FCC Lets Public Safety Share Notes on 800 MHz Talks
The FCC will allow public safety licensees negotiating 800 MHz rebanding agreements with Sprint Nextel to share basic information about the deals with other licensees - despite nondisclosure agreements that Sprint required licensees to sign prior to negotiations, the agency’s Public Safety Bureau said Mon.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The Bureau is letting public safety agencies share the “terms and conditions” of frequency relocation agreements (FRAs) and planning funding agreements (PFAs) negotiated with Sprint. Sources said the FCC wants to spur quicker negotiations between Sprint and the hundreds of public safety licensees that must retune their radios under the FCC’s landmark 2004 800 MHz rebanding order.
Public safety officials view these nondisclosure agreements as a major stumbling block to swift progress on 800 MHz rebanding - which will separate commercial and public safety licenses into different parts of the band, eliminating the interference problems that have plagued it.
“APCO is very pleased with today’s FCC order,” said Wanda McCarley, pres. of the Assn. of Public-Safety Communications Officials. “Allowing for such disclosure will facilitate agreements that are necessary to address dangerous interference that affects the nation’s public safety radio systems.”
“I believe the FCC order is very good for public safety,” said Harlin McEwen, who represents a number of public safety groups on spectrum issues: “I have heard many concerns from our public safety agencies that the nondisclosure requirements have put them at a disadvantage when negotiating agreements with Sprint Nextel. This should be helpful in keeping the process moving forward.”
“Sprint Nextel fully supports the action taken today by the FCC to remove a perceived obstacle to negotiating and signing Phase II reconfiguration agreements,” Sprint said: “Now that public safety has the transparency it asked for, Sprint Nextel hopes that all incumbents and their consultants will negotiate with us in good faith consistent with the Commission’s minimum reasonable cost requirements.”
The Bureau agreed with the complaints of public safety agencies that the nondisclosure pacts give Sprint what could be an unfair advantage. Sharing of information will “facilitate the rebanding process and is necessary to the conduct of good faith negotiations as required by the Commission,” the Bureau said. The Commission said it won’t parties reopen completed negotiations.
“Public safety licensees in negotiations with Sprint do not have access to information about similar terms and conditions that have been negotiated by similarly situated public safety licensees in prior negotiations and mediations,” the Bureau said: “Sprint… has access to information about all negotiations with public safety licensees because it is a common party to all negotiations and agreements.”