Everyone Wants Spectrum

The smart grid, as I understand it, will be based on fixed devices - devices that don't move around. That being the case, there is no need for a smart grid in California to share the same spectrum or even the same wireless technology as a smart grid in Florida.

Spectrum is more sought after today than ever before.Those who don’t have it complain that those that do are taking advantage of their customers by overcharging them. Those who have it say they need more in order to keep up with the demand for broadband content. And some realize that no matter how much spectrum is made available, it will never be enough to handle all of the digital traffic that is currently being generated on the wired Internet. Even if wireless is only the last mile, half-mile, or 300 feet, there is still not enough spectrum to handle predicted traffic loads. If, on top of this, rules that basically prohibit a network operator from managing its network (net neutrality) are enacted, we will end up with demand that cannot be met and networks that will become overcrowded and slow, regardless of how advanced the technology is.

But by sharing resources and build-outs, and working together, a lot more could be accomplished for a lot less. It bothers me that the FCC is putting together a broadband report that is intended to be a guide for our future instead of ensuring that the expansion of broadband services continues to be market driven, which means finding ways to make even the most rural installations attractive from a return on investment aspect. One way is through cooperation.

However,

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) are in charge of all matters having to do with our wireless spectrum. The government portion of the spectrum is handled by the NTIA while the private sector, including the public safety community, is handled by the FCC. As you may know, the FCC has been instructed to undertake and complete a study about our broadband strategy going forward and this report is due in February of 2010. Likewise, the FCC is also trying to determine if the unauctioned 700-MHz D Block should be put out for auction again or given to the first responder community (which has the nationwide license for the adjacent 5X5 MHz for the first responders broadband system).

Also in the works is a review of how today’s spectrum is being utilized or underutilized. This review is intended to shed some light on how to “find” additional spectrum to satisfy various needs. Meanwhile, CTIA, The Wireless Association, says we need about 800 MHz of additional spectrum for commercial voice and broadband wireless operators, and power companies are looking for spectrum for their “smart grid.” Those who support unlicensed spectrum are now asking for more, having discovered that the TV White Space spectrum they were awarded last year is not usable to any practical extent in urban areas, and there is pressure for more spectrum from various other groups such as health care, education, transportation, and others.

As has been the case for many years, there are more people and organizations asking for spectrum than there is spectrum available. One group is promoting the idea of cognitive radios that would monitor the spectrum, identify channels that are not being used at the moment, and switch their traffic over to these channels. According to these folks, we would never have to worry about spectrum utilization again. It seems to me that most of the people asking for spectrum that are not directly involved in wireless technologies don’t grasp the concept of a finite resource, nor do they comprehend the concept that in any given location, spectrum has a finite capacity limit for voice and broadband services. Yes, we have been extending this capacity with new technologies and we are a lot better at it than ever before. Still, there is a limit to the amount of data that can be effectively transmitted and received in a given amount of spectrum in a given area.

What Is Not Happening

While all of this wrangling over spectrum is going on, I think what is not happening is more important that what is. The government and those pushing it are looking at the options from their own perspectives and not from a broader perspective that would be beneficial to all (or most).

Take a look at the smart grid. Rumor has it that the power companies want to use WiMAX on their own spectrum for the smart grid. This is not a bad idea if there is spectrum readily available, but why does the entire smart grid have to be on one portion of spectrum or make use of only one technology? The smart grid, as I understand it, will be based on fixed devices—devices that don’t move around. That being the case, there is no need for a smart grid in California to share the same spectrum or even the same wireless technology as a smart grid in Florida. Perhaps they will need to be able to communicate, but the system will be all-IP and IP does not care what technologies or frequencies are used for the transport, only that it is IP. With IP, smart grids using different spectrum and different wireless technologies can be connected.

Let’s switch now to the latest hot topic—broadband for all—and see what the $7.2 billion in stimulus money will really accomplish. This is a case where the government has asked for proposals and will award grants based on their merits. Again, the technologies can be different and the spectrum or wired deployments can vary from one region to the next. The primary goal is to connect more people to the Internet. I don’t happen to believe that the $7.2 billion will accomplish a lot in the way of new connectivity.

Both of these examples, and there are plenty more, deal with system types that do not require a vehicle or person from California to be able to travel to Virginia and use the system. These are fixed systems. Mobility for power company staff will most likely be provided by commercial or channelized private radio spectrum—not a part of the smart grid. In the case of rural broadband, you could make the case that mobility is needed, but you can also make the case that nomadic broadband access is a logical first step. Because nomadic systems are far less expensive to build than systems that support true mobility, we could provide more broadband into more areas more quickly by starting out with fixed systems.

There are reasons that some technologies and spectrum usage should be aligned. The most significant problem with the public safety community’s frequencies is that its voice channels are spread out over a wide range of different portions of the spectrum making it is exceedingly complex and expensive to provide true interoperability. It is very possible that a search and rescue team from California will need to travel to New York City during a major incident (as was the case during and after 9/11), or that first responders from far and wide need to be mobilized and moved into a large area after a hurricane (such as Katrina) or during and after major fires such as the recent wildfires fires in California. In such cases, true interoperability must be enabled.

But Public Safety users are not the only ones who need communications regardless of where they are. At least 15% of the U.S. population travel out of their own region (conversely, 85% do not often leave their own region) and today they have the ability to communicate almost anywhere they are over commercial networks. The FBI, Secret Service, and other agencies need and have the same radio channels wherever they travel within the United States, but not the Department of Transportation, Forest Service, FEMA, DHS, and other agencies. Statewide communications are necessary for some other agencies, and regional communications for still others.

There are only two ways to achieve true nationwide mobility. The first is to employ a common portion of the spectrum using a common air interface. The second is to build devices that incorporate multiple portions of the spectrum and multiple air interface standards, which is how today’s wireless phones and other devices that operate on commercial networks are designed. Granted, it would be easier and less expensive if there were a single slice of spectrum and a single technology standard, but this is not the case and our engineers are pretty amazing when it comes to building small devices with many different technologies onboard.

So why are so many groups vying for their own spectrum? Wouldn’t it make more sense to combine groups and use a single broadband system whether nationwide with a single technology, or regional with multiple technologies?

In rural America connectivity to the Internet is needed and wanted by homeowners, apartment dwellers, businesses, schools, healthcare organizations, power companies, educational institutions, and others. Why not develop a common pipe that all of these organizations can share? A pipe that has capacity, is managed, and provides services to all of those who need them and can pay for them.

In reality, commercial network operators already provide this type of system that can be used by anyone for anything in more populated areas. They have not built out rural America because until now there has never been a business model for doing so. However, I think that in the coming years broadband will reach out to rural America and will be shared by those who want and need it, especially if incentives are provided.

There is nothing wrong with service in one town being provided by WiMAX and in the next county being on LTE. Nor is there anything wrong with using LTE on 700 MHz for backhaul and connecting customers via WiMAX, Wi-Fi, or even TV White Space systems. (One challenge for coverage in rural America is the backhaul from a small town or area back to the Internet.)

There are plenty of ways in which to accomplish the goals of so many diverse groups at, I believe, a lower cost to everyone. Today in Canada, there are three nationwide network operators, two of which, Bell Mobility and Telus, are just now launching a 3G network covering 93% of Canada’s population. Yes, I said one 3G network to be shared by both companies. They have saved money on building the network and have shared sites. Both know that in today’s environment, it is not technology that will make one company more successful than the other, it is applications, customer service, and other aspects of competition. I am not suggesting this would work in the United States, but I am suggesting that there are some aspects that might be beneficial here.

If we are to make the best possible use of our spectrum, and we know that the Internet will overwhelm us regardless of how much spectrum we have, perhaps it is time to start working on making the wireless Internet smarter to minimize the number of bits and bytes going over the airwaves, while maximizing the user experience.  This alone would help reduce the amount of data traffic on our wireless networks. We have smart devices and our wireless networks are smart. The last piece of this puzzle is to make applications smarter and use our smart networks to communicate with our smart devices in a much smarter way.

It is important for those who want to use broadband to work together. And it is just as important for those who run our networks to be able to manage them and the information flowing across them—not to give one customer an advantage over another, but so that in times of network congestion every customer shares equally in what resources are available. If we cannot manage the networks, the delivery of bandwidth could become first-come first-served, and that is not fair to the rest of the customers on the network.

No one will have all of the spectrum they want; they will have to settle for less than their ideal. But with more smarts and better management, we should be able to provide services to all who want them. The major downside to unlicensed spectrum is that it cannot be managed. Everyone who puts up a device, whether to make money or for access for themselves and others, is at the mercy of others surrounding them. Over time, congestion will degrade every system on an unlicensed channel until none of them function properly. Then someone will decide to illegally add power to their transmitters to break the log jam, and soon there will be less capacity, not more.

Why are so many people working on so many different aspects of broadband instead of working together to meet our goals faster and less expensively? Everyone who has spectrum wants more and those who don’t have it want it. Since we cannot manufacture more spectrum, we need to plan its usage more wisely with an awareness that technology is continuously evolving and not regulate ourselves into a box. We must be smart about how we use our spectrum today and be flexible for the future.

Andrew M. Seybold

See Archived Copy of this COMMENTARY for previous comments.