Most Comments Urge FCC to Move Forward on 5G Fund
Smith Bagley Inc. (SBi), which serves tribal lands in the Four Corners region of the U.S., called for a tribal 5G Fund of at least $2.5 billion. Reply comments as the FCC considers a proposed 5G Fund (see 2310240046) were due Tuesday in docket 20-32. Other comments urged the FCC to move forward on a fund.
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.
“SBi’s experience operating on remote Tribal lands, including its inability to extend fiber to towers at any reasonable cost, has laid bare the extraordinary level of support that would be required to meet Congressional objectives to deliver high-quality mobile broadband services to remote Tribal lands across the nation,” the carrier said. SBi said much has changed since the FCC originally considered a fund in 2020 (see 2010270034). “Remote Tribal lands have experienced the full effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which have made evident the need for, and important role played by, mobile broadband in rural America,” the company said. “The digital divide has widened,” fixed wireless access has emerged as a significant part of the market and the Affordable Connectivity Program demonstrated the need to address affordability, SBi said.
“The record reflects consensus on key elements of the 5G Fund proposed in the FNPRM that can maximize 5G coverage in rural and remote areas where Americans live, work, and travel,” CTIA said. “Commenters broadly agree on key factors and processes for identifying areas eligible for 5G Fund support and verifying deployment funded by the program.” The record confirms the wisdom of limiting funds to broadband serviceable locations or areas with roads, including partially unserved areas in coverage and aligning 5G Fund compliance with broadband data collection (BDC) verification, CTIA said.
“It is clear from the record that, in light of the market obstacles to deploying 5G service in rural and high-cost areas, the Commission cannot assume that areas with 4G LTE service are destined to see unsubsidized 5G deployment,” the Competitive Carriers Association said. Funding should be available in all areas that don’t have 5G service today, CCA said: The fund should be “predictable and sufficient” and the FCC should take the time needed “ to receive and review all necessary data before holding the 5G Fund auction to ensure that the 5G Fund best meets its goal of extending connectivity to all places where people live, work, and travel.”
The Rural Wireless Association said its review of comments shows the FCC should “redefine eligible areas as areas where there is a lack of unsubsidized 5G broadband service.” RWA called on the FCC to use 35/3 Mbps as the “5G broadband service benchmark for eligible areas,” utilize in-vehicle coverage data to determine eligible areas, “provide additional clarity before finalizing final eligible areas,” modify the timing of legacy high-cost support phase down and offer “an alternative mechanism of support for legacy high-cost carriers.”
The Coalition of Rural Wireless Carriers urged the FCC to leverage the broadband equity, affordability and deployment (BEAD) program as it awards mobile funding “so that new BEAD-funded fiber can be used to connect towers built with 5G Fund support, and to increase capacity at existing towers currently using microwave backhaul.” The coalition said there has been broad support for that argument: “Scarce public resources must be invested efficiently to expand both fixed and mobile broadband to the greatest extent possible.”
UScellular also emphasized the importance of tying the 5G Fund to the BEAD program. “BEAD-funded fiber projects can be used to more efficiently deploy 5G Fund support, as installed fiber in rural areas becomes available for 5G operators,” UScellular said: “BEAD-funded fixed wireless access projects can deliver mobile broadband, reducing the area within which 5G Fund support is needed.”
The record reflects general agreement on the benefits of open radio access network deployment “and the need to prioritize 5G Fund recipients that commit to utilizing this technology,” Dish Network commented. ORAN “can facilitate technological advancement in rural America, spreading connectivity to underserved populations,” said Dish, which is building a standalone 5G network: “This is especially important in light of the Commission’s goals in administering the 5G Fund and the Administration’s recently released National Spectrum Strategy, which aims to help ‘eliminate coverage gaps and to enable diversity, equity, and inclusion for all Americans, even in hard-to-reach areas, including Tribal Nations, underserved communities, and U.S. territories.’”
But AT&T sounded a note of caution. The commission “cannot justify expending any of its limited USF resources for 5G in areas that may be upgraded to 5G with private investment,” AT&T said. The company “supports prioritizing those areas without 4G LTE and 5G service for the first phase of the 5G Fund, and defining eligible areas based on outdoor stationary” BDC maps “in rural areas that are not 100 percent served.”
The FCC must “recognize Tribal broadband sovereignty, consent, and ownership of spectrum over Tribal lands,” said the National Tribal Telecommunications Association. “These factors can only be considered if the Commission ensures Tribal areas affected by successful 5G Fund bids are subject to meaningful Tribal engagement and consent when the winning bidders are not Tribally-owned,” the group said.