Spectrum allocation draws intense debate Conference speakers argue for more efficient system

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

  <http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/05/HNspectrum_1.html>


    Spectrum allocation draws intense debate
Conference speakers argue for more efficient system
 
 
By  Stephen  Lawson     March 05, 2003   
     
PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Academics, activists, and regulators at a conference
here on Saturday debated the future of the U.S. Federal Communications
Commission's allocation of radio spectrum, with some arguing that spectrum 
shouldn't even be the issue in most cases.

Radio spectrum is the range of different frequencies that transmitters can
use to send audio, video, or data to receiving devices. Currently the FCC
puts particular frequencies in the hands of TV and radio stations, mobile
phone carriers, government agencies, and other entities so different
transmissions won't interfere with each other.

Speakers at a two-day conference at Stanford University entitled "Spectrum
Policy: Property or Commons?" looked beyond what FCC Senior Economist Evan
Kwerel called the current "crazy quilt" of spectrum use toward a more
efficient and effective system.

Some participants argued that the right to currently unused spectrum should
be sold, while others said private ownership would lock in spectrum that
could be better used with emerging technologies. They said most spectrum
should be treated like a public street, open to anyone.

Both sides generally agreed there should be a combination of the two
approaches and that more study will be needed to determine the best mix.

The question of what to do with unused and underutilized frequencies is
becoming more important as more communication becomes wireless, participants
agreed. 

The FCC already has raised the idea of a large auction of both assigned and
unassigned spectrum by the agency and by entities that control some spectrum
now. The FCC's Kwerel said that process could restructure 438MHz of valuable
spectrum within as little as two years, reducing shortages and waste.

Technology makes it imperative that many frequencies be set aside as a
"commons" for anyone to use, other participants said. Recent advances in
radio technology mean that, unlike in the 1950s, using different frequencies
isn't the only way for radio receivers to distinguish among signals. For
example, there are now "smart" antennae that can dynamically select a
particular direction in which to transmit signals, and radios now can be
built to support a wider range of frequencies.

"Software radios," which duplicate the functions of a radio on a computer,
can switch on the fly among different systems and can be upgraded over time,
according to David Reed, a visiting scientist at The Media Laboratory at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In the commons approach, new uses of spectrum would be financially supported
by end-users buying devices that work with that spectrum, rather than by
carriers investing in an infrastructure and then selling a service on it.

Some proponents of the commons approach pointed to the success of IEEE
802.11 wireless LAN technology, which is proliferating in what had been
called "junk" spectrum in the 2.4GHz range. That kind of unlicensed spectrum
can provide a safe space for startups that can't afford spectrum to start
developing a new technology, they said. Selling unused spectrum today would
lock it away and prevent innovative new technologies we can't even imagine
yet, they argued. 

One example is "wideband" technologies that can achieve high capacity by
taking advantage of a wide range of frequencies across a spectrum.

"The opportunity to have wideband is a value that's destroyed when you carve
up spectrum," said Lawrence Lessig, a professor at the Center for Internet
and Society at Stanford University's law school.

Other speakers argued that selling the spectrum would allow the market to
determine the best use of frequencies. If a potential use is valuable enough
that end-users will pay for it, a buyer will invest in the spectrum, they
said. 

"Prices can efficiently ration use ... they can tend to move spectrum from
low-value uses to highest-value uses," the FCC's Kwerel said. "Exclusivity
provides appropriate incentives to invest in costly infrastructure to reduce
scarcity," he added.

Another proposal aired Saturday called for spectrum to be privatized but
then left open to any secondary use that doesn't interfere with the owner's
communications. This "easement" would create a commons across the whole
spectrum, said Gerald Faulhaber, a professor at the University of
Pennsylvania and a former chief economist of the FCC.

In addition, a private system wouldn't rule out the possibility of a
commons, because spectrum owners could open up their own frequencies free of
charge. Instead of trying to earn back their investment through service
fees, they might open up the spectrum in hopes of kick-starting a new
technology and making money on equipment purchases by end-users, Faulhaber
said. 

The next few years should be a period of experimentation and study, many
participants said. One speaker suggested looking to the developing world for
inspiration. 

"I'm not that optimistic that we'll be able to sort through these issues
here in the United States" because of the problem of what to do about the
current allocation, said Dewayne Hendricks, chief executive officer of
Dandin Group, a wireless Internet service provider based in Fremont, Calif.
"I am optimistic that these issues will be sorted out in developing
countries. ... We should look there for the solutions," he said, citing
Jamaica as one example.

Another participant said time is of the essence.

"At the glacial rate this whole process is going, we're going to be in deep
trouble as a country unless we manage to accelerate things. ... We're sort
of locked up in this country while in other places ... there's a lot more
innovation. We have to move fast," said David Farber, a University of
Pennsylvania professor and former chief technologist of the FCC.

An IT industry heavy hitter said in a luncheon address that new technology
could change how spectrum is dealt with. Radios are evolving quickly and the
devices that use them can now have enough power to use frequencies wisely,
said Sean Maloney, executive vice president and general manager of Intel's
communications group. For example, wireless devices coming this year will be
able to detect the use of radar nearby and automatically switch themselves
off to prevent interference, he said.

"If we come up with sensible regulations, we could use all kinds of other
pieces of spectrum that are not currently utilized, or [are] heavily
underutilized, without necessarily having to completely rewrite the book. We
can come up with radios that are very agile, that listen out, and then
respond appropriately," Maloney said.
 
Stephen Lawson is a senior correspondent in San Francisco for the IDG News
Service, an InfoWorld affiliate. 

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/