New thinking needed to safeguard our spectrum

U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Geoffery Smith, 20th Communications Squadron installation spectrum manager, views the display on a radio spectrum analyzer at Shaw Air Force Base, S.C., Jan. 13, 2017. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Kathryn R.C. Reaves)

If the Pentagon was asked to relocate its air bases, radar stations, missile silos, and other facilities to make room for wind farm developers, Congress would reject the idea out of hand. Such a massive disruption would threaten our national security and cost taxpayers untold billions of dollars — all to benefit a few.

Yet effectively the same debate is taking place over another kind of real estate: the radio spectrum bands set aside to carry the military’s wireless transmissions, including the frequencies needed and used today and in the future for radar, targeting, and command-and-control systems, and potentially for envisioned systems like hypersonic and ballistic missile defense.

Some in industry are again seeking to gain exclusive control over additional portions of the spectrum, including those used by the military, through spectrum auctions. Some in Congress are taking the proposal seriously.

At the center of the debate is a slice of spectrum the military cannot plausibly replace: the mid-band frequencies between 3.1 and 3.5 GHz that offer the ideal mix of range and capacity for defense applications.  For example, the Navy’s Aegis AN/SPY radar operates in this band. That is one reason defense champions in Congress have repeatedly raised concerns about the security threat posed by efforts to sell off these critically important segments of military spectrum.

Former Pentagon CIO John Sherman explained that vacating the band would be “absolutely untenable,” taking decades to complete. It would also cost more than taxpayers could ever hope to gain from auction revenues. Moving the Navy’s Aegis radar system alone comes with a price tag of $120 billion.

What many fail to consider is that Congress doesn’t need to eject the military from these frequencies in order to free up spectrum for private use and gain the appropriate economic benefits for the American people.  Reframing the discussion from one or the other, to one with the other is not only possible but necessary.

Proven spectrum sharing models, such as the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS), demonstrate that the military can retain priority access to key spectrum while safely and securely opening the band to factories, warehouses, rural internet providers, schools, airports, and other innovative users. As a result, consumers gain the benefits from new wireless technologies, improved connectivity, and more competitive prices — without forcing massive costs and dangerous disruptions on our armed services. We should continue to aggressively pursue proven sharing technologies, innovate new ones, and scale to multiple geographic areas and spectrum ranges. This approach affirms US global leadership in spectrum innovation.

Bureaucratic inertia may tempt Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to fall back on an exclusive, full-power licensing model rooted in the cell phone technologies of the 80s and 90s. That playbook assumes a false choice between national security and commercial innovation. In fact, spectrum sharing models support dual-use innovative technologies, maintain national security needs, and allow commercial use of the contested frequency bands.

It’s time for new thinking. Military leaders have made it clear they are prepared to share key spectrum with a diverse array of users — so long as these commercial systems don’t interfere with operations or force the Pentagon to vacate vital frequencies. Now it’s up to Congress, the FCC, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to embrace spectrum sharing as the only reasonable solution to the country’s current spectrum stalemate.

By setting aside dangerous and costly proposals for relocating military spectrum, we can clear the way for innovative sharing technologies that will reinforce US wireless leadership, boost competition, and create jobs.

National leaders don’t need to accept the false choice between exclusive, full-power licensing and military readiness. It’s a recipe for failure.

Instead, we should build on proven models for shared spectrum that can preserve our national security while still maximizing the use of a scarce national resource, increase taxpayer revenue, and advance American businesses and technologies around the world.

Rob Lyman is a retired Brigadier General of the US Air Force. He served as Director, Command, Control, Communications and Cyber (C4) Systems and Deputy Director for Cyberspace Operations at USTRANSCOM. He is an advisor to the Spectrum for the Future coalition.