WASHINGTON-The `consensus’ reached by a government-industry panel on a third-generation mobile phone position that the Clinton administration can take to the World Radiocommunication Conference this spring underscores the complexities faced by the United States in trying to craft a strategy that advances international business interests of some spectrum stakeholders without trampling the rights of others.
It is the challenge of establishing spectrum policy in the brave new world of global commerce and open markets. In some ways, it is not so different from the challenge confronting the United States in general in the foreign arena in the post-Cold War era.
The United States is the top military and technological power on earth. But in the new world of global markets that emphasizes cooperation over confrontation, America has learned that it cannot always throw its weight around.
Take U.S. preparations for WRC-2000, May 8 to June 2 in Istanbul, for example.
The administration is being squeezed on all sides, by firms here and governments overseas.
Many mobile-phone carriers and manufacturers want the United States to identify-and pursue-additional global spectrum for 3G mobile-phone systems. They say common worldwide 3G frequencies will foster global roaming and lower business costs. By extension, they claim equipment and service prices will come down for consumers everywhere.
At least two bands eyed for 3G by U.S. mobile phone firms-1710 MHz – 1855 MHz and 2500 MHz – 2690 MHz-are occupied by licensees with hefty political and business clout.
Sprint Corp., a top mobile phone carrier, happens to have substantial fixed-wireless investments in the 2500 MHz band. The same goes for MCI WorldCom Inc., which has a merger agreement with Sprint. Thus, even within individual corporations, there are spectrum conflicts vis-a-vis WRC-2000.
To add to the confusion and conflict, educational and religious broadcasters and satellite operators are sprinkled throughout the 2500 MHz band. Just weeks ago, the Federal Communications Commission retreated on a broadcast ruling after being flooded with protests from religious groups. What are the odds that religious broadcasters will give up their voice? That’s the stuff of religious wars.
Then, there are the federal government users in the 1755 MHz -1850 MHz band. What are the chances the Pentagon will roll over? Last summer, during a nasty clash with industry on Capitol Hill, the Department of Defense put the administration and industry on notice that the days of surrendering spectrum for commercial auctions are over. Add to that the fact that the right-hand man of Gail Schoettler, head of the U.S. delegation to WRC-2000, is from the Pentagon. His name is Rick Reaser.
The satellite industry is a big factor in the 3G spectrum equation too. Heavily capitalized satellite firms also need spectrum. Uncertainty over spectrum availability could have a chilling effect on investors. Satellite advocates will continue to aggressively press their case.
On a completely different level, the question arises: Is it even possible for the United States to have a 3G spectrum position at WRC-2000? 3G may mean something different to the United States, Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa, ultimately.
Europe and other regions plan to auction broad swatches of spectrum for 3G, a prospect tailor-made for data.
In contrast, the United States is trying to overlay 3G on platforms dominated by voice traffic on cellular (first-generation mobile) and personal communications services (second-generation mobile) systems.
Thus, the government-industry 3G spectrum `consensus’ handed to Schoettler on Feb. 10 appears to be of tenuous nature at best.
Despite that, there is an effort by government officials and industry to put the best face possible on the deal.
“We, in fact, don’t have a problem between government and industry on third generation. We have a proposal that’s a joint proposal,” Schoettler told RCR Friday.
Under the `consensus,’ warring U.S. spectrum stakeholders and government officials agreed to target the 1710 MHz – 1885 MHz and 2500 MHz – 2690 MHz bands (as well as 698 MHz – 960 MHz) for possible 3G usage under possible sharing arrangements. But all this is subject to further study. By whom? It is not entirely clear, but it appears the FCC and the Defense Department will have a hand in things.
The FCC, State Department and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (a Commerce Department unit) craft WRC policy.
“This is a great step in the right direction,” said William Plummer, director of government and industry affairs for Nokia Inc. At the same time, Plummer said the United States needs to be as focused and decisive as other countries that it will have to bargain with at WRC-2000.
Plummer added that there needs to be more clarity on the government 3G spectrum study, including a firm timeline on its completion.
“Recognizing that much more study needs to be undertaken, the compromise provides commendable flexibility for individual countries to make the key spectrum allocation determinations that will best provide advanced new services,” said Andrew Kreig, president of the Wireless Communications Association. WCA represents fixed wireless companies.
The test of whether the 3G spectrum `consensus’ will fly will come the first week of March, when government and industry officials gather with their counterparts from Central America and South America at the CITEL (American Telecommunications Committee) in Argentina.
When all is said and done, the fundamental shift of the Clinton administration at WRC-2000 appears to be one of style over substance. Instead of trying to bully concessions from other nations, the United States may have to bite its tongue, cross its fingers and let individual countries pursue their interests. That is the way of the new world order. The days of the United States protecting its interests at WRC may be over. In the global economy, it’s up to the market to pick winners and losers.
