FCC Proposals for Further Changes to Competition Rules Get Broad Support
The Wireless ISP Association asked the FCC to expand the new enhanced competition incentive program (ECIP) to include WISPs and other providers not classified as common carriers, in comments posted through Friday in docket 19-38. Commissioners approved the program in July (see 2207140055), and the rules formally took effect Thursday, but commissioners also asked follow-up questions in a Further NPRM. The order was approved in response to provisions in the Mobile Now Act, which became law in 2018 (see 2203310036).
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.
The FNPRM sought comment on whether expanding the ECIP could further Congress’s goals of enhancing wireless competition and on “creating alternatives to population-based performance requirements for wireless radio service (WRS) stakeholders with communications plans and business models not specifically targeted towards providing commercial wireless service to subscribers.” Comments were due Thursday.
Based on comments already filed in the proceeding, “WISPA submits that the current record in this proceeding has been sufficiently developed to support a determination that the Commission can and should extend the additional incentives of the small carrier prong of the ECIP program to non-common carriers,” the group said. The “overall intent” of the Mobile Now Act “as evidenced by two separate Senate Reports accompanying the legislation that was introduced in two sessions of Congress -- demonstrates that Congress intended the Commission to more broadly develop secondary market initiatives to advance the goals of fostering the availability of advanced telecommunications services,” WISPA said.
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association backed WISPA’s calls for expansion, noting more than 200 of its members are also interested in offering broadband to their customers. “Requiring small carriers to provide common carrier services to participate in ECIP limits the effectiveness of the program to promote non-common carrier services such as broadband Internet access,” NRECA said: “Given that the purpose of the MOBILE NOW Act, from which the ECIP receives its authority, is to expand opportunities for broadband, it is incongruous to limit small carrier participation to common carrier providers.”
Other comments focused on proposals in the FNPRM for alternative performance requirements and renewal standards for WRS licensees.
The FCC should “carefully explore ideas for innovative and flexible alternative construction requirements and renewal standards that incorporate a variety of metrics that account for the unique challenges of providing service in rural and remote areas and provide increased incentives for investment,” CTIA said: “Apply any new, flexible alternative construction requirements and renewal standards to all WRS licensees -- not just those licensees providing private, internal communications.” CTIA said, “Eliminating regulatory barriers and creating incentives for providers to make the most efficient use of their spectrum can facilitate increased access to unused spectrum and encourage secondary market transactions consistent with the mission of the ECIP” and lead to more deployments in rural areas.
“Rural and remote areas often include challenging terrain, are subject to harsh weather conditions, and suffer from a number of other factors that make it difficult to provide service to large geographic areas or cover populations that are spread out across large areas of land,” CTIA said.
Alternate Approaches
The Enterprise Wireless Alliance said the FNPRM rightly recognizes that “population-centric metrics do not necessarily align with the coverage area needed by a private enterprise entity.” A demand-based approach “would allow an entity proposing to use spectrum for private internal communications to define the area within a geographic authorization in which it needs coverage and protection from interference” and is “preferable to the current predetermined criteria, as it allows the private entity to define its coverage obligation by building out from the area in which it intends to operate,” EWA said.
EWA also supports an alternate “use or offer-to-share approach.” That approach wouldn’t lead to spectrum warehousing, an FCC concern, the group said: “Private entities paying for spectrum, whether buying it from the FCC or in the secondary market, have no motivation to purchase more bandwidth or geography than they need. To the extent their license areas exceed their operating requirements, it is because they were unable to buy geographic packages of the optimal size.”
Anterix urged the FCC to adopt both alternate approaches proposed in the FNPRM. “Private users of all types desire broadband capabilities but sometimes are deterred from pursuing broadband spectrum because they are not confident they can comply with performance and renewal criteria designed for commercial broadband networks,” the company said. Anterix said companies building private networks don’t consider spectrum licenses an opportunity for turning a profit: “Private entities engaged in their myriad activities, and not in the provision of commercial service to the public, do not acquire spectrum for investment purposes with an expectation that its value will increase over time.”