Federal spectrum utilization is the subject of this panel, including the development of robust valuation methodologies to assess the economic value of federal spectrum holdings. Panelists will explore the spectrum requirements of key federal agencies such as DOD, NOAA, and NASA, as well as the emerging needs of space situational awareness. Topics will include potential opportunities for spectrum sharing, incentives for federal spectrum efficiency, and effective coordination mechanisms between agencies like NTIA and FCC. Additionally, challenges associated with the lower 3 GHz band will be discussed as well as lessons from past federal spectrum relocations. Finally, the panel will address the importance of government-commercial space coordination to ensure the sustainable use of spectrum resources.
- Coleman Bazelon, Principal, The Brattle Group
- Paul LaFontaine, Economist, Federal Communications Commission (pending approval)
- Jennifer Warren, Vice President, Global Regulatory Affairs & Public Policy, Lockheed Martin
- Lawrence White, Professor of Economics, New York University Stern School of Business
- Moderator: Thomas Lenard, Senior Fellow and President Emeritus, Technology Policy Institute
The Technology Policy Institute’s fourth webinar of the 2025 Winter Spectrum Series entitled “Federal Spectrum Valuation, Management, and Reform Panel Discussion” included Lawrence White (NYU Stern School of Business), Coleman Bazelon (The Brattle Group), Jennifer Warren (Lockheed Martin), Paul LaFontaine (FCC), and Thomas Lenard (TPI, moderator).
Key takeaways:
- Measuring current allocation efficiency remains challenging
- Federal agencies face different incentives than commercial users
- National security and public safety considerations complicate economic models
- Structural and budgetary barriers impede market-based solutions
- Opportunity cost should be central to future reform
- Dynamic spectrum sharing faces technical limitations
- Prospects for new commercial spectrum are limited
- Governance reform could improve spectrum management
In more detail:
Measuring Current Allocation Efficiency Remains Challenging: The panel expressed challenges to determine whether the current allocation of spectrum between federal agencies and commercial uses is efficient. A lack of market tests and prices make it difficult to determine optimal allocation. The incentive structures for government agencies differ significantly from those of commercial entities. Federal agencies are mission-focused rather than profit-driven, making traditional economic efficiency models difficult to apply.
Federal Agencies Face Different Incentives Than Commercial Users: Unlike commercial wireless providers who can acquire spectrum through auctions and treat it as an asset, federal agencies have mission-driven needs with no financial incentives to relinquish spectrum.
National Security and Public Safety Considerations Complicate Economic Models: One panelist emphasized that standard economic efficiency models cannot be applied to national security spectrum use. Homeland defense systems, such as detection systems that must operate continuously, serve all Americans equally without subscription fees. This raises questions about how to properly value spectrum used for public safety and national security.
Structural and Budgetary Barriers Impede Market-Based Solutions: Federal agencies can’t legally benefit financially from giving up spectrum since their budgets are controlled by Congress, creating a disconnect that prevents agencies from having positive incentives to participate in spectrum reallocation.
Opportunity Cost Should Be Central to Future Reform: The panel agreed that making the value of spectrum more transparent would improve decision-making, while acknowledging the unique challenges of valuing spectrum used for national security. One panelist emphasized that any reform should incorporate opportunity cost principles into spectrum allocation decisions. Another noted that opportunity risk to homeland defense should be equally considered alongside economic opportunity costs.
Dynamic Spectrum Sharing Faces Technical Limitations: While some spectrum sharing has occurred (e.g., CBRS), panelists noted that truly dynamic spectrum sharing between federal systems and commercial mobile services remains technically challenging. One panelist noted that most federal bands are already shared with non-federal systems that have compatible technical characteristics, but sharing with mobile broadband is particularly difficult. The CBRS band could also be considered a collection of exclusive licenses in a tiered sharing structure which makes it relatively straightforward compared to other sharing arrangements.
Prospects for New Commercial Spectrum Are Limited: Though auction authority is likely to be reinstated, the panel suggested that the “low-hanging fruit” of available federal spectrum bands have largely been reallocated. Remaining federal spectrum is more heavily encumbered with systems that are difficult to relocate or share with. Some panelists suggested exploring low-power indoor use as a potential path forward for sharing certain federal bands.
Governance Reform Could Improve Spectrum Management: There was general agreement that internal federal spectrum governance needs reform. Suggestions included creating a GSA-like federal agency for spectrum management or establishing an independent executive agency to develop a national spectrum strategy. Panelists agreed that having a more centralized direction for spectrum policy would be beneficial, though they differed on implementation details.
Sarah Oh Lam is a Senior Fellow at the Technology Policy Institute. Oh completed her PhD in Economics from George Mason University, and holds a JD from GMU and a BS in Management Science and Engineering from Stanford University. She was previously the Operations and Research Director for the Information Economy Project at George Mason School of Law. She has also presented research at the 39th Telecommunications Policy Research Conference and has co-authored work published in the Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property among other research projects. Her research interests include law and economics, regulatory analysis, and technology policy.
Scott Wallsten is President and Senior Fellow at the Technology Policy Institute and also a senior fellow at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy. He is an economist with expertise in industrial organization and public policy, and his research focuses on competition, regulation, telecommunications, the economics of digitization, and technology policy. He was the economics director for the FCC's National Broadband Plan and has been a lecturer in Stanford University’s public policy program, director of communications policy studies and senior fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a senior fellow at the AEI – Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, an economist at The World Bank, a scholar at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and a staff economist at the U.S. President’s Council of Economic Advisers. He holds a PhD in economics from Stanford University.
