Wireless Networking: PCS Future Still Up in the Air

FCC, congressional compromise saves the day for the time being

As we’ve discussed in previous issues, mobile computing won’t become a reality unless the radio spectrum is reallocated to make way for personal communication services (PCS). Consequently, the FCC and vendors like Apple, NCR, IBM, Tandy, Grid, and others who believe in the future of PCS have promoted the use of the 2-GHz RF band for emerging technologies. The problem is that these frequencies are currently allocated to others — mainly railroads, utilities, and other corporate communications systems.

After intense lobbying several months back by railroads and utilities, Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.), the chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, tacked on an amendment to a spending bill to force the FCC to maintain the 2-GHz band for existing users. The result would be delays in the introduction of PCS (currently being experimented with by GTE in Stamford, CT) and the loss of possibly billions of dollars for U.S. developers.

More recently, the FCC avoided delay and confrontation by proposing a reasonable compromise that would pave the way for a 3-10 year transition period for current 2-GHz users to voluntarily move to other frequencies.

While the railroads and utilities were complaining that reallocation would seriously affect the safety of their operations, we suspect the real reason is the monetary value of the radio spectrum — current estimates place the value of available frequencies upward of $200 billion. And over time, this figure will certainly increase. Existing spectrum users don’t “own” their frequencies, but they do have the first right to use them. Taxpayers will likely end up paying millions of dollars in compensation to move existing users elsewhere on the spectrum.

In any event, it is hard to envision major growth in mobile computing without a dedicated frequency band for mobile computer users. It wouldn’t be the first time that bureaucratic wrangling has stifled technical innovation.