**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

**Re: *Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET Docket No.
04-186; Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in
the 3 GHz Band*, *ET Docket No. 02-380***

            One of the great lessons of history I quickly learned here
at the FCC is the power of technology to turn scarcity into abundance. 
Once upon a time, it seemed that certain swaths of the public airwaves
could support only a few expensive, bulky "brick" telephones (so named
because of their forbidding size and weight).  These early phones
permitted just 30 minutes of scratchy voice communications on a single
battery charge.  Today, thanks to the extraordinary work of America's
great engineers and inventors, the same amount of spectrum can support
millions of full-featured, relatively inexpensive, multimedia
handsets---like the popular iPhone---that perform many of the functions
of a desktop computer for days between charges. 

            Or, to take an example even closer to today's item, we have
learned in the past decade that unlicensed bands---once derided as "junk
spectrum" suitable only for garage door openers---can actually support
Wi-Fi connectivity for tens and even hundreds of millions of users every
day.  Something that seemed of marginal value has given us broadband in
homes, airports, hotels, coffee shops, and downtown areas---developments
that are changing the ways in which we live.  Just stop by a Starbucks
and look at how many people are typing away on laptops.  That, to me, is
the most important lesson of the wireless revolution: as technology
marches on, the real winners are American consumers.  This process is as
it should be---the airwaves, after all, are the ***people's***
airwaves.  And it is the FCC's job to make sure that the American people
continue to extract full value from their property. 

            So in setting responsible spectrum policy, the FCC must
always recognize that technology cannot stand still, and that even as we
protect existing users from harmful interference, we also have to
promote innovation---because until someone finds a way to make more
electromagnetic spectrum, it is only ***innovation*** that can improve
the wireless choices available to consumers. 

            For four years, the FCC has been considering proposals to
authorize unlicensed devices in the TV white spaces.  The proponents
have argued that we can enable a whole new generation of wireless
devices---bringing new broadband connectivity to our rural and urban
communities---without harming free, over-the-air TV.  Does this seem
almost too good to be true?  Of course.  But so did the modern cellular
industry, the explosion of Wi-Fi devices, and so many other innovations
at comparable stages in their development.  Even the notion of
transmitting high quality video through the air to millions of TV sets
must have seemed pretty fantastical when it was first demonstrated
decades ago.  This is the history of wireless innovation in a
nutshell---the nearly miraculous becomes commonplace.

            My approach throughout this process has been to let the
engineering analysis drive our decision-making.  The good news is that
the process---while far from perfect---has involved a great deal of
serious study and public openness.  In fact, the last round of testing
was conducted with engineers and lawyers from all sides looking over the
shoulders of the FCC's engineers as they performed their bench and field
testing.  While I do not envy the Commission's engineers for undergoing
this level of scrutiny as they go about their daily tasks, I think it's
fair to say that few other engineering analyses at the FCC have been as
lengthy or open as this one. 

            The results of our testing have shown that there is merit in
the initial positions of ***both*** sides in this debate---and I believe
our conclusion today reflects this point.  For example, the white spaces
proponents initially argued that spectrum-sensing alone would be
adequate.  Our testing has shown that this approach, right now, is not
ready for prime time.  That is why our decision does not authorize
devices today that rely exclusively on sensing---though we do create a
process for evaluating the next generation of such devices. 

            Instead, today, we move towards a compromise
technology---geo-location---that represents a simpler and more
conservative approach to protecting existing licensed users of the
television band.  We also have built in several forms of
belt-and-suspender protections.  First, we still will have a chance to
"kick the tires" of these devices at the certification stage---to make
sure they operate as designed.  Second, because we permit these devices
to operate under our Part 15 unlicensed rules, they must protect
broadcast licensees and shut off if they create harmful interference. 
Third, because we use geo-location technology, we retain the ability to
require particular makes and models of white space devices to turn off
if they have a manufacturing flaw.  Fourth, to the extent that we
consider certifying a next-generation sensing-only device, we have
established a process to make sure that all parties have an opportunity
to be present during the testing process. So, though there will never be
metaphysical certainty when it comes to interference issues, I am
comfortable that the FCC and its dedicated engineers have approached
this issue with the necessary seriousness and developed an approach that
will adequately protect over-the-air viewers. 

            In this lengthy process, some parties have come forward with
arguments for licensed use of the TV white spaces, either in whole or in
part.  As I have stated before, I think that both licensed and
unlicensed regimes benefit consumers.  The key is to get the right mix. 
In the past few years, we have auctioned off almost 150 MHz of new
***licensed*** spectrum.  The time has now come, I believe, to increase
the amount of ***unlicensed*** spectrum---especially the amount of
spectrum below 1 GHz.  The order we vote on today will do exactly that. 

            Some have called this new technology "Wi-Fi on
steroids"---and I hope they are right.  Certainly, this new technology,
taking advantage of the enhanced propagation characteristics of TV
spectrum, should be of enormous benefit in solving the broadband deficit
in many rural areas.  Indeed, I agree with the view of several of my
colleagues that it should be quite possible, at some point, to authorize
higher-power devices in rural areas that will support backhaul and
broadband infrastructure.  That is why I support our commitment to issue
a Notice of Inquiry on this topic---which should give the Commission
more than enough time to build a record and act before the first
commercially-ready devices enter the market.

            Today's item represents the culmination of a lot of hard
work by the Commission's skilled engineers and staff in our Office of
Engineering and Technology and elsewhere.  I want to thank them for
their dedication to this task and their accomplishment in charting a
course that accommodates both existing users and innovators in this
spectrum.  Ultimately, this careful threading of the needle between the
path-breaking and the tried-and-true will reap huge benefits for the
American people.