What are we going to do about the D Block?

I couldn’t wait until the end of the FCC’s auction of 700 MHz spectrum to express some of my views on the 10 MHz D block, which comes with “strings attached”, namely that it must be available to public safety agencies on demand. 

So far, the top bid for the D block is $472 million.  It hasn’t budged since round 2, with the auction just completing round 14.  The reserve price for this block is $1.3 billion.  If the reserve price is not met, the block must be re-auctioned, presumably under more favorable terms. 

Contrast this situation with the 22 MHz C block, which now has a top bid of $ 4.29 billion against a reserve price of $4.6 billion.  The C block also has strings attached – the winner must provide an “open” network, enabling any device to connect to it, although presumably one compliant to some industry standard. 

The beauty of the auction is that it enables analysts to provide a precise monetary value on the impact of the restrictions that the FCC placed on each block.  If you do the math, the politicians and accompanying bureaucracy estimated that the “hassle” to an operator of taking on the public safety restrictions versus the open network restrictions was worth $79/Hz.  That was what they were willing to accept in reduced revenue to gain additional spectrum for public safety.  The market, on the other hand, currently values that burden at $147/Hz, a little less than double the government value.  When the final bids are in, the gap is likely to be significantly higher.

 

Is the public getting a good deal here?  Should Joe and Judy Average accept several $billion less in the US Treasury to give public safety agencies wireless capabilities they do not have today.  We don’t have a good estimate of the value of those services, so it is difficult to say a priori.  However, the auction is sending a strong signal that operators believe coping with rules, politicians, and miscellaneous government officials makes even “beachfront” spectrum look like a bad business proposition.   Moreover, despite many skeptics, it seems possible that public safety could use the open spectrum just like anyone else.  Why stovepipe public safety broadband, especially when they already own and operate mission critical voice networks?  The auction is helping the policy community face the reality of the downside of stove-piped spectrum for public safety when bidders even avoid shared solutions.

Is cognitive radio ready for standardization?

What’s the best way for innovators in the communications technology industry to make money?  There seem to be two basic approaches.  One is to create a proprietary solution and strive for differentiation and customer loyalty.  The other is to collaborate with others to create a standard that enables rapid growth and consumer acceptance, often as a result of declining costs through modularization and economies of scale. 

Apple’s iPhone is an example of the former.  Apple has created a tightly bundled system that gives its customers a complete multimedia experience.  IEEE 802.11 (or Wi-Fi) is an example of the later.  Wi-Fi has been a huge success, making millions for many, but is now a commodity component of larger systems.  Nonetheless, it has enabled a wide variety of higher value services that need network connectivity to perform.

 

So what about dynamic spectrum access and cognitive radio?  Microsoft is developing a white space appliance that presumably will be mostly proprietary.  On the other hand, Motorola is investing heavily in a number of cognitive radio standardization activities.  Which approach is best?  It will be interesting to watch

SDR, cognitive radio, and ITU-R

I’ve been procrastinating far too long on starting this blog, so I thought I would go ahead and start putting fingers to keyboard.  The issue of the day is how to get industry behind global regulatory reform to promote more efficient use of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Groups such as the SDR Forum and IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 41 (SCC41) (Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks) are doing what they can, but to date, they still lack a focused commercial approach.   

In early February, Working Party 5A of the International Telecommunication Union – Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) will be holding a seminar on software defined radio (SDR).  It will also be examining questions on SDR and cognitive radio (CR).   The SDR Forum has submitted a contribution on the CR questions, but will not have any one present to discuss its document.  IEEE SCC41 has submitted an informational presentation for the seminar.  Someone will be present to deliver the SCC41 presentation, but SCC41 has not identified someone to represent its interests beyond this initial meeting.

Why is industry “feet on the ground” support for ITU-R activities related to SDR/CR seemingly so weak?   Is it because industry believes it can proceed without ITU-R action, perhaps focusing on the reform of national rules where necessary?  Is it because firms would rather pursue their agenda through means other than industry and professional associations?  Is it because these industry groups are still young and do not yet have the resources or sophistication to provide significant support?

I seek comments on what it will take to jump start a global reform agenda in this space.