�

0

Seizing the Wireless Advantage:

Addressing an Increasingly Congested and

Contested Electro-Magnetic Spectrum

PRINCIPAL AUTHOR DAVID SOKOLOW

CONTRIBUTING AUTHOR

MAREN LEED

OCTOBER 2010

i

About CSIS

In an era of ever-changing global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmakers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change.

Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions.

Today, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, DC. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; on the world’s regions and the unique challenges inherent to them; and on the issues that know no boundary in an increasingly connected world.

Former U.S. senator Sam Nunn became chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees in 1999, and John J. Hamre has led CSIS as its president and chief executive officer since 2000.

CSIS does not take specific policy positions; accordingly, all views expressed herein should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2010 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Center for Strategic and International Studies 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 775-3119 Fax: (202) 775-3199 Web: www.csis.org

ii

Contents

About CSIS .................................................................................................................................................................................... i

Conference Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Panel 1: An Operational Perspective on Future Spectrum Challenges and Use ............................................. 2

Keynote Address ...................................................................................................................................................................... .5

Panel 2: Spectrum Implications of Future Technologies………………………………………………………………...7

Panel 3: Increasing US competitive advantage in spectrum-related technologies………………………….11

Key Findings and Areas of Further Inquiry…………………………………………………………………………………15

1

On September 15, 2010 the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) hosted a one-day conference to better understand various perspectives on the future of the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum (EMS). The event brought together key stakeholders from the across the government, industry, and academia, with two intended outcomes. The first was to help develop a common understanding of the current electro-magnetic spectrum (EMS) EMS-related conditions and their implications for US security and prosperity. The second was to begin to identify a basic framework for a comprehensive strategy to better posture the United States for the anticipated EMS future. This document provides a summary of the day’s discussion, and then identifies some of the resulting key findings and areas of potential further inquiry.

Conference Summary

The conference commenced with welcoming remarks by CSIS’s President and CEO Dr. John Hamre. Dr. Hamre opened by noting the disconnect between the importance of EMS and the degree to which it is appreciated, observing that spectrum discussions are typically limited to a small group of experts. He remarked that EMS is a product that has to be regulated, but that the country is struggling to find an effective way to do it. He then related his own experiences with EMS-related issues, noting that he first became aware of their importance when he was serving as the Department of Defense (DoD) Comptroller and learned that DoD was on the verge of losing spectrum critical to military operations. When later serving as the Deputy Secretary, he ensured that DoD was better postured in future interagency discussions to preserve its equity. From his vantage point then, Dr. Hamre has seen DoD playing a “desperate game” to maintain as much spectrum as possible. At the same time, he acknowledged that DoD is not the most efficient user of spectrum. Resolving EMS issues at a strategic level, Dr. Hamre stressed, will necessitate aligning technical expertise with policy, and he lauded the efforts of attendees to move closer toward this goal. Following Dr. Hamre, Dr. Maren Leed, the Director of CSIS’ New Defense Approaches Project, provided some background on why CSIS decided to host the conference. Dr. Leed noted that the conditions on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan had spurred a much greater appreciation for the importance of spectrum, particularly for senior leaders in the Army and Marine Corps. She stated that the technological developments and their implications for EMS have obviated DoD’s organizational structures, further complicating the prospects of crafting a comprehensive solution, even within DoD. Dr. Leed stated that CSIS wanted to have a broader conversation to explore ways to develop a more consistent interagency and public-private approach to EMS -- not just its allocation, but how it is used, while harnessing the market forces related to associated technologies to both enhance US security posture and also our economic competitiveness.

2

Panel 1: An Operational Perspective on Future Spectrum Challenges and Use

http://csis.org/multimedia/audio-addressing-increasingly-congested-and-contested-electro-magnetic-

spectrum-morning-s

Brigadier General Kevin McLaughlin, Deputy J3 at US Strategic Command (STRATCOM), served as the moderator for the first panel, which addressed the national security implications of EMS technologies. Before introducing the panelists, General McLaughlin offered some opening remarks. Given his experiences, the General stated his belief that it is time for the country to develop a broad strategic approach to EMS, and to transition it from a military to a national issue. According to General McLaughlin, spectrum’s transition is analogous to that of other areas such as cyber: a set of niche, boutique technologies managed by DoD to a set driven and managed by the commercial sector. He noted that Combatant Commanders did not previously appreciate the complexities of cyber, but that this has changed. EMS, he stated, is on a similar journey. General McLaughlin cited the advantage US military forces enjoy in superior technologies as being critical to America’s ability to wage war well. He then observed that while the US military has invested billions of dollars in infrastructure to leverage that advantage, this investment rests on the assumption that the glue that holds these systems together, the EMS, will be available. He then cautioned that in the current operating environment this assumption is no longer valid. If access to spectrum were lost or degraded, he stated, the U.S. military’s planning procedures and ability to fight would be substantially affected. Given this reality, General McLaughlin emphasized the need to change the mindset regarding how EMS policy is handled. He also urged a DoD-wide approach to EMS-related training and equipping issues to complement those of the individual military services. General McLaughlin was followed by Donald Boian, the USCYBERCOM J3 Technical Director, who addressed operational issues for EMS from a cyber perspective. Mr. Boian noted that there is significant overlap between EMS and cyber due to DoD’s dependence on information technology. Mr. Boian also observed that the US military plans, trains, and fights using technologies and networking to our advantage, and acknowledged that while those technologies have propelled us forward, they have also created vulnerabilities. He noted that the proliferation of commercial technologies has lowered the entry costs for adversaries and has allowed the creation of more complex networks. Mr. Boian made the point (frequently echoed throughout the day) that we have reached a point where DoD and the USG are no longer the driving factors in spectrum management or standards. Instead commercial industry is the principal force, which suggests that DoD and the broader US Government as a whole must adapt to a new model and protect its interests as appropriate. Mr. Boain asserted that a coordinated and dynamic defense is the appropriate response to secure information systems across the EMS. He further stated that DoD needs to incorporate security and assurance into the design of networks. In his concluding remarks, he emphasized that DoD must be able to protect and defend networks, be prepared to operate in an environment where is denied access to the spectrum, and also have the capabilities to deny spectrum to its adversaries. Next, Mr. Kevin “Spanky” Kirsh, Director of the Office of Special Programs at the Department of Homeland Security, provided a domestic view of national security spectrum challenges. He acknowledged that while DHS has responsibility for many programs and systems directly related to the EMS, it does not have an office assigned to coordinate EMS. Mr. Kirsch emphasized the different approaches to threats in the homeland defense and homeland security arenas: while homeland defense focuses on providing a military response, homeland security officials take a law enforcement approach

3

aimed at arrests and convictions. This difference affects how DHS approaches EMS challenges in contrast to DoD. Mr. Kirsch then enumerated a number of threats with which DHS is concerned, ranging from spectrum-savvy terrorists such as those in Mumbai in 2008 to technologically-inept adversaries along the US border. DHS must also contend with realities that affect domestic spectrum operations such as wind turbines and sensors along the border, while at the same time worrying about related threats such as cyber attacks and electromagnetic pulses. Mr. Kirsh offered an example of some of the challenges associated with operating inside the US, stating that if an improvised explosive device (IED) was found in downtown Washington and DHS’ counter-IED program wanted to employ technology similar to that in Afghanistan to locate and destroy the bomb, doing so would require a waiver from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The third panelist, Mr. Blair Levin of the Aspen Institute, offered some perspectives on EMS issues based on his extensive experience with the FCC (to include as Executive Director of the National Broadband Plan (NBP)). He opened his remarks by observing that, in his experience, most people in Washington are focused on preventing rather than fostering change, and contended that this has hindered necessary changes relative to the EMS. He then went on to discuss some of the shortcomings of the NBP and of US spectrum allocation policy more broadly. According to Mr. Levin, the primary metric for NBP is the speed of the wireline network to the most rural communities. He warned the crowd that this is a profoundly bad idea, and that it is extremely costly. Mr. Levin stressed that US consumers and companies are increasingly moving from wired to wireless networks, greatly increasing EMS demands, and that US spectrum policy and processes are ill-suited to this reality. He emphatically stated that lack of sufficient spectrum is the greatest threat to realizing the economic benefits of broadband networks over the next ten years. Therefore, he argued, the US should immediately start taking steps to put more spectrum into the market, since doing so takes between 6-13 years. In addition to questioning whether enough spectrum will be available, Mr. Levin challenged the continued relevance of current processes for how that spectrum is allocated. Currently, the US allocates spectrum on the basis of historical precedents rather than on technology, markets or consumers. Mr. Levin argued that this system is dangerous and could have a significant negative impact on the economy; that said, he acknowledged the substantial political obstacles to change. Mr. Levin concluded his remarks by making two points. First, he repeated the Wall Street adage to “own the inevitable.” In the EMS context, Levin asserted that explosion in spectrum-intensive devices such as the iPhone will result in a spectrum crunch, particularly in major urban areas. As a result, he cautioned, current spectrum owners who think they can protect existing allocations without substantial pressures coming to bear are kidding themselves. Second, he observed that the US government typically responds to crises much better than it prevents them. Despite that reality, he urged that if the US government wishes to avoid an EMS crisis in the next half of the decade, it must act now. Jaymie Durnan, the Senior Advisor to the Principal Deputy Director Defense Research & Engineering (AT&L), served as the final panelist. His remarks focused on how Office of the Secretary of Defense views future spectrum challenges. Mr. Durnan asserted that the US has a fragile lead in electronic warfare/cyber technologies. However, he argued, the U.S. advantage is dissipating, leading to an all-polar EMS world. Within DoD, Mr. Durnan reported that they are looking at new technologies and scientific approaches to find more space within the spectrum. He stated that DoD needs to figure out how to shorten timelines for fielding systems from 7 to 8 years to 7 to 8 months.

4

Mr. Durnan then argued that despite the increasingly accelerating pace of spectrum technology advancements, the DoD cannot afford to buy new devices and throw them away at the same pace as consumers. To get the warfighter the most advanced technology as soon as possible, Mr. Durnan said that DoD is looking at deferring customization and exploring modular, open-systems architectures. He acknowledged that DoD will need to increase its collaboration with the commercial sector while respecting their intellectual property concerns. Finally, he said that the DoD is leaning on its systems engineering and development test and evaluation groups to help develop more agile and adaptive systems. When asked about whether we need broadcast television in the US, Mr. Levin declined to offer a direct opinion on the matter, instead focusing on a potential alternative model for allocating EMS. He agreed that the question of whether television should go to a broadcast mode is an important one, and that its past treatment also serves to illustrate his earlier statement that Washington is devoted to precluding change. He reported that his past suggestions for reconsidering the current allocation process were met with “ballistic” responses from broadcasters, which he acknowledged is understandable. However, he claimed, there should be room for an honest debate about the issue. Mr. Levin then offered an alternative allocation model based on incentive auctions. This system would allow broadcasters to sell EMS to wireless companies needing more access. It would encourage television broadcasters to improve their use of EMS or find alternative ways of broadcasting, and would be a fair and effective path to reallocation. Mr. Levin acknowledged the challenge of extending a market-based model to the government, however, since the military lacks incentives to use the EMS more efficiently. The panelists also addressed a question about how to better link the regulatory and policy communities to craft EMS solutions that take into account advances in technology. Mr. Kirsh contended that the policy community’s lack of comprehension of the scientific issues and lack of security clearances presents a significant challenge. To mitigate these shortcomings, his practice is to conduct longer meetings and to include at least one person who can serve as a translator between the scientists and the policy community. Mr. Levin addressed the question in its broader context. Given the U.S. shortcomings in creating long-term plans, he argued, the best solution is to develop a long-term dynamic EMS strategy that enables the creation of enough space for good things to happen, since the government does not know what technologies will have the greatest impact in the long-term. That space, he argued, is critical to allowing for experimentation and innovation. Another audience member asked if, because the EMS had been relatively uncontested in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military had developed a false sense of security about access to EMS in expeditionary missions. The panel concurred that this was not the case. General McLaughlin said that the commanders responsible for expeditionary operations are aware of the challenges posed in different theaters. He acknowledged that DoD may not have all the answers, but that the military is incorporating a potential lack of spectrum into its plans. Mr. Durnan concurred, adding that DoD is spending lots of time and money on rapid acquisition and fielding relevant systems to account for greater enemy use of EMS. However, he also noted that the domestic spectrum environment sometimes complicates realistic testing of those systems, and that as a result certain systems may function in a more pristine US testing environment but not in the field. For this reason, he said, the DoD is focusing on incremental innovation and modular open systems architectures to test equipment prior to fielding. Mr. Kirsch chimed in by noting that prudent planning requires being prepared for a bullet to destroy your communications systems.

5

Keynote Address

http://csis.org/multimedia/video-audio-addressing-increasingly-congested-and-contested-electro-

magnetic-spectrum-rep Following the first panel, Congressman Rick Larsen (2nd District, Washington) delivered the keynote address. He began by noting two obstacles he observes during his discussions with his peers in the Congress and with some senior officials in DoD about electronic warfare (EW) and EMS issues. The first is the inherent challenge associated with abstract or intangible concepts like spectrum that cannot be seen or felt. The second is its highly technical nature; he observed that many of the devices that manipulate the EMS are mysterious to everyone but the technical experts. Despite those challenges, however, the Congressman asserted the criticality of the issue, claiming that controlling the EMS is essential to winning wars, controlling the battlefield, and protecting servicemembers. In the next part of his speech, Congresman Larsen acknowledged that his interest in EMS has principally been in the realm of EW, because his district includes Naval Air Station Whidbey Island (the home of the Navy’s EW Wing). He noted that, outside of his district, many others associate EW with the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). Both of these conceptions, he argued, are too narrow even for EW, which is much broader and incorporates many other systems. In recent years, countering IEDs has been at the forefront of EW. Congressman Larsen recounted that this focus led to the deployment of many members of the Navy to provide EW expertise to Army and Marine forces. Going forward, the Congressman sees that the key issue from his perspective as a member of the Armed Services Committee is how to address the EW issue as the IED threat diminishes. He reported that he and Congressman Joe Pitts (PA), with whom he co-chairs the EW Working Group, conducted a study to determine future EMS control requirements. That study concluded that the DoD should focus on ensuring adequate training and readiness, technology and investment, and leadership. With regard to training and readiness, the report concluded that EW capabilities are really human ones. Therefore, the Congressman argued, DoD needs a core cadre of individuals to help the services identify the EW threats, develop solutions to these threats, and to coordinate EW systems in the operational theater to ensure the US has EMS control. On technology and investment, the study found that money pours into EW during wartime, but is greatly reduced during times of peace. Congressman Larsen stressed the need to break the feast or famine funding model and provide a more steady, coordinated stream of investment into EW, even if the DoD’s budget is reduced. DoD needs to coordinate better with industry to ensure that it is making the right investments since DoD does not evolve as quickly as the commercial sector. The third and final area that the study addressed was EW leadership and organization. Congressman Larsen described leadership on these issues within the military services and in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as good. The challenge, however, is that this leadership is stovepiped and uncoordinated. This opinion was shared, he noted, in a study conducted by US STRATCOM, which concluded that the lack of unified EW leadership is the number one problem facing the military’s ability to control the EMS. Congressman Larsen argued that creating an EW career path would increase the clout and credibility of EW overall. Along similar lines, he asserted that each of the military services should have a flag or general officer dedicated to EW, and that there should be a joint organization for EW to coordinate and advocate for mutually reinforcing EW capabilities and capacities. Congressman Larsen stated that DoD is focused on the challenge and is conducting several studies on the subject that cover a broad range of EW and EMS issues. He declared that should the studies be

6

completed on time, they could help inform near-term budget and program decisions, potentially bringing about changes in the next 18 months. As DoD does its part, he is working to raise awareness of EMS in Congress. To that end, he reported that last year he sponsored an amendment to the defense authorization bill requiring the DoD to submit an annual EW report to Congress for the subsequent five years that would include information on EW strategy, leadership, and programs. While the first annual report is overdue and has not yet been submitted, the Congressman stated that he is pleased with some of the steps DoD is taking to address the EW challenges. That being said, he would like to see the report and would like to have hearings on the subject at some point early next year. The Congressman concluded his remarks by talking about his recent visit to Afghanistan. He stated that demand for EW capabilities remains high from both US and coalition forces. EW is saving lives there in a variety of ways other than countering IEDs, he reported. Finally, he noted, the trip highlighted the need to improve our cooperation with our allies on EW issues. After his keynote address, the Congressman fielded questions from the audience. Responding to a question about how to potentially get around the political challenges to developing more realistic EW training ranges inside the US, Congressman Larsen was somewhat pessimistic, noting that EMS technologies are crucial to our economy and that at present the economy is the most pressing issue. He added, however, that he and Congressman Pitts have written the FCC urging them to protect DoD interests in its spectrum allocations. Echoing some of Mr. Levin’s remarks, he observed that FCC’s allocation processes are not the most efficient. Finally, he urged that the EW community explore options for more efficient methods of spectrum use. When asked how to improve awareness about the importance of EW and EMS issues in the Congress, Rep. Larsen reiterated that all politics is local, and suggested that the best way is to raise EW issues through industry, academia, or military bases within a Member’s district. In response to a question concerning enhancing coordination among the many Congressional committees who have oversight over elements of spectrum to create better policy, Congressman Larsen stated that, in fact, there are relatively few committees of jurisdiction, so he does not see this as a substantial obstacle. He then added that in the DoD context, he does not believe that additional legislative authority is necessary to accomplish what he thinks DoD should be doing. Later, Congressman Larsen stated that he had been communicating with senior DoD leadership about how to best organize DoD for spectrum control, its use in information operations, and EMS investment, acquisition and strategy. He reiterated that although DoD is doing each of these tasks well, it is doing so inefficiently since the efforts are not coordinated.

7

Panel 2: Spectrum Implications of Future Technologies

http://csis.org/multimedia/addressing-increasingly-congested-and-contested-electro-magnetic-

spectrum-panel-2 Dr. Vanu Bose, the President and CEO of Vanu Incorporated, served as the moderator for the conference’s second panel. Dr. Bose opened the discussion by noting that commercial industry, not DoD or the defense industry, is driving the technological leadership in wireless systems. Furthermore, he added, wireless technology leadership is leaving the US, citing the purchase of all of the major US wireless entities by European companies and noting that the nexus of wireless development is shifting to Europe and China. He also asserted that the rise of Chinese vendors presents a potential security threat, citing the case of India. Dr. Bose stated that China had made substantial investments in India’s wireless telecommunications infrastructure. India then discovered that the Chinese equipment contained trap doors, and has subsequently banned Chinese telecommunications systems in border regions. Despite the negative trends concerning the U.S. wireless technology leadership, Dr. Bose believes there is hope for the future since the strength of the U.S. economy is innovation and start-up companies. However, he stated that there is not a good link between DoD and start-ups at present. Following Dr. Bose, Dr. Ali Khayrallah, the Director of Research at Ericcson, amplified the discussion of commercial trends. First, Dr. Khayrallah discussed the convergence in celluar standards, infrastructure between wireless and wirelined systems, and terminals. According to Dr. Khayrallah, the majority of the convergence work is being conducted in Silicon Valley rather than overseas, so concerns about “offshoring” are not as relevant here. The second major trend he discussed is the growth in the use of EMS. He reported that at present there are approximately 5 billion cellular subscriptions, but that by 2020 we could be living in a world of 50 billion subscriptions, with machine-to-machine, vehicles, and utilities accounting for much of the exponential growth in wireless spectrum demand. In addition to subscriptions, Dr. Khayrallah also foresees a massive growth in the use of data. Recently, data outstripped voice over wireless networks for the first time, and new smart phones consume exponentially more data than past models. Taking exception to several speakers’ assertions that technology is outpacing policy, Dr. Khayrallah declared that leading edge technologies actually change over relatively slowly. For example, he noted, each generation in G wireless networks took about ten years. Therefore, he said the key is to create the correct strategy at the outset. He stated that in the future, Ericsson is looking at spectrum flexibility and variable bandwidth. The second panelist, Dr. Kaigham Gabriel, the Deputy Director of DARPA, presented his agency’s views of the implications of future EMS technologies. Dr. Gabriel reiterated rising demands for spectrum in the future, with data being the key driver of demand. According to him, DoD is in a unique position since it has to operate in all environments, from dense urban environments to desolate ones. Dr. Gabriel believes there have been three fundamental changes that technology has enabled. First, commercial RF has created an effective infrastructure. Second, the same technology is enabling new ways of sharing spectrum. Third, the world is a smaller space and RF spectrum is not wide-open, creating the need for interference-limited systems. In light of these changes and DARPA’s mission to prevent technological surprise from adversaries while enabling it for the US, Dr. Gabriel stated that the agency was exploring several paths. Dr. Gabriel stated that trends in the pace of technological change indicate there will be a greater need to manage interference and create better policy in this area in particular. Along similar lines, he foresaw the need for a more fulsome set of policies that differentiate between different parts of the EMS, and also between different spectrum uses. He reported that DARPA is exploring extending dynamic spectrum

8

access as one path toward creating greater capacity within the EMS. DARPA is also exploring enhancements to radio performance, frequency, time space, and coding. Still other efforts are aimed at how to better manage the interference associated with multiple users within the same spectrum band. Finally, DAPRA’s work related to networking includes an exploration of how multiple nodes cooperate and share. Dr. Gabriel concluded by reiterating that spectrum is becoming increasingly important for both DoD and the commercial world, and that EMS security is a great concern. At end of the day, he averred, spectrum is fundamental for DoD in the battle space. Given that, the question is how DoD can share the EMS in a dynamic environment, while at the same time maintaining and ensuring its communications. John Chapin from MIT opened by stating that he agreed with two points made in the paper provided as a conference read-ahead.1 First, he also sees US EMS leadership as a strategic imperative. Second, he concurred that future US military wireless and EMS systems must draw from commercial research and development, and therefore research and development by commercial entities must result in dual-use technology and products. Dr. Chapin asserted that spectrum policy represented the best lever for DoD to meet these objectives, and offered two recommendations on how best to accomplish this. First, the DoD should support rather than resist substantial new allocations of spectrum for commercial wireless use, even if they draw in part from spectrum currently allocated to the DoD. Second, the DoD should support the sharing of its spectrum between ongoing DoD use and commercial industry within the continental US. He argued that allocating more spectrum to commercial uses will further stimulate commercial investment and research and development in EMS-related technologies. He also predicted that having the DoD willingly participate in shaping ways to share spectrum will result in outcomes more favorable to DoD interests as compared to the inevitable alternative of reallocation of spectrum away from the DoD over its objections. He added that if DoD perceives the threat of technology before its advantage, it may try to deter the technology’s development. This in turn will hurt US interests in the long-term, because if there is significant commercial interest that development will occur overseas, complicating US insight into the resulting technologies. Dr. Mike Nelson, Visiting Professor of Internet Studies in Georgetown University's Communication, Culture, and Technology Program, concluded the panel’s remarks by emphasizing the need to develop a bumper sticker of six to eight words to explain the importance of spectrum policy. This, he argued, would greatly increase the ability of the EMS community to influence more than three or four Members of Congress. To formulate future EMS policy, Dr. Nelson stated it is necessary to forecast the environment in 2020 and work backwards. First, he envisions a seismic shift to cloud computing, requiring multiple devices to reach the cloud via broadband. Second, he, like Dr. Khayrallah, predicts a future of hundreds of billions of devices using the EMS. Dr. Nelson hypothesized a future of 50-100 devices per person in their houses, lawn, cars, kitchens etc. Of these, short distance devices would require greater reliability than current spectrum use supports. In these future systems, Dr. Nelson argued, privacy must be built in a manner understandable to the user, such that personal data is protected and cannot be hacked into and in a manner that assures the National Security Agency and/or the Federal Bureau of Investigation will not take the data. He warned that if the government develops trap doors there will be no trust, and without that trust there will be no investment in technology. In his concluding remarks, Nelson opined that better use of spectrum could fundamentally change how the US approaches homeland security. To tackle the terrorist threat, he envisions that we will

1 Gaining the Economic and Security Advantage for the 21

St Century: A Strategic Framework for Electromagnetic

Spectrum Control. http://www.disa.mil/dso/Strategy_EMS_Control_31AUG2010.pdf

9

need to rely on average Americans empowered with data from wireless technologies. Citing the passengers of Flight 93 as an example, he foresees a future in which the US can be defended by many citizens crafting an on-the-spot solution. He noted this trend will occur overseas as well. For example, Al Jazeera has handed out flip phones throughout the Middle East in order to have people record breaking news. Dr. Nelson suggested that the US should consider distributing mobile devices to people in all the hotspots in the world, and that our future spectrum policy should be designed in a manner to enable spectrum access for these devices. During the question and answer period, the panel addressed several questions about future technologies. In response to a question about why we have not perfected dynamic spectrum access, Dr. Gabriel asserted that it is a multifaceted solution, requiring more than just technology. He acknowledged that there are cultural, financial, practical, training and maintenance bureaucracies within DoD that are resistant to new techniques. However, he thought that new, dynamic EMS technologies present an opportunity since they can be used in specific technological demonstrations to prove that there is no loss of access or capability to DoD. Dr. Chapin added his view that the lack of dynamic spectrum access boils down to trust issues. He asserted that dynamic spectrum use separates risk and benefit: the entities coming into the spectrum already being used by the US government reap all the benefit, while current spectrum owners incur all the risk and have difficulty seeing the reward in sharing. To manage this dynamic, Dr. Chapin suggested that technology might be able to help. It is possible, he suggested, to develop technological mechanisms to quickly identify sources of interference, and, if necessary, rapidly shut them down. For example, he posited, radios could have a “black box” akin to those in airplanes that would highlight the devices creating interference and have companies modify them to eliminate the problem. To shut down devices causing interference in the EMS, he suggested that commercial radio systems should have to periodically download codes from a regulated database to continue operating. These types of solutions would help to build trust. Dr. Nelson acknowledged that the current system does not provide DoD with any incentives for more efficient EMS use. In response to a question on how to reform the Service acquisition process in light of obstacles in Congress and within DoD, Dr. Gabriel acknowledged that DARPA is limited to developing the technology and offering possible ways to change in light of the new capabilities. DARPA leverages the commercial base, he stated, and compliments it with two-year buy cycles. To achieve a solution, he emphasized the need to coordinate with the Hill, with budget cycles, and with Service acquisition processes, and to create the right incentives for the commercial industry. Dr. Bose remarked upon the need for DoD to explore ways to modify devices after purchasing them commercially. For example, he suggested that the government could purchase commercial Android phones that have secure digital slots into which they could plug encryption systems in order to meet some basic military standards. To establish policies that promote government-private sector collaboration for dual-use technologies, Dr. Chapin suggested more interaction with small and medium size companies. Dr. Gabriel said that DARPA’s role as part of the DoD has been underappreciated in this regard. As the first adopter, DoD is willing to buy small quantities of dual-use technologies from startups. If DARPA and DoD buy products, this in turn gives them legitimacy and can spur the interest of large industry. In response to question on how to change the culture of how DoD acquires radios and the defense industry’s approach to radio construction, Dr. Gabriel stated that the best way to change a culture was to change the incentives. He observed that there is no financial incentive for industry to change from 20-year acquisition cycles with associated long maintenance tails which generate significant amounts of revenue. To change this, he argued, DoD needs to encourage competition. However, he thought

10

consumerization in DoD would help mitigate these issues. Along these lines, Dr. Nelson relayed his experience as part of IBM, in which the company created small groups of people with the sole charter of developing innovations. He encouraged DoD to take similar steps, enabling small groups to develop technological solutions that could be applied throughout the DoD, and creating rewards for this behavior.

11

Panel 3: Increasing US competitive advantage in spectrum-related technologies

http://csis.org/multimedia/audio-addressing-increasingly-congested-and-contested-electro-magnetic-

spectrum-panel-2 Dr. Linton Wells of the National Defense University moderated the final panel, which addressed increasing US competitive advantage in spectrum-related technologies and enhancing public-private partnerships. He opened the panel with an anecdote about NDU trying to partner with a company for a conference but, despite national policy advocating more partnerships, being unable to do so because the lawyers said that the partnership would violate ethics laws. He offered this as one illustration that the law has not kept pace with high level policy advocating private-public partnerships. He noted that in order to actually partner with private companies, the U.S. would need to address this issue. Dr. David Aucsmith, Senior Director of Microsoft’s Institute for Advanced Technology in Governments, was the first panelist. Dr. Aucsmith observed that three failures that characterize the cyber environment are similarly relevant to EMS. First, for the most part worldwide, private industry owns the infrastructure, but government owns the problems. This, he noted, produces an “interesting” tension. Second, public-private partnerships are hampered by classification and the manacles it places on the information sharing that is crucial to the development of fruitful partnerships. Third, the DoD normally partners with the same private entities, those that comprise the defense industry. However in the EMS realm, he argued, DoD needs to partner with radically different companies, since these industries are driving spectrum innovation. Along these lines, he mentioned that Microsoft has annual research budget of $9.8 billion, about three times larger than that of DARPA. Dr. Aucsmith then identified three major trends that affect spectrum. First, he noted the major shift from wired to wireless systems. This transformation has major implications, he claimed, especially since most of the adoption of wireless will occur outside the US, and the US may end up having to follow the rest of the world. Second, he perceives a shift where people are now taking technologies from home and incorporating them into their workplace, as opposed to vice versa in past. Third, he sees major changes in the unit of replaceability – not just phones, but also data centers. These items have become disposable in the private sector. DoD’s reliance on circuit boards and aversion to disposing of items, he observed, will make it difficult for private entities to enter into partnerships with the DoD. Dr. Aucsmith was followed by Dr. Andrew Clegg, Director of the National Science Foundation’s Enhancing Access to the Radio Spectrum (EARS) program. He also remarked upon the US’ increasing reliance on wireless technologies for economic development, defense, homeland defense, and entertainment. However, he warned, the U.S. competitive advantage in engineering and science of spectrum is waning. He characterized AT&T and Bell as shells of their former selves, and observed that most of the major wireless innovation and commercialization is occurring overseas. According to Dr. Clegg, this presents a threat to our national security and economy. To help mitigate similar negative trends occurring more broadly in the scientific and technological communities, Dr. Clegg offered that the National Science Foundation (NSF) provides support for science and engineering research by U.S. academics, commercial industry, consumers, and government agencies. Dr. Clegg stated that there is a need to better coordinate research efforts towards a common goal, and reported that the NSF is working to establish better mechanisms to do so, both within the NSF and with other government entities. Dr. Clegg then described the genesis of the EARS program, which he directs, as the nexus of the NSF’s spectrum work. Substantively, the program is focused on the objective of

12

increasing the efficiency of spectrum use in all of its funding tracks, across multiple disciplines. Although EARS will not be funded until FY 2012 at the earliest, Dr. Clegg reported that the program is already planning to engage the appropriate communities. He also noted that the NSF is hoping to expand its relationship with commercial and public safety sectors in particular, in order to better understand user requirements. Colonel John Hickey (US Army) of the Defense Information Systems Agency’s Joint Spectrum Center followed Dr. Clegg. Colonel Hickey opened his remarks by addressing a few issues that had arisen in earlier discussions. First, he disagreed with characterizations of DoD as adverse to change, instead arguing the importance of acknowledging that change can come with a price. He also claimed that the DoD does in fact share spectrum with allies, but acknowledged that more progress can be made in this area. Finally, he stated that the DoD is interested in new spectrum polices, but that any alternatives must take into account DoD long-term interests. After these remarks, he then described the Defense Spectrum Organization’s (DSO) lines of operation. First, the DSO conducts global operations using background data from DoD, civilian, and allied emitters. In conducting operations, he stressed that the DoD does share spectrum and that it also promotes its efficient use, but acknowledged that DoD legacy systems present challenges to efficiency. Data is an important line of operation for the DSO, he stated. To operate efficiently, the DSO needs to be aware of who is using the spectrum so it culls data from outside organizations to use in its software and tools. The DSO has also taken important steps such as establishing a data standard, in conjunction with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). It has also teamed with the NTIA to create software which includes tools and modules to reuse spectrum that is available to other federal agencies and to allies through foreign military sales. The DSO also works on technology innovation, COL Hickey reported, and has been partnering with DARPA and small startups in this area for years. He stressed that the key is to move these partnerships from demonstration efforts into the more formal acquisition processes, and stated that the DoD needs the help from industry to expand its partnerships with small startup companies. The final and most important DoD activity related to spectrum, COL Hickey stated, is legislative work focused on sharing EMS nationally on fast-track bands and the National Broadband Plan. DoD is looking at what it can feasibly do within five years for fast-track and ten years for the long-term plan. He said that most of that information is still close hold and still being analyzed. He stated that the DSO can reuse spectrum at the tactical level, but that the more difficult issue is how to do it a strategic level, which requires substantial cooperation. COL Hickey emphasized his view that the country needs a national spectrum strategy that contains clear objectives and timelines, which is a construct that goes beyond the National Broadband Plan. He also stressed the need for more investment in spectrum-related technologies beyond the efforts of the individual military services. He believes that the DoD needs more rules, restrictions, and policies to mandate investment in spectrum, as well as a regulatory organization capable of enforcement. Michael Jones, Chief Technology Officer for Google, was the next panelist. He described Google’s approach to innovation as, employing an empirical: testing multiple approaches to see what works, allowing for failure, and retaining the successes. With regard to spectrum, Google sees its role in spectrum and broadband allocation to create demand for more networking and wireless. Accordingly,

13

Google seeks partnerships both with government, since it controls the spectrum, as well as with the private sector companies who make the technology that enables access to wireless and broadband. Mr. Jones asserted that Google has become increasingly frustrated by constraints to wireless innovations, be they spectrum policy, allocation, or the broader regulatory environment. The company, he stated, is looking for an effective, practical way forward. Along these lines, Google believes that there is a disconnect between consumer desires and the interests of many of the entrenched entities who currently own portions of the EMS and are seeking to maximize their returns. To that end, Google approached the FCC and asked them to require more transparency from the winners of spectrum auctions on what services they would supply to consumers and offered to pay more money if the FCC enacted these rules. Google subsequently bid on spectrum that it hypothetically could not use. Ultimately, other companies outbid Google, but Google was able to advance the rules and the company’s goals of greater visibility into consumer benefit. Along similar lines, Mr. Jones noted that Google has been unsuccessful in its attempts to convince commercial industry to invest in micro and nano-cell sites that would enable short-range use of the EMS and free up bandwidth. Therefore, the company has been providing academics, researchers, and startups with funding in hopes of making the commercial industry realize the value of these products. This embodies Google’s business approach, which is to fund multiple paths of innovation and see what works. In contrast, he observed that the government aims to ensure things do not fail, and if there’s the perception that it might then it hires a consultant. In his experience, this mindset precludes innovation. Based on the culture differences, he noted that Google has not found many good partnerships in DC. To improve private-public partnerships, he urged the government to stand down and let the business take a more active role. Finally, he suggested that the government should become more comfortable with failure and try a wider variety of approaches. John Kneuer, the President of JKC Consulting, LLC and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, was the final panelist. He opened by asserting that environment today is fundamentally different than in the past. One change is the enormous pressure on the spectrum resulting from the explosion of technology, the dramatic rise in the number of users, and the 100-fold increase in the amount of data they are using. The technological innovations that are driving consumer demand are also bringing capabilities to the DoD and other government agencies, he observed, who need access to the spectrum and comparable consumer-like technology to accomplish their missions. Given this reality, Mr. Kneuer asserted that the US government and commercial industry will need to share more in the future with regard to technology, networks, and spectrum. He believes the National Broadband Plan had some good ideas in this regard. He opined that both the strength and the failing of the Plan was that too many smart people worked on it. They did not, however, have a monopoly on good ideas, which also come from individuals at companies like Microsoft and Google. In order to foster a policy environment that permits for continuing innovation, investment, and leadership, he stressed that we need fewer good ideas and a more robust processes to resolve competition among them. Mr. Kneuer stated that prescriptive policy will not work. Instead we need better processes that allow for the resolution of competing ideas and enable technology to lead the way. Overall, he believes the problems we face today from the innovation in spectrum are good problems to have since they have created so many benefits for society. During the question and answer period, the panel field several questions on how to improve public-private partnerships and how private companies succeed in the market place. One questioner asked how small

14

start ups could improve their chances of having their systems acquired by the DoD. COL Hickey responded that the best approach is to partner with or subcontract to companies that already have DoD contracts. With regard to a question about how industry avoids technological surprise, Dr. Aucsmith quipped “we fail a lot.” He noted that industry is not afraid to fail and that product shelf lives are short. Mr. Kneuer added that in industry, technology surprise is good, not bad, and Mr. Jones further observed that it serves as industry’s only weapon. He described companies as engaged in a continuous cycle of surprising and being surprised by their competitors, which spurs innovation and results in greater benefits to consumers. He added that the openness and competition in the American economy helps industry avoid tech surprise since companies can see other companies’ innovations and can react, whereas secrecy hinders the government from reacting to or sharing classified technological developments. When asked about what the US should do to mitigate the movement of innovation overseas, Mr. Kneuer contended that this perception is overblown. Citing Apple iPhones, which are designed in California and built in China, he contended that the critical innovation was happening in the US even though the manufacturing and assembly is occurring overseas. That division of labor is favorable and positive, he argued. A question about who should be responsible for creating a national strategy aimed at increasing collaboration between government and private sector revealed widely varying opinions. Mr. Kneuer questioned whether a strategy was needed at all, and warned against assigning responsibility to a single organization. Instead, he argued that a well-defined and managed process to foster private-public innovation and investment would add more value than a strategy which was likely to be outdated before it was printed. He thought that transferring technology back and forth between industry and government presented an excellent mechanism to spur innovation and EMS investment. Furthermore, he asserted, it would be helpful if the government institutionalized its use of commercial networks and use of modified commercial systems into the concept of operations for using EMS inside the US. Having already expressed his view that a strategy is needed, Colonel Hickey said he thought its development should be led by the NTIA and the FCC, and then approved at higher level. He noted that the strategy would need buy-in and input from key interests and from all federal agencies.

15

Key Findings and Areas of Further Inquiry

CSIS’s conference on the electromagnetic spectrum confirmed many longstanding notions and offered some new insights on challenges to spectrum management, use, and future technological development. The conference illustrated that even among experts, the issues related to spectrum and related technologies are so numerous and diverse that it is difficult to engage in a discussion captures the full scope of inter-relationships. Further, bridging the conceptual (and apparently growing) divide between the national security community and the economic policy and private sector community is a monumental challenge. Ultimately, two major threads of discussion emerged: one about spectrum management and use, and one more specifically relating to spectrum-related technologies and their implications for national security in particular. With respect to overall spectrum management and use:

• Expert panelists agreed that advances in wireless technologies in particular will drive dramatic increases in the demand for EMS. This is due to explosions both in the expected number of “subscriptions” and in their data-intensiveness (e.g. the Internet of Things and machine-to-machine wireless connections).

• There was also a consensus among conference participants that current policies and practices cannot accommodate this demand, and therefore that a crisis is likely within the next ten years. Many panelists made the point that failing to adapt our policies and/or identify new solutions to spectrum use in the face of this fact will have significant negative effects on our economy and on our ability to conduct homeland security and national defense missions.

• The general consensus appeared to be that increased sharing of spectrum and a more dynamic process for spectrum allocation are inevitable. Multiple panelists identified obstacles – political, cultural, and technical – to achieving these aims, but some offered potential solutions as well.

• It was not apparent that the DoD (and to a lesser extent, Homeland Security) community has accepted the inevitable and dramatic shifts that will be required in spectrum policies foreseen by the economic policy, commercial, and academic participants. Instead, the national security community representatives implicitly suggested that some version of the status quo must persist, given the imperative of the security mission. This was a significant disconnect in the day’s discussions.

With respect to the security implications of trends in spectrum-related technologies:

• There was a broad consensus that DoD’s current policies, practices and culture are ill-suited to a rapidly-changing technical world that is overwhelmingly driven by consumer demand. DoD’s market power was characterized as small and shrinking by numerous private sector representatives, which suggests that absent change, the gap between commercial capabilities and those available to our military will increase.

• There was substantial discussion about the challenge of sustaining innovation in EMS-related technologies in the US, which is particularly important to the national security community in that it increases the likelihood of insight into capabilities available to potential adversaries. Private sector representatives in the day’s discussion highlighted many of the challenges DoD and the US government more generally will face in seeking to preserve that innovation (not least of which is the lack of a shared view of the nature and magnitude of any problem).

16

Overall, the conference made substantial progress in achieving its first objective of enhancing a shared understanding of where the EMS environment is heading, and of some of the related economic and security implications. There was less of a consensus about the contours of, or even the need for, a more comprehensive strategy to address that changing reality. The latter subject is one that may be ripe for further discussion. The conference also illuminated other interesting questions, to include:

� What is the most effective way to modify spectrum use and allocation policies and processes before a crisis occurs?

o What are the principal obstacles to change? o What alternatives to market-driven models might create better incentives to progress for

government agencies? o What role can and should DoD and/or the Congress play in this process?

� Apart from ongoing efforts to modify DoD’s acquisition policies, what are the most critical steps the Defense Department could take to adapt to an EMS environment propelled by commercial demand, both to maximize its ability to leverage commercial developments and to minimize its vulnerability to disruption?

CSIS intends to explore these questions in more depth, in partnership with conference participants and any others who might wish to participate. CSIS anticipates conducting additional public events on these topics, as well as developing a more focused research agenda. Ideas and commentary on this subject are most welcome, and should be directed to Maren Leed at mleed@csis.org.