Spectrum Strategic Planning

1. DoD Spectrum Workshop 2011 “Spectrum Support to Our Military Forces – The Challenge Ahead” Spectrum Strategic Planning

2. Disclaimer • The views expressed in this briefing are personal views and do not represent official Air Force position • I fully support the President’s direction for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to work with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and federal agencies … • To identify 500 MHz of federal and non-federal spectrum for wireless broadband within 10 years, • While protecting critical current and future capabilities • I do not claim to have all the answers and aim to elicit thought and open discussion

3. Fundamental Spectrum Principles • Finite natural resource; cannot be Banked Expanded Concentrated • National asset • Enables diverse government, commercial, consumer services and capabilities • Optimize use to deliver the maximum national benefit VHF/UHF Addition VHF 30 – 300 MHz UHF 300 – 3000 MHz HF & Below 0 - 30 MHz VHF 30 – 300 MHz UHF 300 – 3000 MHz SHF 3 – 30 GHz EHF 300 – 300 GHz US Strategic Spectrum Reserve UHF/SHF Addition UHF 300 – 3000 MHz SHF 3 – 30 GHz 600MHz-Years

4. Current Process – Shortfalls • No short or long range forecasting/guidance • Risk – expensive modifications over life of system • New systems in development for candidate bands • No method to balance diverse requirements • Consumer services, defense, medical, etc. • Maximum benefit to nation not assured • Limited incentive(s) to improve use • New/best technologies not always implemented quickly • Lacks holistic approach required to produce benefits • Limited comparable spectrum availability • Linchpin issue already; only gets tougher from here • Could degrade into spectrum “musical chairs”

5. Inputs to Strategic Spectrum Planning • Requirements – both current and predicted future • Current allocations/use (US & international) • Current regulatory environment • Current state of technology • Current and projected gaps (unmet requirements)

6. Points to Ponder • Balancing competition against duplication • How many ways to receive same television program? • Definition of requirements • Does possible equate to required? • Definition/measure of utility • What is a common scaleto measure diverse functions? • Increasing utility from a finite resource • What truly enables increased utility? • Importance of international harmonization • What are the risks and rewards of going it alone? • The future is full of unknowns • How to plan for unknown developments?

7. Strategic Spectrum Plan Key Components • Technology Plan • Identifies, prioritizes, and organizes research and development of promising spectrum technologies • Deployment of new technologies can increase utility • Regulatory Policy Plan • Identifies, prioritizes and organizes development/revision of regulatory policy to enhance spectrum utility (including deployment of new technologies) • Allocation/Use Plans • Short–, Mid– and Long–Term (Next Slide) • Supported by Regulatory Policy & Technology Plans • Provides clear guidance to system owners / developers; both near–term and long–term

8. Strategic Spectrum Plan Key Components Allocation/Use Plans • Near–Term (1 – 5 Years) • Very specific bands, dates, exclusions, conditions/rules • Relocations in progress • Auctions conducted • Supported by Regulatory Policy Plan • Mid–Term (6 – 15 Years) • Studies conducted, technologies refined/tested/finalized • New uses identified, bands refined/finalized • Relocation/termination/sharing plans developed • Supported Technology Plan; Drives Regulatory Plan • Long–Term (16 – 30+ Years) • Broad concepts, general bands • Reduced fixed service below 6 GHz by 50% in 20 yrs, 90% 30 yrs • Drives Technology Plan

9. Plan Component Relationships Long Term Allocation Plan Unmet Requirements Technology Plan Mid Term Allocation Plan Time Progression Regulatory Plan Near Term Allocation Plan

10. Holistic Approach US National Spectrum Plan US Federal Spectrum Plan US Non-Federal Spectrum Plan US on-Federal Spectrum Plan US Federal Spectrum Plan US on-Federal Spectrum Plan US Federal Spectrum Plan US on-Federal Spectrum Plan US Federal Spectrum Plan US on-Federal Spectrum Plan US Federal Spectrum Plan US Non-Federal Spectrum Plan US Federal Spectrum Plan US Broadcast Spectrum Plan US Air Force Spectrum Plan One Spectrum Plans Must Integrate Vertically & Horizontally

11. Relationship to International Agenda Position on WRC Agenda Items US National Spectrum Plan WRC Decisions Proposals for Future WRC Agenda Items

12. Challenges – It Isn’t Easy • Resources – to do it right • People (talented), money, time • Balancing competing interests • Finding Apples-to-Oranges comparison • Requires Long-Term View • Does not mesh well with short term horizons • Factors we influence, but do not control • International (WRC, ICAO, etc.), Legislative • Unknowns – Particularly Long Term • Technological/societal developments • Natural or manmade events • Transitioning to a long term process

13. Summary & Recommendations • Maximizing national benefit requires long term approach to spectrum management • Present system lacks long term view essential to maximizing benefits Optimum approach is not easy; Present approach is neither easy nor optimum