CTIA, T-Mobile Press FCC to Reverse Giving Satellite Operators 2 GHz Spectrum

The FCC order splitting all 40 MHz of S-band spectrum between incumbents ICO and TMI/TerreStar will increase ICO and TerreStar holdings to 20 MHz each from 8. Satellite operators Inmarsat and Globalstar had previously asked the FCC to reconsider the order. ICO and TMI/TerreStar, meanwhile, asked the FCC to uphold the order.

T-Mobile, the most spectrum-constrained of the major U.S. carriers, told the Commission carriers have a real need for the spectrum, versus the more theoretical issue of how satellite operators will make use of 2 GHz. The carrier said the FCC order was “arbitrary and capricious” and a case of throwing “good spectrum after bad.” “The spectrum crunch facing CMRS providers in the face of increasing consumer demand is real,” T-Mobile said: “CMRS spectrum shortages could very well impact consumer choice in the not so distant future. In contrast, the need for additional mobile satellite services spectrum in the 2 GHz band is unproven, with no evidence of consumer demand and an industry record of failure to utilize assigned spectrum.”

T-Mobile warned that, as the smallest of the 4 major carriers, it has a critical need for more spectrum. “For independent carriers like T-Mobile… the Commission’s action was particularly damaging given that recent Commission-approved wireless mergers have resulted in available spectrum being consolidated among 3 major competitors,” the carrier said. “T-Mobile requires additional spectrum at the earliest possible date in order to continue growing its customer base and rolling out new advanced wireless technologies.”

The CTIA argued in a filing that TMI/TerreStar and ICO haven’t proved they would make good use of the spectrum. “Although the decision increased TMI’s and ICO’s spectrum holdings 250 percent, it contained no justification for why either company needs the additional spectrum,” the CTIA said: “Indeed, the decision expressly rejected any spectrum management assessment in granting the additional spectrum to these 2 entities.”

The CTIA also questioned an FCC finding that giving the 2 operators the spectrum would help them provide valuable communications services for first responders. The evidence is anecdotal and hasn’t been proven, the Assn. said. “The Commission relies entirely on letters from public safety agencies… that provide ‘no rationale or data to support dividing the band’ between ICO and TMI,” CTIA said. “Nothing in the letters suggests why TMI and ICO need more spectrum to provide public safety-related services or why they could not otherwise provide such services with their existing spectrum assignments.”

S-band spectrum winners ICO and TMI/TerreStar also commented in the proceeding, defending their 2 GHz spectrum allocations and countering Inmarsat and Globalstar’s opposition. TMI/TerreStar and ICO dismissed Inmarsat’s “race to space” suggestion, whereby 2 GHz spectrum would be granted to the first firms to actually launch 2 GHz satellites. TMI/TerreStar called the idea “the best way for an incumbent satellite operator [Inmarsat] to ensure the highest-possible hurdles to new market entrants.” ICO, which must launch a 2 GHz MSS system by 2007, noted Inmarsat’s assertion that it can’t launch a 2 GHz MSS satellite until 2010 and questioned Globalstar’s ability to comply with FCC milestones.

Both ICO and TMI/TerreStar defended the “duopoly” that others claim the Commission created with its 2 GHz decision. S-band spectrum may be a greenfield for mobile broadband and other technologies, but ICO and TerreStar said they're no duopoly -- citing competition against Globalstar, Inmarsat and Iridium. “MSS operators in other frequency bands will provide a competitive check on the 2 GHz band MSS offerings of TMI/TerreStar and ICO,” TerreStar said. ICO said Inmarsat’s recent launch of its Broadband Global Area Network (BGAN) in the L-band is proof enough high-speed MSS competition exists.

Mobile Satellite Ventures -- a competitor to ICO, but sister company to TerreStar -- said it wanted to “correct inaccurate claims” made by Globalstar in its petition for reconsideration that MSV lacks a record of public safety service. MSV countered that indeed it has one, and said it “has seen no evidence that Globalstar has made the kind of investment needed to deploy high-quality, multi-featured, disaster-proof, efficient ancillary terrestrial service” with its new ATC license. MSV said it’s making a “substantial and sustained investment” in implementation of an interim ATC system with its existing satellites while next generation spacecraft are under construction. “Using its existing satellites, MSV is scheduled to commence operations as early as late 2007,” MSV said.