Welcome to our post-Thanksgiving installment of Frequency Pulse and the start of the holiday season.
(Check out past Frequency Pulse editions here and here.)
Maybe there were a few heated discussions around the Thanksgiving dinner table, and maybe yours included a bit of tech policy. Or maybe even [wait for it] spectrum policy. But there’s no denying we’re all united in supporting better Wi-Fi connections, better internet connections and better interpersonal connections.
We asked our panelists: Wi-Fi and dynamic sharing spectrum policy remain one of the few places in tech policy that bipartisanship lives on. Why do you think that is?
Our industry experts had a few guesses. No matter the reason, however, we can all be grateful that spectrum policy and especially unlicensed sharing, have continued to engender support on both sides of the aisle and across the dinner table.
Sign up to receive the next Frequency Pulse newsletter by emailing wififorward@glenechogroup.com.
Harold Feld, Public Knowledge, Senior Vice President:
Happily, dynamic spectrum sharing policy is both very important and very boring. No one scores points on Twitter or C-Span by denouncing unlicensed spectrum as socialism. It also falls outside the realm of any traditional hot button issues such as taxes or climate change, where lines are clearly drawn between “Red Team” and “Blue Team.” This allows members of both parties to work together constructively rather than posture for partisans.
Kristian Stout, ICLE, Director of Innovation Policy:
Everyone uses spectrum in their professional and personal lives; there are no valances that cut across particular socio-economic groups that make it politically useful to emphasize partisan divides for electoral purposes.
Bartlett Cleland, Innovation Economy Institute, Executive Director:
I would like to believe it is because, despite the odds, that there is some collective understanding that the US gains from continuing its long history of innovation. However, I suspect this is more of a case of the issue not having a clear political angle that can be exploited by “one side” versus the other.
David Coleman, Extreme Networks — Director of Wireless, Office of the CTO:
Wi-Fi has become an essential part of our daily communications culture. Wi-Fi technology is ingrained into our everyday lives. Everybody uses Wi-Fi including politicians. In the spirit of bipartisanship, maybe all future Wi-Fi debates should occur over a Wi-Fi connection?
Danielle Pineres, NCTA — The Internet & Television Association, Vice President & Associate General Counsel:
There is no more greenfield spectrum in the United States that can be allocated for wireless broadband, so it is a bipartisan priority to support and enable technologies that allow for efficient use of spectrum through sharing. For instance, Wi-Fi is built from the ground up as a sharing technology. And innovative sharing technologies driven by databases, such as those used in the 3.5 GHz and 6 GHz bands, now also enable different users to occupy the same bandwidth.
I also think that the success of Wi-Fi is so much a part of our everyday lives that policymakers on both sides of the aisle inherently understand the power and promise of spectrum sharing — and the need to continue to ensure that sufficient spectrum resources are available to support these technologies.
Now it’s your turn: tweet us or email us with your take on spectrum policy to join this conversation. We might feature thoughtful submissions right here in a future piece.