea w th a arge number of GIT repos tor es c ean y. If "repo" were to be used n a c ent/server mode , the system I ve bu t/am propos ng wou d st be necessary. Here s how I know—I down oaded the scr pt from the s te you nked me to. L ne 105 of the scr pt: GIT = g t # our g t command Th s stores the str ng "g t" n the var ab e "GIT". If we move down to the " Fetch" command (start ng at ne 382), we can see that a var ab e "cmd" nstant ated-b); concatenat ng two ngs, "g t" and "fetch" ne 386). The pt does some more worken the var ab (add ng appropr ate paths and ref specs), and then ca 8 the command ne 396: I proc subprocess.Popen(cmd, 003, stderr err) Here 3 a ock agram of the system I propos ng: And here 3 a agram of the system I propos ng, and a so us ng "repo" Here 3 a It nfo about the server, as tex now. Its runn ng Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. I us ng ab mrL/lg abhq.coml) to he me dea th user accounts and access perm ss onsrectory to see a user 3 authent cated to our oca system, but can a so check for authent cat on from aces ke Goog and Facebook. ab estab shes who 3 a owed to use the system (and what they have), and commun cates that to to te wh ch then ether (over the command ne). I dont know tthat was meant to be a tr ck quest on or not, but fyou re not sat s?ed th my exp anat about some more. Andrew From: Subject: Date: To: Max Lucchetti m ucchett @ ts.b drdoc.gov Take a ook January 9, 2013 at 2:52 PM Cate er, Andrew acate er@ ts.b drdoc.gov http://code.google.com/p/git-repo/ Will this work as an alternative? If not please provide the reason why. Thanks, -Max From: Subject: Date: To: Cc: Tilley, Kenneth R ken@ ts.b drdoc.gov MRT fi e down oad og Apr 3, 2013 at 10:14 AM Bratcher, Jeffrey R jeff@ ts.b drdoc.gov Cate er, Andrew acate er@ ts.b drdoc.gov H Jeff, I d scussed w th Andrew the poss b ty of us ng Goog e Ana yt cs to track fi e down oads. Andrew be eves that won t work because the fi es used to serve the down oads are php program fi es rather than php web pages. The Goog e Ana yt cs code s des gned to ve n a web page to count web page v s ts rather than fi e down oads. Not Responsive KEN From: Subject: Date: To: Segre, Lilli segre@ ts.b drdoc.gov Goog e event counter for ts.b drdoc.gov January 9, 2014 at 1:07 PM Cate er, Andrew acate er@ ts.b drdoc.gov Andrew, We also didn’t talk about required disclaimers. Check out the ABC_MRT page for an example of disclaimer use. Here is the code, with my comments: Include a link to the explanation/manual somewhere in the text

More details are available in a paper presented at the IEEE 2013 Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics.

Tell what is available for download, what format it is in, and how big it is

The ABC-MRT software package (for Matlab or Octave) is available by clicking on the link below the next paragraph. The 80 MB package contains instructions for use in a readme file, scripts, and data to run the demo script.

This is the required disclaimer

The download contains software developed by NTIA. NTIA does not make any warranty of any kind, express, implied or statutory, including, without limitation, the implied warranty of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement and data accuracy. NTIA does not warrant or make any representations regarding the use of the software or the results thereof, including but not limited to the correctness, accuracy, reliability or usefulness of the software or the results. You can use, copy, modify, and redistribute the NTIA-developed software upon your acceptance of these terms and conditions and upon your express agreement to provide appropriate acknowledgments of NTIA's ownership of and development of the software by keeping this exact text present in any copied or derivative works.

The link with the tracking code highlighted. If you are going to offer several different modules or alternative packages, the text might read “By clicking on any of the links below …”

By clicking this link to download the software, you acknowledge that you have read the above disclaimer.

The syntax is onClick="_gaq.push(['_trackEvent', 'Category', 'Action to track usually click', 'Name/title/label']);" '_trackEvent' always stays the same 'Category' does not have to be predefined, but for my sanity please use one of the four categories I have predefined, or discuss with me adding or changing categories. The four I came up with are: · Code — I set up Code and Data for radio propagation. Code is for the Models · Data — and Data is for the large data sets · Audio — Any Audio Quality download · Video — Any Video Quality download 'Action to track usually click' always use 'Resource Download' unless you discuss with me. This is my first sort, and distinguishes Publications from other resources. E.g., download of the WEST Manual will be a Publication Download, download of the software will be a Resource Download. 'Name/title/label' is assigned by you. Let me know if you have questions. Lilli -----------------------------------------------------------------Lilli Segre Publications Officer U.S. Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration Institute for Telecommunication Sciences www.its.bldrdoc.gov 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305 303-497-3572 (phone) 303-497-5993 (fax) lsegre@its.bldrdoc.gov From: Subject: Date: To: Catellier, Andrew acate er@ ts.b drdoc.gov CDVL + Goog e Ana yt cs January 12, 2015 at 5:37 PM J m R eke jr eke@ ts.b drdoc.gov J m, Looks ke t may be feas b e to add goog e ana yt cs to CDVL: https://www.phpbb.com/commun ty/v ewtop c.php?f=46&t=1057325 wh ch wou d actua y better for L , I th nk, s nce she a ready uses that to track down oad stats. That wou dn’t be too hard to do, I th nk. Sorry I was grumpy th s morn ng! Wa t that was th s afternoon. Gah. Andrew From: Subject: Date: To: Engelbrecht, George genge brecht@ ts.b drdoc.gov Network des gn coord nat on group February 12, 2015 at 2:44 PM Cate er, Andrew acate er@ ts.b drdoc.gov ANDREW I’M DRAFTING THIS PLZ REVIEW. Hey A , Not Responsive 4. Ema management shou d be outsourced “to the c oud”. NOAA uses Goog e as a prov der, I be eve NTIA n Wash ngton uses Not Th s wou d free ex st ng IT personne from the ma ntenance of these systems. Our webma porta s ant quated and near y unusab e on Respon var ous p atforms (e.g. L nux, phones..) Not Responsive Thanks for a ow ng me to b nds de a few of you w th th s ong ema and hope to hear from you soon. George Enge brecht sive From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Stacy Cheney O"Rourke, Stephen (sorourke@doc.gov) Arturo Chang re: Google v. Oracle Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:35:53 AM Good Morning!  Do we have a room for 930 and 1030 meetings tomorrow with Oracle and internally?   Thanks for organizing this. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Stacy Cheney O"Rourke, Stephen (sorourke@doc.gov) Arturo Chang RE: re: Google v. Oracle Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:38:06 AM We were hoping to join you for the 930 meeting.  What room are you in?   From: Stacy Cheney Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:36 AM To: O'Rourke, Stephen (sorourke@doc.gov) Cc: Arturo Chang Subject: re: Google v. Oracle   Good Morning!  Do we have a room for 930 and 1030 meetings tomorrow with Oracle and internally?   Thanks for organizing this. From: To: Date: Attachments: See attached   Arturo Chang Kathy Smith Friday, November 14, 2014 3:45:00 PM Google"s Motion for Judicial Notice [03.12.14].pdf Case: 12-57302 03/12/2014 ID: 9013706 DktEntry: 55 Page: 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CINDY LEE GARCIA, No. 12-57302 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOOGLE INC. and YOUTUBE, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendants-Appellees Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of a decision from the U.S. Copyright Office and supporting documents, in that Office’s File Number 1-EBE2DM . We have attached copies to this motion, and have included them in the addenda to Google and YouTube’s petition for rehearing en banc and brief in response to the Court’s call for a vote on rehearing en banc. 1. The documents are a March 6, 2014 Copyright Office decision refusing to register Appellant Cindy Lee Garcia’s claimed copyright in her “Innocence of Muslims” performance, as well as correspondence between Garcia and the Office prior to that decision. 2. This Court has recognized that it may take judicial notice of “matters of public record,” Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 1 Case: 12-57302 03/12/2014 ID: 9013706 DktEntry: 55 Page: 2 of 10 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006), including the “[r]ecords and reports of administrative bodies,” Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 1994). It accordingly has taken judicial notice of Copyright Office records in the past. See, e.g., Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp., 517 F.3d 1137, 1146 (9th Cir. 2008) (taking judicial notice of Copyright Office records reflecting the registered owners of certain copyrighted songs); Oroamerica, Inc. v. D & W Jewelry Co., 10 Fed. App’x 516, n.4 (9th Cir. 2001) (taking judicial notice of Copyright Office registration certificate). 3. Judicial notice is particularly appropriate here because the Copyright Office’s refusal to register Garcia’s claimed copyright goes to the heart of this case. Moreover, Congress expressly intended that courts would have the Office’s decision granting or refusing registration available to them when they decide copyright-infringement cases. See 17 U.S.C. § 411(a); see also Appellees’ En Banc Stay Br. at 22. 2 Case: 12-57302 03/12/2014 ID: 9013706 DktEntry: 55 Page: 3 of 10 For the foregoing reasons, the motion should be granted. Respectfully submitted, TIMOTHY L. ALGER SUNITA BALI PERKINS COIE LLP 1305 Porter Drive Palo Alto, California 94306 (650) 838-4334 TAlger@perkinscoie.com Sbali@perkinscoie.com /s/ Neal Kumar Katyal NEAL KUMAR KATYAL CHRISTOPHER T. HANDMAN DOMINIC F. PERELLA SEAN MAROTTA HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 637-5600 neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com March 12, 2014 Counsel for Defendants-Appellees Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC 3 Case: 12-57302 03/12/2014 ID: 9013706 DktEntry: 55 Page: 4 of 10 EXHIBIT Case: 12-57302 03/12/2014 ID: 9013706 DktEntry: 55 Page: 5 of 10 United States Copyright Of?ce Library oi?Congress 101 Independence Avenue SE Washington DC 20559-6000 December 18, 2012 The Armenta Law Firm Attn: Armenta 1900 Olympic Suite 730 Los Angeles, CA 90064 United States Correspondence ID: RE: Desert Warrior Dear Armenta: We are writing because of questions about the authorship and ownership of this work. The application names Cindy Lee Garcia as the sole author of ?dramatic performance ?xed in tangible medium of expression.? The copy you sent contains no credits, but online sources indicate that Ms. Garcia is an actress in the film ?Innocence of Muslims,? which appears to be the same as the motion picture on the disc you submitted for registration under the title ?Desert Warrior.? Online sources indicate that the ?lm was written and produced by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula under the pseudonym Sam Bacile. For copyright registration purposes, a motion picture is a single integrated work. You stated that Ms. Garcia did not sign an agreement or a release for her rights when she acted in ?Desert Warrior.? Copyrightable authorship in a motion picture may include production, direction, camerawork, editing and script. Assuming Ms. Garcia?s contribution was limited to her acting performance, we cannot register her performance apart from the motion picture. Nor does it seem likely that she is entitled to register a claim in the motion picture as a whole in her name. Please see the enclosed Motion Picture Authorship Lea?et for more information. If you feel that Ms. Garcia has the right to claim copyright in the entire motion picture, please state the reasons for your position. Otherwise, we must refuse registration. Where registration is refused, we close our ?le without further action and keep the copy and non-refundable ?ling fee according to our practices. Sincerely, Laura Lee Fischer Chief, Performing Arts Division US. Copyright Office Case: 12-57302 03/12/2014 ID: 9013706 DktEntry: 55 Page: 6 of 10 The Armenia Law Firm A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATEON Via USPS March 13, 2013 w. Laura Lee Fischer Chief, Performing Arts Division U.S. Copyright Of?ce Library of Congress 101 Independence Avenue SE Washington DC 20559-6000 Re: Desert Warrior, Correspondence ID: Dear Ms. Fischer: Thank you for your letter of December 18, 2012. I am writing to provide the reasons that we believe that Ms. Garcia has a copyrightable interest in her dramatic performance in the work, ?Desert Warrior.? Enclosed is a copy of Ms. Garcia?s brief ?led before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The matter is fully briefed and pending. We are awaiting a hearing date. I amrequesting that the Copyright Of?ce await the decision of the Ninth Circuit before taking any action. We believe that the Court will decide the very issue that was raised in your letter. If you have any questions or concerns or need any additional paperwork or information concerning the status of the appeal, please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerelyg M. ris Armenta H900 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 730 Los Angeles, CA 90064 crisormentn com I telephone {310) 826-2826 I Facsimile (310) 826-5456 Case: 12-57302 03/12/2014 ID: 9013706 DktEntry: 55 Page: 7 of 10 United States Copyright Of?ce library ot'tlongress to: Independence Avenue 20559?6090 Mr. M. Cris Armenta The Armenta Law Firm 11900 Olympic Blvd, Suite 730 Los Angeles, CA 90064 March 6, 2014 Dear Mr. Armenta: On December 18, 2012, Ms. Laura Lee Fischer, Chief of the Performing Arts Division of the United States Copyright Office's Registration Program, wrote to you in response to the claim by Ms. Garcia in a copyrightable interest in her dramatic performance in a motion picture, "Desert Warrior." Ms. Fischer's letter stated that copyright registration purposes, a motion picture is a single integrated work." It went on to state that "[a]ssuming Ms. Garcia?s contribution was limited to her acting performance, we cannot register her performance apart from the motion picture." The letter concluded by stating that you feel that Ms. Garcia has the right to claim copyright in the entire motion picture, please state the reasons for your position. Otherwise, we must refuse registration." On March 13, 2013, you replied to Ms. Fischer by stating that you believed that Ms. Garcia "has a copyrightable interest in her dramatic performance in the work, ?Desert Warrior,? and attached a brief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that you stated "fully briefed? the matter. You did not, however, respond to Ms. Fischer's speci?c question or acknowledge that the US. Copyright Of?ce clearly stated that it views dramatic performances in motion pictures to be only a part of the integrated work the motion picture. In accordance with the Office's previous letter, the Of?ce must refuse registration. Although you asked the Office to await the decision of the Ninth Circuit before taking any action, the Of?ce finds that the Copyright Act vests exclusive authority in the Register of Copyrights to render a decision as to whether to issue a certi?cate of registration or refuse an application for registration. 17 U.S.C. 4l0. Moreover, Congress expressly envisioned that registration decisions by the Register of Copyrights would precede adjudication in the courts. 17 U.S.C. 411. if infringement actions are instituted prior to registration determinations by the Register of Copyrights, not only will the evidentiary presumption be lost when certi?cates are issued, bot more importantly, where the Of?ce finds a claim to be invalid, the Registers statutory right to intervene in an action instituted pursuant to a refusal to register is nulli?ed. 17 U.S.C. 411(a). A I Case: 12-57302 03/12/2014 ID: 9013706 DktEntry: 55 Page: 8 of 10 The US. Copyright Of?ce's longstanding practices do not allow a copyright claim by an individual actor or actress in his or her performance contained within a motion picture. The rationale behind this position is clear: an actor or actress in a motion picture is either a joint author in the entire work or, as most often is the case, is not an author at all by virtue ofa work made for hire agreement. This view is supported by the legislative history of section 201 of the Copyright Act: The de?nition of "joint works" has prompted some concern lest it be construed as converting the authors of previously written works, such as plays, novels, and music, into coauthors of a motion picture in which their work is incorporated. It is true that a motion picture would normally be a joint rather than a collective work with respect to those authors who actually work on the ?lm, although their usual status as employees for hire would keep the question of coownership from coming up. On the other hand, although a novelist, playwright, or songwriter may write a work with the hope or expectation that it will be used in a motion picture, this is clearly a case of separate or independent authorship rather than one where the basic intention behind the writing of the work was for motion picture use. In this case, the motion picture is a derivative work within the de?nition of that term, and section 103 makes plain that copyright in a derivative work is independent of, and does not enlarge the scope of rights in, any pre- existing material incorporated into it. There is thus no need to spell this conclusion out in the de?nition of "joint work." HR. Rep. 94?1476 at 120 (emphasis added). While a novelist, playwright,?or screenwriter may create distinct works that are later adapted or incorporated into a motion picture, a new derivative work, an actor?s or actress' performance in the making of a motion picture is an integrated part of the resulting work, the motion picture as a whole. An actor?s or actress? performance is either joint authorship or is a contribution under a work made for hire agreement. There is no question that Ms. Garcia's performance was not a standalone motion picture that was subsequently adapted into another motion picture. Rather, it was a part of the creation of ?Desert Warrior?, subsequently remained, ?Innocence of Muslims?. There is also no question that Ms. Garcia intended her contribution or performance to "be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." 17 U.S.C. ?lOl. If her contribution was not as a work made for hire, she may assert a claim in joint authorship in the motion picture, but not sole authorship of her performance in a portion of the work. If her contribution was neither a work made for hire nor the requisite authorship to warrant a claim in a joint work, Ms. Garcia has no separable claim to copyrightable authorship in her performance. The Office has identi?ed at least one exception to the general rule on treating motion pictures as integrated works. Where a separate portion of a motion picture is commissioned, such as a special effects scene that quali?es as a discrete work in itself that is later incorporated into a motion picture, such a separate work may be neither a joint work nor a work made for hire, but rather a work created by an independent contractor. Such an exception is premised on the creation of a stand~alone work that is independently authored, ?xed, and sufficiently creative to Case: 12-57302 03/12/2014 ID: 9013706 DktEntry: 55 Page: 9 of 10 be considered a separate ciaim within one or more of the statutory categories of authorship in section 102(a). The Of?ce's View on this matter is not limited to motion pictures. The same reasoning would apply to the musicians, vocalists or production specialists on a sound recording. The Of?ce would refuse an authorship claim by an individual musician who contributed an individual performance to a sound recording unless the claim was as a joint author. An exception would exist where a discrete sound recording was made by a musician that was later incorporated into a new, derivative sound recording. Ms. Garcia's performance was not a discrete or separate motion picture that was incorporated into ?Desert Warrior?. Instead, her performance was one of many actors' performances that went into the making of the integrated motion picture that was ?xed by others in the creation of the motion picture as a whole. As such, the Of?ce must refuse registration in Ms. Garcia's claim in her individual performance in the motion picture. Sincerely, Robert J. Kasunic Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Registration i?olicy and Practices United States Copyright Of?ce Case: 12-57302 03/12/2014 ID: 9013706 DktEntry: 55 Page: 10 of 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on March 12, 2014. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. /s/ Neal Kumar Katyal Neal Kumar Katyal From: To: Christopher Hemmerlein Not Responsive ; Aparna Sridhar (aparnasridhar@google.com); Not Responsive ; rlajeunesse@google.com; Not Respo nsive Cc: Not Responsive Subject: Date: WTPF Working Group 3 Meeting Friday, May 03, 2013 3:32:22 PM Hello everyone,   I would like to host a meeting next Tuesday, May 7 at 10:00am at the Department of Commerce for anyone on the U.S. delegation to the WTPF that is interested in Working Group 3 (Opinions 5&6).  This Working Group promises to be contentious.  As spokesman, I need as much ammunition as I can get so your input and support will be very helpful.   I will send out more logistical details next Monday, but for now please RSVP to me if you are interested in joining the meeting.   Also, if anyone is interested in Working Group 2, Ashley Heineman could hold a discussion in conjunction with the WG3 discussion.   Thanks and have a great weekend.   Chris       Chris Hemmerlein Telecommunications Policy Specialist, Office of International Affairs National Telecommunications and Information Administration chemmerlein@ntia.doc.gov PH: 202.482.1885   From: To: Subject: Date: Jane Coffin Christopher Hemmerlein; Ashley Heineman WCIT Meeting w Google Wednesday, November 02, 2011 8:07:34 PM Please let me now ASAP tomorrow (no late than Noon) - if you can make a meeting with Google's WCIT team on Nov 11 at 10 am. Jane From: To: Subject: Date: Patrick Ryan members@uswcitdel.org WCIT and use of Proxies Saturday, December 08, 2012 1:38:59 AM Colleagues, The question of how proxies with countries has come up recently. Below are some notes from a telephone conversation that I had a few months ago with the extremely knowledgable Bill Jahn.  This might be a good question for one of the true legal/process members on the Del, but passing this along in case it's helpful. The rule is typically "one country, one proxy."  So with some very limited exceptions (see below) countries can't carry multiple proxies. There was apparently an exception for certain Pacific Islands countries that were administered from WWII to the 1980s through a UN trustee sheep (Palau, Micronesia, Marshall Islands).  These are UN countries in "free association" with the U.S.  Under the compact of free association they set up a joint communications board for harmonization of frequency uses.  There's also some military presence in those three countries as well as close intergovernmental work (weather service, NOAA, etc).  This is apparently how they got around the "one country, one proxy" rule. Several years ago Bill worked out an agreement with briefings on prior ITU conferences on the issues, and if they don't attend, the US has a choice of a proxy. Apparently Palau isn't part of the ITU so is ineligible, and Marshall Islands is behind on their dues which makes them ineligible.   He thinks that State is probably going to contact these islands to see if they're going and review it with them. Bill mentioned his last conference was this year, retired from State in 2000 but collaborates a bit with NASA.  He had a personal relationship there and these countries trusted him.  Suggests that we talk with Marian. Bill said that there have been experience in proxies with other countries: Dominican Republic and El Salvador (in the 80s).  In the context of the WARC, it's mostly been for Central America. Cheers, Patrick From: To: LOEB, ERIC H Not Responsive (sarahfalvey@google.com); Not Sarah Falvey Responsive Cc: Not Responsive Subject: Date: Attachments: WCIT - Europe Regional Team - Position Tracking Assignments Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:08:30 PM Copy of Copy of Vote Tracker Europe Team v1.xlsx Europe Outreach Team,   Kathy, Jackie and I are pleased to be the co-chairs of the US Del Europe Regional outreach team.  All of us have an important role in continuing to strengthen the trans-Atlantic bond on policy issues, throughout WCIT (and beyond).  We can achieve this through continuous research on positions, listening carefully to issues of interest, and communicating carefully to achieve alignment.  Alignment with Europe, and in turn the outreach that European leaders can provide with additional countries, will be essential at WCIT.   Manu will send around material concerning the delegation recommendations and guidelines for your outreach.  Communications strategy and outreach will be the subject of full delegation meetings.  For today, I want to limit this note to initial research and coverage assignments.   In the attached spreadsheet at the Europe and Eurasia Tab, you will find our region’s tracking table on positions.  (With Manu’s agreement, we have removed the CIS countries that had been on this tab, and placed those countries in the same region with Russia and other RCC/CIS countries.)  The Europe and Eurasia tab includes all the countries that our team will track.  We have inserted the names of Heads of Delegation (where known at this time), and listed the seven priority topics for the US Delegation.    We have assigned each country to a team member.  Two points on the initial assignments: (1) these are not set in stone, so if you have a strong interest in a country or a strong working relationship with the Head of Delegation, let us know and we can make adjustments; (2) we did not assign countries to USG core del members, on the assumption that they already have a lot of assignments, and can provide supplemental roving support to the lead person for a country.    On substance for the tracking matrix, the starting point for our region is the CEPT Common Position.  We have summarized the position and whether it is “green / yellow / red” in comparison to the US position.  Keep in mind that this document is a high-level tracking table – NOT a detailed analysis.  As you consider entries for the countries that you will follow, if that country closely aligns with the CEPT position, you need not provide summary text.  A blank cell will be understood as alignment with CEPT on the particular issue.   However, if the country is known or suspected of holding a position at variance with CEPT, you should summarize that variance in this table.  This summary can trigger a more detailed review of the variance in a different document.  As an example, look at the initial notes for Germany and Turkey with respect to the ETNO proposal.   In addition to your input on your assigned countries, please let Kathy / Jackie / me know of any other relevant information about country positions, or country-specific outreach.    I know that this request comes to you on the verge of Thanksgiving, but we will appreciate if you can provide initial feedback by this Friday November 23d, so that we can provide Ambassador Kramer with visibility to the region by COB Nov 23d.   You can call me with questions on my mobile at 202-716-5900, or send questions by email.  Let’s try to keep email volume under control, so please only CC everyone if it is a question or comment of interest to the entire team, and otherwise send the note to a targeted group.   On behalf of the co-chairs, we all look forward to the collaboration with this experienced and talented team.  It is an outstanding group to influence the challenge at hand. Regards, Eric       Country Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Comoros Cote d' Ivoire Djibouti DRC Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Egypt Gabon The Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Lybia Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Republic of Congo Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa South Sudan Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo ROA/OA Cybersecurity Definitions ETNO/Charging Roaming Article 6 Internet Governance Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Country Argentina Aruba Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Barbados Belize Bermuda Bolivia Brazil Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Grenada The Grenadines Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Jamaica Mexico Netherlands Antilles Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru St. Kits and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent Suriname Trinidad and Tobago ROA/OA Cybersecurity Definitions ETNO/Charging Roaming Article 6 Uruguay Venezuela Country Afghanistan Australia Bangladesh Brunei Burma Cambodia China East Timor F ji India Indonesia Japan Kazakhstan Kiribati Kyrgyz Republic Laos Malaysia Maldives Marshall Islands Micronesia Mongolia Nauru Nepal New Zealand Pakistan Palau Papua New Guinea Phillipines Russia Singapore Solomon Islands South Korea Sri Lanka Tajikistan Thailand Tonga and Tuvalu Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vietnam Azerbaijan Georgia Belarus Ukraine Cybersecurity Definitions ETNO/Charging Roaming Article 6 Country Bahrain Iraq Israel Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia Syria United Arab Emirates Yemen ROA/OA Cybersecurity Definitions ETNO/Charging Roaming Article 6 Country CEPT Albania Armenia Austria Belgium Bonsnia / Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia European Commission Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Kosovo Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Moldova Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Head of Delegation Marcin Krasuski ROA/OA Cybersecurity willing to accept language on network robustness Definitions ETNO/Charging Roaming CEPT firm on not including in ITRs, Nordic countries but recognizes generally more important issues; aggressive on rate agree on no BEREC firmly regulation definition changes opposed Article 6 Internet Governance Solid support Solid support Comment Loeb / Ruff Sharp Sharp Urbany Cornell Cornell Borissova Albert Nalbandian Jan Vannieuwenhuyse Kalina Dimitrova Croatia will not stray from CEPT / BEREC positions given upcoming accession timing Neophytos Papadopoulos Jaromir Novak Joergen Andersen Priit Soom Megan Richards Olli-Pekka Rantala Richard Boidin Andreas Schuseil / Annegret Kubler-Bork Vilmos Valyi-Nagy Ciarán Madden Mr Corrado Passera Aivita Lublina-Goldmane Inga Ziliene Ivo Ivanovski Steve Agius Mihaela Iacob Vujica Lazovic Fokko Bos Christina Christensen Magdalena Gaj José Barros Catalin Marinescu Stefan Lazarevic Viliam Podhorsky Ziga Turk Víctor Calvo-Sotelo Anders Jonsson US Del Lead Borissova Siverling Loeb Ruff Black Substantial discussions remain between the EC and Member States on the role and authority of EC at WCIT. Regardless, EC will be influential for global outreach beyond EU Loeb / Ruff Falvey Falvey Not 100% w/CEPT Ruff Check Carlson Levy Misener Drake Drake Dourado Dourado Warren Warren Doria Doria Lucarelli Lucarelli Cade Important contacts in multiple dimensions: CEPT leadership, Central-Eastern Europe leadership, Active at ITU Loeb Cade Williams Williams Tennenhouse Tennenhouse Levy Carlson Switzerland Frédéric Riehl Turkey United Kingdom Vatican City Tayfun Acarer Simon Towler Urbany Not 100% w/CEPT Misener Siverling Levy From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: wcit2012-external@google.com on behalf of Ross LaJeunesse wcit2012-external; Bhardwaj, Manu; Maho Takahata; Kaufman, Bradford A. (HQ-CG000) Revised APT/RCC Team Reassignments Friday, November 30, 2012 1:41:17 PM AsiaTeam WCITAssignments 30Nov.docx hi team -- almost all of us are about to jump on planes to dubai, or are already en route. kudos to my team co-lead, brad kaufman, for handling a number of reassignment requests --  attached (and linked below) you'll find the updated assignments list.  we look forward to seeing all of you in dubai! ross https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1AMdW6YMWDrgExmfVJ2zUpfzNTbwVkc0DWoD9KgrtgNY/edit ).   -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Please note that this mailing address includes non-Google.com addresses and we are not allowed to discuss Google - only confidential information     FOR US DELEGATION USE ONLY - NOT RELEASABLE OUTSIDE DELEGATION U.S. Delegation to WCIT 2012: Asia Regional Team Team Members: Ashley Heineman Martin; Memiko Otsuki (fluent in Japanese); Rashmi Rangnath; Sarah Falvey; Hong Kyung-Yeop; Joel Wiginton; William Drake; AI Lewis Chris Hemmerlein Anthony Teelucksingh Jeffrey Robertson Bob Pepper; Franz Zichy (State); Marilyn Cade; Judd Meyer (with US Embassy in China); Carl Frank; Gene Kimmelman; Jordana Siegel Micaela Klein (CTR - Regina Hart Iren Borissova List of Key Engagements: China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, and Philippines List of Other Engagements: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Malaysia, Micronesia, Myanmar, Papua New Guineau, Tajikistan, Tonga, Uzbekistan List of the RCC countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine Delegate Country 1st Choice 2nd Choice Explanation Assignments Ashley Australia Australia Thailand I have very close working relationships with Mr Andrew MAURER, Assistant Secretary, Department of Thailand Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy; and Ms Caroline GREENWAY, Director, ITU Treaties, Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy I have a good working relationships with Ms Areewan HAORANGSI, Principal Adviser for Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Information and Communication Technology and Dr Suthipom THAVEECHAIYAGARN, The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commissioner, Of?ce of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) Cambodia Moldova 'Memiko Japan Japan Thailand or have extensive contacts there. I used to attend ITU-T SG3 meeting as one of the members Vietnam Vietnam of Japanese delegation. Rashmi Nepal ndia New Know organizations in those countries New-Zealand Zealand The countries I have been assigned, Nepal and New Zealand, appear not to have (Arriving 9 Dec) submitted any proposals. I looked on the US delegation website and also combed through emails sent on this list as well as the WCIT list but did not ?nd any documents submitted by these countries. Additionally, they have not signed on to any of the APT proposals. Sarah Papua New Guinea Papua New Pakistan Familiar with the concerns expressed in this area and have spoken with one of the Pakistan Guinea delegates from the country at length before. Hong Korea Korea China can speak Korean and may know some of Korean delegates have been working on the Internet technology topics that China has been pushing in the APT region and also in the ITU-T. Joel Indonesia Japan Any Work for Sony, so may have back-channel to Japanese delegation. Turkmenistan Williami SFi-Lanka ndia Japan nterest in proposals (Arriving 5 Dec) Georgia Al Uzbekistan Japan Singapore Knows a delegate from SG-3 (likely to be SG-3 Chair at WTSA) {Issue Russia (Backup) Spokesperson} Chris Ukraine Japan China Former resident of Japan, 2003-2004 (although only minimal language skills Tajikistan presently). delegate to the APEC Telecommunications and Information Singapore-Wm Working Group where I work extensively with MIC and METI. NTIA ead on bilateral relations with Asian countries. Also works extensively with MIIT (China) Anthony Philippines Philippines 'Malaysia recent and deep work with both these countries on international cybercrime issues. I?m Malaysia also familiar with WSIS history (which seems to be quickly becoming the model for the WCIT given the breadth of issues raised) because I participated in that process. I can probably pinch hit as needed for the other countries also if cybercrime comes up as an issue Jeffrey Jordan Japan Korea Strong working relationship with the Governments of both Member States Micronesia Bob India Franz Afghanistan Iraq 'Marilyn Azerbaijan Azerbaijan Kazakhstan Russia (Backup) Judd China Carl Belarus Tonga Gene Singapore-(from (Arriving 9 Dec) Gib-December onwards) Regina [Singapore] Jordan Singapore The ?rst choice is Jordan no direct contacts, but know the country well as I served there in the Foreign Service. Second choice is Singapore recently negotiated a aw enforcement agreement with them and may be able to identify common contacts. Jordana [New Zealand] Australia New possible, Jordana and Michaela would like to be assigned Australia and/or New China Zealand Zealand?we have been in discussions with them through the Ottawa 5 and Jordana has a contact in Australia who will be attending. Jordana also participated the Japan and China bilateral meetings with Ambassador Kramer, so could provide some assistance there, if needed. 'Michaela [Nepal] Australia New (See above) [Sri Lanka] Zealand also have some Arabic language skills, if you ?nd that helpful. I don?t think I could convey our positions in Arabic but I can small talk Iren Russia Fluent in Russian Ross Myanmar Bhutan Brad Armenia Armenia Russia have friendly relations with members in both delegations (Armenian HOD and one delegate from Russia are both prior SG 7 counsellors). i Comment from William on 24 Nov Happily, on the European Team I got Switzerland, so at least for one of my four countries I can claim some particular knowledge and connections (also got Kosovo, sigh). But for my Asia Team assignments, at present I'm in the same boat as Rashmi. According to Document 3, Asia-Pacific Common Proposals, Sri Lanka (CLN) has not yet indicated support for the ACPs. Digging through the other docs available through the del website I find no mentions of CLN, and a quick web search equally yields nothing. Moreover, according to the announced list of participants as of 23.11, the delegation presently has no head. In parallel, according to Document 14, RCC Common Proposals, Georgia (GEO) has not yet indicated support for their proposals (only Russia has). Again, digging through the other docs and web searching yields nothing, and there's no Georgian delegation yet on the announced list of participants. So at present, I've got bupkis to input into the position tracker. Hopefully this will change later; I sent a note to a colleague who used to run the CLN regulator asking for any pointers, but as of now I have no info and my reply to you is already a day late. I would assume there's someone in our core del or private sector who has working relations with and knowledge of these countries; when you've got the tracker sheet loaded, will you be circulating it within the team or even the larger del for further input? From: To: Christopher Hemmerlein Not Responsive Sarah Falvey; Aparna Sridhar (aparnasridhar@google.com); Not Responsive ; rlajeunesse@google.com; Not Respo nsive Cc: Not Responsive Subject: Date: RE: WTPF Working Group 3 Meeting Monday, May 06, 2013 2:50:49 PM We will meet tomorrow morning at 10:00am at the Department of Commerce Room 6029 to discuss WTPF Working Group 3.  Please come prepared to discuss Opinions 5&6, draft opinions from Russia and Brazil, and the original draft opinions on the multistakeholder model and enhanced cooperation from Saudi Arabia and Iran.   Please enter the main entrance of the HCHB building on 14 th St. NW, between Pennsylvania and Constitution.  If you are from the government, you should be able to enter the building and make your way up to Room 6029 without an escort.  For those coming from outside government, please tell security you have an appointment with Diane Cooper.  She will escort you upstairs.  Please allow 15 minutes to clear security and make your way to the room.   I would prefer that people attend the meeting in person but will send out a conference bridge for those who request it.   Thank you.   Chris       From: Christopher Hemmerlein Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 3:32 PM To: Not Responsive (aparnasridhar@google.com); Not Responsive 'rlajeunesse@google.com'; Not Responsive Cc: Not Responsive ; Sarah Falvey; Aparna Sridhar ; Not Responsive Subject: WTPF Working Group 3 Meeting   Hello everyone,   I would like to host a meeting next Tuesday, May 7 at 10:00am at the Department of Commerce for anyone on the U.S. delegation to the WTPF that is interested in Working Group 3 (Opinions 5&6).  This Working Group promises to be contentious.  As spokesman, I need as much ammunition as I can get so your input and support will be very helpful.   I will send out more logistical details next Monday, but for now please RSVP to me if you are interested in joining the meeting.   Also, if anyone is interested in Working Group 2, Ashley Heineman could hold a discussion in conjunction with the WG3 discussion.   Thanks and have a great weekend.   Chris       Chris Hemmerlein Telecommunications Policy Specialist, Office of International Affairs National Telecommunications and Information Administration chemmerlein@ntia.doc.gov PH: 202.482.1885   From: To: Subject: Date: Jane Coffin Ashley Heineman; Christopher Hemmerlein RE: WCIT Meeting w Google Thursday, November 03, 2011 10:35:07 AM Well, it is good that we all can do it, but it appears to be a Federal Holiday.  Nice.  Let me get back to them about a different date. -----Original Message----From: Ashley Heineman Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 10:32 AM To: Jane Coffin; Christopher Hemmerlein Subject: RE: WCIT Meeting w Google I can do it. -----Original Message----From: Jane Coffin Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 8:08 PM To: Christopher Hemmerlein; Ashley Heineman Subject: WCIT Meeting w Google Please let me now ASAP tomorrow (no late than Noon) - if you can make a meeting with Google's WCIT team on Nov 11 at 10 am. Jane From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Ross LaJeunesse Ashley Heineman bkaufman@nasa.gov Re: Thailand update Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:01:10 AM very helpful ashley and i will update the grid with this info, thank you! On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Ashley Heineman wrote: Hello Brad and Ross,   Just an update on Thailand for what it is worth:   * ROA/OA - again very sympathetic to our position and would prefer ROA, but guidance is to listen and not take issue with majority position unless specific guidance from Bangkok (which there is none). * Cybersecurity - Thailand had attempted to get APT agreement on a security resolution (rather than article text), which was ultimately objected to by the Region.  Thailand still thinks that the best compromise would be to agree to a Resolution on the subject rather than fracture the debate on article text.  Will hold on APT position for article text specific to "network security" (vs anything related to content). * Internet - believes it is too soon to try and insert Internet related text into ITRs.  Thinks Plenipot or the *next* WCIT deal with this issue.   All this being said - Thailand very unlikely to get on the mic for any of these issues.  Will go with majority/compromise. -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. From: To: Subject: Date: Ross LaJeunesse Ashley Heineman; Jordana.Siegel@hq.dhs.gov; Kaufman, Bradford A. (HQ-CG000) Re: need updates on definitions Tuesday, December 04, 2012 9:52:14 AM thanks ashley -- jordana siegel is assigned to NZ but i'm sure she'd welcome assistance?   On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Ashley Heineman wrote: In addition to my previous email... if you don't have anyone assigned to NZ, I'm very very close with their HOD if you need me to cover that one as well.   From: Ashley Heineman Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 9:43 AM To: Ross LaJeunesse Subject: RE: need updates on definitions You don't need Thailand?  They aren't shown on your list.  I'm meeting with them again tomorrow BTW.   From: wcit2012-external@google.com [wcit2012-external@google.com] On Behalf Of Ross LaJeunesse [rlajeunesse@google.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 9:42 AM To: wcit2012-external; Kaufman, Bradford A. (HQ-CG000) Cc: Bhardwaj, Manu; Kramer, Terry D Subject: need updates on definitions hi team  we are way behind in collecting the necessary information that amb kramer needs on definitions -- i likely have missed some emails from you, although i tried my best today -- but we currently need info on definitions for the countries listed below.  each of these countries has been assigned to one of you -- so please provide this info as soon as possible.  if the country is not present at the conference, please let me know that also, thanks!  ross afghanistan armenia bangladesh brunei cambodia china e. timor fiji georgia iran iraq kazakhstan kiribati laos malaysia maldives marshall islands moldova mongolia nauru nepal new zealand pakistan palau singapore solomon islands uzbekistan vanatau -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Please note that this mailing address includes non-Google.com addresses and we are not allowed to discuss Google - only confidential information     -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. From: To: Subject: Date: Ross LaJeunesse Ashley Heineman Re: need updates on definitions Tuesday, December 04, 2012 9:48:37 AM since i have some info for them, i didn't list them as needing info (since i know you're working on it!)  here's what i have from you: Thailand is sympathetic to our ROA arguments as they are concerned that use of OA would be very difficult to implement domestically. Issue specifically is that Thailand sees OA as expanding domestic regulation to companies/services not currently regulated. Thailand working on guidance from home to observe room discussion before intervening and to try and stay with regional position if possible. Hoping for compromise coming out of this morning's meeting, but are concerned about OA as don't fully understand implications On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Ashley Heineman wrote: You don't need Thailand?  They aren't shown on your list.  I'm meeting with them again tomorrow BTW.   From: wcit2012-external@google.com [wcit2012-external@google.com] On Behalf Of Ross LaJeunesse [rlajeunesse@google.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 9:42 AM To: wcit2012-external; Kaufman, Bradford A. (HQ-CG000) Cc: Bhardwaj, Manu; Kramer, Terry D Subject: need updates on definitions hi team  we are way behind in collecting the necessary information that amb kramer needs on definitions -- i likely have missed some emails from you, although i tried my best today -- but we currently need info on definitions for the countries listed below.  each of these countries has been assigned to one of you -- so please provide this info as soon as possible.  if the country is not present at the conference, please let me know that also, thanks!  ross afghanistan armenia bangladesh brunei cambodia china e. timor fiji georgia iran iraq kazakhstan kiribati laos malaysia maldives marshall islands moldova mongolia nauru nepal new zealand pakistan palau singapore solomon islands uzbekistan vanatau -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Please note that this mailing address includes non-Google.com addresses and we are not allowed to discuss Google - only confidential information     -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. From: To: Subject: Date: Jane Coffin Ashley Heineman RE: Google Meeting on Monday, December 19 Friday, December 16, 2011 11:18:44 AM Yikes.  Are we still on for Not Responsive ?  On my calendar, so no worries, but wanted to check. ________________________________________ From: Ashley Heineman Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 11:16 AM To: Jane Coffin Subject: RE: Google Meeting on Monday, December 19 Just an FYI - close hold.  Vint Cerf is meeting with the Secretary either on Monday or Tuesday to discuss SOPA/Protect IP among other things. -----Original Message----From: Jane Coffin Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 11:14 AM To: Ashley Heineman; Christopher Hemmerlein Subject: FW: Google Meeting on Monday, December 19 FYI on the participants from Google on Monday ________________________________________ From: Jane Coffin Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 11:11 AM To: Jane Coffin; Sheila Williams Cc: Fiona Alexander Subject: RE: Google Meeting on Monday, December 19 Sheila Google added another person- Joanna Shelton.  She also will attend. Jane ________________________________________ From: Jane Coffin Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:04 PM To: Sheila Williams Subject: RE: Google Meeting on Monday, December 19 Sheila Here you go: In person     Rick Whitt     Aparna Sridhar     Sarah Falvey Call-in     Patrick Ryan Jane ________________________________________ From: Sheila Williams Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:47 PM To: Jane Coffin Subject: Google Meeting on Monday, December 19 Hi Jane, I’m out of the office tomorrow.  The meeting with Google re: WCIT, can you tell me who from Google will be coming? Larry is out of the office tomorrow as well. Thanks Sheila From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Vint Cerf Fiona Alexander Ashley Heineman; Steve Crocker; Jamie Hedlund RE: glad to see push for DNSSEC Wednesday, March 28, 2012 12:53:44 PM Big smile! On Mar 28, 2012 12:42 PM, "Fiona Alexander" wrote: Thanks.  I did get asked in new gTLDs would hamper/hurt DNSSEC deployment and it was great to be able to say no, that it would in fact help as it’s a requirement for all new TLDs.   Fiona   From: Jamie Hedlund [mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 12:07 PM To: Vint Cerf; Fiona Alexander; Steve Crocker Subject: Re: glad to see push for DNSSEC   Great job, Fiona.     Best, Jamie   From: Vinton Cerf Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:24:52 -0700 To: Fiona Alexander , Steve Crocker Cc: Jamie Hedlund Subject: glad to see push for DNSSEC   ROUND 3: COMMUNICATIONS AND TECH HEARING ON CYBER — E&C's telecom panel kicks off at 10 a.m. the third hearing in its cybersecurity series. This session will focus on how the government is addressing cyberthreats to the country’s communications networks. Expect the FCC’s Adm. James Barnett to tout the release of CSRIC's recent recommendations to ISPs on combating botnets and other threats. NTIA's Fiona Alexander, meanwhile, will call for wider adoption of the security protocol DNSSEC across the Web. The panel will also hear from Roberta Stempfley, acting assistant secretary for cybersecurity and communications at DHS, Sandia Labs's Bob Hutchinson and Greg Shannon from Carnegie Mellon's CERT program. Good Wednesday morning and welcome to Morning Tech, where we’ve dropped more cellphones and laptops than we’d care to admit. If only our gadgets were made out of this new type of plastic that researchers say turns red at the site of the damage and then heals itself like human skin when exposed to light. From PCWorld: http://bit.ly/Hb75pt From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Fiona Alexander "Jamie Hedlund"; Vint Cerf; Steve Crocker Ashley Heineman RE: glad to see push for DNSSEC Wednesday, March 28, 2012 12:43:46 PM Thanks.  I did get asked in new gTLDs would hamper/hurt DNSSEC deployment and it was great to be able to say no, that it would in fact help as it’s a requirement for all new TLDs.   Fiona   From: Jamie Hedlund [mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 12:07 PM To: Vint Cerf; Fiona Alexander; Steve Crocker Subject: Re: glad to see push for DNSSEC Great job, Fiona.     Best, Jamie   From: Vinton Cerf Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:24:52 -0700 To: Fiona Alexander , Steve Crocker Cc: Jamie Hedlund Subject: glad to see push for DNSSEC   ROUND 3: COMMUNICATIONS AND TECH HEARING ON CYBER — E&C's telecom panel kicks off at 10 a.m. the third hearing in its cybersecurity series. This session will focus on how the government is addressing cyberthreats to the country’s communications networks. Expect the FCC’s Adm. James Barnett to tout the release of CSRIC's recent recommendations to ISPs on combating botnets and other threats. NTIA's Fiona Alexander, meanwhile, will call for wider adoption of the security protocol DNSSEC across the Web. The panel will also hear from Roberta Stempfley, acting assistant secretary for cybersecurity and communications at DHS, Sandia Labs's Bob Hutchinson and Greg Shannon from Carnegie Mellon's CERT program. Good Wednesday morning and welcome to Morning Tech, where we’ve dropped more cellphones and laptops than we’d care to admit. If only our gadgets were made out of this new type of plastic that researchers say turns red at the site of the damage and then heals itself like human skin when exposed to light. From PCWorld: http://bit.ly/Hb75pt From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: John Morris Larry Strickling; Anna Gomez; Angela Simpson; Marsha MacBride; Jim Wasilewski; Cyril J. Dadd; Heather Phillips; OIA OPAD RE: FYI: FTC closes its investigation of Google Friday, January 04, 2013 1:57:14 PM All,   Aaron prepared a very helpful recap of yesterday’s FTC action on Google ….   John   From: Aaron Burstein Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 1:50 PM To: OPAD Subject: FYI: FTC closes its investigation of Google   OPADers,   As you might have heard, yesterday the FTC announced that it has closed its investigation into Google’s possible violation of the FTC Act’s prohibitions on unfair methods of competition and unfair acts or practices.  The analysis of Google’s conduct is interesting in its own right.  The FTC’s documents also offer a look at how Section 5 intersects with a broader set of Internet policy issues, provide a very good discussion of the authorities that Section 5 provides, and illustrate fault lines within the Commission and external lines of attack against it.  I thought you all might be interested in this summary (not so short, but I tried to break it into digestable pieces).  All documents are available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/01/google.shtm.   The FTC’s investigation had two main branches: search and standards essential patents (SEPs).    Search:  The FTC investigated the allegation that Google is illegally maintaining its monopoly of the online search engine market by promoting its content over other results, misappropriating content from competitors, and restricting how advertising customers can use data they obtain from Google.   The FTC distinguishes general-purpose or “horizontal” search engines (e.g., the search engine available at http://www.google.com) from specialpurpose or “vertical” search engines (e.g., Orbitz, Kayak, etc.), though it doesn’t seem the FTC thinks those are separate product markets.  Anyway, the crux of the allegations against Google is that Google alters its search results to exclude competitors and favors its own “vertical” content over that of its competitors.  The FTC seemed to find little evidence that Google undertook these design decisions to eliminate competition and quite a bit of evidence that Google did so to improve its services.   The remedy is quite limited (see below), but the closing documents provide some interesting perspectives on a variety of Internet policy issues.   · · · · · · Remedy:  The resolution in the search case was pretty limited: Google will allow websites to opt out of having content from their sites displayed on certain Google sites.  Google will also allow its AdWords customers greater flexibility in how they manage campaign data returned to them from AdWords.  This is a voluntary commitment; the FTC did not issue a complaint, order, etc. Monopoly power:  There seemed to be agreement among the commissioners that Google has monopoly power in online search and online advertising markets.  Of course, absent evidence that a company acquired or maintains its monopoly through anticompetitive means, this isn’t an antitrust violation. Misappropriation:  Commissioner Rosch, dissenting from everything except the decision to close the investigation, seemed pretty comfortable with Google’s “scraping” rivals’ public sites.  He states that scraping, within certain limits (e.g., it doesn’t involve misappropriating confidential information), is pro-competitive and consistent with fair use:  “Any assumption that there has been harm to innovation [through Google’s scraping], despite all evidence to the contrary, is also in tension with the fair use doctrine, under which the limited use of another’s work without permission is not deemed to harm innovation. See 17 U.S.C. § 107.”  Unfair competition vs. unfair acts/practices:  The unfairness analysis presented in the closing documents is mostly under the framework for analyzing anticompetitive conduct, which ties to Section 5’s prohibition on “unfair methods of competition.”  It seems there was some discussion within the FTC about bringing a claim under the prohibition on unfair acts or practices.  That is, even if the FTC wasn’t persuaded that there was harm to competition in some well-defined product market, it might have considered alleging that Google’s conduct is nonetheless “unfair,” in violation of FTC Act section 5.  The Commission’s statement doesn’t go this route, so it’s unclear why Commissioners Ohlhausen and Rosch discussed it.  Their statement will certainly provide grist for those who want to complain about the FTC expanding its use of its unfairness jurisdiction.  Section 5 {and, or, vs.} other statutes:  Nonetheless, Commissioner Rosch asserts that copyright and tort law address misappropriation where it exists, and that “the majority’s apparent position that scraping is a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act will put the FTC in the position of becoming the enforcer of the copyright laws on the Internet—a task for which it has neither the resources nor expertise, and was surely not envisioned by Congress” (emphasis added).  (NB:  The FTC’s unfairness jurisdiction is a growing issue in the consumer privacy area.  Of course, Section 5 is the statute available for protecting privacy outside of sectors covered by other Federal data privacy laws.) Theories of Harm:  Commissioners Ohlhausen and Rosch both come back to the argument that Section 5 is “adrift” if enforcement actions do not identify competitive or consumers harms.  Neither the Commission nor the dissenters identified harm to competition.  Unfortunately, the documents do not give us much insight into whether any of the commissioners would consider non-pecuniary harms to be relevant for Section 5 purposes.  (This question also arises in the privacy context.) · Design mandates:  The Commission went out of its way to state that it has no interest in second-guessing Google’s product designs – how it chooses to display search results, how it offers programming interfaces to its AdWords system, etc.  I think they protest a little too much; if the FTC had found anticompetitive conduct and imposed a conduct remedy that required changes in Google’s product design, I don’t think the FTC would have abandoned the remedy to preserve the “no design mandate” principle.  Nor should they, in my view; there is a very clear distinction between requiring design changes to remedy violations of the law (not found in this case) and imposing mandates through regulations.   Patents.  The FTC alleges that Motorola (which Google acquired – along with Motorola’s extensive portfolio of consumer electronics patents – in 2012) breached its commitment to standards bodies to license its standards-essential patents (SEPs) on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.  Motorola began suing competitors and sought injunctions and exclusion orders for alleged infringement of the Motorola patents, and Google continued this practice.  The FTC alleges that Google’s violation of its FRAND commitments violates both the unfair competition and the unfair acts or practices prongs of Section 5.    · Remedy:  The consent order has prospective and retrospective elements.  Retrospectively, Google has consented to cease pursuing injunctive relief for infringement of its FRAND-encumbered SEPs.  Retrospectively, Google consents to (1) refrain from seeking injunctive relief for infringement of FRAND-encumbered SEPs; (2) refrain from rescinding any FRAND commitments on SEPs that it owns; and (3) offer parties who wish to use a standard that uses a Google-owned, FRAND encumbered SEP a license on FRAND terms.  Google does not admit that any of its conduct is illegal.  (There are some exceptions to all of these statements, but the details aren’t important here.) · The role of standards-setting:  The FTC sometimes seems to take a dim view of standards-setting.  The FTC’s statement and its complaint send the message that standard-setting is mainly a way for competitors to reduce competition and for patent holders to gain market power.  For example, the FTC statement says:  “Standard setting can deliver substantial benefits to American consumers, promoting innovation, competition, and consumer choice. But standard setting often supplants the competitive process with the collective decision-making of competitors, requiring that we be vigilant in protecting the integrity of the standardsetting process” (emphasis added).  The complaint (paragraph 13 also emphasizes the potential for lock-in an the acquisition of market power.  · Unfair competition vs. unfair acts/practices claims, again:  The commissioners split on bringing a claim based on allegedly unfair acts or practices.  This time, Commissioners Ramirez and Ohlhausen disagreed with bringing a this kind of claim.  By contrast, Commissioner Rosch defended the unfair acts claim, stating that consumer harm, in the form of reduced consumer choice (by product exclusion), higher prices, and diminished innovation, were all “likely” results of Google’s conduct.  I found Commissioner Rosch’s innovation of non-pecuniary harms · ·   Aaron   (reduced choice, less innovation) surprising, given his view that unfairness applies narrowly, if at all, to data privacy cases.  On the other hand, Commissioner Rosch dissented from the unfair competition claim, because the complaint does not allege that Google has monopoly power in some product market.  As a result, in his view, this use of Section 5 lacked a limiting principle. Commissioner Rosch’s per se rule:  Even more surprisingly, Commissioner Rosch stated:  “There is increasing judicial recognition, coinciding with my own view, that . . . seeking an injunction is inherently antithetical to a commitment instead to license patents on [FRAND] terms.”  That’s a sweeping statement that goes beyond the SEPs in at issue in this case. No First Amendment right to rescind FRAND commitments:  Finally, Commissioner Ohlhausen asserted that firms have a right, based on the first amendment, to petition the government, i.e., a court, for an injunction, irrespective of the anticompetitive effects of this request.  The Commission answered that Google had willingly given up its right to seek injunctions through its FRAND commitments. From: To: Subject: Date: John Morris Ashley Heineman; Alfred Lee; Rafi Goldberg RE: DNS, DNSSEC and Google"s Public DNS Service Sunday, July 21, 2013 1:38:27 PM Fyi….   From: John Morris [mailto:jmorris@ntia.doc.gov] Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:03 PM To: John Morris Subject: DNS, DNSSEC and Google's Public DNS Service http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130717_dns_dnssec_and_googles_public_dns_service/ From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: wcit2012-external@google.com on behalf of Ross LaJeunesse Kyung-Yeop Hong (hongk) Bradford A. Kaufman, (HQ-CG000); Manu Bhardwaj; wcit2012-external RE: asia team update for thursday afternoon -- please read and respond as requested! Thursday, December 06, 2012 8:02:32 AM Excellent. I think getting them to be vocal would be a key win, so let us know if there's anything we can do to assist you with that! On Dec 6, 2012 5:00 PM, "Kyung-Yeop Hong (hongk)" wrote: Update on Korea: I spoke to Korean delegates as a follow-up to the Korean bilat.   Korea supports ROA. They now think that the ITU compromise proposal (i.e., OA with a footnote referencing to CS 38, captured in DL-5) can apply to a too broad range of operators/providers and there can be inconsistent adoption of the treaty among Member States. They are still considering whether to speak up during the meeting.   Thanks, KY   From: wcit2012-external@google.com [mailto:wcit2012-external@google.com] On Behalf Of Ross LaJeunesse Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 3:57 AM To: wcit2012-external; Bhardwaj, Manu; Kaufman, Bradford A. (HQ-CG000) Subject: asia team update for thursday afternoon -- please read and respond as requested!   hi everyone:   here's the latest.  we heard from amb kramer this morning that we need to continue focusing on ROA/OA issue as a fundamental issue.  i got a download from kathy o'brien on our approach with some key asian countries on this issue, so please scan below to see if we're requesting that you do additional outreach or follow-up... thanks very much   FIRST, the countries with which we've had bilats or have them scheduled and any necessary actions.  i'm trying to stay current on this, but would appreciate any additional intel or info on bilats that are scheduled or may have already occurred!   sri lanka -- scheduled for this morning.  support ROA -- manu, any intel or follow up you need our team to do?     azerbaijan -- important because they could break from RCC and support ROA.  bilat scheduled today.  marilyn, any intel to share or follow up necessary?   india -- bilat happened.  we should continue to work on this, i'm told.  pepper and amb gross are on the case, i think.   indonesia -- bilat happened and intel is that they're likely unwinnable.  manu, please tell us if we should continue but perhaps we devote resources elsewhere.   georgia -- manu to do bilat tomorrow to follow up on ROA and encourage them to be vocal.  manu, let us know if we can be helpful.   malaysia -- chris hemmerlein is on the case now, with tentative bilat scheduled for tomorrow   korea -- bilat happened yesterday and i believe k-y is following up to determine if they can help on ROA.  let us know if you have additional info, please   philippines -- supportive and vocal with bilat scheduled   singapore -- supportive but not vocal, and i believe dick beaird has a bilat scheduled.  is this confirmed?   SECOND, there are three other countries, below, that have been identified as supportive on ROA but have been quiet.  can we please follow up and encourage them to be vocal?   thailand -- ashley, your thoughts on this?  last intel was that they didn't like OA but didn't fully understand the implications and were awaiting guidance from home.  i confirmed this intel yesterday when a member of thai civil society sought me out to complain that the del doesn't have the expertise to fully participate here at the conference.   new zealand -- jordana?  sarah wynn-williams at facebook has offered to be of assistance if you like, as she's very tight with the del.   papua new guineau -- sarah, last we heard, they hadn't made a decision to engage on ROA -- any sense whether this has changed?  could you circle back with them?   other small island nations -- many do not seem to be at the conference -- if anyone has had contact with them -- could you please let brad and me know?   thanks everyone! ross   On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Ross LaJeunesse wrote: hi everyone:   here's the latest from amb kramer and your friendly team co-leads:   1) bob, as the liaison with india -- could you please continue to follow up with the india delegation, following amb kramer's bilat with them?  amb gross has offered to provide any assistance that you might find useful.  thanks to you both.   2) k-y, as the liasion with korea -- could you please do the same?  in particular, there seems to be a lack of alignment on ETNO and security, but perhaps continued alignment on the other issues.  i wonder if we could get them to be vocal on those areas where we're in agreement -- ROA/OA (perhaps moving them off the compromise * position?)  thanks.   3) chris, as the volunteer liaison with malaysia -- could you please follow up with them, particularly ahead of the friday bilat with amb kramer?  thank you.   4) in general, we need to move from info-gathering on ROA/OA to two things:  first, advocating that those delegations who are allied with us on ROA/OA speak up about this; and second, info-gathering on the other five major issues -- with cybersecurity as the next priority.  please team, engage with your countries and continue to update the asia regional tracker at the link below, or email brad and myself and we'll update the doc for you.   ASIA REGIONAL ISSUE TRACKER   5) finally, as requested by amb kramer, please give brad and me your recommendations for which countries we should be scheduling a bilat for amb kramer and the reason why.  i think we need to focus on those countries that are "winnable," esp on ROA/OA and cybersecurity, and those countries that play a regional role and can bring other countries along with them.  we currently have bilats scheduled with malaysia on friday and (i believe) singapore -- OTHERS?  brad and i have to submit these by 5pm tomorrow, so please get back to us by 4:30pm tomorrow --   thanks everyone ross   -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc.   This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you.       -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc.   This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you.     -Please note that this mailing address includes non-Google.com addresses and we are not allowed to discuss Google - only confidential information     -Please note that this mailing address includes non-Google.com addresses and we are not allowed to discuss Google - only confidential information     From: To: Subject: Date: Jane Coffin Fiona Alexander; Ashley Heineman; Christopher Hemmerlein Please hold your calendar for Monday - 19 December 10-11 for a WCIT Google/LES-OIA meeting Thursday, December 08, 2011 11:56:53 AM Gang, Please put a hold on your calendar, am confirming with Google.   Jane From: To: Subject: Date: Ross LaJeunesse Ashley Heineman; Bhardwaj, Manu manu, your view pls Thursday, December 06, 2012 7:11:17 AM thanks ashley, i completely understand the hesitation, given the intel we have on them so far.   manu, can you help guide us? our current view of thailand is as follows: thailand -- last intel was that they didn't like OA but didn't fully understand the implications and were awaiting guidance from home.  i confirmed this intel yesterday when a member of thai civil society sought me out to complain that the del doesn't have the expertise to fully participate here at the conference. thanks ross On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Ashley Heineman wrote: Should I ask Thailand if they'd like a bilat?  Not sure it is worth it, but they may feel more bolstered to say something on the mic if they talk to highlevel members of our del.  Just let me know.   From: wcit2012-external@google.com [wcit2012-external@google.com] On Behalf Of Ross LaJeunesse [rlajeunesse@google.com] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 7:02 AM To: wcit2012-external; Bhardwaj, Manu; Kaufman, Bradford A. (HQ-CG000) Subject: asia team bilat requests? hi there -- one last email of the day -- i haven't received any requests from the team for additional bilats -- unless i hear otherwise, will assume that is the case thanks On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Ross LaJeunesse wrote: hi everyone: here's the latest.  we heard from amb kramer this morning that we need to continue focusing on ROA/OA issue as a fundamental issue.  i got a download from kathy o'brien on our approach with some key asian countries on this issue, so please scan below to see if we're requesting that you do additional outreach or follow-up... thanks very much FIRST, the countries with which we've had bilats or have them scheduled and any necessary actions.  i'm trying to stay current on this, but would appreciate any additional intel or info on bilats that are scheduled or may have already occurred! sri lanka -- scheduled for this morning.  support ROA -- manu, any intel or follow up you need our team to do?   azerbaijan -- important because they could break from RCC and support ROA.  bilat scheduled today.  marilyn, any intel to share or follow up necessary? india -- bilat happened.  we should continue to work on this, i'm told.  pepper and amb gross are on the case, i think. indonesia -- bilat happened and intel is that they're likely unwinnable.  manu, please tell us if we should continue but perhaps we devote resources elsewhere. georgia -- manu to do bilat tomorrow to follow up on ROA and encourage them to be vocal.  manu, let us know if we can be helpful. malaysia -- chris hemmerlein is on the case now, with tentative bilat scheduled for tomorrow korea -- bilat happened yesterday and i believe k-y is following up to determine if they can help on ROA.  let us know if you have additional info, please philippines -- supportive and vocal with bilat scheduled singapore -- supportive but not vocal, and i believe dick beaird has a bilat scheduled.  is this confirmed? SECOND, there are three other countries, below, that have been identified as supportive on ROA but have been quiet.  can we please follow up and encourage them to be vocal? thailand -- ashley, your thoughts on this?  last intel was that they didn't like OA but didn't fully understand the implications and were awaiting guidance from home.  i confirmed this intel yesterday when a member of thai civil society sought me out to complain that the del doesn't have the expertise to fully participate here at the conference. new zealand -- jordana?  sarah wynn-williams at facebook has offered to be of assistance if you like, as she's very tight with the del. papua new guineau -- sarah, last we heard, they hadn't made a decision to engage on ROA -any sense whether this has changed?  could you circle back with them? other small island nations -- many do not seem to be at the conference -- if anyone has had contact with them -- could you please let brad and me know? thanks everyone! ross On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Ross LaJeunesse wrote: hi everyone: here's the latest from amb kramer and your friendly team co-leads: 1) bob, as the liaison with india -- could you please continue to follow up with the india delegation, following amb kramer's bilat with them?  amb gross has offered to provide any assistance that you might find useful.  thanks to you both. 2) k-y, as the liasion with korea -- could you please do the same?  in particular, there seems to be a lack of alignment on ETNO and security, but perhaps continued alignment on the other issues.  i wonder if we could get them to be vocal on those areas where we're in agreement -ROA/OA (perhaps moving them off the compromise * position?)  thanks. 3) chris, as the volunteer liaison with malaysia -- could you please follow up with them, particularly ahead of the friday bilat with amb kramer?  thank you. 4) in general, we need to move from info-gathering on ROA/OA to two things:  first, advocating that those delegations who are allied with us on ROA/OA speak up about this; and second, info- gathering on the other five major issues -- with cybersecurity as the next priority.  please team, engage with your countries and continue to update the asia regional tracker at the link below, or email brad and myself and we'll update the doc for you. ASIA REGIONAL ISSUE TRACKER 5) finally, as requested by amb kramer, please give brad and me your recommendations for which countries we should be scheduling a bilat for amb kramer and the reason why.  i think we need to focus on those countries that are "winnable," esp on ROA/OA and cybersecurity, and those countries that play a regional role and can bring other countries along with them.  we currently have bilats scheduled with malaysia on friday and (i believe) singapore -- OTHERS?  brad and i have to submit these by 5pm tomorrow, so please get back to us by 4:30pm tomorrow -thanks everyone ross -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Please note that this mailing address includes non-Google.com addresses and we are not allowed to discuss Google - only confidential information     -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. From: To: Subject: Date: wcit2012-external@google.com on behalf of Ross LaJeunesse Kaufman, Bradford A. (HQ-CG000); Bhardwaj, Manu; wcit2012-external important: asia/rcc team assignments for sunday, 9 december Sunday, December 09, 2012 2:24:53 AM happy sunday everyone --  below are our current marching orders!  other than chris hemmerlein's intel on malaysia (thank you, chris!), i haven't received any information at all in response to amb kramer's/manu's previous requests for info, so please try to check in with your assigned countries today and email brad and myself with the intel you're able to acquire! we have three objectives now: 1) share and discuss the attached handout on ROA with other delegations 2) assess the reaction (eg, confusion, concern, support?) of other delegations to the contribution submitted by russia and a few arab states at the end of friday's plenary.  you can echo the concern expressed by dick beaird at the plenary session regarding the lateness of the filed contribution (deadline had been august 3rd for contributions) and the lack of ongoing awareness of member states, including the US, of the contribution's contents. 3) ask your countries for their priorities for the ITRs *aside* from the following three issues - ROA/OA, security, and internet regulation.  that is, what are the other issues that your assigned nation has prioritized for this conference?  this can be useful information in identifying subjects for future negotiation. thanks everyone! ross -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Please note that this mailing address includes non-Google.com addresses and we are not allowed to discuss Google - only confidential information     From: To: Subject: Date: Ross LaJeunesse Ashley Heineman; Bhardwaj, Manu; Kaufman, Bradford A. (HQ-CG000) google intel on thailand delegation Friday, November 30, 2012 2:01:58 PM hi ashley i suspect you already know everything in the short notes below, but this is what my colleagues on the ground in SEAsia just sent me about the thai delegation:  MTV = Mountain View,  a metonym for Google HQ Head of delegation:  Mr Chaiyan PEUNGKIATPAIROTE, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Information and Communication Technology of Thailand Met with him on 30 Nov.  He says that Thailand cannot take a position without legislative approval. He will join the delegation in the last few days. He was keen to hear about other countries views towards the issues.   Mr Sukit KHAMASUNDARA, Member, The National Broadcasting And Telecommunications Commissioner Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC).  He visited MTV in September.  Derek briefed on ITU.  Most of the meeting focused on access issues in Thailand.  His preferred title is General. Mr Sorawich KHAMASUNDARA, Official of Secretariat Office of Telecommunication Committee, Office of the Telecommunications Commission (NBTC).   Son of General Sukit Kahmasundara listed above.  Accompanied his father to MTV.    Ms Chonlada BOONNA-IN, Division Director, The National Broadcasting And Telecommunications Commissioner Spoke to her on the phone (29/11/12) and she seems to be the person taking care of the senior delegates during the trip, she should be a good channel for communication with the delegates. -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. From: To: Subject: Date: Ashley Heineman Suzanne Radell Google et al meeting? Sunday, February 08, 2015 1:47:46 AM Will you be joining the 3:00 meeting with Google et al? From: To: Subject: Date: Jane Coffin OIA Google - Launch Davos - Value of the Internet Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:15:58 AM Gang –   Awesome stuff from Google:  http://www.valueoftheweb.com/   They launched this at Davos and are going to look at developing country examples.  This comes in multiple languages.   Jane From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Jane Coffin Fiona Alexander; Ashley Heineman; Christopher Hemmerlein Fw: NY Times: Sec. State Clinton strongly defends the Internet Friday, December 09, 2011 6:50:34 AM Not Responsive From: Eliot Lear To: Not Responsive Vinton G. Cerf ; Not Responsive Sent: Fri Dec 09 02:48:28 2011 Subject: NY Times: Sec. State Clinton strongly defends the Internet Hi Everyone, I draw your attention to today's New York Times, in which U.S. Secretary of State Clinton strongly defends free flow of information on the Internet in this article.  While the Hague conference was wide and varied, following on the heals of strong defenses of the Internet made by Assistant Secretary Lawrence E. Strickling at the London Cybersecurity Conference an FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell at TPRI (see attached), there can be no doubt that WCIT is top of mind to U.S. policy makers. Regards, Eliot 6 Pages Withheld in their entirety as Not Responsive to the Request. From: To: Subject: Fiona Alexander on behalf of Larry Strickling Suzanne Radell; Ashley Heineman; Fiona Alexander; Vernita D. Harris; Christopher Hemmerlein; Marsha MacBride FW: Meeting with Ross LaJeunesse, Sarah Falvey and Aparna Sridhar from Google re: WTPF w/Fiona, Chris, and Marsha -----Original Appointment----From: Larry Strickling Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:09 PM To: Larry Strickling; Fiona Alexander; Christopher Hemmerlein; Marsha MacBride Subject: Meeting with Ross LaJeunesse, Sarah Falvey and Aparna Sridhar from Google re: WTPF w/Fiona, Chris, and Marsha When: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: Strickling's Office From: To: Subject: Date: Jane Coffin Ashley Heineman; Christopher Hemmerlein FW: Google Meeting on Monday, December 19 Friday, December 16, 2011 11:14:44 AM FYI on the participants from Google on Monday ________________________________________ From: Jane Coffin Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 11:11 AM To: Jane Coffin; Sheila Williams Cc: Fiona Alexander Subject: RE: Google Meeting on Monday, December 19 Sheila Google added another person- Joanna Shelton.  She also will attend. Jane ________________________________________ From: Jane Coffin Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:04 PM To: Sheila Williams Subject: RE: Google Meeting on Monday, December 19 Sheila Here you go: In person     Rick Whitt     Aparna Sridhar     Sarah Falvey Call-in     Patrick Ryan Jane ________________________________________ From: Sheila Williams Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:47 PM To: Jane Coffin Subject: Google Meeting on Monday, December 19 Hi Jane, I’m out of the office tomorrow.  The meeting with Google re: WCIT, can you tell me who from Google will be coming? Larry is out of the office tomorrow as well. Thanks Sheila From: To: Subject: Date: Fiona Alexander Larry Strickling; Ashley Heineman FW: glad to see push for DNSSEC Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:32:25 AM     From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint@google.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:25 AM To: Fiona Alexander; Steve Crocker Cc: Jamie Hedlund Subject: glad to see push for DNSSEC ROUND 3: COMMUNICATIONS AND TECH HEARING ON CYBER — E&C's telecom panel kicks off at 10 a.m. the third hearing in its cybersecurity series. This session will focus on how the government is addressing cyberthreats to the country’s communications networks. Expect the FCC’s Adm. James Barnett to tout the release of CSRIC's recent recommendations to ISPs on combating botnets and other threats. NTIA's Fiona Alexander, meanwhile, will call for wider adoption of the security protocol DNSSEC across the Web. The panel will also hear from Roberta Stempfley, acting assistant secretary for cybersecurity and communications at DHS, Sandia Labs's Bob Hutchinson and Greg Shannon from Carnegie Mellon's CERT program. Good Wednesday morning and welcome to Morning Tech, where we’ve dropped more cellphones and laptops than we’d care to admit. If only our gadgets were made out of this new type of plastic that researchers say turns red at the site of the damage and then heals itself like human skin when exposed to light. From PCWorld: http://bit.ly/Hb75pt From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Vernita D. Harris Fiona Alexander; Jane Coffin; Ashley Heineman; Christopher Hemmerlein FW: Follow-up on USTTI/WCIT Prep-Seminar Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:05:56 PM Not Responsive Not Responsive     From: Mickey Gardner [mailto:mrgpc@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:37 PM To: Not Responsive Cc: Not Responsive whitt@google.com; Not Responsive Subject: Follow-up on USTTI/WCIT Prep-Seminar TO:         Rebecca Arbogast, Comcast                Richard Beaird, Department of State Iren Borissova, Verisign                     Barbara Cutts, FCC Marian Gordon, Department of State  Vernita Harris, NTIA Leslie Martinkovics, Verizon               Paul Najarian, Department of State Kathy O’Brien, FCC                                       Kelly Shields, Ericsson Sally Wentworth, Internet Society     Peter Pitsch, Intel (Via Phone)                              FROM:      Mickey Gardner   DATE:      March 22, 2012   SUBJECT:  Follow-up on USTTI/WCIT Prep-Seminar   As a follow-up to our meeting on Wednesday, please see the attached list of priority countries that have been identified as well as individuals who were suggested for participation. We still need input pertaining to the representatives who would be best suited to attend this session from numerous countries.  Based on the diversity of the group we invite, I am confident that this USTTI hosted discussion will facilitate an interactive dialogue that will allow us to learn their perspectives while also empowering these leaders to make informed decisions that will create short and long term benefits.   As soon as we receive the requested input, we will schedule a follow up meeting. Please keep in mind that the number of priority countries identified currently exceeds the 22 we had budgeted for participation. Therefore when we next convene we will work to select the 22 A list and then place the remaining at the top of the B list.   Additionally, I wanted to confirm that based on the CITEL meeting that is scheduled for the second week of September, we will now conduct this three and a half day session from September 17 – 20.   mickey   cc:     Shane Tews                     Lynn St.Amour           Ambassador Verveer       Robert Pepper           Eric Loeb                        Bruce Gustafason           Larry Strickling              Mark Cleverley           Diane Cornell                   Julius Genachowski           Praveen Goyal                  Kalpak Gude           Mike Regan                     Marie Royce           Harrison Schmitt            Tom Wasilewski           Richard Whitt                 Jackie Ruff Ghassan Abdo                  Amy Alvarez          Jim O’Connor   From: To: Subject: Date: Sarah Falvey Elaine M. Newton; Ashley Heineman Do you all have internet over there? If so which one are you using? Friday, May 18, 2012 4:38:39 PM From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: wcit2012-external@google.com on behalf of Ross LaJeunesse wcit2012-external; Bhardwaj, Manu; Maho Takahata; Kaufman, Bradford A. (HQ-CG000) asia/RCC issue tracker Monday, December 03, 2012 2:56:43 AM position tracker Asia RCC (1).xlsx hi asia team: per my earlier email -- for those of you unable to open the link and therefore unable to enter your intell directly onto the online tracking doc -- attached is a copy of the asia/RCC asia tracking doc so that you can see the categories on which we want intel/info PLEASE NOTE:  if you can't enter the info onto the doc/link i sent earlier, please don't enter it onto this attachment -- INSTEAD email brad and/or me directly with the intel/info on your countries, and we'll enter it into the doc ourselves. thank you! ross -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Please note that this mailing address includes non-Google.com addresses and we are not allowed to discuss Google - only confidential information     Country Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Comoros Cote d' Ivoire Djibouti DRC Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Egypt Gabon The Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Lybia Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Republic of Congo Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa South Sudan Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo ROA/OA Cybersecurity Definitions ETNO/Charging Roaming Article 6 Internet Governance Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Country Argentina Aruba Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Barbados Belize Bermuda Bolivia Brazil Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Grenada The Grenadines Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Jamaica Mexico Netherlands Antilles Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru St. Kits and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent Suriname Trinidad and Tobago ROA/OA Cybersecurity Definitions ETNO/Charging Roaming Article 6 Uruguay Venezuela Country Bahrain Iraq Israel Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia Syria United Arab Emirates Yemen ROA/OA Cybersecurity Definitions ETNO/Charging Roaming Article 6 Country Cybersecurity APT Regional Position Support article on security proposed resolutions on spam RCC Regional Position Supports adding cyber security to the ITRs adding new definitions for secur ty related terms obligates MS to prevent interruption of service supports creation of new Article 5A on confidence and security Afghanistan Armenia Australia Azerbaijan Bangladesh Belarus Brunei Burma Cambodia China Has a problem with definition of fraud as in Australia it is covered by criminal jurisdiction not telecoms (prefers 'misuse' if anything); Is opposed to inclusion of cybercrime in the ITRs, or any general expansion of the ITU’s role into matters of cybercrime or national defence/security matters involving cyber security. Definitions continuing support for OA no change to definition of telecommunications Proposes many changes/additions to definitions the public telecommunication internal route relation accounting rate emergency/distress telecommunications personal data international roaming spam network fraud calling party ID GTS Traffic Tariff user subscriber. ETNO/Charging Roaming Article 6 Internet Governance/ICANN No language adopted Explicitly supports ETNO's proposal Does not support adding a definition of "fraud", "spam"; support for ROA, no change on definition of telecom Terms of interconnection subject to commercial agreements. with support for OA, a host of definitions (telecom/ICT, spam, fraud, personal data, hubbing, IP interconnection, End-to-end quality of service delivery and best effort delivery), routing identification and regulation, definition of harm by Internet and IP, regulation to develop IP interconnections providing both best effort delivery and end to end quality of service delivery Supports adding roaming provisions relate to roaming to the ITRs - transparency add roaming to list of services under framework of ITRs costs etc. Addition of text on accounts handled through specialized accounting authorities (6.1.3) Removes or replaces usage of the gold franc (multiple) Changed settlement period from 3 months to 50 days (App. I) Does not support ITU's allocation and assignment of IP addresses, function performed by entities in the Internet technical community; Supports reform of ICANN Supports the inclusion of cybersecurity in the ITRs. Calling for MSs to require enterprises to protect user information security PRIVACY; likely to propose new chapter on Cybersecurity; Proposed text on network security, Propose to add new articles on network security in ITRs East Timor Fiji Georgia India Indonesia Iran Iraq Jordan Japan Kazakhstan Kiribati Kyrgyz Republic Laos Malaysia Maldives Marshall Islands Micronesia Believe security is the most important issue at WCIT, Add new Article 5A regarding “confidence and security of telecommunications/ICTs.” Proposes introduction of cybersecurity concepts into the ITRs. Included definition of roaming in proposal Indonesia proposes adding language that would require Member States to provide legal cooperation against cybersecurity and cybercrime threats. Proposal to add two new provisions here Sustainable development (could capture revenue to support domestic network deployment), and dissemination of information (could elevate ITU0T recommendations to mandatory status) Stated concern with the fact that ICANN owns all IP addresses. Suggested that WCIT may be a fora to address this problem. Concerned with the “fair distribution of income for both the infrastructure and content providers.” Does not have a very strong position, would prefer to stay away from questions of governance Supports language to address misuse/fraud/calling party ID definitions in ITRs to ensure transparency and flex bility. The new ITRs must clear the general frame of roaming prices to be close to the prime cost. Jordan is seeking decreasing glide paths with other countries, though not necessarily cost based. Support avoiding the double taxation. Does not support the inclusion of cybercrime in the ITRs as Supports use of the term it is a national matter; Favours the CEPT proposal on spam. "Recognized Operating Agency." Position similar to Singapore's. Thinks ITU is ineffective and politicized NOTES from BILATS and OTHER ENGAGEMENT Moldova Mongolia Myanmar Nauru Nepal New Zealand Pakistan Palau Papua New Guinea Phillipines Russia It is believed essential to list specific basic international Supports some form of Broad opposition to all ITU proposals Member States should ensure that administrations and operating agencies cooperate in ensuring the integrity, reliable operation and security of the national Internet segment, direct relations for the carrying of Internet traffic and the basic Internet infrastructure. Added several new definitions in their proposal, all pertaining to the Internet Internet, Internet traffic, Internet Access, basic Internet infrastructure, national Internet segment Does not support ITU taking on internet governance responsibilities, will adopt moderate position that tries to meet everyone's concerns; Thinks ITU lacks enforcement mechanisms and should be used as a forum to increase multistakeholder engagement rather than body making binding decisions on internet governance Singapore Solomon Islands South Korea Sri Lanka Tajikistan Thailand Tonga and Tuvalu Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vietnam Member states shall have equal rights to the management of critical Internet resources; MS have sovereign right over Internet governance international policy; develop policies regarding Internet use/operation/development. Likely to adopt a neutral position between that of US and China but is undecided currently Believes a definition in the ITRs should not conflict with the Constitution (which does not include the term 'processing'). Believe that UN could have high level supervisory role (as decided in Tunisia in 2004), but direct governance would be too much Country Albania Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Belgium Bonsnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia European Commission Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Kosovo Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Moldova Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden ROA/OA Cybersecurity Definitions ETNO/Charging Roaming Article 6 Internet Governance Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Vatican City From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: wcit2012-external@google.com on behalf of Ross LaJeunesse wcit2012-external Kaufman, Bradford A. (HQ-CG000); Bhardwaj, Manu asia team Monday, December 10, 2012 2:19:23 AM hi everyone i hate to be a pain in the butt, but we're not getting much additional intel on our region.  in particular, we have no sense still of where afghanistan, bangladesh, bhutan, brunei, krygyz republic, laos, micronesia, moldova, mongolia, nepal are on the basic issues... please see my email of last evening (copied for you below)...  i am going to track down brunei and bhutan today, but any additional intel would be helpful.  ross YESTERDAY'S EMAIL below are our current marching orders!  other than chris hemmerlein's intel on malaysia (thank you, chris!), i haven't received any information at all in response to amb kramer's/manu's previous requests for info, so please try to check in with your assigned countries today and email brad and myself with the intel you're able to acquire! we have three objectives now: 1) share and discuss the attached handout on ROA with other delegations 2) assess the reaction (eg, confusion, concern, support?) of other delegations to the contribution submitted by russia and a few arab states at the end of friday's plenary.  you can echo the concern expressed by dick beaird at the plenary session regarding the lateness of the filed contribution (deadline had been august 3rd for contributions) and the lack of ongoing awareness of member states, including the US, of the contribution's contents. 3) ask your countries for their priorities for the ITRs *aside* from the following three issues - ROA/OA, security, and internet regulation.  that is, what are the other issues that your assigned nation has prioritized for this conference?  this can be useful information in identifying subjects for future negotiation.   -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Please note that this mailing address includes non-Google.com addresses and we are not allowed to discuss Google - only confidential information     From: To: Subject: Date: wcit2012-external@google.com on behalf of Ross LaJeunesse wcit2012-external; Bhardwaj, Manu; Kaufman, Bradford A. (HQ-CG000) asia team update for thursday afternoon -- please read and respond as requested! Thursday, December 06, 2012 3:56:58 AM hi everyone: here's the latest.  we heard from amb kramer this morning that we need to continue focusing on ROA/OA issue as a fundamental issue.  i got a download from kathy o'brien on our approach with some key asian countries on this issue, so please scan below to see if we're requesting that you do additional outreach or follow-up... thanks very much FIRST, the countries with which we've had bilats or have them scheduled and any necessary actions.  i'm trying to stay current on this, but would appreciate any additional intel or info on bilats that are scheduled or may have already occurred! sri lanka -- scheduled for this morning.  support ROA -- manu, any intel or follow up you need our team to do?   azerbaijan -- important because they could break from RCC and support ROA.  bilat scheduled today.  marilyn, any intel to share or follow up necessary? india -- bilat happened.  we should continue to work on this, i'm told.  pepper and amb gross are on the case, i think. indonesia -- bilat happened and intel is that they're likely unwinnable.  manu, please tell us if we should continue but perhaps we devote resources elsewhere. georgia -- manu to do bilat tomorrow to follow up on ROA and encourage them to be vocal.  manu, let us know if we can be helpful. malaysia -- chris hemmerlein is on the case now, with tentative bilat scheduled for tomorrow korea -- bilat happened yesterday and i believe k-y is following up to determine if they can help on ROA.  let us know if you have additional info, please philippines -- supportive and vocal with bilat scheduled singapore -- supportive but not vocal, and i believe dick beaird has a bilat scheduled.  is this confirmed? SECOND, there are three other countries, below, that have been identified as supportive on ROA but have been quiet.  can we please follow up and encourage them to be vocal? thailand -- ashley, your thoughts on this?  last intel was that they didn't like OA but didn't fully understand the implications and were awaiting guidance from home.  i confirmed this intel yesterday when a member of thai civil society sought me out to complain that the del doesn't have the expertise to fully participate here at the conference. new zealand -- jordana?  sarah wynn-williams at facebook has offered to be of assistance if you like, as she's very tight with the del. papua new guineau -- sarah, last we heard, they hadn't made a decision to engage on ROA -- any sense whether this has changed?  could you circle back with them? other small island nations -- many do not seem to be at the conference -- if anyone has had contact with them -- could you please let brad and me know? thanks everyone! ross On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Ross LaJeunesse wrote: hi everyone: here's the latest from amb kramer and your friendly team co-leads: 1) bob, as the liaison with india -- could you please continue to follow up with the india delegation, following amb kramer's bilat with them?  amb gross has offered to provide any assistance that you might find useful.  thanks to you both. 2) k-y, as the liasion with korea -- could you please do the same?  in particular, there seems to be a lack of alignment on ETNO and security, but perhaps continued alignment on the other issues.  i wonder if we could get them to be vocal on those areas where we're in agreement -- ROA/OA (perhaps moving them off the compromise * position?)  thanks. 3) chris, as the volunteer liaison with malaysia -- could you please follow up with them, particularly ahead of the friday bilat with amb kramer?  thank you. 4) in general, we need to move from info-gathering on ROA/OA to two things:  first, advocating that those delegations who are allied with us on ROA/OA speak up about this; and second, info-gathering on the other five major issues -- with cybersecurity as the next priority.  please team, engage with your countries and continue to update the asia regional tracker at the link below, or email brad and myself and we'll update the doc for you. ASIA REGIONAL ISSUE TRACKER 5) finally, as requested by amb kramer, please give brad and me your recommendations for which countries we should be scheduling a bilat for amb kramer and the reason why.  i think we need to focus on those countries that are "winnable," esp on ROA/OA and cybersecurity, and those countries that play a regional role and can bring other countries along with them.  we currently have bilats scheduled with malaysia on friday and (i believe) singapore -- OTHERS?  brad and i have to submit these by 5pm tomorrow, so please get back to us by 4:30pm tomorrow -thanks everyone ross -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Please note that this mailing address includes non-Google.com addresses and we are not allowed to discuss Google - only confidential information     From: To: Subject: Date: wcit2012-external@google.com on behalf of Ross LaJeunesse wcit2012-external; Bhardwaj, Manu; LOEB, ERIC H; Kramer, Terry D; mindel.delatorre@fcc.gov asia team read-outs on OA/ROA Friday, December 07, 2012 3:55:42 AM hi there as i mentioned in this morning's meeting, here's the latest intel i have on those countries that support our position on OA/ROA.  if your country is supportive and isn't on the list below, please let me know.  likewise, if they're not supportive and i have them down as with us on ROA, please let me know -things are moving quiclkly, so if you have info that contradicts any of this, please share it with me so i can keep our tracking updated countries that are not fully confirmed as supportive are marked with a (p) for possible.  countries that currently are vocal in expressing support, or are likely to be vocal are marked with a (v).   as ambassador kramer stated this morning, it's now our job to try and get a read on which of the countries that are supportive are willing to not sign the ITRs on the basis of the ROA issue.  please feed this information back to me as you're able to obtain it. australia (v) -- will they not sign based on ROA?  do they have a proxy for any pacific island nations? azerbaijan (p) -- marilyn, what's the read-out from the bilat today please? georgia -- bill, will they be vocal?  not sign? japan (p)(v) -- willing to not sign? malaysia (p) -- manu, do you have a read out from today's bilat? marshall islands (US proxy) new zealand (v) --  will they not sign?  do they have a proxy for any pacific island nations? philippines (p) -- mindel, is it your sense that they're backing away from being vocal supporters of ROA? singapore -- eric, is the bilat with dick beaird confirmed, do we know?  will they be vocal?  not sign? korea -- will they not sign? sri lanka -- will they not sign? thailand (p) -- bilat scheduled for monday 11.30 ok, moving on... below are the countries that i either have listed as "undecided" or for which we have no info at all -- could those of you assigned to them try to go back and see if they've moved in one direction or the other? afghanistan, bangladesh, bhutan, cambodia, krygyz republic, laos, micronesia, moldova, mongolia, nepal -- and of course the island nations which mostly seem to not be here -- kiribati, fiji, vanatua, solomon islands, palau -- if you run into reps from any of them, please reach out and report back what you're able to find out -- a vote is a vote! thank you for all the hard work ross -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Please note that this mailing address includes non-Google.com addresses and we are not allowed to discuss Google - only confidential information     From: To: Subject: Date: wcit2012-external@google.com on behalf of Ross LaJeunesse wcit2012-external; Bhardwaj, Manu; Kaufman, Bradford A. (HQ-CG000) asia team bilat requests? Thursday, December 06, 2012 7:02:54 AM hi there -- one last email of the day -- i haven't received any requests from the team for additional bilats -- unless i hear otherwise, will assume that is the case thanks On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Ross LaJeunesse wrote: hi everyone: here's the latest.  we heard from amb kramer this morning that we need to continue focusing on ROA/OA issue as a fundamental issue.  i got a download from kathy o'brien on our approach with some key asian countries on this issue, so please scan below to see if we're requesting that you do additional outreach or follow-up... thanks very much FIRST, the countries with which we've had bilats or have them scheduled and any necessary actions.  i'm trying to stay current on this, but would appreciate any additional intel or info on bilats that are scheduled or may have already occurred! sri lanka -- scheduled for this morning.  support ROA -- manu, any intel or follow up you need our team to do?   azerbaijan -- important because they could break from RCC and support ROA.  bilat scheduled today.  marilyn, any intel to share or follow up necessary? india -- bilat happened.  we should continue to work on this, i'm told.  pepper and amb gross are on the case, i think. indonesia -- bilat happened and intel is that they're likely unwinnable.  manu, please tell us if we should continue but perhaps we devote resources elsewhere. georgia -- manu to do bilat tomorrow to follow up on ROA and encourage them to be vocal.  manu, let us know if we can be helpful. malaysia -- chris hemmerlein is on the case now, with tentative bilat scheduled for tomorrow korea -- bilat happened yesterday and i believe k-y is following up to determine if they can help on ROA.  let us know if you have additional info, please philippines -- supportive and vocal with bilat scheduled singapore -- supportive but not vocal, and i believe dick beaird has a bilat scheduled.  is this confirmed? SECOND, there are three other countries, below, that have been identified as supportive on ROA but have been quiet.  can we please follow up and encourage them to be vocal? thailand -- ashley, your thoughts on this?  last intel was that they didn't like OA but didn't fully understand the implications and were awaiting guidance from home.  i confirmed this intel yesterday when a member of thai civil society sought me out to complain that the del doesn't have the expertise to fully participate here at the conference. new zealand -- jordana?  sarah wynn-williams at facebook has offered to be of assistance if you like, as she's very tight with the del. papua new guineau -- sarah, last we heard, they hadn't made a decision to engage on ROA -- any sense whether this has changed?  could you circle back with them? other small island nations -- many do not seem to be at the conference -- if anyone has had contact with them -- could you please let brad and me know? thanks everyone! ross On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Ross LaJeunesse wrote: hi everyone: here's the latest from amb kramer and your friendly team co-leads: 1) bob, as the liaison with india -- could you please continue to follow up with the india delegation, following amb kramer's bilat with them?  amb gross has offered to provide any assistance that you might find useful.  thanks to you both. 2) k-y, as the liasion with korea -- could you please do the same?  in particular, there seems to be a lack of alignment on ETNO and security, but perhaps continued alignment on the other issues.  i wonder if we could get them to be vocal on those areas where we're in agreement -- ROA/OA (perhaps moving them off the compromise * position?)  thanks. 3) chris, as the volunteer liaison with malaysia -- could you please follow up with them, particularly ahead of the friday bilat with amb kramer?  thank you. 4) in general, we need to move from info-gathering on ROA/OA to two things:  first, advocating that those delegations who are allied with us on ROA/OA speak up about this; and second, infogathering on the other five major issues -- with cybersecurity as the next priority.  please team, engage with your countries and continue to update the asia regional tracker at the link below, or email brad and myself and we'll update the doc for you. ASIA REGIONAL ISSUE TRACKER 5) finally, as requested by amb kramer, please give brad and me your recommendations for which countries we should be scheduling a bilat for amb kramer and the reason why.  i think we need to focus on those countries that are "winnable," esp on ROA/OA and cybersecurity, and those countries that play a regional role and can bring other countries along with them.  we currently have bilats scheduled with malaysia on friday and (i believe) singapore -- OTHERS?  brad and i have to submit these by 5pm tomorrow, so please get back to us by 4:30pm tomorrow -thanks everyone ross -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Ross LaJeunesse Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations Google Inc. This email may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please: do not forward the email to others, delete all copies/attachments, and inform the sender of the error. Thank you. -Please note that this mailing address includes non-Google.com addresses and we are not allowed to discuss Google - only confidential information     From: To: Subject: Date: Tony Rutkowski Polidori, Stefano; "jca-iot@lists.itu.int" [JCA-IOT] Google I/O 2014: 10 Big Developments Monday, June 30, 2014 5:02:09 PM Hi Stefano, This IoT material is worth referencing by anyone interested in the subject matter. http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/mobile-business/google-i-o-2014-10-big-developments/d/did/1278921 Don't know how much external participation the JCA gets on its meetings, but the one million figure here is impressive.  One gets the feeling that a lot of paradigms have changed. :-) --tony From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Mark Crosby Bruce Washington ; Larry Alder; Not CSMAC QM Subcommittee Report 100914 v3.ppt Wednesday, October 01, 2014 5:19:29 PM CSMAC QM Subcommittee Report 100914 v3.ppt Not Responsive Responsive Bruce … attached you will find the Measurement/Quantification Subcommittee’s presentation for next week’s full CSMAC meeting. … Mark CSMAC Measurement/Quantification Subcommittee Use of General Occupancy Measurements And Quantification of Federal Spectrum Use October 9, 2014 The following slides are proposed responses to NTIA questions that have been prepared by the Subcommittee. CSMAC member comments are solicited. Question 1 How may general occupancy measurements be performed to reflect or validate actual federal spectrum use (particularly radars and intermittent operations) in a way that can support spectrum management decisions regarding relocation or sharing of spectrum? (See 6/14/13 Executive Memorandum at Sec. 3(c) and NTIA 8/19/13 Notice of Inquiry) 2 Question 1 – Draft Response The CSMAC recommends that the NTIA make spectrum measurements. The general occupancy measurement objective should be to determine how much spectrum could be shared with incumbent systems. The measurements would approximately determine the number of transmitters, locations, number of channels used, modes typically in use, time-of-day use, etc. However, the measurement process needs to recognize and indicate where there are receive only uses, and other low duty cycle transmissions that would not be adequately reflected in the measurement results, e.g., where there are receive only radars, or missile destruct signals; current analytic techniques are more appropriate for such situations as measurements would be potentially misleading. 3 Question 1 – Draft Response The general occupancy measurements should be made incrementally to support different phases of the spectrum management decisionmaking process. The duration and the geographic scope of the measurements should increase if the process for a given set of frequencies moves forward. The purpose/triggers for measurement activity are: Level 0 Prior to making any determination to undertake any occupancy measurements, NTIA should analyze the various federal uses and specific service characteristics (e.g., radar, earth observation systems, deep space exploration) in bands of potential interest, to determine if those bands could serve as potential candidates for next level measurement activity. 4 Question 1 – Draft Response Level 1 To inform the process of identifying and prioritizing bands for potential relocation or sharing. These measurements would be conducted for a period of time and in places, appropriate for the incumbent operations in the band. Level 2 For targeted bands, to determine the scope and technical feasibility of transitional or long-term sharing. Level 3 For bands identified for relocation or sharing, to inform commercial users (auction bidders). These measurements would be made in all high priority Protection Zones at multiple locations (5 to 10) over long periods (3 to 6 months) to provide a comprehensive and detailed estimate of the existing transmitter’s spatial and temporal characteristics. 5 Question 1 – Draft Response The NTIA should develop a multi-tier approach to release share the data that accommodates security concerns. The detailed measurement data should be released to a limited group that are actively considering providing service in the specific areas. NTIA should investigate data processing methods to obscure critical measurement features (i.e. waveform type, specific frequencies, etc) and maintaining received power level, approximate location and time of day to enable public releasable data. For example, the amplitude probability distribution of received power in 4 hours blocks over frequency range blocks could be provided, along with annotation that the source was an airborne transmitter, which would provide significant information for spectrum sharing analysis, but would reveal much less about the DoD systems. 6 Question 1 – Draft Response The NTIA should analyze the measurement data to extrapolate the usage in the future, which can inform whether there is a potential for sharing or relocation. However, measurement characteristics alone are not sufficient to determine future usage, but the spectrum needs of existing authorized, but not yet deployed, programs need also be reflected in future usage analysis, as well as any planned growth in current systems. 7 Question 2 Recognizing resource limitations and the lack of real-time reporting of use built within the federal radio infrastructure, how should actual federal spectrum use be quantified with or without supplemental occupancy measurements? (See 6/14/13 PM Sec. 3(a) and (d)) 8 Question 2 – Draft Response The CSMAC recommends that the NTIA use spectrum measurements to selectively validate analytic spectrum interference prediction models. These interference models effectively describe federal spectrum use because the prediction models are a fundamental tool used to limit entrant spectrum use. Measurements are critical to interference models because the models have many assumptions on propagation models, clutter levels, transmit power levels, transmitter locations, transmission statistics, and other parameters. The measurements should determine the incumbent and/or entrant received power level distribution functions at specific locations. By directly comparing these measurements with model predictions, the interference models are validated. 9 Subcommittee Members Michael Calabrese Mark Crosby (C) Mark McHenry (C) Rick Reaser Mariam Sorond Jennifer Warren Marty Cooper Tom Dombrowski Janice Obuchowski Dennis Roberson Kurt Schaubach 10 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Mark Crosby Antonio Lavarello FW: NTIA Spectrum Usage Quantification Plan Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:22:29 AM Not Responsive Not Responsive   From: Mark McHenry [mailto:mmchenry@sharedspectrum.com] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:17 AM To: Not Responsive ; Larry Alder; Not Responsive Subject: RE: NTIA Spectrum Usage Quantification Plan   All, Here is an initial set of recommendations to the NTIA measurement questions. Please provide suggestions and comments. Thanks, --Mark From: Mark Crosby [mailto:mark.crosby@enterprisewireless.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:36 PM To: Not Responsive ; Larry Alder; Not Responsive Subject: NTIA Spectrum Usage Quantification Plan   M/Q Subcommittee … please see the attached document from Edward Drocella as discussed during today’s meeting … Mark C   From: Edward Drocella [mailto:EDrocella@ntia.doc.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:29 PM To: Mark Crosby Subject: NTIA Spectrum Usage Quantification Plan   Not Responsive 4 Pages Withheld in their entirety as Not Responsive to the Request. From: To: Mark Crosby Not Responsive ; Larry Alder; Not Subject: Start: End: Location: Responsive M/Q Subcommittee Meeting - Draft Responses to NTIA Questions Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:00:00 PM Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:00:00 PM Teleconference - Not Responsive # When: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:00 PM-2:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: Teleconference - Not Responsive #   Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.   *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*   Subcommittee Members … documentation will be circulated in advance of the meeting.  … Mark C and Mark M    From: To: Cc: Mark Crosby Antonio Lavarello Not Responsive ; Larry Alder; Not Subject: Date: Responsive Measurement - Quantification Subcommittee Members + Emails Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:35:40 PM Antonio … as promised, and note that CSMAC Co-Chairs Larry Alder and Mark Gibson receive all communications as ex officio members of the Measurement/Quantification Subcommittee.  Please let me know if you need anything further in the interim. … Mark From: To: Cc: Mark Crosby Antonio Lavarello Not Responsive ; Larry Alder; Not Subject: Date: Responsive Measurement - Quantification Subcommittee Members + Emails Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:35:40 PM Antonio … as promised, and note that CSMAC Co-Chairs Larry Alder and Mark Gibson receive all communications as ex officio members of the Measurement/Quantification Subcommittee.  Please let me know if you need anything further in the interim. … Mark From: To: Mark Crosby Not Responsive Larry Alder; Not Subject: Date: Attachments: Responsive NTIA Spectrum Usage Quantification Plan Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:43:21 PM fourth interim progress report final.pdf M/Q Subcommittee … please see the attached document from Edward Drocella as discussed during today’s meeting … Mark C   From: Edward Drocella [mailto:EDrocella@ntia.doc.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:29 PM To: Mark Crosby Subject: NTIA Spectrum Usage Quantification Plan Not Responsive Fourth Interim Progress Report on the Ten-Year Plan and Timetable and Plan for Quantitative Assessments of Spectrum Usage U.S. Department of Commerce Penny Pritzker, Secretary Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information June 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1 Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Key Accomplishments................................................................................................................................. 2 Background.................................................................................................................................................. 4 2. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ............................................................................................. 6 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1850 MHz Collaborative Efforts ..................................................................... 7 CSEA Implementation and Transition Planning ....................................................................................... 12 5350-5470 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz Bands ........................................................................................... 14 Plan for Quantitative Assessments of Spectrum Usage ............................................................................ 16 FCC Activities ........................................................................................................................................... 17 Reevaluation and Reprioritization of Selected Bands ............................................................................... 22 International Activities .............................................................................................................................. 26 3. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 27 APPENDIX A: Plan for Quantitative Assessments of Spectrum Usage APPENDIX B: Acronyms and Abbreviations i 1. INTRODUCTION Summary The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) submits this Fourth Interim Progress Report in response to the Presidential Memorandum issued on June 28, 2010, directing the Secretary of Commerce, working through NTIA and in collaboration with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to identify and make available 500 megahertz of federal and non-federal spectrum by 2020 for expanded wireless broadband use. 1 In October 2010, pursuant to the 2010 Presidential Memorandum, NTIA, with input from the Policy and Plans Steering Group (PPSG), issued a Plan and Timetable to achieve the President’s 500 megahertz goal over the next ten years. 2 The Plan identified over 2,200 megahertz of spectrum for evaluation, the process for evaluating candidate bands, and the steps necessary to make selected spectrum available for wireless broadband services. Taking into account the significance of protecting vital government missions that rely on spectrum, NTIA’s Ten-Year Plan identified over 2,200 megahertz of federal and non-federal spectrum bands for evaluation, proposed a process for evaluating candidate bands, and set forth the steps necessary to select and make spectrum available for wireless broadband services. Between October 2010 and September 2013, NTIA formally recommended or otherwise identified for potential reallocation up to 405 megahertz in the following bands: • • • • 15 megahertz from the 1695-1710 MHz band 100 megahertz from the 3550-3650 MHz band 95 megahertz from the 1755-1850 MHz band; and 195 megahertz from the 5350-5470 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz bands The FCC has initiated rulemaking proceedings for these and other bands based upon the National Broadband Plan. 3 NTIA and the FCC have also made significant progress toward the implementation of the key spectrum-related provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 1 See Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution (rel. June 28, 2010), published at 75 Fed. Reg. 38387 (July 1, 2010), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- office/presidential-memorandum-unleashing-wireless-broadband-revolution (2010 Presidential Memorandum). 2 NTIA, Plan and Timetable to Make Available 500 Megahertz of Spectrum for Wireless Broadband (Oct. 2010), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/tenyearplan_11152010.pdf (Ten-Year Plan). The PPSG is an advisory group of senior federal officials who advise NTIA on achieving the objectives of the 2010 Presidential Memorandum. See 2010 Presidential Memorandum at § 1(c). 3 See Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, GN Docket No. 09-51, Recommendation 5.8 (2010), available at http://www.broadband.gov/plan/. 1 Creation Act of 2012, 4 with spectrum auctions to be held in 2014 and 2015. On June 14, 2013, President Obama issued a second related memorandum, entitled Expanding America’s Leadership in Wireless Innovation, through which the Administration seeks to make more spectrum available for commercial use by allowing and encouraging shared access by commercial providers to spectrum that is currently allocated for federal use. 5 As both memoranda make clear, innovative spectrum sharing technologies can enhance efficiency among all users and expedite commercial access to additional spectrum bands where technically and economically feasible. The second memorandum directs federal agencies to take a number of steps to accelerate shared access to spectrum, including making quantitative assessments of actual spectrum usage in accordance with the plan set forth in Appendix A of this report, which will evaluate whether up to 960 megahertz of additional spectrum could potentially be made available for sharing with, or release to, commercial users, particularly in major metropolitan areas, without adversely affecting agencies’ missions. Key Accomplishments This Fourth Interim Progress Report summarizes and assesses the progress made from October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013 in implementing the October 2010 Ten-Year Plan.6 The key accomplishments for this reporting period include the following: • NTIA’s Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) concluded its groundbreaking work to explore relocation alternatives and spectrum sharing arrangements between federal agencies and commercial mobile broadband systems in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1850 MHz bands. • NTIA released regulations and guidance implementing changes to the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (CSEA) that provide eligible federal agencies incentives and financial assistance to facilitate the transition of the reallocated federal bands that the FCC will auction. • NTIA published an initial assessment on spectrum-sharing technologies and the risk to federal users if Unlicensed-National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices were 4 See Pub. L. No. 112-96, Title VI, 126 Stat. 201 (Feb. 22, 2012), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ96/pdf/PLAW-112publ96.pdf (Tax Relief Act). 5 See Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Expanding America’s Leadership in Wireless Innovation (rel. June 14, 2013), published at 78 Fed. Reg. 37431 (June 20, 2013), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/14/presidential-memorandum-expanding-americas-leadershipwireless-innovatio (2013 Presidential Memorandum). The memorandum also strongly encourages the FCC to identify “spectrum allocated for nonfederal uses that can be made available to agencies, on a shared or exclusive basis.” See id. at § 7(b). 6 See 2010 Presidential Memorandum at § 1(d). This report references some activities that occurred after September 30, 2013. 2 authorized to operate in the 5350-5470 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz bands (5 GHz). • NTIA, in collaboration with the federal agencies, developed the plan set forth in Appendix A for federal agencies to provide quantitative assessments of their usage of spectrum in selected frequency bands. • The FCC initiated or concluded rulemaking proceedings 7 for the following spectrum bands and services: o 40 megahertz from the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands for Advanced Wireless Services (AWS-4); o 10 megahertz from the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands (H Block); o 70 megahertz from the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands for flexible Advanced Wireless Services (AWS-3); o 100 megahertz from the 3550-3650 MHz band (3.5 GHz) for introducing small cell and other technologies on a shared basis with incumbent users; and o 295 megahertz from 5150-5250, 5350-5470 MHz, and 5850-5925 MHz in the 5 GHz band for U-NII devices. This report also provides an update on additional related activities of the FCC and the international spectrum community. Looking ahead, NTIA and the FCC, along with federal and non-federal stakeholders will continue to address the increasing radio spectrum needs of both federal and non-federal users. In implementing the 2010 Presidential Memorandum, the Tax Relief Act, and the 2013 Presidential Memorandum, NTIA will continue to engage federal and industry stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition of the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands as the FCC develops service rules for the upcoming auction. In cooperation with these stakeholders, NTIA and the FCC will also be developing sharing options to accommodate new and innovative broadband applications and devices in the 3.5 GHz and 5 GHz bands. NTIA and certain federal agencies will implement the Plan for Quantitative Assessments of Spectrum Usage. 7 As summarized in the Third Interim Report, the FCC concluded in October 2012 a proceeding to facilitate wireless broadband deployment in 30 megahertz of spectrum from the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz Wireless Communications Service (WCS) bands. That report also summarized the proposed framework for the broadcast television incentive auction rulemaking proceeding commenced in September 2012 through which spectrum from the 600 MHz band would be cleared for new mobile broadband services and devices. See NTIA, Third Interim Progress Report on the Ten-Year Plan and Timetable (Nov. 29, 2012), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/third_interim_progress_report_final.pdf (Third Interim Report). 3 Background Concurrent with the development of the Ten-Year Plan, NTIA selected four spectrum bands and worked with other federal agencies to perform a “fast track” evaluation to determine whether any of the bands could be made available for commercial wireless broadband services within five years. 8 This evaluation resulted in the identification of 15 megahertz in the 16751710 MHz band, and 100 megahertz in the 3550-3650 MHz band for reallocation, subject to certain geographic limitations. 9 In furtherance of the recommendations in the Fast Track Report, NTIA formally recommended to the FCC that it take regulatory action to repurpose the 16951710 MHz and 3550-3650 MHz bands for wireless broadband use on a shared basis. 10 NTIA next selected the 1755-1850 MHz band for detailed evaluation based on the nature of the current federal uses of this spectrum, the likelihood of successfully repurposing the band within ten years, its allocation to the mobile service worldwide, the existence of mature wireless equipment, and the band’s advantageous propagation characteristics for mobile broadband operations. 11 In conjunction with agency and industry representatives, NTIA initiated collaborative efforts through the CSMAC to develop recommendations to facilitate mobile broadband access to the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1850 MHz bands. 12 On February 22, 2012, the President signed the Tax Relief Act providing for, as recommended in the Ten-Year Plan, support from the Spectrum Relocation Fund for federal users. 13 The Tax Relief Act also requires, as recommended in the Fast Track Report, the 8 NTIA, An Assessment of the Near-Term Viability of Accommodating Wireless Broadband Systems in the 16751710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 3500-3650 MHz, and 4200-4220 MHz,4380-4400 MHz Bands (Oct. 2010), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fasttrackevaluation_11152010.pdf (Fast Track Report). 9 NTIA’s Fast Track Report also recommended that the Federal Government begin working within domestic and international processes to consider the reallocation of 4200-4220 MHz and 4380-4400 MHz bands for wireless broadband. 10 See Letter from Karl B. Nebbia, Assoc. Admin. Office of Spectrum Mgt., NTIA, to Julius Knapp, Chief, Office of Eng. and Tech., FCC (Jan. 19, 2011), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_fcc_letter_115_mhz_01192011.pdf (Jan. 2011 Letter to FCC). See also U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Identification of 15 Megahertz of Spectrum Between 1675 and 1710 MHz for Reallocation from Federal Use to Non-Federal Use Pursuant to Section 6401(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, (Feb. 2013), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/16751710_mhz_report_to_president_02192013.pdf. (1675-1710 MHz Report). 11 See NTIA, An Assessment of the Viability of Accommodating Wireless Broadband in the 1755-1850 MHz Band (Mar. 2012), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_1755_1850_mhz_report_march2012.pdf (1755 MHz Report). 12 See CSMAC, Framework for Work within CSMAC (May 2012) available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/meetings/framework_for_work_within_csmac_20120525.pdf (CSMAC Framework). 13 See Tax Relief Act §§ 6701-6702, 126 Stat. 245-255. Congress established the Spectrum Relocation Fund in 2004 in the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act to provide incentives and financial assistance to facilitate the relocation of eligible federal agencies from reallocated bands that are auctioned by the FCC. See Pub. L. No. 108- 4 reallocation of 15 megahertz from the 1675-1710 MHz band. 14 This legislation further required that NTIA evaluate spectrum sharing technologies and solutions in connection with the potential operation of unlicensed devices in the 5350-5470 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz bands. 15 The 2013 Presidential Memorandum established a Spectrum Policy Team (SPT) to, among other tasks, address spectrum sharing between federal and non-federal users. 16 The memorandum further directs NTIA to include in this Fourth Interim Progress Report a plan for federal agencies to provide a “quantitative assessment” of the agencies’ actual use of spectrum in those spectrum bands that NTIA previously identified and prioritized in its Third Interim Report and bands that NTIA and the SPT identify, based on their potential for non-federal use. 17 Each agency must submit its assessment to NTIA and the SPT within twelve months after NTIA releases the plan. 18 494, Title II, 118 Stat. 3991 (Dec. 23, 2004), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW108publ494/pdf/PLAW-108publ494.pdf. See also Ten-Year Plan at 16-17 (recommending CSEA reforms that would not only provide additional funds for better equipment to support federal agencies’ mission-critical communications systems and reduce transition timeframes, but would also produce more efficient use of spectrum through sharing options, reduce long-run costs and increase auction proceeds). 14 See Tax Relief Act § 6401(a), 126 Stat. 222. 15 Id. § 6406(b), 126 Stat. 231. 16 See 2013 Presidential Memorandum at § 1. 17 See id. at § 3(a). 18 Id. 5 2. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHNIENTS Since October 1, 2012, NTIA, the FCC, and the participant federal agencies of the PPSG have endeavored to achieve the President?s goal of making 500 megahertz of spectrum available for wireless broadband according to the Ten-Year Plan. During this period, NTLA chaired three meetings of the PPSG and twelve meetings of the Spectrum Working Group. Table 2-1 provides an updated list of the spectnun bands that NTIA, in with the PPSG, has identi?ed for continued investigation for potential repurposing. Table 2-1 Federal and Shared Spectrum Bands Under Investigation Frequeg/iizlgand?? (11:22:: til) Current allocation/usage 406.1-420" 13.9 Federal 1300-1390" 90 Federal 1 675- 1 7 10. 3 5 Federal/non-federal shared 1755-1780?" 25 Federal 1780-1850'" 70 Federal 2700-2900" 200 Federal 2900-3 100 200 Federal/non-federal shared 3 100-3 500 400 Federal/non-federal shared 3500-3650? 150 Federal [4200_0_4400] 200 Federal/non-federal shared 5350-5470 120 Federal/non-federal shared 5850-5925 75 Federal/non-federal shared Total 1 5 78.9 Parts of these bands reconmrended for reallocation in the Fast Track Report. Bands obligated by U.S.-Canada or U.S.-Mexico bilateral agreernent(s) and will require international consideration if repurposed. While the 1 75 5-1 850 11411: Report considered the 1755-1850 band in its entirety. the upcoming AWS- 3 auction will include the 1755-1780 portion of this band as described below. The 2200-2290 band has been removed from fru?ther consideration because studies indicate that hi gh- density terrestrial mobile operations would cause signi?cant interference to satellite receivers in this band. The following subsections provide an update on activities that occurred dlu?ing the October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013 reporting period including: 1. Collaborative efforts to develop sharing arrangements in the 1695-1710 and 1755- 1780 bands; 2. Federal agency transition planning for relocation and spectrum sharing in these bands; Analysis toward accommodating U-NII devices in the 5 GHZ band; 4. Development of a plan for quantitative assessment of federal agency operations in certain ??equency bands; DJ 5. Recent and ongoing FCC activities; 6. Reevaluation and reprioritization of bands under consideration for relocation or sharing; and 7. Related international regulatory activities. 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1850 MHz Collaborative Efforts Based on the results of the Fast Track Report’s recommendations on repurposing the 1695-1710 MHz band and NTIA’s March 2012 1755 MHz Report on the viability of accommodating commercial wireless broadband in the 1755-1850 MHz band, the CSMAC formed five working groups as a means for federal agency representatives and industry experts to collaborate on the development of relocation and sharing solutions in these frequency bands. 19 The groups analyzed the sharing potential between wireless broadband devices using the Long Term Evolution (LTE) standard and federal agency operations. 20 One working group addressed the 1695-1710 MHz band, while the other four groups focused on different federal operations in the 1755-1850 MHz band, as described in the following sections. Agency and industry representatives served as co-chairs and participants for the groups, while NTIA and FCC staff and CSMAC member liaisons observed and, when necessary, assisted working group activities. The working groups collected and analyzed technical and operational information on LTE and federal systems, assessed the potential for sharing among these systems, developed recommendations, and prepared reports documenting their findings and recommendations for the CSMAC. The CSMAC adopted the reports of the working groups, thereby providing them to NTIA as potential recommendations to the FCC in its AWS-3 rulemaking proceeding. NTIA endorsed the recommendations contained in the initial Working Group 1 Report and the final Working Group 2 Report and transmitted them to the FCC in an April 2013 letter. 21 19 See CSMAC Framework. 20 One of the working groups organized a collaborative effort between industry and government experts to develop realistic technical and operational parameters for the LTE systems, which all working groups used in their sharing studies. See CSMAC, Final Report, Working Group 1—1695-1710 MHz Meteorological-Satellite, Rev. 1 (July 23, 2013) at 1, Appendix 3, available at http://www ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/wg1_report_07232013.pdf (Working Group 1 Report). The working groups considered LTE transmissions only in the user equipment-to-base station (uplink) direction in these bands, in accordance with the proposed configuration. 21 See Letter from Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce, to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, FCC (Apr. 19, 2013), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_to_fcc_chair_re_1695_and_1755_auction_20130419.pdf. Working Group 1 subsequently updated its report. On November 25, 2013, NTIA transmitted to the FCC its endorsement of the recommendations contained in the updated Working Group 1 report and the final reports from Working Groups 3, 4, and 5, see Letter from Karl B. Nebbia, Assoc. Admin. Office of Spectrum Mgt., NTIA, to Julius Knapp, Chief, Office of Eng. and Tech., FCC (Nov. 25, 2013), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_aws-3_ltr_11252013_.pdf. 7 The CSMAC working group approach broke new ground in industry/government collaboration and information sharing, which are critical components of decision-making regarding spectrum repurposing. This experience demonstrated how spectrum sharing requires a new way of doing business that involves early and sustained collaboration between industry stakeholders and affected federal agencies. The effort has allowed all parties to gain a better understanding of the different federal systems and the proposed commercial deployments in the bands tagged for repurposing and will facilitate commercial entry into the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands after the auction. Industry and government participants had a significant challenge in developing a framework to share sensitive information on a timely basis. Progress of the working groups was delayed as the parties negotiated and sought approval of formal non-disclosure agreements. Another challenge involved the groups’ efforts to achieve consensus on the technical parameters, assumptions, and methodologies for conducting the analysis of potential interference. Recognition of these and other key challenges and their lessons learned will be helpful for future collaborative efforts. NTIA is grateful for the support and effort of all of the government and industry participants. Working Group 1: 1695-1710 MHz Meteorological-Satellite Links The Tax Relief Act required that the Secretary of Commerce submit a report to the President identifying 15 megahertz of spectrum in the 1675-1710 MHz band for reallocation from federal use to non-federal use. 22 Reaffirming NTIA’s conclusion in its Fast Track Report that the FCC should repurpose the 1695-1710 MHz band for wireless broadband use on a shared basis, the Secretary of Commerce recommended this action in a February 2013 report to the President. 23 CSMAC Working Group 1 considered potential interference from LTE systems to meteorological-satellite earth station receivers. Based on its studies, the working group recommended the establishment of “Protection Zones” around earth stations within which an LTE system could operate after successful coordination, ensuring that the commercial LTE operations would meet specified conditions such that they would not cause harmful interference to the earth station receivers. 24 The working group also recommended that the Federal Government consider assessing the feasibility of moving earth stations away from the most heavily populated areas, or take other actions to maximize commercial use of the band. 25 22 Tax Relief Act, § 6401(a)(3). 23 1675-1710 MHz Report. 24 See Working Group 1 Report at 6. 25 Working Group 1did not have sufficient time to study this issue, but recommends that “consideration may be 8 Working Group 2: 1755-1850 MHz Short-Distance Video Links CSMAC Working Group 2 considered priorities for relocating short-range video links that federal agencies operate for law enforcement surveillance purposes and for land robotic systems. 26 Based on the availability of funding and comparable spectrum, the agencies intend to relocate these systems from the 1755-1780 MHz band within five years and from the 17801850 MHz band within ten years. 27 Seven of the thirteen federal agencies that conduct such video operations participated in the working group. 28 A sub-group of Working Group 2, comprised of industry participants, developed a list prioritizing the geographic areas from which video surveillance systems would be relocated, based on industry priorities for deploying broadband wireless systems. 29 The working group recommended that the agencies consider this prioritization in developing their transition plans for video surveillance systems, but it also recognized that the agencies will need to establish their timelines for clearing based on their operational requirements, which in some cases may require clearing larger geographic areas. 30 Working Group 3: 1755-1850 MHz Satellite Control and Electronic Warfare Since federal agency satellite operations in the 1761-1842 MHz band segment and electronic warfare operations throughout the band will need to continue indefinitely, Working Group 3 focused on conditions for ongoing sharing between these government systems and wireless broadband operations. 31 The working group made several recommendations to improve coordination processes between the Department of Defense (DOD) and commercial wireless service providers so that DOD can continue to successfully perform electronic warfare research, training, and other functions on the condition of not causing harmful interference to commercial LTE operations. 32 given to determine the merit of conducting this analysis prior to establishing rules for an auction to establish the feasibility, anticipated costs, and estimated timelines of relocating receive sites to remote locations and backhauling data to the facility where analysis of the data is performed.” See Id. at 7. 26 See CSMAC, Working Group 2: 1755-1850 MHz, Law Enforcement Surveillance, Explosive Ordnance Disposal, and Other Short Distance Links Final Report (Jan 4, 2013) at 4-5, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/csmac_wg-2_final_report_jan-4-2012.pdf. 27 Id. at 6. 28 Id. at 5. 29 Id. at 6. The sub-group used the 176 Bureau of Economic Analysis Economic Areas (available at http://transition fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/bea/) as the geographic areas. 30 Id. at 12. 31 CSMAC, Working Group 3: Report on 1755-1850 MHz Satellite Control and Electronic Warfare (July 19, 2013), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/working_group_3_final.pdf. 32 Id. 9 Regarding Earth-to-space links for satellite control, the working group considered potential interference both from aggregated LTE user equipment transmitters to command uplink receivers on satellites and from earth station command uplinks to LTE base station receivers, concluding that LTE operations and satellite uplinks can successfully share the band. In the former case, Working Group 3 determined that, with few possible exceptions, an aggregate power flux density level of –179 dBW/Hz/m² at any location in the geostationary orbit, considering all visible mobile and hand-held devices, would represent a “safe” level of interference for a satellite in any orbit. 33 The working group also found that the small percentage of time the earth stations would transmit in the 1761-1780 MHz range and the small signal bandwidth would make harmful interference to the LTE base stations unlikely. The group also identified technologies and techniques that would further mitigate interference to the LTE base stations, concluding that the satellite control operations could successfully share with LTE systems in the band. 34 Working Group 4: 1755-1850 MHz Tactical Radio Relay, Fixed Microwave, and Software Defined Radios Working Group 4 addressed compatibility of three types of federal ground-based radio systems with the proposed LTE systems. 35 For fixed point-to-point microwave systems, the working group recommended relocation to alternative frequency bands, since the required commercial technology is readily available and relocation costs are low, assuming favorable site conditions. 36 In analyzing tactical radio relay (TRR) and the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), however, the group’s limited analyses found that these systems could only operate compatibly with LTE systems if separated by distances of hundreds of kilometers. 37 The working group recommended that the TRRs be relocated from the 1755-1780 MHz band to the 1780-1850 MHz band or to other alternative spectrum bands. However, TRRs would continue to operate in the 1755-1780 MHz band at high-priority training areas from which relocation is not feasible, and in areas with little or no expected LTE deployment, subject to a sharing approach to be developed for this purpose. 38 JTRS would be relocated to the 1780-1850 MHz band except for systems at 33 Id. at 2. 34 Id. 35 CSMAC, Working Group 4: 1755-1850 MHz Point-to-Point Microwave Tactical Radio Relay (TRR) Joint Tactical Radio System / Software Defined Radio (JTRS/SDR) Final Report (July 24, 2013), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/wg4_final_report_072413.pdf. 36 Id. at 11. 37 Id. at 3. Working Group 4 studied JTRS as an example of an SDR system. Id.at 9. 38 Id. at 14-15. 10 six high-priority training locations. 39 Working Group 5: 1755-1850 MHz Airborne Operations Working Group 5 considered a variety of airborne systems including aeronautical mobile telemetry, small unmanned aircraft systems, the Air Combat Training System, precision-guided munitions, and other airborne data link systems. As with Working Group 4, the results of the Working Group 5 analyses found separation distances of hundreds of kilometers would be necessary for sharing with LTE systems, based on its initial analyses. Working Group 5 did not reach specific recommendations for sharing, but it made recommendations regarding further analysis. 40 CSMAC Consideration of Working Group Reports The membership of the full CSMAC considered and adopted the final report of Working Group 1 at its July 24, 2013 meeting, the report of Working Group 2 at its February 21, 2013 meeting, and the reports of Working Groups 3, 4, and 5 at its August 28, 2013 meeting. 41 At the August meeting, various CSMAC members issued three separate statements. One statement expressed concern with the published analyses of Working Groups 3, 4, and 5, characterizing them as “conservative” and “limited,” and representing only a “first step.” It characterized the results as not representing “the real-world interference environment” and proposed that additional analytical efforts could reduce the size of the protection zones for federal systems. 42 A second statement suggested that the working groups had not given sufficient consideration to the possibility of relocating federal operations from the 1755-1780 MHz band. It asked whether some federal operations could relocate, how much of the 1755-1780 MHz band could be cleared, and in how much time, and at what cost, some or all of the federal operations could relocate. 43 A third statement characterized the CSMAC studies in the 1755-1780 MHz band as “a good faith 39 Id. at 16-17. 40 CSMAC, Working Group 5 (WG-5) 1755-1850 MHz Airborne Operations (Air Combat Training System, Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Precision-Guided Munitions, Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry) Final Report (July 23, 2013), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/wg5_final_report_7-22_dfo.pdf. 41 See CSMAC, Minutes of the CSMAC Meeting on July 24, 2013 at 68, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/0221ntia.pdf. The CSMAC had adopted an earlier version of the Working Group 1 Report at its February 21, 2013 meeting, but Working Group 1 had subsequently made revisions; see CSMAC, Minutes of the CSMAC Meeting on Feb. 21, 2013 at 43-44, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/0221ntia.pdf; see CSMAC, Minutes of the CSMAC Meeting on Aug. 28, 2013 at 42, 42, and 12, respectively, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/0828csmac_508_compliant.pdf. 42 See CSMAC, Separate Statement Concerning Working Group Reports for the 1755-1850 MHz Band Rev 1 (Aug 29, 2013), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/csmac_separate_statement-aug_29rev2.pdf. Other CSMAC members joined each of the three separate statements. 43 CSMAC, Separate Statement, Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Member CSMAC (Aug. 2013), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/furchtgott-roth-csmac_statement_080713_3.pdf. 11 effort” despite extreme budgetary challenges, and suggested that the conclusion that sharing is difficult “should surprise no one.” 44 Other Proposals for the 1755-1780 MHz Band In a letter to the FCC dated June 24, 2013, a group of wireless industry representatives presented a proposal for mobile broadband access to the 1755-1780 MHz band. In considering the entire 1755-1850 MHz band, the proposal would make 1755-1780 MHz available first, but would also address the 1780-1850 MHz segment of the band. 45 A July 17, 2013 letter from DOD’s Chief Information Officer to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information provided details for an alternative proposal to modify certain systems to operate in the 1780-1850 MHz band, the 2025-2110 MHz band, and several other existing federal bands. This proposal is expected to significantly enhance the industry’s ability to successfully deploy new mobile systems in the 1755-1780 MHz band, reduce the impact of such deployment on federal systems, and reduce estimated transition periods and costs. 46 CSEA Implementation and Transition Planning New and revised provisions of the CSEA enacted as part of the Tax Relief Act in 2012 expanded the types of relocation and sharing costs for which affected federal entities can receive payment from the Spectrum Relocation Fund. These include the costs of planning or managing a relocation or sharing arrangement, research, engineering studies, and economic analyses reasonably incurred in connection with estimating relocation or sharing costs, determining feasibility of relocation, or planning for or managing a relocation or sharing arrangement. The changes to the CSEA also required NTIA to establish a Technical Panel – comprised of members appointed by NTIA, the FCC and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), procedures for a Dispute Resolution Board, and a common format for federal agency transition plans. 47 In addition, the Tax Relief Act authorized OMB to make transfers to eligible federal entities from the Spectrum Relocation Fund to pay for relocation or sharing costs related to certain pre-auction activities. 48 44 CSMAC, Separate Statement of Janice Obuchowski (Aug 2, 2013), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/obuchowski_csamc_statement_5aug2013.pdf. 45 See Letter from Steve Sharkey, T-Mobile U.S., Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket Nos. 10-123, 07-195 (June 24, 2013), at Attachment, Industry Roadmap to Assessing the 1755-1850 MHz Band. 46 See Letter from Karl B. Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, NTIA, to Julius P. Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, FCC (July 22, 2013) (NTIA July 2013 Letter); see also id., Enclosure 1 (Letter from Teresa M. Takai, Chief Information Officer, DoD, to Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, NTIA, U.S. Dept. of Commerce (July 17, 2013)). 47 Tax Relief Act § 6701, 126 Stat. 245-252. 48 Id. § 6702, 126 Stat. 252-55. 12 In January 2013, NTIA released regulations governing the workings of the Technical Panel and the dispute resolution process, which Congress established to facilitate the relocation of federal operations or spectrum sharing with non-federal auction winners. 49 In May 2013, NTIA released a new edition of its Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management, which included a revision of Annex O, Relocation or Sharing by Federal Government Stations in Support of Reallocation. 50 The revised annex provides guidance and outlines procedures for developing federal agency transition plans. The annex includes a generic common format for the agencies to use for their transition plans, which may be updated or supplemented to reflect band- or service-specific information and guidance in connection with particular eligible frequencies. The transition planning process for the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands is well underway. On March 20, 2013, the FCC notified NTIA that it intended to commence an auction of licenses in the 1695-1710 MHz band and 1755-1780 MHz band as early as September 2014. 51 Subsequently, the FCC proposed rules for making the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands (collectively, AWS-3) available for commercial use. 52 The Tax Relief Act’s changes to the CSEA provide that each federal entity must submit its transition plan to NTIA and the Technical Panel no later than 240 days prior to the auction start date. 53 Accordingly, NTIA notified the federal agencies that they should plan for a September 20, 2014 auction start date for the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands, which means that each affected agency must formally submit to NTIA and the Technical Panel a complete transition plan no later than January 23, 2014. Then, the Technical Panel will submit to NTIA and to the federal entity a report on the sufficiency of the transition plan within 30 days after the submission of the plan. 54 NTIA must make the transition plans, with the exception of classified or other sensitive information, publicly available on its website no later than 120 days 49 NTIA, Relocation of and Spectrum Sharing by Federal Government Stations – Technical Panel and Dispute Resolution Boards, Final Rule, Docket No. 120620177-2445-02, 78 Fed. Reg. 5310 (Jan 25, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-25/pdf/2013-01564.pdf (Technical Panel Rules). 50 NTIA, Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management (May 2013 Edition) at Annex O, Relocation or Sharing by Federal Government Stations in Support of Reallocation, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/2011/manual-regulations-and-procedures-federal-radio-frequency-managementredbook (NTIA Manual). 51 Letter from Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, to Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (Mar. 20, 2013) available at http://go.usa.gov/2VR5. 52 See infra.at 20. 53 See 47 U.S.C. § 923(h)(1). 54 See id. § 923(h)(4)(A); see also Technical Panel Rules. If the Technical Panel finds that a federal entity’s plan is “insufficient,” the Technical Panel informs the affected federal entity and such entity has up to 90 days to submit a revised plan to NTIA and the Technical Panel. The panel would then have 30 days during which to determine whether the revised plan is sufficient. See Id. at § 301.120, 78 Fed. Reg. at 5316-17. 13 before the start date of the auction. 55 Pursuant to the CSEA, in August 2013, NTIA published a Notice of Inquiry seeking public input on the common format to be used for the eligible frequencies in these bands. 56 The four sets of comments provided to NTIA in response to the Notice focused on information and processes. 57 The commenters emphasized that potential bidders need sufficient technical and operational information on federal systems to accurately determine the value of licenses. This includes adequate granularity of geographic operations information, details on agency protection zones, and information on risk factors that could delay implementation. Process concerns included validation of agency information, data formats that facilitate automated analysis, coordination between potential bidders and agencies, and the use of “trusted agents” to make classified and sensitive information available to potential bidders. To assist affected agencies with transition planning, NTIA established a Transition Plan Working Group made up of agency representatives. The group provides a forum for NTIA, OMB, FCC, and the agencies to exchange information on what additional guidance may be necessary and how to resolve transition planning issues they have identified. 5350-5470 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz Bands In January 2013, NTIA published an initial study of 195 megahertz of spectrum in the 5 GHz range for U-NII devices. 58 The study, in response to the Tax Relief Act, evaluates known and proposed spectrum sharing technologies and the risk to federal users if U-NII devices were allowed to operate in these bands. The report concludes that further analysis is required on the mitigation of risk factors. The Tax Relief Act also required that the FCC begin a proceeding to allow U-NII devices to operate in the 5350-5470 MHz band. 59 In response, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in February 2013 proposing to make both the 53505470 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz bands available for U-NII device operation, while also modifying rules in 100 megahertz of existing 5 GHz unlicensed spectrum. 60 NTIA, in 55 See 47 U.S.C. § 923(h)(5). 56 NTIA, Common Format for Federal Entity Transition Plans, Notice of Inquiry, Docket No. 130809701–3701–01, 78 Fed. Reg. 50396 (Aug. 19, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-08-19/pdf/201320149.pdf. 57 The comments submitted on September 18, 2013 by CTIA-The Wireless Association, Mobile Future, T-Mobile USA, Inc., AT&T Inc., and Verizon Wireless (joint), and Comsearch are available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/2013/comments-common-format-federal-entity-transition-plans. 58 NTIA, Evaluation of the 5350-5470 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz Bands Pursuant to Section 6406(b) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Jan. 25, 2013), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_5_ghz_report_01-25-2013.pdf (5 GHz Report). 59 See Tax Relief Act at § 6406(b). 60 See Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (UNII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 13-49, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Feb. 20, 2013) (5 GHz 14 cooperation with federal and commercial interests and the FCC, is working in support of the Department of State’s International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) to further develop technical analysis of sharing techniques and potential mitigation requirements for the 5350-5470 MHz band. This work also supports technical studies in preparation for the 2015 World Radicommunication Conference (WRC-15). 61 Initial federal agency studies in the 5350-5470 MHz band indicate that U-NII devices would be compatible with spaceborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) systems in this band, provided that the U-NII devices operate mainly indoors, and that they employ certain other interference mitigation measures, including limits on power radiated in directions above the horizon. Studies assuming the use of these and other interference mitigation techniques, however, indicate that U-NII operations would not be compatible with airborne, ground-based and maritime radars. Reducing the U-NII device radiated power in this band to levels necessary for compatibility with federal radar systems would greatly reduce the range of the U-NII devices, unless these devices also operate in nearby frequency bands where radiated power is less constrained—a capability included in the pertinent industry standard. Domestic efforts to accommodate U-NII devices in the 5350-5470 MHz band, therefore, center on developing and validating interference mitigation techniques that U-NII devices would employ to protect federal radars, while maintaining the desired U-NII device operating range. 62 With respect to the 5850-5925 MHz band, instead of expending resources on traditional interference analysis that would certainly show the potential for harmful interference to other authorized users of Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC) systems, NTIA encouraged U-NII device manufacturers and representatives of the automobile industry to consider ways for their technologies to be interoperable, work cooperatively, or otherwise coexist with each other. NTIA continues to monitor discussions between auto industry and U-NII stakeholders in a working group of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802 standards committee. The IEEE 802.11 working group provides an international multi-stakeholder forum NPRM). The Tax Relief Act provides that the FCC may only take action to allow unlicensed U-NII devices to operate in the 5350-5470 MHz band if, in consultation with NTIA, it determines that “licensed users will be protected by technical solutions, including use of existing, modified, or new spectrum sharing technologies and solutions, such as dynamic frequency selection” and “the primary mission of Federal spectrum users in the 5350-5470 MHz band will not be compromised by the introduction of unlicensed devices.” See Tax Relief Act at § 6406(a)(2). 61 See 5 GHz Report at iii. Industry stakeholders include representatives of the wireless industry and the intelligent transportation community. 62 ITU, Radiocommunication Sector, U.S. contribution to Joint Task Group 4-5-6-7, Compatibility Studies Between Radio Local Area Network (RLAN) Systems and Aeronautical Airborne Radar Systems in the 5 350-5 460 MHz Band, Document 4-5-6-7/166, (July 16, 2013), available at http://www.itu.int/md/R12-JTG4567-C-0166/en, ITU, Radiocommunication Sector, U.S. contribution to Joint Task Group 4-5-6-7, Compatibility Studies Between Radio Local Area Network (RLAN) Systems and EESS (Active) Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Systems in the 5 350-5 470 MHz Band, Document 4-5-6-7/167, (July 15, 2013), available at http://www.itu.int/md/R12-JTG4567-C-0167/en. 15 that has already developed standards for both wireless local area networks and vehicular wireless commrmications. The meetings of the 802.11 DSRC Coexistence Tiger Team have been productive and hold signi?cant potential for successful collaboration and broad international implementation in this area. Plan for Quantitative Assessments of Spectrum Usage As noted above, the 2013 Presidential Memorandum directs NTIA, in consultation with the SPT and appropriate agencies, to include in this report a ?plan directing applicable agencies to provide quantitative assessments of the actual usage of spectrum? in prioritized bands from the Third Interim Report and in ?such other bands as NTIA and the SPT determine have the greatest potential to be shared with nonfederal users.?63 Appendix A to this report contains the Plan for Quantitative Assessments of Spectrum Usage. In the plan calls for the quantitative assessment of 960 megahertz of allocated for exclusive federal use or shared federal/non-federal use that NTIA previously identi?ed for potential repruposing. In developing this plan, NTIA and the SPT considered whether additional bands should be assessed based on their potential to be shared with non? federal users. the number and natrn?e of federal and non-federal systems, the teclmical suitability of the band. international implications. and the potential for relocating federal systems to comparable spectrum or otherwise enabling comparable capabilities.64 In light of the thorough evaluation and reevaluation of over 1,500 megahertz of spectrum since the release of the Ten- Year Plan and the reprioritization of selected bands set forth below, the bands shown in Table 2- 2 will be subject to the quantitative assessments: Table 2-2 Spectrum Bands Subject to Quantitative Assessment Frequency Band (NH-ll) Amount (megahertz1675-1695 20 2700-2900 200 2900-3100 200 3 100-3 550 450 Total 960 The plan requires agencies to verify system characteristics associated with their frequency assigmnents to enable calculation of the geographic coverage area used by these 63 2013 Presidential Memorandum at 64 Id. In accordance with Section 3(d) of the 2013 Presidential Memorandum. each agency?s regular ?ve- and ten- year assigrmrent reviews will also include quantitative assessments of the actual usage of spectrum for assigrmrents in other bands. Id. at 16 systems. The plan further requires each agency to provide the time of use, which together with the coverage area and other metrics, yields a more accurate approximation of the extent to which each system uses its assigned spectrum. The cumulative total of each agency’s uses within a range of frequencies and across systems will serve as its quantitative assessment for the particular band under review. In bands and locations where multiple agencies have systems, NTIA will aggregate this data in the summary called for by the 2013 Presidential Memorandum. In addition, agencies will provide information on projected increases in spectrum usage and needs. They will also identify where access to non-federal spectrum could aid in fulfilling agency missions. Finally, the plan includes a schedule for validating current assignment data and for delivering draft and final quantitative assessments to NTIA and the SPT. The agencies will have twelve months from the release of the plan to submit their final assessments. The information developed in these assessments will help NTIA and the SPT, in consultation with agencies and other stakeholders, determine the extent to which spectrum assigned to the agencies could be further evaluated for sharing with commercial users, particularly in major metropolitan areas. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the memorandum, NTIA shall release a summary of the assessments publicly to the extent consistent with law and existing safeguards for protecting classified, sensitive, and proprietary data. NTIA and the SPT will also make any appropriate recommendations regarding the possible availability of spectrum in the subject bands for innovative and flexible commercial uses, including broadband, taking into account factors such as the nature of the federal systems in the bands and the extent to which the quantitative assessments reveal how those systems occupy and use these bands. FCC Activities The FCC has also taken significant steps to make 500 megahertz of spectrum available for broadband by 2020. 65 Since the release of the Third Interim Report, the FCC has: • Created service, licensing, and technical rules for 10 megahertz of spectrum in the 19151920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands (H Block), and established procedures to auction the spectrum beginning in January 2014; • Authorized the terrestrial use of 40 megahertz of spectrum in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands (AWS-4); • Proposed to make 100 megahertz of spectrum available in the 3550-3650 MHz band for 65 As summarized in the Third Interim Report, the FCC modified its rules in October 2012 to facilitate wireless broadband deployment in 30 megahertz of spectrum from the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz WCS bands. See Third Interim Report at 10-11; Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules to Govern the Operation of Wireless Communications Services in the 2.3 GHz Band, WT Docket 07-293 and IB Docket No. 95-91, Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 13651 (2012). 17 introducing small cell and other technologies on shared basis with incumbent federal and commercial users; • Initiated a rulemaking proposing to make a number of bands available for flexible use wireless services, including 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz; • Continued working toward implementation of the incentive auction authority granted by Congress to repurpose broadcast spectrum on a voluntary basis for flexible use wireless services, including mobile broadband; and • Initiated a proceeding to make an additional 195 megahertz of spectrum available for unlicensed use in the 5 GHz band while proposing changes to the rules for 100 megahertz in existing 5 GHz U-NII bands to permit deployment of a new generation of wider bandwidth devices. AWS-4 and H Block On December 17, 2012, the FCC released a Report and Order establishing service and technical rules for terrestrial wireless broadband use of the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. 66 The AWS-4 Report and Order aimed to maximize the utility of the spectrum, consistent with the public interest, by enabling stand-alone flexible use terrestrial service in the 2 GHz mobile-satellite service band. To maximize the productive use of spectrum in the AWS-4 bands, the FCC adopted performance requirements that require the licensee to provide coverage and offer service to 40 percent of the aggregate population of its license area within four years, and 70 percent of the population in each Economic Area within seven years. 67 The AWS-4 Report and Order also included technical rules to protect the future use of the adjacent 1995-2000 MHz, for which the FCC proposed rules in the companion H Block proceeding. 68 On June 27, 2013, the FCC released a Report and Order establishing service, technical, and licensing rules for flexible use wireless services in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands. 69 The H Block Report and Order took the first step toward implementing the congressional directive in the Tax Relief Act to grant new initial licenses for this 10 megahertz of 66 Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz Bands, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC Rcd 16102 (2012) (AWS-4 Report and Order). 67 Id. at 16173-74 ¶¶ 187-188. 68 Id. at 16127-45 ¶¶ 64-100. See Service Rules for the Advanced Wireless Services H Block—Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands, WT Docket No. 12-357, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 16258 (2012) (H Block NPRM). 69 Service Rules for the Advanced Wireless Services H Block—Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 12-357, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 9483 (2013) (H Block Report and Order). 18 spectrum through a system of competitive bidding by February 2015. 70 Pursuant to a related requirement in the Tax Relief Act, the FCC’s H Block technical rules ensure that the spectrum can be used without causing harmful interference to commercial licensees in the 1930-1950 MHz band. 71 To maximize the productive use of the spectrum, the FCC adopted performance requirements that require licensees to provide coverage and offer service to 40 percent of the population in each license area within four years, and 75 percent of the population in each license area within ten years. 72 On September 13, 2013, the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) announced procedures and deadlines for the H Block auction and established a reserve price of $1.56 billion.73 The proceeds from the auction will be the first spectrum auction proceeds deposited in the Public Safety Trust Fund established by the Tax Relief Act. 74 3.5 GHz In December 2012, the FCC proposed making 100 megahertz of spectrum available for small cell use on a shared basis with federal and commercial incumbents in the 3.5 GHz band. 75 The 3.5 GHz NPRM followed NTIA’s Fast Track Report which identified the 3.5 GHz band for sharing, and a recommendation by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology regarding shared use of the 3.5 GHz band for systems employing small cell technology and other technologies. 76 The 3.5 GHz NPRM sought comment on the creation of a three-tiered licensing and access scheme managed by a dynamic database. 77 The first tier—Incumbent Access—would include only incumbent federal operations and incumbent Fixed Satellite Service operations. The second tier—Priority Access—would be open to critical use facilities such as hospitals and public safety facilities. The third tier—General Authorized Access—would be an open general access tier in which users could access the band on an opportunistic basis subject to protections 70 See Tax Relief Act § 6401(b)(2)(A)-(B), 47 U.S.C § 1451(b)(2)(A)-(B). 71 See id. § 6401(b)(4), 47 U.S.C § 1451(b)(4). 72 H Block Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 9558-59 ¶ 195. 73 Auction of H Block Licenses in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Bands Scheduled for January 14, 2014; Notice and Filing Requirements, Reserve Price, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 96, AU Docket No. 13-178, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 13019 (WTB Sept. 13, 2013). Additional information is available at http://wireless fcc.gov/auctions/default htm?job=auction_summary&id=96. 74 See Tax Relief Act § 6401(c)(4) (47 U.S.C.§ 309(j)(8)(F)). 75 Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, GN Docket No. 12-354, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 15594 (2012) (3.5 GHz NPRM). 76 See Fast Track Report at 1-4 to 1-8; PCAST, Report to the President: Realizing the Full Potential of GovernmentHeld Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth at 51 (July 2012), available at http://go.usa.gov/k27R. 77 3.5 GHz NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15612-15 ¶¶ 53-60. 19 of the other two tiers. The 3.5 GHz NPRM included a supplementary proposal to add an additional 50 megahertz to the band by incorporating 3650-3700 MHz, which is currently available for licensing on a non-exclusive nationwide basis. 78 The 3.5 GHz NPRM also sought comment on issues regarding coordinating with federal incumbents, and possible methods for reducing the exclusion zones proposed in NTIA’s Fast Track Report. 79 In March 2013, the FCC held a workshop to explore a number of the ideas raised in the 3.5 GHz NPRM. 80 The goal of the workshop was to bring together top innovators and thinkers in the small cell, database management, and spectrum sharing fields to discuss technological developments. The workshop explored small cell technology in the context of the 3.5 GHz band as well as database and dynamic spectrum sharing technologies that could be utilized to manage access to the band. 81 AWS-3 In July 2013, the FCC proposed rules for making the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands available for commercial use. 82 Under the Tax Relief Act, the Secretary of Commerce must identify 15 megahertz of spectrum between 1675 megahertz and 1710 megahertz to be reallocated from federal to non-federal use. 83 The FCC must identify, reallocate, auction, and license, under flexible service rules, certain spectrum bands for commercial use. These bands include 2155-2180 MHz, an additional contiguous 15 megahertz to be identified by the FCC, the 15 megahertz between 1675 megahertz and 1710 megahertz identified by NTIA. 84 With respect to the AWS-3 bands that are allocated for federal use, including 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz, the AWS-3 NPRM was informed by the work completed in the 78 Id. at 15620-22 ¶¶ 77-82. The 3650-3700 MHz band was reallocated from the Federal Government in response to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. See NTIA, Spectrum Reallocation Final Report, NTIA Special Publication 95-32 (Feb. 1995); Pub. L. No. 103-66, Title VI, 107 Stat. 312, 379 (Aug. 10, 1993). 79 3.5 GHz NPRM at 15629-36 ¶¶ 109-27. 80 FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology Announce Agenda for Workshop on the 3.5 GHz Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 12-354, DA 13-367, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 2251 (2013). An archived webcast of the workshop is available at http://www.fcc.gov/events/35-ghzworkshop. 81 In November 2013, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on a revised licensing framework and related technical issues, see Commission Seeks Comment on Licensing Models and Technical Requirements in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, GN Docket No. 12-354, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 15300 (Nov. 2013). 82 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz Bands, GN Docket No. 13-185, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order on Reconsideration, 28 FCC Rcd 11479 (2013) (AWS-3 NPRM). 83 Tax Relief Act § 6401(a)(3); 47 U.S.C § 1451(a)(3). 84 Id. § 6401(b); 47 U.S.C § 1451(b). 20 CSMAC, and anticipated that final FCC action would be informed by the recommendations in the final CSMAC reports. 85 The AWS-3 NPRM sought comment on ways to facilitate government clearing and or sharing in the 1755-1780 MHz band, including the alternative solution proposed by DOD that would result in many incumbent systems vacating the band and some relocating to the 2025-2110 MHz band, which would be shared with incumbent federal users and non-federal licensees. 86 The FCC plans to develop service, licensing, and technical rules for AWS-3 in order to hold an auction and issue initial licenses by February 2015. Broadcast Television Incentive Auction The Tax Relief Act granted incentive auction authority to the FCC, which it is currently implementing. 87 Since the release of NTIA’s Third Interim Report, the FCC developed a comprehensive record in response to the Incentive Auction NPRM. It has also issued several public notices and held a number of public workshops and webinars toward the development of broad policy and technical recommendations for conducting incentive auctions of the broadcast television bands. During the reporting period for this report, the FCC’s Incentive Auction Task Force has continued to plan for the television band repacking process to free up contiguous blocks of spectrum for mobile broadband use, worked with the broadcast and cable industries on transition planning and reimbursement issues, developed alternative band plan proposals, and conducted outreach and international coordination activities. 88 The new FCC Chairman expects the FCC to commence the incentive auction in the middle of 2015. 89 5 GHz Currently, U-NII devices operate in 555 megahertz of spectrum in the 5 GHz band, and are used for Wi-Fi enabled local area networks to connect smart phones, tablets and laptops to the broadband network. This spectrum also supports broadband services offered by Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs), particularly in rural areas. The Tax Relief Act specifically directed NTIA to examine the potential for expanded unlicensed use in the 5 GHz band and for 85 See AWS-3 NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 11480 ¶ 2. 86 Id. at 11514-15 ¶ 79. 87 Tax Relief Act § 6402; 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(8)(G). See Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Docket No. 12-268, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 12357 (2012) (Incentive Auction NPRM). In response to the NPRM, over 400 interested parties filed comments. See GN Docket No. 12-268. 88 See, e.g., Incentive Auction Task Force Update (Aug. 9, 2013), available at http://hraunfoss fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-322743A1.pdf; Incentive Auction Task Force Update (June 27, 2013), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0627/DOC-321880A1.pdf. 89 See Incentive Auction NPRM at 12362 ¶ 10; Wheeler, Tom, FCC Chairman, The Path to a Successful Incentive Auction (Dec. 6, 2013), available at http://www fcc.gov/blog/path-successful-incentive-auction-0. 21 the FCC to initiate a rulemaking in this regard. 90 In February 2013, the FCC issued the 5 GHz NPRM which proposed to make an additional 195 megahertz of spectrum available for unlicensed use in the 5 GHz band (a 35 percent increase). The FCC also proposed to revise and streamline its regulations to facilitate more robust use of 100 megahertz of the existing 5 GHz unlicensed, but noted that NTIA and certain federal agencies had identified the 5150-5250 MHz band as a comparable band to relocate aeronautical mobile telemetry systems to accommodate commercial wireless broadband services in the 17551850 MHz band. 91 Subsequently, NTIA submitted to the FCC the DOD alternative proposal that would remove from future consideration the 5150-5250 MHz band as a potential destination band for DOD aeronautical mobile telemetry systems, allowing greater flexibility in FCC decisions with respect to improving access to the 5 GHz band for unlicensed broadband devices. 92 Reevaluation and Reprioritization of Selected Bands During this reporting period, NTIA, in coordination with the PPSG, continued to reevaluate and prioritize the frequency bands previously identified for more detailed evaluation and potential repurposing. As a result of this reevaluation and the progress made in transitioning previously prioritized bands, NTIA modified the list of bands still under consideration for potential repurposing to exclusive non-federal use or shared federal/non-federal use. Table 2-3 below shows the band selection factors and their brief descriptors, which NTIA and the PPSG used to reevaluate the bands. Table 2-4 below provides the reprioritization results according to the categories and factors presented in Table 2-3, with adjustments to reflect the progress outlined above and further sharing studies. However, based on the results of the spectrum use quantification assessments, NTIA and the SPT will reconsider the prioritization of these bands. 90 Tax Relief Act § 6406, 47 U.S.C. § 1453. 91 See 5 GHz NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 1781 n.45. 92 See NTIA July 2013 Letter at Enclosure 1. See also NTIA April 2013 Letter at 3; Letter from Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, FCC, in ET Docket No. 13-49 (Feb. 19, 2013) at 3-4, available at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022126657; FCC, Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in ET Docket No. 13-49, 28 FCC Rcd 1769, 1781 n.45 (2013), available at http://hraunfoss fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-13-22A1_Rcd.pdf. 22 Table 2-3 Band-Selection Factors Non-federal/federal shared Non-federal exclusive use shared use (licensed use (unlicensed Wireless wireless services) devices) 0 Available bandwidth 0 Shared bandwidth 0 Shared bandwidth 0 Estimated revenue potential 0 Geographical coverage 0 Geographical coverage 0 Technology 0 Estimated revenue potential 0 Achievable within ten years 0 Comparable spectnun Teclmological complexity 0 Level of difficulty of . Relocation costs Achievable within ten years required intemational 0 Achievable within ten years LeVel 0f dif?cmty 0f ageememszk . Level of dif?culty of required international required international agreements* agreements* 0 Sharing cost Bands obligated by U.S.-Canada or U.S.-Mexico bilateral agreernent(s) will require international consideration if repurposed. Table 2?4 Reprioritization Results for Repurposing Federal and Shared Spectrum Bands Licensed non?federal Non?federal/federal Federal sharing w/ exclusive use bands shared use bands unlicensed devices 1. 2700-2900 1. 1300-1370 1. 5350-5470 2. 406.1-420 2. 1675-1695 2. 5850-5925 3. 1370-1390 3. 2700-2900 4. 4200-4400 4. 2900-3100 MHZ 5. 3100-3550 6. 1780-1850 First, NTIA removed the 1755-1780 MHZ portion of the 1755-1850 MHZ band from the list in Table 2-4 because agencies are in the transition plamring phase for this band segment pru?suant to the Ten- Year Plan.93 The 1780-1850 MHZ band was moved to the ?shared use? collurm in light of the recommendations of the SMAC the proposed industry roadmap, and the DOD proposal discussed above with regard to the dif?culties of clearing the entire 175 5- 1850 MHZ band and the need to compress certain systems in the upper part of the band. Due to the relocation of systems from 1755-1780 MHZ, the 1780-1850 MHZ band will see signi?cant change over the next few years. Therefore, for that band, applicable agencies will include in their regular five- and ten-year assigmnent reviews quantitative assessments of their spectrum usage.94 93 See en-Year Plan at 14-15. In the Third Interim Report. NTIA removed 1695-1710 and 3550-3650 bands ?om the list because they were similarly in the transition planning phase based on recommendation that the FCC take necessary regulatory actions to repurpose them. See Third Interim Report at 13. 4 9 See supra note 64. 23 Second, based on the results of a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) study, the PPSG agreed to remove the 2200-2290 MHz band from the previous list. The study assessed potential interference from terrestrial base station and user equipment transmitters operating in the 2200-2290 MHz band to a geostationary Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) satellite receiving data from the International Space Station (representative of an object in low Earth orbit). The study concluded that high-density terrestrial mobile operations would cause significant interference to TDRSS satellite receivers. 95 The international allocation to the mobile service in the 2200-2290 MHz band prohibits “high-density mobile systems.” 96 In ongoing ITU studies of candidate bands for mobile broadband in preparation for WRC-15, the member states expressed broad opposition to mobile broadband in this frequency band. 97 In light of the “technological complexity” and “achievable within ten years” band selection factors for shared use, this information strongly supports the PPSG’s decision to remove this band from consideration. Third, NTIA added back 50 megahertz of spectrum in the middle column onto the end of the 3100-3500 MHz band. Pursuant to the Ten-Year Plan, NTIA had prioritized the 35003650 MHz band for detailed evaluation for potential repurposing. 98 In the Fast Track Report, NTIA recommended reallocating 100 megahertz of the 3500-3650 MHz band (3550-3650 MHz) for wireless broadband use within five years. 99 Subsequently, NTIA added the 3100-3500 MHz band to the list of prioritized blocks of spectrum to consider and evaluate for repurposing for shared non-federal/federal use. 100 When NTIA removed 3550-3650 MHz from the list in Table 95 See ITU, Radiocommunication Sector, U.S. contribution to Joint Task Group 4-5-6-7, Proposed Updates to Preliminary Draft New Report ITU-R SA. [2 025-2 290 MHz], Document 4-5-6-7/337, (Oct. 14, 2013) at 27-28, available at http://www.itu.int/md/R12-JTG4567-C-0337/en. 96 See ITU, Radio Regulations, Vol I–Articles (Edition of 2012), at RR5-75 (Footnote 5.391) and -76, available at http://www.itu.int/pub/R-REG-RR/en. 97 See ITU, Radiocommunication Sector, Annex 9 to Joint Task Group 4-5-6-7 Chairman’s Report, Summary of Comments Received in Joint Task Group 4-5-6-7 Input Contributions Relating to Certain Frequency Bands Which May Be Considered Under WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.1, Annex 9 to Document 4-5-6-7/393, (Nov. 4, 2013) at 27-28, available at http://www.itu.int/md/R12-JTG4567-C-0393/en (ITU Candidate Bands), which, in support of possible additional mobile service allocations for mobile broadband at WRC-15, lists documents contributed to the ITU on this topic that provide studies or express views on the “appropriateness or inappropriateness” of frequency bands for mobile broadband. Based on quotations from contributions, administrations broadly oppose consideration of the 2200-2290 MHz band for mobile broadband, though some support studies of the issue. 98 See Ten-Year Plan at 10-11; See NTIA, First Interim Progress Report on the Ten-Year Plan and Timetable (Apr. 4, 2011) at 4, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/first_interim_progress_report_04012011.pdf. 99 See Fast Track Report at v. 100 See NTIA, Second Interim Progress Report on the Ten-Year Plan and Timetable (Oct. 17, 2011) at 8, Table 2-3, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/second_interim_progress_report_on_the_ten_year_plan_and_timetab le.pdf. 24 2-3 in the last interim report, it also removed the 3500-3550 MHz segment that NTIA had studied during the fast track analysis. 101 However, NTIA had based that analysis on its interest in seeking spectrum that it could repurpose predominantly for consumer uses in less than five years. Like the spectrum below it, 3100-3500 MHz, the 3500-3550 MHz band should be considered for sharing. Accordingly, as reflected in Appendix A, 3100-3550 MHz will be subject to the quantitative assessment. During the forthcoming year, the other bands listed in Table 2-3 will be subject to further evaluation and assessment. Specifically, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is exploring the feasibility of relocating radiosondes operations from the 16751680 MHz band to the 400 MHz band in order to accommodate terrestrial broadband transmitters. NOAA is also studying the potential impacts of such transmitters into weather satellite earth stations in the adjacent 1680-1695 MHz band. 102 As reflected in Appendix A, 1675-1695 MHz will be subject to the quantitative assessment to support the ongoing evaluation of sharing approaches for this and adjacent spectrum bands. In addition, the 4200-4220 MHz and 4380-4400 MHz bands appear to be less likely candidates for sharing with mobile broadband. As reported previously, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) performed some testing to demonstrate the potential impact of wireless broadband use on a shared basis with pulse radio altimeters. However, the level of performance degradation was difficult to ascertain. 103 International Telecommunication Union (ITU) member states and international aviation organizations opposed U.S. efforts toward international study of these bands. 104 Moreover, parallel international efforts are underway to introduce wireless sensors in these bands on aircraft as part of the Wireless Avionics Intra-Communications (WAIC) system. 105 Therefore, NTIA will ask the PPSG to reevaluate these bands for 101 See Third Interim Report at 13, Table 2-3. 102 The Administration’s proposed Fiscal Year 2014 budget proposes to direct the FCC to repurpose 16751680 MHz for wireless broadband use by 2017, subject to sharing arrangements with Federal weather satellites. See FCC, Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Estimates Submitted to Congress at 5 (Apr. 2013), available at http://hraunfoss fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-320096A1.pdf. 103 See Third Interim Report at 10. 104 See, e.g., ITU, Radiocommunication Sector, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) contribution to ITU-R Working Party 5B, ICAO Position for the WRC-15, Document 5B/337, (Oct.7, 2013) at 10, available at http://www.itu.int/md/R12-WP5B-C-0337/en (stating ICAO’s WRC-15 position in opposition to any new allocation to the mobile service in frequency bands allocated to aeronautical safety services, such as the aeronautical radionavigation service, to which the 4200-4400 MHz band is allocated, “[u]nless it has been demonstrated through agreed studies that there will be no impact on aeronautical services.” See also ITU Candidate Bands at 40. None of the other contributions address the 4200-4400 MHz band. 105 See ITU, Radiocommunication Sector, U.S. contribution to ITU-R Working Party 5B, Update to Working Document Towards Draft CPM Text for Agenda Item 1.17 (WAIC), Document 5B/410, (Nov. 12, 2013) at 4-5, available at http://www.itu.int/md/R12-WP5B-C-0410/en, where the United States proposes a frequency allocation in the 4200-4400 MHz band, limited to WAIC systems, as the sole “method” to satisfy the pertinent agenda item at 25 repurposing. The bands remain on the list in Table 2-3 but are not included in the plan for the quantitative assessment in Appendix A. International Activities Since early 2012, professional staff from NTIA, the FCC, the State Department, other federal agencies, and the telecommunications industry have been participating in domestic, regional, and international activities in preparation for WRC-15, which is scheduled to meet in November 2015 in Geneva, Switzerland. A key issue on the agenda for this conference will be “to consider additional spectrum allocations to the mobile service…to facilitate the development of terrestrial mobile broadband applications.” 106 In these preparations, NTIA works with the federal agencies to develop technical studies and proposed U.S. views in support of or in opposition to WRC-15 consideration of specific frequency bands for mobile broadband. Subsequently, NTIA and agency representatives work with industry and the FCC through the State Department to reach agreement on U.S. positions, as well as technical studies that support these positions. With encouragement from the United States, the ITU’s Radiocommunication Sector established Joint Task Group (JTG) 4-5-6-7 in January 2012 to oversee international preparations on this issue, bringing together representatives of four of its study groups. 107 The JTG is considering satellite, terrestrial, broadcasting, and science service interests in identifying appropriate bands for mobile broadband, based on contributions from member states and other ITU-R members. NTIA and the other U.S. interests are also participating in two working groups of ITU-R Study Group 5, Working Party 5A (land mobile service) and Working Party 5D (IMT systems), which have been given roles in determining spectrum requirements and suitable frequency ranges for mobile broadband and International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) systems. During this period, NTIA prepared for and participated in the second and third meetings of the JTG in November 2012 and July 2013. At these meetings, the JTG progressed sharing and compatibility studies on candidate frequency bands, and began developing a report to provide background material and possible “methods” for WRC-15 to decide on additional mobile service WRC-15. 106 See ITU, Radiocommunication Sector, Results of the first session of the Conference Preparatory Meeting for WRC-15 (CPM15-1), Administrative Circular CA/201, (Mar. 19, 2012) at Annex 1, Agenda for the 2015 World Radiocommunication Conference, ¶ 1.1, available at http://www.itu.int/md/R00-CA-CIR-0201/en. 107 See id. at Annex 10, CPM15-1 Decision on the Establishment and Terms of Reference of Joint Task Group 4-5-6- 7. 26 allocations. 108 During FY 2013, NTIA also participated in two meetings of Working Party 5A and three meetings of Working Party 5D, at which the groups completed their work in support of the JTG.109 3. CONCLUSION NTIA and the FCC, together with the federal agencies in the PPSG, are continuing to work diligently toward achieving the goals of the 2010 Presidential Memorandum through ongoing rulemaking proceedings and implementation of the Ten-Year Plan, applicable provisions of the Tax Relief Act, and the 2013 Presidential Memorandum. The focus for the next 12 months will be to engage industry and government stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition of the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands as the FCC approaches the auction for these bands. NTIA, the FCC, and affected federal agencies will continue to work with industry stakeholders to enable broadband wireless access to the 3550-3650 MHz band, and the 5 GHz bands. In addition, pursuant to the plan set forth in Appendix A, applicable agencies will be conducting quantitative assessments of their usage of spectrum in 960 megahertz of spectrum. Finally, NTIA, in cooperation with the FCC and the Department of State, will continue with preparations for WRC-15, seeking to expand opportunities for global access to spectrum for wireless broadband services and devices while studying new access methods based on sharing. 108 The JTG also held a fourth meeting in October 2013 to continue this work. The JTG scheduled its fifth and sixth meetings in February and June 2014, respectively. At these meetings, the JTG plans to complete its sharing and compatibility studies, as well as its report for WRC-15, see ITU, Radiocommunication Sector, Report on the Fourth Meeting of Joint Task Group 4-5-6-7, Document 4-5-6-7/393 (Nov. 27, 2013) at Annex 1, Work Plan on the Preparation of WRC-15 Agenda Items 1.1 and 1.2, available at http://www.itu.int/md/R12-JTG4567-C-0393/en. 109 See ITU, Radiocommunication Sector, Working Party 5A (WP 5A) - Land mobile service above 30 MHz (excluding IMT), wireless access in the fixed service, amateur and amateur-satellite services, available at http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/index.asp?category=study-groups&rlink=rwp5a&lang=en; ITU, Radiocommunication Sector, Working Party 5D (WP 5D) - IMT Systems, available at http://www.itu.int/ITUR/index.asp?category=study-groups&rlink=rwp5d&lang=en. 27 APPENDIX A PLAN FOR QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENTS OF SPECTRUM USAGE Introduction Section 3(a) of the 2013 Presidential Memorandum directs NTIA, in consultation with the SPT and appropriate agencies, to include in this Fourth Interim Progress Report a plan directing applicable agencies to provide quantitative assessments of the actual usage of spectrum in those spectrum bands that NTIA previously identified and prioritized in its Third Interim Report and such other bands as NTIA and the SPT determine have the greatest potential to be shared with non-federal users. As specified in the memorandum, each applicable agency shall prepare an assessment in accordance with such metrics and other parameters as are reasonably necessary to determine the extent to which spectrum assigned to the agency could potentially be made available for sharing with or release to commercial users, particularly in major metropolitan areas, without adversely affecting the agency’s missions, especially those related to national security, law enforcement, and safety of life. The memorandum further requires that each agency assessment include a discussion of projected increases in spectrum usage and needs and identify where access to non-federal spectrum could aid in fulfilling agency missions. Pursuant to the memorandum, each applicable agency shall submit its assessment to NTIA and the SPT within 12 months of the release of this plan. This plan calls for the quantitative assessment of 960 megahertz of spectrum from the five bands specified in Table A-1. To supplement the metrics and parameters already associated with their frequency assignments contained in the Government Master File (GMF), agencies shall submit additional data for each system’s individual transmitting and receiving stations as necessary for developing an accurate approximation of the extent to which each system is actually using the spectrum. The data includes parameters for time, spectrum (frequency and bandwidth), and geographic area that can be used to project the coverage area and time of use for each operation and to determine sharing potential. The plan provides guidance for assessing the variety of fixed, mobile, and transportable transmitting stations, the different types of geographic assignments, and receive-only stations. It identifies the data elements for each station that applicable agencies must submit, review, and verify. NTIA will assist the applicable agencies throughout their assessments and compile and summarize the data from their quantitative assessments. While the agency assessments will not be based on measured data of actual day-to-day operations, agency assignment data regarding time of use will be significantly improved to more accurately determine expected usage in particular geographic locations. NTIA and the SPT will use the compilation of the data resulting A-1 from the quantitative assessments to identify the bands to be considered for more detailed sharing feasibility studies, and potentially for government/ industry collaborative efforts.1 This plan also seeks information from the applicable agencies on their projected increases in spectrum usage as well as detailed information regarding any non-federal bands in which agency operations could be performed to aid in ful?lling their missions. Finally, the plan sets forth the target dates and deliverables for the agency assessments. Frequency Bands for Quantitative Assessments NTIA has identi?ed the frequency bands in Table A-1 to be subject to the quantitative assessments. NTIA will provide matrices of assigrnnent data for the bands identi?ed in Table A-1 to each applicable agency, including allocations and ?'equency assigrnnents (by agency and application) for all systems operating in the band and that are plarmed to operate in the band e. certi?cation information for systems going through that process). Each agency will then validate its assigrnnent information. Table A-1. Federal and Shared Spectrum Bands for Quantitative Assessment Frequency Amount Current Allocation/U sage Federal Agencies with Assignments Band (megahertz) (federal, non-federal, in the Frequency Band2 shared) 1300-1390 90 federal AF, AR, DHS, FAA, MC N, NASA 1675-1695 20 federal/non-federal shared AF, AR, DOC, DOE, MC, N, NASA . AF, AR, DOC, DOE, FAA, MC, N, 2700-2900 200 federal AS A, NSF AF, AR, CG, DHS, DOC, DOE, 2900-3100 200 federal/non federal shared EPA, FAA, N, AS A, OT 3100-35505 450 federal/non-federal shared AF, AR, 290 Sub-total, federal 670 Sub-total, federal/non?federal shared 960 Total 1 NTIA would conduct a more detailed evaluation based on technical. operational. and cost considerations to ascertain whether or not particular bands can be repurposed. See en-Year Plan at 12-13. 2 The table of acronyms and abbreviations in Appendix includes these agency abbreviations. 3 NTIA assessed the 3500-3550 band with the 3550-3 650 band in the Fast Track Report. determining that the 50 megahertz is necessary to ensure adjacent channel protection of federal systems. NTIA based its reconmrerrdatiorr to reallocate the 3550-3650 band for geographic sharing on establishing this 50 megahertz guardband. A-2 NTIA included the 1780-1850 MHz band in its prioritization in Third Interim Report, but due to the reallocation of the 1755-1780 MHz band, systems and frequency assignments will be changing for a period of time, making an accurate representation of usage in this band impossible in the short term. After the transition is completed, quantitative information on the use of spectrum for this band will be provided as agencies conduct regular five- and ten-year assignment reviews and for new assignments, based on methodologies that will be developed, agreed upon, and included as part of the NTIA assignment review process going forward. Metrics and Parameters for Quantitative Assessments Many of the metrics and parameters that are necessary to determine the extent to which spectrum assigned to or used by the agencies from the five bands under review are already contained in the GMF, which is updated on a weekly basis. 4 The GMF contains records of all NTIA authorized federal frequency assignments in the bands identified above for the quantification assessments. The assignments contained in the GMF will be used by federal agencies as the basis for their quantitative assessments in accordance with the particulars of those assignments. 5 All federal agencies must maintain a program of continuing review of its assignments and shall delete or amend such assignments as appropriate. 6 Generally, the number and type of frequency assignments in the frequency bands under review provide a measure of only the potential usage in that band by applicable federal agencies, but this number and the distribution of assignments among these specific agencies do not necessarily serve as an accurate reflection of their actual usage. An individual frequency assignment in the bands under review may also represent a single system or multiple systems. Each assignment might be for a single location or link with a transmit and a receive location, for a specified radius of authorized operation, or for use across large areas such as statewide, regional, in the conterminous United States, or the entire United States and Possessions. 7 The current GMF data for the bands under review do not include all of the information and data necessary for the accurate quantification of spectrum use by the applicable agencies. For example, depending on the frequency band, some frequency assignment records in the GMF do not include information regarding the amount of time the systems operate. Specifically, the “Time” (TME) data field in the GMF frequency assignment records describes the time during which it is intended that the frequency will be either guarded (monitored) or used for 4 See NTIA Manual at Section 8.1.1. While not available to the public, the GMF is available to the FCC and other federal agencies. 5 Id. at Section 7.2. 6 Id. at Section 8.2.6. 7 Id. at Section 7.3.3 and Section 9.8.2 ¶¶ 21, 30, and 39. A-3 transmissions Nor does the GMF include receive stations that operate in the 1675-1695 MHZ band because NTIA does not require frequency assigrnnents for them. Accordingly, GIVEF records of each agency?s authorizations, supplemented by information on the receive stations, will serve as the foundation or starting point for each quanti?cation assessment. NTLA will provide the available data for agency review and veri?cation. Each applicable agency must review, update, and supplement the information, including the relevant data ?elds that indicate the normal period of time dru?ing which the agency uses the ??equency to satisfy its operational requirements.9 NTIA will work with each agency to develop a feasible approach to accru?ately re?ect the time of use parameter based on the nature of each system and its mission requirements. For example, each agency could provide GMF TME data based on the annual, weekly, and daily values set forth in the NT IA Manual or as proxies for the daily use percentages listed in Table A-2. While resource-intensive monitoring or logging of actual transmissions will not be necessary based on the primary purpose of these assessments, the time of use parameter should represent, at a minimum, the agency?s best approximation of the percentage of time of actual use, and not the expected time period (or percentage) access might be required or system tests are occruring. 10 Each agency should include a description of how it addresses time of use variations. Table A-2. Guidance on Time of Use TME Field Description of Actual Percentage of Time Frequency is Used per Entry Use Day 1 Constant or nearly Intermittent 1 to 10 4 Sporadic/occasional Less than 1 Tables A-3 and A-4 below surmnarize the additional parameters and data elements for the transmitting and receiving stations necessary for this plan in the bands subject to quantitative assessment. Each agency needs to wane that these parameters and elements are accru?ately re?ected. Each agency shall review, verify, update, or supplement the data elements contained in Table A-3 for transmitting stations operating in the bands under review. Each applicable 8 Id. at Section 9.8.2 11 19. describing the four character ?eld. The period indicated is not a limitation or restriction. but rather the normal period of time during which the frequency is required to satisfy the agency?s operational requirements. 9 Each GMF frequency assignment record provides for a four character ?eld. but this ?eld is currently not required for the frequency bands subject to this quantitative assessment. 10 Time of use may be quanti?ed for periods of active transmissions or. for receive-only systems such as passive sensors. for the periods of actual reception or operation. Each agency should base this usage information on actual access and availability needs critical to mission or operational requirements. A-4 agency needs to ensure that these ?elds are accru'ately represented. Each applicable agency shall provide the data elements contained in Table A-4 for receiving stations operating in the bands rmder review. Table A-3. Transmitter Data Elements Parameter Units Frequency Megahertz Latitude and longitude Degrees/Minutes/ Seconds Transmitter necessary bandwidth Hertz Transmitter power Watts Transmit mainbeam antenna gain Decibels referenced to an isotropic antenna Transmit antenna height Meters Area of operation (for mobile and transportable systems): Radius of operation defming area of operation Kilometers Latitudes and longitudes de?ning area of operation Degrees/Minutes/ Seconds Authorized defming area of operation Armex Pulse width (for pulsed systems) Microseconds Pulse repetition interval (for pulsed systems) Microseconds Table A-4. Receiver Data Elements Parameter Units Frequency Megahertz Latitude and longitude Degrees/Minutes/ Seconds Intermediate frequency receiver 3 dB bandwidth Hertz Receive mainbeam antenna gain Decibel referenced to an isotropic antenna Receive antenna gain pattern Decibel referenced to an isotropic antenna as a ?mction of off-axis angle in degrees Receive antenna height Meters Receive antenna azimuth angle Degrees Receive antenna minimum elevation angle Degrees Based on each agency?s assessment of the most up-to-date and accru'ate parameters and data elements as set forth above, the key metric that NTIA will derive ?'om such data will be the cumulative Total Spectrum Usage. For the purpose of the quantitative assessments directed by this plan, Total Spectrum Usage would represent the percentage of time the authorized systems within a geographic area transmit or receive on a frequency and bandwidth. Speci?cally, in order to derive this metric, NTIA will use the veri?ed information provided by each agency to See NTIA Manual at Annex G. which contains abbreviations used for the transmitter and receiver state ?elds in the GMIF. first project the actual bandwidth utilized and area of coverage for each operation. The bandwidth and coverage area will reflect the geographic coverage of each system, and will also indicate the frequencies and the area in which the agency’s system is operational. For each fixed transmitting station in the bands under review, the necessary spectrum and geographic parameters to be verified and assessed include the station’s latitude and longitude, center frequency, necessary bandwidth, power, antenna gain, and antenna height for each frequency assignment. For pulsed signals at a fixed station, each agency must review and verify the pulse width and pulse repetition interval. Each applicable agency must review and verify the authorized area of operation for each mobile and transportable station assignment, which may include the radius of operation around a specific point (latitude and longitude) or other specific coordinates (e.g., northeast and southwest corners of a rectangular area). As part of the assessment, NTIA will work with each agency to develop a feasible approach to accurately reflect its actual area of operations. For example, each agency would consider whether the authorized area of operation for a frequency assignment accurately reflects the area covered by mobile and transportable stations or the approximate extent of expected usage that actually occurs in the covered area. Some frequency assignments in the bands under review authorize operation on a nationwide or statewide basis. In reviewing its nationwide and statewide frequency assignments, each applicable agency would, to the extent practicable, specify locations or areas within which its operations actually occur. This could include a breakdown of operational activities by county or other area (e.g., within a radius surrounding a particular point) associated with the time of use parameter discussed above at each specific location. For receive-only stations for which there is no data or incomplete data in the GMF, each applicable agency that operates such a station in the bands under review must submit the information listed in Table A-4 by creating a new record in the GMF using the Frequency Assignment Subcommittee (FAS) frequency application procedures. The GMF does not include data fields for many of the receiver parameters needed for the quantitative assessment. If a GMF data field does not exist, each applicable agency would insert the receiver data parameter in the CIRCUIT REMARKS field of the new assignment record. This information is intended to account for the receivers currently operating in these bands as a result of each agency’s data validation process. Percentage of Population Calculation NTIA will calculate the estimated percentage of use per population based on the methodology described below and provide its draft compilation and summary of the agency quantitative assessments to the agencies and SPT for review. To determine quantitative use based on the data compiled from the applicable agencies, NTIA will use the validated GMF data and other information to determine bandwidth and geographic area around the various frequency A-6 assignments. NTIA will perform calculations to estimate the total percentage of population affected by all of the federal frequency assignments in a given area based on the 2010 U.S. Census data available from the Census Bureau’s Gazetteer web page at http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/gazetteer2010.html. NTIA will calculate the estimated population percentage for a given area by taking the center coordinates for the locations of each of the federal frequency assignments and determining the places that fall within the overlapping geographic areas, computed using the compiled GMF data. The total percentage of population affected will be the summation of the population of the individual locations that fall within the geographic area divided by the entire population for a given area. Additional Agency Considerations that Impact Quantitative Assessment of Spectrum Use While the quantitative assessments can assist in representing the use of the spectrum, the nature of the federal operations and mission requirements may directly impact the risks associated with sharing considerations. For example, while some federal systems may operate intermittently, these systems may support critical national security applications, which require high spectrum availability. The missions of many federal agencies require that spectrum be available when an incident or operation occurs. Each applicable agency should note that when it provides the time of use information, it should include any additional mission-related factors that NTIA and the SPT should consider, such as indication of safety of life related operations. Protection of Classified Data As specified in the 2013 Presidential Memorandum, NTIA will release a public summary of the quantitative assessments. Consistent with the applicable regulations, NTIA will work with each applicable federal agency to ensure that any release of data protects classified, sensitive, and proprietary data. Agency Projections for Future Spectrum Usage Each agency with current operations in the bands under review, along with any agency expecting to deploy, change, or cease operations in the bands over the next ten years, must report on this projected usage, termination, and future developments. Each applicable agency should provide information regarding planned new uses, expected expansion of current uses, and potential relocation or cessation of use, projecting where and when these future uses or changes would increase or decrease its spectrum usage in the bands under review. Access to Non-Federal Spectrum Each agency conducting the assessment required under the 2013 Presidential Memorandum shall identify where access to non-federal spectrum could aid in fulfilling its mission. Each applicable agency must submit any relevant information regarding its potential use of non-federal bands, including, but not limited to, the frequency band(s), a detailed A-7 description of the operations that would be conducted in such band(s), the geographic area(s) over which such operations will be performed, and the estimated percentage of time the band(s) would be used. Schedule and Deliverables for Agency Assessments This plan requires each agency to review, verify, and update the relevant GMF data in order for NTIA to compile the fmal quantitative assessments of the bands under review and submit the results to the SPT by May 29, 2015. Table A-5 below provides the target dates and deliverables associated with this plan. Table A-5 Target Dates and Deliverables Target Date Deliverable June 5. 2014 NTIA publishes this plan as part of Fourth Interim Progress Report. July 7. 2014 Of?ce of Spectrum Management (OSM) provides each applicable agency additional detailed instructions. including guidance on the methodology to be used in performing the quantitative assessment. along with a list of frequency assigrnnents in the bands identi?ed in this plan. August 8. 2014 Each agency reviews and veri?es that each frequency assignment listed by OSM is subject to this quantitative assessment as described above. January 5. 2015 After veri?cation. each agency updates the information for any assignments omitted from the list. and for any station. system. or facility using or authorized to use the bands identi?ed in this plan that is not included in the GMF data or does not otherwise require an assigrmrent from NTIA receivers) consistent with the data elements included in Tables A-3 and A-4 to this Appendix. For each assignment. the agency will provide the estimated percentage of time using the guidance provided in Table A-2. The agency may provide any additional mission-related factors NTIA should consider. May 5. 2015 NTIA calculates the estimated percentage of use per population and provides its draft compilation and srunmary of the quantitative assessments to the applicable agencies for review. June 5. 2015 Each applicable agency reviews compilation/summary and submits its fnial quantitative assessment to NTIA and the SPT consistent with this plan and any further instructions and guidance. A-8 APPENDIX B ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AF Air Force AR Army AWS Advanced Wireless Services CG Coast Guard CSEA Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act CSMAC Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee DHS Department of Homeland Security DOC Department of Commerce DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy DOT Department of Transportation DSRC Dedicated Short-Range Communications EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FCC Federal Communications Commission FAS Frequency Assignment Subcommittee GHz gigahertz GMF Government Master File IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization IMT International Mobile Telecommunications ITAC International Telecommunication Advisory Committee ITU International Telecommunication Union JTG Joint Task Group JTRS Joint Tactical Radio System LTE Long Term Evolution MC Marine Corps MHz megahertz N Navy B-1 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NSF National Science Foundation NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration OMB Office of Management and Budget OSM Office of Spectrum Management PCAST President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology PPSG Policy and Plans Steering Group RLAN Radio Local Area Network SAR synthetic aperture radar SPT Spectrum Policy Team TME TIME TDRSS Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System TRR tactical radio relay U-NII Unlicensed-National Information Infrastructure WAIC Wireless Avionics Intra-Communications WCS Wireless Communications Service WISP Wireless Internet Service Provider WTB Wireless Telecommunications Bureau WRC-15 2015 World Radiocommunication Conference B-2 From: To: Mark Crosby Not Responsive ; Larry Alder; Not Subject: Date: Attachments: Responsive NTIA Spectrum Usage Quantification Plan Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:50:47 AM CSMAC Measurement Recommendations 2014 0911 v2.pptx All … in anticipation of the Q/M Subcommittee’s teleconference meeting this afternoon at 1:00 p.m. ET – dial Not Responsive , pass code Not # - attached Responsiv you will find draft responses to the questions the subcommittee has received from NTIA.  We look forward to your participation this afternoon.  Thanks, Mark C   Jennifer … to access this teleconference, please dial Not Responsive , and then provide pass code Not # when prompted … Mark C   Responsiv From: Mark McHenry [mailto:mmchenry@sharedspectrum.com] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:17 AM To: Not Responsive ; Larry Alder; Not Responsive Subject: RE: NTIA Spectrum Usage Quantification Plan   All, Here is an initial set of recommendations to the NTIA measurement questions. Please provide suggestions and comments. Thanks, --Mark From: Mark Crosby [mailto:mark.crosby@enterprisewireless.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:36 PM To: Not Responsive ; Larry Alder; Not Responsive Subject: NTIA Spectrum Usage Quantification Plan   M/Q Subcommittee … please see the attached document from Edward Drocella as discussed during today’s meeting … Mark C   From: Edward Drocella [mailto:EDrocella@ntia.doc.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:29 PM To: Mark Crosby Subject: NTIA Spectrum Usage Quantification Plan   Not Responsive Draft CSMAC Measurement Working Group Recommendations Use of General Occupancy Measurements of and Quantification of Federal Spectrum Use September 11, 2014 NTIA Spectrum Measurement Background Info • Recognizing the varied and in many cases mobile federal operations, how can agencies best quantify their actual spectrum use, and what metrics and other parameters would be reasonably necessary, to determine the extent to which spectrum assigned to the agency could potentially be made available for sharing with or release to commercial users, particularly in major metropolitan areas, without adversely affecting agencies’ missions, especially those related to national security, law enforcement, and safety of life. (See 6/14/13 PM Sec. 3(a)) • We could study the use of occupancy measurements in concert with databases to help quantify federal spectrum use. We could also investigate the feasibility of polls and surveys to help better characterize the database information. This is more or less how we conducted these measurements for the systems currently under study. • • • • • • • CSMAC Response to Question 1: Question: How may general occupancy measurements be performed to reflect or validate actual federal spectrum use (particularly radars and intermittent operations) in a way that can support spectrum management decisions regarding relocation or sharing of spectrum? (See 6/14/13 Executive Memorandum at Sec. 3(c) and NTIA 8/19/13 Notice of Inquiry) The CSMAC recommends that: The general occupancy measurements objective should be to determine how much spectrum could be shared with incumbent systems. The measurements would approximately determine the number of transmitters, locations, number of channels used, modes typically in use, time-of-day use, etc. NTIA should analyze each radio type being considered for reallocation and assess if the measurement detection probability is so low that measurements would be ineffective for the above objective. For example, there are missile destruct and other critical receive only links with very low transmission duty cycles. The usage of these systems should be examined using present analytic techniques. The general occupancy measurements should be made incrementally to support different phases of the spectrum reallocation process. The duration and the geographic scope of the measurements should increase as the process evolves. The purpose/triggers for measurement activity are: – Level 1: To inform the process of identifying and prioritizing bands for potential relocation or sharing. These measurements would be made at a few locations for several days to determine the typical spectrum usage. – Level 2: For targeted bands, to determine the scope and technical feasibility of transitional or long-term sharing – Level 3: For bands identified for relocation or sharing, to inform commercial users (auction bidders). These measurements would be made in all high priority Protection Zones at multiple locations (5 to 10) over long periods (3 to 6 months) to provide a comprehensive and detailed estimate of what the legacy transmitter spatial and temporal characteristics. The NTIA should develop a multi-tier approach to release the data that accommodates security concerns. The detailed measurement data should be released to a limited group that are actively considering providing service in the specific areas. NTIA should investigate data processing methods to obscure critical measurement features (i.e. waveform type , specific frequencies, etc) and maintaining received power level, approximate location and time of day to enable public releasable data. For example, the amplitude probability distribution of received power in 4 hours blocks over frequency range blocks could be provided, along with annotation that the source was an airborne transmitters which would provide significant information for spectrum sharing analysis, but would reveal much less about the DoD systems. The NTIA should analyze the measurement data to extrapolate the usage in the future. NTIA should associate the measurements with specific systems and annotate that this system was scheduled to relocate out of the band and should not be considered, or that this system is expected the be deployed more in the future at this base, or that a new system is expected to operate in this band. CSMAC Response to Question 2: • Question: Recognizing resource limitations and the lack of real-time reporting of use built within the federal radio infrastructure, how should actual federal spectrum use be quantified with or without supplemental occupancy measurements? (See 6/14/13 PM Sec. 3(a) and (d)) • The CSMAC recommends that: • NTIA not try to measure federal spectrum use. There are no clear metrics to measure spectrum use. This no clear way to cross compare spectrum use of different system types. Because of the diversity of DoD system types and scattered locations, measurements would be very expensive and controversial. • Instead, NTIA should focus on measurements that enable spectrum sharing (see previous questions). NTIA should rank federal spectrum ‘usage’ on the amount that the federal usage blocks high value commercial usage. From: To: Subject: Date: Mark Crosby Antonio Lavarello Re: M/Q Subcommittee Meeting Notes (September 10) Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:56:18 AM Not Responsive ----- Reply message ----From: "Antonio Lavarello" To: "Mark Crosby" Subject: M/Q Subcommittee Meeting Notes (September 10) Date: Wed, Sep 24, 2014 8:49 AM Not Responsive Antonio P. Lavarello Electronics Engineer U.S. Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration 1401 Constitution Ave, NW Room 6725 Washington, DC 20230 Phone:  (202) 482-4097 E-mail:  alavarello@ntia.doc.gov From: Mark Crosby [mailto:mark.crosby@enterprisewireless.org] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:11 PM To: Not Responsive Larry Alder; Not Responsive Subject: M/Q Subcommittee Meeting Notes (September 10) All … attached you will find the meeting notes from yesterday’s Q/M Subcommittee meeting. Please contact me or Mark McHenry if you have any questions in the interim.  Thank you, Mark C Not Responsive   From: Mark Crosby [mailto:mark.crosby@enterprisewireless.org] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 11:18 AM To: Not Responsive ; Larry Alder; Not Responsive Subject: FW: Mark-Up of M&Q's slide   This serves to forward Jennifer’s redline (see attached) and comments to the entire Q/M Subcommittee … Please review and submit any further edits to my attention so that we may prepare a revised draft … thanks, Mark   Not Responsive Not Responsive From: Mark Crosby [mailto:mark.crosby@enterprisewireless.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:31 PM To: Antonio Lavarello Cc: Not Responsive Subject: Measurement - Quantification Subcommittee Members + Emails ; Larry Alder; Not Respo   Antonio … as promised, and note that CSMAC Co-Chairs Larry Alder and Mark Gibson receive all communications as ex officio members of the Measurement/Quantification Subcommittee.  Please let me know if you need anything further in the interim. … Mark From: To: Subject: Date: Gabor Molnar Arthur Webster Re: [VQEG] - Participation in VQEG"s January 21-25 meeting in Boulder, CO USA Friday, December 20, 2013 2:12:33 PM Dear Arthur, Many thanks for the invitation. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend. The main reason is that I found a dissertation topic - and this topic is not tied to video quality. I landed some research money from Google and my area of focus now involves the empirical analysis of ultra high speed Internet service deployments - to study performance and economic impact. Not Responsive Best regards, Gabor   On 12/20/2013 12:43 PM, Arthur Webster wrote: Dear Colleagues, Not Responsive Yours truly,   Arthur From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Arthur Webster Gabor Molnar Arthur Webster RE: [VQEG] - Participation in VQEG"s January 21-25 meeting in Boulder, CO USA Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:07:58 AM Dear Gabor,   I’m glad to hear from you. It is great that you have some funding from Google. That should be very interesting. Not Responsive   Yours truly,   Arthur   From: Gabor Molnar [mailto:Gabor.Molnar@Colorado.EDU] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 2:12 PM To: Arthur Webster Subject: Re: [VQEG] - Participation in VQEG's January 21-25 meeting in Boulder, CO USA   Dear Arthur, Many thanks for the invitation. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend. The main reason is that I found a dissertation topic - and this topic is not tied to video quality. I landed some research money from Google and my area of focus now involves the empirical analysis of ultra high speed Internet service deployments - to study performance and economic impact. Not Responsive Best regards, Gabor   On 12/20/2013 12:43 PM, Arthur Webster wrote: Dear Colleagues, Yours truly, Arthur From: To: Subject: Date: Tricia Paoletta USWP6A Terrestrial broadcasting delivery RE: Further comments on Rec. ITU-R BS/BT.1895 Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:30:45 AM In light of WRC-15 AI 1.1 and 1.2, and the agreed prep process for those items, Mike’s proposed revision to clarify the title of 1895 would be helpful so administrations don’t have a mistaken understanding of what documents govern recommended protection criteria.  Google supports #07.   Not Responsive 6 Pages Withheld in their entirety as Not Responsive to the Request. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Arthur Webster Sam John Arthur Webster; Kjell Brunnstrom RE: Joining VQEG email reflector Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:55:18 AM Dear Sam,   I have added you to those lists.   Yours truly,   Arthur From: Sam John [samjohn@google.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:24 AM To: Arthur Webster Subject: Joining VQEG email reflector Hi, I am interested in subscribing to the following VQEG groups. Please add my email to the same. Main list: ituvidq       Monitoring of Audio Visual Quality by Key Indicators: moav       Hybrid perceptual/bitstream project: hybrid Thanks Sam John April 7, 2014 Ex Parte Marlene H. Dortch Secretary, Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 13-49 Dear Ms. Dortch: On April 3, 2014, Alan Norman of Google Inc., Andy Scott of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Mary Brown of Cisco Systems, Inc. and I met with Julius Knapp, Mark Settle, Karen Rackley, and Aole Wilkins of the Office of Engineering and Technology, regarding the above-captioned proceeding. Specifically, we discussed the attached paper that analyzes the potential for interference to incumbent systems in the U-NII-2B band and identifies methods of protecting incumbent systems. Pursuant to the Commission’s rules, this letter is being submitted for inclusion in the public record of the above-captioned proceeding. Sincerely, /s/ Paul Margie Paul Margie Counsel to Google Inc. cc: Meeting participants Enclosure The incumbent services in the 5350 – 5470 MHz band are Earth Exploration Satellite Service (active), Radiolocation Service, Aeronautical Radionavigation Service, and Space Research Service (active). Recent studies have suggested that even with Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS) and significant restrictions on usage and power, RLAN devices may not be able to protect these incumbent services. This paper shows that RLANs can protect incumbent services in the 5350 – 5470 MHz band by operating with location aware Access Points (AP’s) capable of querying a centralized database. The database provides each AP with an authorization ticket indicating under what conditions it can operate in the band at its location, and with what transmit power restrictions. Tickets have a three hour life. Only RLAN devices connected to an AP with a valid ticket can operate in the 5350 – 5470 MHz band, and only to the extent authorized by the ticket. The ticket specifies the maximum RLAN transmit power (dBm), as a function of time, under two conditions: 1) when the RLAN operates with an AP having a real time connection to a Dedicated Listening Device (DLD) monitoring its area, and 2) when the RLAN operates with an AP that is not connected to a DLD. The database is updated with protection zone schedules provided by government agencies and with orbital information for satellites operating in the EESS (active). The protection zone schedules define a geographic area and the RLAN transmit power limits under the two conditions as a function of time. As the tickets have limited, three hour life, changes to protection zones are fully implemented within three hours. Orbit information for EESS (active) satellites is either provided by the satellite operator, or obtained from publicly available databases. The database propagates the orbital information and combines it with an elevation/azimuth map for that particular satellite’s antenna to determine areas, as a function of time, where RLAN transmit powers are limited to +17 dBm [TBR] in the 5350 – 5470 MHz band. Using databases, RLAN operations completely protect incumbent services. Just as TV White Space databases operate today, database providers would not charge protected entities (government agencies and EESS (active) operators) for registration. Rather, unlicensed device makers/operators would pay for access to the database. Also, as with TV White Space databases, all interfaces would be standardized by industry. The interfaces described in this document are intended as a starting point for that process. 1 1 Incumbent Services The ITU R allocations for the 5350 – 5470 MHz band are shown in Table 1. The 5350 – 5460 MHz segment is allocated to the Earth Exploration Satellite Service (active), the Radiolocation Service, the Aeronautical Radionavigation Service, and the Space Research Service (active) on a co primary basis. The 5460 – 5470 MHz segment is allocated to the Earth Exploration Satellite Service (active), the Radiolocation Service, the Radionavigation Service, and the Space Research Service (active) on a co primary basis. Table 1 – ITU R Table of Frequency Allocations (5350 – 5470 MHz) 5 350 5 460 MHz EARTH EXPLORATION SATELLITE (active) 5.448B RADIOLOCATION 5.448D AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION 5.449 SPACE RESEARCH (active) 5.448C EARTH EXPLORATION SATELLITE (active) RADIOLOCATION 5.448D RADIONAVIGATION 5.449 SPACE RESEARCH 5 460 5 470 MHz 5.448B The Earth exploration-satellite service (active) operating in the band 5350 - 5570 MHz and space research service (active) operating in the band 5460 - 5570 MHz shall not cause harmful interference to the aeronautical radionavigation service in the band 5350 - 5460 MHz, the radionavigation service in the band 5460 - 5470 MHz and the maritime radionavigation service in the band 5470 - 5570 MHz. (WRC-03) 5.448C The space research service (active) operating in the band 5350 - 5460 MHz shall not cause harmful interference to nor claim protection from other services to which this band is allocated. (WRC-03) 5.448D In the frequency band 5350 - 5470 MHz, stations in the radiolocation service shall not cause harmful interference to, nor claim protection from, radar systems in the aeronautical radionavigation service operating in accordance with No. 5.449. (WRC-03) 5.449 The use of the band 5350 - 5470 MHz by the aeronautical radionavigation service is limited to airborne radars and associated airborne beacons. 1.1 Earth Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) (active) The technical characteristics of the EESS satellites operating in the 5350 – 5470 MHz band are provided in Appendix A1. The non geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite systems operating in the 5350 – 5470 MHz band are listed in Table 2. All of these satellites are in the EESS. The notified systems are: RADARSAT 2C, 2D, and 3B from Canada; HY 2 from China; JASON2 and 3 from France; SENTINEL 1 and 3 from France/ESA; and SMOTR from Russia. The aggregate number of notified satellites (having completed coordination) from all administrations in this band is 18. An additional 30 satellites have been advanced published (starting coordination). 1 Extracted from Document 4 5 6 7/123 E (a liaison statement from WP7C) 2 Table 2 – NGSO Satellites Operating in the 5350 – 5470 MHz Frequency Range (ITU R Space Network List) Canada China France France/ESA Indonesia Luxemburg Russia USA RADARSAT 2C RADARSAT 2D RADARSAT 3B HY 2 FY 3 A JASON2 JASON3 SENTINEL 1 SENTINEL 3 RISAT LUX NGSO 1 LUX NGSO 2 LUX NGSO 3 SMOTR GEO IK 2 OSTM USOCEAN Notified Notified Notified Notified API Notified Notified Notified Notified API API API API Notified API API API 1 1 6 1 4 1 1 3 3 1 6 6 6 1 3 2 2 789 98.6 1:41 EW 617/586 963 854/818 685 1336 701.2/684.5 808.1/791.5 536.38 500 500 500 650 1000 1336 1336 97.7 99.34 98.75 98.1 66 98.183 98.6 97.6 98 105 120 97.37 99.4 66 66 1:36 1:44 1:40 1:38 1:52 1:39 1:41 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:52 1:52 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 EW EW EW E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 - Space station in the Earth exploration-satellite service (active sensor) EW - Space station in the earth exploration-satellite service 1.2 Radionavigation and Radiolocation Services The technical characteristics of the radionavigation and radiolocation services operating in the 5350 – 5470 MHz band are provided in Appendix B2. 2 Extracted from Rec. ITU R M.1638 Characteristics of and protection criteria for sharing studies for radiolocation, aeronautical radionavigation and meteorological radars operating in the frequency bands between 5250 and 5850 MHz. 3 2 System Architecture The database based system archite ecture is show wn in Figure 11. The databaase is updateed with restricctions from government agencies and with w EESS (acctive) satellitte orbital information an nd antenna m masks provided by operators. Location aware AP’ss query the database via the Intern net to obtain an authorization ticket indicating under what cond ditions they can operate in the band at their locaations, and with what transmit power resttrictions. Tickets have a t hree hour lifee. Only RLAN devices connected to an AP with a valid ticket can ope erate in the 53 350 – 5470 MHz band, and only to the extent autho orized by the ticket. The ticket specifies th he maximum RLAN transm it power (dBm), as a functtion of time, u under two cond ditions: 1) when the AP has a real time connectiion to a Dedicated Listen ning Device (DLD) network monitoring its area, and 2)) when the AP is not conn ected to a DLD network. TThese power limits can be set to a large negative num mber of dBm,, effectively preventing the RLAN from m operating d during such a restriction. Figure 1 – Database D Archit ecture The database query consists of the e AP identifie er and AP loc ation, as sho own in Table 3. A secure H HTTPS interface is used for all database qu ueries and ressponses. Table 3 – Database Qu ery AP Identiffier AP Locatio on MAC Ad dress Latitude (°N) Longitudde (°E) 4 Altitude (km) The database response, the authorization ticket, is shown in Table 4. It contains a Ticket Identifier, the issue time, the AP Identifier, the AP location, and one, or more, Windows. Each Window contains a Window end time, the max authorized RLAN transmit power with a DLD network, and the max authorized RLAN transmit power without a DLD network. The power limits for each Window apply from the end time of the previous Window to the end time of the current window, expect for Window 1, which applies from the Issue Time of the ticket to the Window 1 end time. Table 4 – Authorization Ticket XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YYYYMMDD HH:MM:SS MAC Address Latitude (°N) Longitude (°E) Altitude (km) Window End Time YYYYMMDD HH:MM:SS With DLD Tx Power Limit Max RLAN Tx Power (dBm) Without DLD Tx Power Limit Max RLAN Tx Power (dBm) Window N Window 1 Ticket Identifier Issue Time AP Identifier AP Location Window End Time With DLD Tx Power Limit Without DLD Tx Power Limit YYYYMMDD HH:MM:SS Max RLAN Tx Power (dBm) Max RLAN Tx Power (dBm) If there are no government restrictions in effect at the AP location, and if it is outside of all EESS (active) coverage’s, then the database sets the power limits to +30 dBm (TBR). With this architecture, the transmit power at which an RLAN devices can operate in the 5350 – 5470 MHz band at a given time is limited based on the location of its associated AP to fully protect incumbent services. 2.1 Government Restrictions Government restrictions are input to the database as shown in Table 5. Each restriction consists of ordered pairs of latitude and longitude defining a closed region, associated start and stop times for the restriction, and maximum RLAN transmit powers for operation with, and without, real time connection to a DLD Network. Tickets issued by the database will immediately [TBR] reflect government restrictions as they are input. As the database tickets have limited, three hour, life, changes to protection zones are fully implemented within three hours of a restriction being entered into a database. The Restriction Identifier allows the government entity to modify or cancel previously input restrictions. 5 Table 5 – Government Restriction Government Entity Identifier XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Restriction Identifier XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Input Time YYYYMMDD HH:MM:SS Latitude 1 (°N) Longitude 1 (°E) Latitude 2 (°N) Longitude 2 (°E) Region Latitude N (°N) Longitude N (°E) YYYYMMDD HH:MM:SS YYYYMMDD HH:MM:SS Max RLAN Tx Power (dBm) Max RLAN Tx Power (dBm) Start Time End Time With DLD Tx Power Limit Without DLD Tx Power Limit 2.2 EESS (active) Satellites The Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC), detects, tracks, and identifies all artificial objects in Earth orbit, including all EESS satellites. Currently, the JSpOC tracks more than 16,000 objects orbiting Earth. About 5 percent of those being tracked are functioning payloads or satellites, 8 percent are rocket bodies, and about 87 percent are debris and/or inactive satellites. The Space Surveillance Network (SSN), a worldwide network of 30 space surveillance sensors (radar and optical telescopes, both military and civilian) takes approximately 400,000 observations per day to update the catalog of objects. Two Line Element (TLE) parameter sets extracted from this data are available at www.space track.org. Another source of TLE parameter sets is http://eostation.scanex.ru/schedule/tle/new.tle. The TLE sets allow for precise calculation of the satellite orbits. Example TLE sets for the RADARSAT 2 satellite and for the JASON2 satellite follow: 0 RADARSAT 2 1 32382U 07061A 14026.88740895 .00000214 00000-0 10000-3 0 7207 2 32382 098.5775 036.4451 0001250 091.1167 025.3181 14.29985420319464 0 JASON 2 1 33105U 08032A 14026.53311414 -.00000043 00000-0 79234-4 0 8345 2 33105 066.0412 172.4118 0007624 275.7028 209.8476 12.80929882262079 The TLE format is described in Appendix C. Orbit information for EESS (active) satellites is provided by the satellite operator. Operators can choose to provide orbital information either as a TLE set or as a reference to a web service, such as that provided by Space Track or EOStation.ScanEx.ru. If a web service reference is provided, the database will automatically obtain TLE sets from that source at one hour intervals. The database propagates the orbital information and combines it with an elevation/azimuth map for that particular satellite’s antenna 6 to determine areas, as a function of time, where RLAN transmit powers are limited to +17 dBm [TBR] in the 5350 – 5470 MHz band. The input format is shown in Table 6. The database propagates the TLE sets for the EESS (active) satellites using the SGP4 simplified perturbations model. The availability of frequent TLE updates allows this process to predicted satellite positions with better than 1 km [TBR] accuracy. This error is taken into account when identifying the RLAN exclusion zones. Window A Table 6 – EESS (active) Operator Input EESS (active) Operator Identifier XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Input Time YYYYMMDD HH:MM:SS Two Line Element Set TLE (see Appendix C) Or Or Web Service Reference Web Service Reference Start Sub Satellite Point Latitude A (°) End Sub Satellite Point Latitude A (°) Az 1 (°) El 1 (°) Az 2 (°) El 2 (°) Satellite Antenna Azimuth Elevation Mask Az N (°) El N (°) Window X Start Sub Satellite Point End Sub Satellite Point Satellite Antenna Azimuth Elevation Mask Latitude X (°) Latitude X (°) Az 1 (°) El 1 (°) Az 2 (°) El 2 (°) Az N (°) El N (°) 2.3 Dedicated Listening Device (DLD) Networks Each Dedicated Listening Device (DLD) network consists of one, or more, DLD’s with low latency connections to AP’s in their areas of coverage. The DLD’s are location aware high sensitivity receivers installed at locations with views of the sky and surrounding terrain. DLD Networks contain a sufficient number of DLD’s to provide unobstructed views of the sky and surrounding terrain, and hence eliminate the “hidden node” problem. They report the presence of radiolocation or radionavigation emissions to the AP’s. An AP connected to a DLD Network, and its associated RLAN devices, must reduce all 7 transmissions within the 5350 to 5470 MHz band to the level specified in that AP’s authorization ticket within 500 milliseconds [TBR] of that DLD Network detecting a radiolocation or radionavigation emission in the band. This reduction remains in effect for a minimum of 5 seconds after the last radiolocation or radionavigation emission detection. Each AP that relies on a DLD Network pings that network every 30 seconds [TBR] and if it does not receive a response within 5 seconds [TBR] it reverts to the Without DLD Network power limit contained in its authorization ticket until such time as the connection is re established. The purpose of this ping is to confirm that the AP continues to be connected to an operating DLD Network. DLD’s operate by detecting signatures of known radar types. Unknown radars can cause the DLD to detect them by transmitting a short signature of a known radar type. This provides a mechanism for new radars and radars whose signatures are not public to obtain protection. DLD Networks must meet minimum performance requirements and are certified to industry standards. 8 3 European Concerns France recently raised concerns with an avoidance approach in a European forum3. The approach considered is flawed in several respects. It assumes that individual RLAN devices would perform orbital calculations, and France rightly identifies concerns with this approach requiring dissemination of orbital data to individual RLAN devices and orbital propagation calculations in each device. The architecture presented in this paper avoids these issues by limiting orbital data and orbital propagation calculations to centralized databases; and only requiring Access Points that wish to operate in the 5350 5470 MHz band to query these databases. 3 CPG PTD(14)017. 9 APPENDIX A – Excerpt from Document 4 5 6 7/123 E 1 Technical characteristics of EESS (active) sensors in the 5 350-5 470 MHz band The EESS (active) sensors performance and interference criteria are given in Recommendation ITU R RS.1166 4. The band 5 350 5 470 MHz is expected to be used only by SAR and altimeters and the relevant interference criteria are given in Table 1. Table 1 Data availability criteria (%) Interference criteria Sensor type Performance degradation Synthetic aperture radar Altimeter 10% degradation of standard deviation of pixel power 4% degradation in height noise I/N (dB) –6 –3 Systematic Random 99 95 99 95 Interference from RLAN being likely produced by an aggregation of interferer, they would hence be related to population densities and would hence more than likely be systematic. The percentage of data availability to be used in the RLAN case would therefore be 99%. Table 2 provides relevant parameters to be used in any compatibility studies between RLAN and EESS (active) sensors. 10 Table 2 Radarsat Next Radarsat-3 Generation Sentinel-1 Sentinel 3 Parameter Radarsat-1 Radarsat-2 (RCM) (RNG) CSAR SRAL Sensor type SAR SAR SAR SAR SAR ALTIMETER Altitude (km) 792-813 792?813 5869?6152 5869-6152 653 800 Inclination 98.6 98.6 97.74 97.74 98.18 98.65 Frequency 410 Peak 4140 32 radiated 990 (at ant (at ant Input) . power (W) Input) HH, W, Polarization HH HH, VV, . compact and Linear (Circular on Tx, . (Circular on Tx, linear on Rx) . linear on Rx) Rectangular Parabolic Antenna type slotted Phase array Phase array Phase array Phase array reflector waveguide 1.2m 38-41 43 40-45 40-45 43.5 to 45.1 34.5 Antenna Steerable in Steerable in Steerable in Steerable in Steerable in pattern elevation elevation from elevation from elevation from elevation 18 No (TBC) steering from 40? Antenna See Below See Below Based on pattern (TBC) F.699 (TBC) A 129.8." . en.? 0 30? . 33? 33? (right? Nadir orientat'oM (ri ht?Iookin (right- orleft- (ri ht?Iookin lookin 20 to 47 deg (altimeter) from nadir) 8 looking) 8 5 (system) 6 (system) 6 (system) 6 (system) 3.2 3.8 erubsidfv?i?; 11.6, 17.3 or 11.6, 17.3, 30, 14-100 14-300 Up to 100 320 30.0 50, 100 (selectable) (selectable) ?130 to ?126 ?129 to ?120 ?128 to ?119 ?128 to ?114 ?121 ?115 Service area Global Global Global Global Global Global . 80 to 400 km ?(?irt 300 (avg) 300 (avg) 225 (avg) 225 (avg) continuous swath 'm?ge swath 45?500 18?500 20?500 20? 500 20 250 Width (km) 2 Radarsat-3 (RCM) antenna patterns Radarsat Constellation Mission (RCM) is the Earth observation satellite network which Canada is currently implementing with the characteristics given above. The antenna characteristics of RCM are described below. 11 There is a very large amount of beams for RCM, with different shapes, maximum gains, side lobes levels, elevation pointing angles, etc. The beams are very complex and the antenna patterns away from the main lobe are difficult to predict and may differ significantly from the predicted value in practice due to distortions, imperfections, etc. For the sake of performing the interference analysis, a simplified model capturing the main characteristics of the beam, is given below (in dB): where 0 is the elevation pointing angle in degree and sincx=sinx/x. The sinc antenna pattern is the directivity of a uniformly fed phased array and is a good approximation of the pattern in the main lobe region. The (0.12 0+39.2) factor captures the variation of the maximum directivity with the scan angle and is representative of the RCM performance. The geometrical factors in the sinc() function capture the variation of the beamwidth to provide about constant swath over the span of elevation angles. Away from the boresight, this model must be used with care. The directivity computed from Eq. 1, should be limited to –60 dB below the maximum directivity. For example, for the pattern with the lowest directivity shown in Figure 1, the maximum directivity is 41.5 dBi and the minimum used in the study should be (41.5 – 60) = –18.5 dBi. An example is shown in Figure 2. It should be noted that in reality side lobes level varies significantly from one beam to another and this model is a simplification. In azimuth (direction of satellite propagation), the pattern is simpler and can be approximated by a sinc function (uniform illumination) pointing at zero degree, with a 3 dB width in radian given by: 3 dB 0.886 /L, where L=6.75 m. The simplified directivity pattern in azimuth is given by where az is the azimuth angle. The overall gain is the product (sum in dB) of the elevation and azimuth antenna beam patterns, with a floor at –60 dB below the peak value. 12 Figure 1 Example of antenna patterns for three different beams over the accessible swath Figure 2 Antenna pattern of Figure 1 given on a larger angular extend to show sidelobe performance 13 Sentinel-1 antenna patterns Below is given an example of antenna pattern for one the sentinel-1 emission mode. 3.1 3.2 Elevation (Directivity: 43.53 dBi-10 3.3 Azimuth 14 APPENDIX M1638 (dBml Characteristics Radar A Radar Radar Radar Radar Radar Radar Radar Radar I Radar Function Meteorological Meteorological Meteorological Aeronautical Meteorological Meteorological Meteorological Meteorological Meteorological Meteorological radionavigation Platform type (airborne. Grounde'sliip Airborne Ground Airborne Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground shipborne, ground) Turning range (MI-ll) 5 300?5 700 5 370 5 600?5 650 440 5 600?5 650 5 300?5 700 5 600?5 650 5 600?5 650 5 600?5 650 5 250-5 T25 Mo dulanon NEA IA NA NA Conventional With Doppler With Doppler capability capability Tx power into antenna 250 kW peak 70 kW peak 250 kW peak 200 peak 250 kW peak 250 kW peak 250 kW peak 250 kW peak 250 kW peak 2.25 kW peak 125 avg. 1500 avg. 150 avg. 150 avg. Pulse width 2.0 6.0 0.05718 1720 1.1 0.82.0 3.0 0.875 0.875 0.1 Pulse meffall time (its) 0.2 0.6 0.005 0.1 0.11 0.08 0.3 0.2-2 0.2?2 0.005 Pulse repetition rate (pps) 50. 250 and 200 074 000 18071440 2 000 25071 180 259 25071200 5071200 100 000 200 Output device Coaxial Coaxial Magnetron Tunable Coaxial Coaxial Coaxial Coaxial magnetron magnetron magnetron magnetron magnetron magnetron magnetron or Antenna pattern type (pencil. Conical Fan Pencil Pencil Pencil Pencil Pencil Pencil Pencil Pencil fan, cosecant-squared, etc.) Antenna type (re?ector. Solid metal Parabolic Parabolic Slotted array Parabolic Parabolic Solid parabolic Solid parabolic Solid parabolic Solid parabolic phased array, slotted array. parabolic etc.) Antenna polarization Vertical Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal or Horizontal o1- and-"or vertical vertical vertical Antenna main beam gain 39 37.5 4-1 34 50 40 40 40?50 40?50 35-45 (dBi) Characteristics Radar A Radar Radar Radar Radar Radar Radar Radar 1 Radar Antenna elevation -7?1 1.1 beaniu?ndlh (degrees) Antenna azimuthal 611 1.1 9) ?1 9 2?3 LU Ibil 0.3-1 0 5-1 1 i?v?ll (dc-gm] Antenna horimnlal ?an rare (degrees'sl 10-6 rpm) (l-J rpm) {1-5 rpm) Antenna ?an type- Hill :60 (?nnl?inimnn Continuous 150 460 360 160 3160 (continuous random 450: spam 160 sector. etc.) (degrees) Antenna vertical scan rate NA. NA N-A. 4: 15 15 15 I-10 l-i-l NA (dept-L". Antenna vertical wan type A NA Sector Stepwise Stepwise _1 1450 4 10+? _5 +90 N-A (continuous. random. 560'. 0 'i 60 lo mo sci-Int etc (til-green] Antenna. side-lobe (51.) ?26 -20 -35 ?3-35 -20 and remnlr- Slit) (d3) Antenna haiph! (in) 30 Aircn? l0 Aircra? altitude 30 30 30 6-30 6-30 10 (H 06 P0 In 091 or; omitted n7m1 Oltnlo 10 :1on ?gure (dBMinimum diam-rumble?le ?ll?l? ?97 409 409 -l00tn?ll." 115 [u 1151:; 110 lulu 115 15 Characteristics Radar Radar Radar Radar Radar 0 Radar Radar Radar Radar Function Instrumentation Instrumentation Instrumentation Instrumentation Instrumentation Surface and Surface and air Research and Search air search search Earth imaging Platform type (airborne. Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ship Ship Airborne Airborne shipborne. ground) Tuning range 5 300 5 350-5 850 5 350?5 850 5 400?5 900 5 400-5 900 5 300 5 450?5 825 5 300 5 350?5 ?25 Modulation None None Pulse-"chirp pulse Chirp pulse Linear FM None Nonelineai'x? CW pulse linear FM TX power into antenna 350 100?400 Pulse Width (1.1s) 1.0 0.35.1.0. 5 0 0.35. 0.5. 1 0 035-1 (plain3.1?50 (chirp) Pulse rise-fall time (us) 0130.2 002-05 0.03?0.05 002?0 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.05 Pulse repetition rate (pps) 3 000 160. 640 160. 640 20?1 380 330 500 3 40031 300! 1 000?4 000 300-1 500 750 Chirp bandw1dth (MHZ) 4.0 8.33 1.5 63, 134 RI emission bandWidth ?3 dB 4.0 05-5 0.9?3.6 9?3.6 8.33 1.5 63. 134 4.0 ?20 :13 10.0 6.4-18 6.4?18 9.9 1.8 537.0 65,130 10.0 (MHZ) Antenna pattein type (pencil. fan. Pencil Pencil Pencil Pencil Pencil Cosecant- Fan Fan Pencil cosecantesquared. etc.) squared Antenna type (re?ector. phased Parabolic Parabolic Parabolic Phased array Phased array Parabolic Travelling wave Two dual Slotted array array. slotted array, etc.) re?ector feed horn array polarized hoins on single pedestal Characteristics Radar Radar Radar Radar Radar 0 Radar Radar Radar Radar Antenna polarization Vertical-"left- Vei'ticali'left? Vertical-?left- Verticalr'le?? Verticalfleft? Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal and Circular hand circular hand circular hand. circular hand circular hand circular vertical Antenna main beam gain (dBi) 38 3 54 4? 45.9 42 38 0 30.0 36 30?40 Antenna elevation bearnwidth 3.5 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.0 24.8 28.0 38.0 2?4 (degrees) Antenna azimuthal beainwidth 33.0 3?4 (degrees) Antenna horizontal scan rate (Tracking) (Tracking) (Tracking) (Tracking) (Tracking) 36, 73 90 20 Antenna horizontal scan type (Tracking) (Tracking) (Tracking) (Tracking) NEA (Tracking) Continuous 30-230 Fixed to le? Continuous (continuous. random, 360?. 360 Sector 01' light 0f sector. etc.) (degrees) ?ight path Antenna vertical scan rate (Tracking) (Tracking) (Tracking) (Tracking) (Tracking) NEA Antenna vertical scan type (Tracking) (Tracking) (Tracking) (Tracking) (Tracking) Fixed Fixed in MA (continuous. random. 360?. elevation sector. etc.) (degrees) {?20 to ?70) Antenna side-lobe (SL) levels ?20 ?20 ?20 ?33 ?32 ?20 ?25 ?32 ?35 (1st SLs and remote SL5) (dB) Antenna height (in) 20 30 8-000 Receiver IF 3 dB bandwidth 1 4.8, 3.4. 0.90,147 1 (MHZ) Receiver noise ?gure (dB4.9 3.5 Minimum discernable Signal ?105 ?107 ?100 ?107._ ?117' ?100 ?10? ?94 ?87 ?110 (dBm) (short-"medium pulse) ?102 (wide pulse) 16 APPENDIX C – Two Line Element Description Line Columns Description 1 1 Line Number 2 24 The common name for the object based on information from the Satellite Catalog. 2 1 Line Number 37 Satellite Catalog Number 8 Elset Classification 10 17 International Designator 19 32 Element Set Epoch (UTC) 34 43 1st Derivative of the Mean Motion with respect to Time 45 52 2nd Derivative of the Mean Motion with respect to Time (decimal point assumed) 54 61 B* Drag Term 63 Element Set Type 65 68 Element Number 69 Checksum 3 1 Line Number 37 Satellite Catalog Number 9 16 Orbit Inclination (degrees) 18 25 Right Ascension of Ascending Node (degrees) 27 33 Eccentricity (decimal point assumed) 35 42 Argument of Perigee (degrees) 44 51 Mean Anomaly (degrees) 53 63 Mean Motion (revolutions/day) 64 68 Revolution Number at Epoch 69 Checksum 17 https://webmail.its.bldrdoc.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABAPEX03Oz4SLGuuSwLRZc4BwDwSCFm5d7RR6eFQisPy9PxAAA... Google Earth Pro License Geoffrey Sanders Sent:Wednesday, June 16, 2010 2:17 PM To: itsusers Hello, I would like to put some Google Earth images into a report that is to be published. I was wondering if anyone at ITS has a license for Google Earth Pro as this helps with Google's copyright policies regarding the use of Google Earth images in reports. Please let me know if you have this license. Thank You, -Geoff Sanders Electronics Engineer NTIA/ITS.M 325 Broadway Boulder CO 80305 303-497-6736 gsanders@its.bldrdoc.gov 1 of 1 Bruce Washington From: Larry Alder Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:50 PM To: Bruce Washington Subject: Larry Alder - 000 Re: Final CSMAC Subcommittee Assignments and FCC Info I will be out of the of?ce and not checking email until July 31. If urgent please contact Jessica Weber (iessicatw@google.com) A. Bruce Washington From: Larry Alder Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 9:04 AM To: Bruce Washington Subject: Larry Alder - 000 RE: Spectrum Database Working Group Call I will be out of the of?ce and not checking email until July 31. If urgent please contact Jessica Weber (iessicatw@google.com) A. Bruce Washington From: Larry Alder Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 9:04 AM To: Bruce Washington Subject: Larry Alder - 000 RE: Spectrum Database Working Group Call I will be out of the of?ce and not checking email until July 31. If urgent please contact Jessica Weber (iessicatw@google.com) A. Bruce Washington From: Larry Alder Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 1:40 AM To: Karl B. Nebbia Cc: Gibson, Mark; Bruce Washington; Paige R. Atkins Subject: Re: Collaboration Group Mark, I like the idea of Steve Sharky since he has been so active in the past in this area. Mark McHenry also seemed to be very interested. Were there any others that speci?cally wanted to chair? A. On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Karl B. Nebbia wrote: Mark and Larry, in the end it will be up to you to determine, from the volunteers, who will be the co-chairs. Karl From: Gibson, Mark [mailto:mgibsonahcomsearchcom] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 3:32 PM To: Bruce Washington; Larry Alder Cc: Karl B. Nebbia; Paige R. Atkins Subject: Collaboration Group Bruce, Please include me on this group. Happy to co-chair. Thanks. Mark Sent from my Underwood Touchmaster Bruce Washington From: Larry Alder Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 1:40 AM To: Karl B. Nebbia Cc: Gibson, Mark; Bruce Washington; Paige R. Atkins Subject: Re: Collaboration Group Mark, I like the idea of Steve Sharky since he has been so active in the past in this area. Mark McHenry also seemed to be very interested. Were there any others that speci?cally wanted to chair? A. On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Karl B. Nebbia wrote: Mark and Larry, in the end it will be up to you to determine, from the volunteers, who will be the co-chairs. Karl From: Gibson, Mark [mailto:mgibsonahcomsearchcom] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 3:32 PM To: Bruce Washington; Larry Alder Cc: Karl B. Nebbia; Paige R. Atkins Subject: Collaboration Group Bruce, Please include me on this group. Happy to co-chair. Thanks. Mark Sent from my Underwood Touchmaster Bruce Washington From: Larry Alder Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:54 AM To: Bruce Washington Subject: Re: Due July 18 -- CSMAC Subcommittee Assignments Bruce, When you update the roster. I think I will restrict my of?cial membership to the database sub-group which I co-chair. A. On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Bruce Washington wrote: CSMAC Members, Please select a CSMAC subcommittee assignment not later than July 18. Our objective is to have every member assigned to a subcommittee by July 21. Please refer to the website for the latest reports CSMAC Subcommittees 0 Enforcement 0 Transitional Sharing 0 General Occupancy Measurements/Quanti?cation of Federal Spectrum Use 0 Spectrum Management via Databases 0 Federal Access to Non-Federal Bands 0 Spectrum Sharing Cost Recovery Alternatives 0 Government and Industry Collaboration Thank you, Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff/ DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: 1202) 482-6415 Bruce Washington From: Larry Alder Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 12:31 PM To: Bruce Washington Subject: Larry Alder - 000 RE: CSMAC Contact List Verification--Last Call I will be out of the of?ce and checking email rarely this week. If urgent please contact Jessica Weber (iessicatw@google.com) A. Bruce Washington From: Larry Alder Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:37 AM To: Bruce Washington Subject: Re: CSMAC Attendance RSVP NLT June 26 I will be attending. Alder On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Bruce Washington wrote: Dear CSMAC Members, Please RSVP for the upcoming CSMAC meeting on July 10 not later than June 26. ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on spectrum management policy matters. DATES: The meeting will be held on July 10, 2014, from 1:00 pm. to 4:00 Eastern Daylight Time. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Wiley Rein Conference Center, 1776 Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006. Public comments may be mailed to Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 4099, Washington, DC 20230 or emailed to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce M. Washington, Designated Federal Of?cer, at (202) 482-6415 or BWashington@ntia.doc. gov; and/or visit web site at Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: 12021482-6415 Bruce Washington From: Larry Alder Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:57 PM To: Bruce Washington Subject: Re: RSVP NLT Sept 25 -- Next CSMAC Meeting Scheduled for Oct 9, 2014 (Commerce Building) 1 will attend On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Bruce Washington wrote: Dear CSMAC Members, Please RSVP for the upcoming CSMAC meeting on October 9, 2014 not later than September 25. Also, we are in need of a conference room near the DC area for the January and August 2015 meetings. Please let me know if any member is interested in hosting one or both meetings. Thank you, Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: 1202) 482-6415 From: Bruce Washington Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 2:13 PM To: Allison, Audrey; Bryan Tramont; Carl Povelites; Chartier, Mike Dale Hatfield; David Donovan Dennis Roberson 1 Dombrowsky, Thomas; Dr. Harold Dr. Larry Alder; Dr. Mark McHenry; Giulia McHenry; Harold Feld; Janice Obuchowski; Jeff Reed; Jeff Reed; Jennifer Warren; Kurt Schaubach; Larry Alder; Mark Gibson; Mark.Crosby; Martin Cooper; Michael Calabrese; Paul Kolodzy, Rath, Charla; Richard Reaser; Robert Kubik; Robert Pepper; Sharkey, Steve; Sorond, Mariam; Thomas Dombrowsky Jr; Allison Parker; Andi Roane; Chandra Lansdown; De Eider (dehaxillandutdetmetizen?m); Maggie Garcia; Nancy Goad Cc: Eric Rosenberg Frederick Matos; Richard S. Orsulak; Paige R. Atkins; Karl B. Nebbia; Sheila Williams; Jim Wasilewski; John Gifft; Byron K. Barker; Heather Phillips; Charles Franz; Brian Baker Joyce Henry; Rangam Subramanian Subject: Save the Date -- Next CSMAC Meeting Scheduled for Oct 9, 2014 (Commerce Building) (Caveat: Moved from Chicago, IL to Washington, DC) ACTION: Save the Date -- Notice of Open CSMAC Meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information on spectrum management policy matters. DATES: The meeting will be held on October 9, 2014, from 1:00 pm. to 4:00 pm, Daylight Saving Time. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the US. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 4830, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce M. Washington, Designated Federal Of?cer, at 202 482-6415 or BWashington@ntia.doc.gov; and/or visit NTIA's web site at Matters to Be Considered: The Committee will receive recommendations from its members on matters related to the accomplishment of the President?s goal of identifying 500 megahertz of radio spectrum for wireless broadband by 2020. In addition, the Committee will report on the progress of the following new subcommittees established to help the NTIA develop new or revised strategies for responding more ef?ciently and effectively to fundamental technological, operational, and other trends to continue advancement of delivering spectrum products, services, and solutions that will support the ever-increasing demand for spectrum: Enforcement Transitional Sharing General Occupancy Measurements and Quanti?cation of Federal Spectrum Use Spectrum Management via Databases Federal Access to Non-federal Bands (Bi-directional Sharing) Spectrum Sharing Cost Recovery Alternatives 7. Government and Industry Collaboration RSVP: Not required at this time. Thank you, Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: Bmoe To: Subject: CSMAC Meeting Announced on the Fedetd Register Date: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 10:27:00 AM FYI h?ps gov/articles/ZO 1 5/01/06/2014- 308 72/commerce- sl?ctmm- management- advisogg- committee-meeting? utm_campai ource=federalregister. gov Bruce M. Washington Chief of Sta?' DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Depa?ment of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: Bruce Washington To: Cc: Subject: Agenda Attached Next CSMAC Meeting ?dnduled for Oct 9, 2014 (Commerce Building) Date: Monday, October 06, 2014 12:12:?) PM Attadlments: CSMAC -- October 9 2014 Final.docx See attachment. Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: Bmce Washington Sent: Frida October 03 2014 12:19 PM To: Su ject: RE: Due Oct 2n -- Next CSMAC Meeting Scheduled for Oct 9, 2014 (Commerce Building) Dear CSMAC Members, The CSMAC meeting documents are attached. Please retain personal copies of these materials. All materials will be posted on our CSMAC webpage by COB today at (Meetings): Best regards, Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 MEETING AGENDA COMMERCE SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CSMAC) US. Department of Commerce Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 4830 1401 Constitution Ave, NW (Entrance 011 141th St.) Washington, DC 20230 Thursday, October 9, 2014 1:00 PM. 4:00 P.M. (EDT) Teleconference Number: (Inside Us) Not Responsive (Outside US) Not Responsive Pin: N?t WebesiPEi??ic 1:00 P.M. Welcome and Opening Remarks Larer Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Opening Comments and Introductions by Co-Chairs 0 Comments 0 Membership Roll Call 0 Acknowledgement of Special Guests/Visitors 1:20 P.M. NTIA Spectrum Update 1:45 P.M. Reports - CSMAC Subcommittees 0 Enforcement 0 Transitional Sharing 0 General Occupancy Measm?ements Quanti?cation of Federal Spectrum Use Spectrum Management Via Databases Federal Access to Non-Federal Bands (Bi-Directional Sharing) 0 Spectrum Sharing Cost Recovery Alternatives 0 Industry and Govermnent Collaboration 3:15 P.M. CSMAC Lessons Learned 3:25 P.M. Opportunity for Public Comment 3:35 P.M. Closing Remarks by Co-Chairs 3:45 P.M. Adjourn October 9, 2014 Schedule of Next Meetings • • • February 4, 2015, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC o 1:00 P.M. - 4:00 P.M. (EDT) (Not Confirmed) May 12, 2015, Institute for Telecommunications Sciences, Boulder, CO o 1:00 P.M. - 4:00 P.M. (CST) (Confirmed) August 2015, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC o 1:00 P.M. – 4:00 P.M. (EST) (Not Confirmed) October 9, 2014 From: Bruce Washington To: Subject: Bi-D'I'ecu'onal Shar'ng Working Group Draft Report Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:49:00 PM Attadiments: Bi-Directional Sharim Workim Group Draft Rem CSMAC, Attached is the Draft Bi-Directional Sharing Working Group Report for you review. Thank you, Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 CSMAC Bi-Directional Sharing Working Group Draft Report Introduction: The Bi-Directional Sharing Working Group is providing responses to the questions raised by NTIA at the August 28, 2013 CSMAC meeting. NTIA had provided the following framework for the subcommittee’s work: “Federal agencies and particularly the Department of Defense need significant amounts of spectrum for large training exercises; however, the United States cannot afford to obligate so much spectrum all the time for such exercises. What approaches to authorization, coordination would facilitate access to spectrum for training? Should DOD expect to pay license holders for that access? Should DOD expect to pay for access even where the license holder does not provide coverage?” This framework is reflected in the 4 questions set forth below, which deal uniquely with temporary access to spectrum; 1 therefore, the recommendations contained in this report are also focused exclusively on temporary access. 2 The Working Group is co-chaired by Jennifer Warren and Janice Obuchowski and includes participation by CSMAC Members Tom Sugrue, Bryan Tramont, Michael Calabrese, and Carl Povelites, supported by Steve Sharkey, Adam Krinsky, and Mary Greczyn. The group initially met on Sept. 24, 2013 and has met at least ten times since that inaugural teleconference, and worked electronically. 3 One consideration that emerged across several of the questions was the viability and utility of using database functionality as a means to advance spectrum sharing in different scenarios. This continues to require additional consideration, and the applicability of it toward a solution may vary by scenarios. 4 Specific NTIA Questions: Question 1: What methods can be used to allow federal agency access of non-federal bands, particularly for large, intermittent exercises and emergency use? Question 2: Would federal users be expected to pay for temporary spectrum access? Question 3: Would such access only be available if the nonfederal licensee does not have an immediate, short-term or long-term need to operate in the spectrum and location in question? Question 4: What band and location combinations can support large federal exercises or emergency use? I. Question 1: What methods can be used to allow federal agency access to non-federal bands, particularly for large intermittent exercises and emergency use? Potential Methods: The Working Group is not recommending any single one of the options over the other in this response to Question 1, but rather identifying options along with various accompanying considerations/process points. Within the various options, we do make specific recommendations – see bolded text. 1 Temporary Access is defined in “Considerations 1” of the response to Question 1. It is noted that bi-directional access to spectrum should be reflected in spectrum licensing databases. 3 Since the presentation of the draft report on July 10, the WG’s new CSMAC members include – Charla Rath, Steve Sharkey (as a member), Dennis Roberson, Giulia McHenry, Kurt Schaubach and Harold Feld. 4 This may be further informed by the work in the CSMAC Subcommittee on Spectrum Management via Databases. 2 1 1. Federal Agency access to non-federal communications network. A Federal Agency enters into a commercial services agreement for access to the commercial network utilizing the underlying commercial services of the licensee. May use devices available to the public but may also attach proprietary federal devices to the network as part of the commercial services agreement. There is no transfer of rights to the federal user. In addition, there may be different methods for different wireless and satellite services. 2. Secondary Access by Federal Agency for use of “unused commercially licensed spectrum” 5 --no interference protection. This means no interference protection from primary users and must not cause interference to primary users. The term “Unused spectrum” would need to be defined and may be defined differently for different commercial services. 6 a. As a secondary market agreement 7 whereby the licensee leases specific frequencies, in a specific area, over a specific period of time where the licensee is not currently using the spectrum. Sec. 2.103 allows direct leasing of 700 MHz public safety spectrum for Federal use. We recommend that the NTIA review its own Manual to determine whether changes are required to enable federal users to participate in secondary market access to commercial spectrum, and to work with the FCC to determine how best to revise its FCC regulations to expand eligible bands for secondary market uses, to include federal users. b. As a license condition on spectrum assigned by license. For an example, this may include geographic build-out requirements that exclude certain federal properties. This would be known to the commercial licensee prior to obtaining the spectrum. c. As a regulatory allocation and rule change. For an example, the federal agency gains secondary access to the spectrum on a non-interfering basis in areas where the spectrum is unused. In addition, database query functionality could potentially be used in this case. d. While distinct from a licensed situation, a federal unlicensed user into unlicensed “common bands”. Annex K of the NTIA Manual sets out technical standards for Federal non-licensed devices, which agencies can generally operate without an NTIA frequency assignment under Sec. 7.9 of the Manual. 3. Secondary Access by Federal Agency – Interference Protection. a. Voluntary Lease/Short Term Access -- Federal Agency negotiates use with license holder via secondary market rules for discrete access – time frame, location, what spectrum – in the desired block in the desired area. This agreement could include a range of rights and may be service specific. Negotiations for access area not limited to monetary compensation, but could include a wide variety of arrangements, such as access to facilities, service agreements or other arrangements that the parties find mutually agreeable. b. Voluntary Negotiated Long Term Access Arrangement – Federal Agency negotiates with license holder via secondary markets for long term access in the desired block in the desired area. Negotiations for access area not limited to monetary compensation, but could include a wide variety of arrangements, such as access to facilities, service agreements or other arrangements that the parties find mutually agreeable. We would recommend that the NTIA and FCC explore regulatory or legislative options to facilitate federal users obtaining use rights co-extensive with the licensees (e.g., use for 5 May provide an incentive for the federal agency to deny placement of facilities on federal property, ensuring its availability for federal use. 6 The question of a definition of “unused” spectrum may be addressed by work ongoing in the CSMAC Subcommittee on Measurement/Quantification. 7 Commercial licensees may lack incentives to take this route. 2 period of license) if there are any prohibitions or constraints currently in place. Currently, Sec. 7.12 of the NTIA Manual addresses use of frequencies authorized to non-Federal stations under Part 90 but it seems to cast this in relatively narrow terms and does not anticipate leased access that doesn’t involve intercommunication with non-federal users. c. Involuntary Access for Federal Agencies to incumbent spectrum Similar to 2(c) above, this would require the FCC to initiate a regulatory proceeding to determine if the spectrum is unused and available for use by federal agencies. For example, the federal agency identifies unused 8 commercial spectrum and notifies license holder of need for discrete access – time frame, location, what spectrum – in the desired block in the desired area. If unable to reach a commercial arrangement, the federal agency can (through NTIA) petition the FCC to initiate a proceeding, during which the licensee should have the right to challenge the assertion that its spectrum is unused. The FCC would then determine whether it is reasonable for the federal agency to gain involuntary [secondary] access to the spectrum with interference protection in areas where the spectrum is unused. In addition, database query functionality potentially could be used in this case. 9 Considerations: As we set about addressing this question, we realized the need for a standard taxonomy to ensure common understanding of scenarios and recommendations. Below are several important considerations that impact the recommendations regarding federal government access to non-federal spectrum, including: 1) Time period: Below are representative time periods, which are not reflective of the length of planning cycles for federal acquisition and do not match the STA process. At the same time, these time periods are reflective of time periods that commercial incumbents would take into consideration for any sharing of their spectrum a. Short term - a day or less b. Mid-term - a day to one week c. Long-term – more than a week 2) Size of area a. Small localized within and close proximity to government facilities b. Outside of government facilities c. Regional d. Nationwide e. Distance off the coast 3) Demographics of area a. Sparse population b. Dense population 4) How much spectrum is needed a. Small contiguous block b. Large contiguous block c. Unpaired/paired 5) What is the best spectrum band for the intended purpose 8 Ideally, this would only happen where the spectrum is deemed to be unused. It is unclear how the federal agency would be able to identify such unused spectrum. Also see footnote 4. 9 The work of the Subcommittee on Spectrum Management via Database may be relevant to the types of functionality necessary to determine whether the spectrum is “unused”. 3 6) Nature of federal access a. Needed to deploy federal networked solution b. Needed for federal end-user devices that can operate with commercial networked services 7) Nature of use a. Pre-planned, intermittent b. Emergency basis c. Constant Given the above, certain assumptions need to be made to respond to the question. Without further, more specific instruction from NTIA, following assumptions that should be made: • • • • • II. Time period: short to mid-term, not more than a week but generally less Size of area: localized within or near government facilities Demographics: fairly sparse Spectrum required: small contiguous block – unpaired Nature of use: federal networked solution, pre-planned Question 2. Would federal users be expected to pay for temporary spectrum access? The answer is not a yes or no, but depends upon the nature of commercial spectrum, presence of incumbent operations, impact upon incumbent operations, and period of time (temporary or perhaps permanent). Below is an outline of an approach, based on the above, with recommendations embedded within each scenario description. 1. Access to Exclusive Licensed Spectrum a. Temporary, where there are no planned or existing incumbent operations and/or agreed that there would be no constraint or impact on incumbent operations or use of secondary markets(perhaps due to nature of temporary use or location/terrain, such as White Sands or the National Training Center location) i. We recommend that no financial payments are necessary and no rights (NIB basis- STA Model) accrue. b. Temporary, having potential impact on timing of build out, use of secondary markets, or on incumbent operations. We recommend consideration of the following options, but recognize that there may be others that we have not yet considered as viable for this list. i. Secondary Market Arrangement –– provides flexibility to negotiate unique temporary constraints and temporary operational changes, which are tailored to both parties and may provide incentives for incumbents to agree to use or temporary constraint. ii. Regulatory Framework iii. Other options to still explore. 2. Access to Shared Licensed Spectrum/Existing Shared Spectrum. a. Temporary, where there is no impact on sharing regime (FSS/FS) or incumbent operations 4 i. We recommend that no financial payments are necessary and that a Special Temporary Authority (STA) model would be appropriate b. Temporary, where there could be impact on secondary market opportunities i. We recommend engagement in a Negotiated Secondary Market Arrangement – but challenges in the valuation for federal access. 3. Access to “Unlicensed” Bands a. Temporary Basis – Consistent with Technical Rules for Band i. We recommend that no financial payments be required—and that there are no rights for any user to expect to operate without interference. III. Question 3. Would such access only be available if the non-federal licensee does not have an immediate, short-term or long-term need to operate on the spectrum and location in question? Sharing arrangements should be constructed in a way that meets the needs of both the incumbent and the new entrant. New entrant operations should not negatively impact the ability of the incumbent to meet its requirements. Likewise, sharing arrangements that do not provide meaningful access for the new entrant are of little value. Based on this, federal operations that conflict with the service needs of the incumbent non-federal licensee should generally not be permitted. However, there are a number of considerations and approaches that should be evaluated in determining whether a conflict exists or whether options are available that could lead to mutually beneficial sharing/use arrangements, including the type and location of the competing spectrum uses and the potential for commercial agreements between the parties. Geographically restricted operations – In many cases the federal use may be restricted to geographically remote locations, such as certain military bases. These are areas where the desire for non-federal use may be significantly lower than in areas with a greater population density, and, in some cases, where non-federal licenses remain unused. This can present opportunities for federal agencies to access this spectrum without negatively impacting the ability of non-federal entities to meet coverage/capacity requirements. In such cases the proposed federal use needs to be carefully evaluated to determine whether it would interfere with the non-federal use – existing or planned. This is particularly true in instances where the proposed federal operations are relatively close to more populated areas or where the federal operations may present an interference risk at significant distances from the federal location, as is generally true with airborne operations. Temporal sharing – There may be instances where temporal sharing arrangements are feasible. In cases where either the federal operations or the non-federal operations are limited by time, it may be feasible for the entities to coordinate for shared use via, for example, scheduling, use of an interactive database, or sensing capabilities. Such arrangements may present challenges in ensuring that the spectrum is available to a user when it is needed. Developing equipment that can operate in multiple bands can help ease such concerns by allowing a variety of options for scheduling around various competing uses. Federal agencies are already sharing many bands with other Federal users through coordination 5 methods that include scheduling, so there are likely “lessons learned” from these scenarios that could be applied to temporal sharing with commercial users. Scheduling is, however, a relatively static approach that may not be the most efficient mechanism since actual use may be less than scheduled use. Mechanisms that allow identification of when spectrum is actual being used will allow the most efficient temporal sharing. In addition, a Section of the NTIA Manual (7.17) addresses military communications at test ranges in certain non-federal bands and this may also lay down some markers for reference in terms of the conditions of use. Secondary Market Mechanisms – FCC rules include provisions for secondary market transactions where a license or a portion of a license (divided by either spectrum or geography) can be transferred or leased to another entity. Secondary markets can provide financial or other incentives to non-federal entities to make spectrum available for federal use and will allow a greater range of sharing agreements and arrangements that are protected by contract agreements. Such an approach may be preferable in many instances than rigid regulatory approaches because they allow the nonfederal entity to more accurately determine what spectrum resources can be made available based on actual needs. Changes may be necessary to FCC and NTIA regulations to allow secondary market transactions between federal and non-federal entities. Service Provider Relationships – As federal agencies look to modernize systems they are, in some cases, considering the same LTE technology that is being deployed by commercial service providers. In certain cases there may be opportunities for federal users to contract for service from a commercial provider. Such an approach could be attractive for services like video surveillance that may be necessary in more densely populated areas. In more rural areas, federal use could provide a base of users that facilitates the economic deployment of services in areas that would otherwise not be economically viable and would have the dual benefit of meeting federal needs while extending broadband to underserved areas. LTE and IP-based network deployments have a variety of features that could address security, control and priority concerns and allow a market driven approach to implementing customized solutions. IV. Question 4. What band and location combinations can support large federal exercises or emergency use? Based on discussions with NTIA, we are not responding to this question, as there need be too many uninformed assumptions at this point regarding both federal and non-federal operations to contribute. Conclusion: In response to the NTIA questions, the Subcommittee has outlined sharing scenarios to potentially enable Federal use of non-Federal spectrum, including options for determining whether a conflict exists or whether alternatives are available (i.e., geographically restricted operations, temporal sharing, secondary market mechanisms and service provider relationships.) The following are three baskets of regulatory issues to be addressed in considering the options and recommendations contained in this report. 6 (1) NTIA & FCC Joint Statement of Principles to Encourage Sharing between Federal and nonFederal Users; (2) Modifications to Existing NTIA or FCC Rules to Facilitate Sharing; (3) Implementation of Sharing Principles in Open Proceedings Each of the approaches to the three issues above may not have full consensus among Subcommittee members when applied to specific bands and situations. However, it is necessary to assess these challenging regulatory issues to allow bi-directional sharing to occur. In particular, the approaches to addressing the three issues identify opportunities in spectrum transitioning from Federal to non-Federal uses, as well as related paired bands, to ensure that the service rules reflect a common understanding of permissible sharing, established in a way that is minimally disruptive to commercial users but provides Federal users access in certain areas when needed. Current status: NTIA has pointed out that the NTIA Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management already authorizes access to a wide range of non-federal bands for military tactical and training operations, including the 2155-2180 MHz band. 10 NTIA Manual: The NTIA Manual outlines circumstances in which military services may “employ frequencies in certain non-Federal bands above 25 MHz,” after coordination between FCC field personnel and military field personnel for tactical and training operations in the U.S. and Possessions under the arrangement between the FCC and the Military entitled “Field Coordination of Military Tactical and Training Assignments 25-2400 MHz.” 11 According to the NTIA Manual, the agreement stipulates, “military field representatives will first establish that proposed assignments have a good chance of being compatible with non-Federal assignments.” The Manual states, “Tactical and training assignments shall be temporary for a period of no longer than one year and the military representatives shall recoordinate if continued use is desired.” FCC Rules/Emergency Use: Section 2.103 of the FCC’s rules covers Federal use of non-Federal frequencies, primarily geared toward public safety applications. This section states that Federal stations may be authorized to use non-Federal frequencies above 25 MHz (except the 763-775 MHz and 793-805 MHz public safety bands) if the FCC “finds that such use is necessary for coordination of Federal and non-Federal activities.” Caveats contained in this section include that Federal operation on non-Federal frequencies conforms with the conditions agreed upon by the Commission and NTIA; operations are in accordance with FCC rules governing the service to which the frequencies involved are allocated and shall not cause harmful interference to non-Federal stations “and, should harmful interference result, that the interfering Federal operation shall immediately terminate.” This section also stipulates that a Federal operation has been certified as necessary by the non-Federal licensees and this certification has been furnished, in writing, to the Federal agency with which communication is required. In addition, Federal stations can be authorized to use channels in the 769-775 MHz, 799-805 MHz and 4940-4990 MHz public safety bands with non-Federal entities “if the Commission finds such use necessary,” where the stations are used for interoperability or part of a Federal/non-Federal shared or joint-use system; the Federal entity obtains the approval of the non-Federal (State/local government) licensee(s) or applicant(s) involved; the Federal operation is in accordance with Commission's Rules 10 11 See Letter to OET Chief Julius Knapp from NTIA Associate Administrator Karl Nebbia, Nov. 25, 2013, fn 13. See, e.g., NTIA Manual at§ 7.15.3.5.d. 7 governing operation of this band and conforms with any conditions agreed upon by the Commission and NTIA; and interoperability, shared or joint-use systems are the subject of a mutual agreement between the Federal and non-Federal entities. This language was updated in 2007 to allow Federal entities to share the 700 MHz public safety bands with non-Federal entities under certain conditions (i.e., the Federal entity obtains the prior approval of the Public Safety Broadband Licensee.) At the same time, the 2013 Presidential Memorandum on sharing includes goals for facilitating sharing of non-Federal spectrum by Federal operations. 12 As a result, the challenge is how to update current rules and regulations, or remove regulatory obstacles, that discourage or prevent broader forms of sharing that are now under consideration from occurring. 12 See Presidential Memorandum, “Expanding America's Leadership in Wireless Innovation,” June 14, 2013. Sec. 7, (b) “identifying spectrum allocated for nonfederal uses that can be made available to agencies, on a shared or exclusive basis, particularly where necessary to accommodate agencies seeking to relocate systems out of bands that could be made available for licensed services or unlicensed devices.” 8 From: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Bruce Washington Not Responsive ; Larry Alder; Not Responsive Not Responsive Canceled: CSMAC Subcommittee Co-Chair IPR (Admin) High Host: CSMAC Co-Chairs/NTIA Participants:  NTIA DAAs, NTIA Liaisons, DFO, CSMAC Co-Chairs, Subcommittee Co-Chairs Purpose:  To provide an in-progress report (IPR) on the status of the subcommittees’ work and proposed recommendations. End State:  To identify if the subcommittees have progressed in their assignments and have recommendations for the full Committee to call for a  Vote.   Agenda:  (Durations 30min) CSMAC Co-Chairs Opening Remarks and Roll Call NTIA Remarks Subcommittees IPR CSMAC Co-Chairs Closing Remarks From: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Bruce Washington Not Responsive Not Canceled: Hold - CSMAC Meeting High ; Larry Alder; Not From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Bruce Washington "danajanae@google.com"; Larry Alder Jessica Weber Confirm - CSMAC Executive Meeting for Friday 13 Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:29:00 AM Larry, I noticed you have not accepted the meeting schedule for the CSMAC Executive Meeting on Friday, Feb 13. Please confirm your participation. Thank you, Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff / DFO CSMAC Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: Bruce Washington To: Subject: (SMAC Charter Renewal Signed Date: Monday, March 02, 2015 11:09:00 AM Attadiments: CSMAC 2015 Charter Renewal Mm FYI Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 . . Rwy" U.S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE CHARTER OF THE COMMERCE SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1. Committee?s Of?cial Designation (Title) Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (?Committee? or 2. Authority The Secretary of Commerce established this committee andnow re-charters it pursuant to the President?s Memorandum-on Improving Spectrum Management for the 21st Century, dated November 29, 2004; under the authority of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act, 47 U.S.C. 904(b); and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 3. Objectives and Scope of Activities The Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information (the Assistant Secretary), who is also the Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (N TIA), on a broad range of issues regarding spectrum policy. The Committee serves to facilitate increased understanding among all spectrum users about their respective interests. The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary to assist in developing and maintaining spectrum management policies that enable the United States to maintain or strengthen its global leadership role in the introduction of communications technology and services and innovation, thus expanding the economy, adding jobs, and increasing international trade, while at the same time providing for the expansion of existing technologies and supporting the country?s homeland security, national defense, and other critical needs of government missions. The Committee will continue to focus 0n advising the Assistant Secretary on the execution of the initiatives set forth in President Obama?s Memorandum: Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution.1 In addition, the Committee may also provide advice and recommendations on needed reforms to domestic spectrum policies and management in order to: (I) authorize radio systems and frequencies in a way that maximizes their public bene?ts; (2) keep wireless technologies and networks as Open to innOvation as possible; and (3) make wireless services available to all Americans. 1 Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution, released June 28, 2010, 75 Fed. Reg. 38387 (July 1, 2010), available at The scope of activities may include, but is not limited to: expediting the introduction of wireless broadband services, especially in rural areas; addressing governmental and commercial concerns regarding public safety spectrum management issues; assisting in efforts to encourage the establishment of long-range spectrum planning processes; identifying international opportunities to advance US. economic interests; gathering input on the latest technology and market trends; examining the latest radio-frequency research and development outputs; exploring ways to foster more efficient and more imaginative uses of electromagnetic spectrum resources across the Federal Government, subject to and consistent with the needs and mission of federal agencies; and promoting the interoperability and transparency of Federal and non-Federal spectrum databases. 4. Description of Duties The Committee will provide advice and recommendations only and will comply fully with the provisions of FACA. It will provide input on U.S. spectrum management policy in a transparent manner. In so doing, the committee will act as a liaison between its membership and the Federal Government. It may also provide a forum for stakeholders to present current and emerging issues in spectrum management, policy, reform, and technology. 5. Agency or Of?cial to Whom the Committee Reports The committee will report and provide advice to the Assistant Secretary. 6. Support NTIA staff will provide Support to the committee. 7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Staff Years The estimated annual operating costs associated with supporting the functions are $100,000 per year, including all direct and indirect expenses (such as Federal staff time). It is estimated that .55 full-time equivalent will be required to support the committee 'and its subgroups. Members will serve without compensation and NTIA will not reimburse members for travel or per diem, but will use telecommunications servicesto the maximum extent possible to facilitate the work of the committee and minimize the costs ?of participation. 8. Designated Federal Officer The Assistant Secretary will designate a full-time or permanent part-time NTIA employee to serve as the Designated Federal Of?cer (DFO) for the CSAMC. In accordance with FACA, the DFO will approve or call all of the meetings, prepare and approve all meeting agendas, attend all committee meetings, adjourn any meeting when the DFO determines adjournment to be in the public interest, and chair meetings when directed to-do so by the Assistant Secretary. 9. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings It is anticipated that the Committee will meet approXimately every three or four months, as determined by the Chair or Co-Chairs and subject to the call of the DFO. 10. Membership and Designation The CSMAC will have no fewer than ?ve (5) members and no more than thirty (30) members. The Secretary of Commerce will appoint members of the committee who will serve at the Secretary?s pleasure and discretion. Members will be appointed up to a two?year term and may be reappointed for additional terms. No members of the CSMAC or subgroups shall be a registered lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended, 2 U.S.C. ?1601 et seq. The Assistant Secretary will appoint one or more members from among those appointed by the Secretary to serve as Chair or Co-Chairs of the CSMAC. The Chair or Co-Chairs will serve at the pleasure and discretion of the Assistant Secretary. The Committee membership will be fairly balanced in terms of the points of View represented .by members and the functions to be performed. It will re?ect a balanCed cross-section of interests in spectrum management and policy reform, including non-Federal spectrum users; state, regional, and local sectors; technology developers, and manufacturers; academia; civil society; and service providers with customers in both domestic and international markets. An additional description of expertise required is contained in the Membership Balance Plan. Members of the committee are Special Government Employees (SGEs) and shall be subject to the ethical standards applicable to SGEs. 11. Subcommittees NTIA may create subcommittees, working groups, standing committees, ad hoc groups, task groups or other subgroups as it considers necessary for the performance of its functions subject to the provisions of PAC-A, the FACA implementing regulations, and applicable Department of Commerce guidance. Any subgroup established will report to the Committee and must not provide advice or work products directly, to the Assistant Secretary or NTIA. - .12. Recordkeeping The records of the Committee, formally and informally established subcommittees, or other subgroups of the Committee, shall be handled in accordance with General Records Schedule 26, Item 2 or other approved agency records disposition schedule. These records shall be available for public inspection and copying, subject to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. They will also be available, to the extent feasible, on website at 13. Duration/Termination This charter will terminate two years from the date of its ?ling with the appropriate US. Senate and House of Representatives oversight committees unless earlier terminated or renewed by proper authority. 2142011: F11: gD Chief Financial Of?cer and Assistant Secretary for Administration From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Bruce Washington Paige R. Atkins; Peter Tenhula; Larry Alder; Mark Gibson CSMAC Draft Agenda and Notes Friday, February 13, 2015 1:19:00 PM CSMAC Agenda -- Feb 18 2015 draft.docx CSMAC Subcommittee Status Chart 20150213-bmw.docx Draft Agenda and Status Update attached.   Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff / DFO CSMAC Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 (DRAFT) FY 2015 CSMAC SUBCOMMITTEE STATUS UPDATE (as of February 17, 2015) Subcommittee Co-Chairs CSMAC Liaison Goals Status Bi-directional Sharing Janice Obuchowski Richard Orsulak (SAID) Target Subcommittee approved report on January 9 Jennifer Warren Question 1: What methods can be used to allow federal agency access of non-federal bands, particularly for large, intermittent exercises and emergency use? Question 2: Would federal users be expected to pay for temporary spectrum access? Question 3: Would such access only be available if the nonfederal licensee does not have an immediate, short-term or long-term need to operate in the spectrum and location in question? Question 4: What band and location combinations can support large federal exercises or emergency? Expected Focus of Work? Report Submitted Targeted Completion Date? Submitted on January 13 Goal(s) Discussed at Last CSMAC Meeting? Present draft report and recommendations for CSMAC vote and approval 0 Draft report submitted for CSMAC vote and approval. 0 To be submitted to NTIA before January 26 for full CSMAC consideration and vote. Questions from the group. What spectrum management tools models, databases) are available to use or can be modified for use to promote sharing? 2. What are the regulatory/legal issues that would prohibit bi-directional sharing opportunities and what needs to be changed to allow it? 3. What is the direction that OSM senior leadership wants the SC to go? 4. Are there any roadblocks to bi-directional sharing efforts? 5. Recommended Options: --Federal Ageng access to non-federal communications network. -Secondag Access by Federal Agency for use of "unused commercially licensed spectrum" --no interference protection. - Secondary Access by Federal Agency - Interference Protection. We would recommend that the NTIA and FCC explore regulatory or legislative options to facilitate federal users obtaining use rights co- extensive with the licensees use for period of license) if there are any prohibitions or constraints currently in place Subcommittee Co-Chairs CSMAC Liaison Goals Status Enforcement Mark Crosby Rob Haines (SPD) Target Questionlsl: The subcommittee will meet January 28 to Question 2. How would negotiated coordination consider draft recommendations in response to Dale Hatfield Yang Weng (SEAD) (Awaiting Input from CSAMC Liaison) agreements or other sharing arrangements be enforced and by whom? Question 3: In a Shared spectrum environment where many consumers have widespread access, what additional tools do the FCC and NTIA need to ensure compliance with sharing criteria or arrangements? Expected Focus of Work?Development of recommendations in response to five questions NTIA has assigned to the subcommittee. Targeted Completion Date?February 18, 2015 CSMAC meeting. Goallsl Discussed at Last CSMAC Meeting? Recommendations for CSMAC consideration at February meeting. the assigned questions. Subcommittee Co-Chairs CSMAC Liaison Goals Status Transition Sharing Thomas Dombrowsky Mark Gibson Mike Doolan (SEAD) Gary Patrick (SPD) Question 1: What analysis methods should be used to govern transitional sharing? Question 2: Would analysis tools be used to determine, based on predictions and without direct negotiation among the parties, at what locations and frequencies two or more specific operations could potentially co-exist at the same or different times? Question 3: How could such tools be used to better inform or help facilitate direct negotiations among the parties? Question 4: For agencies that do not have adequate staff resources, how would such criteria, methodologies, processes and procedures minimize direct negotiations? Question 5: Why would federal users be willing to rely on new tools and approaches that they have not been willing to use thus far? Question 6: How should transitional sharing processes and costs be resourced? Expected Focus of Work? Report Targeted Completion Date? Feb 2015 Goal(s) Discussed at Last CSMAC Meeting? 0 000000 The Co?chairs will present a paper with finalized recommendations at the February 2015 CSMAC meeting. The Working Group will then sunset. Update 1/13/2015 - There have been no meetings or updates since November 18, 2014. The co-chairs were contacted on January 9, 2015. Mr. Gibson wrote (and reiterated) "All we need to do is complete the report, which will be done soon.? Update 2/11/2015 The committee submitted a Report with the following recommendations: 1. Develop a single portal to support the exchange of data, perform interference/sharing analysis, communicate results and provide for commercial input for discussion. 2. Involve commercial users in requirements de?nition for portal development. 3. Support a series of "Coordination Symposia" (like those for among stakeholders. 4. Include "Trusted Agents? in the early distribution of Transition Plans. 5. Hold regular (quarterly?) meetings with commercial licensees, FCC, NTIA, and Federal Agencies to discuss and refine process, identify and resolve issues, and share information. The report concludes, although the subcommittee is no longer meeting, that the following issues merit continued study and suggests NTIA keep these issues in mind: Applicable coordination processes and procedures Analysis methodologies tools Coordination portal(s) Obtaining data Market prioritization How to resource the transitional sharing efforts Roles (regulators, agencies, licensees, others) Subcommittee Co-Chairs CSMAC Liaison Goals Status Measurement and Mark Crosby Antonio Lavarello (SEAD) 0 Target Questionls): Quantification 0 Question 1: How many general occupancy 0 Mark McHenry has submitted potential Mark measurements are performed to reflect or "follow?up" questions to the subcommittee as validate actual federal spectrum use in a way that can support spectrum management decisions regarding relocation or sharing of spectrum? 0 Question 2: How should actual federal spectrum use be quantified with or without supplemental occupancy measurements? W- 0 Two answers have been finalized and submitted to NTIA. Currently the subcommittee is reviewing new "follow-up? questions. 0 W?Original questions have been answered and pending approval by NTIA. New "follow-up" questions completion date is TBD. Goalisl Discussed at Last CSMAC Meeting? 0 There have been no meetings since the meeting on Jan 215'. The Co-chair Mark McHenry has submitted a final report to NTIA for consideration and vote. He has also submitted to the subcommittee and NTIA potential "follow?up? questions for consideration. well as NTIA. These are: 0 Dynamic Sharing What are the technical and policy issues that proponents of these systems should address to enable rapid adoption? What are the and weakness of measurement-based spectrum sharing approaches? 0 Operational Measurements_ How should propagation measurements be used operationally in future spectrum sharing approaches? 0 Propagation Measurements What propagation measurements should be made to enhance spectrum sharing? Should there be improved general models, or site speci?c measurements? Does work need to be done on air-ground or ground to ground models? 0 Enforcement Level of Effort. What level of effort is needed to support enforcement using measurements in future spectrum sharing approaches? Would a few 'go-to measurement teams? be enough (present approach), or is a dedicated (expensive) fixed, distributed spectrum measurement system needed/useful? Subcommittee Co-Chairs CSMAC Liaison Goals Status SM via Databases Larry Alder Wanda Covington- 0 Target Question Isl: "How can sensitive and 0 Committee submitted their report for CSMAC Ragsdale (SPD) government classified operations be included and review on 2/9/2015 and it is posted on Mark Gibson protected using a database-driven sharing Ken Taylor approach, particularly one that strives toward real-time responses?" 0 Expected Focus of Work? 0 Targeted Completion Date?Final report on this question at Feb 2015 meeting. 0 Goallsl Discussed at Last CSMAC Meeting?Finalize recommendations on this question and start on the next one. website. The following is a list of the recommendations contained in the report. 1. The NTIA should start sharing now using information that is non- sensitive. 2. The NTIA should begin a path to implement federal SAS/black box technique to address federal data sharing concerns as parallel track to sharing now, but it should not be a constraint to getting started with sharing. 3. The NTIA should establish itself as an intermediary between industry and the Federal Government in facilitating dialogue and if necessary seek authority to ensure data is not over classified and not a barrier to spectrum sharing. 0 The committee has no concerns at this time. Subcommittee Co-Chairs CSMAC Liaison Goals Status Pay for Spectrum Sharing Michael Calabreese Charla Rath Fred Matos (SAID) Target Question-"How federal agencies should be resourced to develop and implement sharing with non- auction licensees or services, such as unlicensed device?? Expected Focus of Work?Limit to recommendations of what can be done without additional legislation Targeted Completion Date?Recommendations by following meeting (not February) Goallsl Discussed at Last CSMAC Meeting?To finish resea rch/ interviews 0 Consider any "tweaks" to CSEA that could at least incrementally address the question Ongoing research/expert interviews on CSEA/UTAM/restrictions contained in Miscellaneous Receipts Act 0 Conduct interview with OMB, NTIA, FCC 000 Subcommittee Co-Chairs CSMAC Liaison Goals Status Government and Thomas Dombrowski Rangam Subramanian Target Question: 0 Subcommittee shelved its own earlier ?"dUSt?y callaboration (5P0) Recommending type of spectrum issues NTIA framework collaboration document, in Steve Sharkev can prioritize for enhanced collaboration to response to question 3, since the include those requiring sensitive/classi?ed subcommittee assessed that the feasibility of information exchanges. implementing the recommendations is not 0 Recommending how can NTIA most feasible under FACA regulations. effectively leverage existing or emerging 0 However, the subcommittee has prepared a entities to include CSMAC, PPSG, NASCTN, new presentation recommending that NTIA in and CAC to streamline efforts, minimizing the collaboration with FCC and federal agencies burden on participating organizations. should initiate non-decision making discussions 0 Modification, if any, of the draft framework to with affected stakeholders on spectrum issues. most efficiently and effectively achieve the It also expressed concern on how to engage desired collaboration. with federal agencies on national security 0 Exgected Focus of work? Question 3_ For concerns. It has asked NTIA to prioritize question 2 limited discussions have taken identifying additional SPeCtrUin belOW 6 GHZ. in place on PPSG and CSMAC, but no details. Q1 addition to the 0n80ing 3-56 and 5(5- has not been discussed so far, 0 Subcommittee is requesting information from 0 Targeted Completion Date? Feb 09 for Q3. NTIA on the next Steps forward. TBD for (Q1) and (Q2) will base it on the 0 No specific comments on Q1. Q2 or any discussions at the CSMAC meeting, suggestions for subcommittee to continue or 0 new issues to be discussed. (1) Progress on the previous collaboration framework document. (2) Discuss Ql and Q2 1) consider acting on recommendation 1; if time permits 0 2) Consider replacing subcommittee activity with small collaborative industry-government focus groupsl with targeted issues and goals. NOTES: NA MEETING AGENDA COMMERCE SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CSMAC) Raytheon Company, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor Conference Room VA 22209-2249 Wednesday, February 18, 2015 1:00 PM. 4:00 PM. (EST) Teleconference Number: (Inside Responsive (Outside US) Not Responsive Pin: N?t WebFaes?ipEl??k 1:00 P.M. Welcome and Opening Remarks Larer Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Opening Comments and Introductions by Co-Chairs onmlents 0 Membership Roll Call 0 Acknowledgement Of Special Guests/Visitors Reports - CSMAC Subcommittees Industly and Govemment Collaboration Spectlum Management via Databases Federal Access tO Non-Federal Bands (Bi-Directional Sharing) General Occupancy Measm?ements Quanti?cation of Federal Spectlum Use Transitional Sharing Spectlum Sharing Cost Recovery Alternatives Enforcement 3:00 P.M. NTIA Spectrum Update 3:25 P.M. Opportunity for Public Comment 3:35 P.M. Closing Remarks by Co-Chairs 3:45 P.M. Adjourn February 18, 2015 Schedule of Next Meetings • • May 12, 2015, Institute for Telecommunications Sciences, Boulder, CO o 1:00 P.M. - 4:00 P.M. (CST) (Confirmed) August 2015, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC o 1:00 P.M. – 4:00 P.M. (EDT) (Not Confirmed) February 18, 2015 From: To: Subject: Date: Bruce Washington Mark Gibson; Larry Alder CSMAC Executive Coordination Meeting Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:08:00 AM Mark and Larry,   Are you both available for a 30 minute coordination meeting with Paige and Karl on October 29 at 3:30 PM (EDT)?    Also, please provide me the name and contact information for the person who helps you coordinate your day.  I will include them on similar coordination request.   Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff / DFO CSMAC Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: To: Subject: Bruce Washington Paige R. Atkins; Peter Tenhula; Larry Alder; Mark Gibson; Dana Mortenson (danajanae@google.com); Jessica Weber CSMAC Executive Meeting From: To: Subject: Bruce Washington Paige R. Atkins; Peter Tenhula; Larry Alder; Mark Gibson CSMAC Executive Meeting From: To: Subject: Bruce Washington Paige R. Atkins; Larry Alder; Mark Gibson; Karl B. Nebbia CSMAC Executive Meeting Toll-free Number is Not , Passcode: Not This meeting is still scheduled.  It has not been postponed. From: To: Subject: Bruce Washington Paige R. Atkins; Larry Alder; Mark Gibson; Karl B. Nebbia CSMAC Executive Meeting This meeting is still scheduled.  It has not been postponed. From: Bruce Washington To: Lam Alder; Mark Gibson Subject: CSMAC Executive Meeting Toll?free Number Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:34:00 PM Larry Mark, The toll-free number for today?s call is passcode Best regards, Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: To: Subject: Date: Bruce Washington Mark Gibson; Larry Alder CSMAC February Agenda Topic Monday, December 08, 2014 5:21:00 PM Larry / Mark,   I am developing the CSMAC agenda for February 2015. Please recap for me which reports may be ready to close out (in part or full) and any plans for future work.   Thank you,   Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff / DFO CSMAC Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: To: Subject: Date: Bruce Washington Larry Alder; Mark Gibson CSMAC Follow Up Activity Friday, February 27, 2015 9:32:00 AM Mark and Larry,   When you send out your guidance for the Subcommittee Co-Chairs to revise (succinctly) and update their reports (final or draft), please inform them that we would like to have the approved final reports before the next coordination meeting on March 18.  As a matter of procedure, it is imperative that we properly label and post the “final reports” on the web immediately following the meeting.   Thank you,   Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff / DFO CSMAC Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: Bruce Washington To: Subject: CSMAC Material for February 18 Date: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:45:00 PM Attadlments: CSMAC GovInd Collaboration recommendations Feb2015.ppt See attachment. Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: Bmce Washington Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:25 AM To: Bmce Washington Subject: Important (Due Feb 4) - Security Requirements for CSMAC Meeting Sdieduled for Febmary 18 Dear CSMAC Members and Invitee, In order to attend the upcoming CSMAC meeting on February 18th, the Visitor Registration System (VRS) at Raytheon requires that non-employees be cleared in advance of entering their internal spaces. For those attending the meeting in person, we will need to know in advance: Their ?rst, middle and last name; Company or organization they represent; Whether their company or organization is incorporated in the United States; Their countries of citizenship; and Whether or not they are US. citizens or lawful permanent residents. rue-99?s? Please reply support this requirement no later than February 4. Thank you, Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: Bmce Washington Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 4:19 PM To: Su ject: ImoSave the Date - CSMAC Meeting Scheduled for February 18 ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting. SUMNIARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (Committee). DATES: The meeting will be held on February 18, 2015, from 1:00 pm. to 4:00 Eastern Standard Time. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Raytheon Of?ce Space, 1100 Wilson Blvd, 20th Floor, VA 2209-2249 From Metro Rail Take the Blue or Orange Line to the station. Once outside the station turn right onto North Moore St. and walk to the end of the block. Take left onto Wilson Blvd. RCOW is in the ?rst tall building immediately on your right once you cross over North St. From Street Level Enter Main Level of 1100 Wilson Boulevard. Take escalator to the Mezzanine level. Take the elevators that are to the left of the reception desk [wall reads "1100 Wilson Boulevard Elevators - Floors 8 to 20"] During regular business hours, there is a Receptionist on Mezzanine level if you need assistance. SPECIAL INSTRUCTION: All participants most pre-register with the Designated Federal Of?cer in order to have access to the building and meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce M. Washington, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 482-6415 or BWashington@ntia.doc.gov; and/or visit NTIA’s web site at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac. CSMAC HOST: Richard Reaser, Raytheon Company   Thank you Rick,   Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff / DFO CSMAC Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 Government and Industry Collaboration Subcommittee Subcommittee Members • • • • • • Steve Sharkey, Co-chair • Tom Dombrowsky, Co-chair • Larry Alder • Mark Gibson • Rob Kubik • Mark McHenry • Janice Obuchowski Charla Rath Kurt Schaubach Bryan Tramont Jennifer Warren Rangam Subramanian, NTIA liaison 2 Questions to the Subcommittee • What type of spectrum issues do you recommend NTIA prioritize for enhanced collaboration, to include those requiring sensitive/classified information exchange? • How can we most effectively leverage existing or emerging entities to include CSMAC, PPSG, NASCTN, and CAC to streamline efforts and minimize the burden on participating organizations? • How would you modify the draft framework to most efficiently and effectively achieve the desired collaboration? 3 Subcommittee Activities • NTIA provided a draft framework document that it requested feedback on • The subcommittee has had numerous conference calls and attempted to draft a revised framework document that would better meet the goals of NTIA and the affected stakeholders • However, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements were determined to significantly limit decision making efforts outside of a FACA approved process • Therefore, the subcommittee instead moved to focus on the questions posed to it by NTIA 4 Draft Recommendations • Draft Recommendation 1: NTIA, in collaboration with the FCC, should initiate non-decision making discussions with affected stakeholders on spectrum issues. – The subcommittee believes that outreach should include the FCC as well as NTIA – These discussions should establish a fact finding dialog between the Federal government and industry but not delve into recommendations or decisions – Affected stakeholders would include Federal agencies (DOD, FAA, DOJ, etc.) and should be broadly representative of industry (aviation, satellite, licensed and unlicensed terrestrial wireless) 5 Draft Recommendations (cont.) • Draft Recommendation 2: NTIA should seek to leverage existing expert advisory groups to target particular spectrum policy areas for further study. – The subcommittee believes that existing advisory groups such as CSMAC and the FCC TAC, as well as potentially the PPSG, can be used to help drive decision making on key spectrum issues – Of continued concern is how to engage Federal agencies with national security concerns, especially DOD, under the FACA processes 6 Draft Recommendations (cont.) • Draft Recommendation 3: NTIA should prioritize on identifying additional spectrum bands below 6 GHz for enhanced collaboration. – In addition to ongoing efforts with respect to the 3.5 and 5 GHz bands, NTIA should work in collaboration with the FCC and industry on additional spectrum bands for enhanced collaboration. 7 Follow on Question • How can government and industry effectively work in small groups to discuss spectrum and policy issues without FACA concerns? – The subcommittee attempted to determine a way forward to having small group discussions without triggering FACA issues. – The concern is ensuring that Federal agencies with national security concerns are able to fully participate in the decision making process. – Industry concern is ensuring widespread representation in these small group discussions and that these small group efforts lead to actionable output. 8 From: To: Cc: Subject: Bruce Washington Not Responsive ; Larry Alder; Not Responsive Not Responsive CSMAC Subcommittee Co-Chair IPR (Admin) (NTIA Staff conference location is room 4099) Teleconference: Not (Toll Free); Passcode: Not Host: CSMAC Co-Chairs/NTIA Participants:  NTIA DAAs, NTIA Liaisons, DFO, CSMAC Co-Chairs, Subcommittee Co-Chairs Purpose:  To provide an in-progress report (IPR) on the status of the subcommittees’ work and proposed recommendations. End State:  To identify if the subcommittees have progressed in their assignments and have recommendations for the full Committee to call for a  Vote.   Agenda:  (Durations 30min) CSMAC Co-Chairs Opening Remarks and Roll Call NTIA Remarks Subcommittees IPR CSMAC Co-Chairs Closing Remarks From: To: Not Responsive Cc: Not Responsive Subject: CSMAC Subcommittee Co-Chair IPR (Admin) Bruce Washington ; Larry Alder; Not Responsive NTIA Staff Only – Meeting Room is 1410 Host: CSMAC Co-Chairs/NTIA Participants:  NTIA DAAs, NTIA Liaisons, DFO, CSMAC Co-Chairs, Subcommittee Co-Chairs Purpose:  To provide an in-progress report (IPR) on the status of the subcommittees’ work and proposed recommendations. End State:  To identify if the subcommittees have progressed in their assignments and have recommendations for the full Committee to call for a  Vote.   Agenda:  (Durations 30min) CSMAC Co-Chairs Opening Remarks and Roll Call NTIA Remarks Subcommittees IPR CSMAC Co-Chairs Closing Remarks From: To: Cc: Subject: Bruce Washington Not Responsive ; Larry Alder; Not Responsive Not Responsive CSMAC Subcommittee Co-Chair IPR (Admin) Host: CSMAC Co-Chairs/NTIA Participants:  NTIA DAAs, NTIA Liaisons, DFO, CSMAC Co-Chairs, Subcommittee Co-Chairs Purpose:  To provide an in-progress report (IPR) on the status of the subcommittees’ work and proposed recommendations. End State:  To identify if the subcommittees have progressed in their assignments and have recommendations for the full Committee to call for a  Vote.   Agenda:  (Durations 30min) CSMAC Co-Chairs Opening Remarks and Roll Call NTIA Remarks Subcommittees IPR CSMAC Co-Chairs Closing Remarks From: To: Cc: Subject: Bruce Washington Not Responsive ; Larry Alder; Not Responsive Not Responsive CSMAC Subcommittee Co-Chair IPR (Admin) Host: CSMAC Co-Chairs/NTIA Participants:  NTIA DAAs, NTIA Liaisons, DFO, CSMAC Co-Chairs, Subcommittee Co-Chairs Purpose:  To provide an in-progress report (IPR) on the status of the subcommittees’ work and proposed recommendations. End State:  To identify if the subcommittees have progressed in their assignments and have recommendations for the full Committee to call for a  Vote.   Agenda:  (Durations 30min) CSMAC Co-Chairs Opening Remarks and Roll Call NTIA Remarks Subcommittees IPR CSMAC Co-Chairs Closing Remarks From: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Bruce Washington Not Responsive ; Larry Alder; Not Responsive Not Responsive CSMAC Subcommittee Coordination Telecon - Co-Chairs Only CSMAC Groups as of Sep 18.docx   Purpose: To coordinate subcommittee activities and finalize the CSMAC agenda for the October 9 meeting. NTIA Liaisons-Bi-directional Sharing – Rich Orsulak,  HYPERLINK "mailto:ROrsulak@ntia.doc.gov" ROrsulak@ntia.doc.gov Enforcement – Rob Haines (primary),  HYPERLINK "mailto:RHaines@ntia.doc.gov" RHaines@ntia.doc.gov; Yang Weng,  HYPERLINK "mailto:YWeng@ntia.doc.gov" YWeng@ntia.doc.gov Transitional Sharing – Mike Doolan (primary),  HYPERLINK "mailto:WDoolan@ntia.doc.gov" WDoolan@ntia.doc.gov; Gary Patrick,  HYPERLINK "mailto:GPatrick@ntia.doc.gov" GPatrick@ntia.doc.gov Measurement/Quantification – Antonio Lavarello,  HYPERLINK "mailto:ALavarello@ntia.doc.gov" ALavarello@ntia.doc.gov SM via Databases – Wanda Covington-Ragsdale (primary),  HYPERLINK "mailto:WCovington-Ragsdale@ntia.doc.gov" WCovingtonRagsdale@ntia.doc.gov; Ken Taylor,  HYPERLINK "mailto:KTaylor@ntia.doc.gov" KTaylor@ntia.doc.gov Paying for Spectrum Sharing – Fred Matos,  HYPERLINK "mailto:FMatos@ntia.doc.gov" FMatos@ntia.doc.gov Collaboration with industry – Rangam Subramanian,  HYPERLINK "mailto:Rangam@ntia.doc.gov" Rangam@ntia.doc.gov Support the DFO to ensure internal cross-flow among NTIA subcommittee liaisons – Eric Rosenberg,  HYPERLINK "mailto:ERosenberg@ntia.doc.gov" ERosenberg@ntia.doc.gov #pp Members 1 3 4 2 2 4 5 3 1 2 3 0 1 2 1 3 7 1 3 1 3 2 2 5 3 4 4 5 Alder, Larry Audrey Allison Calabrese, Michael Cooper, Martin Crosby, Mark Chartier, Mike Dombrowsky Jr, Thomas Donovan, David Feld, Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Harold Gibson, Mark Giulia McHenry Hatfield, Dale Kolodzy, Paul Kubik, Robert McHenry, Mark Obuchowski, Janice Pepper, Robert Povelites, Carl Rath, Charla Reaser, Rick Reed, Jeffrey Roberson, Dennis Sorond, Mariam Schaubach, Kurt Sharkey, Steve Tramont, Bryan Warren, Jennifer # per group 2014 CSMAC Future Work (As of Sep 18, 2014) Bidirectional Sharing Enforcement X X Transition al Sharing X Co-Chair SM via Databases Co-Chair X X Measurement/ Quantification X X Co-Chair X X X X Co-Chair X X Co-Chair X Co-Chair X X X X X X X Co-Chair Co-Chair X X X X X X X X X X X Co-Chair X X X Co-Chair Gov. and Industry Collaboration X X Co-Chair Paying for Spectrum Sharing X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Co-Chair X X X X X X 11 16 10 X X X 12 9 X X X X Co-Chair X X 8 14 From: To: Not Responsive Subject: CSMAC Subcommittee Coordination Telecon - Co-Chairs Only Bruce Washington ; Larry Alder; Not Responsive Purpose: To coordinate subcommittee activities and finalize the CSMAC agenda for the October 9 meeting. NTIA Liaisons-Bi-directional Sharing – Rich Orsulak,  HYPERLINK "mailto:ROrsulak@ntia.doc.gov" ROrsulak@ntia.doc.gov Enforcement – Rob Haines (primary),  HYPERLINK "mailto:RHaines@ntia.doc.gov" RHaines@ntia.doc.gov; Yang Weng,  HYPERLINK "mailto:YWeng@ntia.doc.gov" YWeng@ntia.doc.gov Transitional Sharing – Mike Doolan (primary),  HYPERLINK "mailto:WDoolan@ntia.doc.gov" WDoolan@ntia.doc.gov; Gary Patrick,  HYPERLINK "mailto:GPatrick@ntia.doc.gov" GPatrick@ntia.doc.gov Measurement/Quantification – Antonio Lavarello,  HYPERLINK "mailto:ALavarello@ntia.doc.gov" ALavarello@ntia.doc.gov SM via Databases – Wanda Covington-Ragsdale (primary),  HYPERLINK "mailto:WCovington-Ragsdale@ntia.doc.gov" WCovingtonRagsdale@ntia.doc.gov; Ken Taylor,  HYPERLINK "mailto:KTaylor@ntia.doc.gov" KTaylor@ntia.doc.gov Paying for Spectrum Sharing – Fred Matos,  HYPERLINK "mailto:FMatos@ntia.doc.gov" FMatos@ntia.doc.gov Collaboration with industry – Rangam Subramanian,  HYPERLINK "mailto:Rangam@ntia.doc.gov" Rangam@ntia.doc.gov Support the DFO to ensure internal cross-flow among NTIA subcommittee liaisons – Eric Rosenberg,  HYPERLINK "mailto:ERosenberg@ntia.doc.gov" ERosenberg@ntia.doc.gov From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Larry Alder Bruce Washington Mark Gibson Dates for next CSMAC Wednesday, October 29, 2014 4:04:01 PM Bruce, I have a tentative ski trip planned that goes Feb 1-6. Thus, I would prefer to meet outside of that window.  Hence Feb 4 is not ideal for me. The week before Jan 26-Jan30 or Feb 9 - Feb 13 are all open for me. If you can't move the date and Feb 4 is the only option, I will cancel my ski trip and attend. ---Larry A. From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Bruce Washington Larry Alder; Mark Gibson Draft CSMAC Agenda Attached Friday, September 12, 2014 5:41:00 PM CSMAC Agenda -- October 9 2014 draft.docx Larry and Mark,   Per our coordination meeting with Paige, the draft CSMAC agenda is attached for your consideration.  Feel free to provide input where appropriate.  Also, please advise us where time adjustments are required based on the expected duration time for each discussion topic or report (e.g. subcommittee reports).  We do not anticipate that each subcommittee report will require equal time for debate/review or vote.   Thank you,   Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff / DFO CSMAC Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 MEETING AGENDA COMMERCE SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CSMAC) US. Department of Commerce Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 4830 1401 Constitution Ave, NW (Entrance 011 141th St.) Washington, DC 20230 Thursday 9, 2014 1:00 PM. 4:00 P.M. (EDT) Teleconference Number: (Inside Us) Not Responsive (Outside US) Not Responsive Pin: N?t WebesiPEi??ic 1:00 P.M. Welcome and Opening Remarks Larer Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Opening Comments and Introductions by Co-Chairs 0 Comments 0 Membership Roll Call 0 Acknowledgement of Special Guests/Visitors 1:20 P.M. NTIA Spectrum Update 1:45 P.M. Reports - CSMAC Subcommittees 0 Enforcement 0 Transitional Sharing 0 General Occupancy Measm?ements Quanti?cation of Federal Spectrum Use Spectrum Management Via Databases Federal Access to Non-Federal Bands 0 Spectrum Sharing Cost Recovery Alternatives 0 Industry and Govermnent Collaboration 2:55 P.M. CSMAC Lessons Leaned 3:15 P.M. Opportunity for Public Comment 3:30 P.M. Closing Remarks by Co-Chairs 3:45 P.M. Adjourn October 9, 2014 Schedule of Next Meetings • • • January 2015, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC o 1:00 P.M. - 4:00 P.M. (EDT) (Not Confirmed) May 12, 2015, Institute for Telecommunications Sciences, Boulder, CO o 1:00 P.M. - 4:00 P.M. (CST) (Confirmed) August 2015, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC o 1:00 P.M. – 4:00 P.M. (EST) (Not Confirmed) October 9, 2014 From: Bruce Washington To: Subject: Due July 18 -- CSMAC Subcommittee Assignments Date: Monday, July 14, 2014 5:04:00 PM CSMAC Members, Please select a CSMAC subcommittee assignment not later than July 18. Our objective is to have every member assigned to a subcommittee by July 21. Please refer to the website for the latest reports CSMAC Subcommittees 0 Enforcement 0 Transitional Sharing 0 General Occupancy Measurements/Quanti?cation of Federal Spectrum Use Spectrum Management via Databases Federal Access to Non-Federal Bands Spectrum Sharing Cost Recovery Alternatives Government and Industry Collaboration Thank you, Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff/ DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: Bruce Washington To: Subject: Due Oct 2nd -- Next (SMAC Meeting Scheduled for Oct 9, 2014 (Commerce Building) Date: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 12:59:00 PM Importance: High Dear CSMAC Members: This is a reminder that all presentation materials for our upcoming meeting on Thursday, October 9th are by noon, Thursday, October 2nd. Subcommittee Co-Chairs should advise the CSMAC Co-Chairs, Larry and Mark, how much time may be required to present their status reports. Please copy me. Best regards, Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: Bruce Washington Sent: Fn'da Uember 19, 2014 8:33 AM Su 'ect: RE: RSVP NLT Sept 25 -- Next CSMAC Meeting Building) - uled for Oct 9, 2014 (Commerce Dear CSMAC members, In preparation for the upcoming meeting, please verify if we have properly captured which subcommittee(s) you plan to assist. See attachment. Also, if you have not already please do so before September 25. Thank you, Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: Bruce Washington Sent: Wednesda - - ber 10, 2014 11:2014 (Commerce Building) Dear CSMAC Members, Please RSVP for the upcoming CSMAC meeting on October 9, 2014 not later than September 25. Also, we are in need of a conference room near the DC area for the January and August 2015 meetings. Please let me know if any member is interested in hosting one or both meetings. Thank you, Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: Bruce Washington Sent: Thursda Ju 24, 2014 2:13 PM Su 'ect: Save - Date -- Next CSMAC Meeting - -- Oct 9, 2014 Commerce Building) (Caveat: Moved from Chicago, IL to Washington, DC) ACTION: Save the Date -- Notice of Open CSMAC Meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information on spectrum management policy matters. DATES: The meeting will be held on October 9, 2014, from 1:00 pm. to 4:00 pm, Daylight Saving Time. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the US. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 4830, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce M. Washington, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 482-6415 or and/0r visit web site at Matters to Be Considered: The Committee will receive recommendations from its members on matters related to the accomplishment of the President?s goal of identifying 500 megahertz of radio spectrum for wireless broadband by 2020. In addition, the Committee will report on the progress of the following new subcommittees established to help the NTIA develop new or revised strategies for responding more efficiently and effectively to fundamental technological, operational, and other trends to continue advancement of delivering spectrum products, services, and solutions that will support the ever-increasing demand for spectrum: Enforcement Transitional Sharing General Occupancy Measurements and Quantification of Federal Spectrum Use Spectrum Management via Databases Federal Access to Non-federal Bands (Bi-directional Sharing) Spectrum Sharing Cost Recovery Alternatives Government and Industry Collaboration RSVP: Not required at this time. Thank you, Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectmm Management National Telecommunications and Infonnation Administration US. Depaltment of ommerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Larry Alder Bruce Washington Paige R. Atkins Example of online Tuesday, September 09, 2014 12:04:51 PM Bruce, Here is how I have been organizing information for the Spectrum Database WG. I put everything in on online repository using Google docs.   All documents are online here and including ReadMe file that serves as a starting point and index that links most of the notes and docs.  While the tool allows access control,  I didn't want to force folks to have an account to access the info so I decided on the open approach. I think if we formalize a particular tool then adding access control is a good idea. ---Larry A. From: To: Subject: Date: Importance: Bruce Washington Mark Gibson; Larry Alder Executive CSMAC Co-Chairs Meeting Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:54:00 PM High Mark/Larry, Can you support a meeting with Paige on February 13th ? If so, what time works best for you? Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff / DFO CSMAC Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: To: Subject: Date: Bruce Washington Larry Alder; Mark Gibson Executive CSMAC Meeting w/Co-Chairs Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:47:00 PM Larry and Mark,   Karl and Paige would like to arrange a meeting in the next few days to discussion our nearterm objectives and requirements. We recommend the dates and times below.  Please let me know what will work best for you.   Sep 5th , 11 am, 1 pm or 4 pm EDT Sep 9th , between 10 am-1 pm EDT Sep 12 th , afternoon EDT     Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff / DFO CSMAC Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: Bruce Washington To: Subject: Federal Computer Week Article Date: Thursday, February 19, 2015 12:00:00 PM They had a nice write up on spectrum sharing and CSMAC: fcw.com articles 2015 02 18 ectrum-sharin .as Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectmm Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: To: Subject: Bruce Washington Larry Alder; Dana Mortenson (danajanae@google.com); Paige R. Atkins; Peter Tenhula; Mark Gibson; Jessica Weber FW: CSMAC Executive Meeting -----Original Appointment----From: Bruce Washington Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 3:32 PM To: Bruce Washington; Paige R. Atkins; Peter Tenhula; Larry Alder; Mark Gibson; Dana Mortenson ( HYPERLINK "mailto:danajanae@google.com" danajanae@google.com); Jessica Weber Subject: CSMAC Executive Meeting When: Friday, February 13, 2015 3:00 PM-3:45 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: Teleconference Meeting - Not ; Pass Code Not From: To: Bruce Washington Not Responsive ; Dr. Larry Alder; Not Responsive Subject: Date: Attachments: FW: CSMAC Measurement and Quantification Subcommittee - Potential Questions for the Subcommittee Monday, February 09, 2015 11:44:00 AM CSMAC QM Subcommittee Presentation 2015 0218 v2.ppt CSMAC QM Subcommittee Potential Questions 2015 0218 v2.ppt CSMAC materials for upcoming meeting on February 18.   Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff / DFO CSMAC Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415     CSMAC Measurement/Quantification Subcommittee Use of General Occupancy Measurements And Quantification of Federal Spectrum Use CSMAC Presentation February 18, 2015 Question 1 How may general occupancy measurements be performed to reflect or validate actual federal spectrum use (particularly radars and intermittent operations) in a way that can support spectrum management decisions regarding relocation or sharing of spectrum? (See 6/14/13 Executive Memorandum at Sec. 3(c) and NTIA 8/19/13 Notice of Inquiry) 2 Question 1 – Draft Response The general occupancy measurement objective should be to determine how much spectrum could be shared with incumbent systems. The measurements would approximately determine the number of transmitters, locations, number of channels used, modes typically in use, time-of-day use, etc. However, the measurement process needs to recognize and indicate where there are receive only uses, and other low duty cycle transmissions that would not be adequately reflected in the measurement results, e.g., where there are receive only radars, or missile destruct signals; current analytic techniques are more appropriate for such situations as measurements would be potentially misleading. 3 Question 1 – Measurement Approach Regulators Determine Band Considered for Sharing No Level 0 – Analysis Measurements are useful, equipment parameters Yes Level 1 – General Incumbent System Characteristics No Incumbent occupancy is low enough, some incumbent system parameters determined No Use incumbent system parameters to determine detection distances and other parameters to insure measurements are meaningful Measurements at select sharing location , determine occupancy levels and general incumbent use, signal characteristics Yes Level 2 –Detailed Incumbent System Characteristics Measurements at incumbent system locations, determine incumbent system parameters (waveforms, antenna rotation, …) Detailed incumbent system Yes parameters determined No Level 3 –Site Specific Characteristics Detailed incumbent system parameters Yes determined, able to determine spectrum availability Spectrum sharing is infeasible, or measurements are not a good tool Measurements at all sharing locations, determine detailed usage levels (temporal and spatial usage patterns, mix of systems, …) to obtain spectrum availability Spectrum sharing feasible, critical incumbent parameters determined Question 1 – Draft Response The general occupancy measurements should be made incrementally to support different phases of the spectrum management decisionmaking process. The duration and the geographic scope of the measurements should increase if the process for a given set of frequencies moves forward. The purpose/triggers for measurement activity are: Level 0 Prior to making any determination to undertake any occupancy measurements, NTIA should analyze the various federal uses and specific service characteristics (e.g., radar, earth observation systems, deep space exploration) in bands of potential interest, to determine if those bands could serve as potential candidates for next level measurement activity. 5 Question 1 – Draft Response Level 1 To inform the process of identifying and prioritizing bands for potential relocation or sharing. These measurements would be conducted for a period of time and in places, appropriate for the incumbent operations in the band. Level 2 For targeted bands, to determine the scope and technical feasibility of transitional or long-term sharing. Level 3 For bands identified for relocation or sharing, to inform commercial users (auction bidders). These measurements would be made in all high priority Protection Zones at multiple locations (5 to 10) over long periods (3 to 6 months) to provide a comprehensive and detailed estimate of the existing transmitter’s spatial and temporal characteristics. 6 Question 1 – Draft Response The NTIA should develop a multi-tier approach to release share the data that accommodates security concerns. The detailed measurement data should be released to a limited group that are actively considering providing service in the specific areas. NTIA should investigate data processing methods to ‘hide’ critical measurement features (i.e. waveform type, specific frequencies, etc) and maintaining received power level, approximate location and time of day to enable public releasable data. For example, the amplitude probability distribution of received power in 4 hours blocks over frequency range blocks could be provided, along with annotation that the source was an airborne transmitter, which would provide significant information for spectrum sharing analysis, but would reveal much less about the DoD systems. 7 Question 1 – Draft Response The NTIA should analyze the measurement data to extrapolate the usage in the future, which can inform whether there is a potential for sharing or relocation. However, measurement characteristics alone are not sufficient to determine future usage, but the spectrum needs of existing authorized, but not yet deployed, programs need also be reflected in future usage analysis, as well as any planned growth in current systems. 8 Question 2 Recognizing resource limitations and the lack of real-time reporting of use built within the federal radio infrastructure, how should actual federal spectrum use be quantified with or without supplemental occupancy measurements? (See 6/14/13 PM Sec. 3(a) and (d)) 9 Question 2 – Draft Response The CSMAC recommends that the NTIA use spectrum measurements to selectively validate analytic spectrum interference prediction models.1 These interference models effectively describe federal spectrum use because the prediction models are a fundamental tool used to limit entrant spectrum use. Measurements are critical to interference models because the models have many assumptions on propagation models, clutter levels, transmit power levels, transmitter locations, transmission statistics, and other parameters. The measurements should determine the incumbent and/or entrant received power level distribution functions at specific locations. By directly comparing these measurements with model predictions, the interference models are validated. Note 1: For example the approach described in ‘Fourth Interim Progress Report on the TenYear Plan and Timetable and Plan for Quantitative Assessments of Spectrum Usage’, U.S. Department of Commerce Report, Appendix A 10 Subcommittee Members Michael Calabrese Mark Crosby (C) Mark McHenry (C) Rick Reaser Mariam Sorond Jennifer Warren Marty Cooper Tom Dombrowsky Janice Obuchowski Dennis Roberson Kurt Schaubach 11 CSMAC Measurement/Quantification Subcommittee Use of General Occupancy Measurements And Quantification of Federal Spectrum Use Potential New Questions February 18, 2015 Objective • What additional spectrum occupancy measurement related questions should the CSMAC address? Question 1 – Dynamic Sharing Spectrum occupancy measurements could be used to facilitate dynamic (minutes/hours) spectrum sharing in conjunction with a database. There are different architectures (sensing in the devices, sensing along the entrant boundaries, sensing along the incumbent boundaries, etc) that potentially band and location specific. For example, DFS is a sensing on the device approach that is deployed worldwide. What are the technical and policy issues that proponents of these systems should address to enable rapid adoption? What are the strengths and weakness of measurement-based spectrum sharing approaches? Question 2 – Operational Measurements How should propagation measurements be used operationally in future spectrum sharing approaches? For example, measurements of off-the-air signals can be used to estimate dynamic atmospheric ducting phenomena. Foliage changes or estimate number of users could also be continually estimated and fed into databases. This information could avoid the use of worse case propagation loss and entrant usage assumptions in database spectrum sharing approaches. Question 3 – Propagation Measurements What propagation measurements should be made to enhance spectrum sharing? Propagation models have a huge impact on spectrum sharing efficiency. While there has been extensive propagation measurements made over the years, there was large disagreement during the previous CSMAC WGs on what propagation models to use. Should there be improved general models, or site specific measurements? Does work need to be done on air-ground or ground to ground models? Question 4 – Enforcement Level of Effort What level of effort is needed to support enforcement using measurements in future spectrum sharing approaches? Would a few ‘go-to measurement teams’ be enough (present approach), or is a dedicated (expensive) fixed, distributed spectrum measurement system needed/useful? From: To: Bruce Washington Not Responsive ; Dr. Larry Alder; Not Responsive Subject: Date: Attachments: Jr FW: CSMAC: Pay for Sharing Subcommittee -- Update for Feb 18 CSMAC meeting Wednesday, February 04, 2015 5:15:00 PM Update Spectrum Sharing Cost Recovery Subcomm Feb18 2015.docx Talking points from the Spectrum Sharing and Cost Recovery Subcommittee are attached.   Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff / DFO CSMAC Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415   From: Michael Calabrese [mailto:calabrese@newamerica.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 3:58 PM To: Bruce Washington Cc: Charla Rath Subject: CSMAC: Pay for Sharing Subcommittee -- Update for Feb 18 CSMAC meeting       Spectrum Sharing Cost Recovery Working Group Update for CSMAC general meeting, Feb. 18, 2015 NTIA Question: “How should federal agencies be resourced to develop and implement sharing with non-auction licensees or services, such as unlicensed device?” • Initial focus of inquiry is what’s possible within current law. • Goal is to identify revenue sources to reimburse agencies to facilitate spectrum use by “non-auction licensees or services” (i.e., sources other than auction revenue). • Finish initial research into CSEA, UTAM, White Space database fees, Misc. Receipts Act. Other? • Hold meetings with NTIA, OMB, FCC, DoD, and other outside experts on current needs and constraints, legal authority. • Prepare recommendations for next CSMAC (including possible tweaks to CSEA, per NTIA request). From: Bruce Washington To: 0c: Lam Alder; Subject: FW: Due July 18 -- CSMAC Subcommittee Assignments Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 12:39:00 PM CSMAC Member, Please indicate which subcommittee you are interested in working on. Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: Bruce Washian Sent: Monda Ju 14 2014 5:05 PM To: Su ject: Due Ju 18 -- CSMAC Subcommittee Assignments CSMAC Members, Please select a CSMAC subcommittee assignment not later than July 18. Our objective is to have every member assigned to a subcommittee by July 21. Please refer to the website for the latest reports CSMAC Subcommittees 0 Enforcement 0 Transitional Sharing 0 General Occupancy Measurements/Quanti?cation of Federal Specuum Use Spectrum Management via Databases Federal Access to Non-Federal Bands Spectrum Sharing Cost Recovery Alternatives Government and Industry Collaboration Thank you, Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff / DFO CSMAC Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: Bruce Washington To: Subject: FW: Due July 18 -- CSMAC Subcommittee Assignments Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 9:59:00 AM FYI Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff DFO CSMAC Of?ce of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration US Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: Mark Crosby Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:43 AM To: Bruce Washington Subject: RE: Due July 18 -- CSMAC Subcommittee Assignments From: Bruce Washington Sent: Monda Ju 14 2014 5:05 PM Su ject: Due Ju 18 -- CSMAC Subcommittee Assignments CSMAC Members, Please select a CSMAC subcommittee assignment not later than July 18. Our objective is to have every member assigned to a subcommittee by July 21. Please refer to the website for the latest reports CSMAC Subcommittees 0 Enforcement 0 Transitional Sharing 0 General Occupancy Measurements/Quanti?cation of Federal Spectrum Use Spectrum Management via Databases Federal Access to Non-Federal Bands · Spectrum Sharing Cost Recovery Alternatives · Government and Industry Collaboration Thank you, Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff / DFO CSMAC Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415 From: To: Bruce Washington Not Responsive Larry Alder; Not Subject: Date: Attachments: ; Dr. Larry Alder; Not Responsive Responsive FW: Enforcement Subcommittee Document for February 18, 2015 Monday, February 09, 2015 11:46:00 AM CSMAC - Enforcement SC Responses - 021815.pdf CSMAC material for the upcoming CSMAC meeting on February 18.   Bruce M. Washington Chief of Staff / DFO CSMAC Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Phone: (202) 482-6415   From: Mark Crosby [mailto:mark.crosby@enterprisewireless.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 1:35 PM To: Bruce Washington Cc: Not Responsive Larry Alder Subject: Enforcement Subcommittee Document for February 18, 2015   Bruce … as requested for purposes of the upcoming February 18 th CSMAC Meeting.  Separately, and as soon as possible, the Enforcement Subcommittee may be forwarding suggested future questions for NTIA’s consideration. Please contact me or Dale Hatfield should you have any questions or comments regarding the attached … Mark C   Enforcement Subcommittee Report Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee February 18, 2015 Contents Response to Question 1 – Pages 2-3 Response to Question 2 – Pages 4-17 Response to Question 3 – Pages 18-21 Response to Question 4 – Pages 22-26 Response to Question 5 – Pages 27-34 Sub-Committee Members Audrey Allison Mark Crosby, Co-Chair David Donovan Dale Hatfield, C0-Chair Mark McHenry Dennis Roberson Steve Sharkey Jennifer Warren Marty Cooper Tom Dombrowsky, Jr. Harold Feld Paul Kolodzy Janice Obuchowski Mariam Sorond Bryan Tramont 1 Question 1 Question 1 In a shared spectrum environment involving both federal and non-federal users, what types of sharing criteria would need to be specified in the FCC’s ex ante regulations, and what can be subject to post-rulemaking/post auction negotiated coordination agreements or other sharing arrangements? Assumption The FCC and NTIA shall identify and report within the ex ante rules, the majority of the operational and technical rules governing the sharing of Federal Government spectrum, including interference mitigation and enforcement processes, to provide abundant clarity for incumbent Federal Government users and prospective commerical operators in advance of the commencement of any competitive bidding action.  System Reconfiguration/Expansion Rights – The ex ante regulations should define incumbent Federal Government system relocation/expansion and technology enhancement rights, and the process by which these rights will be communicated to spectrum partners and industry acquiring access to such spectrum. It is assumed that once a Federal Government band has been identified for sharing, that new Federal Government system sites would be prohibited (from what?) or, subject to post-rulemaking/post auction negotiated coordination agreements.  Define Exclusion and Coordination Zones – The ex ante regulations should define the parameters by which exclusion and coordination zones are determined. It is assumed that within the former, no non-Federal Government devices are permitted to transmit, and within the latter, non-Federal Government transmitters and devices may transit on a secondary, non-interference basis. The boundaries of these zones and the occupancy rights may change subject to post-rulemaking/post auction negotiated coordination agreements.  Spectrum Access/Occupancy Rights – The ex ante regulations should identify the types of users (classes) that may be authorized to operate in the shared bands and, further, specifically prioritize as necessary, spectrum access rights. Federal Government or commercial operator incumbent operations would be afforded primary spectrum use rights (priority access) within either exclusion or coordination zones, and non-Federal Government devices would be afforded secondary, non-interference use within coordination zones. Occupancy rights may change subject to post-rulemaking/post auction negotiated coordination agreements. During times of local/national emergency or time of public necessity, the Federal user would be permitted to obtain access for the duration of the emergency.  Maximizing the Effectiveness of Coordination Zones – The ex ante regulations should note the requirement that affected Federal Government and commercial licensee representatives with decision making authority will mutually determine what shall define an unacceptable level of interference to Federal Government incumbent systems notwithstanding the source of the RF signal(s) within coordination zones, how such measurements will be determined, and the party(s) responsible for funding, building and 2 maintaining the RF measurement capability. Coordination zone RF environments, method of assessments, the definition of maximum tolerable noise floors, RF measurement tools and funding responsibilities could be subject to post-rulemaking/post auction negotiated coordination agreements.  Spectrum Access Systems – The ex ante regulations should note that independent Spectrum Access System providers will be selected, based on capability, to recognize and monitor the location of all non-Federal Government wireless devices in shared bands, and shall disable such devices within any exclusion zones. The number and location of wireless devices shall be made available by the SAS provider to those parties responsible for maintaining acceptable RF noise floors within coordination zones. The responsibilities of SASs may be amended subject to post-rulemaking/post auction negotiated coordination agreements.  Equipment Standards – The ex ante regulations should require that equipment typeaccepted for use within shared bands shall have the capability to disable the device in the event it is purposely modified to circumvent geographic use and other technical requirements that are adopted to promote maximum spectrum efficiency.  Other Matters – Additional requirements that would promote the sharing of Federal Government or commercial spectrum in ex ante and/or post-rulemaking/post auction negotiated agreements may include the following: - License terms for commercial entities, renewal rights; and, operational expectations of Federal Government systems (ex ante); - Justification for and initiation of enforcement activities in conjunction with NTIA, FCC, affected Federal Agencies or commercial operators (ex ante awareness of participation requirement and post-rulemaking/post auction negotiated coordination agreement); and - Formation of Incumbent Technical Advisory Committees composed of affected Federal Government, non-Federal Government, and incumbent industry representatives who may have the responsibility to monitor interference mitigation processes, enforce or modify interference mitigation processes within exclusion and coordination zones, and request enforcement actions as the committee or members of the committee deem appropriate (ex ante awareness of requirement and post-rulemaking/post auction negotiated coordination agreement). Mark Crosby and Audrey Allison 3 Question 2 Question 2 How would negotiated coordination agreements or other sharing arrangements be enforced and by whom? 1.0 Framing the Enforcement Question: Which Federal Agency Has Authority to Enforce Sharing Agreements between Federal and Non Federal Users? The issue of enforcement has been addressed by several CSMAC working groups.1 These Reports discussed a myriad of enforcement issues surrounding spectrum sharing. In the present case, the working group has been tasked with a specific question: How would negotiated coordination agreements or other sharing arrangements be enforced and by whom? The question presumes there is a sharing agreement flowing from an FCC decision authorizing sharing between federal and non-federal users.2 Such an agreement is likely to include one or more mechanisms to insure interference avoidance.3 The question is whether the FCC or NTIA has the authority to enforce spectrum sharing arrangements between a federal user and non-federal user.4 In other words, does the FCC, NTIA, the courts, federal agency user and non-federal user have shared authority to enforce the agreement? 1 See e.g., Report CSMAC Enforcement Working Group, Submitted March 28,2014; Final Report, Interference and Dynamic Spectrum Access Subcommittee, Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, NTIA (Nov. 8, 2010) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/csmac_interferencecommitteereport_01102011.pdf (CSMAC 2010); Report CSMAC Enforcement Subcommittee Draft Responses, October 9, 2014. 2 This report assumes there is an agreement between a federal and non-federal user that is licensed by the FCC. We recognize that sharing may take place with non-federal entities that are either unlicensed or are operating with blanket licenses. These scenarios raise important “privity of contract” issues. For example, it is not readily apparent what types of sharing agreements would exist between a federal user and entities authorized to operate as unlicensed operators. Would a sharing agreement be signed between the federal user and an SAS system or database operator? Would an agreement be executed with the manufacturers of the devices? We would expect that such agreements could vary depending on the sharing scenario and may involve multiple parties. Whatever terms of the agreements, we suggest that the mechanisms described herein may be applicable to such arrangements. Nonetheless, this raises a number of issues beyond the immediate question of contractual enforcement and deserves further exploration. We suggest NTIA examine this question in more detail. 3 This report will not focus on the specific technical mechanisms that may be used to avoid interference such as power limits, exclusions zones, SAS systems or other forms of dynamic spectrum access. Rather we will focus our discussion on which branch of the federal government has the authority to enforce spectrum sharing arrangements involving federal and non-federal users, which may include a variety of interference avoidance techniques. Non-federal users include state governments. 4 We need not explore enforcement issues pertaining to sharing among federal spectrum users or sharing among non-federal users. NTIA, through the IRAC, has authority over federal users. The enforcement 4 The question is important and timely. Dynamic sharing between federal and non-federal users is fast becoming a reality. As the PCAST Report noted: The technology and governance mechanisms now exist to enable dynamic sharing of underutilized spectrum on a band-by-band basis, while ensuring that primary Federal operations are both protected from interference and able to upgrade their own technologies and use of a band in the future. The system proposed in this report is based on the presumption that all bands with primary Federal users should be open to the greatest practical extent to non-interfering uses.5 Federal and non-federal sharing raises the basic jurisdictional questions. The Federal Communications Commission, and independent agency, governs non-federal uses and is authorized by, and is subject to Congressional oversight.6 The FCC appears to have no authority over federal entities using spectrum. NTIA has authority over federal spectrum users, but has no authority over non-federal users.7 The issues presented go beyond that of statutory jurisdiction. Because it is considered an arm of the Congress, attempts by the FCC to regulate spectrum use by federal executive branch agencies raises fundamental separation of power issues. The same issues authority of the FCC over non-federal entities is well settled. This is not to suggest that the current enforcement approaches should not be improved. As we will discuss infra, additional enforcement tools may be required for adequate enforcement of federal and non-federal sharing arrangements. As previous CSMAC working groups have noted, there are a number of recommendations the can be employed to improve enforcement. See Final Report, Interference and Dynamic Spectrum Access Subcommittee, Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, NTIA (Nov. 8, 2010) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/csmac_interferencecommitteereport_01102011.pdf (CSMAC) 5 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the President: Realizing the full Potential of Government-held Spectrum to Realize Economic Growth, July 2012 at 22. (PCAST Report) 6 See 47 USC § 151 et seq. (creating the FCC for the purpose of regulating interstate comer by wire and radio; 47 U.S.C Section 301 (the Act purpose is to maintain federal control over radio spectrum and requiring that all uses be authorized; 47 U.S.C. Section 303 (authorized the FCC to adopt regulations to avoid interference and use radio spectrum effectively and in the public interest). 7 47 U.S. § 901 (c) (directs NTIA to foster full and efficient use of radio spectrum by the Federal government); 47 U.S.C Section 305 (radio stations belonging to the federal government shall be use frequencies assigned to each or to each class by the President). The functions relating to assigning frequencies to radio stations belonging to and operated by the United States, or to classes thereof, conferred upon the President by the provisions of Section 305(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, were transferred to the Secretary of Commerce by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977 and Executive Order 12046 of March 26, 1978. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Organization Act, as revised, directs the Secretary to assign to the Assistant Secretary and the NTIA the responsibility for the performance of the Secretary's communications and information functions. These functions were transferred to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information (Administrator, NTIA) by Department of Commerce Organization Order (DOO) 10-10, effective date of September 28, 1992. This authority and delegation has been codified in the NTIA Organization Act, Pub. L. No. 102-538, 106 Stat. 3533 (1992) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) 5 arise if NTIA, which is part of the Executive Branch, attempted to regulate non-federal users that fall under the FCC’s control.8 The limitations on the jurisdiction and authority are clear. 9 Thus enforcement issues governing federal and non-federal users may give rise to fundamental separation of power issues. Historically, the FCC and NTIA have avoided the jurisdictional and separations of power problem by working cooperatively. In fact, the FCC and NTIA are required by statute to cooperate in long range spectrum planning. 2.0 FCC and NTIA Spectrum Coordination Efforts By law, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information (NTIA) and the Chairman of the FCC are required to cooperate to develop a comprehensive long range plan for improved management of spectrum resources.10 The Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and the Chairman of the FCC are required to meet, at least biannually, to conduct joint spectrum planning.11 Congress explained the importance of this coordination when passing the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which gave the FCC auction authority pursuant to §309(j). Section 112 of the Conference Agreement contains the provision on national spectrum allocation planning. The conferees adopted the language from both the House Bill and the Senate amendment with respect to the requirement of annual meetings between the Assistant Secretary and the Chairman of the Commission. One of the purposes of these annual meetings is to plan for the shared use of spectrum between commercial and Federal government users. Such planning will provide certainty to potential bidders for commercial licenses and will thus increase the value of such licenses.12 Pursuant to these directives, the FCC and NTIA have a long-standing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding interference and spectrum. Signed in 2003, the Memo of Understanding required the FCC to “[C]ooperate with the NTIA and endeavor to give notice of all proposed actions that could potentially cause interference to government operations.” Similarly, 8 The primary exception to this general rule is in the case of a national emergency. In these situations, the President has the authority under § 707 of the Communications Act to shut down non-federal licensees. See, e.g., Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. § 606; Executive Order 12046, “Relating to the Transfer of Telecommunications Functions,” 43 Fed. Reg. 13349 (Mar. 29, 1978) 9 The FCC’s lack of enforcement jurisdiction over federal spectrum users appears to be unambiguous. See City of Arlington vs. FCC 133 S.Ct. 1863 (2013) (where statute is ambiguous, federal agency is entitled to deference on jurisdictional questions) 10 47 U.S.C. § 902(b) (2) (L) (i). Department of Commerce Organization Order § 6j (j. Develop, in cooperation with the Federal Communications Commission, a comprehensive long-range plan for improved management of all electromagnetic spectrum resources, including jointly determining the National Table of Frequency Allocations) 11 47 U.S. Code § 922 12 Conference Report of the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives, to Accompany H.R. 2264, August 4, 1993 at 474. 6 NTIA was obligated to coordinate with the FCC on proposed action that could potentially cause interference to non-government operations. 13 The MOU states further that the FCC and NTIA “will resolve technical, procedural and policy differences by consensus whenever possible.”14 The MOU between the FCC and NTIA envisions coordination and planning at the allocation and assignment phase. At the time, spectrum policy focused on ensuring that separate commercial and federal allocations did not interfere with each other. The agreement did not envision instances where federal and non-federal entities are involved in dynamic sharing arrangements. Neither the MOU, nor its statutory underpinnings grants the FCC the authority to compel a federal user to comply with it rules governing sharing with commercial entities. Similarly, the MOU does not confer upon the NTIA the power to enforce spectrum rules on nonfederal entities. In recent years NTIA and the FCC have worked closely in a number of sharing contexts. For example, the AWS I and AWS III proceedings illustrate the trend to develop a higher level of cooperation between the NTIA and the FCC in the context of sharing. In the AWS I proceeding, the Commission worked closely with NTIA to craft a coordination procedure before the full band transition was completed. The procedures required AWS-1 licensees to contact federal licensees to get information to perform an interference analysis and established procedures for potential objections by federal agencies.15 In the AWS III proceeding, the FCC pursuant to § 309(j) (16) C, authorized non-federal entities to use spectrum prior to termination of an eligible federal entities authorization. However, a condition was placed on the non-federal user’s license that it could not cause harmful interference to the federal user pending NTIA’s termination of the federal user’s authorization.16 Similarly, the FCC has enacted temporary non-interference conditions for licenses operating in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755 -1780 MHz band until NTIA terminates applicable authorizations of the incumbent federal entity.17 The FCC and NTIA have continued to develop models governing both temporary and permanent sharing. For example, in the 1755-1780 MHz proceeding the FCC has recognized that the FCC and NTIA should issue Joint Public Notices that will govern the coordination process. 13 Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, January 31, 2003. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/DOC-230835A2.pdf 14 Id. 15 Federal Communications Commission and NTIA Coordination Procedures in the 1710-1755 MHz Band, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 4730 (2006). 16 AWSIII NPRM 28 FCC Rcd at 1150 Para 67. 17 Report and Order, In Re Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz Bands, GN docket No 13-185, FCC 14-31, released March 31, 2014 at Para 219. 7 This includes not only the issuance of Joint Public Notices, but contemplates “a written agreement among all relevant parties.”18 The FCC noted: In this regard, we authorize and direct the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to work with the NTIA staff, in collaboration with affected Federal Agencies or CSMAC members to develop a joint FCC and NTIA Public Notice with information on coordination procedures in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands.19 The FCC noted further that it expected good faith efforts from both federal incumbents and non-federal users with respect to sharing information and interference methodologies for the purpose of developing real-time monitoring systems around existing federal operations.20 In the FCC’s Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the 3.5 GHz Band, the FCC proposed a three tiered approach to federal and non-federal sharing when creating Citizens Broadband Service.21 In the Further Notice, the Commission recognized that complex sharing raised unique enforcement issues: We acknowledge that the proposals in this FNPRM may raise unique enforcement issues for the Commission. Managing real time interactions between a large number of potential Priority Access Licensees and GAA users while ensuring that Incumbent users are protected from harmful interference could present novel enforcement challenges for the Commission to address.22 To further coordination, the FCC proposed to create “designated” Spectrum Access Administrators that would be approved by the FCC. These administrators would maintain the database; establish protocols and procedures for sharing spectrum in the band.23 18 Report and Order 1695-1710 MHz Bands at 83 Para. 220. 19 Id. at Para. 221 20 Id. at 84 Para 222. 21 Under this framework, existing primary operations – including authorized federal users and grandfathered FSS earth stations - would make up the Incumbent Access tier and would receive protection from harmful interference. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service would be divided into Priority Access and GAA tiers of service, each of which would be required to operate on a non-interference basis with the Incumbent Access tier. The FCC proposed that any party that meets basic eligibility requirements under the Communications Act be eligible to hold a PAL or, when authorized, operate a CBSD on a GAA basis in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Amendment of the Commission’s rules with regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 GHZ Band, Gen Docket 12-354, FCC 14-49 released April 23, 2014 at Para. 19 (CBRS FNPRM) 22 Id. at 50 Para. 162. 23 Id. at 32 Para. 105. Employing SAS administrators and database managers raises potentially interesting enforcement questions. Presumably non-compliance by non-federal users may lead the FCC to seek enforcement by denying the user access to the database. The more interesting question is whether the SAS administrator has the authority to deny access to a federal user in cases where the user violates sharing 8 There is also movement towards requiring federal and non-federal users to adopt specific agreements that will govern sharing. The Department of Defense (DoD) has already commenced the process of moving systems out of the 1755-1780 MHz band and moving them to the 2025-2110 MHz band, which is currently used for broadcast auxiliary services (BAS). In amending the US Table of Frequency of Allocations for the 2025-2110 MHz band, a specific footnote encouraged DoD to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with broadcasters regarding sharing. As NTIA noted: As stated in the proposed US footnote, coordination should occur via a memorandum of understanding between the federal and non-federal fixed and mobile operators in the Television Broadcast Service, the Cable Television Relay Service, or the Local Television Transmission Service. A disclosure process similar to 47 CFR § 27.1134(e) (2) (agreements between AWS-4 operators and federal entities) would be appropriate and should be incorporated into the FCC rules.24 There is precedent for this type of agreement. Broadcasters and the Department of Defense have been involved in sharing the 2GHz band for some time. In 2009, DoD and the Society of Broadcast Engineers, representing the broadcasters, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to govern spectrum sharing in areas surrounding 11 military uplink sites. 25 Apart from the specific technical coordination provisions, the MOU states that it can only be modified by mutual consent of both parties and is binding on the parties their successors and assigns.26 Moreover the MOU is subject to the NTIA Manual of Regulations and Procedures (Redbook) and applicable FCC rules.27 It is to be reviewed every five years. rules. In these cases, it would appear that the FCC, NTIA, non-federal users and federal users have agreed to operate consistent with an SAS approach. 24 Letter from Karl Nebbia, Associate Administrator Office of Spectrum management NTIA to Julius Knapp, Chief Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, dated November 25, 2013 page 2 note 7. 25 Society of Broadcast Engineers/Department of Defense Memorandum of Understanding on 2025-2110 Spectrum sharing, April 30, 2008 filed as Ex parte Comments by Engineers for the Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Service spectrum in ET Docket 00-258 and WT Docket 02-55, December 29, 2009. http://www.eibass.org/images/filings/eibass%20sbe-dod%20mou%20cover.pdf 26 Id. at 8 Para. F 27 Id. at Para. G. While the agreement indicates that it is subject to NTIA and FCC regulations, it does not contain specific provisions regarding procedures for enforcing the agreement. It appears that problems would be brought to the attention of the FCC. At that point the FCC and NTIA would engage in a cooperative dispute resolution process. 9 The MOU between DoD and the Society of Broadcast Engineers may prove to be an effective means of outlining the sharing responsibilities of federal and non-federal users.28 Because of DoD funding issues, there are not yet any satellites in the 2 GHz range and operational sharing has not yet taken place. As a result, there has been no need to confront the enforcement issues. Nonetheless, the MOU is serving as the foundation for coordination between broadcasters and DoD as more federal services are moved into 2025 to 2110 MHz band. Discussions among the Society of Broadcast Engineers, the National Association of Broadcasters and DoD continue under this framework. While policies for increased cooperation are evolving, the FCC and NTIA must still grapple with increasingly complex coordination issues. The level of cooperation in a dynamic sharing environment will require increased cooperation between federal and non-federal users. While real progress is being made, the fundamental jurisdictional questions regarding which federal agency is able to enforce these agreements remains. 3.0 Enforcing Sharing Agreements: Toward and Revised Cooperative Process A core concern among federal and non-federal entities sharing spectrum dynamically is the ability to create a regulatory environment that will allow for enforcement transparency and the timely resolution of interference disputes. Without an efficient dispute resolution process, federal and non-federal users are less likely to make the necessary investment in new technologies. The jurisdictional limits of the FCC and NTIA make it difficult to rely on one entity to become the sole arbiter of interference disputes between federal and non-federal user sharing spectrum on a dynamic basis.29 It is not evident that this issue can be resolved by a statutory change in a timely manner.30 At this point the FCC and NTIA appear to be developing a case-bycase approach to sharing. Nonetheless, a case by case approach does not necessarily provide a uniform, overarching enforcement framework with respect to sharing agreements. It still begs the question. Who enforces such sharing agreements? The working group suggests building on recent coordination experience and expanding the MOU process. We believe the approach described below creates a transparent and uniform 28 The agreement is interesting because SBE is signing to facilitate the process for broadcasters. DOD entered into MOUs with local broadcasters in each of the 11 areas as well. Presumably other sharing arrangements will involve that actual non-federal users transmitting on shared frequencies. 29 To the extent a breach of a sharing arrangement would constitute a violation of an FCC rule; one could assume that the FCC is the technical legal authority to determine if its rules have been breached. Of course the FCC and NTIA will have coordinated prior to the adoption of the rule. As noted, infra, at Section 3.3.2, the creation of a formal arbitration process to guide a decision regarding whether there has been a violation of the rule would be helpful. It would allow NTIA participate in this process. 30 Enacting legislation of this magnitude may take several years. As noted previously, private sector and federal sharing arrangements are already moving forward. These sharing arrangements need some certainty with respect to enforcement. Time is of the essence. 10 dispute resolution and enforcement process, while at the same time providing flexibility to address the unique aspects of individual sharing scenarios. The proposal envisions two levels. The first level of MOU would require the FCC and NTIA to enter into an agreement that would require each agency to enact parallel enforcement (dispute resolution) tools. Each agency would agree to use these tools/remedies in the event of an unresolved dispute between the parties. The second level MOU would be signed by the federal and non-federal users and would contain a provision subjecting both users to the enforcement tool kit adopted by the FCC and NTIA. In the event of a breach, the federal user could petition the FCC for enforcement (usually through NTIA) and the non-federal user may request the FCC to coordinate with NTIA.31 3.1 Overarching Memorandum of Understanding between NTIA and the FCC We envision a parallel NTIA and FCC enforcement approach, which will allow spectrum sharing agreements to be governed by a consistent enforcement framework without raising difficult jurisdictional issues. The working group recommends that NTIA and the FCC enter into a new overarching Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will govern dynamic sharing arrangements between federal and non-federal users. The MOU should outline enforcement procedures that would be adopted by NTIA and the FCC. These rules and enforcement procedures would be adopted pursuant to each agency’s rule making authority. In some respects, this is an extension to the current approach of issuing a Joint Public Notice.32 We would envision, however, the establishment of an overall parallel enforcement framework that would be applicable to different sharing arrangements. This framework would allow federal and nonfederal users to employ similar enforcement procedures that have been adopted by the FCC and NTIA. In this regard, we believe NTIA may want to explore including some basic elements. 3.2 Mutually Enforceable Rights A cornerstone of the MOU approach is to have NTIA and the FCC agree that they will mutually enforce interference rules that underpin any sharing arrangement. Federal users would be able to rely on the FCC’s authority over non-federal spectrum users to enforce sharing arrangements. Alternatively, non-federal entities will be able to rely on NTIA to take necessary actions against federal users in the event there is a breach of a sharing agreement. 31 In the event of a breach, the federal user could petition the FCC for enforcement through NTIA. The FCC would be obligated to enforce its rules against a non-federal user consistent with the underlying sharing order and the terms of the MOU signed between NTIA and the Commission. Such action should also be consistent with the terms of the “second level” MOU signed between the federal agency and non- federal user. In the case of a non-federal user’s complaint against a federal user, we would contemplate that the non-federal user would initially file with the FCC. If there was a violation, then the FCC would request NTIA to remedy the situation consistent with the MOU signed between the Commission and NTIA. Such action should also be consistent with the terms of the “second level” MOU signed between the federal and non-federal user 32 For example, the CAMAC Bi-Directional Working Group is proposing that FCC and NTIA issue a joint statement of sharing principles. 11 3.3 Uniform Rules and Enforcement We suggest the overarching MOU require NTIA and the FCC to enact the similar enforcement rules and procedures that will govern sharing agreements between federal and nonfederal users. At a minimum, the MOU should require NTIA and the FCC to enact ex ante rules or policies addressing the following issues: 3.3.1 Establish Uniform Techniques Enforcement with respect to Interference Avoidance As noted by other CSMAC working groups, a number of interference avoidance techniques may be employed is different sharing scenarios. Each technique may have a different enforcement aspect. For example, some may limit power on co-channels and adjacent channels. Other approaches may employ sensing technologies or impose geographic restrictions. We presume the FCC’s underlying order authorizing spectrum sharing would operationally define harmful interference and the various interference avoidance techniques that will be employed. Whatever the techniques are adopted, both NTIA and the FCC should establish procedures and mechanisms to enforce these requirements. 3.3.2 Arbitration One way to insure uniformity is to create a joint NTIA/FCC coordination committee to oversee federal and non-federal sharing. If appropriate, NTIA and the FCC should create a standing interference arbitration committee. Comprised of NTIA and FCC officials, the committee would make initial enforcement recommendations to both the FCC and NTIA.33 An FCC/NTIA arbitration panel would have several benefits. Like a special master under F.R.C.P 53, it could help the parties arbitrate the dispute and reach agreement. If parties fail to resolve a dispute among them, then the arbitrator could render a preliminary decision. To the extent the parties do not want to abide by the decision of the arbitration panel, the panel’s decision could help guide the FCC in making a decision in cases where there has been a violation of its rules. The U.S. Court of Appeals would have oversight over the FCC’s decision. At the present time the FCC and NTIA work cooperatively when adopting sharing rules at the rule making stage of the process. The arbitration process would allow them to continue this cooperation during the dispute resolution/enforcement stage.34 33 In this regard the arbitration/coordination committee could serve a function similar to a special master under Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 34 A more difficult question involves situations where interference occurs, but both parties are operating consistent with established rules. Ultimately, these situations may require the FCC/NTIA to revisit the underlying sharing rule. To avoid such “gaps,” the FCC and NTIA may want to consider including the arbitration process in any underlying sharing rule. In other words, the FCC would expressly authorize the use of arbitration in the event there is an interference problem, even in cases where there is compliance with the rules. Federal and non-federal users would then include such a provision in their sharing agreements. Because this provision will be in an agreement between the federal and non-federal user, it would be enforceable. This would give an arbitration panel the necessary authority to help resolve a 12 Alternatively, if federal and non-federal users prefer to employ an arbitrator selected by the parties themselves, the FCC and NTIA should mutually agree to recognize the results of such arbitration. In this respect parties would be free to establish an arbitration process that would be recognized by the FCC and NTIA. 3.3.3 Interference “Shot Clock” Process The MOU should include provisions that would require NTIA and the FCC to enact similar time periods for resolving interference issues for each sharing scenario. Importantly, the time necessary to resolve interference issues may vary depending on the services being shared. For example, if sharing involves public safety services, both agencies may consider adopting a shorter period for resolving interference disputes. 3.3.4 Temporary Interference Restraining Orders (TIRO) The MOU should require each agency to adopt similar procedures for expeditiously resolving interference issues on a temporary basis. The burden of proof necessary to obtain a TIRO may vary depending on the sharing scenario. For example, a party seeking a TIRO could be required to make a showing of immediate and irreparable harm to the public or national security. The issue is to balance the due process rights of the individual entities sharing spectrum against the harm being caused by continued interference. Situations involving public safety or national security may, in some instances, require the immediate issuance of a TIRO. Importantly, the underlying sharing order could establish the specific TIRO procedures for the emergency shutdown of an interfering system. Importantly, the nature and scope of the TIRO process should be known to both parties in advance. This will allow both federal and non-federal entities to properly assess the risks associated with sharing before expending resources. In addition, the Federal government has broad powers over communications in the case of an emergency. 35. In particular, Section 706 of the Communications Act (different than the 706 report provision) confers on the President the authority to suspend rules applicable to radio stations and devices, and to shut down such facilities, in cases of war, public peril, national emergency, or disaster.36 Specifically, Subsection (c) provides that “[u]on proclamation by the President that there exists war or a threat of war, or a state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency, ... the President, if he deems it necessary in the interest of national security or defense, may suspend or amend … the rules and regulations applicable to any or all stations or devices capable of emitting electromagnetic radiations … and may cause the closing of any station for radio communication ….”37 This statute gives the President and his delegates broad authority problem and advise the FCC on interim solutions, pending a change in the underlying rule. We believe this approach warrants further exploration. 35 See, e.g., Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. § 606; Executive Order 12046, “Relating to the Transfer of Telecommunications Functions,” 43 Fed. Reg. 13349 (Mar. 29, 1978); Executive Order 13618, “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions,” 77 Fed. Reg. 40779 (July 11, 2012). 36 47 U.S.C. § 606(c). 37 Id. (emphasis added). 13 to shut down wireless facilities, including facilities that interfere with military or national security transmissions, in cases of in cases of war, public peril, national emergency, or disaster. 3.3.5 Penalties The MOU should attempt to harmonize the penalties that may be imposed by the NTIA and the FCC. We recognize that both agencies have different remedies. For example the FCC has a variety of enforcement tools such as issuing Notices of Apparent Liability, forfeitures, fines, cease and desist orders, equipment seizures and in the most extreme cases criminal penalties. Moreover, the FCC’s administrative process includes procedural rights, including hearings, before penalties are finalized. Because NTIA is working with federal agencies, its enforcement process is vastly different. Nonetheless it does have the authority to modify and revoke federal licenses. 38 Federal entities that do not conform to federal standards have an obligation to eliminate harmful interference.39 NTIA rules require agencies to cooperate in the event of interference from spurious emissions.40 The assessment of fines and penalties, important in the non-federal context, would appear to be inappropriate when applied to federal users. Nonetheless, NTIA has the ability to compel compliance by federal agencies to prevent interference. While recognizing these inherent differences, the Memorandum of Understanding should require each agency to identify and employ penalties and sanctions that will provide sufficient incentives for spectrum users within their respective jurisdiction to comply with interference avoidance rules in a timely fashion. In both cases, the NTIA and the FCC should create similar regulatory mechanisms which would allow for the respective agencies to enjoin users, in a timely manner, from transmitting interfering signals. 4.0 Individual Sharing Agreements between Federal Users and Private Sector Entities Consistent with the general MOU provisions suggested above, we also suggest that a “second level” of MOU agreements, be executed by the federal and non-federal entities sharing spectrum. As noted previously, this approach is already being employed by DoD and broadcasters in the 2025-2110 GHz band. Because each individual sharing scenario is unique, it would be 38 The Department of Commerce Organization Order 6(i), states that NTIA is authorized to, “Assign frequencies to, and amend, modify, and revoke frequency assignments for radio stations belonging to and operated by the United States, make frequency allocations, establish policies concerning spectrum assignment allocation and use, and provide the various departments and agencies with guidance to assure that their conduct of telecommunications activities is consistent with these policies.” 39 NTIA Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management (Redbook), May 2014 §5.1.2 Consequences of Non-conformance with the Provisions of this Chapter states, “In any instance of harmful interference caused by nonconformance with the provisions of this chapter, the responsibility for eliminating the harmful interference normally shall rest with the agency operating in nonconformance.” 40 See NTIA Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management (Redbook), May 2014 § 2.3.7 states, “Providing appropriate spectrum standards in Chapter 5 are met, an existing station is recognized as having priority over a new or modified station. Nevertheless engineering solutions to mitigate interference may require the cooperation of all parties involved in the application of reasonable and practicable measures to avoid causing or being susceptible to harmful interference.” 14 difficult for an overarching MOU between the FCC and NTIA to cover all the specific interference enforcement issues confronting those sharing spectrum.41 These individual arrangements will need the flexibility to address the unique concerns confronting different types of sharing agreements. In some instances, these agreements may involve multiple federal and non-federal users. We suggest that federal and non-federal entities that will be sharing spectrum enter into a specific MOU that will outline enforcement rights and remedies of the parties. Such an agreement should incorporate the interference standards and mechanisms established by the FCC as part of the underlying sharing rules. While recognizing that each agreement will be unique, we recommend that the enforcement provisions remain consistent with the over-arching enforcement Memorandum of Understanding that is adopted by the FCC and NTIA. In other words, the overarching Memorandum of Understanding will establish a “tool box” of enforcement techniques that may be employed by each agency. The MOU executed by federal and non-federal users would include these techniques in their individual agreements. By way of illustration, the overarching MOU between the FCC and NTIA would include a provision in which both agencies would enact similar rules and policies enabling them to address interference issues in a timely manner. This should include an interference shot clock and the ability to issues a Temporary Interference Restraining Order (TIRO). With these mechanisms in place, when the FCC enacts a specific spectrum sharing order it would contain a provision that established specific time frame for an “interference shot clock” or the process of issuing a Temporary Interference Restraining Order. The FCC would then authorize the sharing parties to execute an agreement with these specific provisions incorporated into the agreement. For example, assume an FCC order involved sharing with a non-federal public safety service or critical federal system. In this case, the FCC and NTIA may want to adopt an interference shot clock requiring interference issues to be resolved permanently within 90 days. Similarly, because of the critical nature of the systems involved, the rule may establish standards allowing for the issuance of a TIRO within 48 hours. Whatever time period is adopted, the sharing parties would then incorporate these provisions into a separate MOU among themselves.42 A memorandum of understanding, i.e., a contract, entered into between federal and nonfederal users may have an additional enforcement component. The MOU constitutes an agreement between a federal agency and a private sector entity. Any breach of such an agreement 41 For example, the use of different interference avoidance techniques may require different enforcement approaches. Some arrangements may rely primarily on ex ante rules, such as geographic exclusion zones. Other sharing arrangements my rely on ex post fact interference enforcement such as establishing an interference threshold and requiring users to file specific complaints in areas where that threshold has been violated. Many sharing arrangements will include a combination of interference avoidance approaches. Moreover, the arrangement may involve various primary and secondary users. 42 Alternatively, the FCC’s order could authorize and require both the federal and non-federal users to adopt a Memorandum of Understanding, but leave the specifics up to the parties. Such an approach would provide for the maximum flexibility and tailor spectrum enforcement to meet the demands of the particular sharing scenario. 15 would appear to be reviewable in federal court. This raises several important questions that should be explored by NTIA. The legal remedies and rights that may be obtained by either party can be included as express provisions in the contract. 43 To the extent the provisions are consistent with the enforcement tools recognized by NTIA and the FCC in the overarching MOU, then in most cases, any breach of the agreement can be resolved by this process. In this regard, all sharing agreements between federal and non-federal users should include a provision requiring the parties to operate in “good faith” to resolve interference issues. Moreover, to the extent the provisions are consistent with federal law; the parties may include additional provisions dictating the process through which parties may seek legal redress.44 Bringing these cases before the federal judiciary could have both positive and negative consequences. The ability of federal users and non-federal users to enforce sharing agreements may trigger complex questions regarding which federal court has the appropriate jurisdiction to hear these claims.45 The federal judiciary is not bound by the jurisdictional limitations confronting the FCC and NTIA. It has the ability to bind private sector parties and federal agencies to an agreement. The potential downside is that these decisions require a level of technical expertise that may not be available in some federal district courts. Moreover, because many communications systems are national systems, this could expose federal and non-federal users to the possibility of divergent opinions.46 One possible option to be explored is whether such cases should be filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Because the court has nationwide jurisdiction, it could help resolve the problem of differing opinions from multiple federal district courts. However, a statutory change may be necessary to expand the jurisdiction of this court. In any event, it would appear the jurisdictional questions surrounding judicial review of sharing agreements should be explored in advance by the federal and non- federal users prior to entering into such agreements. 43 Of course each MOU agreement could contain a provision requiring the federal and non-federal users to exhaust administrative remedies before the FCC or NTIA before permitting a claim to be filed. 44 Because the federal user is a government entity, its liability and possible immunity will be guided by federal statutes. Parties to a sharing agreement must be cognizant of whether there are limitations on the types of claims that may be asserted against the other. 45 For example, federal district courts have general jurisdiction to hear claims filed against the United States. See 28 U.S.C. 1331. Money damage claims against the United States are generally filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491. There are important jurisdictional issues relating to enforcement which may vary depending on how federal and non-federal spectrum users seek to enforce their agreements. Nonetheless, federal court jurisdiction, as well as the types of claims that may be filed, is conferred by statute. The FCC, NTIA and any party to a spectrum sharing agreement needs to be fully aware of the potential for immunity that may be asserted by federal spectrum users and the appropriate venue for hearing such cases. 46 A middle ground may be to include an arbitration process. For example, requiring arbitration before an arbitrator that could be comprised of FCC and NTIA officials could help guide federal court decisions. This would give the expert agencies input into a potential decision. 16 5.0 Summary Recommendation The jurisdictional separations that exist between NTIA and the FCC make it procedurally difficult to obtain single agency enforcement of a spectrum sharing agreement entered into between federal and non-federal entities. The MOU approach outlined above creates, to the maximum extent possible, a parallel enforcement process in both the NTIA and FCC. This approach will help instill confidence in both user communities by ensuring continuity of regulatory oversight. Non-federal users can be confident that NTIA will be able to compel a federal user to comply with FCC sharing rules. Alternatively federal users will be able to rely on the FCC to enforce its rules on non-federal users. With these parallel and uniform procedures in place, federal and non-federal users would then be able to enter into MOUs that would govern their specific sharing arrangements. Both users will enter the process knowing that they can expect uniform enforcement from the FCC and NTIA. An enforcement action taken by the FCC or NTIA pursuant to this process is reviewable in federal court, most likely the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. By reviewing the agency’s enforcement action, it may be argued that the court system is the ultimate arbiter of these sharing agreements. Experience with existing sharing arrangements between federal and non-federal users indicates that they will follow the rules governing sharing. Disputes are generally resolved informally and cooperatively. We expect this to continue. Nonetheless, we believe the suggestions described above will provide transparency and certainty to the process. David Donovan and Jennifer Warren 17 Question 3 Question 3 In a Shared spectrum environment where many consumers have widespread access, what additional tools do the FCC and NTIA need to ensure compliance with sharing criteria or arrangements? Overview The purpose is to address the role of a consumer in shared spectrum environment. In this context consumer is defined as generic end user who either avails service on shared spectrum or utilizes this spectrum for personal communication needs. As the concept of spectrum sharing is new, the regulations and rules are different, it is important to have an educated consumer for efficient spectrum utilization. The first step is identification of a process or a procedure for getting the correct and relevant information to the consumer. The information should be conveyed with an assumption that the consumer may not have the necessary expertise or technical knowledge to understand nuances and requirements of spectrum sharing. The second step is outlining steps for consumer intervention in the event of interference. The action may be taken either by the consumer himself or the device automatically on his behalf. As the usage of shared spectrum isn’t limited to specific technology or device type, a generic approach is taken. Broadly two generic equipment types maybe used in shared spectrum bands: Access Point (AP) and End-User Device (EUD). In the current context Access Point is considered to be under the control of a licensed commercial operator who intends to provide a service to consumers, while the EUDs are average consumer devices for communications. EUDs operating in shared spectrum are further classified as two types: Off the shelf Standalone devices (e.g. Wi-Fi Routers, Sensor Systems, wireless controllers etc) or secondary devices (e.g. Smartphone, data device etc). The Standalone devices use the spectrum on an opportunistic basis while Secondary devices are typically controlled by an access point or equivalent, they don’t function in standalone manner. For comparison purpose only, the standalone devices can be considered similar to General Authorized Access (GAA) Tier and Secondary Devices to Priority Access Level Tier as defined in 3.5GHz FCC NPRM. Assumption It is assumed that for interference coordination all equipment types operating in shared spectrum bands need to register with an approved centralized access database and monitoring system, this system is referred as Central Authorization System (CAS) within the context of this answer for ease. The registering equipment types provide required information before commencing operation and are able to understand instructions from the CAS. It is also assumed that the shared CAS is easily reachable by all devices and is updated regularly or as needed basis. The CAS reflects accurately and in real-time the status of shared spectrum availability on any geographic area. It is also expected that CAS base shall dynamically manage 18 frequency assignments; power levels etc and automatically transfer the policy information to AP and EUDs. It is expected that the APs and EUDs shall only operate under guidance from CAS and follow its guidelines to promote efficient and consistent use of spectrum. Individual devices would be assigned available bandwidth of a size and spectral location determined by CAS based on geolocations. Informing the Customer Depending on the EUDs i.e. standalone or secondary device, method of information delivery mechanism may differ. For secondary devices, the commercial operator has the responsibility of offering service to consumer with minimal or no interruption, while there is higher onus of responsibility for consumer with standalone device. The consumer needs to be informed at several stages for operating a device in shared spectrum 1) The first place would the point of sale; here the consumer needs to be advised that the device being purchased has limitations. 2) The second step is the packaging itself, where the basic registration requirements are laid out clearly with some relevant background information. Again depending on the standalone or secondary device, the registration process may vary. 3) During initial registrations, the APs and EUDs may transmit operational and identification information such as operator identification, device identification, geo-location information etc to CAS for operation approval. At that point if CAS denies authorization for any reason, the consumer should be informed immediately and possibly with an appropriate reason so that alternative arrangements can be made. 4) During the operation, if CAS determines that operation needs to be modified either temporarily or otherwise, the consumer needs to be informed about the change and possible impact as well. The level of information may be proportional to consumer perceived impact. For secondary devices, the licensed operator may make changes such that consumer quality of service isn’t impacted or alternative load management may be performed such that no change is perceived on the consumer side. Similarly for Standalone Device, not all changes may require consumer attention, e.g. frequency reassignments may not be consumer impacting if the device makes the change graciously. However if the device doesn’t support the new assigned frequency or other changes such as power level reduction, may require consumer attention. 5) Cessation of operation, if CAS determines that EUDs can’t operate in a region for any reason after a certain period of time than the consumer needs to be informed about it. For Secondary Device, licensed operator may move the devices to other licensed bands or just declare lack of service in that area. For Standalone Device, it may be more impacting as the consumer may not have an alternative. It is important to convey right information in regards to future availability as well, e.g. if outage is temporary, time bound or permanent such that consumer may make alternative arrangements. 19 For commercial operators, such information exchanges between APs and CAS may be done via managed service or network manager, but that facility may not available to an average consumer. Hence the EUDs packing may also include information about alternative procedure and requirements for establishing connection with CAS. For Coordination purpose, the APs and EUDs have to transmit their geo-location information to CAS. Certain category of standalone EUDs may operate indoors or may not have in-built GPS receivers; such devices would have to be provisioned manually by entering location information by the consumer. The accompanied documentation or other procedure (e.g. on-screen display) should be clear and should stress importance of right information. Also the consumer needs to be informed if geographic location information needs to be refreshed periodically or updated if the device location changes. For scenarios where the customer has to enter the location information, he needs to be prompted appropriately. It is important that the customer is informed about his tier of service in that spectrum to set the right expectations. If the access or approval is time-bound i.e. the device is allowed to operate only within a given timeframe, the customer should be informed about it as well. This information is conveyed in different manner for both Standalone and Secondary Devices. Compliant Devices Though it is possible for a licensed operator to identify type of federal operation in a given area and take pro-active action to prevent interference, such mechanism isn’t possible for standalone EUDs, for cost reasons. The EUDs shall follow instructions only from CAS and inform consumers accordingly. For most part the APs and EUDs maybe interoperable across all shared band frequencies ensuring that devices are capable of sending and receiving information regardless of the frequencies assigned by the CAS. However in instances, where the devices may not capable of interoperability across the band it should be clearly mentioned either within the accompanied product documentation or the consumer may be informed by service provider that the device in question may not work at all locations and has restrictions. Secondly the devices are certified to respond to CAS queries and take action within a response time window; such information may be useful to customer as well such that he is prepared. End User Devices may be permitted to operate only if they can positively receive and decode an authorization signal transmitted by CAS, this authorization may include frequencies and power limits for their operation. If the approved power limits are below the max capability of the device, the customer needs to be informed as the quality and range of service is impacted. As EUDs follow instruction from CAS for operations, these devices also need to inform the customer of any relevant changes. All service impacting changes should be explicitly and clearly shared with customer such as power level changes, Quality of Service impact etc, however other changes that are not customer perceptible need not be pro-actively shared during operation Educated Consumer Though it isn’t expected that consumer understand much about spectrum occupancy rights and access, an effort should be made to educate the consumer. For Secondary Devices, the 20 commercial operators may educate their customers via mailers and/or emails. These sources of information should inform consumers about spectrum sharing, its significance and impact. Consumers may also be encouraged to reach out to operator customer service and/or refer to online web-pages for additional information For customer purchasing Standalone Devices, information should be accompanied detailing shared spectrum operation limitations specifically that the EUD may operate only upon receiving approval from a central system. This information may also be part of labeling requirements. If there is an additional fee that is associated with coordination for operating in the shared spectrum that information should be clearly laid out to the customer if applicable. Real-time or near real-time manual interactions between central database and end users isn’t practical, hence clear guidelines should be established for users to be compliant with reasonable expectations. Monitoring: The centralized database (CAS) should register all spectrum requests, status, denials, notifications and resolutions. It also provides FCC and NTIA an overall view of shared spectrum and its utilization. Mariam Sorond 21 Question 4 Question 4 How can service providers, federal users and regulators quickly identify and stop harmful interference as quickly as possible? The spectrum environment has become increasingly more difficult to regulate and manage – both by the Federal government and the commercial industry. Where the early years of radio operations were fairly staid and consistent (a single large broadcast antenna operating at high powers to cover a large geographic area, fixed microwave stations communicating directionally between two points, private and public safety wireless mobile systems that consisted of very few base stations and limited numbers of controlled mobile devices), the current wireless environment has exploded due to the incredible demand by consumers, public safety first responders and businesses to have communications available at any time and any location. This increase in demand has made the enforcement responsibilities much more difficult to manage for all users of the electromagnetic spectrum. Fundamentally, a number of points must be made prior to attempting to respond to the NTIA question on how to alleviate harmful interference as quickly as possible:  Spectrum rights are not solely “exclusive” in nature, meaning that in many instances there are primary spectrum rights holders, secondary rights holders and unlicensed rights holders (permitted to access spectrum on a non-interference basis);  Spectrum users are deploying a myriad of different modulation techniques and uses throughout the spectrum, making measurements of spectrum occupation difficult and managing interference between disparate uses more complex and difficult;  Spectrum rights are likely to be provided on an ever more dynamic basis – a licensee may only have rights to spectrum in a certain geographic area for a limited period of time;  Wireless infrastructure architectures are becoming more heterogeneous over time;  Power for wireless systems is becoming more and more “noise-like” making the underlying communications more difficult to detect and protect. In light of these factors, it becomes apparent that expecting the Federal government to attempt to mitigate the interference environment without the support and aid of the industry would be illadvised. The dynamic nature of spectrum rights, usage by licensed and unlicensed devices, explosive growth in the number of infrastructure sites all render efforts by the Federal government to manage and monitor commercial industry use of the spectrum to be unmanageable. Moreover, given the resource constraints faced by the FCC and NTIA, it is apparent that neither regulatory body would have the ability to effectively manage the spectrum without support from the regulated industry users, service providers and manufacturers. The need for automating as much of the enforcement of managing harmful interference should not be underestimated either. Given the dynamic nature of the radio environment, manual efforts to monitor, measure and police use of the electromagnetic spectrum are unlikely to result in effective, efficient resolution of interference complaints. As part of this process, and as discussed 22 in more detail in the recommendations section below, a critical requirement will be a need to identify and classify radio signals. The adoption of a mechanism of this sort will enable the Federal government to immediately determine if the harmful interference present is from an internal or external source and should greatly aid the focusing of resources towards the harmful interferer. Further, having the enforcement process automated with clear identification an classification of the radio environment should help minimize the “downtime” that may be required of commercial users of the spectrum should a harmful interference event occur. Additionally, there needs to be a distinction between prevention, adjudication and enforcement. Prevention would require actions by the government, service providers, and other users of the spectrum to take steps to prevent the occurrence of harmful interference. While prevention is an important step, adjudication and enforcement are likely the important issues when discussing how to stop harmful interference once it occurs. Adjudication would dictate how disputes between two parties are resolved, whether through mitigation or other means that would deliver a solution that is acceptable to both parties. Finally, enforcement would likely require either the Federal government or other recognized body to enforce the rules in place (most likely after both prevention and adjudication were incapable of resolving a harmful interference issue). The subcommittee would believe that prevention, adjudication and enforcement all would play roles in helping Federal users and regulators to quickly identify and stop interference as quickly as possible. Prevention measures, while primarily in place to eliminate the occurrence of harmful interference, also could potentially help gather measurement data that would be useful in identification of harmful interference. Adjudication would allow the affected parties, including the Federal users and regulators, to reach a rapid resolution of interference events. Finally, enforcement, which appears to be the primary result desired by this question, would provide a legal backstop of the requirements for spectrum users to cease harmful operations expeditiously while also presenting in a clear fashion the penalties associated with causing harmful interference. Finally, any resolution of harmful interference issues must be as rapid as possible. While prevention of any interference should be the first goal of any enforcement framework, should an issue arise, adjudication and enforcement should be expeditious and not require extensive resources from the incumbent Federal users to resolve. Recommendations. As such, the subcommittee would recommend that NTIA consider a study of potential mechanisms that could help lead to the effective policing of the radio spectrum. 1. Defining harmful interference. A threshold issue that requires determination is whether the interference measured or observed is “harmful.” Engineers operating wireless networks are able to observe “interference” from other radio systems on a regular basis – however, the key focus should be to focus solely on interference that would be “harmful” to the operation of the Federal radio system. Therefore, adoption of a metric, such as the proposed harm claims threshold under consideration by the FCC, is critical to ensuring that parties have a full understanding of what interference would be constituted as harmful and would allow resources to be brought quickly to bear upon instances that would create harmful interference. The subcommittee would suggest that NTIA investigate the adoption of some measurable methodology to determine if interference can be deemed “harmful” which should be the key first step towards protecting the spectrum rights of Federal users. 23 2. Unique identification and classification. NTIA should consider, in cooperation with the FCC, adoption of a standard methodology that would help to identify and classify radio signals. Identification would be a single, unique identifier that would allow the monitoring party to readily determine what entity is transmitting. Classification would revolve around creating a mechanism to classify the type of user or use that is presenting the interference. As examples, an identifier might be something like a call sign (that is used to uniquely identify radio or TV stations) and the classifier would tell the monitoring party that the characteristics of the interfering signal are consistent with an FM broadcast modulation. Development of a methodology to identify and classify radio signals could be used to focus efforts on the party causing the harmful interference and minimize the time and resources needed to resolve harmful interference events. Of note, consideration of the need for protection of classified information – it may be that only the Federal government or third parties with appropriate security clearances would be able to compile and administer this level of technical detail. 3. Consideration of additional spectrum monitoring. To prevent harmful interference, the NTIA should explore whether enhanced spectrum monitoring and occupancy measurements are achievable from a technical and economical basis. Currently, the FCC, individual Federal agencies, NTIA (ITS) and individual companies (and educational institutions) are all engaged in a variety of spectrum monitoring and measurement. However, these efforts are not well coordinated and, in many instances, are undertaken for very different reasons. Some monitoring and measurement is done in the hopes of preventing harmful interference, other efforts are focused on remediation, and some are focused on enforcing current rules and obligations. These disparate efforts should be studied and efforts should be made to see if there can be some collaboration among all the stakeholders, including increasing efforts to monitor and measure that may aid in the prevention and enforcement of harmful interference events. Indeed, the parties involved in the interference issue could also be asked to remediate harmful interference prior to the need of involving the Federal agencies. If private efforts failed to alleviate harmful interference, only at that point could the government be required to be involved in interference disputes. However, such monitoring is likely to be expensive and would require assurances that Federal government, public safety and critical infrastructure users would not be faced with funding burdens that are unrealistic. As such, there will need to be a way to ensure that funding of monitoring does not adversely affect those that are unable to pay as much as commercial spectrum users. Spectrum monitoring could be paid for by licensed service providers or through fees associated with unlicensed devices. Moreover, this spectrum monitoring could also be managed through the Spectrum Access System envisioned as part of additional spectrum sharing. Spectrum monitoring, on a real-time basis, could provide needed evidence of interference that could be required if prevention is unsuccessful and adjudication and enforcement is required. 4. Deputizing of third parties to enforce spectrum interference. NTIA should consider if there is a legal and economical ability to allow private third parties to play a role in prevention, adjudication and enforcement of harmful interference that may arise from use of shared spectrum. Similar to what the FCC has established in other instances (private frequency coordination, telecommunications certification bodies to speed the equipment certification process, etc.), consideration should be given to allowing third parties to police and enforce the 24 requirements for all spectrum users. While the current FCC programs are primarily preventative in nature (with no real enforcement capabilities), consideration could be given to determining if the enforcement mechanisms could be placed upon third parties to speed the resolution of (at least initially) routine harmful interference issues. Privatization could take the form of voluntary policing, where stakeholders resolve issues without taking the issues to the NTIA or FCC. Alternatively, NTIA (or FCC) could make spectrum enforcement by third parties mandatory to ensure that harmful interference is alleviated as quickly as possible. Finally, a combination of these two efforts could be put into place – with voluntary efforts as a first effort, followed by mandatory enforcement by qualified third parties, with the Federal government as the final arbiter should either of these two efforts fail to resolve interference issues promptly or effectively. As is true for spectrum monitoring, funding of private spectrum enforcement will be problematic. Unlike frequency coordination or equipment certification where a party desiring to use the spectrum or to have equipment certified, there is not a logical nexus whereby parties would be required to fund a private third party for spectrum enforcement. Moreover, Federal government, public safety and critical infrastructure users may not have the funds to help support private spectrum enforcement. 5. Improved equipment certification processes. NTIA should consider gathering information on whether increasing the requirements associated with equipment certification for devices that would be approved by the FCC to use spectrum shared with the Federal government. With the exception of some software-defined radios, the equipment certification process focuses on determining if a model of equipment follows the technical specifications adopted by the Commission to protect against adjacent band interference (power limits, out of band emission limits, frequency stability, etc.). Consideration could be given to expanding the role of equipment certification so that tested equipment could meet enhanced technical specifications designed to allow automated termination of harmful interference (as this would be defined under bullet 1 above). Equipment could be designed and tested to ensure that a device could be modified “over the air” to potentially be shut down in the case of harmful interference with Federal systems. NTIA and the FCC would be required to determine the technical parameters that would be desired for equipment that would help in spectrum enforcement. Moreover, these capabilities would be employed only if all others methodologies were exhausted – relied upon only as a last resort. 6. Transparency and sharing of interference data. Both private and public spectrum users have captured a great deal of data on interference events affecting their communications networks. Efforts could be encouraged to have this data shared among all users of the spectrum. For example, parties should be able to readily determine if a high powered radar system is likely to be operating in a particular geographic area – meaning that use by a low powered wireless system would be infeasible. Moreover, compilation of this data could provide meaningful information to all parties on the incompatibilities seen in the real-world between varied spectrum users. This data would allow parties to avoid certain uses of the spectrum that have shown to be harmful to other existing users. It would also allow resources to be minimized as prior interference events (and their effective mitigation) would be well-known to all – eliminating the 25 need to “reinvent the wheel” when others have already effectively alleviated an interference event in the past. 7. Bad Actors and Industrial Users of the Spectrum. While the above recommendations could provide a framework that will be useful in enforcing requirements on “good” spectrum users, there remains a great concern about bad actors and users of the spectrum that are not attempting to provide communications (industrial purposes such as lighting, microwave ovens, etc.). Consideration must be given to enhance monitoring as suggested in bullet 3 above, but there will remain a need to ensure that resources are available to manually police bad actors and industrial users that are unlikely to be easily identified or classified. Thomas Dombrowsky and Dale Hatfield 26 Question 5 Question 5 How should NTIA and the FCC identify and rectify harmful interference resulting from an aggregate of operations from multiple co-channel or out-of-band emitters? Background At the July 10, 2014 meeting of the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, the Enforcement Subcommittee was, among other things, tasked with answering the following question: How should NTIA and the FCC identify and rectify harmful interference resulting from an aggregate of operations from multiple co-channel or out-of-band emitters? As a first step in answering the question, the Subcommittee decided to prepare a straw-man proposal, which was intended to generate discussion of its advantages and disadvantages with the goal of spurring the generation of new and better proposals.47 The purpose of this document is to set forth the Subcommittee's initial attempt at developing the straw-man proposal. Warnings and Assumptions  The draft straw-man proposal contained herein is just that -- a straw-man proposal. Parts of the proposal may be eliminated entirely, modified significantly, or replaced in the Subcommittee's final answer to the question posed. For example, certain aspects of this proposal may prove untenable because of legal, technical, economic, and policy realities.  This straw-man proposal represents, in part, an amalgamation of numerous advanced spectrum management and enforcement proposals that have been set forth in various shared spectrum proceedings and research literature. As such, the proposal is intended to be generic in nature and is not aimed at directly influencing the outcome of any on-going proceeding dealing with a specific band or situation.  This proposal makes includes a major set of assumptions including the existence of (i) a commercially operated, data-base driven Spectrum Access System (“SAS”) in line with the capabilities described in the PCAST Spectrum Policy recommendation and the 3.5 GHz FNPRM, (ii) interference resolution and enforcement system and associated processes operated by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), (iii) a real-time spectrum monitoring system operated by individual federal incumbents and intended to protect their associated exclusion/coordination zones from harmful interference, and (iv) a spectrum monitoring program operated by NTIA and designed primarily for spectrum 47 Adapted from WIKIPEDIA, Straw man, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (Last visited August 26, 2014) 27 management occupancy measurements and research purposes.48 (See Figure 1 for a preliminary diagram illustrating these different systems.) The proposal focuses on how the assumed collection of systems and processes described immediately above will interface and interact with one another to prevent or, when necessary, mitigate harmful interference to incumbent federal government communications and sensing systems. More specifically, note that the focus is on the protection of incumbent federal government systems from potential interference generated by commercial systems sharing a given band and not (i) on the protection of commercial systems from potential interference produced by federal government systems nor (ii) on the protection of incumbent commercial systems from potential interference generated by new commercial entrants. However, some of the techniques set forth in this proposal could be adopted in the latter two situations.  Perhaps most critically, this straw-man proposal assumes the existence of Harm Claim Thresholds, Interference Limits, or Reception Limits49 established through a multistakeholder or similar process. Reception Limits specify signal strength thresholds above which receiver operators may claim protection against harmful interference.50 Note that Reception Limits are "ways to describe the environment in which a receiver must operate."51 Reception Limits are not receiver performance standards.52  While the straw-man proposal described herein intends to address the situation where interference is produced from the aggregate operations of multiple co-channel and out-ofband RF emitters, the concepts set forth may also be useful to the Enforcement Subcommittee in answering other questions that were posed by NTIA at the July 10, 2014 meeting.53  Finally, this straw-man proposal is not intended to address the situation where the interference being experienced is producing an immediate threat to the safety of life and property. Rather, it is assumed that any such immediate threat would be handled as a non-routine matter through the cooperative efforts of the NTIA, the FCC, and, as needed, the commercial operator of the associated SAS system. Further, it is assumed that the processes and procedures necessary to respond to such immediate threats will be developed by the Subcommittee in responding to the question: "How can service providers, federal users, and regulators identify and stop harmful interference as quickly as possible?" 48 The NTIA Spectrum Monitoring Program is currently in the pilot stage. See Michael Cotton, Presentation on U.S. Federal Government Spectrum Monitoring, available at http://research.microsoft.com/enus/events/spectrum2014/default.aspx (Last visited August 26, 2014) 49 These terms are used interchangeably for the purposes of this proposal. 50 FCC TECHNOLOGICAL ADVISORY COUNCIL, SPECTRUM/RECEIVER PERFORMANCE WORKING GROUP, Interference Limits Policy and Harm Claim Thresholds: An Introduction (March 5, 2014) (hereinafter SPECTRUM/RECEIVER PERFORMANCE WORKING GROUP), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/tac/tacdocs/reports/TACInterferenceLimitsIntrov1.0.pdf 51 Id. 52 Id. 53 COMMERCE SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, NTIA, Transcript of July 10, 2014 Meeting, at 26, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/07102014_csmac_transcript.pdf 28 Strawman Enforcement Proposal for Dealing with Aggregate Interference In setting forth this straw-man proposal, the Subcommittee considered two cases of aggregate interference. In the first case, the individual signals from multiple co-channel or out-of-band emitters that make up the aggregate interference received at a location within the exclusion/coordination zone are strong enough to be detected, located, and identified/classified. In the second case, interference within the exclusion/coordination zone is being produced by aggregated but individually unidentifiable emissions from potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of intentional and unintentional radiating devices. Aggregated, individually unidentifiable interference of this type tends to be noise-like in character and raises the effective noise floor at the receiver. Because of the differing implications of these two cases, this proposal addresses each separately. Individually Identifiable Signal Case In the first case, the real-time, terrestrial spectrum monitoring system operated by or on behalf of the federal incumbents to protect their exclusion/coordination zone would be constantly scanning for active and identifiable interfering signals. If such signals were detected, the system would use its associated direction finding capabilities to locate the interfering signals. The system would also identify each of the signals and measure their respective signal strength. This process would occur at locations and under conditions set by a multi-stakeholder process previously mentioned. The signals would be identified by transmissions made in the clear (i.e., not encrypted) at the start of any communications and at regular intervals thereafter. The individual interfering signals would also be classified based upon a priori information on the type of emissions expected in the band (based upon standard emission designators).54 In carrying out this function, the real-time monitoring system, consisting of fixed, mobile, transportable, and portable equipment, could gain assistance from the commercially operated SAS system. The SAS system would provide information on the individual emitters under its control. This information would function much like the traditional logging/record keeping requirements described in the TAC’s Interference Resolution and Enforcement White Paper.55 The SAS could request assistance from the FCC to initiate routine inference resolution and enforcement procedures, if the interference in total or in part is being produced by systems that are not identifiable by or under the control of the SAS system. On the one hand, if the measurements made by the monitoring system indicate that aggregate interference is approaching the harm claim threshold, it would notify the SAS operator to allow it to take voluntary, precautionary steps to avoid exceeding the limit and causing harmful interference. It could do so simply by reducing the number of channel assignments being issued. In a more sophisticated system, it could do so by ordering reductions in transmitter power or changes in antenna patterns used by the co-channel or out-of-band sources of interference. 54 Classification in this case refers to determining the type of signal being transmitted and its associated technical parameters. 55 SPECTRUM/RECEIVER PERFORMANCE WORKING GROUP, supra note 4 29 On the other hand, if the measurements indicate that aggregate interference has exceeded the limit and by definition caused harmful interference, the federal government (i.e., the FCC and NTIA) would order the SAS operator to mitigate the interference. It could mitigate either by taking defective devices out of service or, if the devices are operating properly, by utilizing the techniques discussed in the previous paragraph. Individually Unidentifiable Signal Case As previously noted, in this case the aggregated interference would be noise-like in character and would effectively increase the radio noise floor experienced by the receivers within the exclusion/coordination zone. Noise of this type typically does not change rapidly in time, is spread over a wide geographic area and tends to be highest in urban and other areas with high population density. Because of these noise characteristics, the routine radio noise measurements being made by the terrestrial spectrum monitoring system operated by or for the federal incumbents should be augmented by systematic, wide-area, airborne measurements made several times per year in regions determined to be at the highest risk from an increasing radio noise floor56 or appropriately configured fixed spectrum observatory systems that continuously monitor the spectrum power levels. These airborne measurements would be particularly helpful in assisting the incumbents in choosing locations or routes for their mobile ground-based measurements. Both approaches operating together or separately would provide vital information on the long-term trends in the radio noise environment. If the combined terrestrial and airborne measurements reveal, for example, that creeping urbanization is increasing the noise level within the exclusion/coordination zone, it could be compensated for by (i) changes in the interference permitted from identifiable sources, (ii) providing, if feasible, an additional geographic buffer zone around the exclusion/coordination zone, or (iii) taking stronger ex ante steps to reduce the aggregate noise-like interference being produced by intentional, unintentional, and incidental radiators57. 56 Some airborne measurements would be made in quiet areas to determine typical levels of RF noise in rural versus urban areas. 57 Because of the volume of data involved in making wideband I/Q measurements, it has been suggested that, just as Flight Data Recorders (“black boxes”) are used in aircraft accident investigations, I/Q data from mobile/portable devices could be retained only during interference incidents and then analyzed later when greater computer processing power and software based analytical capabilities are available. See FCC TECHNOLOGICAL ADVISORY COUNCIL, Introduction to Interference Resolution, Enforcement and Radio Noise A White Paper (June 10, 2014), p. 18, available at http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/meeting61014/InterferenceResolution-EnforcementRadio-Noise-White-Paper.pdf 30 ULS Data Base FCC Monitoring ASR Data and Base - - Enforcement Commercially Operated SAS System Individual Federal Agency Real-time Monitoring I I I I I Federal Agencies Sharing I Spectrum I I NTIA I . Monitoring Wireless Servnce Provider Measured SOD Straw-man Enforcement Architecture (End User and Sensor Devices Not Shown) Figure 1 31 Additional Commentary Wideband I/Q Measurements As in other areas of radio communications, interference resolution and enforcement must rely on accurate and reliable measurements of the technical characteristics of signals. Because of the reliance on data analysis, the proposal is not meant to address the situation where the interference being experienced is producing an immediate threat to the safety of life and property. Rather, this proposal is designed to address longer-term interference resolution and enforcement challenges where there is time for intense, data-driven analyses of measured and recorded signals. Such after-the-fact analysis is enhanced by obtaining and recording as much information as possible during the original measurements. This can be done by measuring and recording Inphase and Quadrature (“I/Q”) information in a large swath of spectrum in the band or bands of interest. The principal disadvantage of recording I/Q information is that it produces very large amounts of data relative to recording even fine-grained signal intensity information. The other disadvantage is the potential privacy issues associated with storing large amounts of information that includes the data being transferred that could later be mined for content. The principal advantage of recording I/Q information is that it greatly enhances the ability, after-the-fact, to detect, identify/classify, and locate interfering signals. As more monitoring systems are rolled out to support increased spectrum sharing, the Subcommittee recommends the collection and retention of the wideband I/Q information when it is economically feasible to do so.58 Other Potential Sources of Interference Data Including Crowdsourcing The straw-man enforcement proposal envisions that most of the data required for interference resolution and enforcement would come from the real-time spectrum monitoring system operated by individual federal incumbents. This data would be augmented by some information coming from the FCC and, potentially in the longer term, from the spectrum monitoring system currently being deployed by NTIA on a pilot basis. Data could come from service providers because they often make interference measurements for their own purposes. While in principal these measurements could be used for enforcement purposes, this use is often constrained by proprietary concerns. Additionally, the FCC has established provisions for both service providers and individual end users to file interference complaints with supporting information. Due to the growth of “intelligent” end user devices with much greater digital processing power, memory capacity and online connectivity, crowdsourcing of interference measurements is entirely plausible. Existing consumer devices, or a selected number of specially enhanced devices owned by consumers, could be used on a voluntary basis to assist in detecting, identifying, and locating malfunctioning devices or devices being used for the deliberate jamming or spoofing of critical systems. The use of "big data" and crowdsourcing techniques in interference resolution and enforcement is discussed in a recent TAC report entitled Introduction to Interference Resolution, Enforcement and Radio Noise.59 It is also the subject of RadioMap, a significant research effort currently underway at DARPA. A major advantage in using end user devices to report 58 Id. See NTIA COMMERCE SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Report of the Enforcement Working Group (March 28, 2014), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/csmac_enforcement_wg_report_032814.pdf 59 32 interference incidents or to make interference measurements is that it places monitoring devices close to low power base stations (e.g., pico-cells in a commercial cellular system) whose signals would otherwise be difficult to detect. Role of the FCC Operated Interference Resolution and Enforcement System Today, the FCC operates its traditional interference resolution and enforcement system primarily through its Enforcement Bureau. Due to resource constraints, it is the Subcommittee's understanding that the Enforcement Bureau focuses most of its attention on interference incidents that are an immediate threat to the safety of life and property. The Subcommittee is scheduled to meet with the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau in the near future. The meeting will provide an opportunity for members of the Subcommittee to further ascertain the capabilities of the agency to provide support for the longer-term interference resolution and enforcement challenges of this straw-man enforcement proposal. If an interference source is an emitter that is under the jurisdiction of the FCC, it is the Subcommittee's understanding that that the FCC will have the ultimate responsibility for taking enforcement actions such as issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability or Notice of Violation.60 This means if the real-time spectrum monitoring system operated by individual federal incumbents detect and identify an interfering signal from a commercial system or device, the enforcement action would be assigned to the FCC. Legal and Policy Issues Operation of the straw-man enforcement proposal described in this document would raise certain legal and policy issues that have not been previously addressed. The March 28, 2014 report of CSMAC's Enforcement Working Group raised a number of questions about the legal implications in instances where spectrum is shared between federal and non-federal entities.61 Examples of these questions include: What due process rights would a commercial entity have when faced with a demand by a federal government agency to shut down a system or individual devices because of interference? What if the FCC and NTIA do not agree on the issuance of the demand or whether mitigation steps taken by the commercial operator are adequate? As the straw-man evolves into a more definitive proposal these types of legal questions must be resolved. In addition to the type of legal issues raised immediately above, there are at least two major policy areas that have largely not been addressed in this draft of the straw-man proposal. The first is cyber security and the second is privacy. Cybersecurity issues must be addressed early in the development of the enforcement system because of the increased importance of wireless communications in relation to the Nation's economic and social well-being, national and 60 Sometimes the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Marshals Service within that Executive Branch agency aid the FCC in carrying about enforcement actions. 61 COMMERCE SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, NTIA, Enforcement Working Group Report (Mar. 28, 2014), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/csmac_enforcement_wg_report_032814.pdf 33 homeland defense, and public safety. The advent of “ransom-ware” wherein services are denied until a ransom is paid add to the criticality of addressing this issue. Likewise, the collection of certain types of information from (e.g. I/Q data) or about end users (e.g. time and locations where communications have taken place) raise important privacy issues. Privacy, like cybersecurity, should be addressed early in the development of the enforcement system. Dale Hatfield and Dennis Roberson 34