WASHINGTON-The Federal Communications Commission is abuzz these days with a new debate that seems to bring two familiar issues-competition and spectrum management-to the table at the same time.
At issue: Can the FCC allow competition for wireless voice and broadband in the air-to-ground band while at the same time maintain sound spectrum-management policies?
AirCell Inc. believes it can.
Verizon Airfone Inc. believes it cannot.
The FCC first allocated spectrum in the 800 MHz band to six licensees for specialized air-to-ground operations. Three of the licensees constructed networks, but only Verizon Airfone remains.
Simultaneously, AirCell has worked for years to commercialize its technology and last year received a patent for its technology. AirCell, which offers air-to-ground cellular service on 1,600 general aviation aircraft and on one of Frontier Airlines’ airplanes, has been battling the cellular industry since 1997. That year, the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology halted AirCell’s experimental operations after appeals from several cellular service providers that claimed AirCell’s technology would cause interference to their networks. Cellular carriers have since argued that because AirCell’s technology is in airplanes, it is impossible to trace the interference. FCC-supervised tests in July 1997 found that AirCell’s technology did not cause interference, and OET lifted its restriction on AirCell. If you listen to AirCell, the spectrum in question-four megahertz-is sufficient for two competitors to offer broadband services to airplanes for both passenger and carrier use.
“The breadth of the market, the number of different-and different types of-airlines, and the diverse needs of general aviation all point to the demand for competitive solutions,” said Jack Blumenstein, AirCell chairman and chief executive officer.
Verizon Airfone begs to differ.
“If you tried to get two carriers in this spectrum, you will have interference. The speeds will be reduced to a fast narrowband service,” said Bill Pallone, Verizon Airfone president. “It won’t be the same experience that you can get on the ground. You need those kinds of speeds if you are going to provide the experience that customers want.”
The FCC said the battle between a subsidiary of the largest telephone company and a startup is nothing new.
“When put in context with all of the other spectrum wars, the band-specific proceedings, while each has their own parties, the constant theme is that we are pushing for more flexibility, a more market-orientated approach to these decisions. There is nothing new there. That is the overall philosophy,” said Peter Tenhula, deputy chief of the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
In reviewing filings and in interviews with key players, it appears that the air-to-ground debate has all of the markings of other recent spectrum-management decisions, like solving 800 MHz public-safety interference and allowing ultra-wideband technologies.
The similarities include at least two delays as rumors floated in September that the FCC would consider changes to air-to-ground band rules, then slipped to the November meeting and are now thought to be part of the Dec. 15 meeting unless the FCC can come to a conclusion in the next week and prevent FCC Chairman Michael Powell from putting it on the agenda.
Another likeness: mudslinging. While both Pallone and Blumenstein stated emphatically that they did not want to tarnish the other one, both were quite insistent that their opponent was wrong.
Signals point to a win for Verizon Airfone because FCC officials seem to believe that other services like satellite-based air-to-ground service would provide competition, as would allocating more spectrum in a different band.
Another idea that may be gaining momentum with the commissioners is to auction several licenses that would be combined to offer service. Space Data Corp. advanced this approach Nov. 17 in a meeting with Bryan Tramont, FCC chief of staff, and Sheryl Wilkerson, Powell’s wireless legal adviser.
“The air-to-ground auction can be designed so that bidders determine whether exclusive or overlapping licenses are assigned and thus the best use of the four megahertz of air-to-ground spectrum,” said Space Data in a filing regarding the meeting.
Space Data proposed four block licenses. The A block would be exclusive use of one megahertz of spectrum. The B block would be exclusive use of 1.25 megahertz of spectrum with initial sharing of incumbent (Verizon Airfone) air-to-ground operations. The C and D blocks would be shared use of 1.75 megahertz of spectrum.
In an interview with AirCell representatives, they did not seem keen on the combinatorial bidding proposal, insisting again that auctioning two licenses is the best approach.
Airfone’s Pallone said an auction of one four-megahertz license is the best way to go, noting that Boeing Co. is in favor of the AirCell proposal, and it has enough money to beat out a Verizon subsidiary for the license.
“I know I have a hard cap. I don’t have unlimited bidding capability,” said Pallone. “Anybody that has a big enough checkbook balance can bid. Boeing has a little bit of cash.” RCR
