America’s freight rail serves an indispensable role in the transport of goods throughout our nation. In fact, nearly 1.5 billion tons, estimated at almost $19 trillion, of U.S. commerce is shipped annually by rail. Unknown to many, however, is that the long line of rail cars riding the tracks relies on wireless communications for safety and coordination purposes. Sadly, the state of some freight rail’s wireless technology in use today is barely one step above two tin cans and a string. Fancy plans to upgrade these wireless capabilities have been stymied by what appears to the freight rail industry’s lack of prioritization. Thankfully, new policy leaders throughout government have an opportunity — and an obligation — to deliver necessary improvements on the quick.
For context purposes, freight rail’s inefficient use of wireless spectrum, or the nation’s airwaves, is not a new phenomenon. Five years ago, my then-colleagues and I at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is charged with overseeing the commercial spectrum bands and licensees, made a grand bargain with a number of parties, including the Association of American Railroads (AAR) on behalf its key members (CSX, Norfolk Southern, Burlington Northern, Union Pacific, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific) to address past inefficiencies. Specifically, in exchange for condensing to a smaller wireless licensing footprint, the Commission authorized the freights to migrate to broadband communications, thereby providing greater wireless device and system functionality. But the agency expected defined progress. It conditioned continued use of what is known as the 900 MHz band with two deadlines: select rail carriers would exit the upper part of the band by September 2025 and be operational with a new network when license renewals came in April 2026.
Spectrum efficiency is important, but this transition also could bring massive improvements to freight rail safety. The trade gives the industry the chance to move off inferior wireless technology built closer to World War II than today. Deep flaws in current train communications will be rectified. Things like the front of the train being able to talk to the end is critical when train lengths continue to increase. That’s practically impossible with current technology, generating massive risk for not only the shipments but the surrounding communities. Countless other examples, like hardening from hackers and live video sensors, demonstrate the sprawling benefits from a sparkling new freight rail broadband network that is faster, cyber-safer, more reliable, and has greater capacity – especially during crisis situations.
Despite all of the promises made by these rail carriers, it’s hard to take their efforts seriously. For example, the President and CEO of the rail AAR, Ian Jefferies, testified just weeks ago to Congressional Representatives that “[W]e’re on schedule to comply” with the FCC-led initiative to modernize its communications system. But for even the casual observer, this seems dubious. The industry has invested a paltry $2 million to test new technology and $25 million to clear bands under the FCC’s directive. Past spectrum relocations and upgrades in other fields have taken hundreds of millions and tons of time. Does anyone really think that rail carriers will be ready in fourteen months?
Even the FCC seems ready to call the rail carriers’ bluff. Recently, it issued a new proposed rulemaking to allow certain energy company communications, led by a company called Anterix, to expand into the same band allotted for the new rail wireless network. Doing so would give energy companies wider networks to handle more communications traffic. This makes all the sense in the world for Anterix and they shouldn’t be criticized for trying to enhance spectrum efficiency in the band for their partners. While this proposal doesn’t explicitly knock out the rail carrier’s network, the FCC’s item asks the question whether it could functionally approve both plans.
On the off chance that the rail industry’s 900 MHz dream doesn’t come about, it appears to be already planning for a back-up. Under this maneuvering, it would vacate the 900 MHz and shift its critical Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) communications systems to the 220 MHz block. Normally this would be considered win-win, but 220 MHz freight licenses could be overloaded with all this extra traffic, potentially causing existing and new communications to fail. Moreover, it would place critical rail communications into one band, potentially handing one bad actor the ability to effectively shut down all freight rail.
The freight rail industry is at a pivotal point with its wireless communications. It has the chance to take aggressive steps that would prove it is truly committed to a broadband network future at 900 MHz, providing a host of new options and capabilities. Alternatively, it can let a lack of inertia and a desire to cut costs eat away at its credibility until the FCC steps in to stop the gamesmanship. For public safety and spectrum efficiency purposes, let’s hope it’s the former.