C-Band Clearing for 5G Plan Seen Potentially Facing Inter- and Intra-Industry Clashes
The Intelsat/SES/Intel plan for clearing a portion of the C-band could very well face disagreements among satellite operators, cable companies and wireless interests and their industry groups when comments start coming in on an order and NPRM approved 4-0 in July (see 1807120037), experts and insiders told us. The texts haven't been in the Federal Register. Intelsat CEO Stephen Spengler told us the coalition expects to gain support from incumbent C-band end users over time: "It will be recognition the approach we have made avoids the possibility of the worst outcome" of spectrum sharing.
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 NPRM puts a lot of emphasis on speed of and amount of spectrum being freed up, and the coalition members will put particular focus on those issues in their comments, said Intel Associate General Counsel Peter Pitsch. The voluntary clearing approach is likely the fastest and most efficient both for existing users and 5G, and there are numerous ways to fit those uses together such as exclusion zones, filters, fiber deployments and new satellites, he said. If 5G proves to be as in demand as proponents think, there will be ample incentives for clearing up more of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band beyond an initial 100 MHz, he said.
Pitsch said the coalition will lobby at least on major economic policy issues, though satellite companies on their own will deal with some more specific issues like impacts on C-band users. Asked about the possibility of additional members joining the coalition, Pitsch said, “We're talking to lots of folks.”
Beyond readying for the comments cycle for the NPRM, Intelsat is also busy with continuing talks with customers about the proposal and its benefits and value and how it would work operationally, Spengler said. He said it also has been assessing technologies and different approaches for what to do with the network to protect and clear the band. The coalition is also assessing means and methods of doing the market-based transactions, he said.
A satellite executive said industry consensus is unlikely on the C-band clearing plan. The executive said some carriers aren't happy with the proposal and if the spectrum is going to be made available for other purposes, it should be satellite-related. But it's not clear that argument will be advanced in the NPRM cycle since that doesn't necessarily achieve the goals regulators have for freeing up midband spectrum for terrestrial use, we were told. The Satellite Industry Association didn't comment.
The satellite executive said broadcasters and cable will undoubtedly weigh in, repeating concerns they raised in the notice of inquiry phase about being able to guarantee interference-free service on an ongoing basis. NAB, NCTA and the American Cable Association didn't comment. 5G interest responses likely will be varied, since there's some wireless industry support for clearing the band quickly, competitive factors mean different companies argue for different approaches, the executive said, citing T-Mobile -- which already has a lot of midband spectrum -- not enthused about a competitor getting access to 3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum. T-Mobile didn't comment.
The broadcast industry is generally in agreement about protecting broadcast services, but cable operators might be more in disagreement, since big cable operators potentially save money eliminating the cost of satellite distribution of video and going to fiber networks, but small rural cable companies will have more difficulty switching to fiber, said satellite and spectrum consultant Tim Farrar. It's taken for granted that whatever modification costs end users face will be covered, but switching to a different distribution method like fiber is more tenable for a cable company in an urbanized area with lots of fiber access than a small rural operator, he said. Whether satellite non-users of C-band get involved in the FCC proceeding -- once the agency seems pretty determined to reallocate the spectrum -- remains to be seen, he said. Meanwhile, among the wireless carriers, Verizon is in favor of the spectrum being opened up quickly to complement its own millimeter-wave buildout, but AT&T seems already busy enough with FirstNet and in no hurry to focus on a 5G higher-frequency network, he said. T-Mobile might want to angle to lengthen the proceeding, since it won't know if it wants access to the band until it knows if it will have control of Sprint's 2.5 GHz spectrum in the pending T-Mobile/Sprint deal, he said.
One big looming issue is freeing up more than 100 MHz of C-band, Farrar said, since that introduces new difficulties for those relying on C-band reception and how they get compensated and how terrestrial use of the spectrum gets phased in. He said he expects the FCC to opt for a two-phase approach that starts with 100 MHz and also sets up deadlines for freeing up more.
Multiple parties said the FCC ultimately will favor a private market mechanism over an auction, since the shared use of the band would mean years of putting together auction specifics and implementing it. Since fixed satellite service licensees have nonexclusive rights to the 500 MHz, an auction approach would see those companies and their customers "fight all out at the commission and that spells delay with a capital D.”