������Ƶ

Emily Tavenner: What is spectrum, and what does it have to do with the Wi-Fi on which we’ve come to depend?

Michael Calabrese: Spectrum refers to the invisible airwaves that carry information from all sorts of communications technologies. It’s called “spectrum” because the airwaves make up a spectrum of frequencies that can carry information over the air. It’s a natural resource, but unlike oil, gas, or timber, spectrum is infinitely renewable from second to second.

Over the years, the U.S. government has given out licenses for different services—radio, television, satellite—to use spectrum. When mobile phones came into the picture in the ’90s, the government decided the best way to distribute these licenses was by auctioning them.

These licenses are expensive, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars in metropolitan areas, and almost all of the spectrum that’s been auctioned off has been purchased by big national mobile carriers. But there are also portions of spectrum that haven’t been licensed; these unlicensed frequency bands are critical for schools, libraries, and other users of direct local access. Wireless Future has worked to expand the share of prime airwaves set aside for open, unlicensed, and shared access of spectrum, and most of that expansion has been allocated to Wi-Fi, which anyone can freely use.

Tavenner: Tell me more about the unlicensed use of spectrum and Wi-Fi. Why are both integral for American internet use?

Calabrese: Open access to unlicensed spectrum is what makes Wi-Fi possible. When you look at all the consumer devices that are internet-connected—tablets, laptops, televisions, home security—they’re connected to Wi-Fi over free, unlicensed spectrum. These devices switch over to Wi-Fi whenever it’s in range because it’s both less expensive and faster, and that ultimately impacts people’s pocketbooks.

Wi-Fi is an important tool for helping close the digital divide. Not only does it help lower costs for internet users, but it also covers many public spaces that serve as avenues for people to get online: schools, libraries, parks, airports.

Tavenner: What would the world look like if all spectrum was auctioned and licensed?

Calabrese: Over the past 20 years, a major policy debate has been between the free market advocates, who argue that all spectrum should be auctioned and exclusively licensed, and public advocates like Wireless Future, who argue that there should be a balance between exclusively licensed spectrum—which certainly has a role to play in calls and internet access on the go—and open, free, unlicensed spectrum for most communication. If the free market advocates had been successful in privatizing the airwaves completely, wireless connectivity would be more limited and much more expensive.

For context, Wi-Fi is transporting almost 90 percent of data to and from smartphones. Laptops do not even have cellular connections. If mobile carriers had to transport all data on their licensed spectrum, their towers, their radios—they would need to spend tens of billions to build the infrastructure to do so, which would mean way higher phone bills.

And it’s not just cost: the quality of your connection to the internet would go down. Because mobile carriers’ infrastructure and spectrum are so expensive, they try to minimize the number of towers and radios they use. And their coverage is such that unless you live very close to a tower, the mobile signal inside your home or office is either weak or nonexistent. You wouldn’t be able to stream interactive video inside your home on just a mobile carrier network unless you happen to live in just the right place and position yourself next to a window—whereas Wi-Fi offers a high-capacity connection anywhere. Your iPhone would be far less useful if it could only operate most apps where there was a strong mobile signal.

Tavenner: Tell me more about the policy battles in the world of spectrum. What players have been key to ensuring there’s a balance between exclusively licensed spectrum and open, free, unlicensed spectrum?

Calabrese: We do so much of our work and have gained so much success in achieving that balance through coalitions. There’s a public interest spectrum coalition we lead that includes civil rights, education, consumer, and library groups, like Consumer Reports; the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition; the American Library Association; and the National Hispanic Media Coalition.

I’m also part of the regulatory group for two different industry coalitions with large tech, cable, and rural broadband companies. It’s important to recognize when private, industry interests are aligned with the public interest. We might disagree about some specific things, but that collaboration is necessary to push our goals for the public over the finish line.

Tavenner: The initiative you direct at ������Ƶ’s Open Technology Institute is called Wireless Future. In your mind, what does the ultimate wireless future look like?

Calabrese: The ultimate wireless future is seamless wireless connectivity. No one needs to make a conscious switch from one type of network to another depending on where you are, and a high-quality, affordable connection is available to everyone, everywhere, at all times. There would no longer be a digital divide based on your income or the service you can afford, and that will be really important as the Internet of Things continues to proliferate and AI ties it all together. It will be essential that everyone has the same baseline of excellent connectivity. Next-generation Wi-Fi and shared public spectrum are central to making that wireless future a reality.