FCC SPECTRUM TASK FORCE TO FOCUS ON FLEXIBLE USE, EFFICIENCY
New FCC task force on spectrum policy will examine issues such as how to balance rights of incumbents vs. newcomers and whether and how to reward licensees for using their spectrum efficiently, FCC officials said Wed. “Is there a way possibly to reward incumbents to upgrade their technology so it would be easier to use the spectrum in a more efficient fashion?” asked Office of Engineering & Technology (OET) Chief Edmond Thomas. “There’s always a compromise here. There’s the rights of the incumbent and the rights of the people adjacent to them and there’s the rights of the new people coming in,” he said, with that dynamic creating need for “Solomon-like” decisions. Thomas spoke on spectrum panel at broadband conference sponsored by Georgetown U., FCBA and FCC. He outlined issues on which interagency task force would focus in coming up with recommendations on spectrum management changes. FCC said last week that Paul Kolodzy, who had been program manager with Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, would head task force (CD Feb 13 p8).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Among questions for task force is whether different policy standards are appropriate for different bands, which vary in levels of congestion, Thomas said. He likened that potential scenario to zoning laws, which vary from congested urban areas to less-populous suburbs. “That’s a very important issue,” he said. “The question is, does that make any sense.” Another issue is obligations of incumbents, he said, because incumbents with poorly designed systems could make it difficult for newcomers to operate in that spectrum with newer, more efficient technologies. “There is a real question,” Thomas said. “Are there any obligations for appropriate system design or is it up to new incumbents?” There also is question whether regulators should treat “new incumbents” differently from existing operators, he said. Yet another layer of complexity can center on whether such obligations would differ from more congested, lower bands to less-populated, higher swathes of spectrum, he said.
Spectrum panel is expected to look at efficiency issues, particularly whether licensees that use spectrum more effectively should be rewarded in some way, Thomas said. If decision is to create such incentives, next question is how to measure efficient spectrum use, he said. One possible metric would be number of customers per square mile per Hz, he said. Among tensions that have to be balanced include that between flexible use and incumbents’ encroachment. That issue can arise when new operator is allowed to use spectrum that has slight performance degradation on incumbent and no economic impact, Thomas said. How much degradation is acceptable based on operator’s existing system becomes one of tough questions for regulators to answer, he said: “Is that encroachment or is that flexibility? It’s a very, very important issue.”
Several panelists said FCC already had been moving toward more flexible spectrum policy, with Peter Tenhula, senior legal adviser to FCC Chmn. Powell, citing decisions on ultra-wideband and software defined radio as examples. Spectrum task force will be seeking ways to map spectrum in its current uses and under current regulatory regime to get away from ad hoc “value judgments” FCC has had to make from band to band, he said. Point is to move away from system where people have to come in and sell particular technology to FCC every time new use for spectrum is developed, he said. “I understand why incumbents fear flexibility,” Tenhula said, because they're funding 5-to-10-year business plans. If new technology doesn’t have to go before Commission every time business plan changes, developer “doesn’t have to fight the incumbents at the FCC. He just has to fight them in the marketplace,” he said.
Wireless Bureau Chief Thomas Sugrue said 2 broad models generally had governed how incumbent spectrum users were handled when new spectrum was made available. Under relocation scenario, FCC rules are crafted, replacement spectrum is found, negotiations are begun and ultimately mandatory relocation and relicensing is result, he said. Another possibility is that incumbents could be given broader use of existing spectrum so band designated for fixed wireless use also could be used for mobile operations, he said. That was case last year when FCC decided against reallocating MMDS and Instructional TV Fixed Service spectrum to make way for 3G services but said band could be used for mobile applications. Re-examination of spectrum policy will look at which of 2 models is more appropriate, Sugrue said. Answer may be different based on transaction costs in different bands, he said.
One conference participant asked why mobile satellite spectrum users, described as industry “without a viable business plan,” should continue to have spectrum set aside. While he declined to address specific MSS question, International Bureau Chief Donald Abelson said it raised larger issue of how spectrum efficiency should be addressed. “It’s not an MSS question, that’s just a favorite target of the day or of the hour,” Abelson said: “It’s really a question about how we are using spectrum and is it being used efficiently.” Complement to examination of efficiency of commercial use of spectrum is how it’s being used on govt. side, as well, he said. OET’s Thomas said task force was examining whether standards were appropriate to examine such efficiency issues and, if so, whether they should be based on technical or economic efficiencies or some other measure.