Operators Reluctant to Mount Major Challenge to 3.65 GHz Rules
Operators who want to offer service in the 3.65 GHz band have yet to ask the FCC to change its rules, two attorneys active in wireless issues said late Monday, at the Wireless Communications Association show. Until operators come forward, the FCC won’t have anything to act on even if it chose to make changes, said Steve Coran, who represents WISPs among his clients, and Paul Sinderbrand, longtime counsel to the WCA.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC) filed a petition at the FCC in April, asking the agency to clarify that potential users of the 3650-3700 MHz band must first check a commission database before seeking station authorization, with an eye on minimizing interference. Other changes promoted by some operators include reducing the size and impact of satellite exclusion zones, eliminating a requirement that operators register all end-user locations, and increasing the power levels that could be used in rural areas.
Coran, of Rini Coran, said he has talked to others about filing a petition seeking changes to the 3.65 GHz rules. “We came to the decision [that] until we get all our ducks in a row, until we see there’s a lot of industry support … we weren’t prepared to jump into that and fight off the Satellite Industry Association, which has a fair amount of money, with resources that weren’t available at the time,” Coran said. “It’s really up to us as an industry to reach out to you all and figure out if there is enough interest out there to spend the resources and political capital."
Coran said he understands why the FCC appears pleased with the roll out of systems in the band, even if there have been relatively few to date. “I think it’s probably met their expectations,” he said. “I don’t think it has fallen a whole lot short, I don’t think it’s really exceeded it.” The FCC to date has had to deal with only one interference case in the band, he noted. “Could it be more successful? Sure, if we had standards and if we would maybe tweak these rules a little bit and make the equipment … less expensive,” he said. “When is that all going to happen? When there’s a lot of pressure on the FCC. “
Sinderbrand, of Wilkinson Barker, said he supports most of the changes proposed, but they have to be viewed as a “double-edged sword” that cuts both ways. For example “in markets where there are multiple operators, power limits help mitigate interference between users of the band,” he said. “When you start allowing higher power levels you start increasing the potential for interference among people in this room."
Sinderbrand predicted that the FCC will be content to sit back for awhile before making significant changes. “If we could make a real compelling case, and had a proposal that didn’t seem to gore anyone’s ox, maybe,” he said. “I think at this point the commission is perfectly happy to sit back and let this play out.” It’s too early at this point “to tell whether it’s a success or a failure or something in between”,” he said of the band.
Mitchell Lazarus of Fletcher Heald, who represents the FWCC, said his group has heard little on its petition since it was filed. “After several phone calls, many conversations, I have no idea,” he said, guessing it hasn’t made any short lists for commission action.
"The commission the last couple of years has been extremely busy,” Lazarus said. “They don’t have the staff to do what Congress wants them to do and that they themselves see the need to do. Anything not on their urgent list, which is working, just barely, is not going to get much attention for the next couple of years.”
Jeff Kohler, founder of JAB Broadband, said 3.65 GHz spectrum is available in less than 40 percent of the communities the company serves. “In other areas you have to get a waiver for each household” to offer service, he said. “That’s a requirement that we're just not going to chase.” Another big issue is that too few systems use 3.65 GHz spectrum, he said: “You don’t have the big infrastructure. … You don’t have that volume-driven price."
Scott McClure of TESSCO Industries said his company has sold 3.65 GHz equipment to operators for about three years, “It’s been kind of a roller coaster ride for us,” McClure said. “We haven’t gotten the volumes out of the service provider business that we originally estimated when we started providing that gear, but we've seen a lot of diverse applications for the product, most of which have worked very well."