Boeing, AirCell Seek Agreement on Air-to-Ground
AirCell and Boeing, at the behest of the FCC, are working together to develop a common proposal for competition in the air-to-ground (ATG) market. The companies had previously held meetings since both are proposing that multiple carriers could share frequencies without interference, putting them in direct conflict with Verizon’s AirFone. Sources said a number of the 8th-floor offices would be sympathetic to the procompetitive arguments, as long as AirCell and Boeing can demonstrate interference isn’t a concern.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
ATG is expected to get a vote at the Nov. FCC meeting, and lobbying on the issue has become fast and furious, with major pushes underway last week from various sides. The Wireless Bureau and the Office of Engineering & Technology also are expected to sponsor a debate of sorts that will include the 3 companies, as well as Space Data, which has offered an alternate licensing scheme. Several airlines have weighed in in undocketed filings asking the Commission to promote a competitive regime.
AirCell CEO Jack Blumenstein told us Mon. engineers for AirCell and Boeing will meet following strong advice from the 8th floor during a recent series of meetings. “We didn’t start out to do a joint proposal,” Blumenstein said: “Boeing is looking for ways to implement this through Boeing’s service. They have a particular service model in mind that drove their thinking about how they would promote competition and efficient spectrum sharing in this band.” AirCell, he said, had a simpler approach.
But Blumenstein said the FCC was clear it hoped the companies would push harder to find a common proposal. “Both the staff and the 8th floor don’t want to be put in a position of saying we need to understand the nuance differences between these 2 models and we have to pick one.” He said a decision appears near, based on a series of meetings Fri. “This issue is just starting to gain visibility on the 8th floor,” he said: “This is about the time where the radar screens go on and commissioners and staff start to get immersed.”
In its most recent filings Verizon has raised several areas of disagreement with AirCell and other competitors. Verizon is arguing that even if the FCC provides for exclusive channels, to be used by just one company, competition exists elsewhere through satellite, an intermodal versus intramodal argument. “First authorized in December 2001, Boeing has launched a fully operational global broadband ATG service (Connexion),” Verizon said: “Boeing is now able to leverage its existing broadband services into the domestic market.” Verizon also cited Inmarsat and ARINC. “It’s totally a red herring to say competition could consist of one ATG provider and satellite,” Blumenstein said in response. “Satellite cannot compete.”
Verizon also has argued that unlike its service, the Boeing and AirCell services cannot operate below 10,000 feet. “Broadband service must be high quality and available from takeoff to landing,” Verizon said. “Both [competitors] admit interference will limit service below 10,000 feet.”
“That is blatantly false,” Blumenstein said. “It’s an example of taking a lesser issue, elevating it and then making a naked assertion that’s absolutely wrong.”
AirCell, meanwhile, accused AirFone and Verizon of bundling rates anticompetitively. AirCell noted in a footnote to a filing last week that under AirFone’s pricing structure Verizon customers pay 10 cents per min. with a $10 monthly fee, or 69 cents per min. without, versus $3.99 per min. to use the airplane phones.
“Our focus is to make sure that broadband ATG can be offered in this band. It’s that simple,” Don Brittingham, dir. of wireless policy for Verizon said Mon. He said Verizon believed that broadband couldn’t be provided under the Boeing or AirCell proposals.
“Ultimately, if you're operating under normal conditions you're going to have interference that is so great you wouldn’t be able to have broadband service [with the other proposals],” he said. Brittingham added that the lower power limits needed to preclude interference with multiple providers would preclude delivery of broadband. He also questioned the practicality of allowing for competition if base stations must be 100 miles or more apart: “Whether you have sharing arrangement or not that would effectively limit you to one provider per airport.”
Several airlines filed at the FCC in support of competition in the ATG arena. “Frontier… hopes that the Commission will carefully examine the question of whether it is technically feasible for multiple broadband providers to occupy the band,” Frontier said. “Assuming the FCC reaches the conclusion that this can be done, there is no doubt that airlines and consumers would best be served by allowing competition between multiple vendors.” AirTran Airways said the FCC must examine whether multiple carriers can use the band: “Assuming the FCC reaches the conclusion that this can be done, there is no doubt that airlines and consumers would best be served by allowing competition between multiple vendors.” - Howard Buskirk