mance, sensitivity to hand and head effects and changing operational conditions including temperature and battery charge state. This makes quality of user experience service level agreements harder to model and manage. All of the above are therefore likely to increase rather than decrease 'within industry' interoperator disputes over spectral ownership rights, compounded by the combination of a reduction in spectral efficiency coupled with an increase in operator-to-operator, user-to-user interference. All of the above are also likely to increase 'between industry' interindustry disputes over in- terference and spectral ownership including disputes between the mobile broadband industry, the broadcasting industry, the mobile satellite industry, public safety radio industry and cable industry (set-top box interference). An adversarial approach to future spectral allocation, for example the repurposing of C band between 3400 and 3800 MHz for FDD/TDD bands 22/41 and 23/42 makes it less likely that these separate industries will be able to work together to resolve technical issues. Interindustry cooperation at the technical level is already complicated and frustrated by competition policy. TDD/FDD coexistence will also introduce additional system level complexity which will be technically and commercially hard to resolve. Making Telecoms Work The problem is compounded by a false belief by the regulatory community that all that is needed is to define spectral transmission masks. This ignores the growing need to define and enforce receiver selectivity and dynamic range. It is also increasingly inappropriate for the FCC to assume that the world should follow US policy. In terms of mobile subscriber market size, China and India are both more than twice as large as the USA. Given that 48% of all connections are now in Asia it should be obvious that the US now lacks sufficient economy of scale to support a nationally specific band plan and/or a nationally specific technology mix. Operator-specific band plans and operator-sp