Sherrie Steward

A stalemate with industry on one side and the Department of Defense (DoD) on the other seems to be hindering the progress of spectrum allocation for deployment of third-generation wireless services in the United States.

Everyone agrees that progress will inject billions of dollars into the economy. "The economic growth that would be prompted by an auction of spectrum for 3G services is exactly the right medicine for our slumping technology sector," said Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) at a recent hearing of the telecommunications subcommittee.

As the committee pushes to craft bipartisan legislation by early fall, participants on both sides of the debate are eager to cooperate. However, they disagree so strongly on the solution that they've already seen one set of deadlines for auctioning the newly allotted spectrum get pushed back.

Once here, the next generation of wireless technology will enable U.S. providers to offer broadband capabilities on hand-held devices in addition to the long-awaited ability to use a mobile phone anywhere in the world. It was even noted that 3G could be the badly needed technology to keep rural America alive. As a nation that devours the latest and greatest technology, we've salivated as Europe, Japan, and even China have already adopted this technology or at least allotted spectrum for it.

Our problem? In the United States, the most coveted spectrum—1710 to 1850 MHz—is currently allocated to the Department of Defense. Not unreasonably, DoD sees reallocation as costly, technically difficult, and a threat to national security. "DoD is eager to participate," says Linton Wells, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense. But Wells predicts that the military, which is moving toward a network-centric operation, will rely even more on spectrum and bandwidth. Moving 3G into this spectrum, he says, will require DoD's immediate relocation into comparable bandwidth to avoid mission failures, reduced intelligence capabilities, and interruption of navigation services. These are compelling reasons to heed his argument that DoD needs both time to adjust and financial compensation to purchase new equipment. Wells strongly believes that other parts of the spectrum, such as 2500 to 2690 MHz, would be just as attractive for 3G without disruption to DoD.

The wireless industry, on the other hand, prefers the 1710 to 1850 band because it will harmonize U.S. allocations with those in use internationally, permit economies of scale, reduce costs of manufacturing equipment, and facilitate international roaming.

"There is merit to each of the many concerns raised by players on all sides of the 3G debate," said Rep. Thomas Davis (R-VA). He rightly points out that the solution is not a choice between incapacitating our military's ability to defend national interests and weakening our ability to compete globally in the next generation of high-speed wireless communications. Both sides must work quickly to craft a workable solution that will ensure that the United States is competitive in this critical area.

Sherrie Steward, Editor

sherrie.steward@cancom.com

Back to September/October Table of Contents