July 2015

[Commentary] Today, within the so-called “beachfront spectrum” that best supports mobile uses (225 MHz to 3700 MHz), only 17 percent is allocated for exclusive federal use, compared with 31 percent for exclusive non-federal use and 52 percent for shared use. Such statistics, however, do not provide the full picture as there are frequencies that have been designated for federal use but are actually being employed predominantly for nonfederal uses (e.g., in the 902-928 MHz band). Furthermore, it is essential to understand that no single federal agency has exclusive access to the bands allocated for its use. In the 1755-1780 MHz band that the FCC recently sold as part of the AWS-3 auction, more than 15 different federal agencies providing 10 different types of services have been sharing this 25 megahertz segment. This differs from the common commercial licensing model, in which the licensee typically has exclusive use of the spectrum.

The National Telecommunications & Information Administration is working to understand the extent to which federal agencies are efficiently utilizing spectrum today, and to developing realistic steps to improve our overall use of limited spectrum resources in the future. However, our work is not without its challenges. The process of repurposing and relocating spectrum is complicated and time consuming—particularly given the numerous different systems that can be occupying a single band. It is for this reason, in part, that the Administration determined that it is imperative to develop greater capabilities for the sharing of spectrum between federal and nonfederal users. The recent achievements related to the 3.5 GHz spectrum demonstrate the promise of this approach. But in order to truly expand the opportunities that sharing provides, it is going to be necessary for all stakeholders to invest in the technologies that will make it possible. NTIA is committed to supporting innovation in the wireless sector by helping to make more spectrum available for commercial providers, while also ensuring federal agencies have the airwaves they need to perform important missions for the American people. We are also committed to working with all stakeholders who want to help us achieve this goal.

A study commissioned by Spanish publishers has found that a new intellectual property law passed in Spain in 2014, which charges news aggregators like Google for showing snippets and linking to news stories, has done substantial damage to the Spanish news industry. In the short-term, the study found, the law will cost publishers €10 million, or about $10.9 million, which would fall disproportionately on smaller publishers. Consumers would experience a smaller variety of content, and the law "impedes the ability of innovation to enter the market." The study concludes that there's no "theoretical or empirical justification" for the fee.

The law, which provides for fines of up to $758,000 for violators, was passed in October. Unlike previous attempts to impose a "Google News tax" in Germany and Belgium, the Spanish law doesn't allow publishers to opt out. In response, Google simply closed down Google News in Spain. Whatever loss of traffic occurs due to readers who may read a news aggregator and then choose not to read an entire story, is more than made up for by the "market expansion" effect, the study found. In other words, given access to a news aggregator like Google, people read much more news.

Let's play a game. What if any company could go to Verizon and say, "I want to sell Internet service using your FiOS network, but under my own brand"? Under today's rules, Verizon could say no -- and with good reason. After all, allowing rivals to piggyback off of pipes you built and paid for simply gives them an advantage. But under a recent change in Canadian policy, a company like Verizon would have to say yes. It sounds like a small difference. But Canada hopes it will have a big impact, ranging from lowering the cost of Internet access to consumers to generating more market competition. And how it plays out will offer some important lessons for the United States, where the idea has been hugely controversial.

Forcing Internet providers to offer their pipes to competitors is a practice known as "unbundling," and proponents believe it addresses many of the problems that consumers often complain about when it comes to their Internet service. So, should you be for unbundling, or against it? Although the United States once flirted with unbundling Internet services, the idea got dropped. Large Internet providers argued that if they're undercut by upstarts that don't have to invest in infrastructure, then nobody will build new infrastructure and connection technologies anymore. "We now have an interesting experiment between the Canadian and American markets," said Blair Levin, a Brookings Institution scholar who helped author a federal broadband plan for the Federal Communications Commission. "I would take the American side of the bet, but it will be interesting to study."

With just days left before the August recess, Sen Ron Wyden (D-OR) is helping to lead a grassroots campaign against the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA). The bipartisan bill encourages private companies to share information with the government about cyberthreats after a number of high-profile hacks of federal agencies and firms like Sony, Target and Anthem. For similar reasons, Sen Wyden also placed a hold on the 2016 intelligence authorization bill because of a provision from Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that would require social media companies like Twitter to report terrorist activity on their sites to the government.

Though they generated little press coverage, the moves underscore Sen Wyden’s willingness to thwart progress on widely supported bills to fight what he considers overzealous government surveillance. Civil libertarians increasingly call Sen Wyden the Senate’s leading voice for Internet privacy, a role that endears and alienates him from different parts of the technology world. Fighting CISA and the intelligence provision has also made Wyden a thorn in the side of leaders from both parties who are eager to demonstrate that they take seriously the tasks of improving federal cybersecurity and hampering terrorist activity online.