Carrier Interest in Spectrum Above 5 GHz Likely to Grow, Anstrom Says
The U.S. supports an initiative at the ITU calling for studies to spur common, worldwide allocations and identification of spectrum suitable for mobile broadband, even if the bands identified are at 5 MHz or higher, said Decker Anstrom, U.S. ambassador to the 2012 World Radiocommunication Conference. Anstrom told an FCBA luncheon on Thursday it’s impossible to say what bands may eventually spark commercial interest as technology continues to evolve.
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.
Headed into the last WRC, some urged that the U.S. restrict its focus to bands below 3 GHz, Anstrom said. “Why would you want to look above 3?” he asked. “Our point of view was we wanted all bands on the table because you don’t know how quickly the technology is going to move. I think the one thing we're sure of … is the technology opportunities are going to be significantly greater in October of 2015 when the WRC comes together than they are today. That’s a certainty it seems to me. We may be looking at allocations about 5 [GHz]. I mean who knows?"
Wireless carriers have the same message, Anstrom said. “Find us spectrum and we'll find a way to use it,” he said. “AT&T, Verizon, for example, were big players in the U.S. delegation.” Anstrom was a long-time cable executive before he was named to head the U.S. delegation to WRC-12.
Anstrom questioned whether the U.S. needs to put in place a more permanent delegation head, similar to some other countries, rather than appointing a new ambassador every four years. “We shouldn’t underestimate the strength of the continuity that we have,” he said. But Anstrom also said it was critical that he have a full year as ambassador to prepare for the Geneva meeting. “I think the key thing again is timely decisionmaking,” he said. “I'm told there are previous WRCs in which the U.S. showed up in Geneva without U.S. positions on issues, which is an absolute recipe for failure.”
It’s an open question whether a WRC meeting every three or four years is frequent enough, Anstrom told us. “You've got to remember this is a consensus-based process. Every country has to have a say,” he said. “It’s one thing for the United States, with all the resources we have in the government and private sector, to prepare for something we had to in two years. But what about the other 160 governments that don’t have the depth and capacity we have? How do they participate?” Working through the issues takes time, he said. “If you rush that process I think the concern people would have is you'll get to Geneva and people won’t fully understand the issues,” Anstrom said. “You won’t come to a conclusion. I think that’s part of the reason you end up taking more time. The study process which all these administrations are involved in helps get everyone to the same level.”
Preparing for the WRC “is a very difficult and intense process,” Anstrom said. “That’s because the stakes are very high. There are many competing interests, many competing perspectives.” Getting the U.S. delegation to agree on a position is “much like herding frogs into a wheelbarrow,” he said. “We had some very big frogs in the U.S. process.” Anstrom said his time as ambassador also taught him the importance of the Inter-American Telecom Commission (CITEL), which develops positions for the Americas. CITEL meets in the buildup to the WRC. “Our goal in 2012 was to make sure that we had U.S. position completed on every agenda item prior to the first CITEL meeting,” he said. “That is not a given, and if it had come out a different way we would have had a very different result in Geneva."
"It is a consensus-based process,” Anstrom said. “In the end, each country maintains its sovereign right to manage its own spectrum so you have to have consensus. … There’s always another conference. You may get part of you want in 2012, then you get a future item in which you continue to discuss that item in 2015.”
Anstrom acknowledged that he startled the U.S. delegation when he announced in an early meeting the U.S. would not develop “back up” positions on any of the issues before the WRC. Taking that stance helped the U.S. as negotiations got under way. “If you start with a position that you've carefully developed and that is your preferred position and it’s clear, it’s understandable, it’s defensible … there’s clarity to that that helps other administrations,” he said. “Human nature is if you have a back-up that’s already been approved in your back pocket, where do you think you're going to negotiate to?” Not developing back-up positions also saved time, he said. “We could spend an enormous amount of time and energy, which I think previous delegations did, developing a backup position … spending as much time and energy negotiating that as we did the preferred position.” Anstrom noted that for the first the U.S. delegation wasn’t the largest at the WRC. The Chinese delegation was. That “tells you something about how the world may be changing,” he said.