Carr Providing Little Direction on Next Steps for CBRS Band

Carr has suggested in the past that the FCC should at least look at higher power levels in the band, a change opposed by many advocates for unlicensed use (see 2503130049). Asked about the future of the CBRS band after the commission’s November open meeting, Carr said that nearly all the commission’s spectrum focus now is on the upper C-band and getting it ready for an auction in less than two years.

Meanwhile, Commissioner Anna Gomez defended the CBRS band, calling it a success and saying it shouldn’t be thrown out. “CBRS was a very interesting way to share spectrum, and it’s been a success,” Gomez told reporters. “We saw a lot of companies create very innovative business plans to directly compete against the national companies on provision of internet services … so my concern is that we not throw that out.”

Gomez noted that she has yet to see a proposal from Carr to overhaul the band. “If something comes before me, I will be concerned about what this does to the competitive ecosystem in our country."

CBRS advocates have been actively defending the band against major change. A group of American manufacturing companies and rural broadband providers recently announced the launch of the 5G American-Made Coalition to defend the continued use of CBRS as a shared band (see 2511170052). NCTA is encouraging service providers to file comments at the FCC opposing proposals to increase power levels (see 2511130037).

Reconciliation legislation enacted last summer didn’t carve out protections for CBRS from being allocated as part of the 800 MHz spectrum pipeline for carriers (see 2507020059).

The future of CBRS “has become the central battleground about spectrum in this administration,” Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld told us. That “seems odd when you consider that there is little reason to fight for carriers to care about a relatively small amount of spectrum compared to the 800 MHz in the pipeline.” CBRS spectrum is contiguous, but when compared to the up to 180 MHz of the upper C-band, which is set to be made available in less than two years, “this is comparatively small beans,” he added.

Feld noted that EchoStar, previously the top lobbyist for increasing the power levels in the band, is now “out of the spectrum game.” CBRS remains “critically important as proof that greater spectrum sharing is possible,” he said. But carriers are “still fighting as if their business model depends” on CBRS. “This is silly … but unfortunately consistent,” he said. “I don't expect this fight to die down any time soon.”

A spokesperson for Spectrum for the Future said the U.S. shouldn’t “squander” its leadership “in dynamic spectrum sharing and management” by abandoning CBRS. The group “strongly believes that the amazing successes we have seen in the CBRS band are inherently due to its lower power nature, enabling very dense deployments and maximizing spectrum efficiency via reuse,” the spokesperson said in an email. “It’s an open playing field that can accommodate a large number of users, deployments and service offerings in a given geographic area.”

CBRS will “continue to be contentious” since “midband spectrum is so desirable,” predicted Joe Kane, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation's director of broadband and spectrum policy. Kane said he could see a compromise in which the Navy moves out of or is further limited in its use of the band and the FCC “enables higher power use,” while the technical framework that so far has prevented harmful interference to incumbent or licensed users remains. “To me, that seems like a productivity enhancing solution that the commission should be interested in as it continues to work with NTIA on federal spectrum issues,” he said.