EDITOR'S PAGE

The Great Debate over Spectrum Allocation

Spectrum allocation has become a hotly debated topic these days. With technology quickly outpacing policy, everyone agrees that the current system isn't working. When it comes to how to fix it, however, the ideas are as broad as the spectrum itself. Earlier this year, Stanford University Law School held a conference called "Spectrum Policy: Property or Commons" at which experts addressed the "complex implications of the competing models."

"Those advocating a commons approach argued that spectrum capacity is unlimited, so there is no need for licensing," said Harold Hallikainen, an engineer and expert on broadcast regulations. This school of thought believes that only "rules of the road" are required to address the issue. Later discussion revealed, however, that establishing the rules of the road is quite complex.

Participants, Hallikainen says, did not want FCC to establish these rules. Proponents fear that if FCC were left to set the rules, it would "freeze technology." He notes that although commons advocates argue that spectrum capacity is unlimited, they always want more spectrum. This, he says, seems to indicate there is a limitation to spectrum, which calls instead for a market solution. He says one particularly interesting approach discussed at the conference was the "Disneyland approach," where a user pays a spectrum (or property) owner for access to a private commons, similar to paying admission to a theme park. He explains that with this approach, an equipment maker or consortium gets the exclusive nationwide right to a chunk of spectrum from FCC. He argues that, if implemented, such an allocation should be granted through a spectrum lease.

"This manufacturer or group has the right to determine what protocol would be used on this spectrum," says Hallikainen. "In this case, the cost of the use of spectrum would be included in the cost of the equipment that uses the spectrum." Advocates of the commons approach, he says, point to Wi-Fi and other spread-spectrum techniques as proof that such a method could be implemented successfully. This logic leads to yet another problem of how to determine and enforce a protocol. Both Motorola and Microsoft presented possible solutions at the conference. Microsoft proposed that transmitters simply listen to a channel before transmitting. This idea, however, was countered with the fact that it too is flawed. Because it is possible for short- and long-range communications to use a channel simultaneously, the risk is that this option could also reduce the capacity of the spectrum. "Based on the discussion," he says, "there is little agreement."

Until the debate is resolved, unused spectrum sits unavailable. FCC needs the input of the developers and users so that a solution can be found soon.

Sherrie Conroy, Editor
sherrie.conroy@cancom.com

For more information on spectrum issues, go to http://www.hallikainen.org/ijclp.
Hallikainen also maintains a Web site (http://www.hallikainen.com) that features useful information on FCC Rules.