Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband:
Issues for Congress
Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
July 1, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40674
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
Summary
The convergence of wireless telecommunications technology with the Internet Protocol (IP) is
fostering new generations of mobile technologies. This transformation has created new demands
for advanced communications infrastructure and radio frequency spectrum capacity that can
support high-speed, content-rich uses. Furthermore, a number of services, in addition to consumer
and business communications, rely at least in part on wireless links to broadband backbones.
Wireless technologies support public safety communications, sensors, smart grids, medicine and
public health, intelligent transportation systems, and many other vital communications.
Existing policies for allocating and assigning spectrum rights may not be sufficient to meet the
future needs of wireless broadband. A challenge for Congress is to provide decisive policies in an
environment where there are many choices but little consensus. In formulating spectrum policy,
mainstream viewpoints generally diverge on whether to give priority to market economics or
social goals. Regarding access to spectrum, economic policy looks to harness market forces to
allocate spectrum efficiently, with spectrum license auctions as the driver. Social policy favors
ensuring wireless access to support a variety of social objectives where economic return is not
easily quantified, such as improving education, health services, and public safety. Both
approaches can stimulate economic growth and job creation.
Deciding what weight to give to specific goals and setting priorities to meet those goals pose
difficult tasks for federal administrators and regulators and for Congress. Meaningful oversight or
legislation may require making choices about what goals will best serve the public interest.
Relying on market forces to make those decisions may be the most efficient and effective way to
serve the public but, to achieve this, policy makers may need to broaden the concept of what
constitutes competition in wireless markets.
The National Broadband Plan (NBP), a report on broadband policy mandated by Congress, has
provided descriptions of perceived issues to be addressed by a combination of regulatory changes
and the development of new policies at the Federal Communications Commission, with
recommendations for legislative actions that Congress might take.
Among the spectrum policy initiatives that have been proposed in Congress in recent years are:
allocating more spectrum for unlicensed use; auctioning airwaves currently allocated for federal
use; and devising new fees on spectrum use, notably those collected by the FCC’s statutory
authority to implement these measures is limited. The NBP reiterates these proposals and adds
several more.
Substantive modifications in spectrum policy would almost surely require congressional action.
The Radio Spectrum Inventory Act introduced in the Senate (S. 649, Kerry) and the similar
House-introduced Radio Spectrum Inventory Act (H.R. 3125, Waxman) would require an
inventory of existing users on prime radio frequencies, a preliminary step in evaluating policy
changes. The Spectrum Relocation and Improvement Act of 2009 (H.R. 3019, Inslee) and the
Spectrum Relocation Act of 2010 (S. 3490, Warner) would amend the Commercial Spectrum
Enhancement Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-494, Title II). The Broadband for First Responders Act (H.R.
5081, King) would allocate additional radio frequencies for public safety use.
Congressional Research Service
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
Contents
The Role of Spectrum Policy....................................................................................................... 1
Competition .......................................................................................................................... 2
Innovation............................................................................................................................. 3
The National Broadband Plan and Spectrum Policy..................................................................... 4
Spectrum Policy Recommendations ...................................................................................... 4
Spectrum Licenses ................................................................................................................ 6
Television Broadcast Spectrum ....................................................................................... 6
D Block .......................................................................................................................... 7
Advanced Wireless Service Auctions............................................................................... 8
Shared Resources .................................................................................................................. 9
Open Access ................................................................................................................. 10
Wholesale Networks ..................................................................................................... 10
Unlicensed Use ............................................................................................................. 11
Spectrum-Efficient Technology ........................................................................................... 12
New Technologies......................................................................................................... 13
New Policies ................................................................................................................. 13
Management Tools .............................................................................................................. 14
Wireless Backhaul............................................................................................................... 15
National Purposes ..................................................................................................................... 15
Meeting Policy Goals.......................................................................................................... 16
Community Broadband ....................................................................................................... 17
Issues for the 111th Congress ..................................................................................................... 18
Spectrum Inventory............................................................................................................. 18
The Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and Federal Relocation ................................. 19
Incentive Auctions .............................................................................................................. 19
Broadband for First Responders Act .................................................................................... 19
Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 20
Appendixes
Appendix A. Spectrum-Hungry Technologies ............................................................................ 22
Appendix B. Competition.......................................................................................................... 26
Appendix C. International Policies for Spectrum Management .................................................. 32
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 33
Congressional Research Service
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
The Role of Spectrum Policy
Wireless broadband1 can play a key role in the deployment of broadband services. Because of the
importance of wireless connectivity, radio frequency spectrum policy is deemed by the National
Broadband Plan2 (NBP) to be a critical factor in national broadband policy and planning. Wireless
broadband, with its rich array of services and content, requires new spectrum capacity to
accommodate growth. Spectrum capacity is necessary to deliver mobile broadband to consumers
and businesses and also to support the communications needs of industries that use fixed wireless
broadband to transmit large quantities of information quickly and reliably.
The purpose of spectrum policy, law, and regulation is to manage a natural resource3 for the
maximum possible benefit of the public. Radio frequency spectrum is managed by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) for commercial and other non-federal uses and by the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for federal government
use. International use is facilitated by numerous bilateral and multilateral agreements covering
many aspects of usage, including mobile telephony.4
Although radio frequency spectrum is abundant, usable spectrum is currently limited by the
constraints of applied technology. Spectrum policy therefore requires making decisions about
how radio frequencies will be allocated and who will have access to them.5 Spectrum policy also
entails encouraging innovation in wireless technologies and their applications. Arguably, the role
of technology policy in crafting spectrum policy has increased with the need to reduce or
eliminate capacity constraints that may deter the expansion of broadband mobile services. The
adoption of spectrum-efficient technologies is likely to require a rethinking of spectrum
management policies and tools. Policies for channel management to control interference might be
superseded by managing interference through guidelines for networks and devices. The
assignment and supervision of licenses might give way to policies and procedures for managing
pooled resources. Auctioning licenses might be replaced by auctioning access; the static event of
selling a license replaced by the dynamic auctioning of spectrum access on a moment-by-moment
basis.
Current spectrum policy relies heavily on auctions to assign spectrum rights through licensing.
Economy of scale in wireless communications has become an important determinant in the
outcome of these auctions. Companies that have already made substantial investments in
infrastructure have been well placed to maximize the value of new spectrum acquisitions.
Corporate mergers and acquisitions represent another way to improve scale economies.
Efficiencies through economy of scale have contributed to creating a market for wireless services
1 Broadband refers here to the capacity of the radio frequency channel. A broadband channel can quickly transmit live
video, complex graphics, and other data-rich information as well as voice and text messages, whereas a narrowband
channel might be limited to handling voice, text, and some graphics.
2 Federal Communications Commission, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, March 17, 2010, at
http://download.broadband.gov/plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf.
3 The Code of Federal Regulations defines natural resources as “land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water,
drinking water supplies and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or
otherwise controlled by the United States.... ” (15 CFR 990, Section 990.30).
4 The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), an agency of the United Nations, is the primary organization for
coordinating global telecommunications and spectrum management.
5 Spectrum allocation and assignment is addressed in Appendix B, Competition.
Congressional Research Service
1
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
where four companies—Verizon Wireless LLC, AT&T Inc., Sprint Nextel Corporation, and T-
Mobile USA Inc.—had approximately 90% of the customer base of subscribers at the end of
2009.6 These companies also own significant numbers of spectrum licenses covering major
markets nationwide.
The leading position of these few companies in providing a critical distribution channel—
wireless—for information and services may need to be considered in plans for national broadband
deployment. One approach to ensuring wireless access to meet national broadband goals might be
to tighten the regulatory structure under which wireless communications are managed. Other
approaches might seek ways to modify spectrum policies to increase market competition and to
accommodate the age of broadband. In the NBP, the FCC has emphasized the latter course and
committed to a number of actions intended to increase opportunities for competition and
innovation in mobile broadband.
Competition
With the introduction of auctions for spectrum licenses in 1994, the United States began to shift
away from assigning spectrum licenses based on regulatory decisions and toward competitive
market mechanisms. One objective of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was to open up the
communications industry to greater competition among different sectors. One outcome of the
growth of competition was the establishment of different regulatory regimes for information
networks and for telecommunications.7 As a consequence of these and other legislative and
regulatory changes, the wireless industry has areas of competition, e.g. for spectrum licenses,
within a regulatory shell, such as the rules governing the Public Switched Telephone Network
(PSTN).8 As the bulk of wireless communications traffic moves from voice to data, companies
will likely modify their business plans in order to remain competitive in the new environment. A
shift in infrastructure technology and regulatory environment9 might open wireless competition to
companies with business plans that are not modeled on pre-existing telecommunications industry
formulae. Future providers of wireless broadband might include any company with a robust
network for carrying data and a business case for serving broadband consumers. Potential new
entrants, however, may lack access to radio frequency spectrum, the essential resource for
wireless broadband.
The FCC, in the NBP, has concluded that an effective way to improve competition among
wireless broadband providers is to increase the amount of spectrum available. This approach was
validated by a number of filings with the FCC; for example, the Department of Justice provided
6 Subscribers are customers who have signed up for a plan, including those with more than one plan subscription;
prepaid and pay-as-you go customers may not be included in reported totals. FCC, Fourteenth Report; annual report
and analysis of competitive market conditions with respect to commercial mobile services, FCC, WT Docket No. 09-
66, released May 20, 2010, Table 3, p. 31, reported for second Quarter 2009.
7 For a discussion of policy issues, see CRS Report R40234, The FCC’s Authority to Regulate Net Neutrality after
Comcast v. FCC , by Kathleen Ann Ruane, and CRS Report R40616, Access to Broadband Networks: The Net
Neutrality Debate , by Angele A. Gilroy.
8 PSTN is a global system; rights of access and usage in the United States are regulated by the FCC.
9 On December 1, 2009, the FCC published a public notice seeking comments on the “appropriate policy framework to
facilitate and respond to the market-led transition in technology and services, from the circuit-switched PSTN system to
an IP-based communications world.” “Comment Sought on Transition from Circuit-Switched Network to All-IP
Network,” NBP Public Notice #25, DA 09-2517 at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-
2517A1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
arguments as to why the “primary tool for promoting broadband competition should be freeing up
spectrum.”10 Policy tools that might be used to increase the availability of radio frequency
spectrum for wireless broadband include allocating additional spectrum, reassigning spectrum to
new users, requiring that wireless network infrastructure be shared, pooling radio frequency
channels, moving to more spectrum-efficient technologies, and changing the cost structure of
spectrum access.
Innovation
From a policy perspective, actions to speed the arrival of new, spectrally efficient technologies
might have significant impact on achieving broadband policy goals over the long term. In
particular, support for technologies that enable sharing could pave the way for dramatically
different ways of managing the nation’s spectrum resources. The NBP has laid out several
opportunities for the FCC, the NTIA, and other government agencies to contribute to and
encourage the development of new technologies for more efficient spectrum access.11 Among the
technologies that facilitate spectrum sharing are cognitive radio and Dynamic Spectrum Access
(DSA).12 Enabling technologies such as these allow communications to switch instantly among
network frequencies that are not in use and therefore available to any radio device equipped with
cognitive technology. Among the steps that might be taken to encourage spectrum-efficient
technologies, the NBP has recommended that the FCC identify and free up a “new, contiguous
nationwide band for unlicensed use”13 and provide spectrum and take other steps to “further
development and deployment”of new technologies that facilitate sharing.14
The NTIA has recommended exploring “ways to create incentives for more efficient use of
limited spectrum resources, such as dynamic or opportunistic frequency sharing arrangements in
both licensed and unlicensed uses.”15 This suggestion was incorporated into the 2011 Budget
prepared by the Office of Management and Budget. The budget document directed the NTIA to
collaborate with the FCC “to develop a plan to make available significant spectrum suitable for
both mobile and fixed wireless broadband use over the next ten years. The plan is to focus on
making spectrum available for exclusive use by commercial broadband providers or technologies,
or for dynamic, shared access by commercial and government users.”16
10 Ex Parte Submission of the United States Department of Justice, In the matter of Economic Issues in Broadband
Competition: A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket 09-51, January 4, 2010, p. 21 at
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020355122.
11 Connecting America, Recommendations 5.13 and 5.14. The NBP proposed that the National Science Foundation
“should fund wireless research and development that will advance the science of spectrum access.” p. 96.
12 Dynamic Spectrum Access, Content-Based Networking, and Delay and Disruption Technology Networking, along
with cognitive radio, and decision-making software, are examples of technologies that can enable Internet-like
management of spectrum resources. DSA is part of the neXt Generation program, or XG, a technology development
project sponsored by the Strategic Technology Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
The main goals of the program include developing both the enabling technologies and system concepts that
dynamically redistribute allocated spectrum.
13 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.11.
14 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.13.
15 Letter to the FCC, Re: National Broadband Plan, GN Doc. No. 09-51, January 4, 2010 at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
filings/2009/FCCLetter_Docket09-51_20100104.pdf.
16 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Appendix, “Other Independent
Agencies,” p. 1263. See also, FCC, Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Estimates Submitted to Congress, February 2010 at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296111A1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
A Presidential Memorandum17 has directed the NTIA to take a number of actions in support of
NBP goals, including taking the lead in creating and implementing a plan that will facilitate the
exploration of “innovative spectrum-sharing technologies.”
The NTIA’s Commercial Spectrum Management Advisory Committee is actively looking at
policy and technology issues in a series of subcommittee reports. The reports are addressing
spectrum inventory, transparency, dynamic spectrum access, incentives, unlicensed spectrum, and
sharing.18
The National Broadband Plan and Spectrum Policy
In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Congress required the FCC to
prepare a national broadband plan, to be delivered not later than February 17, 2010 (later
extended to mid-March). The primary objective of the plan is “to ensure that all people of the
United States have access to broadband capability....” The plan is to include “an analysis of the
most effective and efficient mechanisms for ensuring broadband access....” and “a plan for use of
broadband infrastructure and services in advancing consumer welfare....”19
On March 16, 2010, the FCC publically released its report, Connecting America: The National
Broadband Plan.20 The National Broadband Plan is presented as three major policy areas.
• Innovation and Investment “discusses recommendations to maximize innovation,
investment and consumer welfare, primarily through competition. It then
recommends more efficient allocation and management of assets government
controls or influences.” The recommendations address a number of issues,
including spectrum policy.
• Inclusion “makes recommendations to promote inclusion—to ensure that all
Americans have access to the opportunities broadband can provide.”
• National Purposes “makes recommendations to maximize the use of broadband
to address national priorities. This includes reforming laws, policies and
incentives to maximize the benefits of broadband in areas where government
plays a significant role.” National purposes include health care, education, energy
and the environment, government performance, civic engagement, and public
safety.
Spectrum Policy Recommendations
The section in the NBP on spectrum policy (Chapter 5) has taken particular note of the
convergence of the Internet with mobile devices and the resulting increased demand for spectrum
capacity to support mobile broadband services.
17 The White House, Presidential Memorandum: Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution, June 28, 2010, at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-unleashing-wireless-broadband-revolution.
18 See Spectrum Management Advisory Committee website at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/advisory/spectrum/.
19 P.L. 111-5, Division B, Title VI, Sec. 6001 (k); 123 Stat. 515.
20 Available at http://www.broadband.gov/plan/.
Congressional Research Service
4
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
The NBP has proposed to increase spectrum capacity by
• Making more spectrum licenses available for mobile broadband.
• Increasing the amount of spectrum available for shared use.
• Encouraging and supporting the development of spectrum-efficient technologies,
particularly those that facilitate sharing spectrum bands.
• Instituting new policies for spectrum management, such as assessing fees on
some spectrum licenses, to encourage more efficient use.
To facilitate the deployment of broadband in rural areas, the NBP also has proposed
• Improving the environment for providing wireless components to build out
infrastructure.
Many of the NBP proposals for wireless broadband may be achieved through changes in FCC
regulations governing spectrum allocation and assignment. Other actions may require changes by
federal agencies, state authorities, and commercial owners of spectrum licenses. To assist the
implementation of the NBP there are also a number of areas where congressional action might be
required to change existing statutes or to give the FCC new powers. Legislation has been
proposed that would create an inventory of existing users on prime radio frequencies, a
preliminary step in evaluating policy changes.21 The NBP included the announcement of plans for
the FCC to create what it refers to as a Spectrum Dashboard.22 The initial release of the FCC’s
Spectrum Dashboard provided an interactive tool to search for information about how some non-
federal frequency assignments are being used.23 The dashboard could be expanded to meet
requirements set by Congress for a spectrum inventory. In addition to the dashboard, the NBP has
proposed that the FCC and the NTIA should create methods for recovering spectrum24 and that
the FCC maintain an ongoing spectrum strategy plan.25 All of these steps will facilitate decisions
about spectrum management by providing detailed information about the current and potential
use of spectrum resources.
The Administration has supported the FCC’s recommendations regarding means to increase the
amount of spectrum capacity for wireless broadband.26 In particular, the NTIA has been directed
to collaborate with the FCC to identify spectrum holdings that can be made available for wireless
broadband use. A deadline of October 1, 2010, has been set for the completion of a plan and
timetable for releasing a total of 500 MHz of spectrum by 2020.
21 Radio Spectrum Inventory Act introduced in the Senate (S. 649, Kerry) and the similar House-introduced Radio
Spectrum Inventory Act (H.R. 3125, Waxman).
22 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.1.
23 For more information on the Spectrum Dashboard, go to http://reboot.fcc.gov/reform/systems/spectrum-dashboard/
about.
24 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.2.
25 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.3.
26 The White House, Presidential Memorandum: Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution, June 28, 2010, at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-unleashing-wireless-broadband-revolution.
Congressional Research Service
5
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
Spectrum Licenses
One of the management tools available to the FCC is its power to assign spectrum licenses
through auctions. Auctions are regarded as a market-based mechanism for rationing spectrum
rights. Before auctions became the primary method for distributing spectrum licenses the FCC
used a number of different approaches, primarily based on perceived merit, to select license-
holders. The FCC was authorized to organize auctions to award spectrum licenses for certain
wireless communications services in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-
66). Following passage of the act, subsequent laws that dealt with spectrum policy and auctions
included the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33), the Auction Reform Act of 2002 (P.L.
107-195), the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-494, Title II), and the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171). The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 gave the FCC
auction authority until September 30, 2007. This authority was extended to September 30, 2011,
by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and to 2012 by the DTV Delay Act (P.L. 111-4).
In the NBP, the FCC has proposed taking steps to add 300 MHz of licensed spectrum for
broadband within five years and a total of 500 MHz of new frequencies in ten years.27
Approximately 50 MHz would be released in the immediate future by the completion of existing
auction plans. An additional 20 MHz might be reassigned from federal to commercial use and
made available for auction. Reallocating some spectrum from over-the-air broadcasting to
commercial spectrum might provide an additional 120 MHz of spectrum. Final rulings on existing
proceedings would release 110 MHz, of which 90 MHz would be for Mobile Satellite Services
(MSS); resolution of interference issues between Wireless Communications Services (WCS) and
satellite radio would free up 20 MHz of new capacity.
The spectrum assignment proposals put forth in the NBP are contentious in that the various
parties affected by the decisions have diverging views on how technology should be used to
provide access to these frequencies. Although Congress has shown interest in all of these debates,
three proposals that are the most likely to generate pressure for congressional action are the plans
for: repurposing and auctioning an estimated 120 MHz of airwaves assigned to over-the-air
digital television broadcasting; auctioning the D Block (10 MHz in the 700 MHz band); and
auctioning up to 60 MHz of spectrum for Advanced Wireless Services.
Television Broadcast Spectrum
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which mandated the eventual transition to digital television,
represented the legislative culmination of over a decade of policy debates and negotiations
between the FCC and the television broadcast industry on how to move the industry from analog
to digital broadcasting technologies. To facilitate the transition, the FCC provided each qualified
broadcaster with 6 MHz of spectrum for digital broadcasting to replace licenses of 6 MHz that
were used for analog broadcasting. The analog licenses would be yielded back when the
transition to digital television was concluded. The completed transition freed up the 700 MHz
band for commercial and public safety communications in 2009.
The FCC has revisited the assumptions reflected in the 1997 act and has made new proposals, and
decisions based on, among other factors, changes in technology and consumer habits. The NBP
27 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.8.
Congressional Research Service
6
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
announced that a new proceeding would be initiated to recapture up to 120 MHz of spectrum
from broadcast TV allocations for reassignment to broadband communications. This proceeding
would propose four sets of actions to achieve the goal; a fifth set of actions to increase efficiency
would be pursued separately.28 The FCC stipulated in the NBP that its recommendations “seek to
preserve [over-the-air television] as a healthy, viable medium going forward, in a way that would
not harm consumers overall, while establishing mechanisms to make available additional
spectrum for flexible broadband uses.”29
Many of the proposals for redirecting TV broadcast capacity are based on refinements in the way
frequencies are managed and are procedural in nature. Because over-the-air digital broadcasting
does not necessarily require 6 MHz of spectrum, the NBP has proposed that some stations could
share a single 6 MHz band without significantly reducing service to over-the-air TV viewers.
Among the proposals for how broadcasters might make better use of their TV licenses, the NBP
has raised the possibility of auctioning unneeded spectrum and sharing the proceeds between the
TV license-holder and the U.S. Treasury. The FCC has called on Congress to provide new
legislation that would allow these “incentive auctions.”
D Block
The D Block refers to a set of frequencies within the 700 MHz band that were among the
frequencies made available after the transition from analog to digital television in 2009. In
compliance with instructions from Congress to auction all unallocated spectrum in this band, the
FCC conducted an auction, which concluded on March 18, 2008. As part of its preparation for the
auction (Auction 73), the FCC sought to increase the amount of spectrum available to public
safety users in the 700 MHz band. Congress had previously designated 24 MHz of radio
frequencies in the 700 MHz band for public safety channels. In 2007, the FCC proposed to
designate 10 MHz – part of the original 24 MHz designated for public safety use – specifically
for public safety broadband communications. Of the balance, 12 MHz were designated for
mission critical voice communications on narrowband networks and 2 MHz were set aside as a
guard band to protect against interference. In the FCC plan for Auction 73, the Public Safety
Broadband License would be matched with a commercial license for 10 MHz, known as the D
Block. The D Block was to be auctioned under rules that would require the creation of a public-
private partnership to develop the two 10-MHz assignments as a single broadband network,
available to both public safety users and commercial customers. The D Block license was offered
for sale in 2008 but did not find a buyer. The FCC then set about the task of writing new service
rules for a reauction of the D Block.30
In the NBP, the FCC announced its decision to auction the D Block under rules that would not
require a partnership with public safety but would establish a framework for priority access to the
D Block network by public safety users.31 Based mainly on FCC efforts to create a public-private
partnership, public safety officials have, by and large, anticipated that the D Block would be an
integral part of a public safety broadband network. Since the failed D Block auction of 2008,
there has also been growing pressure on the FCC and on Congress to take the steps necessary to
28 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.8.5.
29 Connecting America, p. 89.
30 Background information regarding the D Block is provided in CRS Report R40859, Public Safety Communications
and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress, by Linda K. Moore
31 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.8.2.
Congressional Research Service
7
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
reallocate the D Block from commercial to public safety use.32 The NBP announcement regarding
the D Block is considered by many to be a reversal of announced policy, creating controversy and
renewed calls for Congress to take action to release the D Block to public safety. Although
funding and control are critical elements of the debate, the controversy is rooted in contradictory
assumptions about the level of service and reliability that new, largely untried, and in some cases
undeveloped technology will be able to deliver for public safety broadband communications.
The FCC would address public safety needs such as developing standards and establishing
procedures through the newly established Emergency Response Interoperability Center (ERIC).33
ERIC would work closely with the Public Safety Communications Research program, jointly
managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the NTIA, to develop
and test the technological solutions needed for public safety broadband communications.34 The
Department of Homeland Security will participate in the areas of public safety outreach and
technical assistance, as well as best practices development.35
ERIC would take on the role of creating and implementing a federal plan to assist in building a
nationwide, interoperable network for public safety. As the lead agency, the FCC would rely on
its authority to require the D Block and other commercial license-holders in the 700 MHz band to
accommodate public safety needs. Although public safety users would be charged for access to
commercial networks, proponents of the plan have argued that overall costs would be less than if
a network were built primarily or exclusively for public safety use, because of greater economies
of scale. One of the expectations is that ERIC will be able to guide the development of standards
for crucial radio components, with the participation of commercial providers and public safety
representatives. The participation of commercial carriers in developing and deploying, for
example, a common radio interface, is expected to put the cost of public safety radios in the same
price range as commercial high-end mobile devices ($500). By contrast, interoperable radios for
the narrowband networks at 700 MHz cost $3,000 and up, each.
Advanced Wireless Service Auctions
During 2007, the FCC was petitioned by several companies, led by M2Z Networks Inc., to
release 20 MHz of spectrum licenses at 2155-2175 MHz for a national broadband network. M2Z
offered to provide free basic service to consumers and public safety and to offer content filtering
for family-friendly access. In return for the grant of the license, which would be assigned without
auction, M2Z offered to pay a percentage of gross revenues to the U.S. Treasury. In September
2007, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish service rules for the auction
of a license or licenses at 2155-2175 MHz, designated as Auction AWS-3.36 Proposed provisions
for the auction included obligations to offer free broadband service similar to that proposed by
M2Z and family-friendly access. The proposed spectrum band is adjacent to bands previously
32 A bill that would assign the D Block for public safety communications has been introduced (Broadband for First
Responders Act of 2010, H.R. 5081, King).
33 FCC News, “The Federal Communications Commission Establishes New Emergency Response Interoperability
Center,” April 23, 2010 at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-297707A1.pdf.
34 NIST, “Demonstration Network Planned for Public Safety 700 MHz Broadband,” December 15, 2009 at
http://www.nist.gov/eeel/oles/network_121509.cfm.
35 FCC News, “The Federal Communications Commission Establishes New Emergency Response Interoperability
Center,” April 23, 2010.
36 FCC, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 07-195, released September 19, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
8
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
auctioned in the Advanced Wireless Service (AWS-1) auction that concluded in 2006. T-Mobile, a
major winner in the AWS-1 auction, has stated to the FCC that the network proposed by M2Z
would cause “pervasive harmful interference” to licensees of the AWS-1 frequencies.37
The FCC did not act on the AWS-3 auction proposal but announced new plans in the NBP that
included the 2155-2175 MHz frequencies.38 As outlined in the NBP, the FCC would seek to pair
the AWS-3 frequencies with an additional 20 MHz of frequencies reassigned from federal use.
The plan has recommended that the NTIA, in consultation with the FCC, assess the possibility of
such a reallocation and, if the reallocation appears feasible, that they move ahead with plans to
organize an auction. If reallocation and auction is not deemed feasible, the FCC would proceed
“promptly” to auction the AWS-3 frequencies, according to the plan. The plan had proposed using
frequencies in the 1755-1780 MHz range, but the NTIA has instead offered to assess the
feasibility of using frequencies in the 1675-1710 MHz band.39 The FCC subsequently requested
comments to evaluate approaches to making this band available for shared use that would include
wireless broadband services.40
In addition to the AWS-3 frequencies, there are two blocks of spectrum under the designation of
AWS-2 “H” and “J” that have been under consideration for auction since 2004. The AWS-2 “J”
band, with paired frequency assignment at 2020-2025 MHZ and 2175-2180 MHz, might be
paired with AWS-3 or with an adjacent Mobile Satellite Service band.
The process of finalizing auction plans for licenses to use the AWS-2 and AWS-3 frequencies
might renew the debate over interference. FCC proceedings also might provide an opportunity to
revisit the possibility of including a requirement for auction winners to offer basic broadband
service at no cost to the consumer. The concept of a lifeline broadband service has received
support from many policy makers in Congress.
Shared Resources
The FCC has stated in the NBP that it would facilitate sharing resources through a number of
regulatory means.41 Among the methods of sharing wireless connectivity currently practiced in
the United States are sharing network facilities, sharing network operations, and sharing
spectrum. Examples of sharing include nationwide roaming,42 selling packages of minutes
purchased from a facilities-based network, leasing network capacity and spectrum access from a
facilities-based network to create a new service provider—known as a Virtual Mobile Network
Operator—and spectrum sharing. In general, access is leased from an owner—of a tower, a
network, or a spectrum license. Another option is to allocate spectrum for unlicensed use; any
device authorized by the FCC may operate on the designated frequencies.
37 See for example, comments by T-Mobile USA, Inc. filed July 25, 2008, FCC, Docket No. 07-195.
38 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.8.3.
39 Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling, June 3, 2010 at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/presentations/2010/
PublicKnowledge_Spectrum_06032010.html.
40 FCC, Public Notice, “Office of Engineering and Technology Requests Information on Use of 1675-1710 MHz
Band,” DA 10-1035, released June 4, 2010, Docket No. 10-123 at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/
DA-10-1035A1.pdf.
41 Connecting America, p. 79 and Recommendation 5.7.
42 The practice of transferring a wireless call from one network to another—or roaming—is described in Understanding
Wireless Telephone Coverage Areas, FCC Consumer Facts at http://www.ifap.ru/library/book385.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
The primary difficulty for regulators in overseeing the sharing of spectrum is to minimize
interference among devices operating on the same or nearby frequencies. It was primarily to
prevent interference to wireless messages that spectrum licensing was first instituted. Today, a
number of administrative and technological methods are available to minimize interference of
wireless transmissions. In theory, all spectrum bands can be shared if interference can be
managed.
Open Access
In the 2008 auction of spectrum licenses at 700 MHz,43 several companies associated with Silicon
Valley and Internet ventures petitioned the FCC to set aside a block of spectrum as a national
license with a requirement that the network be available—open—to all. Open access was defined
as open devices, open applications, open services, and open networks.44 The position put forward
by these companies was that access of unlicensed airwaves was not enough to stimulate
innovation and competition for new devices, services, and applications. They argued that
innovators, especially start-up companies, were often closed out of markets unless they could
convince a wireless network operator to accept and market their inventions.45 The FCC
subsequently ruled to auction licenses for 22 MHz of spectrum (designated as the C Block) with
service rules requiring the first two criteria: open devices and open applications. The winning
bidders, most notably Verizon Wireless,46 are required to allow their customers to choose their
own handsets and download programs of their choice, subject to reasonable conditions needed to
protect the network from harm.
Wholesale Networks
The FCC was also petitioned to designate spectrum licenses at 700 MHz for networks that would
operate on a wholesale business model. It was argued that the wholesale business model would be
the most viable for a small business new entrant and that the auction rules and conditions adopted
by the FCC were prejudicial to small business.47 Wireless incumbents, in particular, have
challenged the concepts of open access and wholesaling. They have claimed that the unproven
nature of a wholesale business model makes it risky and that therefore the auction value of
licenses with a wholesaling requirement would be diminished. They have argued that imposing
requirements that would create a wholesale network introduces an extra level of regulatory
oversight, covering such areas as handset compatibility, applications standards, market access
regulation, and interconnection rules.48
43 For information, see Auction 73 at http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=73.
44 FCC filings, WT Docket No. 96-86, by Frontline Wireless, LCC, Google, Inc., the 4G Coalition, and the Public
Interest Spectrum Coalition.
45 Comments, for example, made by Ram Shriram and Vanu Bose at the Frontline Town Hall, July 12, 2007,
Washington, DC, and by Jason Devitt at a panel discussion during the State of the Net conference, January 30, 2008,
Washington, DC.
46 Of the 10 licenses of the C Block, seven were auctioned to Verizon Wireless: all six licenses covering the continental
United States and a seventh license for Hawaii. Licenses providing coverage for Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Gulf of
Mexico were won by other bidders. See “FCC 700 MHz Band Auction, Auction ID:73, Winning Bids,” attachment A,
p. 63, at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-595A2.pdf.
47 Petition for Reconsideration of Frontline Wireless, LLC, WT Docket No. 96-86.
48 FCC filings, WT Docket No. 96-86, by CTIA-The Wireless Association, AT&T, and others.
Congressional Research Service
10
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
Proponents of open access argue that only an open network that anyone can use—not just
subscribers of one wireless company—can provide consumer choice. From this perspective, a
wholesale network could provide more market opportunities for new wireless devices, especially
wireless devices that could provide unrestricted access to the Internet. A wholesale network
would allow customers to choose their own wireless devices without necessarily committing to a
service plan from a single provider. The network owner would operate along the same principles
used for shopping malls, providing the infrastructure for others to retail their own products and
services.
Unlicensed Use
Unlicensed spectrum is not sold to the highest bidder and used for the services chosen by the
license-holder but is instead accessible to anyone using wireless equipment certified by the FCC
for those frequencies. Both commercial and non-commercial entities use unlicensed spectrum to
meet a wide variety of monitoring and communications needs. Suppliers of wireless devices must
meet requirements for certification to operate on frequency bands designated for unlicensed use.
Examples of unlicensed use include garage door openers and Wi-Fi communications.
New technologies that can use unlicensed spectrum without causing interference are being
developed for vacant spectrum designated to provide space between the broadcasting signals of
digital television, known as white spaces. On September 11, 2006, the FCC announced a
timetable for allowing access to the spectrum so that devices could be developed.49 Devices using
the white-space frequencies would be required to incorporate geolocation technology to signal
when and where potential interference was detected.50 A geolocation database would be created
and maintained to facilitate sharing of the white space by authorized devices. The design and
operation of this database is being studied by the FCC.51 The National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB), and others, have protested the use of white space for consumer devices on
the grounds that they could interfere with digital broadcasting and with microphones used for a
variety of purposes.52 Companies such as Microsoft, Dell, and Motorola, however, have stated the
belief that solutions can be found to prevent interference. In November 2008, the FCC established
rules that permit the unlicensed use of the white spaces, with special provisions to protect
microphone use.53 One of the recommendations of the NBP is that the FCC complete the
proceeding that would allow use of the white spaces for unlicensed devices.54
49 FCC, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 04-186, released
October 18, 2006, at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-156A1.pdf.
50 Geolocation associates a geographic location with a device using embedded information such as an IP address, Wi-Fi
address, GPS coordinates, or other, perhaps self-disclosed information. Geolocation usually works by automatically
looking up an IP address.
51 FCC, Public Notice, “Office of Engineering and Technology Invites Proposals from Entities Seeking to be
Designated TV Band Device Database Managers,” ET Docket No. 04-186, released November 25, 2009 at
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2479A1.pdf.
52 In addition to filed comments with the FCC. NAB, the Association for Maximum Service Television, and a coalition
of theater groups, sports leagues, and TV networks have challenged the FCC white spaces order in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia. Requirements intended to protect microphone use in the white spaces are
proposed in the Wireless Microphone Users Interference Protection Act (H.R. 4353, Representative Rush).
53 FCC, Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 04-185, released November
14, 2008 at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-260A1.pdf.
54 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.12.
Congressional Research Service
11
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
Spectrum-Efficient Technology
Mobile communications became generally available to businesses and consumers in the 1980s.
The pioneering cell phone technologies were analog.55 Second-generation (2G) wireless devices
were characterized by digitized delivery systems. Third-generation (3G) wireless technology
represents significant advances in the ability to deliver data and images. The first commercial
release of 3G was in Japan in 2001; the technology successfully debuted in the United States in
2003. 3G technologies can support multi-function devices, such as the BlackBerry and the
iPhone. Successor technologies, often referred to as 4G, are expected to support broadband speeds
that will rival wireline connections such as fiber optic cable, with the advantage of complete
mobility. 4G wireless broadband technologies include WiMAX56 and Long Term Evolution (LTE)
networks. Both are based on TCP/IP, the core protocol of the Internet.57
Wireless technologies to facilitate broadband deployment for which spectrum may need to be
allocated that were identified by the NBP include 4G networks; fixed wireless as an alternative to
fiber optic cable; and broadband on unlicensed frequencies.
The NBP spectrum assignment proposals are based on managing radio channels as the way to
maximize spectral efficiency while meeting common goals such as minimizing interference
among devices operating on the same or nearby frequencies. Today, channel management is a
significant part of spectrum management; many of the FCC dockets deal with assigning channels
and resolving the issues raised by these decisions. In the future, channel management is likely to
be replaced by technologies that operate without the need for designated channels. In the NBP,
the FCC refers to these spectrum-seeking technologies as opportunistic. Identifying an
opportunity to move to an open radio frequency is more flexible—and therefore more
productive—than operating on a set of pre-determined frequencies. The primary benefit from
these new technologies will be the significant increase in available spectrum but new efficiencies
in operational and regulatory costs will also be realized.
The concept of channel management dates to the development of the radio telegraph by
Guglielmo Marconi and his contemporaries. In the age of the Internet, however, channel
management is an inefficient way to provide spectrum capacity for mobile broadband. Innovation
points to network-centric spectrum management as an effective way to provide spectrum capacity
to meet the bandwidth needs of fourth-generation wireless devices. 58 Network-centric
technologies organize the transmission of radio signals along the same principle as the Internet. A
transmission moves from origination to destination not along a fixed path but by passing from
one available node to the next. Pooling resources, one of the concepts that powers the Internet
now, is likely to become the dominant principle for spectrum management in the future.
55 A wireless analog signal uses a continuous transmission form. Digital signals are discontinuous (discrete)
transmissions.
56 WiMAX stands for Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access.
57 Key technologies for mobile broadband are summarized in Appendix A, Spectrum-Hungry Technologies.
58 A leading advocate for replacing channel management of radio frequency with network-centric management is
Preston Marshall, the source for much of the information about network-centric technologies in this report. Mr.
Marshall is Director, Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Viterbi School of Engineering,
Arlington, Virginia.
Congressional Research Service
12
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
New Technologies
The iPhone 3G and 3GS provide early examples of how the Internet is likely to change wireless
communications as more and more of the underlying network infrastructure is converted to IP-
based standards. The iPhone uses the Internet Protocol to perform many of its functions; these
require time and space—spectrum capacity—to operate. The next generation of wireless
networks, 4G, for Fourth Generation, will be supported by technologies structured and managed
to emulate the Internet. The wireless devices that operate on these new, IP-powered networks will
be able to share spectrum capacity in ways not currently used on commercial networks, greatly
increasing network availability on licensed bandwidths. Another technological boost will come
from improved ways to use unlicensed spectrum. Unlicensed spectrum refers to bands of
spectrum designated for multiple providers, multiple uses, and multiple types of devices that have
met operational requirements set by the FCC. Wi-Fi is an example of a current use of unlicensed
spectrum.
More efficient spectrum use can be realized by integrating adaptive networking technologies,
such as DSA, with IP-based, 4G commercial network technologies such as LTE. Adaptive
networking has the potential to organize wireless communications to achieve the same kinds of
benefits that have been seen to accrue with the transition from proprietary data networks to the
Internet. These enabling technologies allow communications to switch instantly among network
frequencies that are not in use and therefore available to any wireless device equipped with
cognitive technology. Adaptive technologies are designed to use pooled spectrum resources.
Pooling spectrum licenses goes beyond sharing. Licenses are aggregated and specific ownership
of channels becomes secondary to the common goal of maximizing network performance.
New Policies
Among the steps that might be taken to encourage “opportunistic” technologies, the NBP
recommends that the FCC identify and free up a “new, contiguous nationwide band for
unlicensed use” by 2020;59 and provide spectrum and take other steps to “further development
and deployment” of new technologies that facilitate sharing.60 Unlike its recommendations for
auctioning spectrum licenses in the near future, the FCC’s plans for bringing new technologies
into play provide few details. The NBP provides a glimpse through the keyhole of the horizons
beyond, but not the key that might open the door.
The testing of new technologies that increase spectrum capacity, and the policy changes they are
likely to bring, has been designated by the NBP as a future event. Its immediate plans for
spectrum policy are to fine-tune existing spectrum assignments to increase the availability of
licensed capacity. The level of opposition to most of these spectrum assignment plans might
suggest that current spectrum management practices have reached the point of diminishing
returns. The FCC might consider first identifying the new technologies mobile broadband will
require before it begins the hunt for more spectrum.
59 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.11.
60 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.13.
Congressional Research Service
13
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
Management Tools
In the NBP, the FCC has asked Congress to consider granting it authority to impose spectrum fees
on license holders as a means of addressing inefficient use.61 The report has presented the
hypothesis that “Fees may help to free spectrum for new uses such as broadband, since licensees
who use spectrum inefficiently may reduce their holdings once they bear the opportunity cost” of
holding the spectrum.62
The Obama Administration also has proposed that the FCC be given the authority to levy fees,
and to use other economic mechanisms, as a spectrum management tool.63 The 2011 fiscal year
budget prepared by the Office of Management and Budget projects new revenue from spectrum
license user fees of $4.775 billion for fiscal years 2011 through 2020.64 Similar projections were
made in the 2010 budget65 and in budget proposals during the administration of President George
W. Bush.66
Although Congress never took up legislation in response to the Bush Administration proposals,
the 108th Congress instructed the GAO to take note of the possible impact of changing the
spectrum license fee structure. In the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, the GAO was
instructed to examine “national commercial spectrum policy as implemented by the Federal
Communications Commission” and report on its findings in 2005.67 The GAO was to examine the
impact of auctioning licenses on the economic climate for broadcast and wireless technologies
and to assess whether the holders of spectrum licenses received before the auction process was
instituted (i.e., largely for free) have an economic advantage over license holders that purchased
spectrum through the auction process. The GAO was also to evaluate whether the disparate
methods of allocating spectrum had an adverse impact on the introduction of new services. The
conclusions of the study were to be reviewed in the context of an Administration proposal to
introduce license user fees on licenses that had not been auctioned. The GAO was also to provide
an evaluation for Congress regarding the impact of assessing license fees on the competitive
climate in the wireless and broadcast industries.
After consultation with the committees of jurisdiction, the GAO did not include an analysis of
license fees in its report. Instead it focused on the impact of auctions on factors such as end-user
prices, investment in infrastructure, and competition. One of the report’s conclusions was that the
cost of purchasing licenses did not affect price and competition in the long run because the cost
61 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.6.
62 Connecting America, p. 82.
63 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Appendix, “Other Independent
Agencies,” p. 1263. See also, FCC, Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Estimates Submitted to Congress, February 2010 at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296111A1.pdf.
64 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Summary Tables, Table S-8,
p. 169.
65 Office of Management and Budget, A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America’s Promise, Table S-6, p. 126.
66 For example, the President’s budget for FY2004 and again for 2006 proposed that (1) the FCC’s authority to conduct
auctions be extended indefinitely; (2) user fees be levied on unauctioned licensed spectrum; and (3) broadcasters pay an
annual lease fee on analog TV spectrum that they are holding as part of the Congressionally-mandated transition to
digital television. In his budget for 2005, the President supported proposals for indefinitely extending the FCC’s
auction authority and giving the FCC the authority to set user fees on unauctioned spectrum.
67 P.L. 108-494, Title II, Sec. 209 (a).
Congressional Research Service
14
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
was a one-time, sunk cost.68 New licensing regimes were mentioned in the report as a possible
means of increasing spectral efficiency but the suggestion received no discussion in the report.69
The FCC’s statutory authority to impose new spectrum user fees is limited. The FCC was
authorized by Congress to set license application fees70 and regulatory fees to recover costs.71 A
new fee structure seeking recovery beyond costs would require Congressional authorization,
either through an appropriations bill or new legislation. New fees could be difficult to devise as
many of the licenses originally assigned at little cost to the acquirer were subsequently sold to
other carriers.
Wireless Backhaul
Most mobile communications depend on fixed infrastructure to relay calls to and from wireless
networks. The infrastructure that links wireless communications to the wired world is commonly
referred to as backhaul. In situations where installing communications cables is impractical, fixed
wireless infrastructure may be used to provide the needed backhaul. Microwave technologies, for
example, are used in a number of applications to extend coverage to areas not served by fiber-
optic or other wire links.
The NBP has predicted that the importance of backhaul will increase with the implementation of
4G technologies, as mobile access to the Internet and other wired networks becomes increasingly
prevalent.72 The FCC therefore has proposed to take a number of procedural steps to increase the
flexibility and capacity for point-to-point wireless backhaul technologies.73 On June 7, 2010, the
FCC adopted an order intended to “enhance the flexibility and speed” of acquiring spectrum for
wireless backhaul.74
National Purposes
Among the requirements for the National Broadband Plan, Congress specified that it should
include
a plan for use of broadband infrastructure and services in advancing consumer welfare, civic
participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care
delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector
investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national
purposes.75
68 GAO, Telecommunications: Strong Support for Extending FCC’s Auction Authority Exists, but Little Agreement on
Other Options to Improve Efficient Use of Spectrum,” December 20, 2005, GAO-06-236, p. 2.
69 Ibid., p. 10, footnote 15.
70 47 USC § 158 (a).
71 47 USC § 159 (a).
72 Connecting America, p. 93.
73 Connecting America, Recommendations 5.9 and 5.10.
74 FCC, Report and Order, released June 8, 2010, Docket No. 09-114 at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachmatch/FCC-10-109A1.pdf.
75 P.L. 111-5, § 6001 (k) (2) (D); 123 Stat. 516.
Congressional Research Service
15
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
In the plan, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has made recommendations that
might fulfill both social and economic goals. In the section of the plan titled “National Purposes,”
it has focused on social goals with an agenda of actions for federal, state, and local agencies. The
areas covered in this section are
• Health care. The NBP has identified stated goals of the Department of Health and
Human Services that might be effectively supported with technologies that are
enhanced by access to broadband communications.
• Education. The NBP has proposed that broadband can provide an effective tool
for meeting the educational needs and ambitions of educators, students, and
parents of young children as well as support the Department of Education’s
strategies to improve educational achievement.
• Energy and the Environment. Broadband has multiple applications in the field of
energy, conservation, and environmental protection. For example, SmartGrid
goals set by Congress76 might not be achievable without broadband
communications.
• Economic Opportunity. Actions proposed in the NBP to further economic
opportunity are centered on increasing access to Information Technology for
small and medium-sized businesses. The role of broadband in providing job
training and employment services and supporting telework are also addressed in
recommendations.
• Government Performance. The recommendations for federal government actions
encompassed both ways that broadband might improve the effectiveness of
government and also steps the federal government might take to increase the
availability of broadband networks. The latter included federal actions to improve
cybersecurity and ways that federal agencies might assist communities and state
and local governments in building broadband infrastructure.
• Civic Engagement. The NBP has described concepts such as government
transparency that can lead to greater participation by all in the democratic
process. Broadband access has been described in the plan as a useful tool for
encouraging civic engagement because of the part it plays in interactive
communication and providing information.
• Public Safety. The NBP recommendations dealt primarily with delivering
wireless broadband to the radios of first responder. It also considered the role of
broadband in upgrading the nation’s 911 services and emergency alert systems.
Meeting Policy Goals
Each of the sections on national purposes has mentioned the existing legislative and regulatory
framework and trends in the field that might benefit from better broadband access and services.
Although each sector serves different needs and goals, the NBP recommendations are fairly
similar for each. In general, stakeholders have been encouraged to
• Create incentives to achieve broadband goals.
76 P.L. 110-140, Sec. 1301; 123 Stat. 1783.
Congressional Research Service
16
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
• Leverage broadband technology, including wireless broadband.
• Encourage innovation and improved productivity.
• Provide or increase funding for programs that support broadband policy goals.
• Modify regulations.
The NBP has recommended that the Executive Branch create a Broadband Strategy Council.77
This council would coordinate efforts by the many agencies that the FCC has identified as having
a role in the plan’s implementation. The NBP has suggested that the President could require that
federal departments and agencies submit broadband implementation plans to the council. The
council could also act as an intermediary between the agencies and Congress regarding legislation
that might facilitate meeting the NBP’s goals. Another recommendation of the NBP would require
the FCC to track progress in meeting the plan’s goals.78
Community Broadband
Rural communities have on occasion used their resources to install fiber-optic networks in part
because they were too small a market to interest for-profit companies. Networks that depend on a
fiber-optic cable backbone are capital-intensive and usually more profitable in high-density urban
areas. Increasingly, communities of all sizes are looking at wireless technologies to support their
networks. Municipalities, for example, are installing free Wi-Fi zones. Among the reasons often
cited for installing wireless facilities are that generally available access to the Internet through
wireless connections has become an urban amenity, a necessity in sustaining and developing the
local economy, and a part of essential infrastructure with many public benefits.79
Opponents to community-owned networks contend that they provide unfair competition,
distorting the marketplace and discouraging commercial companies from investing in broadband
technologies. In particular, the fact that urban areas are creating Wi-Fi networks and providing,
among other services, free wireless links to the Internet is viewed as a threat to commercial
companies.
Several states have passed laws prohibiting or limiting local governments’ ability to provide
telecommunications services. An effort to challenge such a law in Missouri by municipalities
offering local communications services in the state was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in
2004.80 In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress barred states from “prohibiting the
ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.”81 The
Court ruled that “entity” was not specific enough to include state political divisions; if Congress
wished specifically to protect both public and private entities, they could do so by amending the
language of the law. This Court decision and the steady improvement in broadband
communications technologies that municipalities wish to have available in their communities
have provided fuel for a policy debate about access to broadband services.
77 Connecting America, Recommendation 17.1.
78 Connecting America, Recommendation 17.2.
79 The Federal Trade Commissions’ Internet Access Task Force has published a report discussing many aspects of
municipal broadband implementation and related issues, at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/10/muniwireless.htm.
80 U.S. Supreme Court, Docket Number 02-1238.
81 47 U.S.C. 253 (a).
Congressional Research Service
17
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
Because community broadband networks can help with NBP goals for inclusion and national
purposes, the NBP has considered the possibility that federal investment in broadband
infrastructure might be leveraged for community and state broadband services. For example, the
NBP has recommended that federal agencies could open their broadband networks to state and
local agencies and to unserved and underserved areas.82 It has also made recommendations to
help reduce costs and improve funding to community broadband programs.83
Issues for the 111th Congress
The NBP has made a number of recommendations for Congressional action to grant new
authorities to the FCC, including several related to spectrum policy and auctions. The Radio
Spectrum Inventory bills being considered by the 111th Congress parallel NBP recommendations.
The NBP has recommended changes to the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act; not all of
these recommendations are included in the bill that would amend that act, H.R. 3019, the
Spectrum Relocation and Improvement Act of 2009. Congress may decide to consider NBP
recommendations for legislation that would permit incentive auctions, particularly as they apply
to recommended reassignments of digital TV broadcast frequencies. H.R. 5081, the Broadband
for First Responders Act of 2010, would require the reallocation of 700 MHz D Block
frequencies, contrary to announced plans to auction the frequencies.
Spectrum Inventory
Similar versions of a Radio Spectrum Inventory Act (S. 649, Senator Kerry and H.R. 3125,
Representative Waxman) would require the FCC and NTIA to prepare an inventory of spectrum
allocations and assignments in prime radio frequency bands. The information from the detailed
report on users and uses would help policy makers evaluate whether spectrum is being allocated
and used effectively. The bills would require an accounting of spectrum allocation in the
designated bands that would identify commercial license-holders, government agency spectrum
allocations, and the number of devices deployed in those bands. If available, information would
be provided on the types of wireless devices used on licensed frequencies and on unlicensed
frequencies within each band. Contour maps and information on the location of base stations and
other fixed transmitters might also be included in the inventory. The inventory results would be
available over the Internet. Exemptions from public access to some information may be granted
for reasons of national security, although the two bills vary on terms for these exemptions. The
inventory is to be completed and submitted in reports to Congress within 180 days of passage into
law.84
82 Connecting America, Recommendation 14.1.
83 Connecting America, Recommendation 14.2, 14.3, and 14.4.
84 The status of the bills can be monitored through the Legislative Information System (LIS) at
http://www.congress.gov.
Congressional Research Service
18
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
The Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and Federal
Relocation
The Spectrum Relocation and Improvement Act of 2009 (H.R. 3019, Representative Inslee) and
the similarly worded Spectrum Relocation and Improvement Act of 2010 (S. 3490, Senator
Warner) would address issues arising from current experiences in relocating federal users to clear
space for commercial license-holders. The bills would define the rights and responsibilities of
federal entities in the spectrum relocation process, especially obligations for sharing, and their
eligibility for payments from the Spectrum Relocation Fund. The NBP has recommended that
Congress consider improvements to the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (CSEA) to
provide “adequate incentives and assistance” to support relocation. The NBP has further
recommended that the compensation to federal agencies be structured to provide additional
incentives “for using commercial services and non-spectrum based operations.” In particular, the
NBP has recommended that “Congress revise the CSEA to provide for payments of relocation
funds to federal users that vacate spectrum and make use of commercial networks instead....”85
The Spectrum Relocation Fund was created by the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act in
2004, to provide a mechanism whereby federal agencies could recover the costs of moving from
one spectrum band to another. The fund is administered by the Office of Management and
Budget. Following procedures required by the act, the FCC scheduled an auction of designated
federal frequencies for commercial use as Advanced Wireless Services (AWS). The AWS auction
was completed on September 18, 2006, attracting nearly $13.9 billion in completed bids.86 The
FCC ruled that auction winners wishing to put acquired licenses to immediate use would in most
cases be able to share with current federal users under guidance from the FCC.87 The act was
written to be applied to most transfers of spectrum from federal to commercial use.
Incentive Auctions
The NBP has asked Congress to consider expanding the FCC’s auction authority to permit
incentive auctions.88 As outlined in the NBP, such authority would enable spectrum license-
holders to return spectrum for auction, with the expectation of receiving part of the proceeds as
compensation for the costs associated with relinquishing the asset. Although most spectrum
license auction revenues are deposited as general funds,89 Congress has passed laws, such as the
Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, that permit the proceeds to be used for other purposes.
Broadband for First Responders Act
The Broadband for First Responders Act of 2010 (H.R. 5081, Representative King) would amend
the Communications Act of 1934 by requiring the FCC to allocate an additional 10 MHz of
spectrum, known at the D Block, at 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz, for public safety services
85 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.5.
86 FCC News, “FCC’s Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) Spectrum Auction Concludes,” September 18, 2006.
87 FCC Public Notice “Coordination Procedures in the 1710-1755 MHz Band,” FCC 06-50, April 20, 2006 (WTB
Docket No. 02-353).
88 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.4.
89 As required by the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 309 j (8).
Congressional Research Service
19
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
and assign these paired bands for public safety broadband use. The bill would require the FCC to
establish rules to encourage the rapid deployment of an interoperable national wireless broadband
network.
Service rules would provide priority access to mission critical public safety applications; provide
for roaming on public safety spectrum by authorized users; encourage public-private partnerships
by requiring consideration of the use of existing or planned commercial infrastructure; meet
technical and operational standards for interoperability and roaming; require that networks are
built to survive most large scale disasters; ensure networks have the appropriate level of cyber
security; and facilitate the shared use of the public safety broadband spectrum and infrastructure
with commercial and other entities.
Standards would be set in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) and others to enable nationwide interoperability and roaming across any communications
system using public safety broadband spectrum.
Conclusion
Telephone service was once considered a natural monopoly, and regulated accordingly. The
presumption was that redundant telephone infrastructure was inefficient and not in the public
interest. State and federal regulators favored granting operating rights to a single company, within
a specific facilities territory, to benefit from economies of scale, facilitate interoperability, and
maximize other benefits. In return for the monopoly position, the selected provider was expected
to fulfill a number of requirements intended to benefit society. Thus, for decades, the regulated
monopoly was seen by most policy-makers as (1) ensuring that costly infrastructure was put in
place and (2) meeting society’s needs, as interpreted by regulations and the law.90 Past policies to
regulate a monopolistic market may have influenced current policies for promoting competition.
The FCC’s emphasis on efficiency for delivering services to a pre-determined market could be
leading wireless competition toward monopoly; new regulatory regimes might be a consequence
of this trend, if it continues.
Current spectrum policy seeks to maximize the value of spectrum by encouraging economies of
scale and appears to treat spectrum assets as an extension of existing infrastructure (spectrum
license ownership and network management, for example) instead of an alternative infrastructure
(Wi-Fi and wireless backhaul are examples). This policy course has provided a form of workable
competition that has brought wireless services (until 2006, almost exclusively voice) at affordable
prices to most of the country. However, wireless technology has reached an inflection point and is
shifting from voice to data. Some argue that wireless policy should also shift, placing a greater
value on innovation to achieve goals deemed to be in the public interest. A policy that prioritizes
providing spectrum to spur innovation, for example, could create new markets, new models for
competition, and new competitors. If spectrum policy serves broadband policy and broadband
policy serves multiple sectors of the economy, then perhaps spectrum should be more readily
available for a wider pool of economic participants.
The amount of spectrum needed for fully realized wireless access to broadband is such that
meeting the needs of broadband policy goals could be difficult to achieve through the market-
90 The original Communications Act of 1934 codified many regulations for monopolies as practiced at the time.
Congressional Research Service
20
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
driven auction process unless large amounts of new radio frequencies can be identified and
released for that purpose.91 Without abandoning competitive auctions, spectrum policy could
benefit from including additional ways to assign or manage spectrum that might better serve the
deployment of wireless broadband and the implementation of a national broadband policy.
Legislation geared to improve auction mechanisms might benefit from the consideration of
measures that would use technology to increase the amount of spectrum available, thereby
opening the field to new players, fostering competition, and spurring innovation.
To further the transition to new technologies, Congress might choose to require performance
goals for improved spectrum efficiency, not unlike the way federal goals have been set for energy
conservation or transportation safety.
91 International Telecommunications Union projects an estimated need for additional spectrum capacity that could
reach nearly 1,000 MHz in the United States, as reported in “Summary of Results of ITU-R Report M. 2079,” p. 13,
presented by Cengiz Evci, Chief Frequency Officer, Wireless Business Group, Alcatel-Lucent, August 28, 2007.
Available at http://standards.nortel.com/spectrum4IMT/Geneva/R03-WRCAFR07-C-0024.pdf. See also CTIA-The
Wireless Association, Written Ex Parte Communication, FCC, GN Docket No. 09-51, September 29, 2009, which
suggests a goal of at least 800 MHz, based on extrapolations from the ITU research.
Congressional Research Service
21
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
Appendix A. Spectrum-Hungry Technologies
Enabling technologies that are fueling both the demand for mobile broadband services and the
need for radio frequency spectrum include Long Term Evolution, WiMAX; fixed wireless; Wi-Fi;
high performance mobile devices such as smartphones and netbooks; and cloud computing. Fixed
wireless and Wi-Fi are not new technologies but mobile broadband has given them new roles in
meeting consumer demand. Future technologies include network-centric technologies, which
include opportunistic solutions such as Dynamic Spectrum Access (DSA).
Long Term Evolution (LTE)
LTE is the projected development of existing 3G networks built on Universal Mobile Telephone
System (UMTS) standards.92 Like all fourth-generation wireless technologies, LTE’s core
network uses Internet protocols. The network architecture is intended to facilitate mobile
broadband deployment with capabilities that can deliver large amounts of data, quickly and
efficiently, to large numbers of simultaneous users. LTE will likely be implemented in stages
through modifications to networks using frequencies in bands already allocated for commercial
wireless networks.93 LTE might operate on spectrum bands at 700 MHz, 1.7 GHz, 2.3 GHz, 2.5
GHz, and 3.4 GHz.94
WiMAX
WiMAX provides mobile broadband but its earliest applications were for fixed wireless services.
WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) refers to both a technology and an
industry standard, the work of an industry coalition of network and equipment suppliers.95
WiMAX uses multiple frequencies around the world in ranges from 700 MHz to 66 GHz. In the
United States, available frequencies include 700 MHz, 1.9 GHz, 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz and 2.7 GHz.
The introduction of WiMAX in the United States is being jointly led by Sprint Nextel
Corporation and Clearwire Corporation under the name Clearwire. Clearwire Wi-MAX, branded
CLEAR, plans to serve 80 markets by the end of 2010.96
Fixed Wireless Services
Fixed wireless services have taken on new importance as a “backhaul” link for 4G. Backhaul is
the telecommunications industry term that refers to connections between a core system and a
subsidiary node. An example of backhaul is the link between a network—which could be the
92 See, for example, “Mobile Broadband Evolution: the roadmap from HSPA to LTE,” UMTS Forum, February 2009,
Universal Mobile Telephone System Forum at http://www.umts-forum.org/.
93 Implementation summarized in Connecting America, Exhibit 5-B, p. 77.
94 Spectrum is segmented into bands of radio frequencies and typically measured in cycles per second, or hertz.
Standard abbreviations for measuring frequencies include kHz—kilohertz or thousands of hertz; MHz—megahertz, or
millions of hertz; and GHz—gigahertz, or billions of hertz.
95 Founding members of the WiMAX Forum include Airspan, Alvarion, Analog Devices, Aperto Networks, Ensemble
Communications, Fujitsu, Intel, Nokia, Proxim, and Wi-LAN. For additional information, see
http://www.wimaxforum.org/.
96 Implementation summarized in Connecting America, Exhibit 5-B, p. 77.
Congressional Research Service
22
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
Internet or an internetwork that can connect to the Internet—and the cell tower base stations that
route traffic from wireless to wired systems. Two backhaul technologies well-suited for mobile
Internet access are fiber optic cable and point-to-point microwave radio relay transmissions.97
Network expansion plans for WiMAX and LTE include microwave links as a cost-effective
substitute for fiber optic wire under certain conditions. Radio frequencies available in the United
States for microwave technologies of different types start in the 930 MHz band and range as high
as the 90 GHz band.
Wi-Fi
The popularity of Wi-Fi is often cited as a successful innovation that was implemented using
unlicensed frequencies.98 Wi-Fi provides wireless Internet access for personal computers and
handheld devices and is also used by businesses to link computer-based communications within a
local area. Links are connected to a high-speed landline either at a business location or through
hotspots. Hotspots are typically located in homes or convenient public locations, including
airports and café environments such as Starbucks. Wi-Fi uses radio frequencies in the free 2.4
GHz and 5.4/5.7GHz spectrum bands. Many 3G and 4G wireless devices that operate on licensed
frequencies can also use the unlicensed frequencies set aside for Wi-Fi.99
Smartphones and Netbooks
Two of the fastest growing segments in the category of mobile Internet devices are smartphones
and netbooks. The introduction of Apple Inc.’s iPhone, in 2007, is widely viewed as heralding a
new era in wireless smartphones. The smartphone market is predicted to thrive on growing
demand for downloadable applications,100 interactive websites, and imaginative videos—all
delivered wirelessly. A parallel development has been the accelerating use of netbooks. These
book-sized laptop computers are designed to provide broadband wireless access to the Internet.
The line between smartphone and netbook technologies is fading as the newer generations of
these devices provide many of the same features. The iPad, introduced by Apple Inc. in 2010,
provides an example of the interchangeability of features across different platforms. The majority
of these devices can operate on Wi-Fi as well as over 3G and 4G networks using licensed
frequencies.
Cloud Computing
Cloud computing is a catch-all term that is popularly used to describe a range of information
technology resources that are separately stored for access through a network, including the
Internet. An Internet search on Google, for example, is using cloud computing to access a rich
97 A discussion of backhaul technology is part of the testimony of Ravi Potharlanka, Chief Operating Officer, Fiber
Tower Corp., at House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications,
Technology, and the Internet, “An Examination of Competition in the Wireless Industry,” May 7, 2009.
98 Unlicensed frequencies are bands set aside for devices approved by the FCC. The frequencies are effectively
managed by the FCC instead of by a license-holder.
99 “Wi-Fi Popular Now in Smartphones, Set to Boom,” by Matt Hamblen, Computerworld, April 1, 2009.
100 See, for example, “Smart Phones are Edging Out Other Gadgets,” by Christopher Lawton and Sara Silver, The Wall
Street Journal, March 25, 2009, for a discussion of how “beefed up cellphones” are replacing some electronic devices
as their functions are incorporated into smart phones.
Congressional Research Service
23
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
resource of data and information processing. Network connectivity to services is another resource
provided by cloud computing. Google Inc. also offers word processing, e-mail and other services
through Google Docs. Although off-site data processing and information storage are not new
concepts, cloud computing benefits from the significant advances in network technology and
capacity that are hallmarks of the broadband era. Cloud computing can provide economies of
scale to businesses of all sizes. Small businesses in particular can benefit from forgoing the costs
of installing and managing hardware and software by buying what they need from the cloud.
Consumers also can benefit because they no longer need to buy personal computers in order to
run complex programs or store large amounts of data. The convergence of 4G wireless
technology—with its smartphones and netbooks—and the growing accessibility of cloud
computing to businesses and consumers alike will contribute to the predicted explosive growth in
demand for wireless bandwidth.101
Network-Centric Technologies
More efficient spectrum use can be realized by integrating adaptive networking technologies,
such as dynamic spectrum access, with IP-based commercial network technologies such as LTE.
Radios using DSA chipsets are more effective at managing interference and congestion than the
channel management techniques currently in use. If a channel’s link fails, the radio is cut off.
When radios are networked using DSA, individual communications nodes continue to operate
and can compensate for failed links. The effects of interference are manageable rather than
catastrophic. The network is used to overcome radio limitations.
Adaptive networking has the potential to organize radio communications to achieve the same
kinds of benefits that have been seen to accrue with the transition from proprietary data networks
to the Internet. Adaptive technologies are designed to use pooled spectrum resources. Pooling
spectrum licenses goes beyond sharing. Licenses are aggregated and specific ownership of
channels becomes secondary to the common goal of maximizing network performance.
The Department of Defense (DOD) is working to implement network-centric operations (NCO)
through a number of initiatives.102 Leadership and support to achieve DOD goals in the crucial
area of spectrum management is provided by the Defense Spectrum Organization (DSO) created
in 2006 within the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). The DSO is leading DOD
efforts to transform spectrum management in support of future net-centric operations and warfare,
and to meet military needs for dynamic, agile, and adaptive access to spectrum. The DSO is
guiding DOD spectrum management along a path that envisions moving away from stove-piped
systems to network-centric spectrum management and, ideally, to bandwidth on demand and
cognitive self-synching spectrum use.
Among the steps to advance toward the goal of spectrum access that is fully adaptable to any
situation is the testing of network-centric technologies developed by the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) within the Wireless Network After Next (WNaN) program.
101 The many factors driving demand for mobile broadband and the impact of growth in data and video services on
demand for spectrum are reviewed in Mobile Spectrum Broadband Demand, Rysavy Research, December 2008.
102 A discussion of the goals of NCO is included in CRS Report RL32411, Network Centric Operations: Background
and Oversight Issues for Congress, by Clay Wilson.
Congressional Research Service
24
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
WNaN is evaluating DSA, Disruptive Tolerant Networking, and other tools, possibly to replace
the existing Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) now in use. JTRS uses software-programmable
radios to provide interoperability, among other features.103 WNaN’s testing and evaluation of
network-centric technologies is expected to lead to a decisison in late 2010. WNAN technology is
planned for transition to the Army in 2010.104
103 Information at http://jpeojtrs.mil/.
104 Information about the WNaN program is based on comments by Bob Wilson, Deputy Program Manager for Army
WNaN program, Communications-Electronics Command at DoD Spectrum Symposium, Arlington, VA, October 14-
15, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
25
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
Appendix B. Competition
A combination of policy and market forces has divided the commercial wireless market into
sharply different tiers. Policies that have encouraged economies of scale have favored mergers
and acquisitions of wireless companies. There are now four facilities-based105 wireless companies
in the United States that the FCC describes as nationwide: AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint
Nextel, and T-Mobile, 106 which had approximately 90% of the subscriber market at the beginning
of 2010. Another four providers had subscriber bases of between 1 million and 15 million Over
one hundred smaller carriers serve niche markets.107
Barriers to Competition
In evaluating competition within an industry, economists and policy makers examine barriers to
entry, among other factors.108 Barriers might come from high costs for market entry such as
investment in infrastructure or there might be legal and regulatory barriers to entry. As part of its
evaluation of competition for mobile services, the FCC has identified three factors that could
constitute barriers to entry to the commercial mobile communications industry. These barriers
affect not only competitiveness but also access to networks and investment in new technology.
The factors are: “first-mover advantages, large sunk costs, and access to spectrum.”109 All three of
these factors are subject to regulations that have been influenced by past or existing policies
regarding spectrum allocation and assignment.
First-mover advantages110 have accrued primarily to the early entrants in the wireless industry.
Early in the development of the cell phone industry, the FCC created cellular markets and
assigned two spectrum licenses to each market; one license went automatically to the incumbent
provider in that market. The second license was made available to a competing service provider
(not the market incumbent); the difficulties in choosing the competitors that would receive
licenses contributed to the subsequent move to auctions as a means for assigning spectrum
rights.111 These early entrants, and the successor companies that acquired them and their licenses,
have maintained their core customer base and benefit from early investments in infrastructure.
Many first movers into the wireless market, therefore, acquired their market-leader status through
regulatory decisions that provided them with spectrum licenses, not through market competition.
105 Facilities-based mobile telephone operators own and operate their network facilities.
106 Fourteenth Report, paragraph 27.
107 Fourteenth Report, paragraph 29.
108 For example, U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, “Horizontal Merger Guidelines,”
Jointly issued April 2, 1992, revised April 8, 1997.
109 FCC, “Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Commercial Mobile Radio Services Market
Competition,” Public Notice, February 25, 2008, DA 08-453, WT Docket No. 08-27 at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-453A1.pdf. Earlier annual reports have also cited these barriers.
110 The initial occupant of a market segment may benefit from a number of advantages such as preemption of resources,
advantageous relationships with customers and suppliers, and early profits for reinvestment in infrastructure.
111 The distribution of licenses for cell phone networks from the early days of the technology until the introduction of
auctions is described in Wireless Nation: The Frenzied Launch of the Cellular Revolution in America, by James B.
Murray, Jr., Perseus Press, 2001, 2002.
Congressional Research Service
26
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
Large sunk costs refer to the high levels of investment needed to enter the wireless market. Not
including the price of purchasing spectrum, billions of dollars are required to build new
infrastructure. The sunk costs of incumbent wireless service providers set a high bar for new
entrants to match if they are to compete effectively in major markets. In the mobile telephone
industry, the FCC has observed that most capital expenditures are spent on existing networks: to
expand and improve geographic coverage; to increase capacity of existing networks; and to
improve network capabilities. Performance requirements for spectrum license-holders, such as the
size of a market that must be served or deadlines for completing infrastructure build-outs, are
some of the policy decisions that can add to the cost of entry.
Spectrum Auctions and Competition
The FCC, acting on the statutory authority given to it by Congress, has broad regulatory powers
for spectrum management. The FCC was created as part of the Communications Act of 1934112 as
the successor to the Federal Radio Commission, which was formed under the Radio Act of
1927.113 The first statute covering the regulation of airwaves in the United States was the Radio
Act of 1912, which gave the authority to assign usage rights (licenses) to the Secretary of the
Department of Commerce and Labor.114 Licensing was necessary in part because, as radio
communications grew, it became crucial that frequencies be reserved for specific uses or users, to
minimize interference among wireless transmissions.115
A key component of spectrum policy is the allocation of bands of frequencies for specific uses
and the assignment of licenses within those bands. Allocation refers to the decisions, sometimes
reached at the international level, that set aside bands of frequencies for categories of uses or
users; assignment refers to the transfer of spectrum rights to specific license-holders. Radio
frequency spectrum is treated as a natural resource that belongs to the American people. The
FCC, therefore, licenses spectrum but does not convey ownership. Before auctions became the
primary method for assigning spectrum licenses the FCC used a number of different approaches,
primarily based on perceived merit, to select license-holders.
Auctions are regarded as a market-based mechanism for assigning spectrum. The FCC was
authorized to organize auctions to award spectrum licenses for certain wireless communications
services in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66). The act amended the
Communications Act of 1934 with a number of important provisions affecting the availability of
spectrum. The Licensing Improvement section116 of the act laid out the general requirements for
the FCC to establish a competitive bidding methodology and consider, in the process, objectives
such as the development and rapid deployment of new technologies.117 The law prohibited the
FCC from making spectrum allocation decisions based “solely or predominately on the
112 47 U.S.C. § 151.
113 P.L. 632, Sec. 3.
114 P.L. 264, “License.”
115 An “Act to regulate radio communications,” usually referred to as the Radio Act of 1912, was passed partly in
response to radio problems—including interference—associated with the sinking of the Titanic. Hearings Before a
Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, pursuant to S. Res. 283, “Directing the
Committee on Commerce to Investigate the Cause Leading to the Wreck of the White Star Liner ‘Titanic,’” testimony
of Guglielmo Marconi, et al.
116 P.L. 103-66 Title III, Subtitle C, Chapter 1.
117 47 U.S.C. § 309 (j), especially (1), (3), and (4).
Congressional Research Service
27
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
expectation of Federal revenues....”118 The Emerging Telecommunications Technologies section119
directed the NTIA to identify not less than 200 MHz of radio frequencies used by the federal
government that could be transferred to the commercial sector through auctions.120 The FCC was
directed to allocate and assign these released frequencies over a period of at least ten years, and to
reserve a significant portion of the frequencies for allocation after the ten-year time span.121
Similar to the requirements for competitive bidding, the FCC was instructed to ensure the
availability of frequencies for new technologies and services, and also the availability of
frequencies to stimulate the development of wireless technologies.122 The FCC was further
required to address “the feasibility of reallocating portions of the spectrum from current
commercial and other non-federal uses to provide for more efficient use of spectrum” and for
“innovation and marketplace developments that may affect the relative efficiencies of different
spectrum allocations.”123 Over time, auction rules have been modified in accordance with the
changing policy goals of the FCC and Congress but subsequent amendments to the
Communications Act of 1934 have not substantively changed the above-noted provisions
regarding spectrum allocation.124
The rules set by the FCC for using spectrum licenses (service rules) may have been oriented
toward the concepts of building and managing networks that were formed in the days of the
telephone, favoring traditional telecommunications business plans over those of companies with
different business models. Some companies that might be well suited to meet social goals, such as
access in rural areas, might have been precluded from bidding at all because of constraints not
considered relevant to market-driven allocations. For example, public utilities, municipal co-
operatives, commuter railroads, and other public or quasi-public entities face a variety of legal,
regulatory, and structural constraints that limit or prohibit their ability to participate in an auction
or buy spectrum licenses. Many of these constraints exist at the state level but federal spectrum
policy plays a role in perpetuating the status quo.
Auction winners are deemed to be the companies that can maximize the value of the spectrum to
society by maximizing its value as a corporate asset. However, auction-centric spectrum policies
appear to have generally focused on assigning licenses to commercial competitors in traditional
markets that serve consumers and businesses. Auctioning spectrum licenses may direct assets to
end-use customers instead of providing wireless services where the consumer may be the
beneficiary but not the customer. Wireless networks are an important component of smart grid
communications. Spectrum resources are also needed for railroad safety,125 for water
conservation,126 for the safe maintenance of critical infrastructure industries,127 and for many
118 47 U.S.C. § 309 (j) (7) (A).
119 P.L. 103-66 Title III, Subtitle C, Chapter 2.
120 47 U.S.C. § 923 (b) (1).
121 47 U.S.C. § 925 (b) (1).
122 47 U.S.C. § 925 (b) (2).
123 47 U.S.C. § 925 (b) (3).
124 See United States Code Annotated, Title 47, sections as footnoted, WEST Group, 2001 and the 2007 Cumulative
Annual Pocket Part.
125 The railroad industry uses wireless communications as part of their information networks to monitor activity.
126 For example, sensors buried at the level of plant roots recognize when watering is needed and communicate this
information over wireless networks.
127 In general, critical infrastructure industries facilitate the production of critical goods and services such as safe
drinking water, fuel, telecommunications, financial services, and emergency response. A discussion of key issues
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
28
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
other applications that may not have an immediate commercial value but can provide long-lasting
value to society as a whole.
Spectrum Caps
As part of its preparations for the first spectrum license auctions, the FCC decided to set caps on
the amount of spectrum any one company could control in any geographically designated
market.128 The theory behind spectrum capping is that each license has an economic value and a
foreclosure value. The economic value is derived from the return on investment in spectrum
licenses and network infrastructure. The foreclosure value is the value to a wireless company that
already has substantial market share and wants to keep its dominant position by precluding
competition. Spectrum caps were chosen as the method to prevent foreclosure bidding. The intent
was to ensure multiple competitors in each market and to restrict bidding to only the licenses that
could be used in the near term.
Beginning in 2001, spectrum policy placed increased emphasis on promoting spectrum and
market efficiency through consolidation. The FCC ruled to end spectrum caps, citing greater
spectral efficiency from larger networks as one benefit of the ruling. Spectrum caps were seen as
barriers to mergers within the wireless industry, to the growth of existing wireless companies, and
to the benefits of scale economies. The spectrum caps were eliminated on January 1, 2003.129
Auction rules requiring the timely build-out of networks became a key policy tool to deter
hoarding. The FCC instituted a policy for evaluating spectrum holdings on a market-by-market,
case-by-case basis—a practice referred to as spectrum screening—as a measure of
competitiveness.
In 2008, the Rural Telecommunications Group, Inc. (RTG) petitioned the FCC to impose a
spectrum cap of 110 MHz for holdings below 2.3 GHz. In October 2008, the FCC sought
comments on the RTG petition for rulemaking.130 RTG argued that competition in the industry
was declining as it became more concentrated. It claimed that the larger carriers were
warehousing their spectrum holdings in rural areas while rural carriers were struggling to acquire
spectrum capacity for mobile broadband and expansion. Rural carriers, RTG reported, were being
shut out of opportunities to acquire new spectrum holdings and were being outbid in spectrum
auctions.131 Opponents to the spectrum cap cited data to support their claims that the wireless
communications market is competitive. They argued that additional amounts of spectrum are
needed to support the growth in mobile broadband and that a spectrum cap could cut off growth
(...continued)
appears in CRS Report RL30153, Critical Infrastructures: Background, Policy, and Implementation, by John D.
Moteff.
128 Licenses are designated for a specific geographic area, such as rural areas, metropolitan areas, regions, or the entire
nation.
129 FCC News, “FCC Announces Wireless Spectrum Cap to Sunset Effective January 1, 2003,” November 8, 2001.
Report and Order FCC-01-328. See Docket No. 01-14, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released January 23, 2001 at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-28A1.pdf.
130 FCC RM No. 11498, October 10, 2008. Comments supporting and opposing the petition are published in this
proceeding.
131 Those supporting the RTG petition included the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small
Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO), the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, the Public
Interest Spectrum Coalition, and a number of smaller (non-dominant) wireless carriers.
Congressional Research Service
29
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
and innovation.132 Implementing spectrum caps as a tool for regulating competition would
represent a significant shift in policy for the FCC, were it to take that course.
In comments filed regarding the National Broadband Plan, the Department of Justice considered
the possibility that “the foreclosure value for incumbents in a given locale could be very high.”133
Although it recognized some form of spectrum caps as an option for assuring new market
entrants, it observed that “there are substantial advantages to deploying newly available spectrum
in order to enable additional providers to mount stronger challenges to broadband incumbents.”134
Market Competition
There are many ways to view competition. Although competitiveness may be evaluated by factors
such as barriers to entry or number of market participants, a key measure of whether market
competition is working is an assessment of the dynamic of a specific market: its prices, variety,
level of service, and other indicators that are considered hallmarks of competitive behavior. The
Federal Trade Commission, for example, promotes competition as “the best way to reduce costs,
encourage innovation, and expand choices for consumers.”135 Viewpoints about the level of
competitiveness in providing wireless services to the U.S. market differ.136 However,
telecommunications business analysts generally describe the U.S. market for wireless services as
competitive because consumers benefit in many ways from competition on price, service,
coverage, and the availability of new devices.
Both the wireless industry and its regulator have focused on “wireless consumer welfare”137 in
evaluating competition and the effectiveness of spectrum policies for assigning spectrum licenses.
Auctions are judged to be an efficient way of assigning spectrum for commercial uses that adhere
to traditional business plans.138
132 Opponents to spectrum caps that filed comments were AT&T Inc., Verizon Wireless, CTIA – The Wireless
Association, the Telecommunications Industry Association, and the Wireless Communications Association
International.
133 Ex Parte Submission of the United States Department of Justice, In the matter of Economic Issues in Broadband
Competition: A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket 09-51, January 4, 2010, p. 23 at
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020355122.
134 Ibid., p. 24.
135 “Competition in the Technology Marketplace” at http://www.ftc.gov/bc/tech/index.htm.
136Different assessments of competition in the wireless market have been filed as comments in FCC Docket No. 09-66,
part of the process for the preparation of the FCC’s Fourteenth Report; annual report and analysis of competitive
market conditions with respect to commercial mobile services.
137 This phrase is used in the written statement of AT&T Inc. submitted for a hearing before the House of
Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the
Internet, “An Examination of Competition in the Wireless Industry,” May 7, 2009. In written testimony submitted by
Verizon Wireless for the same hearing, comments stated that wireless providers need suitable and sufficient spectrum
because of “consumers’ reliance on broadband services.”
138The GAO has reported this viewpoint in several reports, including Telecommunications: Strong Support for
Extending FCC’s Auction Authority Exists, but Little Agreement on Other Options to Improve Efficient Use of
Spectrum,” December 20, 2005, GAO-06-236 and Telecommunications: Options for and Barriers to Spectrum Reform,
March 14, 2006, GAO-06-526T.
Congressional Research Service
30
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
Competition in Rural Markets
Over the years, various legislative and policy initiatives have created a number of requirements to
help small and rural carriers acquire spectrum licenses.139 Some of the FCC’s efforts to encourage
spectrum license ownership for small, rural, or entrepreneurial businesses are in response to
Congressional mandates.140 These and other statutory and regulatory programs may have allowed
many small carriers to remain in business even though many others have been absorbed by larger
carriers.141 As wireless traffic, revenue, and profits migrate to broadband, business models that
were effective for voice traffic may no longer be viable, especially for companies that have relied
on the regulatory environment to protect their markets. This change in operating environment
may have disproportionately affected the ability of rural wireless carriers, in particular, to
compete effectively.142 A study of how new technologies might be affecting the competitiveness
of small and rural carriers might be useful in reviewing the effectiveness of policies intended to
aid them.143
139 For example, most auctions have provided bidding credits for small businesses.
140 In 47 USC § 309 (j) (3) (B), the FCC is instructed to promote “economic opportunity and competition and ensuring
that new and innovative technologies are readily available to the American people by avoiding excessive concentration
of licenses and by disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants....”
141 The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported in a 2005 study that a significant number of small companies that
acquired spectrum licenses through preferential programs later transferred the licenses to larger companies: Small
Businesses in License Auctions for Wireless Personal Communications Services, A CBO Paper, October 2005, at
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/68xx/doc6808/10-24-FCC.pdf.
142 A number of rural wireless carriers and their associations have filed comments on the increasing difficulties they
face in competing for wireless customers. Comments are in a number of FCC dockets, such as RM11498, regarding
spectrum caps, and WT Docket No. 09-66, on the state of wireless competition.
143 The CBO study cited above was prepared at the request of the Senate Budget Committee to examine the impact of
small-bidder preferences on federal revenue and was completed before data traffic became a significant factor in
providing wireless services.
Congressional Research Service
31
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
Appendix C. International Policies for Spectrum
Management
Wireless companies also compete as providers in global markets. Although international traffic
may be a small part of wireless voice communications, competition in providing services is
global.144 AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile are major players internationally as well as in the United
States.145 Corporate decisions such as the introduction of new technologies and services are made
for both the United States and international markets. Actions taken for domestic markets may
influence decisions made to enhance global competition and vice versa. Therefore, policies for
assigning spectrum assets might incorporate U.S. goals for global competiveness.
Spectrum allocation is not a uniquely domestic process. Some spectrum allocations are governed
by international treaty. Additionally, there is a trend to harmonize spectrum allocations for
commercial use across countries through international agreements. Harmonization of radio
frequencies is achieved by designating specific bands for the same category of use worldwide.
With harmonization, consumers and businesses are able to benefit from the convenience and
efficiency of having common frequencies for similar uses, thus promoting development of a
seamless, global communications market. Spectrum allocation at the national level, therefore, is
sometimes coordinated with international spectrum allocation agreements. The Advanced
Wireless Services (AWS) auction in the United States, completed in 2006,146 was the conclusion
of a process initiated by an agreement for international harmonization of spectrum bands.147 At
this auction, T-Mobile was able to acquire new spectrum licenses that improved its
competitiveness in the United States148 and, consequently, the worldwide competiveness of its
owner, Deutsche Telekom.149
The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the lead United Nations agency for
information and communication technologies, has been vested with responsibility to ensure
interference-free operations of wireless communication through implementation of international
agreements.150 The ITU adopts a Table of Frequency Allocations in conjunction with International
Radio Regulations. This International Table allocates spectrum for various radio services and
144 The international framework for spectrum management and wireless competition is summarized in Appendix C,
International Policies for Spectrum Management.
145 Verizon Wireless is 45% owned by the British telecommunications giant Vodafone, PLC. T-Mobile is 100% owned
by Deutsche Telecom.
146 FCC News, “FCC’s Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) Spectrum Auction Concludes,” September 18, 2006.
147 The WRC-2000 agreed on spectrum bands to be harmonized for advanced wireless services, referred to as IMT
2000. See FCC News, “International Bureau Reports on Success of the 2000 World Radio Communications
Conference,” June 8, 2000, http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/News_Releases/2000/nrin0009.html.
148 FCC, Twelfth Report; annual report and analysis of competitive market conditions with respect to commercial
mobile services, Docket No. 07-71, released February 4, 2008, p. 9 and paragraph 75, at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-453A1.pdf.
149 Deutsche Telekom owns 100% of T-Mobile International, which includes T-Mobile USA. For information see
“Global Player on the Mobile Communications Market” at http://www.telekom.com/dtag/cms/content/dt/en/530494.
150 The GAO notes that “The federal government considers ITU the principal, competent, and appropriate international
organization for the purpose of formulating international treaties and understandings regarding certain
telecommunications matters.” Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum
Management, GAO-02-906, September 2003, p. 19, fn. 26.
Congressional Research Service
32
Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress
includes, directly or indirectly, conditions for the use of the allocated spectrum.151 There is also a
domestic table for each country. The United States Table of Allocations is maintained by the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The U.S. Table of
Allocations is modified to correspond with changes in international spectrum allocations agreed
to under the auspices of the ITU. These agreements are reached through processes such as the
World Radiocommunications Conferences (WRC). Each WRC provides an opportunity to revise
the International Radio Regulations and International Table of Frequency Allocations in response
to changes in technology and other factors. Modifications to rules from one WRC to the next are
part of an ongoing process of technical review and negotiations. WRC meetings are held
approximately every two years. Provisions that require changes in frequency allocation to
accommodate new technology will typically take effect 10 to 15 years after agreement is reached.
These delays give time to phase out older technologies and to formulate new investment
strategies.
The possibility of allocating additional spectrum for mobile broadband was among the
deliberations of WRC-07 (October 22-November 16, 2007) and may be considered at the next
WRC, scheduled to be held in January 2012.152 Future decisions about spectrum allocation for
broadband in the United States might be influenced by international agreements. Worldwide
harmonization of frequencies for mobile broadband may be sought in bands at 3 GHz and higher.
In the NBP, the FCC has briefly discussed its participation in world forums and the role of the
ITU in the development of new wireless technologies and services.153 The NBP has recommended
that the FCC should work within the ITU to promote innovative and flexible approaches to global
spectrum allocation.154
Author Contact Information
Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
lmoore@crs.loc.gov, 7-5853
151 There are 39 internationally defined wireless services, including broadcasting, meteorological satellite, and mobile
services. Description of ITU-R functions are at http://www.itu.int/ITU-/index.asp?category=information&rlink=
rhome&lang=en.
152 The NTIA and FCC websites carry information about planning for WRC 2012. For FCC, see IB Docket No. 04-286,
Public Notice at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-763A1.pdf. An NTIA overview is at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/wrc/ntia.html. The ITU site is at http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/index.asp?category=
conferences&rlink=wrc-11&lang=en.
153 The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is considering how policies and regulations may need to be
changed in response to new technologies. A World Telecommunication Policy Forum in April 2009, organized by the
ITU, addressed these and other topics. See http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/wtpf/wtpf2009/about.html.
154 Connecting America, Recommendation 5.16.
Congressional Research Service
33