Spectrum Auctions Will Deliver Faster Internet, More Jobs, Stronger National Defense

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing titled “America Offline? How Spectrum Auction Delays Give China the Edge and Cost Us Jobs,” Senate Republicans emphasized the importance of American leadership in spectrum policy to protect our national security, prevent Chinese control of global communications networks, upgrade U.S. military capability and drive economic growth. National security and telecom experts agreed that expanding commercial access to mid-band spectrum can support both consumer needs and national security. Senators warned that delays in auctions hurt national defense and America’s efforts to lead in global technology.

Telecom and National Security Experts Agree Sen. Cruz’s Spectrum Pipeline Bill Is a Win For Americans and U.S. Businesses

(WATCH)

Sen. Cruz: “What are the specific economic benefits that putting more spectrum into the commercial marketplace would produce, and how would my spectrum pipeline legislation, which requires some full power spectrum to be made available to the commercial sector, benefit everyday Americans and American businesses?”

Dr. Hazlett: “Additional spectrum, particularly of the flexible use variety, has been found extremely important to increasing American productivity. It allows more things to be done with wireless, wireless applications and wireless networks. And in fact, the reverse is also true. When we’ve had these delays that have come into the system, we have actually taken the vital inputs out of the sector and the progress has been stymied. So, in fact, getting more spectrum into the marketplace, allowing entrepreneurs and competitors to get access, to expand, that explains, not only the wireless revolution that we've seen with so much changing in terms of new innovations, but it explains why, going forward, we have to keep our eyes on the ball and make sure that there is a pipeline, there is spectrum pouring into the market to be used in efficient ways, not on the old locked in rigid definitions of old.”

Sen. Cruz: “…would you agree that making more spectrum available to the private sector would result in millions in new investments and thousands of new jobs?”

Mr. Pearl: “Yes, absolutely…consistently, you make the spectrum available, and particularly, as I mentioned, with the example of the app economy, being the first really matters in that because then you have innovators that take advantage of the capabilities that they can use in that spectrum.”

Sen. Cruz: “And does my pipeline bill preclude the Department of Defense from accessing the spectrum it needs to accomplish critical missions, or are there ways full power commercial license use can accommodate the needs of DOD?”

Mr: Pearl: “…your bill allows for both the possibility of exclusive use as well as shared use. And so, in terms of DOD being able to continue to use some or most of the bands in order to maintain their capabilities, it absolutely creates that opening.”

National Security Expert Confirms that an American Iron Dome System Can Coexist with Commercial Spectrum

Sen. Cruz: “We’ve also heard concerns that reinstating auction authority could … hinder President Trump's initiative to create an American Iron Dome. I am a strong and passionate supporter of missile defense, I have been advocating for American Iron Dome for some time. Based on your experience at both the National Security Council and in the FCC auction room, do you believe those concerns are well founded, that having an auction would prevent missile defense here at home?”

Mr. Pearl: “No, absolutely not, as long as we have the proper interagency process and we make sure that the engineers work together, we can absolutely ensure we have the Iron Dome as well as increased commercial use.”

Sen. Cruz: “And could an Iron Dome system coexist with commercial 5G use, subject to geographical or location carve outs like in the AMBIT process?”

Mr. Pearl: “We do have some cases of countries that are using Iron Dome, like the Czech Republic, that are using it quite close to 5G, quite close to those systems of Iron Dome. And so that's one possibility. And there are some other ways that you can design Iron Dome so that you can have potential coexistence.”

Sen. Cruz Warns Spectrum Auction Delays Give China the Edge and Cost Us Jobs

Sen. Cruz: “What would the consequences to national security be, if China wins the race for 5G and 6G and if the global telecommunication network is Huawei and Chinese based, is that good or bad for national security?”

Mr. Pearl: “It's catastrophic for national security, as well as both DOD and intelligence community, because we will not have access to advanced, trusted, secure technology. It's true that the US will still ban Huawei, but the rest of the world will use Huawei. It will become more advanced. And it's not only telecommunications networks which are obviously very important, but the plan the PRC has with Huawei is to leverage its control over telecom up the technology stack to be able to control other technologies. So, I would say it's absolutely catastrophic risk…

Experts Back Sen. Blackburn: DOD Squatting on Spectrum is Blocking Key Economic Growth & Innovation

Sen. Blackburn: “And for federal agencies, Mr. Chairman, to squat on this spectrum and to not use it, and to not want to yield it back, and not want anybody to know what they've got, it disadvantages us as a nation.

“And we know that recouping it, going through the auction process would yield billions and billions of dollars, as much as $100 billion and we need that because we are in the race for with China when it comes to leading in this area. And we don't have time to waste and we don't have time for squatters to bicker with what they're going to do with this spectrum.

“… when we talk about AI and quantum and the utilizations that are there, we know more spectrum is needed.”

Mr. Pearl: “I think one of the important points is it would hamper things, not only on the commercial side, but also on the DOD side of things where, you know, there are really interesting AI applications for first responders in terrorist attacks and things like that, and leveraging it to make the right decisions. And that is something that's directly applicable to what DOD does in the battlefield. So, you know, another example is we've talked about spectrum, but to really advance what we need AI to do is to be able to take all the sources of information, spectrum, op stack, cyberspace, thermal image, just all of these things, and generate real, actionable insights. And we can't do that unless we have those commercial technologies and we're winning the AI race with China.”

Dr. Baylis: “We're in a national crisis right now, in terms of spectrum, we really are. And so when you're having an emergency, you try to fix the problem as quickly as possible, and that's what we're doing. We really are trying to work as quickly as possible.

“We have applications that need to have spectrum, spectrum real estate, so to speak, and we don't have enough bandwidth for all. And so, the way we're currently doing spectrum by fixed allocations of spectrum is just not going to work moving forward. So, we need technology to support the movement of devices in real time between spectral bands. And it's just, it's a paradigm shift. We really need a paradigm shift badly, or we've got too much, too much trying to use too little.”

Sen. Schmitt: Commercial & Defense Spectrum Must Coexist

Sen. Schmitt: “I strongly believe that Congress has already established the NTIA as a primary authority for spectrum allocation. An endless need rather than an act is a rubber stamp DOD, I think that's one of the issues. National security today is very multifaceted. Economic security is national security, and China's coming for our lunch in more than one way…when we talk about spectrum management and enhancing the ability of commercial and defense users to sort of coexist in those sheer bands, what role, and how far have we come, and how far do we have to go for that to be really effective with AI as these advancements proceed?”

Dr. Baylis: “One of the things that I say is spectrum is the most important dimension of battle. If you can dominate the spectrum, you're going to win the war. So, from the DOD side, it's unquestionable. And in fact, the Space Force, we're talking with Space Force people now, the Space Force, the only dimension of battle is spectrum. There are no tanks, there are no soldiers on the ground. It's just spectrum. We’re going to have to be dominant in the spectrum. So, from the DOD side, that's really important, and then from the commercial side, we are more connected than we've ever been through spectrum. We learned that during the pandemic, because we had to use the wireless spectrum to connect with loved ones, you know, and other things. So, I think our society certainly sees the need for wireless devices.”

National Security Expert Confirms to Sen. Cruz – DOD is Not Using All its Spectrum

Sen Curtis: “The demand is, as we all know, for mid-rate spectrum is high, and it's not going away. DOD says they can't afford to give up a single part of their spectrum without negative national security consequences. Is DOD truly using all of its spectrum with maximizing efficiency, and what other considerations are leading DOD to this conclusion?”

Mr. Pearl: “No, I don't believe they are. And you know, if you get into the details with them, in many cases, I think that they would concede that. And I think that, you know, it's necessary to work with all the right constituencies in DOD. One thing I would mention is that you're hearing one thing at the briefings, but there are people in DOD that have a more innovative mindset and see some of the advantages here. And I think figuring out how to empower some of those people and bring them to the table is really helpful, because that's how we can solve some of these problems.”

Sen. Kim: “Do you think that this committee would benefit from having the classified briefing conversation with DOD and try to dig into some of those other people that you're talking about?”

Mr. Pearl: “What it really comes down to is not just the high-level briefing, it's getting into here's a critical system, and here's the actual impact it would have on performance if we us less spectrum, and getting very precise about that, and then talking about some of the technologies that might be able to avoid that outcome and preserve the DOD capability, but really focusing on some of those, like a small number of critical systems, and getting into those details, because just to be told we can't share any we're using all of it at all times is, I mean to me, you know, there are important systems in these bands, there are systems that absolutely are essential to our national security, but to say that we can't share any of it and we're using all of it is just not that doesn't pass muster.”

Sen. Cruz Sounds Alarm on Letting China Win Global Spectrum War

Sen. Cruz: “First of all, we know that Huawei and other Chinese manufacturers are actively and successfully pushing worldwide adoption of Chinese 6G equipment standards. That wouldn't be possible without China having made a spectrum available for commercial use. Secondly, China has aggressively targeted our telecommunications industry, has tapped the phones of top officials, including President Trump and Vice President Vance, and prompted this committee to fully fund a multi-billion dollar rip and replace program to remove Chinese equipment from American networks…Would American national and economic security be harmed if Chinese firms like Huawei and ZTE set the global standard for 6G network equipment via this first mover advantage and how would that affect the global competitiveness of US companies?”

Mr. Pearl: “So, it would have a great deal of harm. And I would echo my agreement that I don't think this is a disinformation campaign. I fought the battle against Huawei and ZTE for almost two years, and in order for their businesses to be able to sell equipment outside of China, they need to be able to use these bands inside of China and get those economies of scale. But, but if they're successful in terms of setting the global standard, that means that the US will have a siloed market with a few of its allies and partners, where we'll have much, much worse technology, much worse networks. We'll just have an inferior ecosystem, and ultimately that means that we're going to be put at a military disadvantage, because, you know, as others have commented, in a battle the electromagnetic domain can be absolutely decisive, and we just won't have the technology to prevail in that case.”

###