Whether there are, or are not, spectrum shortages always is an argument fraught with political and financial implications, as well as the interests of particular actors in the economy.
But absolute “shortage or abundance” is not something we can measure “objectively.” Detractors often say mobile operators do not “need” new spectrum, they simply need to build small cell networks, or improve antenna technology. In truth, mobile operators do those things.
The issue, as always, are the tradeoffs. What is feasible as a matter of science might not be feasible as a matter of sustainability of the business model. Simply, people might not want to pay what service providers might have to invest to satisfy bandwidth demand without use of new spectrum.
In other words, it typically is the case that acquiring new spectrum is the more-sustainable approach, long term, even when all the other techniques are used.
Some might argue the same sorts of arguments apply to other types of networks, including Wi-Fi and other wireless communication modes.
To be sure, there is one political reality: service, app or device providers do not get new spectrum unless they first convince policymakers there are looming shortages. That is not to say the arguments are specious. It is simply to note that “fixing” a problem first requires that a perception of problem be created.
That is true for any proposed new use of spectrum, including Wi-Fi. “Few if any doomsayers are willing to declare that a crisis exists today, but at most that there will be one in the future. For example, CableLabs will only say that “WiFi spectrum is likely to be exhausted in the near-term,” professors J. Pierre de Vries of the Silicon Flatirons Center, University of Colorado Law School,
Ljiljana Simic, Andreas Achtzehn, Marina Petrova and Petri Mähönen of the Institute for Networked Systems have argued.
arise because they are politically necessary. Voters and decision makers are not easily swayed by hypothetical problems. The crisis needs to be made concrete, hence the claims of current
congestion,” the authors argue.
“We conclude that there is currently no evidence for pervasive Wi-Fi congestion,” the professors argue. “We do not claim that the absence of evidence of congestion amounts to evidence for the absence of congestion.”
“However, we question the argument that congestion occurring somewhere, sometimes
is a justification for regulatory intervention,” they add.
That is a problem with lots of nuance, as is the case in the mobile business, where a relatively small number of tower sites typically account for most of the problematic congestion.
Better access management might alleviate the problem, some suggest.
Consider the traditional difference between use of fixed amount of spectrum by geosynchronous, middle earth orbit or low earth orbit, in terms of available bandwidth.
In effect, a LEO or MEO constellation mimics the degree of frequency reuse mobile networks achieve by using a “cellular” approach. Cost, however, often has been a different matter. Earth stations, for example, need to be able to track huge numbers of satellites, instead of simply being pointed at a geosynchronous satellite.
One might argue there are similar challenges related to tracking large fleets of satellites, especially when they communicate with each other directly.
That is not to downplay the legitimate public policy concerns or interests, merely to say that every such public interest necessarily happens in a specific context, with “winners and losers.”
“Spectrum shortages” often are the rationale for specific policy changes aimed at increasing supply. But the way “shortages” are remedied can have positive and negative implications for whole industry segments or contestants within industries.
Satellite interests often argue that mobile spectrum shortages are illusory, since demands for additional mobile spectrum often bump up against the interests of the satellite industry. Likewise, claims of Wi-Fi spectrum shortages are, among other aspects, a way of creating more license-exempt spectrum, at the the perceived expense of contestants whose business models are based on licensed spectrum.
The point is that whether additional spectrum is required, as a technology matter, more spectrum often is “required” as a policy or business model matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment