WASHINGTON—Seeing the handwriting on the wall, the C-Band Alliance reworked plans for splitting the coveted mid-band spectrum by offering 300 MHz of bandwidth to the cellular industry for 5G expansion into U.S. markets.

Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, a new bill was introduced late last week that would force the FCC to conduct a public C-band auction in the major markets, with profits earmarked for rural broadband expansion, and not satellite operators.

The proposed bill muddies the waters, since the C-Band Alliance was feeling fairly confident that, by reorganizing the mid-band spectrum one more time, they could deliver a solution that works for satellite operators and broadband.

Previously the CBA had offered 200 MHz to 5G, but the FCC has made it well known that more spectrum for 5G was required. The increase includes a 20 MHz guard band, leaving 5G with 280 MHz of usable space.

HOW WOULD THE PROPOSED CBA SPLIT WORK?

I know what you’re thinking: How can a mere 200 MHz for C-band’s incumbent users now be adequate, when earlier this year CBA’s “line in the sand” was 200 MHz for 5G/300 MHz for C-band users? According to the CBA, it’s a perfect storm scenario which includes:

• Migrating more non-CONUS clients to lower frequencies;
• A number of customers choosing not to renew their space segment contracts (the CBA noted the natural migration of customers to SD multiplexes, terrestrial, etc.);
• Efficiency gains at the uplink level via encoders and modulators.

WHY CONGRESS AND WHY NOW?

Don’t doubt for a second that broadband (and their lobbyists) have been quite active on Capitol Hill.

This being said, at least a few members are concerned that their “vision” of a 5G America may be stymied by the FCC. In a joint statement, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), Energy & Commerce Committee chairman, and Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), chairman of the Communications & Technology Subcommittee, stated they believe legislation may be the only way to “reduce uncertainty and benefit Americans.’’

In a nutshell, the Clearing Broad Airwaves for New Deployment (C-BAND) Act:

• Requires the FCC to hold a public auction of C-band spectrum;
• Allow for no less than 200 megahertz and no more than 300 megahertz of C-band spectrum [with 20 MHz set aside for guard bands];
• Ensures that incumbent C-band users will be protected by mandating that they get as good or better service than before.

Of course, this eleventh hour grandstanding is concerning to satellite operators. If this bill passes, who picks up the tab for the new filters, repoints and—in some cases—antennas that broadcasters will need to operate with 5G sharing the spectrum? Who will finance the launch of several new satellites?

All of these expenses would be covered under the C-Band Alliance proposal, but are not even addressed by the proposed bill.

DUSTING OFF THE CRYSTAL BALL

Will the FCC accept the CBA proposal? We’d like to answer with a definitive “yes,” but with legislation pending, who really knows?

But what we do know is that the clock is ticking. The mid-band issue has been in limbo for two years, and both C-band operators and 5G advocates are hoping for a decision, and soon. If the bill fails to pass, all indications point to the FCC making their decision in December.

We believe the CBA will be a part of the transition in some fashion, since the alliance has been very vocal in their intent to implement the safe and efficient clearing and repurposing of C-band spectrum. It only makes sense that you should have the owner/operators of the orbital antennas involved, right?

Let’s hope the FCC commissioners agree.

WASHINGTON—NAB this week urged the FCC to move without delay in reallocating 200 MHz of C-band spectrum (between 3.7 and 4.3 GHz) for terrestrial wireless service. The broadcast association also asked the FCC to bar shared use of the portion of C-band spectrum not reallocated to wireless use.

In comments submitted Aug. 7, NAB cautioned the FCC that if it “caves to unreasonable and unjustified pressure” it will put the “backbone of our nation’s audio and video content delivery system” in jeopardy.

The comments, filed in response to an FCC Public Notice on how the FCC should proceed in reallocating C-band spectrum for 5G use, also pointed out that further delays will “give oxygen” to proposals that “are out of touch with reality.”

Case in point is a proposal from ACA Connects—America’s Communications Association—and others that NAB said seeks to use the C-band proceeding as a means to achieve economic and competitive advantages, said NAB.

Those include compensation for earth stations, payment to install fiber to replace C-band distribution, the go-ahead to charge content providers for fiber distribution in lieu of C-band services and long-term leverage enabling them to raise future rates, said NAB.

“By restricting or eliminating C-band and forcing content distribution to fiber, the ACA Coalition seeks to undermine intermodal competition for their new fiber services and secure a price-setting stranglehold on the content distribution business,” said NAB.

The association characterized these goals as seeking “to get paid to eliminate competition” in its comments.

Making content owners relinquish C-band distribution and turn to fiber risks causing “devastating harm” to the content ecosystem and ultimately jeopardizing the news, sports and entertainment millions of Americans enjoy, said NAB.

NAB also opposed shared use of C-band spectrum not reallocated to wireless use. “Adding new users to a reduced C-band footprint will complicate the transition for existing users and will freeze existing C-band operations in place,” said the association.

NAB’s comments are available online.