Dish Network is getting more time to meet its AWS-4, lower 700 MHz E block, AWS H block and 600 MHz license construction requirements. An FCC Wireless Bureau order Friday said the license terms for AWS-4, Lower 700 E block and AWS H-block licenses now run through June 14, 2023, and Dish is obligated to provide 5G broadband service over them. It said the license term for Dish's 600 MHz licenses is unchanged from June 14, 2029, but the interim buildout deadline of June 14, 2023, is removed and the final buildout deadline is moved up to June 14, 2025.
Matt Daneman
Matt Daneman, Senior Editor, covers pay TV, cable broadband, satellite, and video issues and the Federal Communications Commission for Communications Daily. He joined Warren Communications in 2015 after more than 15 years at the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, where he covered business among other issues. He also was a correspondent for USA Today. You can follow Daneman on Twitter: @mdaneman
Big cable distributors, with headends staffed 24/7 and often heavy use of fiber instead of C-band satellite downlinks, shouldn't have difficulties with the integrated receiver/decoder (IRD) changes for the C-band repacking. Smaller operators with fewer resources face far bigger challenges. That's what experts told us. There aren't broad expectations of an IRD shortage due to the repack.
Satellite and wireless interests remain at odds over FCC International Bureau guidance for deploying earth stations in bands higher than 24 GHz, in docket 17-172 replies Wednesday. The guidance got satellite opposition and heavy lobbying (see 2008060055). The Satellite Industry Association said there's general agreement the FCC contradicted itself on the definition of roads and on contour guidance: The only voices otherwise "are a small cadre of wireless commenters [using] the Bureau’s inaccurate and unlawful 'guidance' in an effort to impede broadband deployment by competitive satellite operators." Viasat said the guidance's assertion satellite operators have to account for state road determinations when siting earth stations is unlawful and the spectrum frontiers order "left no room for interpretation or need for 'guidance.'” The company said wireless interests "are simply wrong" about Transportation Department regulations, which clearly say it's the federal government, not states, that decides which state roads are treated as highways. Amazon's Kuiper said wireless interests try to brush off the significance of guidance about roadways that earth station contours can't cross, but it's "not a small change" and the approach wireless advocates are backing "would impose a considerable burden that substantially increases the difficulty" for a fixed satellite service trying to find earth station sites. OneWeb backed SIA. Defending the guidance and urging dismissal of SIA's petition, T-Mobile said arguments it goes beyond or contradicts FCC rules ignore the agency's intent and are unreasonable in interpretation of spectrum frontiers decisions. Verizon said no SIA backers identify where the guidance is contrary to rules, instead they focus on not getting more flexibility. Wireless operators have spent billions of dollars on millimeter wave spectrum and satellite operators had the option of buying exclusive use licenses in areas where they planned earth stations, but opted not to bid, it said.
The FCC got suggestions of changes to its broadband mapping and data collection rulemaking approved in July (see 2007160062), in docket 19-195 comments posted Wednesday. USTelecom and the Wireless ISP Association said the FCC shouldn't require providers to supply testing or other latency verification and it should exclude non-mass market business-only services. They said that verification can't happen until the fabric is created and that geocoordinates should become the standard format when evaluating outside data. They said the FCC should end broadband deployment data collection that's part of its Form 477. Connected Nation said the FCC should either collect speed information below 25/3 Mbps in three speed tiers or the baseline should be reporting at 3 Mbps/768 kbps with two speed tiers, and should collect round-trip latency information, defining the points on the network between which latency is measured. The Competitive Carriers Association said a standard way of reporting signal strength has benefits, but mobile operators look at a wide variety of variables that influence a link budget. CCA said the agency should provide guidance on in-vehicle penetration on a per-frequency basis and make sure verification procedures aren't a sizable burden. AT&T said providers shouldn't have to submit “business-only” broadband service availability data, but all carriers should have to identify the latency capability of fixed broadband service. It backed requiring service technologies to certify to the same latency threshold but said there's a need to differentiate among technologies with higher latency standards. The Broadband Data Act doesn't require changing the broadband data the commission collects from satellite providers because what the agency gets now is accurate, nor is latency information needed, Hughes said. If the FCC decides it wants additional latency information, all providers should report whether their service offerings fall above or below a certain threshold, Hughes said. Incompas said when the FCC refers to its facilities-based definition for broadband providers that must file polygons, it should use a different definition of facilities-based provider, or it will end up with results overstating availability. Next Century Cities urged collecting additional location-specific speed and pricing data. WTA said the approach to defining locations should differ for broadband mapping and Connect America Fund buildout purposes. CTIA's petition for reconsideration said the FCC should look again at its disparate treatment of link budget information of mobile and fixed wireless providers, and at its requiring modeling of in-vehicle usage coverage in addition to outdoor stationary coverage for each mobile wireless technology.
Mangata Networks' ask for U.S. market access for its planned 791-satellite non-geostationary orbit constellation (see 2005270010) got opposition from some NGSO operators. O3b's petition to deny Tuesday with the FCC International Bureau said the plans would create harmful interference with O3b's Ka-band NGSO network, and the company didn't justify its request for waiving processing round rules. It said if it doesn't deny Mangata's application, it should condition approval on its protecting O3b's operations. Iridium's petition to deny Mangata's request for use of NGSO mobile satellite service (MSS) feeder-link bands said a waiver would allow use contrary to the FCC's band plan. It said at minimum, the FCC should limit use of NGSO MSS feeder-link bands to MSS feeder links. It said MSS feeder-link access should be conditioned on coordination with Iridium and on using feeder links solely to support MSS-licensed terminals. Kuiper said Mangata's ask for waiver of band-splitting requirements would create uncertainty for other NGSO operators, and Mangata needs to submit more information. Telesat said since Mangata's petition came after the initial Ka-/Ku-band processing round, it should be considered in the subsequent Ku-/Ka-band processing round, and any approval should be conditioned on protecting systems authorized in the initial processing round. It said parties should get an opportunity to comment on Mangata's proposed V-band usage when a new V-band processing round starts. Boeing said it doesn't object to the petition, but the FCC should start a new processing round for NGSO systems that would operate in parts of the V band. The manufacturer said applications like Mangata's alter the established sharing environment among NGSO systems, which was set up by the 2017 V-band processing round. Mangata didn't comment Wednesday.
Claims that a stay of the C-band lump sum election deadline could jeopardize the timing of the band's auction are "fanciful" as bidders face much bigger uncertainties than the lump sum elections, ACA Connects told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a reply Monday (docket 20-1327, in Pacer). ACA said excluding integrated receiver/decoder costs from the lump sum amount is "illogical." Its filing was in response to oppositions from the FCC and others to its proposed stay. The FCC, in its opposition Friday to the petition for writ of mandamus, said ACA's stay is about getting a larger lump sum reimbursement amount to pay for replacing satellite distribution via the C band with fiber, but the lump sum isn't supposed to "provide a windfall" or cover fiber costs. Intelsat, SES and content companies Discover, Disney, Fox and ViacomCBS said a delay in the lump sum election could mean uncertainty and delays that "impair the ongoing planning, purchasing, and work necessary to carry out the C-Band transition on the FCC’s tight schedule." Also opposing ACA's stay were AT&T, Verizon and CTIA.
The draft order on circulation revising who pays to move toll-free traffic and who gets paid (see here) hews fairly closely in many areas to the USTelecom consensus proposal (see 2006080002), FCC and industry officials and representatives said in interviews last week. Agency and company representatives said it's unlikely to be voted out soon because it's not a high-priority item. The regulator didn't comment Friday.
Cable ISP interests like NCTA's pole attachment declaratory ruling petition (see 2007170023), while telecom, localities and utilities interests are more mixed, judging by docket 17-84 comments last week. The petition "confirms what the Commission already knows ...: utilities often charge unjust and unreasonable pole replacement fees" that impede network deployment, ACA Connects said. It urged codifying policies including that a utility can't assess pole replacement fees if there isn't "insufficient capacity" on an existing pole. Charter Communications said despite being told make-ready charges must reflect just the costs caused by an attachment, pole owners "frequently leverage their superior bargaining position" to make an attacher seeking access buy a new pole and pay for installation. Altice said it has run into high make-ready fees for replacements, and the FCC needs to clarify that pole owners must share in the cost of replacements in unserved areas. It applauded expedited processing of pole attachment complaints for unserved areas. Calling the petition "anti competitive, misleading and ill-informed," the Coalition of Concerned Utilities said electric utility pole owners often voluntarily replace poles and add capacity. NCTA's petition would require they pay for these capacity expansions and obligate them to expand rapidly, even at the expense of safety and reliability, the coalition said. The Edison Electric Institute, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and Utilities Technology Council said the FCC has acknowledged that leaving pole owners with unrecoverable costs would create a disincentive for utilities to build taller poles or replace poles. Next Century Cities said the digital divide won't be closed more quickly by cutting local government authority to determine the cost of replacing poles, with the FCC sole arbiter. Putting attachment complaints on an accelerated docket is a problem for municipalities now, as they lack time and resources to adequately respond that quickly, it said. AT&T said NCTA's push that it's unjust in unserved areas for a pole owner to make a new attacher pay for all the replacement costs is an attempt to change rules. Rules also let access disputes be eligible for an accelerated docket, it said. USTelecom said the issues raised in the petition are better off as part of a rulemaking, adding that cable has been successfully building out networks to new locations. The Wireless Infrastructure Association backed the petition, saying pole owners should share in replacement costs everywhere, not just unserved areas.
Handfuls of broadcasters and cable operators whose C-band earth stations antennas aren't on the FCC's incumbents list are petitioning the agency to rethink . We're told the commission has indicated it might provide some relief. The FCC didn't comment. Unclear is whether the recon petitions, if denied, will be followed with a court challenge.
Amazon's call for the FCC to update non-geostationary orbit fixed satellite service license modification processing round policies (see 2007100023) has some general backing, but its specific proposals have none. That's per RM-11861 replies posted Wednesday. Viasat said the issues raised point to the need for an omnibus NGSO FSS proceeding that also tackles the need to limit band-splitting events driven by mega constellations and to restrain the size of constellations. It argued against replacing the FCC's more holistic standard for assessing aggregate impact of a proposed modification with one that looks at particular contributors to predicted interference. Amazon's Kuiper said that current standard doesn't tell NGSO FSS operators how to evaluate a proposed modification impact, which is why the FCC should undertake a rulemaking based on its proposals. OneWeb said the record shows lack of support for Amazon's proposals, but there isn't backing for SpaceX's proposals unrelated to reviewing modification applications. It said the FCC should look further at the cumulative effects of modification applications. The petition "is just the latest in Amazon’s continuing efforts to bend ... well-crafted regulations to stifle competitors that filed timely applications in previous NGSO processing rounds," SpaceX said. Even operators that support a new look at the license modification processing round rules don't support Amazon's proposals, it said. A case-by-case evaluation of proposed modifications' interference impact gives satellite operators needed flexibility that Amazon's proposed approach lacks, Telesat said.