Bay Area Rapid Transit Urges D.C. Circuit Stay of 4.9 GHz Order
The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) disagreed sharply with FCC arguments and groups supporting FirstNet that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit shouldn’t stay parts of the FCC’s October order on the 4.9 GHz band. BART, the National Sheriffs' Association and the California State Sheriffs' Association sought a stay, which was opposed by the commission, the Public Safety Spectrum Alliance and Public Safety Broadband Technology Association (see 2503030053).
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 FCC is doing more than stabilizing the band while it moves to a new licensing regime, BART said in a brief filed Friday in docket 24-1363. The commission “already has moved to a new licensing scheme by cancelling -- not freezing -- geographic licenses as of June 9.”
“BART is likely to succeed in showing this action is arbitrary; the deference claimed by the Commission does not extend to actions that fail to address a significant part of the problem (reliance) and lack any foundation,” the brief said. “The Commission does not dispute that BART will suffer concrete harm, theorizing only that BART could seek a waiver. But the speculative possibility of case-by-case waivers can neither substitute for reasoned decision-making nor remedy BART’s harm. The public interest in maximizing use of the band is served, not hindered, by a stay. BART has met the requirements for a stay.”
BART also argued that waivers would be impractical. “Having to apply for a waiver and a license modification every time a base station needs to be adjusted or added would not give BART the certainty that was conveyed by its geographic license and is needed to move forward with its billion-dollar communications-based train control project.” Waivers are possible “for nearly every FCC action,” but the order “gives no assurance the Commission is open to considering them.”