Last week, the Federalist Society presented a panel titled “Spectrum Policy in the 5G Era,” discussing the current state of spectrum, disputes over spectrum allocation and the United States’ position as a global leader in this space.
The panelists were Adam Candeub, professor of law at Michigan State University; Harold Feld, senior vice president at Public Knowledge; Tricia Paoletta, partner at Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP; with Danielle Thumann, legal advisor to Commissioner Brendan Carr, serving as moderator.
Experts spoke about the changing spectrum policy landscape, including the recent C-Band 5G debacle and the role of unlicensed and licensed spectrum in this mix. They tackled a tricky question: Prioritizing efficiency, fairness and innovation, how might the United States best navigate spectrum allocation among all stakeholders while continuing to foster the renowned, vibrant environment that spawned the growth bringing us into the 21st century?
Here are a few key takeaways:
The Road So Far
Broadband is a pretty big deal. We use it to learn, connect and send memes — all equally important things. With the explosion of smartphones, connected home devices and ecosystems in the Internet of Things, augmented/virtual reality and more, everyone wants a slice of the spectrum-flavored pie.
But because there is so much demand and limited pie, not everyone can get exactly the slice they are aiming for. Cue conflict. That’s why Candeub emphasized the need for cooperation between all agencies.
Shared Language for Shared Spectrum
Going forward, the panelists expressed a need for a “shared language” with a particular focus on how devices fit into the “whole equation.” Feld said that we need to understand how we’re defining interference and what is harmful.
He also pointed out that there are many different methods the FCC can use to measure interference. He mentioned “listening out of band” to make cheaper devices as a problem because companies forget that they never had the right to certain spaces.
The Law of the Land
Paoletta noted that acknowledging the FCC’s authority on interference would help with interagency fights going forward.
“One bright spot of ‘this is the law of the land’ is the D.C. Court of Appeals and the 6 GHz rulemaking,” Paoletta said. “Saying the FCC is the arbiter on what is going to be harmful interference… Going forward, that will help with some of these interagency fights.”
In the same vein, Feld said that when people doubt the FCC’s expertise, it insults the people who work there and undermines the United States’ position as a world leader in spectrum innovation.
“It’s not just this. It’s also 5.9 GHz with the Department of Transportation, NTSB … There are a couple of other places where federal agencies just don’t want to lose. The first rule of this has to be that once the FCC decision is made and it’s final, that’s the accepted law of the universe,” said Feld.
Eyes on America
Being first was not easy, Feld said, but now our position allows us to “have a hand setting the rules” on a global scale – if agencies can work together. However, he also acknowledged that we should not ignore the rest of the world and their research.
In closing, Feld and Candeub agreed that the process of problem-solving need not be contentious and that innovative solutions can come out of challenges, referencing the CBRS model of spectrum-sharing. The DoD, Navy and FCC worked together successfully, leading to a fertile ground of new use cases spanning from healthcare to agriculture and bridging the digital divide.