WASHINGTON-With the final report outlining public-safety spectrum needs through 2010 due Sept. 11, members of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee continue to debate from which source extra channels can be squeezed.
The Department of Defense is adamant that some channels suggested in the PSWAC draft will be off limits, no matter what.
Cindy Raiford, representing the DoD, expressed concern that defense and national security needs were not cited enough in the draft, and that any references to the possibility of reallocating or sharing channels in the 380 MHz-400 MHz band would have to be removed before the DoD would endorse a final report.
“The DoD wants to be part of the solution; we want you to cooperate with us,” Raiford said at an Aug. 22 PSWAC steering committee meeting. “We would expect any reasonable report to reflect our comments on why this spectrum band probably won’t be feasible. [The band] is not in the best interest of public safety or defense. In the future, ask us first.”
Committee member Harlin McEwen, representing the International Chiefs of Police, countered, “History has told us that we have not been allowed to deal with the government and the DoD on spectrum issues. We shouldn’t let the DoD dictate what spectrum can or cannot be shared. We hope to reach consensus in the end.” While pointing out that the draft report only recommends the DoD band as a possible means to ease some of the public-safety spectrum crunch and that there was “some merit” in what Raiford was saying, McEwen added, “The DoD still hasn’t convinced me why it needs all that spectrum.”
“I only have to justify our spectrum use to the president and to Congress,” Raiford answered. “You can’t depend on the DoD to supply all your spectrum in the future. We can’t take care of everyone’s needs. You may have to look elsewhere.”
Indeed, the DoD has suggested that some broadcast spectrum be reallocated to private usage, a plan both the National Association of Broadcasters and the Association for Maximum Service Television rejected in written comments. UHF channels 60-69 have been a reallocation or sharing target during the last several months of debate on the future of digital television, and the Federal Communications Commission is considering other applications for this under-used spectrum once DTV becomes a reality.
“Allowing public-safety operations to share spectrum in channels 60-69 is a terrible idea,” MSTV wrote. “It is likely that a significant number of stations will need DTV channels [in that range] … When the transition to DTV is complete, there will be abundant spectrum in what is now the broadcast band for public safety to seek.”
NAB agreed, writing, “Neither reallocation of this spectrum for public-safety services nor sharing spectrum with such services should be given further pursuit … Interservice sharing would be very unwise and fraught with insoluble problems.” NAB also wrote that PSWAC’s reported immediate 25-megahertz spectrum shortfall needed for development of new technology should not supersede its need for more channels to offer “critical voice and data.”
The draft report also recommended using some of the channels that will be regained by new spectrum refarming rules for new-technology development, an idea with which some private-radio groups take issue. The Industrial Telecommunications Association told the committee, “It is naive, and ultimately futile, to expect that there will be a surplus of channels in the 150 MHz and 450 MHz bands as a result of the refarming proceeding.”
