C-Band Dispute May Delay T-Band Law Repeal, Anti-911 Fee Diversion

Senate Commerce ranking member Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Senate Communications Subcommittee ranking member Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told us they're willing to continue negotiating with Wicker on C-band legislation, but will oppose attaching the current S-2881 language to spending measures. Congress must either pass a package of FY 2020 budget bills or a continuing resolution to extend funding to avert a government shutdown before a current CR expires Friday night. House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., and other appropriators told reporters Thursday they agreed in principle on the 12 funding bills, which are expected to be packaged into two “minibus” measures. A first House vote is expected Tuesday.

“We’re always open to talking, but we need a resolution” on allocating C-band auction proceeds “that doesn’t give away” excessive money to “foreign satellite companies” occupying that spectrum, Cantwell said. The amended S-2881 would institute a graduated scale for allocating auction revenue that would ensure “not less than 50 percent” of the first $40 billion goes to the U.S. Treasury. At least 75 percent of the next $10 billion would go to Treasury, as would at least 90 percent of any revenue beyond that level.

“There’s still plenty of room to make a deal” on C-band language if lawmakers come to a “bipartisan agreement,” but time is running short to address it in a funding package, Schatz said. Wicker “knows he can’t add this in without Democratic approval” in the House and Senate. He and Cantwell were pushing to add in language from their Investing in America’s Digital Infrastructure Act. S-2956 would require “nearly all” C-band auction proceeds be deposited into a Digital Divide Trust Fund (see 1911210056).

House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle, D-Pa., and House Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore., said adding C-band auction rules to end-of-year legislation was far from a certainty, but noted their interest in addressing the T band. Doyle mentioned HR-451 as his preferred language for T-band repeal. Walden noted his continued interest in moving on the issue in tandem with a ban on 911 fee diversion.

House Interests

Lead HR-451 sponsor Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., told us he’s “always ready to listen to new proposals” for advancing the bill’s language. He believes FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s call earlier this month for Congress to rescind the T-band rule (see 1912020063) will help increase momentum in favor of HR-451 because undoing the rule isn’t “something that should be a partisan issue.”

Doyle said it’s important Congress address the T band quickly. There will still be time “when we get back” from the Christmas/New Year’s recess if lawmakers can’t agree on it, C-band language and other issues, he said. “I know in” Doyle’s Pittsburgh-based district, “first responders use T-band for some of their excess capacity and if they had to replace that” as the law mandates “they don’t have the resources,” he said. The federal government “is not going to get much” money from selling the spectrum so “it makes more sense to repeal” the rule. Doyle told C-SPAN it would cost some $250 million for public safety to move off the frequency (see 1912130043).

“We’re not going to leave public safety hanging here” and “we need to act sooner rather than later” given “the auction process has to be started pretty early” in 2020 to meet the 2021 deadline, Walden said. “There’s always been a recognition that [requiring reallocation of the T band] might be a tough sell” once the deadline got closer. “As part of that, we need to address some of these other issues that have been pending,” including how public safety intends to continue using the T band and “what are some of these states and communities doing with their 911 money,” he said. It “really frosts me that communities are collecting money from customers under the guise of 911 and using it for [unrelated] purposes.”

FCC Commissioners Mike O’Rielly and Brendan Carr noted the T-band repeal issue during a news conference after commissioners' Thursday meeting. O’Rielly doesn’t have the same “data” Pai has that led him to support rescinding the law. “I just accept it on faith his points are right,” O’Rielly said. He noted he was a Senate staffer involved in the 2012 spectrum law process. “It’s [a] statutory requirement, I can’t do anything but follow the statute absent someone changing it,” O’Rielly said. Congressional action is ripe on several policy issues “that should be part of a conversation if we’re going to address the T band,” including 911 fee diversion and 4.9 GHz, he said.

“There were some tough compromises, some tough decisions, back and forth to reach the place where Congress landed” on the T-band mandate, Carr said. “We need to be coordinated with congressional leadership as that issue moves forward. I haven’t positioned myself.”

'Whipsawed' Priorities

National Emergency Number Association Government Affairs Director Dan Henry and New America Open Technology Institute's Wireless Future Project Director Michael Calabrese don’t believe there’s a pressing need for Congress to address T-band repeal or 911 fee diversion in end-of-year legislation.

Calabrese and Henry cited the C-band language negotiations and larger political dynamics as majors factors. Those issues, rather than the merits of either public safety telecom issue, will likely have a deciding role in determining whether S-2881 or other language makes it into the minibuses, the experts said.

Democrats are “a bit whipsawed” right now on S-2881, Calabrese said. They’re “under some pressure” to accept the Senate Commerce-cleared bill language “because they would like to see the T-band [mandate] get fixed,” but are also opposed to its auction proceeds allocation formula. The hold Senate Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee Chairman John Kennedy, R-La., placed on S-2881 “could make the difference in the short term” because it means there’s “no reason for House Democrats to compromise,” Calabrese said. “Democrats believe time is on their side,” especially since this won’t be “the last vehicle” available.

NENA is eyeing S-2881 because it includes language from HR-2165 and due to the underlying debate over whether to allocate some C-band auction proceeds for next-generation 911, Henry said. HR-2165 would bar states from engaging in 911 fee diversion and give the FCC power to decide “acceptable” uses for the money. There are “no looming deadlines” that require Congress to address either issue immediately, Henry said. Forward momentum on fee diversion could be difficult because New York and New Jersey, which are identified as the states with the highest incidences of the practice, also have considerable political clout, he said. “You’re not going to find anyone staunchly in favor of fee diversion," Henry said: “If you wipe out” the practice, “that could leave a pretty good-sized hole” in New York and New Jersey budgets, which could lead to “pushback” from those states.