Leap Wireless urged FCC to not roll back wireless spectrum cap, s...

should be altered (CD April 17 p2), Leap cited data from U. of Md. economics prof. Peter Cramton to illustrate that cap had public interest benefits. Company said Cramton research showed that its entry into market would drive down prices average of 37% and provide consumers with replacement for landline phones. Leap also took issue with extent to which large carriers needed more spectrum. “To be sure, they would prefer to have more spectrum, but no carrier could possibly need more than 45 MHz,” Leap said in comments at FCC on notice of proposed rulemaking examining whether there still is need for spectrum cap and cellular cross-ownership rules. Leap cited extent to which carriers could increase efficiency of existing spectrum holdings by upgrading subscribers to digital from analog. Carrier cited example of AT&T, which it said had 30% analog subscribership and could double system capacity by upgrading that component. Leap also argued that carriers shouldn’t have cap lifted to accommodate additional spectrum needs of 3G services. “To the extent that 3G equipment may create a demand for additional capacity, it will also furnish added supply: We can expect 3G equipment at the very least to double the spectral efficiency of existing equipment.” Rural Telecommunications Group and OPASTCO told Commission that spectrum cap and cellular-cross interest rules were “now obsolete.” Groups wrote: “These rules so constrain carriers that they have had a negative impact on the growth of competition in rural and underserved markets and in the rollout of new technologies in these markets.” Existing cap of 45 MHz, except in rural markets where it is 55 MHz, has anticompetitive effect because it potentially makes introduction of new services and expansion into adjacent areas illegal, groups said.