Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Michael K. Powell on New Directions in Spectrum Policy

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 03:42:49 -0500

New Directions
in Spectrum Policy
The Federal Communications Commission needs
to rethink the way it manages spectrum to spur
wireless broadband.

By Michael K. Powell - December 2002

Spectrum-policy reform is a crucial initiative. Effective spectrum
policy is essential to traditional spectrum-based services, such
as mobile phones and direct broadcast satellite.

However, the rewards of sound spectrum policies go far beyond
traditional stakeholders - they are integral parts of the
long-term success of FCC initiatives in broadband, competition
policy, media regulation and homeland security. Ultimately, like
all of our focus areas, spectrum policy must strive to maximize
the unique benefits offered by spectrum-based services and devices
to the American people.

All consumers, whether they are John and Jane Q. Public or the
Boulder [Colo.] Police Department, deserve a new spectrum-policy
paradigm that is rooted in modern-day technologies and markets. We
are living in a world where demand for spectrum is driven by an
explosion of wireless technology and the ever-increasing
popularity of wireless services.

Nevertheless, we are still living under a spectrum-management
regime that is 90 years old. It needs a hard look, and in my
opinion, a new direction. Modern technology has fundamentally
changed the nature and extent of spectrum use. So the real
question is: How do we fundamentally alter our spectrum policy to
adapt to this reality?

The good news is that while the proliferation of technology
strains the old paradigm, it is also technology that will
ultimately free spectrum from its former shackles.

Spectrum-Policy Reform
In June 2002, we created the Spectrum Policy Task Force to provide
specific recommendations to the commission for ways to develop a
more integrated, market-oriented spectrum-policy approach that
provides greater certainty, minimal regulatory intervention and
greater benefits to consumers.

The task force will assist the commission in evaluating policies
regarding interference protection, spectral efficiency, effective
public safety communications and various spectrum-usage models. In
the end, the task force's mandate is to think creatively and
comprehensively about our full panoply of spectrum policies, and
provide an intellectual foundation for future policy.

In only a few months, the task force's team of high-level,
multidisciplinary professional FCC staff - economists, engineers
and attorneys - from across the commission's bureaus and offices
has solicited over 200 comments from the public on a wide range of
questions, held four public workshops and will soon submit its
findings and recommendations.

I believe the upcoming report will serve as a catalyst for
long-needed changes in spectrum policy.

So what are some of the key steps toward reform?

Interference Prediction and Avoidance
The time has come to consider an entirely new paradigm for
interference protection. A more forward-looking approach requires
there be a clear quantitative application of what is acceptable
interference for both license holders and the devices that can
cause interference. Transmitters would be required to ensure that
the interference level, or "interference temperature," is not
exceeded. Receivers would be required to tolerate an interference
level.

I anticipate the commission will be seeking a lot of input from
the technical community on these new interference concepts because
this would mark a significant change. Rather than simply saying
your transmitter cannot exceed a certain power, we instead would
utilize receiver standards and new technologies to ensure
communication occurs without interference, and the spectrum
resource is fully utilized.

For example, perhaps services in rural areas could utilize higher
power levels because the adjacent bands are less congested,
therefore decreasing the need for interference protection.

During my time at the commission, we have been forced repeatedly
to reject applications for new services because the receivers of
nearby services were so poorly made that they could not tolerate
the interference caused by the new service. By looking at the
spectral environment more comprehensively and dynamically through
the more focused measurement of interference temperature at the
receiver, we better distribute the responsibilities for spectrum
use and achieve greater value for American consumers.

Scarcity Mitigated by Time
In analyzing the current use of spectrum, the task force took a
unique approach, looking for the first time at the entire
spectrum, not just one band at a time. This review prompted a
major insight: There is a substantial amount of "white space" out
there that is not being used by anybody. The ramifications of the
insight are significant. It suggests that while spectrum scarcity
is a problem in some bands some of the time, the larger problem is
spectrum access - how to get to and use those many areas of the
spectrum that are either underutilized or not used at all.

One way the commission can take advantage of this white space is
by facilitating access in the time dimension. Since the beginning
of spectrum policy, the government has "parceled" this resource in
frequency and in space. We permitted use in a particular band over
a particular geographic region often with an expectation of
perpetual use.

Like Einstein, who dramatically theorized on the importance of the
time dimension almost 90 years ago, the commission now should also
look at time as an additional dimension for spectrum policy.

How well could we use this resource if our policies fostered
access in frequency, space and time?

Technology has, and now hopefully FCC policy will, facilitate
access to spectrum in the time dimension that will lead to more
efficient use of the spectrum resource. For example, a
software-defined radio may allow licensees to dynamically "rent"
certain spectrum bands when they are not in use by other
licensees. Perhaps a mobile wireless service provider with
software-defined phones will lease a local business's channels
during the hours the business is closed.

Similarly, sensory and adaptive devices may "find" spectrum open
space and utilize it until the licensee needs those rights for
their own use.

In a commercial context, secondary markets can provide a mechanism
for licensees to create and provide opportunities for new services
in distinct slices of time. By adding another meaningful
dimension, spectrum policy can move closer to facilitating
consistent availability of spectrum and further diminish the
scarcity rationale for intrusive government action.

Transition to Flexibility
Historically, the commission often limited flexibility via command
and control regulatory restrictions on which services licensees
could provide and who could provide them. Any spectrum users who
wanted to change the power of their transmitter, the nature of
their service or the size of an antenna had to come to the
commission to ask for permission, wait the corresponding period of
time, and only then, if relief was granted, modify the service.

Today's marketplace demands that we provide license holders with
greater flexibility to respond to consumer wants, market realities
and national needs without first having to ask for the FCC's
permission.

I believe license holders should be granted the maximum
flexibility to use or allow others to use the spectrum, within
technical constraints, to provide any services demanded by the
public. With this flexibility, service providers can be expected
to move spectrum quickly to its highest and best use.

Such flexibility should not come at the cost of clearly defined
rules. The rapid pace of the markets and technology requires the
commission to continue to define clearly even the more expansive
rights of flexible licenses. Without clarity, there is little
certainty for the consumer, for the licensee in building business
plans, or for the capital markets as to the value of the licenses.
Although our licensed services - such as mobile wireless
services - have thrived in the marketplace, the commission has not
maximized the public-interest benefits that could be created by
these licensees.

For example, if the agency were to define the interference
temperature in the licensed service bands, it would establish a
clear watermark beyond which interference would not be permitted
to rise. This certainty and stability would protect the
investment-backed expectations of incumbents and their investors
while opening spectrum to innovative uses under clearly specified
parameters.

Public Interest Becomes Consumer Interest
We need a new spectrum policy that fits a new paradigm of putting
the consuming public into the assessment of the spectrum public
interest. This does not mean the commission will overlook the
larger public-interest goals such as national defense, public
safety and critical infrastructure.

But it does mean we should develop policies that avoid
interference rules that are barriers to entry, that assume a
particular proponent's business model or technology and that take
the place of marketplace or technical solutions. Such a policy
must embody what we have seen benefit the public in every other
area of consumer goods and services: choice through competition
and limited, but necessary, government intervention into the
marketplace to protect such interests as access to people with
disabilities, public health, safety and welfare.

Spectrum policy was once an obscure abstraction for most
Americans. But today, Americans experience firsthand the
challenges of dropped cell phone calls, or limits on cable
competition, or for the early adopters among us, interference on
their wireless LANs.

These are no longer abstractions; they are spectrum-policy
problems - interference debates, spectrum-allocation decisions,
and choices between licensed and unlicensed uses. The government
must respond to these challenges because the consumer impact of
our failure to do so is too great to ignore, and the American
people increasingly know it.

As do their leaders. On Capitol Hill, a number of members have
expressed interest and advanced thoughtful proposals on spectrum
reform. Similarly, the Bush administration has been an active
participant in the spectrum-policy dialogue.

At the Department of Commerce, NTIA Administrator Nancy Victory
hosted a spectrum-policy summit just this spring. Participants
representing a broad range of interests - government, consumers,
industry and public safety - gathered to develop innovative
spectrum-policy recommendations. Many others are doing their own
studies and holding conferences on spectrum policies: the General
Accounting Office; think tanks, such as the Center for Strategic
and International Studies and the CATO Institute; and
universities, including my host today, the University of Colorado.

The commission and the task force are at the epicenter of this
national dialogue. I look forward to working with anyone and
everyone with good ideas on how to move spectrum policy forward.

The task force's work will not be merely an intellectual exercise
in creative policy. Hopefully the report, and the constructive
dialogue it will initiate, will provide the framework, or
blueprint, for how we will approach spectrum policy in the future.
That framework is not just a long-term process. It provides a
significant action plan for the next quarter.

In the coming months, I will:
· direct the task force to produce its report for public release;
· initiate a dialogue with members of Congress on what legislative
steps will assist in developing a more effective spectrum-policy
approach for the benefit of consumers;
· explore ways in which the interference-temperature concept,
increased spectrum access and more flexible rights may enhance the
public interest;
· strive to make more spectrum available for licensed and
unlicensed use; and
· recommend that the commission at its December meeting initiate a
Notice of Inquiry that builds on the task force's work.

At the Crossroads
We are truly at a crossroads in the spectrum-policy component of
the digital migration. We must make critical decisions that
balance the interests of existing spectrum users and potential new
entrants to ensure there is every opportunity and incentive to put
spectrum to its highest and best use for the benefit of all
consumers.

It is important to remember that at the end of the day, we're not
necessarily looking for one "right" path to our destination. There
is no one-size-fits-all model for spectrum policy. We may well
find that there are multiple approaches to the spectrum-policy
peak that should be pursued in different contexts in different
spectrum bands over short, medium and long-term horizons.

As with any accomplishment worth achieving, the climb will likely
be strenuous, but the rewards at the summit are immeasurable.

This article is an excerpt of a speech given by Chairman Powell at
the Silicon Flatirons Telecommunications Program; University of
Colorado at Boulder, Oct. 30, 2002.

http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Powell/2002/spmkp212.html

Michael K. Powell

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---

From: Alan Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:43:28 -0500

Forgive me for being cynical.  But, why is a report released in October
being reported weeks later in November, and (worst of all) being dated as
December??  I saw the December dateline and proceeded to read.  It
quickly occurred to me that I had read this before.  A good while before,
I hasten to add.  Is this "error" the FCC's doings?

Alan Dixon
"The Iconoclast"
[email-masked]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 03:42:49 -0500 [Nextel1] and [PWF] write:
> New Directions in Spectrum Policy

--