Evidence-Based Spectrum Policy the Goal, Getting There Complicated

Spectrum policy can be confusing for anyone without long history on the topic, said David Redl, CEO of Salt Point Strategies and former NTIA administrator. “Facts, knowledge, precedent, history, research and, yes, evidence are all part of making the case for specific policies, but they can be maddeningly complex and can come with far-reaching consequences.” In any proceeding, lots of data is filed, he said: “At what point does that start to become the evidence for evidence-based policymaking?”

Too often, there's “policy-based evidence making,” said New Street’s Blair Levin. Agencies often “make up the evidence to justify” policy, he said. Policymakers need to start by asking the right questions, he said. “Of course, no one was ever elected by promising the American people that they would ask certain questions,” he said. “They’re elected on the basis of the answers they give,” and “there’s a lot of political emphasis on just coming up with the answers that were already promised,” he said. Policy works best when based on data “routinely gathered” instead of addressing a question under the Administrative Procedure Act, Levin said.

“The demand for connectivity has been seriously emphasized” because of COVID-19, said Kate O’Connor, House Commerce Committee chief counsel-communications and technology. “You really have to take a holistic look at all of the evidence that’s out there, look at where the demand is, where the incentives are, to make those policy decisions.” Policymakers must consider “what is actually achievable,” she said.

Looking at all the data is important, but sometimes decisions have to be made “based on certain numbers or statistics that might be there, but also the economics,” O’Connor said: “Those factors are always changing.”

The FCC’s new Office of Economics and Analytics is “spending a lot of our time doing cost-benefit analysis and really elevating … evidence-based analysis,” said Chief Giulia McHenry. In spectrum, the FCC has to act on “ex ante” evidence, based on forecasts rather than results, she said. Most spectrum-based evidence is “ex ante in a world … where every band is unique, every repurposing situation is unique,” she said. “Most of what we’re looking at is economic and engineering filings, what we think has happened in previous bands” without “real-time evidence about how spectrum sharing is occurring,” she said.

Evidence comes through data, theory and modeling, said analyst Paul Kolodzy. “Data is empty” until you consider “what it means,” and a lot of arguments are based on how “evidence is actually applied,” he said. Developing the right metrics is difficult, he said: “Policymakers generally don’t like to have strict metrics, so it gives them the opportunity to do what they want.”

“If we’re only starting to think about evidence-based policymaking now, what were we doing before?” asked Scott Wallsten, Technology Policy Institute president. Often, there's “policy-based evidence making,” he agreed. Policymakers have to rely on costs versus benefits, he said. “That doesn’t necessarily mean monetizing everything, but recognizing that you’re weighing often tradeoffs and benefits and costs, and it’s not just following the data.” Officials need to be willing to try new ideas and admit when an approach isn’t working, he said: “That’s hard for people.”

Decisions must be made based on evidence, comparable to a court case, said Adam Scott, Innovation, Science and Economic Development director general-spectrum policy and who runs Canada’s spectrum auctions. “Try reimagining” spectrum policy “as a procedural crime drama,” he said.

Enforcement issues can be difficult, said ex-OET Chief Dale Hatfield, adviser to Silicon Flatirons. The FCC has never imposed standards on receivers, he noted. “Why should the operator of an RF emitter be penalized when it is the susceptibility or fragility of the receiving system that is at fault?” he asked. “One of my biggest professional regrets is we have made so little progress in adopting enforceable receiver performance requirements.”

The FCC doesn’t have the data it needs to assess noise and interference issues, the expert said. “Where do we focus our time and resources if we don’t know what systems or devices are most responsible?” Evidence-based “policymaking may well prove futile without effective rule-of-law based interference,” he said: With cuts to the enforcement field offices, “only the most egregious cases of harmful interference to public safety services are now pursued on site.”