Public Needs to Know How Government Runs Its Airwaves

Popularly known as the "public airwaves," spectrum is becoming to the information era what land was to the agricultural era and energy to the industrial era: its defining and most valuable natural resource.

Spectrum allows people and machines to communicate without being connected to wires. Most households have dozens of spectrum using devices, including cordless phones, cellular telephones, garage door remotes, FM radios, satellite TVs, wireless car keys, Bluetooth headphones, invisible fences, and WiFi broadband connections.

Most spectrum is reserved for the federal government, and not for private use. The federal government allocates spectrum, and not unsurprisingly, allocated most for its own use. Since all agencies communicate, they all have a need for spectrum. More than 30 federal agencies have allocations of spectrum, with the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security widely believed to have the largest allocations.

The ostensible division of responsibility in spectrum management is that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) manages spectrum for private companies and local governments whereas the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) manages spectrum for federal agencies. In reality, the agencies, not the NTIA, make most of the key decisions regarding federal government spectrum use. The military, for example, reveals minimal information about its spectrum use to the NTIA and is more than an equal partner in assessing its own spectrum needs.

The FCC’s and NTIA’s standards of spectrum transparency and accountability are far different. For example, rules concerning spectrum usage at the FCC are subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, which calls for publicly posting and inviting comment on proposed rule changes, but those of the NTIA and agencies are not. Similarly, all FCC spectrum assignments are public and easily accessible via a public website, while federal government spectrum assignments need not be public and information about those that are not classified can only be requested via Freedom of Information Act requests.

The agencies and their advocates argue that this secrecy helps America because if the information were publicly released, national security would be endangered; that is, enemies would be able to jam or intercept vital communications. For example, they argue that terrorists seeking to blow up a hydroelectric dam operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority could have an advantage if they knew on which frequencies the Authority communicated.

According to economic theory, federal agencies should have minimal economic incentive to use spectrum efficiently because they don’t pay for it and thus don’t face its economic opportunity cost. Meanwhile, according to political theory, if agencies are using spectrum inefficiently, they should have a strong incentive to hide this information and do so by using national security or another plausible pretext.

In June 2003 President Bush launched a "spectrum policy initiative" to "stimulate more efficient and beneficial use of Government spectrum."

Nearly three years later, federal government spectrum use remains as clandestine as ever. A February report by the Technology CEO Council, concludes, "no one seems to know even the value of the spectrum used by the government, let alone how much economic benefit could be gained by using it more efficiently. This situation must change."

The time has come for policymakers to act on these calls for change. More federal spectrum should be declassified and publicly inventoried.

Actions should also be taken to deal with agencies’ conflict of interest in disclosing information about their own spectrum holdings and uses.

We must make it easier to appeal agency secrecy decisions via an independent spectrum appeals court. This could be modeled after the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel, which handles classification appeals for conventional government documents.

As spectrum becomes the lifeblood of our information economy and the animating medium of our democratic speech, the cost of potentially misused government spectrum is becoming larger than ever.

Achieving the right balance between secrecy and openness will not be easy. But the current balance has clearly erred too far in the direction of secrecy.