SVG Sit-Down: NABA Director-General Rebecca Hanson on How FCC's C-Band Auction Will Impact BroadcastersBroadcasters have long argued that auctioning the 100MHz of spectrum will seriously limit Upper C-band usage for the industryBy Jason Dachman, Editorial Director, U.S. Monday, November 24, 2025 - 2:17 pm
Print This Story | Subscribe
Story Highlights
Last week, the Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously to move ahead with proposed rules for an auction of upper C-band spectrum in support of 5G and future 6G services. Previous legislation had required the FCC to complete a system of competitive bidding for at least 100 megahertz in the Upper C-band no later than July 2027. The FCC will now push ahead with an auction of at least 100MHz of upper C-band spectrum (in the 3.98GHz-4.2GHz) band and the auction could release as much as 180MHz in the upper C-band.
Rebecca Hanson, Director-General of NABA (the North American Spectrum Alliance
Broadcasters have long argued that auctioning the 100MHz of spectrum will seriously limit Upper C-band usage for the industry, while auctioning off the entire 180 MHz would result in the broadcasters having to radically revamp the way it operates today. With than in mind, the North American Broadcasters Association (NABA) launched of the North American Spectrum Alliance in January. An an independent project managed by NABA, the Alliance unites broadcasters, content creators, rightsholders, venues, and others in media to protect spectrum critical for broadcasting, wireless microphones, cameras and other production tools.
With the C-band spectrum auction debate heating up, SVG sat down with Rebecca Hanson, Director-General, North American Broadcasters Association (NABA), to discuss what's ahead. She addresses how spectrum usage has dramatically increased in North America over the past years despite the significant losses in spectrum over the same period.
How will the proposed clearing of 100-180 MHz in the Upper C-band affect the long-term viability and reliability of satellite-delivered contribution and distribution services for broadcasters?
Well, the FCC must auction at least 100 megahertz of this band, which will seriously limit Upper C-band usage for the industry. If they are able to auction off the entire 180 MHz, then there simply won't be enough left for the industry to continue operating as we do today.
Given that the Lower C-band transition already required significant frequency compression and migration, what concrete risks do you foresee for content delivery, redundancy, and interference in an even more crowded band?
C-band is hands down the preferred transport for live events, due to its reliability and signal quality. So, there will be more competition and contention among broadcasters to access whatever is left. To the extent the C-band simply isn't available for a broadcaster anymore, the risks posed by inferior alternatives are quite high. Ku-band is not reliable in rain, 5G private networks are still in their early days, and fiber is fraught with risk, due to multiple owners and operators, handoffs, unpredictable rerouting, and frequent outages and maintenance.
What safeguards or transition frameworks is the Alliance advocating for to prevent service disruption for media companies that rely on C-band for live sports content contribution and distribution?
Quite simply, we don't want the FCC to auction more than 100 megahertz, so that we can still access what is left. Billions of dollars of sports, entertainment, news and other valuable programming that makes America great runs on this spectrum, and that deserves protection. The wireless companies might say they need more C-band to support increasing video traffic over consumer cellular services, but where is the top-quality video content going to come from if it is compromised by taking more C-band away from the very media that creates that content?
Does NABA believe the FCC will adopt a relocation reimbursement structure similar to the Lower C-band- and is that sufficient to protect broadcasters from operational and financial impacts?
The FCC has proposed following the model of the Lower C-band auction, but that contemplated relocating broadcasters into spectrum still ample enough to accommodate everyone. In this auction, depending on how much spectrum is sold, relocation will be more complex, or impossible if most of it is sold. After the Lower C-band auction, many broadcasters and service providers used the relocation as an opportunity to further invest in this band (at their own expense), on the FCC's assurances that the Upper C-band would remain protected for video delivery in the future. We believe that any operator driven out of the band deserves for those stranded costs to be reimbursed, and for the cost of moving to new services to be reimbursed, which are likely to be higher than the operational costs today.
How should broadcasters engage in this process to ensure their interests are protected, especially regarding coexistence with 5G/6G and the potential compression of remaining spectrum?
They need to make their case to the FCC that the Upper C-band is the backbone infrastructure for producing and delivering sports, entertainment, news and other popular programming to the over 315 million people in this country (and more abroad), and that there is no comparable substitute in terms of quality or reliability. There isn't even a close second.
What specific technical or policy arguments does NABA think will carry the most weight with the FCC as it weighs auction revenue, wireless expansion, and continuity of critical media infrastructure?
If the FCC values the global pre-eminence of American media, it will think hard before diminishing our position in the world by compromising the basic means by which we produce and distr
