CTIA Joins Growing Chorus Opposing Military Spectrum Veto

In a November 13 letter to congressional leadership, CTIA President & CEO Ajit Pai warned that Section 1564 of the version of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that passed the Senate imposes an "unnecessary" restriction on NTIA's ability to migrate existing military spectrum users into the 3.1-3.45 GHz and 7-8 GHz bands – and thereby free up spectrum in other bands to be auctioned by the FCC for commercial use.

The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which called for the auction of 800 MHz of spectrum (and reinstated the FCC's spectrum auction authority through the end of September 2034), explicitly prohibits the auction of spectrum in the aforementioned bands.

Section 1564, which was added to the NDAA by Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and chair of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, would go a step further and "[p]rohibit[] any modifications to DoD systems in key spectrum bands without joint certification from the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" (emphasis added).

Mr. Pai is not the first to object to the inclusion of Section 1564 in the NDAA.

In a September 10 post to the FSF Blog, Free State Foundation President Randolph May (1) pointed out that the White House in a Statement of Administration Policy objected to Section 1564 because it "would hinder the President's executive authority," (2) agreed that "Congress cannot properly restrict a president's executive authority by handing over final decision-making authority to his subordinates," and (3) urged Senator Fischer to withdraw the provision.

Some additional examples:

• On October 16, Citizens Against Government Waste's Deborah Collier wrote that, should the Senate version prevail, "the Pentagon will be given the absolute authority to veto the sale or shared use of DOD-controlled spectrum, jeopardizing the ability of the U.S. to remain the global leader in telecommunications and stymie the FCC's ability to auction more spectrum for wireless communications."

• At a Punchbowl News event on October 9, House Commerce Committee Chairman Richard Hudson (R-NC) expressed similar reservations, stating that "I don't think we need to give any kind of veto authority to the Pentagon. I think that could be counterproductive."

• At NTIA's 2025 Spectrum Policy Symposium in September, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, reportedly cautioned that "[p]ractically speaking, this means NTIA would not even be able to move other federal operators to these bands – which it will have to do to clear the spectrum pipeline – unless first receiving approval from the sovereigns at the Joint Chiefs."

Successful Interagency Spectrum Coordination Requires Discipline from the Top

On July 11, the Federalist Society hosted a webinar titled "Federal Spectrum Coordination: Pitfalls and Progress." The panel was moderated by attorney Scott Delacourt and the ITIF's Joe Kane, and featured two former NTIA Administrators as panelists: John Kneuer and David Redl. The panelists, drawing on their wealth of experience, discussed spectrum policy and interagency coordination on spectrum allocations. During the webinar, the panelists discussed the history of the NTIA and its Administrator position, processes overseen by the NTIA for coordinating among executive branch agencies for federal use of spectrum, interagency conflicts, as well as the issue of process reforms for improving interagency coordination among executive agencies and the FCC. The webinar is full of insights and worth a listen in full. But near the end, Mr. Redl made an excellent point about the necessity of the White House demanding discipline across the executive branch which is essential for ensuring that the interagency process is followed.

Also, as noted in an August 3, 2022 blog post, nearly a year ago the NTIA and the FCC signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on spectrum coordination. Now Congress needs to pass the Spectrum Reauthorization Act of 2023 – H.R. 3565, so that there will be more spectrum available for the agencies to coordinate and reallocation for commercial use. 

Senate Action Still Needed to Preserve FCC's Spectrum Auction Authority

The FCC's statutory authority to conduct competitive bidding spectrum auctions and issue licenses to winning bidders is set to expire tonight, March 9. As of the writing of this blog post, the Senate has neither passed the S.650 – the temporary extension bill sponsored by Senator Mike Rounds, nor has it passed H.R. 1108 – which was passed by the House of Representatives last week. Hopefully, Congress can find a way to preserve the Commission's authority and thereby avoid any delays or disruptions in future spectrum auctioning and licensing.  

According to reports, there is disagreement between members of Congress over the length of the temporary extension to be granted to the Commission. Apparently, disagreement centers around the prospective reallocation of the 3.1-3.45 GHz band for commercial licensing by the Commission. It is reported that there is a Defense Department report on the 3.1-3.45 GHz band in the works, and that some members of the Senate prefer a lengthier extension so that Congress will have access to the forthcoming DoD report before making addressing future use of the lower 3 GHz band as part of a more long-term extension of the FCC's spectrum auction authority.

As explained in my February 2021 Perspective from FSF Scholars, "Fast Action on the Lower 3 GHz Band Will Secure America's 5G Future," reallocation and licensing of mid-band spectrum is particularly important for timely deployment of private commercial 5G wireless services. Repurposing 3.1-3.45 GHz band spectrum is rightly a top priority for Congress. And Free State Foundation Senior Fellow Andrew Long wrote in a Perspectives from FSF Scholars published on February 23 of this year, "Extending FCC Spectrum Auction Authority is Essential to the 5G Race." Thus, preserving the FCC's spectrum auction authority and the continuity of operations is undeniably necessary for making more mid-band spectrum available for commercial use. 

 

Right now, the onus is on the Senate to move matters forward on extending FCC spectrum authority. But one way or another, Congress needs to promptly work through the impasse and replenish the spectrum pipeline for next-generation wireless services. 

MEDIA ADVISORY: FSF's Seth Cooper Reacts to NAS Study on Potential Spectrum Interference in L-Band

The following statement may be attributed to Free State Foundation Director of Policy Studies & Senior Fellow Seth Cooper:

 

Now that the National Academies of Sciences has completed its review of the FCC's 2020 order that authorizes Ligado Networks to operate mobile-satellite services in the L-band, NTIA hopefully will constructively work with Ligado to identify any old equipment owned by DOD that might need replacing. The FCC's order from April 2020, which was based on careful technical analysis, anticipated the possibility that some older equipment might need to be replaced due to harmful signal interference and it outlined a process for handling that. Importantly, the NAS study expressly states that it was not an evaluation of the FCC's decision from April 2020, and it has no legal operative effect. Executive branch agencies and members of Congress should not overread the NAS study's statements or miss the key point that the study acknowledged that most commercial GPS receivers will not experience significant harmful interference from Ligado's operations.

NTIA and Executive Agencies No-Show on Federal GPS Devices and L-Band

On June 30, Ligado Networks filed a quarterly report to update the FCC regarding Ligado's exchange of information with federal agency GPS users. In an April 2020 order, the Commission authorized Ligado to deploy a mixed-mobile/terrestrial satellite broadband network using long-idle L-band spectrum. The order requires that federally-owned GPS devices potentially affected by Ligado's network are to be identified and then expeditiously repaired or replaced at Ligado's expense. However, federal executive agencies do not appear to be all that concerned about signal interference, since none of them have provided Ligado with any information about at-risk GPS devices.

Ligado's report states: "Despite our numerous requests, we still have not received any information about government devices that may experience harmful interference from Ligado's operations; indeed, we have not received any information at all from these agencies." The Department of Defense and some other executive branch agencies have opposed Ligado's next-generation wireless network, claiming in the press and in filings to the FCC that new operations in the L-band would interfere with federal users in adjacent spectrum. But if federally-owned GPS devices were truly at risk of harmful interference from Ligado's next-generation network operations in neighboring L-band spectrum, one would expect those agencies to provide information identifying those devices requiring repair or replacement, consistent with the requirements of the Commission's order. 

Interestingly, NTIA seems to be in possession of the sort of information that has repeatedly been requested of it. Ligado has discovered communications between NTIA and other executive agencies from 2018 indicating that NTIA asked for and actually received information about federal GPS devices from at least some of those agencies. Adds Ligado's report: "It is unclear why NTIA has never provided this information either to Ligado or the FCC as called for in the April 2020 Order." Passing that information along would seem be a simple task. But the withholding of that data by NTIA lends further support to the idea that no federally-owned GPS devices are actually at risk of harmful interference.

Additionally, continuing radio silence by executive agencies in response to Ligado's requests for information raises doubts about NTIA's credibility in representing the executive branch on spectrum matters and in coordinating with the FCC on spectrum policy. On March 30 of this year, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and NTIA Administrator Alan Davidson announced a new Spectrum Coordination Initiative that includes monthly meetings between the two agencies on spectrum policy and the establishment of a task force to update the agencies' memorandum of understanding (MOU) on spectrum coordination. The much-touted initiative, including an updated MOU, may yet bear fruit by facilitating a much-needed replenishment of scare spectrum resources for commercial uses, including next-gen wireless services. However, all the initiatives, agreements, and procedures for improving interagency spectrum coordination will seem like empty posturing if federal agencies refuse to cooperate with Commission orders and exchange information in good faith.  

PRESS RELEASE: NTIA's Case Against Ligado Undercut by Agency Documents

The following statement may be attributed to Free State Foundation Director of Policy Studies and Senior Fellow Seth Cooper:

Documents from 2013 that recently have gained notice cast doubt on the validity of the Department of Defense and Department of Commerce's opposition to Ligado Network's use of L-Band spectrum for commercial wireless services. A July 2013 memo signed by Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Commerce Department, and NASA shows that at that time those federal agencies had no serious reservations about prospective use of L-Band spectrum by Ligado's predecessor,  Lightsquared. An October 2013 email from a Department of Defense official also indicates that those federal agencies were generally in favor of L-Band spectrum being used for commercial wireless services. This history undercuts those federal agencies' present pushback against Ligado's network, which will operate at significantly reduced power levels compared to what Lightsquared proposed, and subject to FCC-enforceable safeguards. The FCC's 2020 order that authorized Ligado to operate in the L-Band was based on careful technical analysis, and the agency documents from 2013 bolster the case for the Commission to reject any reconsideration of that order.

FSF President Randolph May Defends Private Sector Leadership on 5G

Below are tweets from today by Free State Foundation President Randolph May that reassert the U.S. policy strongly favoring private sector-led commercial mobile wireless services and push back against the idea of the Department of Defense entering the 5G commercial market to compete against private enterprise.

The US's #5G approach is not flawed - it's the @ericschmidt @FT op-ed that's flawed, for sure. US mobile broadband markets lead Europe and the world because US wireless carriers invested $29 Billion in infrastructure last year and $286 Billion over last 10 years. https://t.co/faxEmUdIQQ

— Free State Foundation (@FSFthinktank) February 8, 2021

Here's an @FSFthinktank paper showing competitiveness of US #broadband market & the extent of private sector investment, incl'g #wireless for #5G. New ideas are always welcome, but ultimately the success of US in #5G depends on private sector investment. https://t.co/QvMZY78uho

— Free State Foundation (@FSFthinktank) February 8, 2021

Free Market Coalition Makes Strong Case Against Government-Run 5G

On October 7, a coalition of 43 free market-oriented organizations, think tanks, and policy experts – led by the Americans for Tax Reform – released a letter supporting private-sector deployment of 5G and opposing a federal government-run 5G network. The letter was addressed to Senator John Thune, thanking him and his Senate colleagues for their letter of September 30 reaffirming the free-market path 5G deployment.  

I agree on all fronts with the coalition's perceptive letter supporting private-sector deployment of 5G and opposing a federal government-operated 5G network. The Department of Defense (DoD) should not be spending taxpayer money to go into the broadband business and compete with private marketplace providers who are investing billions into 5G networks. In other actions, the Trump Administration has endorsed the market-enterprise approach to 5G. DoD should follow suit and discard the costly and counterproductive idea of nationalizing 5G communications. 

Senators Reaffirm the Free-Market Path to 5G

On September 30, Sen. John Thune and several Senate colleagues sent a letter to President Donald Trump, commending his support for a private-sector driven approach to 5G. The letter raises valid concerns about a recent Request For Information (RFI) released by Department of Defense that "contradicts the successful free-market strategy" the President has embraced for 5G. According to the letter, "[r]ather than rely on private industry and market forces to foster multiple, facilities-based 5G networks, the RFI seeks information on a government-managed process for 5G networks." The letter continues: "Nationalizing 5G and experimenting with untested models for 5G deployment is not the way the United States will win the 5G race." Sen. Thune and his colleagues urge the President "to remain on the free-market path you have articulated, a path that will enable the United States to win the global 5G race."

Below is a tweet from Free State Foundation President Randolph May:

I agree with the sentiments expressed in this letter to @WhiteHouse by @SenJohnThune and his @Senate colleagues that private sector leadership is essential to #5G U.S. leadership. https://t.co/0Oof27LGUv #5GForEveryone #5GFAST pic.twitter.com/nY6v3QHcUI

— Free State Foundation (@FSFthinktank) September 30, 2020

Federal Policy Should Promote 5G Deployment by Market Providers

American success in 5G absolutely depends on strong investment & innovation by private marketplace providers. Any attempt by the federal government to build its own nationwide 5G network would sap the vitality of next-gen wireless services in the U.S. https://t.co/ayZiXSqjKe

— Seth Cooper (@CooperFSF) September 22, 2020

Commissioner O'Rielly Urges President to Help Free Up Federal Mid-Band Spectrum for 5G

On April 8, FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly sent a letter to President Donald Trump that calls attention to our nation's urgent need to put more mid-band spectrum into use for commercial 5G use and to the apparent fact that the U.S. Department of Defense is hesitant to part with any of that spectrum. Commissioner O'Rielly has played a valuable role in several FCC proceedings to make spectrum available for next-generation commercial mobile networks. He is right in imploring the President to engage DoD and find the most practical way to repurpose some of that valuable spectrum in a manner that is worthwhile to the DoD and consistent with our nation's national security interests. 

Both the matter of freeing up spectrum currently belonging to the federal government and interagency cooperative processes regarding spectrum use were topics addressed during the hot topics panel held at the Free State Foundation's Annual Telecom Policy Conference on March 10. The conference panel video and transcript are available online. 

FCC Should Green Light Wireless Services in L-Band Spectrum

According to reports, the FCC reportedly has prepared a draft order approving mobile wireless operations in unused L-Band spectrum. A November 18 letter by the Defense Secretary reportedly disagrees with the FCC's proposal on certain points and repeats views already known to the Commission when it prepared the draft. The Commission has ultimate responsibility over the spectrum, and the agency should be undeterred in approving its draft order so that long fallow valuable L-Band spectrum can be put into commercial use. 

It's important to our nation's economy and its quest for global leadership in wireless to free up as much spectrum as possible for 5G and other advanced mobile services. If approved, Ligado Networks' modified applications would put 30 MHz of L-Band spectrum to use, generating economic benefits potentially between $250 and $500 billion. In July 2018, Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I submitted reply comments in the Commission's proceeding, recommending Ligado's applications be approved. 

Ligado's modified applications to deploy a hybrid satellite-terrestrial wireless network present the FCC's best near-term opportunity to make available lower-middle-band spectrum for next-generation mobile services – including 5G. As research firm LightShed Partners has explained: "Ligado's spectrum offers incremental wireless data capacity, which is needed not only for the ongoing wireless data growth on existing LTE networks but also to enable higher use 5G customers. LightShed has identified the potential for C-Band and mmWave spectrum to be paired with Ligado's L-Band spectrum for uplinks using dynamic spectrum sharing (DSS), thereby enhancing the value and opportunities for LTE and 5G in those higher bands. According to LightShed, "Ligado could supply an operator like Verizon with at least two years of wireless data growth on a network," and it could similarly help meet T-Mobile's capacity needs. 

The Commission submitted a draft order regarding Ligado's L-band applications to an interagency advisory review board in October. The review is set to conclude on or about December 6. Given that the review is ongoing and also that the Department of Defense is a member of the interagency board, it's unusual that Defense Secretary Mark Esper went outside the process and released to the press his November 18 letter. The letter claims that Ligado's proposed network would cause interference with services in other bands – claims the Defense Department previously made to the Commission in a June 2019 letter. Ligado has previously disputed those interference claims, and the Commission surely considered them in reaching its own conclusion on the matter. 

In some ways, the Defense Department's last-minute public rehash of old arguments is reminiscent of tactics used by other agencies attempting to derail the FCC's implementation of its 24 GHz spectrum band plan even after the auction was concluded. It's not unusual for government agencies or other institutions to have different viewpoints on technical matters. To avoid permanent interagency gridlock, federal law gives to the Commission the final say on how spectrum for non-government purposes will be used. In the case of the 24 GHz band, the Commission refused to be deterred and has followed through on its spectrum plan.

The Commission should show the same determination in the case of the L-Band. The agency should now proceed with dispatch to act on Ligado's modified applications.