POTs and PANs

Broadband for All

Main menu

Skip to content
  • Home
  • About CCG
  • Engineering
  • Implementation
  • Regulatory
  • Sales and Marketing
  • Strategy and Planning

Search

Tag Archives: wireless policy

December 26, 2018

Chance to Comment on US Spectrum Policy

The National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA) is looking for comments about the country’s long-term strategy for the way we use spectrum. I strongly urge rural communities and rural carriers to comment because current spectrum rules favor the use of spectrum in urban use and effectively block deployment for rural broadband.

Comments are due by midnight January 22. The Docket number is 181130999-8899-01.  NTIA doesn’t have a slick website for providing comments and comments are instead emailed to: spectrum-strategy-comments@ntia.doc.gov. These should be Word documents with no password protection.  The press release concerning the comments is here.

The Problem. Today most spectrum is being used in urban areas but not deployed in the surrounding rural areas. It’s hard to fault the cellular companies for this practice. The low customer density in rural areas doesn’t support the deployment of the same mix of spectrum needed to satisfy urban cellular bandwidth needs.

However, this unused spectrum could be used for spectacular fixed wireless broadband – something that is not part of the business plan of cellular companies. If we freed idle and unused rural spectrum, we could offer great rural broadband with today’s technology – we could deploy broadband at hundreds of Mbps including wireless products that would carry through forests and other impediments. The spectrum exists to provide great rural broadband, but the companies willing to invest in such deployments can’t get the needed spectrum.

Current Spectrum Rules Favor Urban America. There are a few reasons why spectrum sits idle in rural America today:

Large Footprints of Licenses. The FCC has historically licensed spectrum for huge footprints, normally centered around at least one urban center. The cellular companies that buy the spectrum largely deploy it in the urban centers and ignore the surrounding rural areas.

Inadequate Coverage Rules. Most FCC licenses come with coverage requirements. For instance, a given spectrum might need to eventually be deployed to cover something like 70% of the households in a license area. Spectrum holders can deploy in the urban areas and satisfy the coverage requirements while potentially ignoring a huge part of the geography of a license footprint.

FCC Doesn’t Enforce Timelines. Most spectrum comes with defined timelines for deployment, but the FCC routinely ignores license holders that are late to deploy or else grants long extensions to meet the requirements.

Spectrum Speculators. Too much spectrum is purchased by speculators who have no plans to operate the spectrum but instead buy it in hopes of eventually selling to the larger carriers in the future. These speculators often maintain their licenses using fake deployments – creating wireless links that carry no bandwidth in order to maintain their licenses.

Large Carriers Want No Hassles or Strings. The large wireless carriers lobby against any spectrum rules that might cause them to share spectrum or to deal with even the slightest hint of interference. It’s hard to blame them for this, but the result is unused spectrum simply due to the unwillingness of the large carriers to compromise for the greater good.

The Solution. I don’t profess to have all of the needed solutions to the problem. Ideally, unused spectrum should be made available to those willing to use it in a given geographic footprint. I can think of a few changes that would make a huge difference to free up rural spectrum:

Smaller Footprints for Licenses. The FCC recently rejected several opportunities to license spectrum in smaller footprints. It’s easy for them to justify not licensing in smaller footprints because it’s administratively more difficult, it probably lowers the license fees from an auction and most importantly because the big carriers lobby against it. However, smaller footprints would provide significant opportunities for smaller rural ISPs to obtain spectrum that otherwise goes unused.

Spectrum Sharing. We now have technologies that can allow multiple carriers to share spectrum, particularly in areas where the primary license holder is only sporadically using the spectrum. Smart radios can give priority to the primary license holders while making idle spectrum available to others. The big carriers love this policy when it allows them to dip into WiFi spectrum, but they don’t want to allow others to dip into their licensed spectrum.

Use It or Lose it. If coverage rules included a geographic test then we could easily identify areas where the primary license holder is not deploying spectrum. The FCC should either reclaim unused spectrum or else force the carriers to sub-license it to somebody who will use it. One easy change would be to require coverage maps for each deployment which would identify wireless dead zones – something that is easy with today’s software.

Dissuade Speculators. The FCC could require better proof of deployments including have a revenue test to uncover fake deployments that are for the sole purpose of maintaining licenses.

Share this:

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
  • Posted in Regulation - What is it Good For?
  • Tagged NTIA, spectrum license footprint, spectrum sharing, spectrum speculation, wireless policy
  • Leave a comment

Post navigation

Doug Dawson, President

Contact Doug Dawson

(202) 255-7689
blackbean2@ccgcomm.com

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,913 other subscribers

Categories

  • Current News
  • Guest Blog
  • Improving Your Business
  • Meet CCG
  • Regulation – What is it Good For?
  • Regulatory Alerts
  • Technology
  • The Industry
  • Uncategorized
  • What Customers Want

    Archives

    • January 2021 (10)
    • December 2020 (22)
    • November 2020 (19)
    • October 2020 (22)
    • September 2020 (21)
    • August 2020 (20)
    • July 2020 (22)
    • June 2020 (22)
    • May 2020 (21)
    • April 2020 (22)
    • March 2020 (23)
    • February 2020 (20)
    • January 2020 (22)
    • December 2019 (21)
    • November 2019 (20)
    • October 2019 (23)
    • September 2019 (20)
    • August 2019 (22)
    • July 2019 (22)
    • June 2019 (20)
    • May 2019 (23)
    • April 2019 (22)
    • March 2019 (21)
    • February 2019 (20)
    • January 2019 (22)
    • December 2018 (19)
    • November 2018 (20)
    • October 2018 (23)
    • September 2018 (19)
    • August 2018 (23)
    • July 2018 (21)
    • June 2018 (21)
    • May 2018 (22)
    • April 2018 (21)
    • March 2018 (22)
    • February 2018 (19)
    • January 2018 (22)
    • December 2017 (20)
    • November 2017 (20)
    • October 2017 (22)
    • September 2017 (20)
    • August 2017 (23)
    • July 2017 (19)
    • June 2017 (22)
    • May 2017 (22)
    • April 2017 (21)
    • March 2017 (23)
    • February 2017 (19)
    • January 2017 (21)
    • December 2016 (20)
    • November 2016 (20)
    • October 2016 (21)
    • September 2016 (21)
    • August 2016 (23)
    • July 2016 (20)
    • June 2016 (22)
    • May 2016 (21)
    • April 2016 (22)
    • March 2016 (23)
    • February 2016 (21)
    • January 2016 (20)
    • December 2015 (20)
    • November 2015 (20)
    • October 2015 (22)
    • September 2015 (22)
    • August 2015 (21)
    • July 2015 (22)
    • June 2015 (22)
    • May 2015 (21)
    • April 2015 (22)
    • March 2015 (22)
    • February 2015 (19)
    • January 2015 (20)
    • December 2014 (21)
    • November 2014 (19)
    • October 2014 (23)
    • September 2014 (21)
    • August 2014 (21)
    • July 2014 (20)
    • June 2014 (21)
    • May 2014 (21)
    • April 2014 (22)
    • March 2014 (20)
    • February 2014 (19)
    • January 2014 (22)
    • December 2013 (18)
    • November 2013 (15)
    • October 2013 (21)
    • September 2013 (13)
    • August 2013 (22)
    • July 2013 (19)
    • June 2013 (20)
    • May 2013 (22)
    • April 2013 (28)
    • March 2013 (2)

    Recent Comments

    Dan on $100 Broadband

    Blog Stats

    • 513,351 hits

    Top Posts & Pages

    • Powering the Future
    • The Fiber Backlog
    • The Pros and Cons of Microtrenching
    • $100 Broadband
    • About CCG
    • The Cost of Using Poles
    • Verizon to Retire Copper
    • AT&T's Fiber Play
    • Recognizing the Cable Company Monopolies
    • Building Rural Coaxial Networks

    Top Clicks

    • broadband.georgia.gov/fcc…
Powered by WordPress.com.
Go to mobile version
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
%d bloggers like this: