Fischer Backs DOD's Spectrum Proposal Without Lower 3 GHz; Rounds Sees Slim Odds
Two top Senate Armed Services Committee Republicans are voicing differing reviews of DOD’s recent proposal to the wireless industry to make 420 MHz from current military-controlled frequencies available for FCC auction while maintaining the Pentagon’s grip on the 3.1-3.45 GHz band (see 2504040068). Other lawmakers are skeptical that the proposal would lead to real progress toward an elusive spectrum legislative deal. Lobbyists pointed to the DOD proposal as aiming to dispel perceptions of an intransigent Pentagon but said it falls far short of the sort of compromise that Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, would likely accept.
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!
Senate Communications Subcommittee Chair Deb Fischer of Nebraska, also a senior Armed Services Republican, told us DOD’s proposal reflects “what I’ve been pushing for,” including that the military would “keep the lower 3” GHz band and retain the vast majority of the 7 and 8 GHz frequencies. DOD’s proposal would vacate the 7125-7250 MHz band immediately adjacent to airwaves that the military uses for radar, satellite and other classified systems. “They're protecting these exquisite assets that we need for national security” while also proposing giving up “a lot of other spectrum that is under their control,” Fischer said. Her opposition to reallocating the lower 3 GHz band has repeatedly put her publicly at odds with Cruz (see 2502250060).
Senate Armed Services member Mike Rounds, R-S.D., whose opposition to a lower 3 GHz sale scuttled a 2023 renewal of the FCC’s now-lapsed spectrum auction authority (see 2303090074), gave DOD’s proposal a more positive review. “It sounds similar to what I think might actually be workable,” but “it won't satisfy certain parts of the telecom industry, because they're really after” the lower 3 GHz band, Rounds told us. The wireless industry could have struck a deal without that frequency “a long time ago” if it had been an acceptable compromise.
There's “no way that we can allow” the lower 3 GHz, 7 GHz and 8 GHz bands “to be sold off,” Rounds said. The Chinese government “has been trying to convince the [U.S. wireless] industry for years to” push for the lower 3 GHz band “because they know how valuable it is for radar.” China “is just sitting back laughing at us, knowing that if they can get our own businesses to try to take it away from” the military, “it puts us at a real disadvantage,” he said: “They would love to have us defeat ourselves” by restricting “our ability to use radar.”
Guthrie 'Careful'
Cruz and Senate Commerce ranking member Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., indicated in interviews earlier this month that they hadn’t reviewed the DOD proposal, despite coverage of it in telecom policy publications. Cruz said he “would certainly look at any reasonable proposal, but the outcome that I think makes sense is what’s reflected in” his 2024 Spectrum Pipeline Act. That measure, which Cruz wants to form the basis for a spectrum title in the coming GOP-led budget reconciliation package (see 2502190068), would require NTIA to identify at least 2,500 MHz of midband spectrum to reallocate within the next five years.
House Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., told us he's “ready to hear” DOD's proposal because Armed Services Committee members have said “they’re only going to support” reallocating spectrum that DOD thinks “that they can do without.” There “are opportunities in certain [bands] that we can free up for commercial or shared use,” Guthrie said. DOD has made clear that there's “some spectrum that the military just needs to keep,” but he thinks “it could be helpful to the military [to] have the private sector develop more and more.”
“We’re going to be careful” not to write a spectrum title in reconciliation “at the expense of national security,” despite the desire to maximize reallocated airwaves, Guthrie said. He said he intends for House Commerce members to “give their input and then see where the Senate comes down” on a spectrum title. That appears likely to happen soon, as several lobbyists told us House Commerce is eyeing a May 7 markup session on its section of a reconciliation package that will include any spectrum proposal. Congress’ budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 14), which will provide a blueprint for the reconciliation package, mandates that House Commerce find at least $880 billion in offsets in its areas of jurisdiction.
“Any proposals being discussed right now make for an extremely modest pipeline,” said Cooley’s Robert McDowell. “It’s just a trickle” compared with what Cruz proposed, “but things can change quickly.” Several wireless-affiliated lobbyists told us they don’t see DOD’s proposal as a sign of real movement toward a compromise. They disputed DOD’s estimate that moving radar systems currently on the 3550-3650 GHz citizens broadband radio service band would allow reallocation of 100 MHz of spectrum because the FCC already sold off 70 MHz of the frequency.