This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-7 
entitled 'Spectrum Management: Incentives, Opportunities, and Testing 
Needed to Enhance Spectrum Sharing' which was released on November 14, 
2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

November 2012: 

Spectrum Management: 

Incentives, Opportunities, and Testing Needed to Enhance Spectrum 
Sharing: 

GAO-13-7: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-7, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The increasing popularity of wireless devices that use spectrum, 
combined with federal spectrum needs for national defense and other 
public safety activities, have created concerns that a “spectrum crunch”
is looming. However, there is also evidence that at any given time or 
place, spectrum lies fallow or is only intermittently used. In an 
effort to use spectrum as efficiently as possible, advisory groups and 
others have proposed solutions to share spectrum. 

This requested report examines (1) what factors prevent users from 
sharing spectrum more frequently and (2) what actions the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC), the National Communications 
Information Administration (NTIA), and others can take to encourage 
more sharing and efficient spectrum use. GAO reviewed plans and 
documents from FCC and NTIA regarding their management of nonfederal 
and federal spectrum-sharing activities, respectively. GAO also 
interviewed federal and commercial spectrum users, industry and 
academic experts, and other stakeholders. 

What GAO Found: 

Some spectrum users may lack incentive to share spectrum or otherwise 
use it efficiently, and federal agencies and private users currently 
cannot easily identify spectrum available for sharing. Typically, 
paying the market price for a good or service helps to inform users of 
the value of the good and provides an incentive for efficient use. 
Federal agencies, however, pay only a small fee to the NTIA for 
spectrum assignments and therefore have little incentive to share 
spectrum. Federal agencies also face concerns that sharing could risk 
the success of security or safety missions, or could be costly in 
terms of upgrades to more spectrally efficient equipment. Nonfederal 
users, such as private companies, are also reluctant to share 
spectrum. For instance, license holders may be reluctant to encourage 
additional competition, and companies may be hesitant to enter into 
sharing agreements that require potentially lengthy and unpredictable 
regulatory processes. Sharing can be costly for them, too. For 
example, nonfederal users may be required to cover all interference 
mitigation costs to use a federal spectrum band, which might include 
multiple federal users. Sharing can also be hindered because 
information on federal spectrum use is lacking and information 
regarding some federal spectrum use may never be publicly available, a 
situation that makes it difficult for users to identify potential 
spectrum for sharing. 

Federal advisors, agency officials, and experts have identified 
several options that could provide greater incentives and 
opportunities for more efficient spectrum use and sharing by federal 
and nonfederal users. These options include, among other things: 
considering spectrum usage fees to provide economic incentive for more 
efficient use and sharing; identifying more spectrum that could be 
made available for unlicensed use, since unlicensed use is inherently 
shared; encouraging research and development of technologies that can 
better enable sharing; and improving and expediting regulatory 
processes related to sharing. However, these options involve 
implementation challenges. For example, setting spectrum usage fees 
for federal users may not result in creating the proper incentives, 
because agency budgets might simply be increased to accommodate their 
current use. While new technologies that overcome some of the inherent 
challenges with sharing spectrum are being developed, proving those 
technologies under real-world conditions can be difficult, and few 
incentives exist at the federal level to encourage such technology 
development. Finally, FCC and NTIA have taken some actions to 
potentially reduce the amount of time and even the need for potential 
rulemakings sometimes associated with spectrum sharing, but 
stakeholders and experts suggested that more could be done to expedite 
the approval process, such as automating some steps and developing 
better capabilities to track the status of spectrum-sharing 
applications. However, any changes to federal regulatory processes 
related to spectrum management and sharing would need to be carefully 
studied with respect to potential benefits and costs. 

What GAO Recommends: 

FCC and NTIA should jointly (1) report to Congress on the potential 
merits and effects of a spectrum fee, (2) determine how to best 
promote spectrum research and development, and (3) evaluate what 
regulatory changes might improve the spectrum sharing process. The 
agencies generally agreed with GAO’s findings but identified ongoing 
efforts that address the recommendations. GAO has modified the 
recommendations as described further in the report. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-7]. For more 
information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or 
goldsteinm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Scope and Methodology: 

Background: 

Some Users Lack Incentives and Face Barriers to Sharing Spectrum: 

Incentives and Opportunities to Share Spectrum Could Be Expanded: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Federal Agencies, Nonfederal Spectrum Users and Experts 
Interviewed Regarding Spectrum Sharing: 

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Commerce: 

Appendix III: Comments From the Federal Communications Commission: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: Subject Matter Experts Interviewed: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Percentage of Federal Agency Frequency Assignments, 2012: 

Figure 2: Illustration and Examples of Spectrum Sharing: 

Abbreviations: 

4G: fourth generation: 

AIP: Administered Incentive Pricing: 

CSMAC: Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee: 

DARPA: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: 

FCC: Federal Communications Commission: 

FSMS: Federal Spectrum Management System: 

GHz: gigahertz: 

IRAC: Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee: 

LTE: Long Term Evolution: 

MHz: megahertz: 

NTIA: National Telecommunications and Information Administration: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

PCAST: President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology: 

Wi-Fi: wireless fidelity: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 14, 2012: 

The Honorable Fred Upton: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Energy and Commerce: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Greg Walden: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology: 
Committee on Energy and Commerce: 
House of Representatives: 

The propagation and popularity of smart phones, tablets, and other 
wireless devices has created an explosion in the demand for and use of 
more radio frequency spectrum to support services and data 
transmissions on these devices, particularly in dense, urban areas. 
Federal users--mostly government agencies--also require spectrum for 
national defense, homeland security, and other vital mission 
activities. To date, however, nearly all usable radio spectrum has 
been allocated either by the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA) within the Department of Commerce 
for federal government use or by the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC) for commercial and other nonfederal use. Therefore, virtually no 
"green fields" of spectrum are currently available to allocate to new 
uses or technologies. Going forward, this scarcity could have 
implications for our economy, our competitiveness in global markets, 
and the ability of government at all levels to meet its key missions. 

This situation notwithstanding, there is substantial evidence that at 
any given point in time at any given place, there is fallow or 
intermittently used spectrum--certainly in sparsely populated rural 
areas, and even in heavily trafficked urban areas.[Footnote 1] Some 
experts suggest that the scarcity of spectrum in the United States is 
to some extent a result of the manner in which this resource has been 
allocated, managed, and used, rather than because of a physical 
scarcity of the resource. In an effort to address increasing demands 
for spectrum access, the current and past Administrations, Congress, 
FCC, and others have proposed a variety of policy, economic, and 
technological solutions to address the availability and efficient use 
of spectrum. For example, in 2010, the administration set a goal for 
500 megahertz (MHz) of federal and nonfederal spectrum currently being 
unused or under-used to be repurposed for mobile broadband use. 
However, we have previously reported that repurposing spectrum has 
been and can be a contentious and highly protracted process, typically 
taking years.[Footnote 2] As a result, solutions geared toward greater 
sharing of spectrum among users--federal and nonfederal--have become 
more attractive because of the potential access to more spectrum and 
opportunities to use spectrum more efficiently that sharing presents. 
For instance, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and 
Technology (PCAST) recently recommended that 1,000 MHz of spectrum 
previously occupied only by federal users be shared with nonfederal 
users.[Footnote 3] 

In light of these issues, and in response to your request, we examined 
(1) what factors currently prevent users from sharing spectrum more 
frequently and (2) what actions FCC, NTIA and others can take to 
encourage more sharing and more efficient spectrum use. 

Scope and Methodology: 

We reviewed federal legislation, regulations, and processes regarding 
spectrum management and spectrum sharing, including NTIA's Manual of 
Regulations and Procedures for the Federal Radio Frequency Management; 
as well as various FCC plans, notices, orders and other publications 
related to spectrum management and sharing. We conducted multiple 
interviews with FCC, NTIA, and various advisory committees, such as 
the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC). We 
selected 7 of the 19 Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee[Footnote 
4] (IRAC) agencies--the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland 
Security, Interior, Justice, Transportation, and Treasury--based on 
which agencies were most likely to have experience with spectrum 
sharing. We interviewed the spectrum managers for these departments to 
better understand their experiences with sharing, including successes 
and challenges, and analyzed the extent to which spectrum sharing was 
a part of their spectrum management plans. 

We also interviewed a variety of stakeholders and experts outside the 
federal government with knowledge and experience related to spectrum 
sharing issues. These stakeholders and experts fell into four groups: 

* Nonfederal spectrum users: We interviewed officials from seven 
commercial entities such as Verizon, Sprint, and other wireless and 
communications companies. We also interviewed local government 
officials regarding their spectrum sharing experiences. We selected 
these nonfederal users based on their experiences with sharing 
spectrum, or based on their vested interest in spectrum policy. 

* Companies that create spectrum-sharing solutions: We interviewed two 
companies that create spectrum sharing technologies. We selected these 
companies based on recommendations from spectrum experts and federal 
agency officials about which companies were most active with spectrum 
sharing technology development. 

* Industry and academic experts: We interviewed 16 industry and 
academic experts. We selected these experts based on their published 
and recognized research credentials for their work on spectrum 
management, spectrum sharing and the economic impacts of spectrum 
related policies, and on other stakeholders' and experts' 
recommendations. 

* International spectrum management officials: We interviewed spectrum 
management officials from Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia to 
compare other countries' spectrum management and spectrum-sharing 
practices to that of the United States. We chose these three countries 
based on their level of experience dealing with spectrum-sharing 
issues. We also interviewed officials from the International 
Telecommunication Union to understand its role in advising 
international spectrum management and spectrum sharing policies. 
[Footnote 5] 

We also completed a literature search and reviewed recent reports and 
articles related to spectrum sharing, including academic and 
government reports as well as speeches and articles by the groups of 
officials and experts we interviewed as described above. 

A complete list of the departments and agencies, experts and companies 
that we interviewed can be found in appendix I. The information and 
perspectives that we obtained from the interviews may not be 
generalized to all experts and industry stakeholders that have an 
interest in spectrum policy. Rather, comments and views were reviewed 
in context with current literature on spectrum management issues. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to October 
2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

In the United States, responsibility for managing spectrum--including 
allocating, assigning, regulating, and facilitating the sharing of 
spectrum--is divided between two agencies, NTIA and FCC. NTIA and FCC 
jointly determine the amount of spectrum allocated for federal and 
nonfederal use, including both exclusive and shared use. After this 
allocation occurs, in order to use spectrum, nonfederal users, such as 
wireless companies and local governments, must follow rules and be 
authorized by FCC to use specific frequencies.[Footnote 6] When 
spectrum is repurposed, FCC may also be authorized to hold an auction 
to distribute licenses through a bidding process. Federal users, like 
the military, must follow rules, and obtain frequency assignments from 
NTIA.[Footnote 7] Both NTIA and FCC have authority to issue rules and 
regulations on use of spectrum as necessary to ensure effective, 
efficient, and equitable domestic spectrum use. 

Federal agencies use spectrum to help meet a variety of missions, 
including emergency communications, national defense, land management, 
and law enforcement. More than 60 federal agencies and departments 
combined have over 240,000 frequency assignments. As of September 
2012, 9 departments and agencies had the vast majority of the 
assignments: the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation 
Administration, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland 
Security, the Department of the Interior, the Department of 
Agriculture, the United States Coast Guard, the Department of Energy, 
and the Department of Commerce, respectively, hold 94 percent of all 
federally assigned spectrum. (See figure 1.) Nonfederal entities 
(which include commercial companies and state and local governments) 
also use spectrum to provide a variety of services. For example, state 
and local police departments, fire departments, and other emergency 
services agencies use spectrum to transmit and receive critical voice 
and data communications, while commercial entities use spectrum to 
provide wireless services, including mobile voice and data, paging, 
broadcast radio and television, and satellite services. 

Figure 1: Percentage of Federal Agency Frequency Assignments, 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Agency, Total: 94%: 
* Defense: 39.33%; 
* Federal Aviation Administration: 14.0%; 
* Justice: 9.87%; 
* Homeland Security: 7.52%; 
* Interior: 6.56%; 
* Agriculture: 6.11%; 
* Coast Guard: 5.23%; 
* Energy: 2.98%; 
* Commerce: 2.47%; 
Other: 6%. 

Source: GAO analysis of NTIA data. 

[End of figure] 

Not all spectrum has equal value. The spectrum most highly valued 
generally consists of frequencies between 225 and 3700 MHz, as these 
frequencies have properties well suited to many important wireless 
technologies, such as mobile devices, and radio and television 
broadcasting. According to NTIA's Office of Spectrum Management, 
federal agencies have exclusive use of about 18 percent of this highly 
valued spectrum, while nonfederal users have exclusive licenses to 
approximately 33 percent.[Footnote 8] The remainder of this spectrum 
is allocated to shared use. The types of and degree of sharing between 
governmental and nongovernmental users varies across the bands 
included within this shared spectrum. In addition, increasing demands 
on spectrum mean that federal and nonfederal users increasingly occupy 
adjacent bands, which in practice necessitates intensive coordination 
on technical rules. Estimates of the extent of predominant federal use 
within the spectrum allocated for shared use vary depending on the 
particular evaluation model and analyses employed. Depending on the 
estimate used, the total percentage of the most highly valued spectrum 
exclusively or predominantly used by the federal government ranges 
from approximately 39 percent to 57 percent. 

Spectrum sharing can be defined as the cooperative use of common 
spectrum that allows disparate missions to be achieved. In this way, 
multiple users agree to access the same spectrum at different times or 
locations, as well as negotiate other technical parameters, to avoid 
adversely interfering with one another. For sharing to occur, users 
and regulators must negotiate and resolve where (geographic sharing), 
when (sharing in time), and how (technical parameters) spectrum will 
be used. (See figure 2.) 

Figure 2: Illustration and Examples of Spectrum Sharing: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Geographic sharing occurs when multiple users access the same 
frequencies in different geographic areas which are sufficiently 
separated to avoid interference.  

For example, if federal agency User A has a nationwide spectrum 
assignment for a particular frequency but only uses it at a pilot 
testing range in the Northwest for now, it can allow Users B and C to 
use that frequency in other locations as long as all the locations are 
far enough apart to avoid interference. 

Sharing spectrum in time occurs when multiple users access the same 
frequencies at different times to avoid interference. When a primary 
spectrum user is not using its spectrum, it could allow access to a 
secondary user--even if users are in close proximity. 

For example, if a federal agency transmits high-powered radar around 
the clock over a large area at certain frequencies, other users cannot 
use those frequencies in that space without interference. However, if 
the radar is used intermittently, in theory the agency can provide 
other users with the times when the frequency is available for sharing. 

Sources: GAO and Map Resources (map). 

[End of figure] 

Both FCC and NTIA manage the process that leads to spectrum sharing 
between federal and nonfederal users. The steps involved in the 
process include the following: 

* Prior to authorizing a nonfederal user to share spectrum with 
federal users, FCC will coordinate with NTIA on the allocation and 
service rulemakings required that define the technical and operating 
conditions for shared access to spectrum.[Footnote 9] NTIA will 
provide draft findings to IRAC, which provides advice to NTIA 
regarding federal spectrum. FCC participates in IRAC as a liaison. 
IRAC determines which agencies would be affected by the nonfederal use 
of spectrum and acts as the forum where those agencies consider how 
they may accommodate the nonfederal user. According to NTIA, any 
nonfederal user may approach NTIA and IRAC to discuss a proposal to 
use federal or shared bands to determine any obstacles and best ways 
forward. In some cases, FCC encourages nonfederal applicants to work 
directly with concerned agencies to try to reach agreement on an 
arrangement that could then be adapted to FCC rules or licenses. 
Similarly, if federal users request frequency assignments in 
nonfederal or shared bands, these requests must be coordinated with 
FCC through IRAC. According to NTIA, thus far, all requests by federal 
entities to change an allocation have gone through NTIA to FCC and 
have required an FCC rulemaking. 

* To have access to federal spectrum, the nonfederal entity must also 
obtain an FCC license. FCC will coordinate the allocation change or 
license application, including technical and operational conditions, 
for sharing federal spectrum through the Frequency Assignment 
Subcommittee of IRAC. 

* Next, before any spectrum sharing takes place in federal or shared 
spectrum, NTIA must vet the coordinating parties' requests, assign 
frequencies, and ensure that the systems the parties will be using--
such as the land mobile radios used by state and local emergency 
responders that share spectrum with federal users--are compatible. 

When spectrum sharing occurs solely among federal users within federal 
exclusive bands, IRAC's Frequency Assignment Subcommittee, using 
NTIA's database of federal frequency assignments, reviews the spectrum 
requests and identifies any potential interference concerns prior to 
commencing the shared use. Federal sharing occurs routinely. For 
example, the Departments of Defense, and Transportation, and 
Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration share spectrum for directing aircraft and monitoring 
weather conditions. The Department of Defense also frequently shares 
spectrum among its own various programs, internal services and 
agencies. 

When sharing occurs solely among nonfederal users, FCC seeks to allow 
flexibility for license holders to coordinate and negotiate spectrum-
sharing agreements among themselves. FCC provides flexibility in a 
couple of ways. One way is through the expanded issuance of flexible 
use licenses. As opposed to traditional licenses, where usage is 
limited to the specific terms of the license (e.g., TV broadcast 
stations in specific markets), flexible use licenses allow for a wider 
array of uses without having to seek additional FCC authorization. 
Licensing expands the pool of potential entities that would be able to 
innovate and share the spectrum beyond those that would use the 
spectrum in a similar manner. However, with both traditional and 
flexible use licenses, if a proposed shared use is not consistent with 
the terms of a license, an FCC rulemaking would be required to allow 
that use. Another way FCC provides flexibility is with respect to its 
secondary market policies and rules that permit licensees to share 
their spectrum resource through spectrum lease arrangements.[Footnote 
10] While FCC tracks these secondary market transactions, users 
negotiate their own terms, making it difficult to gauge the extent to 
which sharing occurs among these users, if at all. 

Spectrum sharing also occurs through unlicensed access by anyone using 
wireless equipment certified by FCC for those frequencies. Equipment 
such as wireless microphones, baby monitors, and garage door openers 
share spectrum with other services on a non-interference basis 
typically within a limited geographic range and at low power levels to 
avoid interference with higher priority uses. In contrast with most 
licensed spectrum use, unlicensed users have no regulatory protection 
against interference from other licensed or unlicensed users in the 
band. Unlicensed use is regulated to ensure that devices do not cause 
interference to other operations in the spectrum. For example, 
wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi)[Footnote 11] devices share some band 
segments in the 5 gigahertz (GHz) range with military radar subject to 
the condition that the Wi-Fi devices are capable of spectrum sensing 
via dynamic frequency selection; if the Wi-Fi device detects a radar 
signal, the device must immediately vacate the channel the radar 
signal is on. 

Many technological developments have also increased spectrum 
efficiency and further enabled sharing. For example, dynamic spectrum 
access technologies under development could allow equipment to sense 
and select among available frequencies in an area, efficiently using 
whatever frequencies might be available. This allows users to share 
frequencies in the same location in very small increments of 
time.[Footnote 12] Software-defined radios also use spectrum more 
efficiently by accessing different frequencies in one location. In 
addition, these radios use more efficient batteries that allow them to 
perform more sophisticated tasks while using less spectrum than 
traditional radios. As another example, small cell technology allows 
users to share the same frequencies in close proximity to each other. 
Further, emerging fourth generation (4G) Long Term Evolution (LTE) 
technologies, as used by some smart phones to access the Internet, 
promise improvement in data transfer speeds.[Footnote 13] Research 
continues on these and other fronts to enable more efficient use of 
spectrum, including sharing. 

Some Users Lack Incentives and Face Barriers to Sharing Spectrum: 

Some Users Lack Economic Incentives to Share Spectrum: 

While federal spectrum users often share spectrum among themselves, 
they may have little economic incentive to otherwise use spectrum 
efficiently, including sharing it with nonfederal users. From an 
economic perspective, when a consumer pays the market price for a good 
or service and thus cannot get more of it without this expense, the 
consumer has an incentive to get the most value and efficiency out of 
the good as possible. If no price is attached to a good--which is 
essentially the case with federal agencies' use of spectrum[Footnote 
14]--the normal market incentive to use the good efficiently may be 
muted. In the case of federal spectrum users, obtaining new spectrum 
assignments may be difficult, so an agency may have an incentive to 
conserve and use the spectrum it currently has assigned to it or 
currently shares efficiently, but the extent of that incentive is 
likely weaker than if the agency had to pay market price for all of 
its spectrum needs. Consequently, federal spectrum users do not fully 
face a market incentive to conserve on their use of spectrum or use it 
in an efficient manner. The full market value of the spectrum assigned 
to federal agencies has not been assessed, but, according to one 
industry observer, would most likely be valued in the tens of billions 
of dollars. Similarly, many nonfederal users, such as television 
broadcasters and public safety entities, did not pay for spectrum when 
it was assigned to them and do not pay the full market price for their 
continuing use of spectrum, so, like federal agencies, they may not 
fully have market-based incentives to use spectrum efficiently. 
[Footnote 15] 

In contrast, licensed, commercial users that purchase spectrum at 
auction generally have market incentives to use their spectrum 
holdings efficiently, but these users also have incentives that work 
against their sharing spectrum. FCC officials and industry 
stakeholders and experts told us that these users may prefer not to 
share their unused spectrum because they are concerned about the 
potential for interference to degrade service quality to their 
customers. Also, they may not want to give potential competitors 
access to spectrum. Industry stakeholders and experts also said that 
companies seeking spectrum may prefer obtaining exclusive spectrum 
licenses over sharing spectrum that is licensed to another company or 
federal user, given uncertainties about regulatory approvals, 
interference, and enforcement if interference occurs. 

Several Barriers Can Deter Users from Sharing Spectrum: 

Federal agencies will not risk mission failure, particularly when 
there are security and public safety implications. According to the 
agency officials we contacted, federal agencies will typically not 
agree to share spectrum if it puts achievement of their mission at 
risk. The officials stressed that when missions have security and 
safety implications, sharing spectrum may pose unacceptable risks. For 
example, the military tests aircraft and trains pilots using test 
ranges that can stretch hundreds of miles, maintaining constant 
wireless contact. While there may be times and locations where the 
frequencies are not in use because aircraft are not in the area, 
communication frequencies in the test ranges cannot be shared, 
according to officials in the Department of Defense, because even 
accidental interference in communications with an aircraft could 
result in catastrophic mission failure. Further, sharing information 
about such flights could expose pilots and aircraft, or the military's 
larger mission, to increased risk. Federal law enforcement agencies 
are also concerned about how sharing spectrum could put missions at 
risk. For example, officials at the Departments of Treasury and 
Justice explained that interference with communications among agents 
could put the agents in danger and cause them to miss mission critical 
information. According to officials from the Department of Justice, 
the department tested sharing spectrum with a major commercial carrier 
in a metropolitan area in 2008 and concluded that the department and 
the carrier t could not co-exist on the same spectrum. NTIA also 
reported that although sharing should be accommodated when 
appropriate, it is necessary to establish clear regulatory mechanisms 
for sharing to ensure that federal users are not required to assume 
responsibility for mitigating interference.[Footnote 16] 

According to FCC officials, concerns about risk of mission failure can 
drive conservative technical standards for federal agencies' missions 
that can make sharing spectrum impractical. In general, the technical 
analyses and resulting standards federal agencies develop are based on 
worst-case scenarios and not on assessments of the most likely 
scenario or a range of scenarios. Moreover, in contrast to FCC's open 
rulemaking process, there is little opportunity for public input to 
the federal agencies' standards-setting process. Stakeholders may meet 
or have discussions with NTIA and the relevant federal agencies, but 
this occurs without any formal public process. Nor do stakeholders 
have any effective means to appeal other than by asking FCC to reject 
NTIA's analysis or standards. 

Spectrum sharing can be costly. FCC and NTIA officials, as well as 
other agency officials and an industry stakeholder, told us that 
sharing federal spectrum can be costly for both the nonfederal and 
federal users seeking to share for the following reasons: 

* Users may find that mitigation of potential interference can be 
costly in terms of equipment design and operation. For example, 
according to officials from one agency, sharing spectrum outside a law 
enforcement environment would require cognitive radios, which could be 
costly.[Footnote 17] 

* Users applying to share federal frequencies may find that those 
frequencies are being used by more than one federal agency or program. 
As a result of needing to mitigate interference for multiple users, 
costs to share spectrum in that band could increase. 

* Federal users often use and rely on proven older technology that was 
designed to use spectrum to meet a specific mission and may be less 
efficient than more modern systems. Limited budgets may also prevent 
users from being able to invest in newer technology that can 
facilitate easier sharing. For example, officials at one agency said 
they maintain and use systems until the end of the system's life cycle 
to assure continuity of operations and security. 

Spectrum-sharing approval and enforcement processes can be lengthy and 
unpredictable. FCC and NTIA processes can cause two main problems when 
nonfederal users seek to share federal spectrum, according to 
stakeholders: 

* The spectrum-sharing approval process between FCC and NTIA can be 
lengthy and unpredictable, and the risk associated with it can be 
costly for new entrants. FCC officials told us that its internal 
processes can potentially last years if a rulemaking is required to 
allow shared use of spectrum.[Footnote 18] In addition to that time, 
NTIA officials said that IRAC's investigation of potential harmful 
interference could also take months. In one example, federal users 
currently share the spectrum band of 413-457 MHz with a nonprofit 
medical devices provider. The spectrum is used for transmissions 
related to implant products for veterans. It took FCC, NTIA and the 
spectrum users approximately 2 years (from 2009 to 2011) to facilitate 
this arrangement because an FCC rulemaking was required and all 
parties agreed to a lengthy evaluation of potential interference. 
[Footnote 19] The nonprofit in this case was funded by an endowment 
and was not dependent on income from the device to sustain itself 
during this process, but such delays, and the potential for a denial 
because of findings of harmful interference risks, could discourage 
for-profit companies from developing and investing in business plans 
that rely on sharing federal spectrum. However, officials at one 
agency commented that they have seen the timing of NTIA approval of 
federal participation drastically reduced over the past several years, 
from many months to less than a month as a result of additional 
coordination and negotiation of sharing done prior to the submission 
of frequency requests. 

* Stakeholders we interviewed told us that when federal and nonfederal 
users share spectrum, both parties worry that harmful interference may 
affect their missions or operations if the other party overreaches or 
does not follow the agreement. They also fear that any enforcement 
actions taken by FCC will happen too slowly to protect their interests 
and that enforcement outcomes may be unfavorable. According to 
officials at one agency, there are not many examples of large scale 
sharing of federal and nonfederal systems and limited governance and 
enforcement mechanisms exist to support such efforts. 

Similar problems can arise when nonfederal users share spectrum with 
each other. Distrust of each other and of FCC's decision-making and 
enforcement processes could discourage sharing. For example, if a 
proposed shared use does not fall within the terms of the incumbent's 
license, FCC may need to engage in rulemaking proceedings, which can 
be long and unpredictable and can make spectrum-sharing arrangements 
unattractive to companies that otherwise might consider sharing. 

Users May Be Unable to Easily Identify Spectrum Available for Sharing: 

Besides lacking incentives and overcoming other barriers, users may 
also have difficulty identifying spectrum available for sharing 
because data on available spectrum is incomplete or inaccurate, and 
information on some federal spectrum usage is not publicly available. 
According to NTIA officials, coordinating spectrum sharing requires 
accurate data on users, frequencies, locations, times, power levels, 
and equipment, among other things. We recently reported that both 
FCC's and NTIA's spectrum databases may contain incomplete and 
inaccurate data.[Footnote 20] We reported that a substantial number of 
surveyed users of FCC's largest and most accessed license database, 
the Universal Licensing System, said that inaccurate and missing data 
hindered their use of the system to a great or moderate extent. 
[Footnote 21] NTIA collects basic, descriptive information on federal 
spectrum use, such as agency name, frequency, and location, in its 
Government Master File, and relies on agencies to evaluate and report 
their own current and future spectrum needs, even though agencies have 
not always provided accurate information on their spectrum use, which 
could be useful in coordinating sharing arrangements.[Footnote 22] 
Further, federal agency spectrum managers told us that agencies have 
not been asked to regularly update their spectrum plans, in which they 
were required to include an accounting of spectrum use. Federal 
agencies were directed to submit spectrum plans to NTIA and provide 
updates every 2 years.[Footnote 23] Since 2008, NTIA has ceased 
requesting those updates and has put its strategic planning 
initiatives on hold because of limited resources. 

NTIA is developing a new data system that officials believe will 
provide more robust data that will enable more accurate analysis of 
spectrum usage and potential interference. The new system may in turn 
identify more sharing opportunities. NTIA officials plan for the new 
Federal Spectrum Management System (FSMS) to house more detailed data 
about agencies' spectrum usage than the current Government Master 
File, including times of use, power levels, and equipment, among other 
information not currently collected. FSMS is scheduled to be 
operational in fiscal year 2014. However, the data will only be 
available to IRAC members and will not be publicly available. 

Legislation has been introduced to try to address the lack of publicly 
available data on spectrum usage broadly.[Footnote 24] The legislation 
would require in part that FCC, in consultation with NTIA and the 
White House Office of Science and Technology, prepare a report for 
Congress that includes an inventory of each radio spectrum band they 
manage. The inventory is also to include data on the number of 
transmitters and receiver terminals in use, if available. Other 
technical parameters that allow for more specific evaluation of how 
spectrum can be shared will also be inventoried, including coverage 
area, receiver performance, location of transmitters, percentage and 
time of use, and a list and described use of unlicensed devices 
authorized to operate in the band. However, experts and federal 
officials we contacted told us that there may be some limitations to 
creating such an inventory. For instance, measuring spectrum usage can 
be difficult because it can only be accomplished on a small scale and 
technologies to measure or map widespread spectrum usage are not yet 
available.[Footnote 25] Additionally, FCC and NTIA officials told us 
that information on some federal spectrum bands may never be made 
publicly available because of the sensitive or classified nature of 
some federal spectrum use. 

Incentives and Opportunities to Share Spectrum Could Be Expanded: 

Federal advisors and experts we spoke with identified several options 
that could provide incentives and opportunities for more efficient 
spectrum use and sharing, by federal and nonfederal users, which 
include, among others: (1) assessing spectrum fees; (2) expanding the 
availability of unlicensed spectrum; (3) identifying federal spectrum 
that can be shared and promoting sharing; (4) requiring agencies to 
give more consideration to sharing and efficiency; (5) improving and 
expediting the spectrum-sharing process; and (6) increasing the 
federal focus on research, development and testing of technologies 
that can enable sharing, and improve spectral efficiency. We have 
previously reported that to improve spectrum efficiency among federal 
agencies, Congress may wish to consider evaluating what mechanisms 
could be adopted to provide better incentives and opportunities for 
agencies to move toward more efficient use of spectrum, which could 
free up some spectrum allocated for federal use to be made available 
for sharing or other purposes.[Footnote 26] 

Assessing Spectrum Fees: 

Several advisory groups and industry experts, including those we 
interviewed, have recommended that fees be assessed based on spectrum 
usage. As previously mentioned, with the exception of fees for 
frequency assignments, federal users incur no costs for using spectrum 
and have few requirements for efficient use. As s result, federal 
users may have little incentive to share spectrum assigned to them 
with nonfederal users or identify opportunities to use it more 
efficiently--except to the extent that sharing or more efficient use 
helps them achieve their mission requirements. In 2011, the CSMAC 
Incentives Subcommittee recommended that NTIA and FCC study the 
implementation of spectrum fees and solicit input from both federal 
and nonfederal users that might be subject to fees.[Footnote 27] The 
National Broadband Plan has also recommended that Congress consider 
granting FCC and NTIA authority to impose fees on unauctioned spectrum 
license holders--such as TV broadcasters and public safety entities--
as well as government users.[Footnote 28] Fees could help to free 
spectrum for new uses, since licensees that use spectrum inefficiently 
may reduce their holdings or pursue sharing opportunities once they 
bear the opportunity cost of letting their spectrum remain fallow or 
underused. FCC officials told us that they have proposed spectrum 
usage fees at various times including in FCC's most recent 
congressional budget submission and have requested, but have yet to 
receive, legislative authority to implement such a program.[Footnote 
29] 

While noting the benefits of spectrum fees, the CSMAC Incentives 
Subcommittee report also notes specific concerns about the impact of 
spectrum fees on government users. For instance, some CSMAC members 
expressed concern that fees do not fit into the federal annual 
appropriations process and that new appropriations to cover fees are 
neither realistic nor warranted in the current budget environment. 
Other members suggested that fees will have no effect because agencies 
will be assured additional funds for their spectrum needs. Similarly, 
the National Broadband Plan notes that a different approach to setting 
fees may be appropriate for different spectrum users, and that a fee 
system must avoid disrupting public safety, national defense, and 
other essential government services that protect human life, safety, 
and property.[Footnote 30] 

To address some of the concerns regarding agency budgets, the recent 
PCAST report recommended the use of a "spectrum currency" process to 
promote spectrum efficiency. Rather than using funds to pay for 
spectrum, federal agencies would each be given an allocation of 
synthetic currency that they could use to "buy" their spectrum usage 
rights. Usage fees would be set based on valuations of comparable 
private sector uses for which the market has already set a price. 
Agencies would then have an incentive to use their assignments more 
efficiently or share spectrum. In the PCAST proposal, agencies would 
also not bear the costs of making spectrum available to others for 
sharing, because they could be reimbursed for their investments that 
made sharing possible from a proposed Spectrum Efficiency Fund. 
[Footnote 31] 

Internationally, some regulatory agencies have moved forward with 
charging market based rates for spectrum. Officials in two of the 
countries we spoke with said that the regulatory agency in their 
country collects user fees for government-agency spectrum use that 
reflect the opportunity cost of spectrum and serve as a means to 
encourage greater efficiency. For instance, the Australian 
Communications and Media Authority assesses two types of license fees 
for devices: (1) administrative charges to recover the direct costs of 
spectrum management and (2) annual license taxes to recover the 
indirect government costs of spectrum management. Officials suggested 
that license fees provide incentives for efficient use. Similarly, the 
Office of Communications in the United Kingdom uses a concept known as 
Administered Incentive Pricing (AIP) to set charges for spectrum 
holdings to reflect the value of the spectrum and to promote efficient 
use. Officials in these countries told us that the fee structure also 
encourages agencies to seek more opportunities to share spectrum. For 
example, in response to the United Kingdom's AIP system, one ministry 
conducted a study of which spectrum bands could be shared or, if not 
in full use, released for use by others. The ministry identified at 
least five bands to share and released additional bands because the 
cost associated with retaining those rights was not economically 
feasible for intermittent use. As a result, the ministry relinquished 
its rights to those underused bands. 

Expanding Unlicensed Use: 

According to stakeholders, unlicensed use is a valuable complement to 
licensed use and more spectrum could be made available for unlicensed 
use. Spectrum for unlicensed use can be used efficiently and for high 
value applications, like Wi-Fi, for example.[Footnote 32] While FCC 
has generally relied on auctions to license spectrum, which over the 
years have generated billions in dollars of revenue for the United 
States Treasury, FCC is attempting to make more unlicensed spectrum 
available in the hope of fueling innovation and economic growth. 
Increasing the amount of spectrum available for unlicensed use allows 
more users to share spectrum without going through lengthy 
negotiations and interference mitigations, and also promotes more 
experimentation and innovation. To access exclusively licensed 
spectrum, users must enter into sharing agreements with the license 
holder sand negotiate access each time they wish to use that spectrum. 
By contrast, when spectrum is available for unlicensed purposes, such 
negotiation is generally not needed and, according to some experts, 
may lead to more widespread experimentation and the development of 
innovative technologies. 

More recently, FCC has provided unlicensed access to additional 
spectrum, known as TV "white spaces," to help address spectrum 
demands.[Footnote 33] The white spaces refer to the buffer zones that 
FCC provided between the television broadcasters to mitigate unwanted 
interference between adjacent stations. In the TV white space rules, 
the buffer zones are no longer needed, and FCC approved the previously 
unused spectrum for unlicensed use. To identify available white space 
spectrum, devices must access a database that responds with a list of 
the frequencies that are available for use at the device's 
location.[Footnote 34] As an example, one local official explained 
that the City of Wilmington, North Carolina, uses TV white space 
spectrum to provide a network of public Wi-Fi access and public-safety 
surveillance functions. However, some experts have noted that the use 
of white space for rural areas holds more promise than large, dense 
urban areas because the sheer number of TV stations and higher usage 
in those areas makes use of the white spaces more challenging. 

Identifying Federal Spectrum That Can Be Shared and Promoting Sharing: 

FCC and NTIA have noted the importance of sharing federal spectrum as 
a means to address spectrum demand. FCC's Chairman recently said that 
it has become increasingly harder to find free and clear blocks of 
spectrum.[Footnote 35] The Chairman further said that it would be 
counterproductive to be limited to the choices of reallocation or 
nothing and that it may be the case that in some bands, sharing could 
allow access to spectrum that might otherwise take years and be costly 
to make available to other users. As we previously mentioned, in 2010, 
the President directed federal agencies to clear 500 MHz of spectrum 
for nonfederal uses by 2020.[Footnote 36] In response to this 
directive, NTIA identified bands to evaluate for repurposing. For 
example, an interagency group was formed to determine the viability of 
accommodating commercial wireless broadband in the 1755-1850 MHz band. 
[Footnote 37] However, the evaluation found that clearing this 95 MHz 
band may take 10 years, cost $18 billion, and cause significant 
disruption. Furthermore, some federal systems could remain in the band 
indefinitely. To support NTIA's effort regarding this band, FCC 
recently granted special temporary authority for T-Mobile to conduct 
tests to explore sharing between commercial wireless services and 
federal systems operating in the 1755-1780 MHz band.[Footnote 38] NTIA 
has also noted that the federal government must ensure effective 
spectrum use and push for sharing and other innovative uses wherever 
possible.[Footnote 39] Further, it is critical that agencies 
participate in identifying strategies for more efficient use of 
spectrum, including sharing it, while maintaining essential federal 
missions. For example, NTIA asked CSMAC to advise on what kinds of 
sharing are workable in the long term. Consequently, CSMAC is 
reviewing options to analyze the impact federal systems remaining in 
the band might have on future commercial uses, and the sharing 
conditions that might be required to protect incumbent systems. 

Recent PCAST recommendations could also create opportunities for 
nonfederal users to share 1,000 MHz of spectrum previously occupied 
only by federal users. Out of concern that additional clearing of 
federal users from spectrum is not sustainable, PCAST recently 
recommended that the President issue a new policy memorandum calling 
for the federal government to immediately identify 1,000 MHz of 
federal spectrum for sharing with nonfederal users.[Footnote 40] To 
facilitate sharing this spectrum, PCAST also recommended that FCC and 
NTIA implement a federal spectrum access system that includes data on 
when and where federal users could allow access to fallow spectrum. 
Such a system could help streamline the regulatory processes involved 
in sharing that we discussed earlier. However, PCAST acknowledged that 
implementing the structure they recommended will not be easy and could 
take a long time. Moreover, some experts and industry stakeholders 
suggest that sharing 1,000 MHz of federal spectrum may be no easier or 
less costly than previous efforts to vacate half that amount, given 
the barriers to sharing that exist. 

Requiring Agencies to Give More Consideration to Spectrum Sharing and 
Efficiency: 

In 2011, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) updated its 
guidance to federal agencies on preparing the fiscal year 2013 budget 
by asking agencies to consider the economic value of spectrum when 
developing their economic justifications for procuring new 
equipment.[Footnote 41] The guidance noted that spectrum should 
generally not be considered a free resource, but rather should be 
considered to have value. Therefore, budget requests for systems that 
require spectrum should include the evaluation of alternative systems 
or methods that reduce spectrum needs, such as spectrum sharing. In 
January 2011, CSMAC reported that the focus of this process had been 
on capital planning. The Committee stated that it believed it would be 
more useful to focus on ensuring that agencies give more consideration 
to trade-offs in spectrum use in their management processes. They also 
said that doing so will likely yield greater improvements in overall 
spectrum management and use. Toward that end, with respect to the 
budget for major spectrum-dependent communications systems, the 
Committee rewrote the circular, recommending that agencies specify in 
their spectrum proposals (a) whether the system will share with other 
existing systems, (b) the extent to which replacement systems will be 
more spectrally efficient compared to the prior system, and (c) that 
there was consideration of non-spectrum dependent or commercial 
alternatives. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act 
required that OMB implement these recommendations.[Footnote 42] We 
have also reported that federal agencies generally invest in more 
spectrally efficient technologies when mission needs demand it, not 
according to any underlying, systematic consideration of spectrum 
efficiency.[Footnote 43] As a result, we recommended that FCC and NTIA 
jointly develop accepted models and methodologies to assess the impact 
of new technologies on overall spectrum use and that NTIA determine 
how to provide incentives to agencies to use spectrum more 
efficiently.[Footnote 44] 

Improving and Expediting the Spectrum-Sharing Process: 

FCC and NTIA have taken some actions to potentially reduce the amount 
of time and even the need for some potential rulemakings associated 
with spectrum sharing, but stakeholders and experts we interviewed 
suggested that more could be done to expedite the process. NTIA also 
encourages communication between federal and nonfederal users 
regarding sharing plans to deal with potential interference and other 
technical issues early in the process. These communications are 
important to provide certainty to nonfederal users about the 
availability of shared spectrum while also ensuring that critical 
federal operations are protected. 

Stakeholders suggested that NTIA and FCC could do more to streamline 
or automate their processes, and that more complete databases of 
spectrum use, as discussed earlier, could help potential sharing 
entities identify opportunities. Some experts argued for FCC to shift 
from a "command and control" approach for spectrum management to a 
regulatory approach that was more flexible and adaptable to new 
technologies. Others argue that the process is further slowed down and 
complicated because two regulatory agencies are involved as opposed to 
a single agency, as is the case in other countries, and other 
industries. 

CSMAC also reported that FCC and NTIA could do more to streamline the 
sharing approval process. For example, a common frustration is that a 
nonfederal entity seeking to share federal spectrum is unable to 
precisely follow the status of its spectrum sharing application once 
it is filed with the FCC. Further, it is not transparent in the 
experimental licensing process on the FCC website when FCC transmits 
applications to NTIA, when NTIA responds to FCC, and whether that 
response contains questions to which the applicant must respond to 
progress the application. On the NTIA side, IRAC's Frequency 
Assignment Subcommittee established a review period of approximately 
nine days to respond with concurrence or concerns regarding an 
application. NTIA's website provides some information regarding the 
status of an application in the IRAC process; however, the information 
is very generic and the nonfederal applicant has no means to obtain 
information as to why its request was tabled or to engage directly 
with the concerned parties. For applicants to more proactively engage 
FCC regarding concerns or other actions, CSMAC recommended that there 
be a public tracking capability that allows an FCC applicant to 
readily identify when FCC sent the application to NTIA, when NTIA 
responded, and whether NTIA had specific questions regarding the 
merits or technical components of the application. Regardless, any 
such changes to how spectrum is currently managed and regulated would 
need to be carefully studied with respect to potential benefits and 
costs. 

Increasing the Federal Focus on Research, Development and Testing: 

Several technological advances promise to make sharing easier, but are 
still at early stages of development and testing. For example, various 
spectrum users and experts we contacted mentioned the potential of 
dynamic spectrum access technology. If made fully operational, dynamic 
spectrum access technology will be able to sense available frequencies 
in an area and jump among frequencies to seamlessly continue 
communication as the user moves geographically through spectrum bands. 
According to experts and researchers we spoke with, progress has been 
made but there is no indication of how long it will be before this 
technology is fully deployable. Similarly, current fourth generation 
(4G) Long Term Evolution (LTE) technologies promise the ability to 
facilitate channel sharing as well as much faster data transfer rates 
over time, which could also potentially free frequencies more quickly 
for use by others. However, experts we talked to could not predict how 
long it will be before data networks reach international 4G 
transmission standards and thus, maximize spectral efficiency. Such 
new technologies can obviate or lessen the need for extensive 
regulatory procedures to enable sharing and can open up new market 
opportunities for wireless service providers. If a secondary user or 
sharing entity employs these technologies, the incumbent user or 
primary user would theoretically not experience interference, and 
agreements and rulemakings that are currently needed may not be 
necessary to enable sharing. 

Although industry participants indicated that extensive testing under 
realistic conditions is critical to conducting basic research on 
spectrum efficient technologies, we found that only a few companies 
are involved in such research and may experience challenges in the 
testing process. Companies tend to focus technology development on 
current business objectives as opposed to conducting basic research 
that may not show an immediate business return. For example, NTIA 
officials told us that one company that indicated it would participate 
in NTIA's dynamic spectrum access-testing project removed its 
technologist from the testing effort to a project more closely related 
to its internal business objectives. Furthermore, some products are 
too early in the development stage to even be fully tested. For 
example, NTIA officials said six companies responded to NTIA's 
invitation to participate in the previously mentioned dynamic spectrum 
access-testing project. However, three handsets were received for the 
testing, and one of those did not work as intended. Other companies 
that responded told NTIA that they only had a concept and were not 
ready to test an actual prototype. 

We have previously reported that the federal government has a key role 
in performing or otherwise encouraging research that the private 
industry would not do on its own.[Footnote 45] With respect to 
research and development on spectrum sharing and spectrum efficiency, 
we found that FCC and NTIA are involved in creating test beds and 
other opportunities for research and development.[Footnote 46] For 
example, when FCC proposed a rulemaking to improve its experimental 
license program in November 2010, it invited comments on a number of 
ideas including the need to identify locations for test beds, where 
new technologies could be tested before being introduced to the market 
and frequency bands where FCC might provide increased flexibility to 
conduct experiments. Further, FCC is seeking to establish provisions 
that encourage the exploration of new technologies, including 
technologies that would facilitate spectrum sharing. To expand testing 
opportunities, PCAST recommended that real-world test services be 
provided to test federal and public-safety frequency bands. Similarly, 
the Wireless Spectrum Research and Development's Senior Steering Group 
is conducting workshops regarding the development of a national 
wireless test environment.[Footnote 47] However, spectrum users told 
us that even though they understand the benefits of testing and 
development, they are reluctant to allow testing in their spectrum 
because of the potential for harmful interference. As previously 
mentioned, NTIA also has a pilot test bed program to evaluate dynamic 
spectrum access and technology for spectrum sharing in land mobile 
radio bands, but the program is in the early stages and requires 
additional access to spectrum for testing to be fully implemented. 
[Footnote 48] 

The Department of Defense--the federal agency with the largest number 
of spectrum assignments--is also involved in researching and 
developing new spectrum technologies, although they are still in the 
early stages. The Department's Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency (DARPA) has several such efforts under way. For example, unlike 
existing databases that only provide limited, descriptive frequency 
assignment information, DARPA's Advanced Radio Frequency Mapping 
program seeks to provide real-time awareness of spectrum use across 
frequency, geography, and time. With this information, spectrum 
managers and automatic spectrum allocation and management systems 
could operate more efficiently through improved interference 
mitigation. However, agency officials told us that this technology is 
at the basic research level and years away from market readiness. 
Also, in the beginning phases, the Communications Under Extreme Radio 
Frequency Spectrum Conditions program plans to address spectrum use 
and interference mitigation in a congested communications environment. 
According to DARPA officials, the program will work to develop 
interference mitigation technologies (especially for jamming), 
[Footnote 49] interference tolerance, and higher spectrum utilization. 

Recent federal advisory committee recommendations and international 
examples also emphasize the importance of funding and providing 
incentives for research and development endeavors. For example, to 
promote research in efficient technologies, PCAST recommended that (1) 
the Research and Development Wireless Innovation Fund[Footnote 50] 
release funds for this purpose and (2) the current Spectrum Relocation 
Fund be redefined as the Spectrum Efficiency Fund.[Footnote 51] This 
adjustment would allow federal agencies to be reimbursed for general 
investments in improving spectrum sharing. PCAST also recently 
suggested that a partnership between the federal government and the 
private sector is the best mechanism to ensure optimal use of federal 
spectrum and related spectrum research and testing.[Footnote 52] 
Similarly, CSMAC recommended the creation of a Spectrum Innovation 
Fund. Unlike the Spectrum Relocation Fund, which is strictly limited 
to the actual costs incurred in relocating federal systems from 
auctioned spectrum bands, the Spectrum Innovation Fund could also be 
used for spectrum sharing and other opportunities to enhance spectrum 
efficiency.[Footnote 53] To deal with similar problems, the Canadian 
government instituted tax credits for research and development efforts 
by Canadian wireless companies, and required wireless companies to 
commit 2 percent of all revenues toward research and development 
activities related to spectrum. 

Conclusions: 

As the demand for and use of spectrum continues to increase, federal 
and nonfederal users will need to be more cognizant of how efficiently 
spectrum is used. Sharing spectrum is one way to use spectrum more 
efficiently and make more spectrum available. While a number of 
barriers exist to sharing spectrum--such as incompatible uses, 
potentially prohibitive costs, and cumbersome regulatory processes--it 
is clear that first and foremost, users currently lack incentives to 
share the spectrum that is assigned or licensed to them. To address 
the incentive problem, spectrum experts, federal advisory groups, and 
others have made recommendations but have also identified 
implementation problems associated with different options. First, we 
agree with experts that spectrum usage fees should be given further 
consideration. We previously reported that incentive-based fees are 
designed to promote the efficient use of spectrum by compelling users 
to recognize the value to society of the spectrum that they use. Yet, 
designing a fee system is fraught with numerous obstacles and 
challenges, such as how such fees should be incorporated into agency 
budgets and the appropriations process in order to create the right 
incentives. A full evaluation of the potential benefits and impacts of 
implementing a fee structure would be a potential step in identifying 
the most prudent and effective approach. Second, because new 
technologies that could better facilitate sharing are in some cases 
years from market readiness, spectrum users could be encouraged to 
dedicate more resources to research and development. Additionally, 
users need spectrum access for testing new technologies. If there are 
continued limitations to accessing spectrum for testing, it may be 
impossible to validate technologies under realistic conditions, 
further delaying the availability of these technologies to users and 
the opening of new market opportunities and economic growth. Third, 
users have expressed concern about the timeliness of FCC and NTIA 
spectrum-sharing processes. If these processes continue to be lengthy 
and unpredictable, federal and nonfederal users may continue to be 
reluctant to share spectrum. As the debate about these options 
continues, it is clear that more information is needed to further the 
understanding and discussion about which incentives and opportunities 
will be the most feasible and effective toward promoting sharing as a 
viable solution to address increasing spectrum demand. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To better identify the most feasible incentives to promote spectrum 
efficiency and sharing, we recommend that the NTIA Administrator and 
the FCC Chairman jointly take the following three actions: 

* Report their agencies' views and conclusions regarding spectrum 
usage fees to the relevant congressional committees, specifically with 
respect to the merits, potential effects, and implementation 
challenges of such a fee structure, and what authority, if any, 
Congress would need to grant for such a structure to be implemented. 

* Based on the findings of current research and development efforts 
under way, determine how the federal government can best promote 
federal and nonfederal investment in the research and development of 
spectrally efficient technologies, and whether additional spectrum is 
needed for testing new spectrum efficient technologies. 

* Evaluate regulatory changes, if any, that can help improve and 
expedite the spectrum sharing process. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Commerce and 
FCC for review and comment. In response to our draft report, Commerce 
and FCC provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix II 
and III, respectively. The agencies also provided technical 
corrections to the draft report, which we incorporated as appropriate. 
In summary, Commerce concurred with our findings, but believes that 
activities completed or under way by NTIA and FCC satisfy the 
recommendations contained in our draft report. In its written 
comments, FCC noted that the agency was pursuing the goals outlined in 
the National Broadband Plan, and highlighted several actions it is 
taking to promote more shared access to spectrum. 

In our draft report, we included four recommendations. The first 
recommendation was that NTIA and FCC jointly examine the merits and 
challenges associated with implementing spectrum usage fees. Commerce 
noted that the issue was examined by the CSMAC in 2010 and 2011 and 
that consensus could not be reached regarding the imposition of such 
fees. Moreover, the agency states that further study is unlikely to 
resolve the issues. We agree that implementation of spectrum usage 
fees or a similar structure that can provide users with greater 
incentive to efficiently use or share spectrum raises several 
difficult questions, such as authority to implement a new fee 
structure and ensuring that federal operations are not disrupted. We 
also agree that further study may not resolve these issues. 
Nevertheless, our findings suggest that additional incentives are 
still needed for users to seek out more efficient ways of using 
spectrum, such as sharing, and that Congress could benefit from more 
information to fully understand the implications of a fee structure. 
Therefore, we altered our recommendation to state that NTIA and FCC, 
rather than initiate additional study on the issue, should provide 
Congress with the agencies' views and conclusions regarding the 
merits, potential effects, and implementation challenges of such a fee 
structure, and authorities that Congress would need to grant that such 
a structure be implemented. We believe such actions would help provide 
members of Congress with information they could use to evaluate any 
proposed fee structure or other proposed incentive schemes. 

Our second recommendation was that FCC and NTIA jointly study whether 
spectrum should be repurposed and made available for unlicensed use. 
However, in written comments the agencies identified NTIA's and FCC's 
recent efforts to identify spectrum for repurposing, which have 
focused on allowing unlicensed users to share the spectrum. 
Consequently, we removed that recommendation from our final report. 

Our draft report also recommended that the agencies jointly study (1) 
actions that could help spur research and development and (2) 
regulatory changes that might improve the spectrum-sharing process. 
Commerce stated that NTIA and FCC already have efforts under way in 
these areas that fulfill the goals of these recommendations and that 
additional study is unnecessary. We acknowledge throughout the report 
that NTIA and FCC have activities under way in these areas, some of 
which were initiated during the course of our review. The intent of 
our recommendations was not to displace these activities with 
additional study, but rather to support these actions, and to 
encourage the agencies to take further steps to enable real world 
testing of spectrum-sharing technologies and to streamline and improve 
the regulatory processes that enable spectrum sharing. We revised our 
draft recommendations to clarify that we are encouraging NTIA and FCC 
to take further actions in these areas, as opposed to further study, 
and we will continue to monitor the agencies' efforts in these areas. 

In addition to Commerce and FCC, we also provided the Departments of 
Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, Transportation, and 
Treasury the opportunity to comment on segments of the report that 
pertain to the data and information they provided. Except for the 
Department of Transportation, which did not provide any comment, the 
agencies verified the key facts we obtained from them and provided 
technical corrections to the draft report, which we incorporated as 
appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Commerce, the 
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and appropriate 
congressional committees. In addition, the report will be available at 
no charge on GAO's website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you 
or members of your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

Mark L. Goldstein: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Federal Agencies, Nonfederal Spectrum Users and Experts 
Interviewed Regarding Spectrum Sharing: 

Selected Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee Member Agencies: 

* Department of Commerce: 

- National Oceanic and Aviation Administration: 

- National Telecommunications and Information Administration: 

* Department of Defense: 

- Army: 

- Air Force: 

- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: 

- Defense Information Systems Agency: 

- Navy: 

* Department of Homeland Security: 

- Wireless Service Spectrum Management Office: 

- Customs and Border Patrol: 

* Department of the Interior: 

* Department of Justice: 

* Department of Transportation: 

* Department of the Treasury: 

- Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration: 

* Federal Communications Commission: 

Nonfederal Spectrum Users: 

* City of Wilmington, North Carolina: 

* Google: 

* Metro PCS: 

* Microsoft: 

* Shared Spectrum (a spectrum sharing solutions company): 

* Spectrum Bridge (a spectrum user, and also a spectrum sharing 
solutions company): 

* Sprint: 

* T-Mobile: 

* United States Cellular: 

* Verizon: 

Table 1: Subject Matter Experts Interviewed: 

Name: Phillippe Aubineau; 
Institution[A]: International Telecommunications Union. 

Name: Coleman D. Bazelon; 
Institution[A]: The Brattle Group. 

Name: Michael Christensen; 
Institution[A]: Industry Canada. 

Name: Andrew W. Clegg; 
Institution[A]: National Science Foundation. 

Name: Larry Downes; 
Institution[A]: Spectrum consultant and author. 

Name: Pierre de Vries; 
Institution[A]: University of Colorado. 

Name: Gary M. Epstein; 
Institution[A]: Aspen Institute, International Digital Economy Accords. 

Name: Tomas E. Gergely; 
Institution[A]: National Science Foundation. 

Name: Thomas W. Hazlett; 
Institution[A]: George Mason University School of Law. 

Name: Stephen Jones; 
Institution[A]: Office of Communications, U.K. 

Name: William Lehr; 
Institution[A]: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

Name: Nevio Marinelli; 
Institution[A]: Australian Communications and Media Authority. 

Name: Preston F. Marshall; 
Institution[A]: University of Southern California. 

Name: Geoff McMillen; 
Institution[A]: Australian Communications and Media Authority. 

Name: Linda K. Moore; 
Institution[A]: Congressional Research Service. 

Name: Jon M. Peha; 
Institution[A]: Carnegie Mellon University. 

Name: Jerry Pi; 
Institution[A]: Samsung. 

Name: Ravi Prakash; 
Institution[A]: University of Texas, Dallas Texas. 

Name: Francois Rancy; 
[Empty]; 
Institution[A]: International Telecommunications Union. 

Name: Richard Reaser; 
Institution[A]: CSMAC; Raytheon. 

Name: Greg Rosston; 
Institution[A]: Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. 

Name: Jennifer A. Warren; 
Institution[A]: Lockheed Martin. 

Name: Chris Woolford; 
Institution[A]: Office of Communications, U.K. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] We interviewed experts as individuals, not as representatives of 
any institution. We provide information on institutions to help 
readers identify experts. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

United States Department of Commerce: 
The Secretary of Commerce: 
Washington, D.C. 20230:  

October 25, 2012:  

The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro: 
Comptroller General: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548:  

Dear Comptroller General Dodaro:  

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled 
Spectrum Management: Incentives, Opportunities, and Testing Needed to 
Enhance Spectrum Sharing (GA0-13-7) (Report). We appreciate the work 
that the GAO has done to illuminate the challenges confronting both 
federal and non-federal spectrum managers when wireless communications 
users may need to share spectrum with each other. The Report touches 
the core issues affecting spectrum sharing and reflects the focus of 
some of our past and current study efforts. While we concur with the 
Report's findings, we only concur with the recommendations in part 
because we are currently addressing these issues via existing 
workstreams that cover areas of concern to GAO. These activities will 
more than adequately satisfy the GAO recommendations and advance our 
goal of making more spectrum available for wireless broadband.  

The Report examines factors that can deter spectrum sharing and 
suggests actions the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and 
others can take to encourage more sharing and more efficient spectrum 
use. The Report ultimately recommends a joint NTIA/FCC study on: (1) 
the potential merits and effects of imposing a spectrum fee structure; 
(2) whether additional spectrum should be repurposed for unlicensed 
use; (3) actions that can help spur research and development; and (4) 
regulatory changes that might improve the spectrum sharing process.  

Regarding spectrum fees, the Report recognizes that NTIA previously 
has sought expert advice from the Commerce Spectrum Management 
Advisory Committee (CSMAC). CSMAC studied the issue in 2010-11, but 
could not reach consensus to recommend imposing value-based fees on 
federal agencies. Some CSMAC members raised concerns because the 
Committee's study had not addressed how to avoid disrupting government 
services. They stressed that proposals for fees still needed to deal 
with major questions regarding the appropriations processes or the 
means for government agencies to participate in a competitive market. 
Furthermore, members argued that the nature of government use, the 
international aspects of some federal operations, the lack of agency 
ownership of spectrum, and ongoing sharing of spectrum between 
agencies further complicated application of value-based fee concepts. 
We do not find that further study will readily resolve these issues, 
at least without significant effort, and given these inherent 
challenges, we think our resources are better spent focusing on 
identifying spectrum for repurposing.  

Additionally, in August 2012, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) updated Circular A-11 pursuant to the Middle Class Tax Relief 
and Job Creation Act of 2012 to reflect spectrum valuation language 
recommended by the CSMAC. The update provides new guidance that 
directs agencies to consider the value of spectrum-dependent assets 
that will enable federal spectrum efficiency solutions with the 
highest net benefits to emerge during system development. In time, we 
expect to realize the benefits of this new value-based approach. 

NTIA's current spectrum fee system, which allows us to recover our 
costs of administering the federal spectrum management process, was 
legislatively determined by Congress. New legislation would, 
therefore, be necessary to establish additional fees or to change the 
nature or purpose of the existing fee structure. We defer to the FCC 
on the merits and effects of additional spectrum fees for non-federal 
users. Therefore, at this time, we see no real purpose to undertaking 
yet another study of value-based spectrum fees. 

The recommendation that the study include the potential for 
repurposing additional spectrum for shared or unlicensed use is also 
unnecessary because such work is already underway. In 2010, President 
Obama directed the Department of Commerce, working through NTIA, and 
the FCC to identify 500 megahertz of spectrum that could be 
reallocated for wireless broadband services, including via sharing or 
unlicensed use. NTIA, the FCC, and the federal agencies are 
aggressively pursuing that goal. Much of the spectrum that NTIA has 
put forward thus far will involve some level of sharing. For example, 
NTIA is currently studying the 5350-5470 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz bands 
to allow unlicensed uses to share this spectrum with federal agency 
operations. Given the extensive work that is already occurring, an 
additional study is superfluous at this time. 

The Report also recommends that the study include ways to spur 
additional investment in research and development (R&D) of spectrally-
efficient technologies. Both agencies are already actively pursuing 
ways to increase spectrum technology R&D. For example, the Wireless
Spectrum R&D (WSRD) Senior Steering Group (SSG), a federal government 
group with industry participation, is currently coordinating spectrum-
related research and development activities across the federal 
government. The WSRD SSG is part of the Networking and Information 
Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program administered by the
National Science and Technology Council, and provides recommendations 
for federal R&D investment, including opportunities for technology 
transfer to the private sector. NTIA is very active as a co-chair of 
the WSRD, enhancing R&D efforts by acting as an information resource 
connecting programs together as they develop new technologies. The FCC 
is also a member of the WSRD. 

NTIA and the FCC are also actively facilitating R&D via experimental 
licensing. Experimental licenses permit private entities to access 
federal and shared federal/non-federal spectrum for experimentation 
and testing, enabling development of new technologies, equipment, and 
radio services. Over 8,800 FCC experimental licensees have access to 
exclusive federal or shared federal/non-federal spectrum. The FCC also 
has an open proceeding promoting innovation and efficiency in spectrum 
use in the Experimental Radio Service rules.[Footnote 1] The FCC will 
coordinate this item with NTIA and expects to take action next year. 

Important collaborative work on sharing R&D is currently underway. 
Most significantly, T-Mobile USA, on behalf of the wireless industry, 
recently received experimental authorization to engage in a pilot 
program to test sharing approaches and determine the feasibility of 
sharing the 1755-1850 MHz band with select Department of Defense 
systems. Additionally, in May, Verizon committed $5 million to further 
testing of spectrum sharing approaches. We strongly support these 
types of collaborative efforts between federal agencies, the wireless 
industry, and other wireless technology innovators. Accordingly, we 
believe that current work should proceed as expeditiously as possible 
and that lessons learned from these efforts could inform a future 
study, if needed. 

Finally, the Report recommends that the joint study examine regulatory 
changes to improve spectrum sharing. NTIA usually authorizes non-
federal access to shared spectrum within nine working days. For 
requests for a Special Temporary Authority, NTIA typically responds in 
a matter of hours. In 2005, NTIA and the FCC improved and 
significantly expedited spectrum sharing in the 70, 80, and 90 GHz 
bands through online spectrum coordination. NTIA intends to work with 
the FCC on potentially expanding automated coordination to other 
frequency bands. NTIA will also address improved spectrum coordination 
techniques and greater cooperation between industry and government in 
its upcoming Strategic Plan for Federal Spectrum Management, which 
will also include lessons learned from the agency-industry 
collaborative study of sharing in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1850 MHz 
bands. These activities should result in identifying regulatory 
changes to expedite spectrum sharing, thereby fulfilling the goals of 
the GAO recommendation. 

The Department of Commerce is committed to achieving the President's 
goal of bringing broadband wireless services to the Nation, and moving 
it forward technologically to expand the economy and create jobs. 
While we do not believe new studies are needed in addition to all the 
work currently underway at this time, we support the overall concept 
and intent of the Report. As an alternative to conducting the new 
studies recommended in the Report, we would be pleased to update GAO 
periodically on the progress of existing work in the areas covered in 
the Report. Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment 
on the draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Rebecca M. Blank: 
Acting Secretary of Commerce: 

Footnote: 

[1] See FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking In the Matter of Promoting 
Expanded Opportunities for Radio Experimentation and Market Trials 
under Part 5 of the Commission's Rules and Streamlining Other Related 
Rules 2006 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations — Part 2 
Administered by the Office Of Engineering and Technology (OET), 25 FCC 
Red 16544 (2010). 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Federal Communications Commission: 

Federal Communications Commission: 
Washington, D.C. 20554: 

November 1, 2012: 

Mr, Gene L. Dodaro: 
Comptroller General: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Dodaro: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, entitled Spectrum 
Management: Incentives, Opportunities, and Testing Needed to Enhance 
Spectrum Sharing. We recognize the many benefits that shared access to 
spectrum has to offer. 

The National Broadband Plan issued in March 2010 recommended that the 
FCC make 500 megahertz of spectrum available for licensed and 
unlicensed broadband use within the next 10 years, including 300 
megahertz between 225 MHz and 3.7 GHz for mobile use in the next 5
years. The FCC has collaborated with NTIA to make available a total of 
500 megahertz of Federal and non-Federal spectrum, suitable for both 
mobile and fixed wireless broadband use by 2020. The Commission is on 
track to exceed the first benchmark of freeing up 300 megahertz of 
spectrum for mobile broadband, and is aggressively pursuing the 10-
year goal as well. To do this, we generally have focused on four 
complementary approaches: auctioning additional spectrum, removing 
regulatory barriers to flexible spectrum use, clearing new bands for 
flexible broadband use, and promoting dynamic spectrum sharing. 

In order to promote the flexible use of spectrum for advanced mobile 
networks, the Commission is taking numerous concrete steps. Notably, 
we are implementing Incentive Auction authority granted by Congress in 
February 2012 to free up spectrum in the TV bands for mobile 
broadband, an idea first identified in the National Broadband Plan. We 
recently finalized the Wireless Communication Service (WCS) spectrum 
rules to provide for LTE operation in the 2.3 GHz band. By the end of 
this year, we intend to issue rules to allow Advanced Wireless
Services (AWS) in the 2000-2020 MHz and 21.80-2200 MHz Mobile 
Satellite Service (MSS) bands. And we are planning for spectrum 
auctions required by the third anniversary of the Middle Class Tax 
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. 

As indicated, the Commission's spectrum agenda also includes promoting 
more shared access to spectrum. Specifically, the Commission intends 
to initiate a rulemaking to repurpose the 3550-3650 MHz band of 
spectrum for small cell technology. We are currently working to issue 
a notice of proposed rulemaking by the end of the year that would 
broadly reflect recommendations made in a recent report by the 
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) to 
enable sharing through use of a database model similar to the one 
developed by the FCC for white spaces in the TV bands. We are also 
extensively involved in several working groups of the Commerce 
Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) that are evaluating 
possible shared commercial access to spectrum in the 1695-1710 MHz and 
1755-1850 MHz bands, Furthermore, we will be evaluating expanded 
unlicensed use of the 5 GHz band, and will continue to follow 
technological developments that will facilitate dynamic spectrum 
access to shared spectrum on a licensed or unlicensed basis. 

We are committed to achieving the National Broadband Plan's goal of 
making newly available 500 megahertz of spectrum for broadband by 
2020, and making available 300 megahertz available by 2015 for mobile 
broadband, either through exclusive flexible use or shared spectrum 
access models. To achieve these goals, the FCC will continue to work 
closely with NT1A and other Federal stakeholders. We would he happy to 
provide an update to GAO on our activities to promote shared 
Federal/non-Federal access to spectrum as we advance our commercial 
wireless broadband goals. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Julius P. Knapp: 
Chief: 
Office of Engineering and Technology: 
Federal Communications Commission: 

Signed by: 

Ruth Milkman: 
Chief: 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: 
Federal COmmunications Commission: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact person named above, Andrew Von Ah 
(Assistant Director), Eli Albagli, Amy Abramowitz, Michael Clements, 
Andy Clinton, David Goldstein, Brian Hartman, Bert Japikse, Elke 
Kolodinski, Jean McSween, Erica Miles, Sally Moino, Joshua Ormond, Amy 
Rosewarne, Hai Tran, and Jarrod West made key contributions to this 
report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] See Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, Incentives 
Subcommittee Final Report (Washington, D.C.: January 11, 2011); 
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to 
the President; Realizing the Full Potential of Government-held 
Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth, (Washington, D.C.: July 2012); and 
Department of Commerce, Spectrum Management for the 21st Century, 
(Washington, D.C.: 2008). 

[2] GAO, Commercial Spectrum: Plans and Actions to Meet Future Needs, 
Including Continued Use of Auctions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-118] (Washington, D.C.: November 
2011). 

[3] Report to the President: Realizing the Full Potential of 
Government-held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth. 

[4] IRAC's main function is to assist NTIA in assigning frequencies 
and in developing policies, procedures, and technical criteria on 
management and use of spectrum. The Department of Defense has multiple 
participants on the IRAC from the Army, Navy and Air Force. The other 
member agencies include the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, State 
and Veterans Affairs; Broadcasting Board of Governors; United States 
Coast Guard; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National 
Science Foundation and United States Postal Service. 

[5] The International Telecommunication Union allocates global radio 
spectrum and develops technical standards for information and 
communication technologies and their networks, among other things. It 
was founded in 1865 and became a specialized agency of the United 
Nations in 1947. Its membership comprises 193 countries and over 700 
private-sector entities. 

[6] Act of June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended by the 
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-
96, Title VI, §§ 6401, 6402, 126 Stat. 156, 223-225 (Feb. 22, 2012) 
(Communications Act), codified as title 47, United States Code 
Annotated §§ 307-3011 (Westlaw 2012). 

[7] Telecommunications Authorization Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-538, 
Title I, 106 Stat. 3533 (Oct. 27, 1992), as amended, codified at 47 
U.S.C. ch. 8 (NTIA Authorization Act). 

[8] For many mobile radio systems, this is the portion of the spectrum 
where scarcity concerns are the greatest. However, for some industry 
representatives, the range of high-value spectrum is larger, located 
anywhere between 100 MHz to 6 GHz. As spectrum-dependent technologies 
improve over time, the definition of high-value spectrum can change. 

[9] Under a Memorandum of Understanding between FCC and NTIA, all 
proposed actions that could potentially cause interference to 
government operations are coordinated with NTIA. In cases where a 
rulemaking is necessary to provide parties with access to federal 
spectrum, the rulemaking is coordinated with NTIA. For instance, FCC 
followed this process when a medical devices company sought to share 
spectrum used by the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. 
The proposed devices required wider bandwidths of spectrum to operate 
than similar medical devices that previously operated in medical 
network spectrum bands. To accommodate this and other similar uses, an 
FCC rulemaking was required to expand the amount of spectrum set aside 
for medical implant devices. 

[10] In the Matter of Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum through 
Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets, 18 
FCC Rcd. 20604 (2003) (First Report and Order); 18 FCC Rcd. 24817 
(2003) (Erratum); 19 FCC Rcd. 17503 (2004) (Second Report and Order), 
22 FCC Rcd. 7209 (April 11, 2007) (Third Report and Order); see also 
47 C.F.R. Pt. 1, Subpt. X. 

[11] Wi-Fi is a technology that is often used in conjunction with a 
customer's Internet service to connect devices, such as computers and 
smart phones, located within the customer's home or business to the 
Internet. 

[12] Dynamic spectrum access technologies are currently able to sense 
for available frequencies before transmission (listen before talk), 
but not sense during transmission. (listen while talk) Sensing before 
transmission involves sensing available frequencies, then jumping and 
transmitting, which causes lag time. The technology to enable sensing 
during transmission, which would allow a user to seamlessly continue 
communication while moving geographically through spectrum bands is 
still under development. 

[13] The international definition of 4G technology is transmitting 
data at 100 Megabits per second, but current 4G LTE technologies 
deliver top speeds of only 15 Megabits per second. 

[14] Agencies pay only a small, annual fee for their spectrum which is 
not comparable to its full market value. According to NTIA, federal 
agencies pay $122 for each frequency assignment, totaling about $30 
million paid by 47 agencies to NTIA for fiscal year 2012. 

[15] It is the case, however, that when ownership of these companies 
changes hands, purchasers do pay for the value of all the assets of 
the company--including the value of the spectrum license. 

[16] United States Department of Commerce, Relocation of Federal Radio 
Systems from the 1710-1755 MHz Spectrum Band: Fourth Annual Progress 
Report (March 2011). 

[17] In any moment in time, cognitive radios have the ability to 
determine and use spectrum that is unused and available. 

[18] The time it takes to complete rules varies because of the unique 
nature of each rulemaking. Certain factors, such as the technical 
complexity of the issue being addressed and the priority of the 
rulemaking in comparison to other issues, can also affect rulemaking 
time frames. FCC's rulemaking process includes multiple steps as 
outlined by law with opportunities for the public to participate. FCC 
is generally not required to complete rules within limited time frames. 

[19] According to Department of Defense officials, both the federal 
stakeholders, including the Department of Defense, and the medical 
device provider were involved in the interference analysis. 

[20] In November 2011, we reported on FCC's Universal Licensing 
System, Consolidated Database System, International Bureau Filing 
System, and Experimental Licensing System. See GAO, Commercial 
Spectrum: Plans and Actions to Meet Future Needs, Including Continued 
Use of Auctions, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-118] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 23, 2011). In April 2011, we reported on 
NTIA's Government Master File database. See GAO, Spectrum Management: 
NTIA Planning and Processes Need Strengthening to Promote the 
Efficient Use of Spectrum by Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-352] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 
2011). 

[21] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-118]. 

[22] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-352]. 

[23] See, President's Memorandum on Improving Spectrum Management for 
the 21st Century, 49 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 2875 (Nov. 29, 2004). 

[24] S. 455, § 3, 112TH Cong. (2011). 

[25] The Department of Defense's Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency is working on frequency mapping, as discussed later in this 
report. 

[26] GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, 
Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-342SP] (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012). 

[27] CSMAC Incentives Subcommittee Final Report. 

[28] In 2010, an FCC task force issued the National Broadband Plan. 
Federal Communications Commission, Connecting America: The National 
Broadband Plan, p. 83, Recommendation 5.6, (Mar. 16, 2010). 

[29] Federal Communications Commission, Fiscal Year 2013 Budget 
Estimates Submitted to Congress, p15 (Washington, D.C.: February 2012). 

[30] The National Broadband Plan, p83, Recommendation 5.6 (Mar. 16, 
2010). 

[31] The PCAST recommended that the existing Spectrum Relocation Fund 
be redefined as a revolving Spectrum Efficiency Fund that reimburses 
federal agencies for investments in spectrum sharing and efficiency. 

[32] Wi-Fi networks can permit multiple computing devices in each 
discrete location to share a single wired connection to the Internet, 
thus efficiently sharing spectrum. Wi-Fi technologies are also being 
used to relieve network congestion. One report suggests that major 
wireless carriers, even with their large portfolios of exclusive-use, 
licensed spectrum, often rely on Wi-Fi infrastructure to offload 
traffic from their networks in congested areas, as much as 21 percent 
by some accounts. 

[33] In the Matter of Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, 
27 FCC 3,692 (Apr. 5, 2012). 

[34] To date, FCC has designated two administrators to locate 
available white space spectrum for users of unlicensed devices, 
Spectrum Bridge and Telcordia Technologies. Devices must operate only 
on those channels designated by the administrator. 

[35] FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, Prepared Remarks to 
International CTIA Wireless (May 8, 2012). 

[36] Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution, 75 Fed. Reg. 38,387 
(June 28, 2010). 

[37] U.S. Department of Commerce, An Assessment of the Viability of 
Accommodating Wireless Broadband in the 1755-1850 MHz Band (March 
2012). 

[38] Special license granted to T-Mobile License LLC effective August 
13, 2012. 

[39] United States Department of Commerce, Plan and Timetable to Make 
available 500 Megahertz of Spectrum available for Wireless Broadband 
(October 2010). 

[40] Report to the President; Realizing the Full Potential of 
Government-held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth. 

[41] Office of Management and Budget, Preparation, Submission, and 
Execution of the Budget, Circular No. A-11 (Washington, D.C.: August 
2011). 

[42] 47 U.S.C. § 1456. 

[43] GAO, Spectrum Management: Better Knowledge Needed to Take 
Advantage of Technologies That May Improve Spectrum Efficiency, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-666] (Washington, D.C.: 
May 2004). 

[44] In response to the recommendation, FCC and NTIA jointly prepared 
the Federal Strategic Spectrum Plan which established a test bed and 
models to measure the impact of new technologies on spectrum use. 

[45] GAO, Research and Development: Lessons learned from Previous 
Research Could Benefit FreedomCAR Initiative, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-810T] (Washington, D.C.: June 2002). 

[46] A spectrum test bed consists of specific segments of spectrum set 
aside to test technologies, services or related techniques. 

[47] Formed as result of the President's 2010 memorandum, Unleashing 
the Wireless Broadband Revolution, the Wireless Spectrum Research and 
Development's Senior Steering Group coordinates spectrum-related 
research and development activities across the federal government, and 
helps identify gaps in the government's research and development 
portfolio with respect to spectrally efficient technologies. 

[48] Frequencies in the 410-420 MHz land-mobile-radio band will be 
used in this test bed. 

[49] FCC defines jamming as illegal radio frequency transmissions that 
are designed to block, jam, or otherwise interfere with authorized 
radio communications. 

[50] The Wireless Innovation Fund is a part of the 2012 Payroll tax 
agreement for spectrum research and development. It will initially be 
a $100 million fund at the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology. The fund will receive an additional $200 million after 
approved auction income has been secured. 

[51] The Spectrum Relocation Fund exists for the purpose of 
reimbursing agencies for the actual costs incurred in relocating or 
sharing federal spectrum. NTIA Authorization Act, § 118, 47 U.S.C. § 
928. 

[52] Report to the President; Realizing the Full Potential of 
Government-held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth. 

[53] CSMAC Incentives Subcommittee Final Report. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]