Vote on CBRS Rules Seen Likely at October FCC Meeting
A long-awaited FCC order on changes to rules for the citizens broadband radio service band is unlikely for the Sept. 26 commissioners’ meeting, but should get a vote at the Oct. 23 meeting, said industry officials active in the 3.5 GHz proceeding. FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly said in early July he started to share his long-awaited proposal for the band with Chairman Ajit Pai (see Notebook section at end of 1807120033).
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.
O’Rielly has said repeatedly he won’t commit to licenses as small as census tracts for the priority access licenses (PALs) that will comprise one tier of the band, as supported by wireless ISPs, some big industrial players and others. He questioned whether the FCC can auction half a million PALs with its software (see 1807250055).
Staff is saying a vote is likely at the Oct. 23 meeting, probably paired with the NPRM on unlicensed use of the 6 GHz band, said a supporter of small geographic licenses for the PALs: “Pai will probably want to pair them to blunt some of the criticism if the CBRS changes effectively exclude every other industry except mobile carriers from acquiring PAL spectrum.” The FCC didn't comment.
The Wireless ISP Association was “heartened” that the Connect America Fund II auction, “with its tens of thousands of geographic areas auctioned, went very smoothly,” said President Claude Aiken. “Now the question is whether the FCC is willing to multiply the ability of the CAF winners to serve even more rural and small-town Americans through smart spectrum policy, specifically through balanced approaches on CBRS and 3.7-4.2 GHz.”
Changes sought by large carriers “would mean less participation in the auction, less auction revenue, less competition, and less deployment of broadband services to the 24 million Americans who still lack basic fixed broadband service in their homes and businesses,” Aiken told us. “A mix of license sizes would be doable, widely supported, the fast road to 5G.”
O’Rielly “has tried to find an agreement out there on geographic market size and, frankly, the agreement he is looking for doesn’t exist,” said Phillip Berenbroick, senior policy counsel at Public Knowledge. “There’s no deal to be had where you can split the baby on this.” The FCC “has to choose whether the goal of CBRS is to be a band that is going to be viable for rural broadband deployment, promote competition with rural wireless players who can afford the license sizes that will be offered and create a marketplace for innovative industrial IoT uses,” Berenbroik said.
A September vote would be tough, but October is “more likely,” said Kalpak Gude, president of the Dynamic Spectrum Alliance. “There are five constituencies at issue -- mobile, cable, rural, industrial and corporate,” which includes hotels, campuses and stadiums, he said. “Large PALs really only benefit mobile.”
The Competitive Carriers Association “continues to encourage the FCC to promptly move forward with the 3.5 GHz proceeding to ensure all stakeholders can deploy next-generation technologies in an efficient and expeditious manner,” a spokesperson said. “We look forward to continued work with policymakers and industry to achieve this mutual goal, and to reviewing the FCC’s proposals to facilitate access to additional 3.5 GHz resources.” CTIA declined to comment.
Network architect and free-market blogger Richard Bennett said the FCC should completely rewrite the rules for the band. “CBRS is a mistake that takes valuable mid-band spectrum off the table,” he said. “The FCC’s challenge is to unwind this Rube Goldberg scheme as expeditiously as possible.”
Midcontinent Communications, which serves five states in the Upper Midwest, told the FCC last week in docket 12-354 it supports small PALs. The cable ISP noted it recently bought InvisiMax, a fixed-wireless provider, to serve customers “where the topography or economics make a fiber build impossible.” The band is “incredibly useful” for fixed wireless, Midcontinent said.