# Presentation: 794306

## “Forum on Spectrum 
Management Policy Reform”

National Academy of Science, Computer 
Science & Telecommunications Board

February 12, 2004

- Management Policy Reform”
- National Academy of Science, Computer
- Science & Telecommunications Board
- February 12, 2004

- John Muleta, Chief
- Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
- Federal Communications Commission

**Notes:**
Introduction

Thank you for having me here today.  I appreciate this opportunity to talk about “Spectrum Management Policy Reform” from the perspective of the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, probably the busiest spectrum “manager” here – if measured by volume of transactions and the current weight on our shoulders.

I applaud the administration’s efforts to take a sweeping look at how spectrum resources our managed in the U.S.  Our colleague here, Mike Gallagher, has a lot of cats to herd and I wish him all the luck in the world.  I also appreciate what the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board can bring to this effort.  We need a well respected group like this to conduct a thorough study of the current directions in spectrum policy . . . and, of course, to tell us where we at the FCC are headed is the right course.

## Overview

- FCC’s & WTB’s Spectrum “Management” Goals
- Key Ingredients for Successful Spectrum Management
- Current Challenges and Future Promises
- Access to Spectrum is Key
- Reexamining the Public Safety “Business Model”

**Notes:**
Focus of the Discussion:  The focus of my brief remarks today will be on the Wireless Bureau’s “management” of radio spectrum resources for the benefit of all consumers.  I also will discuss ways we are modernizing our efforts and how we are thinking about bringing Moore’s Law to the spectrum universe, especially that part of the galaxy we commonly group together as “public safety communications.”  I will talk a little about how, as the FCC’s Spectrum Policy Task Force found, improving access to the spectrum is key.  Then we’ll take a brief look that the traditional public safety wireless communications model, highlight some of the current challenges we are facing, and preview some of the possible next steps down the road.

## Spectrum “Management” Goals

**TRANSPARENCY ********  EFFICIENCY ******** RELIABILITY**
- Promote the **highest and best use of spectrum** domestically and internationally in order to encourage the growth and rapid deployment of **innovative** and **efficient** wireless communications technologies and services.
- Advance **spectrum reform** by developing and implementing **market-oriented **allocation and assignment policies.
- Vigorously protect against **harmful interference** and enforce public safety-related rules.
- Conduct **effective and timely licensing activities** that encourage efficient use of the spectrum.
- Provide adequate **spectrum** and improve **interoperability** for better public safety and commercial purposes

**Notes:**
FCC’s Strategic Policy Goals and Objectives:  As set forth in the Commission’s strategic plan, we have some  lofty, but very important goals and objectives focusing on using market mechanisms to achieve the highest and best use of spectrum resources for the benefit of all consumers.  We are working diligently toward facilitating innovation and efficiency.  Most importantly, our key objectives center around preventing harmful interference, especially to public safety users, and making sure such users have access to not only the raw spectrum resources and network infrastructure, but access to their fellow first responders in the field during emergency situations, no matter what agency or jurisdiction they serve.

## Spectrum “Management” Goals

- Increase the consumer good to produce economic growth by the deployment of spectrum based services
- Foster US global competitiveness through the use of spectrum services
- Greater emphasis on public safety and homeland security issues through the use of spectrum services
- Focus on excellent customer service to benefit our licensees and consumers.

**WIRELESS BUREAU OBJECTIVES**

**Notes:**
When I first came back to the Commission a year ago, I knew that we have a great portfolio and was excited to guide the Bureau in maximizing its potential. Four macro goals are the foundation for our activities: 1) increasing the consumer good in ways that will stimulate economic growth and result in tangible benefits to the public; 2) increasing US global competitiveness by fostering US research and investment in wireless services; 3) placing a greater emphasis on public safety and homeland security issues where wireless plays a very important role; and 4) continuing our emphasis on excellent customer service for the great number of individuals and communities we serve. 

## Spectrum “Management” Vision

**Rules**

**Policy**

**People**

**Outreach**

**Customer**
**Service**

**Spectrum **
**Access**

**Wireless**
**Applications**

**FOCUS OF OUR EFFORTS**

**Notes:**
We are implementing this plan by focusing on three specific activities: 1) innovative policies and rules and regulations fostering greater spectrum access, 2) improving and modernizing our information and knowledge management capabilities in order to provide better customer service; and 3) significantly ramping up our outreach and public education. 

## Success Speaks for Itself! Mobile Telephony: June 2002 - June 2003

- Source: Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association; FCC.  Subscriber comparison uses CTIA estimate for June 2002 and FCC estimate for June 2003.  June 2003 MOU estimate is preliminary.

**Spectrum “Management” Success**

**Notes:**
Our efforts are best exemplified by the stunning success of the mobile telephony industry which has come to challenge our assumptions about the future of telecommunications (its all going to be wireless).  The statistics are very telling.  Subscribership and usage are increasing, investment continues, and prices for consumers have declined despite an uncertain economy.  Employment in the sector also remained stable.  Finally, we can see the trends of the future where wireless communications will be the standard form of communications.  For example, in 2003, carriers reported steep increases in the amount of revenues resulting from wireless data services.  Our role is to improve these trends using a light regulatory touch, improving access to spectrum and promoting the competitive marketplace to provide consumers with the products and services they obviously value.

## Rapid transition of spectrum to highest and best uses (transparent process)
Since the inception of the Auctions program, bidders have won 25,488 licenses and paid over $14.4 billion to the U.S. Treasury
Flexible service rules foster facilities-based competition and adaptable to market conditions (effective process)
Incentive based regulations favoring private transactions as a default (reliable process)

***Since the inception of the Auctions program, bidders have won 25,488 licenses and paid over $14.4 billion to the U.S. Treasury***
- Flexible service rules foster facilities-based competition and adaptable to market conditions _**(effective process)**_
- Incentive based regulations favoring private transactions as a default _**(reliable process)**_

**SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT**

**SUCCESSFUL SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT**

**Notes:**
One catalyst to such change was our auction authority, which Congress granted to the FCC in 1993.  In 1997, our authority was extended and made mandatory for most licenses, except public safety; public broadcasting and international satellites.

The auctions program has been very successful in efficiently providing access to spectrum.  With our auction authority, the FCC has a statutory obligation to move spectrum to its highest valued use through this market-based assignment mechanism.  Part and parcel to this approach, at least in most services, are flexible rules that don’t dictate what the winning bidders’ business model, technology or service should be.  This flexibility gives licensees every incentive to go out and compete for customers who will use their spectrum.

Oh yeah, and then there is the financial benefit for the U.S. Treasury from the sale of licenses. Since the inception of the Auctions program, winning bidders have paid over $14.4 billion to the U.S. Treasury.  This year, we have already surpassed last year’s net high bids in just one auction.  The auction of 192 licenses in the new multipoint video and data distribution service (MVDDS) netted a little over 118.7 million dollars – that’s the spectrum that some were trying hard to get Congress to keep off the auction block.  Upcoming auctions this year will also promote access to spectrum for direct broadcast satellite service and broadband services in the 24 GHz band.  Further down the road, we are looking ahead at auctioning off the remaining spectrum in the 700 MHz band now occupied by TV channels 59-69 and new spectrum, some of which will come from Federal Government users, that will be available for advanced fixed and mobile wireless services such as third-generation services.

## Spectrum access is a much more significant problem than scarcity.

Spectrum can be parceled and accessed in multiple dimensions (if our rules just let the technology do it).

Technological innovations are allowing digital radio systems to be much smarter and more tolerant to interference.

Spectrum users’ rights and responsibilities need to be clearly defined.

Transition traditional command-and-control bands to “exclusive use” and “commons” models.

- Spectrum can be parceled and accessed in multiple dimensions (if our rules just let the technology do it).
- Technological innovations are allowing digital radio systems to be much smarter and more tolerant to interference.
- Spectrum users’ rights and responsibilities need to be clearly defined.
- Transition traditional command-and-control bands to “exclusive use” and “commons” models.

**FCC’s Spectrum Policy Task Force**
- Principal Findings:

**Improving Spectrum Access**

**Notes:**
My colleague, Julie Knapp of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology will discuss the Spectrum Policy Task Force findings and recommendations in greater detail, but I wanted to highlight a few ways that the Commission and the Wireless Bureau has been implementing some of the Task Force’s core recommendations.  The Wireless Bureau staff played a significant role in the Task Force at its inception as well as today.  Peter Tenhula, one of the Wireless Bureau’s Deputy Chiefs, is the current Director of the Task Force and has already made a detailed presentation to the board at its first meeting, along with Dr. Kolodzy.

Without a doubt, the Task Force’s findings have influenced the Wireless Bureau’s thinking about spectrum policy and it also helps to have Peter pushing us along.  For purposes of today’s discussion, I will focus on spectrum access.  And, to let you in on a little secret, the Bureau was using market-based approaches to spectrum management, promoting spectrum access and giving licensees maximum flexibility long before the Task Force finally realized these things were not only cool, but tremendously successful.  Now it is up to us to apply these principles to the vast majority of the spectrum that remains under the command and control regime.

## Improving Spectrum Access

**Increasing Market Access Through Flexibility**

- 2003: FCC’s Action in Secondary Markets Proceeding
- Authorizes spectrum leasing in a broad array of wireless radio services
- Leasing fosters flexibility and affords more opportunities to access spectrum for small businesses and in rural areas.
- Pending proposals to expand leasing policies.
- Increased flexibility and innovation in FCC licensing, technical and operational policies.

**Notes:**
Another way the Commission is fostering access to spectrum is through the facilitation of secondary spectrum markets and leasing.  Last year, the Commission took a long-awaited landmark step in the Commission’s evolution toward greater reliance on the marketplace to expand the scope of available wireless services and devices. These new leasing policies will lead to more efficient and dynamic use of the important spectrum resource to the ultimate benefit of consumers.  The decision implemented key recommendations of the Spectrum Policy Task Force, which advocated the development of secondary markets mechanisms, including spectrum leasing, in its report.  

We are also using other innovations in licensing approaches to facilitate access to spectrum.  For example, the Commission adopted a novel approach to license the 70, 80 and 90 GHz Bands.  Due to the unique technical characteristics of the “pencil-beam” nature of the emissions in these bands, an unlimited number of nationwide licenses are available and licensees will be able to register sites and rapidly coordinate with each other and the government users over the Internet. In addition, the innovative public/private licensing mechanism at 4.9 GHz should make additional spectrum available to the public safety community (and other entities that they want to partner with) for advanced, broadband applications.

## 
Traditional set-aside, self-provisioning model

97 MHz of Spectrum Designated for Exclusive Public Safety Use (land mobile and fixed microwave platforms; not satellite).
Bands and systems around for decades.
Frequency coordinators.
Typically high powered, high-sight broadcast architecture for each state/local agency’s own internal use.
Agencies with very limited, taxpayer funded budgets.
Approximately 40,000 FCC “Public Safety” licensees.
Comfortable with “command and control” structures

Compare:
190 MHz used/available for Commercial Mobile Radio Services and 150 mm consumers
90 MHz becoming available in AWS.
Cellular architecture: frequency reuse; geographic licensing; lower powered/low sights. 
New equipment and networks; highly competitive suppliers.

**Traditional set-aside, self-provisioning model**
- 97 MHz of Spectrum Designated for Exclusive Public Safety Use (land mobile and fixed microwave platforms; not satellite).
- Bands and systems around for decades.
- Frequency coordinators.
- Typically high powered, high-sight broadcast architecture for each state/local agency’s own internal use.
- Agencies with very limited, taxpayer funded budgets.
- Approximately 40,000 FCC “Public Safety” licensees.
- Comfortable with “command and control” structures
- Compare:
- 190 MHz used/available for Commercial Mobile Radio Services and 150 mm consumers
- 90 MHz becoming available in AWS.
- Cellular architecture: frequency reuse; geographic licensing; lower powered/low sights.
- New equipment and networks; highly competitive suppliers.

**Reexamining the Public Safety “Business Model”**

**Notes:**
To date, the FCC has dedicated over 90 megahertz of spectrum for use in support of mission-critical public safety communications needs.  Still, these specialized users are seldom able to enjoy the fruits of technological innovations and advanced wireless applications used in broader consumer and business markets.

It is imperative to the public interest to eliminate this disparity where it exists and provide public safety agencies the technological and service choices they deserve.  I believe that part of the responsibility of a regulator is to examine the current paradigm and design policies to create incentives that support change. 

## 
Traditional set-aside, self-provisioning model
Advantages
Network availability, reliability and control
Exclusive frequencies
 Disadvantages
Slow deployment
Interoperability problems
Technological isolation
Capacity limitations

**Traditional set-aside, self-provisioning model**
- Advantages
- Network availability, reliability and control
- Exclusive frequencies
-  Disadvantages
- Slow deployment
- Interoperability problems
- Technological isolation
- Capacity limitations

**Reexamining the Public Safety “Business Model”**

**Notes:**
There have been advantages and disadvantages with the traditional approach of allocating spectrum specifically for purposes of public safety use.

Some of the advantages include:  network availability and reliability, as well as, frequencies specifically designated for public safety uses.  

Some of the disadvantages of this model are: 1) slower deployment of services; 2) problems with implementing interoperable systems; 3) technological isolation; and 4) ultimately, capacity limitations.

## 
Recent Developments
Pre-CMRS (before 1982) – public safety land mobile radio benefited from similarities with private radio (business, industrial and land transportation) in neighboring bands
Economies of scale, technological developments, standards, etc.

Explosion of CMRS and unlicensed systems – result of greater regulatory flexibility, rapid development of technology, greater access to spectrum.  

CHOICE!  OPTIONS!  COMPETITION!  INFRASTRUCTURE!

Question Presented: Is public safety taking full advantage of these developments and how can better spectrum policies facilitate more choice and flexibility and less regulation?

**Recent Developments**
- Pre-CMRS (before 1982) – public safety land mobile radio benefited from similarities with private radio (business, industrial and land transportation) in neighboring bands
- Economies of scale, technological developments, standards, etc.
- Explosion of CMRS and unlicensed systems – result of greater regulatory flexibility, rapid development of technology, greater access to spectrum.
**CHOICE!  OPTIONS!  COMPETITION!  INFRASTRUCTURE!**
**Question Presented**: Is public safety taking full advantage of these developments and how can better spectrum policies facilitate more choice and flexibility and less regulation?

**Reexamining the Public Safety “Business Model”**

**Notes:**
In prior era of spectrum management, under the command and control model, public safety spectrum users were similarly situated to their private radio neighbors.

As I mentioned earlier, in the past decade, CMRS networks have flourished, consistent with the evolution in spectrum policy.  More recently, high speed data networks incorporating unlicensed systems are becoming more available to public safety agencies.

Bottom line:  for decades, the traditional public safety business model made sense.  There were simply no other choices.  However, more and more public safety agencies are challenging that old paradigm and seeking to take advantage of the choices offered by a competitive telecommunications marketplace.

## Current Challengesand Future Promises

- Translating the benefits of “commercial” networks to the public safety realm.
- Empowering Public Safety to Have “Dream Systems.”
- Encouraging the commercial world to leverage infrastructure for the benefit of public safety.
- e.g., Priority Access; Interruptible Spectrum.
- Identifying creative public-commercial/private partnerships and best practices to solve public safety network challenges.

**Notes:**
We also need to work to bring the benefits of commercial networks to the public safety realm:
“Dream Systems” at 4.9 GHz
Last year, the FCC released a Report and Order which outlined licensing and service rules 50 megahertz of spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band.  This action has the potential to provide public safety operators with “dream systems,” which greatly improve incident-scene management.  Anticipated applications include enhanced personal or vehicular communications devices: 
(Personal Area Network/Vehicular Area Network systems, Wireless Local Area Network Systems, Wireless fixed “hot spot” location devices)
Although equipment for the 4.9 GHz band is not yet available, it will most likely be leveraged from the nearby 5 GHz unlicensed band.  

Priority Access Service
Priority Access Service is a program administered by the National Communications System (NCS), now a part of DHS.  This service permits, but does not require, CMRS providers to facilitate access by national security and emergency preparedness (NSEP) personnel to next available wireless channels in emergency situations.  This is an example of public-private collaboration where NSEP functionality is built into the commercial infrastructure. 

## 
Exploring New Ideas

Reexamine the business model paradigm of public safety self-provisioning on spectrum set-asides.

Examine options for public safety spectrum lease with “take-backs” (Secondary Markets FNPRM) and “preemptible” use of spectrum by “smart” radios and networks.

Evaluate use of national virtual private networks on commercial networks dedicated to public safety use.

Public safety communications system should:
Be scaleable
Be standards-based
Provide for vendor choice

- Exploring New Ideas
- Reexamine the business model paradigm of public safety self-provisioning on spectrum set-asides.
- Examine options for public safety spectrum lease with “take-backs” (Secondary Markets FNPRM) and “preemptible” use of spectrum by “smart” radios and networks.
- Evaluate use of national virtual private networks on commercial networks dedicated to public safety use.
- Public safety communications system should:
- Be scaleable
- Be standards-based
- Provide for vendor choice

**Current Challenges****and Future Promises**

**Notes:**
While assuring continuity for existing vital public safety services, we also need to re-examine public safety spectrum use, with an eye toward increasing the possible alternatives available for public safety.  One forum in which we are undertaking such a re-look is our secondary markets further notice, where we’ve teed up the issue of public leasing, which holds the potential to increase spectrum use efficiency for public safety and commercial operators alike.

Of course, we would need to thoroughly think through all the details, making sure that if we’re to adopt an approach, it would provide the required reliability that these users need.

We also plan to look at other creative ways to leverage existing and future commercial technologies/networks, fostering public-private partnering to solve public safety communications challenges.

## 

Thank You!

- Thank You!

**Notes:**
Thanks for the opportunity to tell you a little about the Bureau’s spectrum policy vision today.  I look forward to your questions.