FCC Gets Lots of Advice, but No Consensus, on Future of 2.5 GHz Band
An incentive auction likely isn't appropriate for the 2.5 GHz band and county-based licensing makes more sense, T-Mobile replied on an NPRM looking at the future of the educational broadband service band (see 1809070048). Merger partner Sprint argued against changes to how the band is treated. Replies were due last week in FCC docket 18-120. Numerous comments posted Monday.
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.
In May, commissioners approved 4-0 an NPRM seeking proposals for changes to the band, including an incentive auction like the one for TV broadcast spectrum (see 1805100053). The Catholic Technology Network and National Educational Broadband Service Association earlier called on the FCC to protect current EBS licensees.
Sprint, long the dominant holder of 2.5 GHz licenses among U.S. carriers, said the current rules are working. “While there have been many stops and starts, the 2.5 GHz band is now a success story after nearly two decades of transition,” Sprint said. The carrier said its own use of the band is “the linchpin” to its planned launch of 5G in nine markets next year. “This deployment would not be possible without the secondary market leasing arrangements and mutually beneficial partnerships that have developed over many years between Sprint and the EBS community,” Sprint said.
T-Mobile said the record shows broad support for a rule change. "While some parties believe the appropriate mechanism would be to add conceptually to what is considered 'educational,' T-Mobile suggests public policy favors a more enduring and simple elimination of the rules," the carrier commented. Incentive auctions make the most sense when the spectrum in question: "(i) is being used for low-value use; (ii) there is sufficient excess spectrum to create a market to determine price equilibrium for high- and low-value uses; and (iii) usage rights are fragmented among disparate owners," T-Mobile said. “EBS spectrum does not conform to these conditions.”
AT&T said an auction of the spectrum seems inevitable. “This proceeding presents a compelling opportunity to promote the rapid deployment of 5G,” AT&T said. “Mid-band spectrum is an important piece of that puzzle.”
The Wireless ISP Association said the FCC should address the rules for the band to make the licenses more useful for broadband and auctioning unassigned 2.5 GHz spectrum. “Opposition to these rule changes comes largely from the current EBS community, which recites hyperbolic fears of a de facto re-allocation of EBS spectrum while generally seeking to preserve the status quo,” WISPA said. “Their arguments miss the point. The Commission is foremost charged with serving the broader public interest in ensuring more efficient and intensive use of the band, not the narrow interest of protecting a single group of educators.”
The FCC should recognize the world has changed since the EBS was created decades ago, the Wireless Communications Association said. “Educational entities simply do not need their own dedicated spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band to ensure that their educational content reaches its desired audience,” the group said. “When it comes to deploying spectrum to close the digital divide and end the homework gap, commercial operators are better positioned than educators to deploy broadband networks in rural areas.”