Steps toward a high speed, affordable, ubiquitous wireless digital future

by: Harold Feld

Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 14:05

Hello all. My name is Harold Feld.  I am Senior Vice President of the Media Access Project. I also maintain a blog on spectrum and other media and telecom policy issues called Tales of the Sausage Factory (as in "people who love sausages and respect the law should not watch either being made").

In addressing Senator Durbin's question on how to use wireless (sometimes referred to as "spectrum"), we must first abandon the industry frame that this is a question of a "free market" v. "government control."  Every aspect of wireless, including the prevalence of today's business models, is a function of government regulation.  Nor is the wireline world free of "corporate welfare"-type subsidies, regulations and policies that confer advantages to one party or another.  For example, cable and DSL providers enjoy both direct monetary subsidies as well as a host of regulatory benefits (such as the right to use utility poles at regulated rates, preemption of local government control of rights of way).  We must therefore begin by setting the right public policy goal, rather than allowing incumbents to distract us with slogans such as "free market" or "level playing field."  This is economic policy about critical infrastructure, not a question about whether Barry Bonds "deserves" to break a home run record. 

(More in 'there's more'...)

1) The federal government should examine its own spectrum holdings and open the maximum spectrum for shared use.  The federal government has reserved large portions of the wireless spectrum for its own exclusive use.  While military and public safety applications need protection, the federal government should reexamine what it has available to share.  In 2003, the military agreed to share access to the 5.3 GHz band with unlicensed devices that met certain stringent technical conditions for interference avoidance.  After several years of development, that technology has now been approved by the military and will open up much needed spectrum for wireless ISPs and devices.  There is no reason other federal agencies that have reserved spectrum -- such as the Tennessee Valley Authority -- cannot also share.

Alternatively, the federal government can lease spectrum, with a right to reclaim it at need.  This sort of "wholesale open access" was proposed for the upcoming FCC 700 MHz auction.  Although the FCC has declined to adopt it for the auction, there is no reason the federal government can't make spectrum available at low prices to the private sector in this fashion.

2) Government investment in infrastructure.  Whether local, state or federal, investment by government in infrastructure is a long-standing means of promoting economic development and ensuring that we, as a nation maintain a common culture and shared standard of living.  Using wireless systems already available, the federal government could provide a national wireless network that could serve as the backbone for local private providers.  This is no different than the federal creation and maintenance of the GPS network, which it makes freely available to industry.  We have seen the economic benefits this federal creation of infrastructure has brought.  At the least, however, local governments should have the freedom and flexibility to determine how best to serve citizens.  Congress should therefore move expeditiously to pass the Community Broadband Act of 2007 to remove barriers to local government deployment of broadband.

3) Further development of "open spectrum."  Only a fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum is open for "unlicensed use."  Yet in a few years, unlicensed spectrum has emerged as a stimulus for broadband deployment and for equipment and service development.  WiFi is but one example of the uses of unlicensed spectrum.  Congress should approve the Wireless Innovation Act of 2007, which would make vacant channels available on an unlicensed basis.  The FCC recently terminated two promising proceedings to expand the use of "underlays" that would allow devices to operate in the same band as licensed devices on a non-interfering basis.  These proceedings should be reopened, and additional investment in such technologies encouraged.  If military radar can share with unlicensed devices, so can radio and television.

4) Open devices/wireless Carterfone.  Increasingly, policy makers and members of the public have become aware that allowing the handful of wireless companies that control the cellular market to control what devices connect to their networks and how they operate has seriously retarded the development and deployment of mobile wireless technologies in the United States.  Building on a dialog sparked by Professor Tim Wu's groundbreaking expose of wireless industry practices, Free Press has launched a Free the iPhone campaign.  Congress should act to make sure that Americans enjoy the same freedom to connect and innovate in the wireless world that they enjoy in the wireline world.

5) Recognize that spectrum auctions have run their course.  The FCC is in the final stages of preparation for the auction of returned broadcast spectrum (aka "the 700 MHz Auction.")  This auction has sparked a huge debate on spectrum policy and highlighted the problems with using auctions to distribute spectrum.  For too long, the lure of auction revenues has made spectrum auctions the crack cocaine of spectrum policy -- so powerfully addictive it drives out any other policy.  With this last auction, we should recognize that spectrum auctions have run their course as a useful way to distribute licenses.  Rather than maximizing efficiency as neo-cons predicted, they have become the means of reenforcing market power and moving valuable public resources into the hands of powerful private interests.  Rather than continuing to "eat the seed corn" by auctioning licenses, we should examine other models. For example, Finland's recent decision to create a single wholesale wireless provider, Digita, has produced huge gains for Finland in its brief time of operation.  A recent report by the New America Foundation outlines how we could still adopt this model in the 700 MHz auction.

Ultimately, the question of wireless is what do we want our digital future to look like.  Following the same policies we have now will give us more of the same.  Only by adopting new policies can we create a new wireless digital future.