WASHINGTON-The wireless industry is urging FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to reject a key spectrum policy of his predecessor-the interference temperature-and instead ensure existing wireless carriers they will not have to share spectrum.
The interference-temperature concept is a way to facilitate spectrum sharing that would set a cap on the amount of interference a user of a specific band could expect. The concept of setting a cap to determine what is harmful interference has always been controversial, especially by those who opposed ultra-wideband technologies, which employed a type of interference temperature.
Cingular Wireless L.L.C. and CTIA, both UWB opponents, recently reacted to Martin’s draft strategic plan for the FCC’s next five years, which indicates that sharing may be a more efficient way to use spectrum resources.
Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell touted interference temperature as a key method for spectrum sharing. Under his leadership in 2003, the commission proposed using the 6 GHz and 12 GHz bands as test beds for the interference-temperature concept.
It is unclear, however, whether Martin embraces the interference-temperature concept.
“Methods for avoiding and mitigating harmful interference and increasing opportunities for spectrum sharing and re-use require further study,” according to the draft strategic plan.
In May, two months after his boss became chairman, Sam Feder, then wireless legal adviser to Martin and now FCC general counsel, said his boss was not sold on interference temperature.
“The interference-temperature concept is very interesting, but we have some concerns. As long as we have some of these things out there, it creates some uncertainty,” said Feder.
Both CTIA and Cingular want to avoid such uncertainties by steering the FCC away from spectrum sharing and toward more exclusive use of spectrum.
“There can be no regulatory certainty, however, if the FCC intends to reduce the rights of existing licensees in order to force shared use of their spectrum. Compromising the rights of incumbent licensees to facilitate spectrum sharing is inconsistent with the congressional preference for reliance on market forces, rather than regulation, to shape the communications landscape,” said David Richards, Cingular attorney.
“Although spectrum sharing may be appropriate in some instances, exclusive-use licensing provides a much more stable investment environment characterized by sufficient and available spectrum capacity to improve and add services free from harmful interference,” said Paul Garnett, CTIA director of regulatory policy. “The FCC should be wary of unproven technologies, such as interference-temperature metrics, that could introduce harmful interference into commercial-wireless spectrum.”
While Martin’s draft strategic plan talks about making the agency more modern, it does so in vague terms. Several times the document mentions “redeploying staff” but does not explain what this would involve. Following the FCC’s open meeting Aug. 5, Martin was asked about persistent rumors of an agency reorganization.
“The FCC always has an obligation to consider how it should be organized and what other policy or process changes that should be made,” Martin told reporters. RCR
