C-Band Alliance Says Support Broad for Proposal to Clear 200 MHz for 5G
The C-band Alliance is pleased with recent initial comments supporting its plan for clearing 200 MHz in the C band in 3.7-4.2 GHz band, said Preston Padden, head-advocacy and government relations at the C-band Alliance, during an Information Technology and Innovation Foundation panel Tuesday (see 1810300043). Padden slammed T-Mobile.
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!
“Most of the commenters recognized that there just is no government process that can get this spectrum in the hands of carriers anywhere nearly as quickly and efficiently as the market-based approach,” Padden said. “By and large, there was widespread support.” Carriers need mid-band spectrum for 5G, he said. “The millimeter-wave spectrum is great for our dense, urban canyons, but you cannot cover America in 5G” without other bands, he said. “It would like trying to cut your lawn with a pair of scissors.”
T-Mobile wants to “slow the process” until it knows what will happen with its proposed buy of Sprint (see 1811130051), Padden said. “We understand that; they’re a great company,” he said. “They can’t hold 5G for America hostage while they pursue their second attempt to merge with Sprint.” T-Mobile didn’t comment. Some cable operators also opposed the alliance’s plan, he said. Understandably, "the cable companies are not really enthused about hastening the development of competition from 5G wireless,” he said. “They’re going to do everything they can to pour sand in our gears.”
The alliance will meet anyone interested in the spectrum, Padden said. One company interested in wireless and TV programming met with his group, he said. The company said, in effect, “wearing our wireless hat, we need to clear more spectrum and wearing our content hat, we’re really worried that you’re clearing too much,” Padden said.
The C-band proceeding touches a lot of interests, including cable operators who use it for video transmission, said Colleen King, Charter Communications vice president-regulatory affairs. “There’s a lot to digest,” she said. “It’s an interesting band for us,” she said. “As an incumbent, we provide a lot of critical and popular services to customers in this band and so we have to look at it very carefully. It’s a core component to our video business.” The FCC shouldn’t “rush” a decision, King said. Questions remain about how much of the spectrum can be relocated, she said. “If we’re going to stop it at 200 [MHz], why?” she asked: “Should there be more or is 200 the right amount?”
Cable operators and others also need more unlicensed spectrum. King said. “We can’t let unlicensed stop,” she said. “You can’t have exciting, great service [on 5G] and then you use Wi-Fi and it’s not [that].”
“Mid-band spectrum is the Goldilocks of spectrum,” said ITIF’s Doug Brake, author of a new report on how government can make more spectrum available for wireless and 5G. “The faster otherwise under-used mid-band spectrum can be reallocated, the sooner the United States will see the benefit of faster mobile broadband, newly deployed 5G platforms for low-latency innovation and less-congested home Wi-Fi.”