WASHINGTON-When fanfare over the American delegation’s victory in securing global frequency bands for third-generation mobile-phone service subsides, the United States and the wireless industry will face implementation challenges at home even greater than the fierce spectrum battles at the now-completed World Radiocommunication Conference.
If U.S. mobile-phone firms are to ever see the new 3G spectrum, telecom policy-makers will have to overcome technical, political, national security and economic challenges that lie ahead. It won’t be easy, or cheap. Indeed, there is no guarantee mobile-phone carriers will even get access to two of the three new 3G bands.
As such, the U.S. triumph at WRC-2000 will remain virtual for mobile-phone firms until the new spectrum is in hand.
WRC-2000, sponsored by the International Telecommunication Union, ended Friday in Istanbul, Turkey, after a month of negotiations on global spectrum issues covering a mix of land- and space-based wireless communications.
The U.S. delegation, headed by Ambassador Gail Schoettler, accomplished virtually every objective it sought for 3G. The three additional global bands-806 MHz-960 MHz, 1710 MHz-1885 MHz and 2110 MHz-2200 MHz-were set aside with equal status for 3G services.
The European Union tried, but failed, to get a priority allocation for the 2.5 GHz band. The United States opposed the move.
The conference also backed a U.S. proposal to allow flexible use of the three bands for mobile applications other than 3G services.
All told, the 3G spectrum blueprint adopted at WRC is expected to facilitate global roaming, reduce costs for manufacturers, carriers and consumers, and give investors confidence in the next generation of Internet-ready mobile phones.
“We are really extremely happy with the whole conference,” said Schoettler. “We’re very happy with the outcome of IMT-2000 (the technical name for 3G). The language may be a little bit convoluted and messy, but I think it includes the principles we really cared about.”
Top mobile-phone vendors also praised the 3G multiband plan adopted at WRC-2000.
“It was a great success, with respect to 3G. It firmly underlined a global resolve to find enough spectrum to keep this growing mobile society growing,” said William Plummer, vice president for government and industry affairs for Nokia Corp.
Nokia, based in Finland, is the largest mobile-phone maker.
“The designation of global bands offers the flexibility that countries want and need in their implementation of IMT-2000, while allowing companies like Motorola to develop ways of bringing low-cost, high-quality wireless Internet to the world,” said Michael Kennedy, corporate vice president and director of global spectrum-telecom policy for Motorola Inc.
Now the hard part begins.
Still in question is how much of the additional 3G spectrum actually will become available for mobile-phone companies-firms that need more frequencies for voice, data and video applications in the Internet Age.
Two of the three bands set aside for 3G are occupied by incumbent licensees.
The 1.7 GHz band is heavily used by the Department of Defense and possibly other federal agencies.
Not only is the 2.5 GHz band used by educational, governmental and nonprofit groups, but the band also has attracted heavy investment from WorldCom Inc. and Sprint Corp. for fixed wireless communications.
The two carriers-which are seeking merger approval from the Justice Department, Federal Communications Commission and the EU-each have spent $1 billion on 2.5 GHz licenses.
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), ranking minority member of the House Commerce Committee and one of the most powerful lawmakers in Congress, opposes use of the 2.5 GHz band for 3G.
The FCC will conduct studies to determine whether fixed-mobile sharing of the 2.5 band is possible. Relocation, as an alternative, is a dicey and pricey option.
How much will mobile-phone firms-including those that already have spent billions of dollars on spectrum and system construction-be willing to spend to relocate licensees, which themselves also have already invested billions?
In addition, relocation is only possible if there is other comparable spectrum being vacated by fixed users.
Moreover, the 2.5 GHz band stands at the intersection of two major competing telecom policy objectives. While policy-makers want to make available added spectrum for Internet-friendly mobile-phone service, they’re also under pressure to foster the kind of local residential competition envisioned by the 1996 telecom act, but lacking to date.
In support of their merger, WorldCom and Sprint argue their wealth of fixed wireless licenses will bring the local completion sought by policy-makers.
The 1.7 GHz band has a somewhat different dynamic: national security. The Pentagon makes heavy use of the band. Congress in 1997 said federal agencies-like the Defense Department-must be fully compensated by commercial entities for relocation costs.
But top military brass, already disenchanted with having to surrender blocks of frequencies for FCC auctions, are unlikely to agree to a relocation at any price if substitute bands being offered are deemed inferior.
The Pentagon and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration will study the possibility of sharing 1.7 GHz.
It is unclear how long the FCC and NTIA-Pentagon studies will take.
“The key is for national administrations is to come home and get straight to work,” said Nokia’s Plummer.
