Hill Action on T-Band Mandate Repeal Seen Delayed

Any repeal language Congress enacts is likely to closely mirror the House Commerce Committee-cleared Don’t Break Up the T-Band Act (HR-451), Capitol Hill officials and lobbyists said. The committee-approved version also addresses state-level 911 fee diversion (see 2007150068). “That language has been worked out with interested Senate members as well, so hopefully it will be able to pass into law by the end of this year,” a House Commerce GOP aide said.

Many supporters believe COVID-19 aid legislation may no longer be the best vehicle because of the diminishing chances of the Hill and President Donald Trump’s administration reaching a consensus on the next bill (see 2009100046). The House-passed Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (Heroes) Act (HR-6800) included HR-451’s text (see 2005130059). No similar language made it into recent Senate proposals.

The FY 2021 appropriations process is likely to be a far easier way to enact T-band repeal but would have to wait until after the November election, lobbyists said. The House passed its FY 2021 FCC budget bill in July (see 2007310053) as part of an omnibus appropriations measure (HR-7617). The Senate hasn't done the same. HR-7617 didn’t include T-band language.

A tentative deal between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin appears likely to smooth the way for Congress to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government after Sept. 30, but there’s pressure for a “clean” measure that won’t be used as a legislative vehicle, lobbyists said. It will likely be easier for walk-back supporters to attach HR-451’s language to any additional CR enacted after the election or a final appropriations package, lobbyists said.

Enterprise Wireless Alliance President Mark Crosby believes any “must-pass” measure can be a viable vehicle for enacting T-band mandate repeal, though he favored attaching it to the next COVID-19 bill (see 2008270060). “It’s got to be appended to something,” but until recently, pandemic aid legislation was “one of the best opportunities” to end what he called a long-standing “debacle.”

“The hope was it would ride on” COVID-19 legislation, “but that train doesn’t seem to be leaving the station,” said New America’s Open Technology Institute Wireless Future Project Director Michael Calabrese. “The most likely resolution will be the lame-duck budget because it’ll be a money bill that can mop up a lot of” outstanding issues.

As of Friday, the 19th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, “public safety communications issues including the T-Band are still not resolved,” said the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council. “Time is running out in Congress to make the repeal happen,” NPSTC said. “We don't believe that a standalone bill is likely to be successful and it will have to be part of a bigger package. Public safety is still engaged and is united on the need to repeal the T-Band requirement. Also, while the FCC is legally obligated to start an auction in February 2021, it is unclear what they may bring. For sure, the current FCC commissioners do not appear to be in favor of this auction.”

'Zero Interest'

“There is zero interest” from the wireless industry in a T-band auction, said Shulman Rogers’ Alan Tilles. “There won't be sufficient funds to relocate public safety agencies” and “no one has identified where these systems could go,” he said. “All of these” issues are “things we've been saying since 2012.”

The FCC TV incentive auction “provided a great opportunity to acquire low-band spectrum and only one of the nationwide carriers showed up,” said BitPath Chief Operating Officer Sasha Javid. “Carriers are now focused on mid-band spectrum for their 5G networks.” The T band faces “numerous challenges such as lack of availability nationwide, a likely lengthy clearing process of public safety incumbents … and antenna form factor issues which will keep interest tepid,” he said: “Congress really needs to act" so the FCC "can focus their limited resources on other spectrum bands.”

The three major carriers, cable operators and Dish Network “have interest in spectrum that meets specific, though different, needs in terms of timing, geography, channel size, band location,” said New Street’s Blair Levin. “As far as I can tell, the T band does not address the needs of any of the potential users along that spectrum of needs.” This band is not large enough for "proper 5G,” emailed Recon Analytics’ Roger Entner: “For 5G to properly work it needs 20 MHz or 100 MHz channels, not 6 MHz channels, and on a nationwide basis.”

T-Mobile, Verizon and others delineated why there's little interest in the T band for 5G in recent comments in docket 13-42. Los Angeles County pegged the cost of moving incumbents at $5.9 billion or more (see 2009010023). “The Commission’s proposals, which T-Mobile recognizes merely implement what is required by the Spectrum Act, will not provide any meaningful benefits to commercial wireless service providers,” the carrier said. The spectrum would be offered in 6 MHz blocks, with the most available 18 MHz in two markets -- New York and Los Angeles. The band would be available in only 11 major urban areas, “with a limited” 80-mile radius and use would be complicated by nonpublic safety incumbents not required to clear out, T-Mobile said.

“The spectrum holds little value for commercial wireless services due to the lack of nationwide availability,” Verizon said. “Channel 14 is only available in seven of the markets while the B through G 6-MHz segments are available in six or fewer,” commented public safety consultant Andrew Seybold: “While the FCC’s NPRM provides information about potential interference from existing TV stations located on these channels outside the 80-mile radius, it is common knowledge that as TV repacking reaches completion, the number of interference complaints from existing public-safety T-Band users has escalated dramatically.”