What will the FCC be tackling next?

Chairman Pai’s theme for the March (3/22/18) meeting is “Winning the Wireless Future.”  The  agenda is designed to advance the FCC’s strategy for 5G leadership and delivering next-generation wireless connectivity to American consumers using a three-part approach: forward-thinking spectrum policy, modernized rules for infrastructure deployment, and light-touch network regulation.  The so-called headliner of the meeting is an Order modernizing the FCC’s rules to promote the  “infrastructure-intensive” wireless infrastructure of the future. As the Chairman put it, “[i]nstead of a 200-foot cell tower, we’ll see hundreds of small cells, installed more inconspicuously, operating at lower power, and delivering much faster speeds… But there’s a snag: many of the FCC’s rules are still designed for cell towers.  The hoops set up by these regulations are a mismatch for 5G infrastructure and are holding back the construction of next-generation networks.”  The FCC’s first item attempts to tackle this problem by finding that the private sector’s deployment of certain small wireless facilities shouldn’t trigger federal historic preservation and environmental reviews.  Other items seek to expand the use of the 4.9 GHz band and explore wireless 911 call routing problems.  To round out the agenda, the FCC will consider an item to address robocalling and another one to expand eliminate the person use restriction associated with the current rules governing signal boosters.  So, get your cell phones out and let’s take a closer look.

Wireless Infrastructure:  This order seeks to accelerate the deployment of next-generation wireless broadband by removing or reducing regulatory impediments.  It would amend the FCC’s rules to clarify that the deployment of small wireless facilities by private parties does not constitute either a “federal undertaking” within the meaning of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or a “major federal action” under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) so that that historic preservation and environmental reviews are not required.  Small wireless facilities deployments would, however, continue to be subject to currently applicable state and local government approval requirements.  The order also removes the requirement to file Environmental Assessments (EAs) when a proposed project would be located in a floodplain and commits to specific timelines for FCC review of EAs, generally 60 days.

The order would also modify and clarify the process for Tribal and Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs) participation in historic preservation reviews for construction projects located off Tribal lands and outside reservation boundaries.  For instance, it would:

• clarify when the initial 30-day timeframe for Tribal response begins to run;
• establish a new procedure to address instances in which Tribal Nations or NHOs fail to respond;
• clarify that applicants have no legal obligation to pay up-front fees when providing Tribal Nations and NHOs with an opportunity to comment on proposed facilities deployments; and
• clarify that when additional consultant services are necessary after identification of the likely presence of a potentially affected historic property, neither the FCC nor the applicant is obligated to hire a particular person or entity to perform such consultant services.

Inteserra Briefing Service subscribers see Briefing dated 5/12/17 for a summary of the initial proposal.

4.9 GHz Band Proceeding: The 4940-4990 MHz (4.9 GHz) band is 50 megahertz of spectrum allocated for fixed and mobile services and designated for public safety use.  The FCC originally envisioned that the band would support new broadband applications such as high-speed digital technologies and wireless local area networks (WLANs) for incident scene management, dispatch operations, and vehicular/personal communications.  However, development of this band has fallen short of its potential. Accordingly, the FCC proposes to seek comment on several alternatives to stimulate expanded use of and investment in this band. 

Among other things, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to:

• Expand the channel aggregation bandwidth limit to 40 megahertz and allow public safety aeronautical mobile and robotic use on 5 megahertz of spectrum.
• Require applicants for new stations and licensees seeking modifications to submit to frequency coordination.
• Accord primary status for point-to-point and point-to-multipoint links that carry or support narrowband traffic on five 1-megahertz channels and raise the minimum antenna gain for point-to-point transmitting antennas to 26 dBi.
• Revise the construction notification deadlines from 18 months after license grant to 12 months.
• Seek comment on alternative eligibility for entities such as Critical Infrastructure Industries, and on leasing, spectrum sharing approaches, and alternative uses.

 Location-Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls:  When placing a wireless 911 call, consumers expect that their call will be directed to, and answered by, the public safety answering point (PSAP) that has the ability to promptly dispatch aid to the caller’s location.  However, legacy approaches to wireless 911 call routing have relied on the location of the cell tower that handles the call, which may be some distance from the caller’s location. This may result in the call being answered by a PSAP in a different jurisdiction, which must then transfer the call to the PSAP that serves the caller’s location. Each such transfer delays the ability of first responders to reach the scene of the emergency. Recent advances in location technology, suggest that, in many situations, it is now feasible to route wireless 911 calls directly to the correct PSAP based on information about the caller’s location. 

The notice of inquiry would:

• Examine how the delays that arise from cell tower-based routing of wireless 911 calls can be avoided via the implementation of location-based routing solutions. 
• Ask detailed questions about the state of location based routing technologies, their maturity, and their utility in supporting more accurate routing of wireless 911 calls.
• Seek comment on the recommendations regarding location-based routing made by the Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) in September 2016. 
• Ask for information about the costs and benefits of location based routing technologies, existing and evolving standards for routing methodologies, and the capabilities of next-generation 911 to support or drive location based routing technologies.

The prosed order would:  

• Eliminate the personal use restriction so that businesses, public safety entities, educational institutions, and other enterprise users can also benefit from these boosters to, for instance, improve signal strength within an office.

The rulemaking portion of the item would:

• Seek comment on whether to expand Consumer Signal Booster operations to additional spectrum bands (e.g., bands that did not support wireless services to consumers when the original rules were adopted). 
• Propose to remove unnecessary barriers to embedding Consumer Signal Boosters within vehicles such as cars, boats, and recreational vehicles. 
• Facilitate enterprise use of Consumer Signal Boosters so that a small business in an area with poor wireless coverage could use a Consumer Signal Booster to improve coverage for its employees and customers on all wireless networks.

Robocalls:  Robocalls are a continuing problem and the FCC initiated several rulemakings in 2017 to address them.  One particular problem arises when telephone numbers are reassigned from one consumer to another and the original consumer fails to update all parties who have called them in the past, such as businesses to which the consumer gave prior express consent to call.  As a result, the new holder of the telephone number may receive unwanted calls intended for the previous consumer. 

Inteserra Briefing Service subscribers see Briefing dated 7/26/17 for a summary of the initial proposal.

The Further Notice proposes to ensure that one or more databases are available to provide callers with the comprehensive and timely information they need to avoid calling reassigned numbers.  It would seek additional comment on the information that callers who choose to use a reassigned numbers database need from such a database and the best way for service providers to report that information and for callers to access that information.  Three alternatives are proposed:

• requiring service providers to report reassigned number information to a single, FCC-designated database;
• requiring service providers to report that information to one or more commercial data aggregators; or
• allowing service providers to report that information to commercial data aggregators on a voluntary basis.

The FCC would also ask for comment on whether, and if so, it should adopt a safe harbor from liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for those callers that choose to use a reassigned numbers database.