It’s becoming clear that there is going to a never-ending battle over mid-band spectrum. At the end of last year, AT&T asked the FCC to allow for full-power use of CBRS spectrum. AT&T’s request would make the spectrum usable for cellular service while killing many of the existing uses of the spectrum.
Twenty-five organizations sent a joint letter to FCC Chairman Brendon Carr in opposition to the AT&T request. This is perhaps the most diverse set of respondents to sign a joint request to the FCC I can remember. It includes trade associations, large ISPs, public advocates, vendors, and large corporations. The letter was signed by Amazon, the American Library Association, Barich, Inc., the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, Cambium Networks, Celona, Charter, Comcast, Cox, Deere & Company, Digital Global Systems, Hewlett Packard, Imagine Wireless, Lockheed Martin, Mediacom, Miami-Dade Aviation, Midcontinent, NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, the Open Technology Institute at New America, Public Knowledge, the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition, Shure Incorporated, Spectrum for the Future, Tarana Wireless, and WISPA.
This group cautions that the AT&T request would kill the current uses of the CBRS spectrum for rural broadband, competitive mobile services, manufacturing, industrial and enterprise private networks, transportation and logistics connectivity, and school and library access.
AT&T is asking the FCC to move existing CBRS users to the 3.1-3.3 GHz band and auction off the entire 3.55-3.7 GHz spectrum bands for licensed, full-power use. AT&T’s plan would continue to protect the Department of Defense but would relocate everybody else. AT&T argues this would create 530 MHz of contiguous licensed mid-band spectrum to support 5G.
There are several reasons behind the AT&T request. AT&T says that lack of spectrum will block the deployment of next-generation 5G and 6G services. In practical terms, having one large block of spectrum would let cellular carriers implement faster FWA cellular products with speeds up to a gigabit.
AT&T also hates the spectrum sharing rules currently used in the CBRS band. The CBRS band has a three-tiered system. Spectrum us is guaranteed for the U.S. Navy. Some of the spectrum was auctioned using Priority Access Licenses (PALs), that gives the winner the next use of the spectrum after the Navy. Finally, anybody else can use CBRS spectrum in the General Authorized Access (GAA) portion of the band. In every market there is a SAAS administrator that tracks the use of spectrum sharing. It’s clear that AT&T and the other cellular carriers don’t want to see spectrum sharing applied to other mid-band spectrum.
This will be an interesting fight at the FCC. The last FCC under Chairperson Jessica Rosenworcel was strongly in favor of spectrum sharing. New FCC Chairman Brendon Carr has already expressed big support for expanding the availability of mid-band spectrum through auctions.
It’s obvious that the coalition of signees to the letter takes the AT&T request seriously. It’s also becoming clear that FCC decisions on spectrum allocation are not necessarily permanent. Expect an interesting fight over the next year.
I am probably missing something. As a rural resident, I favor fully-licensed, dedicated spectrum when it comes to broadband. DFA and DPA disruptions and interference in the Central Coast area of California result in unreliable broadband service.
I asked Google why WISPA favors low-power, shared CBRS and received this response:
WISPA (Wireless Internet Service Providers Association) favors shared CBRS spectrum because it provides a flexible, accessible way for smaller ISPs to utilize spectrum in rural areas, allowing them to offer broadband services without being limited by the availability of licensed spectrum, which is often controlled by larger carriers; the shared nature of CBRS ensures that multiple users can access the band while managing potential conflicts through a priority system, benefiting WISPs who often serve underserved regions.
Key points about WISPA and CBRS:
Access to underserved areas:
WISPs frequently serve rural areas where licensed spectrum might not be readily available, and CBRS offers a way to provide broadband services in these regions.
Shared spectrum model:
The shared nature of CBRS allows multiple users to access the spectrum while managing potential conflicts through a priority system, which is beneficial for smaller providers like WISPs.
Lower power levels:
WISPs often advocate for lower power levels within the CBRS band, as this allows for better coexistence with other users and prevents interference issues.
Flexibility for diverse use cases:
CBRS can be used for various applications beyond just mobile networks, like industrial IoT and private networks, which aligns with WISPs’ need to serve a range of customer needs.
===
WISPA does not address the issues of reliability and what happens when service is degraded during preemption.
IMHO, while sharing sounds like a simple way to extend limited spectrum, it relegates the subscriber to second class service. If fiber is too expensive to deploy in rural areas, residents should at least be serviced with dedicated wireless spectrum that is not subject to interference or 3rd party preemption. Higher power for longer range and stronger signals also sounds like a win for rural residents, which are often hard to reach. Rural residents need reliable service that matches the reliability of fiber and cable, not service that works only some of the time.
I would much rather see WISPA lobby for licensing rules that do not penalize small ISPs instead of sacrificing the reliability of the spectrum used to serve rural residents.
you will always be subject to some pre-emption because all spectrum is shared. Either between providers in a CBRS style setup, or between users in a single vendor. and in the cases where it’s truly dedicated (to the vendor), you require the single owner to be ubiquitously available else it’s wasted. this is true even on fiber, the model is effectively identical, only the medium/capacity changes. on fiber a single vendor franchise locks out anyone that the single vendor doesn’t get around to serving and leaves service gaps without alternatives. on wireless a vendor owning a large swath of spectrum blocks all other use. in the case of your rural services, you could certainly get multi-gigabit wireless today if the unused fully-licensed, dedicated and exclusive spectrum zipping by your home was available to anyone else. Exclusivity ALWAYS hurts the consumer, it only helps the provider that gets a level of monopoly/duopoly.
more power is generally more harmful.
1- if it implies that it’s dedicated to a single vendor, it’s a push towards single market. the reason you have bad services now is because of single market pressures from previous government interventions. the exclusivity is a fault, not a benefit.
2- if it’s CBRS style, it means cells are larger, frequency re-use is LESS because the next access point has to be further away to not interfere. priority access being larger reduces non-priority access opportunities.
high power CBRS encourages the purchase of expensive PAL licenses, it pushes the band towards the dupoloies of cell companies.
IMHO, the reality vs. the model described above are very different. I have suffered DFA events, interference, and congestion. I’ll take congestion and single vendor dependency any day, regardless of the medium. I am also not aware of any fiber or cable equivalent to DFA or DPA.
In many areas there is only one terrestrial provider. As a subscriber, I experience no benefit from spectrum shared with other parties. And I suffer greatly when a government agency preempts service with no notice.
If there are constraints, I would much prefer a less efficient, lower capacity service that is reliable and dependable vs. a service that offers no capacity when I truly need it and excess capacity when I do not need it. Cable, fiber and licensed wireless provide that. Shared CBRS in DPA areas does not.
I am also very concerned about what happens if and when AT&T discontinues COLR landline service. In many rural areas there is no cell service alternative. In an emergency, how will residents make phone calls if their only alternative is shared wireless service and that service is preempted?
You’re literally saying you’ve got one option and it sucks right? You are right in the middle of the situation I describe, complaining about the situation I describe, and still saying everything is fine. If you moved somewhere else with identical technology but a provider that had competative pressure you would not see those issues.
You have no leverage to your provider to improve their services.
I’m an operator, I do not subject my customers to the issues you claim because if I did, they’d switch to another provider. I use CBRS radios among others.
The issues you suffer are 100% the fault of your provider. You got stuck in an effectively single vendor environment and are experiencing the predictable results of that.
This blog is read and replied to by multiple CBRS licensed providers and what you describe is just bad service, not the fault of the technology or even the rules.
I am not saying or implying that everything is fine. There are many issues with the current situation. I am also not blaming local internet providers. I think that WISPs have been dealt a bad deal. Sharing spectrum with government agencies that can preempt service with no notice is like sharing a banana with a gorilla. Either you do not eat bananas or you pray that there is no gorilla nearby. If you live in an area with no gorillas, life is good. If you live in an area with gorillas, life can be very difficult.
What makes this worse, IMO, is that the FCC has given CBRS “served” status as a reliable alternative to cable or fiber, regardless of the local DPA risk. CBRS is also eligible for government funding programs. As a result, expensive CBRS equipment that delivers unreliable service** is likely to be deployed in “high DPA risk” areas at tax-payer expense. The presence of CBRS service also precludes funding for fiber, cable, or dedicated, fully licensed service which provide significantly better reliability and performance.
In retrospect, I don’t know whether AT&T’s proposal will be a significant improvement. It sounds like it retains the government preemption ability, which is problematic in DPA areas. As I stated in my first comment, IMHO, If fiber is too expensive to deploy in rural areas, residents should at least be serviced with dedicated wireless spectrum that is not subject to interference or 3rd party preemption.
Your experience and perspective is different. It seems doubtful that we can resolve these differences.
** An MBEP report in 2024 documented CBRS issues in the Central Coast area of California.
” I am also not blaming local internet providers. I think that WISPs have been dealt a bad deal.”
I think there are two important things to talk about here.
1) the choice of equipment, spectrum, and configuration is entirely the ISP’s. If there’s a problem, they are 100% to blame. CBRS can’t take the hit for an ISP’s choices, they had other choices.
2) There are less than 20 vessels in the world that have the radar that CBRS pre-emption will drop.
3) There are dedicated GAA channels so if a PAL is issued in an area that pre-empts a provider’s channel, they can move to GAA. Back to #1, if they chose gear that has poor re-use capabilities then this is entirely their fault.
No part of your bad services has anything at all to do with the rational given.
There’s a bit of mountain-out-of-molehill here with regards to pre-emption, California’s power grid is some hundreds of times more likely to shut off internet services for example.
This argument turns into a counter-argument really fast, and soaks up the air for more substantial issues.
As someone from Northern California I can assure you the vast majority of our wisp customers internet outage is from our power company not keeping it together or worse yet turning the power off out of fear due to weather. We pay a premium for power here and have the worst experience.