Istanbul Railroad

WRC-2000 is over, and 3G spectrum is earmarked worldwide. But is that light at the end of the tunnel a sign of hope or hurt?

Delegates at the World Radiocommunications Conference 2000 (WRC-2000) in Istanbul, Turkey, might not have known it, but they faced a task similar to that of U.S. railroads in the mid-19th century. Driven by the need to provide settlers with transcontinental transportation, competing railroads had to cooperate in order to join their separate rail systems into a single railway that spanned the nation.

Although they succeeded in building a transcontinental system, in some cases, tracks were laid just moments before the train rolled over them. Like the railroad pioneers, WRC-2000 participants had to grapple with the problems inherent in attempting to "lay the tracks" that will allow a worldwide network of 3G systems.

Foremost on the WRC-2000 agenda was the allocation of spectrum for 3G services, with the European countries and the United States initially adopting opposing views. European countries supported a plan to identify one specific 3G band, which would create a uniform, worldwide marketplace for 3G providers.

The United States supported a multiband approach that would accommodate many of the other countries' proposals. The U.S. proposal included allocating spectrum in the 2.5GHz band (specifically, 2.4835GHz to 2.690GHz), the band Europeans favored; the 1.7GHz band, favored by Latin American countries; and a lower band beginning at 698MHz. Although the U.S. proposal is notable for its flexibility, it can't promise the uniformity inherent in the European proposal.

Narrowing the Differences Between Factions
As the conference began, the European and U.S. factions appeared to be moving toward a compromise position with the European delegates appearing receptive to the U.S. multiband proposal.

By the end of the first week, concerns arose when, as part of a bargain between the European and Arab nations, the Europeans would support the Arabs on broadcast-satellite-service-spectrum (BSSS) issues in return for the Arab support for the European 3G proposal. The United States feared that this bargain would build momentum for block voting in which member nations would vote on blocks of unrelated issues such as BSSS and 3G spectrum rather than voting issue by issue. Facing pressure from other countries, the European and Arab countries scrapped their pact and agreed to continue negotiating on 3G-spectrum allocation.

As negotiations continued, some delegations raised concerns about bands being identified for 3G. Meanwhile, U.S. providers such as WorldCom and Sprint expressed doubts about proposals that would allocate the 2.5GHz spectrum for 3G. These providers already had purchased licenses in this block for fixed-wireless services, including broadband services, and questioned whether fixed wireless and 3G services could co-exist in the same band. Reflecting industry concerns, the U.S. delegation advocated conducting a study on the feasibility of using 2.5GHz before allocating it for 3G.

Despite concerns arising about how multiple bands might affect compatibility, negotiators reached a spectrum-allocation agreement on May 30 that contained something for everyone. It earmarked three bands for 3G services: 806MHz to 960MHz, 1.71GHz to 1.885GHz and 2.5GHz to 2.69GHz. The United States got its multiband plan, and the Europeans received the WRC's imprimatur on the 2.5GHz spectrum they sought.

Lining Up the Tracks
Since WRC-2000's conclusion, country delegations now face the challenge of conforming their nationwide spectrum allocations to accommodate the agreement reached at WRC-2000. Governments and commentators have raised many questions about 3G-spectrum allocation. With the adoption of a multiband approach, the objective of a single, universal system might prove elusive because a multiband approach allows multiple systems using several spectrum blocks to co-exist simultaneously.

Besides acknowledging that more bands could be allocated for 3G services, the ITU also recognized that some countries already plan to use spectrum between 2.3GHz and 2.4GHz. Because there are no restrictions against the use of additional spectrum for 3G, member nations may continue to expand their spectrum boundaries and allocate spectrum in non-designated areas in order to improve the wireless service provided to customers in their part of the world. Such de-facto 3G-spectrum allocation would permit myriad 3G systems to flourish by allowing them to operate in multiple, different bands within a region or even within a given country.

This dynamic environment will test the abilities of equipment manufacturers to provide equipment that can be used around the world. To create compatibility, vendors might be forced to design either discrete equipment for each band or bigger, bulkier and more expensive multiband equipment. Officials at some international organizations reportedly believe that the "inability to get a continuous piece of spectrum will make handsets costlier and heavier."

U.S. 3G Derailed?
The WRC-2000 agreement presents additional challenges for the United States because each of the three bands allocated is already used by other services. NASA currently uses the 2.5GHz to 2.69GHz band for space research. The Departments of Agriculture and Interior use the 1.71GHz to 1.885GHz band for land-mobile-radio services used during forest fires or natural disasters. The U.S. Navy uses a significant chunk of the 806MHz to 960MHz band for long-range search radar.

The FCC will be called upon to resolve these competing demands. Before the ultimate design of the U.S. 3G "railroad" can be completed, the interests of current and prospective users of these three bands will have to be balanced and accommodations reached.

All Parties Must Cooperate & Participate
Just as the transcontinental railroad couldn't be built without the cooperation and participation of many different parties, the U.S. 3G railroad will require the effort and commitment of all parties. Providers and equipment manufacturers must participate to emphasize both what will be required for a vibrant 3G railroad and that the 3G railroad must be quickly completed if U.S. telecom is to maintain its prominence in the world marketplace.

Providers might be well-advised to continue communicating with the FCC about the impact of allocating 3G to certain spectrum. In addition, providers should continue to monitor spectrum allocation worldwide so that the U.S. industry isn't eclipsed by other countries' proactive efforts to establish additional, de-facto 3G bands.

Sill (wsill@wbklaw.com) is a partner and Lin (clin@wbklaw.com) is an associate at Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP.