Trump Transition Names Layton to FCC Landing Team, Proponent of Spectrum Sharing

Layton joins AEI scholars Jeff Eisenach and Mark Jamison on the FCC team (see 1611210045, 1611230014, 1611250022 and 1611280050). Like Eisenach (here) and Jamison (here), Layton has a paper trail on her AEI webpage and all three contribute to its TechPolicyDaily.com. Ex-AEI fellow Alex Pollock was picked last week to work on FTC switchover efforts (see 1611290040).

The transition team membership could point to the FCC under Trump wanting to scale back its own reach "and move in probably a substantially less-regulatory fashion," Technology Policy Institute Senior Fellow Tom Lenard said. The team makeup also probably denotes a regulatory approach that sees substantial competition in the telco sector and a desire to take more of an antitrust approach, he said.

One ongoing endeavor Layton backs is spectrum sharing, which also was backed by some in the administration and at the current FCC. Wireless consultant Grant Seiffert has speculated the Trump administration could be more sympathetic to DOD resistance to surrendering spectrum for commercial purposes (see 1611090014). The wireless industry also generally prefers to gain exclusive access to spectrum, though it has pursued sharing, given the reality that many frequencies are controlled by DOD and other government departments and agencies.

Layton said "It's Time to Share" in a Nov. 17 AEI commentary. "The federal government has spent years touting the benefits of spectrum sharing but has taken little action to make it a reality, begging the question: Will they or won’t they support spectrum sharing?" she wrote. "Industry’s willingness to partner with government agencies is a promising development that will test agencies’ willingness to share spectrum. For example, one interested partner, Ligado Networks, a network service operator embraced the opportunity and filed a request to the Federal Communications Commission proposing a sharing regime in the 1,675-1,680-MHz band for deployment of new and competitive wireless network service. However, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, being the current federal resident of the spectrum in this case, balked at the request" (see 1611250033).

"A review of the many FCC filings clearly shows that the 1,675-1,680-MHz band spectrum proposal has done much more than its part to move spectrum sharing forward, for the greater benefit of the nation in ushering in the swath of IoT technologies in the making and already on the market," Layton wrote. "Let’s hope the new administration does more than talk about spectrum sharing. It’s time to move forward on this proposal and other sharing test beds."

Some FCC watchers told us Layton's piece seemed to be more about opening up federally used spectrum to nonfederal users than a wholesale endorsement of spectrum sharing. One spectrum lawyer said the FCC has been generally in agreement on major frequency policy matters, though sometimes disagreeing on details of implementation. The move from a Democratic-controlled agency to a Republican one shouldn't herald a major change in spectrum policy, said the legal expert.

The GOP has favored auctions more than sharing, but a Republican-controlled FCC might be more flexible on a sharing approach than the agency has been, said Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld. "It's not going to be a total pivot," he said, but attitudes about spectrum sharing have been changing since it was shown sharing doesn't hinder auctions. Some Republican opposition to spectrum sharing might also stem from the fact that it's being pushed by a Democratic administration, Feld said. Feld criticized the landing team makeup as being ideologically lockstep economists instead of including any lawyers or technologists or other viewpoints: "If you are surrounding yourself with your own echo chamber and people whose opinions you know before you ask, you're going to end up with recommendations ... that are more like a think tank paper that won't hold up in the real world."

Some FCC watchers questioned whether the next permanent chairman would come from the landing team or its recommendations, given that Trump's inner circle includes people in the media and he would be more prone to want to personally name someone at the regulator than for an agency he has less knowledge about. While the landing team exists to make recommendations, the political side of an administration "tends to find the actual candidates," Feld said: Given Trump's repeated criticisms of the news media, he's more likely "to want somebody he knows in the driver's seat at the FCC" rather than someone focused foremost on deregulation.