FCC Explains Policy Calls in Text of Spectrum Frontier Order

The FCC approved the item Thursday on a 5-0 vote, though Commissioner Michael O’Rielly partially dissented and Ajit Pai partially concurred (see 1607140052). The agency released a fact sheet Thursday that delved into many of the details of what had been approved.

Public interest groups failed in their push to get rules that would allow dynamic sharing of part of the millimeter-wave spectrum, similar to rules in place for the 3.5 GHz band, though the FNPRM examines the benefits of a sharing regime in future allocations. Michael Calabrese, director of the Wireless Future Program at New America, said after the meeting the FCC’s approach was “extremely shortsighted.”

Calabrese said Monday he was still reviewing the order. Public interest advocates had hoped the decision on a 3.5 GHz-style sharing system in the high-frequency bands would have been made under Chairman Tom Wheeler, rather than potentially pushed to a later chairman, he said. “We had simply wanted these basic questions to be settled in the initial order, by the Wheeler commission, and in favor of open access and spectrum efficiency," Calabrese said.

The order said in its text on the 28 GHz band that if the agency had ordered similar sharing there, "we would need to develop a SAS [spectrum access system], define the specific rights held by the existing licensees, and work out rules for coordination with the existing licensees.” It said geographic area licensing is “consistent with our goal of adopting a balanced licensing approach that includes licensed, unlicensed, and innovative sharing approaches across a variety of bands.” In the rules for the 39 GHz band, the order said “the presence of incumbent geographic area licenses in a large part of the country renders the … band a poor candidate for implementing an SAS-based sharing model.”

The order defends implementation of spectrum aggregation limits for the high-band spectrum, a decision criticized by Pai and O’Rielly last week. “We find it essential today to establish clear and transparent mobile spectrum holdings policies that will promote competition in the future, including competition in the development of 5G services, as well as promote the efficient use of mmW spectrum, and avoid an excessive concentration of licenses,” the order said. “With the rapid rate of technological advance, mmW spectrum is likely to be a critical component in the development of 5G, and we must take steps today to ensure its optimal use to the benefit of all American consumers.”

The FCC imposed a limit of 1250 MHz for licensees acquiring spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz and/or 39 GHz bands in an auction and a threshold of the same amount for proposed secondary market transactions in the three bands. The order also explained why the FCC sided with Verizon versus AT&T in not applying band-specific caps. “While certain differences across the mmW bands exist, we find these technical differences are not sufficient to significantly affect how these spectrum bands might be used and to require separate band-specific limits,” the agency said. The approach also mirrors the FCC approach for lower-band spectrum, the order said.

The order explained why the FCC decided to tackle cybersecurity rules as part of the order, a second area criticized by Pai and O’Rielly.

The security standards for new flexible uses of the high-frequency bands “are developing in parallel, but not necessarily at the same pace, with the emerging networks, devices, and equipment,” the FCC said. CTIA has said “significant, multi-stakeholder, multi-disciplinary, and ‘multi-layered’ efforts are ongoing, domestically and globally” to promote cybersecurity, the FCC said. "Many wireless communications systems have not been successful at implementing security-by-design,” the agency said. “In the race to market, vital security protections too often fall by the wayside.”

The order also addressed complaints by satellite operators, some of the most vociferous opponents of the Wheeler proposals for the high-band spectrum. In the much-contested 28 GHz band. “some satellite operators, satellite equipment suppliers and satellite-focused trade associations urge the Commission not to authorize terrestrial mobile services in the 28 GHz band,” the FCC said. “This perspective is by no means unanimous or unqualified even among that group, however.”

The FCC cited examples of support from satellite companies. “SES, for example, says that it expects to support terrestrial mobile services in bands above 24 GHz by providing video distribution, providing backhaul services, and by extending terrestrial network coverage to sea, air, and remote land masses,” the FCC said. “EchoStar says that satellite operators could coexist with mobile services in the band by avoiding deployment of gateway earth stations in large urban centers.” The FCC noted technology now allows wireless companies to use and share the spectrum without causing interference for fixed satellite service operations, which wasn’t the case when various satellite assignments were approved.