USERS, REGULATORS WRESTLE WITH HOW TO CRAFT NEW SPECTRUM PLAN

Part of discussion covered how flexible spectrum allocations should become, with some panelists raising possibility of allowing flexibility between users such as public safety and commercial licensees in same bands. “I feel very uncomfortable that spectrum for public safety would be replaced by spectrum for commercial services,” said Nancy Jesuale, dir. of Communications & Networking Service Div., Portland, Ore. “That’s something new that local government isn’t prepared to accept. What we use it for and what we are accountable for is so much different than the development path in the communications sector.” Characterizing different demands of wireless carriers vs. emergency responders, she said: “In my world, we compare the needs of soccer moms to the needs of burning babies.” If distinctions between public safety and commercial use of bands are changed, Jesuale said private sector would have to face higher level of accountability. While commercial wireless systems have footprint that covers 99% of U.S. they would have to cover last 1% as well, she said. Industry would have “to make investments in areas that are uneconomical. That’s what government does.” Spectrum planning has to take some of those public safety priorities and place them ahead of “economic development in the commercial wireless sector,” she said: “I hope we understand the differences.”

Panel on spectrum management moderated by Paul Kolodzy, chmn. of FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force, and NTIA’s Wentland, touched on difficulty of making accurate forecasts for long- term plans and proliferation of planning documents that already existed. “Until we get serious about taking the spectrum plans and then doing something with them, I'm not sure how much it’s worth,” consultant William Gamble said. “But government agencies keep doing it, as does industry.” Steven Price, deputy asst. secy. of defense for spectrum space sensors and communications, command & control, also cited difficulty of planning under “bifurcated” system. “To have a commercial plan and a government plan is a very difficult way to manage spectrum,” he said. “The risk to the Department of Defense is that all you have to do is lose once and you lose forever” if spectrum is reallocated, he said. If spectrum is reallocated and business venture fails, original owner doesn’t get spectrum back, he said.

Fundamental issue that needs to be fixed is spectrum management process rather than simply creating “a document that will just end up sitting on a shelf,” Price said. However process is changed it has “to be less politicized, less bureaucratic,” he said. “You can’t have a situation where good lobbyists in fancy suits get you more allocations,” he said. “It has to be a trustworthy process, something having to do with market-oriented solutions.” Several DoD participants over 2 days criticized “asymmetry” of risk that existed for govt. users when reallocations were made. “The incumbent has everything to lose, there’s very little predictability,” Price said. “If you are forced to move, you have to do all the work. You have to hope the [relocation] money will go somewhere. Hopefully it will get to the right service.” That situation would be different if new entrants instead bore responsibility for operational concerns, relocation costs, assuming risks if new spectrum configuration went wrong, he said. “It’s not a trustworthy process today,” he said. “It’s a terrifying prospect [facing] these uncertainties.” Such issues are compounded for military users, whose systems often have long lead times before launch, he said.

Issues such as how to define user rights and interference speak as much to usage of spectrum as they do to spectrum plans, said Robert Pepper, chief of FCC Office of Plans & Policy. “You have to be practical, we are not starting over with some blank slate,” he said. Pepper said FCC already had been moving beyond “traditional” spectrum management: “We are relying much more on concepts of flexibility and industry being able to shift and provide the services people want and services that are of much higher value to users.” While that has begun in commercial bands, “the question is how do you take that to the next level,” Pepper said. Allocation decisions become more challenging when it’s necessary to evaluate competing claims between public safety and commercial applications, he said.

“We do need some sort of longer term planning process,” said Diane Cornell, CTIA vp-regulatory policy. “It cannot be a separate government and commercial systems.” There also is need to look more systematically at how current spectrum requirements are being met “and can they be met more efficiently,” she said. Portland’s Jesuale said each squad car in her city’s police force carried $10,000 worth of communications equipment, and public safety systems still struggled to avoid interference with commercial operators. Cornell suggested there might be ways for public safety to explore commercial solutions that would be more efficient without being more costly. “If you can’t overpower commercial systems or CMRS [signals], maybe you can join them,” Cornell said.

Among possibilities raised was that of new federal entity, possibly in White House, that would oversee spectrum planning. “Maybe we are at a point in the political debate where we can start a little root-and-branch planning and come up with a different paradigm,” said Doug Brandon, AT&T Wireless vp-external affairs & law: “How about a new group or new agency that would have its focus on only spectrum planning.” Brandon said in many countries outside U.S., govt. and commercial spectrum planning activities were handled under rubric of single govt. entity. DoD’s Price said that 2 years ago Defense Science Board issued spectrum study that included recommendation for spectrum planning office in White House.

Another planning challenge raised at summit was role of scarcity and its potential to encourage more efficient spectrum use. FCC Office of Engineering & Technology Chief Ed Thomas asked whether different restrictions should be imposed on spectrum users depending on whether they were operating in more or less congested bands. He and others said most congested area of spectrum now was that below 3 GHz. He likened differentiated rules to possible zoning system, which imposes different regulations for suburban, rural and urban areas. Leap Wireless Vp-Chief Technology Officer Mark Kelley advocated system under which spectrum availability would be controlled carefully. “If you limit the amount of something that someone is able to have, they will be more efficient,” he said. System that compels efficient use of spectrum would drive more innovative technology development, Kelley said. But Verizon Wireless Spectrum Policy Dir. Donald Brittingham disagreed, saying both Leap and his company used same CDMA technology but had different spectrum needs. “How do you make judgments about what you have done to maximize technology if you still need more spectrum,” he said. “We have the same technology. It all has to do with what your needs are.”

FCC Wireless Bureau Chief Thomas Sugrue said several participants at summit cited need for regulatory policies that would compel more efficient spectrum use, in part by keeping spectrum scarce as incentive to use better technology. “That worries me a little bit,” he said. Sugrue expressed apprehension about govt.’s playing that kind of role in driving technology investments by keeping spectrum scarce: “Let the market decide.”