Comments Opposing Airspan Network’s Request for a Waiver to Emit Harmful Interference across CBRS

OTI and Public Knowledge filed an opposition in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s request for comment on the Petition for Waiver filed by Airspan Networks, Inc.

Airspan's petition requests a waiver that would allow its base stations to emit harmful interference across the entire 3.55-3.7 GHz Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) band, with out-of-band emissions (OOBE) far exceeding what the Commission's rules permit. Under the Commission’s rules, Airspan bears the burden of demonstrating either: (i) that "the underlying purpose of the rule(s) would not be served or would be frustrated by application to the instant case, and that a grant of the requested waiver would be in the public interest," or (ii) that "in view of unique or unusual circumstances of the instant case, application of the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly burdensome or contrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no reasonable alternative."

Airspan has failed to satisfy either standard. First, Airspan has not shown that the underlying purpose of the OOBE limits in 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(n)(1) would be frustrated by strict application. These rules exist specifically to protect CBRS licensees from harmful interference. Airspan's proposal would directly undermine this purpose by allowing massive interference to CBRS operations. Further, Airspan has not demonstrated unusual circumstances warranting relief. To the contrary, the petition reveals design choices that prioritize marginal cost savings for itself over interference protection for adjacent band licensees, circumstances that are neither unique nor compelling enough to justify a waiver.

More specifically, the Commission should deny Airspan's petition because: First, Airspan’s requested waiver would exceed OOBE limits by a factor of up to 500 (27 dB) across the entire CBRS band, an OOBE level likely to cause widespread and harmful interference to the thriving CBRS ecosystem. Contrary to Airspan’s claims, the requested waiver is fundamentally different from and significantly more harmful than previously granted waivers to Samsung and Ericsson. It would undermine the Commission's carefully crafted interference protection framework. Airspan’s proposed conditions would not protect CBRS users.

Second, granting the waiver would set a dangerous precedent that would effectively nullify the Commission's OOBE rules.

Finally, Airspan fails to consider less harmful alternatives. It also fails to articulate any public interest benefits beyond a marginal increase in its own profits that would justify the likely harms to the CBRS band’s innovative ecosystem of diverse users serving local needs in rural communities, enterprises, and public institutions nationwide.