**Before the**

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 06-150         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Service Rules for the 698-746,   | ) | CC Docket No. 94-102         |
| 747-762                          | * |                              |
|                                  | * | WT Docket No. 01-309         |
| and 777-792 MHz Bands            |   |                              |
|                                  | * | WT Docket No. 03-264         |
| Revision of the Commission's     | * |                              |
| Rules to Ensure                  | ) | WT Docket No. 06-169         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Compatibility with Enhanced 911  | * | PS Docket No. 06-229         |
| Emergency                        |   |                              |
|                                  | * | WT Docket No. 96-86          |
| Calling Systems                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
| Section 68.4(a) of the           | * |                              |
| Commission's Rules               | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible | * |                              |
| Telephones                       | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
| Biennial Regulatory Review --    | * |                              |
| Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24,    | * |                              |
| 27, and 90 to Streamline and     |   |                              |
| Harmonize Various Rules          | * |                              |
| Affecting Wireless Radio         | * |                              |
| Services                         | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Former Nextel Communications,    | * |                              |
| Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band    |   |                              |
| Licenses and Revisions to Part   | * |                              |
| 27 of the Commission's Rules     | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
| Implementing a Nationwide,       | * |                              |
| Broadband, Interoperable Public  | * |                              |
| Safety Network in the 700 MHz    |   |                              |
| Band                             | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Development of Operational,      | ) |                              |
| Technical and Spectrum           | * |                              |
| Requirements for Meeting         | * |                              |
| Federal, State and Local Public  |   |                              |
| Safety Communications            | * |                              |
| Requirements Through the Year    | * |                              |
| 2010                             | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

REPORT AND ORDER and further notice of proposed rulemaking

**Adopted: April 25, 2007 Released: April 27, 2007**

By the Commission: Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps, Adelstein,
Tate and McDowell issuing separate statements.

**Comment Date:** \[21 days after publication in the Federal Register\]

**Reply Comment Date:** \[28 days after publication in the Federal
Register\]

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph \#

I. introduction 1

II\. BACKGROUND 13

A. DTV Transition and Reclamation of the 700 MHz Band 14

B. 700 MHz Commercial Services Proceeding 18

C. 700 MHz Guard Bands Proceeding 23

D. 700 MHz Public Safety Proceeding 25

E. Frontline Proposal 30

III\. REPORT AND ORDER 31

A. 700 MHz Commercial Services 32

1\. Background 34

2\. Discussion 37

a\. Facilitating Access to Spectrum and Provision of Service to
Consumers 37

\(i\) Mix of Geographic Service Area Sizes 38

\(ii\) Secondary Markets 50

b\. Auctions-Related Issues 56

\(i\) Aggregating Licenses 56

\(ii\) Bidding Preferences 59

\(iii\) Competitive Bidding and Aggregating New Licenses 67

\(iv\) Modifications to the Tribal Land Bidding Credit 70

c\. Additional Rules for Licensees 73

\(i\) Criteria for Renewal 73

\(ii\) License Terms 78

\(iii\) Power Limits for Lower 700 MHz Band and Upper 700 MHz Commercial
Services Band Base Stations 88

\(iv\) Power Limit Issues in WT Docket No. 03-264 103

\(v\) Other Technical Issues 107

\(vi\) 911/E911 Requirements 120

\(vii\) Hearing Aid-Compatible Wireless Handsets 137

B. 700 MHz Guard Bands 151

1\. Background 152

2\. Discussion 156

a\. Adoption of Secondary Markets Spectrum Leasing Rules 157

b\. Use and Operational Flexibility 163

IV\. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 169

A. Introduction 169

B. Discussion 171

1\. 700 MHz Band Commercial Services 176

a\. Lower 700 MHz Band 177

b\. Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band 182

\(i\) Proposals Based on Elimination of the Guard Band B Block 184

\(ii\) Proposals Based on Modified 700 MHz Guard Bands 194

c\. Performance Requirements 207

d\. Incumbent Eligibility 221

2\. 700 MHz Guard Bands 222

a\. Band Plan Proposals 222

b\. Other Guard Band Issues 243

3\. Competitive Bidding Procedures 246

4\. 700 MHz Public Safety Spectrum 250

a\. Broadband 251

b\. Band Plan Issues 254

c\. Power Limits for Public Safety Broadband 266

5\. Frontline's Proposal 268

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 291

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 291

B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 292

C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 293

D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis of 1995 Analysis 294

E. Other Procedural Matters 295

1\. Ex Parte Presentations 295

2\. Comment Filing Procedures 296

3\. Accessible Formats 299

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES 300

APPENDICES:

Appendix A -- List of Comments and Reply Comments

Appendix B -- Rule Changes

Appendix C -- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Appendix D -- Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

# introduction

1.  In this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    ("Further Notice"), we address rules governing wireless licenses in
    the 698-806 MHz Band (herein, the "700 MHz Band"). This spectrum
    currently is occupied by television broadcasters in TV Channels
    52-69 and is being made available for wireless services, including
    public safety and commercial services, as a result of the digital
    television ("DTV") transition.

2.  We are revisiting these rules due to the significant changes that
    have occurred over the past several years in the statutory framework
    governing this spectrum, the continuing advances in a rapidly
    developing market for wireless communications, and the needs of the
    public safety community. Perhaps most importantly, the Digital
    Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 ("DTV Act")[^1]
    set a firm deadline for the end of the DTV transition of February
    17, 2009, at which time this spectrum will be fully available for
    public safety as well as commercial wireless services. It is
    incumbent on the Commission to take all the steps necessary to make
    this spectrum effectively available to both public safety as well as
    commercial licensees as of the end of the DTV transition. In
    addition, the DTV Act established two specific statutory deadlines
    for the auction of the 60 megahertz of "recovered analog" spectrum
    in the 700 MHz Band: (1) the auction must begin no later than
    January 28, 2008, and (2) the auction proceeds must be deposited in
    the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund by June 30,
    2008.

3.  The past several years also have seen substantial changes in the
    wireless communications market. Many innovative wireless services
    and technologies have emerged, while at the same time prices have
    fallen, to the benefit of consumers. For example, in the past five
    years, there have been 100 million new subscribers to mobile
    telephony services.[^2] There also has been unprecedented growth in
    the demand for and the provision of wireless broadband services.
    This may be seen in the number of Americans using mobile devices
    capable of accessing the Internet at broadband speeds, which has
    grown from fewer than 100,000 in June 2000 to over 11 million in
    June 2006.[^3] Among the providers serving these consumers, those
    offering mobile wireless broadband services now operate in counties
    containing 63 percent of the population of the country.[^4]

4.  Similarly, the needs of those who use public safety spectrum also
    have evolved in recent years. As described below, we are
    particularly cognizant of the benefits to the public safety
    community of wireless broadband services. We expect that modern
    public safety services will increasingly depend on the advanced
    communications provided by wireless broadband technology to enable
    public safety entities to perform their vital safety-of-life and
    other critical roles.

5.  The Commission has been considering rules related to the use of this
    spectrum in three ongoing proceedings: (1) the 700 MHz Commercial
    Services proceeding,[^5] (2) the 700 MHz Guard Bands proceeding,[^6]
    and (3) the 700 MHz Public Safety proceeding.[^7] Because decisions
    on certain issues in the three proceedings are potentially
    interrelated, we address them jointly in this Report and Order and
    Further Notice. In so doing, we seek to promote access to 700 MHz
    Band spectrum and the provision of service to consumers across the
    country, including in rural areas, as well as opportunities for
    broadband service for public safety users. We are seeking expedited
    comment on the issues in the Further Notice, with the intent of
    finalizing the key decisions quickly given our auction-related
    statutory deadlines.

6.  In the Report and Order, we make a wide variety of decisions on key
    issues presented in the 700 MHz Commercial Services and the 700 MHz
    Guard Bands proceedings.[^8] With regard to the 700 MHz Commercial
    Services proceeding, we decide to adopt a mix of geographic license
    area sizes for the commercial services, including Cellular Market
    Areas (CMAs), Economic Areas (EAs), and Regional Economic Areas
    (REAGs). With regard to auctions-related issues, we find that our
    existing competitive bidding rules do not require modification for
    purposes of an auction of commercial 700 MHz Band licenses. To
    minimize uncertainty for licensees in this band, we eliminate the
    rules that permit comparative hearings for license renewal and
    clarify the requirements and procedures of the renewal process for
    700 MHz Band licensees. In addition, we shift the termination date
    for initial license terms from January 15, 2015, to February 17,
    2019, thus giving licensees an initial term not to exceed ten years
    after the end of the DTV transition. With regard to radiated power
    limits, we generally adopt a power spectral density (PSD) model,
    with certain limitations, to provide greater operational flexibility
    to licensees operating at wider bandwidths, and we provide for
    higher radiated power levels for these 700 MHz Band licensees
    operating in rural areas. We continue to allow a 50 kW ERP level for
    base station operations for already auctioned licenses and for
    unpaired spectrum in the "Lower 700 MHz Band" (TV Channels 52-59)
    but conclude that we should modify such power limits for paired
    spectrum in that Band to match the limits adopted for the "Upper 700
    MHz Band" (TV Channels 60-69) in order to better enable mobile
    service on that paired spectrum. In addition, in order to
    accommodate emerging technologies, we permit these 700 MHz licensees
    to meet radiated power limits on an average, rather than peak,
    basis.[^9]

7.  In the 700 MHz Commercial Services proceeding, we also modify our
    911/E911 rules to remove the service- and band-specific limitations
    on the applicability of those requirements. As amended, these rules
    will apply to all commercial mobile radio services (CMRS), no matter
    what spectrum is employed, to the extent that a service meets the
    scope requirements in our current rules.[^10] Similarly, we find
    generally that all digital CMRS providers, including providers in
    the 700 MHz, Advanced Wireless Services (AWS), and the Broadband
    Radio Service/Educational Broadband Service (BRS/EBS) bands, along
    with manufacturers of handsets capable of providing such services,
    should be subject to our hearing aid compatibility requirements to
    the extent that a service satisfies the scope provision in our
    current rules, and we amend our rules to incorporate this finding.
    By statute, however, we cannot impose hearing aid compatibility
    requirements for a band or service until applicable technical
    standards have been established. In recognition of the pressing need
    to develop applicable technical standards in certain frequency bands
    for which service rules have been or will soon be established, and
    given that the process of developing such standards has already
    commenced, we establish a 24-month timetable for the development of
    standards in these bands by all interested stakeholders.[^11]

8.  With regard to the 700 MHz Guard Bands proceeding, we adopt certain
    measures to encourage the most effective and efficient use of the
    spectrum designated as guard bands in the 700 MHz Band ("Guard Bands
    spectrum"). Specifically, we replace the current "band manager"
    leasing regime with the spectrum leasing policies and rules adopted
    in the Secondary Markets proceeding to provide Guard Band licensees
    and spectrum users additional flexibility to enter into spectrum
    leasing agreements. We also eliminate restrictions that prevented
    Guard Band licensees from using their spectrum as a wireless service
    provider and restricted their ability to lease to affiliates.[^12]

9.  In the Further Notice, we make proposals that are intended to enable
    the Commission to offer at auction a wide variety of licenses and
    best enable the provision of service to consumers across the
    country. We propose not to alter the spectrum blocks as currently
    aligned in the Lower 700 MHz Band, and to license the A Block on an
    EA basis, the B Block on a CMA basis, and the E Block on an REAG
    basis. As regards the commercial spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Band,
    we seek comment on several band plans, and on the appropriate sizes
    of the license blocks and geographic service areas for these
    licenses.. We also propose new performance requirements for the
    unauctioned commercial licenses in the 700 MHz Band based on the use
    of specific geographic coverage benchmarks.

10. We tentatively conclude not to adopt certain proposals in connection
    with the 700 MHz Guard Bands spectrum, advanced by parties seeking a
    restructuring of the existing band plan for the Upper 700 MHz Band
    that would include a reallocation of the Guard Band spectrum,
    including the "Broadband Optimization Plan" (hereinafter the
    "BOP").[^13] While we are seeking to establish rules and policies
    that provide licensees greater flexibility where possible, we
    tentatively conclude that, at least before the end of the DTV
    transition, we do not have the legal authority to adopt such band
    reallocation proposals and that such proposals would not serve the
    public interest. We do, however, seek comment on other measures to
    promote the most efficient and effective use of the Guard Bands
    spectrum. Specifically, we seek comment on what additional rule
    changes we should make to the 700 MHz Guard Bands in the event that
    we decide not to adopt our proposed commercial services band plan or
    other proposals under consideration.

11. With regard to the 700 MHz Band spectrum allocated to public safety
    ("Public Safety spectrum"), we tentatively conclude
    to redesignate the wideband spectrum to broadband use consistent
    with a nationwide interoperability standard, and to prohibit
    wideband operations on a going forward basis.[^14] Should we end up
    adopting this broadband approach, we tentatively conclude to
    consolidate the 700 MHz Public Safety spectrum, with the narrowband
    spectrum being consolidated to the top of the public safety
    allocation, and the broadband spectrum located at the bottom of the
    public safety allocation.[^15] These tentative conclusions, in
    conjunction with our proposal in the *700 MHz Public Safety* *Ninth
    Further Notice* to establish a national public safety licensee,
    further our efforts to establish nationwide interoperable wireless
    broadband for public safety.

12. Finally, we seek comment on a proposal, the "Public Safety Broadband
    Deployment Plan," recently filed by Frontline Wireless, LLC
    ("Frontline").[^16] While we have an extensive record on many of the
    issues raised by Frontline, such as the appropriate size of spectrum
    blocks, we do not have a record on some of the significant service
    rule changes Frontline proposes that we adopt for a commercial
    spectrum block that would be located just adjacent to the current
    700 MHz Guard Band B Block. We seek comment on aspects and
    implications of the Frontline proposal to establish such a
    record.[^17]

# BACKGROUND

13. In this background section, we briefly discuss the DTV transition,
    which will reclaim the 700 MHz Band for new uses, including
    commercial and public safety services. We then describe the portions
    of the 700 MHz Band that will be associated with new commercial and
    public safety services, as well as guard bands to protect public
    safety. Finally, we describe a new proposal, very recently submitted
    by Frontline, that would modify the service rules associated with
    part of the commercial spectrum.

## DTV Transition and Reclamation of the 700 MHz Band

14. The frequencies considered in this order are part of 108 megahertz
    of spectrum in the 700 MHz Band (Television Channels 52-69 in the
    698-806 MHz band) that will be made available as part of the digital
    television (DTV) transition.[^18] By the end of this transition, all
    analog television transmissions in this band will have terminated,
    and all digital television transmissions will be in the spectrum
    occupied currently by TV Channels 2-51 (the "core" TV broadcast
    spectrum). At that time, the 700 MHz Band will be available for new
    uses, including public safety, commercial, and other new radio
    services.[^19]

15. Prior to the DTV Act, the Commission had addressed in separate
    proceedings the reallocation of the 48 megahertz covering TV
    Channels 52-59 ("Lower 700 MHz Band")[^20] and the 60 megahertz
    covering TV Channels 60-69 ("Upper 700 MHz Band"). The proceedings
    addressing the Upper 700 MHz Band divided this 60 megahertz into the
    36 megahertz dedicated to commercial use,[^21] including the 6
    megahertz comprising the Guard Bands spectrum,[^22] and the 24
    megahertz designated for public safety use.[^23] Figure 1 shows the
    location of Commercial Services, Guard Band, and Public Safety
    spectrum within the 700 MHz Band.

**[[Figure 1 -- 700 MHz Band]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

698 746 747 762 764 776 777 792 794 806

+-------------------------------+---+-----+---+-------+---+------+---+-------+
|                               | G |     | G | P     | G |      | G | P     |
|                               | B |     | B | ublic | B |      | B | ublic |
|                               |   |     |   | S     |   |      |   | S     |
|                               |   |     |   | afety |   |      |   | afety |
+-------------------------------+---+-----+---+-------+---+------+---+-------+
| [\                            |   |     |   |       |   |      |   |       |
| \                             |   |     |   |       |   |      |   |       |
| Lower 700 MHz Band Upper 700  |   |     |   |       |   |      |   |       |
| MHz Band]{.smallcaps}         |   |     |   |       |   |      |   |       |
|                               |   |     |   |       |   |      |   |       |
| [(Channels 52-59) (Channels   |   |     |   |       |   |      |   |       |
| 60-69)]{.smallcaps}           |   |     |   |       |   |      |   |       |
+-------------------------------+---+-----+---+-------+---+------+---+-------+

16. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 ("Balanced Budget Act") required the
    Commission to reallocate the Upper 700 MHz Band no later than
    January 1, 1998.[^24] Specifically, the Balanced Budget Act mandated
    that the Commission allocate 24 megahertz of spectrum for public
    safety services in the Upper 700 MHz Band, while allocating the
    remaining 36 megahertz of spectrum for commercial use, to be
    assigned by competitive bidding.[^25] In the Balanced Budget Act,
    Congress also directed the Commission to "reclaim and organize"
    additional spectrum beyond the Upper 700 MHz Band, and to do so "in
    a manner consistent with the objectives" of Section 309(j)(3) of the
    Act.[^26] While Congress did not specify the amount of spectrum to
    be reclaimed beyond the Upper 700 MHz Band, the Commission
    determined that all broadcasters using digital transmission systems
    could be accommodated in the core TV Channels 2-51. As a result, the
    48 megahertz of spectrum in the Lower 700 MHz Band (698-746 MHz)
    would become available for new services through competitive
    bidding.[^27]

17. In passing the DTV Act, Congress accelerated the DTV transition by
    establishing February 17, 2009, as a new firm deadline for the end
    of the transition.[^28] Congress also required the Commission to
    commence the auction of recovered analog broadcast spectrum no later
    than January 28, 2008, and deposit the proceeds of the auction in
    the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund no later
    than June 30, 2008.[^29] These statutory changes will effectively
    clear the spectrum in both the Upper and Lower 700 MHz Bands as of
    February 17, 2009, and consequently eliminate any uncertainty
    regarding when this spectrum will be available for public safety,
    commercial, and other wireless services.

## 700 MHz Commercial Services Proceeding

18. In the 700 MHz Commercial Services proceeding, we sought comment on
    the 78 megahertz of commercial spectrum in the 698-746, 747-762, and
    777-792 MHz bands ("700 MHz Commercial Services Band").[^30] The 700
    MHz Band also currently includes six megahertz of commercial
    spectrum in the 746-747/776-777 MHz and 762-764/792-794 MHz bands,
    the 700 MHz Guard Bands spectrum, designed to protect users in the
    adjacent 700 MHz Public Safety spectrum. That public safety
    allocation comprises the remaining 24 megahertz in the 700 MHz Band,
    and consists of 12 megahertz of narrowband channels (voice and low
    speed data) and 12 megahertz of wideband (image/high speed data and
    slow scan video) communications channels. Figure 2 shows the current
    band plan for the Upper 700 MHz Band. Guard Band licenses (A and B
    Blocks) were assigned over the 52 Major Economic Areas (MEAs) and
    the remaining licenses (C and D Blocks) were assigned over the six
    Economic Areas Groupings (EAGs).[^31] The A and B Blocks (Guard
    Bands) have been auctioned, while the C and D Blocks have not yet
    been auctioned.

**[[Figure 2 -- Upper 700 MHz Band]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

747 762 777 792

  ----- ---- ------- ----- --- -------- ------- ----- ----- ------- ----- --- -------- ------
  A     C    D             B   Public           A     C     D             B   Public   
                               Safety                                         Safety   

  CH.        CH. 61  CH.       CH. 63   CH. 64  CH.         CH. 66  CH.       CH. 68   CH. 69
  60                 62                         65                  67                 
  ----- ---- ------- ----- --- -------- ------- ----- ----- ------- ----- --- -------- ------

746 752 758 764 770 776 782 788 794 800 806

[Block]{.underline} [Frequencies]{.underline} [Bandwidth]{.underline}
[Pairing]{.underline} [Area Type]{.underline} [Licenses]{.underline}

A 746-747, 776-777 2 MHz 2 x 1 MHz MEA 52\*

B 762-764, 792-794 4 MHz 2 x 2 MHz MEA 52\*

C 747-752, 777-782 10 MHz 2 x 5 MHz 700 MHz EAG 6

D 752-762, 782-792 20 MHz 2 x 10 MHz 700 MHz EAG 6

\*Blocks have been auctioned.

19. *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice.* In determining the size of
    geographic service areas for the C and D Blocks in the Upper 700 MHz
    Band, the Commission in 2000 decided to use large areas based on
    EAGs.[^32] The Commission based this decision on a number of
    factors, including the likely uses of this spectrum as reflected in
    the record, a previous statutory obligation to conduct the auction
    and deposit the proceeds by a specific date,[^33] and the
    Commission's desire to help bidders avoid costs associated with
    initial license area sizes that are either too small or too
    large.[^34] The Commission observed that large license areas such as
    EAGs could allow licensees to take advantage of economies of scale
    to develop new technologies and services, and could be aggregated to
    form nationwide licenses.[^35]

20. In a separate proceeding in 2001, the Commission divided the 48
    megahertz of spectrum in the Lower 700 MHz Band into blocks of
    paired and unpaired spectrum to accommodate a range of new fixed,
    mobile, and broadcast services and technologies.[^36] Figure 3 shows
    the current band plan for the Lower 700 MHz Band. The C Block was
    assigned across CMAs (*i.e*., Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)
    and Rural Service Areas (RSAs)), while the remaining blocks were
    assigned across Economic Area Groupings (EAGs). While Congress
    specifically directed the Commission to delay the auction of
    licenses in the Lower 700 MHz Band, it made an exception for C Block
    and D Block licenses, which it directed the Commission to auction
    immediately.[^37] The remaining A, B, and E Blocks have not been
    auctioned.

**[[Figure 3 -- Lower 700 MHz Band]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

  -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  A        B        C        D        E        A        B        C

  CH. 52   CH. 53   CH. 54   CH. 55   CH. 56   CH. 57   CH. 58   CH. 59
  -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------

698 704 710 716 722 728 734 740 746

[Block]{.underline} [Frequencies]{.underline} [Bandwidth]{.underline}
[Pairing]{.underline} [Area Type]{.underline} [Licenses]{.underline}

A 698-704, 728-734 12 MHz 2 x 6 MHz 700 MHz EAG 6

B 704-710, 734-740 12 MHz 2 x 6 MHz 700 MHz EAG 6

C 710-716, 740-746 12 MHz 2 x 6 MHz CMA 734\*

D 716-722 6 MHz unpaired 700 MHz EAG 6\*

E 722-728 6 MHz unpaired 700 MHz EAG 6

\*Blocks have been auctioned.

21. The Commission decided to make available a mix of both large and
    small geographic service areas in the Lower 700 MHz Band. The
    Commission noted that, in contrast to its experience in establishing
    service area sizes for the C and D Blocks in the Upper 700 MHz Band,
    many commenters in the Lower 700 MHz Band proceeding, including
    small and rural providers, favored small geographic areas, including
    CMAs.[^38] In light of this interest in small areas, the Commission
    decided to assign the 12-megahertz C Block over CMAs.[^39] The
    Commission observed that this was a "significant" amount of spectrum
    to assign across small geographic areas, noting that it amounted to
    25 percent of the 48 megahertz in the Lower 700 MHz Band. The
    Commission concluded that such a policy would afford meaningful
    opportunities to small and rural wireless providers.[^40] While the
    Commission declined to adopt nationwide licenses,[^41] it assigned
    the two remaining 12-megahertz paired blocks, as well as the two
    6-megahertz unpaired blocks, over EAGs, for many of the same reasons
    cited in its proceeding for the Upper 700 MHz Band.[^42]

22. In the *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice* adopted in August 2006,
    we sought comment on possible revisions to the band plan and service
    rules concerning commercial licenses in the 698-746, 747-762, and
    777-792 MHz bands.[^43] Among others things, we requested comment on
    ways the Commission could promote access to spectrum and the
    provision of service by assigning unauctioned spectrum over smaller
    geographic areas, whether we should modify the band plan with regard
    to the size and location of the spectrum blocks, whether we should
    revise the applicable performance standards pertaining to certain of
    these licenses, and whether to modify any of the technical rules in
    these bands. In addition, we also sought comment on several
    auctions-related issues and license renewal procedures. Also, we
    tentatively concluded that the Commission's 911/E911 rules and its
    hearing aid compatibility rules should be extended to apply to
    commercial services in the 700 MHz Band, as well as to CMRS services
    in other bands to the extent they meet certain criteria.

## 700 MHz Guard Bands Proceeding 

23. When the Commission originally established the Guard Bands in the
    Upper 700 MHz Band in 2000, its goal was to ensure that operations
    in the 36 megahertz of commercial spectrum would not cause harmful
    interference to 700 MHz public safety operations.[^44] While
    recognizing the Guard Bands' primary role as protecting public
    safety operations, the Commission permitted operations within the
    Guard Bands to "allow for effective and valued use of the spectrum,
    consistent with sound spectrum management, rather than the creation
    of guard band spectrum of little use."[^45] To minimize the
    potential for harmful interference to public safety operations, the
    Commission precluded Guard Bands operations from employing cellular
    system architectures,[^46] and required entities operating in the
    Guard Bands to comply with stringent out-of-band emissions
    criteria[^47] and frequency coordination procedures.[^48] The
    Commission created the Guard Band Manager classification, a new
    class of commercial licensee engaged specifically in leasing
    spectrum to third parties on a for-profit basis,[^49] and required
    that Guard Band Managers control the use of the spectrum consistent
    with the strict interference and frequency coordination rules
    designed to protect public safety.[^50]

24. *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice.* In the *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*
    adopted in September 2006, we sought comment on possible changes to
    the Part 27 service rules applicable to existing and prospective
    Upper 700 MHz Band licensees in the A Block and the B Block.[^51]
    Two developments prompted the Commission to seek comment on possible
    rule changes that could promote more efficient and effective use of
    the Guard Bands. First, in 2004 as part of the 800 MHz public safety
    interference remediation proceeding in WT Docket No. 02-55, the
    Commission reclaimed all of Nextel Communications, Inc.'s (Nextel)
    Guard Bands licenses, constituting 42 of the 52 B Block
    markets.[^52] Second, Congress recently created greater certainty
    regarding the availability of unencumbered 700 MHz Band spectrum for
    wireless commercial and public safety licensees---including the
    Guard Bands---by establishing a "hard date" of February 17, 2009, by
    which time incumbent analog broadcasters must vacate the spectrum.
    The *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice* sought comment on possible changes
    to the existing service rules for the Guard Bands that could result
    in more intensive use of the spectrum through greater operational,
    technical, and regulatory flexibility for licensees. Among other
    issues, we sought comment on whether to retain the existing Guard
    Band Manager rules or apply a different set of policies and rules to
    enable third parties to gain access to spectrum usage rights, such
    as those adopted in the Secondary Markets proceeding.[^53] The *700
    MHz Guard Bands Notice* also asked whether we should apply the
    existing Guard Band Manager rules to the returned Nextel spectrum or
    whether another regulatory structure is appropriate.[^54]

## 700 MHz Public Safety Proceeding

25. In a December 2005 Report to Congress submitted pursuant to the
    Intelligence Reform Act,[^55] the Commission recognized that
    broadband communications applications offer the public safety
    community a number of benefits, including video surveillance,
    real-time text messaging and e-mail, high resolution digital images
    and the ability to obtain location and status information of
    personnel and equipment in the field.[^56] The Report to Congress
    found that emergency response providers would benefit from
    development of an integrated, interoperable network capable of
    delivering broadband services nationwide.[^57]

26. As illustrated below, however, the current allocation for the public
    safety portion of the 700 MHz Band does not allow for broadband
    applications:

**[[Figure 4 -- 700 MHz Public Safety Band]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

764 767 773 776 794 797 803 806

  ------------- ---------- ----- ------------- ------------ --------- -------- ------------- ---------- ----- -------------
  Public Safety                                                                Public Safety                  
  Allocation                                                                   Allocation                     

  Narrow-band   Wideband         Narrow-band   Commercial                      Narrow-band   Wideband         Narrow-band
                                               Allocation                                                     

  CH. 63                   CH.                 CH. 65       CH. 66    CH. 67   CH. 68                   CH.   
                           64                                                                           69    
  ------------- ---------- ----- ------------- ------------ --------- -------- ------------- ---------- ----- -------------

764 770 776 782 788 794 800 806

>     Narrowband Channels
>
>     Wideband Channels -- General Use, Reserve, Interoperability

27. In March 2006, the Commission adopted the *700 MHz Public Safety
    Eighth Notice*, seeking comment on the use of the 700 MHz Public
    Safety Band to accommodate the broadband needs of public
    safety.[^58] In particular, the Commission sought comment on
    revisions to the above band plan proposed by the National Public
    Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC), Motorola, and
    Lucent.[^59] All of the proposals contemplated aggregating the
    wideband general use channels, wideband interoperability channels,
    and wideband reserve spectrum to form a broadband segment. The
    Commission solicited alternative proposals, tentatively concluded
    not to alter the location of the narrowband voice and data channels,
    and sought comment on ways in which public safety entities could use
    the 700 MHz Public Safety Band for broadband applications and on
    measures that should be taken to promote broadband
    interoperability.[^60]

28. The subsequent *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice* sought comment on
    possible modifications to the rules governing the 700 MHz Guard Band
    licensees, including the BOP advanced by Access Spectrum and Pegasus
    Communications.[^61] The *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice* relates to the
    700 MHz Public Safety proceeding, *inter alia,* because the
    Commission tentatively concluded that any Guard Bands proposal
    involving relocation of the narrowband channels in the 700 MHz
    Public Safety Band must address the source of funds to reprogram
    existing public safety 700 MHz radios and the coordination of the
    proposal with Canada and Mexico.

29. Most recently, in December 2006 we adopted a *700 MHz Public Safety
    Ninth Notice* in which we proposed, in light of the nation's current
    and anticipated public safety and homeland security needs, "a
    centralized and national approach to maximize public safety access
    to interoperable, broadband spectrum in the 700 MHz Band, and, at
    the same time, foster and promote the development and deployment of
    advanced broadband applications, related radio technologies, and a
    modern, IP-based system architecture."[^62]

## Frontline Proposal

30. In recent weeks, Frontline has submitted several filings with the
    Commission regarding its proposed "Public Safety Broadband
    Deployment Plan" for a portion of the spectrum in the 700 MHz
    Band.[^63] Frontline proposes that the Commission alter the upper
    portion of the band plan and service rules in the 700 MHz Commercial
    Services proceeding in order to auction a single nationwide
    10-megahertz license (a new "E-block") near the 700 MHz Public
    Safety spectrum that would be subject to specific conditions.[^64]
    In particular, the Commission would require the licensee to
    construct a nationwide, interoperable broadband network for sharing
    with a national public safety licensee that would provide broadband
    service in the lower portion of the 700 MHz Public Safety
    spectrum.[^65] Frontline has made these filings in the three current
    Commission proceedings described above: the 700 MHz Commercial
    Services proceeding, the 700 MHz Public Safety proceeding, and the
    700 MHz Guard Bands proceeding.

# REPORT AND ORDER

31. Based on the record before us, we make a number of decisions in this
    Report and Order regarding the rules that will apply with regard to
    issues raised in the 700 MHz Commercial Services proceeding and the
    700 MHz Guard Bands proceeding. First, we discuss the 700 MHz
    Commercial Services, including actions we are taking to facilitate
    access to spectrum and the provision of service to consumers,
    particularly with respect to the spectrum to be auctioned as
    directed by the DTV Act. Second, we address rules and policies for
    the 700 MHz Guard Bands in order to provide licensees enhanced
    flexibility while at the same time guarding against interference
    with the adjacent 700 MHz Public Safety spectrum.

## 700 MHz Commercial Services

32. In this Report and Order, we take a number of steps to facilitate
    access to spectrum and the provision of service to consumers,
    especially those in rural areas, and to simplify and clarify our
    rules related to the commercial 700 MHz Band spectrum. We adopt a
    mix of geographic service areas to provide for CMAs, EAs, and REAGs
    for licenses in the commercial services. In addition, we decline to
    alter our rules relating to secondary market transactions. For
    issues relating to auctions of the commercial spectrum, we conclude
    that no new rules are needed to facilitate nationwide aggregation of
    existing and new 700 MHz Commercial Services licenses, reject
    requests for set aside of licenses for designated entities and to
    establish an additional small business category for bidding credits,
    and address issues concerning competitive bidding, aggregation of
    new licenses, and tribal lands bidding credits. Finally, with
    respect to the commercial services, we address issues concerning
    license renewal, extend the license terms to provide that initial
    authorizations for the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band will have a
    term not to exceed 10 years from February 17, 2009, address power
    limits and other technical issues, and establish requirements
    concerning 911/E911 and hearing aid-compatible handsets.

33. We do not accept arguments made by several commenting parties in
    this proceeding that making revisions to the rules for this 700 MHz
    spectrum may cause undue administrative and judicial delay,[^66] or
    arguments that any changes to these rules run the risk of reducing
    the amount of monies collected in the auction to the extent that
    they could jeopardize funding for all elements of the plan relating
    to the DTV transition.[^67] Similarly, we reject the argument that
    any revisions to the rules for this spectrum may cause a delay in
    the provision of services by these licensees.[^68] Accordingly, we
    find that our actions in this Report and Order will not jeopardize
    our ability to meet our statutory obligations with respect to the
    DTV transition.

### Background

34. In the *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, we sought comment on a
    number of service rule issues concerning the 700 MHz Commercial
    Services Band.[^69] With regard to the Commission's policies to
    promote access to spectrum and the provision of service, we sought
    comment on whether to assign additional unauctioned spectrum over
    geographic service area sizes other than the six EAGs specified
    under the current rules, and in particular, whether there is a need
    for additional small area licenses in this band, such as the 734
    Cellular Market Areas (CMAs).[^70] We also sought comment on whether
    we should modify the size of spectrum blocks in the Upper 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band or the Lower 700 MHz Band, or both.[^71]
    While stating that we thought the current band plan for the Lower
    700 MHz Band should be retained, we nonetheless sought comment on
    possible changes to that band, and also specifically asked for
    comment on whether the Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band should
    be reconfigured by dividing its 20 megahertz D Block into two or
    more blocks.[^72] We also sought comment on whether we should revise
    our current "substantial service" performance requirements for the
    700 MHz Commercial Services Band, or whether the Commission should
    adopt alternative build-out rules, including population-based
    construction benchmarks, geography-based construction benchmarks, or
    a "keep-what-you-use" standard similar to that adopted for cellular
    service in the 1980s.[^73] In addition, we sought comment on whether
    the Commission should attempt to promote access to spectrum and the
    provision of service through revisions to its secondary markets
    rules and procedures, such as by requiring licensees to make "good
    faith" efforts to negotiate with potential lessees and/or providing
    a point of contact for lessees.[^74]

35. With respect to the Commission's policies on auctions-related
    issues, we sought comment on whether it would be necessary or
    desirable to facilitate the aggregation of new and existing 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band licenses through the use of a "two-sided
    auction" that would offer for sale unassigned as well as previously
    assigned licenses for the spectrum in this band.[^75] Similarly, we
    generally sought comment on whether any changes to the Commission's
    competitive bidding rules are necessary or desirable in order to
    facilitate efficient aggregation of new licenses, in light of the
    existing spectrum blocks for the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band
    licenses as well as any revisions the Commission may make to these
    spectrum blocks.[^76] The *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice* also
    generally sought comment on whether the Commission should take
    additional action to help facilitate access to 700 MHz spectrum and
    the provision of service to all consumers, including those in rural
    areas, as well as whether the Commission should make any adjustments
    to its Tribal Lands Bidding Credit rules as they apply to the 700
    MHz Band licenses to be auctioned.[^77]

36. In addition, the *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice* also addressed
    a number of other policies and rules for 700 MHz Commercial Services
    Band licensees. For example, we sought comment on whether the
    Commission should amend its rules to state more explicitly the
    criteria for renewal of 700 MHz Commercial Services Band licenses,
    whether it should integrate the substantial service or any
    end-of-term requirements into the renewal process for 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band licenses, and whether it should replace
    procedures for filing competing applications at renewal time with
    criteria to measure level of service provided by these
    licenses.[^78] The *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice* sought
    comment on whether license terms of unauctioned as well as
    previously auctioned 700 MHz Commercial Services Band licenses
    should be extended beyond 2015, and whether the Commission should
    establish a uniform license term for all licensees in the band.[^79]
    We also sought comment on whether licensees in the Upper 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band should be permitted to operate at higher
    power levels, while noting that such changes could not result in
    additional interference to public safety services operating in the
    band.[^80] Regarding the Lower 700 MHz Band, we sought comment on
    whether the Commission should continue to permit licensees in this
    portion of the band to operate at the 50 kW level, or whether this
    capability should be reduced for existing and/or future Lower 700
    MHz Band licensees.[^81] Finally, in the *700 MHz Commercial
    Services Notice* we sought comment on our tentative conclusion that
    the Commission's 911/E911 and hearing aid compatibility rules should
    be extended to apply to 700 MHz services, as well as to CMRS
    services in other bands, to the extent these services meet certain
    criteria.[^82]

### Discussion 

#### Facilitating Access to Spectrum and Provision of Service to Consumers

37. We take several steps to facilitate access to spectrum and the
    provision of service to consumers, especially those in rural areas,
    in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band. We determine to provide for
    a mix of geographic service area sizes for the licenses that will be
    auctioned.[^83] We also determine not to revise the Commission's
    existing spectrum leasing rules as they apply to 700 MHz Commercial
    Services Band licensees.

##### Mix of Geographic Service Area Sizes 

38. [Background]{.underline}. In the *Upper 700 MHz First Report and
    Order*, the Commission determined that Blocks C and D of the Upper
    700 MHz Band would be assigned over six EAGs.[^84] In the *Lower 700
    MHz Report and Order*, the Commission determined that Blocks A, B,
    and E would also be assigned over EAGs.[^85] As described above,
    licenses already have been assigned for two blocks in the Lower 700
    MHz Band: the C Block, a 12-megahertz paired block assigned over
    CMAs, and the D Block, a 6-megahertz unpaired block assigned over
    EAGs.[^86]

39. In the *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, we sought comment on
    whether there is a need to assign additional unauctioned spectrum
    over service area sizes other than the EAGs specified under current
    rules,[^87] and, if so, what size of service areas, or combinations
    of sizes, should be adopted for the 700 MHz Band.[^88] In
    particular, comment was requested on whether there is a need for
    additional small geographic service area licenses in the band,
    including 176 EAs, 734 CMAs, or any other small and/or rural
    areas.[^89] We also sought comment on which particular spectrum
    block or blocks would be most appropriate for licensing in revised
    service area sizes.[^90]

40. Many commenters, including small and regional service providers,
    entities representing rural interests, and a coalition including
    cable television providers and Sprint-Nextel, support revisiting the
    existing band plan and suggest that the Commission adopt a mix of
    the proposed license areas.[^91] Some of these same commenters favor
    making one or more license block available based on small geographic
    areas,[^92] and support the use of smaller service areas in general
    and CMAs in particular.[^93] A coalition of cable television
    providers and Sprint-Nextel recommend a mix of geographic service
    areas that has most licenses based on EAs. Another coalition of 14
    commenters, consisting of small, regional and rural carriers, as
    well as some state regulators, also submitted a proposal with a mix
    of service areas based on REAGs, EAs and CMAs.[^94] Other
    commenters, including small and larger carriers as well as rural
    interests and a tribal representative, also support service areas
    smaller than EAGs.[^95] For example, Frontier suggests that licenses
    be made available over areas as small as counties.[^96] In addition,
    some commenters offer support for smaller service areas and also
    advocate unlicensed use of the spectrum.[^97] Access Spectrum *et
    al*. support the use of MEAs, which are the service areas for the
    Guard Bands licenses, in connection with its specific proposal to
    reconfigure the Upper 700 MHz Band.[^98]

41. On the other hand, a number of commenters support retaining EAGs
    exclusively.[^99] Cingular and Verizon Wireless oppose adopting
    additional small-area licenses in the 700 MHz Band.[^100] CTIA
    states that, in considering revisions and determining the
    appropriate license area size(s), the Commission should consider all
    of the 700 MHz Commercial Services spectrum (both auctioned and
    unauctioned), the licensing framework for the AWS-1 band in the AWS
    proceeding,[^101] and the various secondary market opportunities
    available today.[^102] DIRECTV/EchoStar comment that a nationwide
    license should be included in a mix of license sizes.[^103]

42. [Discussion]{.underline}. We find that providing for a mix of
    geographic licensing areas in the 700 MHz Band will balance the
    demand for differently sized licenses demonstrated in the record and
    enhance access to this spectrum by a variety of potential licensees.
    In particular, we determine to replace the unassigned EAG-sized
    license areas, as established in the current band plan, with a mix
    of geographic licensing areas consisting of CMAs, EAs, and REAGs.
    These revisions are consistent with the goal of providing greater
    access to spectrum for small providers and parties in rural areas,
    and improving the opportunity for a wider range of potential
    licensees to obtain access to this valuable spectrum. Having decided
    to adopt these three geographic license sizes for this commercial
    spectrum, in the Further Notice below we seek comment on a proposal
    regarding the band plan for commercial 700 MHz spectrum, both with
    regard to the size of the spectrum blocks to be auctioned and the
    location of the new CMAs, EAs, and REAGs with respect to those
    blocks.[^104]

43. In determining the size of service areas, the Commission has stated
    as a general principle that it will consider "licensing the spectrum
    over a range of various sized geographic areas, including smaller
    service areas such as MSAs/RSAs \[CMAs\], where consistent with the
    record in that proceeding and with other factors that may be
    relevant to the spectrum."[^105] Many commenters, including small
    and regional service providers and entities that represent rural
    interests, favor an approach that would provide for a variety of
    license sizes beyond those in the current band plan.[^106] We agree
    with those commenters who observe that a revised mix of smaller
    license sizes would provide a more balanced set of initial licensing
    opportunities at this time and make available more licenses to match
    the needs of different potential users.[^107] The opportunities
    afforded by providing licenses with a mix of geographic areas were
    seen in the results of Auction No. 66 involving AWS-1 licenses,
    where many different bidders won smaller and mid-sized licenses,
    such as CMAs and EAs.[^108] The same policy of providing a mix of
    licenses that balances competing interests is appropriate here.
    These revisions will advance the Commission's statutorily directed
    goals to promote service to rural areas,[^109] promote investment in
    and the rapid deployment of new technologies and services,[^110]
    avoid the excessive concentration of licenses, and provide for the
    dissemination of licenses among a wide variety of applicants.[^111]

44. We conclude that providing a mix of CMA, EA, and REAG licenses in
    the 700 MHz Commercial Services spectrum will be an effective means
    of providing increased access to spectrum, especially in rural
    areas, while simultaneously meeting other Commission goals. We
    disagree with commenters who argue that any changes to smaller area
    licenses should be limited to the Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services
    Band, and not be implemented in the Lower 700 MHz Band.[^112] In
    this regard, Cingular and AT&T argue that the Lower 700 MHz Band,
    because of its higher maximum power limits, is well suited for new
    mobile applications that requires large license areas and therefore
    that any change in the size of service areas (*e.g.,* the use of
    smaller areas) should be limited to the Upper 700 MHz Commercial
    Services Band.[^113] However, the Commission previously found that
    the maximum power limit in the Lower 700 MHz Band, with the
    associated non-interference requirement, would maximize both
    flexibility and freedom from harmful interference "for the widest
    number of potential services" in the Lower 700 MHz Band.[^114]
    Smaller and rural operators also should have access to the benefits
    afforded by the higher power limits in the Lower 700 MHz Band. We
    note that the maximum power limit has enabled a licensee in the
    C Block of the Lower 700 MHz Band, C&W, to reach its entire service
    area from a single tower site. In this regard, C&W states that if
    the power limits for its Lower 700 MHz license were lowered, it
    would be forced to add towers at a great expense to continue to
    reach the outlying portions of its service area.[^115] Another
    C Block licensee, Corr, states that potential services under active
    development include mobile TV and one-way data transfers, and with
    50 kW of power, a licensee could provide such a broadcast service to
    a small or medium-sized metropolitan area.[^116]

45. Consistent with our earlier findings with respect to license sizes
    in the Upper and Lower 700 MHz Bands,[^117] we decline at this time
    to adopt nationwide licensing for any of the 700 MHz Commercial
    Services Band spectrum blocks, as requested by
    DIRECTV/EchoStar.[^118] Given the ability of licensees to combine
    REAGs in the upcoming auction to create regional or nationwide
    service territories through standard bids, adopting nationwide
    licensing for a spectrum block is unnecessary.[^119] Licensees will
    be able to seek to acquire and combine licenses based on REAGs, as
    well as licenses based on other area sizes, in order to achieve
    larger footprints, including nationwide coverage, if that is their
    goal. We note that bidders in Auction No. 66 were able to acquire
    multiple licenses so as to build larger footprints with geographic
    areas smaller than EAGs, including EA licenses.[^120] Although we do
    not adopt nationwide licensing in this Report and Order, in the
    Further Notice we seek comment on proposals that would provide for
    combinatorial bidding for certain blocks to promote new entry in
    this band.[^121]

46. Likewise, we decline to adopt service areas smaller than CMAs, such
    as county-sized areas.[^122] The Commission has not licensed
    spectrum across areas smaller than CMAs,[^123] and we find that the
    734 CMA licenses are small enough to help ensure widespread
    deployment of advanced services, including in rural areas, and allow
    participation for small and rural bidders. Also, given the excellent
    propagation characteristics in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band,
    and the relatively small size of many counties, licensing 700 MHz
    Band spectrum on a county basis may result in spectral inefficiency.

47. We also decline to adopt as a part of the band plan for the 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band geographic areas of other sizes, including
    MEAs.[^124] Our decision in this Report and Order to adopt three
    different license sizes offers a sufficiently wide variety of
    service areas that may be acquired by both small and rural providers
    as well as large regional and nationwide providers, while minimizing
    complexity for bidders at auction and in our licensing process.

48. Further, we reject Milgrom/Wrege's recommendation that the
    boundaries of CMAs be adjusted so that each CMA is contained
    entirely within a single EA (or that the EAs be adjusted so that
    each EA comprises a set of CMAs), in the event the Commission
    decides to offer additional CMA license areas in the 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band.[^125] Adjusting the CMA licenses in such a
    manner would create license areas that do not match precisely the
    license areas for the Lower 700 MHz Band C Block spectrum, which
    have already been auctioned on a CMA basis.[^126] We also note that
    such revisions could have an impact on operators that intend to
    match the 700 MHz Band spectrum with other spectrum which has been
    licensed over CMAs.

49. Because the band plan for the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band no
    longer contains EAGs, for the EAs, REAGs, and CMAs we will
    separately license the Gulf of Mexico with each of the following
    license divisions: EA licensing area 176; REAG licensing area 12;
    and MSA licensing area 306. We adopt: (i) the same definition of EAs
    set forth in Section 27.6(h) of the rules, currently applicable for
    AWS-1 spectrum, for EA licenses in the 700 MHz Commercial Services
    Band; (ii) the same definition of REAGs set forth in Section 27.6(h)
    of the rules, currently applicable for AWS-1 spectrum, for REAG
    licenses; and (iii) the same definition of MSA/RSAs set forth in
    Section 27.6(c), currently applicable to the C Block of the Lower
    700 MHz Band, for CMAs. As we have done in licensing other Part 27
    services, the Gulf of Mexico service area is comprised of the water
    area of the Gulf of Mexico starting 12 nautical miles from the U.S.
    Gulf coast and extending outward.

##### Secondary Markets

50. [Background.]{.underline} The Commission has sought to provide
    access to spectrum by promoting the development of robust secondary
    markets in spectrum usage rights, removing unnecessary regulatory
    barriers and allowing entities seeking access to spectrum to enter
    into spectrum leasing arrangements with existing licensees.
    Specifically, in the 2003 *Secondary Markets Report and Order,* the
    Commission adopted rules to facilitate access to spectrum by
    permitting licensees and entities seeking spectrum access to enter
    into different types of spectrum leasing arrangements. [^127] In the
    *Secondary Markets Second Report and Order*, adopted in 2004, the
    Commission extended its application of these rules to additional
    services and provided for immediate (*i.e.,* overnight) processing
    of certain classes of spectrum lease arrangements and applications
    for license transfers and assignments.[^128]

51. In the *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, we sought comment on
    whether the Commission could further promote access to 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band spectrum through revisions to its secondary
    markets policies and rules pertaining to partitioning,
    disaggregation, and spectrum leasing.[^129] For instance, we sought
    comment on whether the Commission should revise its secondary
    markets rules to require licensees to make "good faith" efforts to
    negotiate with potential spectrum lessees. The *700 MHz Commercial
    Services Notice* observed that such a policy could take one of
    several forms, ranging from a requirement that licensees establish a
    point of contact for potential spectrum lessees, to a requirement
    for "good faith" negotiation that might stipulate that licensees
    have a minimum number of meetings with potential spectrum lessees
    and/or must provide their terms for an acceptable spectrum leasing
    arrangement.[^130]

52. The majority of commenters addressing whether the Commission should
    adopt additional rules to promote secondary markets transactions
    oppose revisions to the current secondary markets rules. These
    parties include all of the CMRS providers that commented on this
    issue, as well as a technology provider, Qualcomm.[^131] One small
    CMRS provider commenting on this issue, Corr, argues that the
    proposed new rules would be unnecessary and, to the extent leasing
    is not occurring regularly, the problem largely would be solved by
    the use of smaller geographic areas.[^132] Only two commenters,
    including a group of state agencies, take a different view and
    recommend that the Commission consider a licensee's participation in
    secondary market transactions during the license renewal
    process.[^133]

53. [Discussion.]{.underline} We decline to adopt rules that would
    require 700 MHz Commercial Services Band licensees to make "good
    faith" efforts to negotiate with potential spectrum lessees, either
    as part of their performance requirements or as part of the criteria
    associated with license renewal. We believe that such changes are
    unnecessary given the other measures we are adopting to promote
    access to spectrum in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band. As
    discussed above, these measures involve revising the 700 MHz
    Commercial Services band plan to include a mix of smaller geographic
    licensing areas.

54. Most commenters support a decision not to impose a "good faith"
    negotiation obligation on the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band
    licensees. Some of these commenters argue that such a requirement
    would be unnecessarily burdensome and could lead to uneconomic
    decisions.[^134] Aloha is concerned that requiring licensees to make
    "good faith" efforts to negotiate with potential lessees would be "a
    very complex can of worms" with little or no corresponding
    benefit.[^135] AT&T observes that a "good faith" requirement could
    encourage efforts to obtain access to this spectrum at below-market
    prices.[^136] CTIA argues that the proposed modifications would
    increase transaction costs and would be contrary to the Commission's
    objectives in promoting secondary markets.[^137]

55. Commenters supporting the adoption of a "good faith" requirement
    argue that the Commission should consider a licensee's secondary
    markets participation as part of its license renewal process.[^138]
    We note, however, that the Commission's current spectrum leasing
    rules already provide a licensee with significant incentives to
    enter into spectrum leasing arrangements because licensees may rely
    on the activities of its spectrum lessee(s) for purposes of
    complying with the licensee's construction requirements.[^139] We
    conclude that our decision to adopt a mix of geographic license area
    sizes, combined with our existing secondary markets rules, are
    sufficient to promote access to spectrum. Accordingly, we decline to
    adopt further secondary markets requirements at this time.

#### Auctions-Related Issues

##### Aggregating Licenses

56. [Background.]{.underline} In the *700 MHz Commercial Services
    Notice*, we sought comment on whether Commission action is necessary
    or desirable to facilitate the aggregation of existing 700 MHz Band
    licenses with new licenses the Commission may grant. In the *700 MHz
    Commercial Services Notice*, we observed that such aggregation could
    be facilitated by a single auction in which licenses for spectrum
    previously assigned as well licenses for unassigned spectrum in the
    700 MHz Band could be offered for sale, a mechanism sometimes
    referred to as a "two-sided" auction.[^140] For example, spectrum
    assigned pursuant to existing licenses could be included in an
    auction by issuing vouchers to the existing licensees in exchange
    for their licenses. The amount of the vouchers could be determined
    by winning bids for licenses covering the returned spectrum. The
    vouchers could be used to offset winning bids in the auction, and
    possibly other Commission auctions as well.

57. As part of a wider-reaching proposal to revise the Upper 700 MHz
    band plan, Access Spectrum *et al*. support returning their 700 MHz
    Guard Band licenses in exchange for a bidding credit.[^141]
    DIRECTV/EchoStar see a benefit in making previously licensed
    spectrum available in an auction of new licenses.[^142] Others,
    including Blooston and Corr, voice support for a "two-sided" auction
    provided that the return of existing licenses is voluntary.[^143]

58. [Discussion.]{.underline} Based on the record and the circumstances
    present here, we conclude that the public interest would be better
    served by relying on the existing secondary market to aggregate
    existing and new licenses rather than attempting to develop new
    rules and policies for incorporating existing 700 MHz Commercial
    Services licenses into an auction of new licenses. Parties bidding
    on new licenses should be able to accurately value those licenses,
    even absent an opportunity to simultaneously aggregate new with
    existing licenses. New licenses in the 700 MHz Commercial Services
    spectrum can be used independently of existing licenses. Applicants
    will be able to seek any of multiple new licenses, of varying
    geographic size, to serve any given location. Thus, the value of the
    new licenses is unlikely to depend significantly upon a party's
    ability to aggregate existing and new licenses. Moreover, the
    interests of aggregators are likely to be met in large part by the
    existing secondary market. Accordingly, we conclude that no new
    rules or policies are needed to facilitate aggregation of existing
    and new 700 MHz Commercial Services licenses in order to increase
    the likelihood that these licenses will be assigned to the parties
    most likely to put them to their most effective use.

##### Bidding Preferences 

59. [Background.]{.underline} Certain commenters advocate that the
    Commission set aside 700 MHz Commercial Services licenses for
    designated entities or, if not, that the Commission adopt a third
    small business definition under which eligible applicants would
    receive a 35% bidding credit. In particular, certain commenters
    representing rural providers, small entities, and others argue that
    the Commission should set aside spectrum blocks for designated
    entities, as it did in 1994 for auctions of PCS Broadband spectrum
    licenses.[^144] In reply comments, other parties argue that
    set-asides are not necessary and were rejected in the AWS
    proceeding.[^145]

60. In the event the Commission does not adopt the set-aside it
    proposes, Council Tree argues that the Commission must adopt an
    additional 35% bidding credit for the applicants with average
    attributable net revenues not exceeding \$3 million.[^146] Council
    Tree notes that the Commission offered such a credit with respect to
    licenses for the Lower 700 MHz C Block. No other party addresses
    this proposal.

61. In addition, as part of a larger band plan proposal, Access Spectrum
    *et al*. propose bidding credits for commercial licensees that
    commit to providing access to spectrum for 700 MHz public safety
    services.[^147] Cingular and MetroPCS oppose this proposal in reply
    comments.[^148]

62. [Discussion.]{.underline} We reject the suggestions of certain
    commenters that the Commission set aside licenses in the 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band auction solely for designated entities and
    Council Tree's argument that we adopt a third small business
    definition to provide for a 35% bidding credit. Consistent with our
    tentative conclusion not to adopt Access Spectrum *et al.*'s band
    plan proposal and in light of various difficulties in implementing
    such a bidding credit, we also do not adopt a bidding credit based
    on providing access to spectrum for 700 MHz public safety services.

63. Although the Communications Act requires that the Commission ensure
    that "designated entities"[^149] are given the opportunity to
    participate in the provision of spectrum-based services and, for
    such purposes, consider the use of bidding preferences,[^150] these
    preferences can take many forms. In an early attempt to meet these
    mandates, the Commission set aside blocks of spectrum in the
    Broadband PCS band to be held by designated entities. The
    Commission's experience in Broadband PCS auctions and subsequent
    auctions has demonstrated, however, that bidding credits for
    designated entities afford such entities substantial opportunity to
    compete with larger businesses for spectrum licenses and provide
    spectrum-based services. For example, Auction No. 66 demonstrated
    very recently that designated entities can succeed in auctions for
    licenses for valuable spectrum without any set-asides. In Auction
    No. 66, more than half the winning bidders were designated entities
    that received discounts on their gross winning bids and designated
    entities won over twenty percent of the licenses sold.[^151]
    Moreover, setting aside licenses risks denying the licenses to other
    applicants that may be more likely to use them effectively or
    efficiently for the benefit of consumers. Potentially excluding such
    applicants could compromise the Commission's pursuit of various
    statutory objectives including promoting the development and
    deployment of new technologies, products, and services for the
    benefit of the public and promoting efficient and intensive use of
    the spectrum.[^152]

64. We reject the arguments of certain commenters that setting aside 700
    MHz Commercial Services licenses is essential to ensuring service in
    particular areas, especially rural areas. We are adopting other,
    very significant measures that directly serve this goal. For
    example, our decision to use smaller geographic areas reduces the
    cost of some licenses, creating opportunities for more potential
    licensees, including those focusing on serving rural areas in
    particular CMAs. The more stringent performance requirements we
    adopt here will also promote service to rural and underserved areas.
    There can be no assurance that the designated entities will provide
    any particular service, such as service in rural areas, that would
    not be provided by others. Finally, our statutory mandate with
    respect to bidding preferences is to provide an opportunity for
    designated entities to engage in the provision of spectrum-based
    services. As noted above, we conclude that bidding credits, in
    conjunction with the other policies adopted here, afford sufficient
    opportunity.

65. We also reject Council Tree's request that, in the absence of a
    set-aside, the Commission should adopt a third small business
    definition to provide a third level of bidding credit. Our current
    rules for 700 MHz Commercial Services Band licenses provide for two
    bidding credits, 25% for applicants with attributable gross revenues
    not exceeding \$15 million and 15% for applicants with attributable
    gross revenues not exceeding \$40 million.[^153] We find
    distinguishable in a number of respects the Commission's previous
    adoption of a third bidding credit tier when it adopted CMA licenses
    for the Lower 700 MHz C Block. An explicit consideration in the
    adoption of that additional bidding credit was the fact that,
    pursuant to the then-current band plan, all other blocks of spectrum
    in these bands would be licensed by EAGs.[^154] In light of the
    strong interest expressed by smaller bidders in that then-single
    block of non-EAG licenses, we concluded that an additional bidding
    credit tier would increase opportunities for bidders with little
    other access to 700 MHz spectrum. However, today we revise the sizes
    of the geographic area licenses to include CMA licenses and EA
    licenses. In light of these revisions and the prior opportunities
    afforded with CMA licenses in the Lower 700 MHz Band C Block, an
    additional small business definition to provide a third level of
    bidding credit with respect to the new CMA licenses is not necessary
    to assure designated entities sufficient opportunity in this band.
    This conclusion is consistent with recent decisions with respect to
    licenses for AWS. In AWS, the Commission rejected a similar Council
    Tree proposal for a third bidding credit tier.[^155] The Commission
    distinguished the prior use of a third tier in the Lower 700 MHz
    C Block in part on the grounds that "all of the other licenses in
    that \[700 MHz\] service were based on large, regional geographic
    areas."[^156] Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Council Tree's
    claims with respect to the performance of designated entities in
    recent auctions. The performance of designated entities in Auction
    No. 66 demonstrates the strength of the Commission's size-based
    bidding credits in creating opportunities for small businesses
    rather than a need for additional credits.

66. With respect to the Access Spectrum *et al.* proposal to create a
    bidding credit for entities providing specified assistance to 700
    MHz public safety service providers, such a credit would be
    difficult to define and enforce. In particular, the Commission would
    have to determine what constitutes an adequate commitment; how to
    avoid a bidding credit over- or under-compensating applicants for
    the commitment; how to evaluate compliance; and how to enforce
    provision of service to public safety entities. In light of the
    attendant difficulties, as well as the Commission's ability and
    commitment to promote the public interest in the provision of
    wireless public safety services by other means, we decline to adopt
    Access Spectrum *et al.*'s proposal.

##### Competitive Bidding and Aggregating New Licenses

67. [Background.]{.underline} In the *700 MHz Commercial Services
    Notice*, we sought comment on whether any changes to the
    Commission's competitive bidding rules are necessary or desirable in
    order to facilitate efficient aggregation of new licenses, in light
    of the existing spectrum blocks for 700 MHz Commercial Services
    licenses and any spectrum blocks that may be proposed.[^157] The
    *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice* did not seek comment
    specifically on whether to utilize a combinatorial or package
    bidding auction format.

68. Commenters interested in large aggregations, including
    DIRECTV/EchoStar and Motorola, advocate for package bidding.[^158]
    Milgrom/Wrege, as well as Access Spectrum *et al.*, note that the
    Commission's current package bidding system, which permits bidders
    to create any possible combination of licenses, limits each bidder
    to at most one winning bid and may be considered impracticable for
    auctions with more than a thousand licenses, due in part to the
    variety of bids each bidder may wish to place given that only one
    bid can become a winning bid.[^159] Milgrom/Wrege suggest
    modifications to the Commission's system and also suggest that the
    Commission conduct a Public Forum in advance of the pre-auction
    Public Notices to consider the modifications. MetroPCS argues that
    the results of Auction No. 66 demonstrate that package bidding is
    not necessary for parties to aggregate large numbers of
    licenses.[^160] Finally, U.S. Cellular opposes package bidding,
    arguing that its complexities and uncertainties may deter
    participation.[^161]

69. [Discussion.]{.underline} The Commission's current competitive
    bidding rules authorize the use of package bidding and the
    Commission already has utilized a form of package bidding.[^162]
    Consequently, the question before us now is whether we need to make
    changes to our competitive bidding rules in order to enable a new
    form of package bidding for the 700 MHz Commercial Services auction.
    We conclude that modifications to our current bidding systems,
    including those suggested by commenters, can be made without
    modifying the Commission's competitive bidding rules.

##### Modifications to the Tribal Land Bidding Credit 

70. [Background.]{.underline} In the *700 MHz Commercial Services
    Notice*, we sought comment on whether the Commission should make any
    adjustments to its tribal land bidding credit rules as they apply to
    the 700 MHz Commercial Services licenses to be auctioned. We also
    specifically asked commenters to address use of the tribal land
    bidding credit given statutory requirements that the Commission
    deposit the proceeds from an auction in the Digital Television
    Transition and Public Safety Fund no later than June 30, 2008.
    Depending on auction timing, it may be difficult for the Commission
    to grant license applications seeking tribal land bidding credits
    prior to the statutory deadline. To foreclose potential issues that
    tribal land bidding credits might create with respect to the
    statutory deadline, the Commission asked whether promoting
    deployment of wireless services to tribal lands would be better
    served with respect to the 700 MHz Band by exploring other means to
    promote access to spectrum and the provision of service in tribal
    lands.[^163]

71. Commenters did not address the relationship between post-auction
    credits and the deadline for depositing payments. CTIA states its
    support for tribal land bidding credits with respect to promoting
    service on tribal lands without any further discussion.[^164]

72. [Discussion.]{.underline} No parties provided suggestions for
    possible modifications to our tribal land bidding credit rules to
    promote the deployment of wireless services to tribal lands or
    addressed the relationship between post-auction credits and the
    deadline for depositing payments. In light of the record, we
    conclude that we need not modify the tribal land bidding credit at
    this time.

#### Additional Rules for Licensees

##### Criteria for Renewal

73. [Background.]{.underline} In the *700 MHz Commercial Services
    Notice*, we sought comment on whether to amend our rules to clarify
    or modify the requirements and procedures of the renewal process for
    licenses in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band, including licenses
    that have already been auctioned and those that have yet to be
    auctioned. Specifically, we sought comment on the possibility of
    amending our rules to state more explicitly the criteria for renewal
    that apply to these 700 MHz authorizations under Part 27, regardless
    of whether licensees are involved in a comparative hearing.[^165] In
    addition, to the extent the Commission's renewal requirements and at
    least some of its performance requirements apply at the end of a
    license term, we requested comment on the advantages and
    disadvantages of combining any performance requirements applicable
    to 700 MHz licensees with the review process that the Commission
    conducts during a license renewal application.[^166] Finally, we
    sought comment on whether to adopt a new renewal process to replace
    the procedures for the filing of competing applications at renewal
    time.[^167]

74. The renewal of 700 MHz Commercial Services licenses is governed by
    Parts 1 and 27 of the Commission's rules. Section 1.949 of the
    Commission's rules sets forth the general procedures for filing
    applications for renewal of licenses in the wireless radio services,
    including services in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band.[^168]
    Although the rule states that "\[a\]dditional renewal requirements
    applicable to specific services are set forth in the subparts
    governing those services,"[^169] Part 27 contains no provisions on
    the specific renewal process to the extent a competing application
    is not received. In addition, Section 27.14(b)-(d) of the
    Commission's rules, which indicates that a comparative process is
    used to choose among renewal and competing applicants,[^170] does
    not describe the type of comparative hearing to be employed. If a
    700 MHz Commercial Services licensee's renewal application is not
    contested and no competing applications are received, then the
    licensee has no affirmative renewal filing obligation codified in
    the rules, other than the contemporaneous filing obligation of
    demonstrating that it has met the "substantial service" performance
    requirement in Section 27.14(a).[^171] In the event that a competing
    application is filed under Section 27.14(b)-(d) of the rules,[^172]
    however, a 700 MHz licensee has the burden of making a detailed
    showing explaining why it should receive a renewal expectancy
    against any competing application.

75. [Discussion.]{.underline} In this section, we clarify that all
    licensees in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band seeking renewal of
    their authorizations at the end of their license term must file a
    renewal application in accordance with the provisions of Section
    1.949 of the Commission's rules. Consistent with existing rules, as
    part of this renewal requirement licensees must demonstrate in their
    applications that they have provided substantial service during
    their past license term, which is defined as service that is sound,
    favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service that
    just might minimally warrant renewal. This requirement is distinct
    from performance requirements. Substantial service in the renewal
    context, as opposed to the coverage benchmarks established for the
    performance requirement context, encompasses Commission
    consideration of a variety of factors including the level and
    quality of service, whether service was ever interrupted or
    discontinued, whether service has been provided to rural
    areas,[^173] and any other factors associated with a licensee's
    level of service to the public.[^174] Accordingly, a licensee that
    meets the applicable performance requirements might nevertheless
    fail to meet the substantial service standard at renewal. Licensees
    must demonstrate at renewal that they have substantially complied
    with all applicable Commission rules, policies, and the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, including any applicable
    performance requirements.

76. Under the revised Section 27.14 of the Commission's rules, we also
    are eliminating the filing of competing applications to requests for
    renewal of these 700 MHz licenses. We are mindful of the potential
    costs and the burdens they impose on both the Commission and
    licensees. We agree with MetroPCS that such administrative processes
    "harken\[\] back to an old era . . . where competitors were known to
    file 'strike' applications against a renewal in the hope of getting
    a payoff."[^175] Under the revised Section 27.14 of the Commission's
    rules, we are therefore adopting a process by which 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band licenses comes back to the Commission for
    re-auction if a license is not renewed. The existing petition to
    deny process,[^176] coupled with the ability of a petitioner to
    participate in any subsequent auction to re-license spectrum that is
    returned to the Commission for lack of renewal, creates sufficient
    incentives to challenge inferior service or poor qualifications of
    licensees at renewal. This approach protects the public interest
    without creating incentives for speculators to file "strike"
    applications.

77. By eliminating the filing of competing applications at renewal, we
    find that the concerns raised by the majority of commenters in this
    proceeding about renewal expectancies are moot. We recognize that
    the majority of commenters that addressed renewal issues did not
    support any changes to the Part 27 renewal rules applicable to 700
    MHz Commercial Services Band licensees. Moreover, some of these
    commenters, such as AT&T and CTIA expressed concern that any
    revision to the rules governing renewal proceedings would eliminate
    the concept of "renewal expectancy" that applied in comparative
    hearings.[^177] Because smaller carriers and rural interests in
    particular seemed concerned that certain rule changes would place a
    new burden on carriers ill equipped to meet it, we have decided to
    maintain 700 MHz Commercial Services Band licensees' expectations of
    renewal by eliminating provisions for competing applications. This
    action provides additional certainty for all 700 MHz Commercial
    Services Band licensees, and requests by certain commenters to do
    otherwise could result in additional administrative burdens on
    licensees that we find not to be in the public interest.

##### License Terms

78. [Background.]{.underline} Section 27.13(b) of the Commission's rules
    provides that initial license authorizations for spectrum in the 700
    MHz Commercial Services Band will extend until January 1, 2015,
    except that a Part 27 licensee commencing broadcast services will be
    required to seek renewal of its license for such services at the
    termination of the eight-year term following commencement of such
    operations.[^178]

79. In the *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, we sought comment on
    whether and how the license terms of unauctioned and previously
    auctioned licenses in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band should be
    revised, including whether the term for these 700 MHz licenses
    should be extended beyond January 1, 2015.[^179] We also asked for
    comment on whether to establish a uniform license term for all
    services in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band, regardless of
    their regulatory status.

80. Nearly all commenters who addressed this issue support revising the
    current rule to provide either a ten- or fifteen-year initial
    license term. Ten of these commenters support a 15-year term,[^180]
    and eight commenters support a 10-year term.[^181] Only two
    commenters objected to extending the license terms of these 700 MHz
    licensees.[^182]

81. In addition, nine commenters argue that any revised license terms
    should apply to both unauctioned and auctioned 700 MHz Commercial
    Services Band licenses. [^183] As part of their proposal, Access
    Spectrum *et al.* urge that license terms for the Guard Band A Block
    in the Upper 700 MHz Band should be harmonized with the Upper 700
    MHz Commercial Services Band licenses.[^184] Two commenters discuss
    revising license terms only for unauctioned licenses.[^185] One
    commenter specifically opposes changing the initial license terms
    for previously unauctioned spectrum, and its position depends on the
    whether the Commission increases the performance requirements for
    the unauctioned 700 MHz Commercial Services spectrum.[^186]

82. [Discussion.]{.underline} We will revise our rules to provide that
    initial authorizations for the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band will
    have a term not to exceed 10 years from February 17, 2009, which is
    the firm deadline for the DTV transition. Subsequent renewals will
    be for terms not to exceed 10 years. This revised license term will
    apply to all licenses in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band.
    However, because Section 307(c)(1) of the Communications Act
    provides that a license for operating a broadcast station shall not
    be granted for a term that exceeds 8 years, we retain the current
    provision that a Part 27 licensee commencing broadcast services will
    be required to seek renewal of its license for such services at the
    termination of the eight-year term following commencement of such
    operations.[^187] We do not revise the license term for Guard Band
    licensees because such revisions fall beyond the scope of the 700
    MHz Commercial Services proceeding.[^188]

83. We are extending the revised license term to both the already
    auctioned and unauctioned licenses in the 700 MHz Commercial
    Services Band. We find that uniformly extending the license term in
    this manner provides a level of parity for services within the same
    band. In addition, this treatment recognizes that band clearing and
    the resulting unencumbered use of the spectrum in the pre-DTV Act
    period was tied to a transition scheme that has now been replaced
    with a firm statutory transition date of February 17, 2009.[^189]
    Specifically, the underlying reason behind the current rule changed
    with passage of the DTV Act. The Commission previously determined
    that a definite termination date, *e.g*., January 1, 2015, was
    preferable to a discrete term of years following the end of the DTV
    transition, which at that time was subject to extension on a
    market-by market basis.[^190] The same license terms that were
    adopted in the *Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order* were applied
    to licenses in the Lower 700 MHz Band.[^191] However, the DTV Act's
    uniform deadline for the DTV transition has effectively removed the
    issue of market-by-market broadcast incumbency. Under these
    circumstances, we provide a level of uniformity by extending the
    revised license terms to all licensees in the 700 MHz Commercial
    Services Band, except for those engaging in broadcast services.

84. We find that a term not to exceed 10 years from February 17, 2009,
    should be used for initial authorizations in the 700 MHz Commercial
    Services Band, and that subsequent renewal terms will be 10 years. A
    ten-year license term is consistent with most other Part 27
    services, with the exception of recently auctioned AWS-1 licenses,
    which we address below,[^192] as well as with the license terms for
    other similar spectrum, such as that used for cellular service and
    PCS.[^193] In addition, this period will offer licensees regulatory
    certainty and help promote investment in the band. Under the current
    rules, all licensees would have terms that extend until January 1,
    2015, which is only approximately six years from the end of the DTV
    transition. Thus, licensees that acquire their authorizations in a
    future auction would have had an initial license term less than ten
    years, and more likely for a shorter period, *i.e.*, six or seven
    years, depending on the date of the auction and issuance of the
    authorizations. In similar fashion, current licensees in the 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band would only have approximately six years of
    access to their spectrum free from broadcasters. We find that a
    longer period should be made available to all licensees in order to
    provide sufficient time for the recovery of costs related to the
    development and deployment of new services, especially those based
    on technologies that are more advanced, more expensive, and which
    may take longer to develop. The 700 MHz Commercial Services Band is
    a likely band for the use of these more advanced technologies and we
    are concerned that a license term that expires only six years from
    the DTV transition provides too short a time period.

85. We decline to increase the length of initial or renewal terms to
    fifteen years. We disagree with those commenters such as Aloha,
    CTIA, and Frontier who argue that parity with AWS-1 services
    mandates a fifteen-year term for 700 MHz services.[^194] The
    "relocation and band clearance issues" that provided the rationale
    for the fifteen-year initial licenses for AWS-1 services do not
    apply here.[^195] The date certain of February 17, 2009, for the end
    of the DTV transition means that spectrum in the 700 MHz Band will
    be clear for use by 700 MHz Band licensees as of that date.[^196]

86. We also disagree with DIRECTV/EchoStar, which believes that the
    current license term should be retained in order to promote prompt
    use of the spectrum,[^197] and with Howard/Javed, who argue that the
    current rule should be kept to spur the development of a secondary
    market.[^198] The combination of our decisions in this Report and
    Order and our secondary markets policies make it unlikely that this
    highly valued spectrum will sit unused. The Commission's secondary
    market spectrum leasing policies focus on promoting spectrum leasing
    arrangements, and we have taken steps in this Report and Order to
    improve use of the spectrum, including the provision of a mix of
    geographic license areas consisting of CMAs, EAs, and REAGs.[^199]

87. Finally, because of the specifically applicable statutory
    limitation, we will retain the current requirement that 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band licensees commencing broadcast services
    will be required to seek renewal of their licenses for such services
    prior to the termination of the eight-year term following
    commencement of such operations.[^200] As stated above, Section
    307(c)(1) of the Communications Act provides that licenses granted
    for operating broadcast stations "shall be for a term not to exceed
    8 years."[^201]

##### Power Limits for Lower 700 MHz Band and Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band Base Stations 

88. [Background.]{.underline} The power limit for base stations
    operating in both the Lower 700 MHz Band and the Upper 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band is 1 kW ERP.[^202]  In the Lower 700 MHz
    Band, however, base stations are permitted to operate at power
    levels up to 50 kW ERP if they do not produce signals exceeding a
    power flux density (PFD) of 3 mW/m^2^ on the ground within 1
    kilometer of the station.[^203]

89. In the *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice,* we sought comment on
    whether we should revise the power levels that commercial licensees
    in either the Lower 700 MHz Band and the Upper 700 MHz Commercial
    Services Band are permitted to employ.[^204] In response, several
    commenters seek an increase in the power limit for 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band base stations from 1 kW ERP to 2 kW
    ERP.[^205] Some of these commenters specifically recommend raising
    the power limit for such 700 MHz licensees operating in rural
    areas,[^206] and one such commenter suggests that any power increase
    could be accompanied by the Lower 700 MHz Band PFD
    requirement.[^207] In addition, a number of commenters contend that
    the Commission should employ a power spectral density (PSD) model
    for defining power limits in the 700 MHz Commercial Services
    Band.[^208]

90. We also sought comment on whether we should continue to allow Lower
    700 MHz Band licensees to operate base stations at power levels up
    to 50 kW ERP or whether this capability should be reduced for
    existing and/or future Lower 700 MHz Band licensees.[^209] Most
    commenters addressing this issue oppose reducing the current 50 kW
    ERP capability in the Lower 700 MHz Band.[^210] Some commenters
    particularly oppose any revision to this rule that might be applied
    to the already-auctioned portions of the Lower 700 MHz Band.[^211]
    Cingular suggests that the Commission "consider" increasing the
    power capability in the Lower 700 MHz Band in rural areas to 100 kW
    ERP "to further promote and expedite service to those areas."[^212]
    In contrast, MSTV recommends lowering the power limit out of concern
    over potential interference to broadcast operations,[^213] and
    Sprint believes that high-site, 50 kW ERP transmissions in the Lower
    700 MHz Band could cause interference to adjacent band, low-site,
    lower power operations.[^214] Finally, Motorola requests that Lower
    700 MHz Band licensees' capability to operate at 50 kW ERP be
    defined in terms of power spectral density.[^215]

91. [Discussion.]{.underline} We modify our power limit rules for the
    Lower 700 MHz Band and the Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band in
    a number of ways. First, we implement a PSD model for defining power
    limits for base stations operating in the entire 700 MHz Commercial
    Services Band.[^216] The current power limit rules do not specify a
    bandwidth over which a licensee's power is to be limited, and could
    be construed to mean that the power limit applies on a "per
    emission" basis. Because some licensees may only transmit one
    emission within their given bandwidth, while others using
    technologies with narrower emissions might employ multiple emissions
    over that bandwidth, construing the power limit to apply on a "per
    emission" basis could allow licensees employing multiple emissions
    to transmit more total energy in their authorized spectrum blocks
    than licensees with only one emission in their spectrum blocks. To
    better accommodate all technologies, we are clarifying that the
    maximum allowable power levels in the 700 MHz Commercial Services
    Band are to be defined on a "per megahertz of spectrum bandwidth"
    basis, rather than on a "per emission" basis. This clarification
    will enable higher power signals from wider band technologies, but
    will not result in a decrease in the total power currently allowed
    in the band from narrower band technologies. Given this
    clarification, we are also adopting additional measures to protect
    against any possible increased risk of interference, especially to
    700 MHz public safety users.

92. More specifically, we will allow 700 MHz Commercial Services Band
    licensees employing bandwidths greater than 1 MHz to meet a base
    station power limit of 1 kW/MHz ERP (*i.e.,* no more than 1 kW ERP
    in any 1 MHz band segment). Licensees operating with bandwidths of
    less than one megahertz will, however, continue to be permitted to
    operate at power levels up to 1 kW ERP over their bandwidth. Thus,
    for example, a licensee transmitting a signal with a bandwidth of 5
    MHz could employ a power level of 5 kW ERP over the 5 MHz bandwidth,
    with each 1 MHz band segment within the 5 MHz bandwidth being
    limited to 1 kW ERP; and a licensee transmitting a signal with a
    bandwidth of 200 kHz could employ a power level of 1 kW ERP over the
    200 kHz bandwidth. This approach to defining power limits, as
    suggested by Motorola, and others in the context of the
    *Streamlining and Harmonization Further Notice*, will achieve a
    degree of technological neutrality by ensuring that all licensees
    regardless of technology choice have enough power to operate a
    viable service. This neutrality would not exist if all licensees,
    regardless of their operating bandwidth, were required to limit
    their base station power levels to 1 kW ERP per emission.[^217]

93. In response to proposals by parties seeking greater power limits for
    rural area operations, we will permit power levels of up to 2 kW/MHz
    ERP in rural areas, and consistent with our decision above, we will
    allow rural licensees operating with bandwidths less than one
    megahertz to operate at power levels up to 2 kW ERP over their
    bandwidth. In implementing this decision, we define rural areas,
    consistent with the *Rural Report and Order,* as those counties in
    the U.S. having a population of fewer than 100 people per square
    mile, based on the most recently available population statistics
    from the Bureau of the Census.[^218] As suggested by Vermont
    Department of Public Service *et al.*, increasing the permissible
    power in rural areas will enable 700 MHz Commercial Services Band
    licensees operating in such areas to more easily implement their
    systems; and as AT&T notes, increasing power levels in rural areas
    would be consistent with the recent Commission decision to permit
    rural carriers in the Cellular, AWS, and Broadband PCS services to
    operate at higher power levels.[^219] We note that in the *Rural
    Report and Order*, where the same power increase was adopted, the
    Commission decided, as a "cautionary measure," to require carriers
    operating at higher power levels to coordinate with licensees
    operating within 75 miles of their base stations.[^220] Consistent
    with this decision, we shall require any 700 MHz Commercial Services
    Band licensee seeking to operate a base station under our rules
    permitting power levels greater than 1 kW ERP in rural areas to
    coordinate in advance with all non-public safety 700 MHz licensees
    authorized to operate within 75 miles of the station and with all
    700 MHz Regional Planning Committees that have jurisdiction within
    75 miles of the station.

94. As noted above, licensees in the Lower 700 MHz Band are allowed to
    use up to 50 kW ERP if they do not produce signals exceeding a power
    flux density (PFD) of 3 mW/m^2^ on the ground within 1 kilometer of
    the station. A number of commenters expressed views on the
    appropriateness of the current, maximum 50 kW ERP capability for
    Lower 700 MHz Band operations. Sprint, for example, contends that 50
    kW ERP transmissions in the Lower 700 MHz Band could cause
    interference to adjacent band operations, and Verizon indicates that
    "high-powered operations could be potentially harmful to mobile
    systems" in the Lower 700 MHz Band.[^221] Conversely, Qualcomm
    states that "there is no evidence to support the reduction in the
    existing 50 kW ERP power level for the Lower Band,"[^222] and
    various incumbent Lower 700 MHz Band licensees express concern over
    the possibility that their 50 kW ERP power capabilities could be
    reduced."[^223]

95. Considering these comments, we make certain modifications to the
    power limit rules in the Lower 700 MHz Band. Specifically, we will
    retain the ability of incumbent C and D Block licensees to employ
    power levels up to 50 kW ERP. In addition, because we believe that
    unpaired blocks are conducive to the provision of broadcast-type
    operations, we shall permit licensees operating in any unpaired
    block(s) in the Lower 700 MHz Band to operate at a power level of 50
    kW ERP as well.[^224] However, because we believe that paired blocks
    are generally more conducive to the provision of mobile services, we
    shall not extend to new licensees operating in any Lower 700 MHz
    Band paired blocks the ability to operate at 50 kW ERP. This action
    helps preserve the flexibility the Commission originally envisioned
    for the Lower 700 MHz Band, *i.e.*, the use of both broadcast and
    mobile services in the band, by providing an environment conducive
    to mobile systems in the paired blocks and an environment conducive
    to broadcast-type systems in the unpaired blocks. Current and future
    licensees nevertheless will have the flexibility to implement
    broadcast-type or mobile systems in any particular block. For
    example, a licensee may implement a broadcast-type system in a
    paired block, but rather than a high-power, high-site system, it
    would have to design a distributed broadcast system.

96. In reaching this decision, we conclude that it would not be
    appropriate to reduce the power limits of incumbent Lower 700 MHz
    Band licensees, who acquired their spectrum with the expectation
    that they would be able to employ 50 kW ERP transmissions in the
    band. Although we recognize concerns expressed by certain parties
    regarding the potential for adjacent band interference into the
    current unauctioned paired blocks (i.e., the current A and B Blocks)
    from high power emissions in adjacent incumbent and unauctioned
    unpaired blocks, we continue to believe that our out-of-band
    emission limits coupled with the 3 mW/m^2^ PFD requirement will be
    effective in protecting unauctioned paired blocks from adjacent
    channel interference. We note, however, that the 50 kW ERP limit in
    the Lower 700 MHz Band was based on a traditional broadcast
    emission, which consists of a single emission within the licensed
    bandwidth. The Commission never intended that emissions within a
    single block in the Lower 700 MHz Band exceed 50 kW ERP.
    Accordingly, we clarify that the 50 kW ERP limit for the current C
    and D Blocks, and any additional unpaired block(s) in the Lower 700
    MHz Band, is a cap on the average total power of all emissions
    within the full authorized spectrum of the blocks. For example, a
    single incumbent C or D Block base station with an emission
    bandwidth of 1 megahertz could transmit with the full 50 kW ERP, but
    no other emissions would be permitted in the remaining 5 megahertz
    of the block. This limit would also apply to the cumulative
    emissions of both licensees if a 6 megahertz incumbent or
    unauctioned unpaired block is disaggregated.

97. In implementing this PSD approach to the power limits in both the
    Lower 700 MHz Band and the Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band,
    we continue to remain concerned that transmissions at higher power
    levels could potentially cause interference to adjacent channel
    operations. To mitigate the potential for harmful interference to
    adjacent channel operations, we require the following. For Lower 700
    MHz Band licensees, if operating with a bandwidth of 1 megahertz or
    less and a transmitting power greater than 1 kW ERP non-rural or 2
    kW ERP rural, or if operating with a bandwidth of more than 1
    megahertz and a PSD greater than 1 kW/MHz ERP non-rural or 2 kW/MHz
    ERP rural, then that licensee must comply with the 3 mW/m^2^ PFD
    limit.[^225] Thus, for example, a non-rural licensee transmitting an
    8 kW ERP signal in a 5-megahertz bandwidth or a rural licensee
    transmitting a 4 kW ERP signal in a 1.25 MHz bandwidth would have to
    satisfy the 3 mW/m^2^ PFD limit. However, a licensee transmitting an
    800 watt ERP signal in a 200-kHz bandwidth or a 4 kW ERP signal in a
    5-megahertz bandwidth, or a rural licensee transmitting an 8 kW ERP
    signal in a 5-megahertz bandwidth, would not have to meet the PFD
    limit. Because we wish to remain especially vigilant regarding the
    potential for interference to public safety operations, we impose
    the following additional requirement on Commercial Services
    licensees operating in the Upper 700 MHz Band. Specifically, all
    Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band licensees, both rural and
    non-rural, transmitting signals at a power levels greater than 1 kW
    ERP, irrespective of bandwidth, must satisfy the 3 mW/m^2^ PFD
    limit.[^226] Thus, for example, an Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services
    Band licensee transmitting a 4 kW ERP signal in a 5-megahertz
    bandwidth would have to meet the PFD limit.

98. Leap asks that we adopt a power limit of 2 kW ERP for Upper 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band base stations and indicates that it would
    not object to applying a 3 mW/m^2^ PFD limit to such a power limit.
    To the extent that we are permitting Upper 700 MHz Commercial
    Services Band licensees to employ 2 kW ERP,[^227] and requiring the
    application of our 3 mW/m^2^ PFD in such instances, we are granting
    Leap's request. DIRECTV/EchoStar requests that we significantly
    increase the power limit in the Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services
    Band. However, DIRECTV/EchoStar proposes no specific, higher power
    limit for the band, and provides no information about the "new and
    emerging technologies" it believes would permit such higher power
    levels without causing interference to other users.[^228] Thus,
    without specific information regarding DIRECTV/EchoStar's request
    for an increased power limit for the Upper 700 MHz Commercial
    Services Band, we must deny DIRECTV/EchoStar's request.

99. Motorola is concerned that possible increases in Upper 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band power levels could result in interference
    to 700 MHz public safety operations. Motorola thus suggests that, if
    we permit higher power levels in the band, we require that the
    "aggregate" power from non-desired signals received by portable
    public safety devices situated within 1 km of a high-powered
    commercial base station be limited to -25 dBm.[^229] We decline to
    adopt Motorola's proposal for two reasons. First, Motorola does not
    provide the technical basis for its proposed -25 dBm limitation
    (*i.e.,* how it would serve to protect public safety devices).[^230]
    Second, any rule that would require new 700 MHz Commercial Services
    Band licensees to meet some measured signal level in all present and
    future public safety devices operating in the vicinity of their base
    stations could be burdensome and create uncertainty for such
    licensees as they develop and implement their networks. Our
    requirement that licensees meet a PFD limit at specified locations
    near their base stations when operating at higher power levels is
    less burdensome and will create more certainty for new licensees as
    they implement their systems.

100. We reject Cingular's request to permit a power capability of 100 kW
     ERP for Lower 700 MHz Band base stations operating in rural areas
     because we are concerned that such a power level could result in
     interference to adjacent channel, Lower 700 MHz Band operations.
     When the Commission adopted rules for the Lower 700 MHz Band to
     permit a 50 kW ERP power level, it analyzed the potential for
     interference to adjacent channel operations if power levels
     significantly greater than 1 kW ERP were permitted.[^231] In that
     analysis, the Commission concluded that interference to adjacent
     channel base station receivers from transmitting Lower 700 MHz Band
     base stations would not be expected to occur when such stations are
     operating at power levels up to 50 kW ERP.[^232] This analysis
     indicates, however, that if Lower 700 MHz Band base stations
     operated at power levels as high as 100 kW ERP, then the
     possibility of interference to adjacent band operations would
     increase.[^233] In addition, Cingular does not explain why a 50 kW
     ERP power level would be inadequate, or why a power level of 100 kW
     ERP power level would be necessary to provide service to rural
     areas. We therefore reject Cingular's request for a power
     capability of 100 kW ERP for Lower 700 MHz Band operations in rural
     areas.

101. With regard to the concerns raised by MSTV about the use of 50 kW
     ERP power levels in the Lower 700 MHz Band, we reaffirm the
     Commission's long-standing position that broadcasters must be
     afforded adequate interference protection from 700 MHz licensees.
     When the Commission established its rules for these licensees, it
     ensured that appropriate protections would be provided to broadcast
     operations.[^234] Thus, all 700 MHz Band licensees are required to
     comply with these rules during the DTV transition, and all
     licensees operating on Channel 52 will be required to continue to
     meet these requirements after the transition as well.

102. We will not, however, reduce the power capabilities of all Lower
     700 MHz Band licensees either during or after the DTV transition as
     MSTV requests. Under Section 27.60 of our rules, 700 MHz licensees
     must limit their stations' transmissions to specified field
     strength levels at co-channel and adjacent channel broadcasters'
     Grade B contours, and under Section 27.53 of our rules, 700 MHz
     licensees must meet prescribed out-of-band emission limits with
     respect to adjacent band operations. MSTV has not provided any
     reasoning as to why these requirements will not be met if and when
     base stations operate at high power levels. Rather, MSTV bases its
     request for a power reduction on a general, but speculative,
     concern that higher power levels could cause interference to
     television operations in the band. Given the absence of any
     existing circumstances of interference to broadcast operations or
     any technical rationale for why such interference would occur, we
     find that it is not necessary to prevent all Lower 700 MHz Band
     licensees from operating at 50 kW ERP power levels, either during
     or after the transition. We note, however, that, while we are not
     granting MSTV's request to reduce the power capabilities of all
     Lower 700 MHz Band licensees prior to the end of the transition, we
     do, through our decision above to limit power levels in the A Block
     to 1 kW/MHz ERP, grant MSTV's request to reduce the power level of
     licensees operating on Channel 52.

##### Power Limit Issues in WT Docket No. 03-264

103. [Background.]{.underline} In the *Streamlining and Harmonization
     Further Notice*, the Commission sought comment on a request by CTIA
     to redefine how power limits are measured in the PCS and AWS
     bands.[^235] CTIA asked that the Commission modify its power limit
     rules so that: (1) the power limit for the bands would be increased
     from 1640 watts EIRP to 3280 watts EIRP; (2) the power in the PCS
     and AWS bands would be measured using PSD (*i.e*., the power limit
     in those bands, using PSD, would be 3280 watts EIRP/MHz); and 3)
     power would be defined by the measurement of "average," rather than
     "peak" power. In the *Streamlining and Harmonization Further
     Notice*, the Commission sought comment on the CTIA proposals in the
     context of other bands, including the 700 MHz Band. We therefore
     will address CTIA's proposals, as they would apply to the 700 MHz
     Band.

104. [Discussion.]{.underline} As discussed above, we will employ PSD
     for defining power limits in the 700 MHz Band. We have thus granted
     the second of CTIA's requests as it applies to the 700 MHz
     Commercial Services Bands. However, we shall not apply to the 700
     MHz Band CTIA's proposal to double power limits in the PCS and
     AWS-1 bands -- *i.e.,* a power increase that would apply in both
     rural and non-rural areas and would not be accompanied by a PFD
     limit. CTIA provides no justification for permitting an
     unrestricted doubling of power levels for the 700 MHz Commercial
     Services Bands, and we find no basis for adopting such limits for
     the band. Instead, as discussed above, we are adopting rules for
     700 MHz Band licensees that will allow for a power limit of 1
     kW/MHz ERP in non-rural areas and 2 kW/MHz ERP in rural areas.

105. We do, however, find merit in extending to the 700 MHz Commercial
     Services Band CTIA's proposal to use "average," rather than "peak"
     power in measuring power levels. Although the use of "average"
     power will effectively result in an increase in 700 MHz Band power
     levels for non-constant envelope technologies, such as CDMA and
     WCDMA, the "average" measurement approach is a more accurate
     measure of the interference potential for these technologies. We
     find that any effective increase in power that would result through
     the use of an "average" measurement approach will be modest, and in
     any event will be outweighed by the benefit of measuring today's
     technologies using a more realistic and appropriate technique.

106. For purposes of clarifying the use of the "average power"
     measurement technique, we make the following determinations. First,
     we conclude that the technique shall be made during a period of
     continuous transmission and be based on a measurement using a 1 MHz
     resolution bandwidth.[^236] Second, we shall restrict the
     peak-to-average ("PAR") ratio of the radiated signal to 13 dB.
     Limiting the PAR to 13 dB strikes a balance between enabling
     licensees to use modulation schemes with high PARs (such as OFDM)
     and protecting other licensees from high PAR transmissions. Parties
     seeking to employ the "average power" measurement technique should
     consult with the FCC Laboratory for guidance on the appropriate
     averaging method for the particular technology they plan to use.

##### Other Technical Issues

107. In response to the technical issues discussed in the *700 MHz
     Commercial Services Notice*, commenters raise two additional
     matters: (1) the appropriateness of the current out-of-band
     emission ("OOBE") limits for Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band
     base stations; and (2) the potential for interference to 700 MHz
     public safety operations due to intermodulation ("IM") products.

108. [Background]{.underline}. Sprint raises concerns about the
     potential for IM and OOBE interference to 700 MHz public safety
     operations and believes that we must prevent these types of
     interference from taking place.[^237] With regard to IM
     interference, Sprint observes that signals from C and D block
     transmitters could potentially combine and form
     interference-causing IM products within the public safety base and
     mobile receive bands.[^238] With regard to OOBE interference,
     Sprint argues that the existing 76 + 10log P OOBE limit[^239] for
     Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band base stations is
     insufficient to protect public safety operations.[^240] In
     response, Leap states that if the Commission were to tighten the
     existing OOBE limit, the Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band
     "could be rendered effectively unusable."[^241] Leap suggests,
     alternatively, that we *decrease* the OOBE limit, to 53 + 10log P.
     In making this recommendation, Leap contends that the existing OOBE
     limit "will impose added cost to 700 MHz base station
     equipment."[^242]

109. Access Spectrum *et al.* suggests that our current OOBE limit,
     which was designed to protect 700 MHz public safety narrowband
     channels, would not be needed to protect possible 700 MHz public
     safety broadband operations. It therefore asks that we consider
     adoption of the more modest OOBE limit that we currently employ to
     protect 700 MHz Commercial Services Band broadband systems,[^243]
     to protect potential 700 MHz public safety broadband
     operations.[^244] Finally, Motorola contends that regardless of
     what changes we make to our rules for the Upper 700 MHz Commercial
     Services Band, the current out-of-band emission requirements
     designed to protect 700 MHz public safety users "must be
     maintained."[^245]

110. [Discussion]{.underline}. We will retain the existing OOBE limits
     for commercial base stations operating in the Upper 700 MHz
     Commercial Services Band because we find these restrictions provide
     sufficient and appropriate protection to 700 MHz public safety
     operations. We also decline to impose any technical restrictions on
     Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band licensees to address
     potential IM interference to 700 MHz public safety operations. We
     will, however, require Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band
     licensees and 700 MHz public safety entities, upon request from the
     other, to exchange information about their stations and systems. We
     are adopting this requirement in order to limit the potential for
     IM interference to 700 MHz public safety mobile and portable
     devices from the transmissions of Upper 700 MHz Commercial Service
     Band base stations.

111. With regard to Sprint's argument for the need for increased OOBE
     limits, Sprint's conclusion that our 76 +10 log P OOBE limit will
     result in interference to 700 MHz public safety operations is based
     on the assumption of a 65 dB site isolation figure in analyzing
     potential interference between commercial base stations and public
     safety mobile/portable receivers.[^246] However, the Commission
     rejected this same premise in deciding not to adopt stricter OOBE
     limits in the *Upper 700 MHz Band Third MO&O*. In that proceeding
     NPSTC sought an increase in the OOBE limit based on the assertion
     by TIA[^247] that the appropriate site isolation figure in the CMRS
     system environment was 65 dB.[^248] In response the Commission
     stated that "short of a decision to protect all public safety
     systems with measures directed at worst-case conditions (*e.g*.,
     interference that might occur only at certain close-in distances
     from an antenna), it is "unnecessary . . .to revisit the current
     76 + 10log P standard."[^249]

112. In the *800 MHz Report and Order*, the Commission decided for
     similar reasons to not adopt stricter OOBE limits to protect 800
     MHz public safety operations.[^250] The Commission stated, as its
     rationale for not increasing the existing OOBE limit for the 800
     MHz band, that the additional filtering needed to achieve proposed
     OOBE standards "would add cost and complexity -- but no benefit --
     to those cells in a system in which, because of their location, or
     otherwise, unacceptable OOBE interference would not occur" and the
     Commission was therefore unwilling to "impose stronger OOBE limits
     on every cell of every system in the country; particularly if only
     a handful of cells in a system might require them."[^251] 

113. We continue to believe that any change to the OOBE limit required
     for commercial Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band base stations
     is unsupported. We also note that no public safety entities
     expressed concern in this proceeding about the adequacy of
     commercial Upper Band OOBE limits in protecting public safety
     mobile receivers from interference. Further, under the provisions
     of Section 27.53(m) of the Commission's rules, when harmful
     interference due to out-of-band emissions occurs in any Part 27
     service, "the Commission may, at its discretion," require greater
     out-of-band emission limits than specified for that service. Thus,
     if harmful OOBE interference occurred in the 700 MHz Public Safety
     Band from an Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services base station
     transmission, there would be a mechanism in place to address the
     problem. For these reasons, and consistent with our previous
     analyses and decisions with regard to OOBE limits in the 700 and
     800 MHz bands, we decline to adopt any increase to our existing
     OOBE limit for Upper 700 Commercial Services Band base stations.

114. We also disagree with Leap's argument that the Commission should
     reduce the current OOBE limit to 53 + 10log P. Leap asserts that
     the existing OOBE limit of 76 + 10log P will impose added costs to
     700 MHz base station equipment, but Leap does not indicate that
     such additional costs would place any significant financial burden
     to Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band licensees. Leap also
     states that the use of the lower OOBE limit would provide fair and
     reasonable protection to public safety users, but provides no
     technical analysis in support of this assertion.[^252] We therefore
     decline to adopt Leap's proposal for a reduced OOBE limit for Upper
     700 MHz Commercial Services Band operations.

115. In addition, we do not address Access Spectrum *et al.*'s proposal
     that we revise the OOBE limits to make them consistent with the way
     licensees operating in 700 MHz Commercial Services Band broadband
     blocks protect one another. Because key premises of this proposal
     -- whether to redesignate the wideband Public Safety spectrum to
     broadband use and whether to consolidate that broadband spectrum at
     the bottom of the Public Safety allocation -- are subjects of the
     Further Notice, its consideration in this Report and Order is
     premature. We are seeking further comment on the issue in the
     Further Notice.

116. With regard to Sprint's concern about IM interference, Sprint
     correctly notes that signals from the C Block and D Block base
     stations could combine to form unwanted IM products within the
     12-megahertz public safety mobile receive band in the 700 MHz Band,
     and that such products potentially could cause interference to
     public safety mobile and portable receivers. The issue of IM
     interference in the Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band was
     initially raised in the *Third 700 MHz Memorandum Opinion and
     Order*. In that proceeding, TIA suggested that, to address IM
     interference, the Commission adopt a requirement, which would have
     effectively limited the transmissions of commercial base stations
     to 5 watts ERP.[^253] The Commission concluded that requiring base
     stations to operate at such a low power level "could dramatically
     compromise the usefulness of the Upper 700 MHz band commercial
     blocks" and thus declined to adopt any technical limitations to
     address IM interference.[^254] The Commission addressed the issue
     of IM interference in the *800 MHz Report and Order* as well, where
     it acknowledged IM as a potential source of interference to public
     safety operations in the 800 MHz band.[^255] In that proceeding,
     the Commission once again declined to adopt specific technical
     measures to address IM interference.[^256] Rather, it adopted a
     series of requirements, which mandated that commercial licensees
     work with one another, as well as with public safety entities, to
     eliminate any IM interference that might occur to public safety
     operations.[^257]

117. Although we continue to believe that it is not necessary to impose
     strict technical measures on Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band
     licensees to protect public safety operations from IM interference,
     we recognize that due to the spectral relationship between the
     Blocks C and D in the Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band and
     the 700 MHz Public Safety Band, IM interference to public safety
     mobile and portable devices could potentially occur if relatively
     low base station power levels are not employed.[^258] We therefore
     take additional steps to address potential IM interference to
     public safety operations in the 700 MHz Band.

118. Specifically, as we did with respect to 800 MHz ESMR and Cellular
     licensees,[^259] we will require Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services
     Band licensees, upon request from a 700 MHz public safety entity,
     to provide to that entity information about the location and
     parameters of any stations they plan to activate in the public
     safety entity's area of operation.[^260] We will also require, as
     we did in Section 90.675, public safety licensees to provide, upon
     request of an Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band licensee, the
     operating parameters of their radio systems.[^261] As indicated in
     the *800 MHz Report and Order*, these actions can both help prevent
     potential interference from occurring and help identify possible
     sources of interference more rapidly, if interference were to
     occur.[^262]

119. Finally, if interference to public safety systems does take place,
     we will expect 700 MHz Commercial Services Band licensees to take
     whatever actions are necessary to mitigate the interference
     (*e.g.,* reducing out-of-band emissions, reducing power levels,
     changing operating frequencies, *etc*.). As operations begin in the
     Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band, we will be keenly
     interested in any circumstances of interference to public safety
     operations that are not appropriately addressed by commercial
     entities, and if we believe that further actions are necessary to
     ensure that such circumstances do not take place, we shall take
     such actions.

##### 911/E911 Requirements

120. [Background]{.underline}. In the *700 MHz Commercial Services
     Notice*, we sought comment on whether § 20.18 of the Commission's
     rules, which imposes 911 and Enhanced 911 (E911) obligations on
     certain enumerated wireless services, should be extended to
     services provided in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band, to any
     Part 27 service, or to all similar wireless services, to the extent
     that they meet certain criteria established in the *E911 Scope
     Order*.[^263] The "basic 911" requirement of § 20.18 requires
     providers of specified wireless voice services to transmit all
     wireless 911 calls made by their subscribers without respect to
     their call validation process to the appropriate Public Safety
     Answering Point (PSAP) or designated emergency authority.[^264]
     Under the E911 requirement, providers are ultimately required
     (*i.e.*, during "Phase II") to automatically provide the PSAP or
     designated authority with the location of the 911 caller by
     longitude and latitude (Automatic Location Identification or ALI)
     within a specified level of accuracy.[^265] Licensees can provide
     ALI information by deploying technology in their networks for
     locating subscribers (a network-based solution),[^266] or by
     including Global Positioning System (GPS) or other location
     technology in subscribers' handsets (a handset-based
     solution).[^267]

121. Currently, the 911/E911 obligations established in § 20.18 apply to
     the following services: Broadband PCS under Part 24, Cellular Radio
     Telephone Service under Part 22, Geographic Area and Incumbent Wide
     Area Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Service in the 800 MHz and 900
     MHz Bands under Part 90, and those entities that offer these voice
     services by purchasing airtime or capacity wholesale from
     facilities-based providers.[^268] These obligations are further
     restricted to apply only insofar as the covered service providers
     offer "real-time, two way switched voice service that is
     interconnected with the public switched network and utilizes an
     in-network switching facility which enables the provider to reuse
     frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-off of subscriber
     calls."[^269]

122. The Commission made the majority of these application decisions in
     the 1996 *E911 Report and Order*.[^270] The Commission determined
     in that *Order* that 911/E911 should be applicable to real-time,
     two-way, interconnected voice services provided by Cellular Radio
     Telephone Service carriers and broadband PCS carriers because
     customers of those public telephone services "clearly expect access
     to 911 and E911," given that they often cited "safety and security"
     as their main reason for purchasing a mobile phone.[^271]
     Geographic area and incumbent wide area SMR providers licensed in
     the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands were made subject to the rule because
     these carriers showed "significant potential to offer near-term
     direct competition to cellular and broadband PCS carriers."[^272]

123. The Commission declined, however, to extend 911/E911 obligations to
     a number of other services. For example, the Commission decided
     that local SMR voice service, even if interconnected, would not be
     governed by 911/E911 requirements as local SMR providers
     "offer\[ed\] mainly dispatch services to specialized customers in a
     more localized, non-cellular system configuration . . . ."[^273]
     The Commission also determined that, while it expected that CMRS
     voice Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) carriers would eventually be
     required to provide access to emergency services, the Commission
     would not impose such requirements at that time because it might
     "impede the development of the service in ways that might reduce
     its ability to meet public safety needs."[^274] Notwithstanding
     these determinations, the Commission affirmed that "the public
     interest will ordinarily require that all CMRS real time two-way
     voice communications services provide reasonable and effective
     access to emergency services."[^275]

124. In the *E911 Scope Order* released in 2003, the Commission derived
     four factors from its earlier application decisions to inform its
     analysis of whether other services not necessarily within the scope
     of § 20.18(a) should be subject to the E911 rules.[^276]
     Specifically, the Commission determined that it would consider
     whether (1) the service offers real-time, two-way voice service
     that is interconnected to the public switched network on either a
     stand-alone basis or packaged with other telecommunications
     services; (2) the customers using the service or device have a
     reasonable expectation of access to 911 and E911 services; (3) the
     service competes with traditional CMRS or wireline local exchange
     service; and (4) it is technically and operationally feasible for
     the service or device to support E911.[^277] The Commission also
     clarified, however, that while the four criteria would be
     "extremely useful in ensuring technological and competitive
     neutrality," these criteria were not the exclusive considerations.
     Instead, the Commission might also "consider other factors to
     inform \[its\] decision," including other factors that might
     mitigate the need to impose a requirement on a particular
     service.[^278] Applying this analysis, the Commission determined,
     among other things, that (1) MSS should now provide a modified form
     of basic 911 service, but would not, at that time, be required to
     provide E911 service; and (2) that wireless resellers and pre-paid
     calling service providers would be required to comply with 911/E911
     requirements under § 20.18 to the extent that the underlying
     facilities-based provider offers access to 911 service.[^279]

125. *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice.* In the *700 MHz Commercial
     Services Notice*, we sought comment on whether § 20.18 should be
     amended to apply the 911/E911 requirements to services in the 700
     MHz Commercial Services Band that meet the *E911 Scope Order*
     criteria, to all services using bands subject to Part 27 that meet
     that criteria, or to all similar wireless services meeting that
     criteria.[^280] We tentatively concluded that services provided
     using both auctioned and previously unauctioned spectrum in the 700
     MHz Commercial Services Band and that meet the criteria established
     in the *E911 Scope Order* should be subject to the 911/E911
     requirements.[^281] We also tentatively concluded that services
     using spectrum subject to Part 27, such as the AWS-1 bands,[^282]
     which meet the same criteria noted above should likewise be subject
     to the 911/E911 requirements.[^283] We sought comment but made no
     tentative conclusion with regard to whether § 20.18 should be
     amended to apply to all similar wireless services that meet the
     *E911 Scope Order* criteria.[^284]

126. Almost all of the commenters addressing the issue support
     application of the 911/E911 requirements to services in the 700 MHz
     Commercial Services Band to the extent that those services are
     similar to the services already subject to the requirements, with
     support coming from a range of interests including large,
     medium-sized, and rural carriers, manufacturers, and public
     interest groups.[^285] CTIA also supports application of 911/E911
     requirements to Part 27 services more broadly,[^286] while NENA
     supports the extension of the 911/E911 requirements to wireless
     services that meet the *E911 Scope Order* criteria generally.[^287]
     Many commenters note the critical public safety benefits of
     E911,[^288] and also argue that similar services should be subject
     to the same requirements.[^289] Several commenters also state,
     however, that E911 should not apply to 700 MHz Commercial Services
     Band services to a greater extent than it does to services
     currently subject to the requirements.[^290] TIA cautions against
     application of E911 to all services in the 700 MHz Commercial
     Services Band because some services might not meet the four *E911
     Scope Order* criteria.[^291]

127. The Rural Telecommunications Group (RTG) opposes any extension of
     911/E911 requirements to the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band at
     this time.[^292] RTG argues that imposition of 911/E911 in this
     band is "premature" because "\[i\]t is not yet clear what services
     will be provided or what technology will be used to provide
     them."[^293] RTG argues that "\[t\]he technologies chosen to deploy
     700 MHz may or may not be able to comply" with the 911/E911
     requirements, and in particular, imposing 911/E911 requirements
     might "completely stifle rural deployments."[^294] RTG asserts, for
     example, that many GSM rural carriers already subject to the E911
     requirements could not meet the requisite accuracy standards
     "because no GPS handsets are available for GSM and cell sites tend
     to be deployed in a 'string of pearls' along highways."[^295] RTG
     therefore recommends that the Commission should "wait to see how
     services develop and to revisit the issue in the future."[^296]

128. Two commenters also raise issues regarding E911 and voice over
     internet protocol (VoIP) services. First, TIA argues that, where a
     wireless carrier provides broadband network access to a subscriber
     who then obtains interconnected voice services from a third party
     VoIP provider, the 911 obligation should be imposed on the VoIP
     provider, not the network access provider, pursuant to the
     Commission's E911 requirements for VoIP.[^297] CTIA, addressing the
     situation where the wireless access provider and VoIP provider are
     the same, suggests that the Commission take this opportunity to
     address a petition filed by T-Mobile seeking clarification of the
     Commission's *VoIP E911 Order*.[^298] T-Mobile's petition asks the
     Commission to clarify that, under the *VoIP E911 Order*, providers
     of mobile interconnected VoIP service may deliver location
     information for VoIP 911 calls to the PSAP using latitude and
     longitude coordinates in the same fashion as is done for wireless
     911 calls.[^299] In its comments, CTIA supports the requested
     clarification, and requests that, in this proceeding, the
     Commission establish more generally that mobile wireless providers
     offering interconnected VoIP services may meet their E911
     obligations as VoIP providers through compliance with the 911/E911
     requirements of § 20.18.[^300]

129. [Discussion]{.underline}. We conclude that § 20.18(a) should be
     amended to apply 911/E911 requirements to all commercial mobile
     radio services (CMRS), including services licensed in the 700 MHz
     Commercial Services Band and the AWS-1 bands, to the same extent as
     they apply to wireless services currently listed in the scope
     provision of § 20.18.[^301] Thus, CMRS providers must comply with
     the 911/E911 requirements solely to the extent that they "\[offer\]
     real-time, two way switched voice service that is interconnected
     with the public switched network and utilize an
     in-network-switching facility which enables the provider to reuse
     frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls"
     (hereinafter, the "§ 20.18(a) criteria").[^302] We will continue,
     however, to exclude MSS from § 20.18 in conformity with the
     Commission's decision in the *E911 Scope Order*.[^303]

130. The public interest generally requires wireless services meeting
     the § 20.18(a) criteria to provide 911/E911 service, even if not
     expressly enumerated.[^304] The Commission has observed previously
     that "911 service is critical to our Nation's ability to respond to
     a host of crises,"[^305] and that E911 in particular "saves lives
     and property by helping emergency services personnel do their jobs
     more quickly and efficiently."[^306] We also take note of
     Congress's finding in the "Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Near
     Callers Employing 911 Act of 2004" that "for the sake of our
     Nation\'s homeland security and public safety, a universal
     emergency telephone number (911) that is enhanced with the most
     modern and state-of-the-art telecommunications capabilities
     possible should be available to all citizens in all regions of the
     Nation" and that "enhanced 911 is a high national priority."[^307]
     Accordingly, it is critical that mobile telephone services meeting
     the § 20.18(a) criteria continue to offer 911 and E911 as they make
     use of new frequencies.

131. We further find that commercial mobile radio services meeting the
     20.18(a) criteria will also meet the four criteria set forth in the
     *E911 Scope Order*. In particular, we find that these services are
     likely to compete with services provided pursuant to cellular,
     broadband PCS, or 800/900 MHz SMR licenses, and that subscribers
     will have similar expectations of emergency access from services
     meeting the § 20.18(a) criteria regardless of what frequencies
     carriers are using to provide them.[^308] Indeed, we have found
     that for many Americans, "the ability to call for help in an
     emergency is the principal reason they own a wireless phone."[^309]
     This should be no less true for a consumer calling from a phone
     utilizing 700 MHz, AWS, or any other spectrum. Further, we find no
     support in the record, and consider it unlikely, that additional,
     terrestrial-based commercial mobile radio services meeting all of
     the criteria of § 20.18(a) will present any special technical
     obstacles, as compared to currently deployed services, that would
     warrant modifications of the 911/E911 requirements.[^310] To the
     extent that such obstacles become apparent as new services are
     established, appropriate modifications can be considered at that
     time. We therefore agree with the commenters that the extension of
     the 911/E911 requirements under § 20.18 to all commercial mobile
     radio services meeting the § 20.18(a) criteria is justified by the
     interest in competitive neutrality as well as by the critical
     public safety benefits of 911/E911.[^311]

132. We find that RTG's concerns regarding the possible difficulty of
     implementing 911/E911 in rural areas do not support delaying the
     extension of the 911/E911 provisioning requirements to other bands
     and services. RTG bases its argument on conjecture only -- that
     technology being developed for 700 MHz may not support provision of
     E911 service. Given the critical importance of E911 to consumers
     and the public safety community, we cannot accept this unsupported
     assertion as a basis for delaying imposition of E911 requirements
     and putting at risk the safety of life and property. In this
     regard, we agree with NENA that deployment of E911 service is most
     effectively accomplished by establishing E911 requirements at the
     outset of establishing service in new bands.[^312] We also note
     that, notwithstanding RTG's reference to existing GSM deployments,
     to the extent that carriers pursue a handset-based solution, all
     subscribers that obtain service on the new bands should have
     compliant handsets from the beginning.[^313]

133. Blooston, while supporting the extension of 911/E911to the 700 MHz
     Commercial Services Band, caution that the development of 700 MHz
     equipment is not as far along as it is for broadband PCS and argue
     that the timetables for E911 compliance should not "put licensees
     in a compliance quandary when they have little or no control over
     the equipment manufacturing process."[^314] We note, however, that
     while manufacturers of handset and voice network technology have no
     regulatory obligation under § 20.18 to produce E911-compliant
     products, they do have strong financial incentives to do so if they
     wish to sell their products to the carriers subject to §
     20.18.[^315] For example, because CMRS providers that adopt a
     handset-based solution may activate only location-capable handsets,
     manufacturers that do not provide location-capable handsets for the
     new bands may significantly diminish their access to the handset
     market. Conversely, as noted above, requiring carriers to
     incorporate E911 technology in their initial systems also benefits
     the carriers, because it permits them to adopt 911/E911 without
     having to modify or replace non-compliant technology.

134. Further, because we have established 911/E911 obligations well
     before the auctioning of licenses in the 700 MHz Commercial
     Services Band and not long after the completion of the auction of
     the AWS-1 bands, we are satisfied that manufacturers will have
     adequate opportunity to produce compliant solutions for these new
     services by the time service providers are ready to begin
     incorporating them. This view is further supported by the fact that
     the manufacturing interests that commented on the 911/E911 issue,
     Qualcomm and TIA,[^316] both fully supported extension of 911/E911
     to the 700 MHz Band.[^317] Their support for the 911/E911 extension
     gives us confidence that manufacturers of communications technology
     will provide E911-compliant products in a timely fashion, and that
     new services will not, therefore, be significantly delayed by the
     need to comply with the 911/E911 mandate. Accordingly, we conclude
     that § 20.18(a) should be amended to apply 911/E911 requirements to
     all CMRS providers, other than MSS providers, regardless of the
     frequencies over which the service is provided. We will continue to
     exclude MSS, however, and we further emphasize that, by this
     extension, we do not mean to override any prior Commission decision
     specifically excluding a particular service, like local SMR, from
     the obligation to provide 911/E911.

135. While we extend the scope of 911/E911 by deleting references to
     specific services and spectrum bands, we do not modify the current
     service criteria set forth in § 20.18(a) to incorporate the four
     criteria enumerated in the *E911 Scope Order.* As noted above, the
     four criteria for analyzing whether a service should be subject to
     911/E911 include whether (1) the service offers real-time, two-way
     voice service that is interconnected to the public switched network
     on either a stand-alone basis or packaged with other
     telecommunications services; (2) the customers using the service or
     device have a reasonable expectation of access to 911 and E911
     services; (3) the service competes with traditional CMRS or
     wireline local exchange service; and (4) it is technically and
     operationally feasible for the service or device to support E911.
     While the Commission found the criteria useful analytically to
     "ensur\[e\] technological and competitive neutrality," and to
     determine whether particular services should be subject to 911
     requirements when a question arises, they were never intended to be
     definitive and exclusive. Rather, the Commission stated in the
     *E911 Scope Order* that it would "also consider other factors to
     inform \[its\] decision" of whether a service would be subject to
     911/E911.[^318] We therefore retain the current § 20.18(a) criteria
     to define the scope of the 911/E911 obligation under § 20.18. We
     will continue, however, to consider the factors identified in the
     *E911 Scope Order* when analyzing whether 911/E911 obligations
     should be applied to a particular new CMRS service, if a
     significant question arises as to whether the § 20.18(a) criteria
     apply.

136. We reject CTIA's request to resolve the T-Mobile Petition for
     Clarification regarding whether compliance with § 20.18 will also
     satisfy any obligations under the *VoIP E911 Order*. We will
     resolve that petition at a later time in the proceeding in which it
     has been filed. We emphasize, however, that providers of a
     commercial mobile service meeting the criteria specified in §
     20.18(a) are required to comply with the E911 requirements of that
     section, regardless of what spectrum and technology is being used
     to provide the service. Conversely, only wireless services that
     satisfy the § 20.18(a) criteria are subject to the requirements of
     that section. Thus, if a provider offers a non-voice service, this
     will not trigger the § 20.18 requirements for that provider.[^319]

##### Hearing Aid-Compatible Wireless Handsets

137. [Background.]{.underline} In addition to proposing the extension of
     911/E911 requirements to services provided in new spectrum bands,
     the Commission also sought comment on whether it should similarly
     extend the hearing aid compatibility requirements under §
     20.19.[^320] The requirements of § 20.19 were established by the
     Commission pursuant to the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988
     and a determination by the Commission in 2003 to lift the blanket
     exemption under that law for digital wireless telephones.[^321]
     Section 20.19 of the Commission's rules requires the providers of
     certain enumerated wireless services and the manufacturers of
     handsets used in those services to offer hearing aid-compatible
     handset models to their customers.[^322] As with the 911/E911
     obligations under § 20.18, the hearing aid compatibility
     requirements under § 20.19 currently apply only to providers of
     broadband PCS, Cellular Radio Telephone Service, and certain SMR
     providers in the 800/900 MHz bands, and only to the extent that
     these providers "offer real-time, two-way switched voice or data
     service that is interconnected with the public switched network and
     utilizes an in-network switching facility that enables the provider
     to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of
     subscriber calls."[^323] The entities subject to § 20.19 must begin
     offering a specific number of hearing aid-compatible digital
     wireless handset models by specific dates unless they fall under
     *de minimis* exceptions.[^324] In addition, both carriers and
     manufacturers are subject to certain labeling requirements in
     connection with the hearing aid-compatible handsets that they
     offer.[^325]

138. Pursuant to the statutory requirement that there be "established
     technical standards,"[^326] a handset must be certified as meeting
     a certain level of compatibility under the American National
     Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.19 standard.[^327] More
     specifically, section 20.19(b) of the Commission's rules provides
     that a wireless handset is deemed hearing aid-compatible if, at
     minimum, it receives a U3 rating for radio frequency interference
     and a U3T rating for inductive coupling "as set forth in the
     standard document ANSI C63.19-2001\[,\] 'American National Standard
     for Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between Wireless
     Communications Devices and Hearing Aids.'"[^328] On April 25, 2005,
     the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET)
     announced that it would also certify handsets as hearing
     aid-compatible based on the revised draft version of the standard,
     ANSI C63.19-2005,[^329] and on June 6, 2006, OET and the Wireless
     Telecommunications Bureau permitted certification under version
     3.12 of that standard (ANSI C63.19-2006), which reflected further
     revisions adopted and released in 2006.[^330] All of these versions
     focus on existing services that are in common use. Thus, the 2001
     version provides tests for established services in the 800-950 MHz
     and 1.6-2.0 GHz bands, while the latest version of the ANSI C63.19
     standard expands this to include established services in the
     1.6-2.5 GHz band.[^331] As a result, while applicants for
     certification may rely on the 2001, 2005, or 2006 version of the
     ANSI C63.19 standard, none of these versions of the ANSI standard
     currently provide tests for services in the 700 MHz Band, the AWS-1
     band (which lacks established services), the BRS/EBS band, or for
     newer technologies such as WiMAX.[^332]

139. In the *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, we tentatively
     concluded that we should amend our Part 20 rules to specify that
     Part 27 services, including 700 MHz Commercial Services Band
     services, that meet the *E911 Scope Order* criteria with
     appropriate modifications for hearing aid compatibility should be
     subject to the hearing aid compatibility requirements.[^333] We
     also sought comment, without reaching any tentative conclusion, on
     whether we should amend § 20.19(a) to ensure that all similar
     wireless services that meet the criteria discussed above would be
     subject to the hearing aid compatibility requirements.[^334] In
     addition, we noted that the current technical standard for hearing
     aid compatibility only applies to phones operating on certain
     frequencies, which do not include operations in the 700 MHz
     spectrum.[^335] We thus sought comment on what changes to the
     industry standard governing digital wireless handsets'
     compatibility with hearing aids, ANSI C63.19-2006, would be
     necessary in order to establish measurement methods and parametric
     requirements for services provided in the 700 MHz Commercial
     Services Band.[^336] Finally, we sought comment on the time
     necessary to complete such changes to the standard.[^337]

140. Comments on extending hearing aid compatibility requirements
     express positions similar to those taken on 911/E911. Commenters
     again widely support the Commission's proposal to require 700 MHz
     manufacturers and service providers to provide hearing
     aid-compatible phones.[^338] There is again little discussion
     regarding extending the requirements to other bands.[^339] Further,
     Blooston expresses the same concern as they did in connection with
     911/E911 implementation that the development of 700 MHz equipment
     is not yet as far along as other equipment and that timetables for
     compliance "should not put licensees into a compliance
     quandary."[^340] RTG considers the imposition of hearing aid
     compatibility obligations at this time to be "premature."[^341]

141. Regarding changes to the hearing aid compatibility standard, the
     Hearing Aid Industries Association (HIA) argues that the current
     ANSI C63.19-2006 standard should be "easily adaptable to include
     the 700 MHz band" and that "\[h\]andset behavior in the new 700 MHz
     band is not likely to be significantly different from behavior in
     the well-established 800 MHz cellular band."[^342] It further
     states that, "\[t\]o the extent that modification of the ANSI
     standard becomes necessary during the design and manufacturing
     processes for 700 MHz handsets, HIA and its members will continue
     to participate in activities addressing any needed additions or
     refinements."[^343]

142. [Discussion.]{.underline} For reasons similar to those discussed in
     the E911 section above, we determine that all digital CMRS
     providers, including providers of such services in the 700 MHz
     Commercial Services Band and the AWS-1 and BRS/EBS bands, should be
     subject to hearing aid compatibility requirements under § 20.19 to
     the extent they offer real-time, two-way switched voice or data
     service that is interconnected with the public switched network and
     utilizes an in-network switching facility that enables the provider
     to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of
     subscriber calls. In addition, manufacturers of wireless handsets
     that are capable of providing such service also should be made
     subject to the applicable requirements of § 20.19. As discussed
     below, however, the existence of an established, applicable
     technical standard is a statutory requirement for imposing hearing
     aid compatibility requirements. Because no such standard currently
     exists for any services beyond the broadband PCS, Cellular, and
     certain SMR bands, we cannot presently impose hearing aid
     compatibility requirements on additional services. We do commit to
     bringing all digital CMRS within the scope of the § 20.19
     requirements as appropriate technical standards are developed, and
     we take steps to promote the development of these technical
     standards, as discussed below. In particular, we establish a
     specific timetable for the development of the necessary technical
     standards for those new services that have governing service rules
     in place. We amend the rule to reflect these determinations,
     including our decision that hearing aid compatibility requirements
     will apply to any CMRS to the extent that it meets the criteria
     discussed above and there is an established technical standard for
     hearing aid compatibility applicable to the relevant handsets.

143. Extending hearing aid compatibility requirements to services beyond
     those currently covered will ensure that comparable service
     providers and manufacturers will be required to comply with similar
     hearing aid-compatible handset requirements regardless of the
     frequency bands on which they operate.[^344] Further, end users
     will be able to expect the full range of functionality found today
     in mobile phones without having to know the technical details, such
     as the frequencies on which their phones operate.[^345] Moreover,
     by clarifying the applicability of the hearing aid compatibility
     rules to these manufacturers and service providers now, we enable
     them to begin planning to incorporate hearing aid compatibility
     compliance into their operations at the earliest possible stage,
     which should also promote a more efficient implementation.[^346] We
     also ensure that the necessary parties become involved in ongoing
     discussions among the Commission, service providers, standards
     bodies, and industry representatives to develop additional
     standards for hearing aid compatibility measurement methods and
     parametric requirements.[^347]

144. This extension is consistent with the views of most commenters,
     which are generally supportive of the idea of extending the hearing
     aid compatibility requirements to services in new spectrum, and
     particularly the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band, to the extent
     that those services are similar to the services already subject to
     hearing aid compatibility requirements. As with the supporters of
     E911 extension, commenters supporting application of the hearing
     aid compatibility requirements to 700 MHz service providers include
     a broad range of interests, including large and mid-sized wireless
     carriers,[^348] manufacturing interests,[^349] and groups
     representing hearing aid users and manufacturers.[^350]
     Accordingly, we conclude that any CMRS digital service that meets
     the § 20.19(a) criteria for inclusion should be subject to hearing
     aid compatibility requirements.

145. We decline, however, to impose hearing aid compatibility
     obligations on other services and bands at this time. When the
     Commission imposed the existing hearing aid compatibility
     obligations on handset manufacturers and service providers in 2003,
     it simultaneously approved ANSI C63.19 as an established technical
     standard applicable to the services covered by the rule.[^351]
     Indeed, the Commission noted that the existence of an established
     technical standard was a statutory requirement for imposing hearing
     aid compatibility, and further found that this statutory
     requirement was "\[f\]undamental" to the determination of whether
     to impose hearing aid compatibility on wireless devices.[^352] We
     therefore find that an applicable technical standard should be in
     place when hearing aid compatibility obligations are imposed in the
     700 MHz Commercial Services Band and other bands.

146. As noted above, none of the available versions of the current
     hearing aid compatibility standard cover services in the 700 MHz
     Commercial Services Band or the AWS-1 or BRS/EBS bands. Nor do they
     provide tests for some of the technologies anticipated in these
     bands, such as WiMAX. HIA argues that the ANSI C63.19-2006 standard
     for the 800 MHz band provides an appropriate framework to measure
     performance in the 700 MHz Band for purposes of determining hearing
     aid compatibility, but the record does not establish that the
     existing standard can be extended to that band without
     modifications or amendments. Indeed, HIA concedes that
     modifications to the standard may be necessary,[^353] and the
     Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA) also supports this
     conclusion, noting that changes to the standard will be necessary
     to accommodate emerging technologies.[^354] Accordingly, we
     conclude that we cannot extend specific hearing aid compatibility
     obligations to emerging bands and services until specific standards
     that establish the hearing aid compatibility measurement methods
     and parametric requirements for these additional services' and
     bands' devices are developed.

147. We note that ANSI has stated that it has authorized a "study
     project" to examine, among other topics related to the C63.19
     standard, the possibility of extending the relevant frequency band
     for wireless devices' compatibility with hearing aids to the range
     from 700 MHz to 8 GHz.[^355] The same study project will consider
     the addition of tests and parametric requirements for other
     frequency bands including AWS-1 at 1710/2110 MHz and the BRS/EBS at
     2.5 GHz, as well as new broadband technologies.[^356] Because we
     find that a standard for compliance should be established before
     hearing aid compatibility is imposed on a service, and because such
     standards are currently in development for the new bands and
     technologies, we decline to extend hearing aid compatibility
     requirements at this time.

148. Establishment of hearing aid compatibility requirements for
     comparable services must not be delayed -- particularly for the 700
     MHz Commercial Services Band and the other bands currently listed
     in § 27.1(b), which include the AWS-1, BRS/EBS, 1.4 GHz, 1.6 GHz,
     and 2.3 GHz bands,[^357] all of which now have or soon will have
     service rules established, and which either have been or will soon
     be licensed.[^358] Because we seek to promote the development of
     additional standards, we establish a schedule for future Commission
     actions. Accordingly, if the appropriate technical standards for
     the bands listed in § 27.1(b) are established within 24 months of
     the Federal Register publication of this Order, we will proceed
     based on the adopted standards and we commit to initiating a
     further proceeding at that time to establish a specific timetable
     for deployment of hearing aid-compatible handsets for services in
     the relevant bands that meet the criteria discussed above. Given
     that ANSI is already considering extensions of the C63.19 standard
     to the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band and the AWS-1 and BRS/EBS
     bands, we find that a 24 month period to complete standards for
     these services is reasonable.[^359] We strongly encourage ANSI and
     the various stakeholders in this process to work together towards
     adoption of technical standards in a timely manner so that hearing
     aid users will have the same accessibility to interconnected
     services in the new bands as they do in the bands already addressed
     in section 20.19(a) of the Commission's rules.[^360]

149. We will continue to monitor progress to make sure that the adoption
     of such standards proceeds in a timely manner. If no standards have
     been adopted within 24 months, we will consider alternative means
     to implement compatibility requirements, including whether to
     develop new metrics for compliance entirely and/or whether to
     extend the C63.19-2006 standard for the 800 MHz Band into the 700
     MHz Commercial Services Band, as HIA suggests.[^361] We will not at
     this time establish a schedule for future action regarding bands
     other than the current 27.1(b) bands because it does not appear to
     be possible to develop compatibility standards in the absence of
     service rules. We also note that there is little or no discussion
     in the record of extending hearing aid compatibility beyond the 700
     MHz Commercial Services Band. We will, however, pursue appropriate
     action as the nature of services in new bands becomes more defined
     or we find that an applicable standard has been or can be
     developed.

150. Although we do not impose specific hearing aid compatibility
     obligations on these services at this time, we again reject RTG's
     assertion that a timetable for such obligations must necessarily
     wait until the nature of the services to be offered, the
     technologies to be used in the band, and the impact on rural
     carriers are clearer. We emphasize that the services subject to
     hearing aid compatibility obligations in the 700 MHz Commercial
     Services Band and elsewhere will be the same types of services that
     are subject to such obligations in other bands under the existing §
     20.19(a) of the Commission's rules.[^362] Therefore, once an
     appropriate technical standard is available, we do not find it
     necessary to delay implementation any further in order to see how
     the services in the band develop or through what technologies they
     are provided. Rather, we will expect similar services to be subject
     to similar hearing aid compatibility obligations, regardless of the
     technologies over which they are provided. Although the development
     of an appropriate standard will be technology-specific, the
     technologies that need to be addressed are few in number, and, as
     noted above, a study project has already been authorized by the
     ANSI ASC C63 Committee to develop the appropriate hearing aid
     compatibility measurement methods and parametric requirements for
     these technologies. Finally, because we are imposing no new rules
     at this time, any analysis of the impact of these obligations on
     small rural carriers in particular can be deferred until the
     standards are in place to allow the further rulemaking activity.

## 700 MHz Guard Bands

151. As we indicated in the *700 MHz* *Guard Bands Notice,* we seek to
     establish rules and policies that provide Guard Band licensees
     greater flexibility while continuing to ensure non-interference
     with the adjacent 700 MHz Public Safety spectrum. As part of this
     endeavor we sought comment on a number of band restructuring
     proposals. As discussed below in the Further Notice, we tentatively
     conclude that we do not have the legal authority, and it is not in
     the public interest, to adopt at this time certain of the band
     restructuring proposals raised in this docket.[^363] We do,
     however, take several measures in this Report and Order, as broadly
     endorsed by commenters, to promote more efficient and effective use
     of the 700 MHz Guard Bands spectrum. Specifically, we replace the
     current band manager leasing regime with the spectrum leasing
     policies and rules adopted in the Secondary Markets proceeding. In
     applying the Secondary Markets leasing rules to the 700 MHz Guard
     Bands, we are eliminating the special restrictions imposed under
     the Guard Bands licensing regime that prevented licensees from
     using their spectrum as a wireless service provider and restricted
     their ability to lease to affiliates, and permitting more
     operational flexibility for 700 MHz Guard Bands licensees.

### Background

152. As discussed in the *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice,* in adopting the
     licensing, technical and operational rules for the 700 MHz Guard
     Bands, the Commission created a new class of commercial licensee
     that makes spectrum available to system operators or directly to
     end users through private, written contracts known as "spectrum
     user agreements."[^364] The Commission afforded these Guard Band
     Manager licensees flexibility to tailor their spectrum to the
     unique requirements of potential system operators or end
     users.[^365] The Commission stated that the primary responsibility
     of the Guard Band Manager is to ensure non-interference with the
     adjacent 700 MHz Public Safety Band,[^366] and that the Guard Band
     Manager retains ultimate control of spectrum use within the scope
     of its license, including subdivision of spectrum blocks and
     geographic areas, frequency coordination, channel selection,
     resolution of interference conflicts, and compliance with the
     Commission's rules.[^367] Guard Band Managers also are subject to
     stringent coordination requirements,[^368] cannot use their
     spectrum as a wireless service provider, and cannot lease more than
     49.9 percent of their spectrum in a geographic area to
     affiliates.[^369]

153. The *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice* also noted that, subsequent to the
     adoption of the Guard Band Manager licensing regime, the Commission
     in 2003 established a broad set of new spectrum leasing policies
     and rules in its Secondary Markets proceeding and applied these
     spectrum leasing policies and rules to most Wireless Radio Service
     licensees holding "exclusive use" licenses.[^370] These spectrum
     leasing policies and rules, adopted in the *Secondary Markets First
     Report and Order* and extended to additional Wireless Radio
     Services in the 2004 *Secondary Markets Second Report and
     Order*,[^371] generally permit two types of leasing options: *de
     facto* transfer leasing, and spectrum manager leasing. A *de facto*
     transfer lease arrangement places primary responsibility upon the
     spectrum lessee to interact with the Commission and ensure
     compliance with the Commission's rules; however the licensee
     retains ultimate responsibility for its lessees' ongoing violations
     or other egregious behavior about which the licensee has knowledge
     or should have knowledge.[^372] Under this option, subject to
     Commission approval, "licensees and spectrum lessees may enter into
     spectrum leasing arrangements -- for any amount of spectrum, in any
     geographic area, and for any period of time within the scope and
     term of the license -- in which *de facto* control of the leased
     spectrum is transferred to the spectrum lessee(s) for the duration
     of the lease."[^373] Under the second option, spectrum manager
     leasing, "licensees and spectrum lessees may enter into spectrum
     leasing arrangements -- for any amount of spectrum, in any
     geographic area, and for any period of time within the scope and
     term of the license -- without the need for prior Commission
     approval, provided the licensees retain *de facto* control...over
     the leased spectrum."[^374] Application filings through the
     Universal Licensing System (ULS) are required for both types of
     spectrum leasing arrangements, and spectrum leasing parties must
     submit detailed information on the amount, frequency and geographic
     location of the leased spectrum, as well as the length of the
     spectrum leasing arrangement.[^375]

154. At the time, the Commission did not apply spectrum leasing policies
     adopted in the Secondary Markets proceeding to the 700 MHz Guard
     Bands.[^376] The Commission also did not extend the Secondary
     Markets spectrum leasing policies to the 700 MHz Guard Bands in the
     2004 *Secondary Markets Second Report and Order*, noting that the
     700 MHz Guard Bands service "already has its own distinct set of
     policies and rules regarding leasing arrangements, and no
     commenters proposed replacing those policies" with the model
     adopted in the Secondary Markets proceeding.[^377]

155. In the *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*, we sought comment on whether
     we should retain our existing Guard Band Manager rules or whether
     we should apply a different set of policies and rules for enabling
     third parties to gain access to spectrum usage rights, such as
     those adopted in the Secondary Markets proceeding.[^378] We also
     asked whether we should apply the existing Guard Band Manager rules
     to the returned Nextel spectrum or whether another regulatory
     structure is appropriate, even if existing rules are retained for
     incumbent licensees.[^379] We also asked whether we should permit
     existing or new licensees to choose among several regulatory
     options for managing the 700 MHz Guard Bands, and if so, how we may
     best implement such an approach, including how to accommodate
     different regulatory schemes within the same band.[^380] We also
     sought comment on any alternative approach involving relaxation of
     certain band manager restrictions, while retaining the overall band
     manager concept.[^381] Finally, we asked any proponent of a revised
     Guard Band Manager regime to comment on how its proposal will
     fulfill the primary responsibility of any Guard Band licensee to
     ensure non-interference with the adjacent 700 MHz Public Safety
     Band.[^382]

### Discussion

156. For the reasons described below, we replace the Guard Band Manager
     regime in favor of the spectrum leasing policies and rules adopted
     in the Secondary Markets proceeding, and remove certain use and
     eligibility restrictions regarding licensee operations and leasing
     to affiliates to encourage the most effective and efficient use of
     the Guard Bands spectrum. While we seek to provide licensees and
     spectrum lessees with greater latitude and remove regulatory
     barriers where possible, we retain the existing Guard Band Manager
     coordination requirements.

#### Adoption of Secondary Markets Spectrum Leasing Rules

157. Among our key public interest objectives is to ensure that spectrum
     is put to its most efficient and effective use, and the Commission
     has increasingly granted technical and operational flexibility to
     its licensees to enable them to achieve that goal when it is
     consistent with preventing unacceptable interference. In adopting
     the Secondary Markets spectrum leasing policies and rules, the
     Commission accommodated the demand for significantly broader access
     to licensed spectrum by enabling a wide array of facilities-based
     providers to enter into spectrum leasing arrangements with spectrum
     users. These rules provided licensees with greater ability and
     incentive to make unused spectrum available to third parties, and
     thus promoted the provision of new and diverse services and
     applications. Third parties that could benefit from such spectrum
     leasing arrangements may include current spectrum operators
     requiring additional spectrum to meet customer needs over either
     the short- or long-term, new entrants seeking to provide a niche
     service and serve a limited area or narrowly targeted end-user
     market, small businesses trying to deliver services in rural
     communities, or entities unable or unwilling to participate in
     spectrum auctions or that otherwise do not have a license through
     which they can access spectrum to meet consumer or internal
     operational needs. By adopting the Secondary Markets spectrum
     leasing model, the Commission sought to establish spectrum leasing
     policies that allow licensees and spectrum lessees significant
     flexibility to enter into leasing arrangements that best meet their
     respective business needs and enable more efficient use of
     spectrum.

158. Commenters in this proceeding advocate replacing the existing Guard
     Band Manager rules with the Secondary Markets spectrum leasing
     policies and rules.[^383] Commenters argue that the spectrum
     leasing options under the Secondary Markets rules offer a more
     flexible approach to the leasing of spectrum, and will aid 700 MHz
     Guard Bands licensees in maximizing the use of their spectrum,
     enabling more parties to gain access to spectrum through leasing
     agreements.[^384] We agree with commenters that the Secondary
     Markets spectrum leasing model may be more effective than the
     existing band manager rules in accomplishing the Commission's goals
     of permitting the efficient and intensive use of spectrum while
     protecting public safety operations from harmful interference.
     Although the Commission sought to provide appropriate incentives to
     encourage greater participation in band manager leasing
     arrangements, the Guard Band Managers appear to have had limited
     success in negotiating spectrum user agreements with third
     parties.[^385] In contrast, the steadily increasing number of
     spectrum leasing arrangements in the other Wireless Radio Services
     reflects the growing use and acceptance of Secondary Markets
     spectrum leasing policies by wireless providers and spectrum
     lessees as an effective method to make spectrum more readily
     available to additional spectrum users. Since the Secondary Markets
     spectrum leasing procedures went into effect in February 2004,
     licensees and spectrum lessees have entered into approximately
     1,200 spectrum leasing arrangements.

159. Accordingly, we determine that providing Guard Bands licensees the
     additional flexibility offered by the Secondary Markets spectrum
     leasing regime would enhance spectrum usage in the 700 MHz Guard
     Bands. Specifically, in order to provide maximum flexibility, Guard
     Band licensees now will have the option of entering into both
     spectrum manager leasing and *de facto* transfer leasing
     arrangements. By permitting Guard Band licensees and spectrum
     lessees to choose between the two different options, we will afford
     licensees and spectrum lessees significant flexibility to craft the
     type of leasing arrangement that best matches their particular
     needs and the demands of the marketplace. This flexibility could,
     in turn, help achieve fuller utilization of the spectrum. For
     example, adopting rules that permit Guard Band licensees to
     participate in *de facto* transfer leasing -- in which primary
     responsibility for compliance with statutory and regulatory
     policies and rules is transferred from licensees to spectrum
     lessees -- could encourage a licensee to enter into a leasing
     agreement that might otherwise be unattractive due to the level of
     operational oversight necessary to ensure compliance with the
     Commission's rules in a specific case.

160. We emphasize, however, that by affording 700 MHz Guard Band
     licensees greater flexibility, particularly in the *de facto*
     transfer leasing context, we are not minimizing in any way the
     requirement that these licensees must ensure that adjacent public
     safety operations are protected from harmful interference.
     Protection of 700 MHz public safety operations from interference
     remains the primary goal of the Commission's policies relating to
     the 700 MHz Guard Bands. We agree with comments that the Secondary
     Markets spectrum leasing rules provide sufficient mechanisms to
     ensure non-interference with spectrum users in the adjacent 700 MHz
     Public Safety Band. As noted by the BOP proponents, the Secondary
     Markets spectrum leasing rules provide protection equivalent to the
     band manager rules.

161. Although we recognize that the additional flexibility afforded by
     the *de facto* transfer spectrum leasing option transfers the
     primary responsibility for ensuring interference protection to the
     spectrum lessee, we conclude that public safety users will still be
     protected from interference under the Secondary Markets spectrum
     leasing rules. Under this option, 700 MHz Guard Band licensees
     continue to retain some responsibility for operations encompassed
     under their license authorizations,[^386] and may be held
     responsible in cases of ongoing violation or other egregious lessee
     behavior for which licensees have, or should have, knowledge.[^387]
     More importantly, although we expect Guard Band licensees to
     continue to exercise some oversight of its lessees, the Commission
     retains direct authority to pursue remedies against lessees under
     Section 503(b) of the Act.[^388] Spectrum lessees, whether under a
     spectrum manager leasing arrangement or a *de facto* transfer
     leasing arrangement, must strictly comply with the technical
     restrictions of the band, and must expressly agree to comply with
     all applicable Commission rules as a condition of the spectrum
     leasing arrangement.[^389] Regardless of whether the licensee or
     spectrum lessee holds primary responsibility for compliance with
     Commission rules, the Commission maintains the ability to take
     direct and swift action to enforce compliance with its rules.

162. We conclude that we should apply our Secondary Markets spectrum
     leasing rules to the 700 MHz Guard Bands service. By doing so, we
     will facilitate more efficient use of the spectrum by licensees and
     spectrum lessees, and will produce a more market-driven system that
     should better meet the needs of the public without compromising the
     Commission's other core public interest goals -- specifically,
     ensuring that public safety operations are protected from harmful
     interference.[^390] Although we sought comment on whether we should
     permit licensees to choose between the existing Guard Band Managers
     regime or the Secondary Markets spectrum leasing rules,[^391] we
     conclude that it is unnecessary to also allow licensees the ability
     to choose between the two leasing models, and thus replace the
     Guard Band Manager leasing regime with the Secondary Markets
     spectrum leasing policies and rules. Application of the Secondary
     Markets rules to all 700 MHz Guard Bands licensees will provide
     significant additional flexibility and ensure that these licensees
     are treated similarly to other Wireless Radio Services holding
     exclusive use licenses and leasing spectrum usage rights.

#### Use and Operational Flexibility

163. In addition to providing licensees and other spectrum users
     additional flexibility provided under our general Secondary Markets
     spectrum leasing rules, we conclude that other changes to the 700
     MHz Guard Bands rules should be made to promote more efficient and
     effective use of this spectrum. Commenters argue that certain 700
     MHz Guard Bands rules deter licensees and potential spectrum users
     from entering into spectrum user agreements. The BOP proponents
     argue that the band manager model imposes a number of
     requirements---the specification that a Guard Band licensee acts
     only as a spectrum broker and not a service provider, the
     requirement that the predominant amount of a licensee's spectrum
     must be leased to non-affiliates, and restrictions on the
     conditions that a licensee may impose on lessees and end
     users---that significantly restrict the use of Guard Bands
     spectrum.[^392] Similarly, Arcadian Networks (Arcadian) -- an
     existing Guard Band lessee -- argues that the restrictions against
     Guard Band Managers using their spectrum as system operators, and
     leasing their spectrum to affiliates, should be eliminated because
     the restrictions have stifled the market for 700 MHz Guard Bands
     spectrum.[^393] According to Arcadian, the Secondary Markets
     spectrum leasing rules have proven more successful without such
     restrictions.[^394]

164. *Band Manager Status*. In creating the 700 MHz Guard Bands service,
     the Commission designated Guard Band Managers as a new class of
     commercial licensee engaged solely in leasing spectrum to third
     parties.[^395] We agree with commenters that we should re-evaluate
     our decision to limit the ability of licensees to act as service
     providers. The band manager rules and policies that specify that a
     Guard Band licensee may only act as a spectrum manager unduly
     restrict the ability of parties to use the spectrum, and may
     preclude the deployment of services that might otherwise be
     offered. Depending upon the circumstances, it may be that the Guard
     Band licensee itself is best positioned to make maximum use of the
     Guard Bands spectrum. Precluding a licensee from operating as a
     service provider may prevent access by parties that could make
     actual use of the band, and hinders, rather than facilitates, the
     efficient use of the spectrum. We believe that, as long as a 700
     MHz Guard Band licensee can fulfill its primary function of
     effectively managing its licensed spectrum and ensuring that 700
     MHz public safety operations are protected from interference, there
     is little reason to preclude that licensee from also providing
     service. Accordingly, we will revise our rules to permit licensees
     to operate as wireless service providers. To the extent that a
     licensee chooses to provide service, we require that the licensee
     update their license information if they plan to switch their
     regulatory status,[^396] and we note that licensees will be
     responsible for meeting all other obligations relating to their
     change in status.[^397]

165. *Restrictions on Leasing to Affiliates.* Similarly, we conclude
     that it is in the public interest to remove the current restriction
     precluding any licensee from leasing more than 49.9 percent of its
     licensed spectrum to affiliates. As in the case of the policy
     precluding licensees from providing service, we believe that our
     rule requiring that licensees lease the predominant amount of their
     spectrum to non-affiliates prevents entities from maximizing use of
     the spectrum, and hinders the provision of service to end users.
     This restriction also may prevent licensees and lessees from taking
     advantage of new technologies. The BOP proponents argue that since
     a band manager must lease the majority of its spectrum to
     unaffiliated parties, any band manager affiliate would not be able
     to deploy even a single broadband channel because it would require
     the majority of the spectrum.[^398] To the extent that we determine
     that broadband deployment is permissible in one or both of the 700
     MHz Guard Bands, the Commission's restrictions that prevent Guard
     Band Managers from providing service or from leasing any more than
     49.9 percent of its license to affiliates would hinder the ability
     of Guard Band licensees or their affiliates to deploy such service.
     Restrictions regarding use by the licensee or its affiliates may
     prevent entities from optimizing the use of the spectrum or
     entering into Secondary Markets spectrum leasing agreements with
     adjacent licensees that are not similarly restricted. Accordingly,
     we eliminate this restriction.

166. *Other Lease Restrictions*. Under existing policies, 700 MHz Guard
     Band licensees are prohibited from imposing unduly restrictive
     requirements in the spectrum user agreements regarding access to,
     and use of, spectrum.[^399] In adopting these band manager rules,
     the Commission noted that Guard Band Managers would be afforded a
     considerable amount of latitude in determining the most efficient
     way to manage their spectrum.[^400] The Commission concluded,
     however, that it was necessary to ensure that band managers did not
     impose unreasonable terms and conditions on lessees or end
     users.[^401] Although these restrictions were aimed at ensuring
     that band managers do not engage in unreasonable practices, as the
     BOP proponents point out, the existing rules may adversely affect
     the ability of Guard Band licensees to negotiate with spectrum
     users regarding otherwise standard lease provisions, such as
     mandating the use of a particular technology, that other wireless
     licensees are permitted to negotiate.[^402] We note that our
     Secondary Markets spectrum leasing rules do not have similar
     restrictions and our rules generally permit parties to determine
     the precise terms and provisions of their spectrum lease
     agreements.[^403] As noted above, we are adopting for the Guard
     Bands the same spectrum leasing policies set forth in the Secondary
     Markets proceeding. We believe that these policies provide
     sufficient incentives for licensees to lease spectrum usage rights,
     while also providing licensees with the ability to establish
     appropriate operational guidelines with spectrum lessees that
     protect public safety licensees from interference.[^404] As such,
     we eliminate this requirement.

167. *Coordination Requirement*. The Commission requires Guard Band
     Managers to notify public safety frequency coordinators in the
     700 MHz Public Safety Band, as well as adjacent-area Guard Band
     Managers, of the technical parameters of any site constructed in
     the Guard Band Manager's license area. Guard Band Managers must
     provide such identifying information as the frequencies
     coordinated, antenna height and location, and effective radiated
     power.[^405] The BOP proponents argue that the current rules that
     apply to the existing Guard Bands A and B Blocks should be replaced
     with the less burdensome coordination requirements that exist for
     the C and D Blocks.[^406] They argue that under the BOP, there will
     be no commercial operations directly adjacent to public safety
     narrowband channels, and thus heightened coordination requirements
     are unnecessary.[^407]

168. We do not change the coordination requirements for Guard Band
     licensees currently contained in section 27.601(d)(1) of our rules.
     We note that the Commission imposed coordination requirements to
     minimize the potential for interference, and we reiterate that the
     primary purpose of the Guard Bands is to prevent interference to
     adjacent public safety operations. Absent information indicating
     that our coordination requirements do not serve to prevent
     interference, we conclude that we should retain the coordination
     requirements set forth in the rule. Given that we are adopting the
     Secondary Markets spectrum leasing rules for the Guard Band
     service, we clarify how these coordination requirements will work
     in the context of spectrum leasing arrangements. To the extent a
     licensee enters into a spectrum manager lease arrangement, it
     retains *de facto* control of the spectrum and primary
     responsibility for ensuring compliance with the rules.[^408]
     Accordingly, for this type of spectrum leasing arrangement, the
     licensee is required to carry out these coordination
     responsibilities.[^409] If, however, a licensee enters into a *de
     facto* transfer leasing arrangement, the coordination and
     notification tasks set forth in section 27.601 of our rules (as
     well as other responsibilities associated with *de facto* control)
     are, upon Commission approval, transferred from the licensee to the
     spectrum lessee. In this latter type of arrangement, we note that
     although the spectrum lessee becomes primarily responsible for
     complying with the required frequency coordination responsibilities
     under the license authorization, we will continue to hold licensees
     responsible for the failure of a spectrum lessee to comply with the
     Commission's frequency coordination requirements.[^410]

# FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

## Introduction

169. In the Report and Order, above, we provide increased flexibility to
     700 MHz Commercial Services Band licensees to facilitate the
     development of new and innovative services in this spectrum, while
     also advancing the Commission's goals of promoting spectrum access
     and the provision of service in rural areas. In addition, we
     provide additional flexibility to 700 MHz Guard Band licensees to
     enable them to make better use of the Guard Bands spectrum.

170. In this Further Notice, we reach tentative conclusions and make
     proposals with respect to a limited number of key issues affecting
     the 700 MHz Band that affect all three of these proceedings. In
     addition, we seek comment on the "Public Safety Broadband
     Deployment Plan" proposal submitted very recently by Frontline,
     which if adopted in some form potentially could affect decisions in
     all three proceedings. In seeking additional comment in this
     Further Notice, we stress that we intend to rely on the extensive
     record that has already been developed in these proceedings to
     inform our ultimate decisions.

## Discussion

171. This Further Notice encompasses issues pertinent to all three of
     our 700 MHz proceedings, as well as to Frontline's proposal. First,
     based on the record developed in connection with these proceedings,
     we seek comment on various band plan proposals for licensing the
     unauctioned commercial spectrum in the 700 MHz Band on a CMA, EA,
     and REAG basis, and for reconfiguring the size and location of some
     of the spectrum blocks associated with these commercial licenses.

172. Second, we propose to adopt performance requirements for the
     unauctioned 700 MHz Commercial Services licenses based on
     geographic benchmarks. These proposed requirements are intended be
     more stringent than the current "substantial service" requirements.

173. Third, we tentatively conclude that we can adopt neither the BOP,
     nor the proposals to reallocate the returned B Block licenses to
     critical infrastructure industries (CII) or public safety entities,
     because we do not have the statutory authority to adopt key
     components of the proposals. Irrespective of the lack of statutory
     authority, we also tentatively conclude that the BOP and CII
     proposals would not be in the public interest, because of the
     manner in which they propose to assign commercial licenses outside
     of a competitive bidding context, and because they could introduce
     an increased possibility of interference in the proposed assignment
     of licenses. However, we also seek comment on an alternative
     proposal for modification of the Guard Bands in the Upper 700 MHz
     Band recently submitted by parties that have supported the BOP.

174. Fourth, we tentatively conclude to redesignate the public safety
     wideband spectrum for broadband use consistent with a nationwide
     interoperability standard, and to prohibit wideband operations on a
     going forward basis. We also tentatively conclude that should we
     adopt this broadband approach, we should revise the band plan for
     the 700 MHz Public Safety Band by consolidating the existing
     narrowband channels to the upper half of the Public Safety block,
     and designating the lower half of the Public Safety block for
     nationwide interoperable broadband communications. Given these
     tentative conclusions, we further seek comment on a limited set of
     issues that would need to be resolved in order to effectuate the
     reconfiguration.

175. Finally, we seek comment on the Frontline proposal. We ask for
     comment on how this proposal interrelates with our proposals,
     tentative conclusions, and other issues.

### 700 MHz Band Commercial Services 

176. In the Report and Order, we decided to adopt a mix of geographic
     licensing areas for the 700 MHz Band in order to enhance access to
     spectrum by a variety of potential licensees. In particular, we
     revised the geographic areas to consist of CMAs, EAs, and REAGs,
     which will replace the unauctioned EAG-sized license areas in the
     700 MHz Band. We concluded that by providing a mix of CMA, EA, and
     REAG licenses in the 700 MHz Commercial Services spectrum, we
     provide a more balanced set of initial licensing opportunities that
     provide an effective means of access to spectrum especially in
     rural areas, while effectively meeting other Commission goals. In
     this Further Notice, we seek comment on different band plan
     proposals for the use of CMAs, EAs and REAGs in the Lower 700 MHz
     Band and the Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band.

#### Lower 700 MHz Band

177. [Background]{.underline}. In the existing band plan for the Lower
     700 MHz Band, the 48 megahertz of spectrum is divided into five
     blocks: three 12-megahertz paired blocks, each consisting of two
     6-megahertz segments (Blocks A, B, and C); and two 6-meghahertz
     unpaired blocks (Blocks D and E).[^411] In the *700 MHz Commercial
     Services Notice*, we suggested that the current band plan for the
     Lower 700 MHz Band should be retained, but we nevertheless sought
     comment on potential changes to the size of the spectrum blocks in
     the Lower 700 MHz Band.[^412]

178. [Discussion]{.underline}*.* With regard to the Lower 700 MHz Band,
     we propose not to alter the spectrum blocks as currently sized and
     aligned.[^413] The spectrum comprising Lower 700 MHz Band Blocks C
     and D, consisting of 18 of the 48 megahertz in that band, has
     already been auctioned, and the remainder of the Lower 700 MHz Band
     is subject to a statutorily imposed auction schedule. [^414] We
     also note that a number of parties who submitted comments in
     response to the *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice* supported
     retaining the current size of spectrum blocks in the Lower 700 MHz
     Band, including Blocks C and D of that Band.[^415] We therefore
     propose not to change the bandwidth of this licensed spectrum, but
     seek further comment on this proposal.

**[[Figure 5 -- Proposed Reconfiguration of Lower 700 MHz
Band]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

  -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  A        B        C        D        E        A        B        C

  CH. 52   CH. 53   CH. 54   CH. 55   CH. 56   CH. 57   CH. 58   CH. 59
  -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------

698 704 710 716 722 728 734 740 746

[Block]{.underline} [Frequencies]{.underline} [Bandwidth]{.underline}
[Pairing]{.underline} [Area Type]{.underline} [Licenses]{.underline}

A 698-704, 728-734 12 MHz 2 x 6 MHz EA 176

B 704-710, 734-740 12 MHz 2 x 6 MHz CMA 734

C 710-716, 740-746 12 MHz 2 x 6 MHz CMA 734\*

D 716-722 6 MHz unpaired EAG 6\*

E 722-728 6 MHz unpaired REAG 12

\*Blocks have been auctioned.

179. We propose that the unpaired spectrum in the E Block of the Lower
     700 MHz Band continue to be licensed in large regional areas,
     namely, on an REAG basis. As the Commission has found before with
     respect to the 700 MHz band and to the AWS-1 band, and as supported
     by several commenters in this record, licenses based on large
     geographic areas offer certain benefits, such as allowing licensees
     to more easily take advantage of economies of scale to develop new
     technologies and services. We seek comment on whether this proposal
     would serve the public interest.

180. We propose to adopt EAs as the geographic area for licenses in the
     A Block in the Lower 700 MHz Band. We make this proposal because,
     as explained above, there is significant support in the record for
     a mix of licenses, including EA licenses. Given the potential
     public interest benefits of licensing an additional spectrum block
     over a smaller geographic service area, we seek comment on whether
     it would serve the public interest to license the A Block on an EA
     basis.

181. Likewise, we propose that CMAs be adopted as the geographic service
     area for licenses in the B Block of the Lower 700 MHz Band, which
     results in the availability of 734 CMA licenses in this block as
     opposed to 6 EAG licenses. In seeking comment on this proposal, we
     note that certain commenters specifically favor the B Block for
     reassignment on the basis of CMAs.[^416] We also note that, if we
     assign CMAs in the Lower 700 MHz Band B Block, licensees will be
     afforded the opportunity to combine the B Block licenses with
     licenses in the adjacent C Block, which already have been licensed
     over CMAs (MSAs/RSAs).[^417] Accordingly, we seek comment on
     whether converting the B Block to CMA licensing could create
     opportunities for existing licensees in the C Block of the Lower
     700 MHz Band, many of which include small or rural service
     providers, to create a larger block by acquiring another similarly
     sized spectrum block in the auction.

#### Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band

182. [Background]{.underline}. Under the existing band plan for the
     Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band, 30 megahertz of spectrum is
     divided into two blocks: (1) a 10-megahertz paired block consisting
     of two 5-megahertz segments (C Block); and (2) a 20-megahertz
     paired block consisting of two 10-megahertz segments
     (D Block).[^418] In the *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, we
     sought comment on the band plan and whether we should reconfigure
     the size of these spectrum blocks.[^419] We specifically sought
     comment on whether the D Block, currently established as a
     20-megahertz block, should be divided into two or more
     blocks.[^420]

183. [Discussion.]{.underline} The following proposals would make
     several changes to the size and location of the spectrum blocks in
     the band plan currently associated with the Upper 700 MHz
     Commercial Services Band and the 700 MHz Guard Bands, as well as
     the geographic area basis on which the various blocks should be
     licensed. We consider these changes in large part because we are
     tentatively concluding to consolidate the proposed broadband
     portion of the 700 MHz Public Safety Band at the lower portion of
     the Public Safety spectrum, as discussed below, while consolidating
     narrowband operations to the upper portion of the Public Safety
     spectrum. If the Commission adopts such a proposal, the adjacency
     of Public Safety broadband spectrum to commercial broadband
     spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Band may make it possible to make
     adjustments to the Guard Bands spectrum, rendering additional
     spectrum available for commercial use. Under one scenario, the
     existing Guard Band B block would be eliminated entirely, and the
     spectrum subsumed within the commercial spectrum in the Upper 700
     MHz Band, resulting in a total of 34 megahertz available for
     auction. Under another scenario, the Guard Band B Block would be
     reduced from four to two megahertz, and the location of both the
     Guard Band A and B blocks would be shifted within the Upper 700 MHz
     Band. We discuss the proposals below on this basis.

##### Proposals Based on Elimination of the Guard Band B Block

184. *Elimination of the Guard Band B Block.* As noted, adoption of our
     proposal to consolidate the broadband Public Safety spectrum in the
     lower portion of the 700 MHz Public Safety Band may mean that the
     four megahertz of spectrum in the existing Guard Band B Block is no
     longer needed for use as a guard band for the adjacent 700 MHz
     public safety users, and may be consolidated with the rest of the
     commercial spectrum for more efficient and effective use. The
     following proposals would reconfigure the band plan associated with
     the 30 megahertz of commercial spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz
     Commercial Services Band and the four megahertz of commercial
     spectrum in the 700 MHz Guard Band B Block, providing 34 megahertz
     of commercial spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Band available for
     auction throughout most of the nation. These proposals also
     contemplate the creation of a 12 megahertz paired block of
     commercial spectrum (758-764 MHz/788-794 MHz) adjacent to the 700
     MHz Public Safety Band (hereinafter the "adjacent block").

185. In addition to providing additional spectrum for wireless broadband
     services, the new adjacent block could help facilitate the
     transition to wireless broadband for public safety in its 700 MHz
     spectrum. Under these proposals, the adjacent block auction
     winner(s) would have to pay the costs of consolidating the 700 MHz
     Public Safety spectrum with the narrowband allocation at the upper
     end and the broadband allocation at the lower end. We seek comment
     on whether the adjacent block auction winner(s) should, as a
     license condition, be required to post a letter of credit or place
     certain funds in escrow to ensure the availability of funds to
     fulfill this obligation. We also seek comment on how to establish
     the amount and mechanism for implementing such an obligation. For
     example, how should we assess the responsibility for relocating
     public safety operations if there are multiple adjacent block
     auction winners?

186. As mentioned above, the Commission currently holds 42 of the 52
     Guard Band B Block licenses. These proposals would grandfather the
     remaining B Block licenses by allowing them to continue to operate
     in this spectrum under current rules. We seek comment on whether we
     should permit existing Guard Band B Block licensees to operate
     pursuant to the current technical specifications for the Guard Band
     B Block, which contemplate that Guard Band B Block licensees
     operate high-site, high-power communications.[^421] We seek comment
     on whether there would be potential for harmful interference to
     new, co-channel adjacent block licensees, or to public safety
     broadband operations, if we adopt our proposals for the 700 MHz
     Public Safety spectrum. Similarly, if we eliminate the existing
     Guard Band B block, resulting in a 12-megahertz 700 MHz commercial
     block immediately adjacent to the 700 MHz Public Safety block, we
     seek comment on whether any technical or operational restrictions
     or limitations would need to be adopted to protect against
     interference to the proposed broadband public safety operations.

187. In addition, we seek comment on whether the Commission could
     facilitate clearing of the existing Guard Band B Block licensees by
     allowing the incumbents to include their licenses in the auction
     inventory in a "two-sided" auction,[^422] which would make
     available licenses currently held by incumbent Guard Band B Block
     licensees. Commenters should address details of how the existing
     licenses could be incorporated into the auction, and how the
     incumbent licensees could be compensated for "selling" a license.
     Are there other ways we should consider transitioning the existing
     Guard Band B Block licensees to the proposed band plan?

188. We note that a reconfiguration of the band plan for the 700 MHz
     Public Safety Band, as discussed below, may result in the relocated
     narrowband channels being blocked by existing Canadian TV
     broadcasters in certain border areas.[^423] Although the Canadian
     government has agreed to clear broadcasters from TV channels 63 and
     68, there is as yet no such agreement for TV channels 64 and 69,
     where the narrowband channels would rest in their entirety after
     the proposed band plan reconfiguration.[^424] As a temporary
     solution to this problem, we are also seeking comment below in this
     Further Notice on whether to allow, in border areas, narrowband
     voice communications within the 1 megahertz internal guard band
     that is designed (under a band reconfiguration) to protect the
     narrowband channels from the proposed broadband channels.[^425] The
     result of this option would be a corresponding loss of available
     spectrum for broadband communications, since a 1 megahertz internal
     guard band would still be necessary to protect the shifted
     narrowband channels from public safety broadband operations.

189. As a result, under these proposals, we would impose a license
     condition upon the adjacent block licensee, creating a temporary
     easement into the adjacent block to facilitate the full 5 megahertz
     bandwidth of the proposed public safety broadband allocation under
     a band reconfiguration. This easement would terminate upon
     transition of the border broadcast operations and the subsequent
     transition of any relevant public safety users operating on the
     easement. We also seek comment on whether this easement should be
     triggered in all adjacent block licenses that share a border with
     Canada or Mexico, within each licensee's entire service area or
     within the portion that is within range of the conflicting
     broadcaster's service contour. In such a circumstance, should the
     adjacent block licensee be allowed to operate on a secondary basis
     within the easement spectrum, or not at all? Finally, we seek
     comment on whether we have the authority to impose this license
     condition on new adjacent block licensees.

190. [Proposal 1.]{.underline} In the first proposal, we would establish
     a new 22-megahertz C Block (comprised of two 11-megahertz blocks of
     paired spectrum), and a new 12-megahertz D Block (comprised of two
     6-megahertz blocks of paired spectrum). Both the C and D Blocks in
     the Upper 700 MHz Band would be licensed on a REAG basis. A chart
     illustrating this proposal is set forth below.

     **[[Figure 6 -- First Proposal for Reconfiguration of Upper 700 MHz
     Band]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

747 777

  ----- ---- ------- ------- -------- ------- ----- ----- ------- ------- -------- ------
  A     C            D       Public           A     C             D       Public   
                             Safety                                       Safety   

  CH.        CH. 61  CH. 62  CH. 63   CH. 64  CH.         CH. 66  CH. 67  CH. 68   CH. 69
  60                                          65                                   
  ----- ---- ------- ------- -------- ------- ----- ----- ------- ------- -------- ------

746 752 758 764 770 776 782 788 794 800 806

[Block]{.underline} [Frequencies]{.underline} [Bandwidth]{.underline}
[Pairing]{.underline} [Area Type]{.underline} [Licenses]{.underline}

A 746-747, 776-777 2 MHz 2 x 1 MHz MEA 52\*

*B 762-764, 792-794 4 MHz 2 x 2 MHz MEA 52*\*‡

C 747-758, 777-788 22 MHz 2 x 11 MHz REAG 12

D 758-764, 788-794 12 MHz 2 x 6 MHz REAG 12

\*Blocks have been auctioned

‡42 of 52 licenses nationwide held by the Commission, *remaining
licenses potentially grandfathered*

191. Creating a paired, 22-megahertz block of spectrum in a newly
     configured C Block would be responsive to the desires of some
     potential new entrants, as well as many other commenters who
     favored a large 20 megahertz block of spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz
     Band.[^426] For example, the Coalition for 4G in America has
     specifically advocated that we adopt a paired, 22-megahertz license
     in the Upper 700 MHz Band to support new entry.[^427] Under this
     proposal, licensees could purchase licenses in these contiguous
     blocks to create 34-megahertz licenses, which could provide unique
     opportunities to offer broadband services. Further, with regard to
     the larger 22-megahertz C Block REAG licenses, we propose,
     consistent with the desires expressed by the Coalition for 4G
     America,[^428] to auction this block on a combinatorial basis,
     which would further facilitate the aggregation of licenses at
     auction to create a nationwide footprint. We seek comment on this
     proposal.

192. [Proposal 2.]{.underline} This proposed band plan contemplates
     licensing 34 megahertz of commercial spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz
     Band using a mix of REAG, EA and CMA geographic licensing areas. In
     conjunction with the proposed mix of geographic licensing areas in
     the Lower 700 MHz Band,[^429] this proposal seeks to approximate
     the balanced mix of geographic licensing sizes adopted by the
     Commission in the recent AWS-1 auction. It is intended to provide
     opportunities for small providers in rural areas, as well as new
     entrants seeking to establish a nationwide wireless footprint, and
     to afford bidders flexibility to aggregate smaller markets to
     create either a nationwide market, or large regional or other
     customized markets.

     **[[Figure 7 -- Second Proposal for Reconfiguration of Upper 700
     MHz Band]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

747 752.5 777 782.5

  ----- ---- ----- ----- ------- -------- ------- ----- ----- ----- ------ ------- -------- ------
  A     C          D     E       Public           A     C           D      E       Public   
                                 Safety                                            Safety   

  CH.        CH.         CH. 62  CH. 63   CH. 64  CH.         CH.          CH. 67  CH. 68   CH. 69
  60         61                                   65          66                            
  ----- ---- ----- ----- ------- -------- ------- ----- ----- ----- ------ ------- -------- ------

746 752 758 764 770 776 782 788 794 800 806

[Block]{.underline} [Frequencies]{.underline} [Bandwidth]{.underline}
[Pairing]{.underline} [Area Type]{.underline} [Licenses]{.underline}

A 762-763, 792-793 2 MHz 2 x 1 MHz MEA 52\*

*B 762-764, 792-794 4 MHz 2 x 2 MHz MEA 52*\*‡

C 747-752.5, 777-782.5 11 MHz 2 x 5.5 MHz CMA or EA 734 or 176

D 752.5-758, 782.5-788 11 MHz 2 x 5.5 MHz EA 176

E 758-764, 788-794 12 MHz 2 x 6 MHz REAG 12

\*Blocks have been auctioned.

‡42 of 52 licenses nationwide held by FCC, *remaining licenses
potentially grandfathered.*

193. Specifically, this proposal would create two 11-megahertz licenses
     (each composed of two 5.5-megahertz paired blocks) -- the C and D
     blocks -- and a 12-megahertz E block (composed of two 6-megahertz
     paired blocks) similar to the block that is the subject of the
     Frontline proposal discussed below. Under this proposal, we would
     license the C and D Blocks both on an EA basis, or the C Block on a
     CMA basis and the D Block on an EA basis. We would license the E
     Block on a REAG basis. This band plan is not tied to adoption of
     either the Broadband Optimization Plan or the recently filed
     alternative plan. We seek specific comment on whether this proposal
     provides interested bidders with the flexibility to aggregate
     smaller markets to create either a nationwide market, large
     regional or other customized markets, as advocated by a broad array
     of parties.[^430] Also, we seek comment as to whether this band
     plan would offer some potential new entrants an opportunity to
     provide broadband services.[^431] Finally, we seek comment on
     whether to consider licensing these spectrum blocks set forth in
     this proposal on a different geographic basis.

##### Proposals Based on Modified 700 MHz Guard Bands

194. *Modification of the 700 MHz Guard Bands.* The following three
     proposals are premised on: 1) a shift of the Guard Band A Block
     from 746-747/776-777 MHz to 762-763/792-793 MHz; 2) a reduction of
     the Guard Band B Block from 4 megahertz to 2 megahertz; and 3) a
     shift of the Guard Band B Block from 762-764/792-794 MHz to 775-776
     MHz/805-806 MHz. These actions would make 32 megahertz of spectrum
     in the Upper 700 MHz Band (746-762 MHz/776-792 MHz) available for
     commercial licensing.

195. [Proposal 3.]{.underline} Access Spectrum/Pegasus have submitted an
     alternative proposal to the Commission for modification of the
     Guard Bands in the Upper 700 MHz Band, which could also impact the
     configuration of the Upper 700 MHz Band.[^432] According to Access
     Spectrum/Pegasus, its alternative plan would permit the auction of
     32 megahertz of commercial broadband spectrum but leave the size of
     the public safety allocation unchanged. They also argue that it
     would accommodate the consolidation of the public safety narrowband
     spectrum by addressing the Canadian interference issues and public
     safety relocation costs, discussed above. Finally, by proposing an
     11 megahertz block immediately adjacent to the Lower 700 MHz C
     Block, Access Spectrum/Pegasus assert that the alternative proposal
     addresses interference concerns on the record by moving the Guard
     Band A Block.

**[[Figure 8 -- Access Spectrum/Pegasus Alternative
Proposal]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

757  762 763  775    787  792 793  805   

  ------- ----- --- ----- --- -------- ------- ----- --- ------- ----- --- ----- --- -------- ------- ----- ---
  C             D         A   Public                 B   C             D         A   Public                 B
                              Safety                                                 Safety                 

  CH. 60  CH.       CH.                CH. 63  CH.       CH. 65  CH.       CH.                CH. 68  CH.   
          61        62                         64                66        67                         69    
  ------- ----- --- ----- --- -------- ------- ----- --- ------- ----- --- ----- --- -------- ------- ----- ---

746 752 758 764 770 776 782 788 794 800 806

+--------+---+----------+------------------------+---------+---+----------+
| Bro    | G | Na       |                        | Br      | G | Na       |
| adband | B | rrowband |                        | oadband | B | rrowband |
|        |   |          |                        |         |   |          |
| 5 MHz  |   | 6 MHz    |                        | 5 MHz   |   | 6 MHz    |
+--------+---+----------+------------------------+---------+---+----------+

196. Access Spectrum/Pegasus propose to "shift" down the 700 MHz Public
     Safety Band by 1 megahertz to remedy potential narrowband
     interference issues with Canada and Mexico, if the Commission
     determines that a consolidation of the narrowband channels to the
     top of the public safety allocation is in the public interest. In
     implementing the "shift," the current A Block at 746-747 MHz and
     776-777 MHz would be displaced and relocated, and the Upper 700 MHz
     C Block would become a 22-megahertz block (comprised of two
     11-megahertz paired blocks) through redistribution of a total of 2
     megahertz of current B Block spectrum. According to Access
     Spectrum/Pegasus, a 22-megahertz C Block would address potential
     interference concerns and would be responsive to record support for
     an 11-megahertz paired block. The alternative plan proposes that
     the D Block would be a 10-megahertz block, (comprised of two
     5-megahertz paired blocks) and that the newly configured B Block
     would be reduced from a total of 4 megahertz to 2 megahertz. In
     addition, with the displacement of the A Block, Access
     Spectrum/Pegasus propose that the Commission modify the licenses of
     the incumbent A Block licensees, essentially "repacking" the newly
     configured A Block with all current A and B Block licensees.

197. Access Spectrum/Pegasus propose to work with the Commission to
     ensure that all current A Block and B Block licensees can be
     accommodated in the newly configured A Block.[^433] Subject to
     certain conditions, Access Spectrum/Pegasus would also agree to pay
     for the transition of public safety narrowband operations in the
     band. Their proposed conditions include: (a) the newly configured
     A Block sharing the same service rules as the Upper 700 MHz C and D
     Blocks, including application of our Secondary Markets rules;
     and (b) the Commission removing the cellular architecture
     restrictions on the newly configured A Block.[^434]

198. We seek comment on Access Spectrum/Pegasus' alternative proposal
     and its likely effects on both the commercial and public safety
     users in the 700 MHz Band. We also seek comment on whether, and to
     what extent, the Commission should: (a) adopt certain, but not all,
     elements of the Access Spectrum/Pegasus alternative proposal; (b)
     modify any elements of the proposal, adopt any additional
     requirements, or adopt any alternative requirements to achieve the
     same or similar public interest goals; and (c) consider alternative
     approaches to encourage public-private partnerships for sharing
     spectrum between public safety users and commercial licensees in
     the 700 MHz Band.

199. The Access Spectrum/Pegasus proposal to shift down the public
     safety block by 1 megahertz would result in the overlap of public
     safety spectrum onto 1 megahertz of each pair of the current Guard
     Bands B Block licenses, including licenses that are currently
     encumbered in certain areas of the country. As a proposed solution
     to this problem, Access Spectrum/Pegasus offers to work with the
     Commission and the current Guard Bands B Block licensees to repack
     all of the current Guard Bands licensees into the newly configured
     A Block. We note that, in addition to Access Spectrum/Pegasus,
     two other current Guard Bands B Block license holders, PTPMS II and
     Harbor Guard Band, LLC, have indicated that they will work with the
     Commission to develop a plan that treats each party fairly.[^435]
     We seek comment on the extent to which the Commission may rely on
     these private negotiations to resolve the spectrum overlap problem.
     We are concerned that, if all incumbent Guard Bands licensees do
     not come to an agreement consistent with Access Spectrum/Pegasus'
     alternative proposal, public safety and commercial operations in
     areas with incumbent B Block licensees would be significantly
     curtailed. We tentatively conclude that the Commission should
     reject Access Spectrum/Pegasus' alternative proposal if the
     incumbent licensees are unable to come to an agreement.

200. [Proposal 4.]{.underline} If we determine that we are able to
     modify the Upper 700 MHz Guard Bands in the manner proposed by
     Access Spectrum/Pegasus in connection with their alternative band
     plan proposal, we seek comment on other options the Commission may
     take. For example, we seek specific comment on the proposals
     illustrated below.

**[[Figure 9 -- First Additional Proposal Based on Modified Guard
Bands]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

751.5 757 762   763 775    781.5 787 792   793 805   

  ------ --- ----- --- ----- --- -------- ------- ----- --- ----- ------ --- ----- --- ----- --- -------- ------- ----- ---
  C      D         E         A   Public                 B         C      D         E         A   Public                 B
                                 Safety                                                          Safety                 

  CH. 60     CH.       CH.                CH. 63  CH.       CH.              CH.       CH.                CH. 68  CH.   
             61        62                         64        65               66        67                         69    
  ------ --- ----- --- ----- --- -------- ------- ----- --- ----- ------ --- ----- --- ----- --- -------- ------- ----- ---

746 752 758 764 770 776 782 788 794 800 806

[Block]{.underline} [Frequencies]{.underline} [Bandwidth]{.underline}
[Pairing]{.underline} [Area Type]{.underline} [Licenses]{.underline}

C 746-751.5, 776-781.5 11 MHz 2 x 5.5 MHz REAG 12

D 751.5-757, 781.5-787 11 MHz 2 x 5.5 MHz REAG 12‡

E 757-762, 787-792 10 MHz 2 x 5 MHz EA 176‡

A 762-763, 792-793 2 MHz 2 x 1 MHz MEA 52\*

B 775-776, 805-806 2 MHz 2 x 1 MHz MEA 52\*

\*Blocks have been auctioned, at different locations in band plan.

‡If Frontline proposal were adopted, D Block would be licensed on EA
basis with 176 licenses, and E Block would be a single, nationwide
license.

201. This proposed band plan is composed of a mix of REAG and EA
     geographic licensing areas for the Upper 700 MHz Band. In
     conjunction with the tentative conclusion regarding the mix of
     geographic licensing areas in the Lower 700 MHz Band, this band
     plan closely approximates the balanced mix of geographic licensing
     sizes adopted by the Commission in the recent AWS auction. This
     band plan will provide opportunities for small providers in rural
     areas, as well as new entrants seeking to establish a nationwide
     wireless footprint.

202. Specifically, this band plan proposes to license the C and D Blocks
     as two separate 11-megahertz licenses (each composed of two
     5.5-megahertz paired blocks) on a REAG basis, with an E Block
     similar to the block that that is the subject of the Frontline
     proposal discussed below licensed as a 10-megahertz license
     (composed of paired 5-megahertz blocks) on an EA basis. We seek
     specific comment on whether this proposal regarding the C and D
     Blocks will provide interested bidders with an opportunity to
     combine the two blocks into a single 22-megahertz license, which
     some potential new entrants have suggested would provide unique
     opportunities to provide broadband services.[^436] We also seek
     specific comment on whether one or both of the C and D Blocks
     should be auctioned on a combinatorial basis in order to further
     facilitate the aggregation of a nationwide footprint, and if so,
     how this should be accomplished.

203. In addition, we propose that if the Commission were to adopt the
     Frontline proposal discussed below (effectively treating the E
     block as a single national geographic license), we would license
     the D Block on an EA basis (and maintain the C Block on a REAG
     basis) in order to maintain a balanced mix of geographic license
     sizes. We seek comment on this proposal.

204. [Proposal 5.]{.underline} Finally, we seek comment on an additional
     alternative proposal that assumes that we modify the guard bands.
     As set out below, under this band plan we would license the C and D
     blocks as two 11-megahertz licenses (each composed of two
     5.5-megahertz paired blocks), with a 10-megahertz E Block (composed
     of paired 5-megahertz block). The C Block would be licensed on a
     REAG basis, and the D and E Blocks would be licensed on an EA
     basis.

**[[Figure 10 -- Second Additional Proposal Based on Modified Guard
Bands]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

751.5 757 762   763 775    781.5 787 792   793 805   

  ------ --- ----- --- ----- --- -------- ------- ----- --- ----- ------ --- ----- --- ----- --- -------- ------- ----- ---
  C      D         E         A   Public                 B         C      D         E         A   Public                 B
                                 Safety                                                          Safety                 

  CH. 60     CH.       CH.                CH. 63  CH.       CH.              CH.       CH.                CH. 68  CH.   
             61        62                         64        65               66        67                         69    
  ------ --- ----- --- ----- --- -------- ------- ----- --- ----- ------ --- ----- --- ----- --- -------- ------- ----- ---

746 752 758 764 770 776 782 788 794 800 806

[Block]{.underline} [Frequencies]{.underline} [Bandwidth]{.underline}
[Pairing]{.underline} [Area Type]{.underline} [Licenses]{.underline}

C 746-751.5, 776-781.5 11 MHz 2 x 5.5 MHz REAG 12

D 751.5-757, 781.5-787 11 MHz 2 x 5.5 MHz EA 176

E 757-762, 787-792 10 MHz 2 x 5 MHz EA 176‡

A 762-763, 792-793 2 MHz 2 x 1 MHz MEA 52\*

B 775-776, 805-806 2 MHz 2 x 1 MHz MEA 52\*

\*Blocks have been auctioned, at different locations in band plan.

‡If Frontline proposal were adopted, E Block would be a single,
nationwide license.

205. A number of parties have argued that a more flexible Upper 700 MHz
     band plan that includes a mix of licenses could better support a
     variety of business plans and ensures that the spectrum is made
     available to the bidders that value it most. There is a concern
     that a band plan with only REAGs in the Upper 700 MHz Band may
     artificially favor only the largest wireless incumbents or
     particular business models. These principles have been supported by
     a large number of commenters including large wireless
     providers,[^437] tribal governments,[^438] state regulators,[^439]
     and a large coalition of wireless providers.[^440] These principles
     reflect the Commission's statutory obligation to ensure "an
     equitable distribution of licenses and services among geographic
     areas" and to "avoid \[ \] excessive concentration of licenses . .
     . by disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants,
     including small businesses, rural telephone companies, and
     businesses owned by members of minority groups and women."[^441]

206. The above band plan takes into account these several positions by
     providing for a mix of REAGs and EAs in the upper band plan based
     in part on the 700 MHz guard band and public safety spectrum
     restructuring advocated by Access Spectrum and Pegasus. By
     splitting the larger 22-megahertz block into two 11-megahertz
     blocks, we increase the opportunity for all providers to actively
     participate in the auction. We also would allow for combinatorial
     bidding on the C Block to facilitate the ability of entities to
     secure a national license.  We seek comment on the merits of this
     proposal and on the specific areas selected for the blocks: two EAs
     and one REAG. Parties are also encouraged to comment on possible
     changes to this band plan in the event the Commission adopts a
     proposal similar to the one advanced by Frontline.  Finally, we
     seek comment on the impact of this band plan on potential new
     entrants, some of which have argued that a larger 22-megahertz
     block is critical for their market entry business plans.[^442]

#### Performance Requirements

207. [Background.]{.underline} In the *Upper 700 MHz First Report and
     Order*, the Commission adopted the performance requirements in
     Section 27.14(a) of its rules for licenses in the 746-764 and
     776-794 MHz Bands.[^443] The rules outlined in Section 27.14(a)
     require licensees to provide "substantial service" within ten years
     of license issuance.[^444] The *Upper 700 MHz First Report and
     Order* also established safe harbors for meeting the substantial
     service requirement. Specifically, the Commission decided that it
     would consider a licensee to be providing "substantial service"
     when the licensee constructs four permanent links per one million
     people in the licensed service area (when fixed, point-to-point
     service is offered) or if the licensee demonstrates coverage of 20
     percent of the population of the licensed service area (when the
     licensee offers either mobile services or fixed, point-to-point
     service).[^445] In the *Lower 700 MHz Report and Order*, the
     Commission adopted the same substantial service standard and safe
     harbors for licenses in the 698-746 MHz Band.[^446] As with all
     Wireless Radio Service licenses, failure to meet the specified
     performance requirements under the particular license authorization
     within the required period results in automatic license
     termination.[^447]

208. In addition, the Commission established a safe harbor related to
     the provision of mobile service in rural areas in the *Rural Report
     and Order*. In that Order, the Commission stated that a licensee
     providing mobile service in various bands, including the 700 MHz
     Band, "will be deemed to have met the substantial service
     requirement if it provides coverage to at least 75 percent of the
     geographic areas of at least 20 percent of the 'rural areas' within
     its licensed area."[^448] This "rural safe harbor" is in addition
     to the safe harbors specifically established for fixed and mobile
     services in the 700 MHz Band.

209. In the *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, we sought comment on
     whether the Commission should revise these existing performance
     requirements, or adopt alternative build-out rules, for unauctioned
     licenses in the 700 MHz Band in order to promote access to spectrum
     and the provision of service to consumers.[^449] In particular, the
     *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice* sought comment on the
     effectiveness of the existing substantial service standard and safe
     harbors and whether changes or revisions, such as additional safe
     harbors, should be adopted to better promote service, especially in
     rural areas.[^450] The *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice* also
     sought comment on whether the Commission should adopt alternative
     performance requirements, such as population-based or
     geography-based benchmarks, instead of the substantial service
     standard.[^451] Finally, we sought comment on whether it should
     adopt a "keep-what-you-use" performance requirement similar to the
     policy applied to cellular service in the 1980s, or a slightly
     modified version called "triggered keep-what-you-use."[^452]

210. Commenters have presented various positions on the issue of
     performance requirements, with most discussion centering on a
     debate between retaining the existing substantial service standard
     and adopting some type of a "keep-what-you-use" approach. Many of
     those parties that commented on this issue -- representing a mix of
     large, medium, and small CMRS providers, as well as two providers
     of broadband technology -- recommend that the Commission maintain
     its existing substantial service standard.[^453] In contrast, a
     number of other commenters support a "keep-what-you-use" approach,
     including rural CMRS providers, a tribal government, and a
     coalition of state government agencies.[^454] Blooston does not
     support a "keep-what-you-use" approach for licenses that are based
     on RSAs but believe the Commission should consider applying this
     standard to licenses based on larger geographic service
     areas.[^455]

211. Some commenters argue in favor of population- or geography-based
     construction benchmarks, and some of these parties recommend a
     combination of both benchmarks and a "keep-what-you-use"
     approach.[^456] In particular, RCA supports a combination of
     geographic benchmarks and a "keep what you use" rule. Under the RCA
     proposal, licensees would be required to employ a signal level
     sufficient to provide service to at least 25 percent of the
     geographic area of their license area within three years, 50
     percent of the geographic area of their license area within five
     years, and 75 percent of the geographic area of their license area
     within eight years. In addition, at the end of the license term, a
     "keep what you use" rule would be applied, in which the unserved
     portions of the license areas would return to the Commission for
     reassignment.[^457] Vermont Department of Public Service *et al.*
     also offer a combination of benchmarks and a "keep what you use"
     rule. Under the proposal by Vermont Department of Public Service
     *et al.*, the licensee would face either a population-based
     benchmark that required coverage of 50 percent of the population of
     the license area within five years and 90 percent of the population
     within eight years, or a geographic-based benchmark that would
     require coverage of 40 percent of the license area within five
     years and 75 percent of the license area within eight years. In
     addition, as with the RCA proposal, the proposal by the Vermont
     Department of Public Service *et al.* would apply a "keep what you
     use" standard to reclaim unused spectrum at the end of the license
     term. [^458]

212. [Discussion.]{.underline} Given the numerous and competing
     arguments offered by commenters, and considering the importance of
     rules that promote access to spectrum and the provision of service,
     we seek further comment on the performance requirements for the 700
     MHz Commercial Services licensees. As the basis for our
     consideration, we propose to use a modified version of RCA's
     recommendation, which combines performance requirements based on
     geographic benchmarks and a "keep what you use" rule. Specifically,
     we propose that each licensee provide coverage of 25 percent of the
     geographic area of the license within three years of the grant of
     the initial license, 50 percent of this area within five years, and
     75 percent of the area within eight years. We seek comment on this
     proposal, including its advantages and disadvantages. To the extent
     commenters believe these proposed benchmarks should be higher or
     lower, we request that they provide information that would
     corroborate the benefits of their proposed benchmarks and the costs
     and benefits of alternative approaches. Comments should address
     whether these specific geographic benchmarks would promote access
     to spectrum and the provision of service.

213. We also propose to consider the relevant service area to exclude
     all government land. Under this approach, a licensee with a
     geographic service area that includes land owned or leased by
     government would be able to meet the build-out benchmarks by
     employing a signal level that is sufficient to provide service to
     the relevant percentages of land in the service area that is not
     owned or leased by government.[^459] If a licensee employs a signal
     level that provides coverage to land that is owned or leased by
     government, we seek comment on whether the licensee could count
     this land area and coverage as part of its service area for
     purposes of measuring compliance with the performance benchmark.
     Similarly, we seek comment on whether we should adopt a "keep what
     you use" standard that also excludes those portions of the licensed
     areas that encompass land owned or leased by government. In
     particular, we ask how a "keep what you use" rule that excluded
     government land would be applied in areas, such as Alaska, in which
     vast portions of the state or region include such land.

214. We also seek comment on the potential consequences for licensees
     that fail to meet the interim requirements to cover a minimum
     percentage of the geographic area of their license area. For
     example, licensees that fail to meet these benchmarks could have
     the length of their license term reduced. Alternatively, licensees
     that fail to meet the benchmarks could have their license area
     reduced under a proportionate "keep what you use" approach, as
     proposed by RCA.[^460] Under this alternative, the reduction of the
     license area would be sufficient to create a resulting license area
     in which the area currently covered meets the relevant interim
     benchmark. For example, if a licensee employs a signal level
     sufficient to provide service to only 20 percent of the geographic
     area by the three-year benchmark, the licensee would be required to
     return a portion of the licensee's unserved area to the Commission,
     so that the covered area equals at least 25 percent of the
     remaining portion of the license area. A similar process would be
     used if a licensee fails to meet the five- and eight-year
     benchmarks.

215. We also seek comment on how we might apply a "keep what you use"
     rule to this proposal. In particular, we ask whether the Commission
     should apply such a standard to all of the licensees for the
     unauctioned 700 MHz Band Commercial Services or only to those
     licensees that fail to meet their geographic benchmarks. For
     example, the Commission could apply the "keep what you use" rule at
     the end of the license term, regardless of the level of
     construction by the licensee. Alternatively, licensees that fail to
     meet the 75 percent geographic area coverage requirement could be
     subject to a "keep what you use" rule applied either at the 8-year
     benchmark or at the end of the license term, while licensees that
     meet the 8-year benchmark could be exempt from a "keep what you
     use" rule.

216. In addition, we ask commenters to address the process by which the
     Commission should reclaim unused spectrum under a "keep what you
     use" rule, and specifically, how such spectrum should be made
     available to new users. For example, we seek comment on whether
     parties that hold licenses for other spectrum in the same
     geographic area should be eligible to acquire the unused spectrum
     of another licensee after the Commission reclaims this spectrum and
     makes it available via competitive bidding. Similarly, we seek
     comment on whether the initial licensee should be eligible to bid
     on spectrum that it previously held as part of its original
     license. For both these alternatives, we ask that commenters
     address how a particular policy would help promote service to the
     unserved area and whether there would be a risk of negative
     effects, such as a loss of potential competition.

217. We also propose to apply our performance requirements on an EA and
     CMA basis only. Under such an approach, licensees with REAGs would
     be required to employ a signal level sufficient to provide adequate
     service to at least 25 percent of the geographic area of each EA in
     its license area within three years, 50 percent of the geographic
     area of each of these EAs within five years, and 75 percent of the
     geographic area of each of these EAs within eight years. REAG
     licensees that fail to meet the interim requirement in any EA
     within their license areas would lose a portion of the geographic
     area of that EA, such that the coverage of the remaining portion of
     the EA would be sufficient to meet the relevant benchmark.

218. We propose that licensees demonstrate their compliance with
     benchmarks by filing maps and other supporting documents with the
     Commission.[^461] Would such information be sufficient to provide
     the Commission with easily identified areas, which could be
     reclaimed and reassigned via competitive bidding under a "keep what
     you use" approach? We also ask for comment on whether the
     Commission should reclaim the spectrum in unused areas in
     pre-defined units, such as counties. Those commenters that
     recommend a county-based "keep what you use" standard also should
     provide recommendations on how the Commission should apply this
     standard in the event a licensee serves only a small portion of a
     county, such as a highway or an area that is adjacent to a county
     that has more coverage by the licensee. We seek comment on these
     alternatives.

219. In addition, assuming licensees with REAGs are required to meet the
     performance requirements on an EA basis, we propose that these
     licensees would have to demonstrate coverage for each EA within
     their license area. Licenses based on EAs or CMAs would have to
     demonstrate coverage for their respective geographic license areas.

220. Finally, we seek comment on any other proposal that would similarly
     apply build-out requirements to these licensees more stringent than
     the substantial service standard applied under our current rules,
     and on how such proposals could be implemented. For example, should
     we use population rather than geographic benchmarks?

#### Incumbent Eligibility

221. We also seek comment on the proposal presented by Media Access
     Project and the Ad Hoc Public Interest Spectrum Coalition (PISC) to
     encourage the entry of new competitors by excluding incumbent local
     exchange carriers (ILECs), incumbent cable operators, and large
     wireless carriers from eligibility for licenses in the 700 MHz
     Band.[^462] In the alternative, PISC suggests that these incumbents
     only be eligible for licenses in the 700 MHz band through
     structurally separate affiliates, which it contends would make it
     possible to detect whether the incumbent receives more favorable
     treatment than unaffiliated providers.[^463] We also seek comment
     on whether we should encourage the entry of new broadband
     competitors through lesser restrictions on eligibility for
     obtaining new licenses, both at auction and in the secondary
     market. More particularly, we seek comment on whether only parties
     not affiliated with existing wireline broadband service providers,
     including both DSL and cable providers, should be eligible to hold
     one or more blocks of the Upper 700 MHz C Block spectrum.
     Alternatively, should we restrict eligibility for such licenses to
     parties not affiliated with in-region wireline broadband service
     providers? Finally, as an alternative to limiting the parties
     eligible for new licenses in the 700 MHz Band, we seek comment on
     whether parties unaffiliated with incumbent wireline broadband
     service providers should receive a bidding credit on licenses in
     one or more block of the Upper 700 MHz spectrum. We also seek
     comment on how such new entrant bidding credits should be
     coordinated with existing bidding credits for small businesses,
     *i.e.*, should new entrant credits be cumulative or exclusive of
     small business bidding credits.

### 700 MHz Guard Bands

#### Band Plan Proposals

222. [Background]{.underline}. Although the Guard Bands occupy a
     relatively small portion of the 700 MHz Band, changes to the Guard
     Bands---in terms of location or allocation of the
     spectrum---potentially implicate the entire Upper 700 MHz band
     plan. A shift in location or other change to the Guard Bands could
     impact the neighboring 24 megahertz public safety allocation and
     the forthcoming auction of the "recovered analog spectrum" that is
     subject to the statutory deadline established by Congress. In
     addition, because the Guard Bands are strategically located as
     interference buffers between commercial operations and public
     safety narrowband channels, modifications to the Guard Bands could
     potentially have an effect on the interference environment within
     the Upper 700 MHz Band.

223. In the *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*, the Commission sought comment
     regarding the BOP, a proposal filed by a consortium including most
     of the existing Guard Band Managers.[^464] According to the BOP,
     the existing A Block would be eliminated and the existing A Block
     licensees would be relocated to a modified B Block that the BOP
     proponents have renamed the new A Block. Of the current 2 megahertz
     paired of B Block spectrum, 0.5 megahertz paired would be added to
     the adjacent public safety allocation. The remaining 1.5 megahertz
     paired would be designated the new A Block, and the 1 megahertz
     paired of current A Block spectrum would be added to the public
     safety allocation. These changes would increase the total
     allocation of public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz Band from 24 to
     27 megahertz and increase the total amount of spectrum held by the
     current A Block licensees from 2 megahertz to 3 megahertz.

224. To permit broadband deployment in the new A Block without causing
     interference to public safety narrowband operations, the BOP
     proposes that the public safety narrowband voice channels be
     consolidated to the upper portion of the 700 MHz Public Safety
     block, and public safety broadband channels be located next to the
     new A Block.[^465] The BOP assumes that the new A Block licensees
     are likely to deploy compatible broadband operations in their
     adjacent allocations, minimizing the potential for interference
     between commercial and public safety operations.[^466]

**[[Figure 11 -- Broadband Optimization Plan]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

751 761 762.5 776 781 791 792.5

  ----- --- ------- ----- --- -------- ------- ------- ----- --- ------- ----- --- -------- ------ ------
  C     D                 A   Public                   C     D                 A   Public          
                              Safety                                               Safety          

  CH.       CH. 61  CH.                CH. 63  CH. 64  CH.       CH. 66  CH.                CH. 68 CH. 69
  60                62                                 65                67                        
  ----- --- ------- ----- --- -------- ------- ------- ----- --- ------- ----- --- -------- ------ ------

746 752 758 764 770 776 782 788 794 800 806

+---------+---+----------+---+-----------------+---------+---+-----------+---+
| Br      | G | Na       | G |                 | Br      | G | N         | G |
| oadband | B | rrowband | B |                 | oadband | B | arrowband | B |
|         |   |          |   |                 |         |   |           |   |
| 5.5 MHz |   | 6 MHz    |   |                 | 5.5 MHz |   | 6 MHz     |   |
+---------+---+----------+---+-----------------+---------+---+-----------+---+

225. Further, the BOP proposes that licenses for the new A Block would
     be assigned through a private negotiation among existing Guard Band
     licensees who would determine how the markets would be distributed,
     based on total MHz-pops of Guard Bands spectrum currently held by a
     particular licensee, rather than through competitive bidding of the
     new A Block.[^467] This negotiation would include an assignment
     through private negotiation of any of the B Block licenses returned
     from Nextel and currently within the Commission's auction
     inventory.[^468] Any licenses unclaimed through the private
     negotiation would be available for auction.

226. Other parties also submitted band plan proposals to the Commission.
     The *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice* sought comment on a proposal
     submitted by Motorola, Inc. (Motorola) and the United
     Telecommunications Council (UTC),[^469] which requested that the
     Commission reallocate part of the returned B Block spectrum to
     critical infrastructure industries communications (CII) in support
     of interoperability with public safety entities.[^470] Motorola
     subsequently proposed that within the framework of the BOP, 1
     megahertz of spectrum could be allocated to CII.[^471] Another
     commenter, Ericsson Inc., supports the BOP's reconfiguration of the
     700 MHz Public Safety Band to the extent that it proposes to
     consolidate public safety narrowband channels at the upper half of
     the block allocated to public safety, and designate five megahertz
     of spectrum next to the B Block for broadband use.[^472] Unlike the
     BOP, however, Ericsson's proposal recommends that the Commission
     reallocate the entire B Block for exclusive public safety
     use.[^473] Another commenter, Alcatel-Lucent, originally endorsed a
     6 + 6 reconfiguration of the public safety allocation, but
     subsequently revised its proposal to also provide for a
     reallocation of the B Block Guard Band spectrum to public
     safety.[^474]

227. [Discussion]{.underline}. We tentatively conclude that we should
     not adopt the BOP, or other proposals to the extent that they
     propose a reallocation of commercial spectrum for public safety
     use, or the reassignment of spectrum outside of the competitive
     bidding process. We believe that Congress's express instructions
     regarding our allocation of commercial and public safety spectrum
     in the 700 MHz Band statutorily prohibit the Commission from
     reallocating the spectrum at this time, and we therefore cannot
     reallocate commercial spectrum for public safety use as proposed by
     the BOP and Ericsson plans. Similarly, we believe we are required
     to use a competitive bidding process to assign the spectrum that
     has been allocated for commercial use pursuant to these statutory
     instructions, and therefore must also deny the BOP and the CII
     proposals on this basis. Even if we possessed legal authority to
     adopt the BOP and CII proposals, we believe these proposals are not
     in the public interest because they would assign additional
     spectrum to current licensees without competitive bidding. We are
     also concerned that the BOP could result in interference between
     700 MHz Band public safety and commercial operations.

228. *Legal authority.* In Section 337(a) of the Act, Congress mandated
     that the Commission allocate "spectrum between 746 MHz and 806 MHz,
     inclusive" (*i.e.*, the Upper 700 MHz Band) by designating 24
     megahertz of the spectrum "for public safety services" and 36
     megahertz of the spectrum "for commercial use to be assigned by
     competitive bidding pursuant to section 309(j)."[^475] As directed
     by Congress, the Commission allocated 24 megahertz of this spectrum
     for public safety use at 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz and 36
     megahertz of this spectrum for commercial use at 746-764 MHz and
     776-794 MHz.[^476] The 36 megahertz of Upper 700 MHz Band spectrum
     allocated for commercial use included the Guard Bands.[^477]
     Notably, in deciding whether or not to allow commercial operations
     inside the Guard Bands, which primarily were designed to protect
     public safety operations, the Commission concluded that it was
     constrained by Congress' clear mandate to allocate, and thus
     auction, a full 36 megahertz of commercial spectrum in the Upper
     700 MHz Band.[^478] If the Commission had decided to prohibit
     commercial operations inside the Guard Bands, it would have fallen
     6 megahertz short of fulfilling the explicit allocation requirement
     in Section 337(a).[^479]

229. According to the BOP proponents, once spectrum allocated to
     commercial use pursuant to Section 337(a) has been auctioned once,
     the Commission has satisfied its allocation obligations under
     Section 337, and thus can reallocate the spectrum for public safety
     use pursuant to its broad spectrum management authority.[^480] As
     support for this interpretation of Section 337(a), the BOP
     proponents note that the Commission has similarly re-designated
     commercial spectrum to public safety use in the 800 MHz Band.[^481]
     The BOP proponents assert that "\[s\]imilar public policy
     considerations and the exercise of the same statutory authority
     support allocation of the Upper 700 MHz \[Band\] B Block to public
     safety use consistent with the \[BOP\]."[^482] Ericsson does not
     offer a legal argument in support of its proposed reallocation of
     the B Block from commercial to public safety use.

230. We recognize the unique communications needs of public safety
     entities and the instrumental role that spectrum in the 700 MHz
     Band can play in meeting those communications needs. To that end,
     we remain committed to ensuring effective and efficient
     communications between first responders as evidenced by the other
     actions and tentative conclusions we make today in this *Further
     Notice*. It appears, however, that the reallocation of commercial
     spectrum to public safety contemplated by the various Guard Bands
     proposals -- in particular, the BOP, the Ericsson plan, and the
     revised Alcatel-Lucent plan -- would be inconsistent with
     Section 337. If the proponents of reallocation are correct, and
     Section 337(a) does not establish a permanent legislative bar on
     reallocating the Upper 700 MHz Band, we nevertheless believe that
     it would be contrary to Congress' intent in enacting Section 337 to
     consider modifying the commercial and public safety allocations in
     the band at this time, before the licensees have had a meaningful
     opportunity to use unencumbered spectrum as initially envisioned
     (an opportunity that is unlikely to be fully available before the
     end of the DTV transition in 2009).[^483] Absent further
     legislation, and given that we have not yet reached several
     fundamental milestones envisioned by Congress in the DTV
     transition, reallocation of spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Band at
     this time would appear to be inconsistent with Section 337.[^484]

231. We also believe that we cannot reassign licenses in the manner
     proposed by the BOP and the CII proponents. In accordance with
     Section 337's mandate that commercial spectrum in the 700 MHz Band
     be assigned by competitive bidding, the Commission established in
     the *Upper 700 MHz Second Report and Order* a licensing framework
     providing that mutually exclusive applications in this band would
     be subject to competitive bidding pursuant to Section 309(j) of the
     Act.[^485] This licensing scheme resulted in two auctions of the
     Guard Band licenses.[^486]

232. The BOP proponents seek a reassignment of a total of 1 megahertz
     from the B Block to the current A Block licensees without
     competitive bidding.[^487] They argue that they should be given
     this spectrum because it would "create conditions conducive to
     public safety/commercial broadband partnerships."[^488] They also
     contend that granting them this additional spectrum would result in
     more efficient and effective use of the spectrum because it would
     allow the A Block licensees to provide broadband services, which
     are not possible in the paired 1 megahertz spectrum blocks that
     they currently hold.[^489] The CII proponents also seek to be
     awarded the B Block licenses without being subjected to competitive
     bidding. While offering that this spectrum would remain allocated
     as commercial spectrum, they maintain that the exemption to
     competitive bidding set out in Section 309(j) of the Commission's
     rules for "public safety radio services" would apply to the extent
     that CII provide essential public services and maintain
     infrastructures that can prevent or respond to disasters or
     crises.[^490]

233. Even assuming agreement with the BOP proponents' reasoning for
     assigning additional spectrum to the current A Block licensees, it
     appears that we lack legal authority to assign them additional
     commercial spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Band absent competitive
     bidding, because any such action would be inconsistent with the
     auction requirements in Sections 337(a). We also believe that
     awarding the commercial bands to CII outside of the competitive
     bidding process would be inconsistent with Section 337(a).[^491] As
     noted above, Section 337(a)(2) prescribes competitive bidding as
     the method of assigning commercial spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz
     Band.[^492] For the same reasons that we cannot reallocate the band
     at this time, we cannot alter the method of assignment at this
     time.

234. In addition, if we do not have the statutory authority at this time
     to assign additional Upper 700 MHz Band spectrum to public safety,
     the "public safety radio services" exception to Section 309(j) of
     the Communications Act would be inapplicable.[^493] Finally, with
     respect to the BOP proponents' comparisons of their proposal to the
     re-banding of the 800 MHz Band, we observe that our initiatives in
     that band did not implicate the Section 337 requirements under
     discussion here. Thus, the BOP proponents' reliance on the fact
     that the 800 MHz re-banding initiatives "withstood judicial
     scrutiny" is irrelevant.[^494]

235. *Public Policy Considerations.* Even assuming we have the legal
     authority to assign additional spectrum to the current A Block
     licensees without competitive bidding, we believe that the BOP
     proposal for assigning licenses outside the competitive bidding
     process would not serve the public interest. As noted above, the
     BOP proponents argue that giving them additional spectrum will
     allow them to provide broadband services and create opportunities
     for public safety/commercial broadband partnerships and that such
     action is consistent with the Commission's reasoning in the 800 MHz
     proceeding. Although the A Block licensees' desire to provide
     broadband services is laudable, that desire appears insufficient to
     justify giving those licensees spectrum that otherwise would be
     assigned by auction. Congress and the Commission have determined
     that using competitive bidding mechanisms for assigning spectrum
     licenses offers significant public interest benefits.[^495] For
     example, the competitive bidding process ensures that spectrum
     licenses are assigned to those who place the highest value on the
     resource and will be suited to put the licenses to their most
     efficient use.[^496] Moreover, the Commission has recognized that
     the public interest is generally served by an auctions process that
     is open to a variety of applicants.[^497] In addition, we believe
     it is likely that there will be substantial interest in the
     returned B Block spectrum by potential applicants other than the
     A Block licensees.

236. The BOP proponents' reliance on our actions in the 800 MHz Band
     appears misplaced. Although the Commission found that certain
     license modifications at issue in that proceeding were in the
     public interest, the 800 MHz rebanding involved ongoing public
     safety and commercial operations experiencing "intractable"
     interference problems that were impairing public safety
     operations.[^498] These problems were the result of a
     "fundamentally incompatible mix" of communications systems
     operating in a heavily interleaved band pursuant to technical rules
     that had been developed over several decades.[^499] By contrast,
     the BOP proponents are not seeking to remedy an ongoing
     interference problem between validly licensed and operational
     public safety and commercial entities that developed over time.

237. Further, in the *Air-Ground Order*,[^500] we rejected an incumbent
     licensee\'s assertion that it should be afforded exclusive rights
     to use its existing spectrum on a more flexible basis that would
     allow it to provide broadband. In that order, we removed a
     limitation requiring voice and slow speed data service in the 800
     MHz air-ground band and provided new licensees the flexibility to
     offer broadband services to aircraft of any type, and to serve any
     or all aviation markets. We reasoned that affording an incumbent
     licensee exclusive use with such increased flexibility would
     provide it with a substantial windfall, and concluded that
     permitting competing applications for licenses in that band would
     better serve the public interest. We believe our action in the
     *Air-Ground Order* supports a conclusion that adoption of the BOP
     would not be in the public interest, as the BOP proposes that
     incumbent licensees be afforded, without the prospect of competing
     applications, additional bandwidth beyond its existing spectrum
     assignment in addition to enhanced technical flexibility to provide
     broadband service.

238. We seek comment on these public policy concerns and any similar
     policy concerns, including our assessment that license assignment
     by auction is preferable to license assignment by private
     negotiation or other non-auction methods.

239. In addition to the above public policy concerns, we note that
     adoption of the BOP could also raise potential interference issues.
     The Commission created service rules for the Guard Bands that
     correspond to the specific environment of the existing Upper
     700 MHz Band. As noted above, the primary purpose of the Guard
     Bands was to create a buffer between commercial and public safety
     operations, which would serve to reduce potential interference.
     Further, the Commission provided for licensees to offer new
     services in the Guard Bands, subject to strict technical and
     operational rules to prevent harmful interference to public safety
     operations in the adjacent bands.

240. Verizon Wireless argues in an *ex parte* that several aspects of
     the BOP are too indeterminate to assess the risk for interference
     between public safety and commercial operations. Verizon notes that
     under the BOP, the 1-megahertz internal public safety guard band
     located at 775-776 MHz would be adjacent to the C Block and the
     internal public safety guard band at 805-806 MHz would be adjacent
     to the 806--809 MHz public safety narrowband channels, and that
     these guard bands would be within the control of, and allocated to,
     public safety.[^501] The BOP proposes that the same technical rules
     that apply to the existing A Block would apply to operations inside
     this internal guard band.[^502] Verizon is concerned that public
     safety operations deployed in the internal guard band at 775-776
     MHz would receive interference from operations in the adjacent
     C Block. According to Verizon, the C Block licensee would be
     compelled to correct this interference by dedicating part of its
     own spectrum as an internal guard band, and limiting usefulness of
     this spectrum for commercial operations.[^503] NPSTC confirms that
     public safety could deploy operations in the internal guard bands.
     NPSTC acknowledges that the "guard band status" of this paired
     1-megahertz buffer "tempers the full capacity/value \[that the\]
     channel otherwise has but \[it\] still has operational
     capabilities."[^504]

241. We seek comment on the potential interference concerns Verizon
     raises, including the possibility that operations in the proposed
     internal public safety guard band could be undertaken by public
     safety licensees. We also seek comment on the possibility that a C
     Block licensee might have to limit emissions at the lower portion
     of its authorized spectrum block in some manner, which could limit
     its ability to fully utilize its block and thereby limit service
     offerings.

242. *Access Spectrum/Pegasus Alternative Proposal*. Acknowledging
     potential legal concerns with the BOP, especially with respect to
     the proposed reallocation of spectrum from commercial use to public
     safety services, Access Spectrum/Pegasus have submitted an
     alternative proposal to the Commission for modification of the
     Guard Bands in the Upper 700 MHz Band, which is discussed in detail
     above.[^505] In addition to our discussion of this proposal above,
     we note our tentative conclusion above that Section 337 and the
     public interest weigh against awarding 700 MHz spectrum outside of
     the competitive bidding process at this time. We also note,
     however, that Access Spectrum/Pegasus do not seek any additional
     spectrum in their alternative proposal, but instead seek to have
     the Commission modify their 1 megahertz paired A Block license to
     specify operations in a new 1 megahertz paired A Block license at
     different frequencies. We seek comment on whether the alternative
     proposal sufficiently addresses Section 337 and public interest
     concerns regarding the assignment of spectrum outside of the
     competitive bidding process. We also seek comment on whether the
     licensed geographic areas in the new A Block should be the same as
     in the current A Block.

#### Other Guard Band Issues

243. We seek further, limited comment here on what the Commission should
     do if it decides to leave the existing Guard Bands substantially
     intact. For example, assuming we modify the public safety
     allocation, the B Block's role as a critical juncture between
     adjacent commercial and public safety broadband spectrum would
     potentially be enhanced. After a reconfiguration of the public
     safety allocation, the B Block would rest between large commercial
     and public safety spectrum blocks, both of which are well-suited
     for broadband communications. In that context, we could provide
     incumbent B Block licensees, as well as future licensees via
     auction, greater technical and operational flexibility than
     currently exists by revising our rules regarding restrictions on
     cellular architectures, and mandating low-site, low-power system
     architectures. Such initiatives could afford B Block licensees the
     previously unavailable potential to offer compatible broadband
     services within their paired 2 megahertz of spectrum, thereby
     creating additional opportunities for efficient and effective use
     of the spectrum. These opportunities could include entering into
     public/private partnerships with the adjacent public safety
     broadband operator(s), partnering with other commercial licensees
     to deploy commercial broadband systems, and attracting a broader
     pool of potential leasing partners interested in deploying
     broadband.

244. Because the Commission is committed to resolving the issues raised
     in this *Further Notice* on an expedited basis, we note that if we
     were to retain the existing band plan, we could simultaneously
     require B Block licensees to deploy low-site, low-power system
     architectures, and permit them to deploy cellular systems.[^506] At
     the same time, we would likely request detailed comment on these
     and any additional prospects for enhancing the utility of the
     B Block in order to augment the record developed in response to the
     *Guard Bands Notice*. We seek comment on these ideas, specifically
     whether the low-site, low-power system architecture requirement,
     together with removal of the restriction on cellular architectures,
     is a positive step toward enhancing the B Block should we
     ultimately decide not to adopt any proposal to eliminate or
     substantially modify the Guard Band B Block.

245. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should make changes
     to the A Block Guard Bands spectrum under the current band plan.
     For example, we seek comment on whether the technical flexibility
     we might allow for the B Block would also be possible in the A
     Block. Are low-site, low-power system architectures technically
     feasible for the upper Guard Bands A Block immediately adjacent to
     the Public Safety spectrum allocation? If not, would it
     nevertheless be useful to provide such flexibility for the lower
     Guard Bands A Block? With the lower A Block's proximity to both the
     Lower 700 MHz C Block and the Upper 700 MHz C Block, certain
     technical modifications might improve compatibilities in the band.
     We also seek comment on whether, similar to our discussion above
     for the Guard Bands B Block, there would be a public interest
     benefit to allowing the current A Block licensees to include their
     spectrum in the auction inventory in a "two-sided" auction.[^507]

### Competitive Bidding Procedures

246. We seek comment on whether we should use limited information (or
     "anonymous bidding") procedures in the upcoming auction of new 700
     MHz licenses, in order to deter anticompetitive behavior that may
     be facilitated by the release of information on bidder interests
     and identities. Current competitive bidding rules permit
     withholding information on bidder interests and identities prior to
     the close of bidding. Accordingly, the Commission can make a final
     decision regarding the procedures for the auction as part of the
     regular pre-auction process. We seek comment here in light of the
     potential importance of this band with respect to competition in
     broadband services and in order to assess whether the use of
     anonymous bidding should be a factor in determining the final band
     plan for new 700 MHz licenses.

247. In prior auctions, the Commission has adopted procedures,
     contingent on pre-auction assessments of likely competition in the
     auction, for withholding public release until the close of the
     auction of: (1) bidders' license selections on their short form
     applications and the amount of their upfront payments; and (2) the
     identities of bidders placing bids.[^508] In the context of those
     prior auctions, the Commission noted that there may be potential
     harms as well as benefits from publicly revealing all information
     during the auction process.[^509] In this proceeding, the Ad Hoc
     Public Interest Spectrum Coalition asserts that anonymous bidding
     for new 700 MHz licenses is critical to promoting competitive entry
     in wireless broadband.[^510] In contrast, United States Cellular
     Corporation contends that smaller auction participants need
     information about larger entities' bids during the auction and that
     smaller auction participants may encounter difficulties with
     financing, if the Commission withholds the information during the
     auction.[^511]

248. We seek comment on the balance of potential harms and potential
     benefits from releasing information on bidder identities and
     interests during the auction of new 700 MHz licenses. In recent
     auctions where the Commission has considered withholding
     information about bidder identities and interests during the
     auction, the Commission has assessed likely competition in the
     auction and determined that, given the anticipated level of
     competition, the benefits of releasing the information outweighed
     the potential harms. However, if the potential harms of releasing
     the information are substantial enough, or the potential benefits
     of releasing the information so slight, it may be appropriate to
     withhold the information regardless of the likely level of
     competition. For this auction, we seek comment on whether the
     potential to use new 700 MHz licenses to create alternatives to
     existing broadband networks increases the benefits from anonymous
     bidding by making it harder for existing providers to identify and
     impede the efforts of potential new entrants to win. Does the lack
     of readily available technologies for use in the band, relative to
     existing broadband networks in other bands, reduce the potential
     benefit of using bidders' identities to guess what technologies
     will be deployed? Given the potential harms and benefits from
     releasing information on bidder identities and interests during the
     auction of new 700 MHz licenses, should the Commission make its
     decision regarding the release of the information contingent on an
     assessment of likely competition? If so, should the Commission
     change how it makes its pre-auction assessment of likely
     competition?

249. We also seek comment on whether the potential use of anonymous
     bidding should be a factor in determining the final band plan.
     Would a band plan with a greater number of small licenses be more
     or less appropriate if bidders are able to bid anonymously for
     those licenses? Commenters should make clear what factors support
     their position on anonymous bidding, how these factors apply to
     this auction, and the extent to which these factors may depend upon
     the final band plan adopted. Commenters should address whether
     their views are dependent on whether the Commission conditions the
     implementation of such limits on a measure of the anticipated
     competitiveness of the auction, such as the eligibility ratio or a
     modified version of the eligibility ratio.

### 700 MHz Public Safety Spectrum 

250. We tentatively conclude to redesignate the public safety wideband
     spectrum for broadband use consistent with a nationwide
     interoperability standard, and to prohibit wideband operations on a
     going forward basis.[^512] Further, should we adopt this broadband
     approach, we tentatively conclude that we should consolidate the
     existing narrowband allocations to the upper half of the 700 MHz
     Public Safety Band, and locate broadband communications in the
     lower half of this band. In addition, we tentatively conclude that
     we should establish an internal guard band between the narrowband
     and broadband allocations. We also seek comment on a limited number
     of issues relating to use of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum,
     should we reallocate the wideband spectrum to broadband use.

#### Broadband

251. The current distribution of channels in the 700 MHz Public Safety
     Band includes a mix of narrowband, wideband general use, wideband
     interoperability and wideband reserve channels.[^513] In the *700
     MHz Public Safety Eighth* *Notice*, the Commission sought comment
     on revisions proposed by the National Public Safety
     Telecommunications Council (NPSTC), Motorola, and Lucent to the
     band plan.[^514] All of the proposals contemplated aggregating the
     wideband general use channels, wideband interoperability channels,
     and wideband reserve spectrum to form a broadband segment. The
     Commission also sought comment on ways in which public safety
     entities could use the 700 MHz public safety spectrum for broadband
     applications, and on measures that should be taken to promote
     broadband interoperability.[^515]

252. In response to the *700 MHz* *Public Safety Eighth Notice*, the
     overwhelming majority of public safety entities support some form
     of a broadband allocation in the existing 700 MHz Public Safety
     block.[^516] NPSTC and APCO recognize that "broadband would enable
     real-time, full motion video from any location to any other
     location; live video from an emergency scene to a command center;
     downloading building diagrams and blueprints to firefighters in the
     field; uploading and downloading of mug shots and AMBER Alert
     photos for police officers in the field; mapping/location-based
     services; digital image transfers; large file transfers; and
     bioterrorism detection and response information."[^517] NPSTC notes
     that public safety communications needs, once limited to voice
     communications, are now expanding rapidly to encompass new
     broadband applications.[^518] In addition, while not discounting
     the continued need for narrowband voice and data, NPSTC contends
     there is an imperative need for a 700 MHz nationwide, interoperable
     public safety broadband network and that the 700 MHz public safety
     spectrum is especially suitable for that purpose.[^519]

253. Based on this significant support in the record, we tentatively
     conclude that providing broadband spectrum for advanced public
     safety communications would best serve our goal of enabling first
     responders to protect safety of life, health and property. While
     some commenters argue that the Commission should continue to allow
     public safety entities the flexibility to deploy either wideband or
     broadband applications,[^520] we tentatively conclude that
     providing such flexibility could hinder efforts to deploy a
     nationwide, interoperable broadband network by perpetuating a
     balkanization of public safety spectrum licenses, networks, and
     technology deployment. Further, only through use of broadband
     networks could public safety leverage advanced commercial
     technologies and infrastructure to reduce costs and speed
     deployment, and enable the potential for priority access to
     commercial networks during emergencies. Accordingly, we believe
     that only broadband applications consistent with a nationwide
     interoperability standard should be deployed in the current
     wideband allocation of the 700 MHz Band. We thus tentatively
     conclude to reallocate spectrum previously designated for wideband
     use for broadband use only, and prohibit wideband operations on a
     going forward basis. We seek comment on these tentative
     conclusions.[^521]

#### Band Plan Issues

254. As noted above, in the *700 MHz Public Safety Eighth* *Notice*, the
     Commission sought comment on proposals to aggregate the public
     safety wideband channels to form a broadband segment. The
     Commission solicited alternative proposals, but tentatively
     concluded overall not to alter the locations of the narrowband
     channels.

255. In the *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*, we sought comment on the BOP
     which, aside from its Guard Bands components, proposes a
     reconfiguration of the band plan for the 700 MHz Public Safety
     spectrum where the narrowband channels are consolidated to the
     upper half of the block, and the lower half of the block is
     dedicated to broadband operations. In the *700 MHz Guard Bands
     Notice*, we tentatively concluded that any proposal such as the BOP
     involving a relocation of the narrowband voice channels must
     address (1) the source of funds to reprogram already-deployed 700
     MHz Band public safety radios, and (2) coordination of the proposal
     with co-channel TV broadcasters in Canada and Mexico at border
     areas.[^522]

256. In response to the *700 MHz Public Safety Eighth* *Notice* and the
     *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*, commenters generally support a
     reconfiguration of the 700 MHz Public Safety Band.[^523] The BOP
     proponents assert that such reconfiguration reduces the amount of
     spectrum consumed for separating---and thus protecting---the public
     safety broadband and narrowband channels from each other, and thus
     frees up additional spectrum for public safety use resulting in a
     potential contiguous 5-megahertz block of broadband spectrum.[^524]
     The WiMAX Forum adds that a 5-megahertz channel size enables a
     fuller range of applications, and facilitates partnerships between
     public safety broadband operations and 4G commercial broadband
     technologies, which also are based on 5 megahertz spectrum
     blocks.[^525] Alcatel-Lucent states that consolidation of the
     narrowband channels would lower the risk of intermodulation
     distortion in narrowband receivers.[^526]

**[[Figure 12 -- Proposed Reconfiguration of 700 MHz Public Safety
Band]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

769 799

  ------------ ---- ------------ ------------ --------- -------- ------------ ---- ------------
  Public                                                         Public            
  Safety                                                         Safety            
  Allocation                                                     Allocation        

  Broadband    GB   Narrowband   Commercial                      Broadband    GB   Narrowband
                                 Allocation                                        

  CH. 63            CH. 64       CH. 65       CH. 66    CH. 67   CH. 68            CH. 69
  ------------ ---- ------------ ------------ --------- -------- ------------ ---- ------------

764 770 776 782 788 794 800 806

>     Broadband Channel(s)
>
>     Narrowband Channels

257. Having tentatively concluded that only broadband applications
     consistent with a nationwide interoperability standard may be
     deployed in the current wideband allocation for public safety in
     the 700 MHz Band, we seek to take further steps to optimize the
     band plan for this spectrum, essentially building upon the public
     safety-related proposals in the BOP and the record developed
     pursuant to the *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice* and *700 MHz Public
     Safety Eighth Notice*. Specifically, we tentatively conclude that,
     assuming we decide to adopt this broadband approach, we will
     consolidate the existing narrowband allocations to the upper half
     of the 700 MHz Public Safety block, and will designate the lower
     half of the block for broadband operations. Additionally, we
     tentatively conclude that we will adopt a 1 megahertz internal
     guard band at the top of the resulting broadband allocation to
     buffer it from the narrowband allocation and thus prevent
     interference.

258. In addition, we seek comment on whether we should revise the OOBE
     limit required for Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band base
     stations to protect public safety operations in the band if we
     adopt the tentative conclusions discussed above. In particular, we
     seek comment on the proposal by Access Spectrum *et al.* that, in
     these circumstances, we should replace the existing limit of 76 +
     10log P applicable to emissions into the 700 MHz Public Safety
     spectrum with the 43 + 10logP OOBE standard that protects
     commercial services in the 700 MHz Band.[^527]

259. We also seek comment on a limited number of related questions
     regarding: (1) whether to allow limited use of the internal guard
     band in areas along the Canadian border to the extent that Canadian
     broadcasters cause interference to the relocated narrowband
     channels; (2) whether to adopt a transition plan, and what that
     plan should be; and (3) whether and how such transition should be
     funded.

260. *Temporary Use of Internal Guard Band in International Border
     Areas*. The *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice* observed that a
     reconfiguration of the band plan for the 700 MHz Public Safety
     spectrum may result in the relocated narrowband channels being
     blocked by existing Canadian TV broadcasters in border areas.[^528]
     Although the Canadian government has agreed to clear broadcasters
     from TV channels 63 and 68, there is no such agreement for TV
     channels 64 and 69.[^529] Because we have tentatively concluded
     here that we will consolidate the public safety narrowband channels
     onto TV channels 64 and 69, they are subject to interference from
     Canadian broadcast operations throughout the duration of Canada's
     transition to DTV. We note that one virtue of the BOP is its
     differing approach to a reconfiguration of the band plan for 700
     MHz Public Safety spectrum, where its shift in the spectral
     location of the block dedicated to public safety results in an
     overlap of 1 megahertz of the 6-megahertz paired narrowband
     channels with TV channels 63 and 68, which Canada has already
     agreed to clear.[^530] The BOP did not provide any corresponding
     detail with respect to areas along the Mexican border.

261. Because we tentatively conclude that we cannot adopt the BOP as
     discussed earlier, and thus its overlap feature would not be
     available to mitigate channel conflicts in the Canadian and Mexican
     border areas, we seek comment on whether to temporarily allow, in
     border areas, narrowband voice communications within the public
     safety internal guard band that we have tentatively concluded will
     be required to protect the narrowband channels from the broadband
     channels.[^531]

262. *Transition Issues*. Given our tentative conclusion to permit only
     broadband applications consistent with a nationwide
     interoperability standard in the channels presently allocated for
     wideband, and to reconfigure the 700 MHz Public Safety band plan,
     we also must address how best to migrate existing narrowband
     operations on channels 63 and 68 to channels 64 and 69. Our
     licensing database shows that there are 38 narrowband licenses on
     channels 63 and 68 that would be subject to relocation. In
     addition, all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and
     the District of Columbia were granted State Licenses, which
     authorize use of certain narrowband channels on TV channels 63, 64,
     68 and 69.[^532] No licenses appear to have been issued for
     wideband General Use channels.[^533] The wideband interoperability
     channels and the reserve spectrum have not been available for
     licensing. Some RPCs voice concerns that consolidating the
     narrowband channels will disrupt planning.[^534] On the other hand,
     the record suggests that the costs and inconveniences of
     consolidating the narrowband channels are minor compared to the
     relative potential for accommodating future technologies.[^535]

263. We seek comment on how to implement reconfiguration of the 700 MHz
     public safety narrowband channels with minimum disruption to
     incumbent operations. Given the relatively small number of
     incumbents that would be affected, we seek comment on whether
     relocation procedures adopted in other contexts may apply
     here.[^536] We also seek comment on the appropriate timing of
     relocating narrowband operations. How quickly should the narrowband
     channel consolidation be completed, in view of the February 17,
     2009 date by which incumbent broadcasters are to be cleared from
     the 700 MHz Band? Further, how does the existence of broadcast
     incumbents prior to the DTV transition impact timing? Commenters
     also should address any special situations in border areas adjacent
     to Canada and Mexico, as more fully addressed below.

264. *Funding Issues*. Primary to the issue of how a relocation of
     public safety narrowband would occur is the determination of the
     costs of the relocation and how (or from whom) the costs will be
     covered. In order to estimate the true costs associated with
     relocation as accurately as possible, we seek up-to-date
     information regarding how many narrowband radios are currently
     deployed and how many are actively being used.[^537] Based on those
     estimates, we ask commenters to quantify the costs that would be
     involved with consolidating the narrowband channels and relocating
     existing deployments. We also seek comment on how these costs
     should be funded, if we should not adopt the tentative conclusion
     above to impose the funding requirement on the D Block
     licensees.[^538] Given the significant benefits of reconfiguration,
     and that the number of entities impacted and expected cost of
     reconfiguration should be relatively minor (especially in
     comparison to, *e.g.*, the 800 MHz Band reconfiguration),[^539] it
     is also appropriate to consider, among other options, whether
     public safety should pay for its own relocation costs. The
     Commission has on occasion required incumbents to fund their own
     relocations.[^540]

265. We recognize that the public safety community's ability to fund the
     reconfiguration may be limited.[^541] In this regard, however, some
     commenters have suggested that a portion of the \$1 billion Public
     Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program may be used to
     defray the expense of relocating public safety.[^542] We seek
     comment on the potential availability of monies from this fund for
     paying the costs of narrowband consolidation. We also seek comment
     on whether there are other potential funding sources from existing
     grant programs. Finally, we seek comment on whether we should
     require the nationwide licensee of the commercial Upper 700 MHz
     spectrum block proposed by Frontline to fund the reconfiguration.
     Similarly, if we auction Guard Bands B Block licenses, including
     those returned from Nextel, should we require the auction winners
     to fund the reconfiguration costs, given the implicit benefits to
     the B Block of the reconfiguration?[^543] To the extent that the
     Commission determines that it is in the public interest to license
     a nationwide public safety broadband licensee pursuant to the
     *Public Safety Ninth Notice*, should the nationwide licensee be
     assigned responsibility for funding the reconfiguration?

#### Power Limits for Public Safety Broadband

266. In the Report and Order, above, we modify our power limit rules for
     the Upper and Lower 700 MHz Commercial Services Band by
     implementing a PSD model for defining power limits, permitting
     increased power in rural areas, and permitting radiated power
     levels to be measured on an average, rather than peak, basis. As
     discussed above, this action will permit higher power and increased
     flexibility for 700 MHz Commercial Services Band licensees
     implementing wider band technologies, with certain measures in
     place to protect against any possible increased interference,
     especially to 700 MHz public safety users.

267. We also tentatively conclude to permit only broadband applications
     in the 700 MHz Public Safety Band consistent with a nationwide
     interoperability standard in the channels presently allocated for
     wideband. We seek comment on whether it is appropriate to provide
     the same flexibility to 700 MHz Public Safety broadband operations
     as that afforded 700 MHz Commercial Services Band licensees by
     implementing a PSD model for defining power limits, permitting
     increased power in rural areas, and permitting measurement of power
     levels on an average, versus peak, basis. We also seek comment on
     whether the technical restrictions adopted today for the 700 MHz
     Commercial Services Band with respect to interference protection,
     if applied to public safety broadband spectrum, will protect
     adjacent band operations.

### Frontline's Proposal

268. In this section we seek comment on Frontline's proposal that the
     Commission alter the upper portion of the Upper 700 MHz Commercial
     Services Band to designate a 10 megahertz "E Block" for a
     commercial licensee and to impose specific conditions on that
     licensee requiring it to construct and operate a nationwide,
     interoperable broadband network for sharing with a national public
     safety licensee providing broadband service in the lower portion of
     the 700 MHz Public Safety spectrum.[^544] Comment also is sought on
     service rules proposed by Frontline.

269. [Background]{.underline}. Frontline has submitted filings with the
     Commission regarding its proposed "Public Safety Broadband
     Deployment Plan" for 700 MHz spectrum.[^545] These filings, which
     propose various conditions on 10 megahertz of the commercial 700
     MHz spectrum that we are required to auction, also are related to
     issues in the 700 MHz Guard Bands proceeding and the 700 MHz Public
     Safety proceeding*.*[^546]

270. In the *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, we requested comment
     on possible changes to the existing service rules and band plan for
     non-guard-band commercial spectrum that is being reclaimed by the
     Commission in connection with the DTV transition.[^547] Among other
     matters, Frontline seeks a revision of the band plan that would
     divide the existing 20-megahertz D Block of the Upper 700 MHz Band
     to create a new paired 5 megahertz "E Block" (10 megahertz total).

271. In the *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*, we sought comment on possible
     changes to the existing service rules and band plan for the six
     megahertz of Guard Bands spectrum licensed to protect the
     operations in the adjacent 700 MHz Public Safety spectrum.[^548]
     Specifically relevant to Frontline, which supports the BOP,[^549]
     is our tentative conclusion in this Further Notice that we cannot
     adopt the BOP due to a lack of statutory authority and because, in
     any event, adoption of the BOP would not be in the public
     interest.[^550]

272. *Frontline's Proposal*. Frontline proposes that the Commission
     alter the upper portion of the band plan and service rules in the
     *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice* in order to auction a single
     nationwide 10-megahertz license (a new "E Block") near the 700 MHz
     Public Safety spectrum that would be subject to specific
     conditions. The "E Block" would consist of the paired 757-762 MHz
     and 787-792 MHz frequencies, which currently comprises the upper
     half of the 20-megahertz D Block of the Upper 700 MHz Band.[^551]
     As discussed in more detail below, the new paired "E Block"
     licensee would construct and operate a common infrastructure to
     support a broadband public safety network as well as its own
     commercial broadband network.[^552]

273. Frontline's proposal is premised on the Commission adopting a
     number of measures the Commission has proposed, including: (a)
     designating 12 megahertz of the 700 MHz Public Safety spectrum from
     wideband to broadband use; (b) positioning that 12 megahertz of
     broadband public safety at the bottom of the public safety
     allocation in the 700 MHz Band; and (c) assigning this spectrum
     nationwide to a single national public safety broadband
     licensee.[^553]

274. With respect to the newly created "E Block," Frontline proposes
     imposing the following obligations, among others, on this
     nationwide licensee:

-   The "E Block" licensee would be required to construct a common,
    interoperable network infrastructure that can be used by both the
    public safety broadband network and the "E Block" licensee's
    commercial network.[^554] The details of the network would be
    specified in a Network Sharing Agreement negotiated by the "E Block"
    licensee and the National Public Safety Licensee.[^555]

-   The "E Block" licensee would be required to meet the following
    build-out benchmarks: provide coverage to 75 percent of the United
    States population within four years of the 700 MHz "auction clearing
    date"; provide coverage to 95 percent of the United States
    population within seven years; and provide coverage to 98 percent of
    the United States population within 10 years. As regards Alaska, the
    licensee would be required to provide coverage to all Alaskan cities
    of 10,000 or more within four years of the 700 MHz auction clearing
    date.[^556]

-   The "E Block" licensee would be responsible for managing and
    operating the public safety broadband network, and would be
    permitted to collect a reasonable network management fee. This fee,
    and the terms and conditions governing the "E Block" licensee's
    management of the network, would be specified in the Network Sharing
    Agreement.[^557]

-   The "E Block" licensee would be required to provide priority access
    to public safety broadband operations during times of emergency.
    These requirements would be specified in the Network Sharing
    Agreement.[^558]

275. Frontline also sets forth several additional elements as part of
     its proposal. The term of the "E Block" license would be for 15
     years, and would be subject to a renewal expectancy upon the
     completion of "substantial service."[^559] It also states that
     participation by public safety would be purely voluntary, and that
     public safety would remain free to build its own network in the 700
     MHz spectrum.[^560] In addition, Frontline proposes that the "E
     Block" licensee should be required to operate as a wholesale
     provider with respect to commercial use of the "E Block" spectrum.
     Similarly, referencing a Petition recently filed by Skype
     Communications, Frontline proposes that the "E Block" licensee be
     required to provide open access to its network, allowing the
     attachment of any device to the network and permitting users to
     access services and content provided by unaffiliated parties. As
     proposed, this requirement would apply not only to the "E Block"
     license, but to all other licenses owned or controlled by the "E
     Block" licensee. [^561] Similarly, Frontline recommends that the "E
     Block" licensee be required to offer roaming to any provider with
     customers utilizing devices compatible with the "E Block" network,
     and that such obligation be extended to all spectrum holdings of
     the "E Block" licensee.[^562] Frontline supports the BOP, which
     would, among other things, eliminate the current Guard Band B Block
     and allocate additional spectrum to public safety, but also
     indicates that its proposal for the commercial 700 MHz Band is not
     dependent on any Commission action regarding the Guard Band
     B Block.[^563]

276. Several parties have filed in response to the Frontline
     proposal.[^564] For example, Media Access Project supports
     Frontline's proposal as being in the public interest, argues that
     it would ensure that public safety has access to needed spectrum in
     an efficient manner, and claims that a national license would
     provide affordable spectrum access.[^565] CTIA requests that
     Frontline's proposal be dismissed, arguing, among other matters,
     that it is prohibited by Section 337 of the Communications
     Act.[^566] MetroPCS opposes Frontline's proposal on several
     grounds, including that it is disruptive to the current process for
     adopting rules for the 700 MHz Band, contains proposed "poison
     pill" rules that will make the spectrum unattractive to potential
     bidders, has wholesale operating restrictions that require
     unwarranted change to the current DE rules, potentially subjects
     public safety users to a provider that could exact unregulated user
     fees, and subjects public safety users to a potentially uncertain
     public/private partnership arrangement.[^567] NPSTC states that
     Frontline's proposal should receive close examination, and
     expresses concern with leaving to the competitive bidding process
     the choice of an operator of a nationwide public service broadband
     network.[^568] United States Cellular opposes adoption of
     Frontline's proposal, arguing, among other matters, that the
     proposal would "all but eliminate" competitive bidding for the
     spectrum and would restrict spectrum use.[^569] The *Ad Hoc* Public
     Interest Spectrum Coalition supports Frontline's proposal to make
     the "E Block" available on an open access basis and requests that
     the Commission go further, making at least three of the 700 MHz
     commercial licenses (or 30 megahertz of spectrum) available on such
     a basis.[^570]

277. [Discussion]{.underline}. We seek comment on Frontline's proposed
     "Public Safety Broadband Deployment Plan," its likely effects on
     both the commercial and public safety users in the 700 MHz Band,
     and whether it would be in the public interest for the Commission
     to adopt such a proposal, or alternatives to achieve the same or
     similar public interest goals. We also seek comment on whether, and
     to what extent, the Commission should: (a) adopt certain, but not
     all, elements of the Frontline proposal; (b) modify any elements of
     the proposal, adopt any additional requirements, or adopt any
     alternative requirements to achieve the same or similar public
     interest goals; and (c) consider alternative approaches to
     encourage public-private partnerships for sharing spectrum between
     public safety users and commercial licensees in the 700 MHz Band.

278. We also seek comment on the extent to which adoption of the
     Frontline, or similar, proposal should have an impact on our
     decisions regarding the Guard Bands. Under Frontline's proposal,
     Guard Band B Block would be located between the new "E Block" and
     the public safety spectrum. We seek comment on whether the Guard
     Band B Block should be integrated with a new block of spectrum to
     be made available in the Upper 700 MHz Band for purposes of
     implementing the Frontline Plan or similar proposal.

279. Similarly, we seek comment here on the extent to which adoption of
     the Frontline, or similar, proposal should affect our decisions
     regarding the remainder of the commercial spectrum blocks in the
     Upper 700 MHz Band that we are required to auction. We ask that
     comments address Frontline's proposal in the context of our
     proposals expressed in this Further Notice regarding the size of
     spectrum blocks and geographic service areas, including a
     comparison of Frontline's proposal that the 757-762 MHz and 787-792
     MHz spectrum be designated for the new "E Block." If the Commission
     adopted the Frontline proposal, the amount of spectrum to be
     auctioned for commercial services pursuant to flexible service and
     technical rules in the Upper and Lower 700 MHz Band would decrease
     by ten megahertz, from 60 to 50 megahertz.

280. We seek comment as well on Frontline's view that there is no need
     to impose any CALEA, E911, or similar obligations on the "E Block"
     licensee because it believes that retail service providers using
     the "E Block" spectrum will already be subject to those
     requirements.[^571] Should we adopt any specific requirements
     applicable to retail service providers or equipment manufacturers
     in regard to the "E Block?" For example, should some or all public
     safety equipment operating on an "E Block" built network be capable
     of accessing satellite communications (including handsets and other
     mobile or fixed receivers)? Should we require the "E Block"
     licensee to incorporate satellite-based technology into its network
     infrastructure?

281. *Network Sharing Agreement.* We note Frontline's view that the
     proposed "E Block" licensee and a potential national public safety
     licensee would have strong incentives to reach agreement on
     suitable terms for a lease and that the Commission should not
     attempt to adopt detailed rules to implement its proposal but
     should rely on a requirement that the "E Block" licensee negotiate
     in good faith.[^572] Frontline proposes that the Commission should
     leave to the "Network Sharing Agreement" negotiations the
     definition of "emergency" for purposes of the requirement that the
     "E Block" licensee provide priority access to affected public
     safety broadband operations during emergencies.[^573]

282. We tentatively conclude that, if we adopt Frontline's proposal or
     some similar proposal, we will need to impose conditions on the "E
     Block" license as well as the national public safety license to
     deal with the circumstance where the bidder winning the new "E
     Block" at auction and the national public safety licensee are
     unable to reach agreement on a Network Sharing Agreement.
     Successful negotiation of that agreement is a critical first step
     to achieving the benefits to public safety under the Frontline
     proposal. We are concerned that under certain circumstances the
     parties may not be able to reach agreement, which could result in a
     significant delay in implementation. To avoid this result, we
     tentatively conclude that the Commission would not grant a license
     to the bidder winning the "E Block" at auction until the winning
     bidder files a Network Sharing Agreement with the Commission for
     approval. We would also condition the national public safety
     license on the licensee submitting to binding arbitration in the
     event it cannot reach agreement with the "E Block" winner. If the
     winning bidder and the national public safety licensee are unable
     to reach agreement, they would be required to enter into binding
     arbitration to resolve outstanding issues.

283. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion, and whether imposing
     such conditions would be an incentive for the parties to reach a
     suitable and speedy resolution in order to avoid arbitration. If
     the parties are unable to reach an agreement and thus have to
     submit to binding arbitration, would this condition then facilitate
     the ability of the parties to reach such an agreement? We seek
     comment on whether any particular requirements should be adopted in
     connection with such conditions, including a requirement that the
     parties report to the Commission on the status of the negotiations.
     We also ask commenters to consider whether there are other
     conditions that should be placed on an "E Block" licensee to ensure
     that an agreement is reached quickly and in a manner that is
     satisfactory to public safety, or if there is additional oversight
     that the Commission should exercise. Should we require that an
     agreement to be reached by a certain date? Should the Commission
     require status reports or other periodic reporting from the "E
     Block" licensee? If we do not adopt a binding arbitration proposal,
     what should be the consequence for failing to reach agreement in a
     timely manner, or for otherwise failing to comply with the Network
     Sharing Agreement requirement? Should the Commission have authority
     to appoint board members to the governance of the "E Block"
     licensee?

284. *Bidding Preferences.* We also have serious concerns, based on
     Frontline's proposed requirements, about whether we should offer
     any bidding preferences, such as bidding credits, to applicants for
     the "E Block" license, based on their status as a small business,
     or designated entity. In authorizing the Commission to use
     competitive bidding, Congress mandated that the Commission "ensure
     that small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses
     owned by members of minority groups and women \[sometimes referred
     to as "designated entities"\] are given the opportunity to
     participate in the provision of spectrum-based services."[^574] In
     addition, Section 309(j)(3)(B) of the Act provides that in
     establishing eligibility criteria and bidding methodologies, the
     Commission shall promote "economic opportunity and competition . .
     . by avoiding excessive concentration of licenses and by
     disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants,
     including small businesses, rural telephone companies, and
     businesses owned by members of minority groups and women."[^575]
     One of the means by which the Commission fulfills this mandate is
     through the award of bidding credits to small businesses. The
     Commission stated that it would define eligibility requirements for
     small businesses on a service-specific basis, taking into account
     the capital requirements and other characteristics of each
     particular service in establishing the appropriate threshold.[^576]
     The Commission has also stated that, while it standardizes many
     auction rules, the Commission will continue a service-by-service
     approach when it comes to defining small businesses.[^577]

285. The capital requirements for effective use of the proposed
     nationwide "E Block" license likely will be very high. In the past,
     the Commission has declined to adopt designated entity provisions
     for certain services, such as the direct broadcast satellite
     service and the digital audio radio service, which have extremely
     high implementation costs.[^578] The Commission reached this
     conclusion in large part because it was unclear whether small
     businesses could attract the capital necessary to implement and
     provide a nationwide service.[^579]

286. Our concerns regarding the capital needed to implement a nationwide
     service are especially acute in this instance because the "E Block"
     licensee would be responsible for constructing a robust network to
     meet the needs of critical public safety service providers -- and
     the public -- in times of emergency. The public interest would not
     appear to favor giving applicants a preference when bidding for the
     "E Block" license based on their limited financial resources, as we
     do when we offer bidding credits to small businesses, in these
     circumstances.

287. The proposed restriction on such a licensee's ability to provide
     spectrum-based services directly to the public is also of concern
     when considering whether to offer such benefits. The Commission
     prohibits licensees from both receiving designated entity benefits
     and having wholesale agreements for more than fifty percent (50%)
     of the spectrum capacity of any license that they hold, which are
     defined as impermissible material relationships.[^580] Frontline
     proposes that the "E Block" licensee should be required to operate
     only as a wholesale provider with respect to commercial use of the
     "E Block" license, *i.e.*, that it must have wholesale agreements
     for one hundred percent (100%) of its spectrum capacity. In the
     event that we offered bidding preferences with respect to such an
     "E Block" license, the existing rule plainly would preclude any
     licensee that is required to operate only as a wholesale provider
     from receiving designated entity benefits.

288. When it adopted the current impermissible material relationship
     rule, the Commission stated that it did so "to ensure that, in
     accordance with the intent of Congress, every recipient of our
     designated entity benefits is an entity that uses its licenses to
     directly provide facilities-based telecommunications services for
     the benefit of the public."[^581] A party holding the "E Block"
     license, as proposed by Frontline's proposal, would not be directly
     providing facilities-based telecommunications services for the
     benefit of the public. For all these reasons, we have serious
     concerns about providing designated entity benefits for the "E
     Block" license proposed by Frontline, and we seek comment on this
     issue.

289. *Other Issues.* We seek comment on whether any service specific
     rules are needed to address what actions the Commission may or must
     take in the event that the "E Block" licensee encounters financial
     or other problems that prevent compliance with any of its
     obligations, regarding build-out or other duties. Frontline
     contends that the Commission's general rules regarding reclaiming
     and re-auctioning the spectrum are sufficient to address this
     possibility.[^582] We seek comment on whether the particular
     obligations proposed for the "E Block" would make additional
     provisions in the public interest. For example, should there be
     some special process for public safety entities or others to
     challenge the "E Block" licensee's compliance with its public
     safety or wholesale obligations? Should the "E Block" license
     cancel automatically based on failure to comply with specified
     obligations? Should the Commission establish an unjust enrichment
     requirement to be paid in the event the Commission is unable to
     reclaim the license for any reason upon failure of the "E Block"
     licensee to comply with its obligations? If so, how should the
     amount of such a payment be calculated?[^583] If the Commission
     were to reclaim the license, could it also hold any network
     infrastructure built by the licensee in trust for public safety to
     avoid interruption of service to first responders? Alternatively,
     should the Commission provide for a rebate of a portion of the net
     bid amount paid by the "E Block" licensee at auction upon
     satisfaction of the conditions of the license and, if so, what
     should be the amount of such rebate? What other enforcement
     mechanisms might be appropriate?

290. We also seek comment on Frontline's proposal that the "E Block"
     licensee be required to operate a wholesale network.[^584]
     Frontline claims that this requirement would encompass freedom of
     equipment choice concerning the attachment of devices or multiple
     devices to the network.[^585] It also states that this proposal
     would provide non-discriminatory access, and that the "E Block"
     licensee could not discriminate against any retail service
     provider, [^586] and would operate "as an open network available on
     a wholesale basis to a host of innovative service providers."[^587]
     We seek comment on these issues. We also seek comment on proposals
     filed by Media Access Project and the Ad Hoc Public Interest
     Spectrum Coalition, which support a condition on licenses for at
     least 30 megahertz of 700 MHz Commercial Services spectrum that
     would require a licensee to provide "open access," including the
     right of a consumer to use any equipment, content, application or
     service on a non-discriminatory basis.[^588]

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

291. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
     (RFA),[^589] the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for
     the Report and Order is set forth in Appendix C. Although Section
     213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2000 provides that the
     RFA shall not apply to the rules and competitive bidding procedures
     for frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band,[^590] we nevertheless
     believe that it would serve the public interest to analyze the
     possible significant economic impact of the proposed policy and
     rule changes in this band on small entities. Accordingly, the FRFA
     in Appendix C of this Report and Order includes an analysis of this
     impact in connection with all spectrum that falls within the scope
     of the Report and Order, including spectrum in the 746-806 MHz
     Band.

## Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

292. The Report and Order contains modified information collection
     requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
     Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management
     and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB,
     the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to
     comment on the new information collection requirements contained in
     this proceeding. Public and agency comments are due sixty days from
     publication of a summary of the Report and Order in the Federal
     Register. Comments should address the following: (a) whether the
     proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
     performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether
     the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
     the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
     utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
     minimize the burden of the collection of information on
     respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques
     or other forms of information technology. In addition, the
     Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
     Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),
     we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might
     "further reduce the information collection burden for small
     business concerns with fewer than 25 employees." In this present
     document, we have assessed the potential effects of the various
     policy changes with regard to information collection burdens on
     small business concerns, and find that there are no results
     specific to businesses with fewer than 25 employees. We note,
     however, that Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act
     2000 provides that rules governing frequencies in the 746-806 MHz
     Band become effective immediately upon publication in the Federal
     Register without regard to certain sections of the Paperwork
     Reduction Act.[^591] We are therefore not inviting comment on any
     information collections that concern frequencies in the 746-806 MHz
     Band.

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

293. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), *see* 5 U.S.C.
     603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
     Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on
     small entities of the policies and rules addressed in the Further
     Notice. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix D. Written public
     comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in
     accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in
     response to the Further Notice, and must have a separate and
     distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
     Although Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2000
     provides that the RFA shall not apply to the rules and competitive
     bidding procedures for frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band,[^592]
     we nevertheless believe that it would serve the public interest to
     analyze the possible significant economic impact of the proposed
     policy and rule changes in this band on small entities.
     Accordingly, the IRFA in Appendix C of the Further Notice includes
     an analysis of (and seeks comment on) this impact in connection
     with all spectrum that falls within the scope of the Further
     Notice, including spectrum in the 746-806 MHz Band.

## Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis of 1995 Analysis

294. This document contains proposed new or modified information
     collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
     effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and
     the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the
     information collection requirements contained in this document, as
     required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
     Public and agency comments are due 30 days after date of
     publication in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a)
     whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
     proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
     whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the
     accuracy of the Commission\'s burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance
     the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
     and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
     information on the respondents, including the use of automated
     collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In
     addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
     2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek
     specific comment on how we might "further reduce the information
     collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
     employees." In this present document, we have assessed the
     potential effects of the various proposals with regard to
     information collection burdens on small business concerns, and find
     that there are no results specific to businesses with fewer than 25
     employees. We note, however, that Section 213 of the Consolidated
     Appropriations Act 2000 provides that rules governing frequencies
     in the 746-806 MHz Band become effective immediately upon
     publication in the Federal Register without regard to certain
     sections of the Paperwork Reduction Act.[^593] We are therefore not
     inviting comment on any information collections that concern
     frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band.

## Other Procedural Matters

### Ex Parte Presentations

295. The rulemaking shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose"
     proceeding in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte*
     rules.[^594] Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are
     reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain
     summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a
     listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence
     description of the views and arguments presented generally is
     required.[^595] Other requirements pertaining to oral and written
     presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b) of the
     Commission's rules.[^596]

### Comment Filing Procedures

296. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
     rules,[^597] interested parties may file comments on or before 21
     days after publication of the Further Notice in the Federal
     Register and reply comments regarding the Further Notice may be
     filed on or before 28 days after publication of the Further Notice
     in the Federal Register. All filings related to this Further Notice
     should refer to WT Docket No. 06-150, WT Docket No. 06-169, PS
     Docket No. 06-229, and WT Docket No. 96-86. Comments may be filed
     using: (1) the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
     (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by
     filing paper copies.[^598]

-   Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the
    Internet by accessing the ECFS: <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/> or
    the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
    [http://www.regulations.gov](http://www.regulations.gov/). Filers
    should follow the instructions provided on the website for
    submitting comments.

    -   ECFS filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments
        for WT Docket No. 06-150, WT Docket No. 06-169, PS Docket No.
        06-229, and WT Docket No. 96-86. In completing the transmittal
        screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal
        Service mailing address, and WT Docket No. 06-150, WT Docket No.
        06-169, PS Docket No. 06-229, and WT Docket No. 96-86. Parties
        may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get
        filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to
        <ecfs@fcc.gov> and include the following words in the body of
        the message, "get form." A sample form and directions will be
        sent in response.

-   Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
    original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand
    or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by
    first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we
    continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service
    mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
    Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, DC, 20554.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
    messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at
    236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The
    filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
    deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
    envelopes must be disposed of [before]{.underline} entering the
    building.

-   Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express
    Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
    Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

-   U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should
    be addressed to 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington DC 20554.

297. Parties should send a copy of their filings to: Paul D'Ari,
     Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W.,
     Washington, D.C. 20554, or by e-mail to <paul.dari@fcc.gov>; Linda
     Chang, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W.,
     Washington, D.C. 20554, or by e-mail to <linda.chang@fcc.gov>; and
     Jeff Cohen, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 445 12^th^
     Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or by e-mail to
     <jeff.cohen@fcc.gov>. Parties shall also serve one copy with the
     Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI),
     Portals II, Room CY-B402, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
     20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail to <fcc@bcpiweb.com>.

298. Documents in WT Docket No. 06-150, WT Docket No. 06-169, PS Docket
     No. 06-229, and WT Docket No. 96-86 will be available for public
     inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC Reference
     Information Center, Portals II, Room CY-A257, 445 12^th^ Street,
     S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. The documents may also be purchased
     from BCPI, telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563,
     TTY (202) 488-5562, e-mail <fcc@bcpiweb.com>.

### Accessible Formats

299. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
     disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio
     format), send an e-mail to <FCC504@fcc.gov> or call the Consumer &
     Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432
     (TTY). Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations for
     filing comments (accessible format documents, sign language
     interpreters, CARTS, *etc*.) by e-mail: <FCC504@fcc.gov>; phone:
     202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

# ORDERING CLAUSES

300. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to sections Sections 1,
     4(i), 7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 215, 222(d)(4)(A)-(C), 222(f),
     222(g), 222(h)(1)(A), 222(h)(4)-(5), 251(e)(3), 301, 303, 307, 308,
     309, 310, 311, 315, 316, 317, 324, 331, 332, 336, 337 and 710, of
     the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,
     154(i), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 215, 222(d)(4)(A)-(C),
     222(f), 222(g), 222(h)(1)(A), 222(h)(4)-(5), 251(e)(3), 301, 303,
     307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 315, 317, 324, 331, 332, 336, 337, and
     610, this REPORT AND ORDER in WT Docket No. 06-150, CC Docket No.
     94-102, WT Docket No. 01-309, WT Docket No. 03-264, WT Docket No.
     06-169, WT Docket No. 96-86 and PS Docket No. 06-229 IS ADOPTED,
     and that Part 1, Part 20, Part 27 and Part 90 of the Commission's
     rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 1, 47 C.F.R. Part 20, 47 C.F.R. Part 27 and
     47 C.F.R. Part 90, ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B. The
     REPORT AND ORDER shall become effective upon publication in the
     Federal Register subject to OMB approval for new information
     collection requirements.

301. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
     Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
     SEND a copy of this REPORT AND ORDER, including the Final
     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
     of the Small Business Administration.

302. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this
     REPORT AND ORDER in a report to be sent to Congress and the General
     Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5
     U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

303. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5(c), 7, 10,
     201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314,
     316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 336, 337, 614, 615, and 710 of the
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152,
     154(i), 155(c), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307,
     308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 336, and 337,
     that this FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING in WT Docket No.
     06-150, CC Docket No. 94-102, WT Docket No. 01-309, WT Docket No.
     03-264, WT Docket No. 06-169, WT Docket No. 96-86 and PS Docket No.
     06-229 IS ADOPTED. The FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING shall
     become effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

304. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to applicable procedures set
     forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47
     C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the
     FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING on or before 21 days after
     publication in the Federal Register and reply comments on or before
     28 days after publication in the Federal Register.

305. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
     Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
     SEND a copy of this FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING,
     including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
     Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

306. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this
     FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING in a report to be sent to
     Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the
     Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**Comments and Reply Comments**

**List of Comments and Reply Comments**

**in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Proceeding**

**(WT Docket No. 06-150, CC Docket N0. 94-102, WT Docket No. 01-39)**

**[Comments]{.underline}**

Access Spectrum LLC, Columbia Capital III, LLC, Pegasus Communications
Corporation, and Telcom Ventures, LLC ("Access Spectrum/Pegasus")

Aloha Partners, L.P. ("Aloha")

Alltel, Aloha, Blooston, C&W, ConnectME Authority, Corr, Dobson, Leap,
Maine Office of Chief Information Officer, MetroPCS, NTCA, Nebraska PSC,
North Dakota PSC, RCA, RTG, Union, U.S. Cellular, Vermont et al.,
Vermont Telephone Company ("Alltel *et al.*") (filing the "Balanced
Consensus Plan")

AT&T Inc. ("AT&T")

Blooston Rural Carriers ("Blooston")

C&W Enterprises ("C&W")

Cingular Wireless LLC ("Cingular")

Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and Free Press
("Consumer Federation of America, et al.")

Corr Wireless Communications, LLC ("Corr")

Council Tree Communications, Inc. ("Council Tree")

CTIA -- The Wireless Association ("CTIA")

DIRECTV, Inc. and EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. ("DIRECTV/EchoStar")

Dobson Communications Corporation ("Dobson")

Doug Howard and Farooq Javed ("Howard/Javed")

Frontier Communications ("Frontier")

Hearing Industries Association ("Hearing Industries Association")

Hearing Loss Association of America ("Hearing Loss Association")

Leap Wireless International, Inc. ("Leap")

MetroPCS Communications, Inc. ("MetroPCS")

MilkyWay Broadband, LLC ("MilkyWay")

Motorola, Inc. ("Motorola")

National Telecommunications Cooperative Association ("NTCA")

Navajo Nation Telecommunications Regulatory Commission ("Navajo Nation")

Navini Networks, Inc. ("Navini")

National Emergency Number Association ("NENA")

NextWave Broadband Inc. ("NextWave")

Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small
Telecommunications Companies ("OPASTCO")

Paul Milgrom and Karen Wrege ("Milgrom/Wrege")

Polar Communications ("Polar")

Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm").

Region 24 700 MHz Regional Planning Committee ("Region 24")

Rural Cellular Association ("RCA")

Rural Telecommunications Group, Inc. ("RTG")

Sprint NexTel Corportion ("Sprint NexTel")

Telecommunications Industry Association ("TIA")

Tropos Networks ("Tropos")

Union Telephone Company ("Union")

United States Cellular Corporation ("U.S. Cellular")

Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless")

Vermont Department of Public Service, Vermont Public Service Board,
Vermont Office of the Chief Information Officer, North Dakota Public
Service Commission, Nebraska Public Service Commission, ConnectME
Authority, Maine Office of the Chief Information Officer ("Vermont
Department of Public Service, et al.")

**[Reply Comments]{.underline}**

Alcatel North America ("Alcatel")

AllTel Corporation ("AllTel")

Aloha Partners, L.P. ("Aloha")

Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. and National
Association of Broadcasters ("MSTV/NAB")

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
Inc., International Association of Fire Chiefs, Major Cities Chiefs
Association, Major County Sheriffs Association, and National Sheriffs
Association ("Public Safety Organizations")

AT&T Inc. ("AT&T")

Blooston Rural Carriers ("Blooston")

Cingular Wireless LLC ("Cingular")

Corr Wireless Communications, LLC ("Corr")

Council Tree Communications, Inc. ("Council Tree")

CTIA -- The Wireless Association ("CTIA")

Cyren Call Communications Corporation ("Cyren Call")

DIRECTV, Inc. and EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. ("DIRECTV/EchoStar")

Doug Howard and Farooq Javed ("Howard/Javed")

Hearing Industries Association ("Hearing Industries Association")

Leap Wireless International, Inc. ("Leap")

MetroPCS Communications, Inc. ("MetroPCS")

Motorola, Inc. ("Motorola")

National Telecommunications Cooperative Association ("NTCA")

NextWave Broadband Inc. ("NextWave")

Multiple Parties (filing Balanced Consensus Plan) ("Balanced Consensus
Plan")

Paul Milgrom and Karen Wrege ("Milgrom/Wrege")

Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm")

Region 24 700 MHz Regional Planning Committee ("700 MHz Regional
Planning Committee")

Rural Cellular Association ("RCA")

Rural Telecommunications Group, Inc. ("RTG")

T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile")

Tropos Networks ("Tropos")

United States Cellular Corporation ("U.S. Cellular")

Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless")

Vermont Department of Public Service, Vermont Public Service Board,
Vermont Office of the Chief Information Officer, North Dakota Public
Service Commission, Nebraska Public Service Commission, ConnectME
Authority, Maine Office of the Chief Information Officer ("Vermont
Department of Public Service, et al.")

Vermont Telephone Company, Inc. ("Vermont Telephone")

WiMAX Forum ("WiMAX Forum")

**List of Comments and Reply Comments in 700 MHz Guard Bands
Proceeding**

**(WT Docket No. 06-169)**

**[Comments]{.underline}**

Access Spectrum, LLC and Pegasus Communications ("Access
Spectrum/Pegasus")

Access Spectrum, LLC and Pegasus Communications/700 MHz Technical
Working Group ("700 MHz TWG")

Association of Public Safety Communications Officials-International
(APCO)

Commonwealth of Virginia ("CoVa")

Critical Infrastructure Communications Coalition ("CICC")

CTIA -- The Wireless Association ("CICC")

Enterprise Wireless Alliance ("EWA")

Ericsson Inc. ("Ericsson")

G. Edward Ryan, II

Gary P. McKelvey

Gregory J. Urban -- State of Maryland ("State of Maryland")

Motorola, Inc. ("Motorola")

National Public Safety Telecommunications Council ("NPSTC")

Prince George's County, Maryland ("Prince George's County")

Radiofone Nationwide PCS, L.L.C. ("Radiofone")

Region 24 700 MHz Regional Planning Committee ("Region 24")

Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless")

**[Reply Comments]{.underline}**

Access Spectrum, LLC and Pegasus Communications ("Access
Spectrum/Pegasus")

Access Spectrum, LLC and Pegasus Communications/700 MHz Technical
Working Group ("700 MHz TWG")

Arcadian Networks ("Arcadian")

Cyren Call Communications Corporation ("Cyren Call")

Ericsson Inc. ("Ericsson")

Lucent Technologies, Inc. ("Lucent")

National Public Safety Telecommunications Council ("NPSTC")

Northrop Grumman Information Technology ("Northrop Grumman")

Prince George\'s County, Maryland ("Prince George's County")

Region 20 RPC, Region 42 RPC, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of
Virginia

Region 24 700 MHz Regional Planning Committee ("Region 24")

Regional Planning Committee 42 ("Region 42")

Stafford County, VA Sheriff's Department ("Stafford County")

United Telecom Council ("UTC")

**List of Comments and Reply Comments in the 700 MHz Public Safety
Proceeding**

**(WT Docket No. 96-86)**

3G Americas, LLC ("3G Americas")

Access Spectrum, LLC ("Access Spectrum")

Alan Bull ("Alan Bull")

Association of Public Safety Communications Officials-International,
Inc. ("APCO")

California Highway Patrol ("CHP")

City and County of Denver Colorado ("Denver")

Columbia Capital III, LLC ("Columbia Capital")

Cyren Call Communications Corporation ("Cyren Call")

DataRadio ("DataRadio")

EADS Public Safety, Inc. ("EADS")

Enterprise Wireless Alliance ("EWA")

Ericsson, Inc. ("Ericsson")

Intel Corporation ("Intel")

Intelligent Transportation Society of America ("ITS")

International Association of Chiefs of Police ("IACP")

International Association of Fire Chiefs ("IAFC")

Joe Kuran ("Joe Kuran")

Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Lockheed Martin")

Lucent Technologies, Inc. ("Lucent")

M/A-COM, Inc. ("M/A-COM")

Major Cities Chiefs Association ("MCCA")

Motorola, Inc. ("Motorola")

National Association of Regional Planning Committees ("NARPC")

National Emergency Number Association ("NENA")

National Public Safety Telecommunications Council ("NPSTC")

National Sheriffs Association, Major Cities Sheriffs Association
("NSA/MCSA")

North Carolina State Highway Patrol ("NCSHP")

Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. ("Northrop Grumman")

Ohio State-Wide Interoperability Executive Committee ("Ohio SIEC")

Pegasus Communications Corporation ("Pegasus")

Pinellas County Emergency Communications ("Pinellas County")

Qualcomm, Inc. ("Qualcomm")

Radiofone Nationwide PCS, LLC ("Radiofone")

Region 12 700 MHz Regional Planning Committee ("Region 12")

Region 24 700 MHz Regional Planning Committee ("Region 24")

Region 26 700 MHz Regional Planning Committee ("Region 26")

Region 39 700 MHz Regional Planning Committee ("Region 39")

Region 40 700 MHz Regional Planning Committee ("Region 40")

Region 45 700 MHz Regional Planning Committee ("Region 45")

Region 49 700 MHz Regional Planning Committee ("Region 49")

Spectrum Coalition for Public Safety ("Spectrum Coalition")

Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel")

State of California: Department of General Services-Telecommunications
Division ("State of California")

State of Hawaii: Department of Accounting and General Services ("State
of Hawaii")

WiMax Forum ("WiMax Forum")

**APPENDIX B**

**Rule Changes**

**Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:**

1\. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309 and
325(e).

2\. Section 1.955 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:

§ 1.955 Termination of Authorizations

\(a\) \*\*\*\*\*

\(1\) *Expiration*. Authorizations automatically terminate, without
specific Commission action, on the expiration date specified therein,
unless a timely application for renewal is filed. *See* § 1.949 of this
part. No authorization granted under the provisions of this part shall
be for a term longer than ten years, except to the extent a longer term
is authorized under § 27.13 of Part 27 of this chapter.

3\. Section 1.9005 is amended by revising paragraphs (gg) and (hh) and
adding paragraph (ii) to read as follows:

**§ 1.9005 Included services.**

\* \* \* \* \*

(gg) The Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service (part 101
of this chapter);

(hh) The Multipoint Video Distribution and Data Service (part 101 of
this chapter); and,

\(ii\) The 700 MHz Guard Bands Service (part 27 of this chapter).

**Part 20 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:**

4\. The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 201, 251-254, 303, and 332 unless
otherwise noted.

5\. Section 20.18 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

**§ 20.18 911 Service.**

\(a\) *Scope of Section*. The following requirements are only applicable
to CMRS providers, excluding mobile satellite service (MSS) operators,
to the extent that they (1) offer real-time, two way switched voice
service that is interconnected with the public switched network and (2)
utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to
reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls.
These requirements are applicable to entities that offer voice service
to consumers by purchasing airtime or capacity at wholesale rates from
CMRS licensees.

\* \* \* \* \*

6\. Section 20.19 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) as
follows:

**§ 20.19 Hearing aid-compatible mobile handsets.**

\(a\) *Scope of Section*. Providers of digital CMRS are subject to
hearing aid-compatibility requirements to the extent that they (1) offer
real-time, two way switched voice or data service that is interconnected
with the public switched network and (2) utilize an in-network switching
facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish
seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. Such providers are subject to
the requirements set forth in this section to the extent that the
established technical standard or standards specified in paragraph (b)
are applicable to the service provided. This section also applies to the
manufacturers of the wireless phones used in delivery of the services
specified in this paragraph.

\(b\) *Technical standard for hearing aid compatibility*. The technical
standard set forth in the standard document ANSI C63.19-2001 "American
National Standard for Methods of Measurement of Compatibility between
Wireless Communication Devices and Hearing Aids, ANSI C63.19-2001"
(published October 8, 2001---available for purchase from the American
National Standards Institute) is applicable to providers of Broadband
Personal Communications Services (part 24, subpart E of this chapter),
Cellular Radio Telephone Service (part 22, subpart H of this chapter),
and Specialized Mobile Radio Services in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands
(including in part 980, subpart S of this chapter). A wireless phone
used for these services is hearing aid compatible for the purposes of
this section if it meets, at a minimum:

\* \* \* \* \*

**Part 27 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:**

7\. The authority citation for Part 27 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, and 337
unless otherwise noted.

8\. The table of contents for Part 27 is amended by revising Subpart F
and Subpart G as follows:

\* \* \*

Subpart F -- Competitive Bidding Procedures for the 698-806 MHz Band

\* \* \*

Subpart G -- Guard Band Service (746-747/776-777 MHz and 762-764/792-794
MHz Bands)

\* \* \* \* \*

9\. Section 27.4 is amended by deleting the definition of Guard Band
Manager.

.

10\. Section 27.10 is amended by revising the introductory paragraph to
read as follows:

**§ 27.10 Regulatory status.**

**The following rules apply concerning the regulatory status in the
frequency bands specified in § 27.5.**

11\. Section 27.13 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

**§ 27.13 License Period.**

**\* \* \* \* \***

\(b\) *698-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands*. Initial authorizations for
the 698-764 MHz, 747-762 MHz, and 777-792 MHz bands, will extend for a
term not to exceed ten years from February 17, 2009, except that initial
authorizations for a Part 27 licensee that provides broadcast services,
whether exclusively or in combination with other services, will not
exceed eight years. Initial authorizations for the 746-747 MHz, 776-777
MHz, 762-764 MHz, and 792-794 MHz bands shall not exceed January 1,
2015. Subsequent license terms shall be for a term not to exceed ten
years. Licensees that initiate the provision of a broadcast service,
whether exclusively or in combination with other services, may not
provide this service for more than eight years or beyond the end of the
license term if no broadcast service had been provided, whichever period
is shorter in length.

12\. Section 27.14 is amended redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph
(f), and by adding new paragraphs (e), (g), (h), (i), and (j) to read as
follows:

**§ 27.14 Construction requirements; Criteria for renewal.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) Comparative renewal proceedings do not apply to WCS licensees
holding authorizations for the 698-746 MHz, 747-762 MHz, and 777-792 MHz
bands. These licensees must file a renewal application in accordance
with the provisions set forth in § 1.949.

13\. Section 27.50 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) and
(b)(3) as paragraphs (b)(9) and (b)(10), respectively, and redesignating
paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) as paragraphs (c)(9) and (c)(10),
respectively, deleting paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(4), (c)(1), (c)(4), and
(c)(5), adding new paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8), (b)(11), (b)(12),
(c)(1) through (c)(8), and (c)(11) to read as follows:

**§ 27.50 Power and antenna height limits.**

**\* \* \* \* \***

\(b\) \* \* \*

> \(1\) Fixed and base stations transmitting a signal in the 746-747 and
> 762-764 MHz bands must not exceed an effective radiated power (ERP) of
> 1000 watts and an antenna height of 305 m height above average terrain
> (HAAT), except that antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are
> permitted if power levels are reduced below 1000 watts ERP in
> accordance with Table 1 of this section.
>
> \(2\) Fixed and base stations transmitting a signal in the 747-762 MHz
> and 777-792 MHz bands with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less must
> not exceed an ERP of 1000 watts and an antenna height of 305 m HAAT,
> except that antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted if
> power levels are reduced below 1000 watts ERP in accordance with Table
> 1 of this section.
>
> \(3\) Fixed and base stations located in a county with population
> density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most
> recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the
> Census, and transmitting a signal in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz
> bands with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz or less must not exceed an
> ERP of 2000 watts and an antenna height of 305 m HAAT, except that
> antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted if power levels
> are reduced below 2000 watts ERP in accordance with Table 2 of this
> section.
>
> \(4\) Fixed and base stations transmitting a signal in the 747-762 MHz
> and 777-792 MHz bands with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz
> must not exceed an ERP of 1000 watts/MHz and an antenna height of 305
> m HAAT, except that antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are
> permitted if power levels are reduced below 1000 watts/MHz ERP
> accordance with Table 3 of this section.
>
> \(5\) Fixed and base stations located in a county with population
> density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most
> recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the
> Census, and transmitting a signal in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz
> bands with an emission bandwidth greater than 1 MHz must not exceed an
> ERP of 2000 watts/MHz and an antenna height of 305 m HAAT, except that
> antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted if power levels
> are reduced below 2000 watts/MHz ERP in accordance with Table 4 of
> this section.
>
> \(6\) Licensees of fixed or base stations transmitting a signal in the
> 747-762 or 777-792 MHz bands at an ERP greater than 1000 watts must
> comply with the provisions set forth in paragraph (b)(8) and
> §27.55(c).
>
> \(7\) Licensees seeking to operate a fixed or base station located in
> a county with population density of 100 or fewer persons per square
> mile, based upon the most recently available population statistics
> from the Bureau of the Census, and transmitting a signal in the
> 747-762 MHz or 777-792 MHz bands at an ERP greater than 1000 watts
> must:
>
> \(i\) coordinate in advance with all licensees authorized to operate
> in the 698-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands within 120 kilometers (75
> miles) of the base or fixed station;
>
> \(ii\) coordinate in advance with all regional planning committees, as
> identified in §90.527 of this chapter, with jurisdiction within 120
> kilometers (75 miles) of the base or fixed station.
>
> \(8\) Licensees authorized to transmit in the 747-762 or 777-792 MHz
> bands and intending to operate a base or fixed station at a power
> level permitted under the provisions of paragraph (b)(6) of this
> section must provide advanced notice of such operation to the
> Commission and to licensees authorized in their area of operation.
> Licensees who must be notified are all licensees authorized to operate
> in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz bands under Part 90 of this chapter
> within 75 km of the base or fixed station and all regional planning
> committees, as identified in §90.527 of this chapter, with
> jurisdiction within 75 km of the base or fixed station. Notifications
> must provide the location and operating parameters of the base or
> fixed station, including the station\'s ERP, antenna coordinates,
> antenna height above ground, and vertical antenna pattern, and such
> notifications must be provided at least 90 days prior to the
> commencement of station operation
>
> \* \* \* \* \*
>
> \(11\) For transmissions in the 746-747 MHz, 762-764 MHz, 776-777 MHz,
> and 792-794 MHz bands, maximum composite transmit power shall be
> measured over any interval of continuous transmission using
> instrumentation calibrated in terms of RMS-equivalent voltage. The
> measurement results shall be properly adjusted for any instrument
> limitations, such as detector response times, limited resolution
> bandwidth capability when compared to the emission bandwidth, etc., so
> as to obtain a true maximum composite measurement for the emission in
> question over the full bandwidth of the channel.
>
> \(12\) For transmissions in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands,
> licensees may employ equipment operating in compliance with either the
> measurement techniques described in paragraph (b)(11)
> or a Commission-approved average power technique. In both instances,
> equipment employed must be authorized in accordance with the
> provisions of 27.51.

 .

> .

\(c\) \* \* \*

\(1\) Fixed and base stations transmitting a signal with an emission
bandwidth of 1 MHz or less must not exceed an effective radiated power
(ERP) of 1000 watts and an antenna height of 305 m height above average
terrain (HAAT), except that antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are
permitted if power levels are reduced below 1000 watts ERP in accordance
with Table 1 of this section.

> \(2\) Fixed and base stations located in a county with population
> density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most
> recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the
> Census, and transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth of 1 MHz
> or less must not exceed an ERP of 2000 watts and an antenna height of
> 305 m HAAT, except that antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are
> permitted if power levels are reduced below 2000 watts ERP in
> accordance with Table 2 of this section.
>
> \(3\) Fixed and base stations transmitting a signal with an emission
> bandwidth greater than 1 MHz must not exceed an ERP of 1000 watts/MHz
> and an antenna height of 305 m HAAT, except that antenna heights
> greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted if power levels are reduced
> below 1000 watts/MHz ERP in accordance with Table 3 of this section.
>
> \(4\) Fixed and base stations located in a county with population
> density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most
> recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the
> Census, and transmitting a signal with an emission bandwidth greater
> than 1 MHz must not exceed an ERP of 2000 watts/MHz and an antenna
> height of 305 m HAAT, except that antenna heights greater than 305 m
> HAAT are permitted if power levels are reduced below 2000 watts/MHz
> ERP in accordance with Table 4 of this section.
>
> \(5\) Licensees seeking to operate a fixed or base station located in
> a county with population density of 100 or fewer persons per square
> mile, based upon the most recently available population statistics
> from the Bureau of the Census, and transmitting a signal at an ERP
> greater than 1000 watts must:
>
> \(i\) coordinate in advance with all licensees authorized to operate
> in the 698-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands within 120 kilometers (75
> miles) of the base or fixed station;
>
> \(ii\) coordinate in advance with all regional planning committees, as
> identified in §90.527 of this chapter, with jurisdiction within 120
> kilometers (75 miles) of the base or fixed station.
>
> \(6\) Licensees of fixed or base stations transmitting a signal at an
> ERP greater than 1000 watts and greater than 1000 watts/MHz must
> comply with the provisions of paragraph (c)(8) and §27.55(b), except
> that licensees of fixed or base stations located in a county with
> population density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon
> the most recently available population statistics from the Bureau of
> the Census, must comply with the provisions of paragraph (c)(8) and
> §27.55(b) only if transmitting a signal at an ERP greater than 2000
> watts and greater than 2000 watts/MHz.
>
> \(7\) A licensee authorized to operate in the 710-716, 716-722, or
> 740-746 MHz bands, or in any unpaired spectrum blocks within the
> 698-746 MHz band, may operate a fixed or base station at an ERP up to
> a total of 50 kW within its authorized, 6 MHz spectrum block if the
> licensee complies with the provisions of §27.55(b). The antenna height
> for such stations is limited only to the extent required to satisfy
> the requirements of §27.55(b).
>
> \(8\) Licensees intending to operate a base or fixed station at a
> power level permitted under the provisions of paragraph (c)(6) must
> provide advanced notice of such operation to the Commission and to
> licensees authorized in their area of operation. Licensees who must be
> notified are all licensees authorized under this part to operate on an
> adjacent spectrum block within 75 km of the base or fixed station.
> Notifications must provide the location and operating parameters of
> the base or fixed station, including the station\'s ERP, antenna
> coordinates, antenna height above ground, and vertical antenna
> pattern, and such notifications must be provided at least 90 days
> prior to the commencement of station operation.
>
> \* \* \* \* \*
>
> \(11\) Licensees may employ equipment operating in compliance
> with either the measurement techniques described in paragraph (b)(11)
> or a Commission-approved average power technique. In both instances,
> equipment employed must be authorized in accordance with the
> provisions of 27.51.

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Table 1 - Permissible Power and  |                                 |
| Antenna Heights for Base and Fixed |                                 |
| Stations in the 746-747 MHz and    |                                 |
| 762-764 MHz Bands and for Base and |                                 |
| Fixed Stations in the 698-746 MHz, |                                 |
| 747-762 MHz, and 777-792 MHz Bands |                                 |
| Transmitting a Signal with an      |                                 |
| Emission Bandwidth of 1 MHz or     |                                 |
| Less**                             |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Antenna height (AAT) in meters   | **Effective radiated power      |
| (feet)**                           | (ERP)**                         |
|                                    |                                 |
|                                    | **(watts)**                     |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 1372 (4500)                  | 65                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 1220 (4000) To 1372 (4500)   | 70                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 1067 (3500) To 1220 (4000)   | 75                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 915 (3000) To 1067 (3500)    | 100                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 763 (2500) To 915 (3000)     | 140                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 610 (2000) To 763 (2500)     | 200                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 458 (1500) To 610 (2000)     | 350                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 305 (1000) To 458 (1500)     | 600                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Up to 305 (1000)                   | 1000                            |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Table 2 -- Permissible Power and |                                 |
| Antenna Heights for Base and       |                                 |
| Fixed**                            |                                 |
|                                    |                                 |
| **Stations in the 698-746 MHz,     |                                 |
| 747-762 MHz, and 777-792 MHz Bands |                                 |
| Transmitting a Signal with an      |                                 |
| Emission Bandwidth of 1 MHz or     |                                 |
| Less**                             |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Antenna height (AAT) in meters   | **Effective radiated power      |
| (feet)**                           | (ERP)**                         |
|                                    |                                 |
|                                    | **(watts)**                     |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 1372 (4500)                  | 130                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 1220 (4000) To 1372 (4500)   | 140                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 1067 (3500) To 1220 (4000)   | 150                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 915 (3000) To 1067 (3500)    | 200                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 763 (2500) To 915 (3000)     | 280                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 610 (2000) To 763 (2500)     | 400                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 458 (1500) To 610 (2000)     | 700                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Above 305 (1000) To 458 (1500)     | 1200                            |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Up to 305 (1000)                   | 2000                            |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  **Table 3 -- Permissible Power and    
  Antenna Heights for Base and Fixed    
  Stations in the 698-746 MHz, 747-762  
  MHz and 777-792 MHz Bands             
  Transmitting a Signal with an         
  Emission Bandwidth Greater than 1     
  MHz**                                 

  **Antenna height (AAT) in meters      **Effective radiated power (ERP)
  (feet)**                              per MHz (watts/MHz)**

  Above 1372 (4500)                     65

  Above 1220 (4000) To 1372 (4500)      70

  Above 1067 (3500) To 1220 (4000)      75

  Above 915 (3000) To 1067 (3500)       100

  Above 763 (2500) To 915 (3000)        140

  Above 610 (2000) To 763 (2500)        200

  Above 458 (1500) To 610 (2000)        350

  Above 305 (1000) To 458 (1500)        600

  Up to 305 (1000)                      1000
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  **Table 4 -- Permissible Power and    
  Antenna Heights for Base and Fixed    
  Stations in the 698-746 MHz, 747-762  
  MHz and 777-792 MHz Bands             
  Transmitting a Signal with an         
  Emission Bandwidth Greater than 1     
  MHz**                                 

  **Antenna height (AAT) in meters      **Effective radiated power (ERP)
  (feet)**                              per MHz (watts/MHz )**

  Above 1372 (4500)                     130

  Above 1220 (4000) To 1372 (4500)      140

  Above 1067 (3500) To 1220 (4000)      150

  Above 915 (3000) To 1067 (3500)       200

  Above 763 (2500) To 915 (3000)        280

  Above 610 (2000) To 763 (2500)        400

  Above 458 (1500) To 610 (2000)        700

  Above 305 (1000) To 458 (1500)        1200

  Up to 305 (1000)                      2000
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

14\. Section 27.55 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding new
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

**§ 27.55 Power strength limits.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) *Power flux density limit for stations operating in the 698-746
MHz bands.* For base and fixed stations operating in the 698-746 MHz
band in accordance with the provisions of §27.50(c)(6) of this chapter,
the power flux density that would be produced by such stations through a
combination of antenna height and vertical gain pattern must not exceed
3000 microwatts per square meter on the ground over the area extending
to 1 km from the base of the antenna mounting structure.

\(c\) *Power flux density limit for stations operating in the 747-762
and 777-792 MHz bands*. For base and fixed stations operating in the
747-762 and 777-792 MHz bands in accordance with the provisions of
§27.50(b)(6) of this chapter, the power flux density that would be
produced by such stations through a combination of antenna height and
vertical gain pattern must not exceed 3000 microwatts per square meter
on the ground over the area extending to 1 km from the base of the
antenna mounting structure.

15\. Section 27.70 is added to read as follows:

**§ 27.70 Information exchange.**

\(a\) *Prior notification*. Public safety licensees authorized to
operate in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz bands may notify any licensee
authorized to operate in the 747-762 or 777-792 MHz bands that they wish
to receive prior notification of the activation or modification of the
licensee's base or fixed stations in their area. Thereafter, the 747-762
or 777-792 MHz band licensee must provide the following information to
the public safety licensee at least 10 business days before a new base
or fixed station is activated or an existing base or fixed station is
modified:

\(1\) Location;

\(2\) Effective radiated power;

\(3\) Antenna height; and,

\(4\) Channels available for use.

\(b\) *Purpose of prior notification*. The prior coordination of base or
fixed stations is for informational purposes only. Public safety
licensees are not afforded the right to accept or reject the activation
of a proposed base or fixed station or to unilaterally require changes
in its operating parameters. The principal purposes of notification are
to:

> \(1\) Allow a public safety licensee to advise the 747-762 or 777-792
> MHz band licensee whether it believes a proposed base or fixed station
> will generate unacceptable interference;
>
> \(2\) Permit 747-762 and 777-792 MHz band licensees to make voluntary
> changes in base or fixed station parameters when a public safety
> licensee alerts them to possible interference; and,
>
> \(3\) Rapidly identify the source if interference is encountered when
> the base or fixed station is activated.

16\. Section 27.601 is amended by deleting paragraph (c), redesignating
paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d), respectively, and
revising the title, paragraphs (a) and (b), and redesignated paragraph
(d) to read as follows:

**§ 27.601 Authority and coordination requirements.**

\(a\) Subject to the provisions of §27.2(b), a Guard Band licensee may
allow a spectrum lessee, pursuant to a spectrum lease arrangement under
part 1, subpart X of this chapter, to construct and operate stations at
any available site within the licensed area and on any channel for which
the Guard Band licensee is licensed, provided such stations comply with
Commission Rules and coordination requirements.

\(b\) Subject to the provisions of §27.2(b), a Guard Band licensee may
allow a spectrum lessee, pursuant to a spectrum lease arrangement under
part 1, subpart X of this chapter, to delete, move or change the
operating parameters of any of the user\'s stations that are covered
under the Guard Band licensee\'s authorization without prior Commission
approval, provided such stations comply with Commission Rules and
coordination requirements.

\(c\) *Frequency Coordination*.

> \(1\) A Guard Band licensee, or a spectrum lessee operating pursuant
> to a spectrum lease arrangement under §§ 1.9030 and 1.9035 of this
> chapter, must notify Commission-recognized public safety frequency
> coordinators for the 700 MHz Public Safety band and adjacent-area
> Guard Band licensees within one business day after the licensee or the
> spectrum lessee has:
>
> \(i\) Coordinated a new station or modification of an existing
> station; or
>
> \(ii\) Filed an application for an individual station license with the
> Commission.
>
> \(2\) The notification required in paragraph (c)(1) of this section
> must include, at a minimum---
>
> \(i\) The frequency or frequencies coordinated;
>
> \(ii\) Antenna location and height;
>
> \(iii\) Type of emission;
>
> \(iv\) Effective radiated power;
>
> \(v\) A description of the service area, date of coordination, and
> user name or, in the alternative, a description of the type of
> operation.
>
> \(3\) In the event a licensee partitions its service area or
> disaggregates its spectrum, it is required to submit the notification
> required in paragraph (c)(1) of this section to other Guard Band
> licensees in the same geographic area.
>
> \(4\) Entities coordinated by a Guard Band licensee, or a spectrum
> lessee operating pursuant to a spectrum lease arrangement under §§
> 1.9030 and 1.9035 of this chapter, must wait at least 10 business days
> after the notification required in paragraph (c)(1) of this section
> before operating under the license.

\(d\) Where a deletion, move or change authorized under paragraph (b) of
this section constitutes a discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of
service under §27.66 or where discontinuance, reduction or impairment of
service results from an involuntary act subject to §27.66(a), the
licensee must comply with the notification and authorization
requirements set forth in that section.

17\. Section 27.602 is amended by deleting paragraphs (a), (d), (e),
(f), (g) and (h), redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (a)
and (b), and revising the title, the introductory language, and
redesignated paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:

**§ 27.602 Lease agreements.**

Guard Band licensees may enter into spectrum leasing arrangements under
part 1, subpart X of this chapter regarding the use of their licensed
spectrum by spectrum lessees, subject to the following conditions:

\(a\) The spectrum lease agreement between the licensee and the spectrum
lessee must specify in detail the operating parameters of the spectrum
lessee's system, including power, maximum antenna heights, frequencies
of operation, base station location(s), area(s) of operation, and other
parameters specified in Commission rules for the use of spectrum
identified in §27.5(b)(1) and (b)(2).

\(b\) The spectrum lease agreement must require the spectrum lessee to
use Commission-approved equipment where appropriate and to complete
post-construction proofs of system performance prior to system
activation.

18\. Section 27.603 is deleted.

19\. Section 27.605 is deleted.

20\. Section 27.606 is deleted.

21\. Section 27.607 is amended by deleting paragraphs (c)(2),
redesignating paragraph (c)(1) as paragraph (c)(2), adding a new
paragraph (c)(1), and revising the title, the introductory text in
paragraph (c), paragraphs (b), (c)(3), (c)(4) and (c)(5), and
redesignated paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

**§ 27.607 Performance requirements and annual reporting requirement.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) Guard Band licensee are required to file an annual report
providing the Commission with information about the manner in which
their spectrum is being utilized. \* \* \*

\(c\) Guard Band licensees must, at a minimum, include the following
information in their annual reports:

> \(1\) The total number of spectrum lessees;
>
> \(2\) The amount of the licensee's spectrum being used pursuant to
> spectrum lease agreements;
>
> \(3\) The nature of the spectrum use of the licensee's customers; and,
>
> \(4\) The length of term of each spectrum lease agreement, and whether
> the agreement is a spectrum manager lease agreement, or a *de facto*
> transfer lease agreement.

\(d\) The specific information that licensees will provide and the
procedures that they will follow in submitting their annual reports will
be announced in a Public Notice issued by the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau.

**Part 90 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:**

22\. The authority citation for Part 27 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g),
303(r), 332(c)(7).

23\. Part 90 is amended by adding new Section 90.555 to read as follows:

**§ 90.555 Information exchange**.

a\) *Prior notification*. Public safety licensees authorized to operate
in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz bands may notify any licensee
authorized to operate in the 747-762 or 777-792 MHz bands that they wish
to receive prior notification of the activation or modification of the
licensee's base or fixed stations in their area. Thereafter, the 747-762
or 777-792 MHz band licensee must provide the following information to
the public safety licensee at least 10 business days before a new base
or fixed station is activated or an existing base or fixed station is
modified:

\(1\) Location;

\(2\) Effective radiated power;

\(3\) Antenna height; and,

\(4\) Channels available for use.

\(b\) *Purpose of prior notification.* The prior coordination of base or
fixed stations is for informational purposes only. Public safety
licensees are not afforded the right to accept or reject the activation
of a proposed base or fixed station or to unilaterally require changes
in its operating parameters. The principal purposes of notification are
to:

> \(1\) Allow a public safety licensee to advise the 747-762 or 777-792
> MHz band licensee whether it believes a proposed base or fixed station
> will generate unacceptable interference;
>
> \(2\) Permit 747-762 and 777-792 MHz band licensees to make voluntary
> changes in base or fixed station parameters when a public safety
> licensee alerts them to possible interference; and
>
> \(3\) Rapidly identify the source if interference is encountered when
>
> the base or fixed station is activated.

\(c\) *Public Safety Information Exchange*.

> \(1\) Upon request by a 747-762 or 777-792 MHz band licensee, public
> safety licensees authorized to operate radio systems in the 764-776
> and 794-806 MHz bands shall provide the operating parameters of their
> radio system to the 747-762 or 777-792 MHz band licensee.

(2) Public safety licensees who perform the information exchange
    described in this section must notify the appropriate 747-762 or
    777-792 MHz band licensees prior to any technical changes to their
    radio system.

**APPENDIX C**

**Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^599] separate Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFA)
    were incorporated in the *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice* in WT
    Docket No. 06-150, CC Docket No. 94-102, and WT Docket No. 01-309;
    the *700 MHz Guard Band Notice*, WT Docket Nos. 06-169 and 96-86;
    and the *700* *MHz Public Safety Notice,* PS Docket No. 06-229 and
    WT Docket No. 96-86.[^600] The Commission sought written public
    comment on the proposals in these dockets, including comment on the
    IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to
    the RFA.[^601]

2.  Although Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000
    provides that the RFA shall not apply to the rules and competitive
    bidding procedures for frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band,[^602]
    the Commission believes that it would serve the public interest to
    analyze the possible significant economic impact of the proposed
    policy and rule changes in this band on small entities. Accordingly,
    this FRFA contains an analysis of this impact in connection with all
    spectrum that falls within the scope of this *Report and Order*,
    including spectrum in the 746-806 MHz Band.

## Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

3.  In the *Report and Order*, with regard to commercial services, the
    Commission takes a number of steps to facilitate access to spectrum
    and the provision of service to consumers, especially those in rural
    areas, and to simplify and clarify our rules related to the
    commercial 700 MHz spectrum. The Commission decides that it will
    auction the Commercial Services licenses across a mix of geographic
    service area definitions. The Commission also extends the date for
    initial license terms from January 15, 2015, to the end of the DTV
    transition on February 17, 2019. With regard to radiated power
    limits, the Commission generally adopts a power spectral density
    model, with certain limitations, to provide greater operational
    flexibility to licensees operating at wider bandwidths, and provides
    for higher radiated power levels for those 700 MHz licensees
    operating in rural areas under the current 1 kW per MHz power limit.
    The Commission also modifies the 911/E911 rules to remove the
    service- and band-specific limitations on the applicability of those
    requirements. Further, the Commission finds that all digital CMRS
    providers, including providers in the 700 MHz, Advanced Wireless
    Services, and the Broadband Radio Service/Educational Broadband
    Service bands, along with manufacturers of handsets capable of
    providing such services, should be subject to the Commission's
    hearing aid compatibility requirements to the extent that a service
    satisfies the scope provision the current rules.

4.  The Commission also adopts rules to enhance spectrum usage in the
    700 MHz Guard Bands by replacing the Guard Band Manager spectrum
    leasing regime with the Secondary Markets spectrum leasing policies
    and rules. Guard bands licensees will have the option of entering
    into spectrum manager and *de facto* transfer leasing arrangements.
    By permitting Guard Band licensees and spectrum lessees to choose
    between the two different options, the Commission affords licensees
    and spectrum lessees significant flexibility to craft the type of
    leasing arrangement that best matches their particular needs and the
    demands of the marketplace.

## Legal Basis

5.  The authority for the actions taken in this *Report and Order* is
    contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 215,
    222(d)(4)(A)-(C), 222(f), 222(g), 222(h)(1)(A), 222(h)(4)-(5),
    251(e)(3), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 315, 316, 317, 324,
    331, 332, 336, 337 and 710, of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214,
    215, 222(d)(4)(A)-(C), 222(f), 222(g), 222(h)(1)(A), 222(h)(4)-(5),
    251(e)(3), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 315, 317, 324, 331,
    332, 336, 337, and 610.

## Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

6.  No comments specifically addressed the IRFAs from any of the
    respective proceedings. We have nonetheless addressed small entity
    issues found in comments in this FRFA.

## Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply

7.  The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
    feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be
    affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^603] The RFA generally
    defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the
    terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
    governmental jurisdiction."[^604] In addition, the term "small
    business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern"
    under the Small Business Act.[^605] A "small business concern" is
    one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not
    dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional
    criteria established by the Small Business Administration
    (SBA).[^606]

8.  *[Governmental Entities]{.underline}.* The term "small governmental
    jurisdiction" is defined as "governments of cities, towns,
    townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
    population of less than fifty thousand."[^607] As of 2002, there
    were approximately 87,525 governmental jurisdictions in the United
    States.[^608] This number includes 38,967 county governments,
    municipalities, and townships, of which 37,373 (approximately 95.9%)
    have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,594 have
    populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, the Commission estimates the
    number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 85,931 or
    fewer.

9.  In the following paragraphs, the Commission further describes and
    estimates the number of small entity licensees that may be affected
    by the rules the Commission adopts in this *Report and Order*. The
    rule changes affect Upper 700 MHz and Lower 700 MHz Band licensees
    in the 698-746, 747-762, and 777-792 MHz spectrum bands, as well as
    all commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) with respect to 911/E911
    requirements adopted in this *Report and Order*.

10. Since this *Report and Order* applies to multiple services, this
    FRFA analyzes the number of small entities affected on a
    service-by-service basis. When identifying small entities that could
    be affected by the Commission's new rules, this FRFA provides
    information that describes auctions results, including the number of
    small entities that were winning bidders. However, the number of
    winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an
    auction does not necessarily reflect the total number of small
    entities currently in a particular service. The Commission does not
    generally require that licensees later provide business size
    information, except in the context of an assignment or a transfer of
    control application that involves unjust enrichment issues.

***Part 27 Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services (MWCS)***

11. *[Wireless Communications Services]{.underline}.* This service can
    be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio
    broadcasting satellite uses in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz
    bands. The Commission defined "small business" for the wireless
    communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average
    gross revenues of \$40 million for each of the three preceding
    years, and a "very small business" as an entity with average gross
    revenues of \$15 million for each of the three preceding
    years.[^609] The SBA has approved these definitions.[^610] The
    Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In
    the auction, which commenced on April 15, 1997 and closed on April
    25, 1997, there were seven bidders that won 31 licenses that
    qualified as very small business entities, and one bidder that won
    one license that qualified as a small business entity.

12. *[700 MHz Guard Band Licenses]{.underline}.* In the *700 MHz Guard
    Band Order*, the Commission adopted size standards for "small
    businesses" and "very small businesses" for purposes of determining
    their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
    installment payments.[^611] A small business in this service is an
    entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
    principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding \$40 million
    for the preceding three years.[^612] Additionally, a "very small
    business" is an entity that, together with its affiliates and
    controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more
    than \$15 million for the preceding three years.[^613] SBA approval
    of these definitions is not required.[^614] An auction of 52 Major
    Economic Area (MEA) licenses commenced on September 6, 2000, and
    closed on September 21, 2000.[^615] Of the 104 licenses auctioned,
    96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were
    small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction
    of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001, and
    closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned
    were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small
    business that won a total of two licenses.[^616]

13. *[Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses]{.underline}.* The Commission released
    a *Report and Order* authorizing service in the Upper 700 MHz
    band.[^617] An auction for these licenses, previously scheduled for
    January 13, 2003, was postponed.[^618]

14. *[Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses]{.underline}.* The Commission adopted
    criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes
    of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as
    bidding credits.[^619] The Commission has defined a small business
    as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
    principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding \$40 million
    for the preceding three years.[^620] A very small business is
    defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
    controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more
    than \$15 million for the preceding three years.[^621] Additionally,
    the Lower 700 MHz Band has a third category of small business status
    that may be claimed for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA)
    licenses. The third category is entrepreneur, which is defined as an
    entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
    principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than \$3
    million for the preceding three years.[^622] The SBA has approved
    these small size standards.[^623] An auction of 740 licenses (one
    license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license in each of the
    six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August 27, 2002,
    and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses available for
    auction, 484 licenses were sold to 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two
    of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small business
    or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses.[^624] A
    second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, and closed on June 13,
    2003, and included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 CMA
    licenses.[^625] Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very
    small business status and won sixty licenses, and nine winning
    bidders claimed entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses.[^626]

15. *[Government Transfer Bands]{.underline}.* The Commission adopted
    small business size standards for the unpaired 1390-1392 MHz,
    1670-1675 MHz, and the paired 1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz
    bands.[^627] Specifically, with respect to these bands, the
    Commission defined an entity with average annual gross revenues for
    the three preceding years not exceeding \$40 million as a "small
    business," and an entity with average annual gross revenues for the
    three preceding years not exceeding \$15 million as a "very small
    business."[^628] Correspondingly, the Commission adopted a bidding
    credit of 15 percent for "small businesses" and a bidding credit of
    25 percent for "very small businesses."[^629] An auction for one
    license in the 1670-1674 MHz band commenced on April 30, 2003 and
    closed the same day. One license was awarded. The winning bidder was
    not a small entity.

16. *[Advanced Wireless Services]{.underline}.* In the *AWS-1 Report and
    Order*, the Commission adopted rules that affect applicants who wish
    to provide service in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz
    bands.[^630] The *AWS-1 Report and Order* defines a "small business"
    as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding
    three years not exceeding \$40 million, and a "very small business"
    as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding
    three years not exceeding \$15 million. The *AWS-1 Report and Order*
    also provides small businesses with a bidding credit of 15 percent
    and very small businesses with a bidding credit of 25 percent.

17. *[Broadband Radio Service (formerly Multipoint Distribution Service)
    and Educational Broadband Service (formerly Instructional Television
    Fixed Service)]{.underline}*. Multichannel Multipoint Distribution
    Service (MMDS) systems, often referred to as "wireless cable,"
    transmit video programming to subscribers using the microwave
    frequencies of the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and
    Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS).[^631] In its recently
    issued *BRS/EBS Report and Order* in WT Docket No. 03-66, the
    Commission comprehensively reviewed its policies and rules relating
    to the ITFS and MDS services, and replaced the MDS with the
    Broadband Radio Service and ITFS with the Educational Broadband
    Service in a new band plan at 2495-2690 MHz.[^632] In connection
    with the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined "small business"
    as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross
    annual revenues that are not more than \$40 million for the
    preceding three calendar years.[^633] The SBA has approved of this
    standard.[^634] The MDS auction resulted in 67 successful bidders
    obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas
    (BTAs).[^635] Of the 67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as a
    small business. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the
    61 small business MDS auction winners, 48 remain small business
    licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA
    authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees
    that have gross revenues that are not more than \$40 million and are
    thus considered small entities.[^636]

***Additional Wireless Radio Services (WRS)***

18. *[Cellular Licensees]{.underline}.* The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for small businesses in the category
    "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications."[^637] Under that
    SBA category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^638] For the census category of "Cellular and Other
    Wireless Telecommunications," Census Bureau data for 2002 show that
    there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^639] Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or
    fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or
    more.[^640] Thus, under this category and size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small.

19. *[220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase I Licensees]{.underline}.* The 220
    MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I
    licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are
    approximately 1,515 such non‑nationwide licensees and four
    nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz
    Band. The Commission has not developed a definition of small
    entities specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I
    licensees. To estimate the number of such licensees that are small
    businesses, the Commission applies the small business size standard
    under the SBA rules applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications" companies. This category provides that a small
    business is a wireless company employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^641] For the census category of "Cellular and Other
    Wireless Telecommunications," Census Bureau data for 2002 show that
    there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^642] Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or
    fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or
    more.[^643] Thus, under this category and size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small.

20. *[220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase II Licensees]{.underline}.* The 220
    MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220
    MHz service is subject to spectrum auctions. In the *220 MHz Third
    Report and Order*, the Commission adopted a small business size
    standard for defining "small" and "very small" businesses for
    purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions
    such as bidding credits and installment payments.[^644] This small
    business standard indicates that a "small business" is an entity
    that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
    average gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding
    three years.[^645] A "very small business" is defined as an entity
    that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
    average gross revenues that do not exceed \$3 million for the
    preceding three years.[^646] The SBA has approved these small size
    standards.[^647] Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on
    September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998.[^648] In the
    first auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in three different‑sized
    geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic
    Area Group (EAG) Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of
    the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold.[^649] Thirty-nine small
    businesses won 373 licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. A second
    auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses.
    Fourteen companies claiming small business status won 158
    licenses.[^650] A third auction included four licenses: 2 BEA
    licenses and 2 EAG licenses in the 220 MHz Service. No small or very
    small business won any of these licenses.[^651]

21. *[Paging]{.underline}.* In the *Paging* *Second* Report *and Order*,
    the Commission adopted a size standard for "small businesses" for
    purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions
    such as bidding credits and installment payments.[^652] A small
    business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and
    controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding
    \$15 million for the preceding three years.[^653] The SBA has
    approved this definition.[^654] An auction of Metropolitan Economic
    Area (MEA) licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on
    March 2, 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were sold.[^655]
    Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won 440
    licenses.[^656] An auction of MEA and Economic Area (EA) licenses
    commenced on October 30, 2001, and closed on December 5, 2001. Of
    the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323 were sold.[^657] 132 companies
    claiming small business status purchased 3,724 licenses. A third
    auction, consisting of 8,874 licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328
    licenses in all but three of the 51 MEAs commenced on May 13, 2003,
    and closed on May 28, 2003. Seventy-seven bidders claiming small or
    very small business status won 2,093 licenses.[^658] Currently,
    there are approximately 24,000 Private Paging site-specific licenses
    and 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. According to the
    Commission's *Trends in Telephone Service,* 375 such carriers
    reported that they were engaged in the provision of either paging or
    "messaging service."[^659] Of these, the Commission estimates that
    370 are small, under the SBA-approved small business size
    standard.[^660] The Commission estimates that the majority of
    private and common carrier paging providers would qualify as small
    entities under the SBA definition.

22. *[Broadband Personal Communications Service]{.underline}.* The
    broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided
    into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission
    has held auctions for each block. The Commission has created a small
    business size standard for Blocks C and F as an entity that has
    average gross revenues of less than \$40 million in the three
    previous calendar years.[^661] For Block F, an additional small
    business size standard for "very small business" was added and is
    defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average
    gross revenues of not more than \$15 million for the preceding three
    calendar years.[^662] These small business size standards, in the
    context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the
    SBA.[^663] No small businesses within the SBA-approved small
    business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A
    and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small
    entities in the C Block auctions. A total of 93 "small" and "very
    small" business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479
    licenses for Blocks D, E, and F.[^664] On March 23, 1999, the
    Commission reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F Block licenses; there were
    113 small business winning bidders.[^665] On January 26, 2001, the
    Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F PCS licenses in
    Auction 35.[^666] Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29
    qualified as "small" or "very small" businesses. Subsequent events
    concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations,
    resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available
    for grant.

23. *[Narrowband Personal Communications Service]{.underline}.* The
    Commission held an auction for Narrowband Personal Communications
    Service (PCS) licenses that commenced on July 25, 1994, and closed
    on July 29, 1994. A second commenced on October 26, 1994 and closed
    on November 8, 1994. For purposes of the first two Narrowband PCS
    auctions, "small businesses" were entities with average gross
    revenues for the prior three calendar years of \$40 million or
    less.[^667] Through these auctions, the Commission awarded a total
    of forty-one licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four small
    businesses.[^668] To ensure meaningful participation by small
    business entities in future auctions, the Commission adopted a
    two-tiered small business size standard in the *Narrowband PCS
    Second Report and Order*.[^669] A "small business" is an entity
    that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has
    average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more
    than \$40 million.[^670] A "very small business" is an entity that,
    together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average
    gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than \$15
    million.[^671] The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards.[^672] A third auction commenced on October 3, 2001 and
    closed on October 16, 2001. Here, five bidders won 317 (MTA and
    nationwide) licenses.[^673] Three of these claimed status as a small
    or very small entity and won 311 licenses.

24. *[Specialized Mobile Radio]{.underline}.* The Commission awards
    "small entity" bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile
    Radio (SMR) geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz
    bands to firms that had revenues of no more than \$15 million in
    each of the three previous calendar years.[^674] The Commission
    awards "very small entity" bidding credits to firms that had
    revenues of no more than \$3 million in each of the three previous
    calendar years.[^675] The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards for the 900 MHz Service.[^676] The Commission has held
    auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz
    bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction began on December 5, 1995, and closed
    on April 15, 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified as
    small businesses under the \$15 million size standard won 263
    geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR
    auction for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and
    was completed on December 8, 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they
    qualified as small businesses under the \$15 million size standard
    won 38 geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the
    800 MHz SMR band.[^677] A second auction for the 800 MHz band was
    held on January 10, 2002 and closed on January 17, 2002 and included
    23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won five
    licenses.[^678]

25. The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for
    the General Category channels began on August 16, 2000, and was
    completed on September 1, 2000. Eleven bidders won 108 geographic
    area licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR
    band qualified as small businesses under the \$15 million size
    standard. In an auction completed on December 5, 2000, a total of
    2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz
    SMR service were sold. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed "small
    business" status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three
    auctions, 40 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz
    SMR band claimed status as small business.

26. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees
    and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in the 800
    and 900 MHz bands. The Commission does not know how many firms
    provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended
    implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have
    annual revenues of no more than \$3 million or \$15 million (the
    special small business size standards), or have no more than 1,500
    employees (the generic SBA standard for wireless entities,
    discussed, *supra*). One firm has over \$15 million in revenues. The
    Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the
    remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held
    by small entities.

27. *[Private Land Mobile Radio]{.underline}.* Private Land Mobile Radio
    (PLMR) systems serve an essential role in a range of industrial,
    business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These
    radios are used by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S.
    business categories, and are often used in support of the licensee's
    primary (non-telecommunications) business operations. The SBA has
    developed a small business size standard for the economic census
    category, "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,\" which
    is any such entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^679] The
    Commission does not require PLMR licensees to disclose information
    about number of employees, so the Commission does not have
    information that could be used to determine how many PLMR licensees
    constitute small entities under this definition.

28. *[Fixed Microwave Services]{.underline}.* Fixed microwave services
    include common carrier,[^680] private-operational fixed,[^681] and
    broadcast auxiliary radio services.[^682] Currently, there are
    approximately 22,015 common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670
    private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio
    licensees in the microwave services. The Commission has not yet
    defined a small business with respect to microwave services. As
    noted, the SBA has developed a small business size for the broad
    census category, "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications"
    companies---that is, an entity with no more than 1,500
    persons.[^683] The Commission does not have data specifying the
    number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and
    thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the
    number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as
    small business concerns under the SBA's small business size
    standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are
    22,015 or fewer small common carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 or
    fewer small private operational-fixed licensees and small broadcast
    auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be
    affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. The Commission
    notes, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed licensee
    category includes some large entities.

29. *[39 GHz Service]{.underline}.* The Commission defines "small
    entity" for 39 GHz licenses as an entity that has average gross
    revenues of less than \$40 million in the three previous calendar
    years.[^684] "Very small business" is defined as an entity that,
    together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more
    than \$15 million for the preceding three calendar years.[^685] The
    SBA has approved these definitions.[^686] The auction of the 2,173
    39 GHz licenses began on April 12, 2000, and closed on May 8, 2000.
    The 18 bidders who claimed small business status won 849 licenses.

30. *[Local Multipoint Distribution Service]{.underline}.* An auction of
    the 986 Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) licenses began
    on February 18, 1998, and closed on March 25, 1998. The Commission
    defined "small entity" for LMDS licenses as an entity that has
    average gross revenues of less than \$40 million in the three
    previous calendar years.[^687] An additional classification for
    "very small business" was added and is defined as an entity that,
    together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more
    than \$15 million for the preceding three calendar years.[^688]
    These regulations defining "small entity" in the context of LMDS
    auctions have been approved by the SBA.[^689] There were 93 winning
    bidders that qualified as small entities in the LMDS auctions. A
    total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately
    277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block licenses. On March 27, 1999,
    the Commission re-auctioned 161 licenses; there were 32 small and
    very small business winning bidders that won 119 licenses.

31. *[218-219 MHz Service]{.underline}.* The first auction of 218-219
    MHz (previously referred to as the Interactive and Video Data
    Service or IVDS) spectrum resulted in 178 entities winning licenses
    for 594 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs).[^690] Of the 594
    licenses, 567 were won by 167 entities qualifying as a small
    business. For that auction, the Commission defined a small business
    as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has no more than a
    \$6 million net worth and, after federal income taxes (excluding any
    carry over losses), has no more than \$2 million in annual profits
    each year for the previous two years.[^691] For future auctions in
    the *218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order*,
    the Commission defined a small business as an entity that, together
    with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in
    such an entity and their affiliates, has average annual gross
    revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three
    years.[^692] A very small business is defined as an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and persons or entities that holds
    interests in such an entity and its affiliates, has average annual
    gross revenues not exceeding \$3 million for the preceding three
    years.[^693] The SBA has approved of these definitions.[^694] At
    this time, no additional auction is scheduled.

32. *[Location and Monitoring Service]{.underline}.* Multilateration
    Location and Monitoring Service (LMS) systems use non-voice radio
    techniques to determine the location and status of mobile radio
    units. For purposes of auctioning LMS licenses, the Commission has
    defined "small business" as an entity that, together with
    controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross
    revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding \$15
    million.[^695] A "very small business" is defined as an entity that,
    together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average
    annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding
    \$3 million.[^696] These definitions have been approved by the
    SBA.[^697] An auction for multilateration LMS licenses commenced on
    February 23, 1999, and closed on March 5, 1999. Of the 528 licenses
    auctioned, 289 licenses were sold to four small businesses. In
    addition, there are numerous site-by-site non-multilateration
    licensees, and the Commission does not know how many of these
    providers have annual revenues of no more than \$3 million or \$15
    million (the special small business size standards), or have no more
    than 1,500 employees (the generic SBA standard for wireless
    entities, discussed *supra*). The Commission assumes, for purposes
    of this analysis, that all of these licenses are held by small
    entities.

33. *[Rural Radiotelephone Service]{.underline}.* The Commission uses
    the SBA small business size standard applicable to cellular and
    other wireless telecommunication companies, *i.e.*, an entity
    employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^698] There are approximately
    1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the
    Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity
    licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected
    by the rules and policies adopted herein.

34. *[Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service]{.underline}.* The Commission
    uses the SBA small business size standard applicable to cellular and
    other wireless telecommunication companies, *i.e.*, an entity
    employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^699] There are approximately
    100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and the
    Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as small
    entities under the SBA standard.

35. *[Offshore Radiotelephone Service]{.underline}.* This service
    operates on several ultra high frequency (UHF) TV broadcast channels
    that are not used for TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the
    states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. At present, there are
    approximately 55 licensees in this service. The Commission uses the
    SBA small business size standard applicable to cellular and other
    wireless telecommunication companies, *i.e.*, an entity employing no
    more than 1,500 persons.[^700] The Commission is unable at this time
    to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as small
    entities under the SBA standard. The Commission assumes, for
    purposes of this analysis, that all of the 55 licensees are small
    entities, as that term is defined under the SBA standard.

36. *[Multiple Address Systems]{.underline}.* Entities using Multiple
    Address Systems (MAS) spectrum, in general, fall into two
    categories: (1) those using the spectrum for profit-based uses,
    and (2) those using the spectrum for private internal uses. With
    respect to the first category, the Commission defines "small entity"
    for MAS licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of
    less than \$15 million in the three previous calendar years.[^701]
    "Very small business" is defined as an entity that, together with
    its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than \$3
    million for the preceding three calendar years.[^702] The SBA has
    approved of these special small business size standards.[^703] The
    majority of these entities will most likely be licensed in bands
    where the Commission has implemented a geographic area licensing
    approach that would require the use of competitive bidding
    procedures to resolve mutually exclusive applications. The
    Commission's licensing database indicates that, as of January 20,
    1999, there were a total of 8,670 MAS station authorizations. Of
    these, 260 authorizations were associated with common carrier
    service. In addition, an auction for 5,104 MAS licenses in 176 EAs
    began November 14, 2001, and closed on November 27, 2001.[^704]
    Seven winning bidders claimed status as small or very small
    businesses and won 611 licenses.

37. With respect to the second category, which consists of entities that
    use, or seek to use, MAS spectrum to accommodate their own internal
    communications needs, MAS serves an essential role in a range of
    industrial, safety, business, and land transportation activities.
    MAS radios are used by companies of all sizes, operating in
    virtually all U.S. business categories, and by all types of public
    safety entities. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business
    size standard for the broad economic census category, "Cellular and
    Other Wireless Telecommunications," which is any such entity
    employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^705] The Commission's
    licensing database indicates that, as of January 20, 1999, of the
    8,670 total MAS station authorizations, 8,410 authorizations were
    for private radio service, and of these, 1,433 were for private land
    mobile radio service.

38. *[Incumbent 24 GHz Licensees]{.underline}.* The rules at issue could
    affect incumbent licensees who were relocated to the 24 GHz band
    from the 18 GHz band, and applicants who wish to provide services in
    the 24 GHz band. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business
    size standard for the broad economic census category, "Cellular and
    Other Wireless Telecommunications," which is any such entity
    employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^706] The Commission believes
    that there are only two licensees in the 24 GHz band that were
    relocated from the 18 GHz band, Teligent[^707] and TRW, Inc. The
    Commission understands that Teligent and its related companies have
    less than 1,500 employees, though this may change in the future. TRW
    is not a small entity. Thus, only one incumbent licensee in the 24
    GHz band is a small business entity.

39. *[Future 24 GHz Licensees]{.underline}*. With respect to new
    applicants in the 24 GHz band, the Commission has defined "small
    business" as an entity that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the three
    preceding years not exceeding \$15 million.[^708] "Very small
    business" in the 24 GHz band is defined as an entity that, together
    with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross
    revenues not exceeding \$3 million for the preceding three
    years.[^709] The SBA has approved these size standards. At this
    time, no additional auction is scheduled.

40. *[Cable and Other Program Distribution]{.underline}.* The SBA has
    developed a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program
    Distribution, which is: all such firms having \$13.5 million or less
    in annual receipts.[^710] According to Census Bureau data for 2002,
    there were a total of 1,191 firms in this category that operated for
    the entire year.[^711] Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual
    receipts of under \$10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of \$10
    million or more but less than \$25 million.[^712] Thus, under this
    size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

41. *[Cable Television Relay Service]{.underline}.* This service
    includes transmitters generally used to relay cable programming
    within cable television system distribution systems. The Census
    Bureau has defined a category of Cable and Other Program
    Distribution as follows: "This industry comprises establishments
    primarily engaged as third-party distribution systems for broadcast
    programming. The establishments of this industry deliver visual,
    aural, or textual programming received from cable networks, local
    television stations, or radio networks to consumers via cable or
    direct-to-home satellite systems on a subscription or fee basis.
    These establishments do not generally originate programming
    material."[^713] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which is: all
    such firms having \$13.5 million or less in annual receipts.[^714]
    According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of
    1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^715] Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under
    \$10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of \$10 million or more but
    less than \$25 million.[^716] Thus, under this size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small.

42. *[Cable Companies and Systems]{.underline}.* The Commission has also
    developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of
    cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a "small cable
    company" is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers,
    nationwide.[^717] Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable
    operators nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size
    standard.[^718] In addition, under the Commission's rules, a "small
    system" is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.[^719]
    Industry data indicate that, of 7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139
    systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 379 systems
    have 10,000-19,999 subscribers.[^720] Thus, under this second size
    standard, most cable systems are small.

43. *[Cable System Operators]{.underline}.* The Communications Act of
    1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable
    system operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or
    through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent
    of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with
    any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate
    exceed \$250,000,000."[^721] The Commission has determined that an
    operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a
    small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total
    annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed \$250 million
    in the aggregate.[^722] Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable
    operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size
    standard.[^723] The Commission neither requests nor collects
    information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with
    entities whose gross annual revenues exceed \$250 million,[^724] and
    therefore it is unable to estimate more accurately the number of
    cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size
    standard.

44. *[Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service]{.underline}.*
    Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) is a
    terrestrial fixed microwave service operating in the 12.2-12.7 GHz
    band. Licenses in this service were auctioned in January 2004, with
    10 winning bidders for 192 licenses. Eight of these 10 winning
    bidders claimed small businesses status for 144 of these
    licenses.[^725]

45. *[Amateur Radio Service]{.underline}.* These licensees are believed
    to be individuals, and therefore are not small entities.

46. *[Aviation and Marine Services]{.underline}.* Small businesses in
    the aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency
    (VHF) marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency
    position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency
    locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small
    business size standard specifically applicable to these small
    businesses. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for the broad economic census category, "Cellular and Other
    Wireless Telecommunications," which is any such entity employing no
    more than 1,500 persons.[^726] Most applicants for recreational
    licenses are individuals. Approximately 581,000 ship station
    licensees and 131,000 aircraft station licensees operate
    domestically and are not subject to the radio carriage requirements
    of any statute or treaty. For purposes of the Commission's
    evaluations in this analysis, the Commission estimates that there
    are up to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small businesses
    (or individuals) under the SBA standard. In addition, between
    December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an
    auction of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz
    (ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For
    purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a "small" business
    as an entity that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years
    not to exceed \$15 million dollars. In addition, a "very small"
    business is one that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years
    not to exceed \$3 million dollars.[^727] There are approximately
    10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission
    estimates that almost all of them qualify as "small" businesses
    under the above special small business size standards.

47. *[Personal Radio Services]{.underline}*. Personal radio services
    provide short-range, low power radio for personal communications,
    radio signaling, and business communications not provided for in
    other services. The Personal Radio Services include spectrum
    licensed under Part 95 of the rules.[^728] These services include
    Citizen Band Radio Service (CB), General Mobile Radio Service
    (GMRS), Radio Control Radio Service (R/C), Family Radio Service
    (FRS), Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), Medical Implant
    Communications Service (MICS), Low Power Radio Service (LPRS), and
    Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS).[^729] There are a variety of methods
    used to license the spectrum in these rule parts, from licensing by
    rule, to conditioning operation on successful completion of a
    required test, to site-based licensing, to geographic area
    licensing. Under the RFA, the Commission is required to make a
    determination of which small entities are directly affected by the
    rules being adopted. Since all such entities are wireless, the
    Commission applies the small business size standard "Cellular and
    Other Wireless Telecommunications," pursuant to which a small entity
    is defined as employing 1,500 or fewer persons.[^730] Many of the
    licensees in these services are individuals, and thus are not small
    entities. In addition, due to the mostly unlicensed and shared
    nature of the spectrum utilized in many of these services, the
    Commission lacks direct information upon which to base an estimation
    of the number of small entities under an SBA definition that might
    be directly affected by the proposed rules.

48. Despite the paucity, or in some instances, total absence, of
    information about their status as licensees or regulatees or the
    number of operators in each such service, users of spectrum in these
    services are listed here as a matter of Commission discretion in
    order to fulfill the mandate imposed on the Commission by the RFA to
    regulate small business entities with an understanding towards
    preventing the possible differential and adverse impact of the
    Commission's rules on smaller entities. Further, the listing of such
    entities, despite their indeterminate status, should provide them
    with fair and adequate notice of the possible impact of the instant
    proposals.

49. *[Public Safety Radio Licensees]{.underline}.* As a general matter,
    public safety radio licensees include police, fire, local
    government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and
    emergency medical services.[^731] The SBA rules contain a small
    business size standard for "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications," which encompass business entities engaged in
    wireless communications employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^732]
    According to Census Bureau data for 2002, in this category there was
    a total of 8,863 firms that operated for the entire year.[^733] Of
    this total, 401 firms had 100 or more employees, and the remainder
    had fewer than 100 employees.[^734] With respect to local
    governments, in particular, since many governmental entities as well
    as private businesses comprise the licensees for these services, the
    Commission includes under public safety services the number of
    government entities affected.

50. *[Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
    Equipment Manufacturing]{.underline}.* The Census Bureau defines
    this category as follows: "This industry comprises establishments
    primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast
    and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by
    these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
    television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
    communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
    broadcasting equipment."[^735] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and
    Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such
    firms having 750 or fewer employees.[^736] According to Census
    Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in
    this category that operated for the entire year.[^737] Of this
    total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and an additional 13 had
    employment of 500 to 999.[^738] Thus, under this size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small.

## Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

51. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
    requirements resulting from the Report and Order will apply to all
    entities in the same manner. The Commission believes that applying
    the same rules equally to all entities promotes fairness. The
    Commission does not believe that the costs and/or administrative
    burdens associated with the rules will unduly burden small entities.
    The revisions the Commission adopts should benefit small entities by
    giving them more information, more flexibility, and more options for
    gaining access to valuable wireless spectrum.

52. [Renewal Procedures]{.underline}. In this *Report and Order*, the
    Commission revises Section 27.14 of the rules to eliminate the
    filing of competing applications at the time of the renewal of 700
    MHz licenses. This rule change will relieve all licensees, including
    small businesses that hold or will hold licenses in the 700 MHz Band
    the burden of possibly facing a comparative hearing. The *Report and
    Order* also clarifies that within the renewal context, all licensees
    must make a substantial service showing and demonstrate that they
    have substantially complied with the Commission's rules, policies,
    and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.[^739] This
    requirement is distinct from the performance requirements that the
    Commission seeks comment on in the *Further Notice*.

53. [911/E911]{.underline}. There is no general reporting or
    recordkeeping requirements for 911/E911 compliance. The 911/E911
    obligations established in Section 20.18 of our rules, however, are
    extended to cover all commercial mobile radio services (CMRS),
    including services licensed in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band
    and the AWS-1 bands, to the same extent as they apply to wireless
    services currently listed in the scope provision of Section 20.18.
    The Commission will continue, however, to exclude MSS from Section
    20.18 in conformity with the Commission's decision in the *E911
    Scope Order*.[^740] All other CMRS providers must comply with the
    911/E911 requirements to the extent that they offer real-time, two
    way switched voice service that is interconnected with the public
    switched network and utilize an in-network-switching facility that
    enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless
    hand-offs of subscriber calls.[^741] The Commission finds that this
    extension of 911/E911 requirements, while substantial for small
    carriers, is justified by the interest in competitive neutrality as
    well as by the critical public safety benefits of 911/E911. To the
    extent that special circumstances arise in particular situations
    where compliance may not be technically or economically feasible,
    waiver relief is available on a case-by-case basis. In addition, to
    the extent that carriers pursue a handset-based compliance solution,
    implementation should be easier than in previous 911/E911 compliance
    instances involving other services. Given that the 911/E911
    requirements in Part 27 will be imposed prior to the commencement of
    services in the 700 MHz band, all of the subscribers to the new
    services will have compliant handsets from the commencement of
    service. Small carriers will therefore not have the complication of
    replacing phones that lack 911/E911 capability.

54. [Public Safety Notification]{.underline}. In this *Report and
    Order*, the Commission takes steps to address potential
    intermodulation ("IM") to public safety operations in the 700 MHz
    Band. Specifically, as the Commission did with respect to 800 MHz
    ESMR and Cellular licensees,[^742] the Commission will require 700
    MHz Commercial Services Band licensees, upon request from a 700 MHz
    public safety entity, to provide to that entity information about
    the location and parameters of any stations they plan to activate in
    the public safety entity's area of operation.[^743] The Commission
    will also require, as it did in Section 90.675, public safety
    licensees to provide, upon request of a 700 MHz Commercial Services
    Band licensee, the operating parameters of their radio
    systems.[^744] As indicated in the *800 MHz Report and Order*, these
    actions can both help prevent potential interference from occurring
    and help identify possible sources of interference more rapidly, if
    interference were to occur.[^745] It is not anticipated that it will
    be onerous for small businesses to come into compliance with this
    requirement, which is triggered only upon a request from a public
    safety entity. The information to be reported is of a type that the
    licensee will likely have readily available.

55. [Application of Secondary Markets Spectrum Leasing Policies and
    Rules to the Guard Bands]{.underline}. Although the *Report and
    Order* replaces the Guard Band Manager spectrum leasing regime with
    the Secondary Markets spectrum leasing policies and rules, it
    sustains the requirements that applied to the Guard Band Manager
    regime with respect to the necessity to file annual reports with the
    Commission on spectrum use, as well as mandatory coordination with
    public safety entities for all uses of spectrum including that
    procured through leasing arrangements. The *Report and Order* also
    eliminates restrictions that had prevented Guard Band licensees from
    using their spectrum as system operators, and from leasing any more
    than 49.9 percent of their spectrum to affiliates.

## Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

56. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
    that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
    include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) the
    establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
    timetables that take into account the resources available to small
    entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
    compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small
    entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards;
    and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
    for small entities.[^746]

57. In the *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, the Commission invited
    comment on extending the license terms of 700 MHz Band licenses to
    an expiration date beyond 2015 in order to afford licensees a
    sufficient period of time for deployment of new 700 MHz Band
    services once the DTV transition is complete. In addition, the
    *Notice* sought comment on whether the power limits in the existing
    rules for the 700 MHz Band spectrum should be revised. Finally, the
    Commission sought comment on its tentative conclusion that services
    provided in the 700 MHz Band, and in other bands subject to Part 27
    of the rules such as AWS-1, should be subject to E911 and hearing
    aid-compatibility requirements to the same extent that such services
    would be covered if provided in other bands, and on whether such
    requirements should be extended to all similar wireless services.

58. [Small Geographic Service Areas]{.underline}. A number of small and
    rural service providers, as well as a several different coalitions
    of small, regional, and rural carriers proposed a mix of service
    areas that would include 12 REAGs, 176 EAs, and 734 CMAs, instead of
    just six EAGs. Several national carriers filed comments in support
    of leaving the EAG pattern in place. Separate comments were also
    received seeking a nationwide license and license areas smaller than
    CMAs.

59. The Commission concluded that providing a mix of CMAs, EAs, and
    REAGs licenses in the 700 MHz Commercial Services spectrum will be
    an effective means of providing increased access to spectrum,
    especially in rural areas, while simultaneously meeting other
    Commission goals. The Commission agrees with those commenters who
    observe that a revised mix of smaller license sizes would provide a
    more balanced set of initial licensing opportunities at this time
    and make available more licenses to match the needs of different
    potential users.[^747] The most common recommendation made to the
    Commission by small and rural providers was that additional licenses
    be made available based on small geographic service areas.[^748]
    Some of these commenters asserted in particular that the use of
    small geographic license areas provides an incentive for licensees
    to serve more rural communities, whereas licensing by large
    geographic license areas may allow licensees to meet their
    performance requirements only by serving the largest urban
    markets.[^749]

60. [Power Limits and Public Safety Notification]{.underline}. In this
    *Report and Order*, the Commission takes steps to address potential
    intermodulation ("IM") to public safety operations in the 700 MHz
    band in a manner that minimizes the impact on commercial licensees
    in the Upper 700 MHz Band, including small businesses with
    commercial operations in this band. The Commission declines to
    impose any technical restrictions on Upper 700 MHz Commercial
    Services Band licensees to address potential IM interference to 700
    MHz public safety operations. The Commission will, however, require
    Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band licensees and 700 MHz public
    safety entities, upon request from the other, to exchange
    information about their operating stations and systems. A reporting
    requirement triggered only by a request of a public safety entity
    operating on the 700 MHz Band will minimize economic impact on small
    businesses operating in the commercial 700 MHz Band relative to the
    alternative of imposing potentially burdensome technical
    restrictions on Upper 700 MHz Commercial Services Band licensees to
    address potential IM interference to 700 MHz public safety
    operations.

61. [911/E911]{.underline}. Almost all of the commenters addressing the
    911/E911 issue support application of the 911/E911 requirements to
    services in the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band to the extent that
    those services are similar to the services already subject to the
    requirements.[^750] Several commenters also state, however, that
    E911 should not apply to 700 MHz Commercial Services Band services
    to a greater extent than it does to services currently subject to
    the requirements.[^751]

62. The Commission concludes that Section 20.18(a) of its rules should
    be amended to apply 911/E911 requirements to all commercial mobile
    radio services (CMRS), including services licensed in the 700 MHz
    Commercial Services Band and the AWS-1 bands, to the same extent as
    they apply to wireless services currently listed in the scope
    provision of Section 20.18.[^752] For those small carriers who can
    demonstrate in a particular circumstance that implementation is not
    technically or economically feasible, the option of waiver relief is
    available. The *Report and Order* concludes, however, that such
    case-by-case circumstances, if any, should not delay the
    implementation of 911/E911 for service providers generally. In this
    regard, the Commission has observed previously that "911 service is
    critical to our Nation's ability to respond to a host of
    crises,"[^753] and that E911 in particular "saves lives and property
    by helping emergency services personnel do their jobs more quickly
    and efficiently."[^754] The Commission also takes note of Congress's
    finding in the "Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Near Callers Employing
    911 Act of 2004" that "for the sake of our Nation\'s homeland
    security and public safety, a universal emergency telephone
    number (911) that is enhanced with the most modern and
    state-of-the-art telecommunications capabilities possible should be
    available to all citizens in all regions of the Nation" and that
    "enhanced 911 is a high national priority."[^755]

63. [Application of Secondary Markets Spectrum Leasing Policies and
    Rules to the Guard Bands]{.underline}. The Report and Order
    maintains the existing requirement for Guard Band licensees to file
    annual reports regarding their spectrum usage, and thus does not
    increase the existing recordkeeping and reporting burden.
    Additionally, the *Report and Order* maintains the existing
    coordination requirements where all uses of Guard Bands spectrum
    must be coordinated with public safety operations in the 700 MHz
    Band. Under the *de jure* transfer leasing option within the
    Secondary Markets spectrum leasing policies and rules, the Guard
    Band licensee continues to be responsible for coordinating with the
    public safety operations. Under the *de facto* transfer leasing
    option, the lessee becomes primarily responsible for such
    coordination. As a result, to the extent that a Guard Band licensee
    is a small entity, the availability of the *de facto* transfer
    leasing option under the *Report and Order* reduces the overall
    potential burden on the Guard Band licensee, compared to its
    previous responsibility as a Guard Band Manager to coordinate all
    uses of its spectrum.

## Report to Congress

64. The Commission will send a copy of the *Report and Order*, including
    this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government
    Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review
    Act.[^756] In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the
    *Report and Order*, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the *Report and Order* and FRFA (or
    summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal
    Register.[^757]

**APPENDIX D**

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (the "RFA"),[^758] the Commission has prepared this Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") of the possible significant
    economic impact of the policies and rules proposed in the *Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* ("*Further Notice*") on a substantial
    number of small entities.[^759] Written public comments are
    requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to
    the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the
    *Further* *Notice* provided in paragraph 297 of the item. The
    Commission will send a copy of the *Further* *Notice*, including
    this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration ("SBA").[^760] In addition, the *Further* *Notice*
    and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
    Register.[^761]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
307. Although Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000
     provides that the RFA shall not apply to the rules and competitive
     bidding procedures for frequencies in the 746-806 MHz Band,[^762]
     the Commission believes that it would serve the public interest to
     analyze the possible significant economic impact of the proposed
     policy and rule changes in this band on small entities.
     Accordingly, this IRFA contains an analysis of this impact in
     connection with all spectrum that falls within the scope of this
     *Further Notice*, including spectrum in the 746-806 MHz Band.

## Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

308. The *Further Notice* encompasses issues pertinent to all three of
     our 700 MHz proceedings, as well as to Frontline's proposal. First,
     based on the record developed in connection with the *700 MHz
     Commercial Services Notice,* the Further *Notice* proposes several
     band plans that include a mix of small, medium and large geographic
     area licenses.

309. Second, the *Further Notice* also proposes to replace the current
     substantial service requirement with a geographic-based performance
     requirement, and seeks comment on this suggestion.

310. Third, the *Further Notice* tentatively concludes that the
     Commission can adopt neither the Broadband Optimization Plan (BOP),
     nor the proposals to reallocate and reassign commercial spectrum to
     critical infrastructure industries (CII) or public safety entities,
     because we do not have the statutory authority to adopt key
     components of the proposals. Irrespective of the lack of statutory
     authority, the *Further Notice* also tentatively concludes that the
     BOP and CII proposals would not be in the public interest, because
     of the manner in which they propose to assign commercial licenses
     outside of a competitive bidding context, and because they could
     introduce an increased possibility of interference.

311. Fourth, the *Further Notice* asks certain questions specifically
     related to the current Upper 700 MHz Guard Bands, in the event that
     the Commission maintains the current sizes and locations of either
     block of the Guard Bands licenses. The *Further Notice* also seeks
     comment on the alternative Guard Bands proposal recently submitted
     by Access Spectrum and Pegasus, as well as variations on that
     proposal.

312. Fifth, the *Further Notice* seeks to achieve broadband
     communications capabilities consistent with a nationwide
     interoperability standard for public safety. The Commission expects
     that modern public safety services will increasingly depend on the
     advanced communications capabilities afforded by wireless broadband
     technologies, which should enable first responders to perform their
     vital safety-of-life and other critical roles. The *Further Notice*
     tentatively concludes to redesignate the wideband spectrum to
     broadband use that would be consistent with a nationwide
     interoperability standard, and to prohibit wideband operations on a
     going forward basis. The *Further Notice* then seeks comment on a
     tentative conclusion to consolidate the narrowband spectrum to the
     top of the Public Safety Band, locate the broadband spectrum at the
     bottom of the Public Safety Band, and divide these segments with an
     internal guard band. Given this tentative conclusion, the *Further
     Notice* also seeks comment on a limited set of issues that would
     need to be resolved in order to effectuate the reconfiguration.
     This proposed reconfiguration would reduce the amount of spectrum
     necessary to separate and protect the public safety broadband and
     narrowband allocations, and could facilitate partnerships between
     public safety broadband operations and adjacent commercial
     broadband technologies, thereby optimizing the 700 MHz public
     safety band plan.

313. Finally, the *Further Notice* seeks comment on the "Public Safety
     Broadband Deployment Plan" proposal submitted very recently by
     Frontline Wireless, which if adopted in some form potentially would
     affect decisions in all three proceedings.

## Legal Basis

314. The legal authority for the actions proposed in this rulemaking are
     contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5(c), 7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214,
     301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 324, 332,
     333, 336, 337, 614, 615, and 710 of the Communications Act of 1934,
     as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 155(c), 157, 160, 201,
     202, 208, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316,
     319, 324, 332, 333, 336, and 337.

## Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

315. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
     feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
     affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^763] The RFA generally
     defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the
     terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
     governmental jurisdiction."[^764] In addition, the term "small
     business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern"
     under the Small Business Act.[^765] A "small business concern" is
     one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not
     dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
     additional criteria established by the Small Business
     Administration ("SBA").[^766]

316. *[Small Businesses]{.underline}*. Nationwide, there are a total of
     approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA
     data.[^767]

317. *[Small Organizations]{.underline}.* Nationwide, there are
     approximately 1.6 million small organizations.[^768]

318. *[Governmental Entities]{.underline}.* The term "small governmental
     jurisdiction" is defined as "governments of cities, towns,
     townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
     population of less than fifty thousand."[^769] As of 2002, there
     were approximately 87,525 governmental jurisdictions in the United
     States.[^770] This number includes 38,967 county governments,
     municipalities, and townships, of which 37,373 (approximately
     95.9%) have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,594
     have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate the number of
     small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 85,931 or fewer.

319. *[Wireless Service Providers]{.underline}*. The SBA has developed a
     small business size standard for wireless firms within the two
     broad economic census categories of \"Paging\"[^771] and \"Cellular
     and Other Wireless Telecommunications.\"[^772] Under both
     categories, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has
     1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census
     Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this
     category that operated for the entire year.[^773] Of this total,
     804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms
     had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^774] Thus, under this
     category and associated small business size standard, the majority
     of firms can be considered small. For the census category of
     Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data
     for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category that
     operated for the entire year.[^775] Of this total, 1,378 firms had
     employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment
     of 1,000 employees or more.[^776] Thus, under this second category
     and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered
     small.

320. Under this *Further Notice*, any of the changes to the Commission's
     rules which may occur as a result of the *Further Notice* would be
     limited to the 698-806 MHz spectrum band. Since this rulemaking
     proceeding applies to services in that band, this IRFA analyzes the
     number of small entities affected on a service-by-service basis.
     When identifying small entities that could be affected by the
     Commission's new rules, this IRFA provides information describing
     auctions results, including the number of small entities that were
     winning bidders. However, the number of winning bidders that
     qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not
     necessarily reflect the total number of small entities currently in
     a particular service. The Commission does not generally require
     that licensees later provide business size information, except in
     the context of an assignment or transfer of control application
     where unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Consequently, to
     assist the Commission in analyzing the total number of potentially
     affected small entities, the Commission requests commenters to
     estimate the number of small entities that may be affected by any
     rule changes that might result from this *Further Notice*.

321. *[700 MHz Guard Band Licenses]{.underline}.* In the *700 MHz Guard
     Band Order*, the Commission adopted size standards for "small
     businesses" and "very small businesses" for purposes of determining
     their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits
     and installment payments.[^777] A small business in this service is
     an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
     principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding \$40 million
     for the preceding three years.[^778] Additionally, a "very small
     business" is an entity that, together with its affiliates and
     controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not
     more than \$15 million for the preceding three years.[^779] SBA
     approval of these definitions is not required.[^780] An auction of
     52 Major Economic Area (MEA) licenses commenced on September 6,
     2000, and closed on September 21, 2000.[^781] Of the 104 licenses
     auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these
     bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A
     second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February
     13, 2001, and closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the
     licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders
     was a small business that won a total of two licenses.[^782]

322. *[Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses]{.underline}.* The Commission
     released a *Report and Order* authorizing service in the Upper 700
     MHz band.[^783] An auction for these licenses, previously scheduled
     for January 13, 2003, was postponed.[^784]

323. *[Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses]{.underline}.* The Commission adopted
     criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes
     of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as
     bidding credits.[^785] The Commission has defined a small business
     as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
     principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding \$40 million
     for the preceding three years.[^786] A very small business is
     defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
     controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not
     more than \$15 million for the preceding three years.[^787]
     Additionally, the Lower 700 MHz Band has a third category of small
     business status that may be claimed for Metropolitan/Rural Service
     Area (MSA/RSA) licenses. The third category is entrepreneur, which
     is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
     controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not
     more than \$3 million for the preceding three years.[^788] The SBA
     has approved these small size standards.[^789] An auction of 740
     licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license
     in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on
     August 27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740
     licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were sold to 102
     winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small
     business, very small business or entrepreneur status and won a
     total of 329 licenses.[^790] A second auction commenced on May 28,
     2003, and closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses: 5 EAG
     licenses and 476 CMA licenses.[^791] Seventeen winning bidders
     claimed small or very small business status and won sixty licenses,
     and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur status and won 154
     licenses.[^792]

324. *[Public Safety Radio Licensees]{.underline}.* As a general matter,
     public safety radio licensees include police, fire, local
     government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and
     emergency medical services.[^793] The SBA rules contain a small
     business size standard for cellular and other wireless
     telecommunications companies, which encompasses business entities
     engaged in wireless communications employing no more than 1,500
     persons.[^794] According to Census Bureau data for 2002, in this
     category there were 8,863 firms that operated for the entire
     year.[^795] Of this total, 401 firms had 100 or more employees, and
     the remainder had fewer than 100 employees.[^796] With respect to
     local governments, in particular, since many governmental entities
     as well as private businesses comprise the licensees for these
     services, we include under public safety services the number of
     government entities affected.

325. [*Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturers;* *Radio and
     Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
     Manufacturing*]{.underline}*.* The Census Bureau defines this
     category as follows: "This industry comprises establishments
     primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast
     and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by
     these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas,
     cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones,
     mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio
     and broadcasting equipment."[^797] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and
     Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such
     firms having 750 or fewer employees.[^798] According to Census
     Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in
     this category that operated for the entire year.[^799] Of this
     total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and an additional 13 had
     employment of 500 to 999.[^800] Thus, under this size standard, the
     majority of firms can be considered small.

## Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

326. [Performance Requirements]{.underline}. The *Further Notice*
     proposes to replace the current substantial service requirement
     with a geographic-based performance requirement, and seeks comment
     on this suggestion.

327. [Incumbent Eligibility]{.underline}. The *Further Notice* seeks
     comment on a proposal to encourage the entry of new competitors by
     excluding incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), incumbent
     cable operators, and large wireless carriers from eligibility for
     licenses in the 700 MHz Band. The *Further Notice* also seeks
     comment on whether incumbents should only be eligible for licenses
     in the 700 MHz band through structurally separate affiliates, which
     would make it possible to detect whether the incumbent receives
     more favorable treatment than unaffiliated providers. The *Further
     Notice* seeks comment on whether the Commission should encourage
     the entry of new broadband competitors through lesser restrictions
     on eligibility for obtaining new licenses, both at auction and in
     the secondary market. Finally, as an alternative to limiting the
     parties eligible for new licenses in the 700 MHz Band, the *Further
     Notice* seeks comment on whether parties unaffiliated with
     incumbent wireline broadband service providers should receive a
     bidding credit on licenses in the Upper 700 MHz C Block, and how
     such new entrant bidding credits should be coordinated with
     existing bidding credits for small businesses (*i.e.*, whether new
     entrant credits should be cumulative or exclusive of small business
     bidding credits).

328. [Anonymous Bidding]{.underline}. The *Further Notice* seeks comment
     on whether the Commission should use limited information (or
     "anonymous bidding") procedures in the upcoming auction of new 700
     MHz licenses, in order to deter anticompetitive behavior that may
     be facilitated by the release of information on bidder interests
     and identities.

329. [Public Safety Broadband]{.underline}. The *Further Notice*
     tentatively concludes to redesignate the wideband spectrum to
     broadband use that would be consistent with a nationwide
     interoperability standard, and to prohibit wideband operations on a
     going forward basis. The Commission has issued no licenses for
     wideband channels. Furthermore, although two special temporary
     authorizations (STAs) have been issued for wideband operations, to
     the extent a public safety entity has constructed, deployed and is
     currently operating, as of the release date of the accompanying
     *Report and Order*, a wideband system pursuant to a grant of STA,
     and has reason to continue such operations beyond the current term
     of the STA, the *Further Notice* states that the Commission will
     work with such entity to extend such authority. The *Further
     Notice* also seeks comment on a tentative conclusion to consolidate
     the narrowband channels to the top of the public safety band,
     locate the broadband spectrum at the bottom of the public safety
     band, and divide these segments with an internal guard band. These
     tentative conclusions may entail additional reporting,
     recordkeeping or other compliance efforts by existing public safety
     entities. The *Further Notice* does not otherwise propose any
     additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance
     requirements.

330. [Frontline Proposal]{.underline}. The *Further Notice* seeks
     comment on Frontline's proposed "Public Safety Broadband Deployment
     Plan." This plan would alter the upper portion of the band plan and
     service rules in order to auction a single nationwide 10-megahertz
     license (a new "E Block"). The "E Block" licensee would be required
     to meet certain build-out benchmarks, and would be required to
     provide priority access for public safety broadband operations
     during times of emergency as specified in a Network Sharing
     Agreement. Under the proposal, the "E Block" licensee would be
     required to operate as a wholesale provider with respect to
     commercial use of the "E Block" spectrum. It also would be required
     to provide open access to its network, allowing the attachment of
     any device to the network and permitting users to access services
     and content provided by unaffiliated parties. In addition,
     Frontline's proposal would require the "E Block" licensee to offer
     roaming to any provider with customers utilizing devices compatible
     with the "E Block" network, with such obligation extended to all
     spectrum holdings of the "E Block" licensee. Frontline's proposal
     also would require the "E Block" licensee to operate only as a
     wholesale provider with respect to commercial use of the "E Block"
     license, *i.e*., it must have wholesale agreements for 100 percent
     of its spectrum capacity.

## Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

331. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
     specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
     reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following
     four alternatives (among others): "(1) the establishment of
     differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that
     take into account the resources available to small entities;
     (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
     compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small
     entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards;
     and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part
     thereof, for such small entities."[^801]

332. [Performance Requirements]{.underline}. Commenters who are small
     carriers could be found among commenters who supported both a
     substantial service requirement and a "keep what you use"
     framework. Some small CMRS providers recommended a combination of
     both population- and geography-based construction benchmark in the
     context of a "keep-what-you-use" approach.[^802] The *Further
     Notice* proposes to replace the current substantial service
     requirement with a geographic-based performance requirement, and
     seeks comment on this suggestion.

333. By establishing clear benchmarks, the Commission would provide
     small licensees with regulatory certainty regarding the
     requirements that they must meet or, if they do not, permit other
     providers to gain access to the spectrum to provide services to
     consumers. The adoption of more stringent benchmarks also would
     complements the Commission's determination to auction additional
     licenses based on smaller geographic areas to promote access to
     spectrum and the provision of service, especially in rural areas.

334. The Commission recognizes that the existing substantial service
     standard could allow providers, including small carriers,
     additional flexibility with regard to their development and
     deployment of certain services.[^803] The Commission determines,
     however, that given the excellent propagation characteristics of
     this spectrum, the benefits of service being offered before the end
     of the license term, and the public interest that would be served
     by ensuring additional service in the more rural and remote areas
     of this country, more rigorous requirements may be appropriate for
     these 700 MHz Commercial Services licenses.[^804]

335. [Incumbent Eligibility]{.underline}. The proposals to prevent
     incumbents from being eligible to participate in the 700 MHz
     auctions can benefit small entities to the extent that they find
     less competition at auction from large entities such as established
     incumbent licensees, including wireline providers. Additionally,
     the proposal to provide bidding credits with regard to the Upper
     700 MHz C Block for parties unaffiliated with incumbent wireline
     broadband service providers could encourage new entry by small
     entities.

336. [Anonymous Bidding]{.underline}. Smaller auction participants can
     benefit from having access to information about larger entities'
     bids during the auction, and smaller auction participants may
     encounter difficulties with financing if the Commission withholds
     the information during the auction. However, the potential to use
     new 700 MHz licenses to create alternatives to existing broadband
     networks increases the benefits from anonymous bidding by making it
     harder for existing providers to identify and impede the efforts of
     potential new entrants to win. Accordingly, in seeking comment on
     whether to require anonymous bidding for 700 MHz auctions, the
     Commission balances the difficulties it may cause to smaller
     auction participants, against the opportunities for new
     entrants---including small entities---that may result from
     anonymous bidding.

337. [700 MHz Band Plan Proposals]{.underline}. The *Further Notice*
     includes several proposals to reconfigure the 700 MHz Band plan.
     Under any revised band plan, the Commission seeks comment on
     whether the spectrum block adjacent to the Public Safety Band's
     lower half would, pursuant to another tentative conclusion, be
     responsible for funding the reconfiguration of the public safety
     spectrum with the narrowband channels at the upper end and a
     broadband allocation at the lower end. This proposal would, if
     adopted, impose additional economic burdens on any small business
     that procured the spectrum block adjacent to the Public Safety
     Band's proposed broadband allocation.

338. The *Further Notice* also proposes to license the 700 MHz Band
     using a mix of small, medium and large geographic areas. These
     proposed service area definitions should benefit small businesses,
     because they would enhance the mix of licenses to be made available
     in the 700 MHz Band, and are consistent with the goals of providing
     greater access to spectrum for small providers and parties in rural
     areas, and improving the opportunity for a wider range of potential
     licensees to access this spectrum.

339. [Public Safety Broadband]{.underline}. The *Further Notice*
     tentatively concludes to reallocate the wideband spectrum to
     broadband use that would be consistent with a nationwide
     interoperability standard, and prohibit wideband operations on a
     going forward basis. The public safety community expressed broad
     support for a broadband allocation to enable advanced
     communications capabilities. The availability of a contiguous block
     of broadband spectrum, subject to a nationwide interoperability
     standard, would enable partnerships with commercial licensees in
     adjacent broadband spectrum. As a result, the proposed band plan
     would ultimately enable public safety entities to utilize the 700
     MHz spectrum in a more cost-effective and spectrally efficient
     manner to address their homeland security and emergency response
     roles. Because the Commission does not anticipate that the proposal
     will impose additional economic burdens on public safety, and is in
     fact designed to reduce economic burdens on public safety, the
     Commission has taken steps to minimize any adverse impact of the
     rule changes.

340. The *Further Notice* also seeks comment on its tentative conclusion
     to consolidate the narrowband spectrum to the top of the public
     safety band and locate the broadband spectrum at the bottom of the
     public safety band, in light of the potentially significant
     benefits such reconfiguration would afford the public safety
     community. The alternative would be to retain the existing band
     plan. The *Further Notice* seeks comment on how to implement
     reconfiguration of the narrowband channels with minimum disruption
     to incumbent operations. The *Further Notice* invites comment on an
     appropriate transition mechanism, including how to accommodate
     public safety operations in the border areas with Canada and
     Mexico, and the costs of relocation and how such costs will be
     covered. The Commission expects that the number of entities
     impacted and expected cost of reconfiguration should be relatively
     minor. To assist the Commission in its analysis, however,
     commenters are requested to provide information regarding the
     number of narrowband radios that are deployed, as well as the
     number of radios that are in active use, and thus would be affected
     by the proposed changes to the 700 MHz public safety band plan as
     described in the *Further Notice*. The *Further Notice* recognizes
     that the public safety community's ability to fund the
     reconfiguration may be limited. Thus, in addition to considering
     whether public safety should pay for its own relocation costs, the
     *Further Notice* seeks comment on several alternatives, including
     whether to impose funding requirements on 700 MHz commercial
     licensees, and whether Federal or other grant monies could be used.
     In the event the Commission determines to license the broadband
     allocation to a nationwide public safety broadband licensee, the
     *Further Notice* also invites comment on whether that licensee
     should be assigned responsibility for funding the reconfiguration.

341. Although the economic burden on public safety to effectuate
     reconfiguration is expected to be relatively small, the *Further
     Notice* will develop a record on the true costs that would be
     implicated. The Commission remains open to considering
     alternatives, however, should an alternative be stated in comments
     that would reach our objectives and minimize the impact on public
     safety entities.

342. [Frontline Proposal]{.underline}. In the *Further Notice*, the
     Commission seeks comment on Frontline's proposed "Public Safety
     Broadband Deployment Plan." Although Frontline proposes that the
     Commission offer bidding credits to applicants based on their
     status as a small business, the Commission tentatively concludes in
     the *Further Notice* that it should not offer any bidding
     preferences, such as bidding credits, to applicants for the "E
     Block" license. The *Further Notice* states, however, that the
     public interest would not appear to favor giving applicants a
     preference when bidding for the "E Block" license based on their
     limited financial resources, as the Commission does when it offers
     bidding credits to small businesses in these circumstances. The
     Commission stated that its concerns regarding the capital needed to
     implement a nationwide service are especially acute in this
     instance, because the "E Block" licensee would be responsible for
     constructing a network to meet the needs of critical public safety
     providers. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative
     conclusion.

## Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules

343. None.

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

Re: *Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands (WT
Docket No. 06-150); Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems (CC Docket No.
94-102); Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
Aid-Compatible Telephones (WT Docket No. 01-309); Biennial Regulatory
Review -- Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and
Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services (WT Docket No.
03-264); Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band
Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules (WT Docket
No. 06-169); Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public
Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band (PS Docket No. 06-229); Development
of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal,
State and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the
Year 2010 (WT Docket No. 96-86); Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making.*

Since I became chairman, promoting broadband deployment and increasing
penetration has been one of my highest priorities. I am pleased that
since then, we have made significant progress. For instance, an
independent study by Pew Internet and American Life Project recently
confirmed our own findings about the growth of broadband. Pew found that
from March 2005 to March 2006, overall broadband adoption increased by
40%---twice the growth rate of the year before. Critically, this
significant increase in broadband adoption was widespread and cut across
all demographics. Equally important, Pew found that the average price
consumers pay for broadband has also dropped in the past two years.

However, there is no question that much work still needs to be done.

One important factor spurring both increased broadband availability and
reduced prices is competition among broadband platforms.

In much of the country, however, consumers have a choice of only two
broadband services: cable or DSL. And in some parts of the country,
consumers don't even have that choice. The most important step we can
take to provide affordable broadband to all Americans is to facilitate
the deployment of a third "pipe" into the home. We need a real third
broadband competitor. And we need a technology that is cost-effective to
deploy not just in the big cities, but in the rural areas, as well. All
Americans should enjoy the benefits of broadband competition --
availability, high speeds, and low prices.

The upcoming auction presents the single most important opportunity for
us to achieve this goal. Depending on how we structure the upcoming
auction, we will either enable the emergence of a third broadband pipe
-- one that would be available to rural as well as urban American -- or
we will miss our biggest opportunity. Such a status quo outcome
certainly would not sit well with consumer groups that have been
strongly urging us to adopt rules that facilitate the ability of a
"third pipe" to develop.

The leading technology companies -- Google, Intel, Skype, Yahoo, along
with DirecTV, and EchoStar are the only parties that have promised to
try to provide a national, wireless broadband alternative. They have
explained that, for a national wireless broadband service to emerge, the
auction must do three things: (1) make available at least one 11 MHz
paired block; (2) offer at least some large geographic areas; and (3)
enable package bidding so that rights to a national service could be
acquired. These technology companies have formed a coalition urging the
Commission to follow these key principles that they believe are
essential to the deployment of an additional broadband competitor.

I put forth a proposal that would meet these three requirements. I am
surprised that some of my colleagues do not support this approach.
Indeed, some of them have been the most critical of the current state of
broadband deployment and competition and the most vocal about us needing
a national strategy. It is puzzling that they would not endorse taking
the minimum steps necessary to enable a wireless broadband alternative
to develop for all Americans.

Importantly, the proposal I put forth would provide for a variety of
geographic license areas spectrum block sizes. The mix of geographic
license sizes coupled with a proposal for specific geographic build-out
requirements -- the strictest build-out the Commission has ever proposed
-- would help ensure that the rural and underserved areas of the country
will benefit from the provision new services that this spectrum will
facilitate. We also would permit higher power limits in rural areas,
which will reduce the number of towers necessary to serve consumers and
lower the cost of build-out. This proposal would provide significant
opportunities for small and rural carriers as well as new entrants to
the broadband market to obtain spectrum at auction.

Like broadband, meeting the needs of public safety has been a major
focus of mine since becoming Chairman. We all know the tragedies that
can occur when public safety officials cannot adequately communicate.
The public safety community needs more spectrum, and they need to be
able to build a truly national, interoperable broadband network. This
item takes an important step to achieving those goals.

We tentatively conclude that public safety wideband spectrum allocation
should be consolidated and revised to provide broadband only on a
going-forward basis. In addition, many national and local public safety
organizations have expressed support for a public-private partnership
approach for a single, national licensee to achieve an interoperable
public safety broadband network in the context of other public safety
proposals. In the *Further Notice*, we seek comment on the proposal by
Frontline Wireless, which would establish a new commercial licensee that
would have specific obligations to build out a common broadband
infrastructure for public safety and commercial use, working in concert
with a national public safety licensee. We also ask if there are other
opportunities for public-private partnerships that will help bring our
first responders the benefits of broadband.

Although we are seeking further comment on issues, I remain highly aware
of the need to move swiftly to provide sufficient time for all parties
to prepare for the auction. It is paramount that this auction not be
delayed. I look forward to a focused public dialogue on these issues in
the coming weeks, and look forward working with my fellow commissioners
to come quickly to resolution on these issues.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

** **

*Re: Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 Bands;
Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband Interoperable Public Safety Network
in the 700 MHz Band; Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz
Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules,*
Report and Order and FNPRM

 

The upcoming 700 MHz auction is perhaps the most important this
Commission will ever conduct.  When it comes to spectrum, to paraphrase
Mark Twain, "they aren't making any more." And the soon-to-be freed-up
700 MHz variety is among the most valuable spectrum of all because of
its uniquely favorable propagation characteristics. 

 

So the stakes here are high---very high.  If we do our jobs correctly,
this auction will deliver countless benefits to the American people as
well as billions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury.  It will enhance our
readiness for the next disaster and inject some much-needed competition
into the market for broadband services across the nation (especially in
rural areas).  But if the Commission fails at its task, then we will
have wasted one of the best opportunities in recent memory to improve
the way our nation communicates, develops and protects itself.  We will
never have another chance like this one.

 

Let's begin with the question of public safety which is, as you have
often heard me say, the first obligation of the public servant.  In a
more perfect world, our nation's first responders would already have
access to a cutting-edge, custom-built, interoperable and fully-funded
broadband network that makes use of dedicated public safety spectrum. 
After all, it has been over half a decade since 9/11 and we are coming
up on the two-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.  Both tragedies
were greatly---and unnecessarily---compounded by flaws in our public
safety communications system.  And yet we are not appreciably closer to
a solution today than we were back then.  This is a failure---a truly
monumental national failure---that I believe will come to haunt us in
the years ahead.

 

It is against this background of missed opportunities and an
unacceptable status quo that we must consider a recent, late-filed
proposal to create a nationwide, interoperable, public-private broadband
network in the 700 MHz band.  The basic idea is a network that will be
used by both commercial *and* public safety users, with commercial users
generating enough revenue to build and operate the network and with
public safety users able to preempt commercial users (either in whole or
in part) during an emergency.  It's a tantalizing prospect---but
***only*** if it works as promised.  And there's the challenge.

 

So let me be crystal clear right up-front: I am not at all sure that a
dual-use network along the lines proposed here will actually deliver
public safety users the network they so desperately need and deserve. 
While I certainly support putting this proposal out for comment, even at
this late date, I am going to approach it with a skeptical eye.  Put
simply, I will need strong assurances---much stronger than any we have
been provided thus far---that the plan will ***actually work*** before I
can support it.  And by work, I mean ***work*** ***for public
safety***.  I'm talking about an interoperable network---***built and
configured to public safety standards***--- that police officers,
firefighters, EMS technicians and other first responders all across the
nation can actually afford to use.  And I mean a system that is managed
and maintained with a clear public safety priority, with the hard
preemption and other calls made by those entrusted with ensuring the
public safety.  Let's focus on these issues in some detail. 

 

To begin with, a public safety network is a fundamentally different
beast than a commercial network.  It requires greater reliability and
interoperability, as well as a substantially different architecture,
than traditional cellular networks.  We've all felt the frustration and
annoyance that comes when our cell phone drops a call.  But for a first
responder or a person in distress, a dropped communication can quite
literally be the difference between life and death.  Ninety-five or
ninety-six percent reliability just isn't going to cut it here, nor are
weather- or disaster-related outages.  We should be demanding the
wireline system's famous "five nines"---99.999%---or better.  To take a
second example, we also all know how complicated it can be to organize a
conference call with a handful of colleagues.  But first responders need
instantaneous communication with extensive talk groups at the scene of a
major disaster---groups that can contain several hundred officers from
dozens of different jurisdictions and services.  I am unaware of any
commercial network that is designed to provide such a feature.  And
public safety users need to be able to communicate directly from handset
to handset, even if a central cell tower has been knocked down.  Again,
this is not a feature that commercial operators typically provide.

 

A public safety network also needs to be ubiquitous, or as close to
ubiquitous as is practically feasible.  First responders don't lose the
need to communicate just because they are on a distant farm, an
underground urban parking garage, or some other remote location; if
anything, the need is even greater.  Commercial build-out schedules are
simply not appropriate here.  So in any plan that is adopted I will be
looking for strong assurances for an accelerated build-out schedule. 

 

Here is another imperative that we might as well face up to right here. 
No plan is going to work without the close, ongoing oversight and
enforcement authority of this Commission.  The commitments made here are
commitments that have to be met.  This isn't about voluntary best
efforts that may or may not culminate in real-world results at some
future date---this is about getting an essential job done right and done
on time.  Achieving just the right balance in the management and
oversight of this dual-use system and making sure it is flexible enough
to jump from one purpose to another instantaneously will require
unprecedented and historical coordination and cooperation.  Just hoping
that effective decision-making will fall into place between commercial
and public safety partners who have different strengths, different
histories and different levels of influence does not provide the kind of
guarantees needed here.

 

And then, of course, there is the issue of money.  The proposal we are
considering here would give public safety users a binding legal right to
access spectrum on a preemptible basis---but for a price.  This brings
to mind Anatole France's bitter observation about how the law in its
majesty forbids both rich and poor from sleeping under bridges.  The
fundamental question here is whether public safety users will be able to
***afford*** to exercise their right to access the network.  The network
we're talking about cannot be just a luxury item available to a few
first responders whose budgets allow them to use costly services---it
needs to be something that public safety users, all across the nation,
can afford to use on a regular basis and to rely upon as one of their
basic forms of communication.  Cash registers and toll booths don't
belong at the heart of our nation's public safety planning.  I approach
these questions with special skepticism because I've seen too many
companies, many with genuinely good intentions, promise to abide by a
slew of special public interest conditions when they are seeking a
license.  But then, a few years down the road---and after a change in
management or sometimes just a change in attitude---they suddenly
develop an overpowering interest in reducing costs and increasing
profits beyond the level that their original commitments would allow. 
When this seemingly inevitable shift occurs, the commercial operator
will face strong pressure to cut back on the costly features that public
safety demands and to start charging higher prices that commercial users
but not public safety users can swallow.  For this reason, I think that
the FCC must---at a minimum---maintain strong and ongoing oversight of
any for-profit corporation that is charged with maintaining a public
safety network. 

 

I also have concerns about whether preempting commercial users in favor
of public safety users during times of emergency could have unintended
and possibly dangerous consequences.  For example, consider the tragic
possibility of someone trapped under a building who cannot call for help
because his or her cell phone relies on spectrum that has been preempted
for exclusive use by first responders.  Or consider how preemption might
impact the ability of commercial end users to contact colleagues and
loved ones in the aftermath of a crisis.  I recognize, of course, that
communications bandwidth will inevitably become a scarce and precious
resource during an emergency and that first responders have a unique
claim to priority in such situations.  But at the same time, we need to
think about whether it may be feasible to give some degree of priority
to certain commercial communications---such as calls to 911---as well as
about the wisdom of adopting a plan that could give commercial end-users
a false sense of security about technologies that will become
unavailable at exactly the times they are most needed.

 

I am pleased that today's FNPRM seeks comment on some of the issues I
have just discussed, as well as others such as the potential inclusion
of satellite technologies in any viable public safety proposal; how best
to manage cross-border interference issues; and whether the Commission
should adopt anonymous bidding procedures.  I also am pleased that we
ask general questions about how the "open-access" proposals made by some
might encourage the development of a sorely-needed wireless "third pipe"
in the broadband market. And though today's item does not seek specific
comment on every conceivable aspect of the proposal, I would welcome and
encourage interested parties to offer their thoughts on whatever other
considerations they deem relevant, including the possible unintended
consequences of allowing public safety users to preempt commercial
users; on what lessons the Commission should draw from the experiences
of other countries (like the United Kingdom) that have considered or
adopted public-private spectrum sharing initiatives; and on what level
of detail and specificity the Network Sharing Agreement should go into
about network design and cost/revenue sharing between the commercial
licensee and public safety users.

            It took a while and it took some doing, but I think this
notice now proceeds in a good and measured way regarding band plans.  We
make no conclusions here, final or tentative, but instead tee up a
number of options.  I wish we had a Commission-wide consensus plan right
now, but we don't. The options presented in the item provide, however,
reasonable parameters for final Commission decision-making. I have put
forward ideas to achieve a fair and balanced approach.  As I have noted
several times, I think that the Commission should offer a wide variety
of geographic license sizes---just as we did in last year's AWS
auction.  This is the appropriate way to balance the competitive goals
of the auction.  Small and medium license sizes play a critical role in
encouraging participation among smaller and rural wireless companies. 
At the same time, larger license sizes can permit new entrants---such as
high tech entrepreneurs and satellite providers---to offer broadband on
a nationwide basis. One size doesn't fit all, and I am convinced that we
can put together a final plan making room for a multiplicity of
interests.

 

Certain it is that we desperately need a third broadband pipe to
challenge the current telco-cable duopoly in our metropolitan areas, as
well a ***first*** broadband pipe in many rural areas.  It is this
duopoly and lack of rural availability that have caused the United
States to continue its slide in the world when it comes to
broadband---witness the OECD ranking that came out just the other day
taking the United States from 12^th^ to 15^th^ among the nations.  And
as I have noted before, I don't think any of us should be relying on
wireless companies owned by wireline broadband providers to provide this
much-needed competition. So coming up with a good, progressive auction
strategy is a good step forward---maybe one that can actually produce a
new entrant into the broadband market---but don't mistake what we are
talking about today for anything like the sort of comprehensive
broadband strategy that our country so desperately needs.  I guess that
will await another day. 

 

            Finally, I am pleased with our proposal that the 700 MHz
licenses be subject to strong performance requirements for network
build-out.  A license to use the people's airwaves is a public
trust---and we must not countenance spectrum warehousing or any other
unreasonable delay in putting this spectrum to work.  However, even as
we seek to provide licensees with a firm incentive to make use of
spectrum, we also need to make sure that we do not unfairly punish
licensees---especially in rural areas---who cannot engage in aggressive
build-out for perfectly good economic reasons.  I look forward to
reading comments from the parties on this important issue. 

 

            I want to thank all my colleagues for their hard work on
this item; various stakeholders who have already contributed input into
our deliberations; and the Bureau for working late into the night on
several occasions to start us down the road on one of the greatest
challenges we've ever confronted.  I also thank the Bureau in advance
for what I know will be its hard work to develop final service rules for
this granddaddy of all auctions, hopefully by June of this year. 

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

*Re: Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands; WT
Docket No. 06-150 et al; Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking*

Today, we take another step towards one of the most significant FCC
actions in this decade. Our 700 MHz auction will be a critical
opportunity for new and existing providers to bring the latest
technologies and services to the American people. There rightly is a
great deal of pressure on the Commission to construct a band plan and
service rules that will meet a wide-range of interests. We hear from an
ever-increasing chorus of voices expressing concern about the lack of
competition in the broadband marketplace and the need to promote
advanced services in rural and other underserved areas. So our decisions
today and in the near future will have a profound impact on the future
role of wireless broadband services and on the ability of wireless
providers to provide important competition to existing providers of
these critical services.

The item before us is much improved, and because of these changes I can
enthusiastically support it. I appreciate the willingness of my
colleagues to accept several of my edits to create a more balanced
discussion of a proposed band plan and to ask more meaningful questions
about ways in which the band plan should or not be changed. I also
support the meaningful performance requirements proposed in the item and
am pleased with Chairman Martin's suggestion to propose to apply these
requirements on a geographic basis. Finally, I support our inquiry into
whether or not we should condition a "Block E" license on the licensee
constructing a public safety broadband network and providing wholesale
commercial services. I am pleased that we were able to add a number of
important questions about the oversight of such a potential licensee.

The item is also greatly improved with the addition of a number of the
questions raised by the *Ad Hoc* Public Interest Spectrum Coalition
about alternative open access proposals in the 700 MHz band and on
possible steps the Commission could take to encourage the entry of new
wireless competitors. We need to maximize the possibility that new
competition emerges from this spectrum opportunity. Some talk about a
"third pipe" into the home to challenge the cozy duopoly between the
cable and telephone companies that now dominate the broadband
marketplace. I like to think we need to encourage the creation of a
"third channel" into the home, since wireless technologies are most
likely to provide the competitive alternative. The questions we ask
today about open access networks are critical to informing this debate.

[Band Plan]{.underline}

The Commission has a unique role in establishing the market for
spectrum. Auctions are a free-market mechanism, but it is the
government's role to establish the ground rules through a band plan. We
have a special responsibility to establish band plans that allow for a
diversity of license sizes. We want to maximize the level of utilization
by giving more options so that the market can perform most efficiently.
We also want to preclude companies from being forced to bid on licenses
that are larger than the areas they intend to serve. Large carriers can
always aggregate smaller licenses, but companies of all sizes cannot
make license areas any smaller during the auction process than what the
Commission allows.

As we begin to finalize our rules for the 700 MHz auction, it is
critical we build on the lessons learned from our previous auctions to
provide a diverse group of licenses so that all bidders have an
opportunity to obtain licenses that best match their business plan.
While I have supported rules to facilitate the secondary market for
spectrum rights and licenses, I think we are best served by providing a
wide variety of license sizes at the initial auction when appropriate.

Turning to the specific item before us, I would have been concerned if
the Commission had proposed a band plan that ignored the overwhelming
record that advocated for a more balanced set of license areas -- a band
plan that would accommodate large and small interests, tribal
governments, rural providers, and possible new entrants. We simply would
not have been well served by a band plan that positions all but one of
the remaining blocks to be auctioned on a large, regional basis. So I am
very pleased with our proposal to auction off the paired A block in the
lower 700 MHz band on EA basis.

While I am troubled by the item's treatment of the Broadband
Optimization Plan, I am pleased that we have added a request for comment
on the latest proposal by Access Spectrum and Pegasus to reconfigure the
guard band and public safety 700 MHz spectrum allocations. Access
Spectrum and Pegasus are to be commended for their ongoing efforts in
pushing proposals that will facilitate more efficient use of the upper
700 MHz band while at the same time addressing critical communications
needs of public safety. Their recent proposal deserves serious
consideration as it (1) clearly addresses the Canadian border issue for
public safety; (2) eliminates the need for undefined temporary easements
in the commercial band adjacent to public safety; and (3) ensures
funding from Access Spectrum and Pegasus for the conversion of existing
700 MHz narrowband public safety systems and the necessary changes to
the Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and Database System.
These are important public interest objectives, and are particularly
critical to the consolidation of public safety's narrowband spectrum.

Finally, I am pleased that we are seeking comment on a variety of
proposals to modify the structure of the upper 700 MHz band. We have
heard from a number of diverse parties on this matter, and I believe it
is important that we continue to keep critical band plan issues on the
table given that we are putting other proposals out for comment. This
discussion will well inform and advance our consideration of these
challenging issues.

Some have argued that a more flexible upper 700 MHz band plan that
includes a mix of licenses could better support a variety of business
plans and ensures that the spectrum is made available to the bidders
that value it most. There is a concern that a band plan with only REAGs
in the upper 700 MHz band may artificially favor only the largest
wireless incumbents or particular business models. On the other hand, a
paired 22 MHz block available on a REAG basis could address the needs of
potential new entrants, some of whom argue that they need the ability to
create a large swath of spectrum to compete with a wireless broadband
product on a national basis. And other groups have noted that this 700
MHz spectrum is a unique opportunity to create a new competitor to our
highly-concentrated broadband market, and have argued that a band plan
that allows for larger blocks will facilitate entry by new providers.

So I am pleased that we have band plans in the item representing all of
these different views. I did not believe it was necessary to potentially
foreclose the band plan debate today by tipping our hand in one
direction or the other, at the same time we are seeking further comment
on so many issues related to the 700 MHz auction.

[Performance requirements]{.underline}

I have long talked about my interests in promoting spectrum use. Our job
at the FCC is to do whatever we can to promote spectrum-based
opportunities like the significant prospects for advanced wireless
communications services in the 700 MHz band. To get there, I am
continually evaluating the FCC's service and construction rules to
ensure that our policies do not undercut the ability of wireless
innovators to get access to new or unused spectrum. I have advocated a
carrot and stick approach. We want to promote flexibility and
innovation, but since the spectrum is a finite public resource, we want
to see results as well.

In this regard, I am pleased to support the Chairman's proposal to base
performance requirements in the 700 MHz band on a geographic basis. This
is a meaningful requirement that shows the Commission's resolve in
ensuring that this valuable public resource is put to use for the
benefit of all Americans, no matter where they live. By proposing a
geographic coverage requirement, we are looking to ensure that 700 MHz
will not become an untapped well for the thirsty and instead will be
deployed to all corners of the country. Given the favorable propagation
characteristics of this spectrum, a rigorous performance requirement
well serves the public interest.

[E Block Public-Private Public Safety Network]{.underline}

This country has a dilemma. Policymakers all agree that our first
responders need the best technology and communications networks
possible. Yet, we continue to have a situation in which many of our
nation's public safety agencies struggle to keep pace with today's
rapidly evolving communications landscape. And interoperability remains
an elusive goal for too many first responders. Our nation needs a
national interoperable public safety broadband network.

So I very much appreciate the leadership of Frontline in developing a
creative proposal that may allow this country to move forward with a
national public safety communications network. And I would be remiss in
not recognizing the early work of Cyren Call in planting the seeds of a
commercially-supported public safety broadband network.

The Frontline proposal offers many intriguing positions. First and
foremost, the Commission would require the E Block licensee to construct
and operate a nationwide, interoperable broadband network for sharing
with a national public safety licensee. This public-private network
would use commercial spectrum in the upper 700 MHz band as well as 12
megahertz of the public safety spectrum block. Second, the E Block
licensee would be required to operate as a facilities-based wholesale
provider with respect to commercial use of the spectrum. And finally,
the E Block licensee would be required to provide open access to its
network, allow the attachment of any device to its network, and permit
users to access the content and services of their choice. Frontline's
proposal rightly addresses many of the concerns that have been recently
raised with our existing wireless communications marketplace.

So I applaud Frontline for their initiative; but a number of questions
still remain if we decide to go forward with such a unique proposal.
Primarily, how does the Commission ensure that the E Block licensee
truly meets the needs of public safety in deploying and operating the
national broadband network? What can the Commission legally impose on
the E Block licensee to make sure that it meets not just its own
commercial objectives, but the Government's objectives as well? If we go
forward with a facilities-based wholesale network, what rules can we
adopt to ensure that the E Block licensee does not simply turn around
and wholesale services back to itself or its commonly controlled
affiliates? I am pleased that we were able to add a number of additional
questions to the item about the oversight of the E Block licensee should
the Frontline proposal be adopted in one form and another.

[Conclusion]{.underline}

Finally, as we consider a schedule for the upcoming 700 MHz auction, we
must remember that our rules have not yet been finalized. We must be
mindful that some companies may not currently be in a position to move
forward with plans to participate in the auction until the Commission
makes a final decision about the band plan and specific performance
requirements. They need sufficient time to establish business plans and
line up financing. Consequently, we must make sure that our auction
schedule allows for sufficient spacing between the adoption of final 700
MHz band rules and the filing of auction applications. This will ensure
that the auction truly is available to a diverse group of interested
parties, and that full participation will lead to a more successful and
robust auction. I am confident that we can provide the necessary time
for preparation and still comply with our statutory obligations related
to the auction.

I would like to thank the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staff for
their continued hard work in guiding us to the 700 MHz auction. With the
digital transition on the horizon, our work comes at a crucial time, and
we are making decisions that will impact the 700 MHz band and indeed the
future of wireless services to come. Additional dialogue on these
matters can only serve American consumers well. I look forward to
working with my colleagues and the Bureau in tackling these important
issues in the very near future.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**

*Re: Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands (WT
Docket No. 06-150); Revision of the Commission\'s Rules to Ensure
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems (CC Docket No.
94-102); Section 68.4(a) of the Commission\'s Rules Governing Hearing
Aid-Compatible Telephones (WT Docket No. 01-309); Biennial Regulatory
Review - Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and
Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services (WT Docket No.
03-264); Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band
Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission\'s Rules (WT Docket
No. 06-169); Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public
Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band (PS Docket No. 06-229); Development
of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal,
State and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the
Year 2010 (WT Docket No. 96-86).*

Broadband deployment is vital to our nation. The availability of
ubiquitous, reliable, high-speed broadband access already is changing
the way Americans work and live, but we must act to ensure that the
unprecedented business, educational, and healthcare opportunities that
broadband makes possible are available to all Americans, regardless of
where they chose to live. I'm not alone in this opinion. Every member of
this Commission has voiced the need for ubiquitous, affordable
broadband, and Members of Congress have clearly indicated their belief
that the FCC must do more to get broadband services deployed to all
Americans.

The adoption of today's item is a critical step towards achieving this
shared goal. The inherent propagation characteristics of the 700 MHz
band could make it less expensive to construct new networks covering
larger geographic areas, making it ideal for expanding the availability
of broadband in rural areas. At the same time, the band potentially
provides better in-building coverage than higher frequencies, which not
only would facilitate the provision of advanced services in urban areas
but also could help improve 911 access and location system performance.
The rules we adopt today, along with the detailed questions set forth in
the Further Notice, bring us one step closer to putting this critical
spectrum into the hands of those who can best put it to work.

In conducting the upcoming 700 MHz auction, we must be particularly
mindful of the following Congressional directives: (1) encouraging small
businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members
of minority groups and women to participate in the auction; and (2)
commencing the auction no later than January 28, 2008, with the proceeds
of the auction to be deposited into the Digital Television Transition
and Public Safety Fund no later than June 30, 2008. These directives are
not mutually exclusive.

In the highly successful AWS auction, the Commission increased the
amount of spectrum licensed in smaller geographic areas -- 20 megahertz
to be exact -- to afford greater opportunities for smaller, rural or
regional providers to obtain access to that spectrum at auction. Forty
eight rural telephone companies were winning bidders in the AWS auction
-- a clear indicator of success. I am very interested in hearing
comments on how the proposed band plan would help to ensure a repeat of
that success.

The sooner the auction begins, the closer we will be to reaping the
benefits of services provided via this prime spectrum. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to move this forward expeditiously.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL**

RE: Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT
Docket No. 06-150, Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No.
94-102, Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 01-309, Biennial Regulatory
Review -- Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27 and 90 to Streamline and
Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No.
03-264, Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band
Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket
No. 06-169, Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum
Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety
Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86,
*Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, FCC 07-72

Opening up the Lower and Upper 700 MHz Band for auction is America's
best opportunity for spurring more competition in the broadband market.
More than likely, we will not have another chance like this for years.
That's why it is so important that we get it right. But we also need to
act quickly. That's not just a good idea, it's the law. Congress has
mandated that we start the auction no later than January 28, 2008, and
deposit the auction proceeds by June 30, 2008. So, we appear to have
some tension between getting it done right and meeting our statutory
deadlines. That said, I am optimistic that we can produce high-quality
service and auction rules on time. However, I am not without some
anxiety.

It is important to note that the Commission is not reaching any
tentative conclusions with respect to the band plan today. We are
inviting additional comment and debate on several ideas. And, I thank
the Chairman for his patience and flexibility in this regard. I'd also
like to make clear that I have not reached conclusions on certain of the
proposals discussed in today's *Further Notice*. That's why I'm
delighted we'll be building a more complete record upon which to make an
informed decision.

In my view, to "get it right," the Commission must ensure that
businesses of all sizes have a fair opportunity to bid on varied market
sizes in both the Upper *and* Lower bands of the 700 MHz slice. The
Lower and Upper portions offer their own attributes that are attractive
to different entities for different reasons. Accordingly, both the Upper
and Lower portions should be accessible at auction to all bona fide
bidders regardless of size. Ideally, our rules should also provide
bidders the flexibility to aggregate markets together to create either a
nationwide market, or large, regional or other customized markets much
like that occurred in the AWS auction, but even better. Providing such
equal opportunities will help increase the chances of competition in the
broadband market for the benefit of *all* Americans. The more players we
have competing both between and within platforms, the better. Such
competition will also spur untold economic growth.

Some may be concerned that allowing for smaller market sizes in the
Upper portion of the band may preclude the ability of some entities to
secure a nationwide license to provide a new, competitive broadband
platform, or a "third pipe." I'd like to hear more about those concerns.
In the AWS auction, we witnessed a successful effort that fashioned
together EA markets to form a virtual nationwide license. I welcome a
discussion regarding that may or may not work in the 700 MHz band.
However, we must be careful to ensure that we do not overly-tailor our
auction rules to fit a particular business plan because there are never
any guarantees as to who will participate at auction, or for how long.

Should we be limited to three pipes? Why not four, five or more? Are
only [national]{.underline} companies capable of providing such
alternative platforms? What about regional players or local providers?
Small town entrepreneurs? I hope commenters will help provide answers to
these important questions.

In a perfect world, we would be completing our work in the 700 MHz
commercial services proceeding today, and interested parties and
potential auction participants would have both the certainty and time
necessary to give consideration to the significant matters surrounding
participation in a spectrum auction. But we live in an imperfect world
where issues to be resolved by rulemakings are complex. In this spirit,
I support the Commission's effort to seek additional comment on the
unresolved matters relating to our upcoming auction of spectrum in the
700 MHz band.

Once we reach the end of this process, I hope that I find that my
concerns were misplaced. It goes without saying that I will do all I can
to ensure that the Commission completes this proceeding in record time.

Finally, in addition to my thanks to the Chairman and my colleagues, I
want to acknowledge the hard working and talented staff of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau. We have a number of milestones ahead of us,
and I thank you for your diligence despite the demanding schedule
associated with this proceeding.

[^1]: *See* Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-171, 120
    Stat. 4 (2006) ("DRA"). Title III of the DRA is the DTV Act.

[^2]: During the past five years, the number of new mobile telephone
    subscribers rose by more than 100 million, from 118.4 million in
    June 2001 to 219.4 million in June 2006. This represents an 85
    percent increase in the total number of subscribers. *See*
    "Annualized Wireless Industry Survey Results -- June 1985 to June
    2006," CTIA's Semi-Annual Wireless Industry Survey, CTIA -- The
    Wireless Association, *available at*
    <http://files.ctia.org/pdf/CTIA_Survey_Year_End_2006_Graphics.pdf>

[^3]: *High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30,
    2006*, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline
    Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Jan. 2007) at
    Table 1.

[^4]: The FCC estimates that as of mid-2006, the mobile broadband
    network technologies CDMA EV-DO and WCDMA/HSDPA had been deployed in
    counties containing 63 percent and 20 percent of the U.S.
    population, respectively. *See* Implementation of Section 6002(b) of
    the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, WT Docket No. 06-17,
    *Eleventh Report*, 21 FCC Rcd 10947, 10995 ¶ 117 (2006) (*Eleventh
    CMRS Competition Report*).

[^5]: *See* Service Rules for the 698-749, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz
    Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150, Revision of the Commission's Rules to
    Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems and
    Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing
    Aid-Compatible Telephones, CC Docket No. 94-102, WT Docket No.
    01-309, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Fourth Further Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making*, 21 FCC Rcd 9345 (2006) (*700 MHz Commercial Services
    Notice)*.

[^6]: *See* Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band
    Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules,
    Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for
    Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communications
    Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket Nos. 06-169 and 96-86,
    *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 21 FCC Rcd 10413 (2006) (*700 MHz
    Guard Bands Notice*).

[^7]: *See* Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public
    Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, Development of Operational,
    Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and
    Local Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year
    2010, PS Docket No. 06-229, WT Docket No. 96-86, *Ninth Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 21 FCC Rcd 14837 (2006) (*700 MHz Public
    Safety Ninth Notice*); Development of Operational, Technical and
    Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public
    Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket
    No. 96-86, *Eighth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 21 FCC Rcd 3668
    (2006) (*700 MHz Public Safety Eighth Notice*).

[^8]: *See infra* Section III.

[^9]: *See infra* Section III.A.

[^10]: In conformity with the Commission's decision in the *E911 Scope
    Order,* however, we will continue to exclude Mobile Satellite
    Service (MSS) from the specific requirements of 47 C.F.R. § 20.18.
    *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket 94-102, IB
    Docket No. 99-67, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 18 FCC Rcd 25340, 25347-57 ¶¶ 20-39 (2003) (*E911 Scope
    Order*).

[^11]: *See infra* Section III.A.2.c*.*

[^12]: *See infra* Section III.B.

[^13]: *See infra* Section IV.B.2*.*

[^14]: *See infra* Section IV.B.4.

[^15]: *See id*.

[^16]: *See infra* Section IV.B.5.

[^17]: *See id.*

[^18]: *See generally 700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*; *700 MHz
    Guard Bands Notice*; *700 MHz Public Safety Eighth Notice.*

[^19]: This recovery of spectrum from existing, analog broadcast use is
    an important objective of the DTV transition. *See* Advanced
    Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television
    Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87-268, *Sixth Further Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, 11 FCC Rcd 10968, 10977 ¶ 18 (1996).

[^20]: *See* Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz Spectrum
    Band (Television Channels 52-59), GN Docket No. 01-74, *Report and
    Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 1022 (2002) (*Lower 700 MHz Report and Order*);
    Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz Spectrum Band
    (Television Channels 52-59), GN Docket No. 01-74, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 11613 (2002) (*Lower 700 MHz MO&O*).

[^21]: *See* Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz
    Band, ET Docket No. 97-157, *Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22953
    (1998), *recon.* 13 FCC Rcd 21578 (1998) (*Upper 700 MHz
    Reallocation Order*); Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz
    Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket
    No. 99-168, *First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 476 (2000) (*Upper
    700 MHz First Report and Order*).

[^22]: *See 700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 10414 ¶ 1 n.1.

[^23]: *See 700 MHz Public Safety Ninth Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 14838-39
    ¶¶ 5-6; *see generally 700 MHz Public Safety Eighth Notice*.

[^24]: *See* Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat.
    251 § 3004 (1997) (adding new § 337 of the Communications Act);
    *Upper 700 MHz Reallocation Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22955 ¶ 5.

[^25]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 337(a) (enacted by the Balanced Budget Act of
    1997 § 3004, which added new Section 337(a) and established an
    initial timetable for conducting auctions).

[^26]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(14)(C)(i)(II) (2005). Among the objectives of
    Section 309(j) of the Act are "the development and rapid deployment
    of new technologies, products, and services for the benefit of the
    public, including those residing in rural areas;" "promoting
    economic opportunity and competition and ensuring that new and
    innovative technologies are readily accessible to the American
    people by avoiding excessive concentration of licenses and by
    disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including
    small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by
    members of minority groups and women;" and the "efficient and
    intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum." 47 U.S.C. §
    309(j)(3).

[^27]: *See* Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the
    Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87-268,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Sixth Report
    and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 7418, 7435-36 ¶ 42 (1998) (*DTV MO&O of the
    Sixth Report and Order*). The Commission stated that expanding the
    DTV core spectrum would permit recovery of 108 megahertz of spectrum
    at the end of the DTV transition period. *Id.* at 7436 ¶ 45.

[^28]: DTV Act § 3002. Prior to the DTV Act, analog broadcasters were
    required to cease operations in this band by December 31, 2006, but
    the Commission was required to extend the end of this transition in
    certain circumstances. Specifically, extensions were to be granted
    at the request of broadcast licensees on a market-by-market basis if
    one or more of the four largest network stations or affiliates were
    not broadcasting in digital, if digital-to-analog converter
    technology was not generally available, or if 15 percent or more of
    television households were not receiving a digital signal. *See* 47
    U.S.C. § 309(j)(14)(A)-(B) (2005).

[^29]: DTV Act §§ 3003-3004.

[^30]: *See generally 700 MHz Commercial Services Notice.*

[^31]: With regard to the size of geographic service areas for the
    commercial spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Band, the Commission
    determined that, based on the positions of commenters, the likely
    uses of this spectrum, and other considerations, the most
    appropriate policy would be to base the band plan on large EAGs.
    *See Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 500 ¶¶
    56-57.

[^32]: *See Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 500 ¶
    56.

[^33]: *See* Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-113,
    113 stat. 2502, Appendix E, Sec. 213(a)(3), *reprinted in* 47
    U.S.C.A. § 337 Note at Sec. 213(a)(3). With regard to previous
    statutory requirements to complete the auction by a certain date, in
    the *Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order*, the Commission stated
    that its experience "has shown that simultaneous multiple-round
    auctions for a larger number of licenses are more complex and take
    longer to complete than similar auctions involving fewer licenses."
    *Upper 700 MHz First Report & Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 500 ¶ 57.

[^34]: *See Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 500 ¶
    57.

[^35]: *Id.* at 501 ¶ 59.

[^36]: *See Lower 700 MHz Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 1029, 1054-55
    ¶¶ 13, 76.

[^37]: Auction Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-195, 116 Stat. 715
    (codified as 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(15)).

[^38]: CMAs were found to correspond to the needs of many customers,
    including customers of small regional and rural providers. *Lower
    700 MHz Report and Order,* 17 FCC Rcd at 1061 ¶¶ 95-96.

[^39]: *See id.* at 1059 ¶ 90.

[^40]: *See Lower 700 MHz MO&O*, 17 FCC Rcd at 11619 ¶ 14 n. 32 (noting
    that one 12-megahertz block of spectrum "is significant" in that it
    equals 25 percent of the 48 megahertz of spectrum in the Lower 700
    MHz Band).

[^41]: *Lower 700 MHz Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 1059 ¶ 90,
    1060-61 ¶ 94.

[^42]: *Id.* at 1059-60 ¶¶ 91, 93. The Commission used the definition of
    EAGs as defined in the Upper 700 MHz Band proceeding, which included
    a particular definition concerning the division of the Gulf of
    Mexico between two EAGs. *See id.* at 1059 ¶ 90 & n.257.

[^43]: *See generally 700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    9346-48 ¶¶ 1-2.

[^44]: *See Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 490-91
    ¶ 33.

[^45]: *Id.* at 491 ¶ 34. The Commission also allocated each of the
    Upper 700 MHz spectrum blocks so that they would align with as few
    incumbent television broadcast channels as possible, in order to
    expedite deployment, reduce the number of potential negotiated
    agreements with broadcasters, and avoid a problem of "free riding"
    third parties benefiting from others' negotiations. *Id.* at 492 ¶
    37.

[^46]: Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and
    Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No.
    99-168, *Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 5299, 5308-09 ¶ 19
    (2000) ("*Upper 700 MHz Second Report and Order*").

[^47]: *Id.* at 5307-08 ¶ 17.

[^48]: *Id*. at 5308 ¶ 18.

[^49]: *Id.* at 5312-13 ¶ 27.

[^50]: *Id.* at 5313 ¶ 30.

[^51]: *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 10414 ¶ 2.

[^52]: *See id.* at 10418-19 ¶ 12.

[^53]: *Id.* at 10421-24 ¶¶ 18-24.

[^54]: *Id.* at 10423 ¶ 22.

[^55]: *See* Intelligence Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 108-458, 118 Stat.
    3638 § 7502(d)(1) (2004).

[^56]: *See* Report to Congress on the Study to Assess the Short-Term
    and Long-Term Needs for Allocations of Additional Portions of the
    Electromagnetic Spectrum for Federal, State, and Local Emergency
    Response Providers, WT Docket No. 05-157 at 13 ¶ 26 (Dec. 16, 2005)
    (*Intel Reform Act Report*).

[^57]: *Id.*

[^58]: *See 700 MHz Public Safety Eighth Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 3669 ¶
    2.

[^59]: *Id.* at 3676-79 ¶¶ 14-22.

[^60]: *See id.* at 3675-76 ¶ 13, 3683-84 ¶ 33.

[^61]: *See* *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 10431-35 ¶¶
    42-48.

[^62]: *700 MHz Public Safety Ninth Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 14838 ¶ 3.

[^63]: *See, i.e.,* Comments of Frontline Wireless, LLC, PS Docket No.
    06-229 and WT Docket No. 96-86 (filed Feb. 26, 2007) ("Frontline
    Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229"); Reply Comments of Frontline
    Wireless, LLC, PS Docket No. 06-229 and WT Docket No. 96-86 (filed
    Mar. 12, 2007) ("Frontline Reply Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229");
    Comments of Frontline Wireless, LLC, WT Docket No. 06-150 (filed
    Mar. 6, 2007) ("Frontline Mar. 6 Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150");
    Letter from John Blevins, counsel to Frontline Wireless, LLC, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos.
    06-150 and 06-169 and PS Docket No. 06-229 (filed Mar. 27, 2007)
    ("Frontline Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150 and 06-169
    and PS Docket No. 06-229"). *See also* Letter from Matthew S.
    DelNero, counsel to Frontline Wireless, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86 and 06-150 and PS
    Docket No. 06-229 (filed Mar. 7, 2007) ("Frontline March 7 *Ex
    Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86 and 06-150 and PS Docket No.
    06-229"); Letter from Matthew S. DelNero, counsel to Frontline
    Wireless, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in
    WT Docket Nos. 96-86 and 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229 (filed Mar.
    12, 2007) ("Frontline March 12 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86
    and 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229"); Letter from Matthew S.
    DelNero, counsel to Frontline Wireless, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86 and 06-150 and PS
    Docket No. 06-229 (filed Mar. 16, 2007) ("Frontline March 16 *Ex
    Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86 and 06-150 and PS Docket No.
    06-229"); Letter from Matthew S. DelNero, counsel to Frontline
    Wireless, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in
    WT Docket Nos. 96-86 and 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229 (filed Mar.
    19, 2007) ("Frontline Mar. 19 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86 and
    06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229"); Letter from Matthew S. DelNero,
    counsel to Frontline Wireless, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
    FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86 and 06-150 and PS Docket No.
    06-229 (filed Mar. 22, 2007) ("Frontline Mar. 22 *Ex Parte* in WT
    Docket Nos. 96-86 and 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229").

[^64]: The "E-block" would consist of the paired 757-762 MHz and 787-792
    MHz frequencies.

[^65]: *See generally* Frontline Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229;
    Frontline Mar. 6 Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150; Frontline Reply
    Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229; Frontline March 12 *Ex Parte* in
    WT Docket Nos. 96-86 and 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229; Frontline
    Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150 and 06-169 and PS Docket
    No. 06-229.

[^66]: *See* Cingular Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7.

[^67]: *See* Verizon Wireless Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2
    (discussing funding for digital-to-analog converter box program and
    the interoperable communications systems for public safety).

[^68]: *See* Qualcomm Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 15-16 (rule
    changes could cause delay in delivery of services).

[^69]: *See 700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9346-48
    ¶¶ 1-2.

[^70]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd*.* at 9362-69 ¶¶
    28-48.

[^71]: *Id.* at 9369-73 ¶¶ 49-59.

[^72]: *Id.* at 9369 ¶ 49.

[^73]: *Id.* at 9373-76 ¶¶ 61-69. In the Further Notice, we seek comment
    on specific geography-based construction benchmarks to be applied to
    the unauctioned commercial 700 MHz Band licenses. *See infra*
    Section IV.B.1.c.

[^74]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9376-78 ¶¶
    70-72.

[^75]: *Id.* at 9372-73 ¶¶ 58-59.

[^76]: *Id.* at 9372 ¶¶ 56-57.

[^77]: *Id.* at 9378-80 ¶¶ 73-79.

[^78]: *Id.* at 9380-9383 ¶¶ 80-83.

[^79]: *Id.* at 9383-85 ¶¶ 84-89.

[^80]: *Id.* at 9385-86 ¶¶ 91-94.

[^81]: *Id.* at 9388 ¶¶ 95-98.

[^82]: *Id.* at 9388-90 ¶¶ 99-106.

[^83]: In the Further Notice, we seek additional comment on band plan
    proposals for these licenses, including the location and sizes of
    these different geographic area licenses as well as the size of the
    spectrum blocks to be auctioned.

[^84]: *Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 500 ¶ 56;
    s*ee also* 47 C.F.R. § 27.6(b)(2). The C Block is a 10-megahertz
    paired block consisting of two 5-megahertz segments; the D Block is
    a 20-megahertz paired block consisting of two 10-megahertz segments.
    *See supra* Figure 2. The six megahertz of spectrum that comprise
    the Guard Band in the Upper 700 MHz Band's Blocks A and B has
    already been licensed over 52 MEAs. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 27.6(b)(1);
    700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes, *Public Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd
    18026 (2000) (announcing winning bidders in Auction 33); 700 MHz
    Guard Bands Auction Closes, *Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 4590 (2001)
    (announcing winning bidders in Auction 38).

[^85]: *Lower 700 MHz Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 1059 ¶ 90; *see
    also* 47 C.F.R. § 27.6(c)(1). Blocks A and B are each 12-megahertz
    paired blocks consisting of two 6-megahertz segments; the E Block is
    a 6-megahertz unpaired block. *See supra* Figure 3.

[^86]: *See supra* Figure 3; Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes, *Public
    Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd 17272 (2002) ("*Auction 44 Public Notice*")
    (announcing winning bidders in Auction 44); Lower 700 MHz Band
    Auction Closes, *Public Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd 11873 ("*Auction 49
    Public Notice*") (2003) (announcing winning bidders in Auction 49);
    Auction of Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, *Public Notice*, 20
    FCC Rcd 13424 (2005) ("*Auction 60 Public Notice*") (announcing
    winning bidders in Auction 60).

[^87]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9362 ¶ 27.

[^88]: *Id.* at 9363-67 ¶¶ 33-41.

[^89]: *Id.* at 9362 ¶ 27, 9363-67 ¶ 33-41.

[^90]: *Id.* at 9362 ¶ 27, 9367-69 ¶ 42-48.

[^91]: *See* Aloha Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at ii, 3-6; Aloha
    Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 1-3; Corr Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 3; Leap Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    4-6; MetroPCS Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-8; U.S.
    Cellular Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4; Letter from Alltel
    *et al.* to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 06-150
    (filed Oct. 20, 2006) ("Balanced Consensus Plan") (signatories to
    the Balanced Consensus Plan are Alltel, Aloha, Blooston, C&W,
    ConnectME Authority, Corr, Dobson, Leap, Maine Office of Chief
    Information Officer, MetroPCS, NTCA, Nebraska PSC, North Dakota PSC,
    RCA, RTG, Union, U.S. Cellular, Vermont et al., Vermont Telephone
    Company). *See also* CTIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 6 (mix
    of service areas for AWS-1 spectrum served the wireless marketplace
    well); Letter from Michelle C. Farquhar, counsel for SpectrumCo LLC,
    to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, in WT Docket No. 06-150 (filed
    Jan. 9, 2007) ("SpectrumCo Jan. 9 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket No.
    06-150") at 2-11.

[^92]: *See* Aloha Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at ii, 3-6; Balanced
    Consensus Plan in WT Docket No. 06-150; Blooston Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 2; C&W Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-3;
    Corr Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-4; Dobson Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 2-4; Howard/Javed Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 9; Leap Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4-6; MilkyWay
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 1-6; NextWave Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 2-6; NTCA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    6; OPASTCO Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-3; RCA Comments in
    WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4-8; RTG Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    2; U.S. Cellular Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4-7.

[^93]: *See* Aloha Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 3; Aloha Reply
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-3; Blooston Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 1, 2; C&W Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    2; Consumer Federation of America *et al*. Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 4-5; Corr Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-4; Dobson
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-4; Howard/Javed Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at i, 10-11, 21; Leap Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 5; MetroPCS Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 13;
    MetroPCS Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-3; MilkyWay
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 3, 4-5; NTCA Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 6 (supporting a 20-megahertz allocation over
    CMAs); NextWave Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 12-13;
    OPASTCO Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-3; RCA Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 4-8; RCA Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150
    at 3; RTG Comments at 3; RTG Reply Comments at 3; U.S. Cellular
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5-7; U.S. Cellular Reply
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5.

[^94]: Alltel *et al.* in WT Docket No. 06-150 (filing the "Balanced
    Consensus Plan"). The Balanced Consensus Plan recommends a mix of
    six different licenses, two each over CMAs (22 megahertz total), EAs
    (20 megahertz total), and REAGs (12 megahertz paired; 6 megahertz
    unpaired). This plan also includes a proposed reconfiguration of
    current D Block in the Upper 700 MHz Band by splitting that block
    into two 10-megahertz blocks.

[^95]: *See* MilkyWay Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4-5
    (supporting a mix of different license sizes, including CMAs); Polar
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 1 (urging CMA licenses over 20
    megahertz); Frontier Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 1, 5-7
    (supports reducing size of all unauctioned spectrum to areas no
    larger than RSAs and MSAs; also supports county-sized licenses for
    certain portions of the spectrum); T-Mobile Reply Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 3 (geographic areas smaller than EAGs are more
    likely to fall within business plans of parties with limited
    resources); OPASTCO Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2; NextWave
    Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 12-13; Howard/Javed
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at i, 9; Navajo Nation Comments in
    WT Docket No. 06-150 at 1 (supporting EA licensing).

[^96]: Frontier Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5-6. There are 3,141
    U.S. counties. *See* Applications of Midwest Wireless Holdings,
    L.L.C. and AllTel Communications, Inc., WT Docket No. 05-339,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, FCC 06-146, 2006 WL 2818315, n. 137
    (Oct. 2, 2006).

[^97]: *See* NextWave Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 9-13.
    *See also* Howard/Javed Comments at i, 9, 31 (supporting the
    provision of easements allowing unlicensed use of 700 MHz spectrum).

[^98]: Access Spectrum *et al*. Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    23-24. *See infra* Section IV.B.1.a (discussing Access Spectrum *et
    al*.'s proposal for the Upper 700 MHz Band).

[^99]: *See* AT&T Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 3; AT&T Reply
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2; Cingular Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 5; Cingular Reply Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 3; Motorola Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at i;
    Motorola Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2; Verizon
    Wireless Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 3. *See also* CTIA
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 1-2 (stating that, in large
    part, the existing licensing and service rules should be left
    unchanged); Qualcomm Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 17 (stating
    that any change would be for unauctioned spectrum only). Cingular
    and AT&T argue that if any change is to be made to the size of
    service areas, then such changes should be limited. Cingular Reply
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 9 (arguing that any changes to
    band plan should be limited to the Upper 700 MHz Band); AT&T Reply
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 15 (noting that if any change is
    made, it should be to one block only, and that the Lower 700 MHz
    Band should not be changed).

[^100]: *See* Cingular Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7-9; Cingular
    Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7-9; Verizon Wireless
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4-5; Verizon Wireless Reply
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 3-6 (discussing downside of
    small area licensing and lack of evidence to support smaller
    geographic areas).

[^101]: *See* Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7
    and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, *Order on Reconsideration*,
    20 FCC Rcd 14058 (2005) (*AWS-1 Order on Reconsideration*) (adopting
    a mix of license sizes). "AWS-1" refers to the 90 megahertz of the
    spectrum in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands. Licenses
    involving this spectrum recently were auctioned in Auction No. 66.

[^102]: CTIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 6; *see also* Verizon
    Wireless Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4-5.

[^103]: DIRECTV/EchoStar Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 3.

[^104]: *See infra* Section IV.B. In this Further Notice, we also
    consider a recently filed proposal by Frontline. *See infra* Section
    IV.B.5. Were the Commission to determine to create a nationwide
    licensee for one block of commercial spectrum, consistent with the
    Frontline proposal, this would not affect our decision in this
    Report and Order to create a mix of CMA, EA, and REAG licenses for
    the other blocks of commercial 700 MHz Band spectrum.

[^105]: Facilitating the Provision of Spectrum-Based Services to Rural
    Areas and Promoting Opportunities for Rural Telephone Companies to
    Provide Spectrum-Based Services, WT Docket No. 02-381, 2000 Biennial
    Regulatory Review Spectrum Aggregation Limits for Commercial Mobile
    Radio Services, WT Docket No. 01-14, Increasing Flexibility to
    Promote Access to and the Efficient and Intensive Use of Spectrum
    and the Widespread Deployment of Wireless Services, and to
    Facilitate Capital Formation, WT Docket No. 03-202, *Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 19 FCC Rcd 19078,
    19096 ¶ 31 (2004) (*Rural Report and Order* and *Further Notice*,
    respectively). *See* *Lower 700 MHz Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at
    1050 ¶ 65, 1061-62 ¶ 96 (Commission sought to define an initial
    "scope of licenses" that can be "obtained and used by a wide range
    of entities and services."); Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
    Services in the 1.7 and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, *Order
    on Reconsideration*, 20 FCC Rcd 14058, 14066 ¶ 14 (2005) (*AWS-1
    Order on Reconsideration*) ("RSAs and MSAs allow entities to mix and
    match rural and urban areas according to their business plans and
    that, by being smaller, these types of geographic service areas
    provide entry opportunities for smaller carriers, new entrants, and
    rural telephone companies"); Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
    Services in the 1.7 and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, *Report
    and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 25162, 25175-77 ¶¶ 35-39 (2003) (*AWS-1
    Report and Order*) (Commission determined that using a varied
    selection of areas will foster service to rural areas and promote
    the policy goal of disseminating licenses among a wide variety of
    applicants).

[^106]: *See, e.g.*, Balanced Consensus Plan; Aloha Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 3; Corr Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 3;
    U.S. Cellular Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2; T-Mobile Reply
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-4; MilkyWay Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 2-6; Leap Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    5-6; RCA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7; RTG Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 2-8; MetroPCS Reply Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 3.

[^107]: *See* Balanced Consensus Plan; U.S. Cellular Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 3; Corr Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 3;
    NTCA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5-6.

[^108]: Of 104 winning bidders, 70 (67%) won CMA licenses only, and 21
    (20%) won only EA and/or CMA licenses. *See*
    <http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/66/charts/66cls2.pdf> (providing
    auction results); *see, generally,*
    [http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/66/](http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=66)
    (providing additional information on the AWS auction).

[^109]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(A).

[^110]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(A), (4)(C)(iii).

[^111]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B), (4)(C).

[^112]: *See infra* Section IV.B.1.a (proposing smaller license areas in
    the Lower 700 MHz Band).

[^113]: *See* Cingular Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 9-10;
    AT&T Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 15-17.

[^114]: *Lower 700 MHz MO&O*, 17 FCC Rcd at 11621 ¶ 19; *see also*
    *Lower 700 MHz Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 1064 ¶ 103 (noting
    that providers of non-broadcast services may also operate at power
    levels up to 50 kW ERP, provided they comply with the same technical
    requirements associated with such operations, creating a consistent
    set of technical rules for all services in the Lower 700 MHz Band).
    *See also infra* Section III.A.2.c(iii) (retaining 50 kW power
    levels for incumbent Lower 700 MHz Band licensees).

[^115]: C&W Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5. C&W further states
    that such an action would force it to discontinue service on this
    spectrum due to the expense of continuing operations under these
    conditions. *Id*.

[^116]: Corr, an original licensee of C Block licensees which has
    assigned those licenses to its parent, states that it believed at
    the time it bid on the licenses, and still believes, that there may
    be a viable use for these licenses in providing digital broadcast
    services. Corr Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 8-9. Corr states
    that potential services under active development include mobile TV
    and one-way data transfers, and with 50 kW of power, a licensee
    could provide such a broadcast service to a small or medium-sized
    metropolitan area. *Id*.

[^117]: *See Lower 700 MHz Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 1060-61 ¶ 94
    (finding the use of EAGs to be preferable to the assignment of
    nationwide service areas despite efficiencies associated with
    nationwide service); *Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd at 502 ¶ 61 (adopting EAGs with ability of licensees to
    partition and aggregate to provide maximum flexibility to parties to
    adjust their operating area most efficiently given marketplace and
    technological needs).

[^118]: DIRECTV/EchoStar Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 3.

[^119]: *See AWS-1 Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 25176 ¶ 38.

[^120]: *See* <http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/66/charts/66market.xls>
    or <http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/66/charts/66press_5.pdf>
    (providing auction results, including Spectrum Co.'s acquisition of
    136 EA licenses). *See also* MetroPCS Reply Comments in WT Docket
    No. 06-150 at 7; RTG Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5; Aloha
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 6 (addressing SpectumCo.'s
    acquisition of licenses in Auction No. 66).

[^121]: *See infra* Section IV.B.1.

[^122]: *See* Frontier Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5-6.

[^123]: *See Rural Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 19090 n.60.

[^124]: *See* Access Spectrum *et al*. Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150
    at 23; MetroPCS Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11, 14
    (proposing MEAs in connection with suggested division of D Block of
    Upper 700 MHz Band).

[^125]: Milgrom/Wrege Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-3.

[^126]: In the Further Notice, we propose to license the Lower 700 MHz
    Band B Block on a CMA basis.

[^127]: Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of
    Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets, *Report and Order
    and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 18 FCC Rcd 20604,
    20649-77 ¶¶ 93-181 (2003) (*Secondary Markets Report and Order).*
    The spectrum leasing policies adopted in the *Secondary Markets
    Report and Order* applied generally to services licensed under Parts
    22, 24, 27, 90, and 101 of the Commission's rules, including all
    Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) and various other services
    in which the licensee holds an "exclusive use" right. *Id.* at 20643
    ¶ 84, fn. 181.

[^128]: Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of
    Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets, *Second Report and
    Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 19 FCC Rcd 17503, 17509-545 ¶¶ 10-84 (2004)
    ("*Secondary Markets Second Report and Order*"*).*

[^129]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9376-77 ¶
    70.

[^130]: *Id.* at 9377 ¶ 71.

[^131]: *See, e.g.,* AT&T Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 10-11;
    Aloha Partners Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 12-13; CTIA
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 16-17; Corr Wireless Comments in
    WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5-6; Qualcomm Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 19-20; Verizon Wireless Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150
    at 6.

[^132]: Corr Wireless Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7.

[^133]: *See* Howard/Javed Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 28-30;
    Vermont Public Service Commission *et al.* Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 12.

[^134]: *See, e.g.,* AT&T Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 10-11;
    Corr Wireless Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 6; Qualcomm
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 19-20.

[^135]: *See* Aloha Partners Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 12.

[^136]: *See* AT&T Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 10-11.

[^137]: *See* CTIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 17.

[^138]: *See, e.g.,* Howard/Javed Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    28; Vermont Department of Public Service *et al.* Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 12.

[^139]: *See Secondary Markets Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20655 ¶¶
    114-115 (for spectrum manager leases), 20667 ¶146 (for *de facto*
    transfer leases). *See also* 47 C.F.R. 1.9020(d)(5), 1.9030(d)(5).

[^140]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9372-73 ¶¶
    57-59.

[^141]: Access Spectrum *et al*. Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    29-31.

[^142]: DIRECTV/EchoStar Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 10.

[^143]: Blooston Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5, Corr Comments in
    WT Docket No. 06-150 at 10-12. *See also* Qualcomm Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 19 ("does not oppose this proposal since it . .
    . would be entirely voluntary").

[^144]: *See, e.g.,* NTCA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 8-11;
    OPASTCO Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 3-4; RTG Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 8; Council Tree Communications, Inc. (Council
    Tree) Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11-13.

[^145]: *See, e.g.,* AT&T Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    14-15; Cingular Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 10-11;
    USCC Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 16-17.

[^146]: Council Tree Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 13-15. For
    these bands, the Commission previously adopted bidding credits of
    25% and 15% for applicants with average attributable gross revenues
    not exceeding \$15 million and \$40 million, respectively. *See* 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.2110(f)(2), 27.502, 27.702.

[^147]: *See* Access Spectrum *et al*. Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150.
    In contrast to Access Spectrum *et al.*'s proposal for bidding
    credits in exchange for Public Safety service commitments, existing
    rules and practice generally provide bidding preferences for certain
    types of applicants rather than for applicants committing to provide
    certain services. The Commission has noted in prior proceedings
    "that there is no support in either the Communications Act or prior
    Commission decisions for creating a bidding credit for providing
    Public Safety services." Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 27 and 90 of the
    Commission's Rules to License Services in the 216-220 MHz, 1390-1395
    MHz, 1427-1429 MHz, 1429-1432 MHz, 1432-1435 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz, and
    2385-2390 MHz Government Transfer Bands, WT Docket No. 02-8, *Report
    and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 9980, 10023 ¶109 (2002) (*Government Transfer
    Bands R&O*). Nonetheless, the Commission has created bidding credits
    to encourage service to underserved tribal lands, without regard to
    whether the provider is a designated entity. *See generally* 47
    C.F.R. §1.2110(f)(3). *See also Government Transfer Bands R&O*, 17
    FCC Rcd at 10024 ¶109 n.365 (noting that the tribal lands bidding
    credit is outside of the designated entity context).

[^148]: Cingular Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 16; MetroPCS
    Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 18-19.

[^149]: One of the statutory objectives the Commission must seek to
    promote when using its competitive bidding authority is the
    dissemination of licenses among a wide variety of applicants,
    including small businesses, rural telephone companies, and
    businesses owned by members of minority groups and women, sometimes
    collectively referred to as "designated entities." 47 U.S.C.
    §309(j)(3)(B).

[^150]: 47 U.S.C. §309(j)(4)(D).

[^151]: *See* <http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/66/charts/66cls2.pdf>
    (providing auction results); *see, generally,*
    [http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/66/](http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=66)
    (providing additional information on the AWS auction).

[^152]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3).

[^153]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2110(f)(2), 27.502, 27.702.

[^154]: *See Lower 700 MHz Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 1088 ¶ 173.

[^155]: *AWS-1 Order on Reconsideration*, 20 FCC Rcd at 14075-77 ¶¶
    32-36.

[^156]: *Id*. at n.113.

[^157]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice,* 21 FCC Rcd at 9372 ¶ 56.

[^158]: DIRECTV/EchoStar Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7-8,
    Motorola Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 8.

[^159]: Access Spectrum *et al.* Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    26-27; Milgrom/Wrege Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4-9.

[^160]: MetroPCS Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5.

[^161]: USCC Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11-12.

[^162]: *See* Auction of Regional Narrowband PCS Licenses Scheduled for
    September 24, 2003; Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening
    Bids, Upfront Payments, Package Bidding and Other Auction
    Procedures, 18 FCC Rcd 11974 (2003).

[^163]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9378-79 ¶
    75.

[^164]: CTIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 17-18.

[^165]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice,* 21 FCC Rcd at 9380-81 ¶¶
    80-81.

[^166]: *Id*. at 9381-82 ¶ 82.

[^167]: *Id.* at 9382-83 ¶ 83. For instance, the licenses could be
    returned to the Commission for re-auction should a license not be
    renewed. We also asked commenters to address whether any amendments
    of its rules on the renewal process should be limited to the
    unauctioned 700 MHz licenses, or whether any such amendments also
    should apply to those 700 MHz licenses which already have been
    auctioned in order to have a unitary regime for these licenses.

[^168]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.949. Specifically, it states that a renewal
    application must be filed no later than the expiration date of the
    authorization and no sooner than 90 days prior to expiration. *Id*.
    § 1.949(a).

[^169]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.949(a).

[^170]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(b)-(d).

[^171]: That standard has not been defined in Commission rules, and
    commenters strongly objected to the suggestion in the *700 MHz
    Commercial Services Notice* that the Commission adopt specific
    criteria. *See infra* Section IV.B.1.c.

[^172]: To date, the Commission has never received a competing
    application to a 700 MHz license renewal, nor, for that matter, to
    the renewal of any wireless radio service license under Part 27.

[^173]: We note, for example, that the Commission stated in the *Upper
    700 MHz Report and Order* that a licensee "that limits buildout to
    urban areas and areas with high density population, will not
    necessarily be ensured of license renewal, even if otherwise
    compliant with the construction benchmarks," and added its belief
    that substantial service "requires the licensee to buildout in rural
    areas as well." *Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd
    at 505 ¶ 71.

[^174]: As we have had the authority to do in the past on a case-by-case
    basis, we could nevertheless condition the renewal of any 700 MHz
    license on a specific level of compliance with one or more of these
    or any other relevant factors. In addition, once specific 700 MHz
    service offerings have had a chance to develop on a basis comparable
    to that of, *e.g.*, PCS, we plan to revisit these factors to the
    extent we determine that a particular problem or issue requires
    regulatory relief through the renewal review process.

[^175]: *See* MetroPCS Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 17.

[^176]: Existing provisions in Part 1 provide procedures for petitions
    to deny, application dismissals, and rules for subsequent
    re-licensing through competitive bidding. *See generally* 47 C.F.R.
    § 1.901 *et seq.*; *see also id.* § 27.501 *et seq.*; § 27.701 *et
    seq.*

[^177]: *See* AT&T Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 15; CTIA Comments
    in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 18.

[^178]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.13(b).

[^179]: *See 700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9383-85
    ¶¶ 84-89.

[^180]: Alltel Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5; Aloha
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 10-11; AT&T Reply Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 3, 25-26; C&W Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150
    at 4; Cingular Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2; CTIA
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 19-20; Frontier Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 8; MetroPCS Reply Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 13-14 (supports a 15 year term, or a ten year term at a
    minimum); Navajo Nation Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 3;
    NextWave Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 15.

[^181]: Access Spectrum *et al.* Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 35;
    Blooston Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7-8 (supports at least
    10 years after DTV transition), Corr Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 4; Dobson Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11; Motorola
    Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5-6 (commenting that it
    would support an even longer term); Union Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 6; Verizon Wireless Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    10; Vermont Department of Public Service *et al*. in WT Docket No.
    06-150 Comments at 11. *See also* RCA Reply Comments in WT Docket
    No. 06-150 at 4 (appearing to assume a 10-year term in discussing
    performance requirements); RCA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    8-9.

[^182]: DIRECTV/EchoStar Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 10-11;
    Howard/Javed Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 25.

[^183]: *See* Aloha Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11; Blooston
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7-8; Corr Comments in WT Docket
    No. 06-150 at 4; Dobson Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11;
    Frontier Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 8; MetroPCS Reply
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 13; Motorola Reply Comments in
    WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5-6; Navajo Nation Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 3. *See also* NextWave Reply Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 15 (extend term "for 700 MHz providers").

[^184]: Access Spectrum *et al.* Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 35.

[^185]: *See* Union Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 6; Verizon
    Wireless Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 10.

[^186]: Vermont Department of Public Service *et al.*Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 11.

[^187]: 47 U.S.C. § 307(c)(1); see also 47 C.F.R. § 73.1020(a).

[^188]: We also note that we did not seek comment on possible revisions
    to the license term for Guard Band licenses in the 700 MHz Guard
    Bands proceeding. *See generally 700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*, 21 FCC
    Rcd 10413.

[^189]: Prior to the DTV Act, the Commission was required to grant
    extensions at the request of individual broadcast licensees on a
    market-by-market basis if one or more of the four largest network
    stations or affiliates were not broadcasting in digital,
    digital-to-analog converter technology was not generally available,
    or 15 percent or more of television households were not receiving a
    digital signal. 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(14)(B)(i)-(iii) (2005). *See also
    700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9350 ¶ 7, 9350-51
    ¶ 9, 9356-57 ¶ 18 (discussing extension of DTV transition prior to
    DTV Act, the transition under the DTV Act, and the current license
    term for 700 MHz licensees).

[^190]: *See Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 504 ¶
    67, n.161, *on recon*. Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz
    Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket
    No. 99-168, *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 15 FCC Rcd 20845, 20862-63 45 (2000); *see
    also* 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(14)(B)(i)-(iii) (2005).

[^191]: *See Lower 700 MHz Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 1077 ¶ 145.

[^192]: *See* 47 C.F.R. 27.13, describing initial license terms for
    licensees in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz Bands (ten years),
    1390-1392 MHz Band (ten years), 1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz
    Bands (ten years), 1670-1675 MHz Band (ten years).

[^193]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.513(e), 24.15.

[^194]: *See* Aloha Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 10-11; CTIA
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 19-20; Frontier Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 8-9.

[^195]: *See AWS-1 Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 25190 ¶ 70.

[^196]: *See* DTV Act § 3002; *see also* H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 109-362
    (2005), *reprinted in* 2006 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3 (conference report for
    DTV Act)

[^197]: *See* DIRECTV/EchoStar Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11
    (DIRECTV and EchoStar are concerned that "any such extension would
    reduce the amount of spectrum in play and therefore make new entry
    more difficult.... The public interest demands that whomever the
    Commission licenses to use this spectrum do so in a timely
    manner.").

[^198]: *See* Howard/Javed Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 28
    (commenting that the current license terms should remain as an
    incentive to promoting a vigorous secondary market in spectrum
    leases, and argue that a shorter initial license period is one way
    to keep licensees from being able to "costlessly hold spectrum" for
    anticompetitive reasons, *i.e*., spectrum warehousing).

[^199]: *See supra* Section III.A.2.a.

[^200]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 27.13(b).

[^201]: 47 U.S.C. § 307(c)(1); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1020(a).

[^202]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.50(b), (c)*.* We note that under our
    rules, fixed stations may operate in the 700 MHz bands. Thus, the
    existing 1 kW ERP base station power limit and any other power
    limits referred to in this Order shall apply to fixed stations as
    well as base stations. We further note that 1 kW ERP is equivalent
    to 1640 W EIRP -- the power limit permitted in the PCS and AWS
    bands.

[^203]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.50(c), 27.55(b). Through the use of an
    appropriate PFD limit, a transmission from a 50 kW ERP base station
    can appear, to an adjacent band receiver operating in the vicinity
    of the base station, like a transmission from a 1 kW ERP base
    station operating without a PFD constraint.

[^204]: *See 700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9386-88.

[^205]: *See, e.g.,* DIRECTV Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 13
    (favoring a power increase in the Upper 700 MHz Band and asserting
    that in the 2008/2009 timeframe, "new or emerging technologies" will
    be available, which will allow 700 MHz licensees to employ power
    levels significantly greater than 1 kW ERP "without causing any
    interference to other spectrum users."). *See also* Aloha Partners
    Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5.

[^206]: *See* Vermont Department of Public Service *et al* Comments in
    WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11 (favoring an increase in the Upper 700
    MHz Band power limit in rural areas from 1 kW ERP to 2 kW ERP due to
    the "challenges" faced by rural providers in covering large
    geographic areas); *see also* AT&T Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150
    at 12 (recommending a power limit increase in rural areas "similar
    to the higher power limits. . .now permitted in the cellular, PCS,
    and AWS services.").

[^207]: *See* Leap Wireless Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 6-8
    (proposing an increase in the power limit to 2 kW ERP for Upper 700
    MHz Band base stations to "facilitate the deployment of robust CMRS
    services," and indicating that it would "not object" to a 3 mW/m^2^
    PFD requirement along with an increased power limit). Motorola
    suggests that if we permit a higher power limit for Upper 700 MHz
    Band commercial stations, there could be the potential for
    interference to Public Safety operations, and therefore recommends
    that if an increased power limit is adopted the "aggregate total
    power from non-desired signals into \[a Public Safety portable\]
    receiver front-end should not exceed approximately -25 dBm." *See*
    Motorola Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11.

[^208]: *See* Motorola Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11
    (requesting that the Commission limit the power of 700 MHz Band base
    stations to 1 kW/MHz ERP). *See also* Aloha Partners Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 11, MilkyWay Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150
    at 9, CTIA Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 8, and Cingular
    Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 15. The issue of employing
    a PSD model for defining power limits was also raised in the
    *Streamlining and Harmonization Further Notice.* A number of parties
    commenting in that proceeding favored the adoption of the PSD model.
    *See, e.g.,* Comments of CTIA in WT Docket No. 03-264 at 4-6.

[^209]: *See 700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9385-88
    ¶ 90-98.

[^210]: *See* AT&T Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11;
    Motorola Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 12.

[^211]: *See* C&W Enterprises Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5 and
    Corr Wireless Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 8-10. *See also*
    Qualcomm Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 22-24 (indicating that
    any decrease in power limits for existing Lower Band licensees is
    "unwarranted" and would require Qualcomm to construct many
    additional base stations to implement its MediaFlo system).

[^212]: *See* Cingular Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 15
    (stating that such a power increase would not "substantially
    increas\[e\] the potential for interference").

[^213]: *See* MSTV Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5-7
    (arguing that we should reduce the power capability for Lower Band
    licensees to some unspecified level during the transition -- during
    which time "knowledge developed . . . will teach \[us\] steps that
    are necessary to prevent harmful interference" to broadcast
    operations -- and then after the transition, retain that reduced
    power level capability for Channel 52 stations only"). In addition,
    MSTV requests that we reaffirm our decision announced in the Public
    Notice released prior to the 2002 Lower 700 MHz Band auction that
    700 MHz licensees must afford interference protection to adjacent
    channel broadcast services, and that such services "have priority
    over any adjoining 700 MHz services that might interfere." *Id*. at
    4.

[^214]: Sprint Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11-12. Sprint,
    however, does not propose a particular, reduced power level for the
    Lower Band to prevent such interference.

[^215]: *See* Motorola Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 12 (proposing
    that Lower Band licensees be limited to a power level of 50 kW/6 MHz
    ERP).

[^216]: We are not, however, adopting the PSD model for defining power
    limits for control, mobile, or portable stations operating in the
    bands.

[^217]: *See* Motorola Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 10-11.

[^218]: *See* *Rural Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 19128 *¶* 89; 47
    C.F.R. § 27.50(d)(1).

[^219]: *See* *Rural Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 19127 ¶ 87, 19131
    ¶ 95, 19133 ¶ 100.

[^220]: *See, e.g.*, *id.* at 19134 ¶ 101.

[^221]: *See* Verizon *Ex Parte* letter of April 4, 2007 at 3.

[^222]: *See* Qualcomm Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 3.

[^223]: For example, C&W, a company that operates a system employing a
    single, high-powered, transmitter, indicates that if the power limit
    were reduced, it would have to add many more stations to cover the
    same area, at "great expense," and therefore "would have to
    discontinue the service it is providing. *See* C&W Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 5. Similarly, Corr Wireless, which believes
    that with the 50 kW ERP power limit a licensee could provide "mobile
    TV and one-way data \[services\]" to small or medium-sized markets,
    considers the idea of reducing the power limit for existing Lower
    700 MHz licensees a "gross breach of faith for licensees who relied
    on the specified power limits when applying for, bidding on, and
    paying for these licenses . . ." Corr Wireless Comments in WT Docket
    No. 06-150 at 8-9.

[^224]: *See infra* Section IV.B.1.a (proposing retention of the band
    plan for the existing Lower 700 MHz Band, which includes an unpaired
    E Block).

[^225]: We will also require such licensees to meet the same type of
    notification requirements that currently apply to Lower 700 MHz Band
    licensees who are required to meet our PFD limit. *See* Sections
    27.50(c), as amended.

[^226]: We will require such licensees to meet the same type of
    notification requirement that we are now requiring of Lower 700 MHz
    Band licensees. *See* Section 27.50(b), as amended.

[^227]: We permit Upper 700 MHz Band licensees to transmit at 2 kW ERP
    when operating over bandwidths of 2 megahertz or more.

[^228]: *See* DIRECTV/EchoStar comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 13
    (indicating that as such technologies develop, it will supplement
    the record with specific power limit recommendations).

[^229]: *See* Motorola Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11.

[^230]: We received no comments from the Public Safety community
    regarding the Motorola proposal.

[^231]: *See* *Lower 700 MHz Band Report and Order,* 17 FCC Rcd 1121,
    Appendix D.

[^232]: The Commission indicated that desired-to-undesired (D/U) ratios
    of -42 dB or better would likely ensure non-interference to 700 MHz
    base station receivers. As shown in Table 1 of Appendix D, which
    indicates D/U ratios for various conditions, for base stations
    transmitting at 50 kW ERP, there are no conditions where D/U ratios
    exceed -42 dB and only a few where D/U ratios approach -42 dB. *Id.*

[^233]: As indicated in Table 1 of Appendix D, for base stations
    transmitting at power levels as high as 100 kW ERP, there are a
    number of conditions where D/U ratios would approach -42 dB. *Id.*

[^234]: *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. § 27.60 ("TV/DTV interference protection
    criteria"); 47 C.F.R. § 27.53 ("Emission limits").

[^235]: Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27,
    and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless
    Radio Services, WT Docket No. 03-264, *Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* 20 FCC Rcd 13900 (2005)
    (*Streamlining and Harmonization Further Notice)*.

[^236]: *See* Letter from Paul W. Garnett, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 03-264 (filed Feb. 6, 2007) at 2.

[^237]: *See* Sprint Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at iii. On the
    other hand, CTIA argues that we should not reduce our 700 MHz Band
    base station power limits, stating that the "technical merits of
    \[700 MHz Band\] power limits were vetted in earlier proceedings and
    adopted consistent with the Commission's objective in the broadband
    PCS and AWS-1 bands of providing service flexibility while
    protecting adjacent channel licensees from interferences." CTIA
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 20.

[^238]: *See* Sprint Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at n.8.

[^239]: *See* 47 C.R.F. § 27.53(c)(3).

[^240]: *See* Sprint Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at n.10. Sprint
    does not propose a particular OOBE limit to address its concern.

[^241]: Leap believes that those parties advocating the need for more
    stringent interference protection for public safety users "must be
    required to provide evidence of a problem" and asserts that "to date
    the record contains only speculative conclusions." Leap further
    believes that the technical limits proposed by Sprint to address its
    interference concerns "would severely limit the range of services
    offered" in the Upper Band. Leap Reply Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 3-4.

[^242]: *See* Leap Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 9.

[^243]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.53(c)(1)-(2).

[^244]: *See* Access Spectrum *et al.* Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150
    at 33-34 and Appendix B at 13-14. Public safety broadband operations
    would be permitted under various, proposed revisions to the 700 MHz
    Public Safety Band presented in the 700 MHz Public Safety and 700
    MHz Guard Bands proceedings.

[^245]: *See* Motorola Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 10.

[^246]: The OOBE limit describes the degree to which out-of-band energy
    is initially reduced at a transmitter. Site isolation, in this
    instance, is a measure of the degree to which a signal is attenuated
    as it travels away from a transmitter towards an out-of-band
    receiver. Thus, an OOBE limit, along with an appropriate site
    isolation figure, determine how much out-of-band energy, and thus
    how much interference, is absorbed by a receiver.

[^247]: TIA provided the technical analysis in support of NPSTC's
    proposal.

[^248]: *See* In the Matter of Petitions for Reconsideration of the
    Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, Service Rules for the 746-764
    and 776-794 MHz Spectrum bands and Revisions to Part 27 of the
    Commission's Rules, *Third Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd
    13985, 13992 ¶ 21 (*Third 700 MHz MO&O*).

[^249]: *Id.* at 13993 ¶ 22. The Commission also noted that TIA's
    proposed increased OOBE limit for Upper 700 MHz Band base stations
    "would dramatically compromise the usefulness of the upper 700 MHz
    commercial spectrum blocks" and therefore concluded that TIA's
    presentation did not "justify the establishment of a stronger,
    uniform OOBE standard for commercial transmitters." *Id.* at
    13993-94 ¶ 23.

[^250]: *See* *800 MHz Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15028-29 ¶ 104.

[^251]: *Id.* at 14969, 15028 ¶ 104.

[^252]: *See* Leap Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7-9.

[^253]: Specifically, TIA suggested that the Commission adopt a
    requirement to limit power levels produced by commercial base
    stations to no greater than -45 dBm on the ground within 400 meters
    of the station. The Commission determined that to meet this
    limitation, a commercial base station would not likely be able to
    transmit at a power level greater than 5 watts ERP. *See* *Third 700
    MHz MO&O*, 17 FCC Rcd at 13995 ¶ 28.

[^254]: *Id*. Sprint asserts that a similarly low power level would be
    needed to ensure the absence of IM interference in the Upper 700 MHz
    Band, but acknowledges that imposing such a limit on base stations
    "would not allow any cost-effective deployment of infrastructure,
    particularly if the operator sought to provide in-building service."
    Sprint Comments at n. 20.

[^255]: *800 MHz Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15023 ¶ 91.

[^256]: The Commission stated that "rather than impose stringent,
    across-the-board emission limits at this time, \[it is\] adopting
    rules that require ESMR and cellular telephone licensees to act only
    when and where it is evident that unacceptable interference is or
    will be caused to non-cellular 800 MHz systems, thereby affording
    such licensees a high degree of technical flexibility and minimizing
    the cost of interference avoidance." *800 MHz Report and Order*, 19
    FCC Rcd at 15040 ¶ 131.

[^257]: *See* *id*. at 15041 *¶* 129 (the Commission decided that "in
    lieu of adopting what could be draconian rules, \[it is\] affording
    ESMR and cellular telephone licensees the discretion to make any
    necessary changes to their own systems---or changes to non-cellular
    systems affected by unacceptable interference---as may be necessary
    to eliminate unacceptable interference"). In implementing this
    decision the Commission adopted Section 90.672 ("Unacceptable
    interference to non-cellular 800 MHz licensees from ESMR or Part 22
    Cellular Radiotelephone systems"), Section 90.673 ("Obligations to
    abate unacceptable interference"), Section 90.674 ("Interference
    resolution procedures before, during, and after band
    reconfiguration"), and Section 90.675 ("Information Exchange").

[^258]: For example, a D Block transmission at 760 MHz, when combined
    with a C Block transmission at 750 MHz, will, in accordance with the
    2F~1~-F~2~ formula for the calculation of 3^rd^ order
    intermodulation, create an IM product at 770 MHz, which is within
    the 764-776 MHz Public Safety Band.

[^259]: *See, e.g.,* Section 90.675.

[^260]: As per Section 90.675, this would include information about the
    700 MHz station's location, effective radiated power, antenna
    height, and channels available for use. Also, as per Section 90.675,
    Public Safety licensees will not be afforded the right to accept or
    reject the activation of a proposed 700 MHz station or to
    unilaterally require changes to the station's operating parameters.
    We note as well that 700 MHz licensees may regard their operating
    parameters as proprietary and if so, we encourage such licensees to
    use non-disclosure agreement whereby third parties will not be given
    access to such information. Failing that, the affected parties could
    seek a protective order from the Commission. *See* Digital Output
    Protection Technology and Recording Method Certifications, *Order*,
    MM Docket 04-68, DA 04-716 (rel. March 17, 2004). *See also* 47
    C.F.R §§ 0.457, 0.459. We also encourage, but do not require, that
    such matters be submitted to arbitration, mediation, or other
    alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

[^261]: Public safety licensees will also be required to provide
    information about any technical changes they plan to make to their
    systems.

[^262]: *See 800 MHz Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15038 ¶ 125 ("if
    the characteristics of a proposed new cell are known in advance, it
    is possible to analyze the cell's potential for interference and
    make any necessary revisions to cell parameters before the cell is
    activated"), 15039 ¶ 127.

[^263]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9390 ¶¶
    104-06.

[^264]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(b).

[^265]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(e)-(h).

[^266]: Network-based location solutions employ equipment and/or
    software added to wireless carrier networks to calculate and report
    the location of handsets dialing 911. These solutions do not require
    changes or special hardware or software in wireless handsets. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 20.3 ("*Network-based Location Technology*").

[^267]: Handset-based location solutions employ special
    location-determining hardware and/or software in wireless handsets,
    often in addition to network upgrades, to identify and report the
    location of handsets calling 911. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.3
    ("*Location-capable Handsets*")*.*

[^268]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(a).

[^269]: *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 11 FCC
    Rcd 18676, 18716 ¶ 81 (1996) (*E911 Report and Order*); 47 C.F.R. §
    20.18(a).

[^270]: *See E911 Report and Order.*

[^271]: *See* *E911 Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18716 ¶¶ 80-81; 47
    C.F.R. § 20.18(a).

[^272]: *E911 Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18716 ¶ 81; 47 C.F.R. §
    20.18(a).

[^273]: *E911 Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18716-17 ¶ 81.

[^274]: *Id.* at 18718 ¶ 83.

[^275]: *Id.*

[^276]: *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket 94-102, IB
    Docket No. 99-67, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 18 FCC Rcd 25340, 25347 ¶ 18 (2003) ("*E911 Scope
    Order*").

[^277]: *Id.*

[^278]: *Id.* at 25341 ¶ 2, 25347 ¶ 19.

[^279]: *Id.*

[^280]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9390 ¶¶
    104-05.

[^281]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9389 ¶ 100,
    9390 ¶ 104.

[^282]: As noted above, AWS-1 refers to the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155
    MHz bands, which the Commission determined would be licensed under
    its Part 27 rules.

[^283]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9390 ¶ 105.

[^284]: *Id.* at 9390 ¶ 106.

[^285]: *See* Aloha Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 12; AT&T
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 16; Blooston Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 8; Cingular Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    15; Dobson Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11; Leap Comments in
    WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11; NENA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    1-2; Qualcomm Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 24 (supporting
    application of E911 to both auctioned and previously unauctioned
    spectrum); U.S. Cellular Comments at 18 (same); TIA Comments in WT
    Docket No. 94-102 at 9-10; T-Mobile Reply at 6.

[^286]: *See* CTIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 21.

[^287]: *See* NENA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2.

[^288]: *See*, *e.g.*, CTIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 21;
    Dobson Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11; TIA Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 9; U.S. Cellular Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 19.

[^289]: *See* Aloha Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 12; CTIA
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 21; Leap Comments in WT Docket
    No. 06-150 at 11; U.S. Cellular Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    19; T-Mobile Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 6.

[^290]: *See* Aloha Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 12 (700 MHz
    licensees should be subject to the same E911 requirements, "no more
    or less," as other licensees providing services where E911
    obligations exist); Cingular Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 15
    (supporting application where services met the *E911 Scope Order*
    criteria); Qualcomm Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 24.

[^291]: *See* TIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 9-10.

[^292]: *See* RTG Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 9.

[^293]: *Id.*

[^294]: RTG Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 9-10.

[^295]: *Id.* at 10.

[^296]: *Id.*

[^297]: *See* TIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 10.

[^298]: *See* CTIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 22; IP-Enabled
    Services, E911 Requirements For IP-Enabled Service Providers, WC
    Docket No. 04-36, *First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking,* 20 FCC Rcd 10245 (2005) (*VoIP E911 Order*), *petition
    for review denied*, Nuvio Corp. v. FCC, 2006 WL 3688755 (D.C. Cir.
    2006).

[^299]: *See* Petition of T-Mobile USA, Inc. For Clarification, WC
    Docket No. 04-36, filed July 29, 2006.

[^300]: *See* CTIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 22.

[^301]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18.

[^302]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(a).

[^303]: The Commission initially excluded MSS from § 20.18 in the *E911
    Report and Order*. *See E911 Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18718
    ¶ 83. In the *E911 Scope Order*, upon revisiting the issue, the
    Commission recognized that MSS operators continued to faced unique
    difficulties in implementing 911 and E911 obligations, and therefore
    declined to apply the obligations of § 20.18 and instead imposed a
    separate, limited 911 requirement specifically for MSS, including a
    requirement to establish emergency call centers. *See E911 Scope
    Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 25347-57 ¶¶ 20-39.

[^304]: *E911 Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18718 ¶ 83.

[^305]: *See E911 Scope Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 25341 ¶ 1.

[^306]: *E911 Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18678 ¶ 3, 18679 ¶ 5.

[^307]: 47 U.S.C. § 942 note.

[^308]: *See* Cingular Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 16
    ("\[c\]onsumers' expectations and the public interest clearly would
    be served by extending these rules to 700 MHz licensees"); Leap at
    11 ("It is logical, equitable, and indeed, vitally important to
    consumers that all CMRS services -- whether operating in spectrum
    allocated for PCS, AWS, 700 MHz or some other services, be made
    subject to the same emergency access and compatibility
    requirements.").

[^309]: Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with
    Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Phase II Compliance
    Deadlines for Non-Nationwide CMRS Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    *Order to Stay*, 17 FCC Rcd 14841, 14842 ¶ 4 (2002).

[^310]: The Commission has stated, in connection with AWS, that an
    "important goal in the AWS proceeding is to try, to the extent
    possible, to provide the same technical criteria for AWS equipment
    as currently exist for broadband PCS." *AWS-1 Order on
    Reconsideration,* 20 FCC Rcd at ¶ 42. *See also* Aloha Comments in
    WT Docket No. 06-150 at 10 ("\[t\]here is nothing peculiar about 700
    MHz spectrum that warrants unique treatment with regard to E911
    matters").

[^311]: *See*, *e.g.*, CTIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 21
    (applying E911 to 700 MHz is dictated by both public safety
    determinations and principles of regulatory parity); T-Mobile Reply
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 6 ("Not only would the public
    interest be served . . . , the regulatory certainty created through
    application of uniform rules to all similarly-situated providers
    would benefit the licensees themselves.").

[^312]: *See* NENA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2 ("Instead of
    trying to retrofit E9-1-1 to services long after their introduction,
    as occurred with conventional cellular telephony, it would be better
    to forewarn entrepreneurs of emergency calling access obligations
    that will apply to 700 MHz services meeting the chosen regulatory
    criteria.")

[^313]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(g)(1)(iv) (requiring that, for carriers
    implementing a handset-based solution, 100 percent of all new
    digital handsets activated be location-capable).

[^314]: Blooston Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 9.

[^315]: *Cf. E911 Scope Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 25381 ¶ 101 ("\[CMRS
    providers\] typically decide which handsets to offer for use with
    their service. These are the entities that provide consumers
    wireless voice service. Therefore, by placing the obligation on
    these entities, we ensure that the handsets they offer are capable
    of meeting the enhanced 911 requirements contained in our rules. We,
    therefore, do not need to impose a separate obligation on disposable
    phone manufacturers.").

[^316]: TIA states that it is "the leading trade association for the
    information and communications technology \[\] industry, with 600
    member companies that manufacture or supply the products and
    services used in global communications across all technology
    platforms." TIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2.

[^317]: Qualcomm Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 24; TIA Comments in
    WT Docket No. 06-150 at 9.

[^318]: *E911 Scope Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 25347 ¶ 19.

[^319]: *See* *also E911 Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18717-18 ¶ 82
    (declining to extend E911 to two-way non-voice services). We note
    that service providers offering interconnected VoIP are
    independently subject to E911 obligations under 47 C.F.R. § 9.5,
    including such providers using Part 15 unlicensed radio frequency
    devices to provide such services. *See VoIP E911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd
    at 10257-58 ¶ 24 (defining the scope of VoIP E911 obligations),
    10259 ¶ 25 (E911 rule applies to "providers of all interconnected
    VoIP services"); *see also* CTIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    22 (noting that wireless providers are offering "IP-enabled services
    to their subscribers, with VoIP services integrated with mobile
    devices."); *see also* Petition of T-Mobile USA, Inc. For
    Clarification, WC Docket No. 04-36, filed July 29, 2006, at ii
    ("There are promising technologies using unlicensed spectrum in
    development that may enable the offering of VoIP services in
    conjunction with CMRS.").

[^320]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9390 ¶¶
    104-06.

[^321]: *See* Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, Pub. L. No.
    100-394, 102 Stat. 976 (1988), codified at 47 U.S.C. § 610; Section
    68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible
    Telephones, *Report and Order*, WT Docket No. 01-309, 18 FCC Rcd
    16753 (2003); *Erratum*, 18 FCC Rcd 18047 (2003) (*Hearing Aid
    Compatibility Order*).

[^322]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19.

[^323]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(a).

[^324]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(c), (d). *See* *also* Section 68.4(a) of
    the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones,
    *Report and Order*, WT Docket No. 01-309, 18 FCC Rcd 16753 (2003);
    *Erratum*, 18 FCC Rcd 18047 (2003) (*Hearing Aid Compatibility
    Order*); *Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 20 FCC Rcd 11221 (2005).

[^325]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(f).

[^326]: 47 U.S.C. § 610(b)(1).

[^327]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(b)(1), (2).

[^328]: *Id.* We note that, since its 2005 draft version, the ANSI
    C63.19 technical standard has used a new nomenclature for hearing
    aid compatibility compliance in place of the original "U" and "UT"
    ratings, in order to make the ratings easier for consumers to
    understand. *See* Letter from Thomas Goode, counsel for The Alliance
    for Telecommunications Industry Solutions, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 01-309 (filed May 6, 2005) (ATIS
    Letter); "OET Clarifies Use of Revised Wireless Phone Hearing Aid
    Compatibility Standard Measurement Procedures and Rating
    Nomenclature," *Public Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd 8188 (OET 2005).
    Specifically, the standard now uses an "M" nomenclature for the
    handset's radio frequency interference rating (rather than "U") and
    a "T" nomenclature for the handset's inductive coupling rating
    (rather than "UT"). *See* ATIS Letter. The Commission has approved
    the use of the "M" and "T" nomenclature and considers the M/T and
    U/UT nomenclatures as synonymous. *See* Section 68.4(a) of the
    Commission's Rules Governing Hearing-Aid Compatible Telephones,
    *Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 01-309, 20 FCC Rcd 11221, 11238 ¶ 33
    (*Hearing Aid Compatibility Reconsideration Order*).

[^329]: *See* "OET Clarifies Use of Revised Wireless Phone Hearing Aid
    Compatibility Standard Measurement Procedures and Rating
    Nomenclature," *Public Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd 8188 (OET 2005).

[^330]: *See* "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of
    Engineering and Technology Clarify Use of Revised Wireless Phone
    Hearing Aid Compatibility Standard," *Public Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd
    6384 (WTB/OET 2006).

[^331]: Section 1.1, "Scope," of the ANSI C63.19-2006 standard provides:

    > \[The standard\] sets forth uniform methods of measurement and
    > parametric requirements for the electromagnetic and operational
    > compatibility and accessibility of hearing aids used with
    > \[wireless devices\], including cordless, cellular, personal
    > communications service (PCS) phones, and voice over internet
    > protocol (VoIP) devices, operating in the range of 800 MHz to 3
    > GHz. However, this version is focused on existing services, which
    > are in common use. Accordingly, in this version tests are provided
    > for services in the 800 MHz to 950 MHz and 1.6 GHz to 2.5 GHz
    > frequency bands. Future versions may add tests for other frequency
    > bands, as they come into more common use.

    "American National Standard Methods of Measurement of Compatibility
    between Wireless Communications Devices and Hearing Aids," ANSI
    C63.19-2006, Accredited Standards Committee on Electromagnetic
    Compatibility, C63, approved Apr. 6, 2006 (ANSI C63.19-2006
    Standard), at 1.

[^332]: *See* ANSI C63.19-2006 Standard at Table 4.2 (listing target
    values for validation procedures using dipoles at a limited number
    of frequencies, and excluding AWS-1 frequencies), Table 7.1 (giving
    Articulation Weighting Factors for CDMA, TDMA (50 Hz), GSM, UMTS
    (WCDMA) and TDMA (22 Hz and 11 Hz)). *See also* Comments from
    American National Standards institute Accredited Standards Committee
    C63 (EMC) ANSI ASC C63, WT Docket Nos. 01-309, 06-203, filed Jan. 3,
    2007, at 3.

[^333]: *See 700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC at 9390 ¶¶
    104-05.

[^334]: *Id.* at 9390 ¶ 106.

[^335]: *Id.* at 9358 n.82.

[^336]: *See id.* at 9390 ¶ 21.

[^337]: *Id.*

[^338]: *See* AT&T Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 16; Blooston
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 8; Cingular Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 15; CTIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    21; Dobson Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11; HIA Comments in
    WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-3; HLAA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150
    at 4; Leap Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11; Qualcomm Comments
    in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 24; TIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150
    at 10; U.S. Cellular Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 18-19;
    T-Mobile Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 6.

[^339]: *See* Leap Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11 (advocating
    that "all CMRS services -- whether operating in spectrum allocated
    for PCS, AWS, 700 MHz or some other service -- be made subject to
    the same emergency access and compatibility requirements.").

[^340]: *See* Blooston Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 8-9.

[^341]: *See* RTG Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 9.

[^342]: HIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4 & n.7.

[^343]: *Id.* at 4.

[^344]: *See* Aloha Partners Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 12;
    CTIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 22; USCC Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 18-19. *See also* Implementation of Sections
    3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, *Third Report and Order,* GN
    Docket No. 93-252, 9 FCC Rcd 7988 at ¶ 23 (1994) (noting that a
    "symmetrical regulatory framework for commercial mobile radio
    services" will "foster economic growth and expanded service to
    consumers through competition").

[^345]: *See* Cingular Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 16 (stating
    that "\[c\]onsumers' expectations" will be served by extension of
    hearing aid compatibility requirements to the 700 MHz band).

[^346]: *See* HIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 3; HIA Reply
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2

[^347]: For the reasons discussed above**,** we decline to incorporate
    the criteria enumerated in the *E911 Scope Order* into § 20.19(a).
    *See supra* Section III.A.2.c(vi).

[^348]: *See* Cingular Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 15-16; Dobson
    Communications Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11; U.S. Cellular
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 18-19.

[^349]: Qualcomm Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 24; TIA Comments in
    WT Docket No. 06-150 at 9-10.

[^350]: *See* HIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-3; HLAA Comments
    in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2.

[^351]: *See Hearing Aid Compatibility Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16771 ¶ 43.

[^352]: *See* *id.*, 18 FCC Rcd at 16769 ¶¶ 39 (citing 47 U.S.C. §
    610(b)(1)(B) (requiring that the specified telephones "provide
    internal means for effective use with hearing aids that are designed
    to be compatible with telephones *which meet established technical
    standards for hearing aid compatibility.*" (emphasis added))), 44,
    49. *See also* Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing
    Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 01-309, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 16 FCC Rcd 20558, 20564 ¶ 16 (2001) (finding
    that the statute "requires the establishment of *technical
    standards* governing wireless-hearing aid compatibility" (emphasis
    in original)).

[^353]: *See* HIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4.

[^354]: *See* HLAA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4.

[^355]: Comments from American National Standards Institute Accredited
    Standards Committee C63 (EMC) ANSI ASC C63, WT Docket Nos. 01-309
    and 06-203, filed Jan. 3, 2007, at 2-3.

[^356]: *Id.*at 3.

[^357]: The 1.4 GHz Band, as licensed under Part 27, includes an
    unpaired block of spectrum at 1390-1392 MHz and a paired block at
    1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz. The 1.6 GHz Band consists of
    1670-1675 MHz. The 2.3 GHz Band includes 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360
    MHz. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 27.1(b)(4)-(6).

[^358]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 27.1(b) (listing bands licensed under Part 27
    rules, including 2.3 GHz, 700 MHz, AWS-1, 1.4 GHz, 1.6 GHz, and
    BRS/EBS bands); *see also*, *e.g.*, Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 27 and
    90 of the Commission's Rules to License Services in the 216-220 MHz,
    1390-1395 MHz, 1427-1429 MHz, 1429-1432 MHz, 1432-1435 MHz,
    1670-1675 MHz, and 2385-2390 MHz Government Transfer Bands, WT
    Docket No. 02-8, *Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 9980 (2002)
    (establishing service rules for certain frequencies in the 1.4 and
    1.6 GHz bands); Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the
    1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, *Report and Order*,
    18 FCC Rcd 25162 (2003), *Order on Reconsideration*, FCC 05-149
    (rel. Aug. 15, 2005) (establishing AWS-1 service rules); Amendment
    of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access,
    Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and
    2500-2690 MHz Bands, *Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 03-66, 19 FCC Rcd 14165 (2004) (
    BRS/EBS R&O and FNPRM), *Order on Reconsideration and Fifth
    Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Memorandum Opinion and Order
    and Second Report and Order*, 21 FCC Rcd 5606 (2006) (establishing
    BRS/EBS service rules).

[^359]: *See* *supra* ¶ 171. We also note that ANSI has extended the
    C63.19 standard to the 1.6-2.5 GHz band for established services in
    those bands. We therefore believe that much of the work necessary to
    develop technical standards for the 1.4 GHz, 1.6 GHz, and 2.3 GHz
    Bands has already been done.

[^360]: In particular, we would encourage the appropriate
    standards-setting body to consider HIA's proposal to make use of the
    existing C63.19-2006 standard in the 700 MHz Band.

[^361]: The Commission has authority to establish the technical
    standards required for hearing aid compatibility. *See* 47 U.S.C.
    610(c).

[^362]: *See* HIA Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2
    ("\[Hearing aid compatibility\] relates to voice communication, so
    there is no need to wait and see what other services may develop
    before imposing the requirements on voice handsets."). Although the
    text of the scope provision does encompass data services as well,
    *see* 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(a), we note that such services must still
    satisfy the other requirements of § 20.19(a). Thus, they must be
    real-time, two-way, and interconnected with the public switched
    network, such that they directly give subscribers "the capability to
    communicate to or receive communications from all other users" on
    networks that use the North American Numbering Plan in connection
    with the provision of their service. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.3
    (definition of "Interconnected Service," "Public Switched Network").
    Further, as an implicit matter, services must at least potentially
    involve auditory output. In light of these restrictions, voice
    communications will remain the primary, if not exclusive, subject of
    hearing aid compatibility.

[^363]: *See infra* Section IV.B.2.a*.*

[^364]: *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at10417 ¶ 9, *citing
    Upper 700 MHz Second Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 5312 ¶ 27.
    *See generally* 47 C.F.R. Part 27, Subpart G ("Guard Band
    Managers").

[^365]: *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice,* 21 FCC Rcd at10417 ¶ 9, citing
    *Upper 700 MHz Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5313 ¶ 29.
    For example, we noted, entities could secure spectrum from a Guard
    Band Manager in varying degrees of quantity, duration and geographic
    area to best suit their needs. *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice,* 21 FCC
    Rcd at 10417 ¶ 9, citing *Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    5313-14 ¶ 31.

[^366]: *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice,* 21 FCC Rcd at 10418 ¶ 10, citing
    *Upper 700 MHz Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5314-15 ¶ 33.

[^367]: *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice,* 21 FCC Rcd at 10417 ¶ 9, citing
    *Upper 700 MHz Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5314 ¶ 32.

[^368]: *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 10418 ¶ 10, citing
    *Upper 700 MHz Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5315 ¶ 34.
    Guard Band Managers must notify Commission-recognized public safety
    frequency coordinators in the 700 MHz Public Safety Band, as well as
    adjacent-area Guard Band Managers, of the technical parameters of
    any new station or station modification. The Commission requires
    each notification to specify, within a limited timeframe, the
    frequency, antenna height, antenna location, emission type,
    effective radiated power, service area description, date of
    coordination, and user name or description of operation. *Id.*

[^369]: *Upper 700 MHz Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5325 ¶
    59. The Commission created these restrictions to promote the core
    band manager feature of leasing spectrum to third parties,
    theoretically ensuring a "useful test of the Band Manager concept."
    *Id.*

[^370]: *See* Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of
    Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets, *Report and Order
    and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 18 FCC Rcd 20604,
    20644-45 ¶ 85 n.189 (2003) ("*Secondary Markets First Report and
    Order*"). *See generally* 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart X ("Spectrum
    Leasing").

[^371]: *Secondary Markets Second Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at
    17534-35 ¶ 64.

[^372]: *Secondary Markets First Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    20612-13 ¶ 13.

[^373]: *Id.* In this type of spectrum leasing arrangement, the licensee
    retains *de jure* control. *Id.*

[^374]: *Id.* at 20610-12 ¶ 12. In this type of lease arrangement, the
    licensee retains both *de jure* and *de facto* control. *Id.*

[^375]: *See* 47 C.F.R. ¶¶ 1.9010, 1.9020, 1.9030, 1.9035.

[^376]: *Secondary Markets First Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    20644-45 ¶ 85.

[^377]: *See* Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of
    Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets, *Second Report and
    Order, Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 19 FCC Rcd 17503, 17534-35 ¶ 64 (2004)
    ("*Secondary Markets Second Report and Order*").

[^378]: *700 MHz Guard Bands Notice,* 21 FCC Rcd at 10421-24 ¶¶ 18-24.

[^379]: *Id.* at 10423 ¶ 22.

[^380]: *Id.*

[^381]: *Id.*

[^382]: *Id.* at 10424 ¶ 24.

[^383]: Access Spectrum/Pegasus Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169, App.
    at 2; Ericsson Comments in WT Docket No.. 06-169 at 18; Radiofone
    Comments in WT Docket Nos. 06-169 at 8; Arcadian Reply Comments in
    WT Docket No. 06-169 at 4. NPSTC does not object to the application
    of Secondary Markets leasing rules, provided that whatever mechanism
    is established fully protects public safety operations from
    interference. NPSTC Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169 at 10.

[^384]: *See id.*

[^385]: *See supra* Section III.B.1.

[^386]: *See* *Secondary Markets First Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    20664 ¶ 136.

[^387]: *Id.*

[^388]: *Id.* at 20664 ¶¶ 137-138.

[^389]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.9020(d)(1), 1.9030(d)(1), 1.9035 and
    1.9040(a).

[^390]: We note that because we will now apply secondary markets leasing
    rules to the 700 MHz Guard Bands, our designated entity rules --
    specifically the rules regarding material relationships -- will
    apply to these Guard Bands as well. *See* Implementation of the
    Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and Modernization of the
    Commission's Competitive Bidding Rules and Procedures, WT Docket No.
    05-211, *Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 21 FCC Rcd 4753 (2006) (revising the
    Commission's Part 1 rules to include certain "material
    relationships" as factors in determining designated entity
    eligibility); Implementation of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement
    Act and Modernization of the Commission's Competitive Bidding Rules
    and Procedures, WT Docket No. 05-211, *Order on Reconsideration of
    the Second Report*, 21 FCC Rcd 6703, 6716 ¶ 30 (2006) (exempting
    services not subject to secondary markets leasing from the revised
    "material relationships" rules).

[^391]: NPSTC opposes the ability for the Guard Band licensee to choose
    between regulatory models, stating that this can dilute
    responsibility. NPSTC Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169 at 11.

[^392]: Access Spectrum/Pegasus Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169, App.
    at 2.

[^393]: Arcadian Networks Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169 at 4.

[^394]: *Id.*

[^395]: *Upper 700 MHz Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5312-5313
    ¶¶ 26-27.

[^396]: Licensees will be required to update their status pursuant to
    Section 27.10(d) of the Commission's rules.

[^397]: For example, such obligations could include interconnection,
    numbering and universal service.

[^398]: Access Spectrum/Pegasus Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169, App.
    at 2.

[^399]: 47 C.F.R.§§ 27.602(g), 27.603(b).

[^400]: *Upper 700 MHz Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5327-5328
    ¶¶ 64-65.

[^401]: *Id*. at 5328 ¶¶ 64-65.

[^402]: Access Spectrum/Pegasus Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169, App.
    at 2.

[^403]: *Secondary Markets First Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 20637
    ¶ 70.

[^404]: We note that we may still consider complaints filed against a
    Guard Band Manager for unreasonably denying access to its spectrum
    pursuant to our authority under Sections 308(b) and 309(d) of the
    Communications Act.

[^405]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.601(d)(1).

[^406]: Access Spectrum/Pegasus Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169, App.
    at 6. The existing coordination requirements for Guard Band Managers
    include notification to public safety frequency coordinators and
    adjacent area Guard Band Managers of several specified technical
    details within one business day after either the coordination of a
    station or the filing of an application with the Commission. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 27.601(d). Additionally, operation is restricted until
    at least 10 business days after the required notification, and in
    the event of harmful interference, the Commission may impose
    restrictions on the operations by involved parties. *Id.* In
    contrast, the coordination requirement that applies to the Upper
    700 MHz C and D Blocks consists of providing a description of the
    proposed facility, prior to commencing operation, to a public safety
    coordinator when the proposed facility is within 500 meters of
    existing or planned public safety base station receivers. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 27.303.

[^407]: Access Spectrum/Pegasus Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169, App.
    at 6.

[^408]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.9020(a)-(b).

[^409]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.9010 (if licensee retains *de facto* control
    of the spectrum, it is responsible for resolving all
    interference-related matters, including conflicts between its
    spectrum lessee and any other licensee).

[^410]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.9030(a)-(b).

[^411]: *See 700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9354 ¶
    14; *Lower 700 MHz Band Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 1055 ¶ 80.

[^412]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9369 ¶ 49.

[^413]: In the *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, we stated that we
    believed that the current band plan should be retained for the Lower
    700 MHz Band. *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at
    9369 ¶ 49.

[^414]: *See Auction 44 Public Notice; Auction 49 Public Notice; Auction
    60 Public Notice; Section II.A., supra.*

[^415]: *See* Balanced Consensus Plan. The signatories to the Balanced
    Consensus Plan include some of the original and/or current licensees
    in the C Block of the Lower 700 MHz Band, *e.g*., Aloha, Blooston,
    C&W, Corr, Union, and Vermont Telephone Co.

[^416]: *See* MilkyWay Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 1; RCA
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 1; RCA Reply Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 1; RTG Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7
    (supports B Block and one other block over CMAs); RTG Reply Comments
    in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 3 (discussing support for Balanced
    Consensus Plan and stressing support for B Block of the Lower 700
    MHz Band to be licensed over CMAs); MetroPCS Comments in WT Docket
    No. 06-150 at 13; Leap Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5;
    Blooston Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 3; Corr Reply Comments
    in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4; Aloha Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150
    at 7 (Aloha has no strong preference for which 700 MHz Band (Upper
    or Lower) should include CMA allocations of at least 10-12 MHz, but
    believes that it would be more efficient and less disruptive simply
    to revise licensing boundaries for the existing B Block in the Lower
    700 MHz Band). *See also* Comments of Rural Telecommunications
    Group, Inc. in Support of Modification of License Area Sizes for 700
    MHz Spectrum, Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz
    Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), GN Docket No. 01-74,
    Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions
    to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, Rural
    Telecommunications Group, Inc. (filed Sept. 27, 2005) (requesting
    that MSA/RSA licenses be provided for the Lower 700 MHz Band B Block
    and Upper 700 MHz Band C Block, totaling 22 megahertz of spectrum).

[^417]: *See* Corr Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4; Aloha
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7; Blooston Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 3.

[^418]: *See 700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9352 ¶
    11; *Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 491 ¶ 35.

[^419]: *See 700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9369-73
    ¶¶ 49-59. We note that this portion of the notice addressed whether
    changes to the Commission's competitive bidding rules should be made
    in connection with the aggregation of spectrum, and also asked for
    comment concerning a "two-sided auction." *Id.* at 9372-73 ¶¶ 56-59.
    The competitive bidding rules, and the two-sided auction mechanism,
    are addressed in the Report and Order in Section III.A.2.b, above.

[^420]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9369 ¶ 49,
    9370-71 ¶ 53.

[^421]: We note, for example, that Radiofone objects to any modification
    to its existing Guard Band B Block license in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Radiofone Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169 at 2. Radiofone does not
    assert that it is currently engaged in operations. Additionally, we
    note that the Commission requires all Guard Band Managers to file
    annual reports by March 1 of each year in their license term through
    January 1, 2015. *See 700 MHz Guard Bands Second Report and Order,*
    15 FCC Rcd at 5332-33 ¶¶ 75-80. Radiofone's March 2007 Band Manager
    Report does not cite any Spectrum Use Agreement with Radiofone. We
    also note that within the context of the BOP proposal, the BOP
    proponents asserted that they would agree to work around the
    Radiofone service area in implementing the BOP. Access
    Spectrum/Pegasus Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169 at 21, 22.

[^422]: *See, e.g., supra* Section III.A.2.b.(i) (describing one
    potential type of "two-sided" auction)*,*

[^423]: *See 700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 10432 ¶ 45.

[^424]: *See* Access Spectrum/Pegasus Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169
    at 17.

[^425]: *See infra* Section IV.B.3.b.

[^426]: *See, e.g.*, DIRECTV/EchoStar Reply Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 7-8 (dividing the 20-megahertz D Block would artificially
    limit the types of services available in the 700 MHz Band); Motorola
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5 (generally recommending that
    commercial spectrum be licensed in wider spectrum blocks); Qualcomm
    Comments at 18 (the D Block should remain intact because certain
    technologies require 20-megahertz bandwidth for fastest possible
    data transmission); Verizon Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150
    at 6-7 (asserts that a 20-megahertz paired license should be
    retained); CTIA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 6-7 (supports
    maintaining at least 20 megahertz of paired spectrum in the Upper
    700 MHz Band D Block).

[^427]: *See* Letter from Ruth Milkman, counsel for Access Spectrum
    L.L.C., and on behalf of the Coalition for 4G in America, to Marlene
    Dortch, Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86, 06-150
    and 06-169 (filed Apr. 4, 2007) ("Coalition for 4G in America *Ex
    Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86, 06-150 and 06-169").

[^428]: *See* Coalition for 4G in America *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos.
    96-86, 06-150 and 06-169at 2.

[^429]: *See supra* Section IV.B.1.a.

[^430]: *See* Balanced Consensus Plan Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150
    at Attachment; T-Mobile Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4;
    Vermont Department of Public Service *et al*. Reply Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 7; U.S. Cellular Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 6-7; Leap Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2; RTG
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5.

[^431]: Coalition for 4G in America *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86,
    06-150 and 06-169.

[^432]: *See* Letter from Ruth Milkman, counsel to Access Spectrum, LLC
    and Kathleen Wallman, adviser to Pegasus Communications Corporation,
    to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos.
    06-169, 06-150 and 96-86 (filed Apr. 18, 2007) (Access
    Spectrum/Pegasus Apr. 18, 2007 *Ex Parte*)*.*

[^433]: The Access Spectrum/Pegasus Alternative proposal does not
    address how the Commission should license the new B Block Guard Band
    that it proposes should now be located at 775-776 MHz, paired with
    805-806 MHz.

[^434]: The alternative proposal would handle the interface between the
    public safety and new A Block in the same way as under the BOP, as
    described in the Report of the Second Technical Working Group.
    Access Spectrum/Pegasus Apr. 18, 2007 *Ex Parte* at 2, citing Second
    Report of the Technical Working Group, WT Docket Nos. 06-169 and
    96-86 (Jan. 26, 2007).

[^435]: *See* Letter from Michael Gottdenker, Access Spectrum, LLC,
    Marshall Pagon, Pegasus Communications Corporation, Alfred Angelo,
    PTPMS II, and John Mason, Harbor Guard Band, LLC, to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-169, 06-150
    and 96-86 (filed April 23, 2007)*.*

[^436]: Coalition for 4G in America *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86,
    06-150 and 06-169.

[^437]: T-Mobile Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-4.

[^438]: Navajo Nation Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 1-2.

[^439]: Vermont Department of Public Service *et al.* Comments in WT
    docket No. 06-150 at 3-4.

[^440]: Balanced Consensus Plan Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    Attachment.

[^441]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3).

[^442]: Coalition for 4G in America *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86,
    06-150 and 06-169.

[^443]: *Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 505-506 ¶¶
    70-72.

[^444]: 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(a). This section defines "substantial service"
    as "service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above a
    level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant
    renewal." *Id.*

[^445]: *See Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 505 ¶
    70.

[^446]: *See Lower 700 MHz Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 1079 ¶¶
    149-151.

[^447]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(c).

[^448]: *Rural Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 19123 ¶ 79.

[^449]: *700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9373-76 ¶¶
    60-69.

[^450]: *Id.* at ¶ 62-63.

[^451]: *Id.* at ¶ 64-66.

[^452]: *Id.* at ¶ 67-69.

[^453]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 12-16;
    AT&T Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 21-24; CTIA Comments
    in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7-16; Cingular Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 9-13; Corr Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5-8; Dobson
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5-10; Leap Comments in WT Docket
    No. 06-150 at 9-10; Leap Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    5-6; MetroPCS Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 15-16; MetroPCS
    Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 10-12; MilkyWay Comments
    in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7-9; NextWave Reply Comments in WT Docket
    No. 06-150 at 14; Qualcomm Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 19;
    Union Telephone Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5-6; U.S.
    Cellular Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 12-16; U.S. Cellular
    Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11-16; Verizon Wireless
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 6-9.

[^454]: *See, e.g.*, Howard/Javed Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at
    24-26; Navajo Nation Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-3;
    OPASTCO Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5-6; RCA Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 8-10; RCA Reply Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 4-7; RTG Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 8-9; Vermont
    Department of Public Service *et al.* Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 5-10; Vermont Department of Public Service *et al.* Reply
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4-7.

[^455]: Blooston Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7.

[^456]: *See, e.g.,* DIRECTV/EchoStar Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150
    at 9; Navajo Nation Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 2-3; RCA
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 8-10; RCA Reply Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150 at 4-7; Vermont Department of Public Service, *et
    al.* Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5-8. The Navajo Nation,
    RCA, and the Vermont Department of Public Service, *et al.*
    favorably discuss both benchmarks and a "keep-what-you-use"
    approach.

[^457]: *See* RCA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 8-10; RCA Reply
    Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4-7.

[^458]: *See* Vermont Department of Public Service, *et al.* Comments in
    WT Docket No. 06-150 at 5-8.

[^459]: *See* Letter from David L. Nace, counsel for Cellular South
    Licenses, Inc., to Chairman Kevin Martin and Commissioners Michael
    Copps, Jonathan Adelstein, Deborah Taylor Tate, and Robert McDowell,
    FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket No. 06-150 (filed Apr. 23, 2007) at
    Attachment.

[^460]: *See, e.g.,* RCA Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 8-10; RCA
    Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 4-7

[^461]: When the Commission adopted a benchmark approach for Personal
    Communications Service (PCS), it stated: "Licensees must file maps
    and other supporting documents showing compliance with the
    respective construction requirements within the appropriate five-
    and ten-year benchmarks of the date of their initial licenses."
    *See* C.F.R. § 24.203(c).

[^462]: *See Ex Parte* Comments of the *Ad Hoc* Public Interest Spectrum
    Coalition, PS Docket No. 06-229and WT Docket Nos. 06-150, 05-211,
    96-86, at 9, 18-19 (filed Apr. 3, 2007) ("PISC Apr. 3 *Ex Parte*
    Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 and WT Docket Nos. 06-150, 05-211,
    96-86"). PISC suggests a prohibition on such incumbents gaining
    access to the 700 MHz band either by auction or through secondary
    market transactions. In the alternative, PISC proposes that such
    restrictions apply to the E Block proposed by Frontline. *See id.*
    PISC is made up of the Consumer Federal of America, Consumers Union,
    Free Press, Media Access Project, New America Foundation, and Public
    Knowledge.

[^463]: *See id.* at 9-10.

[^464]: *See 700 MHz Guard Bands Notice,* 21 FCC Rcd at 10430-35 ¶¶
    40-48. We note that the BOP was first filed in the *700 MHz* *Public
    Safety Eighth Notice*. Comments of Access Spectrum, L.L.C., Columbia
    Capital III, LLC, Intel Corporation and Pegasus Communications
    Corporation Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 (filed June 6, 2006).
    For the purposes of this *Report and Order* and *Further Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, the Guard Band Managers associated with the
    BOP will be referred to as the "BOP proponents." We note that the
    BOP proponents expanded upon their public safety and Guard Bands
    proposal by arguing in the *700 MHz Commercial Services* proceeding
    that the remaining, unauctioned spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Band
    consisting of the C and D Blocks should be reconfigured from their
    current 5- and 10-megahertz allocations, respectively, into two
    spectrum blocks of 5.5 megahertz and one of 4 megahertz that would
    be adjacent to their proposed new 1.5-megahertz A Block. We also
    note that additional proposals have been filed -- such as the
    proposal by the Coalition for 4G in America -- that incorporate
    aspects of the BOP that would reconfigure the Guard Bands, while at
    the same time proposing reconfiguration of the C and D Blocks. *See*
    Letter from Ruth Milkman, counsel to Access Spectrum, LLC to Marlene
    H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC in *Ex Parte* in WT Docket No. 06-169
    (filed Mar. 6, 2007).

[^465]: *See, e.g.,* Letter from Ruth Milkman, counsel to Access
    Spectrum, LLC to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT
    Docket No. 06-169 (filed Mar. 6, 2007) ("Access Spectrum/Pegasus
    Mar. 6, 2007 *Ex Parte*").

[^466]: Further, consolidating the public safety narrowband channels,
    according to the BOP, reduces the amount of spectrum
    separating---and thus protecting---the public safety broadband and
    narrowband channels from each other, and thus frees up additional
    spectrum for public safety use. As a provision of the BOP, public
    safety entities would be responsible for ensuring interference
    protection within their own public safety allocation, and the
    internal guard band within the public safety block separating public
    safety broadband and public safety narrowband operations would be
    scalable depending upon the level of protection that applicable
    public safety entities deem necessary. Another internal guard band
    that would exist under the BOP at the top of the paired public
    safety block and which could be used by the public safety community
    has raised interference concerns among some commenters with regard
    to the adjacent C Block.

[^467]: Access Spectrum/Pegasus Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169 at 19.

[^468]: *Id*.

[^469]: Motorola, Inc. and United Telecom Council, *Spectrum Toward Next
    Generation Critical Infrastructure* (filed April 27, 2006) ("CII
    Proposal"). In an initial filing, Motorola proposed that the B Block
    be reallocated for both Federal government and critical
    infrastructure interoperability. Subsequently, Motorola revised its
    proposal to include only a reallocation for critical infrastructure
    industries, and not the Federal government. *See* Letter from Steve
    B. Sharkey, Motorola, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT
    Docket Nos. 96-86 and 06-169 at 4-5 (filed Dec. 9, 2005).

[^470]: *Id.* Subsequently, CII proponents have clarified that this
    allocation would remain commercial spectrum but assert that they
    would not be subject to competitive bidding due to the exemption in
    Section 309(j) of the Communications Act for "public safety radio
    services" of CII entities to the extent that they provide essential
    public services and maintain infrastructures that can prevent or
    respond to disasters or crises. *See, e.g.,* Comments of the
    Critical Infrastructure Communications Coalition Comments in WT
    Docket Nos. 06-169 and 96-86 at 8-10 (filed Oct. 23, 2006) ("CICC
    Comments"), citing Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, WT Docket No. 99-87, *Report
    and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 22709, 22747 ¶ 77 (2000).

[^471]: Specifically, Motorola proposes that the upper internal guard
    band in the paired public safety block be reallocated to CII.
    Motorola Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169 at 16-17. CII advocates
    maintain support for the original CII proposal, but also support, as
    an alternative, Motorola's subsequent recommendation to allocate for
    CII use the BOP's upper internal guard band in the public safety
    block. *See* CICC Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169 at 10.

[^472]: *See* Ericsson Inc. Comments in WT Docket 06-169 at 5 (filed
    Oct. 23, 2006) ("Ericsson Comments"); Ericsson Inc. Reply Comments
    in WT Docket 06-196 at 1-2 (filed Nov. 13, 2006) ("Ericsson Reply
    Comments"); Letter from Elisabeth H. Ross, Counsel to Ericsson, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos.
    06-169 (filed Mar. 21, 2007) ("Ericsson Mar. 21, 2007 *Ex Parte*").

[^473]: Ericsson Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169 at 13. Ericsson also
    recommends placing a 2-megahertz internal guard band between public
    safety broadband and narrowband channels, and a 1-megahertz internal
    guard band at the top of the public safety band to ensure that
    public safety operations are protected from interference from
    adjacent users. Ericsson Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169 at 10-11;
    Ericsson Mar. 21, 2007 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket No. 06-169 at 5.

[^474]: Lucent Reply Comments in WT Docket 06-169 (filed November 6,
    2006) at 1-3 ("Lucent Reply Comments"). The original Alcatel-Lucent
    "6 + 6" proposal divides the public safety spectrum into six
    megahertz each of broadband and narrowband, with a 1-megahertz
    broadband channel as an internal guard band). In an April 6, 2007
    filing, Alcatel-Lucent proposed another band plan that consolidates
    the public safety narrowband channels at the top of the public
    safety band, and repurposes the wideband channels for "multimedia"
    use. The proposal also reallocates 1 megahertz paired of the B Block
    Guard Band as an internal public safety guard band, and the
    remaining 1 megahertz paired of the B Block Guard Band as a guard
    band between D Block and the public safety "multimedia" block. *See*
    Letter from Michael McMenamin, Alcatel-Lucent, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-169 (filed Apr. 6,
    2007)("Alcatel-Lucent Apr. 6, 2007 *Ex Parte*").

[^475]: 47 U.S.C. § 337(a), as enacted by the Balanced Budget Act of
    1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, Title III, 111 Stat. 251 (1997). Section
    337(a) provides in pertinent part:

    > \(a\) . . . the Commission shall allocate the electromagnetic
    > spectrum between 746 megahertz and 806 megahertz, inclusive, as
    > follows:
    >
    > \(1\) 24 megahertz of that spectrum for public safety services
    > according to the terms and conditions established by the
    > Commission, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the
    > Attorney General; and
    >
    > \(2\) 36 megahertz of that spectrum for commercial use to be
    > assigned by competitive bidding pursuant to Section 309(j).

    Congress also established a deadline of January 1, 1998 for this
    allocation, as well as a deadline of September 30, 1998 for
    assignment of the public safety licenses. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 337(b).
    On December 31, 1997, the Commission released an Order fulfilling
    Congress' allocation directive. *See* Reallocation of Television
    Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz Band, ET Docket No. 97-157, *Report
    and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22953, 22962 ¶ 17 (1998).

[^476]: Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz Band,
    ET Docket No. 97-157, *Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22953 (1997).

[^477]: The commercial portion at 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz includes
    the two blocks of paired Guard Bands spectrum at 746-747 MHz and
    776-777 MHz, and 762-764 MHz and 792-794 MHz.

[^478]: *See Upper 700 MHz Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    5316-18 ¶¶ 36-40.

[^479]: *See id*.

[^480]: Letter from Ruth Milkman, counsel to Access Spectrum, LLC and
    Kathleen Wallman, adviser to Pegasus Communications Corporation, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos.
    06-169 and 96-86 at 2-4, citing 47 U.S.C. §§  154(i) and 303(r)
    (filed Dec. 12, 2006) ("Access Spectrum/Pegasus Legal Authority *Ex
    Parte*"); Access Spectrum, LLC and Pegasus Communications
    Corporation Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169 at 20-21.

[^481]: *Id.* at 5, citing Improving Public Safety Communications in the
    800 MHz Band, Consolidating the 800 and 900 MHz Industrial/Land
    Transportation and Business Pool Channels, Amendment of Part 2 of
    the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile
    and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced
    Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems,
    Petition for Rule Making of the Wireless Information Networks Forum
    Concerning the Unlicensed Personal Communications Service, Petition
    for Rule Making of UT Starcom, Inc., Concerning the Unlicensed
    Personal Communications Service, Amendment of Section 2.106 of the
    Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for use by the
    Mobile Satellite Service, WT Docket 02-55, ET Docket Nos. 00-258 and
    95-18, RM-9498, RM-10024, *Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order,
    Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 14969,
    15080 ¶ 209 (2004) ("*800 MHz Report and Order*").

[^482]: Access Spectrum/Pegasus Legal Authority *Ex Parte* in WT Docket
    No. 06-169 at 5.

[^483]: If, in contrast, these proponents' reading of Section 337 is
    incorrect, and the statutory language in fact requires the
    Commission to maintain the specified 24/36 megahertz allocations in
    perpetuity (barring future legislative action), the result would be
    the same: the statute would prohibit us from altering these
    allocations at this time.

[^484]: *C.f.* Reallocation of 30 MHz of 700 MHz Spectrum
    (747-762/777-792 MHz) from Commercial Use, Assignment of 30 MHz of
    700 MHz Spectrum (747-762/777-792 MHz) to the Public Safety
    Broadband Trust for Deployment of a Shared Public Safety/ Commercial
    Next Generation Wireless Network, RM No. 11348, *Order*, DA 06-2278
    (rel. Nov. 3, 2006) (finding Cyren Call petition inconsistent with
    auction requirement of Sections 337(a) and 309(j)(15)(C)(v) and that
    the Commission lacks authority to take further action).

[^485]: *Upper 700 MHz Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5311 ¶ 27
    n.60. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 required that the Commission
    use competitive bidding to assign licenses in the 36 megahertz of
    spectrum within the 746-806 MHz band. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 337(a)(2),
    as added by § 3004 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Therefore,
    the Commission determined to assign Guard Band Manager licenses
    using competitive bidding, as required by Section 337(a)(2).

[^486]: *See* 700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders
    Announced, Report No. AUC-33-H (Auction No. 33), *Public Notice*, 15
    FCC Rcd 18026 (WTB 2000); 700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes:
    Winning Bidders Announced, Report No. AUC-38-F (Auction No. 38),
    *Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 4590 (WTB 2001).

[^487]: Access Spectrum/ Pegasus Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169 filed
    October 10 (originally June 6) at 4-5.

[^488]: *Id.* at 10.

[^489]: Access Spectrum/ Pegasus Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169 filed
    October 23 at 7.

[^490]: *See, e.g.,* CICC Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169 at 8-10.

[^491]: We acknowledge that under certain circumstances spectrum
    allocated to CII is not required to be assigned by competitive
    bidding, due the exception in Section 309(j)(2)(A) for commercial
    spectrum used for certain "public safety radio services." However,
    in this case Section 337 of the Act specifically mandates that the
    36 megahertz of spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Band must be assigned
    by competitive bidding, and thus we cannot adopt the CII proposals
    to the extent that they request allocations not subject to
    competitive bidding. We note, however, that CII entities will be
    eligible to participate in future auctions for spectrum in the
    700 MHz Band.

[^492]: 47 U.S.C. § 337(a)(2).

[^493]: *Id.* § 309(j)(2) ("The competitive bidding authority granted by
    this subsection shall not apply to licenses or construction permits
    issued by the Commission -- (A) for public safety radio services,
    including private internal radio services used by State and local
    governments and non-government entities and including emergency road
    services provided by not-for-profit organizations, that -- (i) are
    used to protect the safety of life, health, or property; and (ii)
    are not made commercially available to the public\[.\]").

[^494]: Access Spectrum/Pegasus Legal Authority *Ex Parte* in WT Docket
    No. 06-169 at 5, citing *Mobile Relay Assocs. v. FCC*, 457 F.3d 1
    (D.C. Cir. 2006). We note that in *Mobile Relay*, the reallocation
    of commercial spectrum to public safety spectrum was not discussed
    and was not at issue.

[^495]: *See* Budget Reconciliation Act, P.O. 103-66, Legislative
    History, House Report No. 103-111 (1993) ("competitive bidding
    system...will encourage innovative ideas, and give proper incentive
    to spur a new wave of products and services that will keep the
    United States in a competitive position"). *See generally*
    Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, *Second Report and
    Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 2348 (1994) ("*Competitive Bidding Report and
    Order*").

[^496]: *See Competitive Bidding Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at
    2360-2361 ¶¶ 70-71.

[^497]: *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act,
    Competitive Bidding*, 9 FCC Rcd 2941, 2943 ¶ 8.

[^498]: *800 MHz Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15012 ¶ 68.

[^499]: *Id.* at 14972 ¶ 2, 14990-93 ¶¶ 36-39.

[^500]: Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission's Rules to Benefit the
    Consumers of Air-Ground Telecommunications Services, *Report and
    Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 20 FCC Rcd 4403, 4438 ¶ 74
    (2005) (*Air-Ground Order*).

[^501]: Letter from Donald C. Brittingham, Verizon Wireless, to Marlene
    H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket No. 06-169 (filed
    Feb. 15, 2007) ("Verizon Feb. 15, 2007 *Ex Parte*").

[^502]: Access Spectrum/Pegasus Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169
    at 7-9.

[^503]: Verizon *Ex Parte* in WT Docket No. 06-169 at 13.

[^504]: Letter from Vincent R. Stile, Chair, National Public Safety
    Telecommunications Council, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
    *Ex Parte* in WT Docket No. 06-169, 96-86 at 2 (filed Feb. 23, 2007)
    ("NPSTC Feb. 23, 2007 *Ex Parte*"). NPSTC adds that it "is also
    confident that public safety can manage the guard band effectively."
    *Id.*

[^505]: *See* Letter from Ruth Milkman, counsel to Access Spectrum, LLC
    and Kathleen Wallman, adviser to Pegasus Communications Corporation,
    to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos.
    06-169, 06-150 and 96-86 (filed Apr. 18, 2007) (Access
    Spectrum/Pegasus Apr. 18, 2007 *Ex Parte*)*.*

[^506]: We sought comment on these issues in the *700 MHz Guard Bands
    Notice*. *See 700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 10424-29
    ¶¶ 25-35.

[^507]: *See supra* Section IV.B.1.a.

[^508]: *See, e.g.,* Auction of 1.4 GHz Band Licenses, Scheduled for
    February 7, 2007, Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening
    Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Procedures for Auction No. 69,
    *Public Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd 12393, ¶¶ 4-6 (2006); Auction of
    Advanced Wireless Services Licenses Scheduled for June 29, 2006,
    Notice and Filing Requirement, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payment
    and Other Procedures for Auction No. 66, *Public Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd
    4562, ¶¶ 140-157 (2006) ("*Auction No. 66 Procedures Public
    Notice*").

[^509]: *See Auction No. 66 Procedures Public Notice* at ¶¶ 140-157.

[^510]: PISC Apr. 3 *Ex Parte* Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 and WT
    Docket Nos. 06-150, 05-211, 96-86 at 13; Letter from Harold Feld,
    counsel to Media Access Project, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
    FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket No. 06-150 (filed Apr. 19, 2007)
    (contending that accompanying Affidavit of Dr. Gregory Rose
    demonstrates that the open auction structure of Auction No. 66
    permitted incumbents to engage in retaliatory bidding).

[^511]: Letter from George Y. Wheeler, counsel to United States Cellular
    Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket
    Nos. 06-150, 06-169, 96-86, 05-265, and 00-139, and PS Docket No.
    06-229 (filed Mar. 27, 2007) ("U.S. Cellular Mar. 27 *Ex Parte* in
    WT Docket Nos. 06-150, 06-169, 96-86, 05-265, and 00-139, and PS
    Docket No. 06-229") at 7.

[^512]: Within the context of the 700 MHz public safety band plan,
    "wideband" refers to 50 kHz systems that may utilize a bandwidth no
    more than 150 kHz. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.531(c) and (d)(2). To the
    extent a public safety entity has constructed, deployed, and is
    currently operating, as of the release date of this Report and
    Order, a wideband system pursuant to a grant of Special Temporary
    Authority (STA), and has reason to continue such operations beyond
    the current term of the STA, we will work with such entity to extend
    such authority.

[^513]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.531. Wideband general use refers to 50 kHz
    channels managed by Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) to meet
    regional and local needs. The Commission has issued no licenses for
    regular authorizations for wideband general use channels. Our
    licensing records reflect, however, that there are two grants of
    special temporary authority (STA) licensed on the wideband general
    use channels. Wideband interoperability channels also are
    channelized at 50 kHz. Wideband reserve spectrum is not channelized
    and refers to 700 MHz spectrum that the Commission had set aside for
    future public safety use. The wideband interoperability and reserve
    channels have not been available for licensing. We refer to the
    wideband general use, wideband interoperability, and wideband
    reserve channels collectively as "wideband."

[^514]: *See* *700 MHz Public Safety Eighth Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at
    3676-79 ¶¶ 14-22.

[^515]: *Id.* at 3675-76 ¶ 13, 3683-84 ¶ 33.

[^516]: *See, e.g*., NPSTC Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 1; APCO
    Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 2; State of California Comments
    in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 1; California Highway Patrol Comments in
    WT Docket No. 96-86 at 1; City and County of Denver Comments in WT
    Docket No. 96-86 at 1; State of Hawaii Comments in WT Docket No.
    96-86 at 1; International Association of Fire Chiefs Comments in WT
    Docket No. 96-86 at 1; International Association of Chiefs of
    Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, National Sheriffs
    Association, Major Cities Sheriffs Association Joint Reply Comments
    in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 1; National Association of Regional
    Planning Committees Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 1; Region 12
    Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 1; Region 24 Comments in WT
    Docket No. 96-86 at 1; Region 26 Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at
    1; Region 39 Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 1; Region 40
    Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 1; Region 45 Comments in WT
    Docket No. 96-86 at 1; Region 49 Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at
    1.

[^517]: *See* NPSTC and APCO Joint Comments in WT Docket No. 05-157 at
    6.

[^518]: *See* NPSTC Comments in RM-11348 at 4 (Nov. 29, 2006). *See
    also* *The Present and Future of Public Safety Communications:
    Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Commerce, Science &
    Transportation,* 109^th^ Cong. 2-3, (2007) (statement of Mr. Harlin
    R. McEwen, Chairman, Communications and Technology Committee,
    International Association of Chiefs of Police) (McEwen Testimony)
    (the benefits from a nationwide broadband network include broadband
    data services (such as text messaging, photos, diagrams, and
    streaming video) not currently available in existing public safety
    land mobile systems). Although these comments and testimony are
    related to a proposal by Cyren Call, which the Public Safety and
    Homeland Security Bureau found the Commission lacked statutory
    authority to implement, *see* Reallocation of 30 MHz of 700 MHz
    Spectrum (747-762/777-792 MHz) from Commercial Use, RM No. 11348,
    *Order*, DA 06-2278 (PSHSB 2006), the comments submitted in that
    proceeding and related testimony before Congress are relevant to our
    decision to implement a broadband allocation here because they
    reflect the public safety community's support for deployment of a
    nationwide interoperable broadband network in the 700 MHz Band.

[^519]: *See* NPSTC Comments in RM-11348 at 4, 10. *See also* McEwen
    Testimony at 2 ("The implementation of a nationwide public safety
    broadband network can also be the beginning of the end to the
    problem of public safety interoperability"); Region 24 Reply
    Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 5 (broadband is the most
    effective means to ensuring interoperable public safety
    communications); NPSTC Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 14-15;
    Lucent Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 7-8.

[^520]: *See, e.g*., NPSTC Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 1-2; APCO
    Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 2.

[^521]: Because we make these tentative conclusions, we defer
    consideration of the questions raised in the *700 MHz Public Safety
    Eighth Notice* regarding adoption of a wideband interoperability
    standard. The *700 MHz Public Safety Eighth Notice* sought to
    refresh the record on whether to retain the wideband segment and
    adopt SAM as a wideband data interoperability standard, as
    recommended by the National Coordination Committee (NCC). *See 700
    MHz Public Safety Eighth Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 3683-3684 ¶ 33.

[^522]: *See 700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 10433-34 ¶ 46.

[^523]: *See, e.g.*, Region 24 Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 2;
    Region 26 Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 1; Region 39 Comments
    in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 1.

[^524]: *See* Access Spectrum/Pegasus Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at
    3-5.

[^525]: WiMAX Forum Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 1-2.

[^526]: *See* Alcatel-Lucent Mar. 21 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket No. 06-169
    at 6; *see also* Lucent Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 06-169 at
    2-3.

[^527]: *See* Access Spectrum *et al.* Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150
    at 33-34 and Appendix B at 13-14.

[^528]: *See 700 MHz Guard Bands Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 10433 ¶ 45.

[^529]: *See* Letter from Ruth Milkman, Counsel for Access Spectrum, LLC
    and Kathleen Wallman, Adviser to Pegasus Communications Corp., to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket No.
    06-169 (filed Oct. 23, 2006) ("700 MHz Technical Working Group
    Report") at 9-10.

[^530]: *Id.*

[^531]: We note that the result of this option would be a corresponding
    loss of 1 megahertz of available spectrum for broadband
    communications, since a 1-megahertz internal guard band would still
    be necessary to protect the shifted narrowband channels from public
    safety broadband operations. However, we are seeking comment on
    whether to allow the public safety broadband operator(s) to utilize
    their full 5-megahertz broadband allocation by gaining a temporary
    easement into the adjacent D Block spectrum proposed above. *See
    supra* Section IV.B.1.a.

[^532]: The Commission designated 2.4 megahertz of spectrum, all
    narrowband channels, for statewide, geographic-area licenses, and
    2.4 megahertz for nationwide use.

[^533]: Our licensing records reflect that there are two grants of
    special temporary authority (STA) licensed on the wideband base and
    mobile channels.

[^534]: *See* Region 12 Reply Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 1-2
    (stating that the costs and disruption of agency activity, as well
    as the amount of time and effort required to put the plan into
    effect, would make reallocating the narrowband frequencies
    prohibitively expensive).

[^535]: *See* Region 24 Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 15; Region 39
    Comments in WT Docket No. 96-86 at 1 (now is the best time to
    consider new ideas as very little has been put into effect).

[^536]: *See* Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the
    Use of New Telecommunications Technologies, ET Docket No. 92-9,
    *First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 7
    FCC Rcd 6886, 6888 ¶ 14 (1992) (relocation of fixed microwave
    incumbents for Emerging Technology services); Improving Public
    Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, et al., *Report and
    Order, Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    and Order*, WT Docket No. 02-55, 19 FCC Rcd 14969 (2004) (relocation
    of public safety licensees operating to comparable facilities to
    facilitate 800 MHz band reconfiguration).

[^537]: In a recent *Ex Parte* presentation, Motorola estimates that
    750,000-800,000 dual 700/800 MHz radios have been deployed, but
    Motorola does not provide an estimate on the number of such radios
    that have already been programmed to operate at 700 MHz. *See*
    Motorola Mar. 6, 2007 *Ex Parte* at 8.

[^538]: We note that although Access Spectrum and Pegasus proposed to
    assume the entire cost of reconfiguration, conditioned on adoption
    of the BOP, we have tentatively concluded that we cannot adopt the
    BOP.

[^539]: *800 MHz Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15064 para. 179 (the
    Consensus Parties estimated the cost for reconfiguring the 800 MHz
    Band at \$850 million).

[^540]: *See* Amendment of the Commission\'s Rules Relative to the
    Licensing of Microwave Radio Stations Used to Relay Television
    Signals to Community Antenna Television Systems, *First Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, Docket No. 15586,
    1 FCC 2d 897, 911 (1965).

[^541]: *See, e.g.*, NPSTC Comments in WT Docket 96-86 at 7-8 ; APCO
    Comments in WT Docket 96-86 at 3-4; Region 24 Comments in WT Docket
    96-86 at 17.

[^542]: *See, e.g.,* Northrop Reply Comments in WT Docket 96-86 at 3.
    Section 3006 of the DTV Act created the Public Safety Interoperable
    Communications Grant Program to assist public safety entities in the
    acquisition of, deployment of, and training for the use of
    interoperable communications that utilize or enable interoperability
    with 700 MHz public safety communications systems. *See* Pub. L. No.
    109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006), § 3006(a).

[^543]: These benefits would include the potential of public/private
    partnerships due to compatible system architectures between the
    B Block and the reconfigured Public Safety block, and the potential
    for the Commission to ease the existing interference protection
    rules (including the cellular architecture restriction) that apply
    to the B Block that initially were created to protect the formerly
    adjacent Public Safety narrowband channels.

[^544]: *See generally* Frontline Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229;
    Frontline Mar. 6 Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150; Frontline Reply
    Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229; Frontline March 12 *Ex Parte* in
    WT Docket Nos. 96-86 and 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229; Frontline
    Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150 and 06-169 and PS Docket
    No. 06-229; Section II.E., *supra.*

[^545]: Frontline Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229; Frontline Reply
    Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229; Frontline Mar. 6 Comments in WT
    Docket No. 06-150; Frontline Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos.
    06-150 and 06-169 and PS Docket No. 06-229. *See also* Frontline
    March 7 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86 and 06-150 and PS Docket
    No. 06-229; Frontline March 12 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86
    and 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229; Frontline March 16 *Ex Parte*
    in WT Docket Nos. 96-86 and 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229;
    Frontline Mar. 19 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86 and 06-150 and
    PS Docket No. 06-229; Frontline Mar. 22 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos.
    96-86 and 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229.

[^546]: *See 700 MHz Guard Bands Notice; 700 MHz Public Safety Ninth
    Notice*; *700 MHz Public Safety Eighth Notice*.

[^547]: *See 700 MHz Commercial Services Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 9346-48
    ¶¶ 1-2. This *Notice* sought comment on 78 megahertz of
    non-guard-band commercial wireless licenses (in the 698-746,
    747-762, and 777-792 MHz bands), including the 60 megahertz that the
    Commission is required to auction pursuant to the DTV Act. Comment
    was sought on rules which include those concerning the size of
    service areas and spectrum blocks, performance requirements, access
    to spectrum in the secondary market, renewal, length of license
    term, power limits and related requirements, and 911/E911 and
    hearing aid-compatible handsets. *Id.* at 9362-90 ¶¶ 28-106.

[^548]: The 700 MHz Guard Bands consist of the A Block, comprised of
    paired 1-megahertz blocks (746-747, 776-777 MHz), and Guard Band
    B Block, comprised of paired 2-megahertz blocks (762-764, 792-794
    MHz).

[^549]: Frontline Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 at 20-21.

[^550]: *See supra* Section IV.B.2.

[^551]: *See* Frontline Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150 and
    06-169 and PS Docket No. 06-229, Attachment (proposing revisions to
    rules to designate frequencies).

[^552]: *See* Frontline Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 at 5-6, 17,
    19-20, 24; Frontline Mar. 6 Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7,
    8, 10-12; Frontline Reply Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 at 3-4;
    *see also* Frontline Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150 and
    06-169 and PS Docket No. 06-229, Attachment (proposed rules relating
    to Frontline proposal, including the Network Sharing Agreement).

[^553]: Frontline's proposal also would be premised on the adoption of
    additional matters being addressed in the *700 MHz Public Service
    Eighth Notice* and *700 MHz Public Safety Ninth Notice*. These
    include permitting the public safety licensee to provide
    unconditionally preemptible access to its assigned spectrum to
    commercial service providers on a secondary basis, and facilitating
    the shared use of commercial mobile radio service (CMRS)
    infrastructure for the efficient provision of public safety
    broadband service. *See* *700 MHz Public Safety Ninth Notice*, 21
    FCC Rcd at 14838 ¶ 4.

[^554]: *See* Frontline Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 at 5-6, 17,
    19-20, 24; Frontline Mar. 6 Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 7,
    8, 10-12; Frontline Reply Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 at 3-4;
    *see also* Frontline Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150 and
    06-169 and PS Docket No. 06-229, Attachment (proposed rules relating
    to Frontline proposal, including the Network Sharing Agreement).

[^555]: *See* Frontline Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150 and
    06-169 and PS Docket No. 06-229 at 3-7 & Attachment (proposed 47
    C.F.R. § 27.4). Frontline's proposed rules would require that the "E
    Block" licensee "enter into good faith negotiations with the
    national public safety broadband licensee" regarding the Network
    Sharing Agreement, and, as part of that obligation, would require
    that the "E Block" Licensee "consult with the Public Safety Licensee
    on the design, construction, and operation of the shared
    network...." Frontline Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150
    and 06-169 and PS Docket No. 06-229, Attachment at 5.

[^556]: *Id*. Attachment at 3-4 (proposed 47 C.F.R. § 27.14). Under
    Frontline's original proposal, the build-out benchmarks were: 25
    percent geographic coverage of the continental United States within
    four years of license grant; 50 percent geographic coverage of the
    continental United States within seven years of license grant; and
    75 percent geographic coverage of the continental United States
    within ten years of license grant. *See* Frontline Comments in PS
    Docket No. 06-229 at 24-25. Frontline's current proposal provides
    that "auction clearing date" for purposes of the construction
    requirements "refers to the Analog Spectrum Recovery Firm Deadline
    provided for in Section 3002 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005."
    *See* Frontline Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150 and
    06-169 and PS Docket No. 06-229, Attachment at 3-4 (proposed 47
    C.F.R. § 27.14).

[^557]: Frontline Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 at 27-28.

[^558]: *Id*. at 28-29; Frontline Mar. 6 Comments in WT Docket No.
    06-150 at 14-15; Frontline Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos.
    06-150 and 06-169 and PS Docket No. 06-229 at 4.

[^559]: Frontline Mar. 6 Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 19-20;
    Frontline Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150 and 06-169 and
    PS Docket No. 06-229, Attachment (proposed 47 C.F.R. § 27.13).

[^560]: Frontline Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150 and 06-169
    and PS Docket No. 06-229 at 5.

[^561]: *See* Frontline Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 at 29-30
    (referring to a petition by Skype Communications requesting that the
    Commission apply Carterphone principles to wireless networks. *See*
    Skype Communications, S.A.R.L. Petition to Confirm a Consumer's
    Right to Use Internet Communications Software and Attach Devices to
    Wireless Networks (filed Feb. 20, 2007)); Frontline Mar. Frontline
    Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150 and 06-169 and PS Docket
    No. 06-229, Attachment (proposed rules).

[^562]: *See* Frontline Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 at 18, 23;
    Frontline Mar. 6 Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 21.

[^563]: *See* Frontline Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 at 20-21;
    Frontline Mar. 6 Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 11, n.13;
    Frontline March 16 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 96-86 and 06-150 and
    PS Docket No. 06-229, Attachment at 3-4. *See also* Frontline Mar.
    26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150 and 06-169 and PS Docket No.
    06-229, Attachment (proposed 47 C.F.R. § 27.5, which maintains
    existing frequencies for Guard Band blocks).

[^564]: *See* Reply Comments of MetroPCS Communications, Inc., PS Docket
    No. 06-229, WT Docket No. 96-86 (filed Mar. 12, 2007) ("MetroPCS
    Reply Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 and WT Docket No. 96-86");
    Reply Comments of the National Public Safety Telecommunications
    Council ("NPSTC"), Docket No. 06-229, WT Docket No. 96-86 (filed
    Mar. 12, 2007) ("NPSTC Reply Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 and WT
    Docket No. 96-86"); Letter from Harold Feld, Senior Vice President ,
    Media Access Project, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, *Ex
    Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 05-211 and 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229
    (filed Mar. 22, 2007) ("Media Access Project Mar. 22 *Ex Parte* in
    WT Docket Nos. 05-211 and 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229");
    Response of MetroPCS Communications, Inc. to Untimely "Comments" of
    Frontline Wireless, LLC, WT Docket No. 06-150, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    WT Docket No. 01-309 (filed Mar. 26, 2007) ("MetroPCS Response in WT
    Docket No. 06-150, CC Docket No. 94-102, and WT Docket No. 01-309");
    U.S. Cellular Mar. 27 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150, 06-169,
    96-86, 05-265, and 00-139, and PS Docket No. 06-229.

[^565]: *See* Media Access Project Mar. 22 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos.
    05-211 and 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229 at 1.

[^566]: *See* Letter from Steve Largent, President and CEO, CTIA, to
    Chairman Kevin Martin, FCC, *Ex Parte* in WT Docket No. 06-150
    (filed Apr. 5, 2007) ("CTIA Apr. 5 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket No.
    06-150") at 2-3.

[^567]: *See* MetroPCS Response in WT Docket No. 06-150, CC Docket No.
    94-102, and WT Docket No. 01-309 at 1.

[^568]: *See* NPSTC Reply Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 and WT Docket
    No. 96-86 at 7.

[^569]: *See* U.S. Cellular Mar. 27 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150,
    06-169, 96-86, 05-265, and 00-139, and PS Docket No. 06-229 at 2.

[^570]: *See Ex Parte* Comments of the *Ad Hoc* Public Interest Spectrum
    Coalition, filed by Larry Blosser, counsel to Consumers Union and
    Free Press, PS Docket No. 06-229 and WT Docket Nos. 06-150, 05-211,
    96-86 (filed Apr. 5, 2007) ("PISC Apr. 5 Blosser *Ex Parte* in PS
    Docket No. 06-229 and WT Docket Nos. 06-150, 05-211, 96-86"). *See
    also* PISC Apr. 3 *Ex Parte* Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 and WT
    Docket Nos. 06-150, 05-211, 96-86; *Ex Parte* Comments of the *Ad
    Hoc* Public Interest Spectrum Coalition, filed by Gigi Sohn, counsel
    for Public Knowledge, PS Docket No. 06-229 and WT Docket Nos.
    06-150, 05-211, 96-86 (filed Apr. 5, 2007) ("PISC Apr. 5 Sohn *Ex
    Parte* in PS Docket No. 06-229 and WT Docket Nos. 06-150, 05-211,
    96-86").

[^571]: *See* Frontline Mar. 26 Ex Parte in WT Docket Nos. 06-150 and
    06-169 and PS Docket No. 06-229 at 8.

[^572]: *Id.* at 4-5.

[^573]: *Id.* at 6.

[^574]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(D).

[^575]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B).

[^576]: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
    Act---Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, *Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 7245, 7269 ¶ 145 (1994) (*Competitive
    Bidding Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*); 47 C.F.R. §
    1.2110(c)(1).

[^577]: Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules -- Competitive
    Bidding Procedures, WT Docket No. 97-82, *Third Report and Order and
    Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 13 FCC Rcd 374, 388
    ¶ 18 (1997) ("Part 1 Third Report and Order"); 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110
    (c)(1).

[^578]: Revision of Rules and Policies for the Direct Broadcast
    Satellite Service, IB Docket No. 95-168, PP Docket No. 93-253,
    *Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 9712 (1995) (*DBS Auction Order*);
    Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio
    Satellite Service in the 2310-2360 MHz Band, IB Docket No. 95-91,
    *Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd 5754 (1997) (*DARS Auction
    Order*)*.*

[^579]: *See DBS Auction Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 9799 ¶ 217; *DARS Auction
    Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 5824-26 ¶¶ 174-176. We also note that the
    legislative history of the designated entity provisions of section
    309(j) demonstrates that Congress did not necessarily intend the
    Commission to adopt special measures for designated entities in
    nationwide services. The House Report to the Omnibus Budget
    Reconciliation Act of 1993 states that "\[t\]he characteristics of
    some services are inherently national in scope, and are therefore
    ill-suited for small businesses." H.R. Rep. No. 103-111, 103rd
    Cong., 1st Sess., at 254.

[^580]: 47 C.F.R. 1.2110(b)(3)(iv)(A).

[^581]: Implementation of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and
    Modernization of the Commission's Competitive Bidding Rules and
    Procedures, *Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, 21 FCC Rcd 4753, 4760 ¶15 (2006).

[^582]: Frontline Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150 and 06-169
    and PS Docket No. 06-229 at 8.

[^583]: In this regard, we note that the Commission has collected unjust
    enrichment obligations, under its existing unjust enrichment rules
    in section 1.2111, from bankrupt licensees, even where the
    protections afforded by section 525 of the United States Bankruptcy
    Code prevented the automatic cancellation of the license for failure
    to render timely payment pursuant to the Commission's installment
    payment rules of section 1.2110(g)(iv). *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.2111; 11
    U.S.C. § 525; 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(g)(iv).

[^584]: *See* Frontline Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 at 29-31;
    Frontline Mar. 6 Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 16-19. *See
    also* Frontline Mar. 26 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos. 06-150 and
    06-169 and PS Docket No. 06-229, Attachment (Frontline's proposed 47
    C.F.R. § § 27.16, 27.51).

[^585]: *See* Frontline Comments in PS Docket No. 06-229 at 30;
    Frontline Mar. 6 Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 16-17.

[^586]: Frontline Mar. 6 Comments in WT Docket No. 06-150 at 17.

[^587]: *Id.* at 18.

[^588]: *See* Media Access Project Mar. 22 *Ex Parte* in WT Docket Nos.
    05-211 and 06-150 and PS Docket No. 06-229; *Ad Hoc* Public Interest
    Spectrum Coalition Apr. 5 *Ex Parte* in PS Docket No. 06-229, WT
    Docket Nos. 06-150, 05-211, 96-86, at 8.

[^589]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^590]: In particular, this exemption extends to the requirements
    imposed by Chapter 6 of Title 5, United States Code, Section 3 of
    the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) and Sections 3507 and 3512 of
    Title 44, United States Code. Consolidated Appropriations Act 2000,
    Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 2502, Appendix E, Sec.
    213(a)(4)(A)-(B); *see* 145 Cong. Rec. H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999); 47
    U.S.C.A. 337 note at Sec. 213(a)(4)(A)-(B).

[^591]: *Id*.

[^592]: *Id*.

[^593]: *Id*.

[^594]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.200 *et. seq.*

[^595]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^596]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).

[^597]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419.

[^598]: *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
    63 FR 24121 (1998).

[^599]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^600]: *See* Service Rules for the 698-749, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz
    Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150, Revision of the Commission's Rules to
    Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, and Section 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules
    Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket No. 01-309,
    *Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 21
    FCC Rcd 9345, 9394 (2006) ("*700 MHz Commercial Services Notice");*
    Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses
    and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, Development of
    Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting
    Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements
    Through the Year 2010, WT Docket Nos. 06-169 and 96-86, *Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making*, 21 FCC Rcd 10413, 10440 (2006) ("*700 MHz
    Guard Bands Notice*"); Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband,
    Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, PS Docket
    06-229, Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum
    Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety
    Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No.
    96-86, *Ninth Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 21 FCC Rcd 14837,
    14853 (2006) ("*700 MHz Public Safety Ninth Notice")*.

[^601]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^602]: In particular, this exemption extends to the requirements
    imposed by Chapter 6 of Title 5, United States Code, Section 3 of
    the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) and Sections 3507 and 3512 of
    Title 44, United States Code. Consolidated Appropriations Act 2000,
    Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 2502, Appendix E, Sec.
    213(a)(4)(A)-(B); *see* 145 Cong. Rec. H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999); 47
    U.S.C.A. 337 note at Sec. 213(a)(4)(A)-(B).

[^603]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^604]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^605]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^606]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^607]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^608]: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
    2006, Section 8, pages 272-273, Tables 415 and 417.

[^609]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the
    Wireless Communications Service (WCS), *Report and Order*, 12 FCC
    Rcd 10785, 10879 ¶ 194 (1997).

[^610]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small
    Business Administration, dated December 2, 1998.

[^611]: *See* Service Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions to
    Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, *Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 5299 (2000).

[^612]: *Id*. at 5343 ¶ 108.

[^613]: *Id*.

[^614]: *Id*. At 5343 ¶ 108 n.246 (for the 746-764 MHz and 776-704 MHz
    bands, the Commission is exempt from 15 U.S.C. § 632, which requires
    Federal agencies to obtain Small Business Administration approval
    before adopting small business size standards).

[^615]: *See* "700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders
    Announced," *Public Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd 18026 (2000).

[^616]: *See* "700 MHz Guard Bands Auctions Closes: Winning Bidders
    Announced," *Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 4590 (WTB 2001).

[^617]: Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and
    Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, *Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 1239 (2001).

[^618]: *See* "Auction of Licenses for 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands
    (Auction No. 31) Is Rescheduled," *Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 13079
    (WTB 2003).

[^619]: *See* Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz
    Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), *Report and Order*, 17
    FCC Rcd 1022 (2002).

[^620]: *Id.* at 1087-88 ¶ 172.

[^621]: *Id.*

[^622]: *Id.* at 1088 ¶ 173.

[^623]: *See* Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    August 10, 1999.

[^624]: *See* "Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 17
    FCC Rcd 17272 (WTB 2002).

[^625]: *See* "Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 18
    FCC Rcd 11873 (WTB 2003).

[^626]: *Id*.

[^627]: *See* Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 27 and 90 of the Commission's
    Rules to License Services in the 216-220 MHz, 1390-1395 MHz,
    1427-1429 MHz, 1429-1432 MHz, 1432-1435 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz, AND
    2385-2390 MHz Government Transfer Bands, 17 FCC Rcd 9980 (2002)
    *(Government Transfer Bands Service Rules Report and Order*).

[^628]: *See Service Rules Notice,* 17 FCC Rcd at 2550-51 ¶¶ 144-146. To
    be consistent with the size standard of "very small business"
    proposed for the 1427-1432 MHz band for those entities with average
    gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding \$3
    million, the *Service Rules Notice* proposed to use the terms
    "entrepreneur" and "small business" to define entities with average
    gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding \$40
    million and \$15 million, respectively. Because the Commission has
    not adopted a \$3 million size standard for the 1427-1432 MHz band,
    it instead uses the terms "small business" and "very small business"
    to define entities with average gross revenues for the three
    preceding years not exceeding \$40 million and \$15 million,
    respectively.

[^629]: S*ee* Reallocation of the 216-220 MHz, 1390-1395 MHz, 1427-1429
    MHz, 1429-1432 MHz, 1432-1435 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz, and 2385-2390 MHz
    Government Transfer Bands, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ,* 17 FCC
    Rcd 2500, 2550-51 ¶¶ 144-146 (*Government Transfer Bands Service
    Rules Notice*). To be consistent with the size standard of "very
    small business" proposed for the 1427-1432 MHz band for those
    entities with average gross revenues for the three preceding years
    not exceeding \$3 million, the *Government Transfer Bands Service
    Rules Notice* proposed to use the terms "entrepreneur" and "small
    business" to define entities with average gross revenues for the
    three preceding years not exceeding \$40 million and \$15 million,
    respectively. Because the Commission is not adopting small business
    size standards for the 1427-1432 MHz band, it instead uses the terms
    "small business" and "very small business" to define entities with
    average gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding
    \$40 million and \$15 million, respectively.

[^630]: Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and
    2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, *Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd
    25162 (2003) (*AWS-1 Report and Order*).

[^631]: Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with
    Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service
    and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation
    of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding,
    MM Docket No. 94-131 and PP Docket No. 93-253, *Report and Order*,
    10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9593 ¶ 7 (1995) (*MDS Auction R&O)*.

[^632]: *See* Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the
    Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile
    Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the
    2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands, *Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 19 FCC Rcd 14165 (2004) (*BRS/EBS
    Report and Order* and *BRS/EBS Further Notice*, respectively).

[^633]: 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).

[^634]: *See* Letter to Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
    Communications Bureau, from Gary Jackson, Assistant Administrator
    for Size Standards, Small Business Administration, dated Mar. 20,
    2003 (noting approval of \$40 million size standard for MDS
    auction).

[^635]: Basic Trading Areas (BTAs) were designed by Rand McNally and are
    the geographic areas by which MDS was auctioned and authorized. *See
    MDS Auction R&O*, 10 FCC Rcd at 9608 ¶ 34.

[^636]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to
    incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of Section 309(j) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). For these
    pre-auction licenses, the applicable standard is SBA's small
    business size standard for "other telecommunications" (annual
    receipts of \$12.5 million or less). *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,
    NAICS code 517910.

[^637]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 517212.

[^638]: *Id*.

[^639]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^640]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^641]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^642]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^643]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^644]: Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide For
    the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Service, *Third Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068‑70 ¶¶
    291‑295 (1997).

[^645]: *Id.* at 11068 ¶ 291.

[^646]: *Id.*

[^647]: *See* Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    January 6, 1998.

[^648]: *See generally* "220 MHz Service Auction Closes," *Public
    Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 605 (WTB 1998).

[^649]: *See* "FCC Announces It is Prepared to Grant 654 Phase II 220
    MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made," *Public Notice*, 14 FCC
    Rcd 1085 (WTB 1999).

[^650]: *See* "Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes,"
    *Public Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (WTB 1999).

[^651]: *See* "Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 17
    FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).

[^652]: Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems, *Second Report and
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 2732, 2811-2812 ¶¶ 178-181 (*Paging Second Report
    and Order*); *see also* Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the
    Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging
    Systems, *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration*, 14 FCC
    Rcd 10030, 10085-10088 ¶¶ 98-107 (1999).

[^653]: *Paging Second Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 2811 ¶ 179.

[^654]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, from Aida
    Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    December 2, 1998.

[^655]: *See* "929 and 931 MHz Paging Auction Closes," *Public Notice*,
    15 FCC Rcd 4858 (WTB 2000).

[^656]: *See id*.

[^657]: *See* "Lower and Upper Paging Band Auction Closes," *Public
    Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 21821 (WTB 2002).

[^658]: *See* "Lower and Upper Paging Bands Auction Closes," *Public
    Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd 11154 (WTB 2003).

[^659]: *See Trends in Telephone Service,* Industry Analysis Division,
    Wireline Competition Bureau, Table 5.3 (Number of Telecommunications
    Service Providers by Size of Business) (June 2005).

[^660]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211.

[^661]: *See* Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules --
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap, *Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7850-7852
    ¶¶ 57-60 (1996); *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b).

[^662]: *See* Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules --
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap, *Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7852
    ¶ 60.

[^663]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small
    Business Administration, dated December 2, 1998.

[^664]: FCC News, "Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes," No.
    71744 (rel. January 14, 1997).

[^665]: *See* "C, D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes,"
    *Public Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd 6688 (WTB 1999).

[^666]: *See* "C and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes; Winning
    Bidders Announced," *Public Notice,* 16 FCC Rcd 2339 (2001).

[^667]: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding Narrowband PCS, *Third Memorandum Opinion and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 10 FCC Rcd 175,
    196 ¶ 46 (1994).

[^668]: *See* "Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of ten
    Nationwide Narrowband PCS Licenses, Winning Bids Total
    \$617,006,674," *Public Notice*, PNWL 94-004 (rel. Aug. 2, 1994);
    "Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of 30 Regional
    Narrowband PCS Licenses; Winning Bids Total \$490,901,787," *Public
    Notice*, PNWL 94-27 (rel. Nov. 9, 1994).

[^669]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal
    Communications Services, Narrowband PCS, *Second Report and Order
    and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 15 FCC Rcd
    10456, 10476 ¶ 40 (2000).

[^670]: *Id*.

[^671]: *Id*.

[^672]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small
    Business Administration, dated December 2, 1998.

[^673]: *See* "Narrowband PCS Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 16 FCC
    Rcd 18663 (WTB 2001).

[^674]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.814(b)(1).

[^675]: *Id*.

[^676]: *See* Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    August 10, 1999. The Commission notes that, although a request was
    also sent to the SBA requesting approval for the small business size
    standard for 800 MHz, approval is still pending.

[^677]: *See* "Correction to Public Notice DA 96-586 'FCC Announces
    Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1020 Licenses to Provide 900 MHz
    SMR in Major Trading Areas,'" *Public Notice*, 18 FCC Rcd 18367 (WTB
    1996).

[^678]: *See* "Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 17
    FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).

[^679]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^680]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 101 *et seq.* (formerly, part 21 of the
    Commission's Rules).

[^681]: Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commission's rules
    can use Private Operational-Fixed Microwave services. *See*
    *generally* 47 C.F.R. parts 80 and 90. Stations in this service are
    called operational-fixed to distinguish them from common carrier and
    public fixed stations. Only the licensee may use the
    operational-fixed station, and only for communications related to
    the licensee's commercial, industrial, or safety operations.

[^682]: Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by part 74 of Title 47
    of the Commission's Rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 74. Available to
    licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network
    entities, broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are used for
    relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the
    transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an
    auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which
    relay signals from a remote location back to the studio.

[^683]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^684]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the
    37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Band, *Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd
    18600 (1997).

[^685]: *Id*.

[^686]: *See* Letter to Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry
    Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, from Hector Barreto, Administrator, Small
    Business Administration, dated January 18, 2002.

[^687]: *See* Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, 25, of the
    Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band,
    Reallocate the 29.5-30.5 Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and
    Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed
    Satellite Services, *Second Report and Order*, *Order on
    Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making,* 12 FCC
    Rcd 12545, 12689-90 ¶ 348 (1997).

[^688]: *Id*.

[^689]: *See* Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    January 6, 1998.

[^690]: *See* "Interactive Video and Data Service (IVDS) Applications
    Accepted for Filing," *Public Notice*, 9 FCC Rcd 6227 (1994).

[^691]: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding, *Fourth* *Report* *and* [*Order*, 9 FCC Rcd
    2330
    (1994](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DocName=59FR24947&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=24947)).

[^692]: Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service, *Report and Order
    and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 1497 (1999).

[^693]: *Id*.

[^694]: *See* Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    January 6, 1998.

[^695]: Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Adopt
    Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems*, Second Report
    and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 15182, 15192 ¶ 20 (1998); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 90.1103

[^696]: Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Adopt
    Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems, *Second Report
    and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 15192 ¶ 20; *see also* 47 C.F.R. §
    90.1103.

[^697]: *See* Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    Feb. 22, 1999.

[^698]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^699]: *Id.*

[^700]: *Id*.

[^701]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Multiple
    Address Systems, *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 11956, 12008 ¶ 123
    (2000).

[^702]: *Id*.

[^703]: *See* Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    June 4, 1999.

[^704]: *See* "Multiple Address Systems Spectrum Auction Closes,"
    *Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 21011 (2001).

[^705]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^706]: *See id.*

[^707]: Teligent acquired the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS)
    licenses of FirstMark, the only licensee other than TRW in the 24
    GHz band whose license has been modified to require relocation to
    the 24 GHz band.

[^708]: Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules
    To License Fixed Services at 24 GHz, *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd
    16934, 16967 ¶ 77 (2000) (*24 GHz Report and Order*); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(2).

[^709]: *24 GHz Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16967 ¶ 77; *see also*
    47 C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(1).

[^710]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^711]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States:
    2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005).

[^712]: *Id*. An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^713]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "517510 Cable and
    Other Program Distribution";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM>.

[^714]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^715]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States:
    2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005).

[^716]: *Id*. An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^717]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size
    standard equates approximately to a size standard of \$100 million
    or less in annual revenues. *Implementation of Sections of the 1992
    Cable Act: Rate Regulation,* Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh
    Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).

[^718]: These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^719]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).

[^720]: Warren Communications News, *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*,
    "U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size," page F-2 (data current as
    of Oct. 2005). The data do not include 718 systems for which
    classifying data were not available.

[^721]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2); *see* 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f) and nn. 1-3.

[^722]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f); *see* Public Notice*, FCC Announces New
    Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator*, DA
    01‑158 (Cable Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001).

[^723]: These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^724]: The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case
    basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's
    finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator
    pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    76.909(b).

[^725]: "Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Auction
    Closes," *Public Notice*, DA 04-215 (Feb. 2, 2004).

[^726]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^727]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime
    Communications, *Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 19853 (1998).

[^728]: 47 C.F.R. Part 90.

[^729]: The Citizens Band Radio Service, General Mobile Radio Service,
    Radio Control Radio Service, Family Radio Service, Wireless Medical
    Telemetry Service, Medical Implant Communications Service, Low Power
    Radio Service, and Multi-Use Radio Service are governed by Subpart
    D, Subpart A, Subpart C, Subpart B, Subpart H, Subpart I, Subpart G,
    and Subpart J, respectively, of Part 95 of the Commission's rules.
    *See generally* [47 C.F.R. Part
    95.](http://web2.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?DB=1000547&DocName=47CFRS95.401&FindType=L&AP=&RS=WLW2.86&VR=2.0&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw&FN=_top)

[^730]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 517212.

[^731]: *See* subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 90.1-90.22. Police licensees include 26,608 licensees that
    serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through telephony
    (voice), telegraphy (code), and teletype and facsimile (printed
    material). Fire licensees include 22,677 licensees comprised of
    private volunteer or professional fire companies, as well as units
    under governmental control. Public Safety Radio Pool licensees also
    include 40,512 licensees that are state, county, or municipal
    entities that use radio for official purposes. There are also 7,325
    forestry service licensees comprised of licensees from state
    departments of conservation and private forest organizations that
    set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground
    crews. The 9,480 state and local governments are highway maintenance
    licensees that provide emergency and routine communications to aid
    other public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular
    traffic. Emergency medical licensees (1,460) use these channels for
    emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of
    emergency medical treatment. Another 19,478 licensees include
    medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, persons with
    disabilities, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach
    patrols, establishments in isolated areas, communications standby
    facilities, and emergency repair of public communications
    facilities.

[^732]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS code 517212); U.S. Census
    Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information,
    "Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2002,"
    Table 2, NAICS code 517212.

[^733]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Employment Size of Establishments for the United
    States: 2002," Table 2, NAICS code 517212.

[^734]: *Id.*

[^735]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334220 Radio and
    Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
    Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342>.

[^736]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.

[^737]: U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic Census,
    Industry Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size, NAICS code
    334220 (released May 26, 2005);
    [http://factfinder.census.gov](http://factfinder.census.gov/). The
    number of "establishments" is a less helpful indicator of small
    business prevalence in this context than would be the number of
    "firms" or "companies," because the latter take into account the
    concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location
    for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be
    owned by a different establishment. Thus, the numbers given may
    reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including
    the numbers of small businesses. In this category, the Census
    breaks-out data for firms or companies only to give the total number
    of such entities for 2002, which was 929.

[^738]: *Id*. An additional 18 establishments had employment of 1,000 or
    more.

[^739]: *See* 47 C.F. R.§ 27.14 (2006).

[^740]: The Commission initially excluded MSS from § 20.18 in the *E911
    Report and Order*. *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules To
    Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18718 ¶ 83 (1996) (*E911 Report and
    Order)*. In the *E911 Scope Order*, upon revisiting the issue, the
    Commission recognized that MSS operators continued to faced unique
    difficulties in implementing 911 and E911 obligations, and therefore
    declined to apply the obligations of § 20.18 and instead imposed a
    separate, limited 911 requirement specifically for MSS, including a
    requirement to establish emergency call centers. *See* Revision of
    the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911
    Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket 94-102, IB Docket No. 99-67,
    *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 18 FCC
    Rcd 25340, 25347-57 ¶¶ 20-39 (2003) ("*E911 Scope Order*").

[^741]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(a).

[^742]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.675.

[^743]: As per Section 90.675, this would include information about the
    700 MHz station's location, effective radiated power, antenna
    height, and channels available for use. 47 C.F.R. § 90.675. Also, as
    per Section 90.675, Public Safety licensees will not be afforded the
    right to accept or reject the activation of a proposed 700 MHz
    station or to unilaterally require changes to the station's
    operating parameters. We note as well that 700 MHz licensees may
    regard their operating parameters as proprietary and if so, we
    encourage such licensees to use non-disclosure agreement whereby
    third parties will not be given access to such information. Failing
    that, the affected parties could seek a protective order from the
    Commission. *See* Digital Output Protection Technology and Recording
    Method Certifications, *Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 4735 (2004). *See also*
    47 C.F.R §§ 0.457, 0.459. We also encourage, but do not require,
    that such matters be submitted to arbitration, mediation, or other
    alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

[^744]: Public Safety licensees will also be required to provide
    information about any technical changes they plan to make to their
    systems.

[^745]: *See* Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz
    Band, Consolidating the 800 and 900 MHz Industrial/Land
    Transportation and Business Pool Channels, Amendment of Part 2 of
    the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile
    and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced
    Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems,
    Petition for Rule Making of the Wireless Information Networks Forum
    Concerning the Unlicensed Personal Communications Service, Petition
    for Rule Making of UT Starcom, Inc., Concerning the Unlicensed
    Personal Communications Service, Amendment of Section 2.106 of the
    Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for use by the
    Mobile Satellite Service, WT Docket 02-55, ET Docket Nos. 00-258 and
    95-18, RM-9498, RM-10024, *Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order,
    Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 14969,
    15038-39 ¶ 125 (2004) ("*800 MHz Report and Order*") ("if the
    characteristics of a proposed new cell are known in advance, it is
    possible to analyze the cell's potential for interference and make
    any necessary revisions to cell parameters before the cell is
    activated"), 15039 ¶ 127.

[^746]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^747]: *See* Letter from Multiple Commenters to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 06-150
    (filed October 20, 2006) ("Balanced Consensus Plan") (signatories to
    the Balanced Consensus Plan are Alltel, Aloha, Blooston, C&W,
    ConnectME Authority, Corr, Dobson, Leap, Maine Office of Chief
    Information Officer, MetroPCS, NTCA, Nebraska PSC, North Dakota PSC,
    RCA, RTG, Union, US Cellular, Vermont et al., Vermont Telephone
    Company); U.S. Cellular Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 3; Corr
    Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 3; NTCA Comments in WT Docket 06-150
    at 5-6.

[^748]: *See* Aloha Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 3-6; Balanced
    Consensus Plan at attachment; Blooston Comments in WT Docket 06-150
    at 2; C&W Reply Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 2-3; Corr Comments
    in WT Docket 06-150 at 2-4; Dobson Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at
    2-4; Howard/Javed Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 9; Leap Comments
    in WT Docket 06-150 at 4, 5-6; MilkyWay Comments in WT Docket 06-150
    at 1-6; NextWave Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 2-6; NTCA Comments
    in WT Docket 06-150 at 6; OPASTCO Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at
    2-3; RCA Comments at 4-8; RTG Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 2;
    U.S. Cellular Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 4.

[^749]: *See* Corr Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 4; RCA Comments in WT
    Docket 06-150 at 9-10.

[^750]: *See* Aloha Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 12; AT&T Comments in
    WT Docket 06-150 at 16; Blooston Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 8;
    Cingular Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 15; Dobson Comments in WT
    Docket 06-150 at 11; Leap Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 11; NENA
    Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 1-2; Qualcomm Comments in WT Docket
    06-150 at 24 (supporting application of E911 to both auctioned and
    previously unauctioned spectrum); U.S. Cellular Comments in WT
    Docket 06-150 at 18 (same); TIA Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at
    9-10; T-Mobile Reply at 6.

[^751]: *See* Aloha Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 12 (700 MHz
    licensees should be subject to the same E911 requirements, "no more
    or less," as other licensees providing services where E911
    obligations exist); Cingular Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 15
    (supporting application where services met the *E911 Scope Order*
    criteria); Qualcomm Comments at 24.

[^752]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18.

[^753]: *See E911 Scope Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 25341 ¶ 1.

[^754]: *E911 Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18678 ¶ 3, 18679 ¶ 5.

[^755]: 47 U.S.C. § 942, notes (1), (4).

[^756]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^757]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^758]: The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 -- 612, has been amended by the
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
    ("SBREFA"), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

[^759]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. Although we are conducting an IRFA at this
    stage in the process, it is foreseeable that ultimately we will
    certify this action pursuant to the RFA, because we anticipate at
    this time that any rules adopted pursuant to this *Notice* will have
    no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
    entities. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^760]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^761]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^762]: In particular, this exemption extends to the requirements
    imposed by Chapter 6 of Title 5, United States Code, Section 3 of
    the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) and Sections 3507 and 3512 of
    Title 44, United States Code. Consolidated Appropriations Act 2000,
    Pub. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 2502, Appendix E, Sec.
    213(a)(4)(A)-(B); *see* 145 Cong. Rec. H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999); 47
    U.S.C.A. 337 note at Sec. 213(a)(4)(A)-(B).

[^763]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^764]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^765]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^766]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^767]: *See* SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at
    page 40 (July 2002).

[^768]: Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference
    (2002).

[^769]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^770]: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
    2006, Section 8, pages 272-273, Tables 415 and 417.

[^771]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211.

[^772]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^773]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^774]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^775]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^776]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^777]: *See* Service Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions to
    Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, *Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 5299 (2000).

[^778]: *Id*. at 5343 ¶ 108.

[^779]: *Id*.

[^780]: *Id*. At 5343 ¶ 108 n.246 (for the 746-764 MHz and 776-704 MHz
    bands, the Commission is exempt from 15 U.S.C. § 632, which requires
    Federal agencies to obtain Small Business Administration approval
    before adopting small business size standards).

[^781]: *See* "700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders
    Announced," *Public Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd 18026 (2000).

[^782]: *See* "700 MHz Guard Bands Auctions Closes: Winning Bidders
    Announced," *Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 4590 (WTB 2001).

[^783]: Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and
    Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, *Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 1239 (2001).

[^784]: *See* "Auction of Licenses for 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands
    (Auction No. 31) Is Rescheduled," *Public Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 13079
    (WTB 2003).

[^785]: *See* Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz
    Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), *Report and Order*, 17
    FCC Rcd 1022 (2002).

[^786]: *Id.* at 1087-88 ¶ 172.

[^787]: *Id.*

[^788]: *Id.* at 1088 ¶ 173.

[^789]: *See* Letter to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from
    Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated
    August 10, 1999.

[^790]: *See* "Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 17
    FCC Rcd 17272 (WTB 2002).

[^791]: *See* "Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes," *Public Notice*, 18
    FCC Rcd 11873 (WTB 2003).

[^792]: *Id*.

[^793]: *See* subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 90.1-90.22. Police licensees include 26,608 licensees that
    serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through telephony
    (voice), telegraphy (code), and teletype and facsimile (printed
    material). Fire licensees include 22,677 licensees comprised of
    private volunteer or professional fire companies, as well as units
    under governmental control. Public Safety Radio Pool licensees also
    include 40,512 licensees that are state, county, or municipal
    entities that use radio for official purposes. There are also 7,325
    forestry service licensees comprised of licensees from state
    departments of conservation and private forest organizations that
    set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground
    crews. The 9,480 state and local governments are highway maintenance
    licensees that provide emergency and routine communications to aid
    other public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular
    traffic. Emergency medical licensees (1,460) use these channels for
    emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of
    emergency medical treatment. Another 19,478 licensees include
    medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, persons with
    disabilities, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach
    patrols, establishments in isolated areas, communications standby
    facilities, and emergency repair of public communications
    facilities.

[^794]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS code 517212); U.S. Census
    Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information,
    "Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2002,"
    Table 2, NAICS code 517212.

[^795]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Employment Size of Establishments for the United
    States: 2002," Table 2, NAICS code 517212.

[^796]: *Id.*

[^797]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334220 Radio and
    Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
    Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342>.

[^798]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.

[^799]: U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic Census,
    Industry Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size, NAICS code
    334220 (released May 26, 2005);
    [http://factfinder.census.gov](http://factfinder.census.gov/). The
    number of "establishments" is a less helpful indicator of small
    business prevalence in this context than would be the number of
    "firms" or "companies," because the latter take into account the
    concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location
    for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be
    owned by a different establishment. Thus, the numbers given may
    reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including
    the numbers of small businesses. In this category, the Census
    breaks-out data for firms or companies only to give the total number
    of such entities for 2002, which was 929.

[^800]: *Id*. An additional 18 establishments had employment of 1,000 or
    more.

[^801]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(c)(1)-(4).

[^802]: *See, e.g.,* DirecTV/EchoStar Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 9;
    Navajo Nation Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 2-3; RCA Comments in
    WT Docket 06-150 at 8-10; Vermont Department of Public Service, *et
    al.* Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 5-8. The Navajo Nation, RCA,
    and the Vermont Department of Public Service, *et al.* favorably
    discuss both benchmarks and a "keep-what-you-use" approach

[^803]: *See* AT&T Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 12-13; CTIA Comments
    in WT Docket 06-150 at 10; Dobson Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 5;
    Leap Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 10.

[^804]: *See, e.g.,* Aloha Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 2; Blooston
    Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 3; Dobson Comments in WT Docket
    06-150 at 3; Frontier Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 4; NTCA
    Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 3-5; RCA Comments in WT Docket
    06-150 at 3-4; RTG Comments in WT Docket 06-150 at 4-5.