Commenters Like Enhanced Competition Proposal but Urge Tweaks

OTI and PK urged a more “holistic” approach with “carrots and sticks” licensing conditions requiring providers to use spectrum or share it with others. “The proposed incentives are likely inadequate to prompt most large providers to partition or lease excess and unused spectrum to smaller carriers rather than simply hoarding it as many have done for decades,” they said. Adopt “a proactive approach to catalyze spectrum use in areas licensees have not deployed service through ‘use it or share it’ rules,” OTI and PK said: “Through such rules, competitive providers, community anchor institutions, and other entities seeking to improve broadband access in unserved and underserved areas such as local governments could -- through an automated spectrum database coordinator -- utilize spectrum in areas where a licensee has failed to deploy service.”

CTIA applauded the proposal but wants changes. The rules should “expressly” permit licensees to “reaggregate partitioned and/or disaggregated portions of a license, up to the original size of the license,” CTIA said. They should prioritize “exclusive-use licenses” without “use or share” rules, the wireless association said: Adopt “flexible alternative performance requirements that are realistic and recognize the unique needs of the covered geographic area” and don’t mandate technologies like the use of open radio access networks.

The FCC shouldn’t “require use of specific technology platforms,” T-Mobile agreed. It urged the agency to seek comment on “alternatives to population-based performance requirements for flexible-use licensees.” The carrier “supports the Commission’s effort to adopt rigorous performance requirements” but warned against “unrealistic performance requirements,” which could “chill the secondary market and undermine the Commission’s goal of promoting efficient reallocation through partitioning and disaggregation.”

The Rural Wireless Association also pressed for changes to the approach in the FNPRM. The FCC shouldn’t “allow ECIP benefits to participants in a transaction involving any degree of affiliation,” the group said. Rather than requiring a provider to use a percentage of spectrum acquired, it should focus on the MHz used, RWA said. The group also urged “use it or lose it” provisions.

Expand the definition of “covered small carrier” to include non-common carriers, the Wireless ISP Association said: “The Commission has ample statutory authority to do so and applying the rules more broadly would be consistent with Congressional objectives.” WISPA also sought “targeted benefits to ECIP participants” and rules designed to “prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the ECIP.”

“Fixed-wireless connectivity gets broadband to people fast and cost-effectively,” emailed Louis Peraertz, WISPA vice president-policy: “Small, broadband-only providers play an important role in this picture, especially in rural areas. But the cost of spectrum and other disincentives challenge that growth.” The ECIP should “make spectrum more accessible to small, rural ISPs,” he said.

ORAN company Mavenir said the rules should do more to encourage the use of open networks. Mavenir asked the FCC to use “its discretion to designate ECIP transaction-eligible entities to also include those that deploy Open RAN.”

The Satellite Industry Association also sought tweaks. “Condition the grant of any new Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service license on the licensee accepting the deployment of a certain number of additional satellite earth stations in its service area,” SIA said: “Doing so would further the public interest by increasing competition in the broadband and satellite industry and enabling more intensive use of shared frequency bands where current FCC rules artificially and inefficiently constrain deployment of earth stations.”