Intellectual Property Law

D stands for slightly desperate

By Susan Crawford

The FCC released a notice yesterday asking many questions - they boil down to something like “How on earth do we go on with the idea of a public-private partnership for the D Block?”

Here’s the background:  As part of the structure of the 700 MHz auction that concluded recently, the Commission proposed that the licensee of 10 MHz of commercial spectrum within the 700 MHz range (paired blocks 758-763/788-793 MHz) (the “D Block”) enter into an agreement with the licensee of “public safety broadband spectrum” (763-768/793-798 MHz).  The idea is that this highspeed network would cover both the commercial D Block and the public safety spectrum, and the commercial licensee would build out the public safety network in exchange for secondary rights on the the whole thing (preemptible by public safety in emergency situations).

All of this was driven by concern about 9/11 communication snafus, when police and fire departments in NYC couldn’t talk to one another.  (Talk: narrowband, push-to-talk technologies.)

Since 9/11, both NYC and the DC area have solved their “interoperability” problems.  Now (or soon) their public safety officers will be able to communicate easily.

For some time now, there’s been a push for nationwide highspeed “interoperable” network operation for public safety.  So the FCC established rules for the auction of the D Block, and a pretty high reserve price - and the reserve price wasn’t met.  There were so many uncertainties for the commercial operator:  would public safety effectively act as a reseller, would it demand fees, would it exact so many conditions that the network wasn’t a money-maker for the commercial actor?  Now the FCC is asking questions, hoping desperately that they’ll find a way to make this work.

If you read yesterday’s FCC notice, the whole plan seems dubious.  Everything is apparently up in the air.  What does public safety really need?  (By the way, if they just want to talk, the entire idea of a highspeed network seems like overkill.)  How will the private party and the public safety actors work together?  What will their respective roles be? Maybe the public/private idea just won’t work.  And what does it mean to ask for “interoperable” spectrum, particularly when localities are going ahead to form their own protocols?

This proceeding seems like a deeply difficult one - and the Commission is sounding slightly desperate.  They may be writing rules for something that no commercial actor may feel is worth investing in — and that may end up not being useful for the public safety actors concerned.  They probably want better equipment more than anything else.

Full post as published by Susan Crawford Blog on May 15, 2008 (boomark / email).