European Spectrum Management Said to Violate Human Rights Laws

Robert Horvitz, dir.-Open Spectrum International, said he wants to “open a new can of worms” in the spectrum debate. As people gain more control over operating characteristics of radio, radio should become less specialized and more governed by general social policy goals, he said. Where the use of particular equipment isn’t likely to involve harmful interference, Ofcom and the EC must exempt use of the device from the requirement for a wireless telephony license, he said. His comments came at a Tues. session here of the Cambridge-MIT Institute’s Communications Innovation Institute conference on “an open future for wireless communications?”

Horvitz cited a European Declaration on Human Rights (EDHR) provision that gives people the right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by a public authority. A license is such an interference, he argued, and unless it can be justified under an EDHR exception, it’s a violation of human rights.

Ofcom’s immediate reaction to the coalition’s argument wasn’t clear. The regulator is looking to shift its spectrum management approach from “command-and- control” to market-based. A key question is whether individual spectrum licenses are incompatible with a commons approach, Ofcom Dir.-Spectrum Markets Graham Louth said. Some say the 2 are irreconcilable, he said, but Ofcom believes they can work as long as parts of the spectrum can be managed on an open-access basis and others under licensing provisions.

The regulator also wants to liberalize spectrum by relaxing or removing constraints on use of spectrum embodied in rights of use given to licensees, Louth said. Ofcom is examining several innovative models of spectrum management: (1) Commercial spectrum management organizations (which get a block of spectrum, then make it available to many small users). (2) Spectrum brokers, who intermediate among different holders. (3) “Private commons.” Under that idea, an individual manufacturer or a group of device makers agrees on what spectrum they need, then gives buyers of the devices free use of that spectrum.

The EC also is wrestling with spectrum issues, said Philippe Lefebvre, principal adminstrator, EC Directorate- Gen. Information Society & Media. The EC is weighing national, European and global spectrum management, and, like Ofcom, is looking at a more market-based, flexible approach. The EC also is considering using a spectrum commons as part of the program, Lefebvre said. The EC is about to launch a study on commons, including the sharing of licensed spectrum, he said. It will try to push the issue in coming months.

Key issues for the EC include: (1) How to handle spectrum for wireless access platforms in a neutral way without creating economic problems for the legacy system. (2) How to apply technological neutrality in practice. (3) How to measure interference. The European Union thinks a coordinated approach is needed to avoid fragmenting the spectrum, Lefebvre said. Rather than trying for 25 different flexibility approaches, he said, the EC should aim for “harmonization of flexibility.”

“The future belongs to unlicensed commons,” said William Lehr, of MIT’s Communications Futures Program. While many take a simplistic view toward the difference between licensed and unlicensed spectrum, Lehr said, the picture is more complex. Licensed spectrum involves centralized management, is network-centric, and favors incumbents and service providers. Unlicensed management is decentralized, edge-centric, and favors entrants and equipment makers, he said.

Nonexclusive use of spectrum is the wave of the future because it’s consistent with technology and market/policy trends, Lehr said. The question is how to manage a spectrum commons, given that: (1) The issue inherently involves several disciplines -- technical, business strategy, economics and policy. (2) There are transition issues, including the “not in my backyard” syndrome. (3) The question of choosing a protocol for managing common spectrum is huge.