Howard Buskirk

Members of the Public Safety Spectrum Alliance cast the FCC’s recent order allowing FirstNet to use unassigned parts of the 4.9 GHz band as a win for public safety agencies. Industry experts said the order is unlikely to be reversed in the Donald Trump administration since it was approved with the support of FCC Republicans Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington. Opponents have threatened litigation (see 2410220027).

CTIA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported Verizon’s challenge of the FCC's April fines for data violations, filing amicus briefs in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On a 3-2 vote in April, commissioners imposed fines against the three major wireless carriers for allegedly not safeguarding data on customers' real-time locations years earlier (see 2404290044). Commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington dissented. The two groups earlier filed in support of AT&T’s challenge of its fine in the 5th Circuit (see 2408060035). “For years, wireless service providers enabled beneficial, legitimate uses of customer location data with their customers’ consent,” CTIA said in a brief filed this week in docket 24-1733. These uses included the provision of emergency assistance and fraud detection, CTIA said. “For years, the FCC was aware of these services, never once suggesting an issue,” the group said: “But after a third party not before this Court misused a location service, the Commission changed its mind and, in the Order under review, declared Verizon’s location-based services unlawful -- levying a $46.9-million forfeiture to boot. The Commission’s newfound interpretation is patently unlawful and flouts both the text of the statute and decades of the agency’s own precedent.” The FCC “abused its investigative and enforcement authority to violate the company’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury,” the Chamber told the court. The agency then “announced and applied novel legal interpretations of the Communications Act to calculate and impose staggering forfeitures for activities that were not at the time of conduct a violation of any agency rule or law.”

The move to open radio access networks is accelerating, and may prove inevitable, experts said Tuesday during an Informatech 5G transport and networking strategies webinar. But carriers have options, speakers said. Meanwhile, Ericsson posted a progress report on moving to ORAN.

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 received 2,734 applications from schools, libraries and consortia seeking $3.7 billion from its $200 million cybersecurity pilot program, the FCC said Friday. It is reviewing the applications, but the program may not survive the start of the second Trump administration, industry officials warned.

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.”

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.

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.”