Sharing

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration is committed to ensuring that the government’s use of this valuable resource is as efficient and effective as possible. But what does it mean to be an efficient user of spectrum? And how can future systems make better use of spectrum? NTIA’s research laboratory, the Institute for Telecommunications Sciences (ITS), digs into these questions in a new report providing a thorough survey of the history of spectrum efficiency.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai announced that the following items are tentatively on the agenda for the February Open Commission Meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 22, 2018.

Feb 2 is Groundhog Day. Fittingly, I’m announcing an agenda for the Federal Communications Commission’s February meeting that revisits some familiar themes from the past year: modernizing outdated rules, closing the digital divide, and most significantly, promoting innovation.

[Commentary] As nearly all usable radio spectrum has been allocated to particular uses and assigned to particular users, shifting spectrum toward modern uses almost certainly requires taking from one use or user to give to other uses and users. Such spectrum repurposing need not be contentious and is often successful. The recent $41 billion AWS-3 spectrum auction, the largest-grossing auction in history, involved spectrum repurposed from Federal government incumbents to mobile wireless providers. Yet, success is not guaranteed.

Spectrum, like land, is typically “zoned” to particular uses that play nice together. For instance, a relatively low-powered satellite signal might be drowned in a sea of high-powered, land-based cellular signals. Like small and big dogs being kept separate at a dog park, different types of radio signals are managed to mitigate conflict using technical means such as power limitations and boundaries between interfering frequencies or assigning users and uses varying degrees of priority. Before one can reassign satellite spectrum to terrestrial wireless broadband use, therefore, one must seek permission from the FCC: terrestrial services are prone to interfering with satellite signals, so an approval requires a demonstration that interference with others is not a problem.

[Dr. George S. Ford is Chief Economist of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies]

I’ve been asked to talk about where we are with spectrum policy in the United States, and what lies ahead. Federal Communications Commission. Chairman Pai has two overarching goals at the top of the Commission’s wireless agenda. First, we want to unleash spectrum to meet growing consumer demand and enable new waves of wireless innovations that will grow our economy and improve the standard of living for the American people. The second key goal of our wireless agenda is harnessing the power of spectrum to help bridge the digital divide.

One foundational principle is flexible use for wireless spectrum. Instead of mandating that a particular spectrum band be used with a specific type of wireless technology, the government should leave that choice to the private sector, which has a much better sense of consumer demand. The Commission has a role to play in crafting light-touch regulatory frameworks, with clear and technology-neutral rules. Basically, we want to put spectrum into the marketplace and then let the market and innovators go to work. Flexible use for spectrum is a proven practice. For decades, it has enabled wireless networks in the U.S. to evolve with technology and to do so much more quickly than if operators had to obtain government sign-off each step of the way. Another principle is our commitment to continue to identify possibilities to put airwaves to more efficient use. Chairman Pai believes we need an all-of-the-above approach to this spectrum endeavor, looking at low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum.

Next generation systems will capitalize on both new and existing licensed and unlicensed networks, utilizing low-, mid- and high-band spectrum, including millimeter wave frequencies. Today, I will discuss how the Commission plans to make these raw materials available.

Global Harmonization & US Leadership in Wireless Technologies. While some in this country may eschew global harmonization, and I understand that our market position means we have the option of going it alone or in coordination with a handful of other countries, offering commercial services on the same frequencies around the world has many benefits for US consumers and providers. On the consumer side, there is the ability to use your devices and have the same wireless experience at home and abroad. At the same time, the economies of scale created by marketing products internationally enables research, development, and manufacturing costs to be widely dispersed, promoting investment and innovation while reducing the cost of devices and services for Americans.

[Commentary] For years politicians (both Republicans and Democrats), regulators, telecom providers, and just about anyone who uses a cellular phone or Wi-Fi have been saying that the US needs more radio spectrum for commercial two-way communications. Steps are being taken — for example, the Federal Communications Commission conducted an incentive auction to move radio spectrum from broadcasting to two-way communications. Another strategy would be to loosen regulatory controls on radio spectrum markets.

Current practice is a “rights to use” model. Since licensing is really about managing interference, licenses could deal with this directly with something like a “rights to interfere and rights to not be interfered with” approach. Company A’s license could read something like: “Don’t cause more than X interference in radio spectrum bands Y and Z without the agreement of Companies B and C.” So as long as A, B, and C are happy, the FCC would be happy, too.

[Mark Jamison is the director and Gunter Professor of the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida’s Warrington College of Business.]

At a recent panel convened by the Wireless Future Project at New America, Ellen Satterwhite, of the American Library Association, noted that 40 percent of libraries cannot meet the minimum speed requirements set by the Federal Communications Commission (100Mbs for small libraries and 1Gbs for large ones) because of high costs or lack of access. We need only look at Idaho to get a glimpse of this absurd pricing: One library there pays $1000 per month for 5Mb service, while another pays $650 per month for 40Mb service.

So how can we ramp up connectivity in these areas? One potential solution that has shown promise is fixed wireless internet. This, in a nutshell, involves beaming internet access from a broadcasting tower directly into people’s homes via a small receiver on their roof. These sorts of point to multi-point (P2MP) fixed wireless services are becoming increasingly popular, particularly in Middle America, in part because of the relative ease of deployment and the ability to provide gigabit-level speeds. You might be wondering, then, how we can encourage fixed wireless. At the panel, advocates and industry leaders discussed the possible benefits of expanding, or sharing, wireless spectrum access in the 3.7-4.2GHz band to wireless internet service providers, or WISPs. This would be a boon to rural WISPs like Jeff Kohler’s Rise Broadband. Kohler noted that companies like Rise are starting to “feel the squeeze” on the spectrum they’re currently allowed to operate on. He also noted that the cost per customer is considerably less as well, often being roughly $250 for someone using fixed wireless, where the average rural fiber consumer could be upwards of $1,000. In fact, the overall cost of deploying “wireless fiber” for his company was roughly one-tenth of the price of standard fiber.

A key concern with the Licensed-shared access (LSA) approach currently being developed by European regulators is that leaving incumbents and secondary users to agree to bilateral arrangements may be insufficient to incentivise an optimal level of sharing. We propose an efficient auction mechanism to incentivise incumbent users to offer shared access to the spectrum they use. The mechanism consists of two stages. In the first stage, LSA licences are auctioned. In the second stage, the incumbent is provided with a choice of either granting access under an LSA agreement to the winner of the auction or not. If the incumbent accepts, its existing licence fee is reduced, whereas, if it rejects, its existing licence fee is increased. The change in the licence fee is such that a rational incumbent always opts to share when it is efficient to do so, i.e. when the cost of sharing is below the value to the secondary user. We also explore how this simple mechanism can be extended to situations in which there is more than one incumbent in a band. Our proposed approach involves package (combinatorial) bidding and linear reference prices.