A Pragmatic, Sustainable Federal Spectrum Policy

[Commentary] Everyone involved in the National Broadband Plan says we need more spectrum. We need a long-term sustainable strategy. Unfortunately, the proposals getting the most traction amount to the equivalent of expanding offshore drilling and other ways to squeeze out more product without changing our consumption habits.

In wireless policy, the spectrum equivalent of "drill, baby, drill" is "clear and auction." This competes with the vision of open spectrum solutions, such as the broadcast white spaces, or trying to stretch existing allocations, such as through roaming agreements and improving receiver standards. Not that the FCC has entirely neglected these things. To the contrary, the FCC has recently taken steps to move forward with the broadcast white spaces proceeding and may well include recommendations to enhance receiver standards. But what grabs headlines and takes up all the air at spectrum policy debates these days is finding more spectrum to auction. To use the energy crisis analogy, if clearing and auctioning is like expanding drilling and adding ethanol, improving receiver standards and mandating roaming is like raising mileage requirements, and shared spectrum is like developing an electric car that works on hydrogen fuel cells.

Where could we find a set of spectrum policy recommendations that: (a) generates federal revenue, (b) doesn't clear and auction federal spectrum, while (c) working to make federal users more efficient while meeting future federal need, and (d) encourages innovation and competition?