Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Congressional Internet Caucus Hears Pleas for More Spectrum

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 15:28:19 -0400

Congressional Internet Caucus Hears Pleas for More Spectrum

At a Thursday forum sponsored by the Congressional Internet Caucus, experts
made their cases for having more spectrum, particularly a segment of that held
by the broadcast industry, freed for wireless Internet services. The broadcast
TV band has 67 channels, only seven of which are used in the average U.S.
city, said Thomas Hazlett, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. On the
other hand, U.S. wireless companies have access to 159 MHz of spectrum,
compared with 250 MHz allotted to European carriers. The U.S. industry has
made a lot of things happen with a modest amount of spectrum, Steve Berry, a
senior vice president at CTIA, pointed out. Hazlett said that the 100 MHz of
spectrum sought by the Federal Communications Commission for wireless
services over the next ten years isn't "very ambitious." Greg Waldron, a partner
at the communications law firm Covington & Burling, said that Congressional
lawmakers have repeatedly passed legislation deeming broadcast spectrum
separate and different. Michael Calabrese of the New America Foundation said
that the FCC should keep a segment of spectrum open for unlicensed use, as
did a former chief of spectrum management at the FCC. CTIA's Berry agreed
with a spectrum allocation model that includes sales and leases of the
resource, along with some free common areas.

=================================================================================

Wireless gurus: Give us broadcast spectrum
Panelists advocate that more spectrum be allocated for wireless

By  Grant Gross  May 01, 2003

  WASHINGTON -- A group of radio frequency spectrum experts and wireless technology
advocates called for the U.S. Congress to reallocate part of the television broadcast
spectrum for wireless uses, during a congressional forum in Washington, D.C., Thursday.

"We have these vast empty storefronts of extremely valuable property," Thomas Hazlett, a
senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, said of the TV spectrum. The
broadcast TV band has 67 channels allocated, while the average U.S. city gets seven
over-the-air channels, he said.

Hazlett joined Steve Berry, senior vice president for the Cellular Telecommunications and
Internet Association, in advocating that more spectrum be allocated for wireless use,
during a panel discussion on wireless Internet deployment sponsored by the Congressional
Internet Caucus. Berry noted that more than 90 percent of U.S. residents do not receive
their television signals over the air, instead using cable or satellite services.

A U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) goal to allocate another 100Mhz to wireless
uses in the next 10 years "is not very ambitious," Hazlett said.

Berry and Hazlett noted that wireless services have 159Mhz of spectrum currently available
for use, while most European nations have about 250Mhz of spectrum allocated for wireless.
"We've taken a national asset, and I think we've made great things happen with a very
modest amount of spectrum," Berry said of his trade association's members.

A representative of the National Association of Broadcasters wasn't available immediately
to respond to Berry and Hazlett, but panel moderator Gerry Waldron, a partner at
communications law firm Covington and Burling, challenged them, saying Congress has passed
six pieces of legislation since 1934 designating the broadcast spectrum as cost-free to
customers and separate from other spectrum uses.

"Congress has passed legislation saying broadcast spectrum is different," Waldron said.

The discussion, titled "Sell it, lease it, or give it away -- how can spectrum reform best
promote wireless Internet deployment?" produced debate on which of those three models is
the best way to decide how radio spectrum is divvied up in the U.S. Berry advocated sales
and leases of spectrum, with some free commons areas. But he also complained that federal
requirements such as enhanced 911 services on cell phones are slowing down innovation,
compared to other wireless services such as Wi-Fi, which uses unlicensed spectrum.

"[FCC chairman] Michael Powell may be correct that regulatory requirements are in fact a
wet blanket that covers the spark of invention and development in the high-tech industry,"
Berry said.

Michael Calabrese, director of the Public Assets Program at the New America Foundation,
said the FCC should keep a chunk of spectrum open in an unlicensed commons. He asked the
congressional staffers in attendance to consider spectrum uses that would allow companies
and governments to "dynamically share these underutilized bands."

Soon, smart devices will be able to pick which bands of spectrum to use at any given
moment, based on traffic and interference, he said. "Just as public highways are more
efficient than privately operated toll roads, smart radios will allow us to evolve the
airwaves to a system of open and shared assets," Calabrese said.

David Siddall, a lawyer with Janofsky and Walker and former chief of spectrum management
at the FCC, agreed with Calabrese in the value of a commons model of spectrum use, saying
unlicensed wireless spectrum can give the public the best benefit in many cases. "Why is
unlicensed being talked about today?" he asked. "Because it gets needed services to the
public cheaper and more efficiently."

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/05/01/HNwirelessexperts_1.html

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/YoVfrB/XP.FAA/uetFAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/