FCC Addresses 800 MHz Rebanding Issues

“They still haven’t addressed the big one - whether to extend the benchmark,” said a lawyer active in wireless. “We will address this portion of the petition, and Sprint’s compliance with the benchmark, at a later date,” the order said. Wed.’s order came amid mounting pressure on the FCC to ensure that Sprint meets key deadlines in the landmark 2004 rebanding order (CD May 25 p1). In an April filing, AT&T said Sprint should face financial penalties for missing deadlines.

The FCC rejected Sprint Nextel’s Jan. 2006 petition arguments against having to relocate “low-density” licensees from public safety spectrum to the ESMR band, which they would share with Sprint. Sprint told the FCC it acceded to the rebanding order partly on the assumption, as the company weighed the costs vs. benefits of the order, that licensees could stay put,

“Sprint contends that the Commission’s decision to allow low-density cellular systems into the ESMR band is a fundamental departure from the Commission’s original decision, is inconsistent with the Commission’s public interest objectives in this proceeding, and is therefore arbitrary and capricious,” the FCC said in the order: “We are not persuaded by Sprint’s argument… Interpreting our rules to prohibit relocation of low-density cellular systems to the ESMR band would have prevented relocation of large iDEN-based cellular systems such as SouthernLINC’s that did not meet the high-density criteria.”

Sprint also protested an FCC decision to allow economic area (EA) licensees to relocate site-based licenses if part of “integrated communications system” as of Nov. 22, 2004. Here too, the FCC rejected Sprint’s arguments. “Strong public safety considerations outweigh Sprint’s concern that migrating the site-based portions of EA licensees’ systems to the ESMR band could affect Sprint’s private interests,” the order said: “Sprint’s argument that the value of its spectrum rights will be significantly compromised as a result of our action is entirely speculative. Sprint has not shown that a reduction in value, if it did occur, would be other than minimal.”

Also in the order the FCC:

(1) Rejected a Mobile Relay Assoc. petition for a waiver of a requirement that only holders of 800 MHz EA licenses may relocate systems to the ESMR band. The company took the FCC to court. Last July, the U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., rejected arguments by MRA and Skitronics that the FCC was “arbitrary and capricious” in not letting them transfer operations to what they view as superior spectrum, in the 800 MHz rebanding.

(2) Agreed with Sprint that it shouldn’t bear rebanding costs in the Gulf of Mexico since Sprint “holds no spectrum rights in the Gulf of Mexico and our licensing records indicate that no public safety licenses operate there.” The FCC rejected similar arguments about Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa. “Funding band reconfiguration in these markets does not pose an inequitable burden on Sprint,” the order said: “Sprint holds… spectrum in all three markets that it obtained at auction, and has also received 1.9 GHz spectrum rights in these markets as a result of the 800 MHz report and order.”

(3) Rejected a request by various parties that the FCC order Sprint to pay the costs of postmediation litigation with other 800 MHz licensees. Sprint must pay the costs of hiring a mediator, the FCC said: “However, these provisions do not entitle licensees to recover their post-mediation litigation expenses in the event that parties choose to bring unresolved issues before the Commission.”

(4) Ordered the 800 MHz Transition Administrator to develop an alternate band plan and negotiation timetable for Puerto Rico, in response to a complaint by P.R. licensees C&I Electronics and North Sight Communications.

(5) Changed its rules to allow the Public Safety Bureau chief to make changes needed to reband regions bordering Mexico and Canada after the U.S. govt. completes negotiations with those nations.