However, the rewards of sound spectrum policies go far beyond traditional stakeholders - they are integral parts of the long-term success of FCC initiatives in broadband, competition policy, media regulation and homeland security. Ultimately, like all of our focus areas, spectrum policy must strive to maximize the unique benefits offered by spectrum-based services and devices to the American people.
All consumers, whether they are John and Jane Q. Public or the Boulder [Colo.] Police Department, deserve a new spectrum-policy paradigm that is rooted in modern-day technologies and markets. We are living in a world where demand for spectrum is driven by an explosion of wireless technology and the ever-increasing popularity of wireless services.
Nevertheless, we are still living under a spectrum-management regime that is 90 years old. It needs a hard look, and in my opinion, a new direction. Modern technology has fundamentally changed the nature and extent of spectrum use. So the real question is: How do we fundamentally alter our spectrum policy to adapt to this reality?
The good news is that while the proliferation of technology strains the old paradigm, it is also technology that will ultimately free spectrum from its former shackles.
Spectrum-Policy Reform
The task force will assist the commission in evaluating policies regarding interference protection, spectral efficiency, effective public safety communications and various spectrum-usage models. In the end, the task force's mandate is to think creatively and comprehensively about our full panoply of spectrum policies, and provide an intellectual foundation for future policy.
In only a few months, the task force's team of high-level, multidisciplinary professional FCC staff - economists, engineers and attorneys - from across the commission's bureaus and offices has solicited over 200 comments from the public on a wide range of questions, held four public workshops and will soon submit its findings and recommendations.
I believe the upcoming report will serve as a catalyst for long-needed changes in spectrum policy.
So what are some of the key steps toward reform?
Interference Prediction and Avoidance
The time has come to consider an entirely new paradigm for interference protection. A more forward-looking approach requires there be a clear quantitative application of what is acceptable interference for both license holders and the devices that can cause interference. Transmitters would be required to ensure that the interference level, or "interference temperature," is not exceeded. Receivers would be required to tolerate an interference level.
I anticipate the commission will be seeking a lot of input from the technical community on these new interference concepts because this would mark a significant change. Rather than simply saying your transmitter cannot exceed a certain power, we instead would utilize receiver standards and new technologies to ensure communication occurs without interference, and the spectrum resource is fully utilized.
For example, perhaps services in rural areas could utilize higher power levels because the adjacent bands are less congested, therefore decreasing the need for interference protection.
During my time at the commission, we have been forced repeatedly to reject applications for new services because the receivers of nearby services were so poorly made that they could not tolerate the interference caused by the new service. By looking at the spectral environment more comprehensively and dynamically through the more focused measurement of interference temperature at the receiver, we better distribute the responsibilities for spectrum use and achieve greater value for American consumers.
Scarcity Mitigated by Time
In analyzing the current use of spectrum, the task force took a unique approach, looking for the first time at the entire spectrum, not just one band at a time. This review prompted a major insight: There is a substantial amount of "white space" out there that is not being used by anybody. The ramifications of the insight are significant. It suggests that while spectrum scarcity is a problem in some bands some of the time, the larger problem is spectrum access - how to get to and use those many areas of the spectrum that are either underutilized or not used at all.
One way the commission can take advantage of this white space is by facilitating access in the time dimension. Since the beginning of spectrum policy, the government has "parceled" this resource in frequency and in space. We permitted use in a particular band over a particular geographic region often with an expectation of perpetual use.
Like Einstein, who dramatically theorized on the importance of the time dimension almost 90 years ago, the commission now should also look at time as an additional dimension for spectrum policy.
How well could we use this resource if our policies fostered access in frequency, space and time?
Technology has, and now hopefully FCC policy will, facilitate access to spectrum in the time dimension that will lead to more efficient use of the spectrum resource. For example, a software-defined radio may allow licensees to dynamically "rent" certain spectrum bands when they are not in use by other licensees. Perhaps a mobile wireless service provider with software-defined phones will lease a local business's channels during the hours the business is closed.
Similarly, sensory and adaptive devices may "find" spectrum open space and utilize it until the licensee needs those rights for their own use.
In a commercial context, secondary markets can provide a mechanism for licensees to create and provide opportunities for new services in distinct slices of time. By adding another meaningful dimension, spectrum policy can move closer to facilitating consistent availability of spectrum and further diminish the scarcity rationale for intrusive government action.
Transition to Flexibility
Historically, the commission often limited flexibility via command and control regulatory restrictions on which services licensees could provide and who could provide them. Any spectrum users who wanted to change the power of their transmitter, the nature of their service or the size of an antenna had to come to the commission to ask for permission, wait the corresponding period of time, and only then, if relief was granted, modify the service.
Today's marketplace demands that we provide license holders with greater flexibility to respond to consumer wants, market realities and national needs without first having to ask for the FCC's permission.
I believe license holders should be granted the maximum flexibility to use or allow others to use the spectrum, within technical constraints, to provide any services demanded by the public. With this flexibility, service providers can be expected to move spectrum quickly to its highest and best use.
Such flexibility should not come at the cost of clearly defined rules. The rapid pace of the markets and technology requires the commission to continue to define clearly even the more expansive rights of flexible licenses. Without clarity, there is little certainty for the consumer, for the licensee in building business plans, or for the capital markets as to the value of the licenses. Although our licensed services - such as mobile wireless services - have thrived in the marketplace, the commission has not maximized the public-interest benefits that could be created by these licensees.
For example, if the agency were to define the interference temperature in the licensed service bands, it would establish a clear watermark beyond which interference would not be permitted to rise. This certainty and stability would protect the investment-backed expectations of incumbents and their investors while opening spectrum to innovative uses under clearly specified parameters.
Public Interest Becomes Consumer Interest
We need a new spectrum policy that fits a new paradigm of putting the consuming public into the assessment of the spectrum public interest. This does not mean the commission will overlook the larger public-interest goals such as national defense, public safety and critical infrastructure.
But it does mean we should develop policies that avoid interference rules that are barriers to entry, that assume a particular proponent's business model or technology and that take the place of marketplace or technical solutions. Such a policy must embody what we have seen benefit the public in every other area of consumer goods and services: choice through competition and limited, but necessary, government intervention into the marketplace to protect such interests as access to people with disabilities, public health, safety and welfare.
Spectrum policy was once an obscure abstraction for most Americans. But today, Americans experience firsthand the challenges of dropped cell phone calls, or limits on cable competition, or for the early adopters among us, interference on their wireless LANs.
These are no longer abstractions; they are spectrum-policy problems - interference debates, spectrum-allocation decisions, and choices between licensed and unlicensed uses. The government must respond to these challenges because the consumer impact of our failure to do so is too great to ignore, and the American people increasingly know it.
As do their leaders. On Capitol Hill, a number of members have expressed interest and advanced thoughtful proposals on spectrum reform. Similarly, the Bush administration has been an active participant in the spectrum-policy dialogue.
At the Department of Commerce, NTIA Administrator Nancy Victory hosted a spectrum-policy summit just this spring. Participants representing a broad range of interests - government, consumers, industry and public safety - gathered to develop innovative spectrum-policy recommendations. Many others are doing their own studies and holding conferences on spectrum policies: the General Accounting Office; think tanks, such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the CATO Institute; and universities, including my host today, the University of Colorado.
The commission and the task force are at the epicenter of this national dialogue. I look forward to working with anyone and everyone with good ideas on how to move spectrum policy forward.
The task force's work will not be merely an intellectual exercise in creative policy. Hopefully the report, and the constructive dialogue it will initiate, will provide the framework, or blueprint, for how we will approach spectrum policy in the future. That framework is not just a long-term process. It provides a significant action plan for the next quarter.
In the coming months, I will:
