Spectrum

I think it’s time for a National Broadband Map that offers an honest picture of wired and wireless broadband across the country. Too often the Federal Communications Commission cobbles together data for each individual rulemaking and report without a comprehensive and updated snapshot of where service is and is not. We can build this map in Washington, but it would be great if we had a clearer picture on the ground. I’m a big believer in the wisdom of crowds, so I think we should put it to the public. If you’ve not been able to get service, or live in an area that lacks it, help us make a map and write me at broadbandfail@fcc.gov. I’ve set this account up to take in your ideas. I will share every one of them with the agency Chairman—and put on pressure to do something about it.

For decades, the FCC has led the world with its auction models for the distribution of spectrum licenses. We’ve made a lot of progress powering the mobile devices that so many of us rely on every day. But take a drive along some rural roads and you will know there is room for improvement. It’s one reason why the AIRWAVES Act from Sen Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Sen Cory Gardner (R-CO) is so important. It helps identify more licensed and unlicensed spectrum that can be brought to market to improve wireless broadband. On top of that, it sets up a fund whereby auction revenues will help support wireless broadband infrastructure in rural America. It’s the kind of creative effort that would in time lead to more coverage on a broadband map and also help bridge the Homework Gap.

I’ve been asked to talk about where we are with spectrum policy in the United States, and what lies ahead. Federal Communications Commission. Chairman Pai has two overarching goals at the top of the Commission’s wireless agenda. First, we want to unleash spectrum to meet growing consumer demand and enable new waves of wireless innovations that will grow our economy and improve the standard of living for the American people. The second key goal of our wireless agenda is harnessing the power of spectrum to help bridge the digital divide.

One foundational principle is flexible use for wireless spectrum. Instead of mandating that a particular spectrum band be used with a specific type of wireless technology, the government should leave that choice to the private sector, which has a much better sense of consumer demand. The Commission has a role to play in crafting light-touch regulatory frameworks, with clear and technology-neutral rules. Basically, we want to put spectrum into the marketplace and then let the market and innovators go to work. Flexible use for spectrum is a proven practice. For decades, it has enabled wireless networks in the U.S. to evolve with technology and to do so much more quickly than if operators had to obtain government sign-off each step of the way. Another principle is our commitment to continue to identify possibilities to put airwaves to more efficient use. Chairman Pai believes we need an all-of-the-above approach to this spectrum endeavor, looking at low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum.

Next generation systems will capitalize on both new and existing licensed and unlicensed networks, utilizing low-, mid- and high-band spectrum, including millimeter wave frequencies. Today, I will discuss how the Commission plans to make these raw materials available.

As the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, I have a special interest in the progress that was made in communications and technology policy during the Reagan Administration. It was an executive order signed by President Reagan that first made the Pentagon’s Global Positioning (GPS) system available for civilian use. FCC Chairmen who served during the Reagan Administration were incredible leaders and visionaries. Mark Fowler and Dennis Patrick each did a fantastic job leading the agency. They moved aggressively to eliminate unnecessary rules and implement President Reagan’s deregulatory philosophy. They set a high bar for those who came after them—and I strive for that bar every day.

The Reagan FCC eliminated the so-called Fairness Doctrine. This misnamed government dictate suppressed the discussion of controversial issues on our nation’s airwaves and was an affront to the First Amendment. The Reagan FCC also built the political foundation for auctioning licenses to spectrum—a free-market innovation blasted back then and widely accepted today. The Reagan FCC introduced “price cap” regulation, reducing government’s role in micromanaging profits and increasing consumer welfare. And the Reagan FCC set the stage for much of the innovation that we see today. In 1985, for example, it had the foresight to set aside what were generally thought to be “junk” airwaves for anybody to use—what we call “unlicensed” spectrum. And entrepreneurs put it to work. Thanks to the FCC’s vision, we now use unlicensed services every day, every time we access Wi-Fi or use Bluetooth or check a baby monitor. Consider this 1985 quote from Mark Fowler, President Reagan’s first FCC Chairman—a quote that applies today: “We want to eliminate, as much as we can, government regulation of the telecommunications marketplace so as to permit present players to provide new and innovative services to consumers and likewise permit new players to come in and compete.” That’s basically our approach today.

Global Harmonization & US Leadership in Wireless Technologies. While some in this country may eschew global harmonization, and I understand that our market position means we have the option of going it alone or in coordination with a handful of other countries, offering commercial services on the same frequencies around the world has many benefits for US consumers and providers. On the consumer side, there is the ability to use your devices and have the same wireless experience at home and abroad. At the same time, the economies of scale created by marketing products internationally enables research, development, and manufacturing costs to be widely dispersed, promoting investment and innovation while reducing the cost of devices and services for Americans.

The Federal Communications Commission will vote later in Oct to explore rule changes for the 3550-3700 MHz spectrum band, known as the CBRS band, including the possibility of larger license areas for longer time periods. According to supporters, CBRS spectrum rule changes would facilitate the deployment of 5G services. But such rule changes could make it more difficult for rural carriers to obtain licenses to support fixed broadband wireless service in remote areas where high costs have prevented the deployment of traditional wired broadband infrastructure.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai announced that the following items are tentatively on the agenda for the October Open Commission Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 24, 2017:

Support for Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands – The Commission will consider an Order to clarify the use of high-cost universal service support and permit forward funding of support to aid in reconstruction of telecommunications networks damaged by Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. (WC Docket No. 10-90)

Exemption to Calling Number Identification Service – The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would enable law enforcement and security personnel to obtain quick access to blocked Caller ID information needed to investigate threatening calls. It also would amend the Commission’s rules to allow non-public emergency services, such as private ambulance companies, to obtain blocked Caller ID information associated with calls requesting assistance. (CC Docket No. 91-281)

Nationwide Number Portability – The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry that proposes to amend the Commission’s rules as well as seeks comment on industry models to move toward complete nationwide number portability to promote competition between all service providers and increase network routing efficiencies. (WC Docket No. 17-244; WC Docket No. 13-97)

Promoting Investment in the 3550-3700 MHz Band – The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would seek comment and propose changes to the Priority Access License rules in the 3550-3700 MHz (3.5 GHz) band to increase incentives for investment, encourage more efficient spectrum use, and promote faster and more widespread network deployments. (GN Docket No. 17-258)

Hearing Aid Compatibility and Volume Control – The Commission will consider a Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration on hearing aid compatibility (HAC) that would update the volume control standard for wireline telephones, extend wireline HAC requirements to cover telephones used with advanced communications services, adopt a volume control rule for wireless handsets, and delete from the Commission’s rules an obsolete wireless HAC standard. (CG Docket No. 13-46, WT Docket Nos. 07-250, 10-254)

Part 43 Reporting Requirements for U.S. Providers of International Services – The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would: (1) eliminate the Traffic and Revenue Reports and (2) streamline the Circuit Capacity Reports. (IB Docket Nos. 17-55 and 16-131)

Elimination of Main Studio Rule – The Commission will consider a Report and Order eliminating the rule that requires each AM, FM, and television broadcast station to maintain a main studio located in or near its community of license. (MB Docket No. 17-106)

Updates to Rules Governing Ancillary/Supplementary Services and Broadcast Public Notices – The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on updates to Section 73.624(g) of its rules, which imposes certain reporting obligations for broadcasters relating to the provision of ancillary or supplementary services, and Section 73.3580, which requires public notice of the filing of broadcast applications, including through newspapers. (MB Docket Nos. 17-264, 17-105)

Intelsat and Intel (no relation) are teaming up on a marketplace-based proposal to allow for joint use of parts of the C-band spectrum (3700-4200) for 5G wireless, with satellite operators giving up spectrum in metro markets for a price set by the marketplace. That is the spectrum broadcast nets use to get their programming to stations, and stations use to get their programming to cable and satellite operators. Intel and Intelsat argue that their proposal will be a voluntary, efficient and expeditious route to more spectrum for mobile broadband, while protecting their broadcast/cable clients from interference.

Wireless and computer companies have pushed for terrestrial use of C-band, while broadcasters have been worried about possible new interference to their critical broadcast distribution system. But the FCC has been looking high and low (band) for more spectrum for mobile devices that are the way most folks are now accessing the internet of everything and in August asked for input on where it might find some, including in the C-band swath of spectrum. The deadline was Oct 2 for comments in the FCC's notice of inquiry on the possibilities of sharing C-band spectrum with wireless companies. Intel and Intelsat filed their joint proposal as comments in that proceeding.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s L Band is made up of frequencies prime for cellular services but largely walled off for satellite links.

In 2004 the FCC moved to relax L-Band rules, permitting deployment of a terrestrial mobile network. Satellite calls would continue, but few were being made, and sharing frequencies with cellular devices made eminent sense. By 2010, L-Band licensee LightSquared was ready to build a state-of-the-art 4G network, and the FCC announced that the 40 MHz bandwidth would become available. LightSquared quickly spent about $4 billion of its planned $14 billion infrastructure rollout. Americans would soon enjoy a fifth nationwide wireless choice. But in 2012 the FCC yanked LightSquared’s licenses. Various interests, from commercial airlines to the Pentagon, complained that freeing up the L Band could cause interference with Global Positioning System devices, since they are tuned to adjacent frequencies. Yet cheap remedies—such as a gradual roll-out of new services while existing networks improved reception with better radio chips—were available. In reality, the costliest spectrum conflicts emanate from overprotecting old services at the expense of the new. With its licenses snatched away, LightSquared instantly plunged into bankruptcy. Five years on, the company has recapitalized and re-emerged with a new name, Ligado. It has hired deft policy players and is making deals to mitigate conflicts. Yet regulatory impediments continue to block progress. Years after the L-Band spectrum was slated for productive use in 4G, it lies fallow—now delaying upgrades to 5G. This familiar impasse in the political spectrum begs for correction.

The FCC should let Ligado use satellite licenses for cellular services. It should also permit competitors, including Ligado, to bid for new L-Band spectrum rights. Remaining border disputes should be consigned to binding arbitration, not allowed to sandbag progress in open-ended skirmishing. This would move radio spectrum out of oblivion and into the mobile broadband networks craved by consumers, innovators and the US economy. Just like the National Broadband Plan called for in 2010.

[Hazlett is a professor of economics at Clemson and former chief economist of the FCC (1991-92)]

Executives from the National Association of Broadcasters met with Federal Communications Commission staffers to ask it to make as much of the $1.75 billion post-incentive auction repack funding available to broadcasters as quickly as possible. The FCC will soon start authorizing payments for the expenses broadcasters have been submitting.

In an April 13 public notice on the repack, the Incentive Auction Task Force said that after its review of initial cost estimates submitted by broadcasters, it would cap initial allocations at $1 billion, with $750 million held back. NAB says that there is no reason to withhold that much, and that a $175 million reserve should suffice. The broadcasters pointed to three things that have changed since that April public notice: 1) Vendors have expressed concern that stations' uncertainty about reimbursement has forced some of them to delay firm orders for needed equipment; 2) that the $1 billion cap dates from before the FCC had the full $1.75 billion available, and 3) that the FCC now knows that estimated costs are going to exceed, NAB says "greatly exceed," $1 billion.