FCC’s WAC Fails to Reach Consensus on Key Issue Before Next Year’s WRC Meeting

The FCC is left with two positions (http://bit.ly/1f3h92Y), one by NAB, CBS and Fox, and a second wireless industry position recommending a statement that the band is suitable for reallocation for broadband as well as broadcast TV. The latter position was endorsed by Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson, Intel, Motorola Mobility, Nokia, Samsung and the Telecommunications Management Group (TMG).

Agenda Item 1.1 for WRC-15 addresses “additional spectrum allocations to the mobile service on a primary basis and identification of additional frequency bands for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) and related regulatory provisions, to facilitate the development of terrestrial mobile broadband applications.” The WAC is made up of industry representatives who attempt to forge a shared industry view prior to the important international spectrum conference.

WAC members said at a meeting Monday after extensive discussions that Informal Working Group (IWG) 2 had been unable to adopt a compromise position. Both sides in the dispute “attempted to reach a negotiated compromise, acted in good faith, however, we have not been able to do so and I really don’t see that it will be possible to do that in the timeframe available to us,” said Charles Rush of TMG, chairman of IWG-2.

"As you all know consensus is what we strive for here, but in the absence of consensus, our goal is simply to submit to the FCC whatever views are represented by members of the committee,” said WAC Chairman Scott Harris of Wilkinson Barker. “It is the FCC, obviously, that decides the U.S. position or the FCC’s position going forward.”

The WAC would have been better off not forwarding the opposing positions to the FCC, said NAB Executive Vice President Dennis Wharton. “We are disappointed that the committee took the position to forward non-consensus recommendations rather than send those documents back to the IWG with instructions to develop a consensus position,” he told us. “This topic has been before the Informal Working Group for more than six months. Broadcasters have only been permitted to participate in this process since December. Considerable progress had been made at two January IWG-2 meetings and it is unfortunate that this work has been cut short."

"In considering the global spectrum requirements under WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.1, it is important to acknowledge ... that the spectrum below 1 GHz is exceptionally suited for mobile broadband applications,” the wireless industry position says. “In particular, the unique propagation characteristics of the bands below 1 GHz allow for wider area coverage which in turn requires less infrastructure and facilitates service delivery to rural or sparsely populated areas.” The wireless interests advocate a WRC position that would “enable administrations to preserve broadcasting and other services in the UHF range” but “allow administrations flexibility to address the mobile spectrum shortage consistent with their domestic requirements.”

The wireless industry position “ignores the basic technical sharing issues between Digital Terrestrial Television Broadcasting and IMT,” the broadcaster comments said. The position paper “erroneously asserts that this allocation change will allow administration ‘flexibility’ to either ‘operate existing services, such as broadcasting, or utilize portions of the UHF band for the implementation of new mobile broadband applications, such as IMT, as they deem appropriate based on their domestic priorities’ without any regard to interference concerns to other administrations,” broadcasters contend. “In fact, not one study or any technical evidence was submitted to support such a ‘flexibility’ position as espoused in this document.”