Industry and public interest groups asked the FCC Tuesday to reallocate 500 MHz at 12.2-12.7 GHz for 5G. The Competitive Carriers Association, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Incompas, Open Technology Institute at New America and Public Knowledge asked the agency to act on a longstanding petition by the MVDDS 5G Coalition (see 1802070045). “Technical rules for 12.2-12.7 GHz are obsolete and burdensome, preventing use of this spectrum for 5G,” said the letter in RM-11768: “Given the changes in technology since these rules were first set by the Commission in 2002, maintaining these restrictions appears to be unwarranted.” If the FCC allows two-way, 5G wireless broadband, “initial use cases” would include fixed broadband, mobile 5G and the IoT, the groups said. “There is broad support for the FCC to move forward with conversations on the 12 GHz band, which will benefit consumers and the economy and help close the digital divide,” said CCA President Steve Berry. "It’s time for the FCC to kick start the 12 GHz conversation, get every argument out in the open," said Incompas CEO Chip Pickering.

Industry and public interest groups asked the FCC Tuesday to reallocate 500 MHz at 12.2-12.7 GHz for 5G. The Competitive Carriers Association, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Incompas, Open Technology Institute at New America and Public Knowledge asked the agency to act on a longstanding petition by the MVDDS 5G Coalition (see 1802070045). “Technical rules for 12.2-12.7 GHz are obsolete and burdensome, preventing use of this spectrum for 5G,” said the letter in RM-11768: “Given the changes in technology since these rules were first set by the Commission in 2002, maintaining these restrictions appears to be unwarranted.” If the FCC allows two-way, 5G wireless broadband, “initial use cases” would include fixed broadband, mobile 5G and the IoT, the groups said. “There is broad support for the FCC to move forward with conversations on the 12 GHz band, which will benefit consumers and the economy and help close the digital divide,” said CCA President Steve Berry. "It’s time for the FCC to kick start the 12 GHz conversation, get every argument out in the open," said Incompas CEO Chip Pickering.

Industry and public interest groups asked the FCC Tuesday to reallocate 500 MHz at 12.2-12.7 GHz for 5G. The Competitive Carriers Association, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Incompas, Open Technology Institute at New America and Public Knowledge asked the agency to act on a longstanding petition by the MVDDS 5G Coalition (see 1802070045). “Technical rules for 12.2-12.7 GHz are obsolete and burdensome, preventing use of this spectrum for 5G,” said the letter in RM-11768: “Given the changes in technology since these rules were first set by the Commission in 2002, maintaining these restrictions appears to be unwarranted.” If the FCC allows two-way, 5G wireless broadband, “initial use cases” would include fixed broadband, mobile 5G and the IoT, the groups said. “There is broad support for the FCC to move forward with conversations on the 12 GHz band, which will benefit consumers and the economy and help close the digital divide,” said CCA President Steve Berry. "It’s time for the FCC to kick start the 12 GHz conversation, get every argument out in the open," said Incompas CEO Chip Pickering.

Senate Communications Subcommittee ranking member Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, led filing of a companion version of the Healthcare Broadband Expansion During COVID-19 Act (HR-6474) Friday. The measure would allocate $2 billion more funding to the FCC’s existing $605 million Healthcare Connect Fund program (see 2004090041). HR-6474’s text was included in the House-passed Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (Heroes) Act (HR-6800), which also contains substantial broadband funding (see 2005130059). “We’ve seen a dramatic increase in the demand for telehealth,” Murkowski said. “Unfortunately, as a result, [the Rural Health Care program] has already outpaced the funding it was allocated prior to the outbreak and telehealth providers are facing significant connectivity challenges in their effort to provide care.” Six senators are co-sponsors: John Boozman, R-Ark.; Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.; Angus King, I-Maine; Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Gary Peters, D-Mich.; and Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska. Incompas, the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition and USTelecom lauded the bill’s filing.

Senate Communications Subcommittee ranking member Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, led filing of a companion version of the Healthcare Broadband Expansion During COVID-19 Act (HR-6474) Friday. The measure would allocate $2 billion more funding to the FCC’s existing $605 million Healthcare Connect Fund program (see 2004090041). HR-6474’s text was included in the House-passed Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (Heroes) Act (HR-6800), which also contains substantial broadband funding (see 2005130059). “We’ve seen a dramatic increase in the demand for telehealth,” Murkowski said. “Unfortunately, as a result, [the Rural Health Care program] has already outpaced the funding it was allocated prior to the outbreak and telehealth providers are facing significant connectivity challenges in their effort to provide care.” Six senators are co-sponsors: John Boozman, R-Ark.; Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.; Angus King, I-Maine; Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Gary Peters, D-Mich.; and Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska. Incompas, the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition and USTelecom lauded the bill’s filing.

Net neutrality stakeholders didn't budge on three remanded issues (see 1910010018), in replies to the FCC posted through Thursday in dockets including 17-287. "Concerns noted by the Mozilla court on three discrete issues do not justify abandoning the Commission’s decision to return to [Communications Act] Title I classification as the benefits of the regulatory framework ... vastly outweigh any potential costs," USTelecom said. Common Cause, Public Knowledge and New America’s Open Technology Institute want the FCC to retain Title II common carrier authority over broadband and "restore legal certainty for the Lifeline program, empower the Commission to protect public safety during the COVID-19 pandemic." The Greenlining Institute wants the FCC to "acknowledge the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic and the importance strong net neutrality protections" have for public safety. CTIA said "concerns regarding paid prioritization’s impact on public safety are theoretical, have not materialized." The Alarm Industry Communications Committee said "state and local laws often impose service standards that alarm companies may not be able to meet without adequate protection of their use of broadband networks." Verizon said there's ample evidence to find "no reason to revisit its decision to restore the information service classification for broadband." NCTA wants the FCC to conclude its current regime "is fully warranted from the perspective of public safety, pole access, and the Lifeline program." Incompas countered claims there have been no major net neutrality violations since the repeal: "In addition to the fact that there is no longer a federal 'cop on the beat' ... there very well could be violations occurring that customers do not realize." AT&T said the FCC "has ample ancillary authority to extend section 224 rights to standalone broadband providers if it concludes that doing so is necessary for competitive parity in non-certifying states, just as it has ancillary authority to extend Lifeline support to standalone broadband services." ACA Connects said the FCC "cannot and should not upend its entire regulatory framework for broadband merely to cater to the interests of broadband-only providers in invoking" one-touch, make-ready pole attachment rules. The Wireless ISP Association wants the FCC to use its statutory authority to eliminate practices that slow down broadband deployment, such as discriminatory infrastructure access. Other replies came from the Broadband Institute of California at the Santa Clara University School of Law (here), Center for Democracy and Technology (here) Free Press (here) and the California Public Utilities Commission (here), which unsuccessfully sought a longer deadline extension due to the pandemic (see 2005200013). Initial comments came in last month (see 2004210019).

Net neutrality stakeholders didn't budge on three remanded issues (see 1910010018), in replies to the FCC posted through Thursday in dockets including 17-287. "Concerns noted by the Mozilla court on three discrete issues do not justify abandoning the Commission’s decision to return to [Communications Act] Title I classification as the benefits of the regulatory framework ... vastly outweigh any potential costs," USTelecom said. Common Cause, Public Knowledge and New America’s Open Technology Institute want the FCC to retain Title II common carrier authority over broadband and "restore legal certainty for the Lifeline program, empower the Commission to protect public safety during the COVID-19 pandemic." The Greenlining Institute wants the FCC to "acknowledge the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic and the importance strong net neutrality protections" have for public safety. CTIA said "concerns regarding paid prioritization’s impact on public safety are theoretical, have not materialized." The Alarm Industry Communications Committee said "state and local laws often impose service standards that alarm companies may not be able to meet without adequate protection of their use of broadband networks." Verizon said there's ample evidence to find "no reason to revisit its decision to restore the information service classification for broadband." NCTA wants the FCC to conclude its current regime "is fully warranted from the perspective of public safety, pole access, and the Lifeline program." Incompas countered claims there have been no major net neutrality violations since the repeal: "In addition to the fact that there is no longer a federal 'cop on the beat' ... there very well could be violations occurring that customers do not realize." AT&T said the FCC "has ample ancillary authority to extend section 224 rights to standalone broadband providers if it concludes that doing so is necessary for competitive parity in non-certifying states, just as it has ancillary authority to extend Lifeline support to standalone broadband services." ACA Connects said the FCC "cannot and should not upend its entire regulatory framework for broadband merely to cater to the interests of broadband-only providers in invoking" one-touch, make-ready pole attachment rules. The Wireless ISP Association wants the FCC to use its statutory authority to eliminate practices that slow down broadband deployment, such as discriminatory infrastructure access. Other replies came from the Broadband Institute of California at the Santa Clara University School of Law (here), Center for Democracy and Technology (here) Free Press (here) and the California Public Utilities Commission (here), which unsuccessfully sought a longer deadline extension due to the pandemic (see 2005200013). Initial comments came in last month (see 2004210019).

Several petitions for reconsideration of the FCC's Ligado L-band plan approval were filed, as expected, (see 2004200039). The company's backers told us the likely audience is Capitol Hill, with the aim of trying to generate interest in a legislative solution. Senate Communications Subcommittee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D., said in an interview he's siding with the FCC amid continued headwinds from the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees and some other lawmakers (see 2005080043).

Incompas added Ligado, Tilson and eight other member companies, it said Thursday, after recently naming Tilson CEO Joshua Broder to its board (see personals section, May 13).

Incompas added Ligado, Tilson and eight other member companies, it said Thursday, after recently naming Tilson CEO Joshua Broder to its board (see personals section, May 13).