Senate Commerce Reconciliation Seeks 800 MHz Pipeline With Lower 3 GHz, 7.4-8.4 GHz Carve-Outs

Senate Commerce proposes that 500 MHz of the 800 MHz pipeline come from federally controlled spectrum and 300 MHz from non-federal airwaves. HR-1 included a 600 MHz pipeline but didn't obligate reallocation of specific bands. The 2024 Spectrum Pipeline Act -- which Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, repeatedly touted earlier this year as his preferred basis for an airwaves title -- proposed selling 1,250 MHz of bandwidth (see 2502190068). The Senate Commerce proposal, like HR-1, would renew the FCC's lapsed spectrum auction mandate through Sept. 30, 2034.

Senate Commerce's proposal calls for the FCC to sell at least 300 MHz of the pipeline within two years, including 100 MHz from the 3.98-4.2 GHz upper C band. That was among the frequencies DOD proposed reallocating in March in exchange for retaining the military-controlled 3.1-3.45 GHz band (see 2504040068). The proposal also would mandate that NTIA identify at least 200 MHz of the pipeline's 500 MHz of federal spectrum within two years. It appropriates $50 million for NTIA to study the 2.7-2.9 GHz, 4.4-4.9 GHz and 7.25-7.4 GHz bands.

The proposal would require the FCC to sell at least 200 MHz of the reallocated federal spectrum within four years and the rest within eight. It would exclude the lower 3 GHz band and 7.4-8.4 GHz band from possible sale through the end of the FCC's renewed authority, reflecting recent pushes (see 2505220064) by Senate Communications Subcommittee Chair Deb Fischer, R-Neb., Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Armed Services Committee member Mike Rounds, R-S.D. Senate Commerce doesn’t propose a carve-out for the 5.9-7.1 (6) GHz band, which HR-1 includes.

Senate Commerce Republicans said the Congressional Budget Office “estimates that the net proceeds (a net increase in offsetting receipts) will contribute to a deficit reduction of $85.0 billion." CBO scored HR-1’s airwaves language at $88 billion. The Senate measure would mandate that the FCC “use all tools within its authority to ensure the spectrum is put to its most economically productive and efficient use,” including through flexible licensing requirements, sharing models and auction design.

The proposal would also appropriate $500 million in FY 2025 for NTIA’s BEAD program to construct and deploy infrastructure “for the provision of artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems.” It would require governments receiving BEAD funding to pause enforcing state-level AI rules, an apparent alternative to HR-1’s 10-year federal preemption of such laws. Incompas CEO Chip Pickering praised that language.

President Donald Trump appeared to endorse Senate Commerce's proposal, calling it an “amazing deal” that he credited to Cruz, Wicker and Cotton. “This is serious power for American Leadership on 6G,” Trump said on Truth Social. “We will have the World’s Greatest Networks, and ensure the Highest Level of National Security for future Generations of Americans. [Former President Joe] Biden did nothing on Spectrum in four years but, thanks to ‘THE GREAT BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL,’ my Administration will beat all expectations, and show the World the path forward!”

Mixed Reviews

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said the Senate Commerce spectrum proposal “not only restores the FCC’s spectrum auction authority, which lapsed back in 2023, it creates a large pipeline of dedicated spectrum. This will create jobs, encourage innovation, and expand high-speed connections to more Americans.” The Competitive Carriers Association, CTIA and NATE also praised the proposal.

But Senate Commerce ranking member Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., criticized the spectrum language. “At a moment when maintaining safe skies has never been more challenging, this proposal recklessly endangers national security and aviation safety by mandating spectrum auctions in the [upper] C-Band before new altimeter standards are even finalized,” Cantwell said in a statement. “By rushing to sell off spectrum and failing to fund these essential safety upgrades, we're setting ourselves up for a catastrophic repeat of the 5G C-band debacle -- except this time we risk grounding the armed forces as well.”

Washington Analysis’ Shawn Chang, a former senior Democratic counsel for the House Communications Subcommittee, said the wireless industry and DOD were the main “winners” in Senate Commerce’s proposal. Cruz simultaneously proposed a larger pipeline than the House did in HR-1 while only requiring the military to “relinquish 80 megahertz more” than the 420 MHz that officials offered in March, Chang said in a note to investors.

He also said broadcasting, cable and satellite companies will likely have concerns about Senate Commerce’s proposal. Broadcasters and the aviation industry won’t back the proposed upper C-band sale. Broadcasters “will have to repack their operations into roughly half of the current spectrum allocated for [fixed satellite service] in that band,” he said. “Meanwhile, the aviation industry uses the adjacent 4.2-4.4 GHz band for radio altimeters.”

Cable providers will be displeased that the proposal lacks HR-1’s 6 GHz band carve-out, while satellite companies will criticize it for allowing the 800 MHz pipeline to go only to wireless use, Chang said. The “current controversy over EchoStar’s alleged underutilization of the [2 GHz] mobile-satellite service (MSS) band [may prompt the FCC to] be even more emboldened to reclaim the band and auction it for more ‘economically productive use’ under the Senate language.”

Michael Calabrese, director of New America’s Wireless Future Program, said Senate Commerce's proposal is “almost certain to lead to bad spectrum policy that harms consumers and the economy. The mobile industry does not need anywhere near this much more midband spectrum, given that growth in mobile data consumption is rapidly flatlining, and 6G will be focused on indoor use cases where Wi-Fi and [3550-3650 MHz citizens broadband radio service band] are predominant.”