Spectrum

I’m sure that those that love to regulate will try to make the weak case that the status of the wireless industry occurred because of — and not despite — the Federal Communications Commission’s regulations, particularly our Net Neutrality burdens. Beyond being desperate to validate their myopic decision, this argument completely ignores the counterfactual, or what would have occurred absent such burdens. The reality is that had the Commission rejected the liberal mantra of Net Neutrality, the entire wireless picture could have been even better.

[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]

The Incentive Auction Task Force and the Media Bureau announce the issuance of an initial allocation of the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund in the total amount of $1 billion to begin to reimburse eligible full power and Class A broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), for expenses related to the construction of station facilities on reassigned channels. The Bureau will continue to monitor closely the draw-down of Fund amounts and allocate additional amounts later in the transition period.

A letter from almost five dozen members of Congress, including from both parties, calls on Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai not to move off the FCC's current timeline for repacking TV stations after the incentive auction and freeing up spectrum for wireless broadband. "We write to urge you to ensure the 600 MHz spectrum...is cleared no later than July 3, 2020, as currently scheduled" they wrote Oct 16. They said clearing the band of broadcasters as quickly as possible was a critical component of deploying high-speed broadband, including to rural areas, a particular concern of the FCC's, as well as many of the letter signatories, including Rep Anna Eshoo (D-CA).

They said freeing up that spectrum and connecting homes across the country to broadband is not just about jobs or economic growth, but is a necessity in a connected world. They praised Pai's work to date to boost broadband deployment in underserved communities and said they supported a "robust" waiver process for stations who need flexibility in making their channel moves, and want stakeholders to work together to find creative solutions. But the bottom line is: Wrap it up by that 2020 date.

Democratic Reps of the House Commerce Committee, a panel considering the first reauthorization of the Federal Communications Commission in 27 years, are finding some common cause with their Senate Republican counterparts in efforts likely to help the broadcasting industry. The Democratic Reps and Senate Commerce Committee Republicans both support some version of the Viewer Protection Act, introduced by House Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ).

The House bill would create a $1 billion fund to facilitate broadcasters’ move to other channels — in a process known as repacking — after they gave up their low-band spectrum for an FCC auction offered to wireless carriers that want to use those airwaves for next-generation services. Pallone’s legislation also calls for $90 million that would go specifically toward educating viewers on the transition. Across the Capitol, several Senate Commerce Committee Republicans support legislation similar to the Viewer Protection Act.

I think it’s time for a National Broadband Map that offers an honest picture of wired and wireless broadband across the country. Too often the Federal Communications Commission cobbles together data for each individual rulemaking and report without a comprehensive and updated snapshot of where service is and is not. We can build this map in Washington, but it would be great if we had a clearer picture on the ground. I’m a big believer in the wisdom of crowds, so I think we should put it to the public. If you’ve not been able to get service, or live in an area that lacks it, help us make a map and write me at broadbandfail@fcc.gov. I’ve set this account up to take in your ideas. I will share every one of them with the agency Chairman—and put on pressure to do something about it.

For decades, the FCC has led the world with its auction models for the distribution of spectrum licenses. We’ve made a lot of progress powering the mobile devices that so many of us rely on every day. But take a drive along some rural roads and you will know there is room for improvement. It’s one reason why the AIRWAVES Act from Sen Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Sen Cory Gardner (R-CO) is so important. It helps identify more licensed and unlicensed spectrum that can be brought to market to improve wireless broadband. On top of that, it sets up a fund whereby auction revenues will help support wireless broadband infrastructure in rural America. It’s the kind of creative effort that would in time lead to more coverage on a broadband map and also help bridge the Homework Gap.

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.

As the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, I have a special interest in the progress that was made in communications and technology policy during the Reagan Administration. It was an executive order signed by President Reagan that first made the Pentagon’s Global Positioning (GPS) system available for civilian use. FCC Chairmen who served during the Reagan Administration were incredible leaders and visionaries. Mark Fowler and Dennis Patrick each did a fantastic job leading the agency. They moved aggressively to eliminate unnecessary rules and implement President Reagan’s deregulatory philosophy. They set a high bar for those who came after them—and I strive for that bar every day.

The Reagan FCC eliminated the so-called Fairness Doctrine. This misnamed government dictate suppressed the discussion of controversial issues on our nation’s airwaves and was an affront to the First Amendment. The Reagan FCC also built the political foundation for auctioning licenses to spectrum—a free-market innovation blasted back then and widely accepted today. The Reagan FCC introduced “price cap” regulation, reducing government’s role in micromanaging profits and increasing consumer welfare. And the Reagan FCC set the stage for much of the innovation that we see today. In 1985, for example, it had the foresight to set aside what were generally thought to be “junk” airwaves for anybody to use—what we call “unlicensed” spectrum. And entrepreneurs put it to work. Thanks to the FCC’s vision, we now use unlicensed services every day, every time we access Wi-Fi or use Bluetooth or check a baby monitor. Consider this 1985 quote from Mark Fowler, President Reagan’s first FCC Chairman—a quote that applies today: “We want to eliminate, as much as we can, government regulation of the telecommunications marketplace so as to permit present players to provide new and innovative services to consumers and likewise permit new players to come in and compete.” That’s basically our approach today.

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.