NTIA Spectrum Comments Seen Breaking Little New Ground, Could Still Be Important
NTIA received more than 50 comments on a national spectrum strategy. They mostly stake out well-developed positions expressed elsewhere. Industry officials told us the comments at least provide a baseline for the administration as it plows into creating the plan.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Some filings were conservative, wireless industry lawyers said. CTIA and carriers offered a cautious take on sharing, arguing for exclusive use over shared whenever possible. “Congress has appropriately given priority to reassigning spectrum for exclusively licensed use,” CTIA said. “In light of the substantial swaths of spectrum the FCC already has earmarked for unlicensed use, identifying additional spectrum for licensed, exclusive-use is all the more important,” Verizon commented.
Most we asked hadn’t had time to read through any of the comments. They were posted last week after the partial government shutdown ended (see 1901300043).
“We are still reviewing the comments and appreciate the submissions from a wide range of spectrum stakeholders, which will help us as we work to develop and implement a national spectrum strategy," an NTIA spokesperson emailed. "We are particularly excited by ideas for managing and using spectrum more efficiently and effectively and that present opportunities for additional spectrum access for all users.”
Kristian Stout, International Center for Law & Economics associate director, didn’t find “anything really novel” in the comments he read. “The comments are broadly useful if only to have them in the record as the NTIA deliberates on the approach it will recommend,” Stout said. “The comments can move the ball forward to the extent that they tend to move in the same direction. We need more bandwidth availability and we need more flexibility in how it’s allocated.”
“There was a lot of repeating the standard lines from all parties,” said Joe Kane, tech policy fellow at the R Street Institute. Kane conceded R Street itself made points it has previously. The request for comments “was mainly aimed at complying with the presidential memo, and since there hasn't been any major change other than that, the comments look similar to what everyone was saying before,” he said. Carriers would like to ensure more federal bands, he said: “But they recognize the usual deadlock between government and commercial use is still in place. If something more revolutionary is going to take place in this national spectrum strategy discussion … NTIA will have to signal that concrete reform is on the table.”
The Free State Foundation sought structural changes. “I’m a bit disappointed that more parties, including the private sector wireless providers, didn’t take the opportunity to be bolder in advocating more fundamental changes in the way federal spectrum use is overseen,” said President Randolph May. "When the president initiates a process with a presidential memorandum seeking to develop a new spectrum strategy, and the NTIA administrator follows up quickly by seeking comments, it seems to me it is an opportunity to be bold.”
Given the leadership at NTIA, including Administrator David Redl and Peter Tenhula, acting head of the spectrum division, there was likely little submitted they hadn’t already thought of, said Lawrence Spiwak, president of the Phoenix Center. There are a lot of “tough questions,” he said. Spiwak sees a July 2012 report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology on sharing (see 1402030047) as a low point for national spectrum policy. The report largely drove spectrum policy during the Obama administration. “I’m not sure there were a lot of wireless people involved,” he said. “What PCAST said is ‘we will never auction spectrum again.'"
“Carriers are still of the view that they strongly prefer cleared spectrum to shared spectrum,” said Kalpak Gude, Swarm Technologies general counsel. “My guess is that they have a lot of excitement about spectrum above 3 GHz, and even above 24 GHz, that they believe may be clearable, so shared spectrum below 3 GHz is less desirable.” Government could move toward more sharing and see how carriers react, he said: “There would clearly be a strong interest from lots of other players, those who are currently locked out of cleared spectrum due to the high prices.”
“The players are quite experienced at helping various administrations shape spectrum plans,” said Robert McDowell of Cooley. “It’s no surprise that advocacy before NTIA would echo what the parties are saying before other facets of government. … The contrary would raise eyebrows. Saying one thing to the FCC but something different to NTIA would undermine their own advocacy.”
The administration recognizes spectrum is a scare resource and “God isn’t making any more,” said Alex Roytblat, Wi-Fi Alliance senior director-regulatory affairs: “What we have is what we have. We need to maximize the use of it.”