WASHINGTON-Opinions are split when it comes to shortening the voluntary negotiation period between microwave incumbents and C-, D-, E- and F-block personal communications services licensees. Several commenters on the proposed Federal Communications Commission amendment also would allow reimbursing incumbents to relocate links on their own-providing that strictly crafted rules are in place.
Citing the few incidences of “bad actors” that have cropped up during the voluntary negotiation period in which A- and B-block PCS licensees currently are involved, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association favors the proposed one-year voluntary period and the resultant two-year mandatory period.
“The only incumbents who will be hurt by a reduction of the voluntary period are a few `bad actors,”‘ CTIA wrote. “The notion that these `bad actors’ should be entitled to delay or `game’ the relocation process is not recognized as a protected interest under the Communications Act, nor does the commission intend it to be.”
The Personal Communications Industry Association, which is serving as a clearinghouse for relocation negotiations, would like to see an end to any voluntary negotiation period for any PCS licensee, especially those in the C-through F-blocks.
“Incumbent microwave operators are guaranteed full cost compensation for comparable facilities and a seamless transition,” the group wrote. “The additional voluntary period affords them no material protection; it merely provides the opportunity to extract premiums above relocation costs for an `early’ exit.” However, the commission’s proposal to shorten the voluntary period from two years to one year “will at least mitigate the pernicious impact of the problems that have been occurring.”
UTC, however, is against any changes in the negotiation calendar, stating that bad-actor charges made against 11 microwave incumbents should not condemn the rest of the industry. According to a UTC survey, “agreements had been reached by almost one-third of the respondents for the relocation of some portion of their microwave paths. Moreover, almost two-thirds of respondents were actively involved in negotiations.”
The group, which represents public-utility and natural gas-pipeline operators, adamantly opposed any changes in the C-block negotiations (whose voluntary negotiation period began May 22). “These licensees have taken the costs of these rules into account in their bids and are beginning to negotiate with incumbents in some markets,” it wrote. “The commission must not alter the expectations of the parties at this time.”
The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officers International Inc. agreed with UTC, but went even further in its explanation as to why the status quo should be maintained. Because of the time and manpower these government agencies must allot to the relocation process, “The three-year voluntary negotiation [for public-safety entities] mitigates the strain of this process as it gives public-safety agencies some limited flexibility as to when to devote their time and resources to microwave relocatio … [to] complete the process within just two years would push some agencies to choose between redirecting scarce time and resources at an inopportune time, or to accept whatever the PCS licensee offers, hoping that it will not result in a dangerous disruption of their communications system.”
APCO also maintained that rules for the D-, E- and F-blocks should remain the same, because most microwave links already will be moved by the time licensees are ready to begin network configuration and construction.
As far as incumbents voluntarily moving their links with the promise of reimbursement, CTIA wrote that the same recovery caps should be applied to incumbents as are imposed on PCS licensees. “Microwave incumbents should not be permitted to use the cost-recovery mechanisms to gain an economic windfall at the expense of reimbursing PCS carriers,” it wrote. “The obligations of a PCS licensee to reimburse an incumbent should only arise with respect to those links for which their systems impose an interference problem using the proximity-threshold test.”
PCIA registered some concern regarding policing policies should incumbents be allowed to move prior to a negotiation period. “First, there will be no independent check on the comparability of the replacement system,” it wrote. “Second, later PCS entrants will have no assurance that costs for the installation of the new system were fair.”
In addition, “The reimbursement caps are not adequate to resolve these problems,” PCIA wrote. “Thus, additional safeguards would be needed to ensure that an incumbent did not request relocation expenses of $400,000 when a comparable system would have cost much less … Under current rules, if an incumbent no longer needs its microwave system or relocates to another band because it is in its best interests to do so, the incumbent receives no reimbursement. Participation in cost sharing should not change this outcome.”
On the other hand, UTC stands behind incumbent participation, especially in rural areas.
