Communications Daily is a service of Warren Communications News.
‘Over the Edge’

FCC Documents Provide Glimpse Into LightSquared 4G Network Approval Process

The top FCC staffer dealing with satellite issues was frustrated with GPS companies’ complaints about interference LightSquared’s wholesale wireless broadband service would cause to their devices, an internal email released by the House Commerce Committee Tuesday said. The 70-plus pages cover 2009 to 2011, including emails among FCC staff. An email among Wireless Bureau Chief Ruth Milkman, International Bureau Chief Mindel De La Torre and other staff shows that the FCC was interested in drafting an order on LightSquared’s application Dec. 20, 2010, a day before the FCC voted on net neutrality rules.

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!

De La Torre became frustrated with the GPS industry, which she said was spreading misinformation about interference problems related to the LightSquared proceeding. “They've pushed me over the edge” said De La Torre in an email to FCC officials that included Office of Engineering and Technology Chief Julius Knapp. Others getting the email included Rick Lake and Josh Gottheimer, aides to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, and Office of Strategic Planning Chief Paul de Sa. The email included a draft blog post called “Beware of the GPS double wide trailer!” in which De La Torre sought to clarify the GPS community’s “patently false accusations.” “I'd be happy to post the following blog ... I am happy to take the blame,” wrote De La Torre. House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., cited the email during a Sept. 21 hearing that featured De La Torre and Knapp as witnesses.

The House Commerce documents were posted on House Commerce’s website Tuesday (http://xrl.us/bnui2y). A committee spokeswoman said the content of documents was made public because they were referenced by lawmakers during last month’s Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing on the issue (CD Sept 24 p4). At least one of the email exchanges was previously released as part of Open Range’s bankruptcy proceeding and the committee spokeswoman would not say when or if the remaining 17,000 documents would be made public.

There’s nothing “earth-shattering” in the documents, a satellite industry executive who has supported LightSquared’s network told us. “Most of it surfaced during the hearing.” The next step is finding whether there is a way to move forward on an FCC decision on LightSquared’s network, he said. In 2011, after FCC staff approved LightSquared’s waiver to use spectrum originally meant to be used with a satellite-only service, the GPS industry and lawmakers including Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, criticized the approval process. Grassley held up the nomination of two FCC members until House Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., successfully got the commission to release the documents to him after the agency wouldn’t give them to Grassley because he didn’t sit on a committee with oversight of the commission.

The FCC appreciated the opportunity to answer House Commerce’s questions about the agency’s efforts “to remove regulatory barriers to free up spectrum for mobile broadband while protecting public safety,” commission spokeswoman Tammy Sun said by email. “As is typical in Commission proceedings, Commission staff conducted frank and open policy discussions and performed rigorous analysis related to competition and other issues. We were also pleased to discuss one of the most important issues surfaced in this proceeding -- the need to increase the efficiency of spectrum use by improving receiver performance.” LightSquared had no comment.

It would be helpful if the documents were to show “what was known and when,” a satellite industry analyst said. “No one in the hearing wanted to talk about who knew what [and] when.” The question is “whether things [interference] were taken seriously before the end of 2010 or not,” he added.