Open Spectrum

An academic workshop at New America Foundation, April 11, 2012

As government services, political discourse and commerce expand online, policymakers and public interest organizations are promoting broadband “adoption” among people who are not currently using the Internet, or using it marginally. Yet there is little discussion of what “adoption” means or how it can be measured.

In 2010, the Federal Communications Commission approved an application by LightSquared to create a wholesale mobile broadband network by combining land-based and mobile satellite services. Subsequently, the commercial GPS industry opposed the network, arguing it would cause harmful interference to GPS devices. In response to a request for comments about the report of the Technical Working Group ordered by the FCC to study the interference issues, the New America Foundation, Free Press, Public Knowledge, and Media Access Project (the Public Interest Organizations) urge the FCC to actively intervene to broker, or impose if necessary, a plan that will not leave the L Band spectrum that LightSquared controls fallow, that will permit LightSquared to deploy its promised wholesale-only mobile broadband network on at least part of its spectrum, and that will safeguard essential GPS services.

Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation (“PK and NAF”) support both consumer choice and the responsible use of mobile wireless signal boosters. PK and NAF agree with the Commission that if properly designed and certified, mobile signal boosters have the potential to greatly benefit the public while automatically providing sufficient protection against harmful interference. PK and NAF agree with the Commission’s proposal that mobile signal boosters should be classified as Section 307(e) devices and authorized without an individual license for use on any or all networks.

When the Open Technology Initiative presented at the Allied Media Conference in June, many of the participants documented it with posts to Twitter and Flickr. We used Storify, an online tool for compiling social media, to arrange those pics and tweets into a narrative of our workshop and a tour of local wireless networks.

Today,Michael Calabrese, Senior Research Fellow and Director of the Wireless Future Project at New America's Open Technology Initiative, testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The hearing discussed proposed legislation concerning rules for "incentive auctions" of TV band spectrum and public safety issues.

Thank you, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo and members of the Committee, for this opportunity to testify today on the critical issue of how best to reallocate the nation’s public spectrum resource to promote mobile broadband, while promoting public safety communication and preserving the public benefits of over-the-air broadcasting.

In pushing to remove access to tethering applications on some phones, Verizon Wireless may be violating openness rules attached to spectrum licenses that the company purchased in 2008. But weeks later, federal regulators have still not ruled on the alleged violation or taken action against the cell phone company.

Hub & Spoke Wireless Networks vs. Mesh Wireless Networks

As indicated in the initial comments filed by PISC in this proceeding, PISC supports the
Commission’s initiation of this inquiry as the first step toward fulfilling two recommendations in
the National Broadband Plan “to accelerate the development of opportunistic use technologies
and to expand access to additional spectrum.” The comments filed to date evidence widespread
agreement that dynamic spectrum access (DSA) technologies have tremendous potential to
promote greater spectrum access, capacity, and efficiency in both licensed and unlicensed bands.

SUMMARY

Spectrum is a public resource, and must be protected as such. The ability to hold and transfer spectrum licenses is a privilege, not a right. That privilege must be carefully and closely regulated by the Commission to ensure that the use of spectrum serves the public interest. Attempts to exercise the privilege of transfer face a substantial burden of proof - and Applicants have failed to meet that burden, as several petitioners have shown.