SPECTRUM POLICY REFORM SAID TO BE SIMPLER IN EUROPE
Both U.K. and U.S. spectrum policies are far from perfect and need lot of work, speakers said at Center for Digital Economy Washington conference on spectrum policy reform in U.K. and U.S. Speakers called FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Report (SPTF) “not aggressive enough” and said U.K. spectrum policy “is a mess.”
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.
Approach SPTF report takes to interference management is incompatible with approach to allocation, some speakers said. Coleman Bazelon of Analysis Group criticized recommendations by SPTF Work Group that Commission should consider interference temperature and not licensees “so that Commission could manage things better.” He also said Work Group “put cart before the horse,” suggesting transition from analog to digital technology should be promoted and forced by Commission: “We agree that digital technology is more efficient than analogue technology, and we expect to see migration from analogue to digital,” but SPTF allowed Commission to control transition “not because it’s better technology, but because it’s easier to manage it from the center.”
Administrative law judges (ALJ) knowledgeable in spectrum issues could solve interference dispute, Bazelon said. He said if Commission could “refrain from hearing appeals, rulings of ALJs would become precedent and “gain substance over time,” while Commission still would participate in resolving interference problems: “Only a judicially based dispute resolution process for interference will de-politicize the process and lay the groundwork for licensees to negotiate between themselves.”
Both U.K. policy and FCC task force report attached growing weight to unlicensed spectrum, but license-unlicensed balance hasn’t been addressed, said Martin Cave of Warwick Business School. Unlicensed bands already are available in U.K. at 2.4 and 5 GHz, he said, and allocation regime should combine innovation benefits of unlicensed spectrum, restrictions on power and protocol requirements to control interference and opportunities to expand unlicenced if needed.
“U.K. spectrum allocation is a mess,” Cave said. He said situation was even more complicated as U.K. was about to pass spectrum regulation to new regulatory body Ofcom (Office of Communication,) which will combine regulations of spectrum, broadcast and telecom. Cave, author of “Review of Radio Spectrum Management” report submitted to U.K. govt. outlining new spectrum policy, said govt. accepted most of its proposals. He said spectrum in U.K. was regulated by radiocommunications agency, which is part of Trade Ministry, “which is the ministry, but that responsibly will be transferred to a new independent deregulated body.” Ofcom won’t come into operation until end of year, but its board members “who are ready to be appointed” seek control of process from agency, “which is trying to carry on till the last moment.” Key points Ofcom will need to work on, he said, are: (1) Gaining critical mass in traded spectrum. (2) Specifying interference limit for technology-neutral licensing. (3) Defining licensed/unlicenced relationship. (4) Improving methodology for administrative price setting.
In his paper, Cave made recommendations on how spectrum should be regulated in U.K., including: (1) Public telecoms should be assigned spectrum through auctions. (2) There should be minimal restrictions on rollout requirements and technology deployed, except where EU harmonization was necessary. (3) Spectrum prices, where licenses weren’t subject to auction, should be increased to full levels derived from revalidated “opportunity cost” approach and definition of congested areas should be refocused “so that spectrum pricing bites where it needs to.” (4) Trading and leasing should be enabled with change of use within ITU land mobile category, subject to any binding EU decision. (5) Trading should be allowed within defined use where spectrum was EU-harmonized. (6) Lessor of leased spectrum should retain responsibility for meeting interference obligations of license.
More international flexibility is needed, Cave said. He said existing system of allocation was too slow and “subject to vested interests and log-rolling.” Generic allocation won’t lead to free-for-all, but will replace mandatory intergovernmental allocations by inter-firm planning, he said. All countries and regions now have existing discretion that isn’t fully utilized, he said.