Major Carriers at Odds Over Rules for 2.1 GHz Band

“AT&T has concluded based on the record and its own analysis that the downlink-only model represents the highest and best use of the AWS-3 spectrum and offers the best means of alleviating concerns of interference to adjacent AWS-1 and AWS-2 devices,” the company said. “The primary concern with uplink transmissions in the AWS-3 band is the potential for interference to mobile handsets designed to operate in the adjacent… spectrum blocks.”

The carrier said giving licensees more flexibility would pose a risk to AWS-1 spectrum, which the commission auctioned in 2006, and adjacent spectrum expected to be sold in the proposed AWS-2 auction. “If mobile uplink transmissions are permitted in the AWS-3 band, AWS-1 and AWS-2 mobile receivers would be required to filter out those undesired transmissions even when the mobile devices from the adjacent services are operated in close proximity to one another,” AT&T said.

Verizon Wireless said the spectrum should only be auctioned for fixed use and noted that most comments in the proceeding agree on the amount of the risk posed to other licensees. The carrier said many companies need additional downlink spectrum. “We note that if the Commission were to explicitly prohibit mobile transmissions in the AWS-3 spectrum, it would not forestall the development of important and useful applications in the band,” the carrier said.

T-Mobile said the record is clear. “The weight of the record in this proceeding supports adoption of the downlink- only band plan,” the company said. “Incumbent AWS-1 and [Mobile Satellite Service] licensees have demonstrated that rigorous interference protections would be needed to protect adjacent-band licensees from mobile operations in the AWS-3 spectrum.”

But Sprint Nextel said the rules should be flexible and allow for different uses of the spectrum. “The Commission has consistently permitted flexible use allocations under much more permissive rules than the limitations that some AWS-1 licensees have sought in this proceeding,” Sprint said. “Recognizing that industry best practices are often a far better result than command-and-control regulation, the Commission has adopted technical rules for new spectrum allocations based on the reasonable expectation that licensees will cooperate to maximize use of the available spectrum while minimizing the risk of potentially harmful interference.”

Among other comments, New ICO Satellite Services urged the agency to look for balance. “ICO remains hopeful that a solution can be achieved that would provide maximum flexibility for usage of the band, without causing harmful interference to adjacent band licensees,” the company said. “The Commission has provided flexibility for innovative services in other contexts, such as the Broadband Radio Service/Educational Broadband Service and the 700 MHz Commercial service rules. These service rules should provide guidance to the Commission and interested parties in this rulemaking.”

M2Z said the FCC should ensure that the spectrum is assigned to a single licensee with an obligation to offer free nationwide broadband. But the FCC should not strictly limit how the band can be used, the company said. “Despite the practical, competitive, and policy-related benefits of service rules that are technologically neutral, a few parties suggest that the Commission ignore the long-held policy and principle of technological neutrality and instead meander down the long-rejected path of prescribing the technologies and operations that are allowed in the band.”