Most Commenters Agree on Nonexclusive Licensing Approach for 42 GHz Band
Most commenters want the FCC to use a nonexclusive licensing approach for the 42 GHz band, they said in reply comments posted Monday and last week in docket 23-158. Among the major carriers, only T-Mobile filed comments (see 2308310053). Commenters also urged the FCC to approve a similar regime for the lower 37 GHz band. Commissioners approved 4-0 an NPRM in June asking about three potential approaches in the band -- nationwide nonexclusive licensing, site-based licensing and technology-based licensing (see 2306080042).
New America’s Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge saw "general consensus” that a framework “premised on open access, non-exclusive licensing by rule, and automated database coordination will best serve the public interest.” Most commenters seemed to agree “that similar to the process for the 70/80/90 GHz band, operators should first apply to the Commission” for a nationwide, nonexclusive license, the public interest groups said: “There is little if any support for either traditional site-based licensing or for reliance on a new technology-based sensing system.” The groups propose to put lower 37 and 42 GHz, offering 1,100 MHz of combined spectrum, under a nonexclusive and open access sharing framework with automated frequency coordination.
NCTA urged the FCC to move quickly on rules for the 42 and lower 37 GHz bands. “Any delay on finalizing sharing rules in the Lower 37 GHz band would prevent rapid deployment of these innovative uses, as equipment is already available in that band,” cablers said: A nationwide, nonexclusive “licensing regime paired with a simple database with minimal regulatory hurdles will deliver the greatest utility from both bands for a broad range of users, fostering technological advancement and economic growth.”
“The record in this proceeding shows broad support for a non-exclusive licensing framework and the use of a light-touch dynamic spectrum management system (DSMS) to facilitate and coordinate access to both bands while also protecting adjacent and co-channel incumbents,” the Dynamic Spectrum Alliance said. “While commenters differ on specific implementation details, there is widespread agreement that a non-exclusive licensing approach is preferable to exclusively licensing and auctioning these frequencies, and that database management will facilitate coordination and coexistence.”
Fixed-wireless provider Starry advocated a shared-licensed framework premised on existing models like the 70/80/90 GHz bands in 37 and 42 GHz spectrum. “This proceeding represents a unique opportunity to unleash low-barrier access spectrum that supports the Commission’s goals of expanding consumer access to affordable, competitive broadband access services, and complements other actions the Commission has taken to close the digital divide in recent years,” Starry said: “A scenario that would require existing commercial operators to accommodate a specific vendor technology, or to design special devices to operate within this ecosystem, is contrary to the goals and purposes of the Lower 37 GHz band.”
“Given the urgent need to make additional spectrum available for 5G and future wireless services,” Incompas urged the commission “to consider immediate changes in the 42 GHz and lower 37 GHz band that align with advancements in spectrum sharing and enable an ecosystem where millimeter wave spectrum drives innovation, new technologies, and next-generation connectivity.”
“By adopting a proven common shared access framework for both the 42 GHz and lower 37 GHz bands, the Commission can facilitate access by a wide range of users, including small wireless service providers as well as private network operators, to 1100 MHz of important millimeter wave spectrum in a cost-effective and scalable manner,” said Federated Wireless.
The Wireless ISP Association slammed T-Mobile comments that “high fees … are needed to ensure licensees submit sincere applications.” High fees “simply lead to the exclusion of smaller operators, while increasing the price for services provided by the handful of large operators who can pay them” WISPA argued: “Build-out requirements in accordance with reasonable deadlines and the nonexclusive nature of authorized use should instead be the means of preventing speculative filings.”