Rewriting 4.9 GHz Rules Could Be an FCC Challenge

The FCC wrapped up its comment cycle on the future of the 4.9 GHz band. But industry officials told us further agency action likely isn’t imminent, with issues to wade through before recommending a final approach. Commenters disagreed whether there should be a national framework with a nationwide band manager, though there's general support for expanding use of the band. A question is who other than public safety agencies should be given access.

Few states weighed in and only Louisiana had been moving forward under rules approved under former Chairman Ajit Pai. Replies were due Tuesday in docket 07-100. In September, commissioners approved a Further NPRM on the band's future 4-0 (see 2109300053). They reversed the 2020 order giving states control of the spectrum. The FCC has long sought a way to spur use of the mid-band spectrum, including by opening it to utilities and other critical infrastructure companies.

“The most efficient use of the 4.9 spectrum is to dedicate it to public safety with priority and preemption, but allow commercial use when the spectrum is unused,” said Western Fire Chiefs Association CEO Jeff Johnson. “Priority and preemption has been proven at FirstNet where it is in use across the network at all times.” The band offers a potential “nationwide solution for in-building coverage,” he said. Commissioners “have been very open and engaging with public safety as to our needs. We are optimistic that we will make the record about why 4.9 is critical to our future.”

"Generally, it is a widely accepted fact that more mid-band spectrum is absolutely needed in the near immediate future for vital wireless services,” emailed former Commissioner Mike O’Rielly, who voted for the December order. “My views while at the commission were that letting 4.9 GHz effectively lay fallow as a hugely underutilized public safety band, as it had been for years, was a huge mistake as either the licensed or unlicensed communities could make use for American consumers.”

The agency is unlikely to act soon, said Digital Progress Institute President Joel Thayer. “The FCC is attempting to untie a Gordian knot after granting the stay on its 2020 order, and this FNPRM's record presents more questions than answers,” he said: “Although there appears to be some consensus on the propriety of a national standard and management, there's a lot in this record that requires further study. Importantly, it's unclear to me whether there is real consensus on a true path forward in opening up this band for 5G use.” The FCC didn’t comment Wednesday.

Implementation of a Louisiana law (see 2106020038) on state use of the band is paused due to an FCC stay, emailed the state broadband office’s Executive Director Veneeth Iyengar: “We will follow up again with them shortly."

“It is disappointing that the FCC stay has stopped Louisiana from getting to work on the 4.9 band,” emailed state Rep. Mike Johnson (R). State lawmakers worked “to find a mutually beneficial arrangement between the companies that wanted to use the 4.9 band and public safety,” he said. "It would be ideal if Louisiana could use the band as it has set up, but at minimum the FCC should look at what Louisiana accomplished and learn a lesson from it. We will continue to work with and move forward as we are allowed by the FCC.” Johnson said the band is a “prime opportunity” for the state that the federal government “is hampering unnecessarily.”

The FCC “is almost certain to open the band to a much broader set of users on a coordinated and shared basis,” predicted Michael Calabrese, director of the Wireless Future Program at New America. The 50 MHz there is “invaluable mid-band spectrum” that’s “virtually empty,” he said: “Fewer than 4% of all eligible public safety entities use the band at all and that use is in major metros. The band is a wasteland in rural, small town and tribal America where more mid-band spectrum is desperately needed for fixed wireless broadband.”

Replies

“Designation of a single nationwide band manager is fraught with issues,” commented Maryland, the District of Columbia Statewide Interoperability Coordinator, Regional Planning Committee 43 and the Pennsylvania State Police. They said there's general agreement in initial comments (see 2111300069) on other issues. “Use of the band by critical infrastructure providers is permissible on a secondary and non-interfering basis to primary public safety users,” they said. Airborne use should be permitted, but not unlicensed use, and there shouldn’t be an incentive auction of the spectrum, they said.

The Public Safety Spectrum Alliance supported a national approach. A nationwide license is “the most effective way to facilitate the Commission’s other goals regarding the 4.9 GHz Band, including nationwide network deployment, interoperability, and reduced equipment costs,” PSSA said. The group has supported giving control of the band to FirstNet (see 2009160067). PSSA noted it’s the only mid-band spectrum dedicated to public safety.

New America’s Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge, and the Wireless ISP Association, see strong support for use of the band on a secondary, unlicensed basis, with dynamic spectrum sharing and protections for public safety (see here and here). WISPA said there’s no “compelling argument” for allowing use by just critical infrastructure companies.

The national wireless carriers were split on who should control the band. The band “can and should be more efficiently managed through a nationwide, public safety-led approach,” said AT&T, which is building FirstNet: “With its favorable mix of coverage and capacity, the 4.9 GHz band is ideally suited to offer public safety critical 5G capabilities.”

“The record supports local determination of 4.9 GHz public safety uses, not a single nationwide license to FirstNet and its contractual partner AT&T, nor appointing FirstNet/AT&T the nationwide band manager,” Verizon countered. “Designating a single entity to manage or hold a license for the spectrum on a nationwide basis may drive use of the band to a single application,” T-Mobile said: “That narrow use would not likely be able to satisfy the diverse needs and requirements of all public safety entities.”