9/14 FCC Reply Comments on Impact of 3G Sunset on Consumers

New America's OTI filed reply comments with Public Knowledge, Access Humboldt, the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society, and the Center for Rural Strategies responding to arguments in the record regarding the potential wide-ranging side effects of the sunsetting of 3G networks, in particular in the context of alarm systems. OTI filed comments with the same groups earlier in September. An introduction and summary is available below:

In its opposition to the petition in the instant matter, AT&T takes the position that (1) the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “the Commission”) does not have legal authority to grant the petitioner’s requested relief and (2) that even if it did, there is no reasonable policy basis for doing so. Public Knowledge (“PK”), Access Humboldt, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society (“Benton”), the Center for Rural Strategies (“CRS”), and the Open Technology Institute (“OTI”), respectfully write in reply to the AT&T Opposition to reemphasize the Commission’s clear legal authority in this matter and the compelling public interest reasons for considering the Alarm Industry Communications Committee (“AICC”) Petition.

Public Knowledge (“PK”) and the other signatory organizations hope that—with the Commission serving as a mediator and fact-finder—a reasonable, collaborative, and voluntary transition process will be possible. It must be emphasized that there are undoubtedly substantial benefits to the deployment of 5G technology, but for the roll-out of that technology to be considered successful, it must not happen at the expense of public safety, consumer protection, and the public interest. A rushed sunset of 3G networks resulting in significant service disruptions—thereby creating unsafe conditions—for millions of customers in the name of 5G deployment may only serve to create additional obstacles to consumer uptake of the benefits of 5G networks. As outlined in both our August 30, 2021 comment in this matter, and in the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition (“PISC”) letter dated May 2, 2021, the Commission may be able to resolve conflicts related to the 3G transition without mandating specific timetables. Nevertheless, if service providers are unwilling to make reasonable accommodations on a voluntary basis, the Commission does have the authority to mandate the continued operation of 3G networks for as long as necessary to protect the public interest.

AT&T’s arguments that the Commission lacks authority are unpersuasive. Even conceding for the sake of argument that AT&T’s IoT contracts are private carriage agreements, that does not deprive the FCC of its authority over AT&T’s common carrier CMRS network. There are millions of people affected by the looming shutdown of services besides alarm systems and those services are unquestionably subject to the FCC’s Title II authority, and that the Commission must take steps necessary to protect those users. Even if AT&T were right about the statutory basis for its services to the alarm industry, that does not deprive the FCC of the ability to consider the public interest harms that would result from the shutdown of the CMRS network. For the same reason, AT&T’s invocation of Section 332(c)(2) is unavailing. Furthermore, AT&T fails to address the Commission’s broad authority over wireless licensees pursuant to Title III – particularly where safety of life is at issue.

AT&T raises several factual objections worthy of investigation by the Commission. Indeed, we have raised precisely these questions with regard to the impact of the chip shortage and the ability of alarm companies to move more rapidly. But AT&T is in no position to make these determinations for itself. The fact that some of the largest alarm companies were able to expand their customer base during the pandemic says nothing about the ability of smaller companies—especially those that have specialized in servicing the sick and elderly, who are especially reluctant to allow technicians into the home—to obtain needed equipment and get access to the already deployed hardware. Indeed, comments from the auto industry, Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc., and AARP all contradict AT&T regarding the impact of the chip shortage and the need for more time.

In short, the FCC has both the authority and responsibility to exercise supervision over this process. But the time for calm and considered action, rather than crisis management, is running out. Carriers such as AT&T and T-Mobile are already shutting down existing 3G networks. The danger of widespread loss of critical services grows daily as the process continues.