T-Mobile and NAB filed comments with different perspectives on timing for transitioning 600 MHz broadcast spectrum for use by mobile broadband operators

With the Federal Communications Commission’s 600 MHz incentive auction set to begin March 29, concerns are beginning to grow over the transition of those current broadcast television spectrum bands for use by mobile telecom operators. The FCC has set aside $1.75 billion and 39 months for the transition, which most in the telecom industry seem to think is more than appropriate, while some on the broadcast side feel could prove inadequate.

Speaking this week in front of the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Wheeler said while complex, he was confident the current transition plan would support the move.

“I recognize that getting the transition right is as important as getting the auction itself right,” Wheeler said. “Like the auction, the transition will be a complex, multi-disciplinary effort that will span several years. The task force approach has served us well in designing and implementing the auction, and I believe it is the appropriate structure for ensuring that the transition has the focus and attention it requires. I therefore intend to maintain the task force when the auction is complete; as we move forward, its mission will evolve from auction to transition.”

T-Mobile US, which is expected to bid up to $10 billion on spectrum in the upcoming auction, filed results from an analysis conducted by broadcast engineering firms Hammett & Edison and Broadcast Tower Technologies, which found the current timeline and financial assistance were sufficient to transition the spectrum from broadcast to mobile broadband use.

“On the supply side, our experts identified more than enough antennas, cables, transmitters and other gear to satisfy an increase in demand from the broadcasters,” noted Steve Sharkey, VP of government affairs for T-Mobile US in a blog post. “In interview after interview, our experts heard stories of manufacturers eager to grow market share. Established businesses have committed to substantial purchases of raw materials. They have ‘reshored’ manufacturing resources back to the United States. And, in at least one case, they have turned the lights back on at a long-dormant factory.”

Sharkey added the analysis also found nearly 200% more structural engineering firms capable of working on tall towers; 50% more radio frequency consulting engineers available to help with the repackaging; and nearly 300% more “qualified tower crews” compared with a previous study. Further support was noted from the “demand side” as well.

“On the demand side, our experts used broadcaster-supplied data to determine that frequency-agile antennas can play in reducing the need to swap out infrastructure,” Sharkey wrote. “While not all television stations have antennas that can operate on different channels, many do, and accounting for these antennas reduces the number of antennas required by nearly 200 units. Similarly, analyzing actual transmitter power levels deployed in the field can yield huge cost savings because replacing higher-power transmitters is much more expensive than replacing lower-power transmitters.”

However, a response from Digital Tech Consulting, and highlighted by the National Association of Broadcasters, cited what it claims are “inaccuracies, omissions and incorrect assumptions” in reports filed by T-Mobile US and the Competitive Carriers Association. The issues include ignoring necessity for auxiliary antennas for a majority of the stations; assumptions antennas classified as “broadband” can operate on all channels within the band; and different qualification requirements for tower crews able to handle TV broadcast antennas.

“It is not clear how T-Mobile and the CCA reached the conclusion that the repack can be accomplished within the FCC’s 39-month timeline, as neither report provided methodology on how they came to their findings,” the DTC filing notes. “Not only did the reports fail to produce an interdependent timeline, many assertions made to justify their conclusions ignore, or significantly underestimate, the complexities involved in a large number of high-power TV stations transitioning to new spectrum assignments in a compressed time period.”

NAB also filed comments in support of previous statements from AT&T that the FCC needed to begin a deeper dive into the transition planning process as soon as possible.

“A smooth, well-coordinated and efficient transition will reduce disruption to viewers, make better use of limited resources and help clear spectrum more quickly for use by winning bidders in the forward auction,” stated Rick Kaplan, general counsel and EVP for legal and regulatory affairs at NAB. “For these reasons, we agree with AT&T that the commission should begin conducting the intensive planning that will be required to ensure a successful transition, and dedicate the resources necessary to advance such planning. While vital facts about the repack will not be fully understood until the auction concludes, including how many stations will move, where those stations are located, and to which channels they will be moving, the commission nevertheless can take steps to put in place a structure that will govern the transition and help ensure that viewers do not lose service and wireless carriers do not face avoidable delays in building out their licenses.”

The FCC late last week unveiled the list of companies interested in participating in the forward auction portion of the proceedings, headlined by the likes of Verizon Communications, AT&T, Comcast and T-Mobile US.

Other companies having thrown their hat into the bidding ring include Dish Network through the ParkerB.com Wireless bidding entity, which has also not applied for any designated entity bidding credits; Mexico-based América Móvil, which owns prepaid mobile virtual network operator and reseller Tracfone Wireless, looking to bid through the Puerto Rico Telephone Company; and regional telecom operators U.S. Cellular, Union Telephone Company, Plateau Telecommunications, the Pioneer-Nex-Tech Wireless- Rural Telecom Consortium and Cellular South, among others.

Also on the participation list is Social Capital Rama Spectrum Holdings, which is backed by former Facebook executive and founder of Silicon Valley’s Social Capital fund Chamath Palihapitiya, who last year touted plans to bid on spectrum in an attempt to become a new player in the domestic telecom market. Palihapitiya said at the time he thinks it would cost $4 billion to $10 billion to win enough spectrum to launch a wireless network.

Bored? Why not follow me on Twitter