Politics

Speaking From the U.S. Point of View

An FCC regulator explains the philosophy behind recent changes in wireless regulation at the FCC.

by Marlon Schafer Consultant and CEO, Odessa Office [December 13, 2004]

Onyeije, from the FCC was the first of the guest speakers. He spent a lot of time talking about the new way of thinking about spectrum management at the FCC, how they are moving from a Command and Control mechanism and more toward a market driven approach. He talked about how it's now believed that the FCC should specify what bands can be used but not how they should be used.

He talked about the need to protect existing wireless services while at the same time allowing innovation and new ones to take root. It was, correctly, pointed out that there is more demand than there is spectrum. In the USA, spectrum use is governed by the FCC.

The U.S. Spectrum Policy Task Force (SPTF) is in charge. Onyeije said the SPTF deals with two key ideas. One is the idea that there are four dimensions to spectrum use: space (geography), time, power, and frequency. Most spectrum management, to date, has considered only three dimensions. Time is normally not considered but should be for maximum efficiency in spectrum management.

Another interesting idea is "interference temperature." This is a measure of how much interference a device can tolerate before it's unable to function properly. An example of how that could be important might be the idea that a Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP) could use very low powered devices in the TV broadcast bands. The TV receivers would have to be able to function correctly even if the WISP's devices created some small level of interference, or vise versa. Shouldn't be too difficult with modern technology (and certainly with tomorrow's technology).

In fact, many of the devices that I use today in my WISP distribution network do just that. They are able to happily (mostly) coexist with many other spectrum users in the same coverage zones.

Onyeije also brought up some of the problems of spectrum congestion that we're seeing in the USA. The demand for more radio stations, public safety systems, and especially wireless broadband distribution systems is outpacing the ability to allocate new chunks of RF space. It was pointed out how important it is for the rules to be flexible so that spectrum management can move at the hare's pace of industry rather than the tortoise's pace of government. The reasons for this are many. Increasing "communications-intensive" services based economy, the trend toward a mobile work force, increased convenience and efficiency, and resource sharing, all contribute to the need for more and more flexible communications systems.

It's already beginning. In November of 2004 the FCC certified [.doc] the first SDR (software defined radio). New digital technologies like OFDM make it possible to push more data through the air in even less time.

Flexible spectrum management is the current thinking, according to Onyeije. Set your rules in such a way that you strike a balance with them, not too heavy handed but not too flimsy either. You need to allow existing users of the spectrum to upgrade to new, more efficient technologies, while also leaving room for all other users to start out with the technology that best fits their business plans.

According to Onyeije, there are basically three models for managing spectrum: exclusive use, commons, and command and control. It is the view of the SPTF that both the exclusive use and commons models should be expanded. Exclusive use determines who's got the right to use spectrum but not what they'll do with that right. The commons model allows anyone to use spectrum but without interference protection (I'd like to see some degree of interference protection for incumbent (first-in) operators).