c-span2. .. >> a company that's trying to build a nationwide wireless broadband network. >> host: well, last week on "the communicators" we talked with sanjiv ahue ya who's the chairman and ceo of lightsquared, a lot of political and scientific interest in the nationwide broadband system that lightsquared is trying to

build across the u.s. and this week we're going to look at some other perspectives on the issue of lightsquared, and now joining us is representative paul brown. he is the chairman of the science and technology committee. congressman brown, you recently held a hearing around lightsquared. >> guest: we did. >> host: what was that hearing about, and what did you learn? >> guest: well, peter, we have been trying to get information from lightsquared because the information we've been able to ascertain thus far is this ground-based broadband network that lightsquared wants to put in place is being fast tracked through the fcc, and this administration is pushing the fcc to approve light square lightsquared's spectrum. everything that we hear from all the experts is that this spectrum, if it's ground-based -- which it wasn't

designed to be -- is going to interfere with everybody's gps in their cars, it's going to interfere, also, with the high, the highly technical gpss that science community utilizes, that the aviation community uses, that particularly the military uses. so the high precision gps very probably is going to be interfered with by lightsquared's going ahead with their ground-based system. now, the spectrum was designed for a very low intensity signal. it was designed to come, be a signal that was broadcast from satellites. but lightsquared is trying to push it through, and this administration seems to be doing also. we've written a lot of documents, a administration has stalled on it. peter, this is just another example of how this administration gives political favors to its major contributors. the fcc chairman is a good

example, has bundled the public record shows he's bundled over $500,000 to the administration. the ceo and major stock owner of lightsquared have given maximum contributions to this campaign, to the obama campaign. they have, in fact, they set up dates to see senior administration officials the same day they wrote these checks which kind of smells to me. and the administration has not given us the transparency that we've asked for. this administration has asked or has told the american public it's going to be totally transparent, but it has been very obscure, and they have blocked every effort. and not only that, when we had the hearing on september the 8th, it was almost a cookie cutter type of testimony from the different administration officials that came before us. the day after we had our

hearing, general shell done was -- sheldon was at the house armed services committee and also testified on this issue, and he has publicly said that they, this administration has put pressure on him to change his testimony. this is deplorable. it's ridiculous, and i'm just very concerned. lightsquared is subject to make billions of dollars of profit if they can be given this spectrum, and the administration's doing everything that they can to fast track it through before it's been vetted, before we have any answers about interference with gps, and every expert that we can get and have come before us have told us that gps is definitely going to be affected by lightsquared's ground-based broadband spectrum.

we've got to stop this. so what did you -- >> host: so what did you learn when you had the national oceanic and atmospheric administration there, department of transportation at your hearing, nasa, was the fcc present at your hearing? >> guest: no, they were not. they refused to come. we've requested through our committee, we've requested a lot of different documents; e-mails, etc. and they've just not been forthcoming at all about these documents. they've just stonewalled, they've done everything that they can to prevent us from getting the information that we need. we have the oversight. we have the responsibility of making sure that the american public and particularly the u.s. government entities such as our u.s. military is not going to be harmed by this spectrum. but the obama administration is just forcing it through without vetting it, without doing anything and not giving to us the information so that we can even know what's going on. and they're trying to do this on

a fast track so that the investors or potential investors will go ahead and invest in this business that's going to give the major people who own lightsquared the kind of profits that are going to be tens of billions of dollars. and it's going to be at the expense of the military and particularly the aviation community as well as government entities such as noaa and other entities that require this high precision gps measurements. lightsquared's going to interfere with those from everything that we can ascertain at this time. we need to slow this process down. the fcc needs to stop trying to fast track this, and we need to do everything we can to make sure that we have a proper vetting of everything dealing with this spectrum before barack obama gives these and this administration gives these political favors to his major contributors. >> host: when we talked with mr. ajuha last week, he talked

about the vetting process that you've mentioned. here's what he had to say. >> guest: the process that is really relevant here is 2003 and 2005 process. 2010 was the change of control was a very long, several months long process. okay? i don't know how it could have been a longer and a more detailed and a more comprehensive process. it was as comprehensive process as i've seen anywhere globally. >> host: congressman broun. >> guest: he's absolutely wrong. they say that they can have filters, and they've made some arrangements with a company to give us filters that supposedly will not, will prevent the interference, but we don't know. those filters haven't even been developed. how can we know? we need to have that information. so he's just written big checks

to the obama campaign. the people are all involved across the board with lightsquared, multiple of the major people with the company have written big checks to the obama campaign. and they're trying to force it through the fcc. the fcc's already given some preliminary okays to go ahead, and we just don't know. and it needs to be slowed down, we need to have a proper vetting, we need to find out what the situation is. this whole spectrum was not designed for a land-based broadband. there are other companies also. this administration is picking winnerses and losers, and the winners that they pick are the people who write big checks to the obama campaign, and this is not right. this is just like solyndra. this is another one of these cases where the obama administration is trying to force the american people to accept something, to give tremendous profits to obama's

political supporters, and it's just not right. >> host: so you're not seeing promise in the technology that lightsquared is proposing? >> guest: we don't know, and that's the thing about it. there's a tremendous potential. everything we can hear there's a tremendous potential that lightsquared's ground-based broadband is going to interfere with high rescission gps -- precision gps. if it can be prevented, fine. but the administration shouldn't be picking winners and losers. certainly, they should not be trying to force things through the fcc and regulatory bodies before we have a proper vetting. just like solyndra. we're getting almost daily information about how there were many warning signs down the road through the bush administration. in fact, the bush administration refused to give them the loans. the obama administration just forced it through. why? because they were big supporters of the president. and this is the same thing that's happening here.

the fcc who is a big supporter, big bummedler for the administration, is taking care of his buddies, it looks like to me. and the military could be harmed, commercial interests could be harmed, and solyndra -- i'm sorry, lightsquared's saying all of us, i'm a pilot. i've got an aviation gps. and lightsquared's saying that i need to spend extra money, the airlines need to spend extra money, anybody in aviation as well as they said that they'd give $50 million to the government for filters, but the the experts tell us that the filters are going to cost billions of dollars. 50 million's not going to scratch it. so we've just got to slow this process down. it has to be vetted. we need transparency from the administration. we need to have all the requests granted and give us the information that we need in our committee so that we can really look at this and understand what's going on before this

administration, before the fcc okays lightsquared going ahead with their ground-based broadband. >> host: and finally, congressman broun, in a letter september 20th to john holdren, the director of the office of science and technology policy, you asked him for some documents. >> guest: absolutely. >> host: what do you ask him for? and this was all the republicans on your committee signed off on this letter but no democrats. >> guest: that's correct. >> host: okay. >> guest: we asked for a lot of documents, e-mails, scientific documents, anything that we could get from the administration. but they stonewalled. we can't get information from noaa, we can't get any information from department of homeland security, we can't get information from the administration. they're withholding it. we're, we have the responsibility in making sure the taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely and that taxpayers are not going to be harmed and the business interests are not going

to be harmed, the jobs are not going to be harmed by what this administration is doing. they're stonewalling all at the same time they're just trying to force through the okay for lightsquared to be able to put in place their ground-based broadband system. it's not right. i'm just asking all the administration to produce what we need to be able to vet this, and the fcc needs to stop this process until we can get that information and we can go forward in a transparent way so we can find out what the science is and what the ramifications of this system that lightsquared wants to put in place. >> host: you put an october 7th deadline in your letter. if you don't get the information, what happens next? is. >> guest: well, we've got to keep on trying. we'll use every, every tool that we have -- >> host: including subpoenas? >> guest: if we have to, absolutely. and we have that power. we have the power to subpoena

people out of the administration if we need to, absolutely, we'll do that. we've got to get this information, and it's very timely that we do it. so the we don't hear anything by october 7th, we're going to start knocking on the door again very strongly. >> host: representative paul broun is chairman of the house science and technology subcommittee, he's a third-term republican from georgia. he also happens to be a medical doctor and, as he said, an airline pilot. >> guest: not an airline pilot -- >> host: right, civilian pilot. >> guest: that uses gps, and i'm really concerned about that. and i'm concerned about the housewives that have a garmin gps in their car to try to find out where to go pick up their babysitter, and lightsquared very possibly, in fact probably, can interfere with her gps. so we can't have that happen. >> host: up next, we're going to talk to a gps manufacturer.

and now on your screen is jim kirkland who is vice president and general counsel of trimble navigation. he is also a founding member of the coalition to save our gps. he joins "the communicators" from mountain view, california. first off, mr. kirkland, what is trimble navigation, and what is the coalition to save our gps? >> guest: sure, peter. trimble navigation is the leading manufacturer of gps equipment for commercial and industrial use. so we focus on high-end industrial applications like agriculture, construction, survey, you name it. the coalition to save our gps was founded of after an initial fcc decision last january granted a waiver to lightsquared to proceed with its buildout of its network. and we're, our mission is to educate policymakers on the gps industry and the implications of that proposal and that we've

been very active on that. >> host: jim kirkland, last week on "the communicators" we talked with sanjiv ahuja, the chairman and ceo of lightsquared, and essentially what he told us was he understood the concerns, and what they have done is they have moved their spectrum usage as far away as possible within their spectrum from gps units to mitigate the danger. >> guest: sure. so, you know, the issue here is that the technical evidence so far in front of the fcc still shows interference even from these modified plans. and that interference effects things like planes trying to land safely, managing logistics and training our troops stateside, farmers using precision agriculture to more efficiently manage their farms. and the gps industry is committed to following through that process and trying to figure out if there's a

technical solution, but so far no technical solution has been proven to the satisfaction of the fcc. >> host: so is it the technology itself that troubles you, or where the spectrum is located, or what? >> guest: so the interference issue is going to arise from a couple things. you know, one way you manage interference is by geographic separation. so, for example, you don't have two tv stations operating on the same frequency in the same market, they are separated by geographic area. and that helps manage interference. the other way you deal with interference is by keeping dissimilar uses pretty far apart. so right now all the wireless networks that operate at high power like lightsquared is proposing to do are very much further away from the gps background than where lightening squared is proposing to use satellite spectrum to provide terrestrial. so it's really a very difficult interference and engineering problem because you have no geographic separation, a gps

receiver could be right next door to a lightening squared broadcasting tower, and you have no separation in the frequency band. so these transmissions are extremely close to the gps band, and a combination of those two things presents very serious interference, and it also makes a very difficult engineering problem to solve. >> host: is it not solvable in your view? >> guest: so there's been progress made through some of the proposals. lightsquared has changed the proposal multiple times over the last six or seven months, and as they change the proposal to move further away in the spectrum band and also decrease their power, they reduce the level of interference, but no one's been able to show or conclude yet that they eliminated for critical uses like aviation, national security, you know, precision agriculture. and that's what the fcc has an ongoing process to determine the gps industry's fully participating in that study

process. and, you know, we're committed to working through the process and seeing if there is a solution. that solution really needs to be very strongly demonstrated, however, before you take risks on things like aviation safety. >> host: now, mr. kirkland, there have been some issues raised whether or not the fcc and the ntia, noaa, etc., are fully vetting lightsquared they should. do you have those same concerns? >> guest: uh-huh. not currently. i think, you know, the fcc and the ntia both were unified in the last couple weeks saying there will be more studies to determine this, and, uni, the right, the right answer here is to complete that process and see, you know, if there are, in fact, solutions that are proven to work. so far the technical evidence doesn't support that, but, you know, we're willing to keep working on that. >> host: jim kirkland, last week in our interview with sanjiv ahuja of lightsquared he talked about the length of the

process, and here's what he had to say, and we'd like to get your response. >> guest: since 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005 some of these commercial device manufacturers, all of them have been aware that there is going to be a network in this spectrum. if i am buying a product that the manufacturer of the product, if i look at it my personal vantage point, manufacturer of the product knew very well that there's a potential network coming in the neighborhood of that because it's been allocated, it has been allowed, fcc has specifically specified the specifications of how that network would look like, i would make sure the devices that i make work and, actually, 400 plus million of those devices work fine. >> host: jim kirkland.

>> guest: so there's a lot packed in there. i think i'll start with what he said last, and that is he says that 400 million devices work fine. that's, in fact, what the fcc and ntia just said a couple weeks ago has not yet been proven and requires more study, so i think that remains to be seen. i think as far as what the fcc approved in the past, if you go back and look at the orders, um, the spectrum they're proposing to use is mobile satellite spectrum. so it was allocated to allow transmissions from a satellite for mobile communications purposes, and in 2001 and 2003 what the fcc allowed was what they called ancillary terrestrial service. and the point of all of that was to fill in holes in the satellite footprint. so in urban areas there are what we call urban canyons where the satellite signals might be blocked by tall buildings, and the fcc said, well, in order to

improve the mobile satellite service, we're going to allow them to build what they call fill-in transmitters on the ground to help supplement the satellite service. and that was all very clear, and the gps industry had a very good working relationship with lightsquared's predecessors, this is a new management team and new owners. and so long as everyone understood that that's what the terrestrial operations were for, the gps industry, the government agencies, everyone was fine. i think what's happened thousann november 2010 is lightsquared came forward and said we want to build a nationwide broadband network throughout the u.s., and that's definitely not what the commission authorized in 2001, 2003. so, of course, gps manufacturers were not going to design their products contemplating something that simply wasn't authorized.

and i think that's a key point because once you understand what the fcc authorized and what the differences are, you know, you also see where the interference problem comes from. because it's much more geographicically ubiquitous, much higher power. basically, trying to cover 92% of the population. >> host: so finally, jim kirkland, do you think lightsquared's concept need to be junked? >> guest: not at all. i think what we need to do is to demonstrate what power levels they can operate at, what spectrum they can operate at, and it may be that, um, the limits on that, on their proposal need to be much stricter than what they've offered, and i think that's been a lot of the issue so far is how can they operate without causing interference to gps. and if that's proven, then i think everyone in the government and the gps industry will be happy to cooperate. so far it hasn't been proven. >> host: jim kirkland is the

vice president and general counsel of trimble navigation, founding member of the coalition to save our gps. save our gps.org is the web site. thank you, mr. kirkland. up next, a political discussion about the issues surrounding lightsquared. and now joining us on "the communicators" is fred schulte, he's with i-watch news where he's a senior reporter, and he's also with the center for public integrity. mr. schulte, why has cpi been writing a series of articles or you specifically been writing a series of articles about lightsquared and its white house connections? >> guest: well, my colleagues and i have been writing about, first of all, about bundlers to the 2008 obama presidential campaign. those were the donors who put together large groups of donations of $50,000 or more and maybe even up to $500,000. and we were looking at what kinds of -- what they got, and did they get anything for their

money, or were they getting jobs, were they getting access to the white house, were they getting contracts and that sort of thing. so we've written a number of stories about a number of different companies that have sort of been swept up in this whole political question, one of which was lightsquared. >> host: and what did you find with regard to lightsquared and the white house? >> guest: well, lightsquared, we originally wrote about them in connection with one of our campaign bundlers, donald gibbs, who was an investor in the company at the time they a i plied to get this waiver from the federal communications -- also one of the bundlers was appointed to be the head of the fcc, julius genachowski. whether there was some politics at play. >> host: is it illegal to, to work with people who are friendly to your campaign or to your -- >> guest: no, it's not illegal at all. i think that one of the bedrock

sort of our coverage of this issue had been around the premise that when barack obama announced his candidacy as a presidential candidate, one of the things he did was he was going to drain the swamp and end business as usual in washington and, you know, not let lobbyists have the run of the place and do these kinds of things. and so we thought that, well, given what we do as the center for public integrity that we ought to look at, you know, what in effect happened with regard to major donors. >> host: did you find anything questionable, mr. schulte, in the e-mails between the white house and lightsquared that you'd like to share? >> guest: well, when we filed the freedom of information act request and got back from the white house a number of e-mails and a number of other records, we were a little bit surprised by the tone of the e-mails, frankly, that some of them, they were very chatty and friendly. but the thing that really caught our eye was that representatives of lightsquared had said that

their ceo was coming into town and wanted to have a meeting with them. and he was going to be in town because he was having a meeting, or he was going to be participating in a fundraiser with the president. and on that same day he did, in fact, give $30,000 contributions. so the way that was sort of subtly and not too subtly depending on your point of view linked did raise some questions for us. >> host: last week we interviewed sanjiv ahuja, the chairman and ceo of lightsquared, and cecilia kang of for washington post was our guest reporter, she asked him specifically about these e-mails. how would you respond to questions based by this -- brought by the center for public integrity that e-mails were exchanged, you know, between white house officials and lightsquared officials to get meetings, um, with white house, um, personnel at the time when you're donating to campaign, the

company? company officials were? >> guest: when you're building a significant network and when you're making a significant technology investment in a country and you look at whether they're telecom operators, technology companies, you pick up the newspaper open it, there are ceos of all of these companies meeting with various government officials as they set up businesses in 30 countries over my career, you go meet with different government officials all the time. >> host: mr. schulte. what did you hear in that answer? >> guest: well, what did he say? [laughter] he didn't say anything about the campaign contributions. i mean, i think he seems to be saying it's sort of business as usual. and, you know, we don't have a position on that one way or the other, you know?

like i said, we started covering these kinds of issues because the candidate who became president of the united states, in fact, made an issue out of access and people with a lot of money getting access to power and getting grants and that sort of thing. and he said very cheerily that that -- clearly that that wasn't going to happen in his administration. and, you know, i'm -- there's nothing illegal about giving a campaign contribution, and it may, in fact, be business as usual, but we cover the relationship between money and politics, and he seems to be acknowledging that there is one. so what would you like to see done with this information that you have put out there on your web site and the best place to find that would be iwatchnews.org, correct? >> guest: that's right. >> host: what do you think should be done with this? should lightsquared be prohibited, in your view, from being allowed to build its network because of its connections to the white house? >> guest: well, honestly, i have no opinion on that, and i don't think i could really do my job

if i had an opinion on that because then i'd get into one side or the other. i mean, i think that there, obviously, are some people who have some serious issues with lightsquared. the center for public integrity, we're not among them. we're just coffering the relationship between money and politics. >> host: and did you find that there were investors from the obama administration or campaign that were in, that had invested in lightsquared's predecessor companies? is. >> guest: yes. >> host: what did you find? >> guest: well, senator obama himself at one time had an investment in it. it's a company that's had a lot of people tied to the obama administration one way or another as investors or supporters. but then again, you know, in defense of them, they believe in what they're doing here. and so sometimes you invest in the things that you believe in. and sometimes there's a political angle to all that. >> host: will you continue to evite about lightsquared as