Carr Slams FAA Pursuit of C-Band Protections Covering More Carriers, Wants White House 5G Shift

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel confirmed Thursday she has received a letter from acting FAA Administrator Billy Nolen asking that the agency mandate voluntary protections for radio altimeters agreed to by Verizon and AT&T in the C band (see 2206170070) for 19 other providers who bought spectrum in the record-setting auction. “I have seen the letter” and “we are in discussions with our colleagues at NTIA,” Rosenworcel told reporters after the FCC meeting. Commissioner Brendan Carr said he was happy to look at FAA concerns, but believes the time to raise new objections has passed.

Carr said during a Cooley webinar he wants the Biden administration to shift its trajectory on 5G policy issues, noting there was “a big change in emphasis” on those matters when President Joe Biden took office last year. Carr also suggested there’s still a role for the FCC in Communications Decency Act Section 230 revisions despite the Supreme Court’s embrace of the "major questions” doctrine in its West Virginia v. EPA ruling (see 2206300066).

“A year ago, a lot of aviation stakeholders pushed hard on this message that in their words we were about to see a catastrophic crisis, and they talk about thousands of flights needing to be delayed,” Carr told reporters. That claim “has not withstood" scrutiny. “We've got to get back to some semblance of regular order both here and on spectrum issues generally,” he said: “Three years post-FCC decision" and the FAA is apparently "lobbing in a new study" supporting its concerns. "That’s just not how it works," Carr said. "We had our study from aviation stakeholders. We looked at it. It had massive flaws, and that’s what the commission found, and we moved forward.” The FAA didn't comment.

The 5G policy shift under Biden was evident in “our interactions with” DOT and FAA during the C-band dispute, Carr said during the Cooley webinar. “The administration donned the ‘Team Delay’ jersey rather than” backing “‘Team 5G,’ so I think we need … a bit more ‘Team 5G’ jersey coming from inside the administration. I think that would make our jobs here at the FCC” in dealing with “these oftentimes interagency fights a bit easier.” There’s generally been a “Lord of the Rings devolution in the approach to spectrum policy, which is to say that a lot of agencies look at the FCC and they think that it’s the brass ring, the ability to make spectrum decisions writ large,” he said: “Congress made a decision that there’s a single national spectrum regulator in the main, and that’s the FCC.”

There needs to be a “statutory or otherwise” re-emphasis that the FCC “is the expert agency” on spectrum issues given the continued infighting, Carr said. Government agencies have “a seat at the table,” but they’re increasingly “deciding to make end-runs,” which represents “a breakdown in the process.” All stakeholders “need to do whatever we can to make sure” the FCC’s spectrum auction authority doesn’t lapse once the current extension expires Dec. 16, he said: “We can’t have it lapse for economic reasons. We can’t have it lapse for the signal that it sends.” Lawmakers hope the temporary renewal enacted in September will buy enough time for them to reach a deal on a spectrum legislative package that represents a compromise between the House-passed Spectrum Innovation Act (HR-7624) and Senate Commerce Committee members’ push for an alternative measure (see 2209300058).

The ruling in West Virginia v. EPA shouldn’t affect the FCC’s ability to wade into the Section 230 debate, Carr said. Biden last year revoked President Donald Trump’s 2020 executive order aimed at addressing what Trump saw as social media censorship. Trump sought an FCC rulemaking to clarify its interpretation of Section 230 liability protections (see 2105140074). “Best I can tell,” the FCC’s NTIA-requested Section 230 proceeding “is still pending” and “I haven’t seen a dismissal” almost two years into Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel’s administration, Carr said: “My view is we do have the authority to interpret the words” in a statute, including Section 230, which is “different in kind from the major questions doctrine than ‘Does this entire technology deserve to be’” reclassified as a Communications Act Title I or II service.