FCC Advisory Committee Can't Agree on Key US Positions for WRC-19; Pai Urges Consensus
The FCC advisory committee on preparation for the 2019 meeting of the World Radiocommunication Conference fell short of reaching consensus on three agenda items approved Monday. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai spoke at the WRC Advisory Committee (WAC) meeting, assuring members the commission is watching closely and urging them to find consensus. The WAC formulates industry’s positions while a group coordinated by NTIA works with government agencies.
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.
“Hearing your views, your priorities and objectives ensures that the FCC represents a broad spectrum of views during the international negotiations and the domestic decision-making, heading toward the WRC-19 conference, which actually isn’t that far away,” Pai said. The WRC meets in Geneva in November 2019.
“While we don't expect that it will be easy to reach consensus on some of these difficult items, I nonetheless would encourage you and challenge you to continue to look for common ground,” Pai said. “We as a country stand a much better chance of success internationally when we present a clear, consistent and united message abroad.” Pai said that's supported by some discussions he had with other regulators worldwide.
Many issues being tackled by the WAC are also before the FCC, Pai said. “There has never been a time when there was more interest in developing large NGSO constellations, and I know the informal working groups are now beginning discussions on the appropriate regulatory framework to enable this new technology, while protecting GSO satellites,” he said of non- and geostationary orbit satellites. The WAC is taking up the first proposal on very high band spectrum, another FCC priority, looking at the use of spectrum in the 275-450 GHz range, he said. “As issues and discussions get more complex, we depend on you, the members of the WAC, to provide us guidance and support.”
Among areas of disagreement is whether the FCC should withdraw from two footnotes that potentially allow wireless industry use of what has long been broadcaster spectrum in the 470-608 MHz range. NAB, Fox and CBS, say in position A, the U.S. should clarify its current position on that spectrum as an international mobile telecommunications (IMT)-free zone. The disagreement is on Agenda Item 8.
“The frequency band 470–694/698 MHz is the only band that is harmonized and used on a global scale for over-the-air broadcast television,” broadcasters argue. Terrestrial TV broadcasting is “one of the most important and efficient mass communications media for delivering news, information, cultural programs, and entertainment free of charge to the general public, and because terrestrial broadcasting networks and facilities have a long life cycle, a stable regulatory environment is necessary to provide protection of investment and to encourage future development of the service,” broadcasters said.
The wireless industry countered the U.S. should leave its options open. “The US should not withdraw from these footnotes, as it would cause the US to los[e] its current flexibility and leav[e] the US subject to gaining international consensus and lengthy delays to even consider allowing mobile use in the future,” wireless interests said in position B. “The US FCC has long been a leader in spectrum policy. Anything that would reduce the US flexibility to make domestic policy decisions should be avoided.”
On Agenda Item 1.13, on the 37-43.5 GHz band, wireless industry and satellite players also disagree on a U.S. position. The wireless companies want the WRC to identify the spectrum for IMT. The WAC adopted a recommendation stating the positions for each.
“Identification for IMT of the 37-43.5 GHz frequency range would provide these benefits of harmonization while allowing regulators the flexibility to assign spectrum within this range for domestic use as appropriate,” said the wireless industry view, position A. “Leading administrations, including some of the world’s largest markets, have or are planning to assign spectrum licenses within the 37-43.5 GHz frequency range on an unpaired basis.” Equipment being developed for the 37-40 GHz band U.S. can also support in the 37-43.5 GHz radio tuning range, the wireless industry position read.
The satellite companies argue, in position B, for the importance of protecting fixed satellite service incumbents. “40-42 GHz is reserved for use by ubiquitously-deployed FSS user terminals and no studies have demonstrated to date that such use is compatible with an IMT deployment,” said position B.
WAC members also approved two different positions on Agenda Item 9.1, Issue 9.1.1, dealing with IMT and satellite use of the 1980-2010/2170-2200 MHz bands. AT&T, Cisco, CTIA, EchoStar, Ericsson, the GSMA, Intel, Jansky-Barmat Telecommunications, Nokia, Samsung Electronics America, Sprint, Steptoe & Johnson, T-Mobile and Verizon urged the U.S. to maintain current WRC rules without change.
Omnispace, Inmarsat and Intelsat urge power limits for IMT operations. "In the worst case, the aggregate interference from IMT terrestrial base stations operating in the band [1980-2010 MHz] is calculated to exceed the protection criterion by more than 50 dB,” the companies said in position B. “This level of interference can not be resolved by implementing mitigation methods. Moreover, the interference is not limited to adjacent countries, but is predicted when the satellite IMT deployment is at a distance of as much as 10,000 km from the terrestrial IMT deployment.”