- AT&T is proposing that the FCC move the CBRS band from 3.5 GHz to the 3.1-3.3 GHz portion of the 3 GHz band
- Many CBRS users that rely on the band say it’s greedy and untenable
- But some wireless industry stakeholders think it’s not such a bad idea
When AT&T first floated a proposal to move Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) from 3.5 GHz down to the lower 3 GHz band, it sounded like a joke to some of the folks who work with CBRS on a daily basis.
Such a move would be highly disruptive to the CBRS industry, which includes users as diverse as airports running private networks, farmers using precision agriculture and broadband providers serving rural areas. The idea of moving entire networks from the 3.5 GHz to 3.1-3.3 GHz, which is already occupied by the Department of Defense (DoD), sounds like pure nonsense.
Certainly Celona, a vendor that has been supplying network gear for private CBRS networks across the country, favors keeping the CBRS rules as they are. The current structure is serving its customers well, and CEO Rajeev Shah said he doesn’t think AT&T’s proposal is designed to be taken seriously due to the massive amount of damage it would cause to CBRS networks that are deployed and coming down the pike.
“I don’t think it’s justified,” he told Fierce. “Practically speaking, we have to appreciate what the entire industry and ecosystem has worked for over eight to nine years to get standards, networks, devices, solutions, deployments going. For us now to try to displace that – the amount of disruption we would be causing for a complete lack of justification – I would assume it’s not meant to be taken seriously.”
Yet it’s got people talking. What if CBRS radios could be moved to another portion of the 3 GHz band? The assumption is that the DoD will have to share some of its spectrum in the lower 3 GHz section anyway, so why not make room for CBRS, which already operates under a shared spectrum paradigm? It’s not as if the FCC has never moved an entire industry from one portion of a spectrum band to another. It did it with satellite providers, setting a precedent with the C-band.
Although the U.S. is expected to pivot to more spectrum sharing due to the lack of available unencumbered spectrum, AT&T is making a play for a bigger slice of licensed mid-band spectrum. With the second Trump administration coming into the White House and a new Republican-led FCC, who’s to say which way the wind will blow? Surely AT&T sees it as an opportunity, as it’s digging in its heels since it first publicly presented the idea before the election.
CBRS relocation = ‘tremendous advantages’
Wireless industry consultant Peter Rysavy, president of Rysavy Research, thinks AT&T is onto something.
“From a technical perspective, moving CBRS to 3.1-3.3 GHz will yield tremendous advantages,” he told the FCC last week, suggesting that a regulatory framework could be established to clear the 3.55-3.7 GHz band in a way that makes it conducive with the adjacent 3.45 GHz and 3.7 GHz bands.
It should come as no surprise that T-Mobile, broadly speaking, is in AT&T’s camp. In its latest filing, T-Mobile notes that the 3.5 GHz band has transformed over the last decade from one well-suited for experimentation to one that represents “prime spectrum real estate, sitting between two of the primary 5G bands in the United States.”
Shifting a licensing approach from “experimental low-powered, shared rubric to a full-power, exclusive use, licensed terrestrial broadband service would recognize the highest value of the spectrum in light of the changes and technology,” T-Mobile told the FCC. “Rather than arbitrarily granting a windfall, re-auctioning the spectrum will ensure American taxpayers realize the true value of the spectrum.”
But the most active mobile network operator in CBRS, Verizon certainly isn’t clamoring for a wholesale change, telling the FCC that it remains committed to advancing the CBRS band’s development and making optimal use of the band.
“Comments calling for a wholesale reexamination of the 3 GHz band offer far-reaching concepts but should not slow down the real and tangible progress the commission can make here,” Verizon said.
Verizon was referring to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that the FCC kicked off as part of efforts to reform and improve upon the CBRS rules. The NPRM presented a bunch of questions on how to accomplish the reforms, the most controversial of which was to allow higher power in the band. Many commenters consider AT&T’s proposal to be out of the scope of the NPRM and something that AT&T needs to pursue apart from the more immediate reforms.
Qualcomm, SDG&E weigh in
Another big stakeholder is Qualcomm, whose technology supports a variety of CBRS deployment scenarios – including commercial mobile operations, private networks and fixed wireless access deployments. Its technology is used by equipment manufacturers like Airspan, Baicells, Commscope, Corning, Qucell, Samsung and Sercomm.
Qualcomm cited AT&T’s proposal and said the current CBRS framework hasn’t met the expectations of widescale use and deployments.
“The commission should consider proposals by commenters to address the wireless industry’s need for additional exclusively licensed full-power spectrum,” Qualcomm told the agency. “In doing so, the commission should reflect on the broader landscape of U.S. spectrum leadership, for the U.S. currently trails other countries in the allocation of licensed full-power mid-band spectrum in the 3-4 GHz range.”
Qualcomm’s San Diego neighbor, the power company San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), is also giving AT&T’s proposal some thought. It was one of the first to deploy a CBRS network and it’s urging the FCC to take a “conservative approach” as it considers modifications to the CBRS rules.
The gas company said it supports “careful consideration” of AT&T’s proposal or other viable alternatives to the current CBRS framework, provided the FCC ensures that any alternative model doesn’t undermine priority spectrum access for holders of Priority Access Licenses (PALs), especially those like SDG&E that rely on their CBRS spectrum to provide critical public safety services, and ensures PALs can provide the same or better service during and after relocation.
“Any interruptions in spectrum access caused by transitioning to the 3.1-3.3 GHz band would negatively impact SDG&E’s operations by undermining the reliability of its critical infrastructure and the investment of SDG&E’s ratepayer’s funds in CBRS deployments,” the utility told the FCC. “PALs that have invested in CBRS should not lose the value of their investments to create a windfall for large MNOs.”
Others: Not so fast
Others aren’t entertaining the idea at all. For example, the Wireless Internet Service Provider Association (WISPA) says AT&T’s proposal is ill-conceived and based on a fundamental mischaracterization of the state of the CBRS industry.
The industry is close to reaching 500,000 CBRS devices deployed serving a variety of users, said Richard Bernhardt, VP of Spectrum and Industry at WISPA.
“This band was created for a diversity of uses and a diversity of use types,” he told Fierce, noting they’re not all serving the interests of mobile network operators, which is at the heart of AT&T’s plan.
“What about utilities that use smart meters? What about oil and gas operators? What about residential rural deployments? What about agriculture precision? I can keep going. These are all people who would be excluded because of that” AT&T proposal, Bernhardt said.
One of those companies is Celona, whose customers are in oil and gas, manufacturing, logistics/warehousing, transportation and construction. They’re choosing CBRS over Wi-Fi because if offers better coverage, reliability and security, Shah said.
Forcing customers to switch out of the 3.5 GHz band would take years and cause hardship for companies like his. “It feels like a suggestion that is either unaware of the ground realities of how well CBRS is utilized and what value it’s bringing or is not meant to be taken seriously and is a negotiation ploy for something else,” Shah concluded.