The National Association of Broadcasters knows the Federal Communications Commission is going to reallocate 100 MHz of the upper C-band, which it is legally mandated to do.
But the association warns that any clearing beyond that minimum threshold poses a significant risk to the nation’s critical broadcast infrastructure.
In its newly-filed reply comments, NAB contended that the upper C-band (3.98 to 4.2 GHz) is currently optimized and lacks the “headroom” for extensive clearing.
[This article was originally published in our sister publication, Radio World. They've also covered NAB’s previous filings during the comment filing period tied to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking the commission opened in November. Read one of those stories here.]
The deadline to file reply comments with the commission in Docket 25-59 was on Wednesday.
“Upper C-band is mission-critical to broadcasting and is already operating at its practical limit,” NAB told the commission.
“Insatiable” wireless carriers
The upper C-band is used by earth station operators, including broadcasters, whose operations have already been curtailed by prior auctions of the lower C-band to wireless operators.
The commission is required by statute to auction a minimum of 100 MHz of the upper C-band (2.98 – 4.08 GHz) spectrum no later than July 2027, but the FCC has proposed auctioning up to 180 MHz through competitive bidding.
The spectrum auction is expected to generate billions of dollars.
But NAB contended that outside of the “insatiable nationwide wireless carriers and a small subset of proponents focused on speculative future uses,” commenters in the docket overwhelmingly caution that additional clearing would jeopardize broadcast distribution, increase systemic risk and undermine public-interest services.
Even with the loss of 100 MHz of spectrum, NAB said a repack will inevitably cause some disruption to incumbent users in part because compressing services into less spectrum creates a “Tetris-like” problem.
Keep it in the C-band
SES, the major provider of C-band services to broadcasters in the U.S., previously stated that most incumbent users can be repacked quickly into a reduced C-band if reallocation is limited to 100 MHz.
In addition, repacking all or most users within C-band will be far less disruptive than forcing incumbents out of the upper C-band into other satellite spectrum or alternative platforms, NAB told the commission.
NAB rejected claims from wireless companies that other technologies are suitable “one-for-one” replacements for C-band spectrum. Those alternative platforms include IP, fiber and Ku-band, which broadcasters and satellite operators say “are neither universally available nor functionally equivalent, particularly for point-to-multipoint distribution, rural service, and live event coverage.”
“Relocation out of C-band presents far greater uncertainty. The costs to transition may be many multiples higher,” it said.
NAB said two other major stakeholders in this proceeding – the satellite operators and the aviation industry – agree that clearing any portion of the upper C-band will require significantly longer timelines than the lower C-band transition.
The FCC proposed to clear incumbent earth station operators from the band over a five and a half-year period and, as with the prior migration to the Upper C-Band, the commission will reimburse incumbent earth station operators for their transition costs via money raised from an auction of the spectrum.
The FCC previously stated there are approximately 20,000 registered earth stations used by radio and TV broadcasters to receive satellite transmissions.
Substantially the same
NAB emphasized the FCC should follow precedent set in the order that forced incumbents to relocate from the lower C-band in 2020.
“The Lower C-band Order repeatedly stated that incumbents would be provided substantially the same service, which must again be assured,” NAB wrote in its comments.
“The commission previously rejected an all-fiber (or nearly all-fiber) deployment as carrying a bevy of challenges,” the association continued. “Ku-band, while a valuable improvement over terrestrial fiber, remains more susceptible than C-band to weather-related degradation and would require years of satellite launches and costly retrofits to approach current C-band reliability.
In fact, NAB pointed to the Communications Act, which it says does not permit the commission to substitute “theoretical alternatives for actual continuity of service,” according to NAB.
Merely accessing a different technology that performs adequately under ideal conditions is not acceptable, NAB asserted. It said the commission has long recognized that the act does not permit license modifications that affect a “fundamental change” in a licensee’s authorization.
Section 316 permits license modification, but not fundamental alteration of the essential rights conveyed by an FCC authorization, according to the recent filing.
NAB also asked the commission to implement a direct-pay or upfront reimbursement mechanism to replace the previous framework of the lower C-band transition where operators had to front costs and wait years for repayment.
“Commenters consistently warn that further upper C-band clearing beyond 100 MHz would jeopardize the reliability of the nation’s video distribution infrastructure, impose disproportionate harm on small entities, and undermine services the public relies upon for news, emergency information, and live events,” NAB concluded.
Comments in Docket 25-59 can be read at www.fcc.gov.
