Next Steps Unclear for FCC After Offshore Spectrum NOI
The FCC likely gained some useful insights through its notice of inquiry on offshore spectrum, but industry officials said they don’t expect a quick turnaround from the FCC on rulemakings or further steps in the proceeding. The FCC logged 22 initial comments (see 2207280032) and 12 replies, posted last week in docket 22-204 (see 2208290038). Most agreed there are steps the agency can take, but there was little consensus on what to do next.
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.
“It takes time for the FCC to work through all the comments on anything like this, and nothing is easy with a 2-2 FCC,” said a lawyer who represents clients with offshore interests. Industry observers note there have been no major follow-up notices or orders more than 15 months after the FCC launched a similarly broad inquiry on open radio access networks (see 2108270039).
“It’s a simple next step, creating an NPRM, and could be addressed at an open meeting with great fanfare,” said a lawyer who represents carriers.
“It does seem as though the direction is still unclear,” said ITIF Broadband and Spectrum Policy Director Joe Kane. Many offshore applications appear to be “good candidates” for the “smaller, private networks that are often pitched as a major use case for 5G,” he said: “There could be interest there from oil rigs, windfarms, and shipping companies. It would also be a good opportunity to experiment with some of the ideas in the receiver standards NOI.” Kane said testing mechanisms like harm-claim thresholds “in areas that are inherently less crowded than major cities could get the commission some experience with new interference management mechanisms in a relatively low-stakes environment.”
The FCC likely won’t move “too quickly,” predicted American Action Forum Technology and Innovation Policy Director Jeffrey Westling. With lots of operators offshore, the commission “will want to ensure they’re protected from any changes to the rules,” he said. “The easiest initial step would be clarifications regarding existing rules, especially regarding what constitutes offshore and how far terrestrial licenses extend as not all states have the same county boundary definitions,” Westling said: “With demand increasing for offshore operations, the commission will have quite a few different proposals and considerations to evaluate, so I suspect this NOI will more or less get the conversation going, rather than directly leading to an immediate major policy change."
The NOI “will help the commission gain a firmer grasp as to whether there is untapped potential for commercial and other private uses of that spectrum in the near future,” said Seth Cooper, Free State Foundation director-policy studies. “The proceeding may provide the commission with usable knowledge about ways it might be able to promote greater efficiency and increased usage of offshore spectrum by updating agency rules and policies,” he said.
The NOI is “part of a continuing effort to update spectrum rules to reflect changes in technology,” emailed Harold Feld, Public Knowledge senior vice president: “There have long been issues for offshore platforms and ships operating at distance that could operate on frequencies allocated to other services on land, or at higher power than allocated, without causing any interference. These are potentially useful for industry and shipping as we start expanding things like wind farms, offshore mining, and other new technologies.”
Procedures that simplify spectrum use offshore, “or take advantage of the fact that these users are potentially miles away from any other spectrum user, are worth doing,” Feld said. The FCC could also use the proceeding to promote cognitive radio, he said. “We've been talking about having different rules based on different environments (like rules allowing higher power in rural areas) for over a decade, but progress has been slow. Incumbents should be less worried about interference if we're talking about spectrum use miles out to sea,” he said.
Michael Calabrese, director of the Wireless Future Program at New America, said he considered filing a proposal at the FCC as part of the proceeding. “In most offshore locations, unlicensed and other open access spectrum should meet the needs of even the largest facilities,” he said: “To the extent it does not, the commission could easily provide for a streamlined waiver process that allows offshore facilities to use any licensed band not in use at that location.” The agency similarly approved more than 200 waivers at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic authorizing wireless ISPs to use licensed but vacant 5.9 GHz spectrum to expand capacity, he noted. “That could be a no-harm, no-foul solution,” he said.