Future of US security depends on 'spectrum sharing'
Wireless technologies are crucial to our national security, especially for missile defense and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems, which rely on specific spectrum bands.
While patrolling the Iron Curtain in the 1980s, I saw firsthand the importance of American leadership, the value of strong alliances, and the moral strength that springs from our national values. I also saw something more basic:
Our security depends on the United States maintaining an edge in advanced technologies. Our advantage on the battlefield wasn’t in numbers; it was in having better and more sophisticated tools with which to destroy the enemy, and a fighting force that was truly lethal in its ability to use those tools.
Even then, state-of-the-art wireless technologies enabled the reconnaissance, radar and communications capabilities that kept my unit informed of fast-changing threats. Four decades later, wireless technologies remain a crucial enabler of our national security, especially for missile defense and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems, which rely on our military’s access to specific spectrum bands.
Right now, Congress is in the process of deciding how access to these bands will be allocated in the future, and the choices it makes will have major ramifications for our national security and economic prosperity. It is crucial that Congress gets this right.
RUSSIA, CHINA, IRAN AND NORTH KOREA RATCHETING UP THREATS AGAINST US, WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW
One proposal under consideration is for Congress to grant sole control over critical bands to private firms, pushing the Pentagon, and their missions, aside. This would be a costly mistake that would put American national security at risk. In his congressional testimony, Gen. Anthony Cotton, Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, said such a move would endanger his ability to execute, exercise and employ military forces.
Massive amounts of military equipment, from radar to weapons systems, have already been developed and optimized specifically for the spectrum bands in question, and changing that is not as simple as turning a radio dial. It would require vast new investments in the design and production of new equipment, a process the Pentagon estimates would take decades to complete and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
It would be a foolish risk to take on even in peaceful times; in a world that has grown increasingly dangerous, it unnecessarily grants our adversaries a victory and makes us less safe.
There is a further problem with granting sole control over these bands to private firms: it discourages competition and opens the door to companies like Huawei and ZTE, the Chinese Communist Party’s state-backed spyware peddlers, to gain an even bigger share of global wireless hardware manufacturing.
This isn’t a new challenge – I offered a similar warning to our allies in the European Union (EU) nearly five years ago – but as technology evolves, so does the urgency of the threat. The United States needs to be a leader in the fight against Huawei’s pursuit of cellular domination, and that begins by providing the world with a better model that is freer and less susceptible to the threat posed by Huawei and ZTE.
US SHOULDN'T SLEEP ON MAJOR THREAT FROM NORTH KOREA
As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee when I served in Congress, I also fully understand our nation’s growing telecommunications needs. That is why we should balance the military’s access to certain spectrum bands with our nation’s economic growth and prosperity. We can do this by finding a solution that opens up spectrum while preserving access for our military warfighters.
One option is "dynamic spectrum sharing," which would allow multiple entities to access and use the same radio frequencies. Proven sharing models, like the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS), have already shown that commercial users and government users can share the same spectrum efficiently and without interference. For example, the U.S. Navy uses CBRS bands for mission-critical offshore radar operations.
Dynamic spectrum sharing could be profitable, too: A recent study by the Brattle Group demonstrated that it creates billions in net private value where, by contrast, forcing the military to relocate would end up costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Spectrum sharing would help America stay safe and stay ahead in the global race for technology dominance.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Shared licensing democratizes spectrum access, making it accessible to a broad array of users – from factories and ports to rural internet providers, utilities and schools. This is critical to unlocking America’s economic potential.
Companies like Ericsson USA are already using shared spectrum to optimize smart factories to build communications equipment in the U.S. In my home state of Kansas, shared spectrum is being used to advance precision agriculture. Others are using it to boost productivity at hospitals, universities and warehouses.
As shared spectrum capabilities continue to improve, so will the benefits to U.S. competitiveness, as we are seeing with significantly expanded capacity thanks to the new CBRS 2.0 framework adopted by the Federal Communications Commission, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and the U.S. Navy.
The Biden administration could have moved forward with this shared framework last year, but they missed their opportunity. Predictably, it has shown no desire to tackle this problem, as its National Spectrum Strategy simply calls for more studies. This is not leadership.
Congress needs to step up and find a solution that meets the needs of both consumers and our military, and spectrum sharing could be just such a solution.
