 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The FCC's UWB Proceeding: An Examination of the Government's Spectrum Management Process
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Billy Tauzin Mr.
Chairman, thank you very much for convening this hearing today.
I commend you for tackling this cutting-edge, complex telecommunications
issue. The manner in which
ultra-wideband technology is fostered or stifled by government policy has
implications both for future technologies and for our nation's spectrum
management process. Ultra-wideband is an exciting
new technology that has many promising applications.
It has fire and rescue applications, as Mr. Nowakowski will describe to
us. It has military applications,
as Mr. Price will tell us. It has
vehicular safety applications. And
it has commercial applications. The FCC's recent
ultra-wideband decision can be called a major step.
It can also be called a baby step. The FCC's ultra-wideband
rulemaking was a hotly-contested and contentious proceeding.
One could argue that it accurately reflected the give-and-take that we
should expect with any new technology that defies the rigid confines in which we
have previously categorized energy emissions. But that's not quite how I
see it. I watched this proceeding
with more than a small degree of horror. I
watched certain government bureaucrats and certain industries try their absolute
best to stifle this new technology. Ultra-wideband technology
terrified some people because it was different.
Whether it was out of competitive concerns or because the technology
created intentional emissions where none had previously been encountered,
ultra-wideband has been met with the fiercest resistance of any technology in
recent memory. This leaves us to evaluate
where we are now. We have an FCC
order that permits a limited deployment of this new technology.
The commission itself acknowledged just how conservative an approach it
was taking: 'we
are proceeding cautiously in authorizing UWB technology, based in large measure
on standards that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
found to be necessary to protect against interference to vital federal
government operations.' The
commission also stated 'we are concerned . that the standards we are
adopting may be overprotective and could unnecessarily constrain the development
of UWB technology.' The FCC had lots of conflicting
data upon which to draw its conclusions. NTIA
and other agencies produced mountains of data detailing the potential
interference that could be caused by ultra-wideband devices.
And ultra-wideband developers countered with mountains of data regarding
why ultra-wideband devices will not cause harmful interference. Now, hopefully, we can get to the bottom of the interference debate. The FCC will conduct its own tests, and conduct them on real devices, not by formulating hypothetical models. I hope, during the next six to twelve months, the FCC is able to conduct enough real-world testing so that we have solid, real-world evidence as to whether ultra-wideband creates harmful interference in the restricted bands. "I don't want our military
operations to be interfered with, and I don't want planes to fall out of the
sky. But I want real-world evidence that tells us whether
ultra-wideband devices, on a stand-alone or cumulative basis, would cause these
things to occur. I want to make one final
comment about the implications of this proceeding on the spectrum management
process. The way this proceeding was conducted makes me nervous about
the current state of how we manage spectrum. NTIA determined the outcome of
this proceeding, and the FCC's order is pretty clear about that.
The commission adopted emissions limits based on levels with which NTIA
was comfortable. Yes, NTIA manages spectrum for
the federal government. But the FCC
is supposed to set the rules for commercial devices, even those that may
intentionally emit in the restricted bands.
The FCC is supposed to coordinate with NTIA regarding emissions from
commercial entities in the restricted bands. But I wonder, and I look forward to testimony regarding, whether NTIA's coordination role was a lot more in this proceeding. And, if it was, what are the implications of the interaction between the FCC and NTIA for new technologies that might also intentionally emit energy in the restricted bands, or defy current standards in some other way. Sound spectrum management involves a balancing of governmental and non-governmental interests. While balancing these interests always involves policy issues, good spectrum management requires that sound policy be supported by sound engineering. I look forward to the FCC's ultra-wideband testing, and I hope that it demonstrates that ultra-wideband technology can flourish without causing harmful interference. This technology has too many promising applications to stifle it based on unfounded, and unproven, concerns.
|
|||||||||||
|
