Public Safety, Interoperability and the Transition to Digital Television

Public Safety, Interoperability and the Transition to Digital Television

Order Code RL32622
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Public Safety, Interoperability and the
Transition to Digital Television
Updated August 8, 2005
Linda K. Moore
Analyst in Telecommunications Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Public Safety, Interoperability and the Transition to
Digital Television
Summary
Plans for the use of spectrum intended for wireless emergency communications
and interoperability are enmeshed in the technical requirements and complex
economic and policy issues that surround the planned transition to digital television
(DTV) in the United States, a transition that will free up wireless communications
channels for other uses. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to allocate 24 MHz of spectrum at 700 MHz
to public safety, without providing a hard deadline for the transfer. The channels
designated for public safety are among those currently held by TV broadcasters.
The 9/11 Commission Report recommended in 2004 that “Congress should
support pending legislation which provides for the expedited and increased
assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes.” This was a reference to
the Homeland Emergency Response Operations Act (HERO Act) — introduced by
Representative Jane Harman — that would have required the FCC to “take all actions
necessary to complete assignments” for these channels so that operations could begin
no later than January 1, 2007, in line with the deadline originally envisioned for the
completion of the transition to DTV for all affected channels. The HERO Act has
been reintroduced in the 109th Congress (H.R. 1646).
Language in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(P.L. 108-458) conveys the sense of Congress that the first session of the 109th
Congress must act to establish a comprehensive approach to the timely return of
spectrum and that any delay in doing this will delay planning by the public safety
sector. There are also provisions in the act for studies that could provide the
foundation for achieving significant improvements in public safety communications.
The scope of a bill to clear spectrum and facilitate the transition to digital televison
is under discussion in the House where draft legislation has been reviewed, but not
introduced. In the Senate, Senator Ted Stevens has announced his intention of
introducing a comprehensive bill. In the interim, Senator John McCain has
introduced the SAVE LIVES Act (S. 1268, Spectrum Availability for Emergency-
response and Law-enforcement to Improve Vital Emergency Services). Also, Senator
Olympia J. Snowe has introduced a bill (S. 1600) that would help low-power
television stations convert to digital broadcasting technology.
Although policy-makers continue to discuss different proposals for legislation,
it appears that consensus has been reached on several points. For example, there is
general agreement to set a firm date for the clearing of 700 MHz spectrum; to use
$4.8 billion of auction proceeds toward congressional commitments to reduce the
budget deficit by 2010; and to take measures so that TV-viewers will not lose access
to television programming. The steps needed to achieve the latter remains a major
point of disagreement, within and outside Congress. Because of the intention to use
spectrum funds to meet the Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 95), many believe that
the major points of a DTV transition act could be included as part of the
reconciliation process. This report will be updated.

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Interoperability and the 9/11 Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Spectrum for Public Safety Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Cost of Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Freeing Spectrum at 700 MHz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
TV Broadcasters Occupy Needed Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Expediting the Transition to Digital TV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Cost of the Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Proposals for Increasing Spectrum for Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Legislation in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Scope of the Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Provisions in the Intelligence Reform Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Related Actions by the Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Public Safety, Interoperability and the
Transition to Digital Television
Background
Public safety agencies include the nation’s first responders (such as firefighters,
police officers, and ambulance services) and a number of local, state, federal — and
sometimes regional — authorities. Communications, often wireless, are vital to these
agencies’ effectiveness and to the safety of their members and the public. Wireless
technology requires radio frequency capacity in order to function. Many public
safety wireless communications programs suffer from funding difficulties and
technical limitations due largely to the evolution of the market and technology for
public safety communications and to the constraints of spectrum allocation (radio
frequency assignments). There is a perceived need for timely resolution of problems
that the public safety sector finds increasingly critical, such as reducing commercial
transmission interference to emergency calls, implementing high-speed services,
using Wi-Fi1 technologies to deliver data, providing interoperability, increasing
standardization, and expanding spectrum capacity.
The key agencies for spectrum management are the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA). Among other responsibilities, the FCC supervises spectrum
for non-federal public safety agency communications. The NTIA — part of the
Department of Commerce — administers spectrum used by federal entities. The lead
program for fostering interoperability is SAFECOM, part of the Department of
Homeland Security. SAFECOM has absorbed the Public Safety Wireless Network
(PSWN) Program, previously operated jointly by the Departments of Justice and
Treasury. PSWN was created to respond to recommendations made by the Public
Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC)2 regarding the improvement of
public safety communications over wireless networks. PSWN operated as an
advocate for spectrum management policies that would improve wireless network
capacity and capability for public safety. SAFECOM, however, has no authority over
spectrum management decisions.
Interoperability and the 9/11 Commission Report
Interoperability, also referred to as compatibility or connectivity, allows
different systems to readily contact each other and provides needed redundancy. A
significant barrier to achieving interoperability is the lack of sufficient spectrum on
1 Wi-Fi, for wireless fidelity, provides Internet access from web-enabled devices through
wireless local area networks, or “hotspots.”
2 “Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee,” September 11, 1996.

CRS-2
similar radio frequencies. Spectrum allocations for public safety are fragmented at
many different frequencies. Existing wireless technology is designed to work within
specified frequency ranges. Communications equipment must be specially built to
handle multiple frequency ranges, thereby limiting interoperability, adding to the
cost, and affecting operations in various ways. Insufficient capability for
interoperable communications for first responders and for other public safety
response units has been identified by many, including the 9/11 Commission, as a
serious problem in any effective response to a terrorist attack or other major disaster.
The 9/11 Commission, in one of its recommendations, linked the need for spectrum
with the need to improve connectivity.3 The FCC has designated 2.5 MHz of
spectrum in the public safety channels at 700 MHz for interoperability. Most public
safety organizations recommend an increase in the amount of spectrum for public
safety use at 700 MHz as a way to maximize interoperability and operating
efficiency. The 700 MHz spectrum, however, is encumbered by broadcasters and
could remain unavailable until issues surrounding the transition to DTV are resolved.
Spectrum for Public Safety Use
Many public safety officials believe that additional spectrum needs to be
assigned for public safety use — and not exclusively for first responders.4 In addition
to providing spectrum for other types of users, the spectrum available for public
safety needs to support high-speed transmissions capable of quickly sending data
(such as photographs, floor plans and live video). This requires providing
frequencies with greater bandwidth to enable wireless broadband and new-generation
technologies. Most frequency assignments for first responders are narrowband and
most are located below 512 MHz.5 Commonly-used frequencies are VHF or UHF.6
Problems for users in the lower frequencies are primarily congestion and a
3 The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11
Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
the United States, Official Government Edition, Washington, D.C. 2004, p. 397. This
recommendation is discussed in CRS Report RL32594, Public Safety Communications:
Policy, Proposals, Legislation and Progress.
4 In 1997 amendments to the Communications Act of 1934 , Congress defined public safety
services as “services — (A) the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety
of life, health or property; (B) that are provided (I) by State or local government entities; or
(ii) by nongovernmental organizations that are authorized by a governmental entity whose
primary mission is the provision of such services ; and (C) that are not made commercially
available to the public by the provider.” Some believe that critical infrastructure industry
workers should be specifically included in this definition. Utility company technicians, for
example, often arrive at a fire in tandem with fire fighters, to shut off electricity and gas.
5 Radio frequency spectrum is measured in hertz. Radio frequency is the portion of
electromagnetic spectrum that carries radio waves. The distance an energy wave takes to
complete one cycle is its wavelength. Frequency is the number of wavelengths measured
at a given point per unit of time, in cycles per second, or hertz (Hz). Typical designations
are: kHz — kilohertz or thousands of hertz; MHz — megahertz, or millions of hertz; and
GHz — gigahertz, or billions of hertz.
6 Very High Frequency (VHF) and Ultra High Frequency (UHF) are transmitted in three
bands in the United States — low VHF, high VHF, and UHF.

CRS-3
dependency on out-dated, analog equipment. Many newer systems use frequencies
in the 800 MHz range. Problems in the 800 MHz range are created by interference
from commercial wireless transmissions and insufficient bandwidth for advanced
applications such as image transfer. To reduce interference to public safety, the FCC
has developed a spectrum relocation plan that is to place public safety channels
together at the lower end of the 800 MHz band and might increase the amount of
spectrum available to first responders.7 Radio frequencies have been designated for
state and local public safety use in the 700 MHz range but there are no allocations
specifically for federal use at 700 MHz. The FCC has coordinated with the NTIA for
federal access to public safety spectrum but additional spectrum would have to be
allocated by Congress for federal agencies to have comparable access and
interoperability at 700 MHz. Also, the bandwidth assignments are judged by most
experts to be too narrow for broadband services.
Although, cumulatively, the amount of radio frequencies designated for non-
federal public safety totals over 90 MHz,8 the characteristics of these frequencies are
dis-similar, requiring different technological solutions. The fragmentation of
spectrum assignments for public safety is a significant barrier to achieving
interoperability in the future and, in the past, has been the source of many of the
technical problems that plague public safety communications, such as out-of-date
equipment, proprietary solutions, congestion and interference. The immediate
barrier to achieving radio communications interoperability is — simply put — that
UHF and VHF frequencies cannot connect directly with each other; and older,
analog equipment widely used below 512 MHz cannot connect with newer digital
equipment at 800 MHz. None of the frequency assignments can, using current
technology, support wide-area communications relying on high-speed, data-rich
transmissions.
Cost of Fragmentation. The number of radio frequencies available for
interoperable communications capability can significantly impact first responder
communications, and the range of these frequencies can significantly impact the cost
of equipment. Manufacturers cite short production runs for wireless handsets as one
of the causes for higher costs associated with public safety communications
equipment. An analog walkie-talkie might cost $300, a recent “typical” price. A
radio with limited interoperability that meets Project 25 standards9 might cost as
much as $3,000 in a short production run. The greater the number of communications
devices using compatible frequencies, the greater are the opportunities for economies
7 This plan is discussed in CRS Report RL32408, Spectrum Policy: Public Safety and
Wireless Communications Interference.
8 Estimated at approximately 97 MHz in Testimony of Michael K. Powell, Chairman,
Federal Communications Commission, at Hearing of Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation, “Spectrum for Public Safety Users,” September 8, 2004. The
NTIA has apparently not supplied a similar estimate of frequencies assigned to federal
agencies that are or can be accessed for public safety purposes.
9 Project 25 refers to the suite of standards for public safety communications under
development by the Telecommunications Industry Association, a standards-setting body
authorized for this program. [http://www.tiaonline.org/standards/project_25/]. Viewed June
29, 2005.

CRS-4
of scale in production, which in turn typically lowers the cost and final price on
equipment. Purchasing “cross-talk” equipment — to provide interoperability by
linking radio frequencies through a black box — can run into the millions of dollars.
Beyond issues such as risk-assessment, prioritizing, and equity in funding programs,
many within Congress and without are concerned about the long-term implications
of funding short-term communications solutions, such as cross-talk equipment.10
Many believe that the unavailability of spectrum at 700 MHz is stalling advances in
technology and planning for new networks, thus adding to the short-term costs of
maintaining public safety communications. Therefore, many argue that creating
common, interoperable channels at 700 MHz is cost-effective as well as
organizationally and technologically desirable.11
Freeing Spectrum at 700 MHz
In 1997, responding to the request from the public safety community for more
spectrum, Congress passed legislation12 that included providing some of the needed
frequencies. Congress mandated that channels used to broadcast analog television
were to be cleared and spectrum at 700 MHz was to be reallocated for wireless
communications, including public safety. To meet the instructions of Congress, the
FCC assigned the frequencies 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz, in channels 63-64
and 68-69 respectively, for public safety use. At the behest of many public safety
organizations, the FCC designated 2.5 MHz of this allocation specifically for
interoperability. Channels 60-62 and 65-6713 were identified for auction for
commercial wireless use. The FCC created the Public Safety National Coordinating
Committee to develop recommendations for standards to be used for equipment and
systems tuned to the designated channels in the upper 700 MHz band. By 2003, the
bulk of standards work for voice communications was completed and public safety
agencies were able to test prototype equipment in areas where the designated
frequencies are not in use for analog television broadcasts.
TV Broadcasters Occupy Needed Spectrum. The general uncertainty about
700 MHz spectrum availability is seen by many as an obstacle to implementation of
public safety communications on the frequencies for which advanced levels of standards,
systems interoperability, and performance can be expected.14 As noted by the FCC, “the
major urban areas where the need for additional public safety spectrum is most acute are
10 For example, statements at Hearing of the House of Representatives, Committee on
Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology,
“The Need for Grant Reform and The Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act
of 2005,” April 13, 2005.
11 Speakers at a CRS-sponsored seminar provided equipment cost estimates. Public Safety
Communications: Interoperability Technology Workshop, November 17, 2003.
12 Balanced Budget Act of 1997, P.L.105-33, Title III.
13 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz, respectively.
14 For example, National Task Force on Interoperability, “Why Can’t We Talk,” February
2003.

CRS-5
some of the same areas in which this band is most encumbered by broadcast stations.”15
The FCC attempted to work with the broadcasting industry and wireless carriers on a
“market-driven” approach for voluntary clearing of the 700 MHz channels designated
for auction or assigned to public safety agencies. The FCC showed a willingness to relax
some technical requirements in order to facilitate voluntary band clearing that relied on
channel swapping.16 Proposals that might lead to freeing television spectrum through
channel swapping for commercial wireless use could be similarly applied to freeing
spectrum for public safety wireless communications. Proposals regarding policy or
requests for action — for example by some broadcasting companies, Motorola, Inc. and
New York State — claim that, with some modification to the rules, the freeing of public
safety channels can be achieved by date certain with minimal loss of television reception
for over-the-air broadcasts.17 In testimony before Congress in September 2004,
representatives from Motorola, Inc. reaffirmed the conviction that a timely clearing of
public safety channels could be achieved, estimating that 75 television broadcasting
stations would be affected.18

Expediting the Transition to Digital TV.19 In the Balanced Budget Act of
1997, Congress established 85% as the threshold for the percentage of households,
by market, that must be able to receive digital signals in order for the FCC to end the
licenses for analog, over-the-air broadcasting. In this scenario, the 15% that lacked
digitally-compatible equipment would, presumably, quickly lose access to all
television programs. Congress is seeking to protect those households without DTV
sets, digital-to-analog converters, or cable or satellite set-top boxes from the loss of
over-the-air television broadcasts. In the interim, the FCC is taking concrete steps
to facilitate the eventual move to DTV with a number of technical requirements.20
15 FCC, Report to Congress in the Matter of Auction Reform Act of 2002, released June 19,
2003 (FCC 03-138).
16 An outline of the band-vacating plan proposed by a coalition of broadcasters, the
Spectrum Clearing Alliance, was submitted to the FCC on March 16, 2001 (Comments,
Docket No. 99-168.) Comments can be found by going to the FCC Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) on the FCC website [http://www.fcc.gov]. In ECFS, click “Search
for Filed Comments,” insert the docket number in the box marked “Proceeding,” and search
the file.
17 Comments and petitions filed for Proceeding 03-15 by New York State, Office for
Technology, Statewide Wireless Network, April 21, 2003 and White Paper, “700 MHz TV
Clearing, Its Impact on TV Viewership and Options for Accelerating Public Safety Access,”
Motorola, Inc, February 2, 2004, [http://motorola.com/cgiss/docs/700MHz_whitepaper.pdf].
Viewed June 29, 2005.
18 Testimony of Gary Grube, Chief Technology Officer, Motorola, Inc. at Hearing of Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, “Spectrum for Public Safety Users,”
September 8, 2004.
19 This report focuses on spectrum issues. For more information on DTV, see CRS Report
RL31260, Digital Televison: An Overview, by Lennard G. Kruger.
20 For example, “FCC Modifies Digital Tuner Requirements to Advance DTV Transition,”
June 9, 2005 and “DTV Channel Election Information and Deadlines,” October 7, 2004,
FCC News at [http://www.fcc.gov].

CRS-6
Cost of the Transition. At the request of Congress, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) is preparing a series of studies of the costs, under
different scenarios, of providing free set-top boxes to TV viewers who only receive
analog television broadcasts.21 At a hearing on February 17, 2005, Mark. L
Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues at GAO, and other panelists
discussed various aspects of a conversion to DTV and the possible use of converter
boxes.22 According to an estimate by the GAO, nearly 22 million households could
lose their access to free television.23 Providing affected households with converter
boxes would enable them to continue to receive broadcast television; the set-top
converter boxes would receive the new, digital signals and convert them to an analog
format for viewing on older-model analog TVs. The GAO estimated that the cost of
providing converter boxes ranged from $460 million to $10.6 billion, depending on
the variables such as the cost of the box and the number of households eligible to
receive assistance.24 The cost of administering the program, distributing boxes, and
other ancillary costs are not included in these estimates. At a hearing on May 26,
2005, GAO provided additional testimony on the possible costs and technical
obstacles associated with an expedited deadline for ending analog television
broadcasts.25
In June 2005, the Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America
issued a joint study26 that estimated the number of households that would lose all TV
reception at approximately 16 million. Based on an estimate of a $50 price to
purchase a converter box, the report concluded that “the direct government-imposed
costs on consumers to preserve the usefulness of [analog television sets] would be
$3.5 billion or more.”27
21 Already published are: Digital Broadcast Television Transition: Estimated Cost of
Supporting Set-Top Boxes to Help Advance the DTV Transition, GAO-05-258T, February
17, 2005; and Digital Broadcast Television Transition: Several Challenges Could Arise in
Administering a Subsidy Program for DTV Equipment, GAO-05-623T, May 26, 2005.
22 House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet, “The Role of Technology in Achieving a Hard
Deadline for the DTV Transition,” February 17, 2005.
23 GAO-05-258T, p. 3.
24 GAO-05-258T, pp. 14-15.
25 House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet, “Staff Discussion Draft of the DTV Transition Act
of 2005,” May 26, 2005. Digital Broadcast Television Transition: Several Challenges
Could Arise in Administering a Subsidy Program for DTV Equipment, GAO-05-623T, May
26, 2005.
26 Estimating Consumer Costs of a Federally-Mandated Digital TV Transition; consumer
survey results, Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America, June 29, 2005 at
[http://www.hearusnow.org/fileadmin/sitecontent/DTV_Survey_Report-_Final_6-29-05.
pdf].
27 op. cit., page 7.

CRS-7
Proposals for Increasing Spectrum for Public Safety
The number of radio frequencies available for interoperable communications
capability can significantly impact first responder communications, and the range of
these frequencies can significantly impact the cost of equipment. Public safety
officials and planners are among those calling on Congress to allocate 30 MHz of
additional spectrum at 700 MHz to increase the efficiency of public safety
communications. The Spectrum Coalition for Public Safety is among those that has
asked for legislation that would allocate additional spectrum at 700 MHz for use by
state and local first responders, critical infrastructure industries and federal public
safety agencies.28 Public safety communications equipment manufacturers are among
those that believe significant economies of scale might be achieved if similar
equipment on compatible spectrum is provided to a large block of like users. As
public safety users migrate to 700 MHz, the need for costly equipment that patches
together incompatible systems and frequencies will be reduced. Consolidation of
public safety users at 800 MHz might also increase economies of scale over time.
Funding public safety is a major concern of Congress. Appropriations bills are
not discussed in this report but are covered by other products from Congressional
Research Service.29 Beyond issues such as prioritizing and equity in grant
distributions, many within Congress and without are concerned about the long-term
implications of funding short-term communications solutions, such as cross-talk
equipment.30 As has been indicated in this report, decisions about spectrum
allocation and management influence choices about which wireless technologies to
use, and these decisions in turn impact the cost of communications equipment. Many
believe that the unavailability of spectrum at 700 MHz is stalling advances in
technology and planning for new networks, thus adding to the short-term costs of
maintaining public safety communications.
New technologies that improve communications capacity are being introduced
almost continuously, but the need to provide suitable spectrum for a full range of
voice and data communications will persist. The need for greater spectral capacity
for public safety will grow with the number of participants in interoperable systems
and the amounts of information being shared on these systems. Bottlenecks in
communications are a problem that is already manifest among federal computer
networks and landline transmissions, and many believe it will worsen as more
information is pushed through. As emergency response units become more mobile,
demand for time-critical, wireless communications capacity will also increase.
28 Spectrum Coalition for Public Safety at [http://www.spectrumcoalition.org].
29 For example, CRS Report RS21677, Office for Domestic Preparedness Grants for 2004:
State Allocation Fact Sheet; CRS Report RL32696, Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security
Grant Program: State Allocations and Issues for Congressional Oversight; and CRS Report
RS22050, FY2006 Appropriations for State and Local Homeland Security, all by Shawn
Reese.
30 For example, statements at Hearing of the House of Representatives, Committee on
Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology,
“The Need for Grant Reform and The Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act
of 2005,” April 13, 2005.

CRS-8
Primary concerns of the proponents of providing additional spectrum for public
safety use are insufficient number of channels to support interoperability with federal
agencies and insufficient bandwidth for federal, state and local agencies to transmit
data at high speeds (broadband). Responding to these concerns, Congress included
in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act a requirement that the FCC
prepare a study on spectrum needs for public safety and homeland security.31
Legislation in the 109th Congress
Beginning with the 107th Congress, Representative Jane Harman has introduced
in each Congress legislation that would assure the timely release of radio channels
at 700 MHz for public safety use. The Homeland Emergency Response Operations
Act, or HERO Act (H.R. 1646), reintroduced in April 2005, requires the FCC to
“take all actions necessary to complete assignments” for these channels so that
operations could begin no later than January 1, 2007, in line with the deadline
originally envisioned for the completion of the transition to DTV for all affected
channels.
Other bills covering the release of spectrum and the transition to DTV have been
introduced or are planned. A bill (S. 1268) introduced by Senator John McCain, the
Spectrum Availability for Emergency-response and Law-enforcement to Improve
Vital Emergency Services, or SAVE LIVES Act, would specify a hard date of
December 31, 200832 for the release of spectrum held by broadcasters and would
address issues of the transition from analog to digital broadcast technology. Among
the provisions of the bill are several that respond to public safety communications
needs. The bill would allow spectrum auction proceeds from the sale of cleared
analog spectrum to be allocated directly to a grant program to improve
communications interoperability for first responders.33 Allowance is made for the
possibility that Congress will ask the FCC to allocate additional spectrum for public
safety after it has considered the FCC report on spectrum needs.34 The auctions must
be completed and the proceeds paid to the Treasury not later than June 30, 2008.35
To ensure that the FCC has the authority to conduct the auction of the designated
radio frequencies, the bill extends the auction authority of the FCC until September
30, 2009;36 it is currently set to expire in September 2007. The bill covers many
aspects of concern in carrying out the transition to digital TV. The bill, for example,
establishes criteria for distributing set-top converter boxes37 and authorizes funds for
the program.38 These funds will be paid out from revenue generated by the auction
31 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle E, Sec. 7502 (a). Due December 2005.
32 S. 1268, Sec. 2 (a) (1).
33 S. 1268, Sec. 5 (f).
34 S. 1268, Sec. 3 (a) (2) “(iii) (cc).”
35 S. 1268, Sec. 3 (a) (2) “(iii) (bb).”
36 S. 1268, Sec. 3 (b).
37 S. 1268, Sec. 4.
38 S. 1268, Sec. 4 (f).

CRS-9
of designated spectrum.39 Other provisions cover rules for notifying consumers of
the pending transition;40 sending digital signals over cable;41 and requirements for the
FCC to complete certain pending proceedings that impact the DTV transition.42
Senator McCain reportedly plans to work with Representative Joe Barton
(Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives) and
Senator Ted Stevens (Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Senate) who are preparing bills covering the release of spectrum and
the transition to DTV.43 In the House, discussions of a draft bill have reportedly
stalled over disagreement about subsidies for tuners, among other issues.44
Commenting on Senate hearings on DTV, held July 12, 2005, Mr. Barton reaffirmed
his commitment to “working with the Senate to set a hard deadline this year.”45
Concerned that plans have lagged for converting low-power television
broadcasts from analog to digital technology, Senator Olympia J. Snowe has
introduced a bill (S. 1600, Digital Translator and Low Power Television Transition
Assistance Act) to ensure full access to digital television in areas served by low-
power television. Eligible TV stations would receive funds for upgrading from a trust
fund set up with auction proceeds.46 Based on FCC estimates of the cost of
upgrading and transition for low-power TV, funding for the Low-Power Digital
Transition Trust Fund would be $100 million.47
Scope of the Debate. By the end of FY2010, Congressional policy-makers
would like to allocate $4.8 billion from 700 MHz auction funds toward meeting a
Budget Resolution to reduce the federal deficit.48 They would like to maximize the
amount of 700 MHz spectrum available in a timely manner while minimizing the
cost and inconvenience to TV-viewers and the television industry that might result
39 S. 1268, Sec. 4 (f) (1).
40 S. 1268, Sec. 6.
41 S. 1268, Sec. 7.
42 S. 1268, Sec. 9.
43 “NAB Thwarting Return of Spectrum, McCain Says,” Communications Daily, June 15,
2005.
44 “House Leadership Concern over Subsidy Slows Barton DTV Bill,” Communications
Daily, June 16, 2005.
45 U.S. House Committee on Energy & Commerce Press Office release, “Barton Committed
to Work With Senate on Setting DTV Hard Deadline,” July 12, 2005.
46 S. 1600, Sec. 103.
47 S. 1600, Sec. 103 (b)and comments by Senator Snowe on the introduction of S. 1600,
Congressional Record, July 29, 2005.
48 For the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the commitment could be
$14,734,000,000 for fiscal years 2006 through 2010; H. Con. Res 95, Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, Title II, Sec. 201 (a) (2) (C). Reportedly
the House would use $4.8 billion of spectrum auction revenue to help meet this goal, see,
for example, “DTV Bill to be Subsumed in Budget Bill,” Communications Daily, July 8,
2005.

CRS-10
from the disruption. As efforts to provide legislation that will expedite the transition
to digital television intensify, stakeholders’ interests in influencing the outcome
seem to increase as well.49 The public safety community has long urged the timely
release of spectrum at 700 MHz that it needs for improved communications and
interoperability.50 In April 2005, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
drew a line in the sand by refuting this assertion of need in a letter stating that “... in
the ten cities most likely to be struck by a terrorist attack, the communications
interoperability issue has been resolved.”51 This conclusion was criticized by public
safety officials as incorrectly based on a misinterpretation of a news story.52 The
dispute between the broadcasting association and a conglomerate of public safety
associations and their supporters over the urgent need for spectrum has been joined
by a new major contender, a coalition known as the High Tech DTV Coalition.53
Coalition members have also has urged the early release of spectrum concluding that
the release of spectrum at 700 MHz will “spark growth in the U.S. high-tech sector,”
especially the market for advanced wireless services, a category that includes DTV
broadcasting to next-generation wireless phones and computers.54 They, too, have
written to Congress to press their point and urge the establishment of “an early date-
49 Many of the stakeholder groups were represented at back-to-back Senate Hearings on
DTV: Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, “Digital Television
Transition,” July 12, 2005. Panelists were: (Hearing I) Edward Fritts, National Association
of Broadcasters; Manuel Abud, KVEA-TV/ Telemundo, Los Angeles; Kyle McSlarrow,
National Cable & Telecommunications Association; Patrick Knorr, American Cable
Association; Richard Slenker, DirecTV, satellite TV; John M. Lawson, Association of
Public Television Stations; (Hearing II) Harlin R. McEwen, International Association of
Chiefs of Police — and on behalf of additional public safety associations; Charles
Townsend, Aloha Partners; Mike Kennedy, Motorola, Inc.; Gary Shapiro, Consumer
Electronics Association; Gene Kimmelman, Consumers Union; Michael Calabrese, New
America Foundation.
50 For example, letter to the Honorable Joe Barton, the Honorable John D. Dingell, the
Honorable Fred Upton and the Honorable Edward J. Markey from the Association of Public-
Safety Communications Officials-International; Congressional Fire Services Institute;
International Association of Chiefs of Police; International Association of Fire Chiefs;
Major Cities Chiefs Association; Major County Sheriffs’ Association; National Association
of Counties; National League of Cities; and National Sheriffs’ Association, May 5, 2005.
Also, comments made at panel discussion on first responder spectrum needs organized by
the Congressional Wireless Caucus, June 28, 2005.
51 Letter to the Honorable Joe Barton, the Honorable John D. Dingell, the Honorable Fred
Upton and the Honorable Edward J. Markey, from Edward O. Fritts, President and CEO,
National Association of Broadcasters, April 27, 2005.
52 The rebuttal from public safety officials was part of their letter of May 5, 2005, noted
above.
53 Formed April 2005. Members include Alcatel, Aloha Partners, AT&T, Dell, Cisco
Systems, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments and a number of
associations. Source: Press Kit, High Tech DTV Coalition, April 27, 2005.
54 “Analysis of an Accelerated Digital Television Transition,” prepared by the Analysis
G r o u p , s p o n s o r e d b y I n t e l C o r p o r a t i o n , M a y 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 a t
[http://www.itic.org/reports/DTV%20Transition%20Report.pdf]. Viewed June 29, 2005.
For a brief discussion of some of the technologies, see CRS Report RS20993, Wireless
Technology and Spectrum Demand: Advanced Wireless Services.

CRS-11
certain” for the transition.55 Also advocating the early release of spectrum and other
policies to “facilitate the rapid and effective delivery of new advanced wireless
services” is The 700 MHz Advancement Coalition. 56 The coalition is comprised of
owners of licenses for 700 MHz sold in 2002 and of technology and equipment
suppliers that support their goals.
Representatives of NAB have testified that they expect the 85% market
penetration test will be abandoned and they are therefore prepared to respond to any
deadline provided by Congress.57 NAB’s expectation is that “Congress will pass a
DTV bill this year with a hard date for turning off analog television with minimal
consumer disruption.”58 This position is echoed by the Consumers Union and the
Consumer Federation of America in urging Congress to identify “the level of
compensation necessary to hold customers harmless from the congressionally
mandated transition to digital television.”59
Other interested parties seeking a hard date include satellite and cable
companies; manufacturers of consumer electronics — including companies that can
gear up production of set-top converter boxes.
Spectrum Allocation and Auctions. Although estimates vary, spectrum
auctions of frequencies in the 700 MHz band have typically been projected to gross
$20 billion to $30 billion.60 In 2002, some frequencies at 700 MHz — that were (and
for the most part still are) encumbered by broadcasters — netted $88,651,630 for the
U.S. Treasury.61 Revenue potential is dependent on a number of factors, including
timing of auctions and the date at which spectrum will be cleared and available. The
Congressional Budget Office has reportedly provided an estimate of $10 billion for
the spectrum in question based on the assumption that other auctions will soak up
available capital. 62
Many of the estimates for the amount of revenue raised from spectrum auctions
assume that 60 MHz of prime spectrum will be auctioned, with all channels
55 For example, letters to the Honorable Joe Barton, the Honorable John D. Dingell, the
Honorable Fred Upton and the Honorable Edward J. Markey, and to Senators Ted Stevens
and Daniel K. Inouye, from the High Tech DTV Coalition, April 26, 2005.
56 See [http://www.700MHz.org/]. Viewed July 13, 2005.
57 Testimony of Edward Fritts, Senate Hearing July 12, 2005.
58 “Statement,” NAB Newsroom press release, June 29, 2005 at [http://www.nab.org/
newsroom/pressrel/statements/062905_CU-CFA_Survey_Statement.htm]. Viewed July 6,
2005.
59 Estimating Consumer Costs of a Federally-Mandated Digital TV Transition; consumer
survey results, Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America, page 1.
60 “Analysis of an Accelerated Digital Television Transition,” page 6.
61 “Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes,” FCC Public Notice, DA 02-2323, September 20,
2002.
62 “Estimates Vary on Value of Spectrum,” by Drew Clark, Technology Daily, August 2,
2005.

CRS-12
available. Other proposals have been made that would reduce the amount of
spectrum auctioned; consequently the revenue, all things being equal, would
presumptively be less. As previously noted, Congress has asked the FCC to study
allocating additional spectrum for public safety, possibly from the 700MHz band.
There are also many who advocate that some portion of the freed spectrum be
unlicensed.63 Although these recommendations are based on policies that support
public safety and accessible wireless technology, such actions might substantially
reduce the revenue that is predicted from freeing the analog broadcast channels.
There are also proposals to use spectrum auctions to fund specific programs such as
subsidizing TV converter boxes for consumers, providing grants to low-power TV
stations, supporting education, or funding public safety communications equipment
purchases, to cite some examples.64
A significant factor in valuing spectrum is the size of the market served.
Usually this value is expressed in terms of dollars per MHz-Population. Using this
methodology, a value of $1.65 per MHz-Population, for example, yields a potential
value of $28 billion for 60 MHz of spectrum at 700 MHz. Dollar per MHz-
Population estimates for upcoming auctions are derived from results of earlier
auctions for similar spectrum. This estimated value is then typically increased or
decreased depending on assumptions about a number of variables. The different
weight that analysts give to the impact of hard-to-measure market conditions largely
explains the wide range of valuations predicted for 700 MHz auctions. For example,
poor economic conditions may depress all markets and put downward pressure on
prices for spectrum, just as an exuberant market — eager to implement new
technology — may place an unusually high value on obtaining new licenses. The
usability of spectrum is an important factor as well. There is a disincentive to invest
in a non-performing asset, such as spectrum that is blocked by other users, or
spectrum that doesn’t serve an immediate market because new technology isn’t ready
for deployment. In the case of spectrum at 700 MHz, the general opinion is that there
is significant risk that the spectrum will remain encumbered, despite hard dates,
thereby tying up resources indefinitely and hampering investment in new
communications technologies and services. As presently configured, 874 licenses
in 60 MHz would be available for auction. Of these, 280 licenses are considered
encumbered by television broadcast stations.65 A majority of analysts believe that
selling these frequencies, most of which serve lucrative markets, before they have
been cleared or are irrevocably scheduled to be cleared will lower the value in an
auction.66
63 For example, Gene Kimmelman of the Consumers Union has reportedly confirmed that
consumer groups “would not support the establishment of a firm deadline unless Congress
funds converter boxes and makes spectrum available for unlicensed service and new
entrants.” Source: “Consumer Groups Urge Protection for 70M TV Viewers,”
Telecommunications Reports, July 15, 2005.
64 For additional information, see CRS Report RS21508, Spectrum Management and Special
Funds.
65 700 MHz Advancement Coalition at [http://www.700MHz.org/700_MHz_band.htm].
Viewed July 13, 2005.
66 For example, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that companies bidding for
(continued...)

CRS-13
Setting a Hard Date. The National Association of Broadcasters has
confirmed its acceptance of “whatever date Congress sets,”67 for the transition to
DTV. Reports of discussions about the choice of date have usually centered on
December 31, 2008, although some discussions have pushed the date into mid-
summer 2009 or later. Reportedly, Senator Stevens is considering an earlier date for
legislation he will propose.68 Below is a hypothetical time line, based on testimony,69
of possible start dates for different elements of the transition. The projected dates
deal with technological as opposed to administrative hurdles. The projected start
date for supplying converter boxes in quantity appears on the time line, for example,
but the administrative decision by the FCC to choose a 2007 deadline for channel
selection does not. Note that other experts might provide different dates for
achievable milestones.
Most of the dates on the time line are based on the assumption that Congress
will pass a bill that is signed into law on October 1, 2005. This is the hypothetical
“go” that would start the transition process. The time line could extend as far out as
June 2009, roughly the last possible date by which 700 MHz spectrum auction
proceeds might be used toward closing the budget deficit (H.Con.Res. 95). Note that
the time line does not include specific hard dates for freeing spectrum. A hard date,
or more than one hard date — if a “staggered rollout” is used70 — would presumably
occur within the time line.
66 (...continued)
encumbered spectrum in the 1710-1755 MHz band (auction now tentatively scheduled for
June 2006) would “discount their bids by about $2 billion to $3 billion because of the
uncertainty associated with the time and cost of relocating federal and commercial users.”
(House Report 108-137 - Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act.) Note that this formula
cannot be directly applied to spectrum at 700 MHz because of significantly different market
conditions, a different climate of certainty, and different levels of actual encumbrance. The
Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act creates a trust fund to hold auction proceeds that
will then be disbursed to government agencies to cover the costs of vacating the auctioned
spectrum; see CRS Report RS21508, Spectrum Management and Special Funds. Another
recent example of band clearing and relocation is exemplified by the FCC agreement with
Nextel, Inc.; see CRS Report RL32408, Spectrum Policy: Public Safety and Wireless
Communications Interference. In this instance, Nextel has taken on the obligation of paying
for at least some of the costs of relocation.
67 Testimony of Edward Fritts, Senate Hearing July 12, 2005.
68 “Broadcasters Support Hard DTV Date, NAB Tells Senate Hearing,” Communications
Daily, July 13, 2005.
69 Testimony by panelists regarding time needed to meet certain requirements, Senate
Hearing, July 12, 2004. This information was reconfirmed by telephone by CRS on July 13,
2005.
70 As suggested in testimony of Michael Calabrese, Senate Hearing, July 12, 2005.

CRS-14
Figure 1. Hypothetical Time Line for Technological Milestones
in DTV Transition Based on Start Date for Legislative
Certainty, Not Hard Date for Relinquishing Spectrum
Source: Based on Testimony, Senate Hearing, July 12, 2005.
Within the construct of the above hypothetical time line — administrative and
cost issues aside — Congress could set a hard date as early as March 31, 2007 to end
TV broadcasts on analog channels. Congress could also set a hard date for later than
2009 but the value of still-encumbered spectrum might be discounted by the market.
Another possibility would be to phase in the transition to DTV, freeing public safety
channels and some of the adjacent commercial channels71 (that could be auctioned)
at an early date and the remainder in mid-2009, a later date that has been proposed
71 Because of interference with transmissions, some commercial channels adjacent to the
frequencies going to public safety would have to be cleared at the same time.

CRS-15
in discussions.72 As explained in testimony,73 this might mean that the per-unit cost
of converters would be higher for the initial rollout, but the numbers eligible to
receive converters might be lower in the long term.74 Another approach under
discussion would be a multi-phase transition and auction process. The first phase
would entail the release of spectrum for areas where public safety has 700 MHz plans
approved and could therefore move promptly to put systems in place.75 Some
spectrum might be available for auction at that time. A second and possibly a third
phase would release the remaining spectrum for designated uses and auction. Such
an approach could increase or decrease revenue, depending on market demand and
expectations; also, the FCC deducts the costs of administering auctions from gross
sales revenue. For TV-viewers, there may be benefits in a managed conversion
conducted at the local level instead of nationwide. Subsidy programs, as needed,
could be developed to meet local needs. For the government, the experience acquired
in smaller-scale projects would aid in the development of a nationwide program.
One of the possible disadvantages might be consumer confusion about what areas are
affected when, especially if broadcasters do a national consumer education program
that does not explain local and regional timetables. In the United Kingdom, a phased
approach over a four-year period (2008-2012) has been favored,76 with preliminary
trials underway in several markets. The transition is to be handled by a private
company, SwitchCo.77
As discussed above, the total revenue from spectrum auctions could vary up or
down depending on a number of circumstances. No matter what the timing of the
auctions, it appears that any subsidy program that could be authorized would have to
be funded before the spectrum is cleared.78 If such is the case, auction funds to pay
for such a program would only be available if the spectrum is sold while still
72 “Sen. Stevens Likely to Differ From House Leaders Subsidy,” by Drew Clark, Technology
Daily PM, July 12, 2005.
73 Testimony of Michael Calabrese, Senate Hearing July 12, 2005.
74 In testimony, Gary Grube, Chief Technology Officer, Motorola, Inc. at Hearing of Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, “Spectrum for Public Safety Users,”
September 8, 2004, identified 75 stations that were effectively blocking access to 700 MHz
channels for public safety. This suggests that no more than 75 communities across the
nation would be affected, although some of them, such as Los Angeles, are densely
populated.
75 Regional plans and maps for public safety use of 700 MHz are available at
[http://wireless.fcc.gov/publicsafety/700MHz/plans.html] and from state chairmen of the
planning committees. Viewed July 15, 2005.
76 Report of the Digital Television Project, press statement by the Secretary of State for
C u l t u r e , M e d i a a n d S p o r t , M a r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 a t
[http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk/publications/pub_dtv_project_report.html]. Viewed
August 3, 2005.
77 Details about DTV planning in the UK are available at the Digital Television Project
website at [http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk/dtv_project/project_details_home.html].
Viewed August 3, 2005.
78 S. 1268, for example would require the auction process to be concluded at least six
months before the hard date for clearing spectrum.

CRS-16
encumbered. In preparing to fund a transition program (distributing converter boxes,
or other), Congress could follow the precedent set by the Spectrum Enhancement Act
(P.L. 108-484) and specify that spectrum sales must raise sufficient funds to cover
projected costs and obligations associated with the transition plan. Another
possibility for funding a program to cover some of the DTV transition costs would
be to charge broadcasters fees for using the analog channels.79
Provisions in the Intelligence Reform Act
Title VII, Subtitle E — Public Safety Spectrum, of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, recognizes the merits of the arguments for
increasing the amount of spectrum at 700 MHz available for public safety and
homeland security. It requires the FCC, in consultation with the Secretary of
Homeland Security and the NTIA, to conduct a study on the spectrum needs for
public safety, including the possibility of increasing the amount of spectrum at 700
MHz.80 The same section of the act also instructs the Secretary of Homeland
Security to lead a study to “assess strategies that may be used to meet public safety
telecommunications needs.”81 The strategies study is to address the need for
nationwide interoperable communications networks, the capacity of public safety to
use wireless broadband applications, and the communications capabilities of “all
emergency response providers. . . .” The use of “commercial wireless technologies
to the greatest extent possible” is to be considered. Both the FCC and the Homeland
Security studies are to be submitted by year-end 2005.
Studies and other measures regarding interoperable communications are also
addressed in the act. Title VII, Subtitle C - National Preparedness, requires the
Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a program to enhance public safety
interoperable communications.82 Among the responsibilities of the program are the
development of a “comprehensive national approach to achieving public safety
interoperable communications.” Several of the specific requirements for the study
overlap those detailed in Subtitle E, Sec. 7502. Subtitle C requirements that are
closely connected to spectrum use include information on the life cycle and technical
requirements of existing infrastructure;83 and the need for international, cross-border
interoperability.84 Another section in Subtitle C addresses communications support
for urban and other high risk areas specifically.85 There is also provision to establish
pilot projects in high threat urban areas or regions that might serve as a national
79 The President’s budget for FY2004 and again for 2006 proposed that 1) the FCC’s
authority to conduct auctions be extended indefinitely; 2) user fees be levied on unauctioned
licensed spectrum; and 3) broadcasters pay an annual lease fee on analog TV spectrum that
they are holding as part of the Congressionally-mandated transition to digital television.
80 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle E, Sec. 7502 (a).
81 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle E, Sec. 7502 (b).
82 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (a).
83 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec.7303 ( a) (1) (C) (i).
84 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec.7303 ( a) (1) (D) (ii).
85 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec.7303, ‘’Sec. 510.

CRS-17
model for a strategic plan. Specifically the purpose of the pilots is to establish the
basis for a regional strategic plan that would foster interagency communications.86
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 conveys the
sense of Congress that the first session of the 109th Congress must act to establish a
comprehensive approach to the timely return of spectrum87 and that any delay in
doing this will delay planning by the public safety sector.88 The act, therefore,
proposes or requires a number of actions regarding public safety interoperability and
spectrum use within a specified time:
! Sense of Congress that it must pass legislation that resolves
spectrum release as part of the transition to digital television; first
session. (Sec. 7501.)
! Requirement for a study on spectrum for public safety and homeland
security; December 2005. (Sec. 7502.)
! Requirement for a study on strategies to meet interoperable
communications needs; December 2005. (Sec. 7502.)
! Requirement to establish a program to enhance public safety
interoperable communications; report on program, April 2005.
(Sec. 7303.)89
! Establishment by the President of a mechanism for coordinating
cross-border interoperability issues with Canada and Mexico; June
2006. (Sec. 7303.)
! Requirement to establish at least two pilot projects in high threat or
urban areas for interagency communications; March 2005. (Sec.
7303, Sec. 510.)90
! Reports on interagency communications pilots; interim, June 2005;
final June 2006. (Sec. 7304.)
! Provision of funds for authorized program for interoperable
communications; fiscal years 2005 through 2009. (Sec. 7303.)
Related Actions by the Administration. On November 30, 2004,
President George W. Bush issued a memorandum to the heads of Executive
Departments and agencies regarding steps to be taken to improve the management
of spectrum assigned for federal use.91 Most of these steps are to implement
recommendations made by the Federal Government Spectrum Task Force in its
86 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304.
87 P.L. 108-458,Title VII, Subtitle E, Sec. 7501 (b) (1).
88 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle E, Sec. 7501 (b) (2).
89 Responding to a CRS inquiry on status, DHS has indicated that the program is being
reviewed.
90 ibid
91 “Presidential Determination: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies,” November 30, 2004, Office of the Press Secretary, News & Policies, at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041130-8.html]. (Viewed January
4, 2005.)

CRS-18
report to the President in June 2004.92 Among the deadlines provided in the
memorandum are two requirements related specifically to public safety. One
requirement is for the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify public safety
spectrum needs by June 2005. The Secretary is to work with the Secretary of
Commerce and, as needed, with the Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission and representatives from the public safety community; state, local,
regional and tribal governments; and the private sector. Also, by year-end 2005, the
Secretary of Homeland Security is to lead the preparation of a Spectrum Needs Plan,
“to address issues related to communication spectrum used by the public safety
community, as well as the continuity of Government operations.” Concurrently, the
Secretary of Commerce is to develop a Federal Strategic Spectrum Plan.
92 Spectrum Policy for the 21st Century: The President’s Spectrum Policy Initiative.