« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

We don’t need to auction the D block spectrum for public safety

We must avoid cargo cult markets

Remember the Digital TV transition? That was when we took advantage of improved technology by making all the broadcast TV stations give up their old, huge blocks of wireless spectrum, in exchange for receiving new, narrower blocks. By making the switch, we made room for new wireless technologies to bloom.

That room was split into 5 “blocks.” The C block, for example, was auctioned off to Verizon, who’s using it for 4G LTE wireless Internet. The B block has been bought up heavily by AT&T for the same use. However the D block went unsold. When it went up for auction, nobody even met the reserve price, so today the D block remains available.

After 9/11, we learned that we need to make more spectrum available to first responders. The D block would work great for that purpose. So why don’t we just hand out the D block to first responders across the country? You’d think that’d be obvious, but unfortunately some Republicans are hesitant.

Instead of just showing leadership and doing what we need to do for honest-to-goodness civil defense, we’re playing with cargo cult markets.

Here’s what the chairmen of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, told the Senate on the matter:

The inability of first responders to communicate with each other was a critical failure on 9/11. Incompatible and inadequate communications led to needless loss of life. To remedy this failure, the Commission recommended legislation to provide for the expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes.

To date, this recommendation languishes. We find this unacceptable, because quite literally lives are at stake. The political fight has been over whether to allocate spectrum directly to public safety or auction it off to wireless bidders who would then be required to pay for a nationwide public safety communications network.

Initially, some advances were made when 10 MHZ of radio spectrum were allocated to public safety. The overwhelming majority of our nation’s police chiefs and first responders, however, support the allocation of an additional 10 MHz of radio spectrum—the “D block”—to the existing dedicated public safety spectrum. Public safety agencies would be able to use the D block spectrum to build a nationwide interoperable broadband spectrum, allowing diverse agencies to communicate with each other, and supporting mission critical voice, video, text, and other data transmissions.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for allocating the D block spectrum to public safety. He also supports allocating $7 billion in federal funding to support a build-out of the network to ensure it reaches cash-strapped localities, especially rural communities.

We support the immediate allocation of the D-block spectrum to public safety. We must not approach these urgent matters at a leisurely pace. We don’t know when the next attack or disaster will strike. Further delay is intolerable. We urge the Congress to act.

This is something we can just do. Nothing is stopping us from giving the D block out to state and local governments to apply the lessons of 9/11. However some of us are hesitant. We hear talk of assigning spectrum and we oppose it, because one of the great policy successes of the FCC in recent years has been the auctioning of spectrum to the private sector.

However we’re not talking about giving away the D block to the private sector. We’re talking about giving it away for public safety. If we were to put it up to auction, we’d literally be having the government charge the government for a government service. We wouldn’t make our troops in Afghanistan pay for bullets. Why make firefighters pay for their emergency wireless telecommunications spectrum?

It all comes down to the fact that we’re conservatives. While we mistrust government, we’re not categorically opposed to government. It’s alright for a legitimate government action to happen without a fig leaf of a market in front of it. We shouldn’t pretend to privatize civil defense by creating sham auctions to allocate needed spectrum. It’s time we got behind allocating the D block to first responders without any needless delays or hoops.

COMMENTS

  • leftylurker

    nt

  • Rogue Elephant

    That was lame. So, anyone whop disagrees with your spectrum grab is a cargo cultist? Lame.

    So, we should listen to the geniuses from the 9/11 commission? Yes, they have a lot credibility – not.

    Methinks there’s something else afoot here. The appeal to 9/11 and “first responders” raises red flags. (Can you say The Patriot Act?) I’d be suspicious of allocating any budget and empowering any agency in the Obama administration – period.

  • acat

    Currently, there are a few frequencies set aside for “special use”. CB channel 9 being one, the air traffic control frequencies being another.

    If the D block is “given” to first responders, or, more accurately, if the D block is “allocated for special use”, what happens to all the gear in use by “first responders” across the country today? Instant obsolesence, that’s what.

    As the majority of first responders are government, who foots the bill for new equipment? We The People, that’s who.

    So. This is a GREAT plan for anyone who has stock in Motorola or another company that manufactures gear for first responders. Otherwise, it’s an idea that sounds reasonable on paper, but .. when the surface is scratched, ugh.

    Mew

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’m part of a vast conspiracy.

    You betcha.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    If you’re going to come here and start ranting against USA PATRIOT, well, heh.

  • Rogue Elephant

    “Vast conspiracy”? Lame, again (as with your use of “cargo cult”).

    You’re no conspirator, just a poor writer who is being led around by his nose.

  • Rogue Elephant

    “Heh”? What does that even mean? (Lame, again).

  • http://tomcox.wordpress.com tenntom

    700 MHz is not the best part of the spectrum for all public safety users. In hilly Tennessee, for example, UHF frequencies currently in use (~450-470 MHz) don’t cover the terrain well — especially the UHF channels above 450 MHz. 700 MHz will be worse. Tennessee State Patrol still uses high-powered repeaters in the LOW VHF range, (46-49 MHz), which fills in valleys better, and penetrates vegetation ( a big problem in summer) MUCH better than high VHF or — especially — UHF and above.

    Independent of serviceability, the cost of replacing equipment to move these services to 700 MHz will be huge, and in light of current economic circumstances, prohibitive. Some urban jurisdictions may have some money for that, but your typical volunteer fire department, or county sheriff’s department? Not likely.

    Add to that, the stated need after 9/11 for “interoperability,” and these departments and services will be turning their pockets wrong-side-out even sooner.

  • Rogue Elephant

    You know what? I apologize to you.

    I think you did a great public service speaking out against net Neutrality. Thank you.

    On this, I think you’re wrong. I think the GOP should WAIT FOR A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION before touching this. Do not give money to the FCC or Janet Napolitano.

    Whatever legislation emerged for this would (no doubt) only strengthen the overpowerful executive with rule making authority (which would be abused) and give more money to a destructive regime.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    We can’t just stonewall everything just because we’re mad about who won the 2008 election.

    This isn’t about giving Obama power. And that’s what counts: power. We’re not giving them any new authority.

    Money is money. It’s not a permanent thing.

  • txgho1911

    Very well said. Much more to it than above but this is a good beginning.

  • http://tomcox.wordpress.com tenntom

    RE, congratulations on your apology. Gentlemanly (and ladylike) behavior is such a rarity on the Internet that it deserves acknowledgement. Thanks.

  • drfredc

    The problem with giving the D block to public safety is there’s no guarantee they’ll actually use it, or if they do use it, it’s probably going to be inefficiently used, or worse yet abused as part of some political trap/entitlement scheme. For example, the Blue Pols could use taxpayer dollars to pay some Blue company to addict low income folks on free internet and cell phones which the evil Tea Partiers can never take it away.

    Where as, if you auction it off to the private sector, it can be developed for all sorts of uses, including safety sector needs. This way you’ll you’ll get a market based product with as little waste and abuse as possible. Open Markets suck up waste and quickly turn it into something useful. Government markets on the other hand are full of corruption, special interest handouts and more…

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Big believer in privatized roads?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    It failed. Miserably. Failure to meet reserve price.

  • donnybrooke

    Neil,

    I have no opinion about giving the bandwidth away for emergency use. It sounds like a good idea, but I don’t think the government will give something away unless they can get some votes for it.

    This brings me to a question that has bothered me. Under what authority does the government have the right to auction off bandwidth at all? Under what legislation did the government gain ownership of the airwaves in this country? I’m sure there’s something, but my idea of the government and airwaves was regulation and licensing through the FCC, not outright ownership.

    Although Ayn Rand advocated auctioning off the airwaves to the highest bidder (http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/aynrand.html), I find the idea a bit disturbing, as those
    airwaves then become property of select individuals who may
    block whatever they wish unaired (as for instance, Al Jazeera owning a large portion of the radio spectrum).

    Being government, I’m sure that if it’s not tied down, they figure they own it. Just wondering when we lost that commodity to the bureaucrats?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The FCC’s authority comes from the Communications Act 1934 and subsequent alterations passed by the Congress.

    What you seem to misunderstand is that if the government didn’t regulate broadcast frequencies, ensuring they are able to be used by the license holders, then nobody would be able to use wireless at all, because everything would conflict with everything else and nothing would work.

  • donnybrooke

    Yes, I understand regulation and licensing through the FCC. I just didn’t understand what gave the government the right to auction off bandwidth for profit, as opposed to the Canadian government auctioning off the bandwidth for profit.

    My error. Perhaps they’re just auctioning off licenses to the highest bidder, as opposed to setting a fee for use of this bandwidth and then collecting it?

  • donnybrooke

    Clinton Administration, 1993. Needs the money. Stanford economists. That explains a lot.