Spectrum Policy: Public Safety and Wireless Communications Interference

Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy

In mid-2005, wireless communications managers commenced the process of moving selected public safety radio channels to new frequencies. This step was part of a rebanding plan to mitigate persistent problems with interference to public safety radio communications. The majority of documented incidents of interference was attributed to the network built by Nextel Communications, Inc (now Sprint Nextel). As part of an agreement originally made between Nextel and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), some public safety wireless users have moved or will move to new frequencies, with the wireless company paying all or part of the cost. The rebanding agreement was not affected by the merger between Nextel and Sprint Corporation. In return for the expenditures, and reflecting the value of spectrum that Sprint Nextel relinquished as part of the band reconfiguration, the FCC assigned new spectrum licenses to the wireless company. The FCC set the "windfall" value of the new licenses, after allowing for the value of the licenses being relinquished, at $2.8 billion. The costs that Sprint Nextel incurs in the rebanding process are being applied to the $2.8 billion windfall. If the total is less than $2.8 billion, Sprint Nextel will be required to make an "anti-windfall" payment to the U.S. Treasury for the difference. If the costs exceed $2.8 billion, Sprint Nextel is obligated to pay them without any new concessions from the FCC. 

The rebanding plan is being implemented by the 800 MHz Transition Administrator (TA), created by the FCC for this purpose. The TA's ongoing responsibilities are to set priorities, establish schedules, and oversee reimbursement to parties for eligible expenses associated with relocation. Disagreements about the implementation of the plan that the TA cannot resolve on its own or through mediation are in most cases referred to the FCC. From the outset, there have been debates about the transition plan, such as maintaining interoperability, scheduling, and reimbursement for costs incurred. As the band reconfiguration proceeds, debates have often become protracted negotiations—and even litigatious disputes—slowing the transition process. 

The original plan set a deadline of June 2008 to complete the transition, with the calculation – or true-up – of the anti-windfall payment to occur six months later. The deadline has been extended several times while issues regarding the transition process were resolved. Consequently, the deadline for the true-up has also been extended, most recently until December 2010. The TA has until November 15, 2010, to file a report with the FCC with its recommendations as to whether it has sufficient information on the costs of rebanding to calculate the anti-windfall payment – if any – that Sprint Nextel will be obligated to pay, or whether the deadline must be postponed again. 

Additional delays are occurring in U.S. border areas. The transition plan for frequencies along the Canadian border is scheduled for completion in April 2011. Negotiations continue with Mexico about rebanding frequencies along the Mexican border.


Date of Report: August 25, 2010
Number of Pages: 7
Order Number: RL32408
Price: $19.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Emergency Communications: Broadband and the Future of 911

Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy

Today's 911 system is built on an infrastructure of analog technology that does not support many of the features that most Americans expect to be part of an emergency response. Efforts to splice newer, digital technologies onto this aging infrastructure have created points of failure where a call can be dropped or misdirected, sometimes with tragic consequences. Callers to 911, however, generally assume that the newer technologies they are using to place a call are matched by the same level of technology at the 911 call centers, known as Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). However, this is not always the case. To modernize the system to provide the quality of service that approaches the expectations of its users will require that the PSAPs, and state, local, and possibly federal emergency communications authorities invest in new technologies. As envisioned by most stakeholders, these new technologies—collectively referred to as Next Generation 911 or NG9-1-1—should incorporate Internet Protocol (IP) standards. An IP-enabled emergency communications network that supports 911 will facilitate interoperability and system resilience; improve connections between 911 call centers; provide more robust capacity; and offer flexibility in receiving and managing calls. The same network can also serve wireless broadband communications for public safety and other emergency personnel, as well as other purposes. 

Recognizing the importance of providing effective 911 service, Congress has passed three major bills supporting improvements in the handling of 911 emergency calls. The Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-81) established 911 as the number to call for emergencies and gave the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority to regulate many aspects of the service. The most recent of these laws, the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-283), required the preparation of a National Plan for migrating to an IPenabled emergency network. Responsibility for the plan was assigned to the E-911 Implementation Coordination Office (ICO), created to meet requirements of an earlier law, the ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-494). Authorization for the ICO terminated on September 30, 2009. ICO was jointly administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Legislation has been introduced that would create an "improved" ICO to focus on advancing the fundamental policy goal of creating an IP-enabled emergency communications network (H.R. 4829, Representative Eshoo and S. 3115, Senator Klobuchar). The recreated ICO would be established for five years under the direction of the NTIA. 

The FCC has included recommendations for advancing NG9-1-1 as part of the National Broadband Plan it presented to Congress on March 16, 2010. It has proposed that the FCC take on an expanded role in assuring that NG9-1-1 services meet future consumer expectations for broadband-based communications. Congress may evaluate whether additional actions are needed on its part in order to support a cohesive policy for transitioning to NG9-1-1. 

Other types of citizen-activated emergency calls are handled in call centers. Increasingly many calls for assistance are placed by dialing 211. The number has been provisionally designated for community information and referrals. Service levels and response times for 211 calls would benefit from a transition to IP-enabled networks and in many cases could share infrastructure with 911 networks. Legislation introduced in the 111th Congress includes two bills covering 211 call centers: S. 211 (Senator Clinton) and H.R. 211 (Representative Eshoo).


Date of Report: August 25, 2010
Number of Pages: 33
Order Number: R41208
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Federal Research and Development Funding:FY2011

John F. Sargent Jr., Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

President Obama has requested $147.696 billion for research and development (R&D) in FY2011, a $343 million (0.2%) increase from the estimated FY2010 R&D funding level of $147.353 billion. Congress will play a central role in defining the nation's R&D priorities, especially with respect to two overarching issues: the extent to which the federal R&D investment can grow in the context of increased pressure on discretionary spending and how available funding will be prioritized and allocated. Low or negative growth in the overall R&D investment may require movement of resources across disciplines, programs, or agencies to address priorities. This report will be updated as Congress acts on appropriations bills that include funding for research, development and related funding. 

Under the President's request, six federal agencies would receive 94.8% of total federal R&D spending: the Department of Defense (DOD, 52.5%), Department of Health and Human Services (largely the National Institutes of Health) (21.8%), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (7.4%), Department of Energy (7.6%), National Science Foundation (3.8%), and Department of Agriculture (1.7%). NASA would receive the largest dollar increase for R&D of any agency, $1.700 billion (18.3%) above its FY2010 funding level. The DOD would receive the largest reduction in R&D funding, $3.542 billion (4.4%) below its FY2010 level. 

The President's FY2011 request includes: $31.341 billion for basic research, up $1.339 billion (4.5%) from FY2010; $30.276 billion for applied research, up $1.949 billion (6.9%); $81.455 billion for development, down $2.918 billion (3.5%); and $4.624 billion for R&D facilities and equipment, down $27 million (0.6%). The FY2011 request includes funding for three multiagency R&D initiatives: the National Nanotechnology Initiative, $1.776 billion, down $5 million (0.3%); the Networking and Information Technology R&D program, $4.281 billion, down $9 million (0.2%); and the U.S. Global Change Research Program, $2.561 billion, up $439 million (20.7%). 

President Obama has requested increases in the R&D budgets of the three agencies that were targeted for doubling in the America COMPETES Act (over seven years) and by President Bush under his American Competitiveness Initiative (over ten years) as measured using FY2006 R&D funding as the baseline. Under President Obama's FY2011 budget, the Department of Energy's Office of Science would receive an increase of $226 million (4.6%), the National Science Foundation's budget would rise by $551 million (8.0%), and funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's core research and facilities would grow by $48 million (7.3%). 

As of August 19, 2010, two of the 12 regular appropriations bills have passed the House: the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011, and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2011; none have passed the Senate. For the past four years, federal R&D funding and execution has been affected by mechanisms used to complete the annual appropriations process— the year-long continuing resolution for FY2007 (P.L. 110-5) and the combining of multiple regular appropriations bills into the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 for FY2008 (P.L. 110- 161), the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-8), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117). Completion of appropriations after the beginning of each fiscal year may cause agencies to delay or cancel some planned R&D and equipment acquisition.


Date of Report: August 19, 2010
Number of Pages: 53
Order Number: R41098
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress

Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy

The convergence of wireless telecommunications technology with the Internet Protocol (IP) is fostering new generations of mobile technologies. This transformation has created new demands for advanced communications infrastructure and radio frequency spectrum capacity that can support high-speed, content-rich uses. Furthermore, a number of services, in addition to consumer and business communications, rely at least in part on wireless links to broadband backbones. Wireless technologies support public safety communications, sensors, smart grids, medicine and public health, intelligent transportation systems, and many other vital communications. 

Existing policies for allocating and assigning spectrum rights may not be sufficient to meet the future needs of wireless broadband. Deciding what weight to give to specific goals and setting priorities to meet those goals pose difficult tasks for federal administrators and regulators and for Congress. A challenge for Congress is to provide decisive policies in an environment where there are many choices but little consensus. 

Among the spectrum policy initiatives that have been proposed in Congress in recent years are: allocating more spectrum for unlicensed use; auctioning airwaves currently allocated for federal use; and devising new fees on spectrum use, notably those collected by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The National Broadband Plan (NBP), a report on broadband policy mandated by Congress, has provided descriptions of perceived spectrum policy issues to be addressed by a combination of regulatory changes and the development of new policies at the FCC, with recommendations from the FCC for legislative actions that Congress might take. Substantive modifications in spectrum policy would almost surely require congressional action. 

The Radio Spectrum Inventory Act introduced in the Senate (S. 649, Kerry) and the similar House-introduced Radio Spectrum Inventory Act (H.R. 3125, Waxman) would require an inventory of existing users on prime radio frequencies, a preliminary step in evaluating policy changes. The Spectrum Measurement and Policy Reform Act (S. 3610, Snowe) expands on the proposed inventory acts and also proposes a structure to carry out some of the NBP proposals regarding spectrum management, such as voluntary incentive auctions. The Spectrum Relocation and Improvement Act of 2009 (H.R. 3019, Inslee) and the Spectrum Relocation Act of 2010 (S. 3490, Warner) would amend the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-494, Title II); the Spectrum Measurement and Policy Reform Act would provide additional provisions for the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, notably to facilitate spectrum sharing. The Broadband for First Responders Act (H.R. 5081, King), the First Responders Protection Act of 2010 (S. 3625, Lieberman), and the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act (S. 3756, Rockefeller) would allocate additional radio frequencies for public safety use. The Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act would provide authority for voluntary incentive auctions to enable license-holders, such as TV stations, to auction all or part of their holdings and share proceeds with the U.S. Treasury. The Voluntary Incentive Auctions Act of 2010 (H.R. 5947, Boucher) would also provide for voluntary auctions.


Date of Report: August 20, 2010
Number of Pages: 38
Order Number: R40674
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The FCC’s Authority to Regulate Net Neutrality after Comcast v. FCC

Kathleen Ann Ruane
Legislative Attorney

In 2007, through various experiments by the media, most notably the Associated Press, it became clear that Comcast was intermittently blocking the use of an application called BitTorrent™ and, possibly, other peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing programs on its network. Comcast eventually admitted to the practice and agreed to cease blocking the use of the P2P applications on its network. However, Comcast maintains that its actions were reasonable network management and not in violation of the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC" or "Commission") policy. 

In response to a petition from Free Press for a declaratory ruling that Comcast's blocking of P2P applications was not "reasonable network management," the FCC conducted an investigation into Comcast's network management practices. The FCC determined that Comcast had violated the agency's Internet Policy Statement when it blocked certain applications on its network and that the practice at issue in this case was not "reasonable network management." The FCC declined to fine Comcast because its Internet Policy Statement had never previously been the basis for enforcement forfeitures. Comcast appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, as did other public interest groups. 

The D.C. Circuit ruled on April 6, 2010, that the FCC could not base ancillary authority to regulate cable Internet services solely upon broad policy goals contained elsewhere in the Communications Act. Whatever the merits of other jurisdictional arguments the FCC may advance, the court found that the FCC did not have jurisdiction to enforce its network management principles on the basis it had advanced in that case. The court did not address the other questions posed by the case, including whether the FCC could proceed via adjudication. 

The court's ruling has thrown into doubt the FCC's authority to regulate Internet network management. The FCC has announced the possibility of reclassifying the transmission component of broadband Internet services as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act. There may be other options for asserting regulatory authority, which the agency has sought comment on as well. The agency hopes this potential reclassification would ground its authority to regulate broadband Internet services more firmly in the governing law. 

Congress could act to grant the FCC the authority necessary to adopt network management rules. If a law were enacted, the FCC would not have to rely on its ancillary jurisdiction to enforce network management rules. For further information on the policy aspects of this debate, see CRS Report RS22444, Net Neutrality: Background and Issues, by Angele A. Gilroy.


Date of Report: August 18, 2010
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: R40234
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.