Replies to post #1258 on Fibertower Corp fka FBBT

[Hoofman]

A good post that was on the Yahoo board.

Do a search on FCC, Backhaul etc.. for 09/05

Just as everything is about to take off Management, Pipe Financers, and the Government want Fibertower's licenses.

FiberTower suggests that the Commission utilize the Universal Service Fund to make
wireless backhaul available to qualifying areas and for qualifying purposes.
343 In February of 2011, the Commission proposed to revise the Universal Service Fund. 344
In that item, the Commission asked whether it should modify the universal service rules to provide additional support for middle mile costs and what effect middle mile support would have on incentives for small carriers to develop regional networks that provide lower cost, higher capacity backhaul capability.345 Given that the issue of providing Universal Service funding for wireless backhaul service is currently pending in the Universal Service proceeding, we decline to address this issue in this proceeding but are incorporating FiberTower’s comments into the record of WC Docket No. 10-90.

NSMA argues that in determining whether 24 GHz, 39 GHz, and LMDS licensees have
offered substantial service, the Commission fails to positively consider “basic and important steps that
lead to successful band utilization.” 346 It gives the following examples of such activity: (1) spending significant resources producing Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to develop equipment in its band; (2) utilizing the Secondary Markets rules to offer spectrum leases throughout the license area; (3) submitting proposals to carrier, government, or enterprise customers that rely on utilizing the wide-area license; and/or (4) building several links, but not yet meeting the safe harbor criterion (typically four links per million of population). 347 NSMA asks the Commission to “track and credit” such activities. 348 We see no need to modify our substantial service rules and policies. NSMA’s arguments ignore one of the Commission’s overriding purposes of buildout requirements: providing “a clear and expeditious accounting of spectrum use by licensees to ensure that service is indeed being provided to the public.” 349 The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has correctly rejected substantial service showings based on preparatory activities of the type described by NSMA where there is no actual service being provided to the public. 350 We emphasize, however, that safe harbors are merely one means of demonstrating substantial service, and given an appropriate showing, a level of service that does not meet a safe harbor may still constitute substantial service. 351
Furthermore, we will evaluate all substantial service showings that do not meet an established safe harbor on a case-by-case basis.