 | |
| |
TechnologyDaily Mobile
No End In Sight To The Spectrum Wars
The popularity of cellular phones and emerging wireless technologies, including wireless Internet access, has increased the private-sector need for one of the nation's precious resources: spectrum. But policymakers must balance that need with national security interests.
"This is a fundamental challenge in U.S. policy," said Greg Rohde, former head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ (NTIA) and now the head of the consultancy firm eCopernicus.com. "All of our spectrum is encumbered, and we're always going to have a need to do more with less."
NTIA, which oversees the spectrum used by the government, and the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees commercial spectrum, recently released reports on the potential for third-generation (3G) wireless services to be offered in spectrum currently used by the government. The conclusions were not encouraging.
The Defense Department uses the 1710-1850 MHz band, which most countries use for commercial wireless services, causing U.S. companies to eye that same band. The United States has agreed to try to harmonize its spectrum usage with the rest of the world, and industry believes it must do so to compete.
Officials also are studying the 2500-2690 MHz band for potential commercial use. Schools currently use that band for distance education and for fixed wireless broadband services, which are called multi-channel, multi-point, distribution-service (MMDS) technology.
The problem is that neither Defense nor colleges want to relinquish their spectrum to make room for 3G services, claiming in recent reports that it is extremely costly to move to another band, that there is no where else to go and that sharing spectrum is improbable if not impossible.
"It is unfortunate when the debate gets framed as 'don't look at our spectrum,' " Rohde said. "That is not a reasonable position."
In Perfect Harmony
Last year, the International Telecommunications Union, of which the United States is a member, identified these two spectrum bands as potential slots for 3G technologies. Several countries — including Europe, Canada, Latin America, Japan, Australia and Malaysia — already have chosen the 1750-1850 MHz band.
"It would be very, very foolish to not cooperate with the rest of the world," Rohde said.
If the government incumbents dig in their heels and refuse to find a solution, added Michael Lynch, spectrum policy manger at Nortel Networks, "it won't be helpful to the U.S. telecom industry or the economy."
If the U.S. operates in a different band from other countries, a user would either need a new wireless device or one with expensive configurations to switch between spectrum bands. A U.S.-centric approach also puts U.S. equipment makers at a disadvantage because they lose access to a global market, industry sources said.
"It would be a real shame" if wireless devices could be used all over the world except in the United States "because the U.S. decided it didn't want to play in this game," Rohde said.
Playing The National Security Card
Defense uses the 1750-1850 MHz band for many things, including combat training, tactical weapons systems and tactical radio relays, and moving to a new band or sharing it "is not feasible," the department concluded in its report.
The report also found that it could cost from $38 million to $138 million to configure its systems for partial sharing or reallocation of spectrum.
Upon the release of the NTIA report, Rear Adm. Robert Nutwell said Defense systems "are critical to national security." He also questioned the need for more spectrum, saying that proponents of a change have not effectively made the case that currently available spectrum will not meet telecommunications industry needs.
Lynch questioned the department's findings, saying the military shares spectrum when it conducts operations in Europe. The tactical radio relay is a flexible system and "air combat training a little more ticklish," he said, but he believes a sharing arrangement could be reached. "As long as it is done in certain ways, sharing is possible."
Lynch, as a former member of the military, said he is sympathetic to the amount of work involved in crafting and implementing a spectrum policy that protects military interests, and he is aware of the military mindset. "If I were still wearing a green suit and I didn't understand the commercial realities," he said, "I might say the same thing."
Steve Sharkey, Motorola's director of telecom regulation, agreed that sharing spectrum is possible but said it is hard to make that case when industry does not have all the facts. Defense officials "can pull the national security card," he said, "and that is very difficult to deal with because you are working without complete information" about how the government reaches the conclusion that a particular policy poses national security problems.
The Pawn
Schools currently use the 2500-2690 MHz band to offer distance-learning courses and lease excess spectrum to companies such as Sprint and WorldCom, which offer MMDS services. That approach allows schools to earn extra income and cut deals for high-speed Internet service.
"Schools don't have the wherewithal to build two-way, high-speed networks on their own," said Jim Hermes, legislative associate at the American Association of Community Colleges, which is a member of the Web Now campaign. The group was founded to fight for spectrum used by education institutions.
Moving to another slice of spectrum is not an option, he said, because it would cost billions of dollars and would deprive colleges of the revenue earned by leasing excess spectrum to industry. That revenue is used to fund the instructional fixed television services (ITFS) that many schools use to offer classes to students who otherwise could not attend college, Hermes said.
The push to study both the military and educational bands originated at the World Radio Conference in May 2000. But industry sources say mobile services firms do not want the schools' spectrum and that it was a political maneuver to include it for consideration.
"The thinking was that in order to get [Defense officials] to come to the table, the FCC had to be looking at the 2500 MHz band because it was one of the two bands identified at the World Radio Conference," a source said, making the college-operated spectrum a "pawn" in the spectrum-allocation game.
The Players
Rohde does not see the maneuverings as a game as much as he sees them as a part of a bargaining process with incumbents naturally protecting their interests. "It is going to take high-level political leadership to make the incumbents look at the broader national interest," he said.
Sharkey said the Bush administration, still heavily focused on making appointments, needs some time to take the lead. He recommended that the final decision on spectrum allocation that is due in July be postponed.
"Slowing down would be wise," Sharkey said, because the issues are too complex to resolve so quickly and too important to make hasty decisions. Postponing the decision would give government and industry officials time to continue discussions.
Travis Larson, a spokesman for the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Associations, sees the two recent spectrum reports as a starting point "to try to work out a situation in which everybody walks away from the bargaining table a winner."
Sharkey also recommended that Congress take a look at the dual spectrum-management policy, with the FCC and NTIA sharing responsibilities. Consolidating those duties in one agency could help create a more cohesive policy that could more easily balance the interests between government and industry, he said.
NEW FEATURE
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
