Enhanced Competition Rules Expected to Be Approved 4-0 With Minimal Tweaks
FCC rules creating the enhanced competition incentive program haven’t been controversial since circulated by Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and are expected to be approved Thursday with minimal changes, industry and FCC officials said. The rules proposed don’t differ significantly from what was in a November Further NPRM (see 2111180071). Industry observers see a lack of enthusiasm on the program.
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!
The draft also includes a new FNPRM asking whether to adopt “alternative construction requirements for services with less flexible metrics” and on a “use or offer to share” safe harbor metric. Both changes would be separate from the ECIP. The FCC declined comment.
“There does seem to be little excitement about the ECIP program playing a major role in facilitating more extensive use of spectrum through secondary market transactions,” probably at least partially due to restrictions on the program, said Joe Kane, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation director-broadband and spectrum policy. Adopting a “narrow definition” of "small carriers" who can qualify, setting a minimum spectrum threshold for transactions and requiring a five-year holding period for partitioned licenses “all reduce the number of transactions that could otherwise serve the public interest,” Kane said.
“The rules won’t do any harm, but they also won’t move the needle in making fallow spectrum available to rural, tribal or other small providers,” said Michael Calabrese, director of the Wireless Future Program at New America: “The order is designed to be as deferential to the big mobile carriers as possible, even at the cost of doing next to nothing to benefit rural and tribal communities. … The largest mobile carriers have strong incentives to warehouse spectrum.” ITIF and New America were among groups that filed comments on the initial FNPRM (see 2203010062).
Only the Wireless ISP Association made a filing on the proposal since it was circulated, and it was largely supportive of the FCC’s approach. “Although our filings in this proceeding suggested additional policies the Commission could adopt to further encourage more secondary market transactions of licensed spectrum WISPA believes the Commission’s plan to establish the Enhanced Competition Incentive Program largely as proposed in the Draft R&O and Second FNPRM is an important first step toward making more licensed spectrum available in rural areas and closing the digital divide,” the group said in a filing in docket 19-38.
The Utilities Technology Council flagged the order as potentially helping utilities (see 2206270038).
“Access to spectrum is critical for competitive carriers, and CCA appreciates the FCC considering actions to make existing commercial spectrum stretch farther,” emailed Steve Berry, Competitive Carriers Association president. “Providing additional opportunities for small and rural carriers, such as increasing incentives to partition, disaggregate, and lease spectrum will help achieve this goal and ultimately will benefit consumers,” he said.
The order “as circulated seems more worried about minimizing the downside of abuse than maximizing the upside of maximally flexible transactions,” Kane said: “This approach seems backward since sham transactions can be addressed through enforcement actions while bona fide transactions that never occur due to overly cautious regulations are lost forever.” The order will provide “a net benefit” for industry, he said, noting that the attached FNPRM could further expand eligibility.