FCC Proposes Framework for Supplemental Coverage from Space

On March 16, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a proceeding that the agency calls "Single Network Future: Supplemental Coverage from Space." The Commission's proposal would establish a new regulatory framework for Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS) that would facilitate the integration of satellite and terrestrial networks. As the Notice explains, the Commission's proposal would enable satellite operators collaborating with terrestrial service providers to operate space stations on currently licensed, flexible-use spectrum allocated to terrestrial services, thereby expanding wireless coverage to the terrestrial licensee's subscribers. In other words, the Commission's framework would make it easier for terrestrial wireless service coverage to be supplemented by service coverage delivered from space stations. This includes providing wireless connectivity from space stations directly to everyday wireless devices used by consumers and business enterprises. SCS has the potential to significantly expand or at least improve wireless services in unserved and underserved areas that are geographically difficult to connect. 

In a March 6 blog post, titled "Big Announcements on Deployments of Direct-to-Device (D2D) Satellite Services," I wrote about Ligado Networks' partnership plans to offer D2D mobile connectivity to enterprises and consumers in areas were terrestrial cellular wireless coverage is lacking. The Commission's Notice in its Single Network Future proceeding appears intended to promote similar types of innovative collaborative efforts by satellite and wireless providers. 

 

The Single Network Future proceeding is one of the most interesting and promising proceedings for American consumers on the FCC's docket. The Commission did a good thing in adopting its Notice on facilitating SCS. 

Big Announcements on Deployments of Direct-to-Device (D2D) Satellite Services

On March 2, ViaSat announced it had entered into a partnership with Ligado Networks and Skylo Technologies to offer direct-to-device (D2D) satellite services via Ligado's SkyTerra satellite network. This year, the partnership plans to use their respective satellite networks to enable smartphone messaging and Internet-of-things (IoT) services, including in areas where terrestrial wireless connectivity is weak or entirely lacking.

To date, satellite networks have provided connectivity and delivered communications to equipment designed specifically for satellite-delivered services. D2D services are an important breakthrough because they connect satellite networks to terrestrial cellular devices used by consumers and business enterprises.

Additionally, on February 23, Ligado Networks announced its partnership with Omnispace to combine their respective licensed mobile satellite service (MSS) spectrum in the L- and S-Bands for providing D2D capabilities including global voice, text messaging, and data connectivity. Together, Ligado and Omnispace intend to use their multi-orbit satellite networks to provide mobile connectivity to consumer and enterprise terrestrial cellular devices in areas where cellular coverage is lacking. 

 

Market freedom and flexible use spectrum licenses are essential to the success of innovative D2D offerings. And the FCC has an important role to play in encouraging future ventures involving interoperable satellite and terrestrial wireless networks. At its meeting on March 16, the FCC will be voting on its draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a "Single Network Future."

 

According to the draft Notice, the rulemaking would "facilitate the integration of satellite and terrestrial networks by proposing a new regulatory framework for Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS). The draft Notice is intended to provide a streamlined agency approval process for satellite operator collaborations with terrestrial wireless service providers involving operation of space stations on flexible-use spectrum that is allocated to terrestrial services.

 

The Commission appears to recognize the potential for satellite-terrestrial collaborations, such as those exemplified by Ligado's recent agreements with ViaSat and Omnispace, to reach unserved and underserved areas, enabling emergency communications and other beneficial uses for consumers and industries. This is a positive development. 

FCC Should Stand by Its Rules and Its 2020 Ligado Order

Ligado Networks submitted an ex parte letter to the FCC on November 16, calling for a denial of Iridium's petition for a stay of the Commission's 2020 L-Band Order. The long-delayed 2020 order approved deployment next-generation wireless services in valuable L-band spectrum. The Commission should deny the petition because it lacks legal support and there is no risk of immediate harm to Iridium.  

As Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I have previously explained, the 2020 order authorizing Ligado to deploy a hybrid satellite-terrestrial wireless network using its licensed L-band spectrum followed an extraordinarily lengthy, careful process. The resulting decision was informed by technical analysis by FCC staff engineers and based on agency rules defining "harmful interference." And it was fully compliant with the Administrative Procedures Act. The order contains tailored safeguards against potential harmful signal interference with incumbent operators in adjacent spectrum bands, including specific signal power limits and other remediation measures.

Iridium's stay petition states that its operations could be subject to interference from Ligado's network. It claims that its petition is supported by a September 2022 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) report that reviewed the record in the FCC's L-band proceeding. Notably, no new testing was conducted for the NAS report. More importantly, and as Ligado pointed out in its responsive letter, the NAS report expressly relied on the report authors' own definition of "harmful interference" – and not on the Commission's rules defining "harmful interference." Thus, the NAS report made no determination about whether Ligado's network would cause "harmful interference" according to the Commission's rules. And, further to the point, the NAS report acknowledged that it was not making an evaluation of the correctness of Commission's decision in the 2020 order. 

 

Iridium's stay petition amounts to asking the Commission to disregard its own rules defining "harmful interference." But the Commission should stick to its rules as well as its careful decision from 2020 based on those rules.

 

Additionally, Ligado has publicly stated that it is not going to deploy its terrestrial wireless operations in the L-band while it negotiates with NTIA over these matters. Iridium is therefore facing no immediate harm. In sum, the case for a stay on the 2020 order is without merit. 

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.  

Ligado Announces Plans to Commence Next-Gen Wireless Operations This Year

In a March 31 report, Ligado Networks informed the FCC that it will begin wireless network operations in the 1526-1536 MHz band on or after September 30 of this year. This is exciting news, as Ligado intends to provide "reliable and secure next-generation network capabilities to our nation's critical infrastructure industries." 

Back in April 2020, the FCC unanimously approved its L-Band Order, which authorized Ligado Networks to deploy a next-gen mixed mobile-satellite network using licensed spectrum in the lower mid-band range (1-2 GHz). This valuable spectrum has gone unused for years. But the Commission's order cleared the way for Ligado to provide industrial Internet-of-Things (IoT) services and private 5G network solutions for energy, utility, and other industries. The Commission recognized the potential for Ligado's network to benefit the public by spurring infrastructure investment, supporting advanced services, and creating jobs. 

Since the Commission approved the L-Band Order, Ligado has pursued commercial partnerships to deploy its networks. In June 2021, it was reported that Ligado raised $4 billion in private capital to develop and deploy its network. Also in 2021, Ligado announced it had received 3GPP standards approval for its specifications to deploy 5G services in its L-Band spectrum. And Ligado reported reaching a deal with Nokia to develop 5G base stations. 

Ligado Networks' March 31 announcement of plans to commence operations in the 1526-1536 MHz in northern Virginia is in keeping with the L-Band Order's requirement that Ligado provide 6-months advance notice to GPS providers in adjacent spectrum. The L-Band Order includes several safeguards against potential harmful signal interference to incumbent operations in neighboring spectrum bands. For instance, the order requires a 23 megahertz guard band between Ligado's downlink operations in the 1526-1536 band and GPS operations in the 1559-1610 MHz band. The Commission's also imposes strong limits Ligado's base station power levels. 

In all, Ligado's expected start for operations this fall is a step forward for America's wireless future.

PRESS RELEASE: D.C. Circuit's Decision in FCC's 6GHz Proceeding Has Broad Implications

With regard to the D.C. Circuit’s December 28 decision in AT&T Services, Inc. v. FCC, the following statement may be attributed to Free State Foundation President Randolph May:

“The court’s decision largely affirming the FCC’s allocation of the 6 GHz band frequencies for unlicensed use is important for enabling higher speed WiFi and other wireless broadband applications. But aside from the specific result, the court’s decision is also important because of the way the court broadly viewed the exercise of the Commission’s core spectrum management responsibilities.

Significantly, the court emphasized that in carrying out its duty to prevent ‘harmful interference,’ the agency is not required to reduce the risk of harmful interference to zero. This is always important to have in mind, but especially so now, because in several recent instances, such as the Ligado proceeding, executive branch agencies have objected to carefully considered FCC decisions on the basis of an incorrect understanding of the FCC’s ‘harmful interference’ standard. And the court’s decision is also significant in emphasizing the considerable degree of deference to be accorded to the FCC regarding technical spectrum management matters.”

NDAA Markup Should Steer Clear of FCC's Careful L-Band Order

Today, I posted the following tweet thread about the FCC's April 2020  order approving Ligado Networks' deployment of wireless services in the L-Band and the September 1, 2021 markup hearing scheduled for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2022:

1) U.S. leadership on #5G is more important to the future of the free world than ever. @LigadoNetworks' planned 5G commercial wireless network using L-Band spectrum -- which has @FCC approval -- will play a vital role in ensuring that global leader on 5G is America, not China.

— Seth Cooper (@CooperFSF) August 30, 2021

3) @FCC's order approving Ligado Networks' L-Band use followed a careful process. It complied with APA, factored public comments, used staff engineering expertise + GPS safeguards. @FCC's decision should not be thwarted by last-minute amendments to NDAA via an uncareful process.

— Seth Cooper (@CooperFSF) August 30, 2021

Ligado Networks and Mavenir Move Ahead on Next-Gen Wireless Buildout

As mentioned in a blog post from July of this year, Ligado Networks has been developing its mixed mobile-satellite wireless network, which will operate using its licensed L-Band spectrum. Once deployed, Ligado's network will offer 5G private network and IoT capabilities that will create jobs and boost the U.S. economy. To this end, Ligado has reached agreements with equipment manufacturers, and its latest announced partnership is with the OpenRAN vendor Mavenir. See Free State Foundation President Randolph May's tweet on this announcement, with a link to the press release: 

The announcement that @LigadoNetworks is partnering w/ @Mavenir to advance the connectivity of its #5G mobile satellite network is imp't, esp. now. The combo will support millions of mobile devices used in critical #infrastructure industries. See: https://t.co/4pwfsAUk6G

— Free State Foundation (@FSFthinktank) August 18, 2021

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.

Goods Reasons for Congress to Object to the RETAIN Act

Today, I posted the following Twitter thread in response to a July 26 Forbes.com article by Diana Furchtgott-Roth about Ligado Networks and the introduction of the RETAIN Act in the U.S. House:

2) In adopting the L-Band Order, the @FCC was informed by its Office of Engineering & Technology staff and their expert analysis. The FCC’s careful decision includes safeguards for GPS + satellite services in adjacent bands: a 23 MHz guard-band, base station power limits, & more.

— Seth Cooper (@CooperFSF) July 27, 2021

4) Flawed RETAIN Act's blanket replacement mandate ignores the fact that some GPS devices receive signals using Ligado's licensed spectrum - far outside the GPS allocation. RETAIN ACT's blanket approach effectively would give third parties rights in Ligado's licensed spectrum.

— Seth Cooper (@CooperFSF) July 27, 2021

For more on what's right with the FCC's L-Band Order and what's wrong with the RETAIN Act, see my blog posts from May 26 and July 1 of this year.

The RETAIN Act Would Restrain America's 5G Future

In its April 2020 L-Band Order, the FCC voted 5-0 to approve Ligado Networks' use of 30 MHz of licensed spectrum for commercial wireless services, including 5G. The carefully tailored order included specific safeguards for GPS and for satellite communications services operating in adjacent spectrum bands. But a bill called the RETAIN GPS and Satellite Communications Act takes a slapdash approach to the intricate technical issues addressed by the L-Band Order. 

Congress should reject the RETAIN Act and ensure that 30 MHz of valuable spectrum finally gets put to economically beneficial use. Putting L-Band spectrum into commercial use is especially important to further America's preeminence over China for 5G services.  

The FCC's L-Band Order permitted Ligado Networks to deploy an innovative mixed mobile-satellite network that will offer 5G private network solutions to energy, utility, and other industries. The L-Band Order observed that Ligado's network could lead to over 8,000 new jobs. Moreover, it is reported that Ligado raised $4 billion in private capital last year to develop and deploy its network. On June 21, Ligado announced it had received 3GPP standards approval for its specifications to deploy 5G services in its L-Band spectrum. And on June 22, it was reported Ligado reached a deal with Nokia to develop 5G base stations. 

But the RETAIN Act (S.2166) would thwart Ligado Networks' commendable efforts to bring next-generation commercial wireless network services to the L-Band. The bill, which was introduced by Sen. James Inhofe, would require Ligado to buy new equipment for any and all GPS and satellite communications providers and customers that are impacted by Ligado's operations within its licensed L-Band spectrum. 

A major problem with the RETAIN Act is that it takes the kind of indiscriminate blanket approach to alleged spectrum interference issues that was rightly rejected by the FCC. In its L-Band Order, the Commission required Ligado Networks to replace government-owned GPS devices in the event that Ligado's network caused harmful signal interference issues with government users of adjacent spectrum. But the RETAIN Act's requirement that Ligado replace any and all GPS devices impacted by its network operations ignores the fact that some GPS devices receive signals using Ligado's licensed spectrum. As the FCC recognized in its L-Band Order, some GPS receivers apparently were designed to receive signals far outside of the spectrum allocation for GPS. The FCC sensibly concluded that protection shouldn't be extended to every GPS receiver operating far outside its allocation or to every poorly designed GPS receiver. However, the RETAIN ACT would quite unreasonably require Ligado to pay for and replace all such equipment. This would amount to giving third parties rights to use Ligado's licensed spectrum.  

Additionally, the RETAIN ACT treats one-way GPS and two-way satellite communications the same even though they are distinct services operating in different bands that present different technical issues. Significantly, in the L-Band Order, the FCC concluded that Ligado's operations, subject to certain emissions limits, would not cause harmful interference to satellite communications operations in an adjacent band. Accordingly, the Commission did not pre-determine responsibility for any other such potential harmful signal interference issues, and it nowhere mandated that Ligado buy new equipment for its competitor, Iridium, should any future signal interference issue arise. But the RETAIN Act effectively would mandate this result. 

In its L-Band Order, the FCC addressed potential harmful signal interference issues in a way that was fitted to concerns unique to each type of service and spectrum allocation. Yet the RETAIN Act lacks any such careful calibration. The bill seems intended to thwart new wireless services and effectively keep 30 MHz of valuable L-Band spectrum from ever being used. This result would cause a huge setback to America's 5G future and harm our nation's competitiveness against China. Congress should say "no" to the RETAIN Act and let Ligado Networks move forward with its next-gen wireless network, consistent with the safeguards established by the FCC. 

FCC Followed a Careful Process in Approving Wireless L-Band Services

In April 2020, the FCC approved the use of 30 MHz of valuable L-Band spectrum for commercial wireless services, including 5G services. This will boost the U.S. economy and our nation's standing in the race for 5G global leadership. Now disgruntled parties who want to delay or undo the L-Band Order are badmouthing it. But their attacks on the agency process that preceded the approval are easily shown to be untrue. 

In its L-Band proceeding, the FCC followed the law and engaged its engineering expertise on spectrum interference issues. The Commission's carefully balanced order will promote innovation, investment, and jobs while providing safeguards for GPS services in nearby spectrum bands. 

On a 5-0 bipartisan vote, the FCC authorized Ligado Networks to deploy a mixed mobile-satellite network using licensed L-Band spectrum that previously has gone unused. Ligado is pursuing opportunities for private network services. According to the L-Band Order, Ligado plans to invest up to $800 million in network capabilities, which could create over 8,000 jobs. In February 2021, Ligado announced its collaboration with Rakuten Mobile to co-develop 5G private network solutions for critical infrastructure industries such as energy, utilities, healthcare, and agriculture. 

As Ligado Networks moves forward with its innovative network plans, its opponents are trying to nitpick the FCC's process leading up to the L-Band Order. For instance, op-eds by Diana Furchtgott-Roth published in April and May of this year rehash attacks on the L-Band proceeding. The most fanciful criticisms of the proceeding were originally made by Sen. James Inhofe in a May 2020 floor speech. Sen. Inhofe claimed that the Commission's process amounted to "a hasty decision" suddenly made "in the darkness of a weekend." Others, including Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, subsequently quoted Sen. Inhofe's wild claims for purposes of attacking the L-Band Order. However, it's a ghost story, not reality.

 

The FCC proceeding that culminated in the L-Band Order goes back a decade. Federal agencies, the GPS industry, the wireless industry, and others have closely tracked its developments. In 2016 and 2018, the Commission requested public comments on Ligado Networks' application to deploy its proposed mobile-satellite network. In an August 2019 NTIA report, the executive branch expressly acknowledged an anticipated a decision by the Commission on Ligado's application. And in the fall of that year, the Commission actually shared a draft of its order with NTIA. That the Commission was working methodically toward a decision in its L-Band proceeding was a surprise to no one. Moreover, the agency process that produced the L-Band Order complied with the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment requirements. 

Furthering the ghost story version of events, Ms. Furchtgott-Roth's op-eds call the L-Band Order "ill-advised" and "inexplicable." Not so. The FCC was ably advised by the agency's Office of Engineering and Technology. The Commission's staff engineers duly considered submissions from federal agencies and all interested parties, conducting a careful analysis of alleged or potential signal interference issues. For instance, the Commission was unpersuaded by certain executive agency claims about possible signal interference with military devices operating outside of their assigned spectrum band.

Executive branch agencies may be unhappy that the FCC didn't agree with their views. But the Commission has the legal responsibility and the expertise to address conflicting views about commercial spectrum usage, and the agency relied on that expertise to make its decision.   

In a January 2021 address to the Information Technology Industry Council, then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai cut to the chase about federal agency disagreements on spectrum use and overheated claims that aren't backed up by hard facts: 

 

[A]rguably the biggest thing hampering efforts to use spectrum more efficiently is – our own government. On proceeding after proceeding, we saw that other federal agencies tried to throw up roadblocks. Rather than look out for the public interest, many agencies were looking out for their narrow parochial interest. And since most don't have in-house spectrum expertise, they ended up simply parroting the exaggerated, hysterical, and often outright false claims being made by the industries they regulate. To achieve their aims, they ended up bypassing normal channels and complaining to Congress or the media in an effort to block or delay efforts to free up spectrum for commercial use.

 

Among the highly dubious claims called out by Chairman Pai, throw in Ms. Furchtgott-Roth's that "the entire GPS system is endangered" by the L-Band Order. 

The deliberative process undertaken by the FCC is a reflected in the L-Band Order's specifics to for safeguarding GPS services. Rather than give Ligado Networks a free pass, the Commission imposed significant conditions on L-Band usage to avoid potential signal interference with incumbents in adjacent spectrum bands. Ligado negotiated agreements with major GPS equipment manufacturers for resolving signal interference concerns. The Commission incorporated those agreements into the L-Band Order, making them enforceable by the agency. Also, the Commission required Ligado to establish a 23 megahertz guard-band, lower base station power levels 99% compared to Ligado's 2015 proposal, and replace any government GPS devices that experience harmful interference. And Ligado must be able to shut off its network within 15 minutes of any request by the Commission. 

In January of this year, the newly-constituted FCC rightly rejected an NTIA petition to stay the L-Band Order. Ligado Networks' 5G endeavors ought to be encouraged, not hindered. The careful process undertaken by the Commission should instill confidence in the agency's decision to green light wireless services in the L-Band. And resort by opponents to easily disprovable criticisms of the agency's process also boost confidence in the resulting order. 

 

(For more on this subject, see the May 2020 Perspectives from FSF Scholars paper by Free State Foundation President Randolph J. May and I titled: "FCC's Order Approving Ligado's Next-Gen Wireless Network: A Deliberative Process that Protects Against Signal Interference.") 

Permanent NTIA Head Needed to Restore the Interagency Coordination Process for Spectrum

On June 15, Free State Foundation Visiting Fellow Gregory J. Vogt published an important Perspectives from FSF Scholars paper titled, "Coordinated Government Decisionmaking on Spectrum Issues: It's Vital to Locating More Spectrum for 5G Use." In that paper, he identified steps that would help restore and revitalize the interagency coordination process regarding spectrum use. 

According to Mr. Vogt, one step for reform is this: "The President should appoint, and the Senate should confirm, a permanent NTIA head whose decisions are supported by the President and the Department of Commerce." On this point A similar view was expressed at FSF's Twelfth Annual Telecom Policy Conference in March by James Cicconi (then) Senior Executive Vice President at AT&T. Here is an excerpt from the transcript of the hot panel in which Mr. Cicconi spoke: 

It doesn't help the government's position on spectrum when you have this revolving door at NTIA.  They are supposed to be the lead in terms of government spectrum policy, especially policy with regard to the use of government spectrum.  We've had three years of dysfunction in that area.  It ought to be a simple thing for the government to address.  But sadly, at least until recent developments, it hasn't been addressed… [Y]ou can't expect any process to work if the person who's supposed to be leading the process is absent or you have a series of people acting in the position, or a situation where someone that does not have the responsibility nor is Senate confirmed is trying to make the calls on that.  I think it has been, at least from the outside, seemed fairly dysfunctional on these. Any interagency process requires people from the agencies to participate.  And when you don't have any degree of continuity or, frankly, a Senate-confirmed person with authority in that position, it's sure hard to make policy.

The importance of this step has also been brought to light by several news reports highlighting tFCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly's confirmation hearing statement about how NTIA's position regarding Ligado Networks' proposal to use L-Band spectrum for mobile wireless services changed once its administrator was removed. (Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I have written favorably about the FCC's approval of Ligado's license modification request to deliver advanced mobile wireless services, including 5G with currently unused L-Band spectrum.)

Be sure to check it out Mr. Vogt's paper for more on this point and other needed reforms. And for plenty of other interesting discussion on communications policy topics, be sure to check out the event transcript. 

Four Facts About the FCC's Ligado Order

The following tweets by Free State Foundation President Randolph J. May respond to Sen. Jim Inhofe's floor speech on May 12 regarding the FCC's grant of Ligado's application of L-Band spectrum for its mixed satellite-terrestrial network:

Correcting Senator Inhofe's major errors, here are facts: 1. The FCC engaged in a careful deliberative process based on careful engineering analysis in considering potential for interference to GPS. 2. @FCC shared draft decision w/ @NTIAgov last fall so there was no surprise.

— Free State Foundation (@FSFthinktank) May 13, 2020

Further correcting Senator Inhofe's floor speech, 3. both Attorney General Barr & Sec'y of State Pompeo SUPPORT @FCC decision. 4. And FCC required @LigadoNetworks to mitigate any harmful interference to GPS IF such interference occurs.

— Free State Foundation (@FSFthinktank) May 13, 2020

MEDIA ADVISORY: Today's Senate Armed Services Hearing on Ligado

The following is a compilation of a Twitter thread by Free State Foundation President Randolph J. May regarding today's hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the FCC's grant of Ligado's application of L-Band spectrum for its mixed satellite-terrestrial network:

Senate Armed Services Comm. has every right to hold a hearing on @FCC grant of @LigadoNetworks long-pending license application to use L-Band spectrum. But it's disappointing the hearing is so one-sided. FCC based its decision on its technical expertise, and it should be heard. Because grant of @LigadoNetworks will further #5G deployment, it furthers a national security interest. There is widespread agreement US doesn't want to lose #5G race to China or others. I have confidence in the engineering expertise of @FCC re interference determination. To be constructive, focus of the hearing shouldn't be on reversing the FCC decision, but looking towards how FCC should implement mitigation actions IF needed after Ligado net is operational. I have confidence that @FCC has the requisite authority, and would exercise it, IF it turned out that adjustments to @LigadoNetworks license were needed as a matter of national security once Ligado's network is operational.

MEDIA ADVISORY: FCC Set to Vote on Ligado's Applications to Use L-Band Spectrum

Free State Foundation President Randolph May issued the following statement regarding Chairman Pai's proposed order granting, with conditions, Ligado Networks' applications to use L-Band spectrum:

Above all else, I'm pleased that Chairman Pai has circulated a draft order. For several years now, I've advocated that the FCC move ahead to make a decision on Ligado's long-pending applications. I've never professed to render any definitive opinion on the finer points of the various interference claims involved in this years-long controversy. But I know that Ligado has gone to great lengths to modify its plans to address claimed interference concerns. And have confidence in the technical expertise of FCC's engineering staff and the commissioners' willingness to take that expertise into account. So I hope the Commission now acts promptly. This is another FCC action that can advance the U.S. position with regard to 5G deployment.

FSF's Twelfth Annual Telecom Policy Conference - Agenda Available

WHAT: FSF's Twelfth Annual Telecom Policy Conference

WHERE: National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW, Washington, DC

WHEN: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 – 8:45 AM - 2:15 PM

The Free State Foundation will hold its Twelfth Annual Telecom Policy Conference on Tuesday, March 10, 2020, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. This is the guarantee: As in previous years, a truly outstanding lineup of senior officials and prominent experts from the FCC, other government agencies, industry, academia, and think tanks will discuss and debate the most important communications and Internet policy issues of the day, including Internet freedom and net neutrality, broadband deployment, competition policy, spectrum policy and the 5G rollout, privacy regulation, the video services landscape and regulatory environment, universal service, and more.

Confirmed speakers for the conference have been announced:

Alden Abbott – General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission 

James Assey – Executive Vice President, NCTA – The Internet & Television Association

Theodore Bolema, Executive Director of the Institute for the Study of Economic Growth in the Department of Economics at Wichita State University, and Member of FSF's Board of Academic Advisors

Tim Brennan - Professor of Public Policy and Economics, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and Member of FSF's Board of Academic Advisors

Mary Brown – Senior Director for Technology and Spectrum Policy, Cisco

Brendan Carr – Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission

Jim Cicconi – Senior Executive Vice President-External and Legislative Affairs, AT&T

Mignon Clyburn – Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission, and Fellow at Open Society Foundations

Maurita Coley – President and CEO, Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council

Robin Colwell – Special Assistant to the President for Technology, Telecom, and Cybersecurity Policy

Michelle Connolly – Professor of the Practice of Economics, Duke University and Member of FSF's Board of Academic Advisors

Seth Cooper – Director of Policy Studies and a Senior Fellow, Free State Foundation

Valerie Green – Executive Vice President & Chief Legal Officer, Ligado Networks

Thomas Johnson – General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission

Andrew Long – Senior Fellow, Free State Foundation

Randolph May – President, Free State Foundation

Michael O'Rielly – Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission

Ajit Pai – Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

Jeffrey Rosen – Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice

Christine Wilson – Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission

THE CONFERENCE AGENDA IS HERE!

REGISTRATION IS COMPLIMENTARY, INCLUDING CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST AND LUNCH. BUT YOU MUST REGISTER TO ATTEND.

REGISTER NOW HERE!

#FSFConf12

Attorney General Barr Presses for U.S. Action Now on 5G

On February 6, Attorney General William Barr delivered the keynote address at the Justice Department's "China Initiative Conference" in Washington D.C. Attorney General Barr primarily addressed the technological and economic challenges posed to the U.S. by China in the areas of intellectual property theft and 5G dominance. His address is worth reading or viewing in full. (For C-SPAN, AG Barr's address begins about 1 hour and 26 minutes into the stream and his remarks on 5G begin at about 1 hour and 38 minutes in.)

In his address, AG Barr stressed the importance of making spectrum resources available for 5G services in the U.S. He specifically identified C-Band and L-Band spectrum as critically important for rapid deployment of 5G. From AG Barr's prepared remarks: 

The FCC has been working hard to get the C-band spectrum out into the market through an auction.  It is critical to get this done within the next few months.  Even then, the U.S. will need 400,000 base stations to cover the nation.  This could take a decade or more to build out. Recently, there have been interesting proposals to jump-start U.S.  5G by also making available L-band spectrum for use in tandem with the C-band.  By using the L-band for uplink, we could dramatically reduce the number of base stations required to complete national coverage.  It has been suggested that this could cut the time for U.S. 5G deployment from a decade to 18 months, and save approximately $80 million.  While some technical issues about using the L-band are being debated, it is imperative that the FCC resolves this question. The bottom line is that we have to move decisively to auction the C-band spectrum, and bring to resolution the issues over L-band.  Our economic future is at stake.  We have to bear in mind that, given the narrow window we face, the risk of losing the 5G struggle with China should vastly outweigh all other considerations.

Free State Foundation scholars have also advocated prompt action by the FCC to put C-Band and L-Band spectrum into commercial use. On February 6, FSF President Randolph May issued a statement regarding the FCC's proposed order to transition incumbent users in the C-band and clear for auction 280 MHz in that band. And my December 19, 2019 blog post, "FCC Should Green Light Wireless Services in L-Band Spectrum," urged prompt FCC decision on Ligado Networks' modified applications to deploy a satellite-terrestrial hybrid mobile network for commercial services in unused L-band spectrum.  

Importantly, AG Barr's keynote address also called attention to the pressing issue of 5G equipment suppliers and the need to have a market-ready alternative to Chinese 5G equipment suppliers. His call that the U.S. and its closest allies need to consider ways to put our large market and financial muscle behind viable competitors – insofar as it is carried out by by private American and allied companies – merits serious consideration. 

Former NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin on the L-Band

If, like me, you have been following the long-running saga in which Ligado is seeking the FCC's permission to use the long dormant L-Band spectrum, you definitely should read the December 9 letter from former NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. Mr. Goldin's letter is here.

Please read the entire letter – the essence of which is to vigorously contest NTIA's position that Ligado's applications, which seek to deploy a hybrid terrestrial-satellite network in the L-Band that will provide “Internet of Things” services and boost America’s position in the global race to 5G, should not be granted.

In the meantime, here are a few key excerpts:

•      On 5G, we have fallen behind, and badly. Of most immediate concern is the lack of available, appropriate spectrum for our wireless carriers to deploy. I have spent countless hours educating myself alongside a team of world class telecom executives and spectrum technical experts on these issues, notably L-Band's ability to drastically shorten the timeline for the U.S. to deploy 5G and truly compete with China. I am convinced the technological and policy justifications for allowing this "Ligado" modification to proceed are sound.
• 
  
•     This 35 MHz is not just one spectrum option to advance 5G.  Properly understood, it is absolutely critical to a viable U.S. 5G deployment strategy.

•      Simply put, GPS is not at risk I have studied the record. I have worked with an unparalleled technical team, and over 5000 hours of testing has shown there is no harmful interference. Globally recognized experts continue to refute all claims alleging actual degradation of GPS devices.
• 
  
•       As  it relates to a 1DB C/N out-of-band standard for interference, I agree that we cannot and will not set this unprecedented standard. Doing so would result in the FCC having to revoke substantial amounts of other adjacent spectrum already deployed. Setting such an unreasonably restrictive standard would also have catastrophic consequences on future spectrum in the pipeline. It is possible to protect GPS and still issue the L-Band license modification order; we must do both.
• 
  
•   c Of course, historically, the U.S. has transitioned new spectrum many times. There is always a strong push to preserve the status quo.

I do not purport to be an expert regarding spectrum interference or other engineering matters – although I know a heck of a lot more in this regard than I did over four decades ago when I first began participating in and studying Commission proceedings. I have a high degree of confidence that the FCC's engineers possess sufficient expertise to determine whether Mr. Goldin's and others' assertions regarding the 1DB C/N out-of-band standard for interference are correct. The notion that, if such a 1DB C/N out-of-band standard is adopted the Commission would be required to revoke a substantial amount of already-deployed spectrum, is surely troubling.

While I do not purport to be a spectrum engineering expert, I do consider myself an expert, by dent of considerable practical experience and "battle scars" as well as scholarly study and academic endeavors, regarding the operation of institutional bureaucratic and "public choice" imperatives frequently at work in agency matters. The fact of the matter is that there are incentives for one party or another to use the available administrative processes to protect its turf, and spectrum proceedings – including those involving government agencies – are by no means immune from this "self-protective" phenomenon. As Mr. Goldin aptly puts it, "[t]here is always a strong push to preserve the status quo."

In this instance, I submit, for the reasons Mr. Goldin cites, especially including the need to make available mid-band spectrum so that the U.S. does not fall behind China (or other nations) in the race to deploy 5G, that it is very important for the FCC to reject the urge to preserve the status quo. The Commission needs to move ahead to act on Ligado's long-pending applications. As Mr. Goldin puts it, "the stakes are too high not to act."

It would be wrong, of course, for the FCC not to give due consideration to NTIA's views regarding impacts on the use of government spectrum, especially including impacts on national security. Presumably, the FCC already has done so in preparing a draft order, and if it hasn't, it should.

At the end of the day, however, the FCC is an independent agency that must exercise its responsibility, based on its presumed expertise, to oversee the use of spectrum designated for private sector use in a way that serves the overall public interest.

-->