WASHINGTON-Only time will tell what the Federal Communications Commission will do with the information it gleaned from last week’s en banc hearing on spectrum policy.
The all-day session, which involved some 30 panelists representing industry spectrum consumers and academia, was designed to collect information on four fronts: spectrum demand, technology trends, spectrum allocation and spectrum assignment. Questions from the audience were not solicited, but comments from attendees will be accepted for the record through March 26.
It is safe to surmise that, in the words of panelist Mark Crosby, president of the Industrial Telecommunications Association, that “the days of free spectrum are over.” The overriding emphasis of the hearing was how to maximize the value of the remaining frequencies without displacing too many incumbents or jeopardizing personal or public security.
“The FCC must adopt a market-based mechanism for the bulk of the spectrum,” said former FCC staffer Peter Pitsch, now an adjunct fellow with the Progress and Freedom Foundation. “The most important goal of management is to maximize value from low-value uses to high-value uses.”
On a similar note, others pointed out that the commission should not be the body to decide what services will be available in the marketplace. Rather, the marketplace should decide. “There is no substitute for trial and error in the marketplace,” said Tom Hazlett of the American Enterprise Institute and a former FCC economist. “The FCC should look at its recent successes, like PCS. Let the market determine the services and the need, and let auctions decide who the operators will be.”
Despite the overwhelming affirmation auctions received from many panelists, some still believe they may not be the answer for all allocations. Some attention was paid to the value of public interest as it relates to public safety, national security and even free, over-the-air television. According to Phil Verveer of Willkie, Farr and Gallegher, who spoke for the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee, new technologies will take over the spectrum presently allocated to public safety.
Henry Geller, a senior fellow with the Annenberg Washington Program, said that the FCC “would be lynched” if it tried to force public-safety programs to buy channels. Pitsch said that public safety along with other “worthy uses” should be subsidized.
With the flap surrounding the possible auction of broadcast spectrum, Lynn Claudy of the National Association of Broadcasters tried to stand his “public interest” ground, saying that free TV could do more if it had more, but Hazlett threw him a curve ball.
“The 402 megahertz [of broadcast spectrum] is vastly underutilized,” he said. “We could do it on one-tenth the amount and with more flexibility. We could cut it into eight 50 megahertz blocks for auction, with rules allowing free TV on some of it. Licensees could provide all services on the rest.” Claudy disagreed with the premise that spectrum should go to those who value it most highly, saying “spectrum shouldn’t always be about dollars and cents. The FCC must protect the public interest.”
Most agreed that broadcasting’s digital spectrum should be put on the block. However, Jonathan Blake of Covington & Burling, representing Maximum Service Television Inc., predicted the demise of analog television in six years if digital were to be auctioned.
