Mar. 22--Reallocating radio spectrum to satisfy America's wireless Internet appetite could raise fears about signal interference, whether real or spurious.
Four years ago, after the Federal Communications Commission tried to expand FM radio spectrum use by hundreds of new low-power community stations, Congress overruled the regulators by passing a broadcaster-supported law.
An engineering study ordered by Congress, released last month, supported the FCC's contention that low-power stations posed little or no interference threat to commercial FM broadcasters.
But when, or if, Congress will restore the low-power station initiative is uncertain.
The FCC's smart radio initiative pits incumbent broadcasters against cell phone carriers and high-tech firms like Intel and Microsoft that want more spectrum for high-speed data.
A major problem is that even those who strongly advocate opening up more of the airwaves to data traffic disagree vehemently on strategy.
Some insist that the FCC should open new swaths of unlicensed spectrum where any and all users could deploy equipment without worrying about licenses. This is how cordless phones and Wi-Fi equipment work today.
Others suggest that current FCC license holders be allowed to lease out part of their spectrum. That would give broadcasters a financial incentive to embrace smart radio.
Vanu Bose predicts that smart radios eventually will create a giant commodity market in spectrum.
"I can envision a time when carriers that need more spectrum will just buy it on a spot market with very little effort," said Bose, founder of Vanu Inc., a Boston-area firm that makes smart radios for the military and the cell phone industry.
Reselling spectrum raises opposition from many smart radio advocates who contend that it needlessly provides unearned profits to broadcasters with public money. "Essentially it's a bribe to license holders," said Michael Calabrese, director of the New America Foundation's spectrum policy office. "Why should the public have to give away what they already own and then pay to buy it back?"
Such infighting may enable broadcasters to delay spectrum reform for several years, said Thomas Hazlett, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute.
"I favor paying the TV stations to go away so we could take their spectrum and do something productive with it," said Hazlett. "But I don't expect the FCC to take any meaningful action."
