House Seeks Detailed Spectrum Inventory
House Commerce Committee legislation (HR-3125) ordering an inventory of federal spectrum takes a more detailed approach than a similar bill the Senate Commerce Committee approved on Wednesday (CD July 9 p1). The Senate bill seeks identification of services on bands spanning 300 MHz to 3.5 GHz, while the House would examine a broader swath from 225 MHz to 10 GHz. The House bill also explicitly would ask the FCC and NTIA to provide recommendations for reallocation of the “least utilized” spectrum detected in the inventory, and provide an explanation for their suggestions.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The House bill would order the inventory through an amendment to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act, whereas the Senate bill would amend the Communications Act. Both order the FCC and NTIA to coordinate efforts in producing the inventory. “Our legislation would enable better use of spectrum frequencies, including through sharing and reallocation. It is forward- looking legislation that would encourage innovation and competitiveness,” House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher, D-Va., said in a press statement announcing the bill’s introduction.
The bill has a good chance of passing Congress, given the focus on broadband deployment and the need for more spectrum for mobile broadband services, Hill and industry officials said. “There certainly appears to be bipartisan support for the idea that more spectrum is urgently needed for wireless broadband,” said Washington Research Group analyst Paul Gallant. “The only risks are whether existing users who might lose some of their frequencies would persuade Congress to water down the bills.”
Gallant flagged as significant the House bill’s provision asking the agencies to provide spectrum reallocation recommendations. An inventory alone only compiles information, whereas putting ideas on the table of how to use available spectrum moves the process forward, he said. “I do think there will be considerable debate going forward about whether the bills should set a specific amount of spectrum to be reallocated.” So far neither bill includes any targets.
The House bill must still be marked up, and there’s no timetable for action, although sources said it’s more likely to be in the fall than before the August recess. Both bills include provisions that would allow an exemption from public disclosure of information due to national security concerns, but users would still have to supply data to Congress.
Legislation is needed because the FCC has limited authority to act on reallocation initiatives, said a recent Congressional Research Service report. The Senate bill “represents a preliminary step in evaluating policy changes,” the report said. “The FCC also has the opportunity to establish a new course for spectrum policy in the preparation of a Congressionally mandated report on broadband policy, due in February 2010.”
Industry reaction to both bills was generally positive. “We welcome this congressional initiative, in both the House and the Senate, to ensure that spectrum is being allocated and used efficiently, to the greatest possible advantage of the U.S. economy and the marketplace,” said Jonathan Spalter, chairman of the Mobile Future coalition. AT&T and Verizon said they were still reviewing the legislation.
A spectrum inventory would do little good unless accompanied by other reforms, former FCC official Michael Marcus said Friday on his blog, SpectrumTalk. “My bottom line is that the spectrum inventory will have little net success, other than employing K Street lawyers, unless it is accompanied by at least some progress in: clarifying ‘harmful interference,’ receiver standards, and NTIA/IRAC reform,” Marcus said. Keeping the definition of harmful interference vague benefits wireless carriers and other incumbents, he said.
“CTIA and mainstream spectrum players such as broadcasters have consistently fought against FCC trying to elaborate on the current ambiguous definition of harmful interference” since it gives them “an upper hand where each issue is resolved in intensive 8th Floor lobbying.” While not immediately obvious, most spectrum is used by receivers, not transmitters, Marcus said. “So if and when the ‘inventory’ is finished, we will all get into a new set of massive arguments about whether a proposed new spectrum use will cause ‘harmful interference’ to some population of receivers that has some unknown immunity to nearby signals, adjacent channel signals, signals capable of causing receiver-generated intermodulation, etc.” Marcus argued that the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee, representing government spectrum users, “really control[s] most of the spectrum management decisions in the federal government” and could block reallocating more government frequencies to other uses.