FCC SPECTRUM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDS MORE FLEXIBLE RULES

Among task force’s key recommendations were that FCC find ways to increase access to spectrum for both licensed and unlicensed operators through more-flexible user rights, including possibility of public safety operators’ leasing excess capacity. Deputy Task Force Dir. Lauren Van Wazer said another recommendation was that FCC adopt “interference temperature” that would allow maximum permissible interference levels on band-by-band basis.

Industry sources praised report as first step in overhauling FCC’s spectrum policy. But several industry observers said devil could be in details as they awaited learning how FCC ultimately would balance allowing more flexible use of spectrum for new technologies versus protecting incumbents and their customers.

Commissioners lauded report as starting point, with several referring to cross-bureau task force headed by Paul Kolodzy as “powerhouse.” One of most closely watched challenges appeared to be how operations of existing incumbents would be affected by potential policy changes, particularly for operators who paid for spectrum that might be made more flexible for others down road. “Unfortunately, our spectrum policy is behind both consumers and technology,” FCC Chmn. Powell said: “By initiating the Task Force, I hoped to begin a dialog about how to catch up.” Comr. Copps stressed importance of addressing harmful interference and supporting unlicensed spectrum operations. “It is important for the country and also for the credibility of the Commission for us to quickly take some demonstrable action on these 2 priorities in the near future,” he said. He said Commission hadn’t yet endorsed report: “If history is any guide, there may be vigorous debate ahead on some of the concepts and ideas.”

Comr. Martin called report “beginning of a process” to look at those issues. But he said example of one of concerns that he and others might have would be treatment of unlicensed underlay technologies that could be provided in current licensed spectrum. “We need to make sure that we remember that the incumbents’ expectations for protections against interference still need to be important,” he said.

Point of “interference temperature” would be to place ceiling on noise environment in which receivers would be required to operate. “To the extent, however, that the interference temperature in a particular band is not reached, users who emit energy below that temperature could operate more flexibly -- with the interference temperature serving as the maximum cap on the potential RF energy they could introduce into the band,” task force said. Industry source likened that concept to operator being able to use band “if you don’t boil over” incumbents by remaining within interference protection limits.

Van Wazer told Commission that principal findings underpinning task force’s recommendations were that: (1) Spectrum access was more significant problem than spectrum scarcity because there were parts of spectrum that weren’t in use for substantial time periods. (2) Spectrum use could be divided by time, geographic area and frequency, with parceling of bands now generally based on geographic areas and frequency. Low-power processors, frequency agile transmitters, digital receivers and other new technologies provide ways to obtain better access to spectrum in that “time dimension.” (3) Technology advances were letting systems be more tolerant of interference. (4) Existing spectrum rights and responsibilities weren’t always clearly defined, particularly when it came to interference protection.

Task force recommended ways to increase access to spectrum for both licensed and unlicensed users, Van Wazer said. Among ways FCC increasingly could take into account time dimension, instead of just geographic or frequency-based licensing, included allowing more dynamic allocations of spectrum rights and permitting “more flexible use within certain technical parameters of existing allocations over licensee control.” Another possibility would be to allow highly variable services such as public safety to lease excess capacity to other nonrelated services, she said.

FCC officials declined to elaborate on 39 recommendations before release of final report but outlined broad recommendations. Van Wazer said task force proposed moving away from current spectrum regime, based on command- and-control model, to more market-oriented, exclusive rights or unlicensed “commons models.” It recommended that FCC balance its policy on combination of all 3 of those models, she said. Command-and-control approach sometimes has been referred to as “mother may I” model because licensees must ask FCC for permission before making changes. New approaches would include providing incentives for efficient spectrum use by both licensed and unlicensed users through both flexible rules and use of secondary markets, Van Wazer said. “This will enable spectrum users to make fundamental choices about how they use spectrum to take into account market factors such as consumer demand, availability of technology and competition,” she said. That would include FCC probing rule changes to allow lowering of permitted power in congested areas and increasing of power limits in less congested or rural areas, she said.

“As the FCC considers the task force report, we expect that all discussion will be guided by the importance of spectrum license holders and the commercial services that we provide the American public,” Verizon Wireless spokesman said.

CTIA Pres. Tom Wheeler praised report but cautioned it was only first step rather than “an end in itself… Now the heavy lifting of determining the rights and responsibilities of spectrum users begins in earnest.” Wheeler said he hoped upcoming policy discussions would focus on providing enough spectrum for commercial applications, “creating a stable environment that encourages investment” and protecting consumer rights to “interference-free spectrum-delivered services.”

“The devil is in the details on this,” industry source said, and in implementing changes FCC would have to balance how to protect existing wireless users who bought spectrum at auction while examining ways to provide capacity on those assets to new users. Another source said one dynamic facing Commission was that licensees traditionally had more rigorous view of what harmful interference meant to their services than did Commission. Two entities vying to share same spectrum typically raise that issue, source said. Licensees “increasingly” believe they have or should have something close to spectrum property rights to provide particular service and to make other users pay for using their band. In parts of task force recommendations on need to fill in “white space” for underutilized spectrum, question becomes on what terms such fill-in operations should have access if they are working around primary users and aren’t causing interference, source said.