By Gregory J.
Vogt, Visiting Fellow
Another American
“pipeline” needing government approvals is rarely in the press, unlike the
Keystone pipeline, which we’ve heard a lot about. This other “pipeline” is
designed to identify, evaluate, and reallocate spectrum for future mobile
broadband use. With recent FCC actions concerning above-24 GHz spectrum, and Congress’
proposed Spectrum Pipeline Act, government appears to be recognizing that the
spectrum pipeline needs to be constructed. This is good but the efforts are
timid and woefully slow to meet projected demand.
Although
the wireless industry has just deployed so-called 4th Generation (4G), or Long
Term Evolution (LTE), technology, it is not too soon to actively pursue making
available the spectrum the next generation (5G) will need beginning around
2020.
It is now
well known that wireless communications produces enormous consumer welfare
benefits, including increases in GDP, investment, and jobs. It also produces
significant secondary positive impacts in markets and applications that rely on
mobile to improve productivity.
But history
has shown that significant spectrum reallocation has taken, on average, 13
years to deploy. It is therefore essential for government to take actions to accelerate
the spectrum “pipeline” for 5G. Indeed, this is necessary to maintain American
leadership in deploying wireless broadband, not only for faster and more robust
Internet applications, but to accommodate the predicted explosion surrounding
the Internet of Things.
The FCC is therefore to be applauded for adopting a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to reallocate above-24 GHz spectrum for
flexible use, including mobile broadband use, that can accommodate, in part, spectrum
needs for 5G wireless. The FCC identified the 28, 37, 39, and 64-71 GHz spectrum
blocks as potentially lucrative spectrum to be re-allocated, but identified
certain parameters and sharing that it stated would be necessary to accommodate
the commercial wireless allocation.
But even
this laudable new proceeding likely foreshadows endemic government
foot-dragging. It was a little more than a year between adoption of a Notice of
Inquiry and the NPRM. It is unclear whether this reallocation timeline will be
much different from past lengthy spectrum delays. High-band spectrum, as
Commissioner Rosenworcel termed it, has “propagation challenges,” making it
useful for high capacity data, but only at very short distances. Thus, this
spectrum has the potential for fulfilling some of the needs for 5G. But it does
not fulfill the full range of demand for 5G, including more low and mid-band
spectrum, as CTIA has recently indicated.
Some
Commissioners have raised serious questions concerning whether the proceeding
is broad enough to meet 5G needs. And the FCC appears to be resigned to
government-commercial spectrum sharing, rather than dedicated commercial use.
The Bi-partisan
Budget Act of 2015, now signed by the President, includes the Spectrum
Pipeline Bill, which would require identification of 30 MHz of below-3 GHz
spectrum for reallocation to commercial use, plus identification of a total of
100 MHz below 6 GHz. Although this effort moves in the right direction, the
deadline for the 30 MHz spectrum auction to begin is 2024, well past the
expected rollout of 5G; mere identification of the remaining 100 MHz is just as
late, scheduled in two tranches for 2022 and 2024. This meager effort is
disappointing and codifies into law the overly long reallocation process.
More
promising are actions in the Senate. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), together with
Republican co-sponsors, have proposed the Wireless
Innovation Act of 2015, S. 1618. That proposed legislation would require
government to identify at least 200 MHz of spectrum below 5 GHz for reallocation
to private use, with the earliest auction required by 2018. It also includes
incentives to government agencies to encourage giving up spectrum.
The Wi-Fi
Innovation Act, S. 2505, co-sponsored by Senators Rubio and Booker (D-NJ),
and would require co-allocation of the 5.8 GHz band, currently allocated for
intelligent transportation services, to also include unlicensed wireless use. The
co-allocation mandate is conditioned on FCC findings that dynamic sharing
techniques are available so that the dual uses can coexist without harmful
interference.
The
proposed Wireless Innovation Act recognizes that government/non-government
spectrum sharing is potentially inefficient and may undercut spectrum goals.
Sharing proposals often fail to rectify government’s often inefficient use of
spectrum, as I have explained in my recent Perspectives.
Senator Rubio would reassert the congressional preference for clearing and
reallocating government spectrum, relying on sharing only where necessary to
preserve essential public safety and national security spectrum uses.
So it is laudable that the spectrum “pipeline” is under
construction, and that policymakers recognize the need for prompter action. But
the efforts are dilatory and likely not sufficient to meet market needs. For
the good of the American consumer and the nation’s economy, let’s hope that
policymakers can significantly advance and complete construction faster than it
has been able to accomplish in the past.
[NOTE: This piece
was written before still somewhat sketchy details of draft legislation prepared
by Sen. John Thune began to emerge. Based on press reports, it appears that the
draft legislation may address in a positive way some of the concerns expressed
in my blog. I will likely have more to say about Sen. Thune's proposal as more
details emerge.]