Industry Concerned UN Cuts Could Mean Smaller Role for US in International Spectrum
The Trump administration is reportedly preparing executive orders aimed at reducing the U.S. role in the United Nations and other international organizations. The administration is proposing a reduction of at least 40 percent in remaining U.S. funding toward international organizations, The New York Times reported last week. In the communications world, the U.S. is preparing for the next World Radiocommunications Conference in 2019, which falls under the ITU, a UN organization. Industry observers say it may too early to tell whether U.S. advocacy at WRC is in question, especially since the administration has yet to release any documents on reducing UN support. Some saw reason for concern.
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!
Gail Schoettler, U.S. ambassador to WRC-2000 and former Democratic lieutenant governor of Colorado, said the proposed cuts are problematic. “The U.S. has by far the largest commercial and military interests in the allocation and use of spectrum, which is determined at each of the WRCs,” Schoettler told us. “If we aren’t playing a big role in the WRC and ITU, we will not have the clout to persuade other nations that our position is correct and not only in our best interests but also in theirs.” The U.S. has “major agreements with countries around the world regarding communications and other spectrum uses that are highly classified and only known to our intelligence agencies and military as well as a small number of elected officials,” Schoettler said. “We have large private interests in the outcome of the WRC that affect everything from our cellphones to GPS to navigation and on and on.”
“There is a threat that this kind of effort could hurt American industry,” said a wireless industry lawyer. WRC is important because it harmonizes spectrum decisions around the world, which is critical to chipmakers, handset-makers and carriers, who don’t want their devices to stop working at the border, the lawyer said: “This is not an area where the U.N. is somehow a problem -- the U.N. really is a vehicle for the solution.”
David Gross, a former State Department official now at Wiley Rein, was among industry observers who said it's too early to make predictions. “Without more complete information, it is much too soon to give a final assessment about any potential impact on the ITU generally or on the WRC-19 specifically,” he said. The White House didn’t comment.
Satellite Industry Association President Tom Stroup said satellite interests hope to talk to the Trump administration about the importance of the ITU process and its work in spectrum allocation, global harmonization and standards setting to American businesses. He said they also will try to differentiate those spectrum-related issues from administration concerns about U.S. entanglement in international organizations’ goals.
The Global VSAT Forum hopes to soon schedule a meeting with the FCC at which participation in international efforts like the ITU and WRC-19 will be on the agenda, President David Hartshorn told us. He said given FCC focus on closing the digital divide dovetailing with similar ITU priorities, and with the ability of the satellite industry to bring connectivity to sparsely populated areas, that should open the door to greater FCC and U.S. engagement in ITU Telecommunication Development and ITU Radiocommunication sectors. Participation alone isn’t the question, said a satellite industry lawyer active on WRC issues. “The U.S has been so successful because it has been a leader in the ITU,” the lawyer said. “Industry folks are most concerned that the U.S. continue its leadership.”
“Cutting budgets and contributions to multilateral and treaty-based organizations does not necessarily equate to less advocacy by the U.S. government in those same arenas,” said Robert McDowell, a former FCC commissioner now at Cooley. “But we are in a period of disruption and change, so predictions rooted in conventional wisdom should be looked upon with a healthy dose of skepticism. Private sector players and NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] interested in these issues would be well advised to strengthen their individual advocacy in this realm and brace for change.”
“It’s no secret WRC-15 had more than its fair share of footnote fights and inter-region conflict,” said Doug Brake, telecom policy analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. “One could imagine two possibilities. One would be a more aggressive delegation, doubling down on harmonization and economies of scale in U.S. interest. On the other hand, we could see an insular turn, relying on our own large market to hopefully pull others along. We are still early in defining 5G, so that go-it-alone approach may well work for bands like 28 GHz, but I still prefer harmonization wherever we can get it. Hopefully the WRC doesn’t get hit too hard in political crossfire.”
“Funding cuts and expressed antipathy to international organizations reduce U.S. influence in those organizations and that can have a direct and negative impact on U.S. industry at the ITU,” said a lawyer active in international issues. “The White House seems not to understand that it helps U.S. industry to be able to influence the outcome of international organizations such as the ITU.” Across-the-board cuts could be harmful to U.S. influence, said a former WRC official. Selective cuts “could actually send a good message,” the former official said.