Commerce, DOD Delaying Senate Briefings on Lower 3 GHz Band Study: Cantwell

The Commerce and Defense departments postponed briefings for the Senate Armed Services and Commerce committees originally expected to happen next week on the Pentagon's report on its study on repurposing the 3.1-3.45 GHz band for commercial 5G use (see 2309280087), lawmakers and communications lobbyists told us. There has been no clear explanation why, but word of the delay circulated in conjunction with chatter that the two federal departments are disagreeing on what the report’s conclusions mean for bids to sell or share parts of the lower 3 GHz band.

“We thought” the Senate Commerce briefing was going to happen “next week, but now I hear it’s postponed,” panel Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., told us Tuesday. Commerce and DOD were also set to brief the Senate Armed Services Committee on the report but also postponed that meeting, two telecom lobbyists said. They noted neither Commerce nor DOD held briefings with interested House members on the report. Senate Armed Services didn’t comment.

“I’m going to redouble my efforts to get the briefing ASAP” due to the DOD report’s importance in determining whether Congress can move forward on a spectrum legislative package that would direct a lower 3 GHz auction, Cantwell told us. Sale of licenses on that frequency is a marquee part of the House Commerce Committee-approved Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act (HR-3565) and similar language congressional leaders attempted to attach to the FY 2023 appropriations omnibus package (see 2212200077). Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo committed to the briefing during a Senate Commerce hearing earlier this month (see 2310040070).

Cantwell said Wednesday she has gotten “no indications” that lack of Commerce-DOD consensus on the report was the reason for the delay. “What else is new?” she said in response to questions about the existence of spectrum-related interagency disagreements. Several lobbyists cited disagreements between Commerce, or at least NTIA, and DOD over the findings, but they told us there’s no definitive word that’s the reason for the delays. Other officials cited other logistics issues and Israel’s recent war with Hamas as potential factors. Commerce and DOD didn’t comment. NTIA declined comment.

Senate Armed Services member Mike Rounds, R-S.D., whose push to give DOD time to complete the lower 3 GHz study doomed a March bid to temporarily renew the FCC’s auction authority (see 2303090074), told us he wasn’t aware of any upcoming briefing on the findings. He has heard “nothing at all” about the executive branch’s timeline for sending the report to lawmakers, but “I do know in visiting with senior members of DOD it’s become very apparent that there is not really an option in the near future for sharing of spectrum in that particular” band, in keeping with recent expectations (see 2309190001).

Rounds expects the executive branch will “continue working on” the lower 3 GHz band “over a period of years. In the meantime, there's a need for more spectrum to continue development, but it’s not going to be from that particular” frequency. That likely means “the only” spectrum legislation Congress can pass now is “a straight, clean reauthorization” of the FCC’s mandate, or at least a package that does “not include” any language pertaining to the lower 3 GHz band, he said: “It’s just way too expensive and time-consuming” to reconfigure DOD incumbents that use the frequency. “We’re talking years and years” of prep work ahead “and that’s not good for either the telecom sector or DOD,” Rounds said. “I’m still wondering whether some entity outside the U.S. has been recommending this part of the spectrum for our 5G use knowing fully well that it would have impacted our national defense capabilities.”

Cantwell refused to speculate whether she and other telecom-focused lawmakers will need to make major changes to their spectrum proposals in response to the DOD report. “I don’t know what’s in it” beyond press reports, “so I’m not going to” start rethinking the path forward on legislation, she said. Lawmakers have been bracing for the findings because HR-3565 and other proposals call for using some proceeds from a lower 3 GHz auction and other sales to close the FCC’s $3.08 billion Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program funding shortfall and pay for next-generation 911 tech upgrades (see 2308070001).

“The equities of DOD really matter in this” debate, so “we’re all carefully paying attention to what their national security requirements and needs are with respect to spectrum, but we also have a huge demand for commercially available spectrum,” said Senate Communications Subcommittee ranking member John Thune, R-S.D. “We’re going to have to figure out how to thread that needle,” but he’s not ready to say whether there needs to be a major rewrite of the existing proposals.

DOD appears reluctant to give up, or share, any spectrum below 3.45 GHz, which will “leave the U.S. at odds with many other countries that are licensing 5G spectrum down to 3.3 GHz,” said Peter Rysavy of Rysavy Research. DOD also seems to have forgotten “how critical economic vitality is for national security.” The U.S. is “at risk of having a very weak mid-band spectrum position compared to other countries,” but NTIA appears to be pushing DOD to be more flexible, he said.

DOD's findings are reportedly not “favorable” to commercial operations on any of the lower 3 GHz band, said Jonathan Cannon, R Street Institute policy counsel-technology and innovation and former aide to FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington. That raises questions about the pending national spectrum strategy and promises to identify 1,500 MHz of spectrum for study for commercial use. “The debate has moved beyond highest and best use of spectrum and become a question about the role of different agencies in identifying spectrum,” he said.

DOD appears likely to be willing to share the spectrum but not to relocate systems already located there, New America’s Open Technology Institute Wireless Future Project Director Michael Calabrese said during a Broadband Breakfast webinar Wednesday (see 2310180050). He sees sharing as faster to implement because “even where it is possible to clear bands, it often costs more than an auction could raise and takes too long.”