Communications Daily is a Warren News publication.
Decentralizing Spectrum?

Wireless Professionals Weigh Decentralizing Spectrum Against Command, Control

The growing demand for spectrum capacity for mobile services requires more access to spectrum and a more "decentralized" approach to spectrum allocation, wireless industry professionals said Friday at a Silicon Flatirons event webcast from Boulder, Colorado.

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!

When and how 5G is introduced depends, in part, on how spectrum policy is kept as dynamic and forward looking as the mobile industry, said Meredith Baker, CTIA president. “All of us need to redouble our efforts to fill the spectrum pipeline.” The AWS-3 auction illustrates that the process of clearing and relocating incumbents “is always an arduous undertaking,” she said. Wireless providers desperately need this influx of spectrum, but there is much work remaining on AWS-3 even after the auction, she said. AWS-3 is internationally harmonized and adjacent to existing users, but a 20 year-process to bring it to consumers “is simply too long,” she said.

CTIA supports licensed, unlicensed, shared and cleared spectrum, Baker said. “We must have an all of the above approach.” But “we place a priority on spectrum under 3 GHz,” she said. Sharing has its place, but it can’t be the default answer at the first impediment or roadblock, she said. CTIA also supports sharing in other bands at 3 GHz and above "where government users can not be fully relocated," she said.

Baker cautioned against allowing spectrum to lie unused. "The worst thing that could happen is spectrum lies fallow because we moved quicker than technology and industry is able to go," she said.

The industry needs more decentralization of spectrum, said Pierre de Vries, Silicon Flatirons Spectrum Initiative co-director. Having a more decentralized method is a good thing, he said. While there has been decentralization through exclusivity of assigned flexible use, progress is relatively limited, he said. The debate on unlicensed and licensed spectrum has obscured the fact that most spectrum is under “command and control,” he said. The unlicensed ecosystem provides another path to decentralization, he said.

Harm claim thresholds will provide clarity on rights and interference protections, de Vries said. The industry must find ways to effectively adjudicate interference disputes and create band agents, which could help decentralize spectrum, he said. Current regulation on interference focuses on transmitters, and fails to address the role receivers have in mitigating harm, he said. Band agents are entities that can represent large numbers of authorized users of a band and negotiate to make any changes in the band, he said.

The dispute resolution process must be more transparent and timely, said de Vries. With more services, there will be more disputes, he said. All disputes go to the FCC, which sometimes solves problems by making new rules, he said. “This will slow down the creation of services.” It’s better for the parties to make claims directly against each other, he said. Some issues, like the GPS and LightSquared dispute, have created uncertainty, de Vries said. The debate on sharing between federal and nonfederal spectrum is an “ongoing kabuki theater,” he added.

It must be easier to use spectrum that’s idle, said Milo Medin, Google vice president-access services. When there's idle commercial spectrum, the federal government questions whether there's a need to reallocate when spectrum that is assigned isn't used, he said. There are more players who can use spectrum in lots of innovative ways, but they wouldn't do well under a command and control regime, he said.