By nature, political debate in the nation’s capital is one-dimensional. The predominantly two-party system forces consideration of issues into the narrow confines of Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal. It is at times a black-and-white world, with little shades of gray. Indeed, it is not the real world.
This is the backdrop against which the debate between the mobile-phone industry and the Pentagon over spectrum for third-generation wireless systems is playing out. Government decision-makers should be careful not to allow the 3G spectrum issue to be reduced to lowest-common-denominator politics.
Having to decide between between national security and economic security is a false choice. In the post-Cold War era, each is essential and can even complement the other. The Department of Defense needs adequate spectrum to maintain military readiness, especially for combat in a future battlefield that puts a premium on information supremacy.
The mobile-phone industry requires sufficient spectrum for 3G, a digital wireless technology that could become a platform for the next generation of the Internet as well as a powerful economic driver. As such, any resolution to the 3G spectrum controversy that results in a winner and a loser is unacceptable. Too much is at stake for both sides and, more importantly, for the country.
The Pentagon is understandably angry at having to surrender frequencies to the private sector during the past eight years. DoD’s anger is matched only by its distrust of industry. Cellular firms are equally suspicious of the Pentagon, its spectrum inventory and its use of the airwaves. As such, highly technical spectrum studies conducted by each side have been rendered meaningless. This is a political problem for grownups.
To his credit, Commerce Secretary Don Evans has shown interest in the 3G spectrum problem. Getting Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and FCC Chairman Michael Powell in the same room with him is another matter. But that is precisely what needs to happen.
The mobile-phone industry, which favors the Pentagon’s 1700 MHz band over other 3G-designated frequencies occupied by schools, churches, TV broadcasters and broadband Internet firms, is fashioning a proposal that would have industry pay to relocate military licensees to other frequencies. In the process, according to industry, DoD would step into the Digital Age without having to pay a penny. Sounds too good to be true. Perhaps it is. The key is finding alternative frequency bands agreeable to military top brass.
Perhaps the biggest challenge, though, is bridging the distrust that only amplifies real differences between the sides. A bridge too far? Not if the political will is there.
