Howard Buskirk

The Wireless ISP Association told the FCC many of its members use CBRS spectrum for reaching subscribers, and it opposes higher power levels for priority access license holders as a threat to general authorized access use of the band. Comments were due last week on an August NPRM in docket 17-258 (see 2411070032). Increasing maximum power levels “would substantially increase mutual interference between GAA users and even between GAA and PAL users on different channels,” WISPA said. “WISPA members should not be required to replace existing, relatively new equipment and purchase and deploy expensive high-powered base stations such as those used by mobile carriers in order to maintain their service areas.” Lockheed Martin said the FCC must coordinate major changes with DOD. “The current power levels represent a material, established feature upon which CBRS is premised,” Lockheed said: “Despite the essential role of pre-coordinated and established power levels, the Commission appears to have proposed these changes independently, and it is unclear what inter-agency coordination has or will occur and whether, even, there is support for such action by federal stakeholders.” Researchers at the University of Notre Dame noted that the use of CBRS is accelerating, even in small markets such as South Bend, Indiana, where the university is based. The researchers called for more reporting of interference metrics as measured on the ground by users. “When spectrum is being shared among multiple different users deploying networks in different verticals, the more information that can be shared, the better the performance for all,” they said. The Notre Dame researchers opposed adding a third category of devices that transmit at higher power levels than currently authorized, saying it would “exacerbate the secondary coexistence problem.” But Ericsson said the FCC should at least examine use of higher power levels. “Higher power levels for both [devices] and user equipment improve the efficiency of coverage to serve rural and underserved areas and reduce the cost of deployment,” Ericsson said: “Power levels can constrain certain use cases, especially wide-area commercial and enterprise networks. Enterprises like mining, large-scale agriculture, and media and entertainment companies need to support large outdoor coverage areas, and higher power levels can have a dramatic impact on enabling efficient deployments.” Increasing transmit power levels “will improve coverage, especially in rural areas, increase network efficiency, and reduce equipment and network design and deployment costs” and “can be achieved without causing harmful interference to incumbents or other spectrum users,” Federated Wireless said. Federated noted transmit levels are much lower than in the adjacent 3.45 GHz and C-band. “This discrepancy creates a significant coverage imbalance between CBRS and these adjacent bands, which undermines CBRS’s competitive capability and restricts its potential for expanded service, particularly in rural and underserved areas.”

The FCC got dozens of comments on an August NPRM from wireless carriers, tech companies and others on further changes to rules for the citizens broadband radio service band (see 2408160031). In filings posted through Thursday in docket 17-258, commenters disagreed sharply on a proposal by carriers to more closely harmonize CBRS rules with those for the adjacent 3.45 GHz and C-band.

UScellular announced on Thursday a $1 billion agreement to sell AT&T some of its spectrum licenses, which are not part of the proposed sale of wireless assets to T-Mobile (see 2405280047). T-Mobile is buying “substantially all” of UScellular’s wireless operations in a deal valued at about $4.4 billion, but it's purchasing only some of its spectrum licenses. AT&T agreed it will buy 3.45 GHz spectrum and 700 MHz B/C-block licenses for $1.018 billion. Like an earlier deal with Verizon and two undisclosed carriers, the sale is dependent on closing the proposed T-Mobile transaction. "We are pleased with the significant value that will be realized in the various transactions recently announced," said Laurent Therivel, UScellular CEO: "This agreement adds a fourth mobile network operator, in addition to T-Mobile, to the list of those whose subscribers will benefit from the sale of our spectrum licenses. As with the other mobile network operators, we are confident that AT&T can put it to productive use in communities throughout the U.S.” With the latest transaction, UScellular said it has deals to sell 70% of its total spectrum holdings, excluding high-band spectrum, measured on a MHz/POPs basis. UScellular retains 1.86 billion MHz/POPs of low and mid-band spectrum and 17.2 billion MHz/POPs of millimeter-wave, Therivel said, noting that the most valuable spectrum left to sell is in the C-band. “Our C-band licenses are positioned in an attractive mid-band frequency that can deliver outstanding speed and capacity.” There is “a substantial 5G ecosystem of equipment vendors and existing infrastructure that uses C-band” and “they have a lengthy build-out timeline, with first and second build-out dates of 2029 and 2033, respectively.” The deal “is in line with UScellular’s objective to monetize its remaining spectrum following the transaction with T-Mobile announced in May,” said RBC Capital Markets in a note to investors. The firm estimated that the price for the 3.45 GHz spectrum associated with the sale is 55 cents per MHz/POP, compared with the national average spectrum price of 77 cents during the 2022 auction. The C-band holdings are UScellular’s most valuable unsold band, RBC said, noting an average price of 94 cents MHz/PoP in the 2021 auction: “We view the remaining C-Band licenses as [complementary] to AT&T's and Verizon's holdings.”

Network availability remains an issue for many consumers worldwide, with more than 30% of households reporting access issues in a recent Ernst & Young Global (EY) survey. It was the same figure as reported four years earlier, speakers said Wednesday during a Mobile World Live webinar. “Consumers are very alert to service guarantees” and 42% of households think that Wi-Fi performance promises, such as whole-home coverage, are misleading or inaccurate, said Adrian Baschnonga, EY lead analyst-technology, media and telecommunications. Predictable pricing “is very much in focus” and 72% of respondents think carriers should do more when offering pricing guarantees, he said, adding that North American respondents led that sentiment. Brand-trust is playing a bigger role in purchasing decisions for streaming platforms and smart home technology, and is now the top driver for connected-home devices, overtaking attractive pricing, Baschnonga said. For streaming, brand-trust ranks fourth, up from seventh last year, he said. More than half of consumers express concerns that broadband monthly subscription rates will increase and nearly as many believe they pay too much for content they don’t watch. EY found that 44% of households would be willing to pay more for content aggregation services, up from 40% last year, and “a rising proportion would also be willing to pay more for broadband that comes with better customer service or a backup option in case of outages.” EY found that when assessing value consumers get for their money, mobile and broadband connectivity scores best, while smart home technologies “lag.” Consumers are also increasingly willing to stop paying for streaming services, he said.

Verizon told the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals the $47 million fine the FCC levied on it in April (see 2404290044) for allegedly not safeguarding data on customers' real-time locations is arbitrary and capricious and that the court should reject it. “The agency ignored the limits of its authority in these multiple ways, in an effort to show force against a large company that did nothing wrong,” the provider said. Verizon said it would appeal the fine at the time the FCC approved it 3-2, with Republican Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington dissenting. The fine was approved four years after Republican Chairman Ajit Pai proposed it. Verizon’s location-based service (LBS) program “used device-location information, and device-location information is not” customer proprietary network information, Verizon said this week in a brief in docket 24-1733. By the time the FCC proposed the fine, “Verizon had shut down its LBS program nearly one year earlier, eliminating any potential current or going-forward liability,” it added. Verizon noted that the FCC got involved following a New York Times report that Securus “misused many carriers’ LBS programs and that a sheriff in Missouri took advantage of Securus’s actions to track wireless carriers’ customers without their consent.” But the agency found that the statute of limitations had expired in both cases, Verizon said. The FCC then “adopted a novel approach to generate an eye-popping penalty amount,” the brief said: The agency “punished Verizon for not terminating every other service provider from the LBS program on a faster timeline” imposing “a forfeiture penalty for each day -- starting 30 days after the New York Times article -- that each of the 63 service providers remained able to use the LBS program, despite not being involved in any wrongdoing.” Verizon also argued the order should be overturned given the U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision in SEC v. Jarkesy (see 2406270063). “The Constitution guarantees Verizon a jury trial -- not an administrative adjudication -- before it faces an order compelling it to pay a forfeiture.” AT&T, meanwhile, made similar arguments in its challenge filed in the 5th Circuit against the FCC’s $57 million fine, approved the same time as Verizon's. “The Commission itself has acknowledged that Securus’s misdeeds took place long before the statute-of-limitations period,” AT&T said: “The Commission cites no evidence that Securus ever unlawfully accessed a single AT&T customer’s location information.” AT&T said the FCC accused it of carelessness. “AT&T gave access only to providers with an approved use case; conducted daily audits of consent records and broader programmatic audits; and responded to Securus’s misdeeds promptly and prudently, weighing the costs and benefits at every turn,” AT&T said. “That is far more than the Commission can say for itself, having taken no action (failing even to inform the major wireless carriers) after learning of Securus’s malfeasance nearly a year before AT&T did.”

Proponents of uniform handset unlocking rules said Wednesday that momentum for approval should continue despite the upcoming change in leadership, following Tuesday's election. Experts spoke during a Broadband Breakfast webinar.

CTIA and other commenters urged the FCC to proceed slowly when finalizing rules for a program that would allow schools and libraries to use E-rate support for off-premises Wi-Fi hot spots and wireless internet services. Reply comments were due Monday in docket 21-31 on a Further NPRM, which was approved as part of the hot spot item in July (see 2407180024). Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington dissented. “Wireless providers are significant contributors to the universal service fund, and CTIA strongly supports the efficient and effective use of all universal service support, including E-Rate funding,” CTIA said. “Stakeholders will be better able to comment on the controls in the program once they have gained experience with them” and “program requirements should not impose burdens that outweigh the program’s benefits, as that could deter participation,” the group said. The Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition said the FCC shouldn’t set "overly burdensome administrative requirements or punitive solutions that diminish a school or library’s flexibility to structure its lending practices.” Don’t mandate defined hot spot lending periods, SHLB advised: “Schools and libraries should be able to style their lending practices to better meet users’ educational endeavors.” SHLB also opposed “a data use threshold higher than zero to consider a line ‘used.'” Such thresholds would introduce “assumptions about acceptable and unacceptable broadband use that ignore variables in connectivity needs,” the group said. The North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation and Mobile Beacon jointly called on the FCC to refrain from imposing new rules at this moment. “Adding burdensome new requirements, in the absence of any compelling need, will unnecessarily burden schools, libraries, and other program participants, and make it harder for students to connect,” they said: “The Commission should increase, not restrict, applicant flexibility.” The American Library Association earlier said final rules would be premature (see 2410040033).

The future success of the wireless industry depends on having a single standard worldwide for mobile communications, Adrian Scrase, former chief technology officer at the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, said Tuesday during an RCR Wireless industrial 5G forum. Multiple standards are “just not tenable if we’re to have economic success,” said Scarse, now a consultant for the Global Mobile Suppliers Association.

In response to a request for comment, the Wireless Infrastructure Association urged NTIA to focus on improving permitting processes and access to land as well as power if it wants to spur growth of data centers. NTIA said in the September RFC it’s seeking better understanding of data center issues related to the power grid, supply chain, workforce development and cybersecurity (see 2409040016). “Particularly relevant to the wireless industry is the deployment of neutral host and edge data centers” which “provide critical capacity and enable interconnection -- key drivers of the digital economy,” WIA said. Innovation at the edge “will help 5G networks realize their potential in high-bandwidth, low-latency communications,” the group said: “This will not only improve mobile broadband but unlock new technologies like augmented and virtual reality and bring new AI tools into peoples’ everyday lives.” Incompas members “consistently face delays in permitting and gaining access to the public rights-of-way when deploying broadband,” the group said. Incompas supports “increasing access to public rights-of-way, accelerating approval of permits, and asking state and local governments, utilities, and railroads to charge fees that are based only on their actual, objectively reasonable costs.” Incompas said the electric grid poses a challenge: “The electrical grid must be modernized to support this economic growth and ensure: 1) timely access to reliable energy for large customers, 2) utilities and grid operators move fast to build new carbon free generation, new transmission and modernize existing transmissions through [grid enhancing] technologies, and 3) utilities have the programs available for large customers to support their operations with new renewables and carbon-free electricity.” The Information Technology Industry Council called data centers the “infrastructure backbone that underpins today’s digital economy.” ITI said it’s critical that policymakers “have a comprehensive understanding of data center market dynamics, including the different data center types and sizes.” The group also stressed the importance of technology-neutral rules and speeding permitting. Data centers are “essential to our modern and distributed economy and are the foundation upon which our modern digital ecosystem is built, including cloud computing, IoT, AI, and many other virtual products and services,” ITI said: “They provide the necessary computing power and storage capacity to enable these innovations, making them an essential part of AI and emerging technology value chains.”

Industry groups repeated in reply comments their earlier arguments that addressing tribal issues shouldn’t slow the awarding of funds through the $9 billion 5G Fund that FCC commissioners approved in August (see 2410180036). Replies were posted on Monday in docket 20-32. Commissioner Brendan Carr dissented on the 5G Fund item, which included a Further NPRM on tribal issues (see 2408290022). Tribes and their associations have stressed the importance of collaboration with tribal governments (see 2410170045). The record shows “that any 5G Fund Tribal consent requirements need to account for the time and uncertainties involved in obtaining Tribal consent,” CTIA said. The commission “should also consider whether Tribal entities’ consent may be presumed after a certain period of good-faith efforts by the 5G Fund applicant,” the group said: “In no event, … should a winning bidder be placed in default or otherwise subject to penalties if the winning bidder demonstrates good-faith efforts to obtain consent in accordance with the rules.” The Rural Wireless Association said the rules should mirror the tribal land bidding credit framework used in other FCC programs. “Obtaining Tribal consent during the long-form application process can be unduly burdensome,” RWA said: “It is also unnecessary for the Tribal consent to be obtained prior to the filing of the long-form application as such consent can still be obtained and provided to the FCC before funding is received."