FCC TASK FORCE TEES UP FAR-REACHING SPECTRUM POLICY QUESTIONS

“Task forces can be a tremendous help to the Commission in meeting the many challenges we face, from spectrum management to media ownership to homeland security,” Copps and Martin said. “But they must always be responsible to the full Commission as their work proceeds. These are critically important issues and we believe they would be better addressed in a Notice of Inquiry issued by the Commission.” They said they were surprised that FCC’s obligation to promote service to rural areas was “barely mentioned… This responsibility is too important to be ignored. Additionally, we are concerned that, in drafting their report without Commission guidance, the staff may become wedded to certain views or frame the debate in a manner that is ultimately not consistent with the views of the majority of the Commission.” They also expressed concern that task force’s approach eventually could mean more delays because it would “necessarily require at least one additional round of notice and comment before the Commission itself even begins to engage in these issues.” Copps and Martin said: “We believe regulatory certainty and expeditious decisionmaking would be better promoted -- and critical Commission goals like serving rural America would have been better served -- by having the Commission itself conduct this proceeding.”

Earlier this year, Powell named Paul Kolodzy, senior adviser on spectrum in Office of Engineering & Technology (OET), to head task force. Group includes senior staff from several bureaus and offices, including its deputy dir., Lauren Van Wazer, who is special counsel to OET Chief Edmond Thomas. Michael Marcus, OET associate chief for technology, is senior technical adviser to task force and Maureen McLaughlin, senior counsel with FCC’s Office of Gen. Counsel, is its special counsel. Public notice said task force would receive guidance from steering committee composed of bureau and office chiefs. While senior OET officials have been providing overview of group’s plans for several months, public notice provided fullest outline to date of what policy areas task force would examine to move FCC’s spectrum policy toward more market-based approach.

“The government has an almost impossible task trying to keep pace with the ever-increasing demand for spectrum and continuing advances in wireless technology and applications,” Powell said. “The Commission cannot rely on outmoded procedures and policies. We must establish new ways to support innovation and the efficient, flexible use of spectrum.” Comments are due on public notice July 8, replies July 23. Task force intends to provide report to Commission by Oct. and plans to hold workshops in July and Aug. on spectrum policies.

Notice, which detailed task force’s tentative work plan, asked for comment on 2 approaches to moving toward more flexible spectrum policy. In some cases, FCC has granted existing licensees additional flexibility so that incumbents could migrate spectrum “to its highest value use.” Commission did that last year when it gave MMDS licensees flexibility to provide mobile wireless services in that band rather than just fixed wireless applications. Second model cited in notice involved FCC’s reallocating bands for flexible use with geographic service areas and auctioning “overlay licenses” and unassigned, white space spectrum to new and existing licensees. Task force asked whether “restrictive service and operating rules” in many bands should be altered to give licensees more flexibility, including: (1) Whether site licenses for services such as broadcasting and private land mobile should be converted to geographic area licenses. If that’s done, notice asks how those licenses should be defined, such as whether by power limits at geographic and frequency boundaries. (2) How spectrum not licensed by geographic areas should be assigned or reassigned, such as whether FCC should turn to measures such as auctions to put Commission-defined “overlay” areas out for bid. (3) How to redefine interference rights of incumbents and new licensees under more flexible rules.

Commission also raised possibility of different policy based on whether band was in more congested area of spectrum, such as below 3 GHz, asking: “Should different licensing concepts be applied to upper millimeter wave spectrum where propagation characteristics limit the range and small wavelengths enable very narrow beams?” Task force is exploring whether policies should vary by geographic area, depending on relative level of spectrum use. “Should the rules be different in urban areas where spectrum is generally in high demand, than in rural areas where the demand for spectrum is typically low, or in the transition areas -- where spectrum demand is somewhere between high and low demand regions?”

In another area that has drawn increasing attention as Part 15 bands have grown more congested, notice asked whether more spectrum should be set aside for operating unlicensed devices, asking whether: (1) Types of permissible unlicensed operations should be expanded. (2) What rule changes would be needed to accomplish that. “Because of the commons aspects of unlicensed use, is there concern that, as congestion rises, spectrum may not be put to its highest valued use?” It asked what policies could be drawn up to “anticipate this problem.” Task force asked for comment on whether new definitions of “interference” and “harmful interference” were needed and how they should be defined if there were changes. Agency sought feedback on whether “more explicit protections” from harmful interference of incumbent users were required. “If the Commission adopts new policies to address interference, should the rights of new spectrum users be defined differently from those of the present incumbents?” Task force also asks for comment whether FCC should develop receiver standards or guidelines for each radio service that would be used in judging harmful interference.

As for interference, FCC asked whether there were processes it could consider that would let private parties more quickly resolve interference problems, possibly through negotiated agreements, mediation, arbitration or “case-by- case adjudication.” It asked whether it should develop receiver standards for each radio service that would be used in judging harmful interference: “For example, should such standards or guidelines aim to protect receivers that meet or exceed the standards or guidelines, but allow users to use less robust receivers at their own risk?”

Task force also outlined balance that’s under consideration between policies that create incentives for efficient spectrum use yet remain technologically neutral. It sought reaction to policies that could be considered to promote “a proper level of spectral efficiency either through regulatory mandates or economic incentives.” Task force questioned whether FCC should weigh measures for quantifying spectrum efficiency, asking: (1) How could FCC define and quantify spectrum efficiency. (2) How could it “meaningfully compare efficiencies across different radio services.” (3) Whether spectrum efficiency should be analyzed “subjectively as opposed to quantitatively.” (4) “To what extent should any rules, standards or guidelines regarding spectral efficiency take into account the relative scarcity of different uses and different geographic areas as well as the cost of spectrum-conserving technologies.” (5) What data FCC needed to examine spectrum efficiency.