The Federal Communications Commission should auction the 24 megahertz of spectrum at 2 GHz that mobile satellite service companies gave back to the government. To do anything else would set a bad precedent for spectrum policy.
The spectrum in question was returned to the FCC by Iridium L.L.C., Boeing Co. and Celsat America Inc. Already the FCC’s International Bureau tentatively has decided to give some of the spectrum to remaining MSS operators ICO Satellite Services and TMI Communications, although neither company has launched services yet. Why should they get more spectrum? Do they have capacity constraints? The entire argument doesn’t make sense. If Verizon Wireless were to go out of business, should NextWave Telecom be given Verizon Wireless’ spectrum-for free? It would be ludicrous to consider splitting the returned spectrum among remaining wireless players, especially those that have not even launched service. In the MSS world, TMI and ICO are not yet offering commercial services. Globalstar and Iridium do.
Spectrum, especially good spectrum, is becoming one of this nation’s most precious resources. Many of the major stories in wireless today have a spectrum component, whether it is 3G advances; Sprint Nextel Corp.’s rebanding initiative; predicted WiMAX deployments; citywide Wi-Fi plans; or T-Mobile USA Inc.’s spectrum crunch.
Since the government began auctioning spectrum for commercial purposes, it has been proven that the companies that value the spectrum most are willing to pay for it. Why should that be different for MSS spectrum, especially since the trend today is regional rather than global coverage? The two MSS carriers still in existence today are for-profit businesses. They charge accordingly for their services. Why shouldn’t their MSS brethren bid for extra spectrum if they need it?
Yes, recent hurricanes and other forces of nature have underscored the need for a variety of communications modes, and MSS is a legitimate way to communicate. However, these MSS carriers are looking to augment their satellite-based private businesses with land-based communications that would compete with wireless carriers that use land-based networks. Many decisions can be made in the name of homeland security, which is one of the arguments for giving even more spectrum to MSS companies. But those arguments are misguided.
Why would the International Bureau decide it is OK for the government to subsidize one competitor and not the other? The International Bureau has a responsibility to the American public, not to just the segment of companies it regulates.
