WASHINGTON-In one way or another, Dale N. Hatfield has been connected to the wireless industry as a telecom policy maker, a consultant, an academic and now back full circle as chief of the Office of Engineering Technology at the Federal Communications Commission.
He was there when the government created cellular and specialized mobile radio services in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, Hatfield contemplates how the United States will accommodate coming third-generation mobile phones and a slew of other futuristic telecom technologies.
Through the years, Hatfield has lent a thoughtful and sometimes controversial voice to raging telecom debates typically dominated by weighty vested interests. He is eminently approachable and appears strongly drawn to the interplay of technology and public policy. Hatfield’s earthy friendliness and casual nature belie a fierce and probing intellect.
As a consultant, Hatfield once caused a stir by questioning whether private wireless users made the most of their radio channels and whether they needed the additional spectrum they sought.
Now, more than a decade later, the author of the Hatfield Report is confronted by many of the same private wireless users who still want more spectrum but would rather pay for it through spectrum lease fees than auctions. Hatfield said he’s not opposed to the idea.
As OET chief, Hatfield weighs in on many hot-button wireless issues, including E911, digital wiretap and strongest signal to name a few. But he has broadened OET’s portfolio to include cutting-edge common carrier, broadcast and international telecom issues.
Overall, Hatfield congeniality has overshadowed Hatfield controversy.
Indeed, his return to the FCC (he headed the Office of Plans and Policy in the mid-1970s) has been warmly received by industry and the FCC. Under former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, engineers got eclipsed by economists and OET nearly became extinct. Hatfield laments the difficulty in attracting quality engineers to public service in a high-tech world that offers salaries and benefits unmatched by government.
“I think this is a good time for OET. Dale is a super person. He has the background and experience that the FCC needs,” said Michael Kennedy, corporate vice president and director of global spectrum and telecom policy for Motorola Inc.
Kennedy, himself a former FCC official, said he believes there is a good synergy between FCC Chairman William Kennard and Hatfield.
“There’s a lot of young energy at the FCC and it’s good to have the depth, history and knowledge base to complement that energy,” Kennedy said.
Hatfield’s task is as daunting as it is daring. Telecom technologies are advancing and converging at the speed of light, shrinking the world and increasingly rendering regulatory guideposts meaningless.
The paradigm shift has a glossary all its own: smart radios (software driven and capable of operating in different spectrum environments), spot markets (like satellite transponder leasing but broader), ultrawideband (pulse signaling that operates over a huge swath of spectrum that can be used for law enforcement, industrial and communications purposes), spectrum pollution (the increase in background noise from electronic devices and the corresponding need to increase transmitter power to overcome it) and band managers (middlemen who buy spectrum and sell/lease it to others).
Turning concepts into reality and figuring how to rule over new services without ruining them is the heady, not always glamorous part of the job.
“One of the most wonderful parts of this job is you have people come in-start-up companies, established companies-all the time wanting to brag about their technology. So what we’re seeing is a steady parade of people who’ve got ideas in this area. I think its real. And Moore’s law is still very much working,” said Hatfield in an interview with RCR.
Hatfield has a private industry-led technical advisory committee to help him get through the high-tech thicket.
But some things don’t change. Hatfield, like his predecessors, is challenged with the age-old problem of finding spectrum for an increasingly spectrum-dependent telecom industry. That can be tough when the amount of usable airwaves is finite and largely used up.
“At the highest level, we’ve got a lot of demand for spectrum and we’ve got spectrum transferred over from NTIA [National Telecommunications and Information Administration]. So right now we’re very much in the process of trying to understand what resources we have available-what the inventory is-against all these demands and fit it all together,” said Hatfield.
But private wireless isn’t the only one knocking at Hatfield’s door for more spectrum. Medical telemetry advocates, public safety, third-generation mobile phone carriers and a herd of restless entrepreneurs want a piece of the shrinking spectrum pie, too.
One way Hatfield says the spectrum crunch can be addressed is to squeeze more efficiency out of frequencies, which the FCC has accomplished through narrowbanding and which the industry has realized through digitization.
The other option is increasing sharing, but that has limits.
“Sharing gets complex. It makes it very difficult and time consuming and you pay for it in delay,” said Hatfield. “Basically, those are the two approaches you have to look to. But boy oh boy, it’s a challenge.”
Indeed, the issue of government-private sector spectrum sharing has become a flashpoint on Capitol Hill where defense authorizers want to confer super-primary status to all shared frequencies.
“Obviously, we have concerns and have been trying to work with [congressional] staff people involved so that they understand what our concerns are,” said Hatfield.
The Federal Aviation Administration, afraid of interference with the global positioning satellite system, has cautioned Hatfield about granting waivers for ultrawideband licenses.
Hatfield is less concerned than the wireless industry over a different Department of Defense bill that would have the auction of prime spectrum real estate (36 megahertz from TV channels 60-69) held this year instead of in 2001 at the earliest in order raise $2.6 billion for the Pentagon in fiscal 2000.
“I always thought the notion was to get the spectrum out in the hands of entrepreneurs that are able to use it-that we were not supposed to be managing spectrum to maximize the revenues that were gained through the auction process, or gaming it that way. That sounds about as central planning as you can get,” said Hatfield.
Many in the wireless industry claim an accelerated auction would have a chilling effect on financing as well as on government receipts. Some large wireless carriers aren’t so worried; they see the auction as a keen way to lock in 3G airwaves.
In fact, Hatfield said it would be ideal if spectrum was abundantly plentiful and available on the open market.
“Wouldn’t it be nice if spectrum was more of a commodity-like thing. You could get it easily when you needed it and sell it easily when you didn’t need it anymore. Some people that want to hold onto spectrum, the reason they want to hold on to it is if they give it up today-even if they may not need it very much-they’re afraid they can’t get it back tomorrow. And if they had some assurance that spot markets were working, I think they would be much more willing to give it up,” said Hatfield.
While he sees the FCC moving toward more spectrum flexibility, Hatfield says he’s not ready to embrace the utopian world of high-tech futurist George Gilder. That is a world where smart radios operate in spectrum, which is free and clear of regulatory zoning.
