Carriers Back Next Steps on Offshore Spectrum but Urge Caution
The FCC got its first formal read on what steps industry thinks should come next on regulations and policy for offshore spectrum, with initial comments due Wednesday on a notice of inquiry commissioners approved 4-0 in June (see 2206080055). The consensus appeared to be that the FCC should move forward on the next steps, but carriers urged the agency to do so with caution. Most comments were posted Thursday in docket 22-204. Industry had to little say on the record when the NOI was before commissioners.
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.
“One might assume from the NOI that the Commission has undertaken only minimal steps to enable wireless access offshore,” AT&T said: “In fact, through its adoption of rules for, and issuance of licenses in, geographically licensed commercial mobile services, the Commission has already made available a significant amount of licensed spectrum in offshore areas.” AT&T cited at least 10 bands available in the Gulf of Mexico. “Because wireless consumers already benefit from and rely on offshore wireless connectivity, the Commission should proceed with caution to ensure that existing uses are not disrupted or degraded,” AT&T said.
“To support the wide variety of use cases that rely on spectrum both onshore and offshore, the Commission should seek to make as much spectrum available as possible offshore on a licensed, geographic-area basis, as it does onshore,” T-Mobile urged. The FCC should confirm that providers “are authorized to use spectrum for which they are licensed onshore in coastal areas as far offshore as United States authority extends” and license “any spectrum that remains unlicensed in the Gulf of Mexico,” the carrier said.
Verizon noted that it already provides connections offshore using current licenses along coastal areas, on the Great Lakes and throughout other internal waters and inland waterways. All stakeholders would be “aided by greater clarity related to the offshore boundaries of U.S. jurisdiction, including U.S. Exclusive Economic Zones and U.S. treaty obligations relevant to assigning spectrum for offshore operations,” Verizon said.
CTIA said it generally supports FCC efforts “to identify additional spectrum assets, particularly for new and innovative uses.” The agency “should ensure that, as it considers offshore uses in this proceeding, it appropriately defines the boundaries of ‘offshore’ use and maintains protections for incumbent services near coastal areas," CTIA said.
Wind Farms
Dominion Energy said more spectrum is needed for communications with a wind farm it’s building, extending 50 miles into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Virginia. During an emergency “having clear, efficient, and reliable communications without interference can be the difference between life and death,” Dominion said. The utility expects to “utilize various spectrum options to support numerous operations and technologies at its windfarm facilities, such as drones, augmented reality/virtual reality, communications to ships and entities on shore and communication capability between its offshore substations, tracking and monitoring, and other operations.”
Nokia urged the FCC to move quickly to an NPRM. A number of “pending energy projects, including wind energy projects off the East Coast of the United States … require offshore spectrum outside current boundaries for commercial terrestrial mobile licenses,” Nokia said. The company proposed modeling rules on a framework devised in the U.K. “for spectrum outside currently licensed geographies,” which “permits access to a broad range of commercial mobile bands based on industry frequency coordination on a non-interference basis.”
The Enterprise Wireless Alliance said its members, including electric utilities, require exclusively licensed spectrum. “There is too great a potential for interference in a license-by-rule or ‘licensed light’ model to satisfy their operational and oftentimes legally mandated responsibilities,” EWA said: “They must have the ability to own or lease spectrum that can deliver the high degree of reliability and resiliency required for work that has only the very smallest tolerance for error.”
Don’t discount the role unlicensed spectrum can play offshore, the Wi-Fi Alliance said: “Unlicensed devices on ships that employ Wi-Fi already support short-range communications between two or more stations. But at higher data rates, these devices can enable an array of applications such as structural and environmental high-data rate sensing, video monitoring, navigation, telehealth, inventory tracking and many more.”
EchoStar complained that the NOI was focused on terrestrial networks. EchoStar urged the commission to “affirm the importance of offshore satellite networks, as well as consider technologically inclusive options to protect and facilitate deployment of these networks.” FirstNet asked that the spectrum assigned to its network be reserved for its use offshore.
“Because the distance from shore is prohibitive to the use of commercial mobile networks … private LTE networks will play a significant role in the future of offshore wind communications,” advised Orsted Wind Power North America, which develops wind farms. Allocation of spectrum in the 450 MHz band “could help drive innovation,” the company said: Private channels “are always preferred over public channels from an operational perspective.” Anterix said the FCC should “expand the definition of 900 MHz broadband geographic licenses in coastal counties to include offshore windfarms, oil and gas platforms, and other industrial uses that might develop.”