Spectrum: Next Generation Interference Resolution and Enforcement

The Federal Communications Commission has the responsibility of managing and protecting non-federal radio operation. Professor Dale Hatfield, Senior Fellow at the Silicon Flatirons Center, set the stage for the Center’s September 15, 2016 conference, Spectrum: Next Generation Interference Resolution and Enforcement, by introducing the basics of regulating radio spectrum, and positing both hypotheses and concerns regarding a radio-intensive future. The Commission, Hatfield explained, manages radio in four steps: allocation, definition of service rules, assignment, and enforcement.This conference focused on the fourth step: interference resolution and enforcement of the Commission’s rules. Hatfield expressed concern that this step may currently be underappreciated by policy makers, an oversight that could lead to dire consequences given several emerging trends detailed below. In particular, he hypothesized that an explosive growth of devices and systems in closer proximity in frequency, space, and time will lead to an increased risk of harmful interference in the United States. Further, technological developments such as software defined radios present challenges to identifying and prosecuting attacks on critical infrastructure. Failure to enforce spectrum rules, therefore, endangers services critical to economic and social well-being. Hatfield elaborated that because wireless networks are inherently open, they are subject to jamming and spoofing attacks. As a result, the confidence in wireless technology may be decreasing. In a subsequent panel, Dr. Preston Marshall, Principal Wireless Architect for Google Access, observed that interference risks are driving a move away from putting life-critical functions on wireless networks. Hatfield’s and Marshall’s remarks highlight several underlying questions of the conference: in light of increasing usage of and dependence on radio spectrum, how does the spectrum community measure, identify, and resolve harmful interference issues (both malicious and accidental)? And what, if anything, can be done ex ante to prevent harmful interference? Answering these difficult questions is even more challenging when one considers, as conference participants contended, that the phrase “harmful interference” still lacks a clear definition beyond, “I know it when I see it.” Additionally, participants and audience members stressed that more data is needed for measurement and improvement. Bryan Tramont, Managing Partner at Wilkinson Barker Knauer and Senior Fellow with Silicon Flatirons, emphasized the scarcity of data to draw from when he asked the conference attendees if a harmful interference case had ever been litigated. The answer, in short, was no. In raising this point, Tramont’s goal was to spark discussion on how else we can gather the data we need, and with that data, better resolve spectrum interference issues. Drawing on their expertise and diverse experience, the participants examined the state of spectrum enforcement today, and what opportunities exist for improvement in the future. This report follows the thematic organization of the conference and collates participant and audience comments under the themes we believe to be most relevant. Section I takes stock of progress and challenges in spectrum enforcement, Section II discusses the use of technology to improve enforcement of spectrum usage, Section III analyzes the role of market and regulatory institutions in establishing a spectrum enforcement strategy, and Section IV concludes the report.