Division of Radio Frequency Between Federal, Provincial, and Local Levels: Lessons from International experiences.

  

 

 

Division of Radio Frequency Between Federal, Provincial, and Local Levels:

Lessons from International experiences.

Dr. Khimlal Devkota

Constituent Assembly Member and Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of Nepal

 

Abstract

The radio-frequency spectrum is a scarce public resource whose allocation has a significant impact on economic development, public safety, and digital inclusion. Federal countries face a governance design challenge: to keep spectrum management centralized (with a national regulator) or to federalize some functions to provincial/local levels (or to enable localized/shared access). This paper critiques global models (the United States, Canada, Australia, the European Union, and India), summarizes Nepali recent practice and policy, compares trade-offs, and offers policy recommendations for clearer federal, provincial, and local actor responsibility division in Nepal.

1. Introduction

Spectrum enables wireless broadband, public safety radios, broadcasting, IoT, and future space services. As electromagnetic waves travel across administrative boundaries, management of the spectrum has historically been the domain of national governments to ensure harmonization, interference, and compliance with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulations. However, technological innovation (small cells, shared access, dynamic spectrum, CBRS-type databases) and local connectivity demand have witnessed growing interest in federalized or blended types of governance with provincial or municipal actors in a formal capacity or with localized regimes for access. This essay places these international strategies and situates Nepal's recent regulatory reforms within those global trends.

2. Concepts and governance functions to divide

Before comparing jurisdictions, it is helpful to analyze the main spectrum functions (who may be entrusted with them):

2.1. National allocation & international coordination, creating a national table of allocations    aligned with ITU.

2.2. Licensing & assignment, granting exclusive licenses or general authorizations.

2.3. Technical rules & enforcement, interference limits, equipment certification, monitoring.

2.4. Pricing & fees, auction design, and administrative fees.

2.5. Local planning & siting, tower siting, small-cell deployment, municipal permits.

2.6. Shared/localized access mechanisms, databases, dynamic spectrum access (DSA), tiered sharing (e.g., CBRS).

Design options are centralization (national regulator), decentralization (subnational regulators do some), or a hybrid where the national regulator allocates administrative/licensing or arranges local/shared access but retains allocation and international coordination.

3.         International experiences: overview and lessons

3.1  United States — strong national control; innovative local sharing

The federal framework is two national organizations: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates non-federal spectrum policy and licensing, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) manages federal government use of spectrum. There is limited formal power of the spectrum at state and municipal levels, but the U.S. has been at the leading edge of market and technology innovation for facilitating greater local access, most notably the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS, 3.5 GHz) using a three-tier sharing model (incumbent federal users, licensed users, and general authorized access) with Spectrum Access Systems (SAS) for enabling localized deployments. CBRS illustrates how an international/national coordinating regulator can be achieved while dynamic, localized use is permitted.(FCC, 2020).

Lesson:            keep allocation centralized but use regulatory innovation (tiered sharing, databases) to allow local players and new entrants without dismantling national coordination.

3.2 Canada: National regulator with provincial considerations and public-safety co-ordination

Canada's Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) is responsible for spectrum allocation and licensing at the national level, but provinces and locals are significant stakeholders, particularly in relation to public safety networks and rural connectivity initiatives. Canada has looked at mechanisms (e.g., license conditions, rules of re-assignment) to provide for deployment in underserved areas and to meet regional requirements (ISED, 2025)

Lesson: national power can attain local equity goals through licence conditions, individual awards, and consultation with stakeholders rather than de jure devolution of distribution powers.

3.3 Australia: stakeholder input in central planning

Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is the publisher of the Australian Radio Frequency Spectrum Plan and coordinates national-level allocation/licensing; planning and site approval is taken care of by state/local governments. Harmonization with ITU and constant review of spectrum plans to accommodate changes in technology are prioritized in Australia. Government-controlled spectrum is managed by centralized means, but could be introduced into state/local initiatives through coordinated channels (ACMA, 2021)

Lesson: Central planning and clear procedures for government spectrum and national infrastructure approvals erase fragmentation, but have room for subnational projects.

3.4  European Union: national regulators harmonized at the EU level

EU Member States control national allocations via national regulators (Ofcom, ANFR, BNetzA, etc.), but EU institutions and cooperation bodies (RSPG, ECC/CEPT) harmonize strategic bands and cross-border coordination. The EU mix is a classic example of multi-level governance reconciling national sovereignty and regional coordination for the single market.

Lesson: multi-level coordination bodies (regional forums) function optimally where cross-border harmonization is critical.

3.5 India: national centralized regulator with regional offices

India's Wireless Planning & Coordination (WPC) department within the Department of Telecommunications centrally manages allocations, licensing, and monitoring, but has regional offices and inter-agency committees (SACFA) for siting and technical clearance, striking a balance between a centralized legal authority and regional operation capability.

Lesson: Central legal authority plus regional operational capability can solve localized technical issues without giving up allocation powers.

4.         Devolution models

From the comparative analysis, three feasible models appear to be:

4.1. Centralized model (national-only): national regulator oversees allocation, licensing, enforcement; provinces/locals just do civil planning and permits (standard in AU, CA, most EU states).

4.2. Centralized + Localized Access (hybrid): national allocation retained; localized access enabled through sharing frameworks/databases (CBRS in the US; trial local licensing in some parts of Europe). This gives municipalities/operators local flexibility without shattering national coordination.

4.3. Delegated/regional licensing: national regulator delegates licensing or allocation for particular bands or uses to provinces/regions (rare because of interference/coordination risks), sometimes used with government-held or public safety bands under close coordination.

5.         Nepal's current practice and recent policy initiatives

5.1      The national regulator of Nepal is the Nepal Telecommunications Authority (NTA), the statutory body for spectrum allocation, assignment, technical regulation, and pricing. In October 2023 (Frequency Policy 2080 / Radio Frequency (Allocation and Pricing) Policy), NTA adjusted allocations (e.g., expanding 5 GHz WLAN, UWB bands, 865–868 MHz for IoT/M2M) and imposed regulations on pricing and assignment. The policy retains allocation and licensing centrally with the NTA and reserves site approvals and land-use permits to local government (NTA, 2080).

5.2      Contemporary NTA policy does recognize contemporary applications (IoT, 5GHz WLAN) and charging mechanisms in favor of optimal usage, but does not transfer spectrum allocation authority to provincial or local governments. Media summaries and regulatory observers remark on the strategy as one that mirrors internationally common practice in unitary as well as federal nations, where national coordination is considerable.

5.3      Implication for Nepal: de jure centralization at NTA with de facto provincial/local roles limited to planning/siting. There is room for implementing hybrid tools (dynamic/shared access) for enhancing provincial/local connectivity initiatives without forgoing the allocation authority.

6.         Comparative analysis, trade-offs for Nepal

6.1    Efficiency & interference control: Centralized allocation obviates cross-border/interference risk and ensures ITU compliance. Nepal's current practice follows this.

6.2    Local innovation & inclusion: Shared or local access (i.e., CBRS) can accelerate community networks and municipal broadband for unserved Himalayan and Terai regions. Database-driven sharing would introduce the possibility of local players deploying small-scale broadband without expensive national licenses. CBRS is something to learn from.

6.3    Equity & rural deployment: Licence conditions, coverage obligations, and focused awards (employed in Canada/Australia) can spur provincial rollout without decentralizing allocation. Nepal can employ licence-condition levers to drive provincial coverage.

6.4    Governance & capacity: Provincial/local regulators generally do not have the technical expertise to enable complex coordination and international filings. Nepal's NTA should retain allocation but create provincial liaison units and technical support to provinces/localities for siting and community projects.

7.         Nepal-specific recommendations: legal and policy tools

7.1.   Keep allocation centralized; institutionalize provincial liaison. Centralize NTA's current function for allocations and ITU coordination, but institutionalize an official provincial liaison office or focal points to speed up approvals and align provincial needs with national plans. (Rationale: preserves interference control; improves responsiveness.)

7.2.   Enable shared/localized access in selected bands. Pilot an open-access, database-driven sharing regime for an appropriate mid-band (e.g., 3.5 GHz slices or shared-plus unlicensed spectrum) using CBRS technology to make way for the dynamic access by local ISPs, community networks, and public safety users into the spectrum under national regulation. Require a Spectrum Access System (SAS) or local database under NTA regulation.

7.3.   Use the conditions of the license to apply provincial coverage. As part of issuing exclusive licenses (e.g., mobile broadband), they have enforceable roll-out obligations for underserved provinces and reassignment arrangements in case of deployment slippage (practice followed in Canada/Australia).

7.4.   Streamline municipal siting and permitting. Clarify division of responsibilities: NTA authorizes radio use; provincial/local governments handle civil siting permits, adopt maximum statutory timelines, and single-window approvals for tower/small cell siting.

7.5.   Provincial coordination and capacity development. Invest in provincial technical capability (interference management, spectrum monitoring). Establish a multi-stakeholder advisory board (NTA + provinces + operators + public safety) to review regularly.

7.6.   Reuse of the spectrum and transparent pricing rules. Provide transparent pricing rules and policies for spectrum secondary markets/trading where necessary (in line with NTA's Frequency Policy 2080 revisions). Secondary markets can encourage efficient use with a central authority protecting international commitments.

8.         Limitations and further research

This submission is based on regulatory documents and policy summaries of prominent jurisdictions and Nepal's NTA. Further empirical research, Nepalese stakeholder interviews (NTA, provincial governments, ISPs, community network operators), and technical modeling of interference under proposed sharing regulations would strengthen the design for implementation. Further research should also test legal compatibility with Nepal's constitution for any delegation of regulatory power.

9.         Conclusion

Global practice favors centralized allocation to ensure worldwide coordination, complemented by innovative infrastructures that enable local access and provincial involvement. Nepal's current NTA-led system is in accordance with international best practice; phased introduction of reforms, pilots to enable mutual access, more transparent provincial liaison mechanisms, license-conditioned coverage obligations, and simplified siting would improve local accessibility without compromising national and international spectrum commitments.

10.       References

Australian Communications and Media Authority, (ACMA)(2021). Australian Radiofrequency Spectrum Plan 2021. ACMA. https://www.acma.gov.au/australian-radiofrequency-spectrum-plan

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, (ISED). (2025). Spectrum management and telecommunications. Government of Canada. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/spectrum-management-telecommunications/en

Nepal Telecommunications Authority, (NTA) (2023). Radio Frequency (Allocation and Pricing) Policy, 2080. NTA. https://www.nta.gov.np/content/radio-frequency-policy-of-telecommunication-services-2080

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2024). Radio spectrum allocation. FCC. https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/policy-and-rules-division/general/radio-spectrum-allocation

National Telecommunications and Information Administration, (NTIA). (2020). Spectrum Management. Government of India. https://www.ntia.gov/

FCC/CBRS coverage: Community Networks. (2025). CBRS Spectrum: A Potential Boon to Community Broadband. FCC/CBRS. https://communitynetworks.org/content/cbrs-spectrum-potential-boon-community-broadband

Department of Telecommunications, Government of India: Wireless Planning & Coordination (WPC). (2022.). WPC & SACFA. https://dot.gov.in/spectrum/wpc-sacfa

European Commission. (2018). EU radio spectrum policy for wireless connections across the single market. European Commission Digital Strategy. EC. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-radio-spectrum-policy