FCC: Agreement Between Major Corporations is Not “Consensus”

[Commentary] Last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Wireless Bureau issued what should have been a fairly routine and highly technical Public Notice about possible alternative band plans for the 600 MHz Auction aka the Incentive Auction. This could also be called “that incredibly crazy, complicated deal Congress came up with last year where broadcasters sell back spectrum licenses to the FCC so the FCC can sell them to wireless companies.”

Since public comment makes it clear that the various proposals present a lot of challenges it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the Wireless Bureau asked for further comment after holding a band plan workshop a few weeks ago. But Commissioner Pai issued a separate statement blasting the Wireless Bureau. In particular, Pai berated the Bureau for departing from what he called the “consensus framework” for one particular band plan – the band plan favored by AT&T, Verizon, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the largest equipment manufacturers. Pai ignored objections to the AT&/VZ/NAB plan from consumer groups (including Public Knowledge), competitors such as Sprint, or tech companies such as Microsoft. Over and over in his statement, Commissioner Pai cited to the comments of AT&T, Verizon and NAB as proof of a “broad consensus” as if none of these objections existed. As if to emphasize just who counts for Pai’s “consensus” and who doesn’t, AT&T, Verizon, and the NAB posted identical blog posts reiterating the core of Pai’s criticism.